Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
June 16, 2014
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Air Quality Rule Changes and Updates
Overview |
Short summary
DEQ proposes rules to streamline, reorganize and update Oregon’s air quality permit programs. The changes would allow DEQ to improve air quality with more efficient and effective permitting programs. The proposed rules include changes to the Continuous Monitoring Manual and the Source Sampling Manual (Volumes I and II).
DEQ also proposes changes to statewide particulate matter standards and the pre-construction permitting program. This would help Oregon align its particulate matter standards with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s adoption of the ambient air quality standard for fine particulates, commonly called PM2.5, and ensure Oregon’s permitting programs protect air quality.
In addition, DEQ proposes rules to expand pre-construction permitting flexibility for smaller businesses, allow DEQ to use technology such as teleconferencing for holding public meetings to improve community outreach, and make minor changes to the Heat Smart program and gasoline dispensing facility rules to improve program implementation.
This document organizes and describes the proposed rules under the following nine categories:
1. Clarify and update air quality rules
2. Update particulate matter emission standards
3. Change permitting requirements for emergency generators and small natural gas or oil-fired equipment
4. Establish two new state air quality area designations (“sustainment” and “reattainment”) to help areas avoid and more quickly end a federal nonattainment designation
5. Identify Lakeview as a state sustainment area while retaining its federal attainment designation
6. Change the pre-construction permitting program (New Source Review)
7. Provide more flexibility for public hearings and meetings
8. Re-establish woodstove replacement program (Heat Smart) exemption for small commercial solid fuel boilers that the permitting program regulates
9. Remove annual reporting requirements for small gas stations
DEQ proposes to incorporate the proposed rules into the Oregon Clean Air Act State Implementation Plan adopted by the Environmental Quality Commission in OAR 340-200-0040.
Note: See DEQ’s crosswalk of all rules changes, including the rules in the State Implementation Plan, for details
Regulated parties
The proposed rules affect:
• All businesses, agencies and local governments holding air quality permits;
• Businesses required to submit construction approval notices;
• Businesses that sell small solid fuel boilers; and
• Businesses that dispense less than 10,000 gallons of gasoline a month.
Request for other options
During the public comment period, DEQ requests public comment on whether to consider other options for achieving the proposed rule’s substantive goals while reducing any negative economic impact of the rules on business.
Statement of need |
1. Clarify and update air quality rules | |
After years of rulemakings and updates, DEQ proposes to clarify, update and reorganize Oregon’s air quality rules. Previous improvements to these programs began with EQC’s adoption of revisions to point source air management rules in 2001 and air quality permit program streamlining and updates in 2007. The rules contain multiple definitions for the same term, missing details, obsolete or outdated rules and rules that do not align with EPA rules, which causes confusion. This proposal would clarify and update the rules to address the needs listed in this table.
| |
What need would the proposed rules address? | How would the proposed rules address the need? |
Some important details are missing from the rules, such as specific compliance methods for determining compliance with an emission standard. This creates uncertainty for DEQ and regulated parties implementing the air quality programs. | The proposed rules would incorporate the missing compliance methods and help businesses understand how to comply with every standard. |
Some procedures are in definitions rules instead of procedural rules, creating confusion for regulated parties. For example, the procedures for determining a major modification, actual emissions and netting basis are in the definitions rules. | The proposed rules would move procedures from definitions rules to procedural rules. For example, a business would find the procedure for determining actual emissions in procedural rules instead of in definitions. |
The rules contain different definitions for the same term and definitions are located in multiple divisions, making it difficult for regulated parties to find definitions or know how to apply the definitions. | The proposed rules would move all common definitions to division 200, General Air Pollution Procedures and Definitions. They would provide only one definition per term and add definitions for undefined terms such as control efficiency, internal combustion source and removal efficiency. |
Some of the tables in the rules are difficult to find and understand. | The proposed rules change the layout of some tables and move rule language from the tables into the text to make information easier to find and understand. This includes information about significant emission rates, de minimis levels, generic Plant Site Emission Limits, significant impact levels and Prevention of Significant Deterioration increments. |
The rules contain requirements for industries that no longer operate in Oregon. | DEQ proposes to repeal rules for the following industries that no longer operate in Oregon: • Neutral sulfite semi-chemical pulp mills • Sulfite pulp mills • Primary aluminum standards • Laterite ore production of ferronickel • Charcoal producing plants If a business in these industries wants to build in Oregon and requires an air quality permit, DEQ would issue the permit under federal requirements for new sources. Oregon rules incorporate the federal rules by reference. |
Some rules became unnecessary when Oregon adopted federal and state standards.These rules no longer align with more stringent EPA standards, which creates conflict between DEQ’s rules and federal law. | DEQ proposes to repeal the following rules: • Federal rules apply to manufacturers of consumer spray paint. DEQ’s proposed rules would repeal incompatible state rules. The federal rules will continue to reduce ozone from consumer products. • Oregon no longer needs the general sulfur dioxide trading program to address regional haze because Oregon adopted individual emission limits (based on Best Available Retrofit Technology requirements) to directly reduce haze-causing emissions from sources like the PGE Boardman plant.
• Federal rules for commercial and industrial solid waste incineration require facilities with forced-air pit or air curtain incinerators to obtain Title V permits. DEQ’s proposed rules would repeal unnecessary open burning rules that regulate emissions from forced-air pit or air curtain incinerators. |
The excess emission rules do not contain all of the sources required to report excess emissions. They also do not contain source specific criteria for determining enforcement action. The excess emission rules require sources to report excess emissions to DEQ: • Large sources must report all excess emissions immediately (within one hour of the event)
A “large” source is defined as any Title V source, any source whose emissions are equal to or exceed 100 tons per year of any regulated air pollutant, or which is subject to a National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants.
• Small sources must notify DEQ immediately only of excess emissions events that could endanger public health.
A "small” source means any other stationary source with a basic, general, simple or standard Air Contaminant Discharge Permit. In the definition of “small” sources in the excess emission rules, DEQ inadvertently did not include sources that are on basic permits.
Since EQC’s initial adoption of the excess emission rules, EPA adopted NESHAPs for many smaller sources, such as gas stations, hospital ethylene oxide sterilizers, and dry cleaners. These sources are missing from DEQ’s rules, which creates conflict between DEQ’s rules and federal law.
The general provisions for NESHAP sources includes excess emission reporting, and the provisions for some individual NESHAPs includes excess emission reporting; therefore, DEQ’s rules do not need to include these small sources with large sources that are required to report exess emissions immediately. Source specific technology based standards such as New Source Performance Standards and NESHAPs consider the achievable emissions of a facility that uses best demonstrated technology. Adding this criterion when determining whether to take enforcement action for excess emissions allows DEQ to recognize that while a source may violate the general statewide standard,the source is still complying with the source specific technology based standard. | The proposed rules would add the missing and omitted sources required to report excess emissions and add the criteria for determining whether to take enforcement action for excess emissions, including • Whether any federal New Source Performance Standard or National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants apply and whether the excess emission event caused a violation of the federal standard; and • Whether the excess emissions event was due to an emergency.
In addition, DEQ proposes to limit the sources that can introduce new information about emergencies as a way to counter or defend against Title V violations (affirmative defense) to Title V permitted sources only because of recent federal law suits.
|
Portions of the Source Sampling Manual (Volumes I and II) and the Continuous Monitoring Manual are no longer current, which creates problems for DEQ staff and regulated parties implementing the manuals. DEQ last updated the manuals in 1992.
| The proposed rules update the Source Sampling Manual (Volumes I and II) and the Continuous Monitoring Manual.
DEQ extensively revised the Source Sampling Manual Volume I to incorporate revised EPA methods for measuring fine particulate matter and other changes to sampling and monitoring methods made since 1992. The manual addresses air emissions source sampling practices and procedures for sampling projects conducted within the State of Oregon. DEQ requests that stakeholders who perform air source sampling work and associated laboratories familiarize themselves with the entire manual.
DEQ also extensively revised the Continuous Monitoring Manual to address: • Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems; • Continuous Parameter Monitoring Systems; • Continuous Opacity Monitoring Systems; • Federal monitoring requirements pertaining to NSPS, NESHAP, and Acid Rain programs; and • DEQ specific monitoring requirements.
DEQ requests the following stakeholders who do business in Oregon familiarize themselves with the entire manual: • Commercial operations that are required to install and operate Continuous Monitoring Systems; • Contractors that audit or certify Continuous Monitoring Systems; and • Venders who sell or design Continuous Monitoring Systems. The manuals are part of the Proposed Rules in this rulemaking package. |
2. Update particulate matter emission standards | |
DEQ proposes more stringent particulate matter standards to help prevent violations of the federal fine particulate standard.
Like many other states, Oregon adopted statewide particulate matter standards in 1970 as part of Oregon’s initial State Implementation Plan. Since 1970, health researchers have concluded that exposure to particulate pollution is more harmful than previously indicated. As a result, EPA lowered the ambient air quality standard for particulates from 260 micrograms per cubic meter; it established separate standards, including a coarse particulates standard at 150 micrograms per cubic meter and a fine particulates standard at 35 micrograms per cubic meter.
EPA designates areas that violate air quality standards as nonattainment areas and designates all other areas as attainment or unclassifiable areas. Emissions from grandfathered businesses subject to particulate matter standards for sources built before 1970 can harm public health and create barriers to economic development. With EPA’s adoption of the fine particulate ambient air quality standard in 2011, Klamath Falls and Oakridge are now designated as nonattainment areas for fine particulate. Lakeview also violates the standard but was not designated nonattainment because its data was not available at the time EPA designated Klamath Falls and Oakridge. Numerous other areas in Oregon are only slightly below the standard. More stringent state particulate matter standards may help prevent additional violations of the federal fine particulate standard in the future.
The initial State Implementation Plan included less protective emission standards for businesses that were in operation in 1970; these are known as grandfathered businesses. However, emissions from grandfathered businesses subject to the particulate matter standards no longer protect air quality. Routine exposure to air pollution at these levels can cause significant adverse health impacts to sensitive individuals.
In addition, emissions from these businesses can create barriers to economic development in the community. If a single pollution emitting business consumes the majority an airshed’s acceptable pollution levels, other businesses may not be able to expand and new businesses may not be able to come into the area. Work on the Klamath Falls fine particulate attainment plan showed when the background particulate matter concentration is added to a business’s impacts, the impacts from a single grandfathered business could consume a significant portion of the available airshed. DEQ found similar results when analyzing emissions from a grandfathered business near Lakeview. If a single pollution emitting business consumes the majority an airshed’s acceptable pollution levels, other businesses may not be able to expand and new businesses may not be able to come into the area.
DEQ relies on two types of general standards to control emissions from permitted sources of particulate matter such as dust or smoke. One type of standard sets concentration-based emission limits as mass per unit volume of exhaust gas. A second type of standard, referred to as a visible emissions standard, limits the maximum visual density, or opacity, of a plume. Existing rules include different particulate concentration and opacity standards for units installed before or after 1970: Pre-1970 unit 0.2 grain/dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf) and 40 percent opacity Post-1970 unit 0.1 gr/dscf and 20 percent opacity
| |
What need would the proposed rules address? | How would the proposed rules address the need? |
Emissions from particulate matter are putting Oregon areas at risk of exceeding ambient air quality standards and being designated as nonattainment by EPA. Once EPA designates an area as nonattainment for fine particulate emission, DEQ and the local government must develop and implement a federally-approved attainment plan, which is costly to the agencies involved and can require severe restrictions for businesses that want to build or expand in these areas. Attainment plans for fine particulate nonattainment areas typically include stringent regulations to reduce emissions from existing and new industry, residences and commercial establishments. An example of the type of restrictions imposed on businesses when developing PM2.5 attainment plans are in the rules adopted for the Medford/Ashland air quality maintenance area (known as AQMA) PM10 attainment plan under OAR 340-240-0100 through 340-240-0250. | Reducing emissions from grandfathered businesses before areas exceed ambient air quality standards and are designated as nonattainment areas helps Oregon avoid the costs of developing and implementing attainment plans. This would help avoid severe restrictions for businesses that want to build or expand in these areas. The proposed rules would affect both the statewide particulate matter and opacity standards for grandfathered units built before June 1970 by phasing in a requirement for these businesses to meet lower standards based on typically available control technology. The proposal would allow a five-year transition period, ending no later than Jan. 1, 2020, but includes an opportunity for a one-year extension, if necessary. The proposed rules provide an option to request a source-specific limit if equipment optimization does not result in emissions low enough to meet the revised standards. This would ensure the proposed rules would not require any business to replace a boiler or convert to fossil fuel. |
DEQ’s rules conflict with federal requirements. Oregon’s current particulate matter standards have only one significant figure (e.g., 0.1 gr/dscf) whereas EPA expects all standards to have two significant figures (e.g., 0.10 gr/dscf) when comparing measured emissions data to the standards. | The proposed rules add a significant figure to all Oregon particulate matter standards to align with the EPA policy that standards have two significant figures. The intent of the proposed rules is to ensure that Oregon’s particulate standards are consistent with current EPA policy for significant figures when determining compliance with standards. |
DEQ’s rules do not contain all of the compliance methods necessary to demonstrate compliance with opacity standards. Oregon based its first adopted opacity standard on an aggregate of three minutes in a 60-minute period. However, Oregon didn’t develop a reference test method for the three-minute aggregate limit. As a workaround to demonstrate compliance with this standard, Oregon businesses used a modified version of EPA’s Method 9 reference test method; however, this workaround is inconsistent with EPA and other states’ methods. In addition, current rules for the four-county area around Portland include a 20 percent opacity standard that is an aggregate of 30 seconds in a 60-minute period for non-fuel burning equipment such as material handling equipment. However, Oregon didn’t develop a reference method for the 30-second aggregate limit. Not having reference methods for these opacity standards makes it difficult for businesses to demonstrate compliance with the standards, and creates difficulty for DEQ in assuring compliance with and enforcing the standards. | The proposed rules would help ensure Oregon businesses use a reliable and defined method to measure compliance with statewide opacity standards that are consistent with EPA and other states’ methods.
The proposed rules would amend all opacity standards, both statewide and industry specific, to a six-minute block average except for the recovery furnace opacity limit that remains the same. This six-minute block average is consistent with other states in the region and EPA and is compatible with EPA’s Method 9 reference test method. DEQ does not expect this to change the overall stringency of the standards.
The proposed rules would repeal the 20 percent opacity standard for the four-county area around Portland to eliminate the problem of complying with or enforcing the standard. This equipment would be subject to the statewide opacity standard. While it may appear the visible emissions standard in OAR 340-208-0600 is more stringent than the current statewide standard, the rule has limited applicability to the four-county area. More importantly, emissions standards are only enforceable if there are defined methods for determining compliance with the standards. This means the proposed rule does not reduce stringency for non-fuel burning equipment. |
DEQ needs a different method for addressing opacity from fugitive emission sources. DEQ and businesses currently use Method 9, but this method isn’t specific for fugitive sources. Fugitive particulate matter emissions are not emitted from a smoke stack and typically originate from storage piles, material conveying systems, unpaved roads or other dusty activities. In many situations, it is possible to take opacity readings to determine if the emitting source exceeded the opacity standard and then require action to abate the emissions. However, in other situations, opacity readings are difficult to take or the emissions do not exceed the opacity standard, but are nevertheless objectionable. | The proposed rules would require businesses, at DEQ’s request, to take reasonable precautions to prevent fugitive emissions and to develop and implement a fugitive emissions control plan to prevent visible emissions from leaving the business’s property. This is a simpler, more comprehensive and effective approach to controlling these emissions than the current approach that requires DEQ to make a nuisance determination outside of special control areas. DEQ and businesses would use EPA Method 22, Visual Determination of Fugitive Emissions from Material Sources and Smoke Emissions from Flares to determine compliance. Method 22 is specific for fugitive sources and would be a much better method for determining compliance than the currently used Method 9. |
3. Change permitting requirements for emergency generators and small natural gas or oil-fired equipment | |
Federal law requires Title V permits to account for emissions from all activities at a regulated facility, including the main emitting activities and insignificant activities that do not warrant the kind of effort applied to the main emitting activities. When Oregon established the Title V permitting program in 1993, DEQ developed a list of “categorically insignificant activities” that may take place at a source but are not addressed individually in the permit. This list includes activities such as: • Janitorial activities • Groundskeeping activities • Emergency generators
Businesses indicate they have categorically insignificant activities in their permit applications, but these activities are exempt from rigorous monitoring requirements because DEQ determined emissions from these activities are insignificant compared to other activities onsite. | |
What need would the proposed rules address? | How would the proposed rules address the need? |
EPA recently adopted National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines. EPA’s adoption added requirements for emergency generators currently exempt from permitting in Oregon because DEQ lists them as categorically insignificant activities. In addition, the growing need for large amounts of backup power from emergency generators at data centers has shown that emissions from emergency generators can be significant.
DEQ also determined that small fuel burning equipment, currently listed as categorically insignificant because each unit has low emissions, could have significant aggregate emissions if a business has multiple units. For example, DEQ identified one business that has eight small boilers that together have significant potential emissions of approximately 12 tons per year of nitrogen oxides. | The proposed rules would remove emergency generators and small natural gas or oil-fired equipment from the list of categorically insignificant activities if: • Those units are above size thresholds that make them subject to emission limits, or • Their aggregate emissions are greater than de minimis levels.
DEQ would add these activities to existing permits.
In cases where emissions from a non-permitted business with these activities exceed permitting thresholds, the non-permitted business might need to obtain a permit for these activities alone. If the aggregate emissions are less than permitting thresholds, the owner or operator may only need to obtain pre-construction approval from DEQ when installing new units and not a permit. |
4. Establish two new state air quality area designations (“sustainment” and “reattainment”) to help areas avoid and more quickly end a federal nonattainment designation | |
EPA designates areas that violate air quality standards as “nonattainment” areas and designates all other areas as “attainment” or “unclassifiable” areas. Oregon law designates former nonattainment areas that EPA reclassified to attainment as “maintenance” areas to ensure those areas avoid future violations. DEQ proposes to establish two new Oregon air quality area designations (“sustainment” and “reattainment”) to help areas avoid and more quickly end a federal nonattainment designation. If EQC approves these proposed rules, it would be able to designate specific areas of the state as “sustainment” or “reattainment” based on a local air quality analysis and public comment. To designate a specific area as “sustainment” or “reattainment” would require a rule change and public notice. These designations would provide communities and businesses with additional tools and incentives to improve air quality. Please view DEQ’s Lakeview Sustainment Area for supplemental information about these designations. | |
What need would the proposed rules address? | How would the proposed rules address the need? |
There are gaps in the current designation system, described in the next two sections, that can create disincentives for affected communities to improve air quality and unnecessarily impede economic development. While EPA does not establish designations for these areas, there is a need for Oregon to establish designations to help these areas avoid and more quickly end a federal nonattainment designation.
| The proposed rules would establish two new designations for areas that are close to or violating air quality standards: • Sustainment area for a federally designated attainment area that is in danger of failing to meet air quality standards and which EPA has not yet designated a nonattainment area. • Reattainment area for a federally designated nonattainment area that is meeting air quality standards and which EPA has not yet redesignated an attainment area. These classifications would provide communities and businesses with additional tools and incentives to improve air quality described below. EQC would designate specific areas of the state as sustainment or reattainment based on a local air quality analysis, DEQ recommendations and public comment. These classifications would provide communities and businesses with additional tools and incentives to improve air quality, as described below. |
Communities are not provided sufficient opportunities to avoid nonattainment designation.
This first gap in area designations is for attainment areas where the air quality is in danger of failing to meet air quality standards. While air pollution in these areas can cause health effects, new or modified businesses are not necessarily the sources that contribute to the problem. However, air pollution levels in the area make it difficult or impossible for new and expanding businesses to demonstrate that their added emissions will not cause or contribute to air quality violations. The current permitting rules for attainment areas do not include provisions for these businesses to offset their emission increases by a reduction in emissions from existing sources in the area. Designating these areas as nonattainment areas may be appropriate in some cases. However, in other cases, a nonattainment designation could impose prescriptive federal requirements and timelines that interfere with the more effective local efforts to improve air quality. | Establishing sustainment areas would provide communities more opportunities to avoid nonattainment designation. The proposed rules would allow DEQ to work with the local community to determine if a state sustainment designation would be the best approach to improve air quality and prevent a nonattainment designation. DEQ would identify potential sustainment areas based on an air quality analysis that may include monitoring, development of an emission inventory, and air quality modeling. The analysis would identify the air pollution sources that primarily contribute to public health concerns, and a boundary for the potential sustainment area. DEQ would then propose the sustainment designation for public comment through its rulemaking process.
An EQC-designated sustainment area would remain a federal attainment area. However, the proposed rules for sustainment areas would address industrial source emissions that the community could rely upon as part of an overall plan, such as EPA’s PM Advance program, for improving the ambient air quality. Within a sustainment area, new and modified facilities would receive incentives to obtain emission offsets from those existing air pollution sources that are identified as the primary cause of degraded air quality in the sustainment area under category six below (6. Change the pre-construction permitting program (New Source Review)). |
Some communities must continue to perform costly elements of an attainment plan when those elements are no longer necessary to protect air quality. This second gap in area designations is for nonattainment areas that have met federal ambient air quality standards by implementing an approved attainment plan. For these areas to be designated as federal attainment areas and state maintenance areas, DEQ must develop and EPA must approve a long-term air quality maintenance plan. In developing the maintenance plan, DEQ may determine that some elements of the attainment plan are no longer required to maintain air quality. However, until EPA redesignates the area to attainment – a process that can take years – the area must continue implementing all elements of the attainment plan. | Establishing reattainment areas would allow communities must continue to perform costly elements of an attainment plan when those elements are no longer necessary to protect air quality.
The proposed rules would allow DEQ to propose to EQC a state reattainment designation for a federal nonattainment area with an approved attainment plan where air quality reliably meets the federal ambient air quality standard. The potential for a reattainment area designation would create an incentive for a community to improve air quality as quickly as possible. The boundary for the reattainment area would be the same as the nonattainment area boundary.
An EQC designated reattainment area would remain a federal nonattainment area. All elements of the area’s attainment plan would continue to apply until EPA approves a maintenance plan and redesignates the area to attainment. However, within the reattainment area, new and modified facilities that fall below the federal major source threshold would be subject to less stringent requirements unless DEQ has identified the facility as a significant contributor to the air quality problems in the area under category six below (6. Change the pre-construction permitting program (New Source Review)). |
5. Identify Lakeview as a state sustainment area while retaining its federal attainment designation | ||
Air quality in Lakeview currently does not meet the ambient air quality standards for fine particulates. However, EPA has not yet designated Lakeview a nonattainment area because Lakeview was not exceeding the standard at the time EPA made its designations throughout the United States. Oregon did not have the required three years of monitoring data to determine if the area was violating the federal standards. Please view DEQ’s Lakeview Sustainment Area for supplemental information about the designation for Lakeview. | ||
What need would the proposed rules address? | How would the proposed rules address the need? | |
Lakeview’s status as violating the federal air quality standard without a nonattainment designation has created problems in permitting new and modified facilities. The construction approval process for attainment and unclassified areas includes an analysis that a new or expanding major pollution source will not cause or contribute to a violation of air quality standards. However, this test is not possible to meet for an area that already violates the standards. This, in effect, prevents DEQ from approving construction permits for new and expanding facilities in Lakeview. | The proposed rules would designate Lakeview as a state sustainment area proposed under category four above. While Lakeview would retain its federal designation as an attainment area, a state designation of sustainment would help the community in its efforts to improve air quality by: • Providing more flexible permitting requirements for non-federal major emission sources and • Avoiding a federal nonattainment designation.
Attachment A to this document includes DEQ’s technical analysis to identify the boundary and primary sources of air pollution in the proposed sustainment area. | |
It is likely EPA would designate Lakeview a nonattainment area. Designating Lakeview as a nonattainment area would preclude the community’s active voluntary efforts to meet federal air quality standards under the PM Advance program. | The Lakeview community voluntarily participates in EPA’s “PM Advance” program to develop an air quality improvement and prevention plan. Local officials hope to bring the area quickly back into attainment with the standard to avoid a federal nonattainment designation and the resulting impacts on costs for businesses seeking to locate there. DEQ assists the community with technical analysis and administrative support for the PM Advance planning process.
The PM Advance plan that Lakeview is currently developing outside the rulemaking process will address all PM2.5 emission sources, including residential wood stoves and open burning. DEQ determined that the PM Advance plan and designation as a sustainment area would complement each other to address stationary sources within the Lakeview area.
Under the sustainment area designation, new and expanding businesses that do not exceed the federal major source threshold of 250 tons per year of particulate matter could be permitted by obtaining offsets under category six below. The offset requirement would be lowered for businesses that obtain offsets from residential wood heating, which is the primary cause of air quality violations in Lakeview. | |
6. Change the pre-construction permitting program (New Source Review) | |
DEQ proposes changes to the New Source Review program to improve air quality in all areas of the state, especially those that are close to or exceed ambient air quality standards. New Source Review is a federally required preconstruction program that ensures new or modified facilities install the latest control technologies and do not have adverse impacts on ambient air quality standards. The intent of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration portion of the New Source Review program is to prevent degradation of air quality in areas that meet federal air quality standards. The intent of the nonattainment New Source Review program is to improve the air quality in designated nonattainment areas that violate air quality standards. DEQ’s proposal would also establish New Source Review requirements for the proposed new sustainment and reattainment area designations described in category four above.
Please view DEQ’s New Source Review paper for supplemental information about these designations. | |
What need would the proposed rules address? | How would the proposed rules address the need? |
The current New Source Review program rules do not distinguish between requirements for facilities that emit more than the federal major source threshold and those that emit less. Federal law requires states to have both a major and a minor New Source Review program. The requirements for the major New Source Review program are very prescriptive. States have more flexibility in designing the minor New Source Review program if the state demonstrates that it will protect air quality. Oregon’s current requirements for minor and major New Source Review are the same. This limits DEQ’s ability to use the minor New Source Review program in the most effective way to protect air quality while enabling economic development. | The proposed rules for new and modified facilities would distinguish those facilities above the federal major source threshold from facilities below the threshold. To do this, the proposed rules would: • Amend the definition of a major source to match the federal definition. • Establish a minor New Source Review program for smaller businesses called “State New Source Review.” • Tailor New Source Review requirements for smaller businesses to the air quality needs of an area in ways that cannot apply to larger businesses because of federal requirements. |
Current criteria for determining if a major new or modified facility would improve air quality in or near a nonattainment or maintenance area are known as Net Air Quality Benefit. The criteria:
• Are based solely on air quality modeling, • Are impossible for businesses to meet, unless the increasing and offsetting businesses are co-located, • Prevent potentially more beneficial local air pollution reduction projects from occurring, thereby creating an unnecessary construction ban, and • Require new or modified businesses to reduce emissions from other existing businesses and demonstrate that together the emission increases and reductions result in improved air quality at most receptors within the area. | The proposed rules would establish a new process for companies proposing a new or modified facility in or near a nonattainment, sustainment or maintenance area. The proposal provides a simplified modeling demonstration that requires emission offsets to be greater than emission increases. The offset ratio would depend on: • The area classification, and • Whether the new or modified source of emissions is a federal major source or minor source. The proposed rules would provide incentives for new or modified businesses to help address ambient air quality problems. The incentives would reduce the emission-offset ratio if the business obtains reductions from priority sources, those that primarily cause air quality problems in the local area. In addition, the proposed rules would ensure no degradation of air quality in relation to the ambient monitoring for the area. |
The current New Source Review program rules allow extensions of construction permits for good cause. The rules do not include criteria for approving or denying extensions of construction permits or the number of extensions allowed. Allowing construction permits to be extended multiple times without limit or additional review could: • Tie up the business’s designated allowable emissions portion of the airshed indefinitely, • Result in the installation of less effective control technology if control technology has improved since the approval of the original construction permit, and • Result in higher impacts on air quality than necessary. | The proposed rules provide two 18-month extensions and procedures for requesting and approving extensions for New Source Review construction permits: • For the first extension, the proposed rules would require a review of any new pollution control technologies that could be applied to the proposed source. • For the second extension, the proposed rules would require a review of the pollution control technology and a review of the impacts on the ambient air quality in the area. |
7. Provide more flexibility for public hearings and meetings | |
DEQ is committed to public engagement and staying current with emerging and innovative ways to reach people and hold hearings. This proposal would make it easier and more cost effective for people to participate in permit actions and public hearings. Current rules require DEQ to hold informational meetings on the most complex permit actions and public hearings when requested. | |
What need would the proposed rules address? | How would the proposed rules address the need? |
The existing rules are very prescriptive regarding how DEQ holds public hearings and meetings for air quality permits. These rules, first adopted by Oregon in 1974, do not allow for technological advances like Internet-based virtual meetings in lieu of statewide travel. Having staff travel to hearings and meetings around the state can be resource intensive and wasteful if no one attends to present comments or gather information. | The proposed rules would make it easier and more cost-effective for people to participate in public hearings and meetings by removing the prescriptive language from the rules. |
8. Re-establish woodstove replacement program (Heat Smart) exemption for small commercial solid fuel boilers that the permitting program regulates | |
DEQ proposes revisions to residential wood heating rules to remedy the inadvertent prohibition of selling small commercial biomass boilers in Oregon. DEQ’s Heat Smart program requires biomass and other solid fuel burning devices that have heat output of less than one million Btu per hour to meet certification requirements. The existing rules exempt small biomass boilers from certification requirements if they are subject to federal National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. However, EPA revised its rules in 2012 to exempt small biomass boilers from these standards. DEQ’s proposed rules reestablish the Heat Smart exemption for small commercial biomass boilers regulated through the construction approval and permit programs. | |
What need would the proposed rules address? | How would the proposed rules address the need? |
DEQ’s existing rules exempt small biomass boilers from the Heat Smart program if they are subject to National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. The Heat Smart Program is intended to ensure that commercial and residential wood stoves and other wood heating devices meet certification standards. The certification standards were not designed to apply to biomass boilers. However, EPA recently exempted small biomass boilers from the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. EPA’s exemption subjected these devices to Oregon’s Heat Smart rules unintentionally. This, in effect, prevents small commercial biomass boilers with heat output less than one million Btu per hour from being sold in Oregon. | The proposed rule changes would provide a pathway for small scale commercial biomass boilers to be sold in Oregon again, while ensuring they are still subject to existing state limits on particulate matter and opacity. This proposal would eliminate the reference to the federal regulations and allow boilers with a heat output less than one million Btu per hour to be sold in Oregon. |
9. Remove annual reporting requirements for small gas stations | |
DEQ proposes repealing the annual reporting requirement for small gasoline dispensing facilities after finding the reports unnecessary to ensure compliance with emission standards for preventing leaks and spills. | |
What need would the proposed rules address? | How would the proposed rules address the need? |
The annual reporting requirement for these small gasoline-dispensing facilities is unnecessary. A gasoline dispensing facility with a monthly throughput of fewer than 10,000 gallons of gasoline is currently required to: • Meet work practice standards, • Have a submerged fill tube installed on any tank at the facility that has a capacity of 250 gallons or more, • Submit to DEQ a one-time initial notification and later a notification of compliance status, if subject to the submerged fill tube requirement, and • Submit annual reports of throughput. These facilities are not required to have an air quality permit. DEQ collected one-time throughput data from these facilities and may request additional information if needed. The annual reporting requirement for these small gasoline-dispensing facilities is unnecessary. | The proposed rules would remove the annual reporting requirement for facilities with monthly throughput less than 10,000 gallons. DEQ would still have authority to request throughput information from these facilities. DEQ would request this information as needed for businesses close to the 10,000-gallon permitting threshold. |
How will DEQ know the rules have addressed the needs stated above?
To determine whether the rulemaking met its objectives, DEQ would confirm, as part of ongoing outreach, whether regulated parties have a clearer understanding of the program and their obligations. DEQ expects to see a reduction in the number of business that request help interpreting the rules. If EQC adopts the proposed rules after considering public comments, DEQ would submit the rules to EPA to update Oregon’s State Implementation Plan. DEQ would know the goals of this rulemaking have been addressed when EPA reviews and approves the State Implementation Plan revision.
Rules affected, authorities, supporting documents |
Adopt OAR:
340-200-0035, 340-202-0225, 340-204-0300, 340-204-0310, 340-204-0320, 340-208-0005, 340-212-0005, 340-214-0005, 340-222-0046, 340-222-0048, 340-222-0051, 340-224-0025, 340-224-0045, 340-224-0055, 340-224-0245, 340-224-0250, 340-224-0255, 340-224-0260, 340-224-0270, 340-224-0500, 340-224-0510, 340-224-0520, 340-224-0530, 340-226-0005, 340-234-0005, 340-234-0540, 340-236-0005, 340-240-0050
Amend OAR:
340-200-0010, 340-200-0020, 340-200-0025, 340-200-0030, 340-200-0040, 340-200-0050, 340-200-0100, 340-200-0110, 340-200-0120, 340-202-0010, 340-202-0020, 340-202-0050, 340-202-0070, 340-202-0100, 340-202-0110, 340-202-0130, 340-202-0200, 340-202-0210, 340-202-0220, 340-204-0010, 340-204-0020, 340-204-0030, 340-204-0040, 340-204-0050, 340-204-0060, 340-204-0070, 340-204-0080, 340-204-0090, 340-206-0010, 340-206-0020, 340-206-0030, 340-206-0040, 340-206-0050, 340-206-0060, 340-206-0070, 340-208-0010, 340-208-0110, 340-208-0210, 340-208-0300, 340-208-0310, 340-208-0320, 340-208-0450, 340-209-0010, 340-209-0020, 340-209-0030, 340-209-0040, 340-209-0050, 340-209-0060, 340-209-0070, 340-209-0080, 340-210-0010, 340-210-0020, 340-210-0100, 340-210-0110, 340-210-0120, 340-210-0205, 340-210-0215, 340-210-0225, 340-210-0230, 340-210-0240, 340-210-0250, 340-212-0010, 340-212-0110, 340-212-0120, 340-212-0130, 340-212-0140, 340-212-0150, 340-212-0200, 340-212-0210, 340-212-0220, 340-212-0230, 340-212-0240, 340-212-0250, 340-212-0260, 340-212-0270, 340-212-0280, 340-214-0010, 340-214-0100, 340-214-0110, 340-214-0114, 340-214-0130, 340-214-0200, 340-214-0210, 340-214-0220, 340-214-0300, 340-214-0310, 340-214-0320, 340-214-0330, 340-214-0340, 340-214-0350, 340-214-0360, 340-216-0010, 340-216-0020, 340-216-0025, 340-216-0030, 340-216-0040, 340-216-0052, 340-216-0054, 340-216-0056, 340-216-0060, 340-216-0062, 340-216-0064, 340-216-0066, 340-216-0068, 340-216-0070, 340-216-0082, 340-216-0084, 340-216-0090, 340-216-0094, 340-218-0010, 340-218-0020, 340-218-0030, 340-218-0040, 340-218-0050, 340-218-0060, 340-218-0070, 340-218-0080, 340-218-0090, 340-218-0100, 340-218-0110, 340-218-0120, 340-218-0140, 340-218-0150, 340-218-0160, 340-218-0170, 340-218-0180, 340-218-0190, 340-218-0200, 340-218-0210, 340-218-0220, 340-218-0230, 340-218-0240, 340-220-0010, 340-220-0020, 340-220-0060, 340-220-0070, 340-220-0080, 340-220-0090, 340-220-0100, 340-220-0110, 340-220-0120, 340-220-0130, 340-220-0170, 340-220-0180, 340-220-0190, 340-222-0010, 340-222-0020, 340-222-0030, 340-222-0040, 340-222-0041, 340-222-0042, 340-222-0060, 340-222-0080, 340-222-0090, 340-224-0010, 340-224-0020, 340-224-0030, 340-224-0040, 340-224-0050, 340-224-0060, 340-224-0070, 340-225-0010, 340-225-0020, 340-225-0030, 340-225-0040, 340-225-0045, 340-225-0050, 340-225-0060, 340-225-0070, 340-226-0010, 340-226-0100, 340-226-0110, 340-226-0120, 340-226-0130, 340-226-0140, 340-226-0200, 340-226-0210, 340-226-0310, 340-226-0320, 340-226-0400, 340-228-0010, 340-228-0020, 340-228-0100, 340-228-0110, 340-228-0120, 340-228-0130, 340-228-0200, 340-228-0210, 340-228-0300, 340-232-0010, 340-232-0020, 340-232-0030, 340-232-0040, 340-232-0050, 340-232-0060, 340-232-0080, 340-232-0085, 340-232-0090, 340-232-0100, 340-232-0110, 340-232-0120, 340-232-0130, 340-232-0140, 340-232-0150, 340-232-0160, 340-232-0170, 340-232-0180, 340-232-0190, 340-232-0200, 340-232-0210, 340-232-0220, 340-232-0230, 340-234-0010, 340-234-0100, 340-234-0140, 340-234-0200, 340-234-0210, 340-234-0220, 340-234-0240, 340-234-0250, 340-234-0270, 340-234-0500, 340-234-0510, 340-234-0520, 340-234-0530, 340-236-0010, 340-236-0310, 340-236-0320, 340-236-0330, 340-236-0400, 340-236-0410, 340-236-0420, 340-236-0440, 340-236-0500, 340-240-0010, 340-240-0020, 340-240-0030, 340-240-0100, 340-240-0110, 340-240-0120, 340-240-0130, 340-240-0140, 340-240-0150, 340-240-0160, 340-240-0180, 340-240-0190, 340-240-0210, 340-240-0220, 340-240-0250, 340-240-0300, 340-240-0320, 340-240-0330, 340-240-0340, 340-240-0350, 340-240-0360, 340-240-0400, 340-240-0410, 340-240-0420, 340-240-0430, 340-240-0440, 340-240-0510, 340-240-0550, 340-240-0560, 340-240-0610, 340-242-0400, 340-242-0410, 340-242-0420, 340-242-0430, 340-242-0440, 340-242-0500, 340-242-0510, 340-242-0520, 340-242-0600, 340-242-0610, 340-242-0620, 340-242-0630, 340-244-0232, 340-244-0234, 340-244-0236, 340-244-0238, 340-244-0239, 340-244-0240, 340-244-0242, 340-244-0244, 340-244-0246, 340-244-0248, 340-244-0250, 340-262-0450, 340-264-0010, 340-264-0020, 340-264-0030, 340-264-0040, 340-264-0050, 340-264-0060, 340-264-0070, 340-264-0075, 340-264-0078, 340-264-0080, 340-264-0100, 340-264-0110, 340-264-0120, 340-264-0130, 340-264-0140, 340-264-0150, 340-264-0160, 340-264-0170, 340-264-0180, 340-268-0010, 340-268-0020, 340-268-0030
Amend and renumber OAR:
current OAR 340-216-0020 Table 1 amended and renumbered to 340-216-8010;
current OAR 340-216-0020 Table 2 amended and renumbered to 340-216-8020;
current OAR 340-222-0043 amended and renumbered to 340-222-0035;
current OAR 340-222-0045 amended and renumbered to 340-222-0055;
current OAR 340-224-0080 amended and renumbered to 340-224-0034;
current OAR 340-224-0100 amended and renumbered to 340-224-0038;
current OAR 340-226-0310 Table 1 amended and renumbered to 340-226-8010;
current OAR 340-236-0410 Table 1 amended and renumbered to 340-236-8010;
Repeal OAR:
340-208-0100, 340-208-0200, 340-208-0600, 340-209-0070, 340-214-0400, 340-214-0410, 340-214-0420, 340-214-0430, 340-218-0250, 340-222-0070, 340-225-0090, 340-226-0200, 340-228-0400, 340-228-0410, 340-228-0420, 340-228-0430, 340-228-0440, 340-228-0450, 340-228-0460, 340-228-0470, 340-228-0480, 340-228-0490, 340-228-0500, 340-228-0510, 340-228-0520, 340-228-0530, 340-234-0300, 340-234-0310, 340-234-0320, 340-234-0330, 340-234-0340, 340-234-0350, 340-234-0360, 340-234-0400, 340-234-0410, 340-234-0420, 340-234-0430, 340-236-0100, 340-236-0110, 340-236-0120, 340-236-0130, 340-236-0140, 340-236-0150, 340-236-0200, 340-236-0210, 340-236-0220, 340-236-0230, 340-236-0430, 340-240-0170, 340-240-0230, 340-240-0310, 340-242-0700, 340-242-0710, 340-242-0720, 340-242-0730, 340-242-0740, 340-242-0750, 340-242-0760, 340-242-0770, 340-242-0780, 340-242-0790, 340-264-0190
Divisions 210, 216 and 218 include rules, programs or activities considered land use programs under the DEQ State Agency Coordination Program.
Statutory authority
ORS 468 and 468A
Statutes implemented
ORS 468, 468A, 468A.025, 468A.035, 468A.040, 468A.050, 468A.055, 468A.070, 468A.135, 468A.155, 468A.310, 468A.327, 468A.460 through 468A.515
Documents relied on for rulemaking ORS 183.335(2)(b)(C)
Document title | Document location | |
06/06/90 EPA guidance titled “Performance Test Calculation”
| ||
Standards of Performance for Stationary Compression Ignition Internal Combustion Engines | http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title40-vol6/pdf/CFR-2011-title40-vol6-part60-subpartIIII.pdf
| |
Standards of Performance for Stationary Spark Ignition Internal Combustion Engines | http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title40-vol6/pdf/CFR-2011-title40-vol6-part60-subpartJJJJ.pdf
| |
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines; New Source Performance Standards for Stationary Internal Combustion Engines
| http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-01-30/pdf/2013-01288.pdf
| |
Standards of Performance for Stationary Spark Ignition Internal Combustion Engines and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines; Final Rule | http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/area/fr18ja08.pdf
| |
Regulations Pertaining to NPDES and WPCF Permits (OAR 340-45) |
http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/pages/rules/oars_300/oar_340/340_045.html
| |
2011 Oregon Air Quality Data Summaries
| http://www.deq.state.or.us/aq/forms/2011AirQualityAnnualReport.pdf
| |
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers; Final Rule | http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-02-01/pdf/2012-31645.pdf
| |
Stationary Source Reporting Requirements - OAR 340-214-0110 | http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/pages/rules/oars_300/oar_340/340_214.html
| |
40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D — Network Design Criteria for Ambient Air Quality Monitoring
|
| |
EPA Cost Control Manual, Sixth Edition. U.S EPA report #EPA/452/B‐02‐001, January 2002. | ||
Western Forestry Leadership Coalition & Council of Western State Foresters: Resource Systems Group, Inc. Emission Control Technologies for Small Wood‐Fired Boilers – 6 May 2010. | http://www.wflccenter.org/news_pdf/361_pdf.pdf
| |
Fee Analysis |
This rulemaking does not involve any change in fees.
Statement of fiscal and economic impact ORS 183.335 (2)(b)(E) |
Fiscal and economic impacts
The proposed rules would have fiscal and economic impacts on the public, businesses, state agencies and units of local governments. DEQ proposes to:
• Streamline, reorganize and update Oregon’s air quality permit programs to improve air quality with a more efficient and effective permitting program,
• Amend statewide particulate matter standards and the pre-construction permitting program to align with EPA’s adoption of the ambient air quality standard for fine particulate, also known as PM2.5 and respond to problems identified with Oregon’s permitting program that must be addressed to protect air quality,
• Add pre-construction permitting flexibility for smaller businesses,
• Improve community outreach, and
• Make minor changes to the woodstove replacement program called Heat Smart and the gasoline dispensing facility rules to improve implementation.
Statement of Cost of Compliance
The cost of compliance is organized by the nine categories of rule changes.
Impacts on state agencies, local government and the public
1. Clarify and update air quality rules
State agencies: The proposed rules in this category do not affect other state agencies and therefore would not have fiscal or economic impacts on those agencies. DEQ’s workload would increase until staff become familiar with the proposed rules and then decrease due to improved organization and clarity.
Local government and the Public: The proposed rules in this category may have a slight positive fiscal or economic impact on local governments and the public because the rules would be easier for people to use and understand. DEQ is unable to quantify the magnitude of the impact because DEQ lacks information to estimate an individual’s time savings in having rules that are easier to use and understand.
2. Update particulate matter emission standards
General impacts: The proposed rules to update particulate emission standards have positive and negative fiscal and economic impacts. By updating the particulate matter standards, DEQ hopes to reduce the likelihood of additional nonattainment area designations in Oregon, including Lane County. There are often multiple categories of sources contributing to poor air quality in addition to industry. If EPA designates an area as nonattainment, DEQ is responsible for working with communities that violate federal air pollution health standards to develop a plan that decreases pollution to safe levels. The recent plan for the Klamath Falls area took two years to develop. It required DEQ to work with the Klamath Falls Air Quality Advisory Committee and other community members. Approval of the plan by EPA could take an additional two to three years.
During the development of an attainment plan, DEQ extensively considers impacts on local businesses and the economy. Plan elements try to minimize local economic impacts as much as possible. When EPA designates an area as nonattainment, federal requirements automatically apply to industrial sources, such as requiring the most stringent control equipment for new or expanding sources or reasonable control measures. Examples includes opacity standards, operation and maintenance plans, and fugitive emission plans. While these restrictions may prevent some industries from expanding or moving to the nonattainment area, the restrictions are designed to help clean the air and ensure the health of residents.
In addition, if DEQ does not adopt an attaintment plan, the federal restrictions become more stringent, such as a higher offset ratio requirement for industry (calculated as the quantity of offsets requireddivided by the quantity of emissions), and the area could even risk losing federal highway funds, both of which could have negative economic impacts on the community.
State agencies: DEQ anticipates the 26 state and six federal government agencies currently subject to air permitting regulations could experience the negative impacts described in the general impacts section above. Direct compliance with proposed particulate matter standards is not expected to affect any state agencies holding air quality permits. DEQ’s workload would initially increase but eventually decrease as staff become familiar with the proposed rules. Preventing areas from becoming nonattainment would avoid future increases in DEQ workload.
Local government: DEQ anticipates the 55 county and local governments currently subject to air permitting regulations could experience the negative impacts described in the general impacts section above. Direct compliance with revised particulate matter standards is not expected to affect any units of local government holding air quality permits, including those in Lane County.
Public: DEQ anticipates the proposed rules would not have any direct fiscal or economic impacts on the public due to the lower particulate matter standards. However, the proposed rules could affect the public indirectly if businesses change the price of goods and services to offset the costs of additional control or process equipment installed to meet lower particulate matter standards. DEQ expects any such price increases to be small but lacks available information to estimate potential increases accurately.
The proposed rules could indirectly create positive economic benefits and improvements in public health and welfare by reducing particulate matter emissions statewide. Particulate matter causes serious health problems ranging from increased respiratory and pulmonary symptoms, hospital admissions and emergency room visits, to premature death for people with heart and lung disease. These health problems have negative economic impacts. The proposed rules could create positive economic benefits and improvements in public health and welfare by reducing particulate matter emissions statewide. DEQ lacks available information to estimate the health and welfare benefits but when EPA adopted the current 24-hour PM2.5 national ambient air quality standard in 2006, EPA estimated the following:
• The nationwide cost of meeting the revised 24-hour PM2.5 standards at $5.4 billion in 2020. This estimate includes the costs of purchasing and installing controls for reducing pollution to meet the standard.
• The revised standards will yield $9 billion to $76 billion a year in health and visibility benefits in 2020. Health benefits include reductions in premature death, diseases and symptoms associated with fine particle pollution exposure.
3. Change permitting requirements for emergency generators and small natural gas or oil-fired equipment
General impacts: The proposed rules under this category may have a negative fiscal and economic impact on state agencies and units of local governments that own emergency generators or multiple small natural gas or oil-fired equipment if these units are required to be permitted.
For any state agencies or local governments required to get new permits, the initial cost of the permit would be $1,440 plus an annual fee of $1,555. For permitted facilities that have this equipment, DEQ would add the new requirements to existing permits at the time of renewal. The fees for these current permit holders would not change as a result of the proposed rules. There may be costs associated with additional recordkeeping depending on current environmental management systems in place but DEQ lacks available information to estimate this cost accurately.
State agencies: DEQ anticipates the 26 state and six federal government agencies currently subject to air permitting regulations could experience the negative impacts associated with recordkeeping described in the general impacts section above. DEQ has not identified any state agencies that would be required to get new permits because they own emergency generators or small natural gas or oil-fired equipment. DEQ workload would increase initially but could level off or decrease depending on the number of new facilities that require permits.
Local government: DEQ anticipates the 55 county and local governments currently subject to air permitting regulations could experience the negative impacts associated with recordkeeping described in the general impacts section above. DEQ has not identified any units of local governments that would be required to get new permits because they own emergency generators or small natural gas or oil-fired equipment.
Public: DEQ does not anticipate any direct fiscal or economic impacts from the proposed rules on the public. However, the proposed rules could affect the public indirectly if businesses change the price of goods and services to offset the costs obtaining a new permit, although DEQ has not identified any businesses that would be required to get new permits because they own emergency generators or small natural gas or oil-fired equipment. DEQ expects any such price increases to be small but lacks available information to estimate potential increases accurately.
4. Establish two new state air quality area designations (“sustainment” and “reattainment”) to help areas avoid and more quickly end a federal nonattainment designation.
State agencies: The proposed rules under this category would have no fiscal or economic impacts for other agencies because they are not involved in permitting businesses in the proposed areas. DEQ’s workload would initially increase as staff become familiar with the proposed rules. Designating sustainment areas would avoid future DEQ workload increases if nonattainment area designations are prevented. Designating reattainment areas would require approximately the same work as designating a maintenance area.
Local government: The proposed rules would have a positive fiscal and economic impact in sustainment areas by allowing businesses to build or expand in the area as long as air quality is protected. The proposed rules would have a positive fiscal and economic impact in reattainment areas because new and modified facilities that fall below the federal major source threshold would be subject to less stringent requirements provided they were not identified as a significant contributor to the air quality problems in the area. There would also be a positive fiscal and economic impact if local governments do not convene and hold advisory committee meetings that are required under the nonattainment and maintenance area designations. DEQ lacks available information to estimate the positive fiscal and economic impacts accurately.
Public: DEQ does not anticipate the proposed rules under this category would have any direct fiscal or economic impacts on the public. However, positive indirect fiscal or economic impacts to the public could occur as more businesses locate in the sustainment or reattainment areas. DEQ lacks available information to estimate the positive fiscal and economic impacts accurately.
5. Identify Lakeview as a state sustainment area while retaining its federal attainment designation
State agencies: The proposed rules under this category would have no fiscal or economic impacts for other agencies because they are not involved in permitting businesses in the Lakeview area. DEQ’s workload would initially increase as staff become familiar with the proposed rules. Preventing areas from becoming nonattainment would avoid future DEQ workload increases.
Local government: The proposed rules would have a positive fiscal and economic impact in Lakeview by allowing businesses to build or expand in the area as long as air quality is protected. There would also be a positive fiscal and economic impact if local governments do not convene and hold advisory committee meetings that are required under the nonattainment and maintenance area designations. DEQ lacks available information to estimate the positive fiscal and economic impacts accurately.
Public: DEQ does not anticipate the proposed Lakeview sustainment area designation would have any direct fiscal or economic impacts on the public. However, positive indirect fiscal or economic impacts to the public could occur as more businesses locate in Lakeview. In addition, if a new business locates in Lakeview and buys woodstove offsets, some members of the public may benefit from woodstove replacements. DEQ expects any monetary benefits in the form of price decreases to be small and lacks available information to estimate potential decreases accurately.
6. Change the pre-construction permitting program (New Source Review)
State agencies: DEQ anticipates the 26 state and six federal government agencies currently subject to air permitting regulations could experience impacts described under the impact on businesses section below. However, impacts are not likely because these agencies would probably never trigger New Source Review. Federal land managers of the U.S. Forest Service and National Park Service currently review New Source Review permit applications for businesses located close to Class I areas, which are usually designated wilderness areas. Their workload is not expected to change as a result of the proposed rules. DEQ’s workload would increase temporarily, but would eventually decrease, as staff becomes familiar with the proposed rules. Preventing areas from becoming nonattainment would avoid future increases in DEQ workload.
Local government: DEQ anticipates the 55 county and local governments currently subject to air permitting regulations could experience impacts described under the impact on businesses section below. However, impacts are not likely because these units of local governments would rarely, if ever, trigger New Source Review.
Public: DEQ does not anticipate any direct fiscal or economic impacts from the proposed rules on the public. However, the cost of the new permits ($50,400 as a one-time fee for a New Source Review Permit plus ongoing permit fees, depending on the type of facility) could increase the cost of services or products, creating an indirect fiscal or economic impact to the public. DEQ expects any such price increases for goods or services to be small and lacks available information upon which it could accurately estimate potential increases.
7. Provide more flexibility for public hearings and meetings
General impacts: The proposed rules would have a positive fiscal and economic impact on hearing and meeting attendees because they would be able to call in from around the state rather than travel to the hearing or meeting. Cost savings depend on the physical location of the hearing or meeting. DEQ lacks available information to estimate costs to attendees because the travel distance is unknown.
State agencies: The proposed rules could decrease travel and associated staff expenses for state agencies. DEQ lacks available information to estimate specific costs to attendees because the travel distance is unknown. The proposed rules would have a positive fiscal and economic impact on DEQ because DEQ would have the flexibility to hold virtual hearings with people calling in from around the state. This would reduce travel expenses. Currently, DEQ staff travels to hearings and meetings, not knowing whether there will be any attendees. DEQ tries to hold hearings and meetings in offices that are free of charge. The cost of using a state car is $0.56 per mile and accommodation rates are approximately $83 to $126 per night. The average hourly rate of a permit writer, including benefits, is $70 to $85 per hour. The cost of the hearing/meeting depends on how far staff must travel. If the physical location is two hours away, the cost could be approximately $2000. At least $800 of that cost is due to transportation. DEQ workload may increase initially depending on implementation of the proposed rule changes, but is expected to decrease as staff become familiar with the procedures of holding virtual hearings and meetings.
Local government: The proposed rules could decrease travel and associated staff expenses for local governments. DEQ lacks available information to estimate costs to attendees because the travel distance is unknown.
Public: The proposed rules could decrease travel expenses for the public because people will have more flexibility in attending public hearings and meetings. The public may experience positive indirect fiscal or economic impacts due to efficient use of resources and the ease of attending meetings anywhere in the state. DEQ expects costs to be small per individual, but lacks available information to estimate potential decreases accurately because the travel distance is unknown.
8. Re-establish woodstove replacement program (Heat Smart) exemption for small commercial solid fuel boilers that the permitting program regulates
State agencies: The proposed rules in this category would not have fiscal or economic impacts on other state agencies because they do not sell commercial solid fuel boilers. DEQ’s workload would not change because these rules reestablish a pathway for small-scale industrial, commercial and institutional boilers to be sold in Oregon again.
Local government: Units of local governments would not have a fiscal and economic impact under this category because they do not sell commercial solid fuel boilers.
Public: DEQ does not anticipate any direct, negative fiscal or economic impacts from the proposed rules on the public because they do not buy commercial solid fuel boilers.
9. Remove annual reporting requirement for small gasoline dispensing facilities
General impacts: DEQ anticipates a small positive fiscal and economic impact from the proposed rules that remove the annual reporting requirement for certain gasoline dispensing facilities . Removing the annual reporting requirement for these facilities would reduce their costs associated with reporting.
State agencies and local government: DEQ anticipates the 26 state agencies, six federal governments, and 55 county and local governments currently subject to air permitting regulations could experience positive impacts described in the general impacts section above. The proposed rules would decrease DEQ’s workload because there would be fewer reports for staff to process and review.
Public: DEQ anticipates that there would be no fiscal and economic impact on the public as a result of the proposed rules. DEQ estimates that any positive impact on gasoline dispensing facilities would be very small and would probably not be passed on to the public or customers.
Large businesses - businesses with more than 50 employees
DEQ anticipates the following fiscal and economic impact on approximately 1130 large businesses and 1550 small businesses.
1. Clarify and update air quality rules
The proposed rules in this category may have a slight positive fiscal or economic impact on businesses if the rules are easier to use and understand. DEQ is unable to quantify the magnitude of the impact because DEQ lacks information to estimate an individual’s time savings in having rules that are easier to use and understand.
2. Update particulate matter emission standards
The proposed rules would have direct negative fiscal and economic impacts on several large businesses holding air quality permits.
DEQ originally considered a much more stringent statewide standard (0.10 gr/dscf) for particulate matter emission standards. At that time, DEQ identified 11 businesses at risk of non-compliance with the proposed lower particulate standards without process changes or new or upgraded control equipment. Seven of these businesses are wood products facilities with wood-fired boilers, one is a pulp mill that operates its boiler on residual oil during natural gas curtailment, and three are asphalt plants. The North American Industry Classification System codes were identified for the affected businesses. DEQ ran those codes against third quarter 2013 Oregon census data. Of the 11 businesses, only the three asphalt plants are considered small businesses. No other small businesses were identified by the census data as being affected by the proposed rule changes.
DEQ anticipates there will be no additional costs to the asphalt plants because of an exemption for pre-1970 facilities that are used fewer than 10 percent of the time (fewer than 876 hours per year). The three asphalt plants that were at risk of exceeding the original more stringent statewide standard of 0.10 gr/dscf and 20 percent opacity are older plants that use wet scrubber controls and are exempt because of the hours of operation exemption in the proposed rules.
Input from businesses and legislators following DEQ’s August 2013 workshops indicated that compliance with the original standard DEQ considered (0.10 gr/dscf and 20 percent opacity) could have significant impacts, possibly requiring boiler replacement or addition of expensive controls, such as electrostatic precipitators. DEQ considered the information and mitigated negative fiscal and economic impacts by proposing alternative standards that are based on well maintained and typically available control technology, which are often multiclones for wood-fired boilers. The proposed rules would not require any business to shut down or change fuels.
Based on a review of ten years of source test data submitted to DEQ and the Lane Regional Air Pollution Agency, approximately two businesses may need to optimize boiler or control equipment performance to comply with the proposed opacity and grain loading limits. One of these wood-fired boilers has no controls and is not currently operating. The owner and operator of this boiler might be required to install a multiclone system if the business decides to operate the boiler.
The costs depend on the methods of compliance or pollution control technology, such as boiler tune-ups or replacement, multiclone optimization or installation and source testing. Based on inquiries with boiler manufacturers, pollution control vendors, engineering design consultants, and the regulated businesses, as well as information provided by the fiscal advisory committee, DEQ estimates the cost of complying with the proposed standards as follows:
Boiler tune-ups: Conducting a tune-up is one way to optimize performance of a boiler. Vendors estimated a typical boiler tune-up that requires no replacement parts would cost between $2,000 and $11,000. A typical tune-up may include:
• A visual inspection of the system while operating, looking for obvious things that need repair
• Review of past performance checks and expected performance data
• Gathering performance data (oxygen and carbon dioxide readings, stack temperature, feed water temperature, fuel moisture and steam flow)
• Making adjustments to boiler air delivery settings
A more comprehensive boiler tune-up costs from $33,000 to $65,000. A boiler tune-up may or may not allow sources to comply with the new standards over time but could provide other benefits such as reduced fuel costs. Federal law already requires wood-fired boilers to be tuned up every two to five years so this may not be an additional cost.
Multiclone optimization: If a tune-up is not adequate to comply with the standard, an owner or operator may choose to optimize its multiclone control technology. Nearly all wood-fired boilers in the state already have multiclones. Emissions from these boilers can be reduced by inspecting the integrity of all parts of the multiclone and checking for and repairing plugged or damaged tubes. A thorough multiclone inspection costs approximately $3,000 to $4,000. As part of the inspection, it may be necessary to install access panels and a gauge for accurately measuring the pressure drop across the multiclone at an additional cost of $1,000 to $2,000. Most wood-fired boilers with multiclones already have gauges to measure pressure drop. According to one vendor, the repair or upgrade of a multiclone is estimated to range in cost from $10,000 to a worst case $200,000 per boiler, depending on upgrades employed. The upper-end cost estimate may be atypical since it exceeds other vendors’ estimates for the cost of a new multiclone.
Another option for multiclone optimization is flue gas recirculation. Optimum performance of a multiclone occurs within a pressure drop range of about two to four inches of water column. However, the pressure drop can vary significantly, depending on the gas flow rate through the multiclone. The actual gas flow rate for a wood-fired boiler varies due to many factors, including firing rate and fuel quality. It is possible, however, to optimize multiclone performance with varying firing rates by using flue gas recirculation, which provides a nearly constant gas flow rate and a consistent pressure drop across the multiclone. Installation of flue gas recirculation ranges in cost from $30,000 to $100,000.
Engineering analysis: If a boiler tune-up or multiclone optimization does not enable a wood-fired boiler to meet the proposed particulate matter standard of 0.15 gr/dscf, the owner or operator of the boiler may request a source specific particulate matter limit of 0.17 gr/dscf. Before receiving a source specific particulate matter limit, the owner or operator must submit to DEQ a report by a registered professional engineer that specializes in boiler and multiclone optimization to evaluate existing equipment optimization options and certify a 0.15 gr/dscf standard cannot be met without installing additional controls. The cost of this engineering report will vary, depending on the reasons for the source specific particulate matter limit, but is expected to be within the range of $8,000 to $24,000.
Source test data shows all boilers currently operating in the state can meet 0.17 gr/dscf except for the one backup boiler described previously that is currently not in use. If boiler optimization does not allow this boiler to meet 0.17 gr/dscf, this facility may choose to install a multiclone if it decides to operate the backup boiler on wood rather than using the existing natural gas boiler.
Multiclone Installation: An owner or operator may choose to install multiclone pollution control equipment. Vendors state that compliance with a 0.15 gr/dscf particulate matter standard is possible with multiclones, especially with ceramic high-efficiency multicones, but is not guaranteed. Ceramic high efficiency multicones have been shown to reduce particulate matter to as low as 0.06 gr/dscf. Typical iron multiclones last approximately 12 to 15 years before needing replacement. The range of costs for the purchase and installation of an iron multiclone is approximately $60,000 to $150,000. This range of costs is approximately $110,000 to $120,000 for a high-efficiency ceramic multiclone costs. Typical iron multiclones last approximately 12 to 15 years before needing replacement. Ceramic multiclones last three to five times longer than iron multiclones.
Source Testing: An owner or operator that makes changes to its wood-fired boilers or pollution control equipment to meet the standard must perform source testing to determine if the changes were effective. A particulate matter source test costs approximately $12,000. Businesses are already required to perform periodic compliance source testing, but depending on the business’s source testing schedule, it may not be able to align the particulate matter source tests with its periodic compliance source tests.
Continuous opacity monitoring systems: An owner or operator may voluntarily choose to install a continuous opacity monitor to ensure it complies with opacity limits at all times. The responsible official for each Title V source is already required to submit a compliance certification report every six months stating whether compliance is continuous or intermittent. Opacity is a good indicator of how well a boiler is operating. High opacity is a result of high emissions and can inform the operator that adjustments are needed to reduce emissions. Adding a continuous opacity monitoring system, along with Flue Gas Recirculation, would help the operator run the boiler efficiently and in compliance with the emissions standards at all times.
A continuous opacity monitoring system ranges in costs from $13,000 to $30,000 including the cost for the computer. Installation costs range from $5,000 to $40,000 depending on the situation at the facility. Annual operating costs range from $300 to $6,000 per year. Equipment and installation cost of a recently installed system on a wood-fired boiler was $27,800, not including the cost of a computer.
Electrostatic precipitators: Installation of an electrostatic precipitator is not required to meet the proposed standards, but a business could voluntarily elect to install electrostatic precipitators to reduce emissions. An electrostatic precipitator can easily meet the 0.15gr/dscf standard because it controls emissions over the wide range of operating conditions that may occur due to changing steam demand and fuel quality. A new electrostatic precipitator costs from approximately $700,000 to $2.7 million. One vendor stated this cost could vary by plus or minus 40 percent. However, another vendor indicated a smaller electrostatic precipitator could be used if the goal were simply to comply with the 0.15 gr/dscf standard. Smaller electrostatic precipitators suitable for the affected wood-fired boilers range in costs from approximately $420,000 to $700,000 installed.
Boiler replacement: Boiler replacement is not required to meet the proposed standards, but a business could voluntarily elect to replace a boiler to reduce emissions. A new wood-fired boiler with an electrostatic precipitator would cost about $7 million. This cost is based on a 2006 boiler and electrostatic precipitator installation and does not include demolition costs associated with the removal of the old boiler. A boiler that provides 25,000 pounds of steam per hour is estimated to cost approximately $5.5 million while a boiler that provides 200,000 pounds per hour is estimated to cost approximately $17.9 million. These costs include electrostatic precipitators and continuous opacity monitors.
Summary of annualized costs: The following table summarizes and compares the cost effectiveness of several pollution control devices for controlling PM10 emissions.
Cost Effectiveness for Controlling PM10 Emissions
| ||||||
Pollution Control Device | Control Efficiency | PM10 Emissions Removed (tons/year) | Installed Capital Cost of Equipment | Annual Operating Costs | Total Annual Costs | Total Cost per Ton Removed |
Cyclone | 50% | 0.9 | $2,243 | $580 | $791 | $930 |
Multicyclone | 75% | 1.3 | $9,424 | $580 | $1,469 | $1,151 |
High Efficiency Multicyclone | 99% | 1.3 | $62,878 | $800 | $6,980 | $4,159 |
High Efficiency Multicyclone (valved) | 99% | 1.7 | $125,756 | $800 | $12,915 | $7,695 |
Core Separator (12”) | 94% | 1.7 | $111,709 | $1,239 | $12,350 | $7,685 |
Core Separator (24”) | 72% | 1.2 | $63,337 | $1,459 | $8,004 | $6,519 |
Cyclone + Baghouse | 99% | 1.7 | $109,878 | $3,920 | $14,291 | $8,483 |
ESP | 95% | 1.6 | $138,005 | $1,867 | $14,894 | $9,213 |
Note: This table is from “Emission Control for Small Wood-Fired Boilers” prepared for the U.S. Forest Service’s Western Forestry Leadership Coalition in May 2010
DEQ estimated costs based on information from equipment vendors and EPA’s Cost Control Manual.1 DEQ considers costs that are not included EPA Cost Control Manual, including:
• Change in the price of steel
• Foreign exchange rates for equipment purchased overseas
• Pollution control device design
• Fuel characteristics such as variable firing rates and wet fuels
• Space requirements2
• Ancillary equipment such as ductwork.
• Shipping costs.
3. Change permitting requirements for emergency generators and small natural gas or oil-fired equipment
The proposed rules may have a negative fiscal and economic impact on businesses that own emergency generators or multiple small natural gas or oil-fired equipment if these businesses are required to obtain permits. The initial cost of the permit is $1,440 and annual permit fees are approximately $1,600. DEQ has not identified any business that would be required to obtain a new permit under the proposed rule. Most businesses who have generators or equipment in the proposed rulese already hold air quality permits. DEQ would add the generators and equipment to these businesses’ permits at the time of permit renewal. The proposed rules would not affect these businesses’ permit fees. These businesses might experience costs associated with additional recordkeeping depending on their current environmental managements systems. DEQ lacks available information to estimate those costs of additional recordkeeping accurately.
4. Establish two new state air quality area designations (“sustainment” and “reattainment”) to help areas avoid and more quickly end a federal nonattainment designation
The proposed sustainment and reattainment area rules do not significantly change the permitting requirements for Oregon’s largest sources, known as federal major sources, and therefore have no fiscal or economic impact on large businesses. Without the new area designations, it will continue to be nearly impossible for people to obtain a permit to construct new smaller sources of air pollution in these areas. The proposed rules would reduce restrictions, creating opportunities for people to construct and operate small sources in these areas. Although there is a cost associated with obtaining a permit, DEQ believes the proposed rules have a net positive fiscal and economic impact by creating opportunities for people to create new businesses.
5. Identify Lakeview as a state sustainment area while retaining its federal attainment designation
The proposed sustainment and reattainment area rules do not significantly change the permitting requirements for the largest sources, known as federal major sources, and therefore have no fiscal or economic impact. Without the new area designations, it will continue to be nearly impossible for people to obtain a permit to construct new smaller sources of air pollution in Lakeview. The proposed rules would reduce restrictions, creating opportunities for people to construct and operate small sources in this area. Although there is a cost associated with obtaining a permit, DEQ believes the proposed rules have a net positive fiscal and economic impact by creating opportunities for people to create new businesses.
6. Change the pre-construction permitting program (New Source Review)
The proposed rules may have a negative or positive fiscal and economic impact on businesses that trigger the New Source Review program. DEQ estimates that impact below, but is unable to quantify the magnitude of the impact because New Source Review permitting requires DEQ to perform a case-by-case analysis, and the type of pollution controls and computer modeling varies for each case.
Establishing a minor New Source Review program for smaller sources of air pollution, distinct from New Source Review for major sources, would have a positive fiscal and economic impact on businesses. The existing rules do not allow some smaller sources to build or modify their facilities. The proposed rules would allow construction and modification as long as the area’s air quality is protected.
In nonattainment areas DEQ wants to transition back to attainment areas more quickly than EPA can redesignate the area, the proposed rules would allow businesses in the New Source Review program to meet requirements for maintenance areas rather than require them to meet more stringent requirements for nonattainment areas.The control technology required in a maintenance area is typically less expensive than technology required in a nonattainment area. If the technology results in fewer emission reductions than could be achieved with the more expensive technology required in nonattainment areas, the business might be required to purchase additional offsets.
The proposed rules address how new or modified businesses must improve air quality, such as increasing the quantity of offsets a business may be required to purchase. The cost of offsets for industrial facilities varies from $2,500 per ton to $100,000 per ton, depending on the pollutant and the supply and demand for offsets. In areas where air quality is close to an ambient air quality standard, the proposed rules allow fewer offsets to be obtained by a business that chooses to obtain offsets from the sources that are the greatest contributors to air quality problems. The proposed rules would provide the opportunity for a business to obtain offsets from woodstoves. The cost to replace an uncertified woodstove is approximately $3,000. A certified woodstove reduces emissions by about 0.03 tons per woodstove. The cost of one ton of offsets from woodstoves is approximately $100,000 per ton.
The proposed rules allow DEQ to providing extensions of a construction permit when construction is delayed. This would have a positive fiscal and economic impact on the business that need an extension because the permit fees for extensions are lower than the initial application fees for a construction permit. In addition, the business would be allowed to continue to use any offsets obtained under the original application as long as the offsets did not expire.
7. Provide more flexibility for public hearings and meetings
The proposed rules would have a positive fiscal and economic impact because they give people the option to attend hearings and meetings by phone from anywhere instead of traveling to the hearing or meeting. Cost savings depend on the physical location of the hearing or meeting and distance of travel for attendees.
8. Re-establish woodstove replacement program (Heat Smart) exemption for small commercial solid fuel boilers that the permitting program regulates
The proposed rules would have a positive economic benefit for businesses that wish to manufacture or use small biomass heating systems in commercial, industrial and institutional applications. The proposed rules would re-establish a pathway for small biomass boilers to be sold for commercial, industrial and institutional uses in Oregon.
9. Remove annual reporting requirement for small gasoline dispensing facilities
The proposed rules would have a positive fiscal and economic impact by removing the annual reporting requirement and administrative activities associated with reporting for the 540 gasoline dispensing facilities with monthly throughput of less than 10,000 gallons of gasoline.
Impact on small businesses (those with 50 or fewer employees) ORS 183.336
In addition to the fiscal and economic impact described under the section above “Large businesses - businesses with more than 50 employees”, the proposed rules could have the following impacts on small business.
a) Estimated number of small businesses and types of businesses and industries with small businesses subject to proposed rule.
| The proposed rules would require the approximate 1550 small businesses to comply with lower grain loading and opacity standards, many of which already have the lower standards in their permits. Current compliance information indicates that all small businesses already comply with the proposed standards.
|
b) Projected reporting, recordkeeping and other administrative activities, including costs of professional services, required for small businesses to comply with the proposed rule.
|
Fewer costs for reporting, recordkeeping or other administrative activities are expected if the amendments are adopted because approximately 540 gasoline dispensing facilities with monthly throughput of less than 10,000 gallons of gasoline would not be required to report.
There would be more recordkeeping and reporting for emergency generators and small natural gas or oil-fired equipment over permitting thresholds. |
c) Projected equipment, supplies, labor and increased administration required for small businesses to comply with the proposed rule. |
DEQ does not expect additional costs for equipment, supplies, labor or administration if EQC adopts the proposed rules. |
d) Describe how DEQ involved small businesses in developing this proposed rule.
|
DEQ informed small businesses by mail and email, announcements on the DEQ website, stakeholder meetings, a fiscal advisory committee meeting, the DEQ Small Business Compliance Advisory Panel, notices in the Secretary of State Bulletin, and ads in local papers. DEQ requests comments during the public comment period and at public hearings held in the spring of 2014. |
Documents relied on for fiscal and economic impact
For Air Contaminant Discharge Permits – Table 1, DEQ relied on OAR 340-216-0020
http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/pages/rules/oars_300/oar_340/_340_tables/340-216-0020_3-27.pdf
EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Report No. 452/B-02-001, January 2002, Section 6, Chapter 1, Baghouses and Filters. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/dir1/cost_toc.pdf
Consumer Price Index Conversion Factors 1774 to estimated 2021 to Convert to Dollars of 1998. 2013 Robert C. Sahr, Political Science, Oregon State University, Rev 05/08/2013. http://oregonstate.edu/cla/polisci/sites/default/files/faculty-research/sahr/inflation-conversion/excel/cv1998.xls
Emission Controls for Small Wood-Fired Boilers, Prepared for: United States Forest Service, Western Forestry Leadership Coalition, May 2010, http://www.wflccenter.org/news_pdf/361_pdf.pdf
Advisory committee for fiscal and economic impact statement
DEQ appointed a fiscal and economic impact advisory committee for this rulemaking. Members of the fiscal advisory committee included representatives from affected businesses, environmental groups and the general public. . DEQ considered input from the advisory committee and DEQ’s standing Small Business Compliance Advisory Panel when completing this fiscal and economic impact statement . DEQ also sought input on the fiscal and economic impact statement from its standing Small Business Compliance Advisory Panel.
Housing cost
To comply with ORS 183.534, DEQ determined DEQ determined the proposed rules may have an effect on the development cost of a 6,000-square-foot parcel and construction of a 1,200-square-foot detached, single-family dwelling on that parcel.
1. Update particulate matter emission standards: • The costs for additional control or process equipment could be passed through by businesses providing products and services for such development and construction.
1. Change permitting requirements for emergency generators and small natural gas or oil-fired equipment: • The costs for additional permits could be passed through by businesses providing products and services for such development and construction.
Change the pre-construction permitting program (New Source Review): The costs for additional permits, control or process equipment could be passed through by businesses providing products and services for such development and construction.
The possible impact of these proposed changes appears to be minimal. DEQ cannot quantify the impact at this time because the information available to it does not indicate whether the costs would be passed on to consumers and any such estimate would be speculative.
The other proposed changes do not have an effect on house costs. The other proposed changes would make it easier for people to use and understand air quality rules, provide more flexibility for public hearings and meetings, remove reporting requirements, affect the sales of small biomass boilers, and affect whether businesses can construct or modify in sustainment or reattainment areas.
Federal relationship |
"It is the policy of this state that agencies shall seek to retain and promote the unique identity of Oregon by considering local conditions when an agency adopts policies and rules. However, since there are many federal laws and regulations that apply to activities that are also regulated by the state, it is also the policy of this state that agencies attempt to adopt rules that correspond with equivalent federal laws and rules..." ORS 183.332
Relationship to federal requirements
This section complies with OAR 340-011-0029 and ORS 468A.327 to clearly identify the relationship between the proposed rules and applicable federal requirements.
1. Clarify and update air quality rules
Proposed rules in this category are “in addition to federal requirements” to address administrative issues. EPA does not have identical rules to the proposed rules that clarify and update existing DEQ rules.
What alternatives did DEQ consider, if any?
DEQ considered doing nothing, but did not pursue this alternative because there would still be confusion and possible misinterpretations. Also, errors in the rules would be unchanged.
2. Update particulate matter standards
Proposed rules in this category are “in addition to federal requirements” to protect public health and the environment. DEQ has statewide opacity limits for new and existing sources, including fugitive emission sources. There is no equivalent opacity standard for all businesses in EPA regulations. Some New Source Performance Standard have opacity and particulate matter limits for specific regulated industries but nothing that applies to all.
DEQ identified two New Source Performance Standards that have opacity limits for fugitive emissions. The proposed rules are in addition to federal requirements because they would require abatement of any fugitive emissions that leaves the property. Using EPA Method 9 to determine compliance, the New Source Performance Standard for:
• Metallic Mineral Processing Plants (Subpart LL) requires fugitive emissions to meet 10 percent opacity.
• Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants (Subpart OOO) contains a limit of 7 percent opacity and allows an affected facility to rely on water carryover from upstream water sprays to control fugitive emissions.
Proposed amendments to the current statewide visible emission standards that apply to non-fugitive sources would put DEQ’s standards substantively equivalent to EPA’s visible emissions standards. DEQ proposes changing the standards from an aggregate period to a six-minute average in order to use EPA Method 9 for determining compliance. The proposed change to add a significant figure to the particulate matter standard from 0.1 gr/dscf to 0.10 gr/dscf would align DEQ rules with applicable federal requirements and policies.
What alternatives did DEQ consider, if any?
DEQ considered not amending Oregon’s particulate matter standards. DEQ did not pursue this alternative because protecting air quality and supporting economic development are important to Oregon. Most businesses constructed before 1970 have already updated their facilities and now meet the lower particulate matter standards.
DEQ considered phasing out the standards that apply to pre-1970 sources and requiring all sources to meet the post-1970 standard with the addition of a significant digit (0.10 gr/dscf, for example) by Jan. 1, 2019. DEQ held workshops in August 2013 and asked for input on the considered changes. Several businesses provided information suggesting that complying with a limit of 0.10 gr/dscf would present a significant economic hardship.
DEQ considered the information and proposes a different set of standards that will not require any businesses to replace existing equipment or change the type of fuel being used. The changes to the standards are based on well maintained typically available control technology that will minimize particulate matter emissions to the extent practicable without replacing existing equipment.
DEQ considered not amending the averaging time for opacity standards that are currently based on an aggregate of three minutes in 60 minutes and 30 seconds in 60 minutes. DEQ did not pursue this alternative because enforcing the standard is questionable without a reference test method for compliance.
DEQ considered not amending the opacity limits for fugitive emission sources. DEQ did not pursue this alternative because implementation issues would still exist and abatement of fugitive emissions leaving the property boundary reduces emissions more than trying to determine compliance with 20 percent opacity.
3. Change permitting requirements for emergency generators and small natural gas or oil-fired equipment
The proposed rules are “in addition to federal requirements” and protect public health and the environment. The proposed rules would require construction approvals or permits for units whose emissions are significant, but were previously treated as insignificant activities. EPA requires states to have permitting programs for smaller units but does not specify the details of a minor New Source Review program. Because of the Plant Site Emission Limit rules, DEQ permits regulate smaller units than EPA requires.
What alternatives did DEQ consider, if any?
DEQ did not consider any alternatives because leaving the permitting requirements for small sources as is would cause potential violations of the internal combustion engine standards and DEQ rules for operating without a permit.
4. Establish two new state air quality area designations – “sustainment” and “reattainment” - to help areas avoid and more quickly end a federal nonattainment designation
The proposed rules are “in addition to federal requirements.” EPA only designates nonattainment areas but the proposed rules would designate other areas, sustainment and reattainment. This would improve Oregon’s New Source Review program to protect public health by improving air quality in areas where needed and providing permitting flexibility for smaller businesses.
What alternatives did DEQ consider, if any?
DEQ considered not designating sustainment and reattainment areas. DEQ did not pursue this alternative because EPA indicated support of the new designations.
5. Identify Lakeview as a state sustainment area while retaining its federal attainment designation
The proposed rules are “in addition to federal requirements.” EPA only designates nonattainment areas but the proposed rules would designate other areas, sustainment and reattainment. This would improve Oregon’s New Source Review program to protect public health by improving air quality in areas where needed and providing permitting flexibility for smaller businesses.
What alternatives did DEQ consider, if any?
DEQ considered not designating Lakeview a sustainment area. DEQ did not pursue this alternative because Lakeview and county officials support the designation.
6. Change the pre-construction permitting program (New Source Review)
The proposed rules are “in addition to federal requirements.” The proposed amendments would modify Oregon’s existing permitting rules and continue to protect public health and the environment while addressing economic concerns. Starting in 1982, Oregon’s permitting program has had a different structure than the federal program though EPA considers it substantively equivalent. The proposed rules would align some aspects of Oregon’s program with EPA’s federal program.
Proposed amendments to the definition of a major source would match the EPA definition but would propose different requirements for small and large businesses. The program for smaller businesses would be called State New Source Review. This change, along with the designation of sustainment and reattainment areas would allow more flexibility in permitting smaller sources while continuing to protect the ambient air quality.
The proposed rules would create new differences between the Oregon and EPA New Source Review preconstruction programs by defining two new area designations, sustainment and reattainment. These two new areas would have an important role in avoiding exceedances of the ambient air quality standard and encouraging economic development when a nonattainment area has improved air quality.
DEQ’s program, although different from EPA’s regulations, provides a workable program equivalent to, and in some cases, more stringent than EPA’s to accomplish the same Clean Air Act goal of preventing significant deterioration of air quality.
What alternatives did DEQ consider, if any?
DEQ considered not changing the New Source Review rules. DEQ did not pursue this alternative because there is essentially a construction ban in areas that are over the standard but still designated as attainment. Current rules for demonstrating net air quality benefit in nonattainment areas are overly prescriptive and do not meet the goals of the program.
7. Provide more flexibility for public hearings and meetings
The proposed rules are not “different from or in addition to federal requirements” and impose stringency equivalent to federal requirements.
What alternatives did DEQ consider, if any?
DEQ considered not proposing amendments to the requirements for public hearings and meetings. DEQ did not pursue this alternative because the economic benefits and improved effectiveness of using recent technology would improve access to hearings and meetings. This would be easier and more cost effective for the public.
8. Re-establish woodstove replacement program (Heat Smart) exemption for small commercial solid fuel boilers that the permitting program regulates
Heat Smart rules are “in addition to federal requirements.” EPA does not have similar rules.
What alternatives did DEQ consider, if any?
DEQ did not consider other alternatives because this proposal would amend the rules to return it to its previous state, before EPA amended the NESHAP rules.
9. Remove annual reporting requirement for small gasoline dispensing facilities
Proposed rule amendments would remove annual reporting requirement for gasoline dispensing facilities with monthly throughput of less than 10,000 gallons of gasoline, consistent with federal requirements. The federal gasoline dispensing facility NESHAP does not require gasoline dispensing facilities with monthly throughput of less than 10,000 gallons of gasoline to submit annual reports.
What alternatives did DEQ consider, if any?
DEQ considered not changing the annual reporting requirement for gasoline dispensing facilities with monthly throughput of less than 10,000 gallons of gasoline. DEQ did not pursue this alternative because the annual reporting requirement for these small gasoline dispensing facilities is unnecessary. DEQ would still have the authority to request throughput information from these facilities for businesses close to the 10,000 gallon permitting threshold.
Request for other options
During the public comment period, DEQ requests public comment on whether to consider other options for achieving the proposed rule’s substantive goals while reducing any negative economic impact of the rules on business.
Land use |
“It is the Commission's policy to coordinate the Department's programs, rules and actions that affect land use with local acknowledged plans to the fullest degree possible.” OAR 340-018-0010
Land-use considerations
To determine whether the proposed rules involve programs or actions that are considered a land-use action, DEQ considered:
• Statewide planning goals for specific references. Section III, subsection 2 of the DEQ State Agency Coordination Program document identifies the following statewide goal relating to DEQ's authority:
Goal Title
5 Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources
6 Air, Water and Land Resources Quality
11 Public Facilities and Services
16 Estuarial resources
19 Ocean Resources
• OAR 340-018-0030 for EQC rules on land-use coordination. Division 18 requires DEQ to determine whether proposed rules would significantly affect land use. If yes, how will DEQ:
◦ Comply with statewide land-use goals, and
◦ Ensure compatibility with acknowledged comprehensive plans, which DEQ most commonly achieves by requiring a Land Use Compatibility Statement.
• DEQ’s mandate to protect public health and safety and the environment.
• Whether DEQ is the primary authority that is responsible for land-use programs or actions in the proposed rules.
• Present or future land uses identified in acknowledged comprehensive plans.
Determination
DEQ determined that the following proposed rules, listed under the Rules affected, authorities, supporting documents section above, are existing rules that affect programs or activities that the DEQ State Agency Coordination Program considers a land-use program:
OAR 340-210 Source Notification Requirements
OAR 340-216 Air Contaminant Discharge Permits
OAR 340-218 Oregon Title V Operating Permits
The air quality permit programs require that a new business provide a Land Use Compatibility Statement from local government when applying for a permit. This assures that the business has an approved use for the property where it is located. Existing permittees have provided a Land Use Compatibility Statements, which are on file with DEQ. This rule proposal does not include any changes to land use procedures in the air quality permitting program.
DEQ’s statewide goal compliance and local plan compatibility procedures adequately cover the proposed rules.
• OAR 340-018-0040(1) - compliance with statewide planning goals achieved by ensuring compatibility with acknowledged comprehensive plans
• OAR 340-018-0050(2)(a) - ensuring compatibility with acknowledged comprehensive plans may be accomplished through a Land Use Compatibility Statement.
Stakeholder and public involvement |
Advisory committee
DEQ appointed a fiscal and economic impact advisory committee for this rulemaking. Members of the fiscal advisory committee included representatives from affected businesses, environmental groups and the general public.
In addition to…. DEQ held several stakeholder meetings in Portland, Pendleton, Eugene and Medford forpreliminary input on the potential rules. DEQ sent meeting information to all permitted facilities and people who expressed interest in air quality rulemakings. DEQ sent meeting notifications by postcards; email using Oregon’s GovDelivery system, a free e-mail subscription service that provides subscribers with automatic notices of updates to the Oregon DEQ Web page on topics they select; and posted the announcement on the DEQ website. EPA was involved throughout the rule development process.
DEQ also called all the businesses identified as being affected by the more stringent particulate standards and offered to meet with them individually.
EQC prior involvement
DEQ shares general rulemaking information with EQC through the monthly Directors Report and Information Items. DEQ shared information about this rulemaking with the commission in the February 2014 Director’s Report and in Information Item ## on the ___________ 2014 EQC agenda.
Public notice
DEQ will provide Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with Hearing for this rulemaking June 16,
2014, by:
• Posting notice on the DEQ Rulemaking Web page at http://www.oregon.gov/deq/RulesandRegulations/Pages/2014/AQPerm.aspx
• Email to Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle
• Email to approximately 6,762 interested parties through GovDelivery including subscribers of the groups Rulemaking, Title V Permit Program Public, and Air Quality Permits
• Email to X,XXX representatives of permit holders
• U.S. Postal Service to representatives of permit holders not signed up for email notification
• The following key legislators required under ORS 183.335:
◦ Michael Dembrow, Chair, Senate Environment and Natural Resources
◦ Representative Jules Bailey, Chair, House Energy and Environment
◦ Senator Whitsett
◦ Senator Lee Beyer, Chair, Senate Business and Transportation
DEQ will provide legal notice in the following newspapers:
• The Oregonian publication date – June 18, 2014
• Daily Journal of Commerce publication date – June 16, 2014
Public hearings
DEQ plans to hold one statewide public hearing accessible at the regional offices listed in the table below.
Before taking public comment and according to Oregon Administrative Rule 137-001-0030, the staff presenter will summarize the content of the notice given under Oregon Revised Statute 183.335 and respond to any questions about the rulemaking.
DEQ will add the names, addresses and affiliations of all hearing attendees to the interested parties list for this rule if provided on a registration form or the attendee list. DEQ will consider all oral and written comments received at the hearing before completing the draft rules. DEQ will summarize all comments and respond to comments on the EQC staff report.
Close of public comment period
The comment period will close June 27, 2014 at 5 p.m.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Accept or edit as needed. We need to notify the reader that we’re proposing changes to the manuals. I made an attempt.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
FYI Moved to history in Statement of Need
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required: Accept or edit as needed. We need to state our SIP revision in this section. I made an attempt.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Create and add hyperlink to crosswalk. We need to publish the crosswalk online if it is supplemental information. We wouldn’t publish it as part of the proposed rules, but as supplemental information outside of the rulemaking packet.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Recommendation: I think this sentence belongs here, in the overview, instead of any other section in this document.
jinahar, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Maggie and Andrea – where would I put a request for comment on whether people think LRAPA’s rules are as stringent as our proposed rules?
acurtis, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Jill, regarding LRAPA and stringency: the Notice is not an appropriate venue to seek this type of input. I’d like more information to help recommend options for you. you could send people a survey or questionnaire.
acurtis, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Jill, regarding asking people to provide information: the Notice is not an appropriate venue to seek this type of input. you could send people a survey or questionnaire
.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Required MOVE. This is a template change. I moved this information from the the Statement of Need section
acurtis, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Remove this from
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Moved here from overview section
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Fyi Changed for consistent terms
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Recommended deletion. Unnecessary and causes a red flag
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Edit or clarify as needed. We need an introductory statement upfront for clarity. I made an attempt
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Describe the need for the rule in the left column.
Another action required. I don't understand this. Please clarify what is limited. Certain facilities? Certain devices at facilities? Also, It’s unclear how federal lawsuits are related to this rule change.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Jill, Action required. This description of changes to the manuals is too long for the Notice. I recommend adding a cover page to the manuals with this info.
DEQ proposed extensive revisions to its Source Sampling Manual. The manual addresses air emissions source sampling practices and procedures for sampling projects conducted within the State of Oregon. Stakeholders that perform air source sampling work and associated laboratories should familiarize themselves with the entire manual. Below is a list of changes and additions that may generate substantial interest.
• Source test plan content requirements added within Appendix A
• Test Report content requirements added within Appendix A
• New Sample Postponement and Stoppage Requirements in Section 2.6
• New Sample volume requirements for HAPs in Section 2.7.a
• New In-Stack Detection Limit requirements in Section 2.8
• Changing DEQ 5 & 7 detection limit from 20 mg to 7 mg. in Section 2.8.b.
• New significant figures and rounding procedures within Section 2.10
• New procedures for reporting results below the in-stack detection limits within Section 2.11.c
• New report submittal requirements within section 2.11.d
• Equipment calibrations and analytical results records retention changed to a minimum of 5 years, Section 2.11.e
• Added sampling method references for PM10, PM2.5 and various HAPs, Appendix B
• Revised DEQ Method 4 vapor pressure equation (Eq. 4.4-2)
• Now allowing use of Hexane as organic solvent for DEQ Methods 5 & 7
• New calibration and standardization procedures for analytical balance, DEQ Method 5 Section 7.8.1
• New lower isokinetic limit (80%) for DEQ Method 8
• New updated calculations for DEQ Method 8
• New calibration requirements for DEQ methods, listed in Appendix D
DEQ proposes extensive revisions to its Continuous Monitoring Manual. The manual addresses Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems, Continuous Parameter Monitoring Systems, and Continuous Opacity Monitoring Systems. Federal monitoring requirements pertaining to NSPS, NESHAP, and Acid Rain programs are addressed by reference. DEQ specific monitoring requirements are specified throughout the document. The following stakeholders that do business in the State of Oregon should familiarize themselves with the entire manual:
• Commercial operations that are required to install and operate Continuous Monitoring Systems;
• Contractors that audit or certify Continuous Monitoring Systems; and
• Venders who sell and/or design Continuous Monitoring Systems.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Please verify and edit as needed. we want to state clearly up front what we are doing.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Please edit or accept as needed. This section needed a clearer flow of information. I made an attempt. .
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Suggestion. Could you concisely describe the new standard (eg. 0.15 gr/dscf and alternatives).
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Align the fiscal with this information. This is a good description of fiscal impact, and is not reflected in the fiscal impact section
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Verify and edit as needed. We need to say why the workaround doesn’t work for us. I made an attempt.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Recommended deletion unless this detail is necessary for the reader to understand
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Please clarify what you mean by objectionable. Edit this statement to clarify why the regulation is needed.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Briefly describe how DEQ would make the request. Without it, it sounds like DEQ is empowered to make any request for any reason.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Please correct the title of this document as needed.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Add hyperlink to the supplemental information.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
FYI Deleted because the impacts and disincentives are described in the next row, not here.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Please clarify This is confusing. What happens to the companies? Verify whether my changes are accurate. They are suggestions.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Concisely state the need up front. Verify whether my suggestion is accurate.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Concisely state the need up front. Verify whether my suggestion is accurate.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Please correct the title of this document as needed.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Add hyperlink to the supplemental information.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Change title and edit. Are you referring to the document I added in the above sectioni? We need to retitle this (cannot be “attachment A” .
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Please clarify. Which ones? Just PM2.5? others? If others, than the Summary in the Overview section (1st page of this notice) is unclear. In the Summary, it sounds like the changes to preconstruction are based on PM2.5 and no other pollutants.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Please correct the title of this document as needed.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Add hyperlink to the supplemental information.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Use consistent terms for clarity (either EPA or federal or something else)
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Concisely state the need up front. It’s unclear what the need or problem is. Is it that the current modeling critiera are too complex? Exclude some companies from participating?
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Clarify if needed. Only staff, or the public too? I thought the public were going to benefit.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Clarify what the proposed rules do. I don’t understand what the rule does. Can the public call in from anywhere in the state (eg, their homes) or do they have to attend a deq office?
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Concisely State the need in the first sentence of this paragraph
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Clarify. I don’t understand what pathway means. Re-phrase please
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Explain how we would know the rules address the need. EPA approval of the SIP not sufficient. You don’t have to specificy each of the nine categories, summaries are okay, One of our goals of this rulemaking is to improve air quality. Explain how we measure meeting that goal.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Verify whether my suggested addition makes sense. One of this rulemaking’s goals is to clarify and reduce confusion. Here, I added what we said in Cory’s Clean Fuels rulemaking, since her rulemaking had the same goal. “To determine whether the rulemaking met its objectives, DEQ would confirm, as part of ongoing outreach, whether regulated parties have a clearer understanding of the program and their obligations. DEQ expects a reduction in the number of business that request help interpreting the rules. In addition, DEQ expects information from regulated and opt-in parties about fuels imported, produced and distributed in Oregon would be more accurate.”
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Accept move. This is a template change.
mvandeh, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
I need the finalized proposed rules to complete this section.
mvandeh, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
strikethrough text indicates amendment
mvandeh, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
strikethrough text indicates amendment
mvandeh, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
strikethrough text indicates amendment
mvandeh, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
strikethrough text indicates amendment
mvandeh, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
strikethrough text indicates amendment
mvandeh, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
strikethrough text indicates amendment
mvandeh, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Not in Proposed Rules
mvandeh, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Also in repealed rules
jinahar, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Found a typo here that needs to be corrected
mvandeh, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Missing from proposed rules
mvandeh, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Aslo in amended rules
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Correction required
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Do we need to add EPA Method 9 and Method 20 to this section? If we relied on them to develop the proposed rules and manuals, add them to this section. I have the sense we did
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Moved to overview section.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. When they are no impacts, we need to say why there are no impacts. I added my suggestion.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. I don’t understand this section. It sounds like negative impacts occur if an area becomes subject to an attainment plan, and that the proposed rules would help keep an area from becoming subject. Therefore, wouldn’t the proposed rules have a positive impact, not a negative impact? Are there any positive fiscal and economic impacts on large businesses, direct or indirect? In the statement of need, you say:
1. Reducing emissions from grandfathered businesses before areas exceed ambient air quality standards and are designated as nonattainment areas helps avoid the costs of developing and implementing attainment plans.
2. This would help avoid severe restrictions for businesses that want to build or expand in these areas.
Both of these sound like indirect positive impacts,
mvandeh, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Is this suppose to be a mathmatica symbol?
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Clarify or verify whether my revision is correct
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Since the impact on state agencies and local government is identical, you can combine them into a single section for both state agencies and local government.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. I don’t understand the impact on this group of 26 state and six federal agencies. What are the negative impacts? In the section above, point out where things have negative impacts. Here, explain the circumstances under which an agency would experience those negative impacts.
In addition, is there any positive impact because other agencies will not have to help develop a plan if they are in compliance? You said the Klamath Falls plan took two years to develop, which sounds costly and resource intensive
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. I don’t understand the impact on this group. What are the negative impacts? In the section above, point out where things have negative impacts. Here, explain the circumstances under which an agency would experience those negative impacts.
In addition, is there any positive impact because other agencies will not have to help develop a plan if they are in compliance? You said the Klamath Falls plan took two years to develop, which sounds costly and resource intensive
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
FYI I moved this to clearly describe the effect upfront.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Change to active voice.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
I don’t understand the impact on this group. Do any have existing permits? Do they only experience negative impacts if they are required to get a new permit? If they already have a permit, are they affected?
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
I don’t understand the impact on this group. Do any have existing permits? Do they only experience negative impacts if they are required to get a new permit? If they already have a permit, are they affected?
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Irrelevant to fiscal impact and caused me confusion
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Add examples. Such as….
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Price decreases of what?
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Large or small or both?
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Large or small or both?
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Instead of providing this detail, can we just provide a range of costs for DEQ to hold a hearing?
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Andrea ask Maggie
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
I don’t understand
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
deleted because you explained "who" in the statement of need.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
action required. what is the general impact on this group (governments/agencies/public)
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
action required. clarify the positive impact on these facilities. do all of these facilities own gas stations. this is confusing
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Are there any positive fiscal and economic impacts on large businesses, direct or indirect? In the statement of need, you say: Reducing emissions from grandfathered businesses before areas exceed ambient air quality standards and are designated as nonattainment areas helps avoid the costs of developing and implementing attainment plans. This would help avoid severe restrictions for businesses that want to build or expand in these areas.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Removed this title because it causes confusion with the titles below (e.g. wood fire boilers) This section appears to be general. The subsequent sections like wood fire boilers are subsections to this general section.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Verify if this is accurate. I added it to concisely summarize the impact up front.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Verify if this is ok. I moved the information on asphalt plants from other places to this paragraph for clarity and simplicity.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Why does this matter? They were exempt from the original consideration, so why call this out?
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Please clarity. I made a suggestion in the previous sentence. We revised what we decided to propose. We would call a revision “Revising the rule proposal” if we revised the rules after we put them on public notice.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Use consistent terms where needed throughout document. Here, "grain loading limits", but in the next paragraph "grain loading standards". Are limits and standards the same thing? If yes, use the same term.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Verify. Is this boiler a third boiler, or one of the two. I made a suggestion.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Fyi I think this detail is unnecessary here. You mention it later.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Fyi Moved up for clarity and simplicity.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Fyi Combined info with above description of who is affected.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Moved to next paragraph.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Actioin required to clarify costs. How often is a tune up likely required? One time? Annually?
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Fyi moved to next paragraph
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Elsewhere, I see the word multicyclone. If it’s incorrect to use both multiclone and multicyclone in this document, fix throughout entire document.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required to clarify costs. How often is optimization likely required? One time? Annually?
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Fyi The cost is clearly high. I think what you’re saying is the cost is atypical or unlikely or unrealistic or something like that
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Can you add a couple words here for clarity. “of water column” I don't understand what this means
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Should this be “and” , “or” ? both?
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Added for clarity. Will it be an option "may choose" or requirement?
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
suggestion for consistent tems.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Fyi moved for clarity
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Clarify. Is this cost in addition to compliance source testing even if these tests were performed at the same time?
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
I don't understand how this is relevent.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Added for carity within this paragraph. Is this accurate?
acurtis, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
DEQ needs to own this decision to use the info in this fiscal. Change to DEQ considered input from… based on input from vendors. The cost ranges.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. If you keep this sentence, reword this statement. DEQ chose an alternative standard to 0.10, but didn’t really revise its proposed rules. This Notice and Proposed Rules is DEQ’s proposal. Revising the proposal can happen after the public comment period closes.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Don’t call out a single source. I recommend deleting this sentence. I’m not sure what value this information adds, since we already have a price range. .
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Fyi Aligned with previous paragraph for consistency.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
If none of the costs in this paragraph include demolition costs, then move this statement to the end of the paragraph. Something like “none of the costs provided in this paragraph include demolition costs associated with removal of the old boiler”.
Also, what is the range demolition costs?
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Clarify. are these a non-wood fired boiler. I don’t understand what makes these different from the $7 million dollar boiler also described in this paragraph.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Fyi Moved to table.
acurtis, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Is this accurate? DEQ needs to take ownership of this fiscal statement. The fiscal is DEQ’s estimates based on available information
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. This source belongs in the supporting documents section. I copied it to the table of supporting documents earlier in this docucment.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
This doesn’t seem relevant
acurtis, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Question. Unnecessary? Can we shorting this and use a sentence instead of bullets. Use “such as” and list a few, instead of listing all 7
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Andrea ask maggie
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Fyi Moved up for clarity and simplicity.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. This section needed clarity. I made an attempt. Please accept or edit as needed.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Clarify why the insignificant changes to these sources have no impact on large sources.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. This section needed clarity. I made an attempt. Please accept or edit as needed.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Clarify why the insignificant changes to these sources have no impact on large sources.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. This section needed clarity. I made an attempt. Please accept or edit as needed.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
action required. use consistent terms. is it "state new source review program" used in the next paragraph OR "minor new source review program"?
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Suggested deletion. Do we need this?
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
action required, please clarify. nonattainment? Maintenance?
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
question. Is this necessary? I don't understand how this is relevant
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
question. Would be required? Might be required?
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. “get” isn’t clear. Obtain? Purchase?
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
We can assume the fiscal is based on current information.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Clarify. “Per woodstove” is confusing. You could say something like “per uncertified woodstover annually?
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Moved to the top of this section
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Needs clarification. There is a difference between attend and participate. If people are able to ask questions and submit comment by phone, please say so.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Please clarify. Can a person call in from anywhere (not just in Oregon)? I made a suggested edit.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Deleted because all of this fiscal is what DEQ anticipates.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Deleted because all of this fiscal is what DEQ anticipates.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
action required. verify. is it correct that 540 businesses would no longer have to report?
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
action required. Clarify. Is this the number that will benefit from this proposed rule? or only a fractionof 540? How many?
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
action required. clarify. about how many of the 540 are small businesses?
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
action required. describe what you did before the public notice. this section should demonstrate how we involved businesss before the Notice is released
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
action required. deleted b/c this isn't unrelevant. the question is: how did we involve business in DEVELOPING the proposed rules
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. All of these documents should appear in the other table of supporting documents.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Andrea sk Maggie: should we include a table of committee members?
acurtis, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. My edits are still accurate yet don’t create the red flag that we didn’t take every recommendation.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Andrea ask maggie: Should DEQ include a response to the committee concerns here?
acurtis, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Out of scope. Fiscal impacts belong in the fiscal impact section. Must be a cause of the rules. NO legal requirement to request this info. This is optional for your fiscsal meeting, but not in scope for this NOTICE
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Clean fuels text: “One alternative to the proposed rules is to let the temporary rules expire June 30, 2014, and revert to the previous rules. However, this alternative would cause potential regulated parties to misinterpret how and whether the program applies to them, causing the continued cost of complying with the program. The previous rules also contain requirements for reporting and recordkeeping that are unnecessary for phase one of the Clean Fuels Program and create additional work for affected parties.”
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Template change. Required duplication. Copied and duplicated “Request for other options” from Overview section; we duplicate that information in this federal relationship section.
jinahar, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Maggie and Andrea – where would I put a request for comment on whether people think LRAPA’s rules are as stringent as our proposed rules?
acurtis, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Jill, regarding LRAPA and stringency: the Notice is not an appropriate venue to seek this type of input. I’d like more information to help recommend options for you. you could send people a survey or questionnaire.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Andrea needs to compare with template
acurtis, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Insert table of members.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Recommendation. Describe when we did this
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Did we do an information item? If not, delete this statement.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Add lrapa permit holders and lrapa interested parties.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
FYI Andrea to update this number
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
FYI Andrea to update this number
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Margaret requested we notify this person. Please add her/his complete name/title.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required. Verify with Margaret the appropriate Legislators and titles, then update this section.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Caution: The Oregonian is published only on Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays. Therefore, the hearing might need to by july 18. I’m investing this
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required: Update hearings as needed since the hearing will not occur in June. Hearing might need to be no sooner than july 18. I need to check the SIP requirements.
AGarten, 2014-05-23T17:53:00Z
Action required: Update with new end date