Public Comments and Responses

Letter dated January 11, 2011 from Gary Rubenstein, Sierra Research

Comment #1: The commenter supports Staff’s proposed exclusion of sections (m) and (k) of 40

CFR 52.21 as they pertain to GHG, noting that this part of the proposal is consistent with EPA’s Tailoring Rule and EPA’s “PSD and Title V and Permitting Guidance for Greenhouse Gases” (November 2010).

Response: Thank you for support. Section (k) clear ly does not apply to GHG because there

is no NAAQS for GHG Section (m) clearly does not a pply to GHG because, as noted in the Guidance Document, it is excluded by s ection (i)(5)( iii ) because it is not listed as one of the pollutants in (i)(5)( i ). Discussions with staff at EPA Region IX indicated that the exclusion of sections (m) and (k) for GHG is acceptable.

Comment #2: Section (n)(2) should also be excluded as it pertains to GHG. This section

requires the submittal, if requested by the Adminis trator, of information on air quality impacts of the source and of commercial, re sidential, industrial and other growth that has occurred in the area since August 7 , 1977. Air quality impacts can only be determined by ambient air quality model ing or monitoring, and EPA’s Guidance Document does not recommend that PSD appli cants be required to model or conduct ambient monitoring for CO 2 or GHG.

Response: While sections (k) and (m) are clearly no t applicable to GHG (see response to

comment #1), section (n)(2) is a different matter. The application of this requirement is at the discretion of the Air Polluti on Control Officer. Although the current guidance document does not recommend requir ing this modeling and monitoring, circumstances could change in the futur e that would make the application of modeling and monitoring of GHG relev ant, at which time the Administrator would have the option to require it. In discussions with staff of EPA Region IX, they indicated that exclusion of section (n)(2) is not acceptable and could result in disapproval of the rule. Staff wil l continue to propose Rule 203 without an exclusion for section (n)(2).

Comment #3: Sections (o) and (p) should be excluded as they pertain to GHG. Section (o),

Additional Impacts Analysis, requires an assessment of the impairment to visibility, soils, vegetation, and air quality that would occur as a result of the growth associated with the proposed project. Secti on (p) requires an assessment of the impact of the proposed source on Class I areas. EPA’s Guidance Document states that it is not necessary f or applicants or permitting authorities to assess impacts from GHG in the conte xt of additional impacts analysis or Class I area provisions.

Response: As noted in the comment, the current Guid ance Document does not recommend

these additional analyses and assessments for GHG. It is expected that permitting authorities will follow the guidance and not require them at this time. However, circumstances could change in the future t hat would make these requirements relevant to GHG, at which time new gui dance could be issued. If the District excluded sections (o) and (p) in the p roposed amendments, it couldresult in a requirement to amend Rule 203 in the fu ture to incorporate these sections as they pertain to GHG. In discussions w ith staff of EPA Region IX, they indicated that exclusion of sections (o) and ( p) is not acceptable and could result in disapproval of the rule. Staff will cont inue to propose Rule 203 without exclusions for sections (o) and (p).

The comment letter begins on the following page.