A	C	D	E	F	G
1	Division	Suggested change			Reason/Issues	Wait/Risk?
2	200	General Air Pollution Procedures and Definitions			Move procedural requirements (resetting actual emissions, setting baseline emission rate, determining whether modification has been made, calculating netting basis,_____________out of definitions
6	200	Add a definition of “area violating the NAAQS”			This is for areas that have not yet been designated NAA. See discussion below in the applicability section of Division 224.
11	200	Definition of categorically insignificant activities			Update list
12	200	Change definition of categorically insignificant activities regarding emergency generators			We need a permitting category for these facilities as synthetic minor permits. We need to change the list of categorically insignificant RULE CHANGE. If there was an emergency, these generators would run as long as necessary and would trigger SERs. They could not pass the 1-hour NO2 and SO2 standards but would we have different requirements for emergencies? What does Washington do for these sources? Mark asked that this topic be on the agenda for the Bellingham meeting.
13
14		(uu) Emergency generators and pumps used only during loss of primary equipment or utility service due to circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the owner or operator, or to address a power emergency as determined by the Department;
15
19	200	Change the definition of "Continuous Monitoring Systems" to EXCLUDE the Department's Continuous Monitoring Manual			DEQ has repealed Continuous Monitoring Manual and instead will use the requirements of EPA’s ______________
28	200	Unless otherwise specified by rule, opacity shall be measured in accordance with EPA Method 9 or a continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) installed and operated in accordance with the Department's Continuous Monitoring Manual. For all standards, the minimum observation period shall be six minutes, though longer periods may be required by a specific rule or permit condition. Aggregate times (e.g. 3 minutes in any one hour) consist of the total duration of all readings during the observation period that equal or exceed the opacity percentage in the standard, whether or not the readings are consecutive.			Continuous Monitoring Manual repealed?
30	200	"Particulate Matter" means all finely divided solid or liquid material, other than uncombined water, emitted to the ambient air. When used in emission standards, particulate matter is defined by the method specified within the standard or by an applicable reference method in accordance with OAR 340-212-0120 and 340-212-0140. Unless otherwise specified, sources with exhaust gases at or near ambient conditions may be tested with DEQ Method 5 or DEQ Method 8, as approved by the Department. Direct heat transfer sources shall be tested with DEQ Method 7; indirect heat transfer combustion sources and all other non-fugitive emissions sources not listed above shall be tested with DEQ Method 5.			Include test methods with limit in specific rules? Or leave in definition? See PM2.5
32	200	"PM10 ":			Source Sampling Manual repealed?	Do the standards in other divisions need to include the test method instead of having it here in the definition?
33		(a) When used in the context of emissions, means finely divided solid or liquid material, including condensable particulate, other than uncombined water, with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers, emitted to the ambient air as measured by an applicable reference method in accordance with the Department's Source Sampling Manual(January, 1992);
36	200	Definition of “significant air quality impact”			The threshold concentrations listed in Table 1 are used for comparison against the ambient air quality standard and do not apply for protecting PSD Class I increments or air quality related values (including visibility). For sources of VOC or NOx, a major source or major modification has a significant impact if it is located within the Ozone Precursor Distance defined in OAR 340-225-0020. CLARIFY? OR MOVE?
42	202	Ambient Air Quality Standards and PSD Increments				housekeeping - can wait
69	208	Visible Emissions and Nuisance Requirements
73	208	Definition of fuel burning equipment different from Division 228 and 240			Change definition of fuel burning equipment to “external combustion device,” delete from Divisions 208, 228, and 240, move to Division 200. Avoids confusion about indirect heat transfer (e.g., boilers), direct heat transfer (e.g., dryers), and internal combustion devices (e.g., gas turbines).
80	208	Exempt fugitive sources from opacity limits			Fugitive emission sources are regulated in 0200-0120
81	208	Exempt sources subject to source specific standards in other Divisions, Incinerator Regulations (division 230), VOC Point Sources (division 232), Wood Products (Division 234), Specific Industries (division 236), NSPS (division 238), Areas with Unique Air Quality Needs (division 240) or NESHAP (division 244).			Specific standards, such as New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants are specifically written for certain industries. These rules are more stringent than the general permitting requirements. If the source specific rule does not have a standard for the same pollutant (opacity, particulate matter or sulfur dioxide), the general standards will still apply. By applying only the industry specific standards, the Department will eliminate confusion and streamline permitting requirements. To address the stringency issue, a requirement that any source exempt from 208-0110 must have a startup/shutdown plan in accordance with 340-314-0340 has been added. This would be equivalent to existing practices in which we exercise enforcement discretion for excess emissions during startup/shutdown. we’d have to be careful with grain loading since our grain loading is based on DEQ 5 while the NSPS and NESHAPs are based on EPA 5, and I’m sure there are all sorts of reasons why we can’t do this, but it would be nice to consider it.
82	208	Delete 40% opacity limit			DEQ is proposing the change because of the following reasons:
83					·        Some of the affected sources will probably have to reduce emissions anyway due to future regulations, such as the Boiler and Industrial furnace MACT. [DOES THIS ALSO APPLY TO OPACITY OR JUST GRAIN LOADING?]
84					·        Having two standards creates an unequal playing field for industry; especially since new sources can be as much as 40 years old.
85					·        More and more areas of the state are special control areas due to population increases.
86					·        EPA’s adoption of a new PM2.5 24-hour NAAQS has resulted in 2 nonattainment areas, with a third meeting the definition but not legally designated as such. This proposed rule change will reduce opacity in all areas and will help prevent future problems, especially in light of EPA’s plan to reduce the PM2.5 NAAQS even further.
87					·        Phased compliance will give sources that cannot meet the new standards time to comply.
88					a.      The 40% opacity limit applies to grandfathered sources that are over 30 years old. These sources should have been modified or replaced by now.
89					2.      Regulatory streamlining (Executive Order Number EO-03-01):
90					Permitting: Changes would make it easier to write permits because fewer standards would have to be included in the permits. In addition, multiple standards would not apply to a single piece of equipment or process.
91					Compliance: Making the requirements clearer, will make it easier to determine compliance for the both the source and the DEQ. Eliminating 40% opacity limit will provide equity for the sources.
92					3.      Rule Fix options:
93					a.      Delete the 40% grain loading limit.
94					b.      Make the 20% grain loading limit applicable only to stationary sources that do not have source specific standards.
95	208	Make the 20% limit applicable to all non-fugitive sources in the state. Change limit to a 6-minute average instead of a 3-minute aggregate.			DEQ is proposing the change because of the following reasons:
96					·        An opacity standard based on a 6-minute average is no more or less stringent than a standard based on an aggregate of 3 minutes in any hour. Theoretically, either basis could be more stringent than the other, but practically, sources do not typically have intermittent puffs of smoke. If there is an upset that lasts longer than 3 minutes, it usually lasts longer than 6 minutes, as well.
97					·        Other reasons for changing to a 6 minute average include:
98					o   A reference compliance method has not been developed for the 3 minute standard.
99					o   EPA method 9 results are reported as 6-minute averages.
100					o   The 3-minute standard adds more cost to data acquisition systems for continuous opacity monitoring systems. Many of the COMS are designed for 6-minute averages, so they have to be modified to record and report data for the 3-minute standard.
101					o   Compliance with a 6 minute average can be determined with 24 readings (6-minute observation period); whereas, compliance with the 3-minute standard may require as many as 240 readings (60 minute observation period). In addition, it is the Department’s policy that the inspector observes the source for at least 6 minutes before making a compliance determination.
102	208	Move 20% opacity limit for 30 seconds in an hour from division 208-0510 since these rules are being repealed
103	208	Add a provision for maintenance for wood-fired boilers and process heaters installed before 1970			Visible emissions during grate cleaning are greater than 20% opacity. Since the 40% opacity limit is being eliminated, a provision for grate cleaning and other maintenance is needed.
104	208	Add a provision that non-fugitive emissions units exempt from this rule must have a startup/shutdown procedures			Non-fugitive emission units that are subject to source specific rules in other Divisions, as well as the NSPS and NESHAP, must have startup/shutdown procedures approved because these rules do not apply during startup/shutdown.
105	208	Add a test method			A test method should always be specified with each standard in order to be able to show compliance
106	208	add a compliance date for existing sources.
107
108	208	Make the fugitive emission requirements applicable statewide to replace the opacity standards.			Fugitive emissions should be controlled statewide
109	208	Since the opacity standards will not apply to fugitive emission sources, work practice standards will be used instead to abate fugitive emissions.			The Department has clarified that fugitive emissions must be abated upon order, rather than the subjective determination of a nuisance or trying to read opacity to comply with an opacity limit.
110	208	Add a definition for particulate fugitive emissions			This clarifies what fugitive emissions entail
111	208	Add EPA Method 22 as the reference method			A test method should always be specified with each standard in order to be able to show compliance
112	208	Add requirement for fugitive emission control plan			This requirement will help address issues if fugitive emissions escape the property boundary

113	208	Eliminate this requirement prohibiting masking emissions.			Why? – ESCO – nuisance. Health, safety, welfare…in CFR also. Later?
115	208	Eliminate all of these special requirements for the Portland area			Apply only in Clackamas, Columbia, Multnomah and Washington counties. DEQ proposes to repeal OAR 340-208-0550 through 630 because these rules have limited applicability and because other rules make this rule largely redundant except for the 20% opacity limit for 30 seconds in an hour.
116	208	In Division 208 are the rules that apply in Multnomah, Columbia, Clackamas and Washington counties, with a different opacity standard for non-fuel burning equipment. However, in 208-0510, it says these rules don’t apply to activities for which specific industrial standards have been adopted. See rule citation at the end of the email.			If we exempt sources from the general standards (opacity and grain loading) if there are specific standards, do those specific standards have to have an opacity and grain loading part???
117
118		First, note the list of divisions with specific industrial standards includes division 238 (New Source Performance Standards). Also note that division 244 (NESHAPs) is not included. I think to be consistent, division 244 should be added to the list. To be honest, I think we should get rid of these 4-county rules altogether, but I’ve given up on that.
119		340-208-0510 Exclusions
120		(1) The requirements contained in OAR 340-208-0510 through 340-208-0610 apply to all activities conducted in Clackamas, Columbia, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, other than those for which specific industrial standards have been adopted (divisions 230, 234, 236, and 238), and except for the reduction of animal matter, 340-236-0310(1) and (2).
123	210	Add requirement that changes that are subject to NESHAP or NSPS should not be included as Type 1 changes			Corrects a problem regarding the distinctions between the Type 1 and Type 2 changes. A project that qualifies as a Type 1 change gets default approval to proceed 10 days after receipt of the application.  There have been instances when companies have replaced a NESHAP subject chrome plating line (or lines) with entirely new equipment or have replaced the respective control devices.  In each instance the associated emissions are well below the de minimis rate and the change meets the Type 1 criteria.  The review process in these instances is more complicated than for what Type 1 category was intended and there is insufficient time to respond to the applicant.  Sixty days should be allowed under the Type 2 criteria for such reviews.  With all of the new area source NESHAP permits, there may be many more similar scenarios.  Change the rule language to bump such changes into the Type 2 category to allow for adequate review time.
124	210	List requirements for Type 2 changes rather than reference changes in 0225(1)			Clarification
126	212	Stationary Source Testing and Monitoring			·        Update Source Sampling Manual
127					·        Update Continuous Monitoring Manual
129	212				MARK B: I believe the manuals provide necessary guidance on how to do the testing/monitoring and what is expected (test plan requirements, report requirements, monitoring QA/QC, etc.).  Having the manuals referenced in rule is difficult to maintenance when the manual needs to be updated on a regular basis (that is why it hasn’t been updated).  However, how do we specify the DEQ method in rule without referencing the manual?  Also, since EPA methods & monitoring requirements change, would an existing permittee need to revise their monitoring plan every time EPA edits their requirements, or would they be grandfathered?
130					MARK F: My thinking is that we had language similar to 60.8 to Divisions 212.  That will specify the procedures and provide reference to the methods.
132		SSM and CMM			We really only have 2 unique test methods in Oregon. They are the wet bulb/dry bulb method for measuring stack moisture and the high volume particulate matter test. DEQ methods 5 and 7 are somewhat unique, but we could rely on EPA Method 5 and 202. For all other test methods, we rely on EPA reference methods. I wonder if we couldn't just add some of the general provisions from the Source Sampling Manual to Division 212 and incorporate 40 CFR 60.8 and appendices by reference. We could retain the 1992 Source Sampling specifically for the methods I cited above without having to revise the document and updating the SIP. The changes to Division 212 could be made any time that we are doing a SIP revision.
133					For monitoring, I think we could incorporate Parts 60 and 75 into Division 212 by reference and do away with the Continuous Monitoring Manual altogether. SEE 07/23/10 EMAIL FROM MSF
138	216	Air Contaminant Discharge Permits			Get rid of list of permitted sources and use generic catch-all categories (i.e., > XX tons/year, subject to XX, etc.). Some sources on list don’t need permits [Cory].
139		[Table 1 and Table 2]
143	216	Add a requirement to keep a copy of the permit onsite			Having the permit on site and monitoring and record-keeping conditions all exist to ensure the permittee is meeting the “rules and standards adopted by the Commission.”
144	218	Oregon Title V Operating Permits
147	218	Add a requirement to keep a copy of the permit onsite			Having the permit on site and monitoring and record-keeping conditions all exist to ensure the permittee is meeting the “rules and standards adopted by the Commission.”
148	218	Title V General Permits			Do we need this?
150	222	Stationary Source Plant Site Emission Limits
151	222	Replace the list of division 244 tables with division 244			This will simplify the rule
152	222	Exclude toxic air pollutants in division 246 other than those listed in the SER table			This is consistent with the netting basis.
154	222	Move rules about establishing the baseline emission rate from the definition to the PSEL rule			This will move procedural requirements from the definitions
155	222	Move rules about establishing the netting basis from the definition to the PSEL rule			This will move procedural requirements from the definitions
156	222	Add a provision for making corrections to the PM10 netting due to better emissions information should be made before establishing the PM2.5 netting basis.			The rules did not specify what the process should be for setting the PM2.5 netting basis and PSEL if corrections are needed in the PM10 netting basis and PSEL.
157	222	Add a provision for when the PM 2.5 true-up does not apply and the PM2.5 PSEL is greater than the PM2.5 netting basis by more than the significant emission rate of 10 tons/year, DEQ shall determine whether:
158		·        the PM2.5 emissions correction would not have a material impact on air quality, or
159		·        the source is willing to commit to enforceable conditions (i.e., offsets from other point sources, offsets from area sources such as woodstove change-outs, etc.) to ensure that the PM2.5 emissions correction would not have a material impact on air quality.
160	222	Add language to clarify that the source specific PSEL being set equivalent to the generic PSEL does not make it a generic PSEL.			Clarification
161	222	Add the provision for establishing the source specific annual PSEL for PM2.5 that was in the netting basis definition.			This will move procedural requirements from the definitions
162	222	Add the provision for determining when a major modification is triggered that was in the major modification definition.			This will move procedural requirements from the definitions
163	222	Fix PSEL rules for Modeling?
164	222	Add reference to division 224 for NSR			This is a clarification and consistent with other rules.
165	222	Fix baby-Tek			The question of a different SIC needs to be addressed. If you split a source into 2 separate sources, those two sources can have different SICs. If you are splitting up a source, they need to retain their SIC. The netting basis protects the airshed. If the source is grandfathered, then they wouldn’t have to do an AQ analysis. If they are a new source, then they trigger NSR/PSD and everything else. When Tektronix split up, they sources had the same SIC. There was a single transfer of netting basis to Maxim. The other “babies” were treated as new sources. RULE CHANGE/DAVE BRAY
167	224	Major New Source Review
168	224	Add an applicability section for areas violating the NAAQS but not yet designated as nonattainment areas			There are areas that violate the NAAQS but have not yet been designated nonattainment by EPA.  Sources in these areas would fall under the requirements for attainment or unclassified areas rather than nonattainment areas. DEQ is creating requirements for sources in “areas violating federal NAAQS” in order to improve air quality and to enable the source to construct or modify. Without these rules, sources would not be able to construct or modify because they would never be able to show compliance with the NAAQS since the background concentration is already above the NAAQS.
170	224	“Areas violating federal NAAQS” but not designated nonattainment			There are areas that violate the NAAQS but have not yet been designated nonattainment by EPA.  See explanation above in the applicability section. Sources will be required to install LAER, provide offsets and demonstrate that a net air quality benefit will be achieved.
171
172					ANDY: One concern I have is this: most of the emissions causing NAAQS violations are from area and mobile sources, but this would focus only on point sources.  It is a good tool for nonattainment areas – even when point sources aren’t a major cause of the violations – because it gets industry support for developing an attainment plan.  But that only works if the requirement is mandated by federal law.  If we require it, even in cases where point sources really aren’t significant, it could have the opposite effect.
173
174					I would think we would not want it to be fully automatic, but rather only trigger if there is some AQ analysis that shows it would be helpful.  So, perhaps a source over the SER would have to put on technology (either LAER or BACT), and then do an AQ analysis to see if it would cause a significant impact in the areas of violation.  If so, the source would have to do more controls or get an offset.  We also have to remember that these sources would also be subject to PSD if they are over 250 tons, so the requirements would have to nestle within that.  Something like that might be more supportable since we could say it is actually needed to protect air quality (as opposed to automatic requirements that might affect a new source well downwind of the area of violation).
175
177	224/225	Incentives for GHG offsets from sources that we don’t normally regulate to avoid PSD. A major source should be able to use other projects, such as improvements in agricultural activities, to offset GHG emissions from point sources.  Technology (BACT) requirements may not be meaningful for some point sources, but offsets could be very meaningful.
178	225	Air Quality Analysis Requirements
179	225	Add Division 204 as another division that has definitions that would apply to this division			Add reference to Division 204 definitions
180	225	“Areas violating federal NAAQS” but not designated nonattainment
181	225	Background light extinction not used in this division
182	225	Move definition of “predicted Maintenance Area Concentration”			This definition is not in alphabetic order

183	225	Delete annual average maintenance area concentrations			EPA revoked the annual PM10 standard, because available evidence does not suggest a link between long-term exposure to PM10 and health problems.
184	225	Add “or area violating the ozone NAAQS” to the definition of ozone precursor distance			There are areas that violate the NAAQS but have not yet been designated nonattainment by EPA.  See explanation above in the applicability section.
185	225	Add “or area violating the ozone NAAQS” to the definition of ozone precursor offsets			There are areas that violate the NAAQS but have not yet been designated nonattainment by EPA.  See explanation above in the definition of “area violating the NAAQS.”
186	225	Repeal procedural requirements			The requirements in this rule are not complete. A complete list is included in the modeling protocol that is written by the source or sometimes by DEQ staff.
188	225	Provide an option of using another impact model in PSD Class II and III areas			Allows sources to propose use of another model based on approval by DEQ and EPA
190	25	Add times to the end of the sentence “for all averaging”			Correction
194	225	Net air quality benefit analysis			Current procedure is too restrictive.  Consider additional offsets. Check with Mark Bailey do we want to do this now or with overhaul??
196	225	Add SO2 and NOx offsets for non-ozone areas			This offset ratios are based the presumptive levels established by EPA in the preamble to Significant Impact Levels (SILs)
197	225	Add SO2 and NOx offsets			This offset ratios are based the presumptive levels established by EPA in the preamble to Significant Impact Levels (SILs)
198	225	Add NOx offsets			This makes the rule language consistent with EPA requirements in 40 CFR Part 51 and past implementation of the rule.
199					For the AQRVs of visibility and deposition in the Gorge, the thresholds are the same as for Class I areas, which are visibility impact of 0.5 decivew (5% extinction), and Deposition Analysis Thresholds (DATs) for S or N of 0.005 kg/ha/yr.  In addition, a qualitative assessment of O3 impacts is also made.  As I mentioned earlier, the analysis of AQRV impacts in the Gorge for PSD/NSR projects has been done on an “as requested basis for informational purposes,” not on an “as required” basis.  To my knowledge this request as never been refused, although there have been cases of some resistance to the request.  In my view there is an advantage to the facility and DEQ of having this analysis done  as part of the AQ modeling and permit application process as the issue will surely be raised during the public hearing and public comment period. [PHIL]
200	226	General Emission Standards
201		[Table 1-Particulate Matter Emissions Standards for Process Equipment]
207	226	Change Fuel Burning Equipment to External Combustion Devices			Change definition of fuel burning equipment to “external combustion device.” Avoids confusion about indirect heat transfer (e.g., boilers), direct heat transfer (e.g., dryers), and internal combustion devices (e.g., gas turbines).
208	226	Exempt sources subject to source specific standards in other Divisions, Incinerator Regulations (division 230), VOC Point Sources (division 232), Wood Products (Division 234), Specific Industries (division 236), NSPS (division 238), Areas with Unique Air Quality Needs (division 240) or NESHAP (division 244).			Specific standards, such as New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants are specifically written for certain industries. These rules are more stringent than the general permitting requirements. If the source specific rule does not have a standard for the same pollutant (opacity, particulate matter or sulfur dioxide), the general standards will still apply. By applying only the industry specific standards, the Department will eliminate confusion and streamline permitting requirements. To address the stringency issue, a requirement that any source exempt from 208-0110 must have a startup/shutdown plan in accordance with 340-314-0340 has been added. This would be equivalent to existing practices in which we exercise enforcement discretion for excess emissions during startup/shutdown. we’d have to be careful with grain loading since our grain loading is based on DEQ 5 while the NSPS and NESHAPs are based on EPA 5, and I’m sure there are all sorts of reasons why we can’t do this, but it would be nice to consider it.
209	226	Delete 0.2 gr/dscf limit and add a compliance date for existing sources.			DEQ is proposing the change because of the following reasons:
210					·        Some of the affected sources will probably have to reduce emissions anyway due to future regulations, such as the Boiler and Industrial furnace MACT.
211					·        Having two standards creates an unequal playing field for industry; especially since new sources can be as much as 40 years old.
212					·        More and more areas of the state are special control areas due to population increases.
213					·        EPA’s adoption of a new PM2.5 24-hour NAAQS has resulted in 2 nonattainment areas, with a third meeting the definition but not legally designated as such. This proposed rule change will reduce opacity in all areas and will help prevent future problems, especially in light of EPA’s plan to reduce the PM2.5 NAAQS even further.
214					·        Phased compliance will give sources that cannot meet the new standards time to comply.
215					The 0.2 grain loading limit applies to grandfathered sources that are over 30 years old. These sources should have been modified or replaced by now.
216					4.      Regulatory streamlining (Executive Order Number EO-03-01):
217					Permitting: Changes would make it easier to write permits because fewer standards would have to be included in the permits. In addition, multiple standards would not apply to a single piece of equipment or process.
218					Compliance: Making the requirements clearer, will make it easier to determine compliance for the both the source and the DEQ. Eliminating the 0.2 grain loading limit will provide equity for the sources.
219					5.      Rule Fix options:
220					a.      Delete the 0.2 grain loading limit.
221					b.      Make the 0.1 grain loading limit applicable only to stationary sources that do not have source specific standards.
222					Second, I wonder if the general statewide opacity and grain loading standards can have similar language added to them, so that we can leave out the general standards when there is a more stringent industry-specific standard. I guess we’d have to be careful with grain loading since our grain loading is based on DEQ 5 while the NSPS and NESHAPs are based on EPA 5, and I’m sure there are all sorts of reasons why we can’t do this, but it would be nice to consider it.
223	226	Change 0.2 gr/dscf and 0.1 gr/dscf to 0.20 and 0.10 and add compliance schedule			This change is based on 06/06/90 EPA guidance and also to help meet the new PM2.5 ambient air quality standard.
224	226	Correcting to 12% CO2 for non fuel burning equipment that is burning fuel			Division 228 has emission limits for fuel burning equipment but does not apply in this situation. Division 226 applies here if the source is burning fuel. The correction for 12% CO2 makes them fail. The correction is for a controlled combustion device that does not use excess air. No dryer could pass with the correction. RULE CHANGE
225	228	Requirements For Fuel Burning Equipment and Fuel Sulfur Content
239	228	Exempt sources subject to source specific standards in other Divisions, Incinerator Regulations (division 230), VOC Point Sources (division 232), Wood Products (Division 234), Specific Industries (division 236), NSPS (division 238), Areas with Unique Air Quality Needs (division 240) or NESHAP (division 244).			Specific standards, such as New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants are specifically written for certain industries. These rules are more stringent than the general permitting requirements. If the source specific rule does not have a standard for the same pollutant (opacity, particulate matter or sulfur dioxide), the general standards will still apply. By applying only the industry specific standards, the Department will eliminate confusion and streamline permitting requirements. To address the stringency issue, a requirement that any source exempt from 208-0110 must have a startup/shutdown plan in accordance with 340-314-0340 has been added. This would be equivalent to existing practices in which we exercise enforcement discretion for excess emissions during startup/shutdown. we’d have to be careful with grain loading since our grain loading is based on DEQ 5 while the NSPS and NESHAPs are based on EPA 5, and I’m sure there are all sorts of reasons why we can’t do this, but it would be nice to consider it.
241	228	Add a provision that emissions units exempt from this rule must have a startup/shutdown procedures			Emission units that are subject to source specific rules in other divisions, as well as the NSPS and NESHAP, must have startup/shutdown procedures approved because these rules do not apply during startup/shutdown
242	228	Exempt sources subject to source specific standards in other Divisions, Incinerator Regulations (division 230), VOC Point Sources (division 232), Wood Products (Division 234), Specific Industries (division 236), NSPS (division 238), Areas with Unique Air Quality Needs (division 240) or NESHAP (division 244).			Specific standards, such as New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants are specifically written for certain industries. These rules are more stringent than the general permitting requirements. If the source specific rule does not have a standard for the same pollutant (opacity, particulate matter or sulfur dioxide), the general standards will still apply. By applying only the industry specific standards, the Department will eliminate confusion and streamline permitting requirements. To address the stringency issue, a requirement that any source exempt from 208-0110 must have a startup/shutdown plan in accordance with 340-314-0340 has been added. This would be equivalent to existing practices in which we exercise enforcement discretion for excess emissions during startup/shutdown. we’d have to be careful with grain loading since our grain loading is based on DEQ 5 while the NSPS and NESHAPs are based on EPA 5, and I’m sure there are all sorts of reasons why we can’t do this, but it would be nice to consider it.
244	228	Delete 0.2 gr/dscf limit and add a compliance date for existing sources.			DEQ is proposing the change because of the following reasons:
245					·        Some of the affected sources will probably have to reduce emissions anyway due to future regulations, such as the Boiler and Industrial furnace MACT.
246					·        Having two standards creates an unequal playing field for industry; especially since new sources can be as much as 40 years old.
247					·        More and more areas of the state are special control areas due to population increases.
248					·        EPA’s adoption of a new PM2.5 24-hour NAAQS has resulted in 2 nonattainment areas, with a third meeting the definition but not legally designated as such. This proposed rule change will reduce opacity in all areas and will help prevent future problems, especially in light of EPA’s plan to reduce the PM2.5 NAAQS even further.
249					·        Phased compliance will give sources that cannot meet the new standards time to comply.
250					Second, I wonder if the general statewide opacity and grain loading standards can have similar language added to them, so that we can leave out the general standards when there is a more stringent industry-specific standard. I guess we’d have to be careful with grain loading since our grain loading is based on DEQ 5 while the NSPS and NESHAPs are based on EPA 5, and I’m sure there are all sorts of reasons why we can’t do this, but it would be nice to consider it.
251	228	Change 0.2 and 0.1 gr/dscf limit to 0.20 and 0.10 gr/dscf.			This change is based on 06/06/90 EPA guidance and also to help meet the new PM2.5 ambient air quality standard.
252	228	Correcting to 12% CO2 for non fuel burning equipment that is burning fuel			Division 228 has emission limits for fuel burning equipment but does not apply in this situation. Division 226 applies here if the source is burning fuel. The correction for 12% CO2 makes them fail. The correction is for a controlled combustion device that does not use excess air. No dryer could pass with the correction. RULE CHANGE
254	228	Add test method			A test method should always be specified with each standard in order to be able to show compliance
255	228	Add date for compliance.			This change is based on 06/06/90 EPA guidance and also to help meet the new PM2.5 ambient air quality standard.
256	228	Add a provision that emissions units exempt from this rule must have a startup/shutdown procedures			Emission units that are subject to source specific rules in other Divisions, as well as the NSPS and NESHAP, must have startup/shutdown procedures approved because these rules do not apply during startup/shutdown
277	234	Emission Standards For Wood Products Industries			Repeal neutral sulfite semi-chemical pul mill rules; sulfite pulp mill rules; __________
317	234	Clarify what is meant by 0500(3). Currently this has been interpreted as a maximum hourly mass emission rate limit, but it was interpreted in the past as being a variable emission limit, depending on actual production rates (i.e., a process weight limit). Possibly eliminate the standard altogether and replace it with work practice standards. If retained, add compliance determination methods and averaging time.
318	234	Review each rule but definitely fix the wood products rules (340-234-0500) to clarify what the lb/MSF limits mean and how compliance is determined. Include the compliance method for all limits.

319	234	Add the sentence that defines a violation			This sentence does not belong in the definition of average operating opacity. It belongs in this subsection with the standard.
320	234	Incorporate fuel moisture content into rule and add test method			Avoids confusion about indirect heat transfer (e.g., boilers), direct heat transfer (e.g., dryers), and internal combustion devices (e.g., gas turbines).
329	234	Add a rule for Testing and Monitoring			A test method should always be specified with each standard in order to be able to show compliance
330	236	Emission Standards For Specific Industries			Repeal primary aluminum and ferronickel rules
358	236	Delete hot-mix asphalt rules			OAR 340-236-0410, Specific Industry Standard for Hot-mix Asphalt Plants
359					1.      Problem(s):
360					The rule is outdated and unnecessary and can be replaced with other existing standards or rules.
361					2.      Regulatory streamlining (Executive Order Number EO-03-01):
362					Permitting: Elimination of the Process Weight rule will simplify permits.
363					Compliance: Deleting the Process Weight requirement will make compliance testing somewhat easier for affected sources.
364					3.      Rule Fix options:
365					Delete existing rule in its entirety. Other existing rules would apply to asphalt plants directly without need for a special rule.
366					Alternatively, delete existing language and replace with 2 provisions: (1) facilities that are subject to the NSPS must meet the NSPS requirements; and (2) facilities not subject to (1) must meet the statewide 0.1 (or 0.10) gr/dscf PM standard.
367					4.      Issues:
368					Statutory authority -
369					Stringency (impact on regulated sources) - Little impact on regulated sources, somewhat simpler permit and testing requirements.
370					Environmental backsliding (impact on environment) - No impact on the environment is expected from this rule change. Hot-mix asphalt plants will continue to operate as they do currently, and emissions will not change.
371					SIP revision - Appendix 7 (protection of NAAQS and PSD increment)
372	236	Eliminate different standards for inside and outside of special control areas.			All asphalt plants should comply with the requirements, regardless of where they are located.
373	236	Make all existing asphalt plants comply with the state standards and all new plants comply with the NSPS.			Clarifies requirements for existing and new asphalt plants and eliminates redundant/conflicting standards.
380	240	Rules For Areas With Unique Air Quality Needs
384	240	Delete definition of charcoal producing plant			No longer needed since Charcoal Producing Plant rules are being repealed	Needed for LRAPA???
390	240	Definition of facility different from Division 238			Move to Division 200 but make exception for Division 238 NSPS definition
401	240	Delete definition of new source			Requirements for “old” wood waste boilers were repealed in 12/2004 because the compliance date (12/31/94) had past. All sources must meet the requirements for “new” sources. New sources and existing sources must comply with 340-240-0110(1), 340-240-120 through 250 so the definition of “new source” is no longer necessary.
404	240	(30) "Opacity" means the degree to which an emission reduces transmission of light and obscures the view of an object in the background as measured in accordance with the Department's Source Sampling Manual (January, 1992). Unless otherwise specified by rule, opacity must be measured in accordance with EPA Method 9. For all standards, the minimum observation period must be six minutes, though longer periods may be required by a specific rule or permit condition. Aggregate times (e.g. 3 minutes in any one hour) consist of the total duration of all readings during the observation period that exceed the opacity percentage in the standard, whether or not the readings are consecutive. Alternatives to EPA Method 9, such as a continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS), alternate Method 1 (LIDAR), or EPA Methods 22, or 203, may be used if approved in advance by the Department, in accordance with the Source Sampling Manual.			Need to keep 240 definition for now. Will change later when we put compliance method with standards instead of with definition.
415	240	Add the sentence that defines a violation			This sentence does not belong in the definition of average operating opacity. It belongs in this subsection with the standard.
416	240	Incorporate fuel moisture content into rule and add test method			This clarifies the requirement
419	240	Delete Charcoal Producing Plant rules			These sources no longer exist in the state outside of Lane County. If a source did build a new facility, New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration (requiring a demonstration that emissions would not cause or contribute to a NAAQS or increment violation), New Source Performance Standards and MACT would apply. These rules would be more stringent than the existing rules.
421	240	Delete requirement for source testing of charcoal producing plant			These sources no longer exist in the state outside of Lane County. See reason above.
422	240	Add (6) to include the source test methods for particulate matter			The definition of particulate matter has been moved to Division 200. The test methods are being separated from the definition and included with the standard.
425	240	Reference the Department’s Source Sampling Manual rather than test methods on file with the Department			Add reference to Source Sampling Manual
426	240	Add other types of sources			Do they exist in Lakeview?
427	242	Rules Applicable to the Portland Area			GROWTH ALLOWANCES