Document 1g1aO8NM9a1kDD1Omw16q67pX

National Environmental Development Association's Clean Air Project Docket No. EPA- HQ-OA- 20 17-0 190 Mr. Ryan Jackson, EPA Adminis trator Pruin 's Chiefof Staff Ms. Sama ntha Dravis, Associate Administrator EPA O ffice o f Po licy U.S. Environme ntal Pro tectio n Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue. N W Washingto n, DC 20460 May 15,20 17 Members: The B oeing Company BP America Eli Lilly & Company Georgia -Pacific LLC lnvista S .a'r.l. Koch Industries, Inc. Merck & Co., Inc. Occidental Petroleum Corpo rat ion Phillips 66 Procter & Gam bl e Cou nsel: RITTS LAW GROUP, PLLC Dear Mr Jackson a nd Ms. Dravis N EDA/CAP, a coalitio n o f American ma nu facture rs, is responding to EPAs Notice requesting recomme ndatio ns for repealing, replacing a nd/or mod ifying burdensome EPA regulatio ns. 82 Fed. Reg. 17,793 (Apr. 13, 20 17). The attac hed Ta ble ofNEDA/CAP recommendations lists over 40 Clean Air Act (CAA) regulations that impose mammoth costs on U.S. manufacturers with little o r no e nvironmental be nefit. T he following CAA regulations and policies constitute "our top ten" candidates for repeal or replacement. (Each candidate has a reference s uch as ''A.2," " B.19", etc., that refer to the entry in the attached Table of Recomme ndations). I. Modify the Exceptio nal Events Rule to Include High Background Ozone Levels a nd Inte rnational Ozone Transpo rt (See A.2); 2. Re place the New Source Review (NSR) exclus io n for " Routine, Mainte na nce. Repair and Replaceme nt ( RM RR) following protracted enforceme nt litigatio n on this issue so that a reasonable ma n knows what c hanges at a pla nt are excluded from NSR (See B.3); 3. Re peal Revisio ns to the Refrigera nt Rule that Illegally Regulate Substitutes for Ozo ne Deple ting Substa nces Ba nned under the Montreal Protocol. (See D. I); 4. Re peal Federal "SIP Call'' of State Rules Containing Affirmative Defenses o r Exclus io ns from Vio lation for Excess Emissio ns During Startup. S hutdowns (See A.3); 5. Repeal and Re place EPA s " Maj or Source" a nd "Maj o r Modificatio n" Aggregatio n Po licies (See B. I, B.2); 6. Modify the NSR "O ffset Inte rpreta ti ve Ruling" (See B.4); 7. Mod ify NSR Atmosphe ric Air Dispersion Modeling Require ments in Append ix W for Secondary Po llutants Until EPA Approves a Sole Source Model (See A.4, 8.6); 8. Repeal the ESHAPs "Once In Always In Policy" (See C.2); 9. Repeal 201 6 Regional Consistency Revisio ns Rule a nd Ask the Court to Re ma nd the Revis ions Ru le (See B. 16). I0. Modify and expand the regulatio ns a uthorizing Plantw ide Applicability Limits (" PALS") (See B.1 4). The attached table provides full citatio ns to these candidate rules and policies, with a descriptio n ofeach a nd the burde ns they e ntail, with a pro posed solutio n tha t is consiste nt with the C lean Air Act. Respectfully s ubmitted. ~ ~ -fy--~tjs Les lie Ritts o n behalfof EDA/CAP Cc Do minic Mancini. Deputy Administrator, 0 MB Amanda Gunasekara, HQ O AQPS Liaiso n Attachment - Table of NEDA/CAP Recomme ndatio ns 620 FORT WILLIAMS PARKWAY ALEXANDRIA. VIRGINIA 22304 TEL: 703-823-2292 FAX: 571-970-3721 NEDA/CAP Recommendations to Repeal, Replace or Modify Existin g C lean Air Act Regulations and Policies 82 Fed. Reg. 17,793 (Apr. 13, 20 17) - Docket No. EPA-HQ-OA-2017--0 190 NAME OF REGULATIO NBrter Dac:rlptlon errATION to C.F.R. & FED. REG. baHl>affipdo (1)-(vl) crllnil lilled at ll S a ~ m i c Impact Fal. Reg. 11.m. CoU l fonadoll A. IMPLEME:\TATION OF SATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QI_IAUTV STANDARDS (NAAQS): Stat~ lmplemntatlon Plan (SIP) Rules 42 t.s.c. Cliaotn8S. S.bdiaoter L Pan A -Air Oaalit a d Emission Umltatlom A. I Rcpl~II lhc S IP Clean Air M l (CAA) 42 t l.S.C. 741 0(b). 40 C.F. R. 50.15(O;one (i) 1imina1cs jobs. or As the Business Roundtabk R c<1u l r c me nt s NAAQS). 40 C FR P:tn ~I Sub11an AA. ,md Proposed Sub1rnr1 CC. inhibits job crea1ion: pointed out to the White anil Designation For the 20 I5 o,onc NAAQS. final nona11a111111cnt designations and (iii) Imposes economic Ilouse National Economic Rules for 1he 20 t ~ State Implementation Plan (SIP) rc,1s1on requirements were proposed rosts lhal exceed benefits Council in its Feb 22.2017 07.0ne:-,;AAQS& at 81 Fed Reg 81.276 INo, 17. 20 16) and \\ill be codified at 40 (,) Relies in pan on lcncr. the 20 IS Owne Oc l:t)' lmple111cnrn1ion CF R SI Subpan CC (" Prr,..isiomfor /mpleme111t1110110/1/re 10/5 scienlilic infor1ru11ion 1ha1 NAAQS hamp,:rs economic 0:one Na1io11a/ Ambient ,I,,. Q110/ityS1t111</ards"). has nol bt>en disclosed 10 gr0\\1h in vnst sections of1hc of the 2015 the llllblic country without delivering ,'\',\,\Q. T he 2008 O10ne NAAQS ha,e not been fully 1mplemcn1ed. nor h:l,c additional. meaningful health Rc,blons. Judicial Pc1111ons for Re, 1e w of the 2008 NMQS lmplerncntallon benefi1s. Funher. Rule. .JO C F R Subpan AA. have not been adjudicated. Scllllt Coast 1mplementatton of the 2015 AirQuahty ,\la11age111e111 Distric1 ,,. EPA. D.C. Cir Case No. IS-11 15 rule would interfere with The 2015 lmplemcntallon Ruic should be repealed and reconsidered resources for 11nplcmenting after the 2008 NAAQS has been implemented. the 2008 rule for States. lndus1rv and EPA RcRJons 1\.2 l\lodify chc CAA , -12 ll.S.C. 7619( h); 40 C. F.R. ~ 50.1-1. last :inicmled 8 1 Fed. (i) Elimirrntcs jobs, or When U.S. hum.in-caused EXCCfll ional Reg. 68.2 16 (Oc1. 3, 2016). inhibits job creation: S0lirccs account for but a E..ents ("EE~) The 2016 amended " EE" rule 1s an 1mpro,ement and helps States (iv) Crea tes a serious small portion of u non- Ruic to Exclude c,cludc high monttorcd NAAQS ,alucs from area nona11ammcn1 inconsislency or other" ise a11amrncnt e,ent. tt should be from des1gnat1om, (1c.. "NAAQS design ,alucs") 1fthey resulted from inlerferes " ith rcgulalory possible 10 aggregate all the Nom111ainmcnl exceptional events such as forest lircs. 11:11ural calam111cs, stratosphcnc reform ini1iatiYes ttnd other causes that cannot be Mo nito r "Design ozone intrusion into 1he troposphere. and other events beyond the \ 'alues~ lligh control of regulators l:PA recogn11ed in the rule the potenual for po licic,, controlled and exclude these from non-a11ammcn1 Biogcnic high naturall} occurring ~ asonal 01one from b1ogcmc & other detennmaiions. thll5 rehe, mg Backg round sources contribute to violations of the NMQS. but dl-chned 10 st:ncs of the Ozone Levels and include these m the scope of the revised rule because they are burdcnsomcitmpossiblc task lnlern~lional "noml:lll)' occurring events" 81 Fed Reg. 68.228 EPA noted the of quantifying separately Ozone T ransport a, ailabiht, of CAA Section 179B to e,clude interna1ionallv- each non-human. non-U.S . transponcd crrussions but , uggcstcd II should be hmned 10Mc~1can or uncontrollable cause of111t: nnd Canadian ennssions t!'\'COl l'iEDA/C AP Recomme ndat ions for Evalua tion or Ex is ting F. PA Cle:111 A ir ,\ c t Rc,:uhuions & Po lifies Docker l'io. EPA- IIQ-OA- 20 17-0190 NAMEOF REGUIATIO Brtd'Daatpdoll CITATION to C.F.R. & FED. REG. ...DaalpCIN (1)-(Yi) crtlma lislal al 12 Fld. Res- 17,ffl, CeL3 A .J. Repeal the 2015 FIP Ca ll and Preserve Rig hts of Srntes to Adopl Local Rules Containing A ffirmative Defenses and/or Exdus ions from \"io lation for Excess Emissio ns During Startup, Shutdown. and ;\ l a l f o n c t io ns (SSi\l) 42 l l.S.C. 74 10 (aX2)( 11). ( I); 40 C FR Part :-2 (Appro,al of S1a 1e-b~-Statc S IP Pro,isions); 80 Fed. Rtg. 33,839 (Jun. 12, 20 15) (..S,me lmplemcntncion Plans: Responses 10 Pct11ion for Rulemakmg: Rcs1a1emen1 and Update off:PA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs: Findings ofSubstnn1ial lnadequac~: and SIP Calls To Amend Pro\1s1ons Appl)ing to Excess Em1ss1ons During PcnO<ls ofStanup. Shutdown and Malfunc tion. Final Ruic' ("FIP Call") The 2015 f-lP cnll 1s inconsis1en1 with S1a1es 0cx1b1lity 10 plan how each"'" aumn nnd' or mmnrnin the NAAQS and enforce 1heir 0\\11 la\\ s The FIP call disappro, 1ng 36 Sll's 1s not based on a finding. required by Clean 1\ir Act (CAA) Section 42 U.S.C. 7410(1). 1ha1 1hesc provisions inccrfcre wich timely NAAQS anammcnt. (i) Eliminalcs jobs. or inhibits job rrt'a tion: (Iv) C rcaccs a serious incons is lcnry o r otbcnl~e inle rferes " ich regulatory reform iniciaci"cs and polic ies 10 re1urn auchomy over NAAQS lmplcmen1a1ion to 1hc Slates. Pc1111ons for Re, 1ew of1he Fl P Call \\Crc acccplcd by lhe D C. C1rcui1 in Walter CoAe. Inc.. et al.. ,.. PA. DC. Cir Case No. I;. I 166 . The D.C Circuit issued an Apr 24. 2017 Order granting EPA's motion to rcmo,c oral argument from 1he May 8. 2017 calendar and holding 1he case in abc~ance pending funher proceedings The ..FIP Calr' overrides improperly Since a u1hor11y 10 allow ccnain types of emissions to be excluded from CAA violn1ion when they occur during s1anup. shu1dom1 or malfunctions of process or pollu1ion con1rol equipment. includmg but not l1111itcd to mstnnces "here amrmniive defenses explain why 1hc c1111ssions a rc 1>01 prcd1ciablc or cannol bt: prevented (as is 1hc case for ccnain 1cchnological malfunruons) Stales h:I\C primary au1hori1y O\Cr their air qu:iht) and rcgula1ion of em1ss1on sources. and EPA did not e,cn nucmpl 10 dcmons1ra1c 1hn1 exclusion ofemissmns from s1a1ionary source SSM c,cn1, or 1he c,cmse of affirmauve defenses resuhcd on v1olauons or imcrfcrcd "11h auammcnt of lhe NAAQS. The 1mponancc ofa,01dmg safely issues 111\olved in stnnup. shutdown. nnd malfunclion. including bul not hmllcd to stanup o f combuscion equ1pmen1 and purging of procc~s cq uipmem and pollu1ion control cqu1pmcn1 hkc ox1d1zcrs canno1 be over-cs11mated Morco\'cr. exclusion of emissions during n reasonable pcnod ofstanup. panicularl) for combusuon cq111pmen1 and fuel-fired conlrol equ1pmen1 hke oxidizers lhnl takes lime 10 reach a sceady st::uc. do not rnh:rfere \\ uh amb1em air quality or cause NAAQS excecdnnces exccp1 in rare ins1anccs Also. amnroci,c defenses m SIPs chat can be adm1n1ma1ivcly implemented S1t\'Ccoun resources. or , f on issue proccl.".ds to coun re, 1e\l~. as pcrhops in 1he case ofa Cllizcn s ui1. amplifies a couns record ofdecision Page 2 NEDA/CAP Rccommcmln1ions for E\'alu111ion or Elis1ini: EP..\ {'lc,111 ,\ir Acl Reguh11ions & Polide, Oockel l'io. EP,\ - IIQ-OA-2017-0190 NAMEOF RECULATION Brief Dacrlpdoa errATIO IO C.F.R & FED. REG. bneDaulpdH (1)-(vl) crttaia lilted at 82 Fed. . . . 17,79.J. 01U A.-1. Repeal applicability or CAA P,\ 12.5 S IP l m1>lcmcnt:11ion (including P,\U,5 :-; R applicabilily) 10 VQCsantl Ammonia and Reins1i1u1e l'.\12.5 S urrogacy Po licy unt il Air Dis11crsion ,\l otlcling for Secondary Air Poll urnnis is A,11llablc al a Rea,onable CosL C lean Air Ac1, -12 U.S.C. 7-I I0(m), 747~(c) (l'iAAQS Pollutants. S IP .\l odclini: and PSO l\lodcling RequircmcnlS) 40 C.F.R Su bpan l,-l'ro, isioru. for l mplcmcnia1ion or P.\12.5 National Ambient Air Quulity Sl:lndards 5 1.1000 Definitions; 8 1 F~'tl. Reg. 58,010 (A ug. 24.2016) ("Fin e P11rtic11/111e MnllerNAAQS: Su,1e lmpleme_ntntion Plan Requiremems"). -10 C.F.R. 51.1000 defines l'M1.., prec ursor," sulfur dioxide (SO,). o~idcs or n itroi:cn (1\0 ,), \'Olatile), , o latile organic compounds (VOCs), :ind a mmonia (l'i H,). PSD smglc source air di,pcrs1on models arc 1101 a, a,lable for modeling secondary PM2.5 formation from ozone and NHJ l:PA's Technical Assistance Document ( rAD). at hnp, \\\\\\ erM go, n,r iJrJ1t-gunJ:mcc:-sonm1Cnl>t1:n1fican11mr;u:t Ie\ e1,cvpn~-amJ-fan,:-pa ICI1!-nr,;\>Dtmn-; IG,nlficani is not sumcieni and in fact underscores the dimculty ofa case-by-case approach to air d1spcrs1on modchng for secondat) pollutants such as PM2.5 (i)Eliminates jobs, o r inhibit,; job cr~'ll tion: (iii) Thr implementatio n rule imposes economic costs that exceed bencfilS Until adequate e,aluat1on tools exist to model secondary pollutanlS. EPA should not require air dispersion modeling on a case-by-case basis. pantcularl) s111ce the agency's pnor surrogacy pohc1cs (cg.. evaluaung PM,, using PM ,.,) ha,c about the same amount of nccurnc) as case-by-case modeling_ and can be backstopped \\1th other rccordkceping & A.5 Re1>e-JVModify PMt, Stack Complia nce Testing for -wrr Stocks- -10 C F R 51 . Append,, M recommends 1cs1 methods for compliance w11h PM, , ( line particulate) emissions limits. pro, 1d,-d for states 10 1mplcmcm into SIPS "Artifacts" (1,c, line particula1c) are created b} the EPA reference test methods. especially for \\Ct stack plumes "h,ch EPA acknowledges- and results m emission ltmn noncompliance EPA should re-implement lhc PM1 s ,iack testing surrogacy policy unul II ti,cs the compliance 1csting method Sec S. Page. lmplcmcntauon of New Source Re,te\\ Requirements in PM- 2.5 Nnnanainmcnt Areas" (Apnl 5. 2005) at Imp~ \\ ,, \\ ,;pa go, .;;ihf' producJIOO fill"' :<ll ~- 117 dop1ment~ on~)l!Ul\l rJI ( i") Creates a serious inconsis tency or othcn,isc interfer es with rq;ulnrory rt'form ini tiatives and policics (iii) Imposcs costs that exceed benefits: Noncompliance \\ith EPA and State NAAQS emission limits is intolerable when it is cau!>ed by EPA technical issues. Jornt dToris b, API. EPRI. and NCASI 10 ;ddress the test me1hod issues are underway \'Ith EPAs blessing. so 1hcre is widespread recognition of the problem A fix " ould reduce testing costs at fac1l111cs and reduce the costly likelihood oftriggenng PSD because of "ell-kno\\n tes11ng problems Page 3 NEDA/CAP Recommenda tions for Eva luation or Ex isting EPA Ck a n Air Act Regulations & Policies Docket No. EPA- HQ-OA-2017-0190 NAME OF REGULATIONBrtd'Dacrlptloa CITATION to C.F.R. & FED. REG. Jssae Dacrlptloa (1)-(vl) criteria listed al 82 Savlnp/ecoaomlc lmpacl Fed. Reg. 17,793, CoL3 1nrorma1loa H.1 Rc1lca l a nd Re1Jlace All " i\la jo r S o u rce'' A,:1n.:;i:ation Policies' & lnlCrlJrctatio ns. 8 .2 Rc 1>ea l EPA Stay or Final 2009 ''P roj t t t Aggrcgalio n" Ruic and Fina lize the 20 IO"Pro1,oscd Recons ideration Ruic" ~* B. NEW SOURCE REVIEW tNSR) & PERMllTJNG: 42 U.S.C 85 Subchapter I 1'1111 C and 1'1111 D 42 U.S.C 7410(a)(2)(C) & (I). 7479( I) [def. of "major emi11ing (i) Eliminates j obs, or Uncertainly in 1hc facility")' 750 1-7506 [No11011ai11me111 NSR f'ermilling}: 160I(z) f ...,ratio1101)' source}: 77602(.j) [def. of"major s1a1ionary source". inhibits jo b creation; (iv) Creates a serious applicabili1y of1hc mos1basic CAA requirement of when a "major emining facili1y140 Cr-R **5 I.165(b)( I )( ii)(A [def of inconsiste ncy o r otherwise preconstruc1ion pcrmil or an "Building. structure, /acili~i. or imtalla1io11 .. in PSD areas); inte rferes w ith regulatory operating pem1it is required 52. I66(b)(6) [def of "811ildi11g, stmcturc.faciliry. or i11stalla1io11" in reform initia tives and costs the gross na1ional 110110/tainment areas): (i)(a). 70.2. 7 1.2. (CAA program applicabilil) policies producl dearly by interfering definitions of "major stationary source" major source" and major wi1h economic dcvclopmem emillingfaci/ity''). See also S ummit Petroleum Carp., LLC ,._ PA. ofdomest ic manufocluring.. 690 F.3d 733 (6"' Cir. 2012). There arc dozens of EPA Prcven1ion ofSignifican1 De1eriora1ion ( PSD) and Nonanarnment New Source Review ( NNSR) applicabili1y "guidance" documen1s and inlcrpreiations regarding when emissions activilies under common ownership or opcralion must be "aggrcga1ed" and perrnincd as a single source One controversial group of EPA applicabili1y in1crprc1a1ions addresses when emissions ofa pollu1ant from differen1 pieces ofequipment. even emissions units located as far as JO miles apart and thus non-adjacen1 in a plain meaning sense of the word "adjacen1." (i.e.. physical pro,imity) must he "oggregarea to delerrnine if lhe projects arc part of the same "major source.. or "major modification ofa major source"- and require a major NSR penni1. F.PA should withd raw IJrior ar:i:rJ:ation IJolici!:a and l~ue new rules on NSR a1!11lirahilitv. Reasona ble IJCOl>lc s ho uld be a lllc tn aa;:n..-c w he n [!n> ic("t.~. arc pa rt of the same '.sn urce'" n nd arc rcguircd 10 o btain a PSD o r NNSR (!Crmit. Sta tes s ho uld be a bk to ma ke these decis io ns with min ima l EPA o versi2ht See 74 Fed. Reg. 2,376 (Jan. 15, 2009). as amended by 74 Fed. Reg. 22,693 (May 14, 2009), ("Slay of PSD & Nona11ainmcn1 NSR Aggrcgauon" Ruic published 74 Fed. Reg. 2,376 (Jan 15. 2009): 75 Fed. Reg. 27.643 (May 18. 2010). See also ..t\p~licabilit, of NSR Kc, 1c" Circmmcnunn Gmdancc m 3M - Manlcwood Mmn~~ota IPIJFl... Similar to the major source aggregation" policy and guidance situation, a ran of EPA policies and interpretations exis1 regarding aru::rcga1mg the emissions from individual orojcc1s 31 a (i) F.liminat.-s jobs, o r inhibits job creation: (iv) C rea tes a se rious incons istency o r othc n ,ise inte rrc res w ith regulato11 rt'form initiatives nnd po licies Uncertainly in the applicability of 1hc mos1basic CAA requirement of when a prcconslruction permit is required for projec1s undertaken at the same plan1 costs the gross na1ional product mi lhons ofdol lars Page 4 ~ ~~~A :'1' 0 A/C,\P Reco mmendations for l:;,;1luation of E,istinj! PA Cll"~n ,\ ir Act Rf!!ulations & Policies Docket l\o. t:PA- IIQ-OA- 2017-0190 AMEOF REGULATION Brid Dacriptloa Projet:t Aggrl!f(ntlon Reco111111endntlon Co111',l B.J Rc11lace NSlt Exemption for - Routine i \ l a i n te n a n cc. Rc11air & Rc11laccmcnl (R:\rnRr Ap11roach l "tili,cc:1 b)' EPA Enforcement with a Rt,:ul<Hory Definition on Which llcn~onable Pco11fe Clm Agree. CITATIO to C.F.R. & FED. REG. lllwl>acriptloa manufacturing plant into a single prOJl'Ct (in order to determine the opphcab1ht) ofmajor modifica11on new source rc,ic" perm1111ng). based on EPA'sjudgmc1111ha1 some business pr0JCCISarc subs1an11olly related .. EPA stayed 1hc 2009 aggregation ,mcrpretatl\C rule and sianed a rulcma~ing 10 replace ii. EPA should finalize 1hc proposed 2010 ruk 1hat establishes bnght line presumptions - for instance that proJcCIScannot be subs1an11ally related ifthC) occur more than three \'Cars ap:,n EPA should create bngh1line 1cst 10 dimin:uc EPA second-guessing and enforccn~nt of bu:,incss decmon, that plant proJc-cts arc independent. prO\ 1dcd that these conclus10ns arc reasonable nnd supponed by businesses before proJccls arc cons1ruc1cd (1 e. a project docs no1 depend on construction ofa succc-eding busincs~ proJ~I I0 --pay back'" c~penscs oftl,e first ro cct) ~0 C.f. R. 5 1.165(a)( 1)(27)(A)(1J(C): 5/. 166(b)(J)(iii); 52.21(b) (2)(i): EPA. I Q90 (Drafi) NSR Manual. at A.33 : Neu- l'ork 1. PA.. 443 F 3d 880 (DC C,r 2006)("",\'cll' l'ork II"") (vocoting 2006 .VSR eq111pme111 rcplacc111e11t process rule). EPA has implemented a longstanding NSR Program rule exempting from the dcliniuon ofa major modification... physical changes that arc routine mamtenance. rcpa11 and replacement ('"RM RR'") But the e,empt1on lus been re-defined m numerous EPA 1nterpreta11,e pol1c1cs and cnforccmcm ac11ons agllln,t numerous U.S. manufacturers based on multiple El1A definitions of..RMRR... A number of federal couns repudiated EPAs interpretations of RMRR It 1s c-rr11cal to manufacturers that EPA prO\ ides a clear and mc:mmgful defimtion of RMRR that encourages mamtcnancc and/or ..hkc kind'" rcplacemem of process cquipmem Swtes and mher stakeholders o, cr the years have pcnod1cally urge EPA to formally adopt a rule that allo\\S ph~s1cal changes and clungcs in the method ofoperation 1ha1constitute less than S percent of the capital cost of bmnd new cquipmenl used by the IRS, See IRS 1'11blica11011 5J-I. We also recommend 1hai EPA add language that pohcics on equipment replacement be based on ~p1cal pracuccs for the enure mduStl) sector." , c. nol what 1s tv 1cal at an mdmdual source) (i),(ri) criteria listed al 12 Fed. Rea, 17,?93, CoU annually Busmesses plan nc" products. routme ma1n1cnancc. nonroutinc mu1111cnancc. and new equipment installauon and replacement on a proJect-b} pr0Ject basis. bu1 EPA npphcs 1he PSDINSR permit rcquircmenls to groups of purponedly rcla1ed prOJCC1s based on a haphazard pohq called --proJcct aggregation (iv) C reates a serious incon.si..lijtcncy or othcn,ise interfer es II ith regulatory' rcfonn initiathes and policies EPA's cnforccmcnl policy of definmg ""RMRR.. on a case-b}-case applicat1on based on a number of foctors repudiated by many federal district couns 1s improper and should be replaced b) an EPA rulcmaking that defines the longstanding excmp11on from a ..rnaJor mod1fica1ion.. subJCCI 10 NSR in a predictable manner Enormous savmgs to companies who could mamtenancc equipment \\ 11hou1 the amb1gu11y and risk ofEPA' s enforcement office and citizen suits If the ruks would also encompass cncrg) eme,cncy 1mproverncnts in like-la nd rcplaccmcnls usmg bencr matcnals to 11nprove throughputs. addu,onal sa\lngs for 1nanufacturmg. industl)' and the environment could be rcah7cd Page 5 NE DA/CA P Recommendations for Evaluation of Existing EPA C lean Air Act Regulations & Polici.-s Docket No. E PA- HQ-OA- 201 7-0190 NAMEOF REGULATION Brlefl>ampdoa CITATION to C.F. R. & FED. REG. bsae Description (1)-(vl) criteria llskd at 82 Sariap/ecoaomlc Impact Fed. Reg. 17,'793, CoU lafornmtloa B.4 Modif)' the Nonattain ment NSR Offset Geograph ic Location Requirements. H.~ 0 ebottlenccking Repeal EPA Withdrawal of2006 Proposed Rulemaking and Clarify tha t lJpstream & Do w ns trea m Dcbottlenccked llnits Never arc S ubject to BACT Controls. 40 C.F.R. 51.165. 40 C.F.R. 51 Append ix S. "Em ission Offse1 lnlcrpre1a1ive Ruling" a l ~~ IV, 3. D. 1-2 ('"Location of 01Tse1ting emissions") slipulates 1ha1 offsets from other areas that impact the location of the proposed new source are not eligible unless the upwind location also is a nonanainment area for the pollutant. In order to obtain a NNSR permit. CAA Sec1ion 173 (c) requires a company 10 obiain emissions reductions from other sources within the same air quality conlrol region lhlll arc equal 10 or greater than 1hc "potential" new emissions from a new source or maJor modification. EPA has interpreted geographic boundaries in the offset provision very stric1ly. panicularly in the face ofwcll-undcrs1ood science regarding emissions trnnspon across multislotc regions of the country and the relative contribution ofcenain precursor emissions such as NO,, SO,. and VOCs 10 the formation ofozone and PM, 1. To facilita lc company expansions and new producls. EPA's rigid in1erpre1a1ion oflhe law can be rela,ed (even wi1hou1 lhc amcndmcnls 10 lhc 1977 law that NEDA'CAP also believes are needed. ) This Emission Offset ln1erprc1a1ivc Ruling 1s scientifically inconsistent wi 1h EPA modeling used in 1hc Cross-Slate Air Pollu1ion Rule that EPA argues demonstrates tha1many up"ind altainment orca emission sources impact downwind monitors. See l997 Cross State Air Pollution Ruic (CSAPR): 2008 CSAPR and 2015 CSAPR modelin runs at 76 fed . Re . 48208 (Jul 6. 2011 ). 74 Fed. Reg. 2.460 (Jan. 15. 2009) (wilhdra"ing proposed rule that attemp1ed to clarify when emissions increases upstream or downs tream of modified emission sources trigger NSR): 71 Fed. Reg. 54.235 (Sep. 14. 2006). Debottlcnecking, like traffic control. is the removal ofa constraint in a plant that allows it to increase production. Counterintui1ively. EPA policy dis-inccn1ivizes replacing old equipment wn h new process equipment thal is more efficient because emissions increases from debottlenecked "upstream or d01,11s1rcam" process units are counted toward the determination of whether a project is major and must be permilted under NSR (even when the emissions from the new unit decrease. remain the same, have only a small increase. and/or the upstreanvdownstream emissio n increase is (i) Eliminates j obs, or inhibit~j ob creation; (ii) Is outdated, unnecessary, or inefTrctive; (iii) Imposes costs tha t exceed benefits; (i) Eliminates j obs, o r inhibits j ob c re ation; (ii) Is outdated, unnecessary, o r i nef f ec t ive : (iii) Imposes costs th:11 exceed bencfils. Compan ies cannot consider building m pans ofthe US. where eligible offsets arc not available including rural nonauainmc nt areas 1hat often otherwise have no economic development potential and developed areas in States like Arizona). This issue panicularly impacts focili1ies in the oi l & gas and natural resource sectors. NEDA members by themselves repon projcc1s wonh hundreds ofS million have not moved forward due to EPA debottlenccking policies. The debon lenecking policy thwans plant efficiency by subjecting commonsense changes to lengthy permit review and additional costs of Page 6 NEDA/C,\ P Rccomme nd,uions for Evalualion of Exisling EPA Clean Air Acl Regulalions & Policies Docket 1'0. EPA- IIQ-OA- 2017-0190 NAMEOF REGULATION Brief Description Debo11/e11ecki11g Con t "<L CITATION to C F.R. & FED. REG. Issue Dacrlpdoa (1)-(vl) criteria listed at 82 Savlags/economlc Impact Fal. Reg. 17,793, CoL3 lafornmdoa already allowed by permit). Notably. most but not all EPA interpretations c~clude a debonlenecked emissions unit that has not undergone a physical or operational change from BACL Sec 40 CPR 52.21UXJ) (stating tl,at BACT applies to units tl,at experience a net mcrease "as a result ofa physical change or cl,a11ge in the method of operation 1111/,e 1111it'1. Sec. e.g.. Director. Sta1io1tary Source Compliance Division. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. 10 Michael M Johnston. Chief. Air Operations Section - Region X. titled "'PSD Applicability Pulp and Paper Mill" July 28. 1983. pollution control. and simply results in leaving these projects on the engineering noor or moving them abroad where efficiency and innovation is prized instead of punished.). 8.6 Mo dify Ambient A ir Dis11ersion Modeling Requireme n ts fo r Secondnry Fo rma tion o f Ozone and PI\I ,.,, and Replace Draft EPA G uidance a nd Requircmcnl fo r C asl~by-Ca se :\1odcling 42 li.S.C. 747S(a )(3); 40 C F. R. 51.166(k)(I ), (m), and S2.21 (k)( I): 40 C. F.R. 5 1, Ap11. W, 5.2. l (c). App. W default models and data processors are periodically listed in Appendix W. which was revised on Jan. 17. '.!017 (82 Fed. Reg. 5. 182) afier nearly 20 years. 40 C.F.R. 51 . App. W. 5 .2. l(c) docs not include an EPAapproved "single source" ozone mode l for ambient air impact demonstrations Linder PSD. On ly a few models and their data processors arc pre-approved for use without case-by-case approval by EPA's Modeling Cleannghouse. Incl uded in these lengthy casc-bycase determinations (ass uming they even get State agency authority and EPA Regional Office approval 10 move forward) are model ""fixes." "tweaking" model a lgorithms 10 belier replicme case-by-case site emission conditions. or using bctu-1cstcd non-Appendix W-dcfault processors In lieu of selecting a single source model for secondarily-formed pollutants like ozone and PM, ,. EPA published dran guidance in 2016, 1o assis1 new sou rce review permit applicants: https W\\\\ 1..pt1 uo, :n~rldraft-gu1dance-commcnts1gn1ficaru-1mpactkvel,-ozoncand-tinc-panick-pr,;vcn1,on-,1n1fica111 (a Technical Assistance Document o r TAD). Also see 2015 Ozone Implementation Ruic at 81 Fed. Reg. 81.276 (Nov. 17. 2016). (iii) hn11oscs costs that exceed benefits PSD applicants were allowed lo make qualitative comparisons of increases in ozone precursors 10 ozone values in an area 10 meet 40 C.F.R. 51.166(kXI ) and 52.2 l(kX I I or to use EPA"s PM2.5 Surrogacy Policy {SEE A4. supra). The Sierra Club petitioned EPA to establish a "single source" model for ozone. However. EPA acknowledges in the 2017 Appendix W revisions that it has been unable 10 establish a single source model for secondary pollutants like ozone and PM,,. Ahemativcly EPA can resume application of the PM2.5 surrogacy Policy We estimate 1ha1 the absence ofan approved EPA singlesource ozone and PM2.5 model for PSD applicants results tn roughly eight 10 ten abandoned manufacturing expansions in the U.S. annually A single source photochemical modeling run will cost al least S50,000 10 SI 00,000, assuming States can provide an inventory of emissions from nearby facilities and acceptable meteorological data: ifthese data are unavailable. costs will increase significantly. agency's pnor surrogacy pol icies (e.g.. evaluating PM,, using PM,u) have about the same amount ofaccuracy as case-by-case modeling. and can be backstopped with other rccordkccping & Page 7 NEDA/CAP Recom mendations for Eva lua tion o r Ex is ting EPA Ck 11n Air Act Hegula tions & Policies Docket No. EPA- HQ-OA-2017-0190 NAME OF REGULATIONBrlefl>escripdoa B.7 Replace the Sig nificant Impact Level (~SIL,.) for Nitrogen Dioxidr. errATIONto C.F.R. & FED. REG. lssae Description (IHvl) criteria listed at 82 Savlags/cconomic Impact Fed. Reg. 17,793, CoL3 lafonnadoa CAA 42 U.S.C. ~ 74 I0(m}: 7475(c): 40 C.F R. ~ 52.21 (b)03l(i ii); 51.166(k). Pan SI.Appendix ;W 75 FR 6474 (Feb. 9. 2010)('0 Revisio11 ofNO2 NAAQS..); EPA. ..Gen eral Gmda11cefor lmplem em ing the Ih our NO2 NAAQS in Prerention ofSig11ifica111 Deteriorotio11 Pem1i1s. /11c/11d111?, 011 /111erim /-l,011r NO] S ig11ifica111 Impact Lewi'" (June 28. 2 0 10 ) In order to obtain a NSR permit unde r the CAA. an applicant mus t de monstrate that the proposed e mi ssions from a new major source or major modification will not violate a NAAQS or a NAAQS incre ment. If that cannot be done. a source. including a pollution control that is based on burning fuel and pollutants cannot be pcrmining in the U.S. Since the SIL is so low. EPA published the cited guidance to develop n modeling "work around" for the NSR ambie nt air quality analysis. but it costs tho usands of dollars more in modeling resources and requires a case-by-case EPA approval 011d imparta111~.- ofte11fails. The NO2 SIL s hould be raised. It is so low that new pollution control equipment. like an oxidizer for VOC pollution control, that has less tha n a 10 MMBTU~1r. heat input capacity and a -15 stack foils 10 pass the PSD model screening limits and mu_st therefore obtain a PSD pem1i1 (iv) Creates a serious inconsistency o r o thenvise inte rfere with regulatory reform initia tives and po licies by interfering with new e nergy and pollution control projects. without delaying or discouraging economic c~nansion and new nrodrn'ts In order to obtain a NSR permit under the CAA. an applicant must demonstrate that the proposed emissions from a new major source or major mod ifica tion will 1101 violaie a NAAQS or a NAAQS increment. lf1ha1 cannot be done. a source. including a pollution control that is based on burning fuel and pollutants cannot be pem1i1ting in the U.S. Since the SIL is so low. EPA published the cited guidance to develop a modeling "wo rk around" for the NSR a mbient a ir quality analysis. but it costs thousands of dollars more in modeling resources and requires a case-by-case EPA approval and importa111~1 often fails. There are no NO2 nonanainme nt areas in the count!)'. and no ambie nt air monitors can de1ec1 excess NO2 so the SIL can safely be increased to suppon domestic manufacturers with state o f the an pollution equipment. Page 8 ~ ~~~-A , , . . . . . . . . . _...L NE OMCA P Recomrncndalions for Evalua1ion of fa isling EPA Clenn Ai r Acl Hctlulalions & Policies Oockcl No. EPA- IIQ-OA- 201 7-0 190 NAMEOF REGULATION Brier Delcrtptloa 8.8 Repeal and Rc11lace 1bc Definition of ..8q;in Acllrnl C ons 1ru<1io n" errATION IO C.F.R. & FED. REG. luae Dacrlpdoa (IHYI) mtma 111ta1 t az Fal. Rq. 17,79.J. CoL3 42 USC 7475(a )( I ). 7479(2)( 1). 40C FR. 52 21 CbX ). 40 CFR SI 166(bXll ). 40CF.R 5l 165(a)( l )( w ). 40CF R 51 Append,~ S 11.A. I7 (definitions of..bcgrn ac1ual cons1ruc11on..): sec also h11p, \\ \ \ \\ !i[!,1 ~O\ a~r rn,:,, .....nur!ir;'!i[~\ IC\\ -1.li!li;, i!l~- gy1d;mcc-sJsx:umentmJo such as :o hll[!' ,, ,,,, s;~a ~o" ~lh:"- nr~~ucqoa IH!.~ 1.r;;_ 07 Joqun,nh IW5 I' I~ ooO PSD and a NNSR permits arc ..construction pcrm11s: and thus PSD appilcant~ arc not allowed 10 ..begrn actual construcuon" before a NSR permit 1s issued ConOicting EPA und Stntc guidance exists on what "begin actual constructt0n" means. und EPA has issued CAA Nouccs of Violation (NOVs) for acu,11,c, only peripherally related to an cm1>s1ons unit. such a,, ;,rte lighung. demolition of em1i.,,1on units to be retired or replaced. ckctncal rns1allat1on for a nc" butldrng or sccuon ofa butIdmg. construction of buildmg footings. d1ggmg drarnngc conduits. and building excavation (unrelated to the cm1ss1on unit pad ttsclt). (iiven the length of lime ti takes 10 get NSR pcm1its. precons1rucuon (1yp1call} at least 10 to 18 months). pre-permit act"111cs that are not ..on an cm,ss,on unrt.. (e.g.. a boiler. or storage tan~ ) can help expedite proJects (panrcularl} in pans of the country \\ith sc,erc weather). and should be ollo,\Cd at the project proponent's own risk even though they may be directly rclutcd to a project to mstall or modi(\' NSR affected em1ss1ons units. The construction of foundations. buildings. and uc-ins 10 cx1s11ng process un1ts arc examples of acttvt11es that should be allo\\cd prior to permit issuance (A ..tie-rn.. ,, ptptng and other c"<1utpmem. rncludtng cu1-0ff val\'CS. used to con11<.--c1 or hnk (i.e....uc-,n..) other cqu1pnicn1. either directly ur indirectly ) (i) Eliminalcs jobs, or inhibils job Crt'al ion: (h) Crt'alcs a serious inconsiste ncy o r o then,ise inlcrfcrcs wilh rci:ulalol")' reform ini1ia1i,cs and 1m licics S.Yiap/-mic lmpad lalbnatloa The global 1nnr~c1 place and ~peed 10 marker easily 1rump EPAs conJeclUrc 1ha1 It is more difficult for EPA or a Stutc to diSllpprovc a permit application ifa company has not spent money on at yet It also 1s easier. s:ifor. and less e~pcnsl\c to rnstall tierns durrng turnarounds. as opposed to hot tapping while the unit is running to fac1lttatc installauon ofan cm111mg untt. once ns PSD permit appltcnuon 1s approved. Page 9 NEDA/CAP Recomm('ndations fo r E,aluation of Et isting EPA Cll':ln A ir Act Regu lations & Po licies Docket No. F.PA- II Q-OA- 201 7-0190 NAMEOF REGULA.TIO BrwfDescrtpdoa CITATIONtoC.F.R. & FED.REG. lllaeDacrlpCIH 11.9 " Project Netting~ - Repeal and Re11lace Curren t A1tency Policies 42 U.S.C ~ 7475 (PSD Pcm1it Applicability): "Project netting.. would nll0\\ a company 10 replace a piece of equipment or a process \\ith another piece of equipment or proccs. quickl~. pro\lded that the ne\\ cqrnpment has s1m1lar or lesser cn, ironmental 1mpncts on a pcr-unn-of-production basis In such msianccs. ho"cver. EPA requires a full facility-wide emission ncning analysis. aggrcgming emissions increases and decreases for C\'Cry project undennkcn at a plant over a fi\'e-year period This is unnecessary and discourages equipment replacement EPA should strcamhnc the procedures for proJcct nctung by finalmng a proposed September 14, 2006 rule (71 Fed. Reg. 54.235) that all0\\Cd cenain types of project nclling, B. 10 Fug ithe Emissions" - Withdra" Illega l EPA Stay of Rule faempting from ,'ISR Applicability Dercrminations ror Planl Expansion in Many lnduslry Sccrors 42 l l.S.C. 7602(j): -'0 C FR 5 1.16S (a)(i\')(C) (cxcl. in de f. o f "11U1jor modification" in nonanainmcnt areas(: S l.166(b)(2){i\') (excl. in def. o f"major modificatio n" in PSD areas ror fug iti,e em issions: 52.2 l (b )(2)(iv). 75 Fed. Reg 16.012 (Mar. 31.2010): 76 Fed. Reg 23,489(Apr. 27. 201I ) Fuglll\'Cemissions arc defined by EPA guidance as em1ss1011s that can neither be readily captured nor prevented Sec e g.. T C urran. EPA ..Jn1,rpre1011011 ofthe Rfini11011 o/F11gllll'<' F.mi.,swns"(Fch 10. 1999) Sec also40 CF R 51 166(b)( l ) and51.165(n)(I\ ) EPA"olatcdCAA 7607(d)(7)and finalized :m " lnternn Final Ruic" on Mar 30, 2011. 76 Fed Reg, 17.548 (Mar. 30.2011 ). without notice nnd public comment rulernaking, indefinitely staying a Dec 19. 2008 regulations (73 Fed. Reg 77.881 ). \\hich c~cluded cons1deru11on of fugiti,c emissions from ccnain rnanufoctunng sectors m determining \\hethcr a plant cxpan~1on ll'as a ..rnaJor modification" and needed a NSR permit. (1)-(vl) criterltl lisud at 12 Fed. Rea,. 17,793. Col.3 (i) Eliminates johs, o r inhibits job cn.-ation: (ii) I, outdated. unnessary. or ineffec-1i\1e : (iv) C reates :i serio us inconsistency or olhen,, ise interferes " ilh l't'j!ulalo~ n.-form iniliatives and polides The staying of 73 Fed Reg. 77.R81 and issuance of the lntcnm Final Ruic (76 Fed. Reg 17,548) \I0latcs CAA Scc1,on 307Cd)(7)(13). which docs not allow El'/\ to mdefinitelv srnv effective final rcgul~tio1;s without rulcmaking as \\ell as 7602(.i) that requires rulemaking for an industry before fugitives arc included in ..maJor source dcterminauons Project nening would keep domestic manufocturingJobs at home. and EPA can modi~ 11s regulations to assure that small energy e07cicncy improvements provided by like-kind replacements (e.g.. pro\lded by bener metallurgy. etc l by hke-kmd replacement equipment will protect production and 1he environment,. Some projects tnggcr NSR. PSD re, 1cw. \\ 1th lengthy dcla~ s to get pcm111s and s ignificant control costs, simply because of fug111ve emissions (otlcn from material handling hkc "ood or chip piles. piles of agncultural 111a1crials used 111 make elhanol or seed oils. minerals. coal. etc.). If fugiti, e e1m~1ons were c,cluded. many more proJCCIS \\Ould mo,c forward. and more quickly. improving do111es1ic manufactunng's economic comnetill\'COCSS Page 10 ~E D,VCA P Recommendat ion, for Evnluation of E, istin!! EPA C lenn Air A ct Regulation, & Poliri~-s Docket Ko. EPA-IIQ-OA- 2017-0190 NAMEOF REGULATION Briel DeKrlptloa 8.11 -Am bient Airl nteq,retations Rc 11ea l nnd Replnrc EPA to Provide a .\lore Realistic l\leanin!! lkganling Public Access and Potentia l Elpos ure to Enaissions , l'articul11r ly in Air .\lodelin!! 11. 12 Combined H eat and ro.. er (CHP) Projts - R eplace !,;mission Ncuini: Rules to Pro,ide lncenth rs for C IIP Projects. CITATIO to C.F.R. & FED. REG. .... DeKrlptlo CAA 42 U.S C 7475(a)(J): ("'PSD modehng requirements..) ..Ambient a,r.. 1:, not defined by the CAI\ but is defined m 40 CF R 50 l(c) as the "portion of the atmos11hcre. external 10 build ings. 10 "hich the general public has access EPA has rc-mterprctcd the defirnuon man~ times-.,<'<' EPA NSR DElTERMINATION lnde, h11p, \\ \\" ,;p;1go\ n~r 11 \\"iourc!-'.rc, 1e,, -ps,l1q -;ms,j.guu.Jan,;s;- docunii;nt-tndc,: and made unreasonable determinations that the pubhc has access 10 areas hke a fenced tram railroads. roads and ri,crs. and mdcpcndent con1rac1or-opcra1ed property in the middle of a --source.. tha t 1s othern isc owned and operated by the same person (1.e. the defin111on of"muJor source..) The definiuon of--arnbtent a1r" is pl\otal 10 PSD modehng outcome:, because it delmcates the locauon of receptors for \\hich ambient a,r quality impacts must be an.1lyzed. Placmg air dispersion receptors 111 the mo<lchng grid Ill the n11ddle ofn so11rce. "here the general public ts l11ghly 1111/1ke6 to be c~poscd to pollutants for more than a fe" moments. greatly mcreascs the likch hood that a source will be sh01,n in air dispersion modeling 10 ..cause or contribute 10 a NAAQS \lola11on. leading 10 unnecessary. but cost!,. control measures or abandonment of a ro scd ro cct. 40 C F R. ~*5 l. 165(b)( I )(a)( I)(i). 40 C.F. R 52. 166(b~ I). 52.21 (b)(1)(NSR Program Dcfin111ons ofMaJor Stauonary Source andlor ..maJor cm1111ng fac1li1y..) that include the requirement for a source to be owned or operated by the ..same person.. have thwarted dozens of enerro-emciency and cnv1ronmentnlly beneficial CHP projects over the p3St three decades because a cogeneration plant is generally not owned or operated by the manufacturer. "ho \\ants to an mdep,!ndent power provider ur municipal utility tu provide :.team 10 1he manufacturing process at the same 11me the po"cr plant 1s generaung elccmc11y to 1hc lJ S. po\\er gnd Smee the Cl IP plant tlk:reforc ,snot under ..common control... emission decreases from the manufacturer's ex1stmg (higher-emitting) steam plant cannot be ..ne11cd" with emissions mcrcas..,s from the new (cleaner and more efficient) CHP plant. "h1ch 11ould a,01d PSD or NNSR pemutung altogether (or at least rcatlv strcnmhne rm,11in ) EPA should reintc rct/n:dcri ne (l),,(YI) crtlerla lilted at lZ Fal. Rcc, 17,ffl. CoL3 (iv) C reates a serious inconsistency o r o the-n, iw inh""rft~.rcs with r<-.gulHtOry n.form initia1ivcs and policies These modelmg decision, defining ..ambient air.. should be left up 10 State:, and EPA should replace guidance (iii) Imposes costs lhat exceed benc filS (h) C reales a ~erious inconsistency or otherwise lnlnkres with regulatory ~form initia tin,s and policies EPAs ambient air policy causes many projects 10 sho" modeled v1oln11ons of NAAQS. meaning sources must mstall cxpcnsi,c controls or take other mcas ur.:s to reduce pollutant impacts or cancel pr0JCCts Ix-cause the needed controls moke the pr0JCCIS uneconomic Requiring placement of rl-ceptors \\here real c~posurcs art: likeI) 10 occur fur relevant durou ons for the NAAQS in question. typically outs ide the boundaries of a source's property. would mitiga1e these ncgau, e economic im acts Cl IP projects that produce process steam for indu,mal hncs and clcc1nc11y for pubhc consumption or 10 regional power grids arc meritorious and could be allowed by mod1f)mg EPA s an.1chronis11c netting rules 10 allow these proJects. even if the) arc not under common control or 01,nersh1p Changing the rules as suggested could also res ult in em1s:,oons decreases. b) includin re ulntorv Page 11 :-;[ DA/CA P Recomme ndatio ns for E"alua tion o f Exisling EPA C lean Air Act Regulalions & Po licics Dockel No. E PA- HQ-OA-2017-0190 NAMEOF REGULATIONBrlefDescrfptloa 8. 13 Re place NSR Po lic ies o n NSR A pplicalion "Co mplelcncss De termina tions'~- CITATION ao C.F.R. & FED. REG. lane Description (fHvl) c riteria listed t 82 Savlap/ecoaomlcImpact Fed. Reg. 17,793, Col.3 1arormatloa 1he firs! prong oflhe 1hree-pan definition of"'major source.. 10 redefine common con1rol for CHP projcc1 re"iew to trca11l1e hos1and 1he ownerlopcra1or of !he power plan1 as being under common conlrol:' 42 ll.S.C. 747S(c) rec1uir cs lha t Stales and t he EPA g ranl or d e ny a NS R applicalion within oneyeor. Avenal Power Center LLC v. EPA, 787 F.Sup1>.2d l (D.D.C. 2011). S. Page, ~Time(r Processing ofPrevention ofSignijica,,r Deterioration (PS D) Pem 1irs when El'A or n PSD-Delegnred AirAgency Issues the Permit (Oct. I Z. ZOIZ). "Completeness de1em1inations'' are critical for establishing a bright line for grandfathering NSR applica1ions when a NAAQS is revised or ano1her crilical CAA regula1ion changes a nd a re high on the lis1 of why American manufacturers 1ake new product lines abroad IO avoid typical lengthy penni11ing delays for new major sources and major source expansions in the U.S. EPA and stme regula1ors game the system" utilizing completeness dc1enninations to comrol worknow (e.g.. 1hro ugh bela1ed and/or repcmed requests for additional application informat ion) in order 10 "re-stan the clock. the reby slowing the penni t review process. Thll~ the 12-month period for obtaining a NSR permit can s1rc1ch for years. F.PA mus1 repeal old policies and es1ablish a bright line tcs1on which reasonable people can agree regarding "completeness determinations. An application which comains sumc,em information for the permitting authority 10 begin work on the review ~hould be considered 10 be complete. and only 1he failure of the applicant 10 provide additional information reasonably requested by the pem1i111ng authority with in a reasonable time should ston (but not reset) the c lock. (i) Elimina tes jo bs. o r inhibits j ob c ~alion: (i\') Crcales a serious inconsis1c ncy or 01hen,ise in le rfe rcs w ith rcgula1011 reform ini1ia1ives and l'o licies mechanisms like discounts. CHP plants arc inhcremly more efficient 11,an u1ility uni1s because lhc sleam from a CHP unit is LL<;ed 1wice. Plams Ihm ha"e added CHP arc less cosily 10 opcralc and less relian1 on unccnain clec1rici1y g rid pricing and is a lso consis1cn1 with snian grids promo1ed by DOE and the FERC for reliabilit,. IF 1he PSD one-year 1ime line were implemen1cd as intended by Congress, it would accclera1cs economic benefits because projcc1s are no longer delayed and likely 10 encourage more expansion of product lines in 1he U.S. discouraged by the long review periods typicall y associn1cd with PSD review.. Page 12 ~~:A :"iE0A/CAP Reco mmenda1ions for F.,,duation o f Exis1in1t EPA C IClln Air Act R(l!ulalions & l'olidcs Docket :Xo. EP,\ - IIQ-OA- 2017-0190 NAME OF REGULATION Brk-fl>acrlpdoa B. 14 " Plant\, idc A1>plicability Limils ( PALs)" - Modify NSR R cgula1ions 10 Broaden o ,, 1,or1uni1ics 10 lllilizc PALs B.15 Replace mNhods for calcula ting \\helhcr cenain ph)sica l chani:cs or c lrnngcs in 1hc mclhod of opcn11io n or a sourec is , uhjccl lo I\ R. CITATIO to C.F.R. & FED. REG. laae Dacrtpdo 42 l 1.S.C. 7602(z) (dcfinilion of "s1a1io nary s ource"): 40 C. F.R. 51.166(b)(2)(\') and(\\ ) (dcfinilion and rules apply ing IO PALsJ; Clrevron USA htc. v. Nt1t11rnl Resources Deft'IIU Council Inc.. 467 ll.S. 837 ( 1984); New York,.. EPA, 413 F.Jd 3 ( ll.C. C ir. 2005) ( upholdini: PALs). T here 1s no quc, uo n that PA Ls are legal and Ihm 1hey res ult ,n e m 1ss1o n reducuon:, and mno ,all\e proce,s and control technolog,es The EPA regulatio ns arc 100 restnctiw and thus many companies do not co ns ider the use of PAL; One of the easiest and b<.-sl wa~ lo encoumge PALs \\OUld be to allo\\ ..mmi-PALs"' ins tead ofrcquinng --plant\\1de"' PALs. espcc ,all~ for log,cal equipment groupings like --a111anks ma ta nk farm"' o r process henters in specific producu on areas" Most plams arc enormous e, en allO\\ mg "'\\CSl Slde o r sou1h-s1de l'ALs \\OUld be cm1ronment0lly and econom1call~ beneficial In addiuon. ehm1nat1ng requirements 10 reset PAl.s every IO years. elimmntmg the ab1 li1y of permit authorn,cs o r EPA 10 rcop.:n l'ALs at any lime. and e liminating rc~tricuon,, on tcrmin:iung PALs. \\ Ould lead to a ,ignificant increase in the,r use. ro, ,dine Io n lerm ccnam1v 10 domestic manufacturers 13.IJ BASIC "F.i\llSS IO .'IIS INCREASE" I\IATII The 2002 NSR Rcfom1 Ruic provided needed clanlications and revisions to how manufac turers calcula 1c "hcthc r a physical change or change in the method of operation.. to an e\ls lmg '"maJor source resulted m a significant mcrca;c m c m1ss1ons and 1s therefore s ubJcc110 NSR 67Fed. Reg 80.186(D,.:c 3 1.2002). llowcvc r. other re, 1s1011~' clarilicauons for calculating cm1ss1ons increases under a Plant\\1de Apphcab1l11~ L1m11! PAL ) or for dcbonlencde d cqu1pmc111 and mother con1exts \\ere unclear and often unreasonable Cl:irifica1ions 10 lhc rnClhod for calculnlini: emissio n~ incn-ascs are nee-tied: ( I ) Eliminale 1hc need 10 cons idrr emissio ns increases from nonmodified affeclcd e mission uni1.s: (2 (e.g.. "dcho lllencckini:)'' (ii) Allow " projcc1 nclling" so 1ha1 emiss io ns rcduc 1ions 11ssociatcd wi1h a projcc1can be considered in S1e 11 I of lbc PS0 applkabilil> anal)>h: J Es1ablis h a morc-nc.dble PAL ro rdrn 1h,11 includes 11 (1)-(Yi) ciileria lillell al 12 Fal. Reg. 17,"193. CoL3 ( i) Eliminales jobs. or inhibils j o b crcalion: (h) C rc,u cs a scriou~ inco n.si.~1cncy or othc n,iseinterfercs "ith regulnto r, n,form inilialins and 1o l ici cs (i) Elimina1cs jobs. o r inhib ilS job c reation; (i\') Crea lcs a serio us inconsis1c ncy or 0 1hcn, isc in1crkn.~ wilh rcgu lruory reform inilia1ivcs anti 1>0licies Sec EPA's assessment o f the COSI sa,ings and s triking environmental benefits of approved PALS in '"E, aluation of Implememauon Experie nces \\ilh lnnovath c i\ir Pcm111s (2002). whic h was cited w11h approval by the DC Circ uit tn .\'cir l'orA I. hllP> "\",, SP.\ go, ~11c, pro ducuon filcs zo1so 'I docum,nt, ,,al1mnlcmen1a1inn5,oeru;m;c:r flllJO"au...c-mr-pem11t> pJf_ Encourages replacmg old equipment w11h new. more efficient equipment: r~duccs permmmg costs for domes tic manufacturers. accelcratcs lhc benefits that accrue from expanded. modernized fac1htics. and or allows projc-cts thni "ould be shelved due to NS R-rcqu,red controls to 100,e forward Page 13 NE DA/CA P Rt-commenda tions for E,aluation of Existing EPA Clean Air Act Regulations & Policit'S Docket No. EPA- IIQ-OA- 2017-0190 NAME OF REGULATION BrlefDeserfpdoa CITATION to C.F.R. & FED. REG. bsae Descrtptlo (1)-(vl) criteria listed t 82 Fed. Reg. 17,793, CoL3 s implified Mfacility-w ide ac tuals~ emission test unde r whic h NSR is not triggered if facility-wide actual emissions for a given pollutant may not increas e hy greater than the res11ective sig nificant e mission rate; and (4) Vse a Baseline Actual-to-Post-Project Actual comparison or NS PS houri~ incn-ase methodo logy to dete m,ine whe the r PS D i., trigge red. IU J.a. F:I\IISS ION :-.I F:TflNG CA LCIJ I...\TIONS - EPA a lso should revise its guida nce concerning the inclusion of actualto -11rojcctcd actua l (ATPA) calculatio ns in a ne tting a nalys is w he n the AT PA occurred w ithin the netling conte mpo raneous proj ect w indow. The current approach discourages the re1iremen1of older, higher-emissions manufacturing equipment 1ha1 can be replaced wi1h modem manufacturing processes tha1 answer demands in 1he global marketplace. The current approach uses: 1his unnecessarily conservative environme111al protectionism. which has been was discouraged by Congress in * balancing environmenlal protection with cc.onomic development. 42 u.s.c. 7470(3) 8. 13.b. C l lRR E:-.IT R EGULATIO NS REGA RD ING T HE CALC ULA TION O F EM ISSIONS INC R EAS ES ASSlll\lE T HAT A N\' UNIT T HAT HAS UN DERGON E A NONROUTIN E PH YS ICA L C HANGE "has not begun nonnal operation. and hence 1he manufoc1urer may not compare projected actual e1111ssions from thal unn with lustorical emissions. but instead must base NSR appl icability on 1he unil"s potential 10 emi1 (because it has not begun norrnal opcrn1ions). This is unreasonable and subjects manufacturers to NSR despite other constraints that li mit projec1cu actual emissions. leading results in manufacturers to abandon or relocating projects. EPA should amend 40 C.f-.R. 5 l.166(b)(47)(iii) 8 . 13.c Amend Pla ntwidc A p11licability Calculation l\lethod to provid e n co mpariso n of "allowable !PALI e missions be fore and a fter:, modificatio n." Savings/economic impllct iafonmtloa Page 14 9! ~~~A Nf. O,VC,\ P Recommcnda1ions for t:,alua1ion or Exis1ing EPA Clean Air Acl Rt"l(ula1ions & l'olicies Oockcl :-:o. EPA- HQ-OA- 201 7-0190 NAMEOF REGULATION Brid' Dacriptloa ClTATIO coc.F.R. & FED. REG. . . .Dacrlptloa (l),(Yi) crttma lilled 82 Fed. Rea, 17,79.l. Coll B.16 n cprnl 2016 Ag,ncy - Rcgion11I Co11sis1cnc}' Ruic.la~ Currcnl Uule. and Ask Coon 10 llold Li1ig,11ion in A l-u.-ya nce Pending Reconsider:n io n -12 r.s.c ~ 7601(a}(2): -10 C. F.R. :;6.1-o: 81 Fed. Reg 51.102 (Aug. 3. 2016) ('"Amendments to Reg1011L1! Co11siste11cy Re1111latio11s.)'' The CM unambiguously requires EPA 10 make rcg1on:11ly consistent pcnnit dec1s1ons 10 ..,e,cl.. the pla) ong field for capital in\CStmcnt and pcm1111mg across all states Unul 2016. follo\\mg a un:immous decision by the D.C Corcu11 Court of Appeals enforcing EPA's own regional consistency rci:ula1ions. EP1\ regulations echoed the CAA. Following that decision. SED,I CAP,.. EPA. 751 F 3d 999 (DC. Cir 2014). \\h1ch ,acated an EPA dorecll\C to the ten EPA Regions to ignore a 6'hCircuit rul111g holding 1h01 EPA lac~cd authoril) under its own regulations 10 require a Title V operating permit for Summit based on the aggregated cm1ss1ons from gas "ells across 3 1 mi les. I::!'A amended 40 C F R 56 rcgula11ons 10 erase the cons1s1cncy requirement and allow 1he agency 10 engage on on1ercircu11 nonacquicsccncc: The m11e1id111e111s lia,e been d1al/euged by Indus//)' m contra,y l o the co1ts1sten0 reqmremems o/Sec//011 3O/{o)(}) ofihe CAA and briefing 1r1ll 1101 bejinol 111111/fall 1017. ( ,\ "EDA C.~P ,. EPA. D.C. Cir No 16-1344 ). (i\) Crea1cs a serio~ inconsislcncy or 01hcnvisc interferes with rej!ulncory ttform inicia1ivrs and 1,olicics Viohues lhe CAA An) mcons1stcncy in pcnninmg policy between regions creates unccnainty for manufacturers subJCCt to Tule V opcrat1ng perm11> and prcconstruct1on permimng. and favors ccnnm states and regions o, er 01hcr.; p01ent1all} resulting m a m1sallocat1on of resources EPA should request a remand of1he 2016 regulation from the DC Circuu and wuhdraw 1he rule in order to prevcn1 fon11n shopping.. and make prcconstruc1ion pcrm11ting consis1cnt across 1hc count'). 8. 17 i\lodify 1hc Court-vacalcd NSR l::xclusion for 101lu1ion Con1rol Projects ( PCl's).. 1-rom 1994 until 2005. \\hen the federal DC Circuit Court of Appeals held !hat che cod1tica11on of lhe NSR PCP exclu~1on on the 2002 NSR Reform Ruic was inconsistent " "'" lhc Clean Air Act 111 Ne"' l'ork ,,. EPA. 413 F 3d 3 (2005). l'CPs were c,emp1ed from NSR even if mc1dental increase, ofother pollutants occum:d that exceeded 1he NSR s1g111ficance le\'clS(I e. generally NOx or CO increased from the energy required to run the rollu1ion control devices). EPA should rc\lSC its regulations 10 pro,idc presumptive NSR upproval of PCPs 1f 1l1C) mecl the EPA 1994 PCP policy and the N,,,,. l"ark ,._f:PA. b.ttp, \lo\~.... (PJ 1t,1n Qh~>P'l.~ ~ ...,,,~....~ sh,umsut>DCm", lltJ(Ni ( i\) C reates a seriou, inconsis1enc)' or oth,n,isc hu erfcrcs with rl'l!ulatory reform ini1ia1ives and 1>01icit'3 Modificauon ofthe PCP Pohcy/rulc \\Ould allo\\ net ..environmentally bcnclic1ol.. proJecls 10 procs-cd w11hout undcrgoong NSR EPA should be encouraging the use of PCPs. current policy docs not. Page 15 N EDMCAP Reco mme ndations for E,aluatio n o f .is ting EPA C k an A ir Act Regulations & Policies Doc ke t ~o. EPA- HQ-OA-2017--0190 NAMEOF REGULATION BrterDeserlpdoa CITATION 10 C.F.R. & FED. REG. lssae Descrlptloa (1)-(vO criteria lnted at 82 Savings/economic Impact Fed. Reg. 17,793, Col.3 IDlormatloa 8. 18 "Sig nificant Emission Rate (SERr for G IiGs with a lligher Value - Repeal PS D BACT Re,icw for G II G Emissions When a ~tajor ;\todifica tion~ Triggers PS D for Another "Regulated !\'SR Pollutant" o r Rc11lace Proposed G IIG R.1 9 Strea mline NSR for Modifications at ~c leH n lJ nits., 40 C.F.R. 51.1 66 (b)(48); proposed 40 C.F.R. 51. 166 (b)(J I) with parallel changes to 52.2 1(b)(3 1), 70.2 and 7 1.2 in 51.166(b)(23) and 52.2 1(b)(23)(i); 81 Fed. Reg. 68.1 I0(Oct. 3, 2016) (''Proposed Rc..isio11s to tlte PSD a11d Title JIGf/G Permitting Reg11latio11s and E.<tabli.,ltment ofo Sig11i_/ica111 Emissions Rote (SER) for Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Em issions 1111der the PSD Program: Proposed Rule"). The Supreme Coun ruled in Utility Air Regulatory Group,,. EPA. 134 S.Cl. 2427 t20 14). that EPA could not apply NSR or T itle V Operating Permit requirements 10 "major sources" o r "major modifications" based solely on emissions ofGHG. but might still require NSR BACT review of--s ignificant" GHG incr<.1ses when NSR is triggered for other NSR-rcgulated air pollutants T he current Gl-!G s ignificant emission rate (SER) level is 75.000 tpy C01etonslyenr. J ustice Scalia pointed ou1that there was no basis for the value, but EPA proposed 10 retain that value in 1hc 2016 rulemaking when it is c lear that GHGs do not affect ambient air quality and the value should be much. much higher if EPA continues to dcnund BACT review for GI-IGs. The CAA provides for special treatment ofclean and innovative lechnologics unde r the provi sions New Source Perfomtancc Standards ( NSPS) a t 11 IU ) In the 2002 NSR Reform Ruic. EPA a11cmp1cd to provide NSR relief for a ccnain number ofyears for "clean units" that met BAC T and lowest achievable emissions rate (LAER). based on the agency's j udgment that pollution control technology does not rapidly improve. The D.C. Circuit held that the "clean unit" exclusion from NSR violated the CAA in Nell' York I, supra. ( iv) Creates a serious incons is tency or othe rwise interferes with r~ula1ory reform initiatives and policies (i) Eliminates jo bs. or inhibits job creation; (iv) Creates n serio us inconsistency o r othen,ise interferes with rcgulato ~ re fo rm initiatives and 11olirics Even though the Supreme Coun found it 10 be within EPA's discretion. review of GHG BACT controls results in delays of NSR permits. added pollution control costs. and a disincentive to domestic manufacturing when there is . EPA should incentivizc manufacturers to bui ld in America and insrnll 'clean units... by adopting a conditional NSR excl11s1011 for a set period ofyears for units that have undergone NSR and installed BACT or LAER: altcrmti,e ly. EPA should streamline NSR applicability to changes that occur a t clean units by not applying additional BACT review or modeling to reduce NSR/PSD pem1it1ing COSIS and provides regulatory ccnainiv. Page 16 ~NE~-D :.. ~A 1"ED,VC,\ P R,-.:0111111cnda1ions for r.,alu,u io n of Existing F.PA Clean Air ,\ c1 Rcgulalions & Po licies Docket No. E P,\- IIQ-OA- 2017- 0 190 NAMEOF REGULATION Brier Dac:aipdoa CITATION to CF.R. & FED. REG. . . .Dacrlptlo (l),(vi) cnterlll lilled at12 SaYlilcilecoilomlc Impact Fed. Reg. 17,793. CoL3 . . . . . . .doll c. NATIONAL E\IISSIOS STANDAROS FOR IIA1..AR00l'S AIR POLLUTANTS(..NF.SHAPs..) lLk.a. ..MACT Scaadanlsft) aad FEDERAL NEW SOURCE PERt1>RMA.lliCE STANDARDS(..SSPS") C. I Issue Revised Fina l Boiler M A C I' [ m b,,ions Limits As Soon As Possible . -'2 t l.S.C. 7-'1 2(d ): -'O C. F. R. 63 S ubJmrlli JJJJJJ, OUDOD U.S. Sugnr " EPA . 830 F.3d 579 (D.C. Cir. 201 6) (or//erhtg PA to rncate 11ml rel'ise IC/ boiler MA CT limits). EPA ha~ been working on boiler MACT smcc 1996 through at least three itcr:iuons. many companies ha,e alrea<h "strandt.'J" capital 111 the form ofcontrols at least h\lCC. and ar~ read) for regulator) ccnamty. EPA should re, 1sc and rc,ssuc final s tandards as soon as posMble. (iv) C rea tes a serious inco nsis1cncy o r 01hc nvisc inlcrfcr cs wilh rl.'gulalory n:rorm initisuivcs and .policies Expedit io us issuance o ftbc final M ACI' limits is rcciuired by . law. If EPA docs not linalizc 1his rule with rcccm emissions testing data. as required by the D.C. Circuit. It "new.. stack tesung (nt a cost of S15.000-S30.000 each stack) could be required. "h,ch would be unnecessary and duplicative. C.2 Rc11eal the M ACT "Once In, A IWll)'S In" Polk~ 42 U.S.C. 74 l 2(d) (NESIIAl'S/a.k.M. "I\IACT Stanchtrds"); J. Seitz. " Potentia l to t:mit for ;\!,\C f Sta nda rds-Guidance on T imini: Issues" (M a~ 16. 1995): 72 Frd . Reg. 69 (J an. 3, 2007) (Proposed rule to "'ithdrnw On ce In Policy). Current EPA pohc} s.l)S that once )OU ha,c triggered MACT. you arc forever bound to all the requirements of the underlyrng MACT siandurd. even ,!'you replace or retire equipment or 01herw1se reduce em1ss1ons by subs111u11ng non-Hlll'.nrdou, Air Pollutants ( IIAPs) in ) our process so that a source that you operate 1s no longer a MACT ..m3J0r source... Th,s acts as a dismcCllll\C to meeung market demands. rcspondrng 10 opponumties for use of innO\atl\c tcchnolog,cs, lowaong or climina1ing I IAI-' emissions. and bcmg a rcspom,,vc corpor:itc ci111.cn. (h) Crcales II se rious inconsiste ncy or otbe n visc interferes with r egula tory rTfonn initiath1b and .1,olicics Not r('{1uin.'tl by lllw. Maintnining compliance and rccordkccping when processes ha"e cluninated I IAP emissions or the source has controlled us IIAPs below a NESI IAPs applicability level IS equivalent in the costs EPA quantified 111 the Regulatory Impact Anal)SIS for ~-.,ch MACT Since T itle V permits can contain rcstnctions to rnaintnin minor source status. there is no need for this pohcy Page 17 :.11111 NEDA/CAP Recomme ndatio ns for Evaluation of Existing EPA C lean Air Act Regulatio ns & Policies Docket No. EPA- IIQ-OA- 2017-0190 NAMEOF REGULATION BrlefDescrlpdoa CITATION to CF.R. & FED. REG. faae DescrlptloD (1)-(vl) criteria llmd at 82 Savinplecoaomlc Impact Fed. Reg. 17,793, Col.3 1nrormatloa C.J. Replace All MACT and NSPS S t a n d a r ds Appllcahlc to Sma ll Reci procating Internal Combus t ion Engines ( RICE) and in the Interim, Enforce Only the Mos t Egregious Viol:uions. CA Withdraw Proposed NSPS if They a re Not Finalized within Five Years. 42 l l.S.C. 74 12(d); 40 C.F.R. Part 63, S ubpart ZZZZ ( RICE MAC.T); 40 C.F.R. Part 60. Subparts 1111 and .IJJJ (RIO : NSPS): All (NSPS)RICE are subject to EPA standards. including area sources. but the regulmions have been amended so many times that it is difficult for owners and operators to understand the standards' application 10 equipment, including but not limited 10 emergency fire pump engines: gasoline engines: and uncontrolled emergency engines used for "demand response to aven voltage sag and collapse of the U.S. power grid. Many of the requirements. besides being complicated to understand. provide very limited environmental benefi t but place a la rge burden on manufacturers. Many of these requirements are unnecessary since the RICE manufacturers arc already subject 10 separate ccnification requirements. Also replace RICE MACT work practice requirements - changing oil and filters and inspecting air cleaners. hoses. and belts should be based on actual nm time of the units ins1cad of calendar time. Using calendar time creates additional operating expenses and environmental impact (waste generation) wilh little cnvironmcnwl benefit. For example. the currcn1 rule requires and operator to Change oil and filter every 1,000 hours of operation or annually, whichever comes first Inspect air cleaner every 1.000 hours of operation or annually. whichever comes first. and replace as necessary: Inspect all hoses and belts ever)' 500 hours of operation or annually. wh h v r c m s first, and re lace as nccessa 42 ll.S.C. 7411 (:1)(2). 40 CFR 60 is in1erprc1ed 10 mean that after the day of proposal ofa NSPS. a newly constructed or mod ified will be s ubject to the NSPS if and when finalized. T11is prevents new sources from circumventing "new NSPS. but here arc about a dozen. maybe more. proposed NSPS for various industries (e.g.. 40 C.F.R.. 60. Subpan YY) 1hat were proposed decades ago but have never been finalized. EPA should create a regulator)' mechanism that withdraws these proposed NSPS rules expire if the agency does not rnke final ac1ion wilhin a reasonable time. (iii) Imposes costs that exceed benefits The regulation is messy and unclear, creating potential enforcement vulnerability. The RICE Work Practice Standards requiring annual replacement of oil. filters, hoses and belts 1s unnecessary for equipment 1ha1 only operaics between 50- 100 hours annually (mostly for readiness testing to assure that it can operate during an emergency) (iv) Creates a serio us inconsi.stcnc)' or o thcn,ise inte rfe re with regu lator}' reform initia tives and 11olicies 42 ll.S.C. 7607 (b), (d) require proposed rules become final before they can bf.' :idjudiratcd. Replacement of this rule wi1h a clearer set ofapplicability provisions, reasonable testi ng & recordkeeping requirements for fire pumps and emergency engines. and organization to remedy the number of times the rule has been amended would increase clarity, ccnainty and compliance. While this rulernaking is going on. NEDNCAP recommends that EPA enforcement stands do"11 except in the case of egregious violation of the standards. A regul3tion that imposes emission limits and other conditions ofoperation on a "major affected source" has clear cost implications. If a final action on a proposed rule has not been taken after five years. fairness and equity demand it be withdra\\11. Page 18 NE D,VCAP R ecomme nda lio ns for Eva lua t ion of Existing f.PA Clean Air Acl R~ ula tions & Policies Docket 1\o. EPA- HQ--OA-2017-0190 NAME OF REGULATION Brief Description C.5 Rep eal o r Replace t he Na tiona l Ai r Tox ics Assessment (NATA). C.6 Rc1Jcal/Wi1hdr:1w Pro posed Revisions 10 S ile Rem edial ion Rul e. CITATION to C F.R. & FED. REG. lssae Dacriptioa Ii""" See h\t[!s: ena. gQv nnuonal-a1r-11,x1~s-asscssmenti20I I- na11onal-a1r-1ox1cs-a.ssessmcn1. NATA is not required by the CAA. and in some respects is a vestige oft he failure of the Act up uniil the 1990 Clean Air Act Amcndmcllls 10 inc lude a ir toxics. ln20\5,EPA released the results of its 2011 national-scale assessme ni ofair toxic emissions. which is the first problem - NATA is always based on data 1ha1 is old... The purpose of NATA is 10 identify and priorili7..e air toxics. e mission source types. and locations that are of greatest potential concern in terms ofcontributing 10 population risk. EPA uses NATA (I) 10 work with communnies in designing their own local- scale assessments. ( 2) 10 set priorities for improving data in cmissmns inventories. and (3) 10 help direct priorities for expanding and improvi ng 1hc nct"ork ofmr toxics monitoring. Use of the outdated data for these purposes is inappropriate . ( NATA is 1101 required by law. is s ubstantially weak when compared with toxics data collected and reponed by indus1ry under the NESHAPs (MACTs) for exis ting sources of hamrdous air pollutants under the 1990 amend ments. and the data 11 pro,,ides is old and misleadinl! to the oublic.) 42 ll.S.C. 741 2(d ); 8 1 Fed. R eg. 29,82 1 (,\ l ay 13. 2016) (Proposed Amendments 10 40 C. F.R. 63 Subpan GGGGG including the proposed removal in 40 c . r-.R. 63. 7881 is amended by: a. Revisi ng paragraphs (a )(2) introductory text. (a )(2(t) and (ii). (a)(3) introductory text. and (bl introductory text: b. Removing paragraphs (b)(2) and (3): and c. Rcdesignating paragraphs ( b)(4) through (6) as (bX2) through (4 )). T he proposed revisions lo the site remediation NESIIAP would remove exemptions from the rule for site remediation ac1i,i1ies performed under authority of the Comprehensive Environmental Response and Compensation Liability Acl (CERCLA) and for site remediation activities performed under a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective actio n or other required RCRA order. (1)-(vl) criteria listed at 82 Fed. Reg. 17,793, CoL3 (ii) Arc ouldalcd , unnecessary, or ineffec tive. (iii) lm(>OSCS COSIS lha l exceed bene fits; (i\) Creates a ser ious incons i,tenc)' or othc n ,ise interfere wilh rcgu lalory rc(orm initiacives and po licies (iii) lm 11oses costs Iha! .cxccc<I be nefits; Ouplica1i, c and Inco ns is lenl Regulation wilh 40 C.F. R. 264-26S RCRA Ons ite W as te 1\1anagemenl Req uiremcnlS (T S OF S 1nnd a nl s ) Savinp/ecoaomlc Impact 1aro..-t1oa It is unclear how much the EPA O ffices of Research a nd Development and Air Quality Planning and Standards invest annually in maintaining NATA in te rms of resources. but expenditure ofany more money on this program is far in excess of its L1sefulness. The additiona l CAA costs of compliance are e ntirely unnecessary when these activities arc regulated under RCRA and/or CERCLA. and there is potential add itional liabi lity for dual federal regulntions ofthe same activity. Page 19 ~ N':~A ........,, NEDA/CAP Reco mmendalions for Evalualion of Exisling EPA Cl..-an Air Acl Rcgulalions & Polici..-s Docket l\"o. EPA- HQ--OA-2017-0190 NAMEOF REGULATIONBrterl>elcrlpdon CITATION to C.F.R. & FED. REG. bsDeserlptloa (1)-(vl) criteria llstecl at 82 Savlap/ecoaomJc Impact Fed. Reg. 17,79.J, Col.3 Information C. 7 Modify Proposed Risk& T hnology Rule (RTR) for Publicly Owned Trealmcnt Works ( POTWs). 42 l l.S.C. 7412{d ){6), (f); 40 C. F.R. 63 Subpart \1\1\1, 81 Ft'd . Reg. 95,352 (Dec. 27, 2016). In 1hc proposed revisions 10 1hc POTW RTR Ruic. EPA dete rmined 1ha1 under* 7412((). 1ha1 lhc Section 112 MACT ca1egory of POTWs does no1 rcpresenl any residual risk. bu1 also proposed signi ficant new requirements. including but not limited to pre1rcauncm requiremen1s for direct and indircc1 dischargers into POTWs requiring dischargers 10 adop1VOC pretremment programs as a condi1ion of1he MACT. The proposed new slandard is no1 only unnecessary bu1 it is in violation of the Clean Warer Ac1(CWA) and 40 C.F.R. 403 (development ofpretreatmem s1andards). EPA's basis for this cosily and significant change is thai this revision would be consis1cm with future changes in CWA rcgula1ions. Sec 8 1 Fed. Reg. 95.373. Please nolc that a POTW may already develop a local h111i1 to reduce or eliminate a discharge ofa pollutam from a particular discharger wi1ho111 selling a nation-wide mr srandard. (iii) Imposes COSI.S that exceed be nefits: EPA erroneously concludes that this new POTW requi rcment wiII nor cost anylhing. Sec &I Fed. Reg. at 95.373. Implementing the proposed changes 10 the POTW RTR Ruic would po1entially cost indirec1 and direct discharges millions of dollars in capilal and up to$ I million for annual maimcnancc and opera1ion. depending on the size of the facili1y. A POTW may already develop a local limi110 reduce or eliminate a discharge ofa pollu1ant from a panicular di scharger wi1ho111 selling a 11ario11-wlde air standard. C.8 Repeal or Replace Modiry NSPS and NESH A PS Methane Mo nitoring Requirements. C.9 Modify RTR Rule for Refineries and Other Industries Rc<1uiring "Fenceline Monitoring.~ 42 U.S.C. 7411(b); -10 C. F.R. 60 Subl)llrl 000011: 81 Fed. Reg. 35,824 (June 6, 2016) (Me1lta11e leak De1ccllo1J a11d Repoir (I.DAR) prowam rel'i.tians): 77 Fed. Reg. -19-190 (Aug. 16. 2012) (VOC NSPS Part 0000). EPA's 20 16 me1hane LDAR program.. regulates the same emission points as the 20 I2 NSPS Subpan OCX)(). There 1s liule or no evidence that the 2016 rule's incremental benefits provide regulatory justificmion for revisions. particularly si nce implcmen1a1 ion of the 2012 NSPS has resuhcd in a decline of mc1hanc emissions by 13.3% des itc a 400% increase in U.S. shale as roduction. 42 U.SC. 9 7412(d)(6). (f); 4 0 C.F.R. 63 Subpart CC nt 40 CFR *63.658: 80 Fed. Res 75. 177 (Dec I. 2015). EPA dclcrinincd in 1hc RTR Ruic 1ha1 1hcrc was no residual risk from Group I and Group 2 refineries, see page 75,187-8, bul nonetheless the agency adopted expensive fenceline monitoring requ1rements for affec ted refineries. ostensibly 10 study fugitive emissions from focili1ies and because such monilors would make surrounding communities feel safer. There arc no1 rigid monitoring pro1ocols for such fugitives moni1oring. and there arc no com liancc emission limits from 1he momtors. (iii) Iml)oses costs that exceed benefits; lln nC<"cssarily d1111licative with 2012 rulemaking for VOC sources. ( iii) Imposes rosts Ihat exceed benefits: not the least or which i~ lh e 1101entia I lo suggcs1 improperly to the public thnt emissions lc,els :ire nol incompliancc with law. Not required by law. EPA ..conscrva1ively.. csti1na1cd tha1 capital cost of 1hc 2016 revisions will be $250 mm in 2020 and $360 mm with O & M and recordkeeping/rcponing costs of $390- S640 mm in 2020 2025. See. 8 1 Fed. Reg. at 35886. EPA es1ima1ed 1he total capital cost of fencclinc monitoring 10 be S 12.5 million with S6.36 million in annual maintenance and opermion costs. Sec 80 Fed. Reg. 75.226 Table 2. lndus1ry believes the overall sector cosls will be hi her. Page 20 ~ED,VC',\I' Recomme ndacions for E,aluacion or EtistinJ? EPA Clean Air AN Rrgul:uions & Polirie, Dockec No. : PA- II Q-OA- 201 7-0 190 NAME OF REGULATION BriefDacrtpdoa C.10 Amcntl !'iSPS and N[S HAPs 10 Include 1-1igh Pressure Ground Flares CITATION to C.F.R.; & FED,; REG. . . .Daatptlo -12 l l.S.C. 7-lll(b): 7-112(11): -10 ('FR 60.18 (NSPS) and 63.11 (NES HAP). Currcntl}. high pres.sure ground (fares arc no1 cO\ered by NSPS or NESHAP s1andnrds and 1hus require EPA'~ apprO\al ofan Ahernmi"c Moni1oring Emission l.1m11ation for each flare. which 111hibils new project dc,clopments since appro"al can take months or ) cars and currcntl} rcqum:s a feder:il register notice propos;,J, pubhc comment and final fcder:il reg1s1cr appro,al in addition 10 those associaccd w11h NSR pcnni11mg pl1hhc no11ce requirements. (1)-(vl) crtlm lllled al 82 Fed.Res, 17.79J, Col.3 (i) Eliminate jobs. or inhibic jo b creation: (ii) arc outdaced, unnCC\'.5,'illr)', o r incrfl'<'.ti,e Ques1ions regarding ground narcs and appro, al of c:i.scspcc1fic ahcrna11vc mo1111oring methods for ground narcs weigh in dec1S1ons co site projects m the US and lead to less cmc1en1 control technolog) sdcc1ion Page 21 Continued on Ne.w Pll[II! N ED,VCAP Reco mme ndations for Evaluation o r Existing F.PA C lean Air Act Regulations & Polides Docket J'\o. F.PA- IIQ-OA- 2017--0190 NAME OF REGULATION Brief Deserlptlon errATION loC F.R. & FED. REG. laae DescrlplioD (1)-{vl) criteria lkted a t 82 Fed. Reg. 17,793, Col.3 Savinp/economlc Impact 1nro..-lion D. l Repeal o r Reconsider t he Regulation orNonOzone Depicting Subs titutes under CAA Title VI Section 608 Refrigerant i\lanagemcnt Ruic and Sect ion 6 12 S ignificant New Altcrnllt i\'CS Policy ("SNAPtt) Progra m Based Solely on thci r GWP. D. CAA TITLE VJ -OZONE DEPLETING SUBSTANCES "ODS" AND NON-ODS SUBSTITUTES Mo ntreal Protocol; Clean Air Art T itle VI, 42 V.S.C. 7671- (iii)imposes eco nomic costs Without consideration of 7671q (" Reg ulation of Ozone De1>lcting Subs uinccs (ODS)~): 111 that exc.-ed benefils benefits using the social cost 40 C. F. ll. 82.151 (der.): 156- 157 as a mended by 8 1 Fed. Reg. (vi) d erives from or 82,272 (No\'. 18, 2016) (""Protec1io11 o/S1ro1ospheric O:one: Update impleme nts Executivt" ofcarbon. the Regulatory lmpac1Assessment indicates 10 1he Refrigerant Mai1af(eme111 lleq11ireme111s Under the Clean Air Orders or other 1ha1 the costs of these rules Act'") nnd Presidential directives that far exceed 1l1cir benefits. 121 42 l f.S. C. 6 12;40 C.f.R. Part 82. Subpt G (SNA P Prognim). have b een s ubsequently AJ>p 842 8 1 Fed. Reg. 86,778 ( Dcc. 1, 2016)(SNAP Rule #21; 81 rescinded or s ubst:m tiallJ Replacement of comfort fed. Rcg.70,029 (Ort. 11, 2016). m odified. cooling. industrial refrigeration process unils for [I I The Revised 2016 Refrigerant Management Regulations 40 CFR manufacturers who relied on Part 82 Subpart f impose significant new regulatory requirements, CAA Sections 608 and 6 12 agency assurances that including but not Iunited to leak detection and repair and report ing arc designed 10 implement replacement of non-leaking programs and re1rofilire1iremen1 planning requirements for equipment the Montreal Protocol in the equipment with non-ODS using non-ODS Substitutes (based on their GWP potential). The new 1990 Clean Air Act substitutes would provide regulations also impose very harsh consequences for units on which Amendments, and the recent long-tenn assurances and leaks have been repaired but recur. amendment.. to the certainty to industry. EPA (2] Under the SNAP program. 40 CFR Pan 82. App. G. EPA listed Protocol agreed 10 by the U.S. in Kigali. Rwanda in should however incenti\'1Ze the use of non-ODS non-ODS substances as unacccplablc alternatives based on their GWP. Fall 20 I6 must be presented refrigerants by expanding the Substitutes that arc non-ODS should not be listed as an unacceptable 10 the U.S. Senate for list of exempt refrigerants alternative for any use. based in whole or in part on their GWP. Note, ratification before the because ii is not clear 1ha1 h owe,,er. that NEDA-CAP supports the a cceptnble alternatives Congress can amend the Act s ubstitutes ltkc propane and determinations in enclt ofthese rules. including but 1101 limired to: to regulate non-ODS subs titutes under the other nammnble VOCs arc either safe or provide reliable For Ftre s11ppre.mo11 and e:xplosion pro1ection end-uses. subject 10 refrigerant management cooling needs to current non- use conditions. as of January 3. 2017 for and/or SNAP program ODS. 2-bron,o-3.3.3-tri nuoroprop-1 -enc (2-BTP) as a total Also note that this regulation 0oocling agent for use in engine nacelles and auxiliary power applies to institutional units (APUs)on aircraft: and (hospital. church. school. 2-BTP as a streaming agent for use in handhcld extinguishers government. e tc.-owned air in aircraft. conditioners). Page 22 NEDA/CAP Reco mme nda tio ns for E:rnlua tio n or Exist ing EPA Clean Air A ct Regulatio ns & Policies Docket :-lo. E: PA- HQ-OA- 201 7-0190 NAME OF REGULATION Briel Dac:ripdoo errATION to C.F.R. & FED. REG. Issue Description (1)-(vl) criteria listed at 82 Savlags/ccoaomlcImpact Fed. Reg. 17,793, Coll lafo..-tloo . I .\lodify Proposed Rev isio ns o r C AA Risk ,\'lanage me nl Rule E.2 Aflply Good Faith Policy to lhc Use or EPA Emiss io ns Factors, Including WchFIRE & AP--12 Factors. L3 Modify the Tilll V Pe rmit Objection Po licy by Re moving Rctroactiw NS R A11plica bilit)' Issues from Considcnttion. E. OTHR CAAREGULATONS 42 U.S.C. 7412(r): 40 C.F.R. 68; 82 Fed. Reg. 4.594 (Jan. 13, (iii) Imposes costs that 2017 ). as delayed at 82 Fed. Reg. 8.499 (Jan. 26. 2017) and 82 Fed ( far) exceed be nefits Reg. I 3,968 (Mar. 16.2017). Specifically the '"Safer Technology & Alternatives Analysis.. ("'STAA") al 68.67(cX8) and m 68.3 (definitions) exceeds EPAs authority as docs d isclosure of information (panicularly information required 10 be managed as sensitive security infonnation under the Chemical Facility Assessment rules administered by the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security). Fun her. in 68.79-80. EPA has dramatically and unnecessarily expanded audits to require review of ALL records and ALL procedures versus allowing for the use of recognized audit protocols. which is wasteful and unnecessary. Emission factors, compiled by EPA on WcbFI RE, Good public 1,olicy. hllQs ,CfQuh c~a gol' "ebllrc mde, c fni''act1on fire Scarcht.missionl a,tors. are commonly used to estimate emissions from proposed new sources for purposes of New Source Review prcconstruction pcm1i11ing and to calculate compliance with CAA req uirements. panicularly where such emissions cannot be accunuely measured. EPA's emissions reponing tools. pan of the 21 CcntUf)' Emissions Rcponing Project, continuously update new emission factors for mdustry sectors based on a variety ofreponcd emissions data, including but not limited to stack-testing. Thus, a source that was htcrally in compliance based on yesterday's emission factors may not be m compliance based on tomorrows emission fac tor The CAA Enforcement Office should issue a good faith policy on industry's reliance on AP-I:! and emission factors while it continues to clean up the "old" ('"C"- & o"' graded AP.42 emission factors) through ERT & WebflRE. 42 U.SC. 7661(2Xb): 40 C.F R 70 .fil,I). 718. 81 Fed. Reg T he couns apply the general 57.822 (Aug 24, 2016) (Proposed Rule to Improve Title V Pe1i1ions): federal 5-year statute of CAA Title V operating pcnnits must be renewed every five years. limitations to NSR. (i.e.. the which affords the public to opponunny 10 comment on all applicable failure 10 obtain a required Title V requirements. Environmcnml advocacy groups take advantage NSR pcnn it), so EPA of this opponunity to make- and rcncw-obicctions rePardin2 a Title should aoolv the same EPA estimates 1ha1 the annualized costs for the STAA analysis is $70 million, with lillle or no economic benefit fonn this ..make work' provision EPA's civil policy includes daily fines ofalmost $50,000/pcr day per occurrence and. in some jurisdictions. operating without a valid prcconstruct1on permit 1s viewed as a con1 inuing violation. Rcquinng EPA's Administrator to review historicol NSR applicobil i1y is not constructi ve. especially as memories fade and ocrsonncl change. It has Page 23 ~N ~ ~A ...~.~- " '.'I E DA/ CAP Rcco mmc nd:ulons for Evnluation or E,is ting EPA Clc-:1n ,\ ir ,\ c t Rl'j!ula t io ns & Poliries Docket ,-.;o. E PA- HQ-OA- 20 17-0190 NAME OF REGULATIONBrld' Dacrtptloa E.-1 EPA S hould A utom,uica lly Issue K 70S S lllys" with Notices o r Ai:cncy Reconsiden1tion or Rules that arc A lso I Imle r .I udici11I RC'I ic" errATION to C.F.R. & FED. REG. law Descriplio (1)-(\'i) criteria listed I82 Fed. Rea- 17,793, CoU V sourccs historic NSR compliance. including \\he1hcr a source 1mplemcn1cd 13ACT at the time when 1he permit \\as issued. which may be decades before. These me t\\O separate EPA programs. and NSR applicabili1y review 1s nol appropriate in the context of T itle V permiI rcne"al ;; ll.S.C. 70S. The Admmistrnll\C Procedures Ac1 provides that ..When an agency finds th.ii JUSIICC so requires. II ma) postpon~ the efTcctive date of action taken by it. pendmgJud1cml review On such condiuons as ma) he required and 10 the e,1ent ncccssa0 to pre,cm irreparable injury. the reviewing coun . mcludmg the coun to which a case ma) be ta~cn on appeal from or on appl1ca11on for cemoran or other wnt ton rcv1cw111g court. may issue all ncces~u~ and appropriate process 10 postpone the effccu,e date of an agency acuon or to preserve s1n1us or rights pending conclusion of the review proceedings " S1a1u1e of L1m11a11ons 10 Tille V review of h1S1onc NSR appl1cab1l11) Funher. with respect to projects for "h1ch an NSR permit \\as ob1a1ned, any obJection~ should be hroughl in a t1md). direct. and proccdumlly proper challenge 10 that permn and no l 111 a Tille V renewal procccdm~ Good public 11olic)'. Sa\'lags/ecoaomic lmpaCI laro. . -lloa become a 1rcmendous drain on stnte pcm1ining authorities. EPA. regulated cnt111cs. and 1hc coun, Millions of dollars m cos1s imposed b) implcmcnung regulauons 1hat are adm1mstrati,elv and Judicially challenged and reconsidered by EPA. could sa,c the U S cconom) SS millio ns While EPA. on a case-by-case bas,s. can postpone effective date of an) acuon taken by II pend1ngJud1c1al rc\lC\\, the rccons1dcrauon process and judicial rc\'iew process can take years a nd frustrate 1hc process for n:cons1dcnng regulations tli:it the ,\dmm1stra1or has agreed arc appropn atc for rccons1dcrauon. unless the regulmio11 11.,e/f 1s ,iayed Adoption of an agenc) rule or pohC) automatically Sta) mg the implcmentnt,on ofa rule on wl11ch the Administrator ha.~ granted r,-cons1dcra1ion "ould promote c,peditious reconsideration ofsuch rei;ulauons and sa,c million, ofdollars spen1on implcmenta1ion of some rci:ulations that are ulumatdv reconsidered Page 24