Air Permitting Streamlining
Techniques and Approaches
for Greenhouse Gases
A Report to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
from the
Clean Air Act Advisory Committee
Permits, New Source Reviews and Toxics Subcommittee
GHG Permit Streamlining Workgroup
Final Report
-------
I 2
Disclaimer
The observations presented in this report were developed by the Clean Air Act Advisory
Committee GHG Permit Streamlining Workgroup. This work constitutes a contribution from
various stakeholders including industrial, tribal, environmental and state/local consortia. The
observations in this report reflect a compilation of information from the workgroup members
and do not necessarily state or reflect the opinions or recommendations of the United States
Government, the overall workgroup or any of the organizations represented by the workgroup
members.
It is important to note that while the workgroup included representation from all stakeholders,
the input received by the workgroup from individuals other than the workgroup members on
possible streamlining approaches was primarily from groups representing industry stakeholders.
Therefore, this document simply presents input received from those stakeholders, and this input
does not reflect what all members of the workgroup necessarily agree to or recommend. This
document merely conveys to EPA the information gathered as part of the charge of this
workgroup. The workgroup is not able to make recommendations regarding possible
streamlining techniques at this time.
-------
I 3
Acknowledgements
The following organizations and individuals are recognized fortheirvaluable contribution to the
Air Permitting Streamlining Techniques and Approaches for Greenhouse Gases Report.
• Barbara Baird, South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
• Frank Caponi, Los Angeles County Sanitation District (LACSD)
• Greg Adams, Los Angeles County Sanitation District (LACSD)
• Howard J. Feldman, American Petroleum Institute (API)
• James Capp, Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR), Environmental
Protection Department (EDP)
• Joy Wiecks, Air Quality Technician, Fond du Lac Reservation
• Misti Duvall, National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)
• Rob Kaufmann, National Environmental Development Association's Clean Air Project
(NEDA/CAP)
• Robert Wyman, Partner, Latham and Watkins LLP
Many thanks fortheirvaluable contribution and dedication to the fruition of this report are given
to all of the Workgroup members, especially those who Co-chaired the Workgroup: Juan
Santiago (EPA), Andy Ginsburg (ODEQ), and Mohsen Nazemi (SCAQMD), and those who
Chaired the Sub-workgroups: John Paul (DPR), Mohsen Nazemi (SCAQMD), Vince Hellwig
(MDEQ), and John Holmes (AEMS, LLC).
A special thanks to Jessica Montanez (EPA) who did an excellent job in coordinating and
distributing information for the workgroup and sub-workgroups conference calls and in assisting
and coordinating the preparation of this report.
-------
This is the interim report of the Greenhouse Gas Permit Streamlining Workgroup. The final
report is scheduled for completion in mid September, 2012.
The GHG Permit Streamlining Workgroup was formed in March 2012 under the Clean Air Act
Advisory Committee's Permits, New Source Review, and Toxics Subcommittee. The workgroup
was charged with identifying and evaluating various potential approaches and options for
streamlining the preconstruction (PSD) and operating (Title V) permit programs used for
permitting of GHG sources. EPA committed to explore streamlining options as the agency
considered lowering the emission threshold for GHG permitting. Since the workgroup was
formed, EPA decided not to lower the permitting threshold when the agency promulgated Step 3
of the GHG Tailoring Rule on June 29, 2012. Nevertheless, EPA, state and local permit
authorities, tribal agencies and many industry stakeholders remain interested in permit
streamlining to reduce the burden of implementing and complying with the current permitting
programs while retaining its environmental benefit. Some environmental stakeholders along
with the stakeholders listed above agree that streamlining measures may be helpful in enabling
the implementation of the PSD program for smaller sources of GHGs at the point in the future
when the Tailoring rule applicability thresholds are adjusted downwards by the Agency.
Because of the wide diversity of permit streamlining topics, the workgroup formed four topic-
specific sub-workgroups. The sub-workgroups were:
• Sub-workgroup 1 - Streamlining PSD Permitting under the "Major for One, Major for AN"
Policy. This sub-workgroup explored streamlining options to address the fact that non-
GHG pollutants that would otherwise not be subject to PSD permitting become subject to
PSD when a source triggers PSD solely due to its GHG emissions causing it to become a
"new major stationary source."
• Sub-workgroup 2 - Streamlining PSD Permitting for GHG-Only Sources. This sub-
workgroup explored streamlining options that could exclude certain lower-emitting GHG
sources from PSD permitting and simplify the process for establishing control technology
and other requirements in any PSD permitting action that does not trigger PSD for non-
GHG pollutants.
• Sub-workgroup 3 - Streamlining Title V Permitting for "Empty Permits" and "Hollow
Permits." This sub-workgroup explored streamlining options for sources that trigger Title
V permitting solely due to their GHG emissions but are not subject to any substantive
requirements related to their GHG emissions.
• Sub-workgroup 4- Streamlining the Permitting Plant-wide Applicability Limit (PAL)
Issuance Process. This sub-workgroup explored streamlining options that could remove
barriers to more widespread use of PALs, which themselves can be an option for
streamlining GHG permitting.
-------
I 5
Obser
The GHG Permit Streamlining Workgroup was charged with identifying potential streamlining
methods, identifying barriers to use of these methods, recommending a prioritized list of
streamlining methods for further development by EPA, and recommending an implementation
approach for each method. The workgroup was able to identify potential streamlining methods
but was unable to fully analyze the options due to time and resource constraints. As a result, this
interim report is a compilation of information and observations gathered by the workgroup, but
it does not include recommendations on, or a prioritized list of streamlining methods or
approaches to address implementation issues.
Each of the four sub-workgroups compiled a list of potential streamlining options, which are
summarized in the body of this interim report and detailed in the appendices. These options fall
into the following categories:
• Options to exempt smaller sources from PSD or title V permitting;
• Options to permit groups of sources (as opposed to issuing individual permits);
• Options to simplify the establishment of control technology standards;
• Options to improve the permitting process;
• Options to simplify permit conditions for sources without substantive requirements;
• Options to defer permitting requirements for title V sources without substantive
requirements;
• Options to reduce barriers to wider use of PALs.
Given that EPA already has a substantial amount of information about the streamlining options
compiled in this interim report, the workgroup suggests that EPA consider soliciting stakeholder
feedback on the options through a public notice and comment rulemaking. Most of the
streamlining options complied in this interim report would require rulemaking under section
307(d) of the CAA; moreover, because of the diversity of views about the benefits and costs of
the various options, the workgroup believes that a public notice and comment rulemaking will be
more useful than convening another stakeholder group to evaluate the options.
-------
I 6
Acronyms
API
American Petroleum Institute
BACT
Best Available Control Technology
BTU
British Termal Unit
CAA
Clean Air Act
CAAAC
Clean Air Act Advisory Committee
CCS
Carbon Capture and Storage
CHP
Combined Heat and Power
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
ch4
Methane
CO
Carbon Monoxide
co2
Carbon Dioxide
C02e
Carbon Dioxide Equivalents
EJ
Environmental Justice
EPA
US Environmental Protection Agency
ESA
Endangered Species Act
FAP
Flexible Air Permits
FR
Federal Register
GHG
Greenhouse Gases
GWP
Global Warming Potential
HAPs
Hazardous Air Pollutants
HFCs
Hydrofluorocarbons
LACSD
Los Angeles County Sanitation District
LAER
Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER)
LFG
Landfill Gas
NAAQS
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NACAA
National Association of Clean Air Agencies
NEDA/CAP
National Environmental Development Association's Clean Air Project
NESHAPs
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NHPA
National Historic Preservation Act
NSR
New Source Review
n2o
Nitrous Oxide
Non-GHG
Non-Greenhouse Gases
NOx
Nitrogen Oxides
O&G
Oil and Gas
PAL
Plant-wide Applicability Limit or Plant-wide Applicability Limitations
PFC
Perfluorocarbons
PSD
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
PTE
Potential to Emit
SCAQMD
South Coast Air Quality Management District
SER
Significant Emission Rate
SIL
Significant Impact Level
SIP
State Implementation Plan
so2
Sulfur Dioxide
SF6
Sulfur Hexafluoride
Tailoring Rule
Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule
Title V
Title V of the Clean Air Act - Federal Operating Permits Program
Tpy
Tons peryear
-------
Table? of Contents
Disclaimer 2
Acknowledgements 3
Executive Summary 4
Observations 5
Acronyms 6
Introduction to Air Permitting 9
New Source Review Permitting 9
Title V Permitting 9
An Overview of Greenhouse Gas Permitting 10
Workgroup Approach 11
Overall Workgroup Discussions 11
Topic Based Sub-workgroup Discussions 12
Sub-workgroup 1: Streamlining PSD Permitting under the "Major for One, Major for All" Policy 13
Sub-workgroup 2: Streamlining PSD Permitting for GHG-Only Sources 23
Sub-workgroup 3: Streamlining Title V Permitting for "Empty Permits" and "Hollow Permits" 30
Sub-workgroup 4: Streamlining the Permitting PAL Issuance Process 33
Appendix 38
Appendix A: GHG Permit Streamlining Workgroup Charge: Permits, New Source Reviews and Toxics
Subcommittee; Clean Air Act Advisory Committee 38
Background 38
Problem Statement 38
Charge 38
Duration 39
Anticipated Outcomes from the Workgroup Process 39
Appendix B: List of Workgroup Members 40
Appendix C: Details on Some of the GHG Streamlining Ideas -from James Capp 43
-------
Appendix D: Illinois Permit-by-Rule (July 12, 2012)
Appendix E: Wisconsin Permit Fees
Appendix F: Illinois Language on General Permits and Permits-by-Rule
Appendix G: Illinois 097-0095 General Permit 1-12-12 Report
Appendix H: Illinois PSD Fees
Appendix I: GHG Permit Streamlining Questions and Examples from State and Local Agencies
Appendix J: EPA Response to Comments on Tailoring Rule - Emphasis on Chapter 4
Appendix K: API Response to Sub-workgroup Information Request
Appendix L: NEDA/CAP Response to Sub-workgroup Information Request
Appendix M: PSD/Title V GHG Permit Streamlining Suggestions, LACSD
Appendix N: GHG Tribal Feedback
Appendix O: PSD Program Overview
Appendix P: GHG Streamlining Information Request - Questions
Appendix Q: South Coast Tailoring Rule Comments
Appendix R: SCAQMD Ad Hoc Title V Committee Suggestions
Appendix S: SCAQMD Ad Hoc Title V Committee Email Clarifications
Appendix T: PAL Monitoring Requirements Regulatory Language
Appendix U: Renewal PAL Adjustment Regulatory Language
45
47
5i
53
55
59
61
87
102
114
117
119
122
124
145
148
149
152
-------
The Clean Air Act
The Clean Air Act (CAA) is a
federal law designed to reduce
air pollution in the entire United
States. Under the CAA, EPA
can set limitsto control the
pollution of various air
pollutants including emissions
coming from industrial facilities
such as power plants, chemical
plants and paper mills.
Individual states or tribes may
have stronger air pollution laws,
but they may not have weaker
pollution limitsthan those set
by EPA.
EPA Regulations
All federal regulations are
codified annually in the U.S.
Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR). EPA's regulations are
included in Title 40: Protection
ofthe Environment, the New
Source Review (NSR)
regulations are primarily
located in 40 CFR sections
51.165, 51.166 and 52.21. The
title V regulations are primarily
located in 40 CFR parts 70 and
71-
19
Introduction to Air Permitting
Permits are enforceable legal documents with which an industrial facility,
or other stationary source, must comply. Permits may place restrictions
on what construction is allowed, what emission limits must be met and
how the source may be operated. To ensure that sources comply with a
permit's emission limits, a permit almost always contains monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. Under the CAA, stationary
sources of air pollution generally must apply for two types of permits: a
preconstruction or New Source Review permit, and an operating or title V
permit. Title V references the part of the CAA that includes the
requirements forthis type of permits for majorsources. A description of
both of these programs follows.
New Source Review Permitting
The NSR program requires industrial facilities to install modern air
pollution control equipment when they are built or make a modification
that increases emissions significantly. The purpose ofthe NSR program is
to protect public health and the environment, even as new industrial
facilities are built and existing facilities expand. Specifically, its purpose is
to ensure that air quality does not worsen where the air is currently
unhealthy to breathe (i.e. nonattainment areas) and is not significantly
degraded where the air is currently clean (i.e. attainment areas). The
NSR program is divided into three parts: the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) program, which applies in attainment areas; the
Nonattainment NSR program, which applies in nonattainment areas; and
the minor NSR program, which applies to non-major stationary sources
with lower air pollutant emissions in attainment or nonattainment areas.
The NSR permitting requirements include installation of Best Available
Control Technology (BACT) or compliance with the Lowest Achievable
Emission Rate (LAER), air quality modeling, emissions offsets and public
notice.
Title V Permitting
The operating permit program consolidates all air pollution control
requirements for a major stationary source into a single, comprehensive
"operating permit" that covers all aspects of a source's year-to-year air
pollution activities. Permit holders have to track, report, and regularly
certify theircompliance with these requirements. The title V operating
permit program generally does not add new pollution control
requirements. It is designed to increase compliance with other applicable
control requirements and facilitates public participation and input in
permitting decisions.
-------
n r-h \ « ¦ mi i «iiili' 'U< m v p, i mil linf
On April 2, 2007, in a case titled Massachusetts vEPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the U.S. Supreme
Court found that greenhouse gases (GHGs) are air pollutants covered by the CAA. In the years
that followed, EPA undertook a series of actions and rulemakings in response to that ruling to
begin regulating GHGs underthe CAA1. On May 13, 2010 and as part of these rulemakings; the
EPA signed the PSD and title V GHG Tailoring Rule to tailorthe applicability of the NSR/PSD and
title V air permitting programs to GHG emissions. The Tailoring Rule is implemented, among
other requirements, through a definition of the term "subject to regulation2" and by using a
phased approach (75 FR 31514). Underthe Tailoring Rule Step 1, only sources that were
otherwise subject to PSD permitting ("anyway" sources) could trigger requirements for GHGs, if
GHG increases exceed a set threshold. After July 1, 2011, underthe Tailoring Rule Step 2, both
"anyway" sources3 and sources not otherwise subject to these permitting programs could trigger
PSD and title V permitting for GHG. New major stationary sources and existing major stationary
sources proposing a physical change or change in method of operation have to obtain PSD and
title V permits if their GHG emissions are equal to or higher than certain air emissions thresholds
provided in the rule and also exceed the emissions levels provided for in the CAA. For example,
newfacilities with GHG emissions of at least 100,000 tons peryear (tpy) carbon dioxide
equivalent (C02e)4 and 100 or 250 tpy on a mass basis are required to obtain PSD permits for
their GHG emissions. Non- PSD "anyway" existing facilities with air emissions of at least 100,000
tpy C02e making changes that would increase GHG emissions by at least 75,000 tpy C02e and
any increase on a mass basis become "subject to regulation" and will also have to obtain PSD
permits. PSD "anyway" sources must also address GHG emissions increases of 75,000 tpy C02e
or more. New and existing sources with GHG emissions above 100,000 tpy C02e must also
obtain title V operating permits. As of May 21, 2012, EPA and state/local permitting authorities
have issued a total of 44 GHG PSD permits.
Underthe Step 1 and 2 Tailoring Rule, EPA committed to undertake another rulemaking to
evaluate whether or not to lower the applicability thresholds and to explore opportunities for
streamlining GHG permitting under both permitting programs. This rule, named the Tailoring
Rule Step 3, was signed on June 29, 2012 (76 FR 38748). EPA did not lower the applicability
thresholds underthe Tailoring Rule Step 3, as the agency determined that the three criteria
necessary to lower the thresholds - adequate permitting authority infrastructure, sources' ability
to meet the new GHG requirements, and EPA and state programs ability to develop streamlining
measures - had not been met. Nevertheless, before EPA signed the Tailoring Rule Step 3, EPA
received comments on various streamlining techniques that will be analyzed in the context of a
future rulemaking and announced that it had convened a GHG Permit Streamlining Workgroup in
April 2012 under the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) to "explore potential
1 The GHGs regulated underthe CAA include six well-mixed air pollutants - C02J CHV N20, HFCs, PFC, and SFs.
2 For purposes of the PSD and Title V permitting programs, the term "subject to regulation" is defined differently and
under sections 40 CFR 52.21 and 40 CFR 70.2 respectively.
3"Anyway" sources are subject to the PSD and title V permitting due to their emissions of non-GHG criteria
pollutants.
4 C02e emissions are defined asthe sum ofthe mass emissions of each individual GHG adjusted for its GWP.
-------
streamlining approaches that may make the administration of the CAA permitting programs
more efficient for permitting authorities and that may potentially reduce the permitting burden
for smaller GHG-emitting sources if the programs are expanded to apply to these sources." This
document conveys the workgroup observations.
Workgroup Approach
¦1 ill V\'i->iI vi«;>uj- Piv ussions
In the Steps 1, 2, and 3 PSD and title V GHG Tailoring Rules, EPA committed to explore permit
streamlining approaches that make the administration of the CAA permitting programs more
efficient for permitting authorities, and that potentially reduce the permitting burden for smaller
GHG-emitting sources. A key factor in EPA's phased approach to GHG permitting under the CAA
is the ability of permitting authorities to issue timely permits, along with the ability of sources
subject to permitting to obtain and comply with those permits.
Streamlining approaches could help expedite permitting and make more efficient use of
resources needed to implement the PSD and title V GHG permitting programs, if EPA proposes
to expand the permitting programs to smaller sources and additional source categories of GHG
emissions.
The GHG Permit Streamlining Workgroup was formed under the CAAAC Permits, New Source
Review, and Toxics Subcommittee. The workgroup was asked to identify and evaluate various
potential approaches and options for streamlining. As part of this effort, EPA expressed interest
in exploring streamlining methods that could potentially apply to the existing PSD and Title V
GHG permitting programs, and to allow for the potential expansion of the CAA permitting
programs to sources with lower GHG emissions, which may never have been subject to CAA
regulations.
The workgroup was convened in late March 2012 and held its first meeting on April 4, 2012. The
initial charge5 of this workgroup was to:
(1) Review the potential streamlining methods and source categories identified by EPA as
potentially impacted at various GHG applicability thresholds;
(2) Identify the regulatory and policy barriers associated with further development of permit
streamlining methods for each of the source categories and recommend approaches to
address such barriers; and
(3) Prioritize the source categories and streamlining methods for further development by
EPA and recommend an implementation approach for each method.
5 More information about the workgroup's charge can be found in Appendix A of this report.
-------
The initial target of the workgroup's efforts was to prepare an interim and a final report by mid
August and mid September 2012, respectively, for submittal to CAAAC for their consideration
and further recommendations to EPA. This interim report meets the initial mid-August target.
The workgroup compiled a list of permit streamlining options based on input from stakeholders
and discussions during bi-weekly conference calls. However, due to time and resource
constraints, the workgroup could not fully evaluate the identified options and is therefore unable
to provide recommendations to CAAAC. As a result, this interim report is a compilation of
information and observations gathered by the workgroup, but it does not include a prioritized list
of streamlining methods or approaches to address implementation issues.
EPA already has information regarding potential streamlining approaches, as identified in the
Tailoring Rule and through stakeholder comments on the initial Tailoring Rule and Step 3
proposals, as well as information provided in this interim report. The workgroup therefore
suggests that EPA would be better served by utilizing the information at its disposal and
encouraging stakeholder feedback through a public notice and comment rulemaking, ratherthan
through convening another phase of this workgroup to evaluate and recommend permit
streamlining options and priorities.
The GHG Permit Streamlining Workgroup was Co-chaired by Mohsen Nazemi and Andy
Ginsburg, with support from Juan Santiago and Jessica Montanez of EPA. A complete list of
workgroup members is shown in Appendix B.
Topi- l: -I 'mih >vorkgrou| T iscussions
The workgroup began discussions of various streamlining possibilities on their bi-weekly
conference calls. As the discussions proceeded the workgroup decided that, in order to allow for
detailed discussions of various permit streamlining options for various sources that would
potentially be impacted due to their GHG emissions, it would be more practical to form topic-
specific sub-workgroups. Therefore, on the April 24, 2012 conference call, the workgroup
decided to form the following four sub-workgroups:
• Sub-workgroup 1 - Streamlining PSD Permitting underthe "Majorfor One, MajorforAII"
Policy (John Paul, Chair)
• Sub-workgroup 2 - Streamlining PSD Permitting for GHG-Only Sources (Mohsen Nazemi,
Chair)
• Sub-workgroup 3 - Streamlining Title V Permitting for "Empty Permits" and "Hollow
Permits" (Vince Hellwig, Chair)
• Sub-workgroup 4- Streamlining the Permitting Plant-wide Applicability Limit (PAL)
Issuance Process (John Holmes, Chair)
Each sub-workgroup decided to hold conference calls on a bi-weekly basis, on alternating weeks
from the workgroup bi-weekly conference calls. The members of each sub-workgroup are listed
-------
in the following sub-workgroup sections; however, the sub-workgroup conference calls were
open to any workgroup member.
In order to optimize sub-workgroup discussions regarding PSD permitting, as many of the
discussion and streamlining measures for PSD permitting could potentially apply to both, sub-
workgroups 1 and 2 held combined conference calls.
»r the "Major
• :y
SUB-WORKGROUP DESCRIPTION
The purpose of the sub-workgroup was to explore and discuss streamlining techniques and
approaches that could be used to make permitting of GHG sources more efficient for sources
that trigger the GHG thresholds for PSD and consequently trigger requirements for additional
pollutants under EPA's "major for one, major for all policy".
Under the "major for one, major for all policy" if a source emits even one pollutant in amounts
that exceed the major source thresholds, the source will be considered major, and all other
pollutants emitted in non-major amounts will be reviewed for PSD applicability by using their
respective Significant Emissions Rate (SER). Emissions equal to or higher than the SER make the
pollutant subject to PSD.
SUB-WORKGROUP MEMBERSHIP
Chair:
John Paul, Regional Air Pollution Control Agency
Members:
Joy Wiecks, Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
James Capp, Air Branch, Georgia Environmental Protection Division
Misti Duvall, National Association of Clean Air Agencies
Robert Hilton, Alstom Power
Robert Wyman, Latham and Watkins
Praveen Amar, Clean Air Task Force
Vince Hellwig, Air Quality Division, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Mary Turner, Waste Management
The sub-workgroup met a number of times by phone. The sub-workgroup collected and
reviewed materials, and solicited specific input from several sources. The sub-workgroup also
held several calls with stakeholder groups to discuss their input.
-------
Materials reviewed by the sub-workgroup and specific stakeholder submissions include the
following. Documents in bold are attached to this interim report.
• Final Rule: Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring
Rule FACT SHEET
• Proposed Rule: Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas
Tailoring Rule Step 3 FACT SHEET
• The Workgroup Ground Rules
• The EPA NSR Basic Facts Sheet
• The EPA Title V Basic Facts Sheet
• Details on Some of the GHG Streamlining Ideas -from James Capp (Appendix C)
• Illinois Permit-by-Rule July 12-2012 (Appendix D)
• Wisconsin Permit Fees (Appendix E)
• Illinois Regulatory Language on General Permits and Permits-by-Rule (Appendix F)
• Illinois og7-oog5 General Permit 1-12-12 Report (Appendix G)
• Illinois PSD fees (Appendix H)
• GHG Permit Streamlining Questions and Examples States and Local Agencies
(Appendix I)
• Summary of Threshold and Greenhouse Gases (GHG) Streamlining Options Background
Data under the Tailoring Rule Steps 1, 2 and 3 (EPA background document discussed
during first workgroup meeting)
• Workgroup PSD Program Overview
• GHG Streamlining Information Request
• GHG Streamlining Sub-workgroup Membership Lists
• Various Industry, State, Local, and Environmental Group Comments on EPA's Tailoring
Rule Step 3 Proposal
• GHG-Only Source Preamble Text in Tailoring Rule Step 3 Proposal
• EPA Response to Comments on Tailoring Rule - Emphasis on Chapter 4-- Comments
on Streamlining Options and Tools To Address the Administrative Burdens of PSD
and Title V for GHGs (Appendix J)
• API Response to Sub-Workgroup Information Request (Appendix K)
• NEDA/CAP Response to Sub-workgroup Information Request (Appendix L)
• PSD/Title V GHG Permit Streamlining Suggestions, LACSD, June 29, 2012
(Appendix M)
• GHG Tribal feedback (Appendix N)
The sub-workgroup solicited input from industry groups, environmental groups, tribal agencies,
and state and local permitting agencies. We received formal input from two industry groups and
one state agency (a member of the sub-workgroup). State and local agencies were briefed on
two National Association of Clean Air Agency (NACAA) New Source Review and Permitting
Committee conference calls, and provided examples of GHG permit fees, general permits, and
permits-by-rule in response to a request from the sub-workgroup. These responses are
summarized in the Appendices D-H. Tribes provided a spreadsheet of responses which is also
included in the Appendix N. Some tribes have expressed concern regarding any streamlining
-------
approach that may weaken Environmental Justice (EJ) and Endangered Species Act (ESA) review
requirements. The sub-workgroup did not receive input from environmental groups.
Environmental groups may have declined further input because of their earlier stated position
that they believe streamlining at current applicability levels (Final Step 3 Rule did not lower the
threshold levels) is not warranted.
In seeking input from various stakeholders, the sub-workgroup developed a set of five specific
questions which stakeholders were asked to formally address in writing. These questions are as
follows.
Assuming that a new source is proposed which would trigger PSD solely because its GHG
emissions were above the threshold,
1. What is the general set of requirements triggered?
2. What are the consequences of triggering these requirements?
3. What are some likely source categories that will be brought into major source review
solely because of GHG emissions?
4. Are there any streamlining options short of applicability options? I. e., once applicability
is triggered, are there any streamlining options that could simplify the triggered reviews
of pollutants emitted in significant amounts?
5. What are some potential alternatives to PSD (general permits, permits by rule), etc., for
sources once PSD is triggered by GHG emissions?
PROBLEM STATEMENT
As discussed above under "sub-workgroup Description", the purpose of this sub-workgroup was
to explore and discuss streamlining techniques and approaches that could be used to make
permitting of GHG sources more efficient for sources that become "new major stationary
sources" because they trigger GHG thresholds for PSD and consequently trigger requirements
for additional pollutants under the EPA "Major for one, Major for all" policy.
Under the pre-GHG PSD rules, a source could be subject to PSD only when its potential to emit of
one or more of the criteria pollutants exceeded the major source thresholds of 100 or 250 tpy.
Under the "Major for one, Major for all" policy, a new or modified source that was major for any
criteria pollutant was subject to PSD for each criteria pollutant that increased by the applicable
significance level or more. To avoid triggering PSD in this case, some facilities have requested
federally-enforceable synthetic minor permit limits to keep their potential to emit criteria
pollutants below the major source thresholds.
Under the GHG permitting requirements and at the onset of any permitting activity, a source
may now also be considered major if it has GHG emissions of at least 100,000 tpy C02e and 100
or 250 tpy on a mass basis. For such new sources and those existing sources proposing a 75,000
TPY emissions increase, any criteria pollutant with an emissions increase greater than the
applicable significance levels is now also subject to PSD requirements under the "Major for one,
Major for all" policy even if none of its criteria pollutant emissions are at major levels.
-------
OBSERVATIONS
State and local permitting agencies are operating with limited and decreasing resources. Early
indications are that states and local agencies are currently able to handle all new permitting
requirements for GHG major sources at the current applicability levels (which remain unchanged
under the Tailoring Rule Step 3). The sub-workgroup does not have information about the
impact on state and local resources necessary to properly regulate sources if threshold levels are
lowered in Steps 4 and 5 of the Tailoring Rule. This is an area that needs further research.
EPA has made estimates of new permitting requirements and number of sources that would
require permits at various applicability levels. If GHG permit applicability levels are lowered in
Steps 4 and 5 and the number of permits increase significantly, either streamlining techniques
must be adopted or state and local resources must be increased proportionately.
GHG permit streamlining options are well-known, well-documented, and well-discussed in the
various documents cited above and attached to this interim report. In general, the options are as
follows:
• PTE restrictions (permanent or phased-in)
• Permits-by-Rule
• General Permits
• Presumptive BACT
• Environmental Performance Standards with Annual Compliance Certifications
• Unit or source category specific exemptions
• Permits for equipment suppliers rather than for equipment owners/operators (certified
equipment)
These streamlining options would appear to have their most appropriate application at
applicability levels lower than the current 100,000/75,000 tpy thresholds. In fact, some
stakeholder groups, including sub-workgroup member CATF, are on record as stating that the
above-listed streamlining options are either inappropriate or unnecessary at current applicability
levels (which remain unchanged underTailoring Rule Step 3). It is the position of these
stakeholders that, as EPA develops Steps 4 and 5 of the Tailoring Rule in years 2015-2016, the
Agency should focus on maximizing environmental benefits related to GHGs while lowering
administrative burdens for permitting authorities as it investigates including more source
categories and lowering GHG permitting thresholds. Other stakeholder groups have indicated
that they believe there are opportunities for streamlining at the current applicability levels.
Should EPA choose to pursue any of these streamlining options, the agency should first further
investigate their costs and benefits.
State and local agencies are generally supportive of the development of GHG streamlining
techniques, especially with regard to minor sources. Many states and local agencies currently
-------
use general permits and permits-by-rule, which are two of the listed streamlining techniques.
States and local agencies certainly would not want federal policies, guidance, or rules to pre-
empt state and local programs that are currently functioning well. With regard to other
streamlining options, state and local agencies believe EPA should move forward and propose
specific techniques in detail. At the time of proposal all stakeholders would then have the
opportunity to provide specific comments.
Through the previous EPA proposal, there is extensive documentation of industry group
comments in support of streamlining options and environmental group comments questioning
the need for streamlining at current GHG permit applicability levels. An option such as
presumptive BACT has been debated for years and likely would never receive consensus approval
for anything but minor sources. Currently, many state and local agencies pursue and implement
streamlining options they believe are appropriate for minor sources under their own permitting
programs. A number of state and local agencies currently issue general permits and permits-by-
rule. The sub-workgroup discussions did not add significantly to the documentation that already
exists on the various options.
The sub-workgroup believes the record on potential streamlining techniques, gathered through
previous proposals and comments thereto, is substantial and provides adequate basis for EPA to
pursue the development and proposal of specific streamlining strategies at the point when such
streamlining techniques become necessary. Some sub-workgroup members assert that to the
extent that EPA believes potential streamlining techniques are needed for its current permitting
process, it would be prudent to address those first.
Potential streamlining techniques for sources at lower applicability thresholds must also be
addressed through the notice and comment rulemaking process, which would provide all
affected stakeholders the opportunity to adequately examine and comment on specifics.
Formal input to the sub-workgroup, along with EPA's Response to Comments on the Tailoring
Rule, are summarized below. These include:
• Details on Some of the GHG Streamlining Ideas - from James Capp (Appendix C),
• The EPA Response to Comments on Tailoring Rule—emphasis on chapter 4- Comments
on Streamlining Options and Tools To Address the Administrative Burdens of PSD and
Title V for GHGs (Appendix J),
• The API response to the sub-workgroup information request (Appendix K), and
• The NEDA/CAP response to the sub-workgroup information request (Appendix L)
Details on Some of the GHG Streamlining Ideas-from James Capp (Appendix C)
James Capp is a member of this sub-workgroup, and offered the following input representing the
Georgia Environmental Protection Division. James Capp is also a co-chair of the NACAA
Permitting Committee. He also offered comments with regard to Title V, which are covered
under the sub-workgroup 3 section of this report.
-------
• Issue guidance that would state that the implementation of surrogate BACT emission
limits for GHGs may be acceptable in some cases. For example, for combustion sources,
if efficiency is determined to be BACT (i.e., end of pipe controls eliminated based on
availability, feasibility, cost, etc.) and the permit would also include an output-based
BACT limit for nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and/or sulfur dioxide (SO2),
then the NOx, CO, and/or SO2 could also act as surrogate BACT for GHGs and eliminate a
duplicative emission standard. This would be analogous to EPA's use of CO as a surrogate
for organic hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), or SO2 as a surrogate for acid gas HAPs.
• Establish de minimis values for PSD applicability (significant increase levels) for GHGs
through public notice and comment rulemaking under 40 CFR section 52.21(b) (23) (i).
• EPA has general authority to establish de minimis exceptions to statutory requirements
where the application of the statutory requirements would be of trivial or no
environmental value. (See Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323, 360-61 (D.C.
Cir.1979).
• EPA could establish through guidance presumed BACT control technologies (e.g., energy
efficiency) for certain types of emission units such as industrial boilers, combustion
turbines and backup generators. This would be accomplished by streamlining Steps 1
through 4 of EPA's existing Top-Down BACT guidance. Steps 1 through 5 of EPA's Top
Down BACT are:
o Step 1: Identify all available control technologies.
o Step 2: Eliminate technically infeasible options.
o Step 3: Rank remaining control technologies.
o Step 4: Evaluate most effective controls and document results.
o Step 5: Select BACT.
After the control technology is determined, the BACT emission limit would be determined on a
case-by-case basis. Therefore, this should be compatible with the statutory definition of BACT
which requires the BACT emission limit to be established on a case-by-case basis. This would
also promote consistency across the country for the control technologies that are determined to
represent BACT.
The EPA Response to Comments on Tailoring rule—emphasis on chapter u~ Comments on
Streamlining Options and Tools To Address the Administrative Burdens of PSD and Title V
for GHGs (Appendix J)
Quoted from chapter 4: "Section VII of the proposal preamble for the Tailoring Rule presents
several PSD and title V permitting streamlining options/tools. Though we acknowledged that
these techniques could not be fully developed in the near-term, we committed to aggressively
pursue the development of these streamlining techniques in the first step of our overall PSD and
title V GHG permitting strategy and solicited comment on our proposed streamlining techniques
-------
as well as other techniques that could be employed. This subsection presents the general
comments received on the use of streamlining techniques to mitigate potential PSD and title V
permitting burdens that would be associated with regulating GHGs underthese permitting
programs."
From this chapter, there is discussion of general support for streamlining, general concerns,
mechanisms, timing, legality of proposed techniques, and then discussion (both pro and con) of
the following techniques.
• Redefining "Potential to Emit"
• Presumptive BACT
• General Permits and Permits-by-Rule
• Electronic Permitting
• "Lean" Techniques for Permit Process Improvements
In the general response to comments, EPA states the following: "We agree with those
commenters who support using streamlining techniques to mitigate the potential PSD and title V
permitting burdens. Nothing in the opposing comments has persuaded us that we should
abandon our streamlining efforts. To the contrary, the strong support for these efforts shown by
many commenters reinforces our intention, as stated in the proposal, to move forward with the
approaches as an integral part of our phase-in approach. However, because the uncertainty
surrounding the streamlining approaches and the concerns expressed by some commenters, we
are not committing to finalize rules on any particular approach, but we do plan to explore all
streamlining options as expeditiously as possible, beginning immediately and proceeding
throughout the phase-in period, and we encourage permitting authorities to do the same. We
commit to consider a wide array of possible streamlining measures, and we commit to propose
and take comment on, in the step 3 rulemaking, a set of those measures that we determine are
viable to pursue further."
The sub-workgroup takes note and calls to the attention of EPA and the full CAAAC that this
document contains a substantial discussion of streamlining options with stakeholder opinions
and EPA responses. Elsewhere in the EPA docket on the Tailoring Rule (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0517) official comments of states and local agencies, tribal agencies, industries,
environmental groups, citizens, and others on the specific topic of streamlining can be found.
This docket is likely further populated by comments submitted on the Step 3 rulemaking. Within
that docket is likely a wealth of information regarding streamlining options.
-------
I 20
The American Petroleum Institute (API) response to sub-workgroup information request
(Appendix K)
API responded in written form to specific questions presented by the sub-workgroup. They
subsequently attended a sub-workgroup conference call and responded to members' questions.
Much of the attention given to streamlining has been aimed at sources which would enter the
system at lower applicability levels, but EPA has time to address these lower applicability issues
now that Step 3 has been finalized and the current applicability levels maintained. The API letter
makes several recommendations regarding the current process. API's response to the sub-
workgroup list of questions is attached and we recommend its reading in whole. Below are
several observations the sub-workgroup found of special interest.
With regard to-the consequences or impacts of triggering GHG PSD, API listed:
• Schedule delays
• Investment uncertainty
• Air pollution control system upgrades
With regard to source categories brought into major source review solely because of GHG
emissions, API listed:
• Upstream Oil and Gas (O&G) production facilities. These would generally be new
facilities.
o Flaring of associated gas
o Steam-intensive production activities
• O&G gathering and mid-stream operations. These projects could either be new
facilities or modifications to existing ones.
o Compressor stations
o Processing plants
o CO2 removal operations (acid gas treatment)
• Downstream O&G refining operations. These projects would generally be
modifications to existing facilities.
o Cogeneration projects
o The addition of boilers or combustion turbines
o Hydrogen production/adding hydrogen production capacity
API supports other general streamlining techniques such as general permits and presumptive
BACT, and they offered specific examples of states which use such techniques. With regard to
streamlining suggestions short of applicability, API suggested that EPA develop guidance for
addressing ESA reviews, biological assessments, cultural resource reviews, and EJ reviews.
With regard to potential alternatives to PSD, API suggested enhanced minor source permitting,
presumptive BACT, especially for natural gas combustion sources, a moratorium on carbon
-------
I 21
capture and storage (CCS) evaluation for all but the very largest CO2 sources, limitations on the
scope of ESA, National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and EJ reviews, a Potential to Emit
transition policy, redefinition of "construction activities", expedited State Implementation Plan
(SIP) approvals, and expedited permit reviews. Each of these suggestions are discussed in detail
in the written submission.
National Environmental Development Association's Clean Air Project (NEDA/CAP) response
to sub-workgroup information request (Appendix L)
NEDA/CAP members held a conference call with the sub-workgroup chair and then provided
written comments in response to the sub-workgroup information request. NEDA/CAP also
suggested improvements to the current process at existing applicability levels. Additionally, they
pointed out what might be an unintended consequence of the GHG permitting process—that
being the "reclassification" of existing minor sources (some of which may be operating under
synthetic minor permits or PALs) to a major source status, solely because of GHG emissions.
NEDA/CAP noted that changes at such facilities which were previously allowed will now come
underfederal review under PSD if such changes result in significant increases in criteria
pollutants. NEDA/CAP provided very detailed comments forthe sub-workgroup consideration.
A summary of those comments follows.
NEDA/CAP stressed:
• Developing a strategy to minimize or eliminate permitting for pollution control projects
and especially energy efficiency, combined heat and power (CHP) and natural gas
projects that trigger increases in GHGs and/or that cause increases in "other" pollutants;
• Eliminating or streamlining the analysis of CCS in BACT reviews;
• Developing a strategy to reward sources that have taken synthetic minor limits prior to
becoming GHG-only major sources or will take synthetic minor limits to remain out of
PSD for "other" regulated air pollutants; and,
• Paring back or eliminating PSD review of other regulated pollutants for GHG-only major
sources.
With regard to source categories brought into major source review solely because of GHG
emissions, NEDA/CAP listed:
• Installation of process heaters (and thermal oxidizers) at petrochemical facilities;
installation of hydro-treaters and distillation equipment.
• Installation of new boilers and combustion engines at any minor facility, including but
not limited to R&D facilities. Ironically any energy efficiency project, in the absence of
the PSD exemption for pollution control projects, can trigger PSD for GHGs.
-------
• Oil & Natural gas production facilities because of CO2 and to a lesser extent methane
from gas production. (The PSD aggregation and fugitive policies are particularly
critical for these sources).
• Installation of in-line -dryers at large coating and/or converting facilities and in grain
drying/ food processing using natural gas-fired driers.
• Fertilizer Plants
• Co-generation (Combined Heat and Power) Plants at any Major Manufacturing
Facilities (ironically, if the CHP owner and operator is the owner of the plant, then
emission increases from non-major PSD emission increases become an issue.
Typically, the reverse has been true because if the owner/operator is not the owner,
netting has not been allowed.)
• Industries that utilize refrigeration and chillers for process fluids.
• Smelting operations and other industries that have the potential to use high amounts
of SF6 to prevent electrical arcing in processes or switch gears, in the absence of
policies regarding SF6 leak rates.
• Electronics Manufacturing (SF6 and CFCs) in etching and cleaning.
• Aluminum mills expansions/retrofits because of energy requirements for process
equipment.
• Historical "synthetic minors" (including but not limited to petrochemical, home care,
and electronic product plants) that curtailed their actual emissions and took caps to
avoid PSD review, but have become subsequently subject to PSD for GHGs.
• Future of construction materials (board plants/saw mills) is dependent on permanent
exclusion of biogenic emissions from GHG permitting. Food products and
supplements, also is dependent on permanent exclusion of biogenic emissions from
GHG permitting.
With regard to streamlining suggestions short of applicability, NEDA/CAP primarily suggested
the revision of existing guidance and regulations so that PSD review would be confined to GHGs.
For PSD sources triggered solely by GHG emissions, they recommend that other pollutant review
should be required only for major source emissions; i.e. EPA should exempt the GHG source
from the "majorforone, majorforall" policy. They also recommend restoration ofthe
"pollution control project exemption," for GHG-only projects and elimination ofthe need to
examine CCS in in every GHG BACT review. The NEDA/CAP submission (Appendix L) provides
details of other recommendations.
-------
Sub-workgroup 2: Streamlining PSD Permitting for GHG-Only
rces
SUB-WORKGROUP DESCRIPTION
This sub-workgroup was formed to evaluate various approaches and options to streamline and
make more efficient the permitting of sources which trigger PSD as a result of their GHG
emissions exceeding the thresholds specified in the GHG Tailoring Rule. These streamlining
measures could assist both permitting agencies in processing and issuing, as well as the GHG-
emitting sources in applying for and obtaining permits, by making the permitting process more
efficient and less burdensome.
The sub-workgroup was formed on May 10, 2012 and in order to optimize the discussions of this
sub-workgroup relative to PSD permitting, all of the sub-workgroup 2 conference calls were
combined with sub-workgroup 1- Streamlining PSD Permitting under the "Major for One Major
for AN" Policy, as many of the discussions and streamlining measures for PSD permitting could
potentially apply to both sub-workgroups.
The focus of this sub-workgroup was on identifying streamlining measures which would apply to
permitting of GHG-emitting sources and which as a result of increases in GHG emissions above
GHG Tailoring Rule thresholds would trigger PSD permitting, but only for GHG emissions and no
other pollutant. These sources include:
• New facilities with potential to emit >100,000 tpy of C02e and 100 or 250 tpy on a mass
basis;
• Existing facilities with potential to emit >100,000 tpy C02e that make modifications
which would increase GHG emissions by >75,000 tpy of C02e and any increase on a mass
basis; and
• For both of the above cases in this discussion, there are no emission increases of any
other PSD (attainment) pollutant above significant emission rate thresholds for all other
non-GHG pollutants.
These new or modified GHG-emitting sources, however, only trigger PSD permitting due to GHG
emissions and the sources' emission increases for other attainment pollutants are below the PSD
significant emission rates thresholds for such pollutants. Therefore, the only pollutant subject to
the PSD permitting is GHGs and PSD analysis is not triggered for any other pollutant.
SUB-WORKGROUP MEMBERSHIP
The membership for this sub-workgroup consisted of representatives from state and local
permitting agencies, industry, environmental groups, tribal agencies, a private law firm and EPA.
In addition to the official members of this sub-workgroup, since the sub-workgroup conference
calls were combined with sub-workgroup 1, there were other participants in the sub-workgroup
-------
I 24
conference calls. The list of members and other participants in the sub-workgroup discussions
are shown below.
Chair: Mohsen Nazemi, South Coast Air Quality Management District
Members: Joy Wiecks, Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
James Capp, Air Branch, Georgia Environmental Protection Division
Misti Duvall, National Association of Clean Air Agencies
Robert Hilton, Alstom Power
Robert Wyman, Latham and Watkins
Other Participants: John Paul, Regional Air Pollution Control Agency
John Holmes, AEMS, LLC
Praveen Amar, Clean Air Task Force
Vince Hellwig, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Mary Turner, Waste Management
Juan Santiago, EPA - OAQPS
Jessica Montanez, EPA - OAQPS
PROBLEM STATEMENT
As discussed above under "Sub-workgroup Description," the main focus of this sub-workgroup
was to consider what streamlining measures could be applied to sources which trigger PSD
permitting solely due to their potential to emit emission increases of GHGs above Tailoring Rule
thresholds and do not trigger PSD analysis for any other pollutant. The concerns regarding these
sources relate to the fact that although there may be increases associated with other pollutants
for the new or modified source, such increases are all below major source and/or significant
emission rate PSD thresholds. PSD requirements are triggered due to the increase of GHG
emissions. However, some elements of PSD cannot be applied. For example, since ambient air
quality standards or SILs have not been indentified for GHGs and there are no increases of non-
GHG pollutants above PSD significant emission rate thresholds, there are no localized or regional
impacts that are necessary to be evaluated for these sources under the PSD program.
In Step 3 of GHG Tailoring Rule, EPA decided not to lower the GHG thresholds from Steps 1 and
2. However, one of the reasons that EPA has formed the GHG Permit Streamlining Workgroup is
to "explore potential streamlining approaches that may make the administration of the CAA
permitting programs more efficient for permitting authorities and that may potentially reduce
the permitting burden for smaller GHG-emitting sources if the programs are expanded to apply
to these sources.6" Also EPA has previously announced that, "[b]y the end of April 2015, EPA will
complete a study on remaining GHG permitting burdens that would exist if we applied the
program to smaller sources. We will consider the results of the study to complete a rule by April
30, 2016 further addressing Clean Air Act permitting for these facilities. In that rule we may
6 EPA convened a workgroup in April 2012.
-------
I 25
decide that successful streamlining will allow us to phase in more sources, but we may also
decide that certain smaller sources need to be permanently excluded from permitting.7"
In order to better evaluate the impact of PSD permitting for the type of sources which trigger
PSD permitting solely due to GHG emissions, the chair of this sub-workgroup developed a PSD
Program Overview (Appendix O), which in general includes a listing of all of the PSD permit
program requirements. As evident from the list of requirements for a PSD permit, most of the
steps and requirements, with the exception of application of BACT, and the opportunity for
public comment or EPA review, either do not directly apply, or should not be required for the
permit for such a source. Therefore, this sub-workgroup discussed potential streamlining
measures that could be applied for permitting of such sources. Similar to the PSD sub-
workgroup 1, the PSD sub-workgroup 2 also sought input from other stakeholders outside the
GHG Permit Streamlining Workgroup and solicited input relative to the PSD Program Overview
document and the list of questions prepared by the chair of sub-workgroup 1 (Appendix P). Sub-
workgroup 2 also invited other stakeholders to participate in its conference calls.
OBSERVATIONS
As part of evaluating the permit streamlining options, this sub-workgroup worked closely with
sub-workgroup 1, relative to the overall streamlining methods which would apply to PSD
permits. At the outset, the sub-workgroup was aware of the streamlining measures that EPA
had committed to evaluate and implement through the adoption of the PSD and Title V GHG
Tailoring Rule (approved on May 13, 2010) for Steps 1 and 2 PSD and Title V GHG Tailoring Rule
Step 3 (approved on June 29, 2012). These streamlining measures, as identified by EPA, included
the following:
• Defining PTE for Various Source Categories to Limit Emissions below PSD GHG
Thresholds;
• Use of Presumptive (BACT) for GHGs;
• Establishing Procedures for General Permits & Permits by Rule for GHG Sources;
• Use of Electronic Permitting and "Lean" Techniques for GHG Permitting Improvements;
• Excluding "Empty Permits" from GHG Sources from Title V Program;
• Increase Flexibility for Use of PALs for GHGs; and
• Creating Regulatory Authority for EPA to Issue Synthetic Minor GHG Permits.
For the last two streamlining measures, EPA also proposed regulatory changes in the Proposed
Step 3 Tailoring Rule.
7 Final PSD and Title V GHG Tailoring Rule Fact Sheet (May 13, 2010).
-------
I 26
In the Final PSD and Title V GHG Tailoring Rule Step 3 (77 FR 41051; July 12, 2012), EPA retained
the current GHG thresholds, but did not implement any of the permit streamlining options listed
above, with the exception of finalizing changes to allow GHG PALs to be established on a C02e
basis in addition to the already available mass basis.
EPA also indicated that permitting authorities have not had the opportunity to develop and
implement streamlining approaches. The streamlining options for excluding empty permits for
GHG sources from Title V and development of further flexibility for GHG PALs fall under the
topics that sub-workgroups 3 and 4 were evaluating, respectively.
The discussion held by sub-workgroup 2 overlapped in many respects with sub-workgroup 1
relative to streamlining of PSD permits for GHG-emitting sources. Sub-workgroup 1 identified
four (4) major documents that included potential permit streamlining options and are discussed
in more detail in the sub-workgroup 1 section of this interim report. These include:
• The EPA Response to Comments on Tailoring rule—emphasis on chapter 4-- Comments
on Streamlining Options and Tools To Address the Administrative Burdens of PSD and
Title V for GHGs,
• The API response to the sub-workgroup information request,
• The NEDA/CAP response to the sub-workgroup information request, and
• The PSD/Title V GHG Permit Streamlining Suggestions, LACSD, June 29, 2012
Therefore, this section will not repeat those permit streamlining options identified in the above
documents. However, it is worthwhile to add to the discussions for sub-workgroup 1, a listing of
the permit streamlining suggestions provided to EPA as part of the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) comments on the EPA's Proposed PSD and Title V GHG
Tailoring Rule Step 3 (letter dated April 20, 2012), which were discussed at the May 10, 2012
workgroup conference call and distributed to the workgroup members on May 23, 2012
(Appendix # Q). The streamlining measures recommended by SCAQMD include the use of the
following for GHG-emitting sources:
1. Synthetic Minor permits;
2. Prohibitory PTE Rule to limit PTE;
3. Presumptive BACT;
4. General permits forTitle V and PSD permits;
5. Plant-wide Applicability Limits based on C02e; and
6. Title V empty and hollow permits.
In addition to the above recommendations provided by SCAQMD, a brief discussion of the
recommendations provided by SCAQMD's Title V AdHoc Committee (Appendix R and S) and Los
-------
I 27
Angeles County Sanitation District (LACSD), which were distributed to the to the sub-workgroup
members on July 11, 2012 (Appendix M) and presented by LACSD and discussed at the July 12,
2012 sub-workgroup conference call, is also provided in this interim report. Furthermore, the
sub-workgroup received comments from tribes (which were coordinated by Joy Wiecks of Fond
du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa) that mostly dealt with Presumptive BACT (Appendix N),
but these were not discussed by the sub-workgroup.
However, it should be noted that the permit streamlining recommendations provided to this sub-
workgroup by various stakeholders and included in this interim report are merely listings of the
recommendations and/or suggestions that were provided to EPA and/or to this sub-workgroup.
Although the members of this sub-workgroup may have discussed one or more of these
recommendations as part of the sub-workgroup discussions during conference calls, the sub-
workgroup did not have the opportunity to discuss the merits of each recommendation, and as a
result, is not endorsing the recommendations as the sub-workgroup's recommendations.
The sub-workgroup was only able to compile the following permit streamlining approaches, and
did not have the necessary time to evaluate the feasibility or appropriateness of each option and
develop recommendations as part of this interim report. This would have required additional
time and resource commitments to accomplish such a task. However, the sub-workgroup
believes that EPA currently has a comprehensive list of options for consideration, which should
be addressed through a notice and comment rulemaking process to provide an opportunity for
full stakeholder evaluation and comment, at the point when such a rulemaking effort becomes
appropriate.
The following list of potential permit streamlining measures provides a number of options which
may help to accomplish permit streamlining approaches to reduce the administrative and
economic impact of permitting of GHG-emitting sources that trigger PSD permitting solely due
to their GHG emissions.
SCAQMD Comment Letter to EPA on Proposed PSD and Title V GHG Tailoring Rule Step 3.
dated April 20. 2012 (Attachment Q)
There were several permit streamlining suggestions and options discussed in this letter, which
are summarized in the section above and detailed in the letter. However, one of the
recommendations that was also discussed at the May 10, 2012 sub-workgroup conference call is:
• Limiting PTE through Prohibitory Rules
Limiting a source's potential to emit can prevent a source from becoming subject to PSD
for GHGs and could also prevent a source from being classified as a title V major source
for sGHG permitting purposes. This can be accomplished through establishing regulatory
provisions indicating that sources with actual emissions below a certain percent of the
major source thresholds are minor sources. As an example, SCAQMD adopted a rule
(Rule 3008), which allowed sources with actual emissions below 50% of the major source
thresholds to be considered minor sources (regardless of their PTE) and thus exempt from
-------
I 28
Title V permitting as long as they keep sufficient records of their emissions. This rule was
attached to the April 20, 2012 comment letter submitted by SCAQMD. SCAQM believes
that the same approach can be used for GHG-emitting sources to exempt them from the
requirements of PSD permit, as well as Title V permit.
SCAQMD AdHoc Title V Committee Suggestions - (Based on material submitted in writing
on June 11 and email clarifications submitted on July 11. Appendix R and S).
1. Address GHG-Only Sources under Minor NSR Program Only.
• Few sources that would trigger PSD permitting for GHG emissions do not hold a
Title V permit. These sources should be handled under minor source NSR until
there is a major modification for non-GHG emissions.
2. Delay PSD Permit Elements for New Climate Warming Pollutants.
• If EPA plans to extend GHG PSD permitting to short-lived climate warming
pollutants such as black carbon, ozone, etc., EPA should delay most PSD permit
elements (except BACT review and public notice) for 3 years.
3. Improve certainty of the BACT Analysis.
a. EPA should provide software to better assess localized impacts from projects.
b. Corollary pollutant analyses should be minimized as long as criteria pollutants
continue to be reduced even at the expense of GHGs.
c. EPA should provide standardized calculation sheets that can be followed by the
permittee to lessen the likelihood of errors and litigation.
d. Given that that the environmental and economic analyses involved with the top
choices can be very time-consuming and complex, a maximum of two scenarios
should suffice for the purpose of the application.
4. Expand Synthetic Minor Program to States with Delegated Programs.
The states with delegated PSD program should be also able to issue synthetic minor
permits for sources that desire to take a permit limit to stay out of PSD program, similar
to EPA and states with a SIP-approved program.
5. Use of Flexible Air Permits (FAP) for GHG Sources might be Amenable for Various
Stakeholders.
a. One tool that might be incorporated into a FAP is a Master Energy Plan that, once
approved, can be implemented by a facility as it chooses to make successive
modifications.
6. Allow the use of presumptive BACT for smaller and less-complex sources.
7. Support the use of general permits for source categories with little deviation among its
members.
-------
8. Cap and Trade Program Allowances and Offsets Should NotTrigger PSD In and Of
Themselves.
a. Participation in cap and trade programs such as that established by AB32 should
not in and of itself be the basis for an existing facility to need a PSD permit unless
the facility emissions trigger PSD. Holding of offsets and allocations within cap
and trade programs should not be considered to be potential-to-emit that factors
into permitting thresholds.
b. To prevent continuous returning of permittees to the permitting authority to
change GHG numbers listed in national or state inventories or permits or cap and
trade programs, GHG-related figures should not be reflected either in PSD or
Title V permits in such a way as to require annual modification of the permits.
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD) - Based on material submitted in writing on
June 2Q (Appendix M) and conference call discussion on July 12.
1. Streamline PTE calculations for sources such as landfills.
a. Recommend that long-life projects such as landfills be phased in appropriate
stages, maybe every 10-years, to avoid PSD permitting until such time as they are
truly major sources. For example, while the landfill may have the potential to be in
operation for many years (e.g., 100 years), the landfill operator is only planning a
landfill gas collection and management system for 10 years. Is the potential to
emit for the landfill 10 years or 100 years? Requiring a look out to 100 years would
impact a large number of landfills and be counter to streamlining efforts.
2. Use of presumptive BACT, but:
a. EPA should provide a menu of acceptable BACT options, not a "one size fits all"
approach. Forexample, not all small landfills will be able to meet the same
presumptive BACT requirement due to size, location and economic limitations.
a. If an industry has a relevant NSPS that concurrently controls GHG emissions, the
NSPS should be considered in the BACT analysis as at least the "BACT floor" to
start the BACT determination. For example, landfill NSPS could be the final BACT
for this source category.
3. Allow programmatic equivalency.
a. EPA should investigate when, a source triggers a PSD permit solely because of
GHGs, whether or not BACT can be satisfied by an existing local program that
achieves specified reductions in specific time frames such as a cap and trade
program. For example, a South Coast refinery would be regulated by both the
AB32 Low Carbon Fuel Standard and cap-and-trade regulation.
4. Do not apply "Major for One Major for All" concept to GHG PSD permitting
a. EPA should clarify that under no circumstances will GHG be regulated beyond
BACT and public notice requirements under PSD.
-------
b. If EPA were to find that establishment of a NAAQS or PSD increment warrants
expanding GHG PSD requirements beyond BACT, we would suggest that EPA
develop a "minor" PSD program, triggered at a certain GHG emissions level (e.g.,
current level of 100,000 tons C02e) where only BACT and public notice would be
required.
5. Permanently exclude Biogenic C02 Emissions from permitting.
a. EPA is into the second year of a three-year stay on including biogenic emissions in
the GHG PSD threshold. The issue is being studied by a Science Advisory Board
subpanel. If the SAB finds that biogenic emissions should be added to the
threshold emission calculation, this would result in hundreds of biogenic sources
potentially triggering PSD review, countering any possible streamlining efforts
that will have been developed to date.
Sub-workgroup 3: Streamlining Title V Permitting for "Empty
Permits" and "Hollow Permits"
WORKGROUP DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this sub-workgroup was to explore and discuss streamlining techniques and
approaches that could be used to make Title V permitting of GHG sources simple and efficient.
This would apply in the cases where a source was defined as major for GHG emissions only and
the source would not be subject to any other major source requirements.
SUB-WORKGROUP MEMBERSHIP
Chair: G. Vinson Hellwig, Air Quality Division, Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality
Members: John Holmes, AEMS, LLC
Mohsen Nazemi, South Coast Air Quality Management District
Other Participants: John Paul, Regional Air Pollution Control Agency
James Capp, Georgia Department of Environmental Resources
Joy Wiecks, Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
Juan Santiago, EPA-Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS)
Jessica Montanez, EPA-OAQPS
The sub-workgroup met in person one time and a number of times by phone. We collected and
reviewed materials and solicited specific input from several sources and had several calls with
stakeholders to discuss their input.
-------
PROBLEM STATEMENT
As described previously, the operating permits program or title V program consolidates all air
pollution control requirements into a single, comprehensive "operating permit" that covers all
aspects of a source's air pollution activities. In some instances, however, an evaluation of the
applicable air pollution control requirements for a particular source might lead to "hollow" or
"empty" permits, permits for which there are no applicable GHG requirements. A "hollow"
permit for a GHG major source does not contain requirements for GHGs, but contains other
applicable requirements such as record-keeping and reporting requirements. While "hollow"
permits may contain record-keeping and reporting requirements, these requirements would not
be tied to improving compliance with any underlying emission standards or work practices. An
"empty" permit is a Title V permit for which there are no applicable requirements, only general
conditions. As a result, issuing "hollow" or "empty" permits provides little environmental benefit
while adding significant administrative burden to sources and permitting authorities.
This workgroup was tasked with evaluating possible streamlining approaches for these types of
permits. In the event that the Title V applicability threshold for GHGs is lowered, a larger number
of sources requiring permits would be drawn into the Title V program.
OBSERVATIONS
Title V "empty" permits could be streamlined by using general permits, permits-by-rule,
simplified permit conditions, synthetic minor permits and exemptions by rule, while "hollow"
permits could be deferred from permitting. A description of each of these possible streamlining
techniques follows.
1. General Permits
a. A general permit is an expedited permit process with predetermined conditions
that applies to an entire category of similar sources (e.g. boilers, process heaters).
Like a permit by rule, a hollow general permit would contain the record-keeping,
reporting and general conditions applicable to the source category. Individual
sources would apply to be "assigned" to the general permit through a simple
application process. The public involvement requirements of Title V would have to
be satisfied through the public involvement process for adopting the general
permit and/or assigning individual sources to the general permit.
2. Permits-by-Rule
a. A permit by rule would establish the requirements and limits in a rule as opposed
to requiring a permit application and issuance of a permit. In this case, the
permitting authority would adopt a regulation that applies to a source or source
category establishing all of the record-keeping, reporting and general conditions
that would otherwise be contained in a hollow permit. The public involvement
requirements of Title V would have to be satisfied through the public involvement
-------
I 32
process for adopting the regulation. Affected sources would need to be identified,
potentially through a notification or registration system.
3. Simplified Permit Conditions and Synthetic Minor Permits
a. Still another case is a source that triggers Title V solely for GHG, is not subject to
any requirements for GHG, but is subject to other regulations for its criteria
pollutant or air toxic emissions. This could lead to a Title V permit that is hollow for
GHG, but contains other applicable requirements for non-major pollutants. The
sub-workgroup discussed two streamlining options for this scenario:
i. Simplified Permit Conditions -The Title V permit would include the
applicable requirements for the non-major pollutants, but would simply list
GHGs as a pollutant with no GHG monitoring, record-keeping or reporting
requirements.
ii. Synthetic Minor Permits - A second option would be for the source to
obtain a federally-enforceable synthetic minor permit with physical or fuel
limits that will keep the GHGs emissions below the Title V threshold. An
example of this is where the physical orfuel limits in the permit would also
limit the GHGs emissions and keep the GHG emissions below the Title V
threshold. In this situation it may be possible to do nothing more than
demonstrate that the limits reduce the GHG PTE to below the major source
level. This option is presently available, commonly used for other pollutants
and would not require any further action by EPA.
4. Exemption-by-rule
a. An exemption-by-rule could apply in cases when Title V is triggered because a
source has PTE for GHG above the major source threshold, but its actual emissions
are naturally low and expected to stay low. For this scenario, the sub-workgroup
discussed three potential streamlining options based on an exemption-by-rule:
i. Seasonal sources - The exemption-by-rule could be based on an activity
with naturally low emissions due to seasonal operation. An example of this
is residential and some commercial heating systems that operate only
seasonally. This could be based on an average amount of fuel purchased
each year.
ii. Specific equipment - The exemption-by-rule could be based on specific
equipment, such as Energy Star certified heating furnaces below a specified
size or all equipment at one source below a certain combined power
(BTU/hr).
iii. Naturally low emissions - The exemption-by-rule could also be based on
very low actual emissions. For example, a rule could exempt sources with
emissions below 50% of the Title V threshold for GHGs under actual
operating conditions and the source does not emit other pollutants that
would trigger a Title V requirement. This would be a presumed minor
source. This is similarto the EPA guidance "Options for Limiting the
Potential to Emit (PTE) of a Stationary Source under Section 112 and Title
-------
V of the Clean Air Act (Act)", John S. Seitz, January 25,1995. Valid
documentation of the "below 50%" threshold would be required for this to
be implemented correctly.
5. Time Deferral of Title V Applications
a. Title V applications are due within 12 months after a source becomes a major
source and those permits are required to be issued within 18 months of receipt of
the application. A deferral such as this would be beneficial because the additional
applications would be spread out and come in over a significant period of time
instead of all coming in to the agency at once. This is also consistent with EPA's
current overall approach to GHG permitting, which is to gradually bring in more
sources over time as the permitting authorities are able to absorb the workload,
putting a priority on the largest sources and those with GHG applicable
requirements.
Sub-workgroup 4: Streamlining the Permitting PAL Issuance Process
WORKGROUP DESCRIPTION
This sub-workgroup focused on ways to streamline the issuance of GHG PALs. PALs are
authorized under EPA PSD and non-attainment NSR rules, and include a plant-wide limit on
annual emissions that serves as a determinant of NSR/PSD applicability for projects relative to
the pollutant in question. So long as a modification of the facility does not cause emissions to
exceed the PAL limit for that pollutant during the term of the permit, NSR/PSD is not triggered
for that pollutant for that project. PALs can be issued for any of the pollutants regulated under
NSR/PSD.
The sub-workgroup members experience with PALs has been very favorable, particularly for
facilities with good controls and the need for frequent process and equipment changes. The sub-
workgroup also recognizes and appreciates EPA's actions in step 3 of the GHG Tailoring Rule to
allow GHG PALs to be issued on either a mass basis or a C02e basis and to allow authorities to
issue GHG PALs to GHG-only (minor) sources. However, there are still some potential areas for
improvement. One of the impediments to wider use of PALs has been the administrative
challenge to the permittee and to the permitting authority to establish the PALs.
The sub-workgroup carried out a two step process. The first step was to identify aspects of the
PAL issuance process that are particularly time consuming or complicated (and may be uniquely
so for GHGs). Once a list of problems was developed, it was circulated to the entire workgroup
for comment, and revisions were made. Next, the sub-workgroup identified and evaluated
potential options to streamline the steps in the PAL process that are on this list. A paper with
observations on potential solutions also was circulated for comment.
-------
SUB-WORKGROUP MEMBERSHIP
Chair: John Holmes, AEMS, LLC
Members: Mary Turner, Waste Management
PROBLEM STATEMENT
The sub-workgroup identified five problems associated with the issuance of GHG PALs:
Problem i: Establishing the PAL Baseline for GHGs. One particularly complicated and time
consuming aspect of setting a PAL for GHGs is compiling the data needed to set the baseline.
This is particularly difficult with GHGs, where there is no official history of emissions reporting.
While the new GHG reporting rule sets the stage for determining emissions going forward, it is
not readily applicable to historical emissions whenever the historical data needed to apply the
reporting rule methods are not readily available.
Problem i: Establishing the PAL Baseline for Landfill GHGs. Determining baseline emissions is
further complicated for sources such as landfills because the source does not have a finite or
totally predictable pattern for emissions. For most sources, significant air emissions are
generated immediately at the time operations are initiated. For landfills, however, depending on
the type of waste, moisture content of the waste, cover properties, and other conditions, it can
take anywhere from several months to several years for waste to reach the methanogenic phase
of landfill gas (LFG) production. As such, methane generation at a landfill is not immediate.
According to EPA's LFG emissions model (LandGEM, USEPA, 1997); the typical gas generation
pattern for a landfill resembles a bell curve, the peak of which occurs the year after landfill
closure. And, this bell curve is subject to modification with every change to waste volume, type,
moisture content, etc. Many air permitting agencies require permits to reflect "peak" emissions,
even if the "peak" gas generation calculated using current conditions and current operating
parameter predictions does not occur for 40 to 50 years into the future. However, because
landfill emissions will follow a bell curve pattern, a past actual baseline will not and cannot reflect
the peak emissions that will be generated sometime in the future from current or past operations
at the landfill. Therefore, a unique solution is required for landfills when setting a realistic and
useful baseline for a PAL.
Problem GHG Monitoring Provisions fora GHG PAL. The PAL rules set standards for
monitoring that are not present in the rest of the PSD rules, suggesting that something different
from "ordinary" emissions monitoring and reporting is required (Appendix T). This raises the
issues of how much monitoring and testing is appropriate and whether the resulting data will be
consistent with emission reported underthe GHG reporting rule, or a whole separate record
keeping and reporting is required.
-------
I 35
Problem u\ Resetting the PAL upon Renewal. This problem is related to the uncertainty
associated with what happens to the PAL limit when it is renewed. Because the rules provide
little certainty about how the PAL is reset upon renewal, the resetting process may be a barrier
for some sources contemplating a PAL (Appendix U).
Problem q: Establishing a GHG PAL for a Greenfield (New) Facility A new facility should be an
excellent candidate for a PAL. Emissions controls normally reflect state-of-the-art control,
particularly if the facility has gone through PSD review of its GHG emissions. In addition, it is
likely that a new plant will need to make a number of operational and equipment adjustments,
particularly during the first 5 to 10 years of operation. It is EPA's current position that a
greenfield facility cannot obtain a PAL until it has established actual emissions for use in setting
the PAL. Because of the time that is needed to bring a new facility to its full operating capacity, it
means that it will be years before representative actual emissions can be established. This
means that PALs are not a viable option for a greenfield facility. EPA has indicated that a PAL for
a greenfield facility cannot be based on the permitted emissions of a new facility because of a
court decision that rejected the use of allowable emissions to determine NSR/PSD applicability
for units that are well controlled, or so called "clean units". (New York v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3,10
(D.C.Cir. 2005))
OBSERVATIONS
The sub-workgroup has identified potential options for EPA to address each of the five issues, as
follows:
To address the first problem of establishing the baseline for GHG, EPA can take a number of
approaches. The problem of how best to evaluate GHG emissions in the past (in the absence of a
formal regulatory requirement for evaluating emissions being in place in those prior years) is not
unique to PALs. To the extent sources subject to, or potentially subject to, PSD are applying the
actual to future actual emissions test, they also need appropriate representations of historical
GHG emissions. One possible solution is for EPA to issue guidance, for use in evaluating PSD
applicability and setting PALs that addresses the best ways to evaluate historical and future
emissions of GHGs, until such time as sources have ten years of data created on a consistent
basis in a regulatory context, as is the case for the criteria pollutants. That EPA guidance could
address the following points:
• When are parties expected to use the methods in the GHG reporting rule to evaluate
historical GHG emissions under PSD?
• When the necessary historical data do not exist to apply those methods, when are parties
to either estimate those data or rely on other methods?
• What other methods might be used?
• To the extent the reporting rule does not address certain GHGs or GHG sources, what
methods should be considered?
-------
I 36
• Under a PAL, if the GHG reporting rule cannot and has not been used to set the PAL,
should PAL tracking use the same methods (for consistency) as were used to set the PAL?
• In those instances, when and how should the transition to GHG reporting rule methods
occur?
With regard to the problem of identifying a workable baseline for landfill GHG emissions relative
to its expected and permitted increase in emissions over time, one possible solution is for EPA to
consider issuing a PAL that increases overtime, consistent with the trajectory of emissions of the
landfill over time. For example, EPA landfill emissions models can be used to forecast the change
in actual emissions overtime that are inherent to the operation of the landfill, starting with
recent actual emissions. The PAL could be increased over time in a manner that is related to the
amounts of material placed in the landfill (overtime), based on the design of the landfill at the
time the original PAL is established and excluding any emissions increases due to physical
changes orchanges in the method of operation of the landfill.
With regard to the challenge of establishing GHG monitoring requirements for PALs, one
possible solution is for EPA to issue guidance that could apply both to setting and tracking
compliance with PALs. First, EPA could indicate whether conformance with the methods in the
reporting rule is presumptively adequate forthese purposes. If they are not presumptively
adequate, what are the issues that permit writers need to address beyond the reporting rule.
Second, EPA should indicate what specific methods are preferred when filling in the gaps that
exist in the reporting rule. Last, EPA should indicate if and when it is appropriate to deviate from
this guidance to provide consistency (apples-to-apples) comparisons of historical and future or
current emissions when another emissions determining method was used to establish a baseline.
Because the same issues arise in other permitting contexts, this guidance could apply not only to
setting and tracking PALs but also to determining compliance with synthetic minor permit limits
or determining the applicability of PSD. If the broader application is undertaken, EPA may prefer
to do so through rulemaking.
With regard to the problems associated with PAL renewal, one possible solution is for EPA to
clarify the rule language on resetting the PAL at the time of renewal. Alternately, if the
permitting agency and the permittee are willing and able to provide more clarity on how the PAL
is reset afterten years and they can do that consistent with the PAL rules and with appropriate
public involvement at the time the PAL is issued, the procedure could be specified in the initial
PAL permit. EPA guidance on this issue could be helpful.
Last, one option discussed by the sub-workgroup would be for EPA consider setting initial PALs
for greenfield facilities on their PTE. This approach to establishing a greenfield facility PAL could
rely on the current definition of "Baseline Actual Emissions" at 40 CFR 52.21 (b) (47). Paragraph
(b)(47)(iii) of this definition says: "For a new emissions unit, the baseline actual emissions for
purposes of determining the emissions increase that will result from the initial construction and
operation of such unit shall equal zero and thereafter for other purposes, shall equal the unit's
potential to emit." Paragraph (b) (47) (iv) says: "For a PAL for a stationary source, the baseline
actual emissions shall be calculated ...for new emissions units in accordance with the procedures
-------
I 37
in paragraph (b) (47) (iii) of this section." Therefore, immediately after the initial construction and
operation, this definition could enable EPA to determine that, for purposes of a PAL at a
greenfield facility, the baseline actual emissions of all the units, which are all "new," is equal to
their potential to emit. The PAL would be set consistent with this definition of baseline actual
emissions being equal to the PTE of the greenfield facility, which in turn reflects the facility's
allowable emissions. The PAL could be later reduced if the PTE of the Greenfield facility is later
reduced.
-------
Appendix
Appen 11 1 «l!" i p."i mil r«li• .inliitiitf v ^rkgroup Clniy rv,
New Soui K>' i-v's itm I ^ i. u|-oniimff. . , v I. mi v f
Advisei ^ 'i OiiimiH.\'
•kground
In the GHG Tailoring Rule, EPA committed to explore permit streamlining approaches that make
the administration of the CAA permitting programs more efficient for permitting authorities, and
that potentially reduce the permitting burden for smaller GHG-emitting sources. EPA is
particularly interested in exploring streamlining methods that allow for the expansion of the CAA
permitting programs to sources that fall on the lower end of the applicability spectrum, and that
may never have been subject to CAA regulations.
Problem Statement
Permit streamlining techniques and approaches are a key component of GHG permitting under
the CAA. As discussed in the Tailoring Rule and the recently published "Step 3" rule, a key factor
in EPA's phased-in approach to GHG permitting under the CAA is the ability of permitting
authorities to issue timely permits and for sources subject to permitting to obtain and comply
with those permits. Streamlining approaches that could help expedite permitting and make
more efficient use of resources need to be developed to allow expansion of the permitting
programs to smaller sources of GHG emissions.
Charge
The charge to the Permit Streamlining (PS) Workgroup is to:
1. Review the potential streamlining methods and source categories identified by EPA as
potentially impacted at various GHG applicability thresholds. The workgroup should then
confirm, expand, or narrow both the scope of streamlining methods EPA should explore
further, and the source categories that may be well-suited either individually, or
collectively (e.g. based on equipment types, raw material inputs, and/or process
parameters) for each streamlining approach; and discuss the attributes of these
categories that make them well-suited for the streamlining approach. The workgroup
should think broadly when considering potential streamlining methods EPA should
explore further, including outside traditional CAA constructs.
2. Identify the regulatory and policy barriers associated with further development of permit
streamlining methods for each of the source categories, and recommend approaches to
address such barriers; and
-------
3. Prioritize the source categories and streamlining methods for further development by
EPA and recommend an implementation approach for each method (e.g. guidance, rule,
model language, etc.).
Some examples of potential outcomes that could result from streamlining include, but are not
limited to: reducing the time or resource burden of developing or processing permit applications;
simplifying potential to emit calculations; creating novel, environmentally-sound approaches for
assuring compliance with emissions limitation requirements; improving regulatory
understanding and compliance including delivery of outreach programs; provide alternate, and
less burdensome permitting pathways (e.g. prohibitory rules).
Duration
The workgroup will begin in April 2012 and complete its work by October 2012.
, ' .¦ , ' , ; • . , ie Workgn
A progress report (2-month) is to be presented, and a draft interim (6-month) and draft final (7-
month) written report are to be delivered and deliberated upon by the CAAAC for submission to
the US EPA.
• A progress report should be presented in PowerPoint or other format in April 2012, and
should outline the ongoing work of the subcommittee.
• The draft interim report should be completed on or before August 15, 2012, and should be
approximately 25 pages (or less). The draft report should suggest target groups for
developing streamlining methods, and should identify recommended streamlining
methods foreach group The report should also explain the attributes of each group that
make the group well-suited for applying streamlining methods, and also indicate whether
the approach would streamline the major NSR and/or title V permitting processes.
• The draft final report is due on or before September 15, 2012 and should also be
approximately 25 pages (or less) and include a recommended priority for EPA to further
develop the identified streamlining methods for one or more target groups. The report
may also address the issues and potential barriers associated with further development of
permit streamlining methods, and recommend implementation strategies by, for
example, recommending that EPA issue guidance, a rulemaking, a model rule, or engage
another approach to facilitate adoption of the method by permitting authorities and
GHG-emitting sources.
-------
Appen 11 h I i: t !> *i -Miihers
Andrew Ginsburg
Air Quality Program Administrator
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ)
811 SW 6th Avenue
Portland 97204-1390
(503)229-5397
Ginsburg.andv@deq.state.or.us
James Capp
Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR)
Environmental Protection Department (EDP)
2 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive
Suite 1152, East Tower
Atlanta, GA 30334
(404)363-7000
James.capp@qaepd.org
John Holmes
AEMS, LLC
2443 North Quantico St
Arlington VA 22207
(703) 536-2920
HolmesAems@aol.com
John Paul
Administrator
Regional Air Pollution Control Agency (RAPCA)
Dayton, Ohio 45422-1280
(937) 225-5948
paulia@rapca.org
Juan Santiago
Acting Associate Air Division Director/Air Quality Policy Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
109 TW Alexander Drive MC: 504-01
RTP, NC 27711
santiago.iuan@epag.gov
919-541-1084
-------
| 41
Joy Wiecks
Air Quality Technician
Fond du Lac Reservation
1720 Big Lake Rd.
Cloquet, MN 55720
(218) 878-7108
JovWiecks (a) FDLREZ.com
Mary Turner
East Group Air Director
Waste Management (WM)
1001 Fannin, Suite 4000
Houston, Texas 77002
(215) 269-2140
mturnerq@wm.com
Misti Duvall
National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)
444 North Capitol Street, NW - Suite 307-
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 624-7864
mduvall@£clea nair.org
Mohsen Nazemi, P.E.
Deputy Executive Officer
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
21865 Copley Dr
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
(909)396-2662
mnazemii@aqmd.gov
Praveen Amar, Ph.D., P.E.
Senior Advisor, Technology and Climate Policy
Clean AirTask Force
18 Tremont Street Suite 530
Cambridge, MA 02108
(617) 624-0234 ext.157
pamar@catf.us
-------
Robert Hilton
Director, Business Development
ECS Global ALSTOM Power Inc.
1409 Centerpoint Boulevard
Knoxville, TN 37932-1962
(865) 607-0928
robert.q.hilton(a) power.alstom.com
Robert Wyman
Partner
Latham and Watkins LLP
633 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2007
Phone: (213) 485-1234
E-Mail: Robert.wvmanfa)lw.com
Ursula Kramer
Director
Pima County
Department of Environmental Quality
33 N. Stone Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Az 85701
(520)243-7454
ursula. Kramer(a)deq. pi ma.gov
Vince Hellwig
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
525 W Allegan Street Floor3
Lansing, Ml 48933-1502
(517)373-7069
hellwiqv(a)michiqan.qov
-------
Appen 11 \ I v i( • mi Scm * uf f [ ^ m!\Q "li. ,:ml 11 ni if [¦ I. ^ from
James Capp
1. "Empty Permits" - Expand "Empty Permit" concept to defer sources from Title V if
applicability based solely on GHG PTE and there are no applicable requirements for GHGs
o This should be viewed as a deferral or transitional phase where the source is moving
from being a minor source to being a major source. This would not be an exemption.
Since Title V applications are due within 12 months of becoming a major source and
those permits are required to be issued within 18 months of receipt of the application,
a deferral such as this would be beneficial because the additional applications would
come in over a significant period of time instead of all coming in to the agency at
once. This is also consistent with EPA's current overall approach to GHG permitting,
which is to gradually bring in more sources over time as the permitting authorities are
able to absorb the workload, putting a priority on the largest sources and those with
GHG applicable requirements.
o The necessary change to the regulatory text would be very simple. Revise current
definition of "subject to regulation" for GHGs in 40 CFR 70.2 as follows:
¦ "Greenhouse gases (GHGs), the air pollutant defined in §86.i8i8-i2(a) of this
chapter as the aggregate group of six greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide,
nitrous oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur
hexafluoride, shall not be subject to regulation unless, as of July 1, 2011, the
GHG emissions are at a stationary source emitting or having the potential to
emit 100,000 tpy for whatever the threshold is lowered tol C02equivalent
emissions and are subject to at least one applicable requirement for GHGs."
2. PSD
o Issue guidance that would state that the implementation of surrogate BACT emission
limits for GHGs may be acceptable in some cases. For example, for combustion
sources, if efficiency is determined to be BACT (i.e. end of pipe controls eliminated
based on availability, feasibility, cost, etc.) and the permit would also include an
output based BACT limit for NOx, CO, and/or SO2, then the NOx, CO, and/or SO2
could also act as surrogate BACT for GHGs and eliminate a duplicative emission
standard. This would be analogous to EPA's use of CO as a surrogate for organic
HAPs, or SO2 as a surrogate for acid gas HAPs.
o Establish de minimis values for PSD applicability (significant increase levels) for GHGs
through public notice and comment rulemaking under 40 CFR 52.2i(b)(23)(i).
¦ The EPA has general authority to establish de minimis exceptions to statutory
requirements where the application of the statutory requirements would be of
trivial or no value environmentally. (See Alabama Power Co.. v. Costle. 636
F.2d 323, 360-61 (D.C. Cir.1979).
o EPA could establish through guidance presumed BACT control technologies (for
example energy efficiency) forcertain types of emission units. This would be
streamlining Steps 1 through 4 of EPA's existing Top-Down BACT guidance (Steps 1
-------
through 5 of EPA's Top-Down BACT guidance are listed below) for those types of
emission units (sources such as industrial boilers, combustion turbines, backup
generators). After the control technology is determined, the BACT emission limit
would be determined on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, this should be compatible
with the statutory definition of BACT which requires the BACT emission limit to be
established on a case-by-case basis. This would also promote consistency across the
country for the control technologies that are determined to represent BACT.
¦ Step i: Identify all available control technologies.
¦ Step 2: Eliminate technically infeasible options.
¦ Step 3: Rank remaining control technologies.
¦ Step 4: Evaluate most effective controls and document results.
¦ Step 5: Select BACT.
-------
Apper 2)
Status Report on Permits by Rule
The Illinois Environmental Protection Act was amended on July 12, 2011 to include a new Section
on Permits by Rule as follow:
Sec. 39.12. Permits by rule.
(a) Except as otherwise prohibited by federal law or regulation, the Board may adopt rules
providing for permits by rule for classes of facilities or equipment, provided that the permits by
rule are consistent with federal and State laws and regulations. Proposals for permits by rule
authorized under this Section may be filed by any person in accordance with Title VII of this Act.
(b) Board rules adopted under this Section shall include, but not be limited to, standards as
may be necessary to accomplish the intent of this Act and rules adopted under this Act and the
terms and conditions for obtaining a permit by rule under this Section, which shall include, but
not be limited to, the following as prerequisites to obtaining a permit by rule: (i) the submittal of
a notice of intent to be subject to the permit by rule and (ii) the payment of applicable permitting
fees.
(c) Within one year after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 97th General
Assembly, the Agency shall, in consultation with the regulated community, identify types of
permits for which permits by rule would be appropriate and consistent with State and federal law
and regulations. The types of permits may include, but shall not be limited to, permits for open
burning, certain package boilers and heaters using only natural gas or refinery gas, and certain
internal combustion engines.
(d) Persons obtaining a permit by rule shall be subject to the same permitting fees that apply to
persons obtaining individual permits.
(e) No person that has obtained a permit by rule shall violate this Act, rules adopted underthis
Act, or the terms and conditions of the permit by rule.
(Source: P.A. 97-95, eff. 7-12-11.)
The Agency and Bureaus within the Agency conducted meetings with the Illinois Environmental
Regulatory Group (IERG) representing the regulated community to fulfill its responsibility under
this law. A summary of each Bureau's action as of July 12, 2012 (within one year) is provided
below:
Bureau of Air
The Bureau of Air permit staff met with IERG on several occasions to identify types of activities
that could be covered under a permit by rule provision. The categories that have been identified
that are in development:
1. Certain "Open Burning" activities as required; focusing on small ecological burns and
facility fire training
2. Construction Permits at major CAAPP sources. Initial classes of sources of to be
considered for Permit by Rule:
i. "Certain boilers and heaters using nat. gas or refinery gas" as required
-------
I 46
ii. "Certain Internal Combustion Engines", as required
iii. Replacement of identical reactor components
iv. Central vacuum systems at manufacturing plants
v. Natural gas fired stress relief furnaces
vi. Electric powered stress relief furnaces
vii. Adding "propane" as a fuel for Certain boilers
viii. Fuel storage "on-site" for dispensing
ix. "Temporary generators"
Bureau of Water
Need Insert
Bureau of Land
On November 1, 2011, along with the Bureau of Water and the Bureau of Air, the Bureau of Land
Permit Section met with IERG representatives to discuss potential candidates for possible
development of permit/authorization by rule or general permits for each of the IEPA Bureau's.
During the meeting there were no potential candidates identified for permit/authorization by
rule beyond what was already in the regulations by either IERG or the Bureau of Land Permit
Section staff. The two categories for consideration under the general permit process included
indoor garbage transfer stations and smaller low volume compost facilities. In developing a
general permit for these activities it may be possible to develop a streamlined registration
process where an applicant could submit an application and seek coverage under a generalized
permit, where both standardized conditions and general language have been established under
the general permit forthe predetermined categories.
Based on discussions with IERG in the November 1, 2011 meeting, the consensus was that
expanding permit/authorization by rule orthe development of general permits for indoor
garbage transfer stations and smaller low volume compost facilities by the Bureau of Land are
not immediate priorities and could be developed in the future as necessary.
-------
Appendi: F, Vx [scorm hvimir i"V.-\
•i mmmvisKt m kar-jwi. *ek*j'«s m «mm
Cinpter * 4111
StSSI*
»« «»».» AiffitamII mtimtm fc»«
Mht I«ntto>IH*tKb> IKtfiwilii' !*1|» ' »-"««*•
>.«» »» ~« "
mmm% AppeiiMiif: pur)*** hi
¦ '
««!>
ttebiw* leaitca*
t s-Miw.rfc
;"=:rssr£
Ml wo fc- ifc ia»i» bkcI «,»tlw «*«,*« f.i flu
I «s *tl«g»l m « Mi
rn-emammmt««««,»' to «*mc«*mpvatw» m
>v m1-! I$s i ' ^ ^ j *" ( 8 $4- ¦is!l5lfe. |S§f Mi
in *, » rn m i! J * i , ai'J *4r.2,3*R 'W
I "'W At "T" a*«iRijiasitima iif.hfcs?*H« «»'•»««< t»if»wlrfjy ' " """' ~
in rlr-«1.*>««1 Jimimd
tn^.kpmmatmids^mm ««' -It: Xfc*s
n*srce •"* ™ s&sr ~
($1 -Part T) »«»»€" ti»« tie «iKiii*nt given m » XIC it?"til
'8 .^wta i «! •«»»?
, » fce ®tmi. A,11 fcx: «,f»»»e,t wl« it,e
,«it f« «»«<««
' **•»—»• Ihw4tr *•*» mi S*
-------
I 48
«t 410,03
tm« ft* 4 m BWiisetsw! Ijslrf in Titite A, |H« »* «f
I JI.2SI. fa » £feii«»jiafi«i of e«p*»fi tifttfet . 2 tmmmmm i«tel up«»ttmnmm ^Imsm If fc
MMIciilfl • 'I >.¦-!¦ * > - < , •
, ¦ ^ ^ M ^ ¦ " • ' •: - ¦ ¦ IM
ISitel *r^jjSly In ii,m, «!*»-(««* lewiii!». hefct.1 fc»— ¦ •'*«
mipgf t* emifielg-t, flic see Ami! he II.400 mil .;•» «ht .«n>!n;*t*» agent
<^r) l,n . . "„¦¦ I1.1;.', i :i ¦.. "fl . '¦ * ¦' ?'K ¦ f:1
lite 04 I %«. Si*, « s Sit J»» « i ?>
«,Mt «b.» tit-ife » IIP,* S«s . 4 «» ft* with like • • • , , • , r ,
t«l»«.i Tte fee » mm- letmvUMe «« ~«•>». tor # ts«stie#l w«*«ttwm .
««n TV •»««• fwmons in »hj|f |v ttmiysa. usifef » JIB ftj (HJ«. Stais,
• ' , ~'Z «lit" I Jj".' ™» ,7., t • »•«! ff *»• .» nM fitot- |K.
SJf 5* ^ tma« •« fetone ..Itei *««»
' " " * * " " ' V « _ »£> * j J" , . » |I .1 ,«*»,, ,.,l| S ,|-| « . _t
I' ""' | ,r': - "¦ ¦: | :¦ . i. ; . ^ :;v :3 ' ;l'" :: ' ' ' '! - ' " If |lk |:f'> lii.l' H |% V't'' 1 Iwl
«« a"«ifi^^w4w*rtmr 1 •' fef * appl*sfai i« »samm «mte tfc
* OJfBffett! K|l|ilC4fl0B
^r&"^s5sxss^.sSiS2
ti ,4 ilk.* r^ifist Mstlietistt 4all |«v iIm ki#e (m «'»
¦ ,, 1, >J< %-,' 'Tfc, t « JiW t„ .. 8,4.^ .tM» VB feA« «
tcrnmxtm% permit «S itfem Ux^inm% -#»ij bs $! MM encli, -#* if the ptmm w mettti nttim © 11? ^ #f rs«i|« v>f a
pI'iM IIm1 *lrai!te ill Siti
sSsS^rr11" ¦E: :
> ¦' I . i ; i«iiM*«iU-»«»*»%fa«nutdilert«'«Kr
- . ¦- . ; '
fes m i 4 * MMtti un «*t-t% mm tl* »«• ^ fcl| jfn^ n^n^f f# ft* *i illi-
I $£{&0 iif an li* «?*»«cs# ?! #«: perns!
is 4>f ««f i cctllpkfe I * ¦ *
1 Sf^&T4ft^jC«lKXirc« OIUttlK
„ _ ,... .„_ to99tkiif-t,<1|ftftx3.pl «r*
'S;S-,sm?" - "Ai1" "I:" ——
m">M4 M' qla>tri mm '"%>m" " lUmk4 "** m
i 1 i«o inty m I* i1* ¦— - j-
^.ftlllltlttlim> iSSHSSSHSSSs
t{/xl"vf '{^ 'l\% -I J% s-''i kif .j^~f-f-jj^^tk 'tb ~ " " " * ~™"* *"* *"* * ¦ ~ **™"" *¦ * *"-
f m Wmwmm m Wm m* wm « mmm^m mm w mmmm m» mm mm- wm cmm m nmi
».*»»» M«t» isi i n„ »•» ¦•••» •**
-------
» DEIVUCfM EK'T OF NATUIIM. ttSOUItCHS NR 410.04
u Bttwl Of iifxto « ckteBEMliai tint I*,, fifth* actum will I«
taken Cf! the ipplnatiwt ft* »
iflS fliwi fss slislt nxlwfc «B s
Will fc: itjjieiisoR «f icqoaa. Tlie »st.J««. «J».«f «lsiti k»
•tiait 30 day* of the dote of life 1*111% nMemmt
^*>> Tfe iSejmmtif any Ite |e
I It ««pm t«wje»» <«i* iiisi iMtnslai
nil*#
mvAb
¦ - Adfayt letoi*. «t%! mam. »»-
J IfikflB.11,1
mi not sligtlik for ll»s
KitniiHocI by tumita J m "Wis f of* ;
st^rrrmm«,w«. rhissmk*m« Tfc:JW-
•y,«
lie* lifcfcf * »»<»• it, Statu., ami i» wcte*
i ^ v j ~ '• * v s " ^ | & ^
I W« Ml IJSta'mimjlirtm*
tortnufc- J, m !«=»» 8»»»i •< t»m
*L «»*. t«i
,?frt «0. Stall. *m py,« «itiit«.i» snwiwt lis »,»
*1 fie irafc J# 5«»•>«U. S*te
f2J Ais inrtuuwu'Bi rautt-f r» »»» f»t Ewsff *» pc
Vvfcit XtfUfe^ f#t ?fe'l Jf'tr Wf&feit Cl'ntS'iSK*^ fc^" *frit !%*
. . . . J , 4 - . . | -¦
-------
[ 50
NM 41O.0S
. II ..I I. . M ^ j fKf
: •'»
»!«» III? lis «skkmnmtkm ofe%anf*»mif OxmtMms
i2« iC«» Tta imimmmm if mm* mil lim-
I'll! i1|f| |Hir ^
PI tn$pH*tt*fb ft*- The mm'HMt «# she
f«i $mrf
I | ^ ^ ^ ^.,^| it i, $i ^ ^ ^ clfi f1 f
, I : , I ¦ i |> ¦
«t *cftv»iy when the mmam of «l
*i}si»«IO>*»sW»p»yiferf$l«
^ . 11 ^ \ ".^ j .. !r J -^. •( w £ '' jj * 4*6 | j, ysa '" ^*. , ^
**111* pati if the nine fitot the siiaial emsaoii lie miliar v »
|2f CViiiiffi-iwios I,» net f;»j r«/amount, rilii fc tspis!
amis aii» « 11 *lm» aptl $ <.000. iistfiiiiiwt in K-mtlmxe wilft pirn
fl-WlrtSHvr! .I»4«a
s«» ia|l*f«l tr» fi# tusy fee utiifct irtih 411»
**#•<* «» ia,i*f«l tt> „*> m fe. utifc, ,„»-, 41, wtfh s
-rwvwf-*" **¦ f •'fikvk' - j. «-,*•* J'isKrf* ,. j|i. * >.f
»&?**>$ *- ' **' ™ '** 4 .
arts ««.«! t$HmtS$)otikm*m vs: -MIUhSm
,?Ml Kb. t'^s
###*» mm earn* mm*
-------
Appeno'i4 I IUii^»i> I mi;";u on Gem i .1 IP- muff; >«it\i IP- muff; h
The State of Illinois does not have any existing general permits or permits-by-rule for GHG. The
"Streamlining Bill" required them to consider both topics. The following text presents the
regulatory language considered for both general permits and permits-by-rule.
Sec. 39.10. General permits.
(a) Except as otherwise prohibited by federal law or regulation, the Agency may issue general
permits for the construction, installation, or operation of categories of facilities for which permits
are required under this Act or Board regulation, provided that such general permits are
consistent with federal and State laws and regulations. Such general permits shall include, but
shall not be limited to, provisions requiring the following as prerequisites to obtaining coverage
under a general permit: (i) the submittal of a notice of intent to be covered by the general permit
and (ii) the payment of applicable permitting fees. The Agency may include conditions in such
general permits as may be necessary to accomplish the intent of this Act and rules adopted under
this Act.
(b) Within 6 months after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 97th General
Assembly, the Agency shall, in consultation with the regulated community, identify types of
permits for which general permits would be appropriate and consistent with State and federal
law and regulations. The types of permits may include, but shall not be limited to, permits for
nonhazardous solid waste activities, discharge of storm water from landfills, and discharge of
hydrostatic test waters. Within 18 months after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the
97th General Assembly, the Agency shall, in consultation with the regulated community, develop
general permits for the types of permits identified pursuant to this subsection (b).
(c) Persons obtaining coverage under a general permit shall be subject to the same permitting
fees that apply to persons obtaining individual permits.
(d) No person obtaining coverage under a general permit shall violate this Act, rules adopted
under this Act, or the terms or conditions of the general permit.
(e) This Section does not apply to sources subject to Section 39.5 of this Act.
(Source: P.A. 97-95, eff. 7-12-11.)
Sec. 39.12. Permits by rule.
(a) Except as otherwise prohibited by federal law or regulation, the Board may adopt rules
providing for permits by rule for classes of facilities or equipment, provided that the permits by
rule are consistent with federal and State laws and regulations. Proposals for permits by rule
authorized under this Section may be filed by any person in accordance with Title VII of this Act.
(b) Board rules adopted under this Section shall include, but not be limited to, standards as may
be necessary to accomplish the intent of this Act and rules adopted under this Act and the terms
and conditions for obtaining a permit by rule under this Section, which shall include, but not be
limited to, the following as prerequisites to obtaining a permit by rule: (i) the submittal of a
notice of intent to be subject to the permit by rule and (ii) the payment of applicable permitting
-------
I 52
fees.
(c) Within one year after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 97th General Assembly,
the Agency shall, in consultation with the regulated community, identify types of permits for
which permits by rule would be appropriate and consistent with State and federal law and
regulations. The types of permits may include, but shall not be limited to, permits for open
burning, certain package boilers and heaters using only natural gas or refinery gas, and certain
internal combustion engines.
(d) Persons obtaining a permit by rule shall be subject to the same permitting fees that apply to
persons obtaining individual permits.
(e) No person that has obtained a permit by rule shall violate this Act, rules adopted underthis
Act, or the terms and conditions of the permit by rule.
(Source: P.A. 97-95, eff. 7-12-11.)
-------
Appeno'r <« lUiiMi: -M.Tiei J IP- muff I I 1 P> p«>! (
January 12,2012
Status Report on General Permits
The Illinois Environmental Protection Act was amended on July 12, 2011 to include a new Section
on General permits as follow:
Sec. 39.10. General permits.
(a) Except as otherwise prohibited by federal law or regulation, the Agency may issue general
permits for the construction, installation, or operation of categories of facilities for which permits
are required under this Act or Board regulation, provided that such general permits are
consistent with federal and State laws and regulations. Such general permits shall include, but
shall not be limited to, provisions requiring the following as prerequisites to obtaining coverage
under a general permit: (i) the submittal of a notice of intent to be covered by the general permit
and (ii) the payment of applicable permitting fees. The Agency may include conditions in such
general permits as may be necessary to accomplish the intent of this Act and rules adopted under
this Act.
(b) Within 6 months after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 97th General
Assembly, the Agency shall, in consultation with the regulated community, identify types of
permits for which general permits would be appropriate and consistent with State and federal
law and regulations. The types of permits may include, but shall not be limited to, permits for
nonhazardous solid waste activities, discharge of storm water from landfills, and discharge of
hydrostatic test waters. Within 18 months after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the
97th General Assembly, the Agency shall, in consultation with the regulated community, develop
general permits for the types of permits identified pursuant to this subsection (b).
(c) Persons obtaining coverage under a general permit shall be subject to the same permitting
fees that apply to persons obtaining individual permits.
(d) No person obtaining coverage under a general permit shall violate this Act, rules adopted
under this Act, or the terms or conditions of the general permit.
(e) This Section does not apply to sources subject to Section 39.5 of this Act.
(Source: P.A. 97-95, eff. 7-12-11.)
The Agency and Bureaus within the Agency conducted meetings with the Illinois Environmental
Regulatory Group (IERG) representing the regulated community to fulfill its responsibility under
this law. A summary of each Bureau's action as of January 12, 2012 (within six months) is
provided below:
-------
I 54
Bureau of Air
The Bureau of Air permit staff met with IERG on July 14, 2011, November 1, 2011 and December
6, 2011 to identify types of permits that could be issued for air emissions sources. The categories
that have been identified that are in development:
• Concrete Batch Plants (stationary & portable)
• Petroleum Dry Cleaners
• Material (non-waste) crushers (portable only)
• Soil vapor extraction/Air strippers (alone or at true minor sources)
Bureau of Water
The Bureau of Water (BOW) permit staff met with IERG representatives on November 1, 2011
and December 6, 2011 to discuss streamlining efforts and identify what types of permits could be
considered for general permits or what other BOW reviews/approval processes could be
streamlined. The following permits and review processes were discussed:
• Chemical additives modifications reviews
• General permit for stormwater discharge from landfills
• General permit for hydrostatic test water discharge
• General permit for stormwater discharge from CCDD sites
• Look at Subtitle C Part 309 "clean-up"(lifetime operating permits for pretreatment
facilities, permit by rule for package type treatment works, remediation work, permit
by rule for oil water separators and cooling towers)
• General permit for cooling water only discharges
Bureau of Land
On November ist, the Bureau of Land Permit Section met with IERG representatives and
identified two potential candidates for possible development of general permits. The two
categories are indoor garbage transfer stations and smaller low volume compost facilities. In
developing a general permit for these activities it may be possible to develop a streamlined
registration process where an applicant could submit an application and seek coverage under a
generalized permit, where both standardized conditions and general language have been
established under the general permit for the predetermined categories.
Based on discussions with IERG, the consensus was that development of general permits for
indoor garbage transfer stations and smaller low volume compost facilities are not immediate
priorities and could be developed in the future as necessary.
-------
I 55
-i '| ii'Jk i i Din is i i1 r> rvt ^
The State of Illinois does not impose fees for GHG permitting. However, the State has
established construction fees that cover all new construction permits. GHG PSD projects would
be included under these fees. The regulatory text regarding Illinois construction permit fees
follows.
Sec. 9.12. Construction permit fees for air pollution sources.
(a) An applicant for a new or revised air pollution construction permit shall pay a fee, as
established in this Section, to the Agency at the time that he or she submits the application for a
construction permit. Except as set forth below, the fee for each activity or category listed in this
Section is separate and is cumulative with any other applicable fee listed in this Section.
(b) The fee amounts in this subsection (b) apply to construction permit applications relating to (i)
a source subject to Section 39.5 of this Act (the Clean Air Act Permit Program); (ii) a source that,
upon issuance of the requested construction permit, will become a major source subject to
Section 39.5; or (iii) a source that has or will require a federally enforceable State operating
permit limiting its potential to emit.
(1) Base fees for each construction permit application shall be assessed as follows:
(A) If the construction permit application relates to one or more new emission units or to a
combination of new and modified emission units, a fee of $4,000 for the first new emission unit
and a fee of $1,000 for each additional new or modified emission unit; provided that the total
base fee under this subdivision (A) shall not exceed $10,000.
(B) If the construction permit application relates to one or more modified emission units but not
to any new emission unit, a fee of $2,000 for the first modified emission unit and a fee of $1,000
for each additional modified emission unit; provided that the total base fee under this subdivision
(B) shall not exceed $5,000.
(2) Supplemental fees for each construction permit application shall be assessed as follows:
(A) If, based on the construction permit application, the source will be, but is not currently,
subject to Section 39.5 of this Act, a CAAPP entry fee of $5,000.
(B) If the construction permit application involves (i) a new source or emission unit subject to
Section 39.2 of this Act, (ii) a commercial incinerator or other municipal waste, hazardous waste,
or waste tire incinerator, (iii) a commercial power generator, or (iv) one or more other emission
units designated as a complex source by Agency rulemaking, a fee of $25,000.
(C) If the construction permit application involves an emissions netting exercise or reliance on a
contemporaneous emissions decrease for a pollutant to avoid application of the federal PSD
program (40 CFR 52.21) or nonattainment new source review (35 III. Adm. Code 203), a fee of
$3,000 for each such pollutant.
(D) If the construction permit application is for a new major source subject to the federal PSD
program, a fee of $12,000.
-------
I 56
(E) If the construction permit application is for a new major source subject to nonattainment new
source review, a fee of $20,000.
(F) If the construction permit application is for a major modification subject to the federal PSD
program, a fee of $6,000.
(G) If the construction permit application is for a major modification subject to nonattainment
new source review, a fee of $12,000.
(H) (Blank).
(I) If the construction permit application review involves a determination of the Maximum
Achievable Control Technology standard for a pollutant and the project is not otherwise subject
to BACT or LAER for a related pollutant under the federal PSD program or nonattainment new
source review, a fee of $5,000 per unit for which a determination is requested or otherwise
required.
(J) (Blank).
(3) If a public hearing is held regarding the construction permit application, an administrative fee
of $10,000. This fee shall be submitted at the time the applicant requests a public hearing or, if a
public hearing is not requested by the applicant, then within 30 days afterthe applicant is
informed by the Agency that a public hearing will be held.
(c) The fee amounts in this subsection (c) apply to construction permit applications relating to a
source that, upon issuance of the construction permit, will not (i) be or become subject to Section
39.5 of this Act (the Clean Air Act Permit Program) or (ii) have or require a federally enforceable
state operating permit limiting its potential to emit.
(1) Base fees for each construction permit application shall be assessed as follows:
(A) For a construction permit application involving a single new emission unit, a fee of $500.
(B) For a construction permit application involving more than one new emission unit, a fee of
$1,000.
(C) For a construction permit application involving no more than 2 modified emission units, a fee
of$500.
(D) For a construction permit application involving more than 2 modified emission units, a fee of
$1,000.
(2) Supplemental fees for each construction permit application shall be assessed as follows:
(A) If the source is a new source, i.e., does not currently have an operating permit, an entry fee of
$500;
(B) If the construction permit application involves (i) a new source or emission unit subject to
Section 39.2 of this Act, (ii) a commercial incinerator or a municipal waste, hazardous waste, or
-------
I 57
waste tire incinerator, (iii) a commercial power generator, or (iv) an emission unit designated as a
complex source by Agency rulemaking, a fee of $15,000.
(3) If a public hearing is held regarding the construction permit application, an administrative fee
of $10,000. This fee shall be submitted at the time the applicant requests a public hearing or, if a
public hearing is not requested by the applicant, then within 30 days afterthe applicant is
informed by the Agency that a public hearing will be held.
(d) If no otherfee is applicable underthis Section, a construction permit application addressing
one or more of the following shall be subject to a filing fee of $500:
(1) A construction permit application to add or replace a control device on a permitted emission
unit.
(2) A construction permit application to conduct a pilot project ortrial burn for a permitted
emission unit.
(3) A construction permit application for a land remediation project.
(4) (Blank).
(5) A construction permit application to revise an emissions testing methodology or the timing of
required emissions testing.
(6) A construction permit application that provides for a change in the name, address, or phone
number of any person identified in the permit, orfor a change in the stated ownership or control,
or for a similar minor administrative permit change at the source.
e) No fee shall be assessed for a request to correct an issued permit that involves only an Agency
error, if the request is received within the deadline for a permit appeal to the Pollution Control
Board.
(f) The applicant for a new or revised air pollution construction permit shall submit to the Agency,
with the construction permit application, both a certification of the fee that he or she estimates
to be due underthis Section and the fee itself.
(g) Notwithstanding the requirements of subsection (a) of Section 39 of this Act, (the application
for an air pollution construction permit shall not be deemed to be filed with the Agency until the
Agency receives the initial air pollution construction permit application fee and the certified
estimate of the fee required by this Section. Unless the Agency has received the initial air
pollution construction permit application fee and the certified estimate of the fee required by this
Section, the Agency is not required to review or process the application.
(h) If the Agency determines at any time that a construction permit application is subject to an
additional fee under this Section that the applicant has not submitted, the Agency shall notify
the applicant in writing of the amount due underthis Section. The applicant shall have 60 days to
remit the assessed fee to the Agency.
-------
I 58
If the properfee established underthis Section is not submitted within 60 days afterthe request
for further remittance:
(1) If the construction permit has not yet been issued, the Agency is not required to further
review or process, and the provisions of subsection (a) of Section 39 of this Act do not apply to,
the application for a construction permit until such time as the proper fee is remitted.
(2) If the construction permit has been issued, the Agency may, upon written notice, immediately
revoke the construction permit.
The denial or revocation of a construction permit does not excuse the applicant from the duty of
paying the fees required under this Section.
(i) The Agency may deny the issuance of a pending air pollution construction permit orthe
subsequent operating permit if the applicant has not paid the required fees by the date required
for issuance of the permit. The denial or revocation of a permit forfailure to pay a construction
permit fee is subject to review by the Board pursuant to the provisions of subsection (a) of
Section 40 of this Act.
(j) If the owner or operator undertakes construction without obtaining an air pollution
construction permit, the fee underthis Section is still required. Payment of the required fee does
not preclude the Agency or the Attorney General or other authorized persons from pursuing
enforcement against the applicant forfailure to have an air pollution construction permit prior to
commencing construction.
(k) If an air pollution construction permittee makes a fee payment underthis Section from an
account with insufficient funds to cover the amount of the fee payment, the Agency shall notify
the permittee of the failure to pay the fee. If the permittee fails to pay the fee within 60 days
after such notification, the Agency may, by written notice, immediately revoke the air pollution
construction permit. Failure of the Agency to notify the permittee of the permittee's failure to
make payment does not excuse or alter the duty of the permittee to comply with the provisions
of this Section.
(I) The Agency may establish procedures forthe collection of air pollution construction permit
fees.
(m) Fees collected pursuant to this Section shall be deposited into the Environmental Protection
Permit and Inspection Fund.
(Source: P.A. 97-95, eff. 7-12-11.)
-------
Appen 11 I '.({'I. hunk ' ih unUiiin; Questions n i f »nif I. s
ti'.m :ht: in.n ¦ . »i ^. ncies
TO: CAAAC GHG Permit Streamlining Workgroup, PSD Subgroups
From: Misti Duvall, NACAA
Date: July 17,2012
Re: State/local GHG permit fee, general permit, and permit by rule examples
Pursuant to the discussion and request for information on our June 28, 2012 PSD subgroup call, I
queried members of the NACAA New Source Review and Permitting Committees regarding the
following questions:
1) Have any state/local agencies established permit fees for GHGS?
2) Any state/local examples of general permits or permits by rule?
3) Any state/local examples of presumptive BACT?
Answers and examples are summarized below, with further information provided in attachments
as noted.
Question #1: Have any state/local agencies established permit fees for GHGs?
The following state/local agencies provided examples:
1) Bay Area Air Quality Management District (see attachment)
2) Illinois: the state does not have fees for GHGs, but does have construction fees that cover
all new construction permits, including those for GHGs (see attachment)
3) Wisconsin (see summary below and attachment)
In the permit call yesterday, you asked for information on fees for GHG reviews. In Wisconsin we
have two fees that may apply for construction permit reviews only. These are:
• s. NR 410.03(2)^) - this is a fee of $4,500 for any BACT determination including GHG
BACT
• s. NR 4io.o3(2)(m) - this is a fee if synthetic minor conditions are needed to avoid
PSD/NSR for any pollutant including GHG's.
The applicable Adm. Code is attached.
Question #2: Any state/local examples of general permits or permits by rule? We are
assuming that any state/local general permits and permits-by-rule are for minor sources only
and contain sufficient PTE limitations to assure the sources covered remain as minor
sources. We are also assuming that the sources covered by these general permits and
permits-by-rule are small enough that they are not affected by GHG applicability at the
75,000/100,000 TPY levels. Can you confirm this is the case?
The following state/local agencies provided information:
-------
I 60
1) Minnesota. Connecticut, and Michigan confirmed that they limit general permits and
permits by rule to minor sources. Minnesota provided the following example:
Perthe agenda fortoday's call, I am responding with information for MN in terms of our GHG
permitting "by rule". We have a couple rule-based permit options for sources that limit their
emissions below both Part 70 and NSR levels - and those rules now include GHG emissions.
You can find them in Minn. R. 7007. sections 7007.1110-1130 (Registration Permits) and
7007.1140-1148 (Capped Permits). They aren't technically permit-by-rule because sources still
have to apply for them and they actually obtain a permit from the MPCA. But they are similar to
permit-by-rule used in other states. Let me know if you have any questions.
2) Illinois: the state does not have any existing general permits or permits by rule for GHGs;
however the state has a Streamlining Bill that required them to consider both topics (see
attachments)
Question #3: Any state/local examples of presumptive BACT?
None provided.
-------
Apper.r J: TF'1' ; pons*- o> " "'mments on ^ >'Ti i-
EmphTH'r on * h m > -i 1
( i 4 ( .mhiiu n(v on Siu.iniliiiii)-.; Opfimis km! I ,
\pad «x» the tw*r*tc*m w* mmmm&i let tggjresaivtily pursuing the
dctvtopmont oftliaw stmmtlmam bxliiiiipes tit Ilic tint kK-ji nl'mt event) PSD and title V
ClilCI permitting utraiegy and solicited comment or our proponed *tr«i»»ttiu«»ig technipt-i m well
asmitlwtedi .... k-, i , 4 .1 111* «»t»i»«lkw» pr, .. (• «l.. »«nv . -mm,!-.
received m the «w ot* streamlining techniques to mitigate potential PSf> and title % pcntutima
bw&em #*t *«*iki m mm«mm mim regulating C»IICi» under these permitting program*.
( »>wmtnr
fecal ttwwwitew mm 1504 2m *><», 4515,4«l, «ti 4*1,4X00. 5»52, 5ttS6.
5079. 5«», 5086, 5131, 5143, 321ft 5301. 53W. 3:!*,. 5347. 5;»», 5417. 5m»l)S»*1
'
p*. ruins n\ rtiie, cu-tirwuv pcciftu
.A piWic ft* u> aAtfv&s Mresuttftviistg. m
include general permit*. femmlby rale, »ucl |it«s«nfliv* IIACT for Otic* (5301)
IV Agency let jmiiiiim ^iltirte la rfrt?«ttiiti€ title X aid NSII |wfinfilings
iiKlmiim BAVT (kmmkmttmA «»»)
Wlwli steiiiining if twti* t®ime»«ph«il hv EPA www limited Kid", tim-e m mill
* vtry m»l emeem ¦* tli« T«ltwi»g Me «tii «pilk*«ily i»»crcii« regiihtow iitul
4 ^ - a . * .t j . «;, - >. J **«.» **i «» «.v»M>«.UilVC Ut><3Kiv f ^ tlliOU* 4
III 0236)
The .ireiiiiilitiiiig •«*».*!«», am I»ilierc » m mmMmmm Jescrtlwl m i»e ntfc
fiw hc»%% llis% will be »ni|»l«nc»»»«l, mu»l i i»llley liiiv< nnt pnyven I# in p*S»e<»
l'*i* mem mmmm, ilic vtmrnmet Mt eve* tie »lroit»in«ig opiums sliotiU be cvi»I«iti«ti
its ««lii,iLtort *)ftlions c«n be pixwiiilgiilsil riileiiuiking^ (57StJ *
5i>
-------
• Virile EPA lias indicated that it intends to reevaluate the requirements ft* wallet sources
and consider streamlined permitting option* siicli m general permits, any welt options for
source* with less than 25.000 twits of f IHt.i efniwioiis wi most likely impooe substantial
regulatory burden* with little, if" any, environmental benefits. ($236)
• "llw other NSR fefmm flexibility mechanism* designed to ie*seo the burden of fSB *%»!
into many SIPs and w« not designed.with OliCJs in nM, (5143)
lt4.HillCjUt !*• Ill pi»Jvi>- C. VitfiipfvN OL UKiSw *Bt piO» iui>u HvI1HV ,
• EPA should implement these options by role and not guidance us many Mates cannot
implement EPA guidance (2504).
tm. I. JT \ , |» v, * «t .4 - v 4.'t ..i* *¦». .,-»>.•>**. a *« »«« _ , * . , *.«, ».*. I f iw-, .. , 1 |, 4'. ««.¦ «*,. .'vi,.** 4 - 4.* » iv .>*
® I t .v % %llCM,iI.G li*w vV4in»i»'i11*j
• EPA should develop »lr«i*tiliiiiog techniques for common combustion sources. such a* a
preparation time smd Agency review tunc a&xoci&t&i %%ilii iifelititiittsi pemttfo for tties^
types of sources, (513§| EPA should identify emission iiniiii fired with fuel* with broad
cfixi*»£cit»f applicability as priority sources tof information compilation and publication.
i Mgl*. priority mkwi EPA should also identify priority sources
tiific-il on lite! type utid cmiKsbn tiiiils - cent, ©il iincl iiiiiiiriI gife for Wlcrs, tiiiliifiil
&m iwt*m^v cls€«l and nattiml m% lor (451 §
mi}
EI*A*s proposed *t«jiiuliiiiiif tecli»iic|«s w«*ild mot he in place in time I© avoid the
immmik «fcva»i«iiiig tuifjid on their I !.S. operatim*. <46-32, 541?) One of these
o*i«ioHcfs added lliat lliese icdmicftics will I* less ctfec«l**e ll*»i «sliihlisl«rig llifBtlit»kb
«1 more atspKipriafc levels. |4fB2|
EPA must provide * m art detailed explaalion of possible "iifeanKiiiiig" approadhe&
before usingItiv .n ,1 i hi >'tte justification fi*uAipnitr ;r,>. • «l..un • fJole. the
alretniliilBg «|}pt\miK# |»ropt>s€tl by EPA are complex wad likely to be i»pproving certain
opipmci* orfiroccsMf, (3005)
60
-------
[ 63
? type of BACT requirement on all Clllil stationary s
have the potential to emit tltlCJs shove 250 tpy lluil 1-,1J As >
requirements.
EPA should structure i» first phase program with minimal impact to the regulated
change to mature, and during this period, EPA should work with slate mm! other
: a greater focus on cosl
FJ»A should develon si lii*l-i»fniRc thresli©fci itut u tlv%k .i ini; in,tior source but allot**
enough source* to enter the Pfiwniiii so EPA can evaluate flu? Hwws and cons" of tifitinifip
^ * • •*-' * » ^7*" " *" * " ^ * ™ W 11 %t 3 t * ' ^ J- * • » » f' ' *¦- * " • * ^ *¦» * * ffl "*¦ **"' » A ' ^ ¦ * , * At* ' • * J**,
CIIW into the PSD and title V program* » needed. (4863, 3064. 5305)
EPA should phaw in title V rapiirwiienli* ovvr fit 5-year renewal procesw to even out the
w-orktaad. (4154)
Misty commentem ma avoid the
classtftcatKXi as "major" entining liifiililies, but Hie siitliiie Hpecificalty detees the PSD
and title V applicability llircstioHs in terms of PTE, (5129)
lliae »» no explicit authority tti the CAA's PUD provision* for "general permits" or
"presumptive BACT" A»tem»n»atfc*»s, it fact, « EPA acknowledges these options
wotdd iipfK* to e«iflk*l wilii the CAA sseiiwi I§5, wlifcli retpiw* a "pulilk li«Tlng" m
each PSD fwniitl (5140. 5278, 5129). and welion 169. which nquiNs BACT to be
added that the proposed areiBilining »«el!t©«l» c«*fl«ci
with ilm CAA'a air ipatiiy fiioimormg rciiiiiwiaii-i, <5140. 5278)
ll «ifiwfc llal EPA j»rc»pc»eil in the Trnhmmg Eule Uw uiil»iiiik»a «f sj«i»«fcinl |«rm»is
(i.e.. gmsni pcnmils) and pamils-by-nile m »l«»iilifiing option* for PS!) an< tilte V
permitting eomtdefing i«i EPA nmitly proposed So tlisji|>|w»vc vmkm tmpem of the
Texas *if pennin •( t tus. I r V w.<»iKlanuwiy opposed lo the notion of using
standard permits md PBRs to permit major iwiirx emissions- (5179)
Tic* only possibility of streamlining require* exlemive and Mgmfieant changes to the
actual ivgulatory fwi««%orli. (14)25)
61
-------
Reaponst:
We with those cvmtm&itcfH who ikiiw streamhnins? techtikitKs to militate
* * ** ** fc-.* "» **• '* Ml# >*•*** •..•»»* V t "I } ttt 1 V I * » V * - * * * » »' ' ^ | *• * t.4 * *«» VlMIHIHUI *-»; *VV»t««» v * ^ " I « « « * »
the potential PSD an41 ifte V permitting burdens. Nothing »n the opposing comments hi*
pemtadtfl is fluu we should abandon our sii*eiii'iiii«itii| efforts, To lite cowrary, the strong
support lor these efforts shewn by many commentera Kiiifcm** our intention. as. stated in the
proposal. to ¦»«%*# f'omai4 with ila ,.|>,u ,kU - tn ,»;t„ ,< ti ,< i, t of our phase*tn approach.
I low ever because the urKrcftamtv stirr im>hi 1 * ^inUmr«' U'tv \u K a4! ^ Uk *~«'%» im
8S S *sS* * • %t * W e ** *** * 1 **fr " * * *• *• * "•*> * ^ ^ * : " ** * ff * * * t S ~-*-4 • *' Vy %*%"** "l * * ** •*'» * » • t » ' f * * £»+ •* » ¦ J * * W T • *> < **» »%•" • f ^ * T *' •
expressed fey siirne ctmimeutifs, we arc not etwititt jttiog I© (inali/e rules on any particular
approach. but we do plan to explore all Ktreamlining options as «p«i»tt€*ly as possible,
beginning immediatelyandproceedingilircmj4m.. iaperiod. an4 weencourage
permitting authorities to do the mow. We commit to consider a wide array of possible
streamlining measures, and we committo propose and fake comment on, in the step 3
rulemaking, a «tet of those measures that we determine m* viable to pursue further.
For these KMmM unrt «»«• «r# will need to collect significant Mtownwaiecifk tlsit* for
!»*«* ami mttmmm ink type* ihal fciwc licteloi* piwally not !>«:« updated l»v the CAA
furnaces, water rttf,), we «« w»! making * conclusion a* to whether any
«lrcaitil»tiing »>pikrns wtB « will not Ik f«tsit»fc ft* my sources. «»pcci«lly sniiilfer »«»««,
and'or if a paritculiir option will !<.• i,.,,i aw !..»«»t.-i...
We provide iimiml mlkf, mm «* still » very i»I c«««» ilmt lit*
Tailoring Rule will Mguiiieantty iiieKa* ffgulabm- and acl»itiiislrali%« burden" because while
iiii|»fci»eiiiiiki»i #f steps. I ;»«i 2 - which will «w I«"ger umtcm - %%ill pott iniffeuwiialiciti
cfcaifenges, and wme of lie tlrcaBiliniiig itiofe eaalcl assist wMi meeting these challenges, we
have assessed the burdens, associated with ClHCI permitting and have e«tal>l»liei« will he regnl;i«si fc«fy alaMisliiai step 3. We A> not fcivc enoiigh infiiniBiiio* now to
csiaMMt a fin*! sl«p J. particularly I»«i»uk llw« i%«11 he Mgniifcsnl u*aiMii»i» recurring n the
(IIK}peimiti«» ih«- lut itv_ k(., - and 2. However, we believe thai it will he possthk to
develop * «ctwi m wkkb » base ftep .1 smtmiktm mm titer we hegin to iittfjfciacm stef 2.
62
-------
Therefore. m plan to propose a nife in wWdi we soldi comment m or pojww lower
thresholds* tor PSD and title V applicability, and we establish m enforceable commitment to
i -iJt „• irnLit .> J wv addna* titotte matters by July 1, 21)12, la order lo provide a year for
permitting miilnjrtic* and sows to prepare for any mklit tonal CM Id pcfiniiiiiE action in Step 3,
we will establish that *tcp 3 would laic effect m My I. 2013. We ate commit to explore,
between mm and the step 3 proposal, a wide range of stream lining options. In the proposal, we
* ill (ait# comment on streamlining approaches we think may be viable (except to lie extern we
will have already issued pmhmme ikxmmmts concerning streamlining approaches). and we will
address time options in the Html mile,
In addition, as ti rt r»t tV tcr 1 *Kt«" nay solicit comment m a permanent
exclusion of certain sources from PSD. tills, V or both- based on an "absurd results" rationale.
For example, we may make a fired determination that and. t tin. »l> ^>.4 results" doctic. I'sO
nimtof title V do not apply »«,*« set of Clf€» mmmes that, although above the «iatta«y threshold*
for those programs. are to© small aw! relatively inconftequcntiat in mm of CIIICi contribution.
Another type of such exclusion for the title V program could tie for mm that would otherwise
be required to obtain mi "empty permit." that is. lor example. one that would not contain any
applicabk n^iremeniK because there •»- iviu tlt.it .tpriy to the %onme, If we promulgate a
permanent *»x*?in«c«, m may conclude that l»y thai time, m will have brought into the PS!) mi
title V programs the full set of sources thai would be consistent with congressional intent (or. if
congressional intent on that point is unclear, with a reasonable policy consistent with statutory,"
requirements >. at*t. under Hose arcumstanees. w« would Bail that such a role bring* the*
tailoring process t# i» closs. The application ofthe "absurd results" rationale for a, permaneiif
csdimif* is discussed in more detail in section V.B. of (he final nife preamble.
Regarding those comments about other possible streamlining techniques ilai mm not
I****. A 4 &•¦*¦?•& &¦&, Mrf-l wait yl .'4# *-^4 » 11 ^ ^ , ,1 # * f >-i • r« «'Tf #, ¦¦-' - - -K-\% - r- " *- -v-i ¦ f.", — ,-fc ,ft -V
tipiiiws m imh iiific, ««? rmm matii «»usnxsgrt piiisi« Rirtlier. T1*'sc continent*,
mcluding any €>|iiBiotis iibciit, tlie legal unci policy tiiwclioti««iiiiiinl lak® Kganling iIkss
tlreamliiing oftkins, will be addt«s$ed in the actions) whefe we iiiigla apply them.
At prep»al, we proponed an approach to «is*lish PTE ciifcnlaiwii ncthodt (tod
mlefwiiiiE l» J t.) for virion* eifc§««» of souroes that emit GllCIs, Potetilial to emit * 1*1 k, i*
hi* iti# maximum eapaeity of* s«ik€ to
Maiiy scmirce* have no legal fiotililitMis ms opemimmtsi- foil* that afficet their PTE
(24 twin per day, 1 day* per week, totaling 8,%C» hours per year), even whe-n riwy
4o i»l iKiiially do m As a tai«g the njiplkilwlily thwshokk on PTK nilKr ilism actual
efi»lssic»f» sources will find AM they can cstaMMi legally aai pwcticiiy cnl«:e«bfc timilii m%
their wpetiiliwinl patmaetem to limit their PTE, tat will allow them to avoid wsift* «*»« statin.
-------
anil lints major aowcc permitting. Soirees that do not operate anyw here mar the S.T60 bows jwr
year typically assumed in PTE calculahon* *n«t whose actual eniissioiK are below major source
applicability threshold* would be candidate* for siictt PTE liaiils.
We requested specific comments m experience with limiting PTE by raf« rather Am
through inilivkliiul permits. eoiisiifcraliou* is phasing* in litis approach. and identification c»l*
categories that might benefit from the use of rules limiting PTE, Comments received are
presented tit this subsection.
Several comawtttert (42m. 4513.4696. 5ll?S. 5079. 5111. 5130,5183. 5224 5711.7026.
1461) support the »ie« of redefining "potential to emit" "Tfew reasons. for their rapport include:
• The option to limii CIHCI PTE by rule rather than through individual permits is a go«I
ides. {5130) Voluntarily limitmg PTE would limit the PSD and tile V programs to
source* whose actual einisaow are likely to he greater than the major source threshold
fort'Osc. (469 h Mm, 5079)
• Allowing sources to refine laciliii-es.* PTE to be closer to expected actual emissions in •
good Ma, particularly for source* where octal etniwtwis are demonstrated to he
substantially low«r than »traditional calculation of PTE would indicate. (46%. 5079.
5111.5711) His approach will be consistent with EPA** CIHCI Mandatory Reporting
Rule {4696. S4M j and some of the source categorics that could benefit from litis
approach could be re&identiai and commercial fumace». (5711>.
• If "actual" historical em fen** me not used, KPA should reinstate timrk j»B«« for
both (lie PSD amd title V programs that allow now l ,-v .,»t\ •. - presume "synthetic
minor" stains for »ourccs whose historic emissions arc test than >u percent of "major
source" levels. A previou* life V interpretation allowed # transition period ft* permitting
title V sources whose historic actual emissions were Ion than 50 percent of major source
llwe*li»lch to 1m* treated m minor sources, regard!« of their PTE, |&« .e.g.. J. Seili and
1„ Van lletivlft, "Options for Limiting the Potential to Emit (PTE) of a Stationary Source
Under Section 112 and Title V of the Clean Air Art" fJan, 16,1995); I, Sete Calculating
PTE for Emergency Ctenerators (Jan. 16. 1995); J, Seitz. Calculating Potential to Emit
(PTE) and Oilier CMditiica tor (irain Hanlliag Fiwititw*) (Nov. I4» I99S)|. 'ilie
ttituoitiner argil® ihiil dww poticius rauaitt Bound ft* hotft I'SIJ «w iiik V petftiiliiog,
me willtiit EPA*» #»«ei»sm and will mime fcimlcus sipii'kwuiy iliwag ilie early plrniM*
of title V and PSD permitting ofCilICi sources. <51»J. J»«lltu
• Ef.4 siiottld ewilmite {i|i|w*li»fiiti«s m itifctfitel iiikI iciiw; PTE for C11G ciiiis!t««»4 «ucfc
that lli-«y approach, if are i»l e«i»«l l«>, a«lual anksic**, similnrlo EPA** «ppr®«* w
eilfHialiiif PTE for emergency j»ei»t*ato» which inherent liiiiitttions in how
such apifxtMit n inteiifal to lie op f-»- \r» Ul..w
75 p£«l cifllic major source thresholds eaaW be Iretlccl a* ifwiiwtic iriim*
0224}
• In craning I* I »:„ ttefiiwiws, H wit! t*e i»i»o»i,aiii to allow I'm tlu entry ©fnw
lecliiittbttieii, Tnkini! • fciKiknisil steiilil Jidti in tlii* reeanl. <$?! 11
* • ¦ * *>-* ^ ^ t % * * * * ^ j *¦ " * * * " * * ' * * j ,f * * * * * ™ ~ ^ r
64
-------
• For certain equipment. a commenter supports the proposal to develop "prohibitory rales"
that would preclude operation Airing a certain number of days per ye*, ami allowing
flexibility by offering a streamlined method to allow a source to operate for kmger hour*
upon reiftieiil u the petwtilltiig agency. (5711)
• On* commenter supports ike proposal to define ftan»« and similar heating equipment
to include the thermostat to which they are attached which constrains them front
operating in warmer weather. The commoner also wiggcsts i»at a similar definition
could be used for natural giis-I««l water heaters, both conventional and tankless model*,
to recognize their intermittent operation. Tittikfew natural gas water heater* operated m
conjunction with tiohr wner heating could be defined to recognize the operational
eoosSfWM thai keeps the natural gas heater from turning on during a certain percentage of
te time (based m minimum nam!w of samty claw far example!.. 15? 1.1)
• Anv redefinition of PTE »lwiikl include provisions for crediting existing facility offset* of
Otitis, especially CO*- (5183)
Various commented (321S, 4515,. 4691.5073. SOS. 5198) did not explicitly support or
r«f. isK h'.v i >•; smUIi'ih." ;Mential to emit" btrt provide suggestktts for ^defining FTU."
"llcsc suggests®* include:
• F.PA should clarify that the proposed Tailoring Rule does not preclude a »w« from
pursuing a source-specific PTE limitation, as opposed I# general or*ector-wide PTE
limitation*. If sector-specific PTE is defined or needs to be defined. EPA could consider
average itt.il ksiIvii profiles, especially for the natural ga* industry. |4S 15, 4691)
• Restrictions based «i expected 'Teal-world" operating condhioro may I* helpful to www
industries. but do not appear to be applicable to natural gm triMttttiksiiiii facilities.
Federal Energy Regulatory CumnusMtwt (FF.RC) requires pipelines to build and operate
system* Him «»capable ©» meeune peak demand day#, and thus have the potential to
emit far mow CillCIa than are emitted in pradice. For that reason. 1*"ERC requirement*
could ptvtM pipelines from accepting facility-specific operational limitations. m
suggested thy EPA, in. order to reduce PTE, In addition. with Ilic increased use of natural
pa m both a heating and cooling fuel source. natural gas providers me k*s able dim
other induMries to take on wasonal iiiiiilalions. <#tx 4c*J >
Several commcntcra (3916. 4l20»42.;lt, 4239, 4860. 4949. 5129. 5306) oppose the
tiicsi of reclcliaiaa --potetttM to emit.** Tlte mmmm for their opposition Mute
• The statute specifically defines fits PSD and tttb V nfptkaUi'm lliKsliciltfe »temw of
PTE 14949. 5129.5306) and an> future to reimi dw »co|K of PSD and lilfc V
through re-defining PTE risk running afotd of the test of the CAA, (5306)
• Alteration* to tlte current practice tor cakukiiitg I'll; will l«i|»laiiiing poNck»i
anil procedures m XSt pcnaiHiiig gtiidanee mi will affect all ©file regulated NSR
p#llulai»ts. <3916. 4238... 42:®. 4860. 4949)
• EPA"* pn^emal of limiting PTE by undertaking federally enforceable wstrictknis on
operating liouis or design operating parameter* coolil potentially Balursl giB
facilities by cMradktang compressor station's obligations to it* ciisloiwers under the
FERC certificate. FEiC fegiiiatioiis nsquire compressor stations to be "i»vnJI*M«™ to
ii»e«i|»«A.dtMi m.l ,i, .Utm.it in i"- ui: licafe!otii-i»u tn.^t o nstruction and operation of
natural gas liicililfe* am in the "public convenience and tmmMly" antl are in compliance
65
-------
with nil applicable regulations. 11terefore, the commenter concludes that. tuiis® EPA has
an explicit exemption for sittli niiluwl facilities to exceed its "redefined" PTE to meet
FERf requirements, the EPA tailoring proposal to redefine the PTE will not he a
functional option, <4120)
Mi*npN0iisf!s
We are out making my final decisions on redefaum.' V! 5 „t tl»i« tm»v We will lake these
our phase-in approach.
4.3 f»tta»i»vg IIACT
Tfctf proposal preamble inform* ill* CAA section 165(aX4) rapines that sources subjeel
to PSD implement BACT for each pollutant to regulation under the CAA. and that CAA
section 169(3) require* that BACT emissions limits be determined on a case-by-ease haws thai
reflect* lie tee of »Mc-*»l-ilic-afl demonstrated control technology »l the time of the pctmit
action. Wc acknowledge Aw determining IIACT for a particular mots* em often lie a
complicated, rwourv«*inf«nsivc, time-consuming. ajij sometimes contentious pn*x*»». In octet
to streamline tie BACT process for CIIIO sources that will be brought into the PSD program. we
proposed a system under which permitting authorities can make BACT determinations for
common types of equipment and sources, w-here they can apply those determination* to
individual permit* with little to no additional revisions or analysis. known us presumptive
BACT" The proposal preamble solicited comment on Ihe t*e «Tpresumptive BACT limits with
the PSD program, including our authority to do so. whether there is a need or value for such an
appfoiiv\* iigg^sliCMistew 1mb%"sscliliiwlseiMitiImiststil!'.mJ
consistently within the requirements of the CAA, or by depart ma .»*. tittle as possible from those
recniifwitetife Ttik subsection nreaentft eonmeMt received on the "nreMtmntive BACT"
3inir>>.u-ii :i>. art option to streamline the BACTdetermination requirement under PSD for CMKJ
emission sources.
Several cmnmenterH (3858, 391 ' i (> 41 -II' > - t 4BS, 4239, 4512, 4521, 4S26, 4747,
4ll», 4749, 4767. «I0. «€«, 4049. 4989. 5039. *152, 5058. 5061. 5078. SOW. 5084. 5113.
5130. 5131. 5135, 5198, 5124, 5276. 5280, 53111, 5313, 5338. 5346. 5391. 5711, 5742, 5714.
5922,6458.6681. and 7935) support the use of prcsumpthe BACi' » a. streamlining option.
The reason* for their support, include:
• Presumptive HACI could Ik » >ik:- fn.\o-- iw.sui*. combuttion tuthtne& (5130).
• I He uvc .4 |ii*'.viwipli%e IIAC I is jusfiiicil lur ilie iiiiIiiiiiI git** c«Miib4»xljori sector Iwcanse
of the claw and efficient cfcuriiclcriftiicfi of natural |» »«d tlic iiiiai'aihbilily of "add-on"
control technologies to mitigate CIHGs, (5058)
66
-------
• Presumptive BACT for OHO emissions from combustion sources should be temporarily
defined while EPA takes tic time to develop essential G11CI guidance through
rulemaking. This will allow slate* time to make adjustment* mie w'®- >
Supporting comsuenters also olTer »ugge$lion» for mfkmmmg the presumptive BACT
streamlining techiriqtkr or for moving forward with regulating C1I1C1* without presumptive
BACT. Heir iwg||fc«»|joil!«; include:
• EPA should pursue presumptive BACT determinations by source category (4747,4860).
One of tlie commoner acltls thai twsme of the source categories to include am: emergency
units and «isc»«il combustion *mtmm such as nitmees. <4747)
• HP A *hould establish fuel- and technolog.v-*pectfic performance hased (i.e.. carbon
intemity) presumptive BACT standards for each category of anticipated major sources.
(EPA Is* used a siiiiilur approach to establish "preswtiflive Reasonably Available
Control Technology {RACT|" standards under the Control Techniques Guidelines ICTtiJ
program under the statute), Further. the MMtfur add* that sources should have the
option of applying presumptive BACT or emk -j. •, tl.u she owner can still ttt»>v j v -ease
BACT demonstration t -r ,i >t j-r. t,,»t« ikv.f.-.i 'tit 'lt« m to, 5131, 5313, 5714.
5922) or mm stringent controls me warranted (4694. 5314).. Two coromcnters odd thai
*owem must continue to be alkwod the oppcwtiinily to *litr«ss mteigy,
and economic c«u*itfc«lioiis, {5113, 5714)
• EPA Owtndd retxtgme mi aceommodtHe iitieraii clifTeroicc* » itl *.~ emMon* itmm
kwk» within a semx emgmy Ak to itfktsm designs, tccfemotoows. ami »«.r«
(5224)
• EPA shoiilil wait BBlil it Ibis safTlcicnl clala from the final CIIICI Mmiiittofy'
Ref«1iii|, Rule to cl#ci«fc which sectors EPA should prioritise in regarf.* to presumptive
BACT. Presumptive BACT for CIIICI* and the tradittonal BACT review ftvmm should
rely «n the u . ilit 11,»determine which i.t»iii»lrt*i roiiko are tl*c larfesi
emitters ft* GilGs. for which EPA should priorittze. (5922)
• EPA sttuiiM *p|»ty c«.*l-«lfeci»wiie*s cri»«i» fm CUCI cimissiotis in a maimer lh«l reflects
tvailAfe leclinologies and that is ccmsisteat wilii «tei prices in existing
mmkeU. ami cxpctei under cwwity pmdmg federal legWiilwi. The commenter
liai, al tlna time, it carkii m&mim ci«l-eiTccli%'ctii»» to ihc rwge «T
apfroxiiiiately SI!M.on COj« »miM he »leasoaafcte The ctwKl&clweiiieKs
ranee should he updated on an «i§««g haa« aa market prices change, and EPA obtains
-------
information regarding the ami. of various carhon reduction strategies and the commercial
feasibility of technology option*. Furthermore. EPA should provide by regulation that
if* &mi effectiveness range it, to I* «p§»Ji«l in permitting mlhorities ill evaluating BACT
on 11 casmmcnter believe* that any facility with equipment
to IIACT should have the option ofdemonsUtf ingcompluince with ihe
prcaumptive IIACT' standard at lie affected equipment m an annual a\crane pertoroiance
basis. Tie commenter adds that EPA cm make a formal finding. subject to notice and
comment that available offsets exist to provide sufficient cost containment. and the
facility should have the option of purchasing compliance credits from an W/V
administeivd reserve credit pool at a predetermined price that reflects ElAVs upper hound
ciKl-«;il©cli%'«iiss for IIACT determination*. (4298)
Any presumptive IIACT mechanism must Ik subject '• u .y.n .-i.lt' iniipiifail process
with ampk opportunities ft* pubic review antl comment. {5742)
"IlieilXf : i!iNratination must include amaideration of the intended p'.t). ,i..| i..v •;
a facility. For exampie. a facility being constructed or rnodifkd ii»»t is i« »erv«
as .! ik ti "<;• ! will have different«»»»» and semmmk awistniinte tlmn a
faeiily, and t»«*c tM«w mmt he cwwkktwl in the BACA deteimmation
process, (5079)
imposing even irfivitluai PSD jwnife *nd BACT on natural gas
ctpipiiKol chanfoi tat not m electric rcsislmice cuiiipiiicol would ef1ccti%*ely crciilc a
perverw inccnt ivc ft* ct«il«»jen» to swileli float natiinil p« to electric «pitpiio»i To the
extern tfttk m&m, ihem wrnrid csmme an imrall «»t in ClllCi ooMrary to
twigfisiiwal intent !c» JSI»S subpart WWW requirements (5276. 5391)
tint tor existing sources cangnieiil with the E»is«»ii GmMtm sismSmik <52?C>|.
61
-------
BACT should not tw used an a means to drive technology development {5079),
El* A mi llic slates must make sure that presumptive BACT determination* do not
become doted. and then the burden wmiM shift to owncre and operators that did not elect
one of the presumptive BACT technologic* to demomtrate why none were technically
feasible or ^conumicalty available. ($052)
EPA should stow clown the promulgation of the rate to allot* carbon eapturc-'storage
technology to develop. (5789)
Because tfAi; 1 tor calcination emissions mil be demonstrated to he "no additional
controls." the ootv way a time plant could avoid PSD review wooU be to make Ins lime.
thereby eliminating the incentive to invest in energy efficiency projects, C5IJ3J The
proposed rule fails to address emissions from induKtrk* flint eiiiti co? i» a byproduct of
the chemical reaction inherent tit the pro»s. f atttiie to address these prmxm mthmmn
is significant * more lliau oiifrliiii* ©t'tfllCl emissions from Mum; plant* come from
calcining limestone. If calcination emissions nre mbj-m to the PSD program. then time
plants will be discouraged from undertaking energy efficiency projects that would
otherwise ralue«»* € illC 1 Energy efficiency project* retime fuel consumptkm.
CIUCI comhutfion emissions, and emission* of other criteria pollutants. However. mm
of these very-some energy efficiency projects present the potential to increase lime
production and. therefore, increase mktml calcination * and regulation*. BACT for OUCis should be limited
to the new of modified emission nails. (5079)
• Natural gm is not an option for many large sections of the country became of the
,«> ». sx ofinlnistructure to deliver natural gas. (Commenter pwt.i,-
rationale lor this pmUim}, (5052)
• BACT reviews use iliamut efficiency as a comparable metric because it will
encoiiriigc* C111CI reiiiiftkits,. ttmiiy iaaors affect tlx,mat dtiaawy, and
ill plant* experience mm in thermal eflieiaicv •. \ i'n • «rgy
Audits, |2) ENElIiY ST ARC- Product*. (3) Weiillicriatkm,, (4) Vwialile
Speed'High EHiciency Motors. (5) !,,ID Traffic Lighting for Municipalities. ($1152)
69
-------
• Some maintenance measure* should be exempt Itwti PSD 1*5(152, $1)11, 5079}, One
of these coniniculcrs adds that, hi a niiatnuim, EPA must identify a list of activities
ill power plant* lliiii would be presumed to be routine maintenance. repair, ami
replacement (RMRR) uttleitK unique conditiwKdemonstrateotherwise. (5078)
• 11k tradeoff* between reg ulating CUICfc md criteria pollutants should be n44tm.mil
For that mmmi, IPAs presumptive IMCT ilefcriiiiiiiili«i« must include guidance on
the impacts of OIICJ mitigation m conventional polititent levels. (4515,4fitL 4989,
6458)
• BACT should be allowed the flexibility to obtain emission reductions from alt
equipment til the facility m well as from beyond the fenceltne <«i»p6»tce m a
generating fleet basis, use of mmmmm offsets. etc..). (5078)
• To satisfy the public notice r«|iiiK«ieits for PS 1) periim* <11 wan publish
B \« ! iK.l.im ,«ul I. u.'. ,r «th < «il Register pursuant to the
administrative procedures in section 307 of the CAA for not*ce»and«conm>enl
rulemaking, (2) permitting authorities can ptWisti in lite newspaper or on their
wel*»ji« l»*ls of sources in the state that have applied for cotwtruction («* title V)
permits and. or revision*, as» currently done by most stale*,. and (3) EPA cm
publish model permit* which have these BACT alternatives imbedded through
notice-and-comment rulemahns. and mimes could opt into the permits by rule jnsl
m current *>iir«iR utilize general storm water permits and other general permit#
under fc Cfean Water Art (CWA). (5032) Awdwr comma** (507*) «U» il»!
presumptive BACT can I* developed through notke-and-comment rulemaking, but
permitting authorities should allow public comment m individual pernios a.;- u.
whether there are significant ease-spcciic imp acts thai would require adjustment of
IIACT few llial particular mam.
Should there be no presumptive BACT established, the EM should issue the permit
without consideration of a full IIACT analyst*. < 4120) lie commenter points out Ilial
lliis does not mean the facility would propose older and »ii
-------
MnMsMmt the*e %'«wM Ik the c«uioaii%*"«» oneratinc nracticc of rvductnff €111(1
^ • * * * ¦ * * * *1 '¦ ** ***¦- *¦ ** * * *f * ®^ ¦" j: *¦"* »t»«»v-*»*»»» " * *' • *
I it n'i> ot ii»v >hiM
Siiir program.
: Domestic I f J. Offsets - BACT ft* sourees without pmumpttve BACT.
• lie commentcr support* the u*e of ofTsefc and the we «f domestic 1 * J, OHG
»"transitional** solution under the Tailoring .Rule till EPA final tie*
presumptive BACT for source*. Offset* are mpforlmi a* nan of the
ivilics- In addition! the cwiiBietilef states that using offsets as
BACT would produce the sane environmental result * Imk cost to regulated
Somecrnwmm* (2504, 2731. 2797.3306.3512,3916, 3858. 3916,4019. 4106. 411*.
4241,4512, 4515. 4519, 4555, 4691. 4?*, 4749. 4*63. 48M. 4866. 4871. 4949, •»$», 4989.
4990. 5041. 3056. 505*. 5059, 5061.5064. 5073, 5079. 5084. 5085, 5! 10. 5113. 5123, 5124,
5133. 5139. 5147, 5236, 5301. 5305. 5339.5340. 5443. 5714 5742, 5863.6203.6458. 6681.
793 5. #025, 869!, 16411) did not explfcilly »uppoit or vpfmm the use of presumptive HACI as a
streamlining option. but they did oflter suggestions about the me of BACT and/or presumptive
BACT ¦» general. Examples of the types of general comment* received wti presumptive BACT
slre«Biliii«»g options arc included m the following beliefs:
• The preamble «§ews not provide enough detail for meaningful comment «m presumptive
BACT. <5113,5714) "11k commoner* «upport «p..l''u ,i;.f k »i«.p ». i«i process to
addres» BACT issues generally and preKumptivc BACT xpeciflcally and would encourage
EI* A to provide an opportunity for this public ittcoswu.
• Though tie tfuntmcnter acknowledge that there m an internal workgroup working on
BACToptiora for industry, the pr*»|»o»« »..* til It It
BACT for sources subject to PSD permitting requirements for CIHG cinksioils, The
commenter mmm that it »difficult to mams the economic impacts of the nite without
more-detailed information on what would ciMistilttle BACT for the metal cavting industry.
(5236)
• Eventful •!.«!*, <, % <1 ft- '".u I k ,i| i-imI «' •>> aifcietil streamlining
toot. 11k commenter t|u«l»ns whether EPA will Ik alile to make presumptive BACT
determinations in u limeK mautner («tpecial)y within llie next I-2 «ii»i and i«
«»nc«iticcl tfml pK«uiit|*i%'c BACT will l»c viilwaMe to tept cliiillengc a«i
resiillirif itelny* arii uncettaitity. lit addition, prtsumptive BACT would not alleviate
other iitnc-tfwisiiwiiig ajfKcis of the PS1> pcmnttifig pnw», sacli m llic rctpircmcfil for
ptiilk ttolktf iiiiii tfottutwiit I'lltiniitth', dw hope llial BACT wtB mmmAv
mmM the PSD progratn fea*il*te to ailiiiiiiisier i« no sulislilute for mmmmhit timm on #k
initial scope of the PSD program. (4515, 46911
• T1k EPA slwoM ailliefe to the iimt-mtsd pt>lici« and procetfures ft* ifctennmiog BACT
and, lit*, iwoiti any T«|i»ir«ieiit»ieilefl»i< wxirce» in «fce tmimm. (5131)
• Statements dboM "pc*ui«pt;i%-ii BACT" hi the preamble s«iii ii»*isl»l«nl with tlw IikI
that BACT is by statute suppoaed to be a c»e-liy-»e rather than the imposition
of national ctnissioii fttimlnrcfe, < 164111
71
-------
• The application af BACT muter litis rule shouli not be expanded beyond Ac historical
definition and interpretation of the "affected source" (4106, 5124), BACT analysis
should be limited to «ily the** sources or unit* which m installed or modified
under a permit |4KX»j
• EPA waits to be suggesting that it could Ik appropriate. under the rubric ofdetetmining
IIACT, to tell a source what type of combustion unit i! must build. or what type ot fuel it
may use.«how it ornai engineer its mmttfacturmg operations to reduce demand ft* ti»c
thermal energy or electricity lliii the combustion will will generate. Such ex|»»»»«*» of
the statutory requirement to mm* that the BACT < • n .>i i, > i project, into an
inquiry by the permitting authority into whether a plant cub lie designed or operated uw«
effkietttly. or whether it imigiil Ik environmentally preferable for the plant to be
proposing 11 diflcront Mnd of project. would be inconsistent with EP-Vs statutory
suthoritv, long-standing KPA intetpretotions and police mill fiiilfcitl and limvimmmMnl
Appeals Hoard (HAH) &»»«»», (4749)
• EI1,A should temporarily swsi.uk the rule of establishing "technical feasibility" for GHCl
control technologies until commercial availability becomes a decided issue. The EPA
1«»* held ill* technically feasible BACT is technology which is "avatiaMe" awl
"applicable and the states should not assume this role initially to avoid % patchwork of
regulations. (4106)
• Some commentm <4989, 5,1)1, 66RI) strongly support the consideration of energy
eftkiency improvement* ,i> js iCT for CjIICJs and other pollutants to avoid disincentives
for efficiency improvements. especially at power plains, Presumptive BACT
considerations should also include biomass projects. energy efficiency propels, and
offset projects. (53011
• EPA should consider how PSDBACT miglii be applied and streamlined far
sources suhieel to regional m stale C»HG controls and cap and nude program*. (4111,
4863, 5064, 5305)
• ll is incorrect to claim dial insufficient information exist* to m least (Miniate costs and
streamlining «f.lckmc»« of 8ATT, (51J9)
• BACT development i. m,s K j • Mt i. < Uil Tailoring Mute <4951). EPA
"rcco|pf«|s| that considerable worit will be needed to determine what options exist for
controlling tillCI emissions from different source categories ami the various typ» of
emitting equipment they use. (6203)" K«« BACT definition i» provided, it will hi
dillkuh to plan ft* and budget ft* prefects if a potentially sigiiiiciifil ixpeus*! is
¦nki»%%'it,. (4241)
• CMw eoiiiificalcr*. point out that the fundamental question », "Wlwf is BACT 1«
CIIIOii'** Tlic ccmimailcw m «>i»ceni«! fcl, to (litis, llms is o® answer lo this tpralic*
(3306,4515.4691, 4871,3110. 5i.J7|, inetailing botft cc»fBhi»i.i#ii andnon-cwithialwi
mmxm, la tlwr« m no elfMivt or coinniftnly us«r
-------
Thermal destruction tecimofogv and combined heat and mmet shoiilci I* exempt from »I
PSD and Mie V rapriKmcnts. (5041)
EPA should he consistent m its encouragementi« * •! H w.tvs i .1 h.J source. II"
EPA docs not *fwileatty exempt the carbon neutral «««*» from these processes thwn
the applicability determination. it » likely tlist fuel mMmi project* to bkmmm could
trigger PSD review far CO?. <\ hvit I i' \ In- K.tji otherwise promoting the use of
renewable fuels. <4749. 50?.*. 53U>
EPA shotiM consider net reductions (i.e. life-cycle analysis) of CIIICI emissions, wnen
caiiiifisliiaf a presumptive BACT for waste-to-energy operations, (5305, S?42> One
commentcr contend* that the direct emission* from waste-to-energy facilities m more
than offset by the overall illCI reduction* thai waste-to-energy provides through timt
separate nteefc«ii«t»: I»bv ocneralrng electrical power m stem waste-to-energy avoid*
COj emissions from fossil fuel- based electrical generation; 2) combustion of waste in
waste-uvenergv facilities eliminates the neecl far tandfdl of those waste* ami effectivcly
avoids landfill Cll,f emission*; and 3) the recovery of ferrous and nonfemxts metal* from
municipal win! waste ul waste-to-energy facilities is more energy efficient than
production from raw. materials, (5305 ) Another commenter <6458) added that treatment
of waste-to-energy m * source of CIMC1 emission* would 1* inconsistent with
internationally accepted science imd accounting procedure* (commentcr cited various
examples of where this, idea hits (teen embraced).
EPA should provide special considerations for the oil & gas production and chemical and
refining industries ilifwiigfi separate mlcitiakiogs with opportunity for notice ami
comment, in lien of the PSD perniil-tiy-pcfiiiil BACT approach. <4106}
There is considerable unceitainly as to what const ittttes BACT for the mantdacftm.Dv*
sector. For example, what viable technology exist* for (it (ft control? Would BACT
have let he developed far «««li of the CifICi* or would it require a not certain percentage
reduction? The mmmmrnr welcomes the opportunity to work with other interested
stakeholdets in establishing BACT lor their m&istry to advocate lite following: < 1)
Ensuring OUCI BACT requirements are technically feasible and cost cffcdivc; (2)
Miiinliiiniiif owna» smwse clefimlioiis; {3| BACT is specific and not
latilily-wicfe; (,4,1 Allowing netting-out provtakm. tnclttding ahilily to utw oil*ite
*ofBt^s;*(3) MoIicnl>iliiy tuned on
emrmt eom-entional f»IIutaiii PSD fropiim, (8691)
Modem MCI facilities should he presumed to eomplv »iii» 11 ACT or should he exempt
from BACT aitalysw. (4515,4«>1» 4749) Natural gas pipeline comhustkm units
minimize tiBCI ««is»k>iis to the greatest extent feasible, and therefore already satisfy
BACT standatdg. (4515, 4691) (liii-llwil «giiic*, such its those used In pipeline
conipre»« stations, are desipwd t© ofcmlc at a# ©ftiniail level ofdlciciity pven ©liter
aigiiceriBf mi nepdaiory ifiti ippiy to pipelines, 14515, 46911 Altering the
horsepower of the«e eafiiw* mukl apt* i efclkafe »»ai,ii*e hetween pipe suee mi
compression levels iial allow .t >iv {.r, ,nu - • i aperate {4515.
4l-,;I • h\.|»iMng ii I'M > jviiiitiing pirnem for CIHCls woidd not yieM any sigiiifkml
cfwifcwiuctilil bcaciii hecmate there « no smiiliblc inlti-«»n control tecliiiology (e.g.. CCS
lectuwiogy t» «»itl ymm from Imng widely i»%nil;il»lc), ustog tlmm piu»t|» would result
in higher ««»»«» lit most parts of the country, and firing with bioga» »technically
?:i
-------
[ 76
mkasahk i-l^l 4 •!<<"! 4*T4'J'> \!«'iv"i\ „>! ttin-HL'i,ilii4i *>| :tllcrr.,itnnti» mvui>iI- >'nc»t »lu*1 \ .nul jum pi.kiii »• in I'M > }«r.-t »v\lwtv>
i i.Mi, It."I
• < >tiv: 11) lhc«-j „i i!iir,K''iK"i s ;ukk llt.il 1; Km 11! U i - intM talk mie >u.t;.| llv tttatl.c! pl.kv I or IU'mHL' |!hiu'I ;yiK'(,\troti | tits iwu'ul iik lifi'>|.u",ic. 1h.il tatt ^t.ut iip ami Is. ^ithnc quickh kiua.. pcA sktiutkl t\
unj«ii\iivt.ihL' i 21 li .uic-x'K Win,vn uiI.ti.i pollniuttk am! < tl |( i »tlr>>1 and , < l
tlc'v ckptm-r! <*) tkk u mkIi .in iIk; u-.k >*1 (t it < am nth.*? kvhtvl-a<.>,\ iv.hcn
i.-ml ha* Iw.'M svLxtv-ti ,k Ihj hici |»«r ,» mhiivc i*147i
• IV-imtpuw IS \t '1 hi t'.cik'i'.d permit-. I-- i ln-sil-final iVta-ratinc. unit- -.hi'iiM p, .*i. uica-uif UmI UK .««J m«; nil *.i\ >it ih*. (.111< "M^'hvIi
\m«»kl k\jaik a u ivk iauiv of i jJiun.-n hu-.imues < i 5^ M i
• IntpkttkHatinn.if'(il l< • ct^ivMxn t U •)».>!I iK ¦- -n v-rktrc-. .-rU ;',a»
kifbitk-s unli a tmtliiftitj.,- ittinjnc .t;iplK.»tnii uapiikUktil'. ,i Ik'Mtnn nr w>' asjkxk
i >512>, t i • ..•t)kkr,c\ ol she v< nut-. jvt tfinkd .»! c.kl; uttn.|'ik Mtc. aiul i 2 tik I in. I t.-.c.l.
11* tr\ l,- .idiiu".-. Ihi-. », 111< i X K I c^uc tri !lw--» I lie «, mhiuhiUci
I->!I>'U uit", •-•viKi al v' 'intiiLiils as id ^lvtt» «. i-iw.i mil.' (:l li i H U ! ici:u.il
Ilu lin.al C IIft i IU ! k'\k'i( ^h.iiild IH>; Icji'tiiw llu* ill hv-nc,
{Ktlialtcd m fI !IHC Ill.'U'i bcitli* (llnfl.Uvd \ t' 'HtMl k^!lEH>!.)L'\ mii-'l I'c
k*;tMlnr;i'Uiati^li (ii-'H'ist'tl HicluJii! 1 lite
jniniv U\.>.mi hid U|v-. ^huscr. Hv the ivniriio.-
\i>! all 1'1'illlck 4!v wic.ltoj Ctjiuil'. I Ulit i HIS! >. It t I 1" \ " ICk'Oirf
ahk I \u-i Suiiul.llti ^ ' tk'.iih ••h''\\cd Mi^tiiik .ml ditk'K'ik.N in I'k- t <1K«
imp u'i1- 1.1 \ .itiini^ iciK^'.ahK' I'uv U li tsid osi the Iik ,->• it .iii.iI'.m-. >ni\,t>kllxl
II the .i!k"K \ thi>iHc^ h. itiM'iuk' fircMiiii|>t«v c \) \t I' .mahU'r (IH( I cmi'-Mnn.
tr< iit 11I pr,>iiiK'"i«'n I.HihiuH, the viv.iti. -n «| .in ,• iiuiusn-} ,ni\ is.-.r. ;>r.Mi|»
!¦ i nknt'.H ;'4 ^IKUI'h1 Irt tflv* li«pkiik(l1.tn-tit I-.
.thsi'Illk'l} iU'C»k'«l . !4' m
I i* \ -.iliHtkl k-st.iltlf.il a »nl kin it atts t. in sk-u li^l'ilk! r "Al.- I 'u " t C»¦
iiiiuLtf-kisun*.. I. it ciilituo whKli «*. jltcaUs cnc.tcvtt itt lk-4
( < 5 I I1'"?!') in !lk' inip.K t .v> !(h, annlt.'.lliuti i">l ll \C ! tl* I.H'tii'lC-. Ihai
tinttttll51 vkit.tiu i>ll-t!,i>. Nltv.ulk ts> iitiivt-M-i- that k-ftimv ami |>i!l tk ilk1 <_'< >
attil pl'ttv" tl litis. M>>ttttk'tu.ii afiplk.tlsuti^ s|t.mltl lu- aiM'„-^cii 111
Shvatithmn-j -h.-ukt \k (!*.\ 11.>»k'»l li>r hitnlt'lk S I' \ vatdttlK ilcwh'p
pk-4it',ipit\ t IS \*." I tls.11 itnlt.i.Ih aiu:t!'. n tlh viitiont ;c:"ul;itt. «tl. t'tlitk' tit I'.irttvuhi!.
the \\S\\ I -r i.ttHlt'Ik, ilia* vkis v.it jltilh ik vcl.ijvd In k-ilitn.' ttuit-iiidli.itk' • »i.'atik
i 'ttipntihlk-1 < NMi K p| i, :«iit .ilm' cHcun wh uilucc* i II «. .wtiiv'nki
(.•¦Milinttv^ (lt;i! at a Itk-r J.Hv: fik-Mimptn . II H 1 ..tn !v tijulaieU a^. I P k-
> kiluat'.i >n i'1'llk- k.rkkll! \ sj'v is I'nmpUiiut .tt'-d at1', result a m rnk*wakni;', ninth ,vd
atul .tssctls llns ispptkuh sh'ittkt !tr,tt!t!t) ^ titnta os^.tts ttttfij^k 1,-ihc laiufl'n II
xiiiuon i «Kt* i \
I vattij'k's ¦>! patlKtila' prcMi'ttpiK li \('i \a,!vs!<.ms
sithinitti .1 H\ w uttit^k'ttk'i^. itis little ilk* !•'I]..>m
¦4
-------
• In tie absence of a €!!!€» technologies database. EPA should develop iwliKiry-sfccIic
BACT guidelines along with the rule, (2731, 49&9)
• EPA should develop BACT template m feast for large* source* to streamline lie
permitting process. 15 J 47)
• Guiding principle* should ie developed to frame the development of CSIC5 BACT ami
ihene principles should consider and-or state thai:
• • lirriftiftf the definition ot the affected source siieli llial unaffected K*irccX'CM*faliotis
arc not subject to BACT. Hairing dowmtrcanvdebottlenecking effect*, 'mmmtc* of
G1IC« hi a within # until should not subject mi entire unit to UACT
review. Th» approach m identical to that steady employed tor sAererMi
pollutants (5124),
•. • Fundamental redesign of a iiitti should not I*, an option under BACT. 11 ACT is the
application of a control technology, The redesign of » unit to titifce different feels or
t© require «different pf®«» derigti falls ©tifetie of lite scope of a control technology.
For example. BACT wvww should net force utilities and other combustion mmv»
to "fuel switch** If«it coal to natural gas. which would have significant economic
imp arts throughout the tommy., EPA should continue to defer to regulatory and
operational conftideratiom in determining BACT For GHGs. (4515, 4691, 5058,
5079. 5«t5 5124,. 5123, 5224»
• Quest ion* «ielt ib "why dies thi* iitiit need hi be t»uli?" and "why does ihc design
capacity need ">• • v. .it \ L\J "' mot within the purview offlie BACT analysis
(5124). For example. it should not be appropriate tor EPA, under the rubric of
determining BACT. tw tell a source what t%|»e of combustion unit it must build. or
what type of fuel it may me, m how- it f»»t engineer ib operation* »reduce i«»ml
for the thernial energy or electricity that the coniliiislwn unit will generate. 1164111
Cofiituculers bclkvc tint Mich expansion of" tic statutory K«|4iirctis«fBi to assure that
BACT is mud for a partienlitr p*>|e«i into an itiipiry by the perniisiug makmity inio
wMher a plait «i» he faipietl or tifusnled mm efikiailly, or wMier it might be
«nvmmm'-f«dMU< ft* Ae plant to be pn^w»«g a pes ft* CIHlfc, UACT requirements, should not force
iiiifinwai or unecunotitkat teclinobgy, such as CCS. <5124)
Various comments (2W. 4I«J, 5062. 5t«l, 5!4». $143, 5*06. 3081 5143. 533?,
7935.8015) oppose the use of presumptive BACT m u slreaiiilinlBg oftion. Examples of general
reason# provided by coiiimciiiere fof opposing presumptive BACI b» # slfeiitiilmuig option
iBcloifc the following.:
• PreHumptive BAC I may not he an effective means to address pcnnilttBi! ixnden c«ice*ns
because ihc iiisolliciciilly flexible jKfiiiittiiig t-clicme rccpires a flcxiMc BACT itnalysis,
10 f"%i'ScS
tecfit»ol»gi€9. For that reiiscut, it w imlilcly liiii p«s«iip»:ite UACT could play •
constructive rofe in adclressitig. tleep and flattlaiiiiiilsi tf<>iic#iiis w team »» Hie mat
term. (5143)
75
-------
• EPA should not decide ike BACT absent a amikx-mi-mmmaM rulemaking. In the
proposed rulemaking EPA docs not address how to set the BACT for sources subject to
the PSD and permitting requirement*. ($062)
• SPA statement* in the rule preamble about "pminnflivi,* BACT" «e*m inconsistent with
the fact lliii! BACT i» bx statute supposed to be a case-by-case analysis. mther than the
imposition of national emission standard*. <5141, 5306.8015) Case-by-case BACT
determination affords flexibility to consider a range of case-specific factors, msk as
available control options awl collateral owl, energy, and envifonmeii'.il «nj. m- *'l U..
"lie diversity of process technotogiet. within industry create* a range t.»fAii®«pec»fK
factors that would likely interfere with identification of a presumptive BACT approach
that would achieve the desired streamlining and permit efficiency. <3i4»> One of
» also combined that EPA seems to be suggesting thai it could be
appropriate, tauter the rubric of determining BACT, to lei a soaroe what type of
combustion unit it must build. or what type of fuel il way me, which would be
iiKoroistent will EPA's tfatutorv authority. longstanding EPA interpretationi and policy,
and judicial and EA1I decisions. (*>15) One of these comnietitets added that
presumptive BACT may therefore only be impeaed on the bwfe of sow - and pollMMH*
specific demonstrations of necessity such that: Hit lie provisions do not
contemplate the use of presumptive BACT; and (2) presumptive BACT m considered
only under limited circumstance*. (5306)
• Establishing presumptive BACT raii.es various concerns (5082):
.••• Wowd ii»« presumptive BACT undergo public scrutiny?
- How would presumptive BACTbe estabtixhed tor «pollutant with no «irr«illy
available feasible control technology options?
. How would you establish BACT for combustion device* when (educing CO; and
reducing CO (another PSD pollutant) are mutually exehmive"1
How will EPA reconcile PS!) permit* where BACT for CO is catalytic convention,
which eonsequenllv mm* mmwm in €€>» emissions and cannot bv definition be
BACT for COj?
: How will EPA teteolw BACT for energy efficiency projcctx at single combustion
smifces wfcicliurn•• •-!!«'' «•>. »•» •»> t.*Ojbccawtetoincremtcencrgy
elftciency require* more efficient combustion remitting in mote COj emissions per
how than uietlkient combustion?
Under PSD. would we have to
-------
- To date. we no BACT dctennmatiuns for ClilCIs for the semiconductor industry.
Moreover, even if in the near ftsture Uwre are BACT determinations for combustion
sources, k » unlikely that there will l»e any near term BACT determination* for
control of PFC* ami in manufacturing. Because the semiconductor industry's me of
PR's »s unique. lh« determination of BACT for PFCs %vill likely he stow and tins
consuming, at least at first. (5143)
,= It is impossible for the fast moving semiconductor manufarturing industry to plan
ahead and design the necessary control* when it is unknown if those controls will
later Iw deemed Io be compliant with BACT standard*. Since BACT would be
determined c*e-l»y-«»se. it is also not feasible for the semiconductor mdtutry
association to identify common BACT solutions lor ill of it* operations, since the
BACT review would be pertomted t>\ different stale and local agencies for
semiconductor induatrv iss. n hk mlur lumpanies' different location*. (5143)
- Since the action* to reduce PFC emissions m the Kemiconductor industry have been
voluntary. the abatement devices are am incotporated into local «r state mr permits;
therefore. thev would in* be federally "enforceable" to limit the potential to-cunt of*
these (3110ft. >5143)
:• V-»t '•! ;liv iMn.nt devices used tocontrol PFC* are pmi»i-«if-i« devices, (e.g..
burn boxe*) which me by interlocks into each separate manufacturing tool.
M stttfti, not only sirs there potentially hundreds ol'lmd»that will be replaced
numerous times over a 5-vear period, but there me • similar number of abatement
devices in me. Because the devices are connected to each tool. and hundreds me
spread throughout the manufacturing facility., the application of periodic or
compliance assurance monitoring (CAM) to these devicot under title V would be a
huge administrative burden. Similarly. compliance testing would he problematic and
expensive immune- these devices me neither designed nor manufactured. with
traditional swiping locations ar port*, finally, because tie deviee* are connected to
the liwl* they support, as the tool* are changed out the control devices •!» will be
Ik«p»e»tly, ,% siidi, it %»ill In* ditilletigiag ft»r petmWng «geiicic». i«
«»j»ndl>' it • n.iii.nj., (5143)
• The use of presumptive If ACT «»uli he li*eitt«*loiBly itanmgiiig»«the Eiwgy- intensive
Trade-Exposed (E1TE| iiiiinslry, Procem emmirnw arc inherent m the uimferlying
dietiikal reiicticw, awl by and targe they can only be cluingsi by i» cluingc in Ike process
itself -in^Mtct^^^ieiittionheKotiu- .uti>Ku»t !•{« '.u»|*fatim El'lli-luwc
powerful economic incentives to iiiaiiage aiirgy ami mtmmom using things like recycled
niifcfiiilK eoge»*raii<«i or cooiWiicil heat md power systems, proem iitipmwiaiis,. and
»w itching. He use of the wort pftxiiiclioii pnscme*. «wl maximizing
etierg,.' ttticimcm me alwatly an iBicgriii put of the protection processes m the KITE
induKtrv, ««J *lnmiitl not he addressed tf»it*igli a Kgiilaiion meMes pre«uii:»j>iive
BACT. (53.17)
prevutnplive liACT, These delude: *
• if EfA m to pnwe p'e*ii»iipliv«* fi%CT determination*.» eatnmenier (41660) reeonwne^ti
ilini* 111 IIACT iilniitld 1* limiiei to s sniall min»l*r of
source categories; 2) tituely guiiiaice regarding pKsnni|ili%-«e IMC'l* by source category
-------
shouldbeissued by EPA; and pJ tint BACT determinations should be revisited by EPA
cift si pi edet Kwd c cil not fiitsc^- lliis.it 5 wsns
If EPA believes that predefining lie technology » the best approach, then KPA Amid
develop a NWS itwfeiiil (42M, 4239}
move forward mi the use of "nrewimfitive IIAC'C" m * Mrcaml»mm» «**««» mc-lmime noticv and
t * * * * * • "M"» *"* " * •¦»#»» '" *"¦ - * jl * *• v * ' * • *¦ * ' * **" ' f *¦" * 1 * * * *•*¦' * * • * * " *""¦ ¦ S R 9
provide the roost updated information and support tools to alio* permitting authorities to share
and access the most updated inlommtk* on CJIIC! U ACT delemuiiniious as they arc made once
permitting of ClHCIs begin*. EPA remain* committed to involving stakeholders is the iifwiwwtg
efforts |o develop guidance to help » permitting authorities in making BACT determination* for
sources ofCHitis,
"lie proposal preamble notes thatwehave limited experience in developing general
em# BACT determination process. In contrast, we note that, in the title V program, general
permits am stweifkallv authorized under C AA section 5(l»l<(li ami are witlelv-i»«l 411 C'f'l
irntfcr ihe iMe V progiwn, iinil 40*CER 7oi7(h) ttipiiies the'pubik pMtieipsttion rc«|iiirciiwils.
We icki*»ie|»«,i»»al, »e on the me of i|en«nl fitmiil*
within the PSD and title V program*. Comments reveived on the ii»c of general permits, permit*-
liy-nilc to sircaniline paimiinig mdor PSI) an4 titfe V a« prtmtlci in litis
7H
-------
I 81
Vinous commenter* 12997. 32m 4154,4291,4515,4526,4691. 4860. 41*3. 4940.
5078. 5079. 51H. 5WCJ, 5135. 5198, 5210, 5306. 5313. 5329. 5711,7026. ?«5)«fipc»ri the me
reason* for their support include:
• The general permits ninl-w a pennii-by-wle option would serve »o streamline the p»«ss
and reduce both adminwlraiive burden and [Wailial permitting delav. <4154, -1515, 4601,
4863, 5130. 5329, 5711, 7026. 7935) Some of thew commertm added that th* would
be piriicularly licfpfiil for semiconductor facilities (5329)and common types of control
devices such a* boilers, process beaten, mul combustion turbines (4154, 5130) lis well as
ccwiiiwfwal and residential natural gas appliances ami equipment (571 II,
• %-u-vm) >«>.! >>y»ft»fe arc adequate atreamliningoptions bin ca»e4tvca&e
review and lie development of a site-Kpeciffc permit, even if there w u gesmi permit thai
would emxr fie site in question. nlvmli always remain an option. f «lf 40, 5079)
• EPA should issue a sliiinliirtl genets! PSD permit for very small OHO Mission sources
flat will effectively nthm these permits to he issued within 3(1 to 90 days. (5417).
• Cfeticral permits may prove useful in administration of a title V program for Maw
subject to title V sokty by virtue of their C1IICI emissions. (4515.4691, 5306)
Commented (3278.4298.4515,4526, 4»l, 4860.4863. 4990. *1!: ' m » 1 ! I • «u»
prwvide comments <•>' .»ni •c%;¦,.». ft* developing general jwrniis and it (',<4 > > «:l> distances fwum the facility, anda
generali/ed dijwusMun of B ACT (4863). commenter mltk that tl Ibis Maps. BACT
eita be efliaei»« measwea wed by the project to reduce energy, (4863)
• l;« ,a Iinn ted period, initiate blanket me of general peratte fi* "iirgcn!" imcesmy to
»M.1.1 irui-'ti..! .iJuw affect on health wad safety) in-; i, 4" |1« than 100,1110
metric tjwjC'CKe) pojcel*. and. a iw»iii#riuo»
-------
Act Advisory Committee (C A A AC) Climate Change Work Group to formula?-.. .1 wmhv
robust and admini&rai ively streamlined set of procedure*. (4526)
General permits will violate the text of lite CAA if we move from n e«*4w-e»e BACT
determination bimm to a prcftumptive IJACT system, For thai reason. lints commcntcr
would like general permits to only be imposed on It* basis of source« anil pollutant-
specific demons-fratiottK of necessity sikIi that: f 1) the PSD provision* do not contemplate
the tts« of general permits. and (2) general permita are considered only under limited
circumstance*. (5306, $711} One of the commenter* adds that ft* g»4iuniing source*,
general permit* should only he applied to those mntmen thai could not lie excluded from
th«fSJ' in t >tr .iii.U 1 1 v V-- »••.<}•• -.-xl approach. Even then, if should serve simply «s 11
checklist of generally accepted technology that sources should consult to make mm they
•were nol behind the times. (5711)
Pcnniis-lw-nrte should lie allowed to exempt sources from Nil pollutant requirement*
for Flo because miiiiU sources captured in the program wwdter (Iw initial definition aid
subjected to RffMitk V permitting requirement might not liter be considered *
I'SDlitie V source with 11 revision of the definition for PTE. (3278)
General permits could easily he developed for afferent categories of landfill*. which
shank! esse flie burden on smaller sites that we amrentlv nol in the title V program,
<4163)
The EPA ahould develop m affirmative designation tor sources that we administrative
control* in remain below the "major www" t!iiml».kl, e.g. a facility 1I1111 ha# the
potential to emit enough CO} to be required to obtain a permit. but set* limits on
operating hows or other controls 10 ensure that the facility stays Mow the permitting
threshold, Such m tlliiwaitaii of administrative control could either be in the form of a
general permit, permit-bv-rute, or as a *elf-dec|aration kepton record at the affected site.
<«»;»
Allow for a variance fmm a general permit on * cose-by-case ferns where an alternate
standard is warranted. C 5 313)
Emptying general Kftaiii. would require a fundamental cliiuim to the listJ program
(4515. 4691*| because:
jf * ... . w „. 5 __ « > *.. a i I»~ t ,v . « . 11 . « . 1- l»_. 1* , _.i .... * ^ . 11, |_ , , R .. ...» ^ -
vlNi.-flKfW Al p%f¥llllB>» iHli "vil ""i. SUOtlMK 41. R4V «, |\^>ifc||.liy .'MHffVt
MSI pemiils unci» Bniiltsl rnitnlw of title V opcratiitg (winil*, not PSD, fiiiiinly
because the CAA's PSDprwisitiim re«|iii« casc-l»y-£i»t» deWmMom of IIACT.
¦ State* would need to revise their Sil®« 10 adopt this more expedient process for PSD.
• Cfenenil peiinils niiwl ails® tnciuile f«»ttntpiive 1MCT, wiich eutrid 6*e yew «©
develop.
••• Tlw pweky of technical and 4m mi ottur si|iporti«f i.nIont»iil»t» p$mA
to CJI1CI IIACT will result at a xigmficant nomber wfclialfeogcs iliiniif ihe r«iuit«i
pufcic review process. Swell legal diaHcog«s could delay permit* for iitontfcs or
years.
EPA should consider iRsmiig tiiilMWil PSD j>«;fni»fe IW CilICi sc»iiiu® thai coiiiain i»
menu of options of potential IIACT meanunt* thai «*»»« can adopt to »tt«amiine
permitting, it uteres elects one of thtx opt ions, then it cart forgo ease-by-case BACf
review by «
-------
the general permit into a state's law, additional piili* comment will not he rt*t|iiire«l and
the bur(fen to regulators and I.!m regulated community would be reduced. (5111 >
In order it* Ktrcamliite permit issuance by eliminating cage'hv-ca&e ft-ublic- participation
national rmwrni permit tor title V sources pursuant to which an entity would
flint national permit. Since title V foe* do not apply by law to pollutants other than
pollutant* regulated under tt NAAQS, MSB or National ljn»si»i» Standard^ for
tiazardou» Air Pollutant* (NRSIIAPs), pursuant to *cct»ii 502(b) (3)(8}ic pcpkh oi letting iiiic \
permits to aiiilw* for whomthey would have no authority- to levy pemtining fee*, ami the
notices would provide rational and bail authorities the ability to track major we of
CIIIOs. <5111)
Some commentcr* < W&\ 5139, «54 i 4) did i»i explicitly support or oppose the use of
general permits a*i,-t»r permit* In,- rule ax a streamlining option. However, ties© commeitters Intel
comment* on the use of general permits and-or permits by rule. including:
• EPA's argument that it should I* allowed to redefine to emit" as "actually
emitting"» not justified in this instance, m the permit* themvelvc* could t»e streamlined
by including tcgallv and practical enforceable general limit* on operational parameters.
(5139)
• EPA has proposed to dta&pprove elements of the conuiui:r.» .»,,u .it rM mining
program where a key component of the minor source permitting program » the useof
general permit* «r permit*»by-rule. because of the assumption thai these minor *mmx
programs have KyKtematically been utilized inappropriately to authorize major sources
and circumvent inajiw SSR rcijutrciBcnte. The commentcr believes limit EPA now
proposing lc» me thsse very same iiwtiitniiiins to a»ifl»«»iiK iimi»of sowces will be
tftinftwing to sotrn*. In* iwrliaps a sigosil ilai a niorc rational policy las Itmn nckifted by
otliim (6414)
Some emmmmm (5082. 7935) oppose the mw«
4§S» S flC'01111111% option. 1 fK IT I Of Opjpl^Sli.ffcMf IllWtUuC.
• If ClilCrs were fa heccitrie ii» eotslml m*nv
¦ * 'V *»»¦>>* '* * ' *** I V> *¦ ^ ^ » »¦ V %!%.«* * *»«%« • * »*•* " * "**»*« ^ * *'* * *« *
;utol%'iBB for title V Oteiniite nl the fimtm liine 4s u ksmII f»eimilliiii» aulliorilk**
iitip>sisit>lc for authorities to act on title V sfiplkalions within II months, us gmeraily
reciiiircil, wliich amiki ignite a wave of litigation over mkned deiKffiiies 1^1182)
prov«i'ion« because g«atl pcriwits do'not alow for facilitv-specilw conditions^ (7935)
Since c«iiitti«ters *nims4 many of our conceit* «*«»« why it wiB take li«« to pin !lie«
mmmm » ph« iiikI tnimy emvawtfUts had w w«
rirnaiM ¦»>%'<: forward ott app'oacfKt. incluciing policy ami fe-g«l eoneum,»« me not
finalbing tic gciicnil permits and peniiils-liy-itile iilrciiniiiiiig c»pl»tis »t litis lime, Wc woiikl
-------
likely want to explore, through »notice unci eommetn process* which ofltieM measure* is viable
to pursue Ititther. Htm comment*. including my opiniow about the legal and policy direction
we must take regarding these streamlining option*. will be *ltlre»«l in the action(ft) where we
might apply them.
The proposal preamble tor the Tailoring. Rule acknowledge* iliiil lite as# of electronic
permitting is growing across the U.S. as more stales impleoieiil new or upgraded system*. We
believe that tie use of electronic permitting (ta addition to the use of general permits) could
mmmi m addressing name of the administrative burden* that may occur due to CillG mmrnm
mmxiS being added to the 1®S1> and title V programs. Comments received m electronic
permitting as nil option to mmmAti*. tit, I'M» »mS '.ilk V permitting process me presented in litis
subsection.
Some commenter* < 5C»m 5711) support the t»« of ckvtronic pcrminmft as a streamlining
option. These eomnKfltM* state llial electronic pemtittmg could:
• Help streamline the PSD program for sources already considered major 5«i«« for
conventional iiftllutiiUs m »«8 m Iftoae that would be brought into the mmtram for CHICI
emission# by reducing the tune, ewxt and resources expended by permitting agencies aim!
applicants to obtain a PSD permit. f 5711J
• llefo where- data etifrv mav he used f«*r ptuMmte comftli&tce cmtsrram*. Mich as a
consistent data platform b^ween PSD an) 01*3 Mmfatcity Rule
rei|iiif«wn«! <5711)
Various commeou* (2304.4231.4239. 5082. 5135. Sl»») ofipow the use of electronic
p^fftiilliilg as !i option* Hw itim#iim iW iht-if ci|i|i4*siiic>ii
• FF4 should twt aclirw clrciitmk i»nwff»|te m twn l^ikmne If tile FP-\ sl»i«y
cl©*© in • separate ndemal:»t: .m-a only after a careful evaluation' of how surft rule#
impact individuat stales. (25(H)
• ElbVtrufiic pcrfHtffwi** would not Ik hclpfiil iiiMil stofnc
e'xperiaici mpkmeMmg iie new retjitir«i*iii» iito their PSD and title V fieiiiiiliiitg
programs. (4238. 4239)
• The mmmmtem' rtates litemplal the nee oi\*fectf»«ic pent.uMi- ->t»i -M "it , •)"<>« wa»
aiMii€c«sftil and ksiiIMiI in a significant loss of UMiiey aid tim^. 1513S, 5198)
• FfA lias not danofmlrtilecl Im>%% eicclfwiic p%iniiit!iiiii i€fmlm fmactn of
-------
l*.ie®. liititign cie«it>«f». jjcinmiic:*«% ,t
that is not now available, We expect ttw*t '»f 'east 1 year of implementation experience (of the
l-p. >*,, sMl. . -i ,'t «H ;V(i |>> |. .1 L . >< .I.l.hu.") <1 v. II 1 .
extrapolate that txperiene* to small sources and put Jliis approach into effect For that reason.
we tre not able. hi litis time. fcs prt-tic). iiu- .ipfiKianit mill ea&e any burden prior to foe
planned rulemaking for step 5 {i.e.. later half of 201 i, to promulgate by July 2012, effective July
2013), These «»»»»> < < •«, h*Uu .1*,w. , », ems expressed by commeiticts about this
approach. will he addressed in the action^) »he« we ntiglu apply this streamlining option.
46
Hie proposal preamble describes "leatt" technique* as referring to a collection of process
eliminate non-value-added activity ("waste"*). in order to meet customer needs better, more
quick! v. mid mom efficiently. I*% the context of air permitting. we assen list! "lean"
. on documents, delays associated i* ith Irnwiiiissioii of
aawtmitftiUfc ftcrocctt v&rHHfe iiwi iic\ewp «mk* approve 111c1.11>. vvc sikhoh *ct3§£ iftM m&fty
c«npI^ ifd" ii Wtug ^und crt luc^c
believe that similar ami improved "fcai»" techniques could lie employed as a strcamliniftft
option tool for CillCI PSD and title V pcTiiiilltug piirptwe*. lliix ailwetwrt pwscnli* eomn^Ms
«»the use t»f ieait" techitiqueii m a rfKiiiiilioiiif option'tool for CIMCJ PSD and title V
permitting.
One comment*rfS7i I) expresses explicit support for the ose df'"lea«**tech»k|iies for
procedural %wisle by rctkicing m ctiniiiinliii^ permit backlogs, snxifs., wiu«tf«*saw re
-------
Even though "Itmf permitting is another sireaiiitifiiog approach thai doc* not r«|t»iie
rulemaking or (fate adoption. ifcis approach will require tmpfcmciftatkm cspcricnee with €11 JO
that is no» now Available. Wc il." .« <» i "ear implementation experience (of tic
type »« will gain starting in 2011 > would lie required. plus* at leawt «n attiJifiwial yew t<»
extrapolate that exp«ieii« to small sources and pi Ifcis. approach mi© effect for that reason,
we are not able. at this tint*. to presume that dux approach will #•** m\ burden pnrn to- the
planned rulemaking for step 3 <§,«., Inter half of 2011, to promulgate by lulv 2012, effective July
2013). These comment*. including as anv concern* expressed by emmmmtem about th»
approach, will be addressed»»the action^) where we migjbt apply tl»w ttreamlming option.
14
-------
Apper.r I ,-M f ^jwvr 10 w ^ lhf:ri"n -n n F^n,- *
API
lll»»ltwl j. I ^
urn i iiwisst
June 16.2012
John A Paul, Administrator
RAPCA
117 S. Main St,
Dayton. Ohio 45422*3280
Re Streamlining of Greenhouse Gat Permitting
Dear Mr. Paul,
As requeued, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and is member companies are
Dlaaaad to wo¥«ct® ft* lnoi.it on oerrnit sifearBllfsino aoofoaclies for PSD Minor
|^t W WOTM**# *» r%0- «%•*»# tl iw-iur* 'W»ID ptaWBl WlifcSIIIIISIBM M r F '*" SW* « twin »Vl
N-*»R and *;rc v r^T'itt for gram!*..** gas t-wtrtona
Art arw its mwnoers nave oeen actively wo-riuftg wim trA to wennty mechanisms to
MTOpiff permitting of greenhouse gaa emission*. ahoukJ such permitting be upheld in
the courts.
A Ol 8sa» aM..w.a%« ,4 #-* #'in Jik #»• „ a rfnfct 4* ».A-i ««i » »,>%. • m» S Ajk. i « 'SV% ""Js?*! '*'4 m. MU»xm, 3
Ari is providing responses to we ftve e t»y#s wftfttf wiin tne v»ean Air
Act Advisory Committee.
Sincerely,
Attachment
Cc: CAAAC GHG Streamlining Workgroup
-------
[ 88
API to OAAAO Gflcj SMfiiwIttwg tt'oigroup Qmatamm
w t.( i.t i - »— tj.i.j.ml.ij »i— ^.^.v!. ...t..~.. — o^i^ %%. br ^J Iv
twt««* »l» t»l«, «,i«*fe»* ummrne wm timm* the ^wmt thmluU.... Wlfat»III# p«nt of any MfT «m*«mi»m nwiHing in (he mtfmwmvm to implement CCS. Thfe.
i« Imimmf thew h waive reel agreement thaiCCS is notcurrently 1 trnmimm-Mly mlWr
lift: tiaiilojjy iitiil will art t* c«iiunefc«iy mmi * nil* t» fatter dUte, j«*il»tt 183® m bter.
EPA* insistent «• th*l CCS be tomidefed fit «m BACT wview «mm i«» Mitetotatiiil «»t «n»l.
mum impwlMillf,, deby »n both the preparation and review af permit ,ij»fiif»»iii>»» unci
aiwocbted BACT .himIws, |i ,.|*. .. ,t.»» «i the
M!% ill«%%'**«|| *ttl t <, .« ,,H l;,,... J). ||M. ,r*d&i»nt1
duamim.t Tltfc Is, ««if ili'iili*! I»5> ll»i> fact t)> »i «h»- '*(-«»- $ iwivwm do not «lw«y»
EPA's »|»|»»%ll«.»i»iii «»||; tegilttf iilj|
CCS, Tills *m «M titiw!«.»*1* to Bw *ml »%•»•' tint# tlwl piwidet
110 tw«#f!t.
A*|*rt»f»!»»«tmf~4mvm BAl'f An iiniwrstaitil® that BACT Si'f I» lit# «l
«ll «vaM*r ftniliul ii 10 c#|»Hir»» • hraid *nm «l pMrMbl opttMw fcr
|»lii!i©s control. H.c*»w«, «» EPA Im» tMptitml lliis Step i» not without liiall*. fcii
EPA h».» tfci»l«I Nat of option* ikiI n*r«*iiril* »iil*t*»nk l«w«
lh-«»ii.t BACT slionkl |f**i»ly «N l» «|'f!W to #» ^pfHntM'* 01
for lli»» p«>|x»«i fcciilj» W»* «j»iw llinl BACT ilmmM not g«*rilly to
iM»y» » mmm tgmtfm, in fm% mm* # n^mm* mimiimi ifc.i»t t*» wril
41 A*. 1 iillilly•!!». Wr toiiiag hrw Willi thr
**4lo».-n.,t i>'. • , .«w to (»fgitb».m WCt(ffe»i»f »*»llo «•*!«• n,i Hvi- (.*< inwuto
for III** |»K>|K***1
jwtifrct R«n-fc'%*1»|» d < iclc i»«i.l,
A It ¦ £>¦• t« ,»t.. t# ,j» i.nil .« i>,( » •<_
* ^ * * * W -* ¦ *** 4 * - * - Vi i— *1*^ * i Vi ^ * * %Jf% t %$%.'? 6 ~ ** ^ ^ ^ ® * J.%® ^ *%
trt(WIU4«' PA1.1
* I'uW* Notire ..iiocl Commmin
All s«»|®es.»s iImi otw v«y «wi- w» to •UMBtBnt i» f*nn»l m-fcmr ami issiiiiiit* pwm wonki
t„ to i' a- .. niente to III* inltiil dt*ft wiel PSD p»fiiiit* |»n»p
-------
[ 89
i < n'f^« • '<- -n j.ii »4 - -•
^ yf\;.
* A|l *v'IUv»l\ '\?!.tUs!S
* ~»cjik »»od Vrstbibh
* « Uvi ! ''tut lmju« t An.iU <¦.*.
1 lv- .ibt<\v uc ii<*td 1 v*t l»« ,*m !^P ivimiU-.;;1, *itt« -u t*v b<>th Uv
Jpplh »:iii >ifi'! tb»* i <"» *«'vv im; \ H i% .«»¦*r t.ml ivob that lb«» tumitvj i >S ukI.m'i «,»s Vv hwr lbs M"
l(WK *>*>s ,tir * ,i !l,l^ Mis n lit) lb* h-^uial^U «?! * »1 I? , . Uikb I th*' I ub>nnr, Kirl-' As
¦ ; itv» !• 5 Ou.^Umj* Uvm- nit* v>\ <'i,?l install' *~»• *\ ?»» ?*¦ * >H* 1 HIussj* iiui iln >tbo\ ~• m \ h*n % 4w«' ?> >n?;;v 5''". non < ,1 M > p ,)in »' lht» ^bokls , \« n »: lh« ^'tin" ,s >m t »» ni.tj**t mmh » u«* tfa-w jvtiluunts
fin tlh j> ^ults .*1 ,h"mUm'S wii! < «apiL»j5 |v?uUbi jvk dubbum \. ,t!;u U\«sl n puM sh*i
,Mhi m »~»*• b*« n v t U*> ,imhk-nt an >uubU vb ~ 1!mmvi««0 m>I» h *>\ ». .H» -v>
li ,ui *u) ' i»'i»'-isf u .}•• th-' A but «n ¦ <\A th»'
J»'U\ *iiu! ^ »^t '^r '.ouc, »• in«Kb'Un;; th»* N A X\h- pLmt kl> \ kU<<\ U\ tv« :> tr« k
!h 10 "'id"'! ' \p'liutt .sppA>% "» nK ,nr I: it l!i»• p«-; ujiI i*. in'tui; i'\ M"A >». i
st-iti' p iJVuUni/,.3uUK«fii'i
* I /u!i' i«k»l -p«, 'Xa «I - A ( «tl A^-n.8 smP' u i ujhI » tiiUH.i' I'Vvhh'j ^!'*'psM I
I T A u ui »i»^t is*tu* i )*-» ^ p* ^ n*ii uimi U < ihai thv fx-inut ill 3'.tn ¦- m* t '.tn
m.iin/,- ?vp- < t> 'v pui viuiil io . t» n i"i th»- I >A \ In*- in»' tm '-s h«• ix ^ ;*-{ ^ p^j>u t is
ro^ini.-tf '«¦<*]> \\ .V- a ('-MtU «^{ i .H' «i suasions ^nl4-AM",nn rt itH|iiiit\i \ v-n though tlui 1*^ \ «^h
,iik! '-imi. i"v » -u c{ t N*" th^' Nsl.u» «r'.i I \ ishi-n- v n «• ,md
It?" N'lii^nah ^ r«tn .»ru} \tH?.»-phvni AJtif{* |M- K -.Ml i i.« T\»H'!»s { sp'« t;«.
ln'«U ,t,l ilh n« • »p • si Us,*11 "A i«'\ k-vs is rv.t ,»du'i . nu^i- <«\v ui i»".s ih.»n
<¦5 »*'. t• H ^ i»> M {'*.»• • t! .I'.vi!) thr sniJ5> t ?•. M .? I""-! ^ p» I H* K ^ n| s ,} j< ,
onM-sv.^'v. J?\ , Ht < s !b«- tv- \ u ^ h.^s ui'Onn?' M *{•» u 11h *' ¦! U . nw |
Mth^r s -...MnnKs tbr -ttrn » ?r;y^-.?|^ss s, ,)xr .» -*i* .?nH > f."\^ t
} hr U-» bnn ,*| l<5 * *(«?!tii»< ^ -v\ !>•", -v sul^-T^nlM 1 b»> ilvp /viJ.'nt
t'M t**r?+iill « J.-- m» .jutiM', ^htit Itn- .•% . »\n n.i >•/>•.}?.*r 1 Imr» .m.- v«s)» I I'A
!>?! h„n\ K>»j!tup,i 1- th>' n*« m >v in Lu } -v-\ } o( t ibocr r« fh» t in ••<» »¦ I A
/j.uii-j It si ii''!."!!i'i'HM; ihi< isup.it 1 »"t > r'mi i'-h ul n 1C*'*
In «KbiiU,«jt ? J-A miM > ¦ 'in|>l-'b» ,i ^nvuibHMU >n A> t ix i! U\A.< I tin v »»iiisiiU^n»»?v> M'A thai thi-^ mut
»»ppUi •MM'' pi >\ Kb a bj,»i.i fiJ ,? n<| s tshtH H <"% l H1 f ^ «¦ Mil;: th-' pi' n*u i »Mhl
^ i'A b .1% !<\|u»'sb 4 th.it tbi^ ^K.Min-UMH h»* subnut^'d > ,i? ls *'•> p-»sN«h^»' lit.-
lN s m.jv »4ah»' ,t j[M i mm! a? ib^ ".hIiaJ [^iss?bb {i «•«•, >?fk< ^ ;
'4. it Mis- K-'n ,Htv ¦' .} b > *lu M« 1? .evp.iH I b« ln> ^'i,\b All ts «. M',A i »*% i^if tin v
p-'.fb< \ ,t»ai i'bnHH.it"1 ;fn' 'M-ihI Un «.ii» b Wi\h'Vt.^ v. brM' rnu'-'wn'ir. 'J 'Hb--i * pnsMtutids >ui- u;vt
Mi'.mb* ,r>! f. kti>bn^-U m 5b* p»'|iniU<^pk r«» > ' ' • >'ki -'¦<>' - ' 1 <
A i 4 'JMiunuiu: IN> Aj;i iM ^ pubb'-b r,uui jk; «• } *i st* \ '• ^ .wu»ls v-> ^ b»-h* Hh'
*m'}\ .tn{ .'nnv.jr m ,u,« ; ,* U #s b% ,>',<••};* Uv* r^r.-d tor < - "^pb s 1 A j«^v s hrn o<>h bis,
«'u;issni«>». iUt' i •.}.•/(•15}
•>""*
* Environment*) Janitor Analysis (intle|*ii»l«illy }»r««ii»l fcy KPAJ
76 m WC7II
i'.. , . ii
-------
AH Responses w CAAAC 0f 10 Mn% Workgroup 0«s»»fis
Jaw ^ Mi;
„Jr _ . 1 11 .. " , . .. ... ... ...i fc* II T A !¦«.. uJ'. ^..,_ . . ^ tB .. 1 ,.v^„ , 8 »*1 .... ,i „/„ ... _ - $.._,. J f£_, .. . i.fL^.w
te\ new is pfi?jp$srip€i r»\ rj a, ine pstant 4ppiit«sm i. is ifiijMtieci r»y tne
< -t s 11 •* limits! i^-mn {'•»•> kn at tfcw** 4vs k*u
M th*» | \ .sl'Mh M'- Ml tv»
-------
API Responds* K> OAAAO Crflcj
«is, ;»i:
Workgroup Qmatamm
>^><•>1,1.II J^ V-. :K-t . .. I ^ UJu .n'.l I iu • •• k|;
Triggering t*4>solely Imitsiw m t-wu Ht».ft^nltsi in 11m? l€i!llswviii|^
• S»:i«Illfc delays
Tt*e 1^|> prof4*&& ftdfcfo tittti* U*4itv ptfiitillliig fctittt4f j*\. hut lor pwitiititttg
$c$My by €JHtl« #Bis»M3fiif th*v to- iwk*w C CS of* a iniyci^fcv-
fr@j€H;l h*«fc «kl» time to «pptkmfea nt *mt prmil n*tew for n© twflt
• • When K1*A is It* fiimf pprtnlttutg mtlwmi}' lot OHti permitting, th* anifc^wi! ISA
w lew 4ml IN UFA is^vkfW rttltl liitw* 4Ih! ««4. w> He*- iwittittifig. h»tf* ft©4^^1*1®%!
Iwitrftt 11»«- f tt^tsct* rpv^H1 INy EPA 4tdkis 'ttWrrliiiiily to lltt* rrvfew
|PI'f t J $$ ^ t ^ V ^ ^ ^ f tl | d'i 1 c
>; For c$w$- when? G.HCi ewlmsiotts tiigffw I'SOand ctfcliei' |*jllul«al& *ie faulted at
f »* ««. * i v—* »> *». 9 -J . g, 1 c »»i. b* — _ ,a»J* .*• :«' .*?"% .*»!»- j.~ Ik » ftw * -4.1 1 | # _ -, ... ^ ^ _ , 1., ' a * ... «|i- . >|m> J - '
M||Swi» t«»ii wv P»( PUl P'liw rntSf.'i wip r lllii^lmiw w\*slSv if #»- 4 4»>
litMiiiig*. SACT num-s. mt €j«»#llty i»«i*ljws.» *o»b, %-fgi'ljilwBi, iiml vMWI%
*«*Iwfa, i»»*l ClfstiI Ar lit#? itii|Mc1. ui* silrfiiiyift §houM ttol liit* #sli(tttte?d
m4m€.
It ffl." w ^
AW t#ifissiife t^€{ kiw ii»» 1 i v ti,*{ i't.rfliilMsii C.iMil,i©f I K^4*i.i ^ukI^hu*
V k w&n b 1*^11 |*re.iittif1f|, 4f<* WHIflcl im$i
%%:h% i *14# pi»l!®4*ifi prolyl lift rxiisiiilf* $i»l#IIiii|| 4 fi>?
MACTf oi Isfcfl**cQlilfdl %h«>uiil I* we^mpi u*c |ii*riitittiii|| API
iti.h.i.3j*ititnvl i^ ^ 1'* lltv I¦ «C„,. ifwit dm.liltcortti%
mdrnfimi, hmi Mm*** ik*m? *w ©4ti#f w*y% to s4f««iiw prmlltifn^erf
««:ii m gi?»»wl
i'' it JL , , iL. 1 . „ I ' . i- M .x t :• ft. ..... 4, t, a, L. S »Afc . , - . 1. „v_, ., . J>" / ' < _| ^ , . , ...,. |. " t. . »1— .^ • l« .A, .1 >. Siiw 4.,. . ^. „ ,,. _ « .. , J i ,
tit A wis si^RiigiittM me Mk 1 twl Hie iiiiiiip#!«« v* |*rRii® i«i ».%i« *i wiilii? iiiPiiia»i &
4uMkkn% bmmm^ f30- |iiirileww*i #iicl clilllfttllte
m%% p% |%i.tf<&4iff tliJl won til I*? nM|iiftmt It* ff& llifiwub PS'O pcfmittinij, to wiiii!1 llie ©coiicfitiic
return » I© ftificl profHi*orKt *!>»' tuu«' n- >hh.v| I v, >\ s^fj; sin- ;1 |«p) ! -i: ;s {.<. {.h .. i c th'
-------
AH Responses w CAAAC 0 f 10 Workgroup Questions
Jaw ^ :Mi;
entire project cos*. In otlwr cases,, ptefimiiury modeling show* ifcit meeting li*» BO modeling
requirements will fee * M(im»nc»n»lclii»ll4»«ige, in these sitaMtkms, mnity ctJiiifitfiifs (terikie not to pursue
lite projects, foregoing tlii» uaocUted benefit*.
-------
API Responds* K> CAAM" GflcJ Sf#ii«!tti«g Workgroup Qwsstwis
kt* ^ ::-!:
OwmMmi •> - Aisiiftiiiig that« wiw err in ptv-fiemtd wlifcfc trigger ft-© wilety
'Vrn''"- 'l''' ' ' 'V "'m7> (*«'•"',! ,i'' nlul >,k"h
;t« ail *r*l y» tmlifcitey, #»** «k> wviwat pwfatiwiwfc* that «ti in fiiifit mmitf ft-view m>Mv
of CWG emiwttons. Wtiifc* it is j*»f»siti# to juiii-CIHCi |ioil«ilai»l» witfc itdd-aurtmfmh, tk»
tijptititiilo#* ant tafcii fsn Citltiiy fc^fitig towli#n?CiMCi ptitli %-my le%i Is
into ft?©,, Some j.piwilfc eMimjplis tiirfiitlec
• MC operation# - piwlncifcn Mrtkmes i11*»* would y wwiiy1* new fmUMm)
Flaring ef usiwhlfil gm - Some mm I* 0* OS taw pimliicifctn opmttom «w»i ***'
tomml to Am g»* along *wt§» pttaMrv oil pftwitrttMi due In it current lick of
iiifr*ir«rt«iw k> ciifflm* §» <»«*» tr«n»fet ii to nutlet. Wfcm flw «»«*» «r*
comMneti with (An CHG (methane} emlimtttim, l» is (Kswttle to trigger RJDwifely tin# t«»
GHG The FSO ivvSew for ilia however, 4tm not »««iH in tt»v
#titt»»i»ii«J (OMftattof nnlwtiom i«e«iit»fa*i» fctit wmmmimly m4 time to m
Inr pfispcfe,
•- priMlwfkwi nctivttie* - Certam oil ptorfiit'tion opcrtfttonsi imfittre the use
of ftiPttm ¦#-«! therefore lilt iiiilallftlioii crfsteim ^nmrtors thti emttGHG*. Although
trri'iissicKis- csifi K* Inflow wj^tttltcitfTK#? te'%"isls iv tth coiitiNjJSi II is ftol
po&ifeJe to il© so fet CHG emteitoM*
• t g#4'll«i*lg M) lift %tHC*
CC% teawiil opnito faciei |pt -111 msiy ||t§ li«s
1'' 1^ C.. i H ni 11^^ 11 pi 4fn^n** I^
• l)i>w wte*#® CXStCi e|WMt»fis - ft'i,114.1.414 ir|.w*f«tl0p# |T!lt»* pti^cfe woykl N*
C'e|^i*isls$ii |sitijisfe - As i*ill&*s tumwn# 1#* for
wiff «*fl4-*i»ry Hi »kii»tfc pt»rpi«-», Btinrliig «ii»r«ili fen «
CiHCt#fai®iofi$c» . ,tU»» 11* «•«»»«»#"c®|»i«
Ul|.|ft||w. In litis si ^fi#f it?* # nukt 1^* fort lt> ol^toifi ®p^*rE7\ aI
*
-------
I 94
•API Responses lo CAAAC GHG Slrenmhnmg Workgroup Questions
June 18. 2012
The addition of boiler* or combustion turbines - Relatively simple pi ejects, which m.u
even be supporting pollution control efforts, may trigger IVL> fat GHG pollutants due lo
the need for steam to support the project
HydlOgM produi tion/adding hydrogen production capacity - As facilities continue U>
upgrade equipment •.) ate substantially lower than NO\ emissions, sime emission factors fot
eat h of these pollutants ate much smaller than the emission fac tor for NO*. Thus, it follows that a facility
subject to the 250 tpy I "SO major source threshold could readily be minor for conventional PS1> pollutants
but could emit over 500,000 tpy COtt.
Further examples can be seen in Tables I and 2 below.
I able 1. Potential facilities Subject to PSI> Solely for (.IK. I missions
I'jnlfrfckinfc
fT*Y)
1 kjuipnirnt
Iyp»
MaUi
fuel
NO,
CO
VOC
PM
CCVM
fuel Usage
(MMHI U/brl
ftnlrr/Heater
Low NO* himm
122
"3
5
100.1*
196
SCR.. aulvtu uudatkin*
NIC.
9
33
4
100,000
I9*i
Turbine
SCR catalytic omRfaiion*
NC.
a
6
4
100.000
l9o
Recipn* at inn
Ehgina
«00«HP<7S0 Tier 4
NC
74
35
It
100,000
1%
tiOOsHP 750 T».t I
Dntillalv
S3
2«
25
b
100.029
140
Lean Burn lingaw(Cat Cf 510B)
NC
14#
i>9
o*
«
100.000
19ft
• BACT/l. AEK tvjw controfe
P ,i . |7
-------
I 95
•API Risqxtriscs to CAAAC GHG Sureamhnmg Workgroup Questions
June IS. 2012
I ahle 2.1'iMijl Major Modifications Subject to PSD Solely for <»ll(. i mi v. ion*
i miHMino- rrm
t-^nipiuraii 1 v |'»
DHiik
\mr\
NO.
CO
voc
PM
C'Ojpq
1 iirl L-Mg*
(M Mill L/hi)
Bo&r 1 Ir4lrr
STK UKJdaftovf*
sc
M
25.1
r\Q
7".,000
147
Tltrtunr
SCR. tauhifc tnddatiml*
KG
5.0
4J
33
U
TxOOO
ir
Rni|»!*H 4»u»k
Knf.lnrt
eOO^HP 750Tbr4
Pidilair
3».9
l*.2
1*.0
u
75,000
10$
" BACT, 1 Al K hf|wrfflrtrpfc
Tile abu\ e situations an- wjniplts that «r helieve show that the reai h ami tmpat t of tin* ISl) program
for sourres subject solely to PSD as a result of GHG emissions has (won under estimated h\ FPA and
drives the need for Additional streamlining efforts
[' . II
-------
[ 96
API Responds* to CAAM" Gflcj Sf#ii«!tti«g Workgroup Qwsstwis
?«<: ::-!:
OwMtto* 4 - Aiwiiftiiiig ihtfi < mw mmm* err »**lifk#t»»ti te pm,t-fnm>d wlifc*l» would trigger *»Wy
hiixmrn? it*Cil-ftt mmnmmi wm atw»%* ihr nujer *»*«• threshold... Ar*llwti? My tfrntttttwiag
u i. a!fif»fki*IM!ft'y it *cl»e» couki simplify ISOwviem:
* l1', pis\)t. js K | v. ntittetf b\ El*A m « dtbgnlwl permitting authority. ill** ftgeitry ihuukt
develop guidance to gti n I • t!» ->¦ » >>>•'. i< it., a „!> . «hen PSD i» tt iggwotl In
CiHG*.
twvk•»% cultural tMouwe iwiijws, #i»tl envlroniiMrote! jttstfc* '
reviews. I'tmumfime mmlywnwmM «.».tr>r«ropri»to. Furthrt, * tiered ronrept timitar
Its the imp |||'! sigiiifkaal iiiipAcf k^'fls j a| in FSO itKsdMii5i|p €o#lii hfjp flit?
tinceitoljily ami tiufcieft on toll* the ^pptksSfttrfi*U lite a^sicy,
us# «Ht. r tftr tvj%t.c4| ill # title cir
V Hufd^O
wllii h |»|»
npiW.'ii uifi-uil t».. ¦ I . «.!• . *test number of mmnm. in the ihwntv
ofdiiect R»Dnu-lwuomforC5I*»mwk In*» doing. *g«icfc» stemltl Iwikl o* ill* immtikm
policies«nd PTE gpjdam* llnl EPA m the tWOs, *•*! »-t»»wkfei lieiwl umpti&«tion
that elemm »»*»igv **l fPvlwiwiKBfeil improvement profcx'tR.
"tit#*l»ifil}' of l%«iiilii tostoeiinliim* II* jwaiiiil wvlnv pit*» n."iitli»:»ii»i#t»l«l, m&iiiiiiiiy
Mum Ipt'imil «miM| *lti»rB*lh w s»«*l» * Ciriwiasl P#«nte «nd Pt»will* by Rnl»«
|I*SR«>. In for twinttf1' s In,.«1, «,,« bum. pmiitlliigsystem. mmtt tlmm l4#'f«ISR
iiiillioi-toliiii# | !"®R» or stefctattl piitilt i*g»iilfii»i»»»»|, plm sk chi.«iis» of Title V li**! 0|»«?nitiii{|
l%»wib
Per»»# «*l immml *jm GmmnA P«»wi* in the pM v
whlrfc piw%-kl« insteittmeous »fpmmm, fc«» ti Vmmmt !>*«»* mi I* turned
cfi! hnOilrpj jo pi^t %P4f 11*r(u\Hanii % if^uWlwo^ i4nlw sppwv41 in tlwn dav %
ft* CitWMl Permits.
Smimttkm #tiil rfickiiig|, Av its the Initio tbr llttK* fei # PSf ^
wi»» '%€ «l*w mMR J? to 1ltt tlaw for Toms PIII& mi!
The ji»fciff«*l*>i»in tK HI.- • ,1. w. n-.lt,ii." «i.,«i C*i*»fi»t«nl»e# fcigfcly eflerlive ui«iii»«l"
clfAHMls^iiily t uttiiig |*i«ilf4figct»&tiSfli.l sl#b.%\
f
-------
I 97
•API Risqxtriscs lo CAAAC OHO Surcamhnmg Workgroup Questions
June 18. 2012
Figure 1 - Permit Time-frames
fi#ui*8-l
Air IVrmitN (I ncontcstril)
K-riuil I tiut-l ranic Reductions
XWnli I MM Waok|iM>m«
I Priority 1 V
...
iwiyi
lilXunMi
1 «
1 ***••*« I
Sew vmver irwrw
4
KxJUtjJ V*K tpnxmt*** ttf qj»ui/i» ant
nn» and mav mnilfkafisNn
sto
*n
&
hrriiiM hy rule
*
m
!¦¦
SmoiImM pmud HUhei.
1 l*N» and irttvaunn
»
M
«
A
C&BMff httU h ffctr* firmm
-------
API to OAAAO Gflcj SMfiiwIttwg tt'aigroup Qmatamm
k,;
QmtaUom S - .kmmm.tug llwil * aw at tiicwllfkiifciii it ptopmeii •ttirlt woiili Ittggft PSU satisfy
eliiissiitus iiwiistse ^ ' * i m >i -ttf Wit*) -*w %-mi' (»>4i ntnl
|.ri |vimtt% pi"sTiwtf> hx inti^ utlwrsj. ftsif MWf#s i%
III MMNtoR lf» tit# Onmt 1'Vriiiil ami I* R aoM f»wi«»Msf%', tuttwt lis
•«ttwiiitl«* the permit f nm»m Intlsite
#iw M4. i*. „ ... . ,.„ ««¦ i, i - —,»« _ ¦ (I t a, •«. '» A „ . _ . f jk^L_: I V &«.•* . *, * .«»•>. „ » # :t_ _ * I. ¦ « t J/BL V-. # .« Jl :..,t . X | !¦-=
r.,mMfu^ tiunof Mititw |*iftiifttffcg| wstictmf
flirt
p*rfck'*ii*Hy 4r* lor ftilttrsit j^fsc«Miil>tfslion wtikft W a*. 4 ''ctetfi '
tot iPAr««1 wli««l
• IJfMlAfs? pMmntg%Mmm€ to ««egiMz* flirt OQ* Is not HAiT giwt Hint it m m&i mmmummily
«v*ti*bfe «ml will not lie few mmy ma
• IsA-iif6 ||iiUAiit"^' ii.oi>i:|iuj| llii4 scojpi* ol" if%& fSIIHypA iinl 1HJ ^j*h. iaIJv non (»Hi»
• !mw jgnkUmv mM-mmmg turn- to perfof m «t l®*A tlMi provides fcpmpkfe?*, fiat *x*inp|p<
tddmam* tl» iippsiptMte Irv#l of cfcMii
• I^An, HHFA and Kf
th#*!® $% mi rwh.1 to cctiicltii:'! immjIv
ill fH
• €cia«tefi§ with fin ItPA aiqmfmumt Mmm- |*»licws EPA ibttU iBipleaiefti a tmmtokm |»ttc%
with mtmd. #1111% m Ira©f the im«» t§»>- CO# to
tivuM muwm Inmig n%nbml ipr^mitTHIi* 1, Kill m ^iit,gcn»klpi«l
• I lie l**u ptmiltiJtg ptMtm, 4m Ki its iomphul),• ® il» ttifc? mm titei «$ |«terti«lly
III# %lart til'csii%lrii«"fen fof pffi|wfe( 13®A iiIkibIiI litis part of tli#-
In fi4ccsi%skl^iiit|| ife #p|»re#cli #t to wlwt 4% " cfia^ltiKikiii «*». tivttk^' Un tile
piifpcweS' ol ^||iii«i«i|| We §*?!**%'€ siggiM'iw cutifuM^ tin? tefill
wtih ' f^|$in«ihrtt thf trrm <* ccw^lfttciitwi is w#Ily
to fx* uwl Icic lriifi^fl»« |fto%'isiofis- to tin* i^'rtontifc
• Wf fWf?ii*iitf>istf tlwt Fl'A do •rv**rv1lifi*g to th# N!SR Rrfwro S||%
lU ,1 (1... ft »»..¦•« - It .««• . ,v» • m I » . •» ... n T'.fc« **¦ S-'Mbj,!. i«s. ni«fciii < ».t Sk?V—L* t*.L. t I'V >,. Mi ..•!
*»Wl Jh • « • t UK» » !!fi4SI i*t I W>0 Oil- i «U* i-» 414* tm iVr,l\ rvfilHIH > (ilKl,
iiitlli ifwii% of tin® slf^Ati'ilifiiftg te^hfissin^ in N^R
in %i#ies w'ln?i'# thr* prlcir in Th«w inclutk* ii*r «m» ii«- m i»*l i*»
lufiiii4- ftcfttitj fc^t Ami ihc w of PAIs fc» ih** !^P
Siiiii.fa.ily, feFA fciioiikl like ta auk1 %m.ft® ll»l. #11 Mmii fiiliitei1!!* ai*
f rocm^d wtili te# pfe»i%\
-------
AH Responses w CAAAC 0 f 10 Workgroup Qmm»s
jaw :mi;
exceed am ymt. EPA often |»»m«tecfM»i«*iil*«.n«|^»lk*lioii'- .ilt. i lh< . !>«,.• >•! tw jh,Wi«
comment period and iippwis to have little incentive to asamv expeditious processing of permit
Qii«s|j®n 4) foe lodes Ttxis^cw*#!! Iitf|»t»is fur various classes of {termite. B»i*xf on API tiwfalww'
willi stele dgfline* litfoiigiitiiil ws? 11*1%'# pivpiiwd figure wliitii
Agency to «jopt lilts uclwtltil* msli»i»«tanl policy to mmv much of the uncertainty •sstwkfctl
Willi lie process.
12
-------
I 100
Q-mm 10
;.!• »4 \ ¦ ' - -
Jim
I 1 iim-hm* i«* < .1 K » IVnniHt??|* V lions
Sottf*** IVfmit
'sv
"4" f Vj itt»t
J r \ K« i-. l nm-5ni*»
b\ 1H» hUt'J IhviA I'M V''' iJ.H
H> ii" th i;« in< \ xt1 it.iv
Hi }i> » l^ic) IImhI'M1 , '"'M1 d.r.
M'• l.tii'i Hun i«»»- "'-'V 'l.i*
M.ijur s4 »ufu' IVrmit
>. .1 h ¦ atihi
1 n'tk'Ull i Vmim?
I ni A.}nM?v-u tiss -
< 'mplxi. jvsn
I H\ n»f Ih.iM ll'H »Us'v {n- »M
i * -*
I t tmlifn Mum ,V ^liuH i'U ^
| S»MUl »'M
xLtiu~< *»»> *'uMn Ih-.Hfur
I'uMk M.kiiuh',
I N'»M \ |4plh ttH>- 'hi ?-^U\ nhi.i)
r ir ^!|:Lnui3t!ii'!L
I N,o$ Apptu ,iM*' 'ui s.H?n
I p»"i millHu; a> hoi*
.H?n aiiiif!
\!»n«»r Sotir«t'/
S\nihWn Minor
i h i- ? innvtMn ni A*im>mMnt.*. i
' omplvU-rh-ss \n!h «' t »
puMi* Ik^mv, >m \ \ -{,j\ s>
S.tit-1> fMt il Hr n- - hu^j th »r t*^ <»ii,s i!,v.
Hv in> i,!?~•? ih ? > to* v i> ,»,v,
Hv hi « Itilri tli ti> Vm <*>Mh «l*n i it
I'uhlu 1 Im-ii uim
hx n<»Hun ^.u id
ksUi' i'» un»(
W- iv i.ttvi t 'oiU Jav
puhhv h- .fMnr.f
n«» Ut»-i th-»n 'HKhtf.n ;n > ^
I
\hmsf Stuir« <•/
I ui«T\»h,'n «M A jTiniu*-i Mltv ?
Hk h<> i.iU'i Ih.n; ! nil it,n Jp.^i
SvnlhHit Mi«<»r
P?< ||*H t f'M.'l.t!. 'S ,>|| ,«A »si -f
i *
i
S' "It '"¦! f
N.'tu »* iv 1 i I 'uhli> H« ,o nit;
K>>1 Appit» >j 1 »l«* t*M ifiiU'. tt (ti.i!
I
t miltingh Imhi
t'uhlu
Appli, ?»•') ifiuh Kiua;
i
>3, li.fn
KS|h 1 ('(Ml
H> no M«'j Ih.tj,t t.'u 4
r^rmit-hv-R u l«i
SI i HU'-'MHIiv ' N'l» t % f 1J ft»
fv'..S .ij»pfk ,il>I.>
>.'m a ) hfi^ntt! fk ntuf
ihf> srt-l.ijmft'3",
ft ^mn'J
.itu --m Kj-j-.*i ti, ii-.' t.M un?l p' i uui
„M?h t-lt
H * A >t h«*mh h,!'. ¦» »•?>< pes i lit. hMH h.tn'-s r* •? ir \ ir'-. ih^; p.'rr\H4. \r Us I iult,i!-
i "ii'Mh iH'tt-,iw' | m -¦ ^ I rj K»-s; >s . >\ \ul% I ".h | ,| p4|?ii, ul.ir M' \ il sj\m »h»
*h* ? u\K m \ tH,*:isi v, » .jj'plti .diuns ,u<' i otur'-'i U' ^nU hn t;M nit n*^ -i» »h'H', rnv *.\u *t |H't fiMh
|l"l s\ nilivl:. intnni •>»¦»!!!> i v tW .t »»| } j 'A r.l Ml *?»,>,% !.»? ih.' t ninpli t> i ,'V u-','. ,tn»J o?h u-.u
h,< A ''I ^ tfnU thts < >'h- \ - ,o pi-} hhJ in .>m t- bit- } JuH.jii
U
-------
I 101
i < n'f^« • '<- -n j.ii »4 - -•
Mv ^ yf\:
* '¦ uU* «fct It'rtM }>«»*\, s.mu*' f-K'l Lift OH S*'l\ »-s .is u t'lial' I'M a lU'tlh'i } PA pn'iprs.tl .ti.' V ,muI IM * pi.% tmi- M.'.nv •%
In i<> <*np'.:< it U!¦>? mmhv ,»fui r- jm-m-it jvitmMinp,
jS«» h.n> \« ioj^si«itfv? »him\ ,uiv*» h-,4i. i<'< >twir* nvi>' »»*~ [> r.< p>'? smiting .unh.uilv f hr A;',*'"" v ^Ivn.-M .**> M |5s-slrm vi <1 f- r,s u^nmrnui rH h«»^ imirN* ni< i,f .mi ~ w<\
p'O-M,t>n m w h:» ft ,m ,^pph< n*i»,«n > H*m .>*>,• [u p.?-, ,»n >»\»i t>».- v» » »<\ . ! t{>. <»\ .'Ttmv t f:. .,> *¦ mh hut rml ^su m.u' ^ oi l i<*»» h> mist { l'<\ ,um «pph-Mbit< vUv* ,*ho * »~,,],} nunc
,o*»r, M'»m pi.» * j^nmK h? \h«- •»•«»¦,! i^ .?n , «ir?^ ntH .sih! hsnU-^J
Mnr^'nv*ni pH.»l}»'} pr»>,m ^hu h sinutan^ m<'{» «uJ .»pp)n ?r»
l»s utM* i^vmp o? w\ i>*i\ 4'}s, jn|4» ^ ',*'|Mr.nc ;^.mp h,« fMi!.", thr l.s?^ » n«- »m m '-mp!.**
»ipplj» r«»?h n| pi» s-> b x M\'Sp;i's tv ou «m»'!in-' ili»- p^ »< >'ss -uh ^ I '' *v,
4|>:ik ih'h, **livl ilk1 UU'U lommiuuh
U
-------
Appendix L: NEDA/CAP Response to Sub-workgroup Information
Request
The National Environmental Development Association s Clean Air Project
Julv 16. 2012
Ttm Boring Conaparvy
B# Antenna
Cottccn^hMlip*
EN Utty & Cc*w*.*ny
EnonMoW Ccrpo* jnc-n
John A. Paul. Administrator
Dayton Regional Air Pollution Control Agency
117 South Main Street
Dayton. Oliio 45422-3280
OmgM^ufH LLC
IM« CorpujOoft
m«t«usari.
Koch fnounnei. »nc.
Mnti A Co. Inc.
Corp.
Occidmlal #»*tio**unt Corporation
RE: Streamlining Greenhouse Gas Permitting
Proctar A GamPIc
Mcywvtaauwf
Cou*r*rl
Htm LAW C*00# PLLC
Dear John.
NKDA CAP. a coalition of American manufacturers from various major industrial sector*,
applauds the Work Group's activities to promote streamlining OlIG permitting . a result that is
Critical!) important for public and the oeonuniy. In the follow ing document, we arc providing
responses to the five questions posed to stakeholders in your May 22. 2012 email. They
emphasize:
• Developing a strategy to minimize or eliminate permitting for pollution control projects
and especially energy efficiency projects and combined heat and power (CIIP) projects
and natural gas projects that trigger increase* in OHO* and or that cause increases in
"other" pollutants;
• Eliminating or streamlining the analysis of CCS in BACT reviews;
• Developing a strategy to rev. ard sources that have taken synthetic minor limits prior to
becoming OHG-only major sources or will take synthetic minor limits to remain out of
PSD for "other" regulated air pollutants; and.
• Paring back or eliminating PSD review of other regulated pollutants for GHG-only rnajot
We appreciate this opportunity to provide the requested input and regret that several recent
KPA's rulemakings have made it difficult to respond more quicklv to your request
sources.
With warm regards.
Rob Kaufmann, Chairman of NEDACAP
62Q FOBT WILUAM5 PAfJWWAV AlEXANOWA, VWOIHIA 22304
TB_ 7<»B232292 Fa* 571 -9703721
-------
^ H) \ ( VIM iMium iftn oit Sli iiUttlminx * *H<« l'vnnH\
Juh \(k >M2
pi rs I l« >\ I: W ti.il <.H iu r.il m-» of iv^uirvnu ntH would »u in««i rt-d il .1 in « or
would trisen' I'M) wtrh Ik-cuiisc ii> <,H(. t-inKsioits inrmixc- was jbm<¦ (lit-
P?»l>
N'EDA-'CAP is extremely concerned that while many prefects would be subject to PSD because of
GHGs (i.e.. they m major wliliatioiw »o major sources). the PSD regulations would appear to
require PSD review for any regulated pollutant for which there is a -significant emission
increase** including souiees thai are iltlJlllg^^
poiiiitint. this mm mmm \ i« « in mm w* * i i\iin>» i \m ntuiMni gin?
PSD REVIEW BECAUSE IT INCREASES THE COST OF PREPARING HIE PSD
APPLICATION AND THE UNCERTAINTY WITH REGARD TO OBTAINING THE
permit. ffrgyHy m gc> m-< tw wHfrr a mwwmIMm appr«t»#
t»..a.lr«sstl,isiss,l|.1rit|u rd^rvjggl.
a.
begin "actual construction" on the project until the PSD Permit is approved and issued
resulting in 11 delay of 10 month* to many year* in «msiruci»ti of the proposed project.
At in,' pre-application meeting («se above). the applicant may discuss activities that can be
conducted for site-preparation prior to construetionareaaUation of an emitting tinif at the
Kite.
II PSD PERMIT APPLICATION; The requirement to submit to its respective permit
authority a preeowtnietion PSD Mt Application for review and approval before il can
construct or install the proposed project The simple fact that a project requires PSD »s
awiigfi to scuttle some project*. principally because of the May («»months 10 5 yeare in
obtaining the permit). MfWfgifW WWmfcttt W# ^ WWB iflla> n» "bH'W»' -l
•>»«¦«" "«i
Keliisijrfliiiii,
I BfaTVrimiMJ^^ - i..v,.mrL-tc ik-pMiwJpct."...!
.•» |i>c[mk
itu- PS!) jvniul applkiitK'n atnl td.ileJ ^tnivsiuiis !•! I he j * 1. ¦ 1 e ^ 1, t 2 1 in
•iJ\:nv tmd >'i dc«.i!>« «k j|>p-««pitatv t*>Hutiin »k Shi u,v pio^t ,tnd >*t • 11 to
lic-.i•;!) txtiiplMfkv .i>sur.»ik'c i>ii>i>!loiir 1; pi.m lui ;lu- pi.-wcl . \ Vu
c,"ll1|iii*lKN Inu micm.il dcimMttO.' m.fSJH ' \ikliSniii;il L.'.tl >. tii.i', ?.c
u'l;ii'(V'ii itt .milt i[XiH>»l( ul' ttu- !Hi]'Oi<,;t'ive aI the )!f«»|vvl ititniM^lcni H \t T
dckn(i!iMiiiin\ iitvltKliOt1 but tift liisiik'.! t». *lw npc ot |tmvN» llt.il i-> bc-.m- pj. 1*^41
,111.1 ,(li(tL'ip.ilv-.l nn|ni\;li.>n In ilk nr.^ct? K.-it. llu- ^vmniinnts ,1111! MI |*> 1|>-
•.•M\vttiii«vtW.d oititKS •'N-*tv tii.i*. cWH I.HfC Mi.inul.n-mics d>- «"{ S'pK.til. pKp.«e
"cdc'.ti I'M) ;ijt|>Ik .tlii>tis with.'til jnd viitm<-vl, i
-------
I 104
\R>\ ( \IM iMnnu'til1" ott SlM'jKtldtlnu <>!!<• I'tilMHs
,lt»h Hi, Ml 2
- j'HT M'l'l H M ION Ml I I IM. Willi ITKMII V) 1 MUHI IA : VmiK .ill
|\ ttDI'.t 'I>r, .tlltllulrttv- K'lfillK' li'l vllh("V ; i. !>t„ ,tpf nU'vllft-' til*,
[vrmcim:; >H in drvt ihs ?ctiuiret< Wa, iV- >.<.;ujv .»s C I lai.HD.vlCsl "N|Hv it.' K,\ IVA ,ilid
I'lCvi-'H K\-ilvU ,iIm> H ltl',',;VtVll f
i. >•;? ;o. >. .» . ,. : ;;i y> \
os .'•! i' lK pUif, -.c p.'lliil.tniv ilie nsvviin • vw!l ^muk'r ill
liu- I'M i U'\ k'^ ivkjlKivOU'lit'. IlK-IUilllt'-, \t)" -,|t..(ht* .(tul v,lx ilUKnU'Clt <.urM.m,p'l''»
ami nlhci H U I ,is->o.M»wrN iimiv Im'udh : Ik* ik-cii l>">( ^,'lMHti.ft.iS lilt; !• K v! Ikl !,« Il-'iklUltlt'. tlKu IJKl\ Ik
i!isviisHk*i! Ix-dcv.il Urii m.ut,> m.i) oi ni.i> \jim!s i>! !lu- mu < •>! a ;t|ftvU !i» a national p.al, -n < >tl;c!
( i IUM ! I' S -, jM.-p'.'-.rtl 1 tn iivniiviil.lOiMke "1v>t prat'Sis;c piiui.HK e
*.*11 I¦>* c•* pf c• pi«' with H'lk'tilcsliv .iikUcd l!
Uu- ;uoiwi ,i Ivdctal I'M) jurniu tlw ( V \ u-.vmis v< til fv'tjnsu i it ,fr>pv,i I'Kt I'Met I)I-.1A1I.I-:I) ft KMI I A I' 1*1 1C V I ION ¦ J liv IVmn;
ipi'lK nil •..iwi.'Hu'. ptvj>a',«iini-. a ikl.iiUui jpptk ilt.i! iLs ril'VN thv
pj''|ovt. liw Ul H • tilii'-sH'ii'. lli.it ^ i-ulit ((.---iill li<m»skuh«ti. ll;j
¦"i-Lv'll.Mi >1 Ok* ivlc. Jdil >:iv tVlfi*. ••vLvtr'n >*! Is«%vlniv auJ
i.M !»<«» "pr->ji.\k-d .u lu.ii an- i.iU nl.<*c^'
i2i tliv jpphc.iiit > ph'po^vd ! L--1 \uuidhk t i almrln^ li.\t
pn>p,isc»l pr«»j»-»;
131 .tiller in^p.k;>1s |.«i itM'.m-'i>.;ic .nu) icp>¦iluii; >!!¦> 'tuiii tlu pt-ip,piii^c!.
I he v os| mjv 1< .«pnlHMl!^it» i .ip.>-.cd
p»oi»'vi ilw .«hI .«vCv-pi iik4- i>J »w vjh^r pi
il.il.l. the Ic.f-ll'iitH .'I 1(11 nklltl-'. jusl- 1fli!u!t\.i aikl I Ik
Is \t i
i-Si \if Ojijl;!1. Kc'.jtcd \ .iHw -.1- iiivludMi:1 \ i^il>jht\ uisil im|<;!kl n>ii pi.'KvU'J
»|H» vs Hti'l »KM1 I., ft,' ^tmhulv<] t Hi.,' IV•!
< (illCf. h\ti ,i|!h i p. >.'!!•, i>» hivli ttu'pr'ij.M will »VMs!t :>i -.i-i'iiik ,ir< e'lH-.-.i.-n
Itic;,i\cv \iUltl«!Mi lfc"i|MUvllU«t- Ml tllv I.|4 (K-Olf, 'it I'M » K'Mv" fCU«IU'«l(VHl> Ul.«
i, ,ui h.- n\ crlnn|,ed Hi ,m.ihsis .if' 'jtip Hi'- i«'t 1 ^pvi. ic-. .n.i I h-.ti>ru",i;h,
I'rcsvi ivd pi.>p^iti».'-., ui'L:-'- I l! \ <> Ti."-pi'tHihk tut i --uuif ISk p^itnu. ,i>. it )¦• hi
J |
-------
I 105
^ H) \ ( VIM iMium iftn oit Si; iiUttlminx * *H<« l'vnnH\
Juh \(k >M2
Wyoming. Florida, Arkansas. and elsewhere).
t \|)l)ll ION U IM OHM M ION Ul'.QI IUI Ml Ms Uk !»S!> »,>t
j> •Mm.tuK lii.it "ti'iitv.' .iI'Mi;* k-r I ho r u!o h ill' to/alaled i rl It • inu oasck .sd.t
151.*i;miiMt«'t\ | ¦ t!i„ ^ if. 1 >i| < i| |< i iln-ai^o *"•!{< ,tto iM ,1 \ \ M)S ami
d > i\»! r 041 mo an qti.iiil'. i-i iitcciiiviil aiiah^n of Jiioiiil'.'niti; >r,. «.k-lini<
m
dt-.,tUKoiiki:t «'Ui the \oa"-. I 1* \ ,I!'|k':«n in ii.tw lxc:i ^uito ck'.n lit-l-.-i'K.ill'. lh.U ,t
pi. • ilit- ¦ ti.ni >«iilt)tuit In «.mis .u .(< I!l< ivtth ni,s|''i'««».
.>n|\ he in/"VK'i: lwrn!|k-< |'«>lluutnl'. unlc.% (net0 i1-. .1 "hum (>IH 1
mxiMu i>! <1 ' HUM (rl l< i nt: oc. ' a<. 1 .1. ;• ¦, <¦".tV, • ,;'h , h f< <¦
-» 'ill! I'M) jvnit]I'iiii> th;i, 1 i\-1 n.appear-. |o Iv totjiitio-if t »r •'
Kvlil.itod all nulail.mh it a iiujoi lii-ulitiOalmit ' ,\.vUt''~ ;it a < !H< ma;<'t v.muv In
"tllOl if'a 111,1;.'1 I illU ill' xiliioahi'll' i.MKittivlcii, .t full WvHt!) ;nu!\M>
vmiiIJ uppoar la he i\\|u;n"ii l»>i ,ii;\ .«Ihcr p-aHiiian! ^-uhiw't.I ii» i'Viltv - ^ >j; ICS1
11(0 uu^l sc'.iHiKo-inUiiM',v, , 11ia 1 s~c- M» !li«. ialUt turnip >¦( j\'i|i.rtitt)h !>,
1 I'NMM'l-.RIM. 1)1 n|(.\ \\|> |>W>.if
N) - I on slie »'oi nut Xppliv ml ». <«nl«i >i.-(
v.uiinuiko jctu.d ^1 «if\iHK?!>u* hi !iio I'tMiv'ol ll-v '<>Uf( vv *>.;!! b, pioail. iKod l> ¦ tk m.-'is
!|n •. ,-nd- >1''- .•!
lib>tv' I'ltoii, \oiuiui _'itai.nsUos uv.siilid:' .iiiplK-llOv |ntIJuli.i:i in • >11.!^ 1 > <!,(s; 1
(Ik itootki! (.> |>iopalc .4 Minus! tik PKH ,ipt'lkii!i"ii.
: umu ai in Mr:i.\'iF.mAi i i'n whqiih k Assi.ssMi-,\rs imj
ioi|ii>iv !V\ iv-w i'il .Hiiliu-ul .iif tjuaiiiN 4ir<|ii:lil\ rol,tlo»l\.thi,-v .tin! i'>lhor p-^siblo
a>-x\iatui vlSvot-- nl a pi.!l »m fjn.ii jl\ /1, 1 ,' hov.iis^c I Nov pn ik aro Iv H»n ,\t !•> ,i!U\ (
thni.ilo h\ .illoo'.iiii' k oiotiici.l'H. Ihcio i% tin. pnu'u1t:!i ii>! .t I'S|> pensn! !nl
< rf |( is iruni .i piujo.! I • ro.jifro h.iih .1*1 ;»ii s.-,-, 1 ,tht% -to'.licit \ ilno (ha!
Kioltkk' pMtciiti.il tuipai.U .s«Klls> 4ll»Vl>ll!', ontiilS'X'lvJ
spcvlw- >•! "iJui (.nllvil.tl ,tv-i>.lliv'l»h mukl l!l»' I" lid.lllOOKit Spw'U'V \Ot .H l! iv
\,'il!''>i?al I'r-, Non .i;i"|.- |v»lli 1 purtK nlitih l-«i 'odcr,dt\ tvsiuti I"SI >
p^ run:-.' \i' '.Vi-uhl ar:;iK' h»l-.\ou r thai whik tlic-t. k- »,"• o.-ul.I a<
d.liHt.' pvtiniltuir, II I-- itr.lit-.cthai a pii-i-o! wmikl |«t\0 unwlt Ui allco!
chnialo iKoIi Inil iiH n ilk !"t>r v iiinnl,(li\, on\ II' 'f)WOMI.i' insOnMHoiU- u»)>I.-|
! oik km ai 1.1 !*'^ai kns-> \1i-«|v^I |ioiiniltniy l.uj.vk fiooa^o n! )ho bisv^Jlan'.!* >»! tiio
4(
-------
I 106
^ H) \ ( VIM iMium iftn oit Sli i iUttlminx * *H<« IVnitiK
Juh \(k >M2
analysis.
;> nm\i \) i'i »i k ui dins' l*1i< imtncnlt i.nt l.him. ,tdiith> «>U Jav. l-i pencvt k-vkw ami the* v\ww iv
i'Uill mt,-l!u-'¦h|cv1i<>n> atnl iWlas* 1 r?v at: the
b>«.M ,ns liu' I »Ai" 1 Mhi'n .He «.is plutuk'',! II uh:v »» iJic * s^ikv :»hI •>! il liwit* <*
h wi ii-.ii.uk..- i»- »k\v^A.«r\ !>«; itw jn«tjvV{ pen* hi >>b|;,-vli<>-t:-« ,snil the iltal v, ill result
k.ti! It.id I" »aiKxlhi!',''i|l n| ,s jifKU
! , l it U.AI ID\ KI-.R- \ ntuv. K v.0'mt'li U> :t c«>!ti|t:ni\ t> > met it 11 tv 1
ami 4 n\t ..1*5 fidkiUml in \>nl«.-t t.. 1«!«.»,in .1 permit
VMH)K HMH'C'IM; 1 111 1/\IH)\<» OtHI KI'I«X Is-Is VI A SQ>. RCI-
K)l.»au.\ A\ il ;(lj i|w fn|UHatk'Itt- |Hs! kIcivH'-'-inI p! > In f
I'M J .ipplft.inls ,ilv> vim>i»k-r ulwflwr 1! K posi-tHc u> either k«I«vv tin* pr.-jHKcd m-'C <>1 .1
"I 1" tiu3t/aln»!i .»t vi;t)ipi»eil! e?\cv\tk't„ 1)1 ;i piatit in i»uk't li'i lei.\ltt\ "ftel"
k'ttmMtin* iikU'.k-'s a fh>¦m t-rihr«,»
Lc.tiK avoid the vklav-- atkt v'Vpoiw "I wniii; ihi.ittub i'Sll pes mitt ttu;. tiuctits 1^*-
rcMkiis m remo\al plttti equipment, ativbtk'nal p^l'ulsoM ee-jiti-nt pufvlu-e-. eUe^vh^-r^ in
die plant 01 other pl.aii Juttee-. lh.it tisax tajutte ttutM \SR re\ i>\* t.» Ik piiiclK.ilK
cttf. if.,
' >'K\j I if Ul \ IMimt { MSi 1 1 l\Ht- IQRi !M t i t \pi)s) Kj I<)|'si>
limiting cxpanw* for some projects j»l« site,
-------
I 107
^ H) \ ( VIM iMium iftn oit Si; iiUttlminx * *H<« l'vnnH\
Juh \(k >M2
«,»' I M l< >\ ?• \*% hi .' !h .1 .1 n< « nr )•-jiri>jm%.r tn\.iuw * (-!i( . « ti.H .lit' iSll' I I'H-H'qMClit c* i»J III!j'.l. "t
*ii2C«'riii» lltrsr rrqniiv«iunl\ for ymr particular induvtrj ?
I! I uHki.ih utii'hl ;k Juki mipkuicnl She |«i un icu l!vf>.h\ phh tiliiiL' ih<> tv>.|niMk tvWMi i.n nn* .".tnvitt
vihk i iikLulni!,1 i.iKcrt.iiu; ¦< « ith !<- nlvn j v,m tv ..."hMiui'U'J i flu;1- j,,
flu- U-\W t.| nn|i>i?i,MK %• f<»» m«i»k u»th »rtlwi»>'«:u ,il .kkimm.mi- *.i*»li .is iIh tw.
nl'i.m m.tk'iuk h;k! .kc.'m t«i in.irK'k vODmimwiv
1 liU'.'-liti iiik.'H mil' ill.' jniiKipic icivni v.'i 1>ii ,i pmjclI .siiil
I'SO Kv.iu*c "! wltuuit pvtmiltuh: .»ul iiuhiJii:i! thv ikuvii.ihii\
.nsMvvil^d Willi Is \k I ,iik1 rev low ¦> o.in pwNCitl %tinnr ncnlinto»r,
.m.uit-.i tine,in.; numil.wtitttik now findst,-! Iit'v- it (!k\ si! ki|hiK' I'M)
K\lv"A
2 ScitlitMOn* , vv's ili.it istk' c• • s oHkiotiov ;uul o.itls |\t\-lud •< :tro ImtJiot
¦ ihMCHicd h\ t>,v jH-ck'-, "! (In c^ntinl pr^KM .'H'Sumou tn mv.in>Mslciil wtlii I ho t lean Sir Wt in ' ; *i ' 1 i t ' ~ V
! t-'I jicatc < ilhxllk uu^ht ikvime l-» ImmM tll-I.iil pu ill tSie • iiiVd M.iU-n
) «>lhwt:ih m.i\ tkuinuik !" .kco|»! tlu- liis.itK-kil .'i *lk' tk'l.i'-. and v>-i
nl pt-'itMllifl-', ni 1 He ¦ ^ >! ttliu'i id '.tv pni|v,-vl 'dii- II ilitjotnc !¦' ImiiKI :ii Uic
1 tiilv-i! S-titc-. ic dcnMPii, -.liippm;', iiH;a-.iru! ci'o-ukviH\i; »otkcnt\ OiK'ir.i c.'vK
¦ Hiil • i .i\ jtUlniiK •*! -ithfi lUittii.sI icvUiKv'-. ck i
1 I'tuicch iinuK tiivomtiti-.ltoii '.ihikc-- am.! in-"-! |>.n!k"*t i 1 \t ] ii ilk". 11i^v'Ai I'M) i'ru^xl nvilimv
ii t l«v h.HCi.l >>!t .i v'i«bvU ;«ti\->?•- >1 |>\ tnr, hmk-t
|Kll»!»MltW. 4* '.•¦> Jlh. a'.'.vfK^ 'l| ,1 (I'lliltl-'il vU'lltpll-'U
2 I in i >! In till t • >i IusmI hu'i -liKd mmhiticJ ixa! .in J (>••« ei ^ (. III* i
ptvivU-, i' (i iilk ti'.irh, pMhk-!M,sik hv^ .itiii- 'Ik- niu:c<'!,',i)ii% t>! :lv .'tinvn! ihivo\o.ir
dck-ii.tl nl hi> mi.isN limit (tiki ;iii \< i( i. ;in ii \t" i, ail J tl;.' ilil Ik iilt\ nt (il l< i uni-MHii
uhkmnvn ;.n [n«i,tiui!.'ii lo.Kl ;>av .iv itii.iHihu .oiti i»ih,ivin».'n,tc ,i.
.m .lilcm.ttivc 1(i ,(>i,iil.i!>k Musi ni "".utiv s>.tn-. ->! ilk ouinlt\
<>!
-------
Mm ( VIM iMium iftn oit Si; {iHtiiminx C *! H« I'tt'ttoi*
Juh
k. In certain Wwlries. where missions of oilier pollutants Imivc been "capped" to avoid
PSD review, if expansion of thai plant cannot be successfully accomplished without
triggering PSD review without tlebiy aid additional «»sfc tor control the plant, could lace
future restrictions on product expansion.
-------
I 109
Mm ( Wi iMiumiftn oit Sli iiUttlminx (tlN• l'vnnn\
Juh
<>' i > I l«)\ »: \\ (mil s..»i it >•. ( at.N «iil l>< Ijk.h (•> In Iichi-jIh mi.. m.ijur s..tn< •.
t<%u« IniatiNt "I <> iH - vnu^-ii»n->
V U ) \ ( \P '.i.-hc\'ll.lt ,1 partial ;is| tit fit.It >,ml|i! tn<»JV i'VI v,»U'h r.T < -|I< f*
UK )tuU".
• liM;iUjii.»it ft'pnvw-. fu- (ivis ian«l lh-.i;n,i! n\nit.i .i! jvntHlk'intvMl Lutitticv
itiMail.ii'-'N ot |i\diii-ttc;slci-« aivl a i sit I til km ^jtitfintciit
• I'M jlktli.-n .it r.cH ImsLi: ,nul ^mlHMti m ctiitmo .tt .its'. mmi>; I it ill!'., irxltHlim*, 1ml itn*.
li'tiiUvl lit R,vI> t".Hihtiv* >r<t lit*
PM) s, scinpli.-n I.«! p. «if pt>(|v'vl»" can liu.-rci PM M'.n {>1 K >v
• t Hi X.iiiiT.'J t t,i\ INuluUmn r.iulitK.'i' t>wLinivc >.jrs. • >2 jiui i'i ,i L'%vji eMail iivPi sue
l:«>in u;i'. i I Ik !'Si> ^'ujetutmn iful fai'itiu w*< .iu jnirtKiilai h i
(.•I these ^'itrees i
• m.fiiv -cliycnsat targe coaling .md .>r lonvsrtmgfacilities mhI in cmii*
..it Mtii- I.>d in. •ceding using Mural gas-fired drwrc.
• 1 citill/ci I'l.uih
• t Mlnbiiiui! I Icul mai ¦ i'l.iiils at ,in» ,\I;i|pi \t.Uiut.Kiut ut:1 1 ;„v him. it !tie Mttllv! I'fM.tH't II.•! *||C .'«IU. tkltitti", Im* n.l? t%va
j'leUe.t I
• l!idtt\tHv'^ tlwi til lit > c i t-lri'Vi .il 11 mi ;;inl JiiJIei - lot pi'Vc-v llii'd*
• Smehiitj .ipci'sln'iiN :u\i oilier itHlisMne-. thai h.tu- 'Ik- pnUv.iia! fc< ,h: bi-;h am.hhik ul
Nl 11 li > :*u •> vi;t ckvl! K.ll untir.' it: f« ; • •: ^\ikl> ix.d tn tlk .ibsciki. o| pulicii -
ivriti'ilin;; ^1 H L'.ii- nUv--.
• Electronics Maiiufiiclnriiig (SE6 mill CfCs) in etching and doming,
• Aluminum nrilb csposwns-relrofrts Immse of energy R^mnaiKittx for proem
ttgutpment.
• 1 li's'.iwKa? '*•nthclu" i jttciiitltm; bid uki liiinlcJ !¦> pvti>'cfiv!iitc;tl. Imhk* dik1. .ttu!
o!ocfr.>nie nr-h!u. t p!atu%'. sliai . un iil.Nl |(kir actual c>ni<^i'>ns -ted Iih4. .-jji'- ,i\nnl I'M )
Hj
-------
I 110
\R>\ ( \IM iMnnu'til1" ott SlM'jKtldtlnu <>!!<• I'tilMHs
,lt»h Hi, Ml 2
ro > iv.'\v Iml ii.n c hcv wv \ub)cit (>» I'S 11 lei (ti St i-
• t'hSun- •>! i nn-.!pji | it hi m .iK'i'i .t) >(hi >»ml jil.mK viu mil -' t- tk [vmvvtt • n jvrm.t'H-ni cvlw-i-'n »tl h»\»v«iv cnmMi%nv ir.-mtilUi jvroiiniH-;
9 |
-------
^ H) \ ( VIM iMium iftn oit Si; iiUttlminx * *H<« l'vnnH\
Juh \(k >M2
4: \tv ilicrt am strwinlinina itpprtuulu-H \h«»rt «>f .ippli*.thitif> optimiv? t«(*•<•
a|>ji11«..iliilil v i-, .hi ilun ;hi> miv.iihIiiiiii*.! .i|i|hi>.u Ik-- lii.i! -.hiiplth fh»
H tt-\ ievt •* <>S' It.in C,iH, t HtiUi'il al -ijnil'n .nil • ini^toH r.ilf.''=
! II PM I !<¦ ;i!!'!*,eieti ti'i •.•.i'tr.lk'.uK mev.tM.s i*i (".nlur.uih 11•: ubuh ,i \>4 \ n pfv l«'0'ci! .»p|v*»;u h «.>si|»l he tonsil- - ujii.im, u viil hi,»v. »»
tl.inl'. ih;>: h-i lli.it merer PV> HeeutKe lliev :»k >icu maim ii! I iIR is m
»ti.>nv >.| ihi«»'i mhii.v >*t t-IH <*. I'M) «\\ tew ,» vxPiitn-il ».- WkW .!> Miell
lauhlle'-. .ml -ss l!),.' ',t>uuc ;iKi- is .1 HUJ-1I .>t !li;i! putliiialit
a. J\, U, I Inn vtmphlxirip, I'SDfesteu h\ n.v tckjiHiini; All .out iiwivpmii
ill I.! Is ¦*!>¦ sit lee (lleVJ Milium J!v ll<>1 llk-flf-cK Us NXIHee" " ' •* ihtWc polhitaitl?.
it ul>! .ippl\ sinnni \M< |.t "nther poKitl.mts"" lit?.: wmiM u.ereaie aNne muiii! vaiue
k\Us» lol IWtt-UliU {.KjIklUlltv
v IV> 11.tet|iiiu U*U'\ i.u.'a !.'•» U'c^v. e-n the ili.a the ^•ute.s t-- ai.s!
!>n ,»tlv! eseefti trlKr-. ami nt mn-adcr ,iil.>it
pii'lui eftlvMU its '•t!c,iniliiiv' "he permit in liti' >>' .utah-r-1<| a nutisetila; \OR'-
2 the '"i" ¦ SUiH< >ii e>Mib>>! ];i"Kwl cvci'.ijiti mi ' 41 k.inl tut < tl i( !-i Mtts < <«i Iik
,:rMut>iU 'kit ili. ic is i\>it ,i \ \ lf,)S (-ii t i|jt :v,u\ t.iu:is-lh!ni sh.iti -b'mki lit1.! him-; o.»it
fu;ii'<* M'ltfvc1 "< Ihe I'SI) pt.im
\ \!ic toil me llv w'\i xtitv t ii it i H \t' 1 i Vrtnilltw < iiml.MK.- hs the c
i«. tf,w '>1 ti v uiKii ii iunislls ,t \ i.iWc vhi-vIUmi\v I I* \ *> ivvcni
pisip. • wi! \S1'N nik'ni.i!. inv •< n (il I< untl.'TN^itK^ l'u- I.k k >¦! Set ti\ eress ¦¦! tl" >
SeeliiiMlues I liir.liviliii-,; 1|h\ pail >«i Ihe It \t' ! .(n.ils si- e-Miiil \.n „ .tppreu.iNe .ij'plu.ri!
fnep>ir,il;"l> and KUtll.ili •( K1'. ic'.v wl; tltiK pK^nth des «He«| |. > In, 'ilnul l:it. •»<>t iMl
iiifr.islnulure .sihI ^cii'M'jeal vuinei,i!t;li!s n! ,u;!|i(eis ill if tiiv> not .uK.uieel \ \ r.c.ii--
4 Itile 'li.it '..v.mes lii.it !n-il- mlielt^ hihh-f hwiU f-i i.ti in she (tl it i pennillitu; elk\ lis e
dak iki the mle. 1 Kisiam •-s;»:Ih'1k miih-i s |.-t ¦ >lhvi pe;lut,ir)t~' ,mkI a'ii.s* .(U!re lhe\e limiu' !.> tem.nii "it? <t nlt-i pK'.uniptne 13 \t J Ii> i^liulanK"
h here theie ,»ie :• ip.r.tl k ant cihi^m.>(» inei e.i\e-> nlieie ieu )>. !ri;"<_veil ¦ mis l\\ < >1 !<
i«tr „tM,
-------
^ H) \ ( VIM iMium iftn oit Si; iiUttlminx * *H<« l'vnnH\
Juh \(k >M2
C>, I.it|iiiite BACT for other pollutants for whkh PSD review is triggered with energy
efficiency including tune-ups mi other w«k practices tor any project whose projected
iiclnsil emissions esccscl sipiiliciiitfc level but muM be less iJmh 100 tents per year.
'* l» ."lltvi {mlJut.itUN ,w.' n Uil,»t»vt. tn ii-.k- I.»i >'lKi jvHtil.mi m.-u.c-v^
!r"!ii rvii'i'l'd- nt kCil.tm H|vs<«t'iu'« >inhuMi.m - .iimv* HivJiltltt'-- IkmLt ¦» ,0)J |m>h,c.
t »vnwi.i!h iIk'm.1 «tl> I'v htNt.loHctui'i** time up" atuS »>Hki puwtuv
S. Mjiuimnn it'K'iiljml1. i- ot ! lid-, it I hut :ivttull\ '.c
linic-li'.tfiic in* "I a (Miml ulk-i 'lie tppK.umis k tLxnu-d v• *mplc'c
iicmu'.uinui-. c««ttUI nh'ic v,wK uu'w^c t.iii.
II
-------
I 113
^ H) \ ( VIM iMium iftn oit Si; iiUttlminx * *H<« l'vnnH\
Juh \(k >M2
Ql l'-s 11« >\ 5: W li«»t an- m«» potential rttn-mutm-s to N»tfor e\v iiiir, .i»lu S'M Minuf <»in< r*«l> is »t i<_*;a ( e«1 in £, ii<; vhiKm'-M'- !<>r c.it !i •¦) ihv
mi h-work gro«i
lit M !>.\ - etwmem^ -ii the i.ul -i in:; niK uu ^IikIi iiciiIki itppi^-ij n.t< vu'nj
(he MiUwitv hiVi, *w thii v.nil:ii«i »m a:« cntit.-K *r: K»%»» »li.m «*Im
j'liii.if.niix uikK i i!k PSD !«.!;«.? .mis Iw.iii'A'ihc «>>'(>? Kin ,> si t.H I'M) tlut VHike-- Jtnl ^Kll^ i>> I'loWIJk
"•AmlwiK miivT -xmie I.'(• '-.Hits.'- «lmee ttfetone ,n\ loss ilun so .it
¦xiUUX' L* ^ c I -.
i I !' \ -limilii u-iHUiiit» tt\ jn''k v lh.it *..ntn\ ilun c. < V| l< i\ i- ,t "m:i|i>' v nuttm_
l.kt.'lU *" (Hi rihei pullutant'- Mil'ieel l<< !'S5 > K-;.nlUtln»n
i teiks,ii ' jk'nn",- In rule ' I>»i .>1 ivitain !»•><¦v <"i nvmhtiMmn
e.iutve v .'f invt.v'kiiv mi i(crand jit"vi.s\ !k;i1e|s < icite-ii":H
these wip be I" s^e.l nil e>ie> "\ hme-up-. .itui i»<_>, •.-r
uisUil.iii-m <¦! luiui ellkiuitx e< >mjHi|tettts l'.-r tivw unih «\i 5) \ iMte*. »li;il the ltciiii i-.
aiie.dK !•> Hint.ill the meM e'lkuitl equipment >v«. iiiic c>ie:t>\ is v.iel; ,i Imii ivi'venl.ir.c o'
inv"',i!l 1,u i'-if. i,»»>iliinil»t hji. e'lie .-(itimi tt'l>lr (V h\ nMe ;»tni
I.nlll|'k'lw ,1 si'llp?e |Kt!H»5 .t|*[tili..)iUHI I'l It licet I l!le> «5|\ li \C' i I lie IMt eil
^ l*s'l) -n!i.iciil is.-t !>• am ir«>dilk',*li>»?is tlvit jceult m* ttiete.ives ;n 'Incline eitt;^loiie"
ahiHe k:stx e tlcceiv 'hie
<• I I' \ •.lie.ulil i^ue ii 111>>;i,iI ir.nlel I'Sl» I'cinnts t,«i < tl It > ^-•iitec- fh;»l >. ,i ineitu ¦•{
ufii.iv '->1 fMeitiul li \C I nie.i-nie,-, i«»,n c.w ^i-l to •.tiv.smUiv |vminnii',
*J. \'Uiik'r.i-;eit>. \ i,t4 Iv |iWH»l l«> .impttn tl'c prot e%-..«t .>iu»h./iilf *, il!(i
itt'ji ute «>it eiulistUtJaSI I M1- ,"kI <«ttut h;-4i>tti. . ulik •- tli.U >*.ti.,tniiu\ s
jKnsiHtiiii- In vl.tf.Kim; evi^et.tliKtie ,iikI i! (i.^'.il>le. !»!¦•'.ulstty 'vfei.il ;te!ui)t e-'Htfilions
tii.it .ulitfi ••• Ihe-.e extieet.tliniv- ! lu I'M) rtetisnttim: iMnnn.sl ^hutiM he aitu n.leki t.>
tlkluJc tlie'-e e>'tiditn«i>tient it it "te.il-vt! "" \! I) \ i \i'
jn.'icie a pi ieliee t.< pte\ei 1 U .«• ,i>" i.illiei lit.in lict.mlt ennsN'ii't! I.Kinr--
9. ill.ii,'. jn.\|eet '.ultui!' ol (i| Kl» ki'.ctU'ii nt->KeU'J .ivtiiai einiest.'oe
iiftkt
-------
I 114
Apper 'stions,
psiirrrri.t v cue; w-irmit *tkf.a P itoiit: v : mil
\:: v Mup r,j|i >.<,mn ih * P \ »w- u ?Msj
Jk • m >L'L«n»uin?. {»« km-,.. ?•< »uut ,< ih n ¦ A > n- >s. ^u»t. t:n-\ u tr: *»
ttu < tiK' i*Si> Jii^c^hi k|~. \n * \ 'h.1- »< \1S'A I mJh i *v..a in.r- he , imoi*
mr 'U!,'h »i ,unu.\.t ih.u 5-djwe «pnn'.1 hjv \ 1S h'i>,;b!f In
\.uhv? s'.lnL' 'he l.tmflill m w Im% v.j Uu jMutiul 1 > Iv -n u !> ; \ v.;r-
u «: vv.^M llu I u-v^'dt .*p». i ]- ,»tiT\ •'>.«.'??'!<<.' ;< k'iun Ui«:
ru'ii ni ^<*< I »: lM w i •. , *| tk •. «.¦). ~put*; :: t, ? -i in'1 c
""•» l! . M•11 s }!!},»<¦''! Jt,- •« « IK <«j»v " u-i dt » . K n< *' iS' , •\
Ps' > 'A!h> k puk i u _ uk>t*T< h^.i .1, -• ht?*\ Ik ?tn ? ,*h'i ;'jut «. t\ .^;fcsk '«
S < j|i Jh<- v -..-wpk u fhw ?t mIm! t.' <.<> it k-t <« x. leu Jf»II W1 "¦ c.ii - ^M!^\v\M¦-
Tins '¦" ! 'uL f \S"s' ¦, llu i <• t-.f f -.c p.rr;^i s
K..jiMritu' j. Ii s'k «ut J> - (1 >< vw\ir 1 nlJ 'Utf\u! i Lir. v' mintlui o: an4 Ik
C' unfc ctl. n-,
1 r Wwwik i<-v.*:cmih wiMviii <*: poiciiiial to tmm itttmmmimu
¦i\ ih.uu i •• ihi% w i • Hfulij >-u Imj1 j' fctw j* m: i- pv'mil ^rcaiiiiiiing. We
tn.H |«n iv»b k \* »- i:»ri »' " S > i v ' • .mjid PSD
iiHlil |-"sk • -r^ i'ujv m»f«r
11' >-a U \i i is u ntisfscs: «a i B !i»«»I'. Iv t hs im ^ I mh}»- »i Un vu'm» ^ > r Mi. inihiHiH';
( '1 ;i i l^N i> "in-' >,• ?, . ."'HN ».f» I Mn'I ' \ U»«?| ^ \V< . .;* h K»i ma1"! 1 >
«,K •. ,-i ; {•}'?< - lull '> < '' \i t A, ^>j*hk til i Ins j|sm? mJi nn, \ .i.i U' «U < i t,:
rf j*K i-'Hipi IN«. \l \{ "' si. » ;"'K -iHfK-Mw il H ' t , ,i itk "I
\!U' nv.h' ,i>'" Jmt iv. »K k-'v • in¦0 ;•!?• ^uUI U-11 i»a *. ,ik *ul - m»k Ink h * -1 w i .if
! J S*. i j!N"» s,k tikiM --I v-}'!;tl'k H\v i u--t t '>'k
M.v til-. ,;p<- ^ uh
'\::«-nlicT nTT r:i\ .«n i cViM'h'Us. v;)Js,i. \Slls. «• he?* p- hL,
t. > i. \i ! tl^ir- ) . tL'f d;1- •! :ii v r,'
rK \ «, in" Xsi's '»-.•] 4,»>kmMt • !K -u^ :lk \S;N s'-ry'a Is.1
I ^ M ! ,'.n .t ¦ .r k fl'.' m \< i H'W>? "s» /.r; \\ \{ |
".i s'¦» <'\ < h» }¦•«. u .i im ; lu k>u J! («» puiii^h » * P \
^ » j^< -nuMt:.ii.<* .» tb i* l.iii'i il1 p r. .shuh k'i iiKlh.uu t oki^u»"
-------
I 115
(i) 1< r j !ti ihi" i.,i>c tli». i.tiuHi'l \Ni*S nti-jlil Iv ik'knniik\! lu he thi.i! H U I
>»i ,v,is Luuiliil |xiiin< t!mt «kiUS tr»jsn%i t »!!<• I'SI>
* 11 J.'llliUrl'if.HiiU'i l>lW.L;!lK!,k,i
i jlt'-xmii iv tl»v it.r.nm;,! k.t«ki i;i .«i-t>>id?-_' < H 1< 11rdiK'tKii ji«¦ ihi Imsn>'
pi -m'.i.hi; \l'i C whid. i*- .1 mi\ t vwiiutui-anik^ml'. if ami v.ift-.itiil-natk-
ituM'iiic, Jv"'!ukxl fs- u.luw tilHi ciiiiNM-.-tv kf'o k-vvl, t<* 2«'Ci' In .Hklitkn
itH< i rv.'iliivli"H'. >.;;n Iv >tii|*k>ik'iik';ii;k in>> Midi
i i t} \ ,uul Mti":"
I I' \ -.h.>uk{ tliW-tknik rtlk'JI. ,i vNIUl U'k'Lk'l;- a I'M) |V!llitl Mtk'h, fVi.UKi m|
(.IK i\ w 'vth>" >'l I'nt H U 1 „,in Iv --.tli-.ik-tl In .in cmnIih;; 'nv.i' "j'l i .«>,i thai
adtw v'- ^(kviikJ kikklt>*Jl-> ih "-jkulk 1 tlt'iv !iditk- \ Nutilli Lit.t'4 iv!iiWf\, M
inipk «v'litil hi U'!>ii!,iU\( h\ ti.-lh. she \HC 1 ,ni i .trKm I ikl M;tikl,»kf .iikI c. ¦ >uk! <-fc,ttU c w.d am < iH<« uduustii dtk in
Ctik SCIk \ -nlll'v it!l)»fi.^l)k'tlK ! 1 i I •- i MCit I!" <\ 'k v|\vt»il\ (Hip II '..(ill !>>
Mk ,ur>ltt! 'ill llv .i<,UI'tnMul • .uik jx il I I' \ w ciil¦.
I .Hrv < t} i< i h:ii I'M )
II ,i s.hii . v t'MKukk t vv u>->v: n| <,'!!< i. ;stn .nki m ji.'-IliKan! lltal c \cvcvk its
Hliln •«,)», tl M-!jn'k,ilk* k^ 1-1 ili >v In Ilk, kiM I'S I) ]V»|i>i rviik*«lk \S >.• MiiVk^l
th.t! mi cU'v^li1. t -.Ik-iuiiiitstii*.' 'ilk! Iv i<> Heal thv t:ikm fn>ilin.i!it
\>k'k,cM.1 ii;'kk: lliv--c t'iKk'--- >.:tiiavnth iliuii si !"si'i k»;>. lu.-ivk'd a!i
•iH.isnnvn! i men.i .t mm ill*. \\ u\nnink-ini ili.it I'im' kTikT'.i jviiluinn*1. iv'S
Iv k;uii.itvil illltl! '-\k/l tlltk 4% llus Iiuln killj||\ ^-\vCv\l itl^ N'HlkX UllC-.llH'kl
I Mu.-ut il IP \ K')k-\ t s ih.it more Mrimvns .\pp!c.i,ii >¦- k.irr.uik.i ilk-r, i>nk i!k-
li.lL I uttkliiuui u£ I'SI). Muuki if wItal iv itijuticil i-« the (11X t licit mIi.;inul(\
In.'.vrcJ I'SI) w.wkllv tv«|ii>Ktj
El'A wits clear in the MM74J9 R-eaiuMe to the Draft Tailoring iufc ttat:
"There are mrmntlr m &L4()S or PSD increments established for (Mfi a, and
therefore tfm$e PSD requirements would not appiy toGHG emission sources,
ema vhtm PSD is triggered for GHG emission sources."
to
circumstance* will CilICi be regulated twywrf IMCT ai*l puiitic iwft« recpiirenKiits
tmtter PSI1 If EPA were to find that estaMisbntiifti of* MAAQI or PSD increment
-------
warrants expanding GIICI PSD requirements beys**! IMCT, m vmM suggest that
EPA develop a "minor'"* PSD program. triggered at a certain CIllCl emissions level
(e.g.. current level of 100,000 torn C02c) where only BACTand public notice would
be required.
Hi.'i'utx t < *2 I
I f \ is n>i'. tltv w« nt ,i ihu'v'.c.'ir -h|.*% i>;i ii,iUnimjj Imocvuk m
IiIk- t»SH• I'M) llnc^Ihik! Mw i» lvm<; %liulicil lt\ .i Viatic VU >mii\ Uu.trd
Jt'llK \n 1iniV !li;t! bti'nuik. ^IliUki I v. .iJiivJ t • tlk !hK^I)iikl
ciiusmihi v.tli,ii!.iln>r, tU»«v wnito «e\u!l u; iitimiu'iU nl h'.tj'.cuu" jklcfilu'h
l:tu-vuii'. PS!) k \ v>. vitmkiHt!: am (..unliitiiii'«.lint; u ill h;n i.
K,"i di'\ „•!> .;h\! ii. liiic
Many, especially llic Mops generator sector, lave written in ttfpoit of a permanent
exclusion for biogenic sources. We strongly suggest thai SCAQMD weigh into tie
on-going EPA efforts to study this situation and support n permanent exclusion.
-------
I 117
Apper :k
-------
I 118
l
i
L
IP
I1
JS.
r «s-
i
:
———
2
I
I
1
*
0
m
'
C
c
a.
O
Miis
I;-/1'
":: ;
: : ;
SI
j M
i *|
! 3
| 1
j
:
" i ,•
.• ~
¦
5:
ill
si!
"3
| |
j 1
1
f'.'l
1
i 1
i
! %
i |
: 3
i
lis?.-
* - -
11 a ?
i; >
,
lJ— __
-
u
a
i&S
-------
Appen 11 ¦> > I >1M i'\u dit \« • r h v
PSD PROGRAM OVERVIEW
Note: this PSD program overview was prepared by the GHG permit streamlining sub-workgroups
and is our overview of PSD requirements. This document does not represent any official position
of EPA or the CAAAC. This document is for discussion purposes only.
Statutory Framework
Preconstruction Permit Programs - CAA Title I
• Minor Source NSR - Part A, Section 110 (State requirements for non-major new and
modified sources)
• PSD - Part C, Section 165 (Requirements for new major sources and major
modifications in attainment/unclassified areas)
• Nonattainment NSR - Part D, Section 173 (Requirements for new major sources and
major modifications in nonattainment areas)
Regulatory/Statutory Authority (SIP - Approved, Delegation or FIP)
• Sections 110(a)(2)(C) & 161 of the CAA require each state to include a PSD program in its
SIP
• If a SIP doesn't contain an approved PSD program, EPA promulgates a FIP, and uses PSD
regulations from 40 CFR § 52.21
• EPA can delegate its authority for PSD permit to a state pursuant to 40 CFR § 52.2l(u)
Goals of the PSD Program
• Protect public health and welfare from any adverse effect which might occur even at air
pollution levels below the NAAQS
• Ensure that economic growth occurs in harmony with the preservation of clean air resources
• Preserve, protect, and enhance air quality in areas of special natural recreational, scenic, or
historic values, such as national parks
-------
I 120
PSD Program Requirements
• Best Available Control Technology (BACT) - Top-down case-by-case analysis,
considering energy, environmental, and economic impacts to determine the maximum
degree of reduction achievable. Top-down BACT process:
1. Identify all available control options
2. Eliminate technically infeasible options
3. Rank options by their effectiveness
4. Evaluate economic, energy, and environmental impacts
5. Select BACT and establish permit limits
• Ambient Air Quality Analysis - Demonstrate that emissions from a new source or major
modification will not violate the applicable NAAQS or applicable PSD increment
• Soils, Vegetation, and Visibility Analysis - Analyze whether direct effect of source
emissions and indirect impacts from commercial, residential, and industrial growth would
impair visibility or adversely affect soils or vegetation
• Class I Area Impact Analysis - If emissions from the new source or major modification
could impact a Class I area, consult with the appropriate Federal Land Manager to
determine whether the project will adversely affect air quality-related values, including
visibility
• Endangered Species Act (ESA) - Section 7 of the ESA requires all federal agencies to
consult with the US Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service if
the permit action may affect listed species or their designated habitat (also applies to
delegated PSD permit actions)
Public Notice and Comments - Solicit and adequately respond to public comments before
taking final action (for delegated PSD programs use Part 124 public notice requirements)
-------
Pollutants & Sources Subject to PSD Review
Are regulated NSR pollutants that are Criteria pollutants (PM10, PM2.5, Ozone, N02,
S02, CO and Lead), and their precursors (NOx, VOCs, and S02) which have NAAQS,
and Non-criteria pollutants (i.e. PM/TSP, GHG, etc.) and include:
o Those that made the source major for PSD in the first place, and
o Any regulated pollutant for which the area is not classified non-attainment, and for
which the PTE of the pollutant is >_the respective significant emissions rate
Major Stationary Source is a source which emits or has PTE 100 TPY of any regulated
NSR pollutant (including GHGs) for the list of 28 source categories or 250 TPY for any
other source (and for GHGs it also emits or has the PTE ^100,000 TPY of C02e)
Significant Emission Rates include, but are not limited to:
o
CO
100 TPY
o
NOx or S02
40 TPY
o
PM
25 TPY
o
PM10
15 TPY
o
PM2.5
10 TPY (direct) or
o
Ozone
40 TPY (VOC/NO:
o
Lead
0.6 TPY
o
GHGs
75,000 TPY C02e
-------
Appen ir I » • I{» • -U.1.11111111111; hif- im -111 ¦ hi Ps*>]u-ist - Questions
Memorandum
May 22, 2012
The Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) has established a "Greenhouse Gas Permit
Streamlining Work Group" to explore potential permit streamlining approaches for PSD, Minor
NSR, and Title V permits triggered by greenhouse gas emissions. The workgroup has several
sub-workgroups including two that are looking closely at PSD permit streamlining approaches
(one sub-workgroup looking at triggered PSD permits with no other pollutant emissions greater
than significant levels, and the other sub-workgroup considering PSD permits triggered solely by
GHG emissions, but having other pollutants emitted at significant emissions levels). The PSD
sub-workgroups are seeking your input on the following list of questions as applicable to your
particular industry for both situations.
Assuming that a new source or modification is proposed which would trigger PSD solely because
its GHG emissions increase was above the major source threshold,
1. What is the general set of requirements triggered (see workgroup attachment, "PSD
Program Overview" for reference)?
2. What are the consequences or impacts of triggering these requirements foryour
particular industry?
3. What are some likely source categories that will be brought into major source review
solely because of GHG emissions? Examples specific to your industry would be most
informative.
4. Are there any streamlining approaches short of applicability options? i. e., once
applicability is triggered, are there any streamlining approaches that could simplify the
triggered reviews of non-GHG pollutants emitted at significant emission rates?
5. What are some potential alternatives to PSD (for example, general permits, permits by
rule, others), for sources once PSD is triggered by GHG emissions for each of the sub-
workgroups.
The subcommittees will review and discuss any material you submit. We request that you limit
your response to no more than one page per question, and that you submit your responses by
May 29, 2012. The sub-workgroups would like to discuss the responses on our May 31, 2012 call.
-------
After reviewing your submission, the sub-workgroups may ask for clarifications or may invite you
to address one or both of the sub-workgroups on a future conference call.
Thank you for your consideration of this request. Please respond to this request by email (reply
to all), so that all members of both sub-workgroups can review your submission.
Sub-workgroup chairs:
Mohsen Nazemi, Deputy Executive Officer, SCAQMD, Diamond Bar, California
John A. Paul, Administrator, Regional Air Pollution Control Agency, Dayton, Ohio
-------
Apper.r xri"h r"3tT^Tkni - r, ,\N"nments
South Coast
Air Quality Management District
. t 11865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bat, CA 9t 76i> 41 ?8
Ha (909) 396-2000 * www,in .'fn'. ('4*
April 2U. 2012
via wtvw.regulatioits.gov
Honnrabk* t ivi Jackson, Administrator
U S I'jin ironusental Protection Agency
1200 Petmsvhania Avenue NW
Washington, [) C. 20460
Rc Prevention of Significant Deterioration and 1 itlc V Greenhouse lias Tailoring
Rule Step \ UiJCi Plantside Afiplkabilth t imitations and (ilKi Synthetic Minor
Limitations; 17 Fed, Keg, 14226 (March 8,20121
Attention,. Docket Number F.I'A-i IO-OAR-20C»-f)517
Dear Administrator Jaekwn,
the South Coast Ait Quality Management District iSC'AQMD) staff appreciates the opportunity
to comment on the ahnc-citcd proposed rule ihercmaiier ""Iailoring Step 3"t, The SCAQMD is
the regional aperies pnmaii'o. responsible for stauvman souice air pollution control in the tour-
eountv I os Angeles region I he SCAQMD i* home to a boo! 17 million people, about 5% of the
! LS. population I he SCAQMD implements the I itle V program m the rcc-.tm, and has adopted
and submitted a Prevention of Significant Deterioration Rule lor Cireenbimw Gases iGHCKs to
WW for approval into the State Implementation Plots iSH'j. 1 he District supports I- I'A's efforts
implement the 1'itle V ami PSD programs for greenhouse ga>.es in a way that is
administratively manageable and consistent with the intent of Congress.
SC supports tfu Strp A prnjtns.il ttr of stn «niliniiiu approaches for l\M> and t Hit- \ pvrmitlinu prn;!r,itus.
SCAQMD also appreciates fcl'A's tequest to have Mohseo Na/cmt. SCAQMD's Deput>
lixeeulive Officer for F-ln^inceriny and Compliance, serve as the co-chair of the Clear Air Ait
Adv isory Commit", ee < >11( i Permitting Streamlining Wurk Croup, and looks tore aid to assist in
farther development and implementation of per ma streamlining approaches identified in Step 3
ot the ! adoring Rule, as wed as. potential additional permit streamlining approaches,
-------
Lisa Jackson. U.S EPA
fPA-HQ-OAR-^fW-O*!?
April 20^ 2012
Page ?
lie low plea.se find KCAQMD stall" s comments and suggestions regardinp the hPA's proposed
Tailoring Step 3» for your consideration.
I. SCAQMD Supports FI'A s lkctsiori Not to Lower (•(!(. \pplic:»lulit\ Threshold t
EPA's proposal states that lowering the existing 1'itlc V and I'SIJ thresholds for ClHt.i sources is
not feasible jt this time. ?"? fed Reg 142? 8 col i. The St'AQMD stafl agrees and ss in support
of this EPA proposal. Chart ! on 7? fed. Reg |42^K clearly illustrates thdi reducing the
threshold from HXUXH) Ip\ to fe(M-W>0 tpy would have no benefit in further contml of (UK is since
the percentage of stationary source CilKi ernisMom coveted would remain stable at the existing
<•7%, while the number of sources covered would increase from S,32<> to ?,5*>l lu 42% iiK-canl
F ven reducing the threshold to S0,t)00 tpy would only increase C.iHO coverage trorn to
70%, white increasing the number of sources cm ered from 5„52h to t a 87»>1 increase*
Changing the threshold to 50.000 tpy, which would be needed to obtain any benefit, would
almost double the number of permits issued for a mere 3% increase in covered emissions
1 heritors!, reducing the threshold to 50.000 tpy is not feasible since the additional admir.istiatne
burden far outweighs the incremental benefit We also note that 1 FA estimate:;, that GHli PSD
permits (which are the only permit* that actually reduce emissions! would increase from *>52
sources nationwide to V5 v>, 77 fed Reg, 14214, col, 2 Ihis is more th.m 540% increase in
permitting efforts, for only a 5% increase in cohered emissions. |«'|'A twv pw\»msl> estimated
that an increase «t a overe 550 PSD permit action* nationwide would he administratively
inf'ca&ibk. ?4 fed Rep "55 ^2. Surely, jui additional permit ,-ictiom would overwhelm
permitting authorities, while resulting in only an incremental benefit
Moreover. SCAQMD'a overall suffinjj. as well as permitting re<-outees, continue to drop
Between the %ears 2Ut t-3012 and 2016-2017. St."AQMD plans to reduce its total authorized
staffing from 81 "to 755. a reduction of about (Moreover. St'AQMl) tux a'ready reduced
its authorized staffing Iront ever one thousand positions in the early lfWis,! While it ij. unknown
exactly which positions will be eliminated. it is reasonable to expect that .1 proportionate >hnrc o|
permit processing staff positions wit) be eliminated These staff reductions are oeeessun in
order for St'AQMD to ultimately achieve d balanced budget by 2015 (currently the budget is
balanced by using about six million dollars from the unrescrvcd fund balance)
finally, recent changes to California law have made it more difficult to increase fees in
November 2010, the voters approved *'l'iopositio;i 26," which generally provides th;« ;ili charges
imposed by a local government arc tuxes, unless they quality for an enumerated exemption.
Taxes imposed by « iptvial-purpow district such as SCAQMf) must be approved by a two-thirds
vote of She local electorate There is jn exception for fees to recover the sosts of issuing ,»
permit, but Proposition 2t> shifts the harden of proot to the local government lo establish the
validity of the fee Therefore, Proposition ?6 increases the likelihood uf litigation vhidleiifatty
am tee increase.
-------
Lisa Jackson, U.S. EPA
!;}'A-f IO-OAR-2t>(»-fl5! 7
April 20. 20! 2
Page 3
II. M Supports Allowing Swillietie \1ini.r Souret IVrrniK fur <;!?(,<,
EPA proposes to create the regulator) authority to issue synthetic minor permits )or(»HC«s where
I PA is (he PSD permittisig uuihorits. A GHCi source could agree to an enforceable CiHCr
emissions limit set below a tcvci that would trigger PSD permitting requirements The process
fur obtaining a synthetic minor permit is general!} less complicated than the t'Sl) perraitftni*
process f«r a major source litis action would give facilities a mechanism u% keep themselves
out of major source permitting requirements for Ollti, where hl'A i* tiw permitting aulliorif}, as
lung as the sourec mmirwes its Gllti emissions
On December 22. 2t)(M, (he California Air Pollution Control Officers' Association A)
submitted comments on the "Prevention of Significant Deteri oral ion and Title V Greenhouse Gas
Tailoring Rule." 74 Fed Reg 552*>2 (October 27. 2(KW, Docket I:PA-IKM)AR-2WM15|7>
1 he SCAQY1D joined those comments by letter dated December 24, 2fKW. The CAPCOA letter
urged i PA to "adopt a method ol limiting a facility's potential to emit |C I h) and thus to keep if
out of the PSD and ! >tk V program*, where its actual emissions arc lower than the applicable
thresholds." "Ihis need continues to exist
The current proposal would allow HPA. where it is the permitting authority, to allow sources to
ukc an emissions, cap to keep their emissions below the major source threshold ("synthetic
minor" permit I We believe PPA has inherent authority to issue such a permit, based on the
definition. of PTE as limited h> federally-enforceable permit limits. See ?? Fed Reg 14245
oi ?, P11 definitions. I Imvevrr, we also support clarifying this authority in the
proposed rale.
More importantly for state and local permitting authorities, it is essential that the} be able so
vme "sjnrttctw minor'" permits as well, !;PA believes that "many state and local permitting
authorities will already have mechanism* in place to issue such < il K'< suitbetie minor '.imiss . "
?? l ed Ren 14244 eol, 3. Nevertheless, EPA requests comment on whether permitting
authorities impsemeiiting SlP-approved PSD permitting. programs hek mec two isms to create
synthetic minor limitations for GHCis, and if so, how that gap in permitting authority ot
mechanism for issuing s> rtthctie minor permits could besi be Hlled." Id. SCAQMD has always
assumed that a "'synthetic mtrnw"* permit issued under its Title V program would operate to avoid
"roaior" source status for purposes of PSD and mmatiamment N'SR as well- We request FPA to
make it clear aitd support that this is (be ease. SOAQMI) has the ability (n limit PI h and create
"synthetic minor" permits under its Title V program Rule s0i>lidK2)
-------
Lisa Jackson, I'.S. KPA
EPA-HQ-OAR-20G9-051 ?
April 2(1, 2012
Page 4
SCAQMD agrees with EPA's proposal to eieate regulator) authority to allow synthctte mirwr
permitting. for til lit on a CO>o hays How cut, the F I> should be calculated based on the
maximum rated capacity, the maximum Atily h%H»« «r operation, and the physical chnm.ler.stks
ol the materials processed or gncn in permit conditions which directly limit the CillO (XKe
emissions Any fugitive emissions directly xwciatwl with the permitted source shall be
irnluded in the potential to emit calculations.
Ilf S( Supports 1 mntin<; V I K thrhil>K<>r\ Kulrs"
r PA discusses methods of redefining I'li or establishing source category specific PTE to allow
sources to essential!) avoid major source status without obtaining an mdtMtiual perron
determination 77 Fed Reg. 14248 col 3. LPA does not propose to finalize this approach
through thi!. rulemaking.
SCAQMD strongly urges 1 PA to continue to work on developing such an approach California
air districts and the state Air Resources Hoard worked close I y with f PA its establishing a &imitar
approach lor the criteria pollutant Title V program hv allowing districts to adopt a so-called,
"prohibitory rule." which establishedP! !•, limits through specified operating parameters and
recordkeeping requirements, If these requirements were met, sources did not need to obtain a
"synthetic minor" permit. SCAQMD implemented this program through Rule 3008, which was
approved by EPA as part of the Title V regulations. {A copy of Rule 3W8 is attached.)
The SCAQMD"s Ruic 3008- Potential to Emit Limitations has similar requirements lot source
specific categories based on their operation limits ior limiting the PII•" %o that thev do not have to
obtain a J'ltSe V permit. 1 his rale was amended to include Fable 1 tn this rule prov ides Alternative Operational Limits for different types of
ojxtations.'Siiutce categories, 1 lowever, based on SCAQMDfs experience, it ts not
recommended to limit production time or limiting the number of shifts or operating hoars or
operating time (day, nights, evening) as il would he an enforcement nightmare. Instead, a
source should be required to keep records based on throughput limits tu verity that the PIT is not
exceeded.
While it ma) he vultiaWe for KPA to help develop model "prohibitory rules" for different (iHti
source categories, we also request that l.PA remain open to allowing the Regional Offices to
approve a stale or local permitting authority "prohibitory role" that limits Pf'B without requiring
ait individual synthetic minor determination
-------
Lisa Jackson, IIS. EPA
FPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0517
Aprii 20, 2012
Page 5
1\ . KP \ Need Not l.awtr (.!K, Pirmittinj; I hrt-nhr»lt!•. lu li>» I t-\ 11s < nntt rnplaUd hv
t'mgtmm
CAPO f-Vs December 22. 2tXK> comment letter on the original proposed S adoring Rule pointed
nut that under the "absurd results" doctrine, I IP A Jws no! oeed to continue to reduce the GHG
threshold fur iitle V and PSD programs. Wc reiterate that comment here 1 FPA Mated "The
absurd results' ease law. requires ilus if a statutory provision cannot he applied literally, then it
should be applied as close to literally as possible, consist cm with C congressional intern." "74 Fed.
Reg 5511 i. Siv Xutu I'futrmat'euticai Ct>rp v Skahtlu, 14(1 FJJ 105U 1068 (I) C, Ctr isWSj,
The touchstone, therefore, is Congressional intent.
FPA has made clear that it believes Congress never intended such expensive and process-laden
programs as. P*sD and Title V to appl) to small sources below sortie reasonable threshold
74 fed. Keg 55",OX-5S3 H) FPA states "applsing the 1(H).?5(1 tp\ threshold literally to (.'(>2
emissions would frustrate Congressional intent by subjecting to I'S!) sources that Congress
specifically intended not to include," 74 Fed Reg. 5530,->. EPA further explains "Congress
designed the applicability ptovisions to applv (PSI)j r&juirernent* !« industrial sources ot a
certain npc and a certain size...and by the same token, to exempt other source;, fnm th«we
requirements." *?4 1-ed. Reg. 55 ^'e financially able to
bear the substantial costs imposed In {lie PSD provisions and which, as a jjmitp. arc primarily
responsible for pollutant emissions. Alabama Pmtr r (W/r, 656 F.2d ?1», (l),C Cir
19801 I he existing 1 ailorsng Rule, as implemented in Steps 1 and 2, alreadv iwers 'he types of
sources Congress expected to be included
In \ tew of the foregoing. Congress never intended for I'Sl) and 1 itie V to apply to smuves
smaller than some reason,sbie threshold, ami consequently. FPA ts not ever required to reduce
the Tailoring Rule threshold
V , FP v Mi on W ImmwhaSfh S\ <>t W on Oct duping Presumptive R A< f for (.IK.s
EPA is considering implementing presumptive BACT for UHfi sources and other
possible source categories and emissions anas that may tie piomismg candidates for
this approach, Ir. particular, F1' A is .soliciting comments for how and when to update
presumptive BAIT determinations, the use of presumptive BAC'l for general jx-miits, and the
appropriate public participation for the development arid application ot presumptive BAC I'
1 CPA's "administrative necessity" rationale justifies retaining the threshold at 100,000 tpy
because further reductions .trc administrative!} not teasihle and result m oriK «m incremental
benefit.
-------
Lisa Jackson. U.S. EPA
1:FA-HQ-C.)AR-20CW-051 ?
April 20, 2012
Page 6
Wc support the concept of developing and applying "presumptive HA establish a presumptive BAC1 which applies unless a challenger establishes by
clean and com irteinp evidence that the presumptive MAC 1' is inapplicable or dues, not meet the
statutory requirements, Ibis is particularly so because the definition of BAC'l requires the
weighing of various costs, energy and environmental factors, which is essentially a policy
decision It is therefore reasonable to uphold the pcrmittine, authority's presumptive BAC I
unlc« that policy judgment is shown by clear and cons meing evidence to be arbitrary and
capricious. Finally, allowing the concept of presumptive HAt "I k consistent with ease Uw
which MPA has explained as allowing "an administrative approach not explicitly provided in the
statute" such at. "streamlined agency approaches or procedures where the conventional course,
typically ease-by-ease determinations, would, as a practical matter, prevent the agency Irom
carrying out the mission assigned to it by Congress"" 74 Fed Reg. 55312 citing Alabama Pm-er
\ Co file, C»3fr F 2d 323, 35<* (!).('. C'tr. JMSO)
SCAQMD supports the development of presuaiptive BACT tor general penults and other source
categories as this wilt help in streamlining the permmmj: process. SCAQMD has devtloped
BACT tto different sowce categories aiicl equipment for its Minor NSR program that is similar
to presumptive BACT, in addition, SCAQMD suggests that EPA develop a Clearingfruse for
GHG1ACT and also publish here the emissions factor* and source test data available for
estimating 01 Hi emissions SCAQMD supports the idea of guidance for presumptive BACT
instead of mle making for the different source categories, SCAQMD supports the idea to set
presumptive BACT at the same lewis as in equipment energy efficiency standards established by
government agencies or other respected stwidard setting bodies such as the DOB, SCAQMD
also supports the idea to tee ENERGY STAR equipment certification, sticli as Ac ones for
residential toilets thai must have aimtia! fuel utilization efficiency (AFUE) ratings of IS percent
or greater, which is eoinpaiikle to the DOE boiler ervergy efficiency standards ranging from 80 •
to S3 percent established in 200?.
Consideration should also be given regarding the impact of GHG BACT on iioii-QIIQ pollutants,
a it may lead t« higher emissions Because SC AQMD is nanaltainment for m>m and PM» NOx
and other precursor emissions must be limited to tie "lowest achievable emissions Me," which
is more stringent than BAC" 1 \\ herever there is a conflict between nonattainmen! pollutant
LAIR and farther (educing GH<3s, Ae iw«ll«»mcal pollutant limit must receive the laziest
priority. This priority is consistent with die concept of GHG BACT, which allows the
consideration ©f'envirooiiieiiiil impacts," (CAA §lt>Vt3»j such as effect on NO* emissions.
-------
Lisa Jackson. I !,S. F:1'A
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0517
April ?li, 201:
Pag- 7
\ I. S( AOMII Supports Allowinn <-crural Prrrnits f.ir 1'illv V and PM» <,H<. Sources
H'A h cwwHfenng varitn* methods for JeveJoptne. geiwral pmrots A genera! permit is a
permit that the permitting authority adapts ones and then applies identically to e also supports the concept of genera! permits !or GS IG PSD sources. We concur that it
would be appropriate to first focus on sources that are major onh tor (IIIGs, without ru'.ing out
the possibility «f general permits for other PSD pollutants in the future We urge hPA to is vac
regulations which would .specifically authorize permitting authorities to issue genera! permits for
CillCi PSf) courses, Without such specific authority, permitting authorities raa> he reluctant to
use this streamlininf! mechanism. However, we strongly urge I.PA tm to make general permits a
"required minimum element for SIP-approved PSD programs," 77 Fed, Reg ! 4251 We believe
jjl 16 of the Clean Air Act eleariy authorizes states to impose ait pollution control requirements
4s Song as they arc no! less stringent than federal minimum requirements. Since general permits
are a streamlining technique, states arc free under §116 to adopt more stringent requirements,
including procedural protections such a> enhanced public participation, General perrruts are not
a mandatory requirement under 1 itie V an J should not under i'SI) either. Wc therefore also
oppose making I ttle V general permits mandatory on .states 7? Ted Reg 14251 col 3
l-.PA has requested comment on whether the public review requirements tor PSD permits can he
satisfied through public participation m the development of the general permit itself or whether
each individual use of the PSD general permit requires public participation We st(gj>ca a
middle ground He development of a general permit tor 3 particular source category should he
-------
Lisa )ack*»n. (' S. hPA
tPA-HQ.<)AR.2
-------
Lisa Jackson, U.S. EPA
HPA-HQ-OAR-20W-051?
April 20, 2012
Page i)
PALS at major sources for iwnc precursors {Volatile Ogame Compounds mid Nitiogen (hides i
in Extreme o/onc areas
EPA's second approach is the Minor Source Approach. 11ms would allow a source to use PAL to
!»mJ its planfvdde emissions while allowing the source to maintain its minor source starus
77 Fed, Reg 14242. I his approach would be limited to only (URt emissions,
hFA requests comment on whether lo fowli/e other or both approaches W When EPA
originally adopted the P«\l approach for criteria pollutants in the New Source Review program,
the SCAQMD was u*ry concerned that f-.FA's regulations failed to require adequate monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting to make a PA I enforceable. However, this concern derived from
the iau th.it HM's regulation made the PAL. a mandators, program element. SCAQMD
recommends that f-PA allow ;»ttr.rtor source approach lor (HIG only sources and calculate I'A!,
based on CO,« This minor source approach will be less huidensotne as a streamlining technique
than the major source opt-in approach as the latter would require additional resources to address
non-GHG pollutants, SCAQMD alsr agrees that a l'02e P AI can function to assure both the
(jHi'i emissions are not subject to regulation, am! that a change does not trigger a major
modification However, as king as I PA does not make PA! irardatory. we do not object to
fituSt/in^ both approaches I lowcver. we would caution EPA to ensure in its tmp!ero«ittti§;
regulations that adequate monitoring recordkeeping and reporting requirements arc in place.
Otherwise, sources in areas where less vigorous MRR is required would ^taiu a competitive
advantage over sources in more rigorous areas, and the (illC i reduction goals of the program will
he frustrated.
VIII. 'I ilk \ "Kmpl>" and "Hollow" Permits
t-PA uses the term "empty permits" it> refer to Title V permits "issued to a source that is not
subject to any applicable requirement lot am pollutant." 7? fed. Keg 142eo!, 1 The term
"hollow pcrmi!" refers to it permit lor a cillG major source that does not contain requirement*
for UHG emissions, hut which contains other applicable requirements for pollutants for which
the source is not major" Id. n.58 We believe thai HPA should interpret 1 itlc V nut so require
permits for either of such types of sources.
SCAQMD agrees that as the thresholds are not being lowered to less than 100,1)00 tpy CU2c, it
is unlikely that in this area she smaller sources would he brought into the program and need to be
treated as emplv permits, For example, for a boiler rated at 2 MMRTl' "hour boiler fired «0U tpy of CO?. -\i the SCAQMD, any boiler
rated above 2 M.V1H1 U'Hoar requires a permit for non-til Ki pollutant, thus, empty permits do
not result for such sources. This is because SCAQMD already has the most stringent criteria
pollutant rules m the naiion, so its rules apply to smaller sources than may be the case m othe*
areas, However, even in SCAQMD, it ;s likely that there would be •'hollow" permits created
undei the existing rules Because St "AQMDN rules rcttc(i smaller sources, it ts likely that
-------
Lisa Jackson. U S, EPA
l'TA-1 lO-OAR-HtMW-O? 17
April 20, 2012
Page 10
permits ma> be required thai ha\e criteiia potiutunt conditions, hu! no CillCi conditions Wc
therefore support interpreting Title V ttoj to require jxnr.its for cither "emptv" or "hollow"
permit situations.
Any requirement to t-wue pemr.ts to either of such types of sources mould frustrate and defeat the
purpose; of! ilk* V The essential purpose of the Title \' progiiin is to "asMjfe compliance b> all
sources required to have a permit under this subchapter with each applicable standard, regulation
ur requirement under this chapter" (i.e., the ("AA require issuance ol "hollow"" Title V permits, which
HiiuU nut be subject to Title V al all but for their GHG emissions, >ec they have no
nut exempt arty mator source from the rcquitements tor a '! itlc V permit I Iwever. that section
must he read in hanwm wth the purposes of Title V, which as cited above make clear that
Congress intended the '1 itlc V petmit to he a method ol implementing applicable requirements,
atia providing public participation in the permit process Where there aie do applicable
requirements, oi no applicable tequtremcnts lor the pollutant tor which the source is major.
Title V is meaningless If is a maxim of law that where the purpose for the law ends, the law
also ends, Cal, Civil Code $3510, I heretorc. B'A ttuiv and should interpret Title V not to
require permits in these cases,
I'.PA requests comment on whether it could adopt such an interpretation thtough guidance, an
interpretive rale twithout notice ;tnurce\ Ikh-nse Council v
hmironmcwa! I'mh-viion -tgcncu f>4"* 1.3d all (D (\ Clr, 20 J1} in view of the language of
§ 50.lt a) precluding exemptions for major sources, H'A should use not i ce - a n J-eotn me nt
rulemaking to fully explain its rationale lo the public, and respond to public comments, to reduce
the likelihood of successful legal challenge.
-------
I iftii Jackson. l'- X !;PA
EPA-HQ-OAR-20O9-OS S ?
April 20,2012
Page i 1
l.V ( onilusio!)
In conclusion, SCAQMl) staff supports 1-,1'A's tailoring Step "» proposal to maintain the
applicability thresholds for GHtl emitting sources at current Steps 1 and 2 k\ds Further,
SCAQMl) staff is in favor ol'utsy streamlining approaches for PSD and Title V permitting
programs and looks forward to working with the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee CtlICi
i'ermirting Streamlining Work (koup to assist in the development ami implementation of further
permit .sireaiiiliiiitig approaches.
!"hank you liir the opportunity to provide these comments on Kl'A's fatloring Rule Step >
proposal Should you haw any questions or w^li to d;seu,ss this rtwtter. plc.tsc contact the
undersigned, Barbara B.iird. District Counsel, at <9tW'i3%-2302 (bbaird.i aqmd gov) or Mohsen
N'xrcmi, Deputy l-muthe Officer, Ngineennj,1, and Compliance. at I Ws3%-26AS I AIR QUALITY
MANAG&MhNT DIS'I R1CT
Deputy I,-xecwtKe OlTker
kngincerinfi and Compliance
Barbara Baird
District Counsel
HR'VIVpa
t i>»,e>t),irt»rj. UK t rt t.i<>.»r rc< J.*.
Attachment. Rule M.IK
-------
I 135
(Adopted March 16, 2M) I'M Amended Novcmhei \ 2010)
Rl I.V MliS. POiFMj.lLlilDiin IMHATIONS
|aS Purpose
I hc purpose of this rule is to exempt low-emitting facilities with actual emissions
Mo* a specific threshold from tkfcrai Title V permit requirements hy limiting
the facility's potential to emit.
ihi Applicability
I his rule shall apply to any facility which would, if it did not comply wish the
limitations set forth in either paragraphs tclHl) or (d)(2> of tfiis rule, haw the
potential to emit air contaminants equal to or in excess of the thresholds bpccifted
in Tahle 2. subdivision (b) of Rule 3001 - Applicability, «r tor (iflCis ",00,WW or
more tp> ("Oh.*
(c) Definitions
All terms xhall retain tin* tfcfmiiions in Rule 3000 • (oeneral. units1; otherwise
defined herein.
11) 12-MONIH PI KU>I> means a period of twelve i !2t consecutive months
determined on a rolling basis with a new ! 2-month period beginning on
the ftr>t day of each calendar month.
|2) AC" 11'A1 EMISSIONS means the emissions of regulated air pollutants
from 4 f.tcility on a 12-month basis. Valid continuous emission
monitoring data or source test data shall he preferentially used to
determine actual emissions In the absence of valid continuous emissions
monitoring data or source lest data, the basis lor deicmtimnj: actual
emissions *-HaI; fx- throughputs of process materials, throughputs of
material* stnred; usage ol materials; data provided in manufacturer's
product specifications; material volatile organic compound | V{)0) content
reports or laboratory analyses; other information required by this rule md
applicable District, state, and federal regulations; or intonmrtton requested
by or available to the District. All calculations oi actual emissions shall
use United States F.nvironnienta! Protection Agency (EPA). California Atr
Resources Board fCARBi or District approved metSwds, including
emission factors .tpd assumptions
3008-1
-------
I 136
Rule JOOS (coot, i i Amended November >, 201(1)
0) ALTERNATIVE Ol'l-.RATIONAl I 1M11 means a Itmii on a measurable
parameter, such as hours of operation. throughput of materials. use of
m«tcriiil>, or i\\iimtny of product, a*, specified m paragraph Kit{2 >
<4s l)f; MINIMIS FACILI'IY means any facility thai emits in e\cr> 12-month
jwnotj quantities of actual emissions a*> specified m cither subparagraph
(A) or Ml) below
(AS Tlte facility emits:
(i 'i less than or equal to four i 4) ions per year of each regulated
Air pollutant (excluding hazardous air pollutants tliAl'sVt,
ant)
{isl less than of equal to four 1,4) tons per year o; any single
HAP, or twenty (20) percent of any newly adopted major
source threshold for 2 single BAt* that 1-,1'A mu> establish
by rule, whichever is less, and
'ni) less than or equal to five (5) tons per year of any
combination of I iAPs. and
tis t less than 25.000 tons per year i'0< for Ul 10 emission,
(B) At least 9t! percent of the facility's emissions die associated with an
operation for which ihc liroughpiit is less than or equal to any «>f
the following quantities specified"
(i) 1.120 gallons o{ any combination of solvent eontamm^
materials hut no more than 440 gallons of any one soKctn-
eontainmg material. provided that the materials Jo not
contain the lollowing: methyl chloroform (!,!,]-
triehlorwtbane), methylene chloride (didiloromethune),
letraehtoroethylcrw (pcrc hloroethylene j, «r
triehlnroethyJcrie;
(in i>0»i gallons nf the combination of a'. I sohent-eontaimny.
materials where the materials eonfairi the following: methyl
chloroform i I.U-trxhloroethanet, methylene chloride
^dkhloromcthanel, tctrachlurocihxlene (perchioroethy lertel,
or tnehloirtfthslentf, hut not more than 240 gallons of any
one solvent-containing material,
nil) 960 gallons of solvetit-coitlitininji lor VOC containing)
material, used at a paint spray urntt.s);
3008 - 2
-------
I 137
Kuli' $ < Amended Vivcnilti r 5, JfllOt
livi 5.722,66? gallons of gasoline dispensed from equipment
with Phase 1 and II vapor rccuser\ s_\stem av defined in
Ruk 4) EMISSION I "NIT means any article, machine, equipment. opciattoii,
contrivance, or related groupings ol such lh.it nwy produce and'or emit any
regulated air pollutant or IIAC.
(ht MAJOR SOURCE mean* any facility with 4 potential to emit, measured m
tons f«r year per facility legation, exceeding tin.- emission threshold levels
in Table 2, subdivision (M of Rule 3W!
(?f !*()! I'N 11AI Ft) liMIT means the maximum capacity of a lucilit) to emit
an air jwllatant based on us physical and operational design. Any physical
or operational limitation on the capacity of the facility' 10 emit a pollumnt,
including atr pollution control equipment and restrictions on hours of
operation or on the type or amount of materia! combusted, stored ur
processed, shall he treated as pm of its design only if the limitation is
legally and practicalK ertforceuWe by thr F PA and citi/ens or h\ the
District.
(8) PRtXfcSS SI A i fcMh.Vl means :» Deehiratton of Total htmsMnm tiled
pursuant to Rule .'OUeM'-'t ur a 12-month report on permitted emis'-sion
units tfonj ,ai operator of a facility certifying under penalty of perjury the
following throughputs of process materials, throughputs of muteriaN
stored; usage of materials, fuel usage, din available continuous emission*
monitoring data; hours of operation, arid any other information required by
this nite or requested by the District
3008 - 3
-------
I 138
Rule 3008 (coal.) (Amended November 5,2010)
(d) Requirements
An\ facility subject to this rule shall comply with other one of the following
requirements:
(11 (-.mission Limitations
A facility subject to tins rule has the tallowing (units en emissions in
every 12-month period:
(At SO percent of die major iouree thresholds Sor regulated air
pollutants (excluding HAl's and applicable:
( A"I I'hc operator shall maintain all pureha.se orders, invoices, and other
documents to support information requited to he maintained in a
monthly log Records required under this section shall be
maintained on site for fhc years and be made available to the
District. CARB. ur the MV\ upon rapes!,
till The opewtor of a tiasoline Dispensing Fudlity equipped with
Phase I and Phase fi Vjpttr Recovery Systems shall mainum un
site u monthly log of gallons of gasoline dispensed in the preceding
month with a calculation of the total gallons dispensed in the
previous 12 months.
3IMI8 - 4
-------
s Amended N>>\eabtr5,2010)
The operator of a Decreasing or Solvent-Using unit shall iiatfittiti
on site a monthly log of amount and type of solvent used ia the
preceding month with a calculation of the total gallons used ia the
previous 12 months.
I "he operator of a Paint-Spraying Unit shall maintain on site a
monthly log of the gallons of Vt>C-containing materials uied in the
preceding 1?, months with a calculation of the gallons of volatile
organic compound-containing materials that also contain hazardous
air pollutants used in the previous 12 numbs, ai>«J a calculation of
lite wtdu gallons of volatile organic compound-containing materials
used m the previous 12 months.
I'hc operator of an Hrnergency Standby Frtgine with output less
than 1.000 brake horsepower shall maintain on site a monthly log
of houis of operation, amount of fuel used, and >t calculation ©C the
total hours operated and amount of' fuel used in the previous 12
month.1) shall he kept on site
|3i On and after May 15, 2001, the operator of a facility' not operating under
any alternative operational limit, stall comply with the following
applicable recordkeeping requirements. The recordkeeping requirements
of thii rale shall not replace am recordkeeping requirement contained in
an operating permit or tn a District, State, or Federal rule or regulation,
1A) The operator of a facility subject to this role shall keep and
maintain records for each permitted emission unit or groups of
permitted emission units sufficient to determine actual emissions.
Such information shall be summarized in a monthly log,
maintained on site for five years and shall he made available to the
District, {'ARB, or I PA staff upon request.
(B) Coating.'Subem limisskm Unit
I he operator of n facility subject to this rule that operates a
coating/solvent emission unit or uses a coating, solvent ink, or
adhesive .shall keep and maintain the records in accordance with
Rale HW
(C i Organic Liquid Storage t tntl
The operator of n facility subject to this tule thai contains an
organic liquid storage unit shall keep and maintain the following
records:
300K (ennt.)
(Ci
sm
3008 • 5
-------
| 140
Rule 3IICIM leant) (Amended November 5, 2010)
(i'l A month!) log identifying the liquid stored and monthly
throughput, and
(ill Information on the tank design and nixtc11ic,»tion?>, including
control equipment.
^D) Combustion l-jntsikm Uttrt
Ihc operator of a facility subject to (his rtik* thai contains a
comhuMion emissnm unit shall keep ant! rmmUuri the following
records'
(i) Information on equipment type, rrwke and model,
maximum dc&t^n pjocess rate or maximum power
input/output, minimum operating temperature i tor thermal
oxidizers) and capacity. control device(s) type arid
description {if any) and all source lest information; and
t,ii! A monthly log of hours of operation, fuel type, fuel usage,
oik) fuel heating value
(l:.) 1'mission Control I"mt
The operator of a facility subject to this rule that contains an
emission control unit shall keep and maintain the following
records-
(i) Information on equipment type and description. make uttti
model, and emission units served by the control unit;
tin Information on equipment design including where
applicable' pollutant^'! controlled; control effectiveness;
maximum design or rated capacity; inlet and outlet
temperatures, and concentrations tor e;tch pollutant
controlled; catalyst data (type, material, life, \olume, space
velocity, ammonia injection ute and temperature i;
bughouse data t design, elcaninp method. Uhnc material,
flow rate, ainebth ratio), electrostatic precipitator data
(number of fields, cleaning method, and power input),
scrubber data (type, design. sorbent type, pressure dropt.
other design data as appropriate, ail source test information,
and
tin I A monthly h>t» of Ihhws of operation including notation ot'
jny control equipment breakdowns, upsets, rcjuirs,
3008 - §
-------
Ruk MKMi (font.)
I \iniiiilr, within 'ft A-^s of a
written raprw by the District or the EPA, the operator of ;-i facility no!
maintaining rtxnixK pursuant to subdivision (ei shall demonstrate that the
facility \ emissions or throughput arc not in excess of the uppbvubk
quantities set forth it) the definition of Re Minimis facility,
(.'1 I he operato! of a facility .subject to this rule shall provide to the District a
piocess statement or monthly log at the time of 12-month renewal for the
previous 12 months of operation I he operator shall certify that the
monthly log is true, accurate and complete,
{4) Any additional information requested by the I'xeeutive Officer shall be
submitted to the Pxceutive Officer within *<0 days o< the date of request
<5> the operator sfw!! notify the I'xeeutive Officer within 7 days of any
cxcecdance of the alternative operational Jirstil.
(f>) Notwithstanding the provisions in paiaftaph (IM.lt. a current Peel.iration
<*f liilal fmisMtw submitted in Accordance with paragtaph of
3008 - ?
-------
Rule .VMS iioril )
{Amended Ndvt-mhtr 5, 2fM0j
Hule MSI - Perritit!i%' and -\s,socwtcti Iecs shall be deemed to roeci the
reporting requirement* of this rule.
(g) Violations
11) Failure to comply with any of the applicable provisions of this rule shall
constitute a violation of thtN rule. K«ich iky during which a violation of
this rule occurs is a separate ottense,
|2) A facility subject to this rule shall be subjec! to applicable Icderal
requirements for a major source, including all other applicable rules of
Regulation XXX, when the conditions specified in cither subparagraph
i£H2KA) or 'gH-llB' below, occur;
(Ai Commencing n« the first das tblkm-ing every 12-month period m
which the facility exceeds a limit specified in paragraph idK 1) and
any applicable alternative operational limit specified in paragraph
(dH2l, or
(B| Commencing on the firs! day following every 12-month period in
a Inch the operator cannot demonstrate that the t'ucihH is in
compliance with the limits in paragraph tdHI > »r atiy applicable
alternative operational limit specified in paragraph iJH-i
(hi l',xetnp!io)ti
1 his rule shall not apply ?o (he following facilities:
< I > A»> facility, who.se emissions, throughput or opefaboa. at any time after
March 1ft, ?.0f)t are greater than the quantities specified tn paragraphs
idM 11 and (ilH^l a»i days prior 10 any
exccedance that the operator ir-tends u> submit an application tor a
iitle V permit, or otherwise obtain permit limits that arc legally
and practically enforceable by rite I-PA and cits/cns ot by the
District; and
iBi A complete Title V permit application ;s received h> the District,
or the permit action to otherwise obtain limits that are legally and
practically enforceable by die hl'A and eiti/ens, or by the District
is completed, within 12 month-* of the date of notification.
JOOK - X
-------
I 143
Rult 30fiN (ctmM I Ami ndi'd Nuvt-iaht-r 5. 201II)
(21 An> facility that has applied for a Title V permit in a timely manner «md in
conformance with Rule W(H - Applications, and ts awaiting final action
by the District and R'A.
(3) Any facility required to obtain ;in operating pennst under Rule 3001 •
Applicability tor any reason other than bemg a major source
<4? Any facility with a valid I ltlc V pentnt.
(5) Notwithstanding paragraphs jfi,w2) and th!(4) »| Hun rule, nothingm (his
subdivision shall pi event any facility vvluch lias applied tor or had a Title
V permit from qualifying to comply with this rule in the future iti lieu of
maintaining on application for a 1 itle V permit, or upon rescission of a
Title V permit provided the operator itcinon^rates to the satisfaction of the
Fxeeutivc Officer that die facility's emissions ha%e been permanently
reduced by accepting an enforceable permit change and is in compliance
with the emission limitations tit paragraph W)(h or an applicable
alternative operational limit in paragraph uiM2),
(6) Anv facility which hits a valid operating pcnuit with coniiiiionx limiting
faculty «tm»ions that ure leg.il!> and practically enforceable by :he Kf»A
and citizens or the District to below the applicable thresholds I to? .i major
source to defined in paragraph U'H^I
300S - V
-------
Kij!v .MUIS ((.out. t
I \nurxktl Novmilur 5, 201(11
I'able 1
\t!t ! i .it 1 I '(• i i< i1 i mil ¦
'? \ lit . = ' t 1f-1 I
Printing, PuM,sti.i.c. Jnd r#i-kjgll»g
Ftwogfitphy and Rotogravure
twrng water-based or 1 (V-micd »nki, aa-Ki^H, >tiki
adheres)
HcMtct ©fittl
Noa-Kestsct OffiMt Utl»«f «ply
r^rvssssssm^mmrxrTmmm^mm^Ti
i - :u:i i ¦!.¦¦ :l ;ii i m i ^ li ;i!h r'i i ¦ i<:
Ip if*Y fc n *1'i 'prr^^rit *13 ^*'*
limit* 11*4 all Printing, Pabttthing, md
Pjvki^in^ npt;atk>rs t<«s: um»w ItmtH ,i! 1 111
g,,"i»n>i>l nnltruh amuanmg an> urt IIA)J and
3 *33 giilon^ iif cunUinns^ vumbcMt.tifi
HAPs
*},(I(K> pounds inkj. coating*, irfSieshes, (Mutu*
solvents, A i.Ie;»mn|t Mirv. ws
tU.lXW fwwitii tbtfe.'t, uutrolt)«
adheres. diMi-»n >c»ivcrus A. tnMvvfis
10,000 pounds (before control) o: mk, vitjmu,
sof j
of c.wmn# solvent & iounwia
1 4,"- & >..»!•. (It soNem-bassd miss, demmg
niveau. adfeetira, * costing*
Btiiiri (s {00,000.000
71/100,000 al»ie feet of moml ps tommrni
Bulk Clanti
«cH varo'-hdtjncc svstemi
20,000 fsitiB® per thy ofpiei»» loaded ii
vnkwded
influck
1»1,l*ttkhkt: uelkine, dnhSit'ttmcihanc,
teuwhlofwiiyleii®, or tflcll®wtiiyl««e
\40O of ,io) ol sotvent-
2«2W pilous of Any oat tolvt
DegrtMen A Othnr tJnii II lit IkMk
1,11 UricMowetlmi®, (tteSJai t >»tu r writ,
tenwMowetftylene, or iricUorae%kne
Fm«»fg«i« st«ndt>> Lngin<«
{< 1,000 bnke tortepower)
* ,'^il hilars of firrr.itKK-
G**>n«« ni«p»«li»g tm lilies
|f qmppsrf »nh I'Haw ! and t'kiu- U uipvt rcu^m
tyaeon)
7,1 SSJ^H ga!kk"\ cc Wvi! nc ii
Itot ilk .AiplwllPtei*
125,000 tem of hit ®i* nif !i*li produced
1,100 pllo« ®f»l ¥0€«e«iiti»im ui«iert«l% !
w,«lh(t,.«ioH't>i4n ! H» g*no«B of VOC- & HAP-
Mto.iwig ivr.etuh .Willit VtK • 1
jpsBlftfltf, tat wecer tm§ cxttnpt c#B|»ibiiIi j
2 . ¦ ¦ _. ¦¦¦>¦¦ • ¦¦¦ <¦¦.¦. . .¦ ' |
iMWrMtBOt to exceed SO gnnu^iier. 1
JlrtS - i ft
-------
Appen ii I vJ f f' a inj.^ '-milnil i. - ^ gestions
Memo To:
Mohsen Nazemi
From:
Ad Hoc title V Committee
Date:
June 11, 2012
Subject:
PSD. Title V and Minor NSR Permit GHG Streamlining Suggestions
i. GHG-Onlv Sources Should Be Handled Under Minor NSR or Major NSR/Title V Only
• Forthe few sources that would trigger PSD permitting for GHG emissions that
do not hold a Title V permit and forthose sources triggering PSD for GHG
emissions that do already hold a title V permit and who are not contemplating
any GHG impacting modifications, we suggest that these be handled under
minor source NSR or major source NSR and not PSD until such time as the
facility chooses to undertake a major modification. We understand that a
cleanup of EPA regulations is required to effect this per Page 14240 of the
March 8, 2012 Federal Register.
• With the exception of the BACT analysis and the public notice provisions, the
balance of the traditional PSD permitting requirements such as the ambient air
quality analysis, the soils, vegetation and visibility analysis, the potential Class I
area impact analysis and ESA requirements etc. should be suspended for a
period of three years or longer until a scientific basis for considering them is
established by EPA.
3. Expand Synthetic Minor Program to States with Delegated Programs
• The March 8, 2012 Federal Register proposal for Step 3 of the Tailoring Rule
reserves synthetic minors as a streamlining technique only to those states
where EPA issues the PSD permits. We see no good reason why the synthetic
minor provisions cannot be extended to those states with delegated
4. Improve the Certainty of the BACT Analysis if One Must Be Performed
• If a BACT analysis must be undertaken, steps should be taken to lessen the
likelihood that the selected BACT and the required economic, energy and
2. vYear Delay of Most PSD Permit Elements
8
programs .
8 The Step 3 proposal makes PALs available to states with delegated programs. We are unclear whether or not PALs
can apply in the South Coast because of the effect of SB288 and/or the status of Rule 1714 (PSD for GHGs) and are
looking forward to a legal interpretation from your staff.
-------
I 146
environmental impacts analysis will be questioned by the permitting
authorities and/orthe public, thereby avoiding a lengthy iterative process. This
appears to be the most onerous aspect of the permitting process that GHG
PSD sources will probably have to undertake. Some suggestions for
incorporation into EPA's March 2011 PSD and Title V Permitting Guidance are:
e. EPA should provide software to better assess localized impacts from projects.
Current software is limited to high-flying regional impacts by such agencies as
NOAA.
f. Corollary pollutant analyses should be minimized as long as criteria pollutants
continue to be reduced even at the expense of GHGs. There should be no
requirement to perform an optimization of these two types of pollutants (seeking
good but not necessarily the best reduction of each pollutant).
g. EPA should provide standardized calculation sheets that can be followed by the
permittee to lessen the likelihood of a more informal analysis and determination
being challenged in court.
h. Given that that the environmental and economic analyses involved with the top
choices can be very time-consuming and complex, a maximum of two scenarios,
unless the applicant chooses to perform more, should suffice for the purpose of
the application.
5. Flexible Air Permitting
• The CAAAC should consider the use of flexible air permits (FAPs) including use
of advance approvals of operational changes, alternative operating scenarios
and plantwide applicability limits to mention a few tools. While the air
regulators found EPA's 2007 proposal to be anathema as far as criteria
pollutant programs were concerned, they may be less hostile to FAPs focused
on GHGs. One tool that might be incorporated into a FAP is a Master Energy
Plan that, once approved, can be implemented by a facility as it chooses to
make successive modifications.
6. Presumptive BACT
• Presumptive BACT as discussed in the March 8, 2012 Federal Register on
Pages 14252-4 is an appropriate tool for smaller, less-complex sources to
utilize versus case-by-case BACT determinations. Presumptive BACT should
always remain an option for a facility to follow.
7. General Permits
• General permits, also as discussed in the above referenced Federal Register on
Page 14254 might be a streamlining solution for source categories with very
little deviation among the members.
-------
Cap and Trade Program Allowances and Offsets Should NotTriqqer PSD In and Of
Themselves
• Participation in cap and trade programs such as that established by AB32
should not in and of itself be the basis for an existing facility to need a PSD
permit unless the facility meets the balance of the PSD trigger permitting
requirements (exceeds required thresholds and is undergoing a significant net
emissions increase of GHGs). Holding of offsets and allocations within cap and
trade programs should not be considered to be potential-to-emit that factors
into permitting thresholds.
• To prevent continuous returning of permittees to the permitting authority to
change GHG numbers listed in national or state inventories or permits or cap
and trade programs, GHG-related figures should not be reflected either in PSD
orTitle V permits in such a way as to require annual modification of the
permits. Initial GHG burdens might be stipulated in the permit and then in a
chart or a schedule showing the decreased obligation over time with words to
the effect that the facility is expected to hold sufficient allowances and offsets
at least equal to the initial compliance obligation decreased by the specified
program percent reduction per year.
-------
I 148
Appends y V H-" i, r<.n,Pn^il
>"Ur " *ns
S.yl»j«f l«y«j» MooUwj' Remark* t« the Ad Hot TVCommrtte* Memo of tow II, Will
Melto Muhvm: !W pataphtauKf Jessiej's quethar* to save »»«-;
1, Why mention major ff1»IV
We sfmiiWt have After vetting flits farther among ourwf***, we cannot think of why * "major
sourc,# MSB petmit ntet outside «h» TV realm. The sentiment in our MtoKMwmWwt was
ite*iMf|s' thai for CjWC'i titfrtKlics, not tcirilt?fiiplsilifig *f*v tTMjtWic jtiQfif t!%#f W€mk$
increase QII&, oriff the simplest. type of permitting siwurki be required. Ttws. could uke
the form of a simple description of the GHCI emitting activity in a TV permit ot better yet II*
twspfe l»«».»:g of It* activity»« », miiicif mn permit if that & what «* fee.it, hat m its pusMsswon.
2. Scientific Mi to OtA»y Moit KD Permitting Iferoerttoi'
:'.... .1, ..... ..¦ ¦ „ .. . ... ¦¦...,»¦ »¦' ¦¦!.. „ i ¦¦ - . = ...
^ S V'^.- «¦'^ ^ %*-1 Si J Sfec -A' t.l *S3> 1 f % \.%. '^5 1. ?5 {P^ ^ ^ *
deurriptioft of what we meant. Av you are aware. CARS wwy le-cent % beard a ptewwitatem flow
fV§A«ft lat.ofa.fw of Stanford, M.l. Hither t>< lawtenc* Berkeley. V. Ramanathan of WC50 and two
crtlw HientHts aterfmg th# Bm$ci le IN? effects ol short-lived dtraate warming
(%€P$I %mh m btetlt cwbon, ritclhiiie i£«f cuetir, tomiKKmtk wfmli- might fffiist
themsefvet to traditional PSD petratuwg are#*%m, especially black cartoon. CaWwrwa way
consider those poftutants in the upcoming S-ycar letusit of t»w Scoping Plain tor AB 32 A* at the
fnd of ihts ytat We know that SPA is fwrtlwr behtod CARB but tfw !*rrti»«»«»l in out group was
tt^at lii "Hftite^i wimr: bi^ bii^rrvats buri*ert in.>tar^tp, f.o
pwfotm th»* KO atwfy^w. Out |ioup felt that any tun#* of expanding
PSO jn#fV'S^s f&r sli€%ylcl wait unl'il spmelNnt h«n bfw
-.SO. * ifR' y -ft'*. ~X t ^ ( ^ < 1 S-- «.< v;^. i - n \s* \ i.^ . *S«- * c*°^ ^ -V « '.- . 4 i. e r o . ^
J. Mtiw tfct ytiw bnUmf mi pttfmimng totoMarv poflutaw analyse*7
Agam. out more retwrt aw meeting |>ro%«fe* * l*ttw ilcscripBoB at st*t.
;¦ n . ". ii / . : ' ', .. . b ... u. ¦ > f i .... . . .. .. . - i .
iWUC - s r-V J»l V* *} s LK »df IJW V.> f 1V.3 % WUi ?W VI* * V#Pf | SIC
Swim#® w^g.Nf a?. # I'HNiith u ami ,!«* tongas |»liatesiis iif |*®irs|
' ' - !"¦¦ "¦¦ 11 ¦ >¦ 1 "¦¦¦ ¦¦¦ ' ¦"¦.¦ 'V « !¦ . ¦ > '¦¦ ¦ !¦¦¦=¦ ' '..¦¦• - : ¦¦¦¦¦'. v ¦ ¦ ¦¦¦¦¦ ...¦» ¦¦ ; f=V ' :¦¦¦<• ¦"¦ :-¦¦ - ¦ " - " ¦ '
beyond demomttatmg that the mass of It* criteria f»lf«anls are t«iie«l bemg reduce*!. To wit,
in thf HSCKi dksrribiRs tl%p ftfoooserf ftncfifim yrwlf*
aid Im carried tsw« to any corollary
-------
Appen 11 1 I \l Mornil'Min;; P^-jin,- nvni: f. , ul .i-i I -h/.ut/;
(12) Monitoring requirements for PALs. (i) General requirements. ( a ) Each PAL permit must
contain enforceable requirements for the monitoring system that accurately determines
plantwide emissions of the PAL pollutant in terms of mass per unit of time. Any monitoring
system authorized for use in the PAL permit must be based on sound science and meet generally
acceptable scientific procedures for data quality and manipulation. Additionally, the information
generated by such system must meet minimum legal requirements foradmissibility in a judicial
proceeding to enforce the PAL permit.
( b ) The PAL monitoring system must employ one or more of the four general monitoring
approaches meeting the minimum requirements set forth in paragraphs (aa)(i2)(ii)( a ) through (
d) of this section and must be approved by the Administrator.
( c) Notwithstanding paragraph (aa)(i2)(i)( b ) of this section, you may also employ an alternative
monitoring approach that meets paragraph (aa)(i2)(i)( a ) of this section if approved by the
Administrator.
( d) Failure to use a monitoring system that meets the requirements of this section renders the
PAL invalid.
(ii) Minimum performance requirements for approved monitoring approaches. The following are
acceptable general monitoring approaches when conducted in accordance with the minimum
requirements in paragraphs (aa)(i2)(iii) through (ix) of this section:
( a ) Mass balance calculations for activities using coatings or solvents;
(b) CEMS;
( c) CPMS or PEMS; and
( d) Emission factors.
(iii) Mass balance calculations. An owner or operator using mass balance calculations to monitor
PAL pollutant emissions from activities using coating or solvents shall meet the following
requirements:
( a ) Provide a demonstrated means of validating the published content of the PAL pollutant that
is contained in or created by all materials used in or at the emissions unit;
( b ) Assume that the emissions unit emits all of the PAL pollutant that is contained in or created
by any raw material or fuel used in or at the emissions unit, if it cannot otherwise be accounted
for in the process; and
-------
I 150
( c) Where the vendor of a material or fuel, which is used in or at the emissions unit, publishes a
range of pollutant content from such material, the owner or operator must use the highest value
of the range to calculate the PAL pollutant emissions unless the Administrator determines there
is site-specific data or a site-specific monitoring program to support another content within the
range.
(iv) CEM5. An owner or operator using CEMS to monitor PAL pollutant emissions shall meet the
following requirements:
( a ) CEMS must comply with applicable Performance Specifications found in 40 CFR part 60,
appendix B; and
( b ) CEMS must sample, analyze and record data at least every 15 minutes while the emissions
unit is operating.
(v) CPMS orPEMS. An owner or operator using CPMS or PEMS to monitor PAL pollutant
emissions shall meet the following requirements:
( a ) The CPMS or the PEMS must be based on current site-specific data demonstrating a
correlation between the monitored parameter(s) and the PAL pollutant emissions across the
range of operation of the emissions unit; and
( b ) Each CPMS or PEMS must sample, analyze, and record data at least every 15 minutes, or at
another less frequent interval approved by the Administrator, while the emissions unit is
operating.
(vi) Emission factors. An owner or operator using emission factors to monitor PAL pollutant
emissions shall meet the following requirements:
( a ) All emission factors shall be adjusted, if appropriate, to account for the degree of uncertainty
or limitations in the factors' development;
( b ) The emissions unit shall operate within the designated range of use for the emission factor, if
applicable; and
( c) If technically practicable, the owner or operator of a significant emissions unit that relies on
an emission factor to calculate PAL pollutant emissions shall conduct validation testing to
determine a site-specific emission factor within 6 months of PAL permit issuance, unless the
Administrator determines that testing is not required.
(vii) A source owner or operator must record and report maximum potential emissions without
considering enforceable emission limitations or operational restrictions for an emissions unit
during any period of time that there is no monitoring data, unless another method for
determining emissions during such periods is specified in the PAL permit.
-------
I 151
(viii) Notwithstanding the requirements in paragraphs (aa)(i2)(iii) through (vii) of this section,
where an owner or operator of an emissions unit cannot demonstrate a correlation between the
monitored parameter(s) and the PAL pollutant emissions rate at all operating points of the
emissions unit, the Administrator shall, at the time of permit issuance:
( a ) Establish default value(s) for determining compliance with the PAL based on the highest
potential emissions reasonably estimated at such operating point(s); or
( b ) Determine that operation of the emissions unit during operating conditions when there is no
correlation between monitored parameter(s) and the PAL pollutant emissions is a violation of the
PAL.
(ix) Re-validation. All data used to establish the PAL pollutant must be re-validated through
performance testing or other scientifically valid means approved by the Administrator. Such
testing must occur at least once every 5 years after issuance of the PAL.
-------
I 152
'|ii'Jk 1 i hin >'air^I -H"ju'"
------- |