THE TEXT YOU ARE VIEWING IS A COMPUTER-GENERATED OR RETYPED VERSION OF A
PAPER PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORIGINAL. ALTHOUGH CONSIDERABLE EFFORT HAS BEEN
EXPENDED TO QUALITY ASSURE THE CONVERSION, IT MAY CONTAIN TYPOGRAPHICAL
ERRORS. TO OBTAIN A LEGAL COPY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT, AS IT
CURRENTLY EXISTS, THE READER SHOULD CONTACT THE OFFICE THAT ORIGINATED
THE CORRESPONDENCE OR PROVIDED THE RESPONSE.
3.16
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA GEORGIA 30365
March 11, 1981
REF: 4AH-AF
Dear State/Local Director:
At the State Air Directors' meeting last fall, a request was made
for EPA to prepare and distribute a regular summary of PSD policy
determinations made by Region IV. Enclosed is the first such
summary. The frequency of future summaries will depend on the
number of determinations, but will probably be monthly. The
summary will be in addition to copies of any Headquarters'
letters or memos we send you.
I hope these summaries assist your new source review program.
Any questions or suggestions should be sent to Roger Pfaff
(404/881-3286).
Sincerely yours,
Thomas W. Devine
Director
Air and Hazardous Materials Division
Enclosure
EPA Region IV
Policy Determinations Regarding PSD Questions
- 11/13/80
Question: An engine manufacturing plant sprays VOC
contaminated wastewater into the air to dispose of
VOC. Is the activity, if new, subject to PSD?
Answer: If the source has nonfugitive emissions greater
than 250 TPY, the new emissions which are fugitive
would count in determining PSD applicability. The
only place fugitives are given special treatment
is in determining if the source is subject to PSD.
Reference: Section 52.21(i) (4) (vii)
- 11/24/80
Question: A major source makes a physical change which
increases emissions, but has offsetting reductions
elsewhere at the same time. In the past 5 years,
however, there have been other increases such that
the net result over 5 years is greater than de
minimis. Is the new physical change subject to
PSD.
Answer: No. The proposed change must, by itself, result
in a net increase greater than de minimis in order
to be subject to PSD.
Reference: 1/22/81 memo, DSSE to Charles Whitmore, Region
VII.
- 12/2/80
Question: A major source wishes to take two actions: 1)
Increase production at a previously a PSD-
permitted emission unit; 2) Build a new emission
unit with less than de minimis emissions.
Emissions of fluorides from the two actions, when
added together, are greater than de minimis and
occur within the contemporaneous time frame. Does
the physical change (new unit) trigger PSD review
because of the change in actual emissions at the
previously permitted units being greater than de
minimis?
-2-
Answer: No, unless the production rate of the previously
permitted unit was limited in the permit. Section
52.21(b) (21) (iii) allows allowable emissions to
presumed to represent actual emissions for new
sources. Therefore, the increase in production at
the PSD source is not an increase in actual
emissions. Also, due to a 1/22/81 policy
memorandum, the new unit by itself must be greater
than de minimis to trigger review.
Reference: Section 52.21(b)(21 () iii)
1/22/81 memo, DSSE to Charles Whitmore, Region
VII.
- 12/2/80
Question: In the previous example, what if the previously
permitted source were an existing source which did
not have a new source construction permit under
the SIP?
Answer: In this case, the proposed unit would be subject
to PSD, since the net increase calculation would
include the production rate increase from the
existing source. After the new permit is issued,
the "slate is wiped clean", and only future
increases and decreases would count.
CHANGE: As of 1/22/81, this situation would also not
trigger PSD, because the physical change (new
unit) is not, by itself, greater than de minimis.
Reference: 1/22/81 memo, DSSE to Charles Whitmore, Region
VII.
- 12/2/80
Question: Is an iron foundry one of the 28 PSD categories?
Answer: Yes, it is a secondary metal production plant, if
it uses scrap metal to produce iron, even if the
metal is poured into molds.
Reference: Section 52.21(b) (1) (i) (a)
- 12/2/80
Question: (Offset Policy) A modification is subject to the
Offset Policy. In addition to the proposed 50 TPY
emission increase, the company had a 500 TPY
increase from an unreviewed production rate
increase 3 years ago. Do offsets have to be
obtained for the full 550 TPY?
-3-
Answer: Yes, unless the 500 TPY was from a new source with
a SIP construction permit whose permit conditions
did not prohibit the increase.
Reference: Part 51, Appendix S, Section II.A.7.(iii).
- 12/12/80
Question: Is a whiskey distillery one of the 28 categories
(chemical process plants) listed in Section
52.21(b) (1) (i) (a)?
Answer: No. A chemical process plant is any establishment
in Major Group 28 of the SIC Code. Beverage
distilleries are in Major Group 20.
Reference: Section 52.21(b) (1) (i) (a)
- 12/12/80
Question: A major stationary source wishes to make a
physical change resulting in a 15 TPY increase in
particulate. Less than 5 years ago, the source
had a production increase (not subject to PSD)
resulting in a 50 TPY increase in SO2. Is the
proposed increase subject to PSD?
Answer: No. The triggering increase must be of the same
pollutant as the one for which a significant
increase results. Also, due to a 1/22/81 policy
memo, the proposed physical change must be greater
than de minimis itself.
Reference: 1/22/81 memo, DSSE to Charles Whitmore, Region
VII.
- 1/12/81
Question: An existing source is operating in compliance with
the conditions of its operating permit. The
operating permit conditions are identical to the
requirements stated in the SIP for the source.
The source was in operation long before the New
Source Review Procedures were incorporated into
the SIP.
-4-
The source owner proposes to construct a new
emission unit at the source and to simultaneously
offset the increased emissions by reducing
emissions (through installation of emission
control equipment) at an existing unit at the
source. Emissions from the proposed new unit will
be completely offset for all pollutants emitted
except sulfur dioxide which will increase by a
significant amount, thus subjecting the proposed
construction to PSD review. The reduced emission
rate for the existing unit will be made a
condition of the unit's operating permit. The
proposed construction and simultaneous offsetting
reduction of emissions at the existing unit will
be subject to public scrutiny during the 30-day
comment period required as part of the PSD review.
Will the proposed emission reductions at the
existing unit be "federally enforceable"?
Answer: No. But if appropriate conditions are included in
the construction permit for the new unit
(requiring the existing unit to reduce emissions),
this situation would be federally enforceable.
Reference: Section 52.21(b) (3) (vi) (b).
- 1/12/81
Question: A source is operating in compliance with the
conditions stated on its operating permit. The
conditions of the operating permit are identical
to the conditions contained in the construction
permit which was issued for the source in
accordance with the New Source Review procedures
of the SIP at the time of issuance.
The source owner proposes to reduce emissions
to a lower level than is currently allowed
under the operating permit by some method
such as installation of more efficient
control equipment. The source owner requests
that the operating permit be revised to limit
source emissions to this lower emissions
level and proposes an appropriate method
(stack testing, continuous monitoring, etc.)
to demonstrate compliance with this lower
emission limit. Will this proposed new
emission limit be "federally enforceable" as
defined in the August 7, 1980 PSD regulations
at 40 CFR Section 552.21(b) (17)?
Answer: No. Operating permits are not federally
enforceable. The State could, however, change the
cond0itions of the construction permit to make the
reduced emission rate federally enforceable.
Reference: Section 52.21 (b) (17).
Notebook Entries: 10.22; 12.9; 13.5; 2.15; 4.16; 5.9 |