Document w6mOo2DbK7Z771d8jndoKwVJ

Wednesday September 5, 1979 / Part IV Environmental Protection Agency Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of State Implementation Plans; Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans 51924 Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 173 / Wednesday, September 5,1979 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [40 CFR Parts 51 and 52] [FRL 1300*6] ^ Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of SIP's;. Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans agency: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION:-Proposed Rules. SUMMARY: EPA proposes to amend its regulations for the prevention of significant deterioration 40 CFR 51.24. ' 52.21 (1978) in response to a court decision that overturned those regulations in major respects. EPA also proposes changes to its regulations affecting new source review in ^ nonattainment areas, including restrictions on further major source growth'and requirements under EPAV Emission Offset Interpretative Ruling, 40 CFR tart 51 App. S, and section 173 of the Act, to conform those rules to the court decision. OATES: The deadline for submitting written comments is October 5,1979, ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments . should be sent (in triplicate if possible) to Central Docket Section (A-130), Washington, D.C. Atten: Docket No. A- 79-35. ', - . Docket: In accordance with section 307(d) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C, 7607(d), EPA has established a docket Tor this rulemaking. It bears Docket No. ,A-79-35. The docket is an organized and complete file of all significant - information submitted to or otherwise considered by EPA during this rulemaking. The contents of the docket will serve as the record in the case of judicial review under section 307(b) of the" Act, 42 U.S.C. 7607(b). The docket is available for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, at EPA's Centra] Docket Section, Room 2903B. A reasonable fee may be charged for - copying. ... PUBLIC hearings: EPA intends to hold public hearings on the proposals in this notice in September in San Francisco, California, and Washington, D.C.The exact times and places will be announced in due course. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT*. Michael Trutna, Standards Implementation Branch (MD-15), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711. 919/ 541-5292. .' SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: not cause significant deterioration of air Outline ,r . j. I. Background: A. Prevention of Significant Deterioration. B. Requirements Relating to Nonattainment Areas. - II. Highlights. quality in any area. _. .On August 7,1977, the President signed the ClearTAiFTkct Amendments of 1977 (1977 Amendments] into law. -Pub. L. No. 9595. 91 Stat-685. Those" amendments established a new set of III. Transition: ", PSDjeQuirements as Part C of Title 1 of A. PSD Part 52 Regulations. B- Nonattainment Regulations. C. PSD and Nonattainment SIP Revisions. IV. Potential To Emit. V. Fifty-Ton Exemption. VI. Fugitive Emissions. VII. Fugitive Dust Exemption. the Clean Air Act (Act). See Sections 160-169. 42 U.S.C. 7470-79. The new requirements follow the outline of the , ~ old regulations, but are more elaborate and in many ways more stringent. The 1977 Amendments also directed that ' VIII. Source/Facility/Installation: each SIP was to .contain the new A. Definition of Source. B. Sources Subjectlo PSD Requirements. C. Sources Subject to Nonattainment Requirements. D. Summary. ../ . DC. Modification: " . ,, -j A. No Net Increase. Vt ' - - requirements. See Sections 161, 110(a)(2)(D) and 0). 42 U.S.C. 7471. -! 7410(a)(2)(D) and 0). In response to that mandate. EPA .promulgated two sets of PSD regulations on June 19,1978. One set specified the B. Restrictions on Construction. , minimum requirements that a PSD. SIP C. Accumulation. X. "De Minimis" Exemptions. XI. Geographic Applicability: * .... revision would.have to contain in order ' to warrant EPA approval. 43 FR 26380 A. Designated Nonattainment Areas. B. Designated Clean Areas. C. VOC Sources. The other set comprehensively amended - D. Interstate Pollution. the old PSD regulations an5 XII. Pollutant Applicability. , incorporated into them the, new PSD XIII. Baseline Concentration: XIV. Best Available Control Technology. XV. Ambient Monitoring. XVL Notification. XVU. PSD SIP Revisions: A. Equivalent State Programs. B. Baseline Area. ' C. State Monitoring Exemption. requirements. 43 FR 26388 (codified at 40 CFR 52.21 119781 (hereinafter, the "ParT 52 regulations")]. EPA intended that, until it had approved a PSD SIP revision for a state, the permitting of new sources and modifications to be constructed in its clean areas would continue under the XVTIL Additional Issues: '' new Part 52 regulations. The United A. Innovative Control Technology. B. Modified Permits. - C. Non-profit Institutions. O. Portable Facilities. E. Secondary Emissions. F. Economic Impact Assessment. G. Comments. - States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit subsequently affirmed that approach. Citizens To Save Spencer County v. EPA, 12 ERC 1961 (March 27,1979). Many industrial and environmental I. Background groups petitioned the same court for . review of the substantive provisions of A. Prevention of Significant both the Part 51 and Part 52 regulations. Deterioration. In 1974, EPA promulgated On June 18,1979, the court issued a regulations to prevent emissions of decision that upheld some of those - sulfur dioxide (SO,) and particulate provisions and overturned others. matter (PM) from significantly Alabama Power Company v. Costle, 13 -deteriorating air quality in areas where ERC 1225. In its opinion the court merely concentrations of those pollutants were summarized its rulings, but promised lower than the applicable national supplemental, comprehensive opinions ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). in due course, probably by "the end of 39 FR 42510 (codified at 40 CFR 52.21 this summer." /tf. at 1227 n.7. The court (1977)). EPA made those regulations part also' invited the parties to file petitions of the State Implementation Plan (SIP). for reconsideration, several of which The prevention of significant" were filed but have not yet been acted deterioration (PSD) regulations upon. In an order that accompanied the prohibited the construction of any new summary opinion, the court stayed the source or modification in certain effect of its decision until it had issued categories, unless EPA or a delegate the supplemental opinions. The purpose state had issued a permit evidencing of this procedure, the court explained, that the source or modification would was "to.enable EPA to proceed as soon apply ``best available control as possible to commence rulemaking or technology" (BACT) for SOj and PM, other proceedings necessary to and that emissions of those pollutants promulgate those revisions in the PSD 'fromthe source or modification would regulations required by (the court's) -Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 5, 1979 / Proposed Rules 51925 rulings, and to take other prudent action^ accordance with Part D, the Act in accompanying economic impact to effectuate congressional policies." /dissections 110(a)(2](TJ and 173(4) provides ^evaluation, Such an evaluation will be at 1227. S ofor restrictions on major new source performed and be made available for By this notice, EPA is beginning the J ^construction. 42 U.S.C. 7410(aH2)[l) and public comment prior to promulgation. procesj the cqurt had in mind. It is heref^y503f4). On fulv 2,1979, EPA issued a TSe discussion which follows first proposing various amendments to the "pruling implementing this restriction, and highlights the proposed PSD and _PSD regulations. Some of those 3 ^ invited comment on additional language nonattainment changes and then focuses amendments would replace the ' ~to clarify how the statutory restriction in detail on each of them. provisions rejected by the court; others . would add entirely new provisions to - supplement the replacement provisions. Each of the proposals is discussed in detail in material which follows this background section. . ... B. Requirements Relating to Nonattainment Areas. The only will apply. 44 FR 38471, 38583, (July 2, 1979), 44 FR 42195. 42246 (July 19,1979). The key aspect of these ponattainment requirements that is affected by Alabama Power involves the definition of the new and modified stationary sources that are subject to stringent preconstruction permitting n. Highlights A. Proposed Regulations Affecting New Source Review in Both Nonattainment and PSD Areas: 1. Potential to Emit: The regulations proposed today would again make major construction projects subject to regulations before the court in Alabama Conditions. In the January 16,1979 new source review (NSR) on the basis of Power are EPA's PSD regulations. They are therefore the only regulations revision to the offset ruling, EPA increased potential to emit. Under the adopted virtually the same definitions of proposal the annual emission potential directly affected by the court's decision. "major source" and "major of a source would be determined after ,, However, several statutory definitions modification" as were adopted in the the application of air pollution controls , and other concepts addressed in ' PSD regulations and were overturned in rather than before as was generally- Alabama Power are also relevant to the Alabama Power. EPA stated in the done under the existing regulations. In statutory requirements for areas where preamble to the offset ruling that those - calculating annual potential emissions pollution exceeds the national ambient definitions were also applicable to state of a source-maximum annual rated air quality standards (nonatfainment permitting programs required under Part capacity, year-round hours of operation, areas). By this notice, EPA is proposing D. EPA also ruled that the definitions and any enforceable permit conditions changes to its regulations for apply to the prohibition on construction pn the type of materials combusted or~ nonattainment areas, to conform the under section 110(a)(2)(I) (except that processed will be used. regulations to the decisions in Alabama the cut-offs to limit review of sources 2. Fugitive Emissions: Fugitive Power. _ There are three separate sets of with low allowable emissions do not apply to section 110(a)(2)(I)). 44 FR at emissions, as proposed, means those emissions released directly into the nonattainment requirements affecting 3270 (col. 1). atmosphere without passing through a the review of new or modified major Although the definitions were adopted stack, chimney, vent or other 'stationary sources, each applicable- as final action in the offset ruling, EPA functionally equivalent opening. Fugitive under a different seTof circumstances. .invited additional comment. emissions are proposed not to be First, .beiorejuly i, 1979,`EPA's Emission The statutory language on which the considered when determining the annual Offset Interpretative-Ruling (offset "major source" and "major emissions potential of a stationary ruling) governed new construction that modification" definitions were based is source except when such emissions would cause or contribute to a violation very similar for the nonattainment come from specified industry types. of a'standard. The offset ruling will still programs as for PSD, and the reasoning 3. Source: jjource means any building be effective in the future but only in a in the June 18 Alabama Power decision structure, facility, or installation which few, limited instances. .The current. generally appears to be applicable to emits or may emit-any regulated revised offset ruling was published by both. The comments on the pollutant. "Building^ structure, facility or EPA on lanuarv 16,1979.44 FR 3274: nonattainment definitions invited in the installation" means plant in PSD areas ,, Second, after June 30.1979, state plans January 16 notice have therefore been and in nonattainment areas except which satisfy the requirements of Part D, rendered irrelevant by the court where the growth prohibitions would Title I, of the Act (42 USC 7501 and decision, and EPA is now proposing new apply or where no adequate SIP exists following) are to be in effect for areas definitions. or is being carried out. "Building, designated as nonattalnment areas Those sections of this preamble which structure, or facility" means plant and under section 107(d) of the act, 42 U.S.C relate to the definitions of "major "installation" means the individual -7407(d). EPA has published several source" and "major modification" emission unit within the plant for these notices about what constitutes an therefore discuss nonattainment nonattainment review situations. The acceptable Part D plan revision. See 43 requirements as well as the PSD manner in which source is defined FR 21673 (May 19,1978), 44 FR 8311 regulations. Where the concepts and places a vital role in determining when ' (February 9.1979), 44 FR 20372 (April 4, goals of nonattainment and PSD differ, NSR would apply. When installation is 1979); 44 FR 25243 (April 30,1979), 44 FR we are proposing and seek comihent on defined-differently than facility, more 38583 (July 2,1979). In situations where a alternative approaches consistent with changes at major stationary sources Pa$t D plan was not due by July 1,1979, the distinctive goals of each. In addition, would be subject as major modifications the offset ruling continues to apply (e.g., the discussion oh "Geographic (see below). where a violation of an ambient Applicability" addresses the 4. Major Modification: The proposal standard is discovered in a designated nonattainment requirements. The court would subject changes in the design or attainment area, or where the deadline did not directly address the operation of a major stationary source for a Part D plan for a secondary nonattainment requirements so EPA to-NSR only if H) a significant net standard is postponed under section offers here two alternative approaches increase in the potential emissions~of a 110(b) of the Act. 42 U.S.C. 7410(b)). . Finally, for areas where Part D plans are due but where the plan either does pot- satisfy Part D or is not carried out in for comment. Because of the importance of resolving these questions expeditiously, today's proposal does not have an pollutant for which the source is major would occur, or (2) cumulative net Sases m the potential emissions of a tant regulated under the Act occur* 000520 0 0 51926 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 5. 1979 /^Proposed Rules r/7/by at the same source after the applicable would apply, the applicable SIP would criteria proposed today. Restrictions on NSR time of concSm that in total would generally define the allowable emissions growth would be implemented using the ' exceed the applicable 100/250-ton baseline for reduction credit b. existing definitions affecting source threshold. The proposal, unliKe tne "Bubble"Exemption: The use of offsets applicability until today's regulations . existing regulations, would allow certain inside the same source is called the are promulgated. emi8sion rednctions occurring at the "bubble." EPA proposes use of the 3. Geographic Applicability: The same source-to offset any increasesllue definition of "source" {see above) to proposed regulations would apply the to proposed construction and avoid review. If a aource has the potential to .emitmore than it is legally allowed to~ limit the use of the bubble under nonattainmeni requirements In the following respects; applicable nonattainment NSR requirements throughout the area _ designated as nonattainment The . emit, no offset-credit could be taken by a source for reducing its potential L Part D SIPs that include all requirements needed to assure existing regulations now allow a source within a designated nonattainment area emissions down~ to theallowed level 5. No Tiered Review: under Are reasonable further progress and attainment by the deadline under to,demonstrate that it would construct in a clean portion and affect - existing regulations, only those sources section 172 and that are being carried significantly no dirty portion of the and modifications which have large out need not restrict the use of a nonattainment area. Growth uncontrolled emission potential and also plantwide bubble, the same as under the ' prohibitions. Part D, or the offset ruling increased allowable emissions equal to PSD proposal. - would also apply when a proposed or greeter than 50 tens per year would* iL Part D SIPs that do not meet the major-source or major modification in a receive a detailed review.Ali major requirements specified must limit use of clean area would significantly impact a sources and major modifications are the bubble by including a definition of nonattainment area. how fitBy covered as discussed" "installation" as an identifiable piece of C, Proposed Changes Specific to PSD elsewhere. -. - ' process equipment. New or modified ' Requirements. fLlinecanstraction Notice: Under the - major-source installations would require ll Baseline Concentration: The term proposed regulations, an owner or NSR permits regardless of any offsetting "baseline concentration" is used in an operator of Certain sources would he emission reductions elsewhere in the abstract sense to establish the starting required to give written preconstruction facility. A change or a series ot changes point for defining significant . notice to the applicable reviewing that do not result id a Significant net deterioration occurring from area and . authority in lieu of getting a permit This increase in the installation's potential To minor sources of PM and SOi. Under the requirement would apply to (lj elfnu anti do nut cunsuium a --------------- existing regulations, a uniform August 7, construction not qualifying as major reconstruction Uf the.installation, will 1977 baseline date was established for modifications due to sufficienta tting not be subject to NSH permitting all PSD areas of the country. Today's emission reductions, (2) emission requirements. proposal would establish the baseline reductions to be used lor intnre ottset ' m. me ottset ruling is proposed to date as the time after August 7,1977 thafr -pgdit in fll. and f3l construction not also include a definition of "installation" the first permit application__b_y_ a J? qualifying as major stationary sources with the effect described in paragraph ii. proposed major source or major due to application of air pollution iv. The restriction on construction for modification {subject to the regulations .j controls not generally recruiredThy the inadequate Part D SIPs {or failure to as promulgated is filed for a clean area jj - :SIP or- 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61. The" carry out the same) under section designated under section 107(d)(1)(D) op (notice would contain a schedule ot the 110(a)(2)(l) is proposed to include a (E). The baseline date once established ^ /applicable emissions changes and a definition of "instafiation"- However, for any designated dean portion of an * * demonstration that the proposed unlike the situation described in Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) reductions are or would be sufficient paragraph ii no bubble wili apply, and . would apply to all clean parts of the and enforceable. ' any significant increase in the AQCR designated under section B. Proposed Changes Specific to nonattainment pollutant for which the, 107(d)(1)(D) or (E) for PM and SO,. Nonottainment Requirements. ~ . source is major would be subject 2, Best Available Control Technology . "L Major Modification: The same basic 2. Regulatory Transition: EPA intends lBACTf The regulations today propose definitional structure for "major to promulgate regulations within 90 days that the BACT requirements apply to all stationary source" and "major after issuance of the final Alabama pollutants regulated under the Act lor ^ modification" is being proposed for both Power opinion by the U.S. Court of which the major construction would Jj nonattainment requirements and PSD Appeals, finch changes would generally .create significant net emission- & requirements. The principal difference is apply to anv future permitting situations increases. The existing requirements '"the extent to which emission decreases after promulgation, but sources require BACT only for those pollutants , may be used to offset increases at the pompelled to meet more restrictive for which the proposed construction ( same major stationary source to ' requirements under the old regulations would be major. determine whether the source is may apply to the applicable permitting 3. Ambient Monitoring: The proposed "modified" and needs a permit authority to reevaluate such regulations generally will call for more a. Emissions Baseline for requirements. A change in a permit extensive ambient monitoring both Modification: The proposed regulations which would make the SIP no longer before and after construction. The would generally subject a change at a adequate to demonstrate attainment proposal, would extend the major source to review only if a would require an accompanying SIP .preconstruction requirement for an significant net increase in the potential revision to ensure attainment would not ` analysis of the air quality existing at the to emit a nonattainment pollutant for be jeopardized. areas affected by the proposed which the source is major. An exception The proposed changes also affect how construction to ali pollutants regulated is that no'credit may be taken for state adopted NSR programs may be under the Act and not just criteria reducing those potential emissions approved for designated nonattainment pollutants as the existing PSTT which are greater than allowable areas. EPA generally proposes to regulations require. The new monitoring emissions, In nonattainment areas approve any state plan that would meet requirements apply to any pollutants . where the offset ruling or Part D NSR the existing SIP approval criteria or the- regulated under the Act without regard __ Federal Register f Vol. 44, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 5, 1979 / Proposed Rules 51927 to whether such pollutant emissions individually qualify the proposed construction as being major. Under - today's proposal, PM and SO data as required would be used to improve modeling predictions of increment availability to future sources. Regulations governing the adoption of acceptable PSD SIPs are also proposed to be revised to indicate when state authorities can accept less than one year's continuous air quality data for a criteria pollutant - 4. "De Minimis " Cutoffs: The regulations proposed today would exempt on a pollutant specific basis major modifications from all permit requirements and new major sources on a pollutant specific basis from all requirements when emissions of the particular pollutant are below a specified de minimis or significant emission rate. De minimis air quality levels are also proposed as guidance for exempting from PSD monitoring . requirements on a pollutant specific basis a major new source or major - modification with net emission increases that cause air quality impacts below the specified values. 5. Major Modification: In determining whether a "no net increase" in emissions would occur for purposes of PSD, the regulations as proposed would no longer credit emission reductions on the basis of how the-emissions being reduced would affect the available PSD increment. Today's PSD regulations would parallel nonattainment NSR in that the emissions baseline for determining a no net increase would be the lesser of potential-emissions or allowable emissions.' Use of a plant wide "bubble" is permitted under PSD in determining if a significant increase would occur in the potential to emit a pollutant for which"" the source is major. 6. Regulatory Transition: As discussed above in the case of nonattainment permit reviews, the ' proposed changes would generally be prospective with regard to future PSD permits. EPA expects that when the regulations as'proposed become final, sources that obtained PSD permits . under the existing PSD regulations would have 90 days to have their permits reevaluated under the new rules. The proposed changes also affect how PSD SIEs may be approved. EPA proposes to approve any state plan that would meet the existing 40 CFR Part 51 regulations or the revised regulations proposed today, but states will have to revise their plans to conform to the regulations as promulgated. The revised definitions for baseline and major construction will be retroactive for 13 ERG at 1229. Since such rulemaking purposes of increment consumption. may result in extensive public comment, 7. Geographic Applicability: The it may take EPA longer to promulgate a proposed regulations would generally definition of "facility" than a new apply the requirements of PSD review to definition of "potential to emit." all areas designated under section Next to avoid anv moratorium on 107{d}(l)(D) or [E). However, even permitting, the Agency is treating the where an area is designated as existing regulations as being in effect nonattainment under section 107, PSD now. It is therefore continuing to process review would apply when a proposed applications for permits under them. source would have a significant impact EPA intends to continue operating under on a dean area in another state. EPA the existing regulations for so long as, has petitioned the court to restore the and to the extent that they remain existing PSD requirements which unchanged. To make this possible, it has protected clean areas from new source moved the court for a further stay of the emissions regardless of the location of effect of its decisions. If granted, the `the source. stay would last until EPA completes this IU. Transition A. PSD Part 52 Regulations. As - \ rulemaking or until 90 days after the issuance of the supplemental opinions, whichever comes first If EPA requires described above in the background more than the extra 90 days on some information of this preamble, the court ^ issues, it will move the court for in Alabama Power Company v, Costle additional time. communicated its decisions on the PSD EPA intends to put the replacement regulations in the form of a summary provisions governing PSD applicability opinion. Simultaneously, it staved the into effect immediately upon effect of those decisions until it had promulgation. Each would then apply to considered any petition for any proposed source or modification reconsideration and issued which had not filed a complete PSD supplemental opinions explaining the application by the time of the decisions and disposing of any promulgation of the provision.2 Making petitions.'The court adopted this the regulations immediately effective unusual procedure partly to allow EPA would eliminate the delay and expense to begin as soon as possible to overhaul of the permitting process for sources not the regulations. The procedure, however, covered by the regulation.3 Examples of has raised many questions about what' the provisions that EPA intends to make rules should govern PSD preconstruction effective immediately upon review and for how long. What follows promulgation are the definitions of are EPA's answers to those questions. "potential to emit," "stationary source," First, EPA is proposing a set of "facility," and "modification." amendments which would replaced or Many PSD permits will have been delete entirely, each of the provisions the court has declared invalid. EPA issued by the time EPA completes its overhaul of the regulations. EPA is intends to promulgate the amendments proposing here that such permits would in final form as soon as possible after the issuance of the surm emental remain in effect, but would be rescinded upon a showing 'that a source or opinions. EPA may be able to modification would not need a permit promulgate some amendments sooner than others, since the supplemental under the new regulations. See proposed 52.21(wJ. A permittee would have only opinions of the court may well leave 90 days from the time the overhaul is little or no room for discretion on certain complete to make that showing. In this issues. An example of such an issue is whether Congress intended the key phrase "potential to emit" in the-. way, projects which Congress never intended to undergo PSD review could obtain relief from the constraints of their statutory' definition of "major'emitting facility" to refer to controlled emissions. On some issues, though, the Agency will have more room for discretion. For PSD permit. At the same time, EPA would be able to evaluate individual decisions on applicability and keep its records straight. It should be noted that,* example, the court has ruled that EPA has broad discretion to define the term "facility" through, legislative rulemaking. -When an applicant can show a reasonable and good faith effort to submit all information necessary for permit issuance, the permitting authority may consider an application as being complete for ' EPA has petitioned the court for reconsideration purposes of avoiding the new more restrictive of its decision on geographic applicability. Industry requirement! of the final PSD or nonattainment NSR petitioners have petitioned as to the decision on the regulations, as applicable, definition of '`modification," on the regulation of * If an applicant believed the new regulations -pollutants other than sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, and on the modeling of stack heights. Where relevant these decisions are described in later would exclude his facility, be could withdraw his Application at any time. Alternatively, he could ask EPA to delay the processing of it In either case; sections of this preamble. EPA would not reserve increment for the applicant. ral 0000530:!, 0 51928 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 5, 1979 / Proposed Rules if a source or modification were later when it would not have been required found to be causing or contributing to an under the existing regulations. The increment violation, additional controls Administrator generally will require less might be necessary. See 40 CFR than a year's worth of data on a ' 51.24(a)(3) (1978). prorated basis. An affected source The proposed definition of "major would be required to gather_data over modification" except where the growth the time period from the effective date . sanctions would apply defines that term of the new regulations until the date that ~ as OJ7V significant net increase in the source would file an otherwise potential emissions at a major complete PSD application. ' stationary source. ,In contrast, the Finally, in some cases the proposed existing definition defines it as any definitions would redefine the baseline : C-itross increase in potential date, which marks the time that area funcontrolled) enussionribove 100 or ' and minor source growth would .. 250 tons Per year, depending on source . type. 40 CFR 52.21fb)f2) 11978). The consume the available PSD increment. Consequently emissions from some : '. -- - (proposed, definition may sweep into PSD review some modifications that the~ existing definition would not. Thaiwould occur if a particular yoss increase at the site of an existing major stationary source would be under tfii~ 100/250-ton threshold, but wouid ndTbe nffset by sufficient contemporaneousemission reductions at the same site. In additibn, under the existing regulations the potential to emit calculation can account for limited hours of operation whereas it cannot under today's proposal. EPA believes that such modifications and sources with limited operating hours can be grandfathered " from all future permitting requirements. It is therefore proposing an amendment to | 5Z.21(i) which would provide that preconstruction review does not apply to any new or modified source obtaining all necessary approvals under the SEP before the date the proposed definitions , sources which consumed increment under the existing regulations would now be counted as baseline emissions. . (See discussion on "Baseline ^ Concentration.") The existing regulations contain 'various rules for the grandfathering of major stationary sources and major modifications. In essence, they generally provide that the existing regulations do not apply to a source or modification which received certain permits by March 1,1978. and commenced construction by March 19,1979. See 40 CFR 52.21(i) (2)-(4) (1978). The proposals in this notice would not affect the substance of those grandfather provisions. Also, it should be noted that EPA proposed in a recent Federal Register notice to amend the deadlines for "commencing" construction irithose provisions. See 44 FR 42722 (July 16, 1979). EPA will probably promulgate the proposed amendment before it of "major modification" and "potential to emit" come into effect and on which completes this rulemaking. . To the existing grandfather physical construction would commence provisions, EPA is proposing-to add,two within 18 months of this date (or any new provisions to make explicit earlier time required under the SIP) if it principles that are merely implicit now. would not have been a major One would state that a source or modification or major-stationary source under the existing regulations. See modification to which the regulations apply must have a PSD permit before proposed 52.21(i)(7). construction on it may beain. See Aside from the new provisions which proposed 52.21(i) (1) and (2). The other "would govern PSD applicability, EPA is would state that the existing proposing provisions which would preconstruction requirements do not establish new substantive requirements. apply to any source or modification on Examples are the provisions which which construction commenced before would require any major stationary source to perform air quality analysis August 7,1977, the date of enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977. and to have BACT for any regulated This provision would merely put into the pollutant that it emits in significant' regulations what section 168(b) of the amounts. See proposed paragraphs Act already provides. See 42 U.S.C (n)(l) an<f(j)(2) of 52.21. EPA intends 7478(b). to make such provisions effective upon B. Nonattainment'NSR Regulations. final promulgation and to apply them For implementation of the offset ruling only to construction projects whose and the restrictions on new sources applications for a permit were not under sections 110(a)(2)(I) and 173(4) of complete before this time. In addition, the Act, EPA proposes to advise the special interim rules apply during the states to require generally the same first year that the new regulations would transition principles as for PSD. be effective to the pollutant specific Provisions of the final regulations which collection of continuous monitoring data will be more stringent than existing requirements would apply to all applications not complete by the time the final regulations appear in the Federal Register. Provisions of the final regulations which will be less stringent than existing requirements could apply (unless the state has in the attainment demonstration relied upon more stringent requirements) to all sources and modifications which had not received a permit before the final regulations are promulgated. Unlike the case of PSD, the Administrator does not believe that EPA should be directly involved in any efforts by individual sources to overturn certain more restrictive aspects of permits issued under the existing requirements. First, air quality levels worse than those judged adequate to safeguard public health and welfare are involved. Rescinding of permits in such areas might jeopardize the applicable attainment strategy approved in the plan or at least consume in part the growth allowance identified in the attainment demonstration. Therefore, any action taken to rescind a permit must be accompanied by a formal revision to theSIP so as to adjust the attainment demonstrationTNext, the plan can use various control methods and strategies in demonstrating attainment by the prescribed date. This, at the state's option, can include a more restrictive NSR policy in order to comply with the attainment mandate. Finally, states have generally issued the permits, not EPA. Permitted sources that want relief from the conditions of permit issued under the existing regulations should, therefore, apply to the applicable state reviewing authority for a reevaluation. Such sources should remember that for several reasons the state may not be able to rescind a permit. C. PSD and Nonattainment SIP Revisions. As discussed above, the review of permit applications will be governed by the existing regulations until the regulations are amended. However, a more flexible approach is needed for review and approval of SIP revisions. In brief. EPA proposes for now to approve a SIP revision if it satisfies either the existing EPA regulations-or the regulations proposed in this notice. It is essential that states adopt and EPA approve new source review programs without delay. The July 1.1979 deadline creates particular urgency for nonattainment plans, and the Act and EPA policy call for prompt state adoption of PSD plans as well. Most state plans already prepared have been designed to satisfy EPA's existing regulations. To avoid delay in getting \. \ Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 5, 1979 / Proposed Rules 51329 state plans submitted and approved, combination with the new more lenient controls than if it referred to the amount EPA proposes to accept for the time bubble.' a source would emit with such controls. being any plan that satisfies EPA's Over the past several months, EPA In the PSD regulations promulgated on existing regulations, even if the' plan has invited comment on the proposed 1 June 19,1978. EPA defined^potential to does not satisfy all requirements as approval of individual SIP revisions' emit" in general as "the capability at interpreted in Alabama Power. This designed to satisfy requirements for PSD maximum capacity to emit'a pollutant in approach is legally acceptable because or nonattainment, or both. Additional the absence of air pollution control the court's mandate is stayed and proposals will be published in the period section 406(d) of the 1977 Amendment* before final regulations are published establishes that states have time to implementing Alabama Power. EPA come into compliance after EPA intends to take final action on individual regulations are altered. SEP submittala prior to the time it can Plans developed to satisfy existing regulations will in some respects be more stringent than the court has ruled are required by law. To encourage prompt submittal and approval of plans that have already been developed, EPA will take a realistic approach toward subsequent relaxation of such plans. EPAy proposes to approve any statesubmitted relaxation so long as the revised SEP meets all requirements proposed in this rulemaking. This proposal approval would apply to only . plans that would meet as a minimum, the proposed regulations and not the more lenient alternative approaches discussed in the preamble. The Administrator does reserve the option to approve SIPs where the decision may depend upon the final court opinion with the understanding that the state will have to revise its plan to comply with EPA's final regulations. If EPA's final regulations are in any respect less stringent than the proposed regulations, EPA will then permit further relaxation if a state so wishes. In some respects EPA's final regulations implementing Alabama Power will be more stringent than the existing regulations, and may be more stringent than the regulations now being proposed. States will have additional time after EPA promulgates final regulations to submit revisions making complete its review of comments solicited by this notice. Therefore, this notice may be considered a part of the notice, of proposed rulemaking ' applicable to each individual SIP submittal. To the extent issues dicussed here are relevant to whether a particular plan submittal should be approved, commenters may address those issues in .comments on the particular plan submittal. Comments on a particular plan may be submitted to the appropriate EPA Regional Office during the comment period established in the proposed rulemaking on the particular plan submittal. If the discussion published today requires alteration of any comments on a plan for which the comment period has already ended, the commenter should contact the appropriate EPA Regional Office immediately so that the issue can be appropriately dealt with. In summary, EPA proposes to find SEPs now approvable if they meet the minimum requirements of either existing EPA regulations, or the regulations now being proposed. EPA strongly urges that, where a state has prepared a'plan that Satisfies existing requirements but has not yet submitted it to EPA for approval, the state should submit it without delay. There will be opportunity later to revise the plan in accordance with Alabama Power. ' the SIPs at least as stringent as the EPA . IV. Potential To Emit regulations then required. The preconstruction review Even during the interim period, requirements of section 165 of the Act however, a plan will not be acceptable if apply to any "major emitting facility " 42 it meets a combination of old and new _ U.S.C. 7475. Under section 169(1), that requirements jn such a way that it is less term means any stationary source which stringent than would be allowed under emits or has "the potential to emit" 100~ either the old or new set of tons per year or more of any pollutant requirements. For example, in and comes within~any of 28 specified determining what modifications need categories. It also includes any other equipment" 40 CFR 51.24(b)(3), 52^1 (b)(3) (1978) (emphasis added). The court in Alabama Power Company v. Castle rejected EPA's interpretation. In its view Congress intended "potential to emit" to refer, to controlled emissions: We' think the fairly discernible meaning of the statute * * * is that an emitting facility Is "major" within the meaning of section 169(1), only if it either (1) actually emits the specified annual tonnage of any air pollutant or (2) has the potential when operating at full design capacity, to emit the statutory amount * * *. In our view the design capacity of the facility takes into account not only its maximum production capacity (which EPA uses) but also the design controls on emissions. (13 ERC at 1228.) In response to the court's decision. EPA is proposing to amend the definitions of "potential to emit" in the existing PSD regulations. As proposed, the new definitions would provide that . the term means "the capability at maximum capacity to emit a pollutant after the application of air pollution control equipment." See proposed 5 51.24(b)(3) and 52.21(b)(3) (emphasis added). Thus, whether a source is "major" would depend primarily upon what control equipment has been . incorporated into its design. The existing defintion of "potential to emit" also states: Annual potential shall be based on the maximum annual rated capacity of the source, unless the source is subject to enforceable permit conditions which limit the annual hours of operation. (40 CFR 51.24(b)(3), 52.21(b)(3) (1978) (emphasis added).) ,^ Under that sentence, a source can escape PSD reviews, if the person proposing the source binds himself in a state NSR permit to limit sufficiently the hours of operation, that is. to operate at less than full design capacity. In Alabama Power, the court plainly thought that the calculation of a source's "potential to emit" should be based on its full design capacity 13 ERC at 1228. EPA therefore is proposing to delete the permits, the proposed new requirements source with "the potential to emit" 250 are more stringent than the old ones in tons per year or more of any pollutant. "unless" clause. It intends to rule out the possibility of a source escaping PSD setting the level of emissions (significant 42 U.S.C. 7479(1). net increase), but are more lenient in The scope of the category "major 'eview merely because of a voluntary imitation on hours of operation. Thi3 allowing contemporaneous reductions to emitting facility" obviously depends action also makes it possible to be considered (the "bubble") in largely on the meaning of the phrase minimize stress placed on the short term determining whether that level of "potential to emit" Many more sources increments by sources of intermittent emissions is surpassed. It would not be would fall into the category if the phrase operation with low annual but high daily- acceptable for a plan to apply the old. referred to the amount of pollution that emissions. EPA would therefore generally more lenient emission level in a source would emit without pollution generally presume that a source can 51930 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 5, 1979 / Proposed Rules physically operate 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. The Administrator asks ' for comment on the need-to adjust this assumption to the extent that new sources would have limited hours of operation due to physical incapability of operating 24 hours a day year round. Such an exemption would follow the Administrator's proposal to discount the ' amount of credit that can be claimed for ' reductions at existing sources because of physical incapability on the part of - the affected emission unit(s) (see . discussion in "Modification"). - The exjsting definition recognizes not only-limitations on hours of operation, but also limitations on the amount of - material to be combusted or processed.1 Enforceable permit conditions on the type or amount of material combusted or processed ' may be used in determining the potential emission rate of a source. (40 CFR 51.24(b)(3), 52-21 (b) (3) (1978) (emphasis added).) - For the same reasons that EPA is proposing to delete the clause relating to hours of operation, it is1 proposing to delete the words "or amount" in the - sentence quoted above. In calculating a source's "potential to . emit" under the proposed definition many other variables would have to be considered. Among them are the efficiency of the proposed control equipment, the sulfur content of any coal to"be burned at the source, and the applicability of fugitive emissions. First, . in line with the court's opinion, EPA will assume that the "air pollution control equipment incorporated into the design of the facility will function to control emissions in the manner reasonably anticipated when the calculation is - made."T3 ERC at 1228 (emphasis added). Second, with respect to the . sulfur content of any coal to be burned, EPA generally intends to use a long term, nominal average. For determining increment consumption, however, it typically will use a 30-day average. Finally, how EPA Intends to deal with the problem of fugitive emissions is discussed in a subsequent section of this ' notice. . ~ The definition of "potential to emit" is- important not only to PSD preconstruction review, but also to NSR under the offset ruling, 44 FR 3274, and under the statutory requirements for nonattainment areas. It is also important to the determination of what sources . and modifications are subject to the restrictions on construction in sections 110(a)[2)(I) and 173(4) of the Act. EPA is proposing for each of those' -nonattainmentprograms the same definition of,"potential to emit" that it is proposing for the PSD program. EPA also intends that definition to be implemented for those programs in the same-way as for PSD, EPA has traditionally distinguished for the purposes of NRS review between the direct emissions of a source and its "secondary emissions." (See discussion on "Additional Issues.") In revising the offset ruling in January 1979, the Agency added a definition of "secondary emissions" and a provisipn describing for what purposes and under what circumstances those emissions are to be taken into account. See FR 3281, 3283, 3283-84 (January 16,1979). EPA is proposing to add a definition of that term to the PSD regulations and to the proposed nonattainment provisions relating to SIP revisions and restrictions on construction. The Acencv is also proposing to add to each the definitions of "potential to emit" in those sets of provisions a statement that "secondiry emissions" are to be excluded in determining whether a source or modification is "major." How the' Agency would treat those emissions for other purposes, including PSD air ' quality impact analysis, is described below. V. 50-Ton Exemption dn the existing PSD regulations. EPA in general exempts from full PSD review any major stationary source or major modification which would have allowable emissions for each of its pollutants of less than 50 tons per year. 1.000 pounds per day, or 100 pounds per hour, whichever is more restrictive [hereinafter, a "50-ton source"). SpecificallyTan applicant for a permit for a 50-ton source does not have either, to show that the source would have BACT or to provide an ambient impact assessment. See 40 CFR 51.24(j)(2), (k), 52.21(j)(2), (k) (1978). The exemption does not apply in certain narrow circumstances. Id. In Alabama Power, the court thought that its ruling on "potential to emit" made a ruling on the 50-ton exemption "academic." since no 50-ton source would ever be "major" if "potential to emit" referred to controlled emissions. 13 ERC at T228-29, Nevertheless, it remanded the exemption to the Agency for reconsideration and noted that the Agency had exceeded its authority in establishing the exemption. Id. In response, EPA is proposing to delete the provisions which embody the exemption. It is also proposing to delete parallel provisions in the offset ruling, 44 FR 3274. EPA, however, is proposing to add to the PSD regulations another similar exemption for certain modifications. This exemption would track section 165(b) of the Act closely. See 42 U.S.C. 7475(b). Essentially a source qualifying for the exemption would face a limited air quality review for SO and PM, including insulation from the monitoring requirement Use of the exemption would berestricted to those 50 tons or less modifications of SOi or PM after application of BACT which would impact no Class I area and would not interfere with the attainment of RM and SOj standards. In addition, the exemption, as proposed, would be applicable to the cumulative total of net emission increases occurring since August 7,1977, at a plant existing on that date. VI. Fugitive Emissions _ In determining under the existing PSD and nonattainment NSR regulations whether a stationary source or modification has the potential to emit 100 or 250 tons per year of a pollutant, EPA commonly takes into account all of the emissions of that pollutant, at least to the extent that they are reasonably quantifiable. Whether or not the emissions would be "fugitive" has so far been immaterial in requiring permits. For example, EPA has generally regarded strip mines as candidates for PSD review,-since it would include the dust from the haul roads, storage piles, and other surfaces at such a mine in determining whether it is "major." See 43 FR 26395 (June ig, 1978). In Alabama Power, the court held that "fugitive emissions" are to be included in determining whether a source or, modification is "maior" "only if and when EPA issues an appropriate legislative rule." 13 ERC 1231. The court did state, however, that once the permitting requirements otherwise applied, then fugitive emissions and nonfugitive emissions at the same source were to be considered in performing the permit analysis. In so holding, the court indicated that EPA had not yet gone through the requisite rulemaking. With respect to the meaning of the term "fugitive emissions," the court recognized that the Act nowhere defines it. Id. at 1230 n.18. Nevertheless, it discerned that Congress intended "fugitive emissions" to refer to those emissions which emanate from other than a point, such as a stack or chimney. Id. at 1230 n. 14. "Fugitive dust" the court thought refers to fugitive emissions of particulate matter. Id. at 1230 n.14. It should be noted that those meanings differ from the ones EPA has traditionally given the two terms. See. e.g., 41 FR 55560 n.3 (December 21,1976). In response to the court's holdings, EPA is proposing that certain industrial fugitive emissions, to the extent reasonably quantifiable, may be Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 173 / Wednesday, September 5, 1979 / Proposed Rules 51931 included in determining whether a emissions" horn such sources is, in installation, which is permitted by source of modification is "major." The general, greater than its experience in section 111(a)(3), and a combination of ' actions described below apply to quantifying such emissions from other such units. Slip op. at 12. EPA therefore regulations both PSD and nonattainment sources..See, e.g., U.S. EPA, Compilation proposes to delete the term - NSR. of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP- "combination thereof' from the First. EPA is proposing to' define 42) (3d ed., August 1977). The definition of stationary source. "fugitive emissions" as those emissions which do not pass through an opening which the owner or operator uses for _ ventilation, such as a stack, chimney, roof vent or roof monitor. See proposed 55 51.24{b)(20) and 52.21(b)(20). EPA would also delete the existing definition of "fugitive dust" at 40 CFR 51.24(b)(6) and 52.21(b)(6) (1978). Second. EPA is proposing to - incorporate into the existing regulations the principle that rulemaking must precede the inclusion of "fugitive ,, emissions" in an applicability letermination bv adding the following ine to the definitions of "potential to emit":."Fugitive emissions shall not be included in determining potential, except with respect to the following - stationary sources: * * Finally, the Agency is proposing to list Administrator over the next several months will consider the need for additional source types to be added to the list beyond those which would be newly regulated under 4G CFR Parts 80 and 61, including strip mines. The court did, however, state that EPA has substantial discretion to define the terms in the definition of source-- that is, building, structure, facility, or installation--to include a wide range of pollution-emitting sources. Slip op. at 11. VII. Fugitive Dust Exemption The components of "source" could be The existing PSD regulations provide that any "fugitive dust*' from a major stationary source or major modification is to be ignored in determining what the defined differently for PSD purposes ^ than for the purposes-of other provisions of the Act Slip op. at 12, note 13. The key constraint on EPA's discretion is effect of the sourceor modification on air quality would be.-40 ChU 51.24(kll51. that "the definitions applicable to each set of provisions must be reasonably 52.21(k)(5) (1978). Because of its decision appropriate for the purposes of those on "fugitive emissions" and apparently sections." Id. The same court has earlier because it thought EPA had no authority stated that in defining the components to establish the exemption, the court ' of source, "EPA is guided by a reasoned remanded it to the Agency for further application of the terms of the statute it consideration. 13 ERC at 1231. In is charged to enforce, not by an abstract response, EPA is proposing to delete the 'dictionary' definition." ASARCO, Inc. v. the following stationary sources whose provisions which embody the 'EPA, 578 F.2d 319, 324 note 17 (D.C. Cir. fugitive emissions are to be taken into exemption. The Agency is also . 1978). These two court opinions instruct account: (1) Coal cleaning plants. (2) proposing to delete a parallel provision the Agency to analyze the statutory kraft pulp mills, (3) Portland cement plants, (4) primary zinc smelters, (5) iron and steel mill plants, (6) primary aluminum ore reduction plants, (7) in the offset ruling, 44 FR 3274. VIII. Source/Facility Installation A, Definition of "Source". In its t purposes of the various PSD and nonattainment NSR provisions and define the terms "building," "structure," "facility," and "installation" to carry out primary copper smelters, (8) municipal existing PSD regulations and the offset best.the statutory intent of the - incinerators, (9) hydrofluoric, sulfuric, or nitric acid plants, (10) petroleum 'refineries, (11) lime plants, (T2) phosphate rock processing plants. (13) coke oven batteries, (14) sulfur recovery plants, (15) carbon black plants, (16) primary lead smelters, (17) fuel conversion plants, (18) sintering plants, (19) secondary metal production plants, 1201 chemical process plants, (21) fossil fuel-fired boilers, (22) petroleum storage and transfer units, (23) taconite ore . processing plants, (24) glass fiber processing plants', (25) charcoal production plants, (26) fossil fuel-fired steam electric plants, and any other stationary source category which, at the time of the applicability determination, is being regulated under section 111 or ruling, EPA has defined "stationary source" as "any structure, building, .facility, equipment, installation, or operation [or combination thereof) which is. located on one or more contiguous or adjacent properties and which is owned or operated bv the same person for by persons under common controll." EPA alsodefined "facility" as an "identifiable piece of process jesuiicinfinL," 40 CFR 51.24(b)(4), (5), 52.21(b)(4), (5): 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix s, sections II.A.l and 2, as amended 44 FR 3282. In Alabama Power the court said that the definition of "stationary source" in section 111(a)(3) governs PSD review. Slip op. at 11. Section 111(a)(3) defines "stationary source" as "any building, provisions. ' _ B. Sources Subject to PSD Requirements. One of the fundamental purposes of PSD is to maintain air quality better than the ambient standards. This purpose can best be served if NSR'applies to the largest industrial grouping that, as a practical matter, industry and the reviewing authorities can reasonably deal with as a single unit EPA believes the appropriate grouping is all emitting activities on contiguous or adjacent property and under common control-- typically an industrial plant. For PSD, EPA believes that a large industrial grouping is the appropriate unit for review of both construction of 112 of the Act. structure, facility, or installation which new plants and new and modified EPA believes that there is no reason emits or may emit any air pollutant." 42 pieces of process equipment at existing why a source of a-particular pollutant U.S.C. 7411(a)(3). The court stated that plants. Applying PSDreview to large regulated under the Act should escape - EPA may not add items to this list. Slip groupings rather than separate pieces of review because the emissions of the op. at 11. In conformance with the process equipment ensures adequate pollutant are fugitive, when a source of court's opinion EPA is proposing to review of new'plants. EPA believes that the same pollutant has to get a permit if delete the terms "equipment", unit-by-unit review, without plant-wide the emissions are not fugitive. In both "operation" and "combination thereof" review, would fail to protect air quality cases, the emissions would deteriorate from the definition of stationary source standards and increments. Large new air quality regardless of how they in both the PSD and nonattainment plants could be constructed at one site emanate. Thus, it serves the purposes of regulations. The court also found that as a collection of individual process NSR to scrutinize the one as well as the EPA exceeded its statutory authority in units, each below the potential-to-emit other. EPA is focusing first on the the way in which it tried to apply , threshold, and thereby escape review sources listed above because its ' preconstruction review to both a single altogether. If clustering of new growth experience in quantifying the "fugitive. building, structure, facility or were permitted without preconstruction 31932 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 5. 197? / Proposed Rules review, increments and even standards industrial plant To accomplish this, could easily be violated. EPA proposes to define "building, While increased protection of air structure, facility, or installation'1 to- quality might be achieved by reviewing mean a grouping of activities on groupings even bigger than a plant, contiguous or adjacent properties and ' review of larger groupings is infeasible. under common control The term New units not on adjacent property or '^rouping" is intended to include a plant .'under common control would be an consisting of a single isolated activity, awkward grouping to evaluate and aa well as a plant consisting of many " regulate. Therefore, PSD review-will -apply to groupings of new construction activities. /C- Sources Subject to Nonattainment , ho ieraer tfen a plant. Requirements. - Plant-wide review also serves the basic purposes ofPSD when pieces of 1. Purpose to be Served by Nonattainment NSR Definitions. Unlike equipment are "being built or modified at the PSD provisions, the nonattainment existing plants. "With plant-wide review, provisions are primarily intended not industry con construct new and merely to prevent excessive increases in modified equipment without a permit by miaalflnaJaiUQ. reduce-enuaswnaJIus reducing emissions enough that net fundamental difference in purpose emissions at the plant do not increase. requires a different approach to defining (Allowing use of offsetting emission the sources that will be subject to NSR., reductions within the source to avoid _ To assure adequate review. EPA ,, NSR is called the "bubble" approach. believes that both entire plants and '"For discussion of the bubble, see individual pieces of equipment must be "Modification"). The purposes ofPSD subject to NSR. The one exception under .. are served, because assuring that there EPA's proposal is for areas subject to will be no net increase in emissions fully complete SIPs satisfying Part IT. from the plant also assures that the reouirements In these areas, where construction will not interfere with . attainment is assured, NSR need apply maintaining good air quality. only to entire planti. Permitting offsets only Within To assure adequate review of new individual process units would go plants, a large grouping must be subject beyond maintaining the status quo. to nonattainment NSR for the reasons : While additional emission reductions discussed above for PSD, To do , beyond existing levels are needed to otherwise would allow a new plant that attain standards in nonaftainment areas is divided into separate process units, (see discussion in the next section), such each below the potential emission reductions are ordinarily unnecessary to threshold, to escape review. New meet the purposesof the PSD program. emissions could thus be added to the In addition, the review ilself would not - existing violation, without review, make sense .relative to RSD goals, if new making attainment virtually impossible. units at sources with offsetting plant Therefore. EPA believes that wide -decreases were forced to undergo nonattainment programs, like PSD review. Sources might be required to programs, must apply NSR to entire model and monitor increment plants. consumption when air quality is EPA believes that pieces of process . expected to improve or stay the same. In equipment within plants should also be addition, application of the bubble on a subject to NSR under nonattainment plant-wide basis encourages voluntary programs. This would prevent use of upgrading of equipment, and growth in ~ plant-wide offsets for increases from productive capacity. construction or modification of major Since obtaining offsets is often less pieces of process equipment The plant- expensive and less time-consuming than wide babble is less appropriate for obtaining a PSD permit providing nonattainment urograms than for PSD industry with the offset option will - programs becaase it only holds facilitate upgrading of production emissions constant Nonattainment capacity, and encourage application of programs, in contrast to PSD programs, improved controls to obtain offsets. must positively reduce emissions.' Permitting plant-wide use of offsets If increases from construction of new provides the greatest opportunity for or modified pieces of process equipment both of these desirable results. Thus, could be offset on a plant-wide basis the plant-wide review is the preferred construction would make attainment of approach under PSD for reviewing the standards substantially more construction of both new plants, and difficult For each nonattainment area, new and modified pieces of equipment there are only a limited number of cost- at existing plants. effective ways to reduce existing ' For these reasons, EPA proposes"that emissions enough to attain standards. If PSD review apply to a large grouping of the cost-effective opportunities to pollutant-emitting activities, like an reduce emissions are used to offset equally large increases from new construction, then other, less costeffective ways to reduce emissions must be found to achieve attainment. Therefore, to ensure that construction within existing plants does not make attainment of the standards more difficult- nonattainment programs must provide for NSR rTewand modified. pieces oTequipmeni. The NSfi~~ requirements will assure that the most stringenl controla are applied to new end modified equipment and that more than offsetting reductions in existing emissions are obtained to assure adequate continued progress toward attainment. The nonattainment requirements also ensure that -other sources in the state, owned or operated bv the same owner, are in compliance with SEP requirements needed for attainment.. This policy argument is strongly supported by the legislative history. Even where demolition of obsolete equipment reduces emissions. Congress indicated that construction of replacement equipment should be subject to NSR under nonattainment programs without regard to the offsetting reductions: Thus, funder the offset ruling end Part D NSR requirements,] a new source is still subject to such requirements as `-`lowest achievable emission rare" even if it is constructed as a replacement for an older facility resulting in a net reduction from previous emission levels.-1 (Statement of Senator Muskie, 123 Cong. Rec. at S 13702 col. 2 (daily edition, August 4,1977)). Z Proposed Definitions. To implement this specific expression of Congressionalintent, as well as the general purposes of the nonattainment provisions discussed above, EPA is proposing to define "source" to include not only plant-wide groupings of activities, but also individual pieces of process equipment. "Building, structure or facility" 5 would be defined as a large grouping of activities (a plant) and "installation" would be defined as an "individual piece of process equipment" . These definitions would prevent use of plant-wide bubble for all new and modified major pieces of process equipment. ("Major" means having high enough potential emissions to be a major stationary source. "Minor" means having less than that) The plant-wide bubble would still serve to avoid NSR, when emissions from a new or modified minor piece of equipment (or from some activity like a coal pile that is not an installation) are offset by enough 4 Then, as new, '`'facility** was defined in EPA's offset ruling as a piece of process equipment. * .Referred to hereafter as "facility." Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 5. 1979 / Proposed Rules 51933 - reductions at die plant so that there is no net increase in emissions at the plant Furthermore, in accordance with the Congressional intent noted above,ji, replacement of an older piece of equipment would be treated as a new installation, regardless of any reductions from previous emission levels. A "r^construction''~would be treated in the same way as a replacement, when the capital cost of the new improvements exceeds 50% of a comparable repfacement. ' 1. The proposed definitions tend to limit " applications of the bubble, by defining / certain large kinds of sources- and . certain small kinds of sources, and * recognizing that some small sources are included within the boundaries-of large ' , sources. This approach is consistent 'with both the language of the Act and the interpretation in Alabama Power.- Congress, in defining "source" as any "structure, building, facility, or installation" must have contemplated that some of these components could be defined to be smaller than others and ` that the small components could be found within the large components. Defining some sources as small enough to be within the boundaries of larger- defined sources is also consistent with the court's instruction not to define source as a "combination" of facilities, installations, or other single source units. The proposed regulations define __ "facility" not as a combination of .narrowly-defined sourtes, but rather as " an independently-defined enitity. This - single entity is composed of a grouping of emitting activities {which individually may or may not.be sources)8meeting requirements of common control and adjacency. This plant definition is exactly the sort of "common sense industrial grouping" that the court said is-a proper subject for NSR. Slip op. at 12. The court stated that the same definitions of facility, building, structure, and installation, must govern the determination of not only whether there - is a new major stationary source subject to NSR, but also whether there is a , modified major stationary source subject to NSR. Slip op. at 21. EPA's . definitions adhere strictly to this principle. Major facilities and major installations constitute both the new sources and the modified sources For example, a coal pile is not a piece of process equipment and is. therefore, not an "installation" under the proposed definitions. However, it is an emitting activity, and can therefore be part or a "facility" under the proposed definitions. The Agency recognizes that the emissions from the coal pile would be fugitive emissions and subject to regulation as discussed in the section on "Fugitive Emissions." subject to NSR. Under these definitions, construction that is neither a new nor a modified major facility may be a new or modified installation, and vice versa. Congress, in defining "source" to include several items in the alternative, provided for such a result where necessary to achieve the purposes of the Act. The following illustrates how the nonattainment NSR definitions would work. Suppose a firm proposed to construct three pieces of process equipment on a single plant site. Each piece of equipment would be an "installation," and the entire plant would be a "facility". Each installation would be a "source" and the entire facilitywould be a "source,".If the installations would have annual potential emissions of 40,190. and 150 ' tons per year, respectively, the facility would have potential, emissions of 380 tons per year: Installation [A)--40 tonB per year (minor source).' ' Installation (B)--190 tons per year (major Source). Installation (C)--150 tons per year (major source). Facility (A)--380 tons per year (major source). Permits would be needed for the three major sources: Installation (B), Installation (C), and Facility (A). Since the permit for Facility fA) would, as a practical matter, cover all three installations, only a single*permit application would be needed. Suppose next that the firm proposed to modify Installation (C) to increase emissions by 70 tons, and decrease contemporaneously the emissions of Installation (B) by the same amount. There would be no modification of Facility (A), whose total emissions woud remain the same, but there would be a modification of Installation (C), whose emissions would increase by-70 tons. A permit would be needed for the modification of Installation (C). If installation (B) were then modified to increase its emissions by 50 tons, but there were contemporaneous reductions of thg-same amount at the same - Installation (B), no net increase in emissions would occur at either Installation (B) or at Facility (A) (technically, there would be no "modification"), and no permit would be needed If there were a 20-ton increase at Installation (A) and a contemporaneous 25-ton decrease at Installation (C), there would be a modification of minor Installation (A), whose net emissions increased, but no modification of major Facility (A), whose net emissions decreased, and no permit would be needed 3. Nonattainment Programs to Which the Proposed Definitions Apply. The definitions described above are to apply to sources subject fo the offset ruling and to restrictions on construction under sections 110(a)(2)(l] and 173(4) of the .Act. EPA also proposes that these definitions apply to "incomplete" state plans under Part D of the Act. Incomplete plans are those that do not yet show reasonable further progress and attainment of the ambient standards, based exclusively on currently adopted, approved, and enforceable requirements. Incomplete plans therefore include any plan where approval under part D is conditioned on submission of additional material by the state, any plans containing stateadopted schedules for submission of additional material,7 and any plans where additional submissions are 1 needed by July 1,1982, as required by section 129(c) of tire 1977 Amendments (note under 42 U.S.C. 7502), Since incomplete plans do not yet include all requirements needed for attainment, EPA believes that the definitions described above, including the definition of "installation," are needed for the reasons discussed above. However, EPA believes that complete Part D SIPs, which contain adopted and enforceable requirements sufficient to assure attainment, may apply the approach proposed above for PSD, with plant-wide review but no review of individual pieces of equipment. Use of only a plant-wide definition of source will permit plant-wide offsets for avoiding NSR of new or modified pieces of equipment. However, this is only appropriate once a SIP is adopted that will assure the-reductions in existing emissions necessary for attainment. See 44 FR 3276 col. 3 (January 16,1979), If the level of emissions allowed in the SIP is low enough to assure reasonable further progress and attainment, new construction or modifications with enough offset credit to prevent an emission increase should not jeopardize attainment. Protection of attainment under the SIP is also assured by not permitting offset credit for emission reductions required by the approved SIP (see "Modification"). However, for sources subject to restrictions on construction in sections 110(a)(2)(I) and 173(4), EPA believes that no offsets should be permitted.8 EPA For a discussion of conditional approvals and schedules, see 44 FR Z037Z (April 4.1979] and 44 FR 38563 (July 2,1979). * Reconstructed major installations, regardless of whether they are considered "modifications" even under the restrictive definition of major modification, are new major sources subject to the restrictions on construction. 51334 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 5, 1979 / Proposed Rules proposes to accomplish this through the EPA invites comment generally on related. Banking is discussed in the definition of "major modification,"' what approach should be used for each- Federal Register notice regarding EPA's rather than the definition of the '. type of program. offset ruling. 44 FR 3274 (January 16, components of``source." This is discussed in the section on IX. Modification '`Modification". A. No Net Increase. Undercurrent' EPA is considering one other approach for nonatlainment areas. Under this approach,,all components of' "source" would he defined as pieces of process equipment and none would be . defined as plants. NSR would apply to new pieces of equipment regardless of EPA regulations, a modification is "major" if potential emission increases rt from the modification would equal or exceed the applicable lOO/ZSQ-ton threshold. The court in Alabama Power'j, . rejected this approach. It held that a change in a major stationary source j' subject to PSD review it it results in i offsets elsewhere in the plant For net increase in the source's potential! modificationaof existing pieces of emit. The court also held that any equipment offsetting reductions within ^mission increase which is entirely the same piece of equipment could he offset by contemporaneous emission considered in determining wheiher ihere reductions at the source would not fie is a significant net increase in emissions. considered a modification. Slip op. 20- However, under this alternative 22. These rulings are incorporated into approach, new ormodified minor the proposed regulations for both PSD installations would never be subject to and nonattainment NSR provisions. The J review, regardless of whether they are one exception is construction part of a majo^plant ,. restrictions under sections 110(a)(2) (I) 1979). 1. Implementation? The regulations proposed today would require that any emission increases at a stationary source which would qualify as a major modification, were it not for stficient contemporaneous emission reductions occurmfl within the source, must be Reported to the Administrator or reviewing authority (the state governmental body responsible for issuing permits is called the reviewing or permitting authority). In addition, a source-must report emission decreases which it wishes to use as future offset credit. EPA intends the reporting requirement to fill a need for preconstruction notice and not to act as a time-consuming substitute lor a permitting program. For more discussion of the preconstruction notice requirements, see the section of this -- Sincenamerons individual pieces of and 173(4], for which EPA proposes not reamble entitled "Notification." process equipment typically have less to consider offsetting reductions in 2^Contemporaneous Reductions. than 100 tons per year potential, and determining whether there is a Under the court decision, a modification would escape preconstruction review modification. ' is a change, or series of even though they are part of a single While the court addressed the amount\ contemporaneous changes, that results plant with over 100 tons potential of increase that triggers review, it did in a net increase in potential to emit. emissions, this approach would allow not address which pollutants must be The term "change" derives from the . much new construction to take place increased to trigger review. The court, efinition of "modification" under without preconstructicm-review. This thus, did not object to EPA's current ' section 111(a)(4), and means "any problem coidd be counteracted approach of requiring preconstruction physical change in, or change in the somewhat, by requiring that state plans review only if thS increase in potential -method of operation of, a stationary provide for close tracking of new minor emissions is for a pollutant for which the ' ource." Only an actual physical change source construction. However, as source is a major source. Nor did the or change in the metnod ol operation"' discussed above. EPA believes that court object to EPA's current approach ot a major stationary source may be ~ ~ failing to review entire new plants of aggregating small increases in considered in calculating would create enough risk of massive emissions -occurring after the time of contemporaneous decreases. In new emissions that this approach is program concern (e.g,, August 7,1977 for addition, because a source's potential to undesirable- PSD) to determine whether they add up emit is calculated based on full design D. Summary. In summary, EPA is proposing two different ways to define source far different kinds of NSR programs:'' ,, (1) Far PSD and complete Part D SIPs, review would apply only to plants, with an unrestricted plant-wide bubble. [21 For the offset ruling, restrictions on construction, and incomplete Part D to enough in total to makefile source a major source subject to preconstruction review. Therefore, these two aspects of existing regulations are being retained. The fact that review is necessary only if there is an increase for a pollutant for which the source is a major source is not inconsistent with the Act's instructions . that PSD requirements apply to all pollutants emitted. If any-one pollutant capacity assuming year-round, 24-houra-day operation, only an actual change that reduces design capacity can be credited as an offset in calculating whether a net increase has occurred. For example, imposition of a legal obligation to reduce operating hours or operating loads wilTnbt, by itself, qualify as an actual change decreasing potential to emit. In contrast, an actual change that, and individual pieces of process equipment, causing the plant-wide bubble not to apply for new and modified major pi eoes of equipment. . In addition, for the restrictions on initiates PSD review, then review is required for all pollutants emitted in greater than die minimis amounts but if no one pollutant triggers review, then review is not required for any pollutant emitted. permanently reduces the source's maximum production capacity, snr.h as disconnecting an entire process, would qualify for credit. The proposal would exempt an emissions increase from PSD review if construction, EPA is proposing to define The court's ruling requires additional equal reductions in emissions occur af "major modification" so as to prohibit the bubble entirely. Finally, an guidance on how the new definition of the same source contemporaneously modification will be implemented, what with the emissions increase. In the alternative discussed but not favored is "contemporaneous" change means, court1s view, this exemption has the -to have only pieces of process what emission offsets are creditable, advantage of deferring or avoiding the equipment reviewed, resulting in no and how "net increase" is calculated, it cost of review while providing an plant-wide bubble and allowing minor should be noted that the topic of net incentive to industry to upgrade air pieces of equipment to escape NSR emission increases is distmct from the pollution control equipment regardless of whether they are within a more general topic of emission offset A narrow interpretation of the term major plant. banking, although they are closely "contemporaneous" would restrict oou" c(:A- iVV >  - Federal Register / VoL 44, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 5, 1979 / Proposed Rules 51935 creditable emission reductions to those operating at maximum capacity, offset occurring at the same time as the ' credit will be based on its potential emission increases being offset This, emissions, taking into account physical however, would undercut the incentive constraints on operation at maximum to dpgrade controls, since it is not capacity. For example, an obsolete unit always possible for a source owner to which has been shut down for several . effect the necessary reductions at ^ years due to severe operational exactly the right time. Although the term 7 difficulties would not offer any offset "contemporaneous" appears to preclude credit to new construction. If potential a formal, open-ended banking system emission calculations did not account for previously-achieved emission ^ for physical incapabilities inherent in reductions at the same source, it is not f'^lje operation of existing sources, a so limited as to require simultaneous J source could offset new usable offsetting. Requiring sources to continue^ production capacity with old unusable operation of obsolete equipment, simply ^production capacity and thereby avoid to preserve offset credit, makes little preconstruction review. A common economic or air quality sense. result would be significant and To provide some latitude for crediting unreviewed increases in actual emission reductions, EPA is proposing to1 emissions. If this were permitted, . credit any reported reduction that would increments and standards could be occur after the effective date of the severely impacted or even exceeded. promulgated regulations but before the, This policy continues a philosophy proposed emisision lini creases are which was implicit in several scheduled to occur. For shutdowns an requirements of the existing PSD curtailments occurring before these i'S regulations and'offset ruling. For regulations are promulgated, offset > \ example, under existing regulations ani d credit mav he retained if the source fikstlt toda7 *8 *Pr3o*P*os*a*l- a source operation a notice within 90 days after ' v over a one-to two-year period is promulgation recording the~previous shutdown or curtailment. A follow-up notice would also be required to considered in calculating the size of an emission reduction. If a source has not een operating at full capacity for a document the construction schedule for^o ignificant part of the one- to two-vear 'i,e increase to be offset and to ensure at tbe applicable offsets are" enforceable under the SIP. Failure to identify such a timetable or to comply withTtwill prevent use of the earlier emission reductions to offset that increase.~TIns. uTturn, mav require the ~ affected owneror operator to obtain a NSR permit. 3. Emission Offset Baseline. Additional guidance is necessary on . how to determine if proposed emission reductions at a stationary source are sufficient in type and amount to offset prospective emission increases at the same source, assuming the changes are contemporaneous. The basic rule contained in the regulations is that a period, it is considered to be physically incapable of operating at full capacity and its emission reduction credit will be calculated based on its operation for the one- to two-vear period. A source owner or operator may overcome the presumption of physical incapability if he shows that it was not physical incapability that caused the low production rates. Physical incapability includes situations where one part of an existing source cannot be used at its full capacity because its capacity is larger relative to the rest of the associated units, and therefore its output is limited by the capacity of the other units. In addition, if a plan is unsafe for a certain level of operation or has obsolete or new increase in a source's potential to worn-out components which cannot be emit occurs whenever the sum of increases minus the sum of the routinely replaced, its potential to emit would be limited by these conditions. decreases is greater than zero. The size Under the proposal, emission of the increase or decrease for a reductions must be reported to the particular emission unit is generally permitting authority to receive future determined by the difference between offset credit (see "Notification"). EPA the unit's potential to emit before apd would accordingly allow full credit for a after the change or series of changes. systematic phase-down or production As mentioned in "Potential-To Emit," curtailment at a source if it is reported the Administrator believes that potential, in advance to the permitting authority. emissions o'f an existing source can be Industry would be allowed to phase in no greater than its actual emission orderly growth without running highly capacity. If a source is no longer polluting, obsolete units at full physically able to operate at its operation, simply to accrue maximum maximum design capacity, its potential offset credit to emit is limited accordingly. For a An adjustment to the potential source physically constrained from emissions rule Is needed in a case where potential emissions are greater than allowable emissions. In such a case, no credit may be taken for reducing potential emissions down'to allowable emissions. This adjustment is needed to implement Congress' intent as interpreted in Alabama Power, that offsets should be permitted as an incentive to upgrade air pollution controls. Slip op. at 23, Where the improvement in 'control technology Would be legally reQuired under.the SIP. the source should not be permitted to take credit for making the legally required decrease. This approach appears in the offset ruling, which was endorsed by Congress. The 1977 Amendments provide that the emissions baseline for calculating offsets under the ruling must be the state plan requirement in effect ai_U>e..tiroe_thesource applies for a permit See section 129(a)(1) of the 1977 Amendments (note under 42 U.S.C. 7502(a)(1)). In addition, allowing offset credit for independently required reductions would make it difficult for the SIP to reduce total emissions in an area where standards or increments are violated. If such offsets were allowed, a source that came into compliance with a required emission limitation could then use the same reduction to offset increases in emitting capacity such that no net increase would occur. Total emissions for the source would remain the same and the violation would still exist. The proposed regulations would avoid this unacceptable result by prohibiting the source from taking credit for such a reduction. Allowable emissions" are defined as the most stringent of fll any new source performance standard or standard for hazardous pollutants applicable to the construction under review,9 (2) applicable' SEP emission Iimits.-or (3) the emission rate specified as an enforceable permit condition. Where there are any enforceable emission limits that musThe complied with in the future, and which are different from the limit currently required, the most stringent of the present and future emission limitations is used in determining the allowable emissions. To continue existing regulations and policies, the Administrator intends that each candidate reduction meet all of the following criteria: (1) It must be enforceable under the applicable SIP, either through a SIP * Here the applicable performance standard or standard for hazardous pollutants refers to the standard that a particular source is subject to and not new standards or revisions ot existing standards which affect the relevant source category but that would not apply to the particular source. 51936 Federal Register / Vol. 44* No. 173 / Wednesday, September 5, 1979 / Proposed Rules revision or an alteration of the source's permit. " . [21 It must be for the same pollutant as theemission increase and have comparable impacts to health and welfare. Section IV.C,4, of the offset ruling, involving credit for hydrocarbon substitution, should apply. The criteria outlined in the proposed policy statement on state implementation of the "bubble" concept for existing sources (44 FR 3743 col. 1] January 16, 1979, would also apply. Accordingly, reductions of pollutants within the same pollutant categories but with different lealth or ambient air impacts cannoTbe traded against each other. r j.3) It must not have been already committed to in the StP, ' 141 Air quality need not improve or stay the same at every location affected pvthe proposed construction, but ori~ balance the affected area should not~5e adversely impacted. The Administrator recognizes a problem associated with crediting - offsets as defined. Under today's 'proposal there is a possible incentive to seek a loose BACT requirement when undergoing PSD review in order to lay an early claim to an excess amount of the increment If an applicant obtains -approval of proposed construction under a loose BACT requirement, he could then alter the proposal to provide for the installation of the better controls so as to offset a future expansion at the same site without full PSD review. The Administrator asks for comments op ^ow best to address this problem. B. Restrictions on Construction. EPA is proposing that the bubble should not apply at all for areas subject to construction restrictions under section 110(a)(2](1] or 173(4). For these provisions, EPA is proposing to define "major modification" as any change in, or change in the method of operation of a major stationary source that results in any increase in the potential to emit of a pollutant for which the source is major if the increase exceeds the de minimis cutoff for the pollutant. (See "De Minimis Exemptions"). EPA believes that the Alabama Power decision, establishing that internal offsets must be permitted in determining applicability of PSD to modifications, does not apply to'section 110(a)(2)(f) or 173(4) restrictions on construction. The offset ruling was essentially an interim policy to allow some further growth while adequate plan revisions were developed. EPA believes that in termining the offset ruling on June 30, 1979, and restricting further major construction until PartD plans are approved and implemented. Congress intended to terminate not only offset transactions between different sources individually minor units at the 5ame site, but also those within the same plant. In after an applicable date, are sufficient to light of this intent, not permitting Qualify the series of changes as a major- internal offsets is particularly important modification. For PSD review, the date because most offset transactions from wtvichTemissions increases are permitted under the offset ruling have aggregated is August 7,1977, (40 CFR involved offsets inside the same source. 51.24(b)(2), 40 CFR 52.-21(b)(2)) and for This interpretation is also required to sources subject to the offset ruling., avoid undermining the purpose of the December 21.1976. 44 FR 3283, col. 1 restrictions on construction. As (January 16,1979). These dates continue discussed in the "Source/Facility/ current EPA'policy. For sources subject Installation" section of the preamble, to Part D plans and restrictions on when a source matches an emission construction affecting designated reduction with an equal amount of nonattainment areas, the applicable increased emissions from new date for accumulation will also be construction, the nonattainment problem December 21,1976. Accumulating net gets harder to solve. This is especially- emission increases from that date true where there is no adequate SIP that forward ensures that modifications demonstrates attainment. EPA believes resulting in emissions which Congress that the'restriction on construction was defined as major will be subject to designed to stop the problem from review under a Part D plan or else to the becoming worse and provide an restrictions on growth. In addition, these incentive for states to submit and carry sources received notice as of December out corrective SIPs. Allowing offset 21,1976 that accumulation could later credit for reductions would instead subject them to nonattainment review. provide an incentive for sources to seek EPA is proposing one change to tis dejays in the adoption of acceptable existing accumulation provision to state plans. Delay would allow sources conform it Vo the court's decision. The more time to convert reductions into offsets before a plan requiring those current accumulation regulation aggregates emission increases after an reductions can be adopte and approved. An alternative to prohibiting the bubble outright may be to allow no offset credit for reducing potential emissions down to the level that would be required if reasonably available control technology (RACT) were applied. Since RACT is required in approvable Part D SIPs, the effect would be to discount credit for reductions that would be legally required if an approvable SIP were in place, Such a policy would preserve the incentive to submit adequate SIP revisions for affected areas. While Congress removed a similar RACT baseline from the offset ruling, in applicable date, with no credit given for contemporaneous emission decreases. - The court, however, defined modification as a net increase in potential to emit. To make the " accumulation provision consistent with this definition, EPA is proposing that a source be subject to NSR when the aggregate net increase in its potential to emit after the applicable date qualifies it as a major stationary source. As in the existing regulations, only net emission increases after August 7,1977 for PSD sources, and December 21.1976 for ~ .^sources subject to nonattainment requirements will be considered in section 129(a) of the 1977 Amendments, determining if a source is subject to EPA does not believe that Congress NSR. prohibited a similar approach where Under this approach, if a modification areas do not have, or have failed to at a minor source results in a net implement, acceptable Part D plans. A increase in emissions, such that its major drawback to this approach, aggregate net increases in potential however, is that RACT may be difficult emissions since the date of concern to define in the absence of-a full exceeds the applicable 100/250-ton regulatory proceeding, such as those threshold, the modification will be required for SIP submission and subject to review. This approach approvals. Therefore, EPA is proposing requires review for a single modification instead to prohibit internal offsets in to a minor source constructed before the areas subject to construction applicable date when the modification restrictions. However, EPA also invites results in a net increase in potential comment on the alternative approach of emissions of over the applicable 100/ permitting offset credit in areas where 250-ton threshold. the growth prohibitions apply if RACT ' Once a pf inrfiniHiial minnr were first applied. changes accumulates to a major C. Accumulation. As noted above, modification, questions arise concerning^ EPA proposes to continue the current the degree of review that would apply to policy of requiring NSR for a source the earlier emission increases. In when aggregate new emissions from general, today's proposal would iocus S A L 0 0 0 0 5 2.0.1.9 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No; 173 / Wednesday, September 5, 1979 / Proposed Rules 51937 the requirement to apply BApT nr I.AER date would be the date a complete Total Suspended particulates--10 tons per _ on only that emissions increate which application for the major modification is year. makes the source snbiect to review. On the other hand, total aggregated emissions from the source will be of concern when performing air quality tests. Such tests include increment filed and not the date on which the first unit of the then-minor source was constructed. X. "De Minimis" Exemption Sulfur dioxide--10 tons per year. Ozone--10 tons per year of volatile organic compounds. Lead--1 ton per year. Mercury--.2 tons per year. Beryllium--0.004 ton per year. analysis for PSD sources and those In the Alabama Power decisioh. the Asbestos--l ton per year. relevant to emission offsets for sources ' subject to nonattainment NSR. Any subsequent modification at the source resulting in a net increase in potential to emit that exceeds the de minimis cutoff will be subject to NSR. , , ,. court provided that EPA may exempt from review those situations determined to be de minimis. Specifically, the court stated; "The Agency does possess authority, inherent in the statutory scheme, to overlook circumstances that Fluorides--0.02 ton per year. Sulfuric acid mist--1 ton per year. ^ Vinyl chloride--1 ton per year. Total Reduced Sulfur. Hydrogen sulfide--1 ton per year. Methyl mercaptan--1 ton per year. Dimethyl sulfide--1 ton per year. The accumulation approach as in context fairly may be considered de Dimethyl disulfide--1 ton per year. modified to conform with the court's minimis" Slip op. at 10.The court spoke Reduced Sulfur Compounds: ,, decision closes a loophole in EPA's . of the administrator's ability to exempt, Hydrogen sulfide (see above). current regulations. Previously, a ^ from review modifications with small - Carbon disulfide--10 tons per year. modification was not subject to review net increases and io dispense with the Carbonyl sulfide--10 tons per year. unless it increased a source's potential emissions by 100 or 250 tons per year, whichever was applicable. Under both the existing and proposed accumulation provision, a power plant constructed after the date of concern which emits 90 tons of SO* and then adds a new 50 ton SOj boiler, would be subject to control' technology requirements for the 50-ton unit and to air quality review for the entire facility. Under the existing provision, if the plant then added ' another 90-ton boiler, however, the boilefwould not be subject to existing review requirements because it would not meet the 100-ton threshold. This is true because the current regulations allow the accumulation slate to be wiped clean after a-permit was obtained. Under the approach proposed today, any net increase in potential to emit after the source becomes major is subject to review. Consequently, fhe next 90-ton increase would be subject to review, unless there were sufficient contemporaneous emission decreases. ' BACT and monitoring requirements through the application of de minimis thresholds for those pollutants emitted by an otherwise subject source. The court did limit the Administrator's discretion in formulating such exemption cutoffs by stating that a costeffectiveness rationale would not be appropriate. The Administrator is today proposing to exercise this authority by establishing a pollutant specific exemption system that excludes of limits review of proposed construction having emissions or air quality impacts below certain values. Table 1 contains for each Pollutant regulated under the Act an emission cutoff that would be . Considered insignificant or de minimis. Table 1 would have two principal nses. First, it would be used to show that the net increase associated with a ifiodification would be de minimis for all pollutants for which the source is major. In nonattainment areas, this Even if a modification cannot be 'shown to be minor, Table 1 can be used to limit the pollutants for which BACT must be applied or an air Quality analysis done. If a modification to a source is subject to review becauselt pesults in a significant net increase in potential emissions ol a pollutant for which the source is major, or a new source is subject to review because it vyill have the potential to emit a regulated pollutant in major amounts, the source may still avoid BACT or an air quality analysis for other pollutants it emits if it emits such pollutants in de minimis amounts. Table 1 identifies the emission cutoffs that would trigger the need for control technology and ambient review for those other pollutants. Thus, when a maior stationary source or modification is subject to PSD review because of potential emissions of one or more pollutants the review would apply to only those other pollutants which the snurcLwould have the potential to emit The de minimis exemption, as discussed more fully in the section on "De Minimis Exemptions," would also apply to emissions from major modifications on a cumulative basis. Once a minor source is subject to review demonstration would involve only the nonattainment pollutantfs), while a showrofifor all regulated pollutants for which the source is major would be required of modifications at major ^stationary sources in PSD areas. A in amounts a hove those proposed in Table 1. No notice requirement is necessary for these pollutants since the sourceormodification would make the de minimis demonstration as part of its permit application. because its aggregate potential suceessful showing would exempt a Table 2 is proposed as an additional emissions make it major, any future net modification from PSD and mechanism to limit the air quality emission increase will also be reviewed nonattainment permit requirements. review for certain pollutants which the unless it qualifies as a de minimix However, such a source would be source would have the potential to emit increase. However, any future de required to provide notice to the in significant amounts but which Have minimis net increase from a Administrator and, therein, make the de an insignificant ambient impact. This : modification will be cumulated with net minimis demonstration (see section on may occur'frequently since many'of the increases from subsequent "NOTIFICATION"). The proposed emission values in Table 1 were derived modifications to determine if total net regulations incorporate the de minimis from the air quality levels in Table 2 in a increases exceed the applicable de concept by requiring that major preliminary analysis that used very minimis cutoff. modifications have a significant net , conservative modeling assumptions. The Finally, if a minor source becomes increase in potential emissions. values in Table 2 represent a small major through accumulation of its emissions and the source is located in a PSD area where no baseline date Table 1--Guidelines for Significant Emission Rates fraction of those ambient levels deemed to be protective of public health and welfare. Table 2 does not apply to ^applies, that source's application for a Pollutant and Emission Rate pollutants for which a new major source major modification permit will trigger a Carbon monoxide--100 tons per year. would emit in excess of the applicable" baseline date for the area. The baseline Nitrogen dioxide--10 tons per year., 100/250-ton threshold nor does it annlv 0000 :j020 51938. ' Federal Register / Vol, 44, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 5, 1979 / Proposed Rules major construction that wouid locate subject to PSD would emit 275 tons of in a nonattainment area or would SOj blit only 5 tons per year of PM and adversely impact a Uass 1 areaT 50 tons per year of both nitrogen dioxide (NO,) and volatile organic compounds Table 2--Guidelines for Significant Ambient (VOC), A BACT analysis would be Air Quality Impacts necessary for S03, NO,, and VOC but Pollutant and Air Quality Impact not for PM. An amhient air quality Carbon monoxide--500 pg/m1, 8-hour avg. Nitrogen dioxide--lpg/m1. annual. analysis would be required for SOj. The source could do a screening* analysis to Total suspended particulates--S pg/m1, 24- determine if an ambient analysis is also ' hour. required for NO,. No ambient analysis Sulfur, dioxide--5 pg/m1, 24-hour. - Ozone--~ Lead--.03 pg/ra1, 3-month. Mercury--0.1 pg/m1, 24-hour. Beryllium--.005 pg/m1, 24-hour. Asbestos--1 pg/m1, 1-hour. Fluorides--.01 pg/m1. 24-hour. , would be required for the VOC ` emissions because the potential VOC emissions are under 100 tons per year. The numbers proposed in Table 2 for . criteria pollutants reflect the levels of' significant impact promulgated in the - Sulfuric acid mist--1 pg/m1, 24-hour. existing PSD regulations on June 9-1978 Vinyl chloride--l pg/m1, maximum value. (43 FR 26398), while the de minimis air Total reduced sulfur: "quality guidance proposed for beryllium, Hydrogen sulfide--1 pg/m1,1-hour. Methyl mercaptan--.5 pg/m1,1-hour. - Dintethyl sulfide--.5 pg/m1,1-hour. Dimethyl disulfide--2 pg/m1, l-hour. Reduced sulfur compounds: Hydrogen sulfide (see above). , Carbon disulfide--200 pg/m1. 1-hour. fluorides, and mercury has been derived from health effects data contained in the report entitled "Effects of Trace Qpntaminants from Coal Combustion"-- proceedings of an ERDA workshop conference August 2-6,1976. The ' Carbonyl sulfide--200 pg/m1,1-hour. remaining de minimis air quality . In order toutilize Table 2, sources are required to use a preliminary screening technique to determine if their air quality impact will exceed the acceptable de minimis guidelines. The , screening technique is set forth in Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning and Analysis Vol. 10 IRevised): Procedures for Evaluating Air Quality Impact of New Stationary .Sources (October 1977. U.S. EPA. Office guidance was formulated following a review of state ambient air quality standards, state emission regulations, and background documents used to develop standards tinder 40 CFR Parts 00 and 61. The one exception to this pattern in Table 2 is ozone. The Administrator here is proposing the major source cutoff of 100 tons per year as the value to trigger ambient concern after BACT has been applied. A oLAirJjualitv Planning and Standards. background document will be issued by Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711). If a EPA providing the methodology, data, source's ambient impacts are expected to exceed the de minimis guidelines and references used in developing both Table 1 and 2. using this conservative technique, it may The Administrator would like to point elect to do a more sophisticated out that the proposed de minimis modeling analysis to demonstrate a de numbers, particularly the air quality minimis impact. Upon a showing that values, may be too high or too low. the anticipated impact of a regulated Because of the urgency associated with pollutant would be less than significant, today's proposal, the numbers identified a major stationary source or major in Tables 1 and 2 are not supported by modification would not face the detailed extensive analysis. Public comment or * ambient impact analyses of PSD for that followup investigations may result in pollutant (subject to the exceptions changes in the numbers in the final noted above). Thus, such a source would package. pot be required to do an analysis for its Although the values in Table 1 and impact on increments and standards. Table 2 are subject to change, the Norwould such a source be required to Administrator belie ves that de minimis analyze its effect on soils, vegetation, guidelines are necessary. EPA believes end visibility or to conduct any ambient that these exemptions are not only monitoring studies. justified by the associated insignificant The following is an example of how air quality impacts but also by' the proposed dual de minimis approach administrative necessity. The potential would work. Suppose a new source* administrative burden of processing permits for nearly every minor change at 11 No de minimis air quality level is proposed for a major stationary source appears ozone. However, any net increase of 100 tons per year of volatile organic compounds subject to PSD would be required to perform an ambient impact analysis, including the gathering of ambient air quality data. unmanageable. For example, if no de minimis exemption were provided, any new element in an oil refinery, including a valve or small space heater, would be subject to NSR. In the Agency's view, neither air quality nor efficient administrative operation are served by requiring preconstruction review for such changes, or for new sources with a comparable impact. In addition to requesting comments on the proposed values in Tables 1 and 2, the Administrator solicits comments regarding the need for both air quality and emission de minimis numbers and the need to put either directly into the regulations. XI. Geographic Applicability This section addresses issues raised by the court's interpretation of the geographic applicability of the PSD regulations. Four major topics are discussed: (1) sources constructing in designated nonattainment areas, (2) sources constructing in designated attainment or unclassifiable areas, (3) VOC source considerations, and (4) interstate pollution. A. Designated Nonattainment Areas. In the Alabama Power decision, the court held that the PSD provisions apply only to major sources either locating in areas specifically designated as attainment or unclassifiable under section 107 ("clean air areas"), or locating in any area from which the source would substantially impact a clean air area In another state. EPA has Tiled a petition'foF reconsideration regarding the court's restriction of the geographic applicability of the PSD provisions of the Act, In the petition, EPA argues that Congress interide'd PSD review to apply to major construction, whether located inside or outside a designated nonattainment area, that would significantly impact any clean area. The Agency argued further that, even if the court does not accept EPA's entire position, the court should rule that the PSD provisions should apply to any major construction that would impact a Class I area or a tribal reservation. The Administrator believes that as much as 40 percent of the total acreage of the mandatory Class I areas is located in or adjacent to formally designated nonattainment areas, and must be protected against the impact of new construction in the nonattainment areas. Today's proposal conforms to the court's June 18,1979 opinion. EPA would 'require permits only for major construction occurring in designated attainment or unclassifiable areas or for construction in a designated nonattainment area that would significantly impact a clean air area in another state. If the court alters its opinion as EPA asked it to do. EPA will have to reconsider this proposal. S A i... o 0 () 3 q 2 j 1_ Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 5, 1979 / Proposed Rules 51939 EPA is also proposing to extend NSR attainment or unclassifiable.11 In under section 173. If no Part D plan were under section 173 and the offset ruling, addition, EPA has proposed that the in effect and carried out after the and the Part D restrictions on growth, to restriction on construction for a . deadline for having such a plan. EPA cover major sources everywhere in the designated nonattainment area with an then proposed that the restrictions on designated nonattainment area. This inadequate (or inadequately construction described in sections rule would apply regardless of whether implemented) Part D plan should apply 110(a)(2)(l) and 173(4) would apply, the source could demonstrate that It to major construction outside of the through strict application of the would not significantly impact the area, if it would significantly impact on language of section 165(a)(3)(B), EPA specific point(s) of violation. This would any point(s) of violation in the area. (44 invites comment on whether the more be a change to the current policy, which FR 38585, July 2.1979.) relaxed approach now under now allows a source to be exempt from-' Although specific regulatory language consideration would satisfy the . nonattainment requirements if it makes is not being proposed, EPA is requirements of section 165(a)(3)(B). such a demonstration. considering changing its policy on the This change in approach is not The above change is needed to applicability of nonattainment required by the court's opinion in overcome a very significant shortcoming requirements to sources in designated Alabama Power. The courts decision . that would otherwise be created in the clean areas. Under the approach being was'based on its interpretation of the regulatory system. Under the current - considered, nonattainment requirements phrase-"any area to which this part . regulations, proposed major sources in ..would only apply to proposed major applies" in section 165 and a review of designated nonattainment areas with no construction either inside a designated other provisions in the Act. In contrast, significant impact on the violations , nonattainment area, or proposed in a section 172(b)(6) simply states that could be exempted from nonattainment designated clean area for a site where nonattainment preconstruction review -^requirements because they are made an ambient standard is actually should apply to "new and modified -- subject to PSD preconstruction review violated. State plan requirements major stationary sources." There is no requirements. But, under Alabama providing for NSR under section 173 of language limiting Part D review to Power and the regulations now being the Act would apply only to major sources in any particular area. Likewise, proposed, such major sources would usually not be subject to PSD requirements. It would be inequitable and contrary to the apparent statutory purpose to allow such major sources to be totally exempt from any preconstruction review permit requirements, including no minimum emission control requirement and no evaluation of air quality impact Therefore, EPA proposes to eliminate " _ the shortcoming by extending nonattainment requirements to all major 'sources constructing in designated nonattainment areas. If the court accepts EPA's petition for rehearing, and extends PSD requirements to more sources in designated nonattainment areas, EPA may reconsider this ' proposal. construction within the designated nonattainment area. Likewise, the restrictions on construction for failure to have or carry out a Part D plan would apply to major construction only within the designated nonattainment area. The offset ruling would apply to major source construction at a site where the standard is violated within a designated clean area. Major construction that would have a significant impact on a violation of a standard anywhere, but locating where the standard is attained, would still have to reduce its imapct enough so that it would not cause or nontribute to the violation. The source could reduce its the offset ruling which was ratified by Congress in section 129 of the 1977 Amendments, applies by its terms to all sources wherever located, that cause or contribute to an ambient violation. Finally, section 165 requires that prior to construction a source cannot create a violation anywhere. There is no comparable language in Part D saying that Part D sources must orotect PSD increments; All of these factors tend to distinguish the nonattainment program from the PSD program, so that Alabama Power should not be viewed as governing geographic applicability of v nonattainment requirements. impact the needed amount by applying Although neither the court's opinion more emission controls, by obtaining nor the statute prohibit the application offsets, or both. of nonattainment requirements to PSD EPA has earlier proposed the legal sources, EPA believes that there may be "' B. Designated Attainment and argument that the existing, more significant policy and administrative - Unclassifiable Areas. The court's restrictive approach is requirecHiy reasons for limiting the applicability of decision in the Alabama Power case section 165(a)(3)(B). This section states nonattainment NSR in this way. The addressed only the issue of whether the that no source subject to PSD review PSD requirement of BACT and air PSD requirements of the Act apply to may be constructed unless the permit quality offsets (i.e., an impacting source sources in designated nonattainment applicant demonstrates that the source must offset its contribution to a violation areas. The court did not address the will not cause or contribute to air anywhere) provides sufficient air quality issue of whether the Agency may apply pollution in excess of any national protection for an area that is neither the nonattainment preconstruction ambient air.quality standard in any air designated nonattainment nor is permit requirements of the Act to quality region. In the earlier proposal, actually violating the standard. ; sources locating in areas designated - EPA stated the view that this provision Application of all nonattairynent attainment or unclassifiable. . applies to any source whose own requirements to PSD sources will be ,Currently, major sources in designated emissions, irrespective of offsets, causes burdensome to both the permitting attainment or unclassitiabie areas that or contributes to the violation, 44 FR authority and the permit applicant. would cause or contribute to a violation 38584 (July 2,1979). In the proposal, EPA On the other hand, there may be of a standard anywhere, are required to interpreted the literal language of important program reasons for having meet ali applicable nonattainment section 165(a)(3)(B) as forbidding any the offset ruling continue to apply, aiong requirements. These include state plan such source to construct at all. EPA saw with PSD requirements, to proposed requirements adopted to meet Part D of this prohibition overridden only if the construction at a site designated as the Act for neighboring designated source satisfied all conditions of the clean but where there is a violation of nonattainment areas, and offset ruling requirements for newly discovered offset ruling or a state plan program the standard. Construction at a site where there is a violation ordinarily has violations in areas designated - 11 See 44 FR 3Z75 col. 4. January 16,1979. the greatest impact on the violation, and 51940 Federal Register f VoL 44. No. 173 / Wednesday, September 5, 1979 / Proposed Rules is therefore most in need of stringent - - monitor was considered inequitable " ' standard violation should be presumed nonattainment controls. In addition, treatment of VOC sources which (1) to extend. In the ahsence of monitoring retaining offset ruling requirements for would not be able to avoid the data, there would be a presumption that construction at sites with ambient nonattainment requirements by reducing the standard is attained throughout an viqlationa would reduce any incentive emissions so that the impact is less than area designated as attainment - states and sources might otherwise have_ significant (2) would be subject to offset The Agency is of the opinion that to include too much territory within the requirements even if the source is exceedances of the ozone standard can .boundaries of designated clean areas. significantly farther away from the be found in all directions from a major This approach is legally permissible . violation than would be required for city. Thus, a source proposing to locate because, as explained above. EPA particulate or sulfur dioxide sources that upwind of a nearby city should expect . believes nonattainment requirements impact on PM or SO violations, and (3) to find ozone NAAQS exceedances including the offset ruling may apply would be subject to offset requirements when monitoring according to EPA's regardless of the applicable designation. based on less rigorous technical monitoring procedures found in Ambient ^However, EPA also invites comment on estimates than required for PM and SO? . Air Monitoring Guidelines for whether such construction should be sources. . ' Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration. totally exempt from nonattainment In response to the comments received, OAQPS No. 1.2-096, U.S. EPA. Research requirements including the offset ruling, the Agency proposes to eliminate the 36 Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. A as is proposed for other construction in hour rule as a criterion for determining, policy memorandum outlining the designated clean areas. . whether of not a VOC source will background data for this derision has In addition, if EPA should adopt thi3 impact a nonattainment area. Under the been made a part of the Docket14 applicability approach, EPA seeks proposal, EPA would assume that D. Interstate Pollution. The court's comments on whether states should be proposed construction: would have a discussion of the geographic allowed time to consider adjusting significant impact on an ozone violation applicability of PSD raises issues boundaries of existing area designations only if the source is physically within concerning interstate pollution. The before EPA'changes its policy. the boundaries of a designated court in Alabama Power gave new C. Geographic Applicabilityfor VOC nonattainment area'or is at a site in emphasis to protection against interstate Sources- Whatever approach is taken on another area where the ozone standard pollution of PSD areas, pointing to the legal and policy issue discussed is actually violated. If a source were in a sections 160{4] and 110(a)(2)(E)(i) of the above, it will be'hecessary to determine, designated attainment or unclassifiable Act as prohibiting emissions that would as a factual matter, whether a standard area at a site where there is no violation interfere with another state's PSD plan. is violated at any particular site, and ofthe ozone standard, EPA proposes to Alabama Power, Slip op. at 28-27. The whether a major.source at that site treat the source as having no significant Agency seeks- comment on when a would significantly contribute to a impact on any ozone violation source shuld be subject to review violation elsewhere. This raises anywhere. because of its interstate impacts and particular difficult issues for sources of The monitoring required for a PSD -volatile organic compounds. permit would in most cases indicate On publishing its offset ruling on ' , whether the particular site attains the January 16,'1979, the Agency sought ozone standard13 However, in some public comment on applicability issues cases, a source located in a designated [ specific to sources of volatile organic clean area with potential emissions over compounds (VOC) that would impact an 100 tons but less than 250 tons will not area of ozone NAAQS violation. be subject to PSD review but may be Atmospheric simulation techniques are , - subject to review under the offset generally not available to estimate the ruling.13 Unlike PSD, the offset ruling ah quality impact of an individual VOC does not require monitoring. For any source. In. the offset ruling, the Agency sources covered by this ruling, but not proposed the policy that, in lieu of - PSD, it may therefare-be necessary to modeling, a major VOC source would be determine, without monitoring of the subject to review, as significantly , particular site, whether the ozone contributing to the"violation, if it . standard is violated. To simplify such proposed construction within 3&hours' determinations, EPA is considering travel time of a nonattainment monitor, whether a violation measured at one under wind conditions associated with monitor should be presumed to extend the ozone concentrations found to throughout the entire county where the exceed the NAAQS for ozone. monitor is located, or to some other area Comments were solicited on the final around the monitor thought to be establishment of the "3fl hour rule." representative of air quality. Comment Industry comments have raised 1 is invited on the question of how far significant questions on the technical around a monitored violation the* 11 basis for the rule. Also, states with thorough ozone monitoring networks Th Agency currently allows a source to subject commented that the rule gave a itself to the full offset ruling requirements without how to set emission limits necessary to protect against pollution that interferes, or may interfere, with another state's PSD measures. The Agency intends to continue using the already established levels of significance for determining whether an impact on a Class II or HI area warrants review. See, e,g. 43 FR 26398 (June 19, 1978). EPA also proposes to maintain its current policy of allocating increment consumption equally at state lines in cases of interstate disputes. Comments are sought on this approach. Finally, EPA is considering whether interference with another state's PSD program is adequately prevented by permitting sources located in one state but impacting on another state, to use onehalf of the remaining increment at the points of impact in the other state. ETA solicits comments on whether interstate protection should be broadened to require compliance with emission limitations or other PSD requirements contained in the plan of the substantially impacted state. competitive economic advantage to states with less sufficient monitoring systems. Other comments noted that the' 36 hour rule presents an all-or-nothing preconstruction VOC monitoring to allow immediate commencement of construction, so long as poet-construction monitoring is undertaken to determine whether there is a violation requiring a SIP revision under Part D. XIL Pollutant Applicability The regulations proposed today would ' maintain the practice of determining situation requiring full or no offsets. The requirement for full offsets at potentially long distances from a nonattainment 11 The offset ruling applies to all sources with potential emissions of TOO tons or more, while for PSD some kinds of sources are not subject to review unless potential emissions are 250 tons or more. 'June 2S, 197&, memorandum from Walter C Barber to David G. Hawkins regarding Policies for New or Modified VOC Sources. Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 173 / Wednesday, September S. 1979 / Proposed Rules 51941 pollutant by pollutant whether a source applicable nonattainment provisions for (8) A new plant'which would be a 50- ia subject to PSD review, nonattainment SOi. No PSD or nonattainment tpy source of both SO, and HC proposes review or both. However, in accordance requirements would be applicable for to construct in an area designated with the Alabama Power decision, once HC because nonattainment - nonattainment for SO, and ozone. a source is subject to PSD review, it requirements apply only to pollutants Neither PSD nor any nonattainment NSR muBt meet the applicable control for which the source is major. This under section 173, the offset ruling, or- Technology and air quality.analysis assumes that the source would affect no the section 110 restrictions on requirements for each pollutant. For clean air area in another state. construction would apply. nonattainment NSR, only emissions of (3) A modification to the example (1) the nonattainment pollutant are subjecf plant which Would cause a significant XIII. Baseline Concentration , to the applicable review requirements. , net increase in both SO, emissions and The term "baseline concentration" Under today's proposal, a 1 ~ HC emissions would be subject to PSD generally means'the actual ambient modification would be subject to PSD if review for SOj as well as HC. concentration levels of pollutants in an it would result in a significant net ~ Nonattainment review for the net HC area as of the applicable baseline date. Increase in the emissions of any emission increase would not be This term is applicable only for sources regulated pollutant for which thelource applicable, unless the new construction of SO, and PM. The baseline '/is major. In addition, the area must be would itself qualify as a major concentration of an area is important designated attainment or unclassifiable modification. because all emissions not counted in the for the pollutant, or designated " (4) Modification afan existing source _ baseline~concentration count against nonattainment if the source impacts a PSD area in another state. In contrast, tbe NSR requirements of section 173, the offset ruling, or the section 110(a)(2}(I) - _ construction restrictions would apply only to a modification which would of 50 tpy SOj emissions, itself constructed since December 21,1970, in a nonattainment area for SOi, adding a new unit with 90 tpy SOi emissions,, would subject the source to nonattainment requirements. Allowable increments. EPA's current regulations set a uniform baseline date of August 7.1977 (40 CFR 51.24(b)(ll), 52.21(b)(ll) (1978)) .as explained at 43 FR 28400 (June 19, 1978). The court in Alabama Power result in a significant net increase in the amount of the nonattainment pollutant which the source already emits in major amounts (i.e., 100 or more tons per year}. A large addition or a-series of small additions since the applicable time of concern at an existing "minor" source would be treated as a "major modification": Provided, That the net emissions resulting from the addition or . additions, in conjunction with the emissions from'the existing minor Source would exceed the applicable threshold for a major stationary source (5) Construction of a new source with potential emissions of 500 tpy HC and 50 tpy SO* locating in an ozone nonattainment area would subject the source only to nonattainment review. Since the source is not major for other pollutants regulated under the Act for which the area is designated unclassifiable or attainment, PSD would ..not apply. (6) Modification to a source with .emissions of 500 tpy SO, and 50 tpy HC in an area designated nonattainment for found that this uniform baseline date . deviated impermissibly from section 169(4) of the Act, whicji generally, defines baseline in terms of the ambient concentration existing at the time of the first application for a permit in an area. Slip op. at 37. As a consequence of the court's decision, EPA proposes to remove the - uniform baseline date of August 7,1977, and set the baseline concentration at the time after August 7,1977, "of the first application for a permit in an area subject to this part" Section 169(4), 42 (see discussion on "Accumulation" in both SO, and ozone, resulting in 20-ton U.S.C. 7479(4). ' "Modification"). '' -ne't increases in the level of emissions In order to implement the mandate The applicability ofthe proposed for both pollutants, would subject the expressed in section 169(4), EPA regulations to new sources is more source to applicable nonattainment generally intends to define "area subject straightforward. For PSD, a new source- provisions onl^ior the SO, emission to this part" on the basis of AQCRs. is subject to review if its potential to increase. There is no requirementTn the When a major stationary source or emit any pollutant regulated under the ftonattainment provisions of the Act major modification for any pollutant Act would make it a major stationary comparable to the requirement in the regulated under the Act applies for a source. Nonattainment review s- PSD provisions, that subjects'a source to PSD permit in a part of an AQCR applicability again requires that the. review for all regulated pollutants it designated as unclassifiable or nonattainment pollutant be potentially emits once it is subject to review foFone attainment undej section 107(d)(1) (D) or emitted in major amounts. pollutant. I (E) ("clean air areas"), it establishes the " Examples of the proposed (71 A new source with potential baseline date for both PM and SO, in all applicability'follow: - /' emissions of 150 tnv of PM located in an parts of the AQCR that are designated (1) Construction of a new plant with yea designated attainment for PM but attainment or unclassified for these potential emissions of 500 tons per year impacting on a violation in a designated - pollutants. (tpy) SO, and 50 tpy hydrocarbons [HC] nonattainment area to which a Part D ~ As mentioned in the section entitled - locating-in an area designated plan applies. Under the regulations , `Transition," the new definitions of attainment for SOi but nonattainment . proposed today, the source would be ' major stationary source and major for ozone would be subject to PSD 'subject to both PSD and nonattainment modification would be used to trigger preconstruction review for both requirements (see "Geographic- baseline dates after August 7,1977. The pollutants. PSD review fBACT and air Applicability discussion l/l'his would baseline date would be the time that an quality analysis requirements) applies to include application of LAElC : application for such major construction anv pollutant emitted bv the source once certification of statewide compliance by was filed which was substantially the flonrce i subject to review for one .pollutant, other sources owned or opera lud by thg complete for purposes of complying with source owner or operator, sufficient the applicable PSD regulations. (2) Construction of the same plant described in example (1) in a nonattainment area for both SOi and ozone would be subject solely to offsets to insure reasonable further Therefore, sources applying for PSD progress in the nonattainment area, permits under the existing regulations reconstruction monitoring aBcT .. - which would not qualify as major ncrement analysis. - construction under the final regulation. -51942 Federal Register / Vol. 44. No, 173 / Wednesday. September 5, 1979 / Proposed Rules would not trigger the baseline date. Similarly, sources that were not subject to the existing regulations but would be under the final ones would not have -triggered the baseline date since no PSD application was filed. ThiA definition is proposed to conform to the court's _ mandate, to minimize administrative and technical problems, and to preserve future growth options to the states. The phrase "area to which (the PSD) part applies" in section 165 includesdean air areas and those nonattainment areas for which major construction is proposed that would have a substantial _ impact on a dean air area in another state. Clean air areas must be AQCR's or portions thereof. Section 107,42 U.S.C. 7407. EPA's proposed definition of "area" for purposes of the section 169(4) baseline date thus comports with the term "area" as used in sections 107 and 165..EPA, however, has asked the courtio reconsider and broaden its interpretation of "area" in section 165 and should the court do so, EPA's proposal under 169(4) might be affected. In formulating its proposed definition of "area subject to (the PSD) part," EPA weighed the ease of administration under competing interpretations. The .courts have recognized that a policy of ``regularity and simplicity in regulation should be respected. See. e.g., Hercules, Inc. v. EPA. 12 ERC1376,1394 (1978). 'Under EPA's proposal, the baseline date is uniform for all clean air areas throughout an AQCR. This minimizes the administrative problems thatwould result from the profusion of different baseline starting points in the same AQCR.. For example, if "area" was " . defined by a source's area of impact, cumbersome recordkeeping procedures would be required. As more sources applied for PSD permits, areas of source impact would begin to overlap and the system would grow more complex. Such a system would be'difficult for EPA to implement at a national level. The Administrator does recognize that the AQCR proposal as the baseline area' would also have some potential for implementation problems. Consider the case where a PSD source would locate in one AQCR but would also impact significantly a neighboring AQCR in the same state. Under today's proposal, such a source would trigger only the baseline date in the AQCR of location although it would consume increment in the adjacent AQCR. The Administrator specifically requests comment on the idea that only one baseline date should -be established in the above example. The proposal also reflects the Administrator's continuing concern that EPA's temporary implementation of the PSD program preserve future growth options of the state. 43 FR 26401 (June XIV. Best Available Control Technology 19,1978). Many states have, in some cases, designated dean air areas more narrowly than by AQCR. If a state can in its revised SIP define "area" for purposes of baseline concentration as narrowly as a designated portion of an AQCR this might have the effect of , establishing a later baseline date for some'areas and increasing the amount Section 165(a) of the Act provides in part that any "major emitting facility" to be constructed in a PSD area must apply best available control technology (BACT) "for each pollutant subject to regulation under this Act emitted from, or which results from, such facility." 42 U.S.C. 7475(a)(4). In the existing PSD regulations, EPA limited the BACT of increment available for growth. This requirement to each-pollutant for which might be attractive to a state, espedally a major stationary source or major if it feels the administrative and modification would be "major." 40 CFR technical problems caused by 51.24(i)(l), 52.21 (i)(l) (1978). For proliferating baseline dates could be example, if a major stationary source in overcome. However, if EPA were to one of the 28 categories would emit only define "areals each dean air area 50 tons per year of carbon monoxide, it designation or source impact area, a would not have to apply BACT for that state that wanted, to expand the ' pollutant. definition to AQCR*wide or statewide to In Alabama Power, the court held that ease administrative or technical . EPA had no authority to limit the BACT problems might feel constrained from requirement in that way. Slip op. at 31. It doing so. This is because the expansion did hold, though, that EPA has authority of "area" might result in ah earlier _to apply de minimis thresholds to the baseline date such that less increment BACT requirement, as long as they are would be available for future growth. "formulated with reasoned See the additional discussion in "PSD consideration for their context, with SIP REVISIONS." Therefore. EPA is attention to the nature of the pollutant proposing to allow states some involved." Id. . flexibility in defining "area" to which a In response to the court's decision. baseline date applies. EPAii~pT&tiosins td~feomrea major EPA spedfically solicits comments on stationary source or major modifir-atinn its proposed definition of "area subject to apply BACTToTearh regulated to (the PSD) part." Commenters are pollutant that it wouklmil^See urged to address the legal, proposed 51^4(f)(1) and 52.21(j)(l). administrative and technical effect of loilhaAcLprovides ii any other definition, as well as the effect part'that any "major emitting facilitate- on future growth options of the states. be constructed irra PSD area must fpply Finally, EPA generally intends to continue the actual emissions concept (explained at 43 FR 26400 (June 19, 1978)) in calculating baseline concentration as of the applicable baseline date. In the June 19,1978 promulgation, EPA outlined certain exceptions to a strict use of an actual emissions concept made necessary by certain real world concerns. For example, sources that w'ould increase actual-emissions by expanding hours of operation (allowed under the SIP) or as a result of a SIP relaxation pending on bestuvBfiabiBTSjntrot techntjlogj (BACT) \for eadipoilutant subject to regulafionVuder this Act emitted from, t_"Or which reSults frnm. such facility." 42 U.S.C 7475(aJJ4). In the eSustin^PSD regulations. n3lA limitedjhe^BACT requirement to each pollutant for which a major-stationary source or major modification would be "major." 40 CFR 5124{i)(l)rJ52.2l(iJ(l) (1926). For example, if a majo^statianaxy source in one of the 28 categorW would ends only 50 tons per year of caroon monoxide, it would not have to apply_BACTfor that pollutant. _ or before the baseline date, were In Ajpbtnffa Pow&r, the court held that granted relief under the-current EP^frad no authority to limit the BACT regulations. The Administrator is . requlrement-intktat way. Slip op. at 31. It proposing to continue such exemptions did hold, though, tKaTEPAJtas authority and believes that another situation may to apply de ntmimis thresholds to require similar attention. BACT requirement, as long i Specifically, large groups of gas-fired "formulated^with reasoned^ boilers in the Gulf Coast area have been consideration fortfreircbntext, permitted to bum oil due to a possible attentiqnAo-tfrS'hature of thef ]polh natural gas shortage in the future. The inv affected units involve burners that could In re* 2. the court's derision, have accommodated such a fuel-switch EPA isiuoposing to reqttifv_amaj or \ before January 6,1975 as well as some stationary source or major modification that were altered to accommodate the to apply BACT for each regulated ' alternate fuel after this date. itant that it would emit !->AL 000052035 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 173 / Wednesday. September-5, 1979 / Proposed Rules 51943 proposed IS 51.24(i)(l) and52.21(i)(l). "EPA intends to comply with the court's r modeling to estimate the air quality As noted in-the section on "Transition^ ruling by requiring an ambient air impact of these pollutants. As tSTnetyrStprireiffent wonld epplv nnly_ quality analysis for all regulated monitoring techniques are developed, to a source ormotSHcatinn whose__ pollutants. The analysis generally will notices of availability will be published application for a fiSSneanit is nof. be required to include ambient ' in the Federal Register and sources will complete before T^'ql"~rT,TTl`?rf "'mpu monitoring data. To meet the monitoring be required to apply these techniques. into effect. - - -N requirement, a proposed source will In meeting the requirements for EPA believes that closely tailored de have to establish an appropriate preconstruction monitoring, minimis exemptions may be monitoring network prior to applying Fo:- representative air quality data, as unnecessary, since in setting BACT, the a PSD permit, or will have to gather anc determined through modeling may be ^permitting authority may take into account the relative cost of the various analyze representative air monitoring data resulting from ongoing monitoring appropriate for some sources. In particular, representative data may be control alternatives. See sections 169(3), activities. adequate for isolated sources, where 42 U.S.C. 7479(3); 40 CFR 51.24(b)(10) (1978). Except where a standard of ' performance for new sources imposed a nunhnaftevel of stringency, the ' ~ authority could decide that BACT for a pollutant emitted in "minor" amounts was no control at all, in view of the high cost of any control. Nevertheless, the Adminisfrator has proposed de minimis emission rates (see section on "De Minimis Exemptions") which would apply to the applicable BACT and LAER requirements. The reader is asked to comment on the need for the proposed de minimis-levels. Preconstruction, monitoring data will/ not be required where the estimated impact of a pollutant emitted from a proposed source, as determined by modeling, is lower than the de minimis air quality level and the source is not a major stationary source for the | pollutant An explanation of how the de minimis exemption applies to "j monitoring requirements is in the preamble section of "De Minimis I Exemptions." /. EPA will pert'ornTacase-by^case analysis of a proposed source which , impacts a Class I area, even, though a XV. Ambient Monitoring proposed source may demonstrate that In upholding the environmental its impact falls below the de minimis petitioners* challenges to EPA's PSD level. In such cases, monitoring data - monitoring regulations (40 CFR 51.24(n)], may be required where it is determined 62.21(n) (1978)), the court identified three that the proposed source will areas where the regulations fell short of ' significantly impact the Class I area. > the statutory mandate in section 165(e) Guidance on this and other monitoring ' of the Act; The pollutants for which situations addressed in today's proposal monitoring is required: required uses of will be further described in a revised monitoring data; and guideline* for state version of the Ambient Monitoring exemption authority. Therefore, EPA is Guidelines for Prevention of Significant proposing to amend its PSD regulations Deterioration (PSD). OAQPS 1.2-096, to correct shortcomings in the existing U.S. environmental Protection Agency, monitoring requirements. In addition, Office of Air Quality Planning and EPA is proposing the use of certain de Standards, Research triangle ParkrM.CL minimis criteria which would govern the 27711, originally published in May 1978. requirement for monitoring data as part Copies of this revised guideline may be few, if any other sources, would affect background concentrations in the source's area of impact. EPA solicits, comment on the use of representative air quality data in general and specifically for isolated sources. Aside from the listed noncriteria pollutants, monitoring techniques are - available and monitoring requirements will be phased in as discussed in the ^Transition" section. EPA recognizes, however, that currently available monitoring techniques for some of these pollutants may Be experimental in nature. In addition, as to some pollutants, other components of an acceptable monitoring system, including standard reference materials, internal and external quality control procedures, and network and siting criteria, may not be fully developed. With these limitations in mind. EPA intends to implement noncriteria and hazardous pollutant monitoring requirements on a case-by-case basis. The Agency will consider the state-of-the-art and the reliability of data in determining what techniques will be required. B.Post-construction Monitoring, fin addition to the pre-application monitoring reqrirerffFpts~'5h-eadv described, today's proposaTmcfades of an air quality analysis. The de minimis criteria are discussed in the "De Minimis Exemptions" section of.the - preamble. Discussion of the state exemption guidance is found in the preamhk-ander^ESIlAtP REVTRlQMfi ' " X. Preconstruction Monitoring. The \ court held that section 165(e)(1) of the Act requires an ambient air quality analysis "for each pollutant subject to regulation under the Act" prior to applying for a PSD permit Presently, EPA's regulations require monitoring only for pollutants for which national ambient air quality standards exist (criteria pollutants). There are a number/ of pollutants for which no national standards exist (noncriteria and hazardous pollutants), but which are regulated under new source performance standards (40 CFR Part 60) and national emission standards for hazardous pollutants (40 CFR Part 61). obtained for review and comment by writing to EPA's Monitoring and Data Analysis Division (MD-14) at the above address. For certain noncriteria pollutants, including sulfuric arid mist, carbon djsulfidev carbonyl sulfide, methyl mercaptan, and dimethyl disulfide, EPA currently lacks acceptable measurement methods, reference materials, and internal quality control procedures to perform or evaluate monitoring. EPA recognizes its obligation under the court's decision to make a good-faith effort to develop monitoring techniques for these pollutants, as well as to improve existing techniques for other pollutants. Therefore, the Agency will begin work on developing reliable ambient measurement techniques for these pollutants. Until such time as appropriate monitoring techniques are available, EPA will require use of require post-construction monitoring to detemunethe^effecla ofsource emissions Qn^llownhlrv-irmrFmwTtB In addition, post-construction monitoring can be particularly useful in validating increment consumption predictions made through modeling. Accordingly, EPA intends to require post-construction monitoring from large sources of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide, such as power plants, smelters, refineries, and iron and steel mills, to help assess actual increment consumption. Other sources whose emissions are estimated to result in air quality levels approaching and allowable increment or a national ambient air quality standard may aTso be required to submit post-construction monitoring data. C. Required Use of Monitoring Data. The court ruled that EPA's current regulations are incomplete, since they f:>AL 000052,036 '5X944' .' "~ `i Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 5, 1979 / Proposed Rules ^ require monitoring only to detenninewhether an applicable national ambient standard will be exceeded. The court noted that section 165(e)(2) provides that continuous air quality monitoring data must also be used"to determine whether increments will be exceeded. The court recognized that modeling - techniques would be the principal device relied upon for the projection of the impact on air quality emissions horn a-regulated source, but they envisioned .that monitoring would "impose a certain discipline on the use of modeling ' techniques." Moreover, the court > ' indicated that the widespread use of monitoring would enhance the development of sophisticated monitoring '"techniques and the collection of a data base for each pollutant EPA agrees that monitored ambient data is valuablafor such purposes as validating and refining models and, in some cases, providing a direct measure of increment consumption. In accordance with the court's opinion, EPA plans to place a greater emphasis on the development and use of monitoring data. However, use of monitoring data will always be limited to somqjdegree. First, air quality impacts of a proposed source must necessarily be based on modeling, not monitoring. Second, several actual emission changes that would be detected by an ambient monitor are not considered to consume increment. For example, emissions from any source commencing construction prior to January 6,1975, but completed at some later date, do not count agaipst ,, increments. Third, a state may exempt certain emission changes which otherwise would be counted against increment Potential exemptions include federally ordered fuel switches, temporary emissions, and new sources outside the United States. Finally, with limited exceptions, section 123 prohibits a source from receiving credit for the dispersive effects of a stack height which exceeds good engineering practice. Consequently, if a source's emissions are counted against increment and its stack height exceeds good engineering practice, its emissions must be calculated as though emitted from a good engineering practice height. A monitor will reflect air quality impacts based on actual stack height In view of these limitations, EPA believes that, for the present, monitoring data will be most productive in checking the accuracy of models. To some extent monitoring data may be used to measure increment consumption, particularly in cases where there are few or no other sources in the area of a proposed new source or modification, or where all sources located in the area of concern have emissions which count against the increment in any case, where an applicant or other party believes that a model required by EPA has either overpredicted or under predicted the air quality impact of a source, monitoring data will be evaluated to the extent possible to determine whether modeling adjustments are necessary. Over time, the development of more. sophisticated monitoring techniques may permit increased use of monitoring data to track increment consumption and establish ambient baselines, as well as improve the level of confidence in modeling. * XVI. Notification ', ` Each person who plans to construct a source or modification must determine initially whether it is "major." Currency, EPA does not actively police these negative determinations. In particular, the Administrator does not require any notice of the construction of any source or modification which is indeed not "major." As a result, if an owner or Operator believes that his construction would not be ``major," he is free to constructtEe source ormodificationwithout a construction permit and without notifying the appropriate permitting authority. Undoubtedly, few persons making a negative determination would give any notice of construction to the reviewing authority, In view of the new definitions of "potential to emit" and "modification" proposed today, the AdministraTor believes preconstruction notice is-now necessary for certain sources. Since "potential to emit" refers to- controlled emissions and "major modifications" to net increases only, the scope of PSD" preconstruction review will shrink dramatically with many more sources having the opportunity to construct or modify without preconstruction review. In EPA's judgment, the borderline cases where mistakes or evasion could occur will increase sufficiently to justify scrutiny, Based on the Administrator's authority under section 114 to require any owner or operator to provide information and make reports as the Administrator may reasonably require, .EPA is proposing a preconstruction notice requirement to review source determinations of inapplicability. The notice requirement would appear in entirely new paragraphs, 5 51.24(v) and 52*!l(v) for PSD and in subparagraph H of section II of EPA's offset ruling. Under the proposed regulations, an owner or operator of certafrusources would be required to give written preconstruction notice to the Administrator 90 days in advance of beginning on-site construction. The notice requirement would apply to (1) emission changes not qualifying as major modlHcatiohs due to sutfient emission reductions, and [21 sources not qualifying as maior stationary sources due to application of air pollution controls not generally required by the applicable SIP or 40 CFE Parts 60 and 61. The notice must state~specificallv the nature and timing of the applicable emission changes and contain a demonstration that the proposed reductions are sufficient, enforceable. and contemporaneous with increasas^_ After an owner or operator would provide an acceptable notice, no construction permit would be required. The Administrator is also proposing that if a^roposed construction project either fails to provide the required notice or to construct in accordance with information within the notice, it would be'considered to be in violation of the applicable SIP. Sections 52.21[s) and 51.24(s). Merely providing notice should not be construed as satisfying all other applicable responsibilities under the Act, and a source which improperly constructs would do so in violation of the SIP. Difficulty may arise in determining when contemporaneous intrasource emission tradeoffs have occurred or will occur. The Administrator, therefore, is also proposing to require written notice from source owners intending to take future offset credit from soon-to-occur shutdowns or cleanup. Such notice would be given at the time the emission reductions would be accomplished anJ would give details as to what emissions are being reduced. With this approachthe source owner will add certainty to his ability to claimreductions, and less review time will be needed by the reviewing agency to verify the credibilitv of controversial emission reductions. Finally, for nonattainment areas with an approved, enforceable SIP, the Administrator is considering the notice mechanism to implement the intrasource compliance requirement under section 173. Under this approach, in addition to determining if no net increase would occur at a facility (plant), the source would have to notify the reviewing authority that all emission units at that plant are in compliance with the applicable SIP. The Administrator solicits comment on this porposaL XVn. PSD SIP-Revisions Comments are solicited on three issues concerning the development of acceptable PSD plans by states. The SAL. OOGOASAS/ Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 5. 1979 / Proposed Rules ~ 51945 issues are: (1) The ability of states to f, NSPS, NESHAPS minimum did not provide the states with adequate submit different but effective PSD 'requirements for BACT determinations. guidance to determine when less than programs, (2) the flexibility that states States would be permitted to meet the one calendar year of data may be used have to define the baseline area for PSD, following requirements of 40 CFR 51-24 to perform a complete and adequate and (3) the state monitoring exemption. with different but equivalent state analysis of continuous air quality A. Equivalent State Programs. During regulations or implement them with monitoring data. Subsection 165(e)(2) the past year, states have submitted considerable discretion: stipulates that such partial exemptions PSD portions of their SEP*s that deviate a. BACT determinations. . - . from monitoring shall be applied "in considerably from the existing 40 CFR b. Design and amount of data needed accordance with regulations 51.24 regulations: Under existing for monitoringpurposes. promulgated by the Administrator." ' ' regulations, the Administrator can only -- c. Establishing de minimis levels for Guidance addressing shorter periods of approve different PSD requirements _ ,, BACT and air quality review. time was included in the Air Monitoring submitted b~y states that individually are d. Temporary exclusions from Guidelines for Prevention of Significant more stringent than the corresponding increment consumption." - Deterioration (section 2.7, Duration of 40 CFR Part 51 regulations. As a result e- Banking of emissions for future Monitoring). To comply with the court few opportunities are left for approval of different^ but effective,, state PSD programs. Today the Administrator is -.requesting comment on the existing approach. .. :i . -- While Part C is quite specific on the ,,type of PSD program that would be acceptable, portions of the Act may allow the states to use equivalent methods to meet statutory objectives ' (such as section 110(a)(2)(D)). The Administrator believes some flexibility offsets." f. Source information and analysis required of the applicant. g. Public participation after providing the opportunity for public hearing. .In determining if a state program with several requirements differing substantively from 40 CFR 51.24 satisfy those requirements, overall program equivalence would be based on the ability of the state system to capture as many emissions as would the 40 CFR 51.24 regulations. -- _ in approving state.plans should also B. Baseline Area. A more specific apply to. the PSD program. In addition, issue related to state flexibility in there are policy reasons for permitting " developing PSD plans involves the equivalent state PSD programs. States definition of the area affected by the should be allowed some latitude to baseline date. Under the proposed develop PSD programs more closely " amendment the Part 51 regulations, like tailored to their individual goals and the Part 52 regulations, would define needs: Provided, That the state PSD / "area subject to this part" on the basis program would uphold the objectives of of AQCRs. Under that definition, the Part'd Such programs would - baseline date would be set for every conceivably identify several potential - part of an AQCR designated improvements in terms of adhunistrative unclassifiable or attainment under ease and some opportunities for - ~ section 107(d)(1) (D) or (E), 42 USC additional emissions control. 7407(d)(1) (D) or (E), when the first The Administrator is today major stationary source locating in any specifically seeking comments on what such part of the same AQCR applies for provisions under 40 CFR 51.24 allow any a PSD permit. (See "BASELINE flexibility for innovative state programs . CONCENTRATION"). and whether allowing such flexibility This definition is proposed to would undercut the need for consistent minimize administrative and technical nationwide implementation of PSD problems and to preserve future growth ruling. EPA proposes to promulgate the ' appropriate material in the PSD - regulations. -- Under this proposal states would be allowed to accept less than one calendar of data for PM. SO*, CO. and NO, monitoring if the applicant demonstrates that data obtained during a shorter time period, but no less than four months, account for the maximum air quality levels that can be expected. In the case of ozone, monitoring requirements must account for those months in which the average daily maximum temperatures exceed 20" C (68* F) in the area under study, or for the four months of the year with the warmest average "maximum temperature for areas where there are not at least four months with average maximum temperatures greater than 20 C (68* F). , It should be noted that this amendment applies only to pollutants for which a national ambient air quality standard exists since section 165(e)(2) does not apply to noncriteria pollutants. Guidance on the amount of monitoring data required for noncriteria pollutants will be added to the Air Monitoring Guidelines for Prevention of Significant Deterioration at the same time that the guideline is revised to address other - monitoring criteria. review. Comment is also solicited on options of the states. As discussed in XVffl. Additional Issues how EPA can verify whether a proposed state program will offer an equivalent or improved system for implementing PSD. "BASELINE CONCENTRATION." EPA believes that a state may in its revised SEP define "area" for purposes of The Administrator is today proposing certain regulatory changes which are not required by the Alabama Power To facilitate comment, the baseline, concentration to be any decision. These changes are minor Administrator is asking for response on specific AQCR portion- that it had - corrections considered necessary to an approach which would permit designated as attainment or make the PSD regulations as consistent variation in state plans for certain unclassifiable. Conversely, a state for as possible with the nonattainment requirements. Under this approach, administrative reasons could define requirements for NSR. The specific _ states cot^Id not satisfy the following "area" as being the entire state. changes proposed today involve: (1) Use requirements of 40 CFR 51.24 with EPA specifically solicits comments on of the section lll(j) waiver for alternative regulations: . its proposed regulatory guidance to innovative control technology to meet a. Maximum allowable increments. states for defining "area subject to this BACT; (2) new source review b. Modeling techniques. part" in section 169(4). Comments requirements to modify existing c. Class I area protection. should address the legal, asministrative, construction permits: (3) applicability of d. Notice to the Administrator or the and technical effects of other proposals, PSD review to modified nonprpfit health applicable Federal Land Manager for as well as effects on future growth or educational facilities; (4) amount of significant actions. options of the states. -notice required from relocating PSD e. New (grass roots)_major stationary C. State Monitoring Exemption. In the sources; and (5) applicability of PSD to source applicability. court's ruling, it was indicated that EPA secondary emissions. In addition, this 51946 ' Federal Register f Vol. 44. No- 173 / Wednesday. September 5, 1979 / Proposed Rules section contains discussions on the - t temporary and as having an economic impact of the proposed : insignificant impact on air quality. The regulations and how to comment on this' Administrator specifically solicits rulemaking. -- A. Innovative Control Technology. comments on EPA's authority to allow . temporary violations of increments, Section lll(j) of the Act provides for the especially in Class I areas, due to lll[j) issuance of waivers to sources which propose use of control technology the waivers while not allowing temporary violations of the ambient standards. Administrator determines to be ; In addition, the Administrator - innovative. Under section lll(j). one or more waivers from the new source performance standards (NSPS) may be issued for a period of up to seven (7) proposes to modify 40 CFR 52.21 to ^accommodate PSD sources which propose to use innovative control technology, but which are not subject to .years. A waiver may be issued if the Administrator determines, that' _ NSPS and therefore not eligible for section lll(j) waivers. Under the ... (l) The innovative technology has not - proposal, these sources would receive - been adequately demonstrated: - ^ the same treatment as sources eligible V (21 TheJnnovative technology has a for section lll(j) waivers. Subparagraph substantial likelihood of meeting the (u)(2)'outlines criteria by which the NSPS at lower cost in terms of energy, Administrator may determine whethera economic, or non-air quality -- ' proposed PSD source's control environmental impacts; ~ technology is "innovative." The criteria s (3) The source would not cause or track the requirements established for contribute to an unreasonable risk to - section lll(j) waivers. ~ public health, welfare or safety; and Once a proposed technology is , (4) An excessive number of such determined to be innovative, the waivers, as determined by the Administrator must establish a schedule Administrator, have not been granted. for meeting the BACT emission limit The waiver is to include conditions The schedule, which will be specified as necessary to assure that the source will part of the BACT requirement, should not prevent attainment and maintenance take into consideratiop the design, of ambient standards and to assure that installation, and capital cost of the the authorized system will function technological system or systems being properly. , used. In no case may the schedule The Act offers no indication as to how (including any extension) extend beyond a source that obtains a section 1110) seven years after PSD permit issuance, - waiver should be treated for purposes of or lll(j) waiver issuance, or four years . PSD review, Since a large number of. after the source commences operation, NSPS sources are also subject to PSD, the Administrator is concerned that whichever is earlier. The regulations include a provision failure to accommodate section 1110) _ for bringing into compliance any source sources under PSD would tend to _ whose waiver is terminated because it discourage the development of newer, has failed to achieve BACT with the more effective control technologies. In the June 19,1978 Federal Register, the Administrator solicited comment on making the innovative control waiver aplicable to BACT determinations under the PSD program. Since no adverse comments were received, the Administrator is today proposing specific regulatory language defining how the section lll(j) waiver applies to innovative system or failed To demonstrate that the system will not cause or contribute to an unreasonable risk of public health, welfare or safety. Such a source will be granted an extension for whatever minimum period of time the Administrator feels is necessary to achieve BACT. The extension may not exceed three years. B. Modified Permits. The BACT determinations. Today's amendments to the PSD regulations Administrator is also proposing to add a new paragraph (t) which would require provide that BACT for a source with a - that PSD-pennitted sources obtain, section lllfj) waiver would be defined under certain circumstances, modified as the innovative control equipment for or new PSD permits. Similarly, which the waiver has been granted and subsection H is proposed to be added to would include an emission limitation section II of the offset ruling. The new and a schedule for meeting that requirements are intended to resolve the limitation. Paragraph (u) as proposed - current uncertainty regarding the specifies that a section lllfj) source obligations of a source and a reviewing may satisfy the air quality analysis authority when changes are necessary requirement by modeling its projected in an approved construction permit. emissions after the lll(j) controls are Under today's proposal, a permitted installed. Any increased level of - source woula be required to moditylts emissions which might occur during the permit if it obtained a permit and then. waiver period would be treated as Prior to commencement of operation, altered its design capacity such that , emissions increased significantly but less than the applicable 100/250 tons threshold. Here the term sigmncantly refers to that pollutant-specific emission rate which would equal or exceed the rate identified in Table 1 (see section on "De Minimis Exemptions"). In addition,, if design capacity and potential emissions were decreased prior to commencement of operation, the permit should be modified to reflect the change. Such information is vital for tracking the PSD increment that is available to other new sources. A source would also be required to obtain a modified permit when, prior to commencement of operation, it proposed changes in the nature of its process equipment such that the potential emissions from the newly planned equipment would not equal or exceed -the applicable 100/250 tons threshold. Finally, a modified permit would be required for a source that obtained a permit under the existing regulations which limited its hours of operation and then later, decided to increase its operating hours. Proposed sources which increase design capacity such that net potential emissions would increase by greater than 100/250"tons per year and proposed sources which plan new process equipment, potentially emitting 100/250 tons per year, must obtain new permits. Such sources would likely require a more extensive review, possibly requiring more than 90 days for completion. The Administrator wishes to point out that during the time of application for a modified permit the affected source would retain increment rights only for those specific points of emissions which were permitted originally. For example, consider a source that obtains a permit to build a 1600 tons/day (dry pulp) lime kiln and then decides to scale down the final construction to 1500 tons/day and build a 20 megawatt steam generator as well. Assume the potential emissions of each pollutant emitted by the steam generator would be less than 100 tons per year. The source would need a modified permit to reflect the addition of the generator and the decrease in the size of the lime kiln. The generator emissions would have to be evaluated against the available increment at the time of the proposed permit modification after all other complete applications filed before this time. The fact that the lime kiln's increment usage would be reduced does not mean that any increment rights are ttansferable to the steam generator, because the generator would not be an originally permitted ./ ` - _ - ' -" ~ / f Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 173 / Wednesday, September 5, 1979 / Proposed Rules 51947 emission point. If the generator's emissions were over 100 tons per year, the source would require a new permit. . C. Nonprofit Institutions, Under the existing regulations, upon written request by the'Govemor of a state, the PSD permitting requirements would not ' apply to a nonprofit health or educational institution to be located in -that state. The Administrator is proposing that this exemption apply to modified nonprofit health or educational institutions as well as those newly constructed. , '- . D. Portable Facilities. Under existing regulations, previously permitted PSD . sources which propose to relocate must provide a thirty (30) day notice. Based on experience in implementing these . regulations, the Administrator is proposing to change the'thirty (30) day notice to one which reflects a reasonable amount of time, to be not less than ten (10) days. This would enable sources with extremely short time delays between construction -projects, such as portable asphalt batch plants, to better comply with the intent of the regulations. E. Secondary Emissions. The Administrator is today incorporating into the PSD regulations the definition of secondary emissions in the offset ruling (44 FR 3274). Under this proposal, secondary emissions would mean emissions from new or existing sources which occur as a result of the construction and/or operation of a major source or major modification, but do not necessarily come from the source itself. Secondary emissions would - include, but would not be limited to: - (o) Emissions from ships or trains coming to or from a source or modification, or (b) Emissions from off-site support sources which would be constructed or would otherwise increase emissions as a result of the construction of a major source. Ujider today's proposal, secondary emissions would not count in~ determining the potential to emit of a source. In addition, when the source is otherwise subject to PSD review, the BACTrequirement wouid not apply to secondary emissions. However, secondary emissions, where well-known and quantifiable, would be taken into account in assessing if an otherwise subject source would cause or contribute to a violation of any applicable increment or standard. F. Economic Impact Assessment. Section 317 of the Act requires an economic impact assessment for regulations and revisions to regulations issued under Part C. Executive Order 12044 similarly requires an impact assessment for significant regulatory G. Comments. This rulemaking is actions. The Agency has not yet proposed under authority of section conducted either assessment for several 307(d) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7607(d). EPA reasons. First, a preliminary assessment solicits written comments on the suggests that many fewer sources will porposals in this notice. The period for be subject to review under the new comment ends October 5,1979. definition of potential to emit. As many Comments should be sent, in triplicate if as three-quarters of the sources subject possible, to the Central Docket Section, to review under the existing regulations EPA, Room 2903B, Waterside Mall, 401 "will not require permits under the . M Street, S.W..- Washington, D.C. 20460, regulations proposed today. Moreover,' Attention: Docket No. A-79-35. EPA the application of a plant-wide ,, plans to hold public hearings on the definition of source for PSD would allow proposals in September 1979 in San replacements and reconstructions at Francisco, California, and Washington, existing units to oftef escape review. D.C The hearings will be informal and While many fewer sources may be subject to review, the impact of certain legislative in nature. Transcripts will be taken. EPA will announce the exact time new requirements, such as PSD and place for the hearings in the near monitoring for other pollutants, remains future. The written comments, to be assessed. The Administrator transcripts of hearings, and other believes that such additional costs under today's proposal would, on balance, be more than offset by the reduced economic impacts associated relevant documents will be available for public inspection and copying between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, in the Central Docket Section. with the issuance of fewer permits. (Secs. 101(b)(1), 110,114,160-69, and 301(a) of Second, the Administrator has the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. determined to propose regulations 7401(b)(1). 7410, 7414, 7470-79, and 7601(a).) without an economic impact assessment - Dated: August 22.1979, to replace as quickly as possible the Douglas M. Costle, regulations struck down by the Alabama Administrator. Power decision. The court stated that its purpose in issuing its summary Requirements for State PSD Plans opinion was "to enable EPA to proceed. 1. Title 40, Part 51 of the Code-of as soon as possible to commence Federal Regulations is proposed to be rulemaking or other proceedings ' necessary to promulgate those revisions in the PSD regulations required by our rulings, and to take other prudent action to effectuate congressional policies." Slip op. at 7. In view of the court's directive and the need, identified both by industry and EPA in papers filed with the court, to maintain an ongoing PSD amended as follows: In 51.24 paragraphs (b)(1)--(6) and (11)are revised: (b)(18) is deleted; existing paragraphs (b)(12)-(17) are renumbered as (13)--(18); new (b)(l2) and (20)-{23) are added; paragraphs (i)~(k) and (n) are revised; (t)-(v) are added. As revised and added those paragraphs read as follows: permit program, it is the judgment of the Administrator that this proposed rulemaking not be postponed until an $ 51.24 Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality. * * * * -* economic impact assessment is prepared. Finally, the Agency believes that the (b) Definitions. For the purposes of this section: (1) "Major stationary source" means: court's supplemental opinion may clarify (i) Any of the following stationary which of several options proposed today sources of air pollutants which emit, or should be adopted. Given the limited have the potential to emit, 100 tons per time and resources of the Agency, the Administrator believes that better use year or more of any pollutant regulated under the Clean Air Act (the "Act"): will be made of the Agency's resources Fossil fuel-fired steam electric plants of if the economic assessment is performed more than 250 million British thermal after issuance of the court's units per hour heat input, coal cleaning supplemental opinion, and further plants (with thermal dryers), kraft pulp clarification of which options the mills, portland cement plants, primary Agency will adopt. Consequently, the zinc smelters, iron and steel mill plants, Administrator intends to prepare the primary aluminum ore reduction plants, required economic impact assessment primary copper smelters, municipal after issuance of the court's incinerators capable of charging more supplemental opinion. This analysis will than 250 tons of refuse per day, be made available for public comment hydrofluoric, sulfuric, and nitric acid upon completion and such comment will plants, petroleum refineries, lime plants, be taken into account in the phosphate rock processing plants, coke promulgated regulations. oven batteries, sulfur recovery plants, j 51948 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 5, 1979 / Proposed. Rules carbon black plants [furnace process), primary lead smelters, fuel conversion plants, sintering plants, secondary metal production plants, chemical process plants, fossil-fuel boilers (or combination thereof) totaling more than 250 million British thermal units par hour heat input petroleum storage and transfer units.with a total storage capability exceeding 300,000 barrels, taconiteore processing plants, glass fiber processing plants, and charcoal production plants; .. _ pi) Notwithstanding the stationary source sizes specified in paragraph (b}fl)(i) of this section, any stationary source which emits, or has the potential to emit 2SO tons per year or more of any air pollutant regulated'under the Act (2)(i) "Major modification" means any physical change in or change in the method of operation of a major stationary source, or series of j contemporaneous physical changes in or changes in the method of operation of a major stationary source, that would result in .a significant net increase in that source's potential to emit the pollutant for which the stationary source is major (or that would make the stationary source major taking into account all accumulated net inceases in potential emissions occurring at the source, including any initial construction 1 since August 7,1977). The term "major modification" serves as the definition of "modification" or "modified" when used in the Act in reference to a major stationary source. (ii) A physical change shall not include routine maintenance, repair and replacement (iii) A change in the method of operation, unless previously limited by enforceable-permit conditions.'shall not include; (o) Use of an alternative fuel or raw material by reason of an order under sections 2(a) and (b) of the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination ' Act of 1974 (or any superseding legislation), a prohibition under the Power Plant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 [or any superseding legislation), or by reason of a natural gas curtailment plan pursuant to the Federal Power Act; (6) Use of an alternative fuel or raw material if prior to January 6,1975. the source was capable of accommodating such fuel or material; (c) Use of an alternative fuel by reason of an order or rule under section ' 125 of the Act; 1 [d] Change in ownership of the stationary source; or (a) Use of refuse derived fuel generated from municipal solid waste, (iv) Changes are "contemporaneous" only If reductions occur after a notice is filed pursuant to paragraph (v)(4) and before operation of the emission unit or units that will result in emission increases. Also, to be "contemporaneous" all of the emission reductions must be completed and enforceable under the state"plan before operation of the emission unit or units that will result in any emission increase. Where the new emission unit is a replacement for an emission unit that is being shut down in order to provide the necessary reductions, the reviewing authority may allow up to 180 days for shakedown of the new emission unit before the existing emission unit is required to cease operation. (v) For a series of changes in a stationary source to satisfy the requirement of "no net increase," all of the following must be satisfied; (o) All reductions and all increases must be for the same pollutant; (b) The sum of all decreases must be greater than or equal to the sum of all increases; ' (c) On balance the air quality of the affected area must not be adversely impacted. (vi) In performing,the calculation in paragraph (b)(2)(v) of this section to determine whether the sum of all decreases is greater than or equal to the sum of all increases) the following rules shall apply; (o) Subject to the following adjustments, the size of an increase or decrease is determined by the difference between the potential to emit of the change of emissions unit before and after the change. (h) If potential to emit for a changed emission unit was initially higher than allowable emissions, then no offset credit may be taken for decreasing potential to emit down to allowable emissions. (c) The requirement of 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix S, sections IV. C. 2 and 4 shall apply involving the amount of credit permissible for changing fuels and for replacing one hydrocarbon compound with another of lesser reactivity. (3) "Potential to emir-means the capability at maximum design capacity to emit a pollutant after the application of air pollution control equipment. Annual potential shall be based on the maximum annual rated capacity of the stationary source assuming continuous year round operation. Enforceable permit conditions on the type of materials combusted or processed may be used in determining the annual potential. Secondary emissions do not count in determining annual potential. Fugitive emissions also do not count, except with respect to the following stationary sources and then only to the extent quantifiable: (i) Coal cleaning plants (ii) Kraft pulp mills (iii) Portland cement plants (iv) Primary zinc smelters (v) Iron and steel mill plants (vi) Primary aluminum ore reduction plants (vii) Primary copper smelters (viii) Municipal incinerators fix) Hydrofluoric, sulfuric, or nitric acid plants (x) Petroleum refineries fxi) Lime plants -fxii) Phosphate rock processing plants fxiii} Coke oven batteries fxiv) Sulfur recovery plants (xv) Carbon black plants fxvi) Primary lead smelters fxvii) Fuel conversion plants fxviii) Sintering plants fxix) Secondary metal production plants (xx) Chemical process plants (xxi) Fossil fuel-fired boilers (xxii) Petroleum storage and transfer units (xxiii) Taconite ore processing plants fxxiv) Glass fiber processing plants (xxv) Charcoal production plants fxxvi) Fossil fuel-fired steam electric plants (xxvii) Any other stationary source category which, at the time of the applicability determination, is being regulated under section 111 or 112 of the Act. (4) "Stationary source" means any structure, building, facility or installation which emits or may emit any air pollutant regulated under the Act. (5) "Structure, building, facility or installation" means any grouping of pollutant-emitting activities which are located on one or more contiguous or adjacent properties and which are owned or operated by the same person (or by persons under common control). (6) "Emission unit" means any part of a stationary source which emits or has the potential to emit any pollutant regulated under the Act *** *4 (11) "Baseline concentration" means that ambient concentration level which exists at the time of the applicable baseline date, minus any contribution from major stationary sources and major modifications on which construction commenced on or after January 8.1975. The baseline concentration shall include contributions from; (i) The actual emissions of other sources in existence on the applicable baseline date, except that contributions from such existing sources to the extent Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 5, 1979 / Proposed Rules 51949 that a plan revision proposing less - shall be made in accordance with the (u) of this section, as applicable, may restrictive requirements affects such -provisions of 40 CFR 60,l5(f)(l)-(3). A relocate without again being subject to sources was submitted on or before the reconstructed stationary source will be those requirements, if-- baseline date and was.pending action treated as a new stationary source for (i) Emissions from the stationary by the Administrator.on that date shall purposes of this section, except that use source would not exceed its allowable be determined from the allowable of an alternative fuel or raw material by emissions; -- emissions under the plan as revised; and reason of an order in effect under (ii) Emissions from the stationary (ii} The allowable emissions of major sections 2 (a) and (b) of the Energy source would impact no Class I area and stationary sources and major Supply and Environmental Coordination no area where an applicable increment modifications which commenced construction before January 6,1975, but were not in operation by .the applicable baseline date. (12) "Baseline date" means, for every, part of an Air Quality Control Region 1AQCR) designated as unclassifiable or attainment under section 107(d)(1) (D) or (E) of the Act the date of the first complete application after August 7, 1977 for a permit under this section for any major stationary source or major modification in any part of the AQCR. - *#*** ... (20) "Secondary emissions" means emissions which occur.or would occur as a result of the construction or operation of a major stationary source or major modification, but do not necessarily come from the major stationary source or major modification itself. For purposes of.this section, secondary emissions must be specific and well defined, musfhe quantifiable, and must impact the same general area as the stationary source or modification which causes the secondary emissions. Secondary emissions may include but are not limited to; (i) Emissions from ships or trains coming to or from the stationary source or modification; and Act of 1974 (or any superseding is known to be violated; and legislation), by reason of a natural gas (iii) Reasonable notice, not to be less _ curtailment plan in effect pursuant to than 10 days, is given to the reviewing the Federal Power Act, or by reason of authority prior to the relocation an order or rule under section 125 of the identifying the proposed new location Act shall not be considered and the probable duration of operation' reconstruction. In determining best - at the new location. available control technology for a (j) Control Technology Review. The reconstructed stationary source, the plan shall provide that-- provisions of 40 CFR 80.15(f)(4) shall be (1) A major stationary source or major taken into account in assessing whether .modification shall meet each applicable a standard of performance under 40 CFR emission limitation under the State Part 60 is applicable to such stationary Implementation Plan plus each source. . , - . -' applicable emission standard and ***** standard of performance under 40 CFR (i) Review ofMajor Stationary Sources and Major Modifications-- Source Applicability and General Exemptions. . (1) The plan shall provide that no major stationary source or major modification shall be constructed Parts 60 and 61. (2) A major stationary source or major modification shall apply best available control technology for each pollutant regulated under the Act that it would .emit in a significant amount. (3) In the case of a major modification, the requirement for best available unless, as a minimum, requirements control technology shall apply only to . equivalent to those contained in the each new or modified emission unit, paragraphs (j), (1), (n), (p), (r), (t), (v) of (4) For phased construction projects this section have been met. the determination of best available (2) The plan shall provide as follows: control technology shall be reviewed (i) The requirements of paragraphs (j) and modified as appropriate at the latest through (u) shall apply to any major reasonable time prior to commencement stationary source or major modification of construction of each independent that: phase of construction, (a) Would be constructed in an area (k) Exemptions from Impact Analyses. - (ii) Emissions from any offsite support . which is designated under section 107 as source which would be constructed or attainment or unclassifiable for a ~ would not otherwise increase its pollutant for which the source or emissions. modification would be major; or (21) "Innovative control technology" (b) Would significantly impact an area means any system of air pollution . in.another state which is designated control that has not been adequately under section 107 as attainment or demonstrated in practice, but would unclassifiable for a pollutant for which have a substantial likelihood of the source or modification would be achieving greater continuous emission major. reduction than any control system in (ii) A major stationary source or major current practice or of achieving at least modification that is major for violatile comparable reductions at lower cost in organid compounds is also major for (l).The plan may provide that with respect to a particular pollutant the requirements of paragraphs (1), (n) and (p) shall not apply to a proposed major stationary source or major modification if-- (1) The increase in allowable emissions of that pollutant from the stationary source or modification would impact no Class I area and no area where an applicable increment is known to be violated; and (ii) The emissions of the pollutant are terms of energy, economics, or nonair quality environmental impacts. ozone. (3) The plan may provide that of a temporary nature including but not limited to those from a pilot plant, a (22) "Fugitive emissions" mean those emissions which do not pass through a stack, chimney, vent, or other requirements equivalent to those -portable facility, construction, or contained in paragraphs (j) through (u) exploration. of this section "do not apply to any major (2) The plan may provide that with functionally equivalent opening. stationary source that would be a respect to sulfur dioxide or particulate (23) "Reconstruction" will be nonprofit health or education institution matter the requirements of paragraphs presumed to have taken place where the ordo any major modification that would (1), (n) and (p) of this section shall not fixed capital cost of the new occur at such an institution. apply to a modification of a major components exceeds 50 percent of the ' , (4) The plan may provide that a stationary source which was in fixed capital cost of a comparable portable stationary source which has existence on August 7-, 1977, if-- entirely new stationary source. received a permit under requirements (i)Any increase in allowable - However, any final decision as to equivalent to those contained in the emissions of either of those pollutants whether reconstruction has occurred subparagraphs of paragraph (j) through' after the application of best available 51950 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 5. 1979 / Proposed Rules control technology would impact no modification demonstrates for total Class I area; Suspended particulates, sulfur dioxide, (ii) Any such increase would cause or ,, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen dioxide contribute to no violation of any. through historical data or dispersion national ambient air quality standard; models that the data for such shorter and ' - . ,, period of time, but not less than four (fii) Any increase in allowable months, will be obtained during a time emissions of any air pollutant regulated period when maximum air quality levels under the Act after application of best can be expected. available control technology would be (6) The data.for ozone will be less than 50 tons per year. obtained for those months in which the (3) The requirements of paragraphs (1). average daily maximum temperatures (n), and (p) of this section shall not exceed 20 degrees CelsiuB (68 degrees apply to a proposed major stationary Fahrenheit) in the area, under study, or source dr major modification with for the four months of the year with the r respect to a particular pollutant. If - wannest average maximum (i) The increase or net increase in temperatures for areas where there are . emissions would impact no Class I area; not at least four months with average (it) The increase or net increase in maximum temperatures greater than 20. emissions is not significant or would degrees Celsius (88 degrees Fahrenheit). 'cause no significant air quality impact; For calculating the daily maximum and , - -. temperatures, a climatic record of at (iii) The increase or net increase in least ten years shall be used except emissions would be less than 100 tons where no record of that length which per year for stationary sources listed can be considered representative of the under (b)(l)(i) or 250 tons per year for area exists. other stationaty sources. *- * W * *` * `V (n) Monitoring--(1) Preapplication (v) The owner or operator of a proposed stationary source or modification of volatile organic monifdhng. (i) The plan shall provide ' compounds who satisfies all condition that any application fora permit under of 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix S, section this section shall contain an-analysis of IV. A may provide post-construction ambient air quality in the area the monitoring data for ozone in lieu of proposed stationary source or `providing preconstruction data for ozone modification would affect for each - as required under paragraph (n)(l)[i) of pollutant regulated under the Act which this section. the stationary source or modification would emit in a significant amount (ii) The plan shall provide that as necessary to determine whether emissions from the proposed stationary source or modification would cause or contribute to a violation of any maximum allowable increase or national ambient air quality standard in any area, the analysis required under paragraph (n)(l) of this section shall include continuous air quality -monitoring data for any pollutant emitted by the stationary source or modification for which a national ambient air quality standard exists, except non-methane hydrocarbons. (iii) The plan shall provide that the continuous air monitoring data required under paragarph (n)(l)(ii) of this section shall relate to, and shall have been gathered over the year preceding receipt of the complete application. ' (ir) Notwithstanding paragraph (2) Post-construction monitoring. The plan shall provide that the owner or operator of a proposed stationary source or modification shall, after, construction of the stationary source or modification, . conduct such ambient monitoring as the reviewing authority determines may be necessary to determine the effect emissions from the stationary source or modification may have, or are having an air quality in any area. (3) Operation of monitoring stations. The planshall provide that the owner or , operator shall meet the requirements of appendix B to Part 58 of this chapter during the operation of monitoring stations for purposes of paragraph (n) of this section as follows; (i) No later than January 1,1980, for . existing stations, or (ii) For new stations, at' the time the station is put into operation. ' * * * * - * (n)(l)(iii) of this section, the plan may (t) Modified Permits. (1) The owner or provide that the owner or operator may operator of a major stationary source or, submit less than one year of continuous a major modification who obtains a air quality monitoring data for the permit under regulations developed analysis required under paragraph (n)(l) pursuant to this section shall obtain a of this section, if-- modified permit prior to beginning (a) The owner or operator of a construction of any emission unit not proposed stationary source or authorized by the existing permit if: (i) Prior to commencement of- operation, the owner or operator would propose a change in design capacity of an emission unit or emission units which would significantly increase net potential emissions but not as much as 100 tons per year for stationary sources listed under paragraph (b)(l)(i> of this section or 250 tons per year for other stationary sources; (ii) Prior to Commencement of operation, the owner or operator would propose fundamental changes in the nature of the process equipment used such that the potential emissions from \ the changed emission unit or emission units would be significant but less than 100 tons per year for stationary sources' listed in paragraph (b)[l)(i) of this section or less that 250 tons per year for other stationary sources; or (iii) After obtaining a permit under this section which limits the hours of operation, the owner or operator proposes to increase the hours of'. operation. (2) The owner or operator of a major stationary source or a major modification who obtains a permit under this section shall obtain a new permit prior to beginning any construction not authorized by the^existing permit if, prior to commencement of operation, the owner or operator proposes: (i) An increase in design capacity of one or more emission units which would increase net potential emissions of the stationary source by 100 tons or more per year for stationary sources listed in paragraph (b)(l)(i) of this section or by 250 tons or more per year for other stationary sources; or (ii) Fundamental changes in the nature of the process equipment used such that the potential emissions from the changed emission unit or emission units would be 100 tons per year or more for stationary sources listed in paragraph (b)(l)(i) of this section or 250 tons or more per year for other stationary sources. 1 (3] The application for permit modification shall include: (i) A demonstration that the requirements of paragraph (j) would be met,, and (ii) A demonstration that the increase in allowable emissions would not cause or contribute to a violation of any maximum allowable concentration or maximum allowable increase. (4) The reviewing authority may approve the application, if (i) He finds that the proposed construction will satisfy requirements substantially equivalent to those in paragraphs (j) through (r) of this section are met; and ' Federal Register / Vol. 44, Ncr. 173 / Wednesday, September 5. 1979 / Proposed Rules 51951 (G) No demonstration is made by a welfare, or safety in its operation, enforceable under the State / Federal Land Manager of an adverse function, or malfunction. . Implementation Plan; and impact on the air quality--related (4) The plan may provide that if a ^(vii) Any other information the - values (including visibility) of a Class I stationary source or modification fails to * reviewing authority reasonably needs to area, to which he is charged'with direct meet the required level of continuous determine whether the.requirements responsibility for management unless emission reduction within the specified substantially equivalent to paragraphs the construction would be approved time or the approval is withdrawn in (j) through (r) of this section would under procedures substantially - accordance-with paragraph (u)(3) of this apply. -r ' equivalent to paragraph (q)(4), (5), (6), or. section, the reviewing authority may (4) The owner or operator who would (7) of this section. - " grant an extension of the requirements accomplish contemporaneous emission (5) The reviewing authority shall equivalent to those of this paragraph for reductions shall notify the reviewing : approve or deny a complete application . such mfniimim period as may be authority at-the time such reductions _ within 90 days of its receipt. necessary to comply with the would occur, if credit is to be taken for (u) Innovative Control Technology. (1) requirement in paragraph (j) of this such reductions pursuant to paragraph The plan may provide that an owner or section. Such period shall not extend (v)(2)(i). . Operator of a proposed major stationary beyond the date three years after the (5) The notice required hy paragraph . ^source or major modification may request of the reviewing authority to termination of the time period specified in paragraph (u)(2)(ii) or (u)(3), of this (v)(4) shall Contain: (i) The name and address.of the employ a system of innovative control " technology. ' ' ^ ' . -^ fZ) The plan may provide that the "reviewing authority shall with the ' T consent of the Administrator and the Govemor of other affected state(s) determine that a stationary source or "modification may employ a system of innovative control technology, if: fi) The proposed control system has not been demonstrated and will not ' section, whichever is applicable. (v) Preconstruction Notice. The plan ~"sbali provide that - (1) The owner or operator of a major stationary source or major modification shall notify the reviewing authority in writing of the date on-site construction will begin at least 90 days before it begins. ~- (2) The owner or operator of a proposed construction activity, who owner or operator (ii) The type and amount of each contemporaneous emission decrease and the affected emission unit; (iii)A schedule of when each emission reduction woulcLoccur or has occurred; - and (iv) Any other information that the reviewing authority reasonably needs to determine if the proposed emission would be acceptable. cause or contribute to an unreasonable ~ believes that the activity is.not subject risk to public healh, welfare, or safety in to regulations developed pursuant to 40 Requirements for Federally Promulgated PSD Programs J its operation, function, or malfunction; CFR 51.24 shall also so notify the (ii) The owner or operator agrees to i reviewing authority, if such construction - achieve a level of continuous emission would be considered: - reduction equivalent t6 that which (i) A major modification but for would have been required under sufficient contemporaneous emission paragraph Q](2) of this section by a date reductions; or .. . specified by the reviewing authority. (u) A major stationary source but for Such date shall not be greater than 4 - reductions in the potential emissions of years from the time of startup unless an the source through the application of air- - extension under regulations pollution control equipment not substantially equivalent to those of generally required under the State- paragraph (u)(4) of this section would be Implementation Flan or any applicable 2(a) Title 40, Part 52 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows: In 5 52.21, paragraphs (b)(1)--(6) and (11) are revised; (b)(17) is deleted: existing (b)(12)--[16) are renumbered as (13)--(17); new (b){12) and (20)--(24) are added; (i)--(k). (n) and (s)(l) are revised; (t)--(v) are relettered as (x)-(z); new (t)-~ (w) are added. Those paragraphs read as follows: obtained: standards as set forth in 40 CFH Parts 60 52.21 Prevention of significant (iii) The proposed construction would and 61. deterioration of air quality. meet all requirements under this section (3) The notice required by paragraph * * - * * * based on the emission rate that the (v)(2) of this section shall contain; stationary-source employing the system (i) The name and address of the (b) Definitions. For the purposes of this section: of innovative control technology would meet on the date specified by the owner or operator; (II) The nature and location of the (1) "Major stationary source" means: (i) Any of the following stationary 'reviewing authority: and stationary source or modification; sources of air pollutants which emit, or (iv) The proposed construction would (iii) The potential to emit and have the potential to emit IPO ions per ' not cause or contribute to the violation allowable emission rates of any year or more of any pollutant regulated of any applicable national ambient air pollutant regulated under the Act Tor all under the Gean Air Act (the "Act"): quality standard before the date emission units within the new .or Fossil fuel-fired steam electric plants of specified by the reviewing authority. modified stationary source; more than 250 million British thermal (3)-The plan shall provide that the (iv) A schedule of when each change units per hour heat input, coal cleaning reviewing authority shall disallow any in the emission of any pollutant plants (with thermal dryers), kraft pulp approval to employ a system of regulated under the Act would occur: mills, portland cement plants, primary innovative control technology made (v) Calculations of how any zinc smelters, iron and steel mill plants, under requirements equivalent to those contemporaneous emission reductions primary aluminum ore reduction plants," of this paragraph, if: identified pursuant to (v)(4) would primary copper smelters, municipal ' (i) The proposed system fails by the adequately offset any emission incinerators capable of charging more date specified to achieve the required increases for any pollutant regulated than 250 tons of refuse per day, continuous emission reduction rate; or under the Act; "-- hydrofluoric, sulfuric, and nitric acid (ii) The proposed system fails before (vi) A demonstration that each such plants, petroleum refineries, lime plants, the specified date so as to contribute to emission reduction identified pursuant phosphate rock processing plants, coke an unreasonable risk to public health. to paragraph (v)(4) would be oven batteries, sulfur recovery plants. 51952 ' Federal Register f Vol. 44, No. 173 / "Wednesday,. September 5. 1979 / Proposed Rules carbon black plants (furnace process), filed pursuant to paragraph (v)(4) and ^primary lead smelters, fuel conversion before opertion of the emission unit or plants, sintering plants, secondary metal units that will result in emission production plants, chemical process * increases. Also, to be . plants, fossil fuel boilers [or "contemporaneous" all of the'emission combination thereof) totaling more than reductions must be completed and "250 million Britisli thermal units per hour 'enforceable under the state plan before heat input, petroleum storage and operation of the emission unit or units transfer units with a total storage - that will result in any emission increase. capability exceeding 300.000 barrels, Where the new emission unit is a ' taconite ore prbcessing plants, glasB replacement for an emission unit that is -fiber processingsplants, and charcoal being shut down in order to provide the - production plants; - ' - necessary reductions, the Administrator (ii) Notwithstanding the stationary mpy allow up to 180 days for "db'urce sizes specified in paragraph - shakedown of the new emission unit (b)(l)(i) of this sectiomany stationary before the^existing emission unit is - - source which emits, or has the potential requiredto cease operation. ,, to emit 250 tons peryear or more of any (v) For a series of changes in a air pollutant regulated under the Act stationary source to satisfy the Vi (2)(i) "Major modification" means any requirement of "no net increase," all of - . physical change in or change in the the following must be satisfied: method of operation of a major ; (a) All reductions and all increases stationary source, or. series of must be for the same pollutant;- contemporaneous physical changes in or changes jn the method of operation of a . jnajor stationary source, that would result In a significant net increase in ' that source's potential to emit the pollutant for which the stationary source is major (or that would make the ' stationary source major, taking into account all accumulated net increases in potential emissions occurring at the ' source, including any initial 'construction, since August 7,1977). The .term "major modification" serveB as the definition of "modification" or '"modified' when used in the Act in .reference to a major stationary source. (ii) A physical change shall not include routine maintenance, repair and (b) The sum of all decreases must be greater than or equal to the sum of all increases,' ' ' 1 ' (c) On balance, the air quality of the affected, area must not be adversely impacted. (vi) In performing the calculation in paragraph (b)(2)(v) (tb determine whether the sum of all decreases is greater than or equal to the sum of all increases) the following rules shall apply; * () Subject to the following -adjustments, the size of an increase or decrease is determined by the difference between the potential to emit of the changed emissions unit before and after replacement ; (iii) A change in the method of the change. - .. () If potential to emit for a changed ' operation, unless previously limited by emission unit was initially higher than enforceable permit conditions, shall not allowable emissions, then no offset include: -- credit may be taken for decreasing (a) Use. of an alternative fuel or raw potential to emit down to allowable . material by reason of an order under emissions. sections 2(a) and (b) of the Energy (c) The requirement of 40 CFR Part 51. Supply and Environmental Coordination appefidix S. sections IV.C.2 and 4 shall Act of 1974, (or any superseding ' > apply, involving the amount of credit legislation), a prohibition under the permissible for changing fuels and for - Power Plant and Industrial Fuel Use Act replacing one hydrocarbon compound __ 1 of 1978-{or any superseding legislation), with another of lesser reactivity. ' or by reason of a natural gas curtailment (3) "Potential to emit" means the plan pursuant to the Federal Power Act; capability at maximum design capacity (b) Use of an alternative fuel or raw to emit a pollutant after the application material, if prior to January 8.1975, the of air pollution control equipment -source was capable of accommodating Animal potential shall be based on the' such fuel or material; maximum annual rated capacity of the (a)Use of an alternative fuel by stationary source assuming continuous reason of an order or rule under section year round operation. Enforceable 125 of the Act; permit conditions cm the type of [d] Changein ownership of the materials combusted or processed may stationary source; or be used in determining'the annual (e) Use of refuse derived fuel potential. Secondary emissions do not generated from municipal solid waste, counfuTdetennining annual potential. . (iv) Changes are "contemporaneous" Fugitive emissions also do not count, only if reductions occur after a notice is except with respect to the following stationary sources and then only to the extent quantifiable: (i) Coal cleaning plants. (ii) Kraft pulp mills. ^- (iii) Portland cement plants. (iv) Primary zinc smelters. (v) Iron and steel mill plants. (vi) Primary aluminum ore reduction plants. - / . (vii) Primary copper smelters. (viii) Municipal incinerators. (ix) Hydrofluoric sulfuric, or nitric add plants. _ . (x) Petroleum refineries. ' (xi) Lime plants. _ (xii) Phosphate rock processing plants. (xiii) Coke oven batteries. , (xiv) Sulfur recovery plants. (xv) Carbon black plants. (xvi) Primary lead smelters. (xyil) Fuel conversion plants.' (xviii) Sintering plants. . (xix) Secondary metal production plants. (xx) Chemical process plant (xxi) Fossil fuel-fired boilers. (xxii) Petroleum storage and transfer units. (xxiii) Taconite ore processing plants, (xxiv) Glass fiber processing plants, (xxv) Charcoal production plants. (xxvi) Fossil fuel-fired steam electric plants. (xxvii) Any other stationary source category which, at the time of the ' applicability determination, is being regulated under section 111 or 112 of the Act. . -- - (4) -"Stationary source" means any structure, building, facility or installation which emits or may emit any air pollutant regulated under the Act. (5) "Structure, building, facility, or installation" means any grouping of pollutant-emitting activities which are located on one or more contiguous or adjacent properties and which are owned or operated by the same-person (or by persons under common control). (6) "Emission unit" means any part of a stationary source which emits or has the potential to emit any pollutant regulated under the Act _.' - * # * '* * , (11) "Baseline concentration" means that ambient concentration level which exists at the time of the applicable basejine date, minus any contribution from major stationary sources and major modifications on which construction commenced on or after January 6,1975. The baseline concentration shall include . contributions from: (i) The actual emissions of other sources in existence on the applicable baseline date, except that contributions from such existing sources to the extent Federal Register / Vol, 44, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 5, 1979 / Proposed Rules 51953 that a plan revision proposing less - shall be made in accordance with the restrictive requirements affects such provisions of 40 CFR 60.15(f)(lH3)* A sources was submitted on or before the reconstructed stationary source will be baseline date and was pending action .treated as a new stationary source for by the Administrator on that date, shall' purposes of this section, except that use be determined from the allowable ._ of an alternative fuel or raw material by emissions under the plan as revised; and reason of an order in effect under -. . (ii) The allowable emissions of major sections 2 (a) and (b) of the Energy stationary sources and major Supply and Environmental Coordination modifications which commenced Act of 1974 (or any superseding construction before January 6,1975, but legislation), by reason of a natural gas were not in operation by the applicable curtailment plan m effect pursuant to -baseline date: the Federal Power Act, or by reason of (12) "Baseline date" means, for every an order or rule under section 125 of the part of an Air Quality Control Region : acti shall not be considered ' (AQCR) designated as unclassihable or reconstruction. In determining best attainment under section 107(d)(1) (D) or available control technology for a (E) of the Act, the date of the first reconstructed stationary source, the complete application after-August 7, provisions of 40 CFR 60.15(f)(4) shall be 1977, for a permit under this section for taken into account in assessing whether any major stationary source or major a standard of performance under'40 CFR modification in any part of die AQCR* * *',* Part 60 is applicable to such stationary 1 source. (20) "Secondary emissions" means emissions which occur or would occur as a result of the construction or* ' operation of a major stationary source or major modification, but do no.t ' necessarily come from the major "* stationary source or major modification itself. For purposes of this section, secondary emissions must be specific (24) "Complete application" means an application submitted to the Administrator by the owner or operator of a proposed major stationary source or major modification which represents a reasonable and good faith effort to submit all information necessary for permit issuance. . > ***** and well defined, must be quantifiable, _ (i) Review of Major Stationary " and must impact the same general area Sources and Major Modifications-- as the stationary source or modification Source Applicability and General which causes the secondary emission. Exemptions. (1) No stationary source or Secondary emissions may include, but modification to which the requirements are not limited to: ' ' ofparagraphs (j) through (u) of this (i) Emissions from ships or trains section apply shall be constructed coming to Dr from the stationary source without a permit which states that the or modification; and stationary source or modification would (ii) Emissions from any offsite support meet those requirements. The facility which would be constructed or Administrator has authority .to issue any would not otherwise increase its such permit emissions. (2) The requirements of paragraphs (j) (21) "Innovative control technology" through (u) of this section apply to any means any system of air pollution major stationary source and any major control that has not been adequately modification with respect to each demonstrated in practice, but would pollutant regulated under the Act that it have a substantial likelihood of would emit except as this section achieving greater continuous emission otherwise provides. reduction than any control system in (3) The requirements of paragraphs (j) current practice or of achieving at least through (u) of this section do not apply comparable reductions at lower cost in to any major stationary source or any terms of energy, economics, or nonair major modification on which quality environmental impacts. construction commenced before August (22) "Fugitive emissions" means those 7,1977. The regulations at 40 CFR 5221 emissions which do not pass through a which were in effect before August 7, stack, chimney, vent, or other 1977 shall govern the review and functionally equivalent opening. ... permitting of any such stationary source - (23) "Reconstruction" will be . or modification. presumed to have taken place where the (4) The requirements of paragraphs (j] fixed capital cost ofifiie new through (u) of this section do not apply components exceeds 50 percent of the to any major stationary source or major fixed capital cost of a comparable modification that was subject to the entirely new stationary source. review requirements of 40 CFR However, any final decision as to 52.21(d)(1) for the prevention of whether reconstruction has occurred significant deterioration as in effect before March 1,1978, if the owner or operator-- (i) Obtained under 40 CFR 52.21 a final approval effective before March 1, 1978: (ii) Commenced construction before March 19,1979: and (iii) Did not discontinue construction for a period of 18 months or more and completed construction within a reasonable time: -- (5) The requirements of paragraphs (j) through (u) of this section do not apply to any major stationary source or major modification that was not subject to 40. CFR 52.21 as in effect before March 1, 1978, if the owner or operator-- (i) Obtained all final federal, state and local preconstruction permits necessary under the applicable State Implementation Plan before March 1, 1978; (ii) Commenced construction before March 19,1979; and (iii) Did not discontinue construction for a period of 18 months or more and completed construction within a reasonable time. (6) The requirements of paragraphs (j) through (u) do not apply to a major stationary source or major modification that was subject to 40 CFR 52.21 as in effect before March 1,1978, if review of an application for approval for the stationary source or modification under 40 CFR 52-21 would have been completed by March 1.1978, but for an. extension of the public comment period pursuant to a request for such an extension. In such a case, the application shall continue to be processed, and granted or denied, under 40 CFR 52.21 as in effect prior to March 1,1978. (7) The requirements of paragraphs (j) through (u) of this section do not apply to any major stationary source or major modification that was not subject to 40 CFR 52.51 as in effect on June 19,1978, if the owner or operator: (i) Ohtained all final federal state and local preconstruction permits necessary under the applicable tate Implementation Plan before (date of , promulgation): (ii) Commenced construction before the [date of promulgation] or any earlier time required under the applicable State Implementation Plan; and (iii) Did not discontinue construction for a period of 18 months or more and completed construction within a reasonable time. fBlfi) The requirements of paragraphs__ (j) through (u) of this section shah apply~~ to any major stationary source' OT major ' modification that-- ~ ~~~ fo) Would be constructed in an area which is designated under section 107 as 51954 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 173 / Wednesdayr-September 5. 1979 / Proposed Rules attainment or unclassifiable for a andmodified as appropriate at the latest pollutant for~WEIClriKe~stationarv source reasonable time prior to commencement ortnocEflCdUun would-be major; of of construction of each independent ' foi wordd significantly unpact an area phase of construction. in another state wtnclTis designated (k) Exemptions from Impact Analyses. under secuon ur/a5 attainment or ~~~ (1) The requirements of paragraphs (1), unclassifiable tor a pollutant for wEicIP (n) and (p) of this section shall not apply th(Psource or modification would be to a proposed major stationary source or major modification with respect to a (ii]~A major stationary source or major particular pollutant, if: \j' modification that la major for volatile (i) The increase in allowable ' organic compounds is also major for emissions of that pollutant from the T ozone. stationary source or modification would (9) The requirements ofparagraphs (j) impact no Class I area and no area ^ - through (uj of this section do not apply where no applicable increment is known to any major stationary source that to be violated: and - _-r would be a nonprofit health or (ii) The emissions of the pollutant are educational institution or to any major - of a temporary nature including but not modification that would occur at such limited to those from a pilot plant, a an institution, if the Governor of the portable facility, construction, or state in which the stationary source or exploration. -- ' modification would be located requests f2) The requirements of (I), (n) and (p) ' that it be exempt from'thbse of this section shall not apply with >requirements. ^~ ' (10) A portable stationary source 1 ch has received a permit under this ^section may relocate without again - Jeing subject to this section, if: (1) Emissions from the stationary ; source would not exceed its allowable , emissions: (11) Emissions from the stationary source would impact no Class I area and no area where an applicable increment ' is known to be violated: and (iii) Reasonable notice, not to be less than 10 days, is given to the Administrator prior to the relocation identifying the proposed new location - and-the probable duration of operation at the new location. -- respect to sulfur dioxide or particulate matter to a modification of a major stationary source which was in existence on August 7," 1977, if: --(i) Any.increase in allowable' emissions of either of those pollutants after the application of best available control technology would impact no Class I area; (ii) Any such increase would cause or contribute to no violation of any national ambient air quality standard; and - r - (iii) Any increase in allowable emissions of any air pollutant regulated under the Act after the application of best available control technology would 0`) Control Technology Review. (1) A be less than 50 tons per year. major stationary source or major (3) The requirements of paragraphs 0). modification shall meet each applicable (n) and (pi shall not apply to a proposed emission limitation under the State - major stationary source or major Implementation Plan plus each modification with respect to a particular applicable emission standard and pollutant, if: standard of performance under 40 CFR (i) The increase or net increase in Parts'80 and 61. emissions would impact no Class I area; (2) A major stationary source or major and Omodificafion shall apply best available (ii) The increase or net increase in 1 ^control technology for each pollutant emissions is not significant or would { regulated under the Act that it would cause no significant air quality impact; vcj emit in a significant amount The and - ,, ;' , . 3 requirement that a stationary source or _ (iii) The increase or net increase In o modification apply best available emissions would be less than 100 tons ^ control technology for each pollutant for per year for stationary sources listed ^ which it would not be major shall apply under paragraph (b)(l)(i) or 250 tons per to no stationary source or modification whose application for a permit under year for other stationary sources, * * , * ` * : * ' - * s this section was complete before the . (n) Monitoring--(1) Preapplication date that requirement came into effect. monitoring, (i) Any application for a (3) In the case of a modification, the permit under this section shall contain requirement for best available control an analysis of ambient air quality in the technology shall apply only to each new area the proposed stationary source or or modified emission unit. modification, would affect for each (4) For phased construction projects, pollutant regulated under the Act which the determination of best available the stationary source or modification control technology shall be reviewed would emit. The requirement that a stationary source or modification conduct a preconstruction analysis of the ambient air quality for each pollutant for which it would not be major shall apply to no stationary source or modification whose application for a permit under this section was complete before the date that requirement came into effect (ii) As necessary to determine whether emissions from the proposed stationary source or modification would - cause or contribute to a violation of any maximum allowable increase or national ambient air quality standard in any area, the analysis required under paragraph (a)(1) shall include continuous aif quality monitoring data for any pollutant emitted by the stationary source or modification for which a national ambient air quality standard exists, except non-methane hydrocarbons. (iii) The continuous air monitoring data required under paragraph (n)[l)(ii) of this section, shall relate to, and shall have been gathered over, the year - preceding receipt of the complete application, unless the Administrator determines that a complete and adequate analysis may b accomplished' in a shorter period. The requirement to gather data over the year.preceding receipt of a complete application for each pollutant for which a national ambient standard exists but for which the stationary source or modification wouldnot be major shall apply to no stationary source or modification whose application fora permit under this section was complete before the date that requirement came into effect Instead such stationary source or . , modification shall gather data over the time period from the date that the requirement, came into effect and the date that such stationery source or modification would file an otherwise complete application under this section. (iv) If the owner or operator of a .proposed stationary source or modification of volatile organic compounds who satisfies all conditions of 40 CFR Part 51, appendix S, section rv.4 may provide post-construction monitoring data for ozone in lieu of providing preconstruction data as " required under paragraph (n)(l). (2) Post-construction monitoring. The owner or operator of a proposed stationary source or modification shall, after construction of the stationary source or modification, conduct such ambient monitoring as the Administrator determines may be necessary to determine the effect emissions from the stationary source or modification may have, or are having on air quality in any area. ,, Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 173 / Wednesday. September 5, 1979 / Proposed Rules 51955 . (3)Operation of monitoring stations. The owner or operator shall meet the requirements of appendix B to Part 58 of this chapter during the operation of monitoring stations for purposes of paragraph (n) of this section as follows: (i) No later than January 1.1980, for existing stations, or _ (ii) For new stations, at the time the station is put into operation. * , * * ' * * (s) Source Obligation. (1) Any owner or operator who constructs or operates a , stationary source or modification not in accordance with the application or notice submitted pursuant to this section or ,with the terms of any approval to construct, or any owner or operator of a major stationary source or major , . modification who begins construction on the stationary source or modification, without providing preconstruction notice or applying for and receiving, approval j hereunder, as applicable, shall be considered to be in violation of the applicable State Implementation Plan. * * , *- " * (t) Modified Permits. (1) The owner or operator of a major stationary source or a major modification who obtains a -- permit under regulations developed pursuant to this section shall obtain a . modified permit prior to beginning construction of any emission unit not authorized by the existing permit if: (1) Prior, to commencement of operation the owner or operator would propose a change in design capacity of an emission unit or emission units which would significantly increase net potential emissions but not as much as 100 tons per year for stationary sources listed under paragraph (b)(l)(i) or 250 tons per year for other stationary sources; or (iij Prior to commencement of, operation the owner or operator would propose fundamental changes in the nature of the process equipment such that the potential emissions from the ' changed emission unit or emission units would be significant but less than 100 tons per year.for stationary sources ^ listed under paragraph (b)(l)(i) or 250 tons per year for other stationary sources. - (in) After obtaining a permit under 40 CFR 52,21 (1978) which limits the hours of operation the owner or operator proposes to increase the hours of operation. (2) The owner or operator of a major stationary source or a major modification who obtains a permit under this section shall obtain a new permit prior to beginning any construction not authorized by the existing permit if prior to commencement of operation, the owner or operator proposes: (i) An increase in design capacity of one or more emission units which would Increase net potential emissions of the stationary source by 100 tons or more per year for stationary sources listed in paragraph (b)(l)(i) or by 250 tons or more per year for other stationary sources; or (ii) Fundamental changes in the nature of the process equipment used such that the potential emissions from the changed emission unit or emission units would be 100 tons per year or more for stationary sources listed in paragraph (b](l)(i) or 250 tons or more per year for other stationary sources. (3) The application for permit modification shall include: (i) A demonstration that the requirements of paragraph (j) would be met, and. (ii) A demonstration that the increase in allowable emissions would not cause or contribute to a violation of any . maximum allowable concentration or maximum allowable increase. (4) The Administrator may approve the application if: (1) He finds that the proposed construction will satisfy the requirements of paragraphs (j) through (u) are met; and (ii) No demonstration is made by a Federal Land Manager of an adverse impact.on the air quality related values (including visibility) of a Class I area to which he is charged with direct responsibility Tor management, unless the construction would be approved under procedures substantially equivalent to those of paragraph (qj(4), (5), (0), or (7). (5) The Administrator shall approve or deny a complete application within 90 days of its receipt. (u) Innovative Control Technology. (1) An owner or operator of a proposed major stationary source or major modification may request of the Administrator to employ a system of innovative control technology. (2) The Administrator shall with the consent of the Govemor(s) of the affected state(s) determine that a ' stationary source may employ a system of innovative control technology, if: (i) The proposed control system lias not been demonstrated and will not cause or contribute to an unreasonable risk to public health, welfare, or safety in its operation, function, or malfunction; (if)"The owner or operator agrees to achieve a level of continuous emission reduction equivalent to that which 1 would have been required under paragraph (j)(2) by a date specified by the Administrator. Such date shall not be greater than 4 years from the time of startup unless an extension under paragraph (u](4) would be obtained; (iii) The proposed construction would meet all requirements under this section based on the emission rate that the stationary source employing the system of innovative control technology would meet on the date specified by the - Administrator (iv) The proposed construction would not cause or contribute to the violation of applicable national ambient air quality standard before the date specified by the Administrator. (v) All other applicable requirements including those for public participation have been met. (3) The Administrator shall disallow any approval to employ a system of innovative control technology made under this section, if: (1) The proposed system fails by the specified date to achieve-the required continuous emission reduction rate, or (ii) The proposed system fails before the specified date so as to contribute to an unreasonable risk to public health. welfare, or safety in its operation, function, or malfunction. i (4) If a stationary source fail* to meet the required level of continuous emission reduction within the specified time period or the approval is withdrawn in accordance with paragraph (u)(3), the Administrator may grant an extension of the requirements of this paragraph for such minimum period as may be necessary to comply with the requirement in paragraph (j). Such period shall not extend beyond the date three years after termination of the time period specified in paragraph (u)(2)(ii) or (u)(3), whichever is applicable. (v) Preconstruction Notice. (1) The owner or operator of a proposed construction activity subject to 40 CFR 52.21 shall notify the Administrator in writing of the date on site construction will begin as least 90 days before it begins. - (2) The owner or operator of a proposed construction activity, who believes that the activity is not subject to 40 CFR 52^1, shall notify the Administrator, if such construction would be considered: (i) A major modification but for sufficient contemporaneous emission reductions; or (ii) A major stationary source but for reductions in the potential emissions of the source through the application of air pollution control equipment not generally required"under the State Implementation Plan or any applicable standards as set forth in 40 CFR Parts.60 and 61. S195S Federal Register / VoL 44, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 1979 / Proposed Ruiea (3) The notice required hy paragraph (3) The permitting authority may or adjacent properties and which are owned (v](2) shad contain: (i) The name and address of the owner of operator: (ii) The nature and location of the stationary source or modification: ,, approve a request submitted in. accordance with paragraph. (w)(2) ifhe determines on the basis of the application that this section would not apply to the stationary source or or operated by th^ same person for by persons under common control). 3. "[natallatino" means an identifiable piece,of processequipment- This definition does not apply to 40 CFR 51.24 or 5221. 4. "Potential to emit" means the capability (in) The potential to emit and modification. at maximum, design capacity to emir a allowable emission rates of any (4) Any authority which rescinds a pollutant after the application of air pollution pollutant regulated under the Act for all remission units within the new or ~ modified stationary source; fv) A schedule of when eech change in the emission of any pollutant regulated under the Act would occur: " permit under this paragraph shall give the public adequate notice of the rescission. Publication of an announcement of a rescission in a newspaper of general circulation in the affected region, within 60 days of the control equipment. Annual potential shall be based on the maximum annual rated capacity of the stationary source assuming continuous year round operation. Enforceable permit -conditions on the type of materials combusted or processed may be used in determmg the annual potential. Secondary (v) Calculations of how any contemporaneous emission reductions, rescission shall be considered adequate emissions da nat cmmt in determining annual notice. potential. Fugitive emissions also- do not identified pursuant to paragraph (v)(4) would adequately offset any emission increases for any pollutant regulated under the Act. " (vi) A demonstration that each such 2(bkJn 52.80 (AL). 52JS (AK), 52.144 (AZ), 5 52.181 (AR). 52270 (CA), 52^43 (CO), 52383 (CT}. . 5 52.432 (DE), 52.499 [DC). 52330 (FL), 5 52.581 (GA), 52632 (HI). count, except with respect to the following stationary sources and then only to the extent quantifiable: (i) Coal cleaning plants: (ii) Kraft pulp mills: fifij Portland cement plants,- --" emission reduction identified pursuant - 52683 (ID). 52738 (IL), 5- 52793 (IN). (iv) Primary zinc smelters; _ to paragraph [v)(4) would be 5 52.833 (IA), 5 52884 (KS), 52.931 fv) Iron and steel mill plants: enforceable under the Sta (e Implementation Pfarc and (vii} Any other information the Administrator reasonably needs todetermine whether the requirements of paragraphs (J) through (uj of this section would apply. (KY). 52986 (LA). 521029 (ME). (vi) Primary aluminum ore reduction plants; 523116 (MD). f 521185 (MA). 52J180 (vii) Primary copper smelters; (Ml), 523234 (MN). 520280 (MS). 520339 (MO). 520382 (MI). 520436 (NB), 52.1485 (NV). 521529 (NH). 520603 (NJ). 520634 (NM), 521689 (viil) Municipal incinerators; -(ix)Hydrofluortc. sulfuric, or nitric acid plants; , (x) Petroleum refineries; - (xi) Lime plants; (NY), 52.1778 (NC), 521829 (ND). (xii) Phosphate rock processing plants: [4J The owner or operator who would 5 52.1884 (OH). 521923 (OK). 520987 (xiii} Coke oven.batteries; - accomplish contemporaneous emission reductions shall notify the Administrator at the time such reductions would occur, if credit is to-be taken for such reductions pursuant to paragraph (v}(2}fi). (51 The notice required by paragraph (v]f4) shall contain: (OR), 52.2058 (PA). 522083 (RI). . $ 52-2131 (SC), 522178 (SD), 522233 (TN). 52.2303 (TX), 522346 (UT). 520380 (VT), 522451 (VA). 5 522497 (WA), 522528 (WV). 522581 (WI), 5 522630 (WY), 522676 (GU). 522723 (PR), 522779 (VI), and 522827 . (AmS), paragraph [b) is revised to read (xiv) Sulfur recovery plants; (xvl Carbon brack, plants; (xvi) Primary lead smelters; (xvii) Fuef conversion plants: (xvffff Sintering plants; (xix) Secondary metal production plantsr (xx) Chemical process plants; (tod) Fossil fuel-fired boilers; [xxUIPetroleum storage and transfer units; (1) The name and address of the as follows: - [xxfii)Taconite ore processing plants: owner or operator: (fi) The type and amount ofeach contemporaneous emission, decrease . and the affected emission unit. (iii) A schedule of when each emission reduction would occur or has occurred: and.. ' (Tv) Any other information that the Administrator reasonably needs to determine if the proposed emission decreases would be acceptable. , (w) Permit rescission, (1) Any permit issued under 4a CFR 52.21 [1978}. or any amendment of those regulations, shall remain in effect, unless, and until it expires under para^aphfaj of this, section or is-rescinded. (2) The owner or operator of a stationary source issued a permit under 40 CFR 52.21 (1978) may request that the permitting authority rescind the permit 5-----------Significant deterioration of air quality. * * ' * ' to- (b) Regulations for preventing significant deterioration of air quality. The provisions of 5221 (b) through (a)' are hereby incorporated and made a part of the applicable state plan for the State of-------- , Emission Offset Interpretative Ruling 3. Section II of the Emission Offset Interpretative Ruling. 40 CFR Part 51. Appendix; Appendix S. as revised 44 FR 3283 (January 16.1979), Is proposed to-be amended as follows: " 3,e. By revising section IT, subsection A. subsections fl) through (9) and (11) and by adding a new subsection 13 to read as follows: . - IL Initial screening analyses and' determination, of applicable requirements. (xxiv) Glass fiber processing plants; [xxvl Charcoal production plants; (xxvi) Fossil fuebfired steam electric plants; (xxvif) Any other stationary source category which, at the time of the applicability determination, is being regulated under section 111 or 112 of the Act. 5. "Major stationary source." means any . stationary source which emits, or has the_ potential to emit, 100 toiis per year or more of any air pollutant regulated under the Act 6. (1) "Major modification" means any physical change in or change in the method of operation, of a major-stationary source, or series of contemporaneous physical changes in or changes in the method of operation of a major stationary sourest, that would result in a significant net Increase in that stationary source's potential to emit the pollutant for which the stationary source is major [or that would make the stationery source major, taking into account all accumulated net increases in potential emission* occurring at if; ^. A-Definitions, For purposes of this ruling: the stationary source, including any initial (i) The application for rescission is complete within 90 days after this , paragraph is in effect; and [ii) The owner or operator believes that this section would not apply to the 1. "Stationary source" means any structure, construction, since December 21.1976). The building, faciltiy or installation which emits .., term "major modification" serves as the or may emit any air pollutant regulated under definition of "modification" or "modified" the Act. when used in the Act In. reference to a major Z "Structure, building, or facility means stationary source. any grouping of pollutant-emitting activities . (11) A physical change shall not include stationary source or modification. which are located on one or more contiguous routine maintenance, repair and replacement. v SAL. 000052039 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 5, 1979 / Proposed Rules 51957 (iii) A change in the method of operation, unless previously limited by enforceable permit conditions, shall not Include: (o) Use of an alternative fuel or raw material by reason of an order in effect under Sections 2 (a) and (b) of the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974 (or any superseding legislation), a prohibition under the Power Plant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (or any superseding legislation), or by reason of a natural gas curtailment plan pursuant to the Federal Power Act: (6) Use of an alternative fuel or raw ' material, if prior to December 21.1978, the source was capable of accommodating such fuel or material; (c) Use of an alternative fuel by reason of an order or rule under section 125 of the Act; (d) Change in ownership of the stationary source: or (s) Use of refuse derived fuel generated from municipal solid waste. (vv) Changes are "contemporaneous" only if reductions occur after a notice is filed pursuant to paragraph 1.4. and before operation of the emission unitor units that will result in emission increases. Also, to be "contemporaneous" all of the emission reductions must be completed and enforceable under the state plan before operation of the emission-unit or units that will result in any emission Increase. Where the new emission unit is a replacement for an emission unit that is being shut down in order to provide the necessary reductions, the reviewing authority may allow up to 180 days for shakedown of the new emission unit before.the emission unit is required to cease operation. . , (v) For a series of changes in a stationary source to satisfy the requirement of "no net increase," all of the following must be - satisfied: ' .. (a) All reductions and all increases must be for the same pollutant; (b) The sum of all decreases must be greater than or equal to the sum of all increases; and (c) On balance the air quality of tha ^ affected area must not be adversely impacted. (yi) In performing the calculation in" paragraph (v) (to determine whether the sum of all decreases is greater than or equal to the sum of all increases) the following rules shall apply: ' -- . (o) Subject to the following adjustments, the size of an increase or decrease is determined by the difference between the potential to emit of.the changed emission unit before and after the changeT ' (b) If potential to emit for a changed amission unit was initially higher than allowable emissions, thenno offset credit may be taken for decreasing potential to emit down to allowable emissions. (c) The requirements of sections IV.C.2 and 4 of this ruling shall apply involving the amount of credit permissible for changing fuels and for replacing one hydrocarbon ' compound with another of leser reactivity. 7. "Lowest achievable emission rate" means, for any source, that rate of emissions based on the following, whichever is more Stringent: (i) The most stringent emission limitation which is contained in the implementation plan of any state for such class or category of stationary source, unless the owner or operator or the proposed stationary source demonstrates that such limitations are not achievable; or (ii) The most stringent emission limitation which is achieved in practice by such class or category of stationary source. This term, applied to a modification, means the lowest achievable emission rate for the ' new-or modified emission units within the stationary source. In no event shall the application of this term permit a proposed new or modified stationary source to emit any pollutant in excess of the amount allowable under applicable new source standards of performance. 8. "Emission unit" means any part of a stationary source, which emits or has the potential to emit any pollutant regulated Tinder the Act. 9. "Reconstruction" will be presumed to have taken place where the fixed capital cost of the new components exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital of a comparable entirely new stationary source. However, any final decision as to whether reconstruction has occurred shall be made in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR 60,15(f)(lH3). A reconstructed stationary source will be treated as a new stationary source for purposes of this ruling, except that use of ah alternative fuel or raw material by reason of an order in effect under section 2(a) and (b) of the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974 (or any superseding legislation), by reason of a natural gas curtailment plan in effect pursuant to the Federal Power Act or by reason of ah order or rule under section 125 of the Act, shall not be considered reconstruction. In determining lowest achievable emission rate for a reconstructed stationary source, the provisions of 40 CFR 80.15(f)(4) shall be taken into account in assessing whether a new source performance standard is applicable to such stationary source. 11. "Secondary emissions" means emissions which occur or would occur as a -result of the construction or operation of a major stationary source or major modification, but do not necessarily come (ram the major stationary source or major modification itself. For purposes of this -ruling, secondary emissions must be specific and well defined, must be quantifiable, and must impact the same general nonattainment area as the stationary source or modification which causes the secondary emission. Secondary*emissions may include, but not limited to: ' (i) Emissions from ships or trains coming to or from the stationary source or modifications; and (ii) .Emissions from any off-site support source which would be constructed or would not otherwise increase its emissions. 13. "Fugitive emissions" mean those which do not pass through a stack, chimney, vent; or other functionally equivalent opening. 3,b. By amending section II. subsection C by deleting footnote 2 and the second paragraph, and revising the first paragraph to read as follows: C. Review of Specified Sources for Area Designation or Air Quality impact Irraddition. the reviewing authority must determine whether the major stationary source or major modification would either (i) be constructed in an area designated in 40 CFR 81.300-81.358 as nonattainment for a pollutant for which the stationary source or modification is major; or (ii) cause or contribute irrany area to a violation of a NAAQS for a pollutant for which the stationary source or modification is major. A major stationary source or major modification that is major for volatile organic compounds is also major for ozone. . 3,c. By adding to section II. a new subsection H as follows: H. Modified Permits. (1) The owner or operator of a major stationary source or a major modification who obtains a permit ' under this ruling shall obtain a modified permit prior.to beginning construction of any emission unit not authorized by the existing permit if: (1) Prior to commencement of operation, the owner or operator proposes a change in design capacity of an emission unit or emission units which would significantly increase net potential emissions but not as - much as 100 tons per year, or ,' (ii) After obtaining a permit under 40 CFR 52.21 (1978) which limits the hour* of operation, the owner or operator proposes to1 increase the hours of operation. (2) The owner or operator of a major stationary source or a major modification who obtains a permit under this ruling shall obtain a new permit prior to beginning any construction not authorized by the existing . permit if, prior to commencement of operation, the owner or operator proposes. (i) An increase in design capacity of one or more emission units which would increase net potential emissions of the stationary source by 100 tons or more per year; or (ii) Fundamental changes in the nature of the process equipment used such that the potential emissions from the changed emission unit or emission units would be 100 tons or more per year. (3) The application for permit modification shall include: (i) A demonstration that the requirements of conditions 1 of section IV would be met; and (ii) A demonstration that the increase in allowable emissions would not cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS in any air Quality Control Region. - (4) The reviewing authority shall approve or deny the application within 90 days after, requirements substantively equivalent to paragraphs (c), (g), and (h) of 40 CFR 51.18, and section V of this ruling, have been met 3.e. By adding to section II, a new subsection I as follows: L Preconstruction Notice. 1. The owner or operator of a proposed construction activity subject to this ruling shall notify the reviewing authority in writing of the date on. site construction will begin at least 90 days before it begins. 2. The owner or operator of a proposed construction activity, who believes that the activity is not subject to this ruling shall also notify the reviewing authority, if such construction would be considered: BhL 000052040 5195& - Federal Register / Vot, 44\ No. \7Z /JNednesday, September 5, 1979 / Proposed Rules (i) A major modification bot for sufficient contemporaneous emission reductions: or (ii) A major stationary source but for reductions in the potential emissions or the source through the application of air poiTntfon control equipment not generally required under the State Implementation Han or any applicable standard* as set forth in 40 CFR Parts 6Q and fft* ' 3. The notice required by paragraph L2. shall contain; (ii The name and address of the owner or operator; (fi) The nature and location, of the stationary source or modification; (iii) The potential to emit and allowable emission rates of any applicable pollutant Tar all emission unit* within the new or modified stationary source: (iv> A schedule of when each change in the emission rata of any applicable poliotaut would occur: . . . (V) Calculations of how any - contemporaneous emission reductions ' identified pursuant to parefpa'ph 14 would adequately offset any emission increases for any pollutant regulated under the Act (vi) A demonstration that each such emission reduction identified pursuant to paragraph 1.4 would be enforceable under the State Implementation Plan: and - (vii) Any other information the reviewing authority reasonablypeeds to determine -whether the requirements of this ruling would apply. 4 Hie- owner or operator who would accomplish contemporaneous emission ' reductions shall notify the reviewing authority at the time such reductions would dccur if credit is to be taken for such reductions pursuant to paragraph 1-2. 5. The notice required by paragraph Lt shalT contain: (i) The name and address ofthe owner or operator: "'~ (ii) the type and amount ofeach contemporaneous emission decrease and the affected emission unit (iii) A schedule of when each emission . reduction would occur or has occurred: and (Lv) Any other information that the reviewing authority reasonably needs to determine if the proposed emission reduction would be acceptable. 3.fr By revising the first paragraph of section. IVA to read as follows; ' A. Conditions forApproval If the reviewing authority finds that the major stationary source or major modification would either (f) be constructed in an area ' designated to 40 CFR 8I.3OO-BU3S0 as nonaffaimnenf far a pollutant for which the stationary source ormodification is major or . (ii) would cause or contribute m any area to a violation of a NAAQS for a pollutant for which the stationary source or modification is major, approval may be granted only if the following condition* are met; *****. 3g- By deleting the second sentence of the fifth, paragraph of section 1LC. S tate Flan*, for Nonatlainment Areas ' 4.40 CFR 51.18 ts proposed to be- amended by adding the Following subsection QJ: J 51.18 Bevtaw of new stationary sourca* and modifications. * aA * * ' (j) State Implementation. Plan provision* satisfying sections 17Z(b](6] and 173 of the Act must meet the following conditions; (1) Definitions. All such plans shall use the following definitions. Deviations from the foliawing wording will be approved only if the-state specifically demonstrates that the submitted definition is more stringent, or at least as stringent in all respect* as the corresponding definition below; (i) "Stationary source''--the definition set forth in section IT.AX of appendix S to this part (the Emission Offset Interpretative Ruling}. (ii) (o) Plans that show attainment by the deadline under section 172. and reasonable further progress in the interinn baaed exclusively on currently adopted, approved, and enforceable requirement*, will be referred to as "complete;** None of the following plan* qualify as complete: any plan where approval under Part D of Title I of the Act is conditioned on submission of additional material by the state; any plan containing state-adopted schedules for submission of additional material required under Pprt D; and any plan where additional submission* are needed by July 1,1982, a* required by section 129(c) of the 1977 amendments to the Act (note under 42 USC 7502]. '' Complete plans must use either the rlpfmitinn of "building, structure, facility or installation" set forth in section 51.24(b)(5). or (at the option of the state) the more stringent definition* required in subsection (ii)(h) for plansThat axe not complete. (6) Plans that are not complete must use the definitions of "building; structure, or facility." and of "installation," set forth in sections ll.AX and 3, respectively, of appendix S to this point. (Hi) "Potential to emit*--the definition setfbrth in section H.A.4, of appendix S to this part. - - . (Tv) "Major stationary source"--the definition set forth in section HA. of appendix S to this part. (v) "Modification" or "modified.** ' when referring to a major stationary source--the definition set forth nr section ETAA ofappendix S to this part (vij "Reconstruction." and "fixed capital cost"--the definition* set forth in section ILAiL and IS of appendix S to this part. (vii) "Secondary emissions"--the definition set forth in section ILAdl. of appendix S to thi* part. (viii) "Fugitive emissions"--the definition set forth in section ELA.13. of appendix S to thi* part- fix) "Emission unit"--the definition set forth in section ILA.6. of appendix S to this part. (x) "Allowable emissions"--the definition set forth in section HA.8- of appendix S to this part. (2) Breconstuction Notice. Th'e plan . shall provide that: (i) The owner or operator of a major stationary source or major modification shall notify the reviewing authority in writing of the date on-site construction _ will begin at least 90 days before it begins. . ' (ii) The owner or operator of a proposed construction activity, who believes that the activity is not subject to regulations developed pursuant to sections 172(b)(8) and 173 of the Act and this section 5I.18()) shall also so notify the reviewing authority, if such construction would be considered: () A major modification but for sufficient contemporaneous emission i reductions; ot ' () A major stationary source but for reductions in the potential emissions of the source through the application of air pollution control equipment not generally required under the State Implementation Plan or any applicable standards as set forth in 40 CFR Parts 60 and 01. > (iii) The notice required by paragraph (j](2j(Ii) shall contain: (a) The name and address of the owner or operator; (b) The nature and location of the source or modification: (c) The potential of the new or modified stationary source and allowable emission rates of the applicable pollutant for all emission units within the stationarysource; . (d) A schedule of when each change in the omiasirma of the nonattainment - pollutant would occur. ` (ej Calculations of how any - contemporaneous emission reduction* identified pursuant to paragraph (j)(2)(iv) would adequately offset any emission increases for the nonattamment pollutant . {f] A demonstration that each such emission reduction.identified pursuant to paragraph (J)(2)fTv) would be enforceable under the State Implementation Plan: and (g] Any information the reviewing authority reasonably needs to determine whether the regulations referred to in paragraph. (Q(2)(ii) would apply. ' (iv) The owner or operator who would accomplish contemporaneous emission reductions shall notify the reviewing authority at the time such reductions */ Joseph C. Ledvina (conoco) To /- 2Ml UcUfc? ce 5- o <=&&-yo J. /^/`=-*V Z/6'-' <- V/ .-y^-O s'*'*-' 3 ^ ^ * *rj- 0 ^ - ^ ,7^ ^z^c> >/$>$> wf" o-i^siLv^o t /^^j^q.. ft; h ePA /4-<-vc^`V \^ fa- /vsP- oZ> ^QK1 ^ -fi ,^$-$*v-*~-<fi. d>Kj *--\-r-jSi *>/"A jto-k-o p+**^y%-0 3 I?PA- A ^Mjgpi; v-^_ / V' 5-/Pj o-^viL' J&. \jtfj-+Sz4 a^-Q ,*--\ p4 D ' -jft*~^>j}**i~>-it i/^~ -^*1 ^ i t L i i |j; <r riv t <*-j--0 uO l'*< ? T-P * *JV " *;/ A- A ^zr> 6lJ-L-&Jj*-*di fa J0&4}' *7 Z^-G*/t - e-^L ^-- Xv<9^-- /^ t @tUf*+Z *n 77e3~^J~~^) /PC ~fcy\ (JjpMK^ct opfflJlrA ^ op*-*^ dlcKj A-O /v*tf ~U *?* iL ~^^j A*-*. J^o o4(**-r\ umH\ 00.". Atu-) v-.,f:"' 0 A-3 cii. DKol Si P /'i >^Airw^--^ ^^a4c#*^^' >s0 #*zfa* $v*-*M*+*^) Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 5, 1979 / Proposed Rules 51959 would occur, if credit is to be taken for- (f) The following definitions shall such reductions pursuant to paragraph apply under this section: M(2)(ii)(o). - , (1) "Stationary source"--the definition (v) The notice required by paragraph set forth in section II.A.1 of 40 CFR Part (j)(2)(iv) shall contain: 51. appendix S (the "offset ruling"). () The name and address of the (2) "Building, structure, or facility," ' owner or operator () The type and amount of each contemporaneous emission decrease and the affected emission unit: (c) A schedule of when each emission reduction would occur or haa occurred; and - (id) Any other information that the _ reviewing authority reasonably needs to determine if the proposed emission decreases would be acceptable. ' (3) A preconstruction review program, adopted to satisfy the requirements of sections 172(b)(6) and 173 for any area designated as nonattainment for any national ambient air quality standard under 40 CFR 81,300-81:356, shall apply to any new or modified major stationary source that is major for the pollutant for which the area is designated nonattainment, if the stationary source or modification-would either (I) locate in the designated nonattainment area; or (ii) cause or contribute to a violation of the ambient standard within the designated nonattainment area. A new ` or modified major stationary source that is major for volatile organic compounds is also major for ozone. Restrictions on Construction for Nonattainment Areas and "installation"--the definitions set forth in sections II.A.2 and 3, respectively, of the offset ruling. (3) "Potential to emit"--the definition set forth in section II.A.4 of the offset ruling. (4) "Major stationary source"--th^ definition set forth in section n.A.5 of the offset ruling. (5) "Modification" or "modified", as used in this section with reference to a major stationary source, means any physical change in or change in the method of operation of a major stationary source that would result in a significant increase in that stationary source's potential to emit the pollutant for which the stationary source is major, without regard to any other changes in or changes in the method of operation of the major stationary source (or that would make the stationary source major, taking into account alk. ' accumulated net increases in potential emissions occurring at the stationary source, including any initial construction, since December 21,1970). The additional conditions set forth in sections Il.A.8(ii) and (iii) of the offset ruling shall apply under this definition. (6) "Reconstruction" and "fixed 5. It is proposed that 40 CFR 52.24(e), - capital cost"--the definitions set forth in which was proposed at 44 FR 38585 (July sections II.A.9 and 10 of the offset ruling. 2. 1979), be added to read as set forth in (7) "Fugitive emissions"--the the earlier proposal, except that the first definition set forth in section ILA.13 of sentence would read as follows: ^ the offset ruling. 52.24* Statutory restriction on new . stationary sources. ... 4 *** (8) "Emission unit"--the definition set forth in section Q.A.8 of the offset ruling. (9) "Allowable emissions"--the definition set forth in section Il.A.B of (e) For any'area designated as " / _ the offset ruling. - nonattainment for any national ambient (g) Preconstruction Notice. (1) The - air quality standard, the restrictions in _ paragraphs (a) and (b) shall apply to any new or modified major stationary source that is major for the pollutant for which owner or operator of a proposed construction activity, who believes that the activity i3 not subject to paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section, shall notify the the area is designated nonattainment, if Administrator, if such construction the stationary.source or modification would be considered; 'would either (1) be constructed in the "' designated nonattainment area; or (2) (1) A major stationary source but for reductions in-the potential emissions of cause or contribute to a violation of the . the source through the application of air ambient standard within the designated pollution control equipment not ; ' nonattainment area. A new or modified generally required under the State major stationary source that is-major for volatile organicrcompounds is also major for ozone. .* * ' * * * . - Implementation Plan or any applicable standards as set forth in 40;CFR Parts 60 and 61. (2) The notice required by paragraph 8. It is proposed that 40 CFR 52,24. as (g)(1) shall contain: added at 44 FR 38473 (July 2,1979), be (i) The name and address of the amended by adding new paragraphs (f) owner or operator; and (g) to read as. follows: v (ii) The nature and location of the stationary source or modification; (iii) The potential to emit and allowable emission rates of the nonattainment pollutant(s) for all emission units within the new or modified stationary source: (iv) A schedule of when such change in the emission of the nonattainment pollutant(s) would occur; , (v) Any other information the Administrator reasonably needs to determine whether the restrictions of paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section would apply, (FR Doc. 79-snoo Filed 9-1-79, am| BILLING CODE SM0-41-M