P.1 

OAR Box 1790 

Prepped by Keeia Richards 

Document Number: 

241) II-F-31 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/31/2008 12:43:17 PM Sheet 241 of 250 
P.2 

08/24/95 20:49 ©202 208 4620 WASO MR/AQ NPS 1001/022 

A-90-37 

TC-P-3 \ 

United States Department of the Interior 

IN REPLY REFER Tl): 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

P.O. Box 37127 

Washington, D.C. 20013-7127 

-a. ft ^ 5 

NUMBER OF PA6ES TO FOLLOW 

TO: T\e*uu/5* Ljru^p\oC-. 

FRON , ^k^r^ (^afli^. 

SUBJECT: Y^"^K TcxcJbmK^z^ 

REMARKS: TT. LLM^^ P O*TC-

 <?*?T^_ c£ dV-T vV^Wfv^/ Ci>^^fc s , 

~Twte. 

IF YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEMS HITH THIS FAX OR TROUBLE RECEIVING A FAX 

PLEASE CALL THE INDIVIDUAL FRON WHOM YOU ARE RECEIVING THE FAX. 

DENNIS, JOHN 

EADY, COLLETTE 

JOHNSTON. GARY 

KLIHINSICI, SHARON 

HALKIN, KAREN 

MCCLELLAND. LINDSAY 

MILLER. ABBY 

PECK, DEBBY 

SOUKUP, NIKE 

202-208-5193 

202-208-4640 

202-208-5886 

202-208-4639 

202-219-3384 

202-208-4958 

202-208-4650 

202-208-4624 

202-208-3884 

VALKER, BILL 

WATK1NS, MILHA 

WILSON, RITA 

202-219-3386 

202-208-4913 

202-208-3884 
08/24/95 20:50 

OS/15/95 09:30 

©202 208 4620 

©303 969 2822 

WASO NR/AQ NPS 

WASO DENVER ••-•-» AQD D.C. 

P.3 

1002/022 

5002/016 

167 

The proposal also satisfies the provisions under 

section 165(e)(3)(B) of the Act which require an analysis of the 

climate and meteorology, terrain, soils and vegetation, and 

visibility "in the area potentially affected by the emissions 

from such facility." Once the status of the class I increments 

is known from the analysis provided by the applicant, this latter 

information wil ide the basis for a demonstration of whether 

the source vill have an adverse impact on AQRVs. The EPA 

generally believes that the combined informational requirements 

contained in this proposed provision will greatly facilitate 

resolution of AQRV issues which must ultimately be addressed as a 

prerequisite to permit issuance. That is, the analyses will 

reveal vhether the Class I increments will be violated, and 

establish the relative roles of the applicant:, the TIM and the 

permitting authority in making decisions concerning the AQRVs. 

pifeo ft a violation of a class I increment will occur, the 

applicant will provide information pertaining to the source's 

impacts on such things as soils, vegetation and visibility to 

demonstrate that no adverse impact on AQRVs will occur. If the 

FLM agrees with this demonstration, the permitting authority may 

issue the PSD permit even though a violation of a class I 

increment has been shown. Alternatively, when the applicant's 

analysis showsr^Bo tho-cateisfaotion of the permitting-authorit%fr 

that no violation of a Class I increment will occur, the 

PRELIMINARY STAT? WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOSS NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL S7A POLICY 

*** August 16, 1995 — [file namei Masters.89] **• 
08<24/95 20:50 

P.4 

0&/16/95 09:30 

©202 208 4620 

©303 969 2822 

WASO NR/AQ NPS 

WASO DENVER AQD D.C. 

titVJ Car, FZM dts fL rf *d(&» I'S iMcnplih- <* •* t 

©003/022 

IS 003/016 

J-ee. . 

166 

information pertaining to impacts on such things as soils, 

vegetation and visibility will help the FLM oeaedMer an adverse y 

impact on AQRVs will occurT^nd to make a demonstration of such 

adverse impact to the permitting authority, where appropriate. 

5 

while the Act is silent concerning the timing for filing 

this notice, the EPA believes that it is necessary and reasonable 

to require the FLM or other named officials to file the notice 

before the permitting authority JBsues its completeness 

determination _on the permit application. One reason for this is 

that the filing of the notice establishes certain informational 

Moreover, it is generally important that the 

jT<>& requirements which serve as a measure of the application's 

v , ^ completeness 

3^<^i. V notice be filed early in the permit process so that the applican 

£ 

^ can provide the appropriate class I analyses in a timely manner 

1 N<JX 

so as not to delay the review and issuance of the permit. 

ie a\?fA*.nlt\*r*)«*j 

particularly vhere a source proposes to 

locate within 100 kilometers from a Federal Class I area,t- the 

applicant may rtinaacasc coordinate with the FLM prior to the 

submittal of its application in order to be able to learn of any 

FLM's concerns and submit the Class I analyses along with the 

other required information in its initial permit application. 

Othervise, the FLM would generally be expected to file the notice 

alleging potential affects on the Federal Class I area, where 

appropriate, during the 30-day period for review of the 

/ PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

f BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

V •*• August 16, 1995 — - [file name: Master6.29] •*• 
P.5 

08/24/95 20:51 ©202 208 4620 

OS/16/95 09:30 ©303 969 2822 

WASO NR/AQ NPS 

WASO DENVER 

©004/022 

©004/016 

»4 

•*•*•* AQD D.C. 

U*^uvv $uCA CiVtu^S.^ ^ t k «/*A'<«-wt tuo^L/- fa-. LA flfauj- /* <P*'-(of~ tf< 

f\ut<*ii.y c U T-*/*lix*' wrdi'H*-tyl'uti** ujo^tJiU (fatr-JLco^/eU 

r completeness7~as—provided under today's proposal 

and described in section IV. C. 2 of this preamble"?^ In the absence 

of a notice being filed concerning potential Class I impacts, the 

applicant will be required to demonstrate that emissions from the 

proposed source do not eause or contribute to a violation of the 

Class ll increments or NAAQS anywhere. 

Today's proposal to require the notice to be filed prior to 

the permitting authority's issuance of its completeness 

determination is not intended to preclude the FLM from raising 

concerns about potential affects at a later time during the 

V t*^ permit review, although the EPA ceiftainly anticipates that this 

will not need to occur frequently. The FLM may file a notice at 

a later time if, for some reason, it was not filed prior to'the 

permitting authority's completeness determination; hovever, in 

filing later the FLM must assume a greater' burden for 

demonstrating an adverse impact on AQRVs. That is, the FLM will_ 

then have to work with the applicant and the permitting authority 

to obtain the necessary information if it is not alreadv in the 

application. Also, in the absence of a demonstration that the 

proposed source will cause or contribute to a violation of a 

Class I increment, the FLM must demonstrate to the satisfaction 

of the permitting authority an adverse impact on AQRVs. 

The EPA requests comments on this aspect of the proposal in 

light of the specific implications associated with the failure to 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW • DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** August 16, 1995 — (file naae: Master6.29] »«* 
P.6 

08/24/95 20:51 ©20 2 208 4620 WASO NR/AQ NPS ©005/022 

^ FM 

X%>/r\. Soz-n-e 4/*- °+ C((^^X d/.*(ys-e4. Wi^'fafy J*

 <rAxA. 

file a notice alleging potential class I impacts. The EPA has 

V

considered alternative approaches for triggering the Class I 

analysis, including a mandatory Class I analysis for any proposed 

/major source or major modification proposing to locate within 100 

OPTIONAL FORM n (7-«0) 

FAX TRANSMITTAL 

IB^ "ft'*' 

fu* 

NfiN TM0.eil.S17.73eS 

• y«| , rn.mm.m-. 

ftom 

f olpggM * 

Pt«n« • J^LA. 

Put 

•ea. /The proposed approach 

'iling of a notice, 

iting within 100 kilometers 

•equired unnecessarily to ^/\ 

QCMeruk eenvicEs AOMINISTRATIDN 

J may have no intere \fmO 

v ^ Finally, sources proposing to locate more than 100 kilometers /*" L^s 

J^ fro fromm a a Federa Federall Clas Classs I I are areaa wil willl stil stilll nee needd som somee kin kindd o off IMI>« toiYh p****- > M*^* ^

 t 

triggering mechanism to establish the informational requirement 

for Class I impacts. The EPA is interested in alternative 

approaches which vill establish the 

analyses at a reasonable point in the process. 

With regard to the notice, itself, the EPA is not proposing 

specific criteria for the form of such notice. The EPA believes, 

however, that the notice should be in writing, preferably in the 

form of a letter to the permitting authority, and should contain 

appropriate description of the potential adverse impact on 

AQRVs that could result from the change in air quality caused by 

the proposed emissions ^increase tile the potential impacts are 

naturally preliminary, and perhaps somewhat speculative, there 

should be fluf/Tclunt causal linkage between the proposed source's 

STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT 

•** August 16, 199S - — [file aama: Master! 

TOO/TOO® 0Q QDV HSANHd 0SVU ZZfiZ 696 C0CQ, 80*CT S6/9T/80 
P.7 

08/24/95 20:52 ©202 208 4620 

08/18/95 09:31 ©303 966 2822 

WASO NR/AQ NPS 

WASO DENVER -»-•-• AQD D.C 

©006/022 

©006/016 

specific pollutant emissions, its relative location to the Class 

I area, and the known air quality related values in the affected 

Federal Class I area to support the allegation of a potential 

adverse impact on AQRVs. The notice is intended for 

administrative purposes and should not be used for any 

prejudgment on the part of the permitting authority as to wheth 

any adverse impact on AQRVs will actually ocour or whether a 

? 

Class I area analysis should be completed. 

An important related issue concerns the responsibility for 

carrying out any additional technical analyses which may be 

necessary for the FLM to demonstrate that a source's emissions 

will have an adverse impact on AQRVs. The EPA generally expects 

the analyses performed by the applicant under the proposed 

provisions to enable In 

some cases, however, additional information may be necessary to 

make a thorough AQRV assessment and there is a question as to who 

should bear the responsibility for such information. The 

generally limited resources available to FLMs may make it very \ J^jJ^ 

difficult for them to Independently complete all the additional) M f \o 

analyses which may be needed. Applicants for PSD permits are 

typically required to provide information and analyses necessary 

for the permitting authority to make a variety of ambient air 

quality decisions. Yet, applicants should not necessarily be 

expected to conduct an/unlimited number etudies^at the request 

\T UU<- do«t « W *f/>(f<jJ> T ckt ^ 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FO>R OFFIC E OF MANAGEMEN MANAGEMENT AND 1/ '/... f rj j -

BUDGET REVIEW • DOES NOT REPRESENT OPrXGlAL EPA POLICY ±7*0?** 

*** August 16, 1995 — - [tile namet M*ster6.29] ••• 

ar^t. 
— PJ_ 

08/24/95 20:52 ©202 208 4620 WASO NR/AQ NPS ©007/022 

0.8/16/95 09:32 ©303 969 2822 WASO DENVER -»-»-. AQD D.C. ©007/018 

\

 172

 W\&jbCK>*>* ^w^-Q^oty*

of the FLM in order to accommodate the informational needs that , r n 

the FLM may have. N. 0JLP *^k 

The EPA solicits public comment on this issue in order to r. 

establish an equitable approach for completing the required ^ i . 

analyses for Class X areas applicable to\individual PSD ., . 

\ QtAMth, 

applicants. Specifically, the EPA seeks input in determining > 

vhat the respective responsibilities of the FLnsand the permit 

applicant should be for carrying out the analyses necessary to 

enable the FLM to demonstrate an adverse impact on AQRVss. The 

EPA vill consider such input and decide vhether the regulations 

should explicitly address these individual roles. 

Proposed sections 51.l66(p)(2)(1) and 52.2l(p)(2)(i) also 

recognize that the FLK is not the only one authorized by the Act 

to file the notice concerning potential impacts on a Federal 

Class I area. Specifically, section 165(d)(2)(C)(i) of the Act 

authorizes that the notice be filed by any one of several 

officials, including the Federal official charged vith direct 

responsibility for management of any lands within the Class I 

area potentially affected, the Federal Land Manager of such 

lands, the EPA Administrator, or the Governor of an adjacent 

State containing such Class I lands. Accordingly, the EPA is 

tracking this statutory requirement by including in the proposal 

that the FLM or other named officials may file a notice when it 

is believed that a proposed source may affect air quality^a fi 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OP MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW • DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** August 16, 1995 [file name: Naster6.29] *** 
_ 9 _ 

08/24/95 20:53 ©202 208 4620 WASO NR/AQ NPS ©008/022 

08/16/95 09:32 ©30 3 969 2822 WASO DENVER -»-»-» AQD D.C . ©008/016 

ro r ^ v* «"" *****'

 b' 174 

PSD permit applicants upon request.( See proposed section 

5i.i66(p)(2)(ii) and section 52.21(p)(2)(ii). 

Specifically, the proposal would benefit the owner or 

operator of a proposed facility that may have an adver^'impact 

on AQRVs in a Federal class I area. The proposed regulations 

generally call for the FLU to provide all^availabf^) information 

about relevant AQRVs and methods for analyzing potential impacts 

on those AQRVs. This information would include a current listing 

of the AQRVs, sensitive receptors and critical pollutant loadings 

for each AQRV, as well as the methods and tools (e.g., models) 

available to analyze the potential impacts for the affected 

class I area. The FLM also vould be expected to provide copies 

of relevant previous findings of adverse impact on AQRVs that 

have been made as part of other PSD permit revievs affecting the 

same Class I area. 

The EPA is also creating an electronic database for the 

compilation of available Class I area information. The 

cooperation of the FLMs vill be critical to the utility of this 

database. Relevant information should be entered into the EPA 

data base as it becomes available. To the extent that the 

relevant information is already in the database, it vould not be 

necessary to provide such information to an applicant. If 

however, the FLM has new information not yet available in the 

database, the FUf should directly provide such information to the 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORXING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRS8ENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

•*• August 16, 1995 — [file naae: Master6.29] *** 

^^•pmsrrT^ 
P.10 

08724/95 20:53 

05/16/95 09:33 

©202 208 4620 

©303 969 2822 

WASO NR/AQ NPS 

WASO DENVER 

1009/022 

•»-»-» AQD D-C ©009/016 

During the proposed 30-day review period, the FLM would have 

an opportunity to identify informational deficiencies and request 

nJutMUi. i/m/€G>x 

additional information that may need to be obtained from the 

^ i i m n i n una—n11 — i • i • —_-^—^————^^^_^^ ^ 

applicant in order for an adequate Class I impact analysis to be 

completed. The FLM.may choose to file a^not^ce alleging 

potential Class I impacts (gee section IV.Cl. of this preamble) 

simultaneously with a request for additional information or such 

filing may need to await the additional information being 

requested from the applicant. The EPA's proposed regulations 

would require permitting authorities to consider, in making a 

completeness determination, any comments provided by the FLM 

concerning the completeness of the application within the 30-day 

review period. See proposed section 51.166(p)(5)(iii) and 

section 52.2i(p)(5)(iii). 

The EPA generally anticipates that the permitting authority 

vill respond affirmatively to the FLM's request for additional 

information and vill notify the applicant that the application is 

incomplete and require such additional information from the 

applicant. The permitting authority generally should not 

announce that an application is deemed complete until the FLM's 

request for additional information has been satisfied by the 

applicant, and the FLM has had an opportunity to file a notice 

30-day FLM reviev period prior to the permitting authority's 

completeness determination proposed elsewhere in this notice 

[££_, e.g.. proposed section 51.166(p)(5)(i)]. 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEV * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** August 16, 1995 — [file name: Ma a ter 6.29) *** 
P-11 

08/24/95 20:54 ©202 208 4620 ffAS0 NR/AQ NPS ©010/022 

08/16/95 09:33 ©30 3 969 2822 WASO DENVER ->-»-» AQD D.C . ©010/018 

1 8 9 

allowed to complete the demonstration. Thirty days is generally 

not a sufficient amount of time for the FLM to complete a 

demonstration of an adverse impact on AQRVs. Instead, the EPA 

proposes that the FLM be allowed at least 60 days to make the 

required demonstration. Moreover, the proposed regulations 

provide that the 60-day period occur prior to a preliminary 

determination so that any demonstration submitted by the FLM may 

be adequately considered by the permitting authority and 

addressed as part of the preliminary determination. See proposed 

section 51.166(p)(6)(1) and section 52.21(p)(6)(i). 

The EPA also believes that a 60-day period (beginning on the 

date that the permitting authority formally issues its 

determination that the application ie complete), taken together 

vith the improvements addressed above to facilitate earlier FLM 

and permitting authority coordination, provides the FLM vith a 

more reasonable period of time. During this period, the FLM may 

need to^c___taet a variety of technical analyses or perhaps 

request (via the permitting authority) that the applicant provide 

additional analyses to provide sufficient basis for the 

demonstrafe^orTVo be developed. This vill, of course, depend on 

tbe amouw^/ipxormation already contained in the application as a 

result of prior coordination about the potential impacts on AQRVs 

in the Federal Class I area. For example, if the FLM has issued 

notiee pursuant to proposed section 51.166(p)(2)(i) or 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW • DOES NOT RBPRE8ENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

••• July 13, 1995 — [file name: Haster6.29] **• 
P.12 

08/16/95 09:33 ©303 969 2822 WASO DENVER — AQD D.C . ©011/016 

i 

\ V 198 

K*- \ interested in the public's vievs about the crediting of those 

• rN emission reductions already required for other purposes as 

Y". ^ I offsets for mitigating a proposed source's adverse impact on an 

/ AQRV, 

As an alternative to emissions offsets, a more stringent 

emission limitation than the limitation that would otherwise be 

required by BACT may be established to mitigate an adverse impact 

on AQRVs in a Federal Class I area. Depending upon the remaining 

emissions released and the sensitivity of the AQRVs of a Class I 

area, an emissions limitation that would otherwise be required by 

BACT, if an adverse impact on AQRVs was not considered, may be 

inadequate to entirely mitigate the adverse impact. Thus, 

emission offsets, a stricter emission limitation, or some 

combination of both, may be appropriate to mitigate an adverse 

impact an AQRVs. 

The EFA believes that measures such as emission offsets from 

existing sources represent a reasonable approach which enables 

the mitigation of an adverse impact on AQRVs. The EPA's 

mitigation policy provides needed flexibility to the PSD 

permitting process by allowing a nev major source or major 

modification that mitigates an adverse impact on AQRVs to receive 

a construction permit, even though its proposed emissions 

increase is othervise demonstrated by the Fr^L^SnoT concurred vitnN 

jy the permitting authority?- T.0 have un adverse impact on AQRVs. 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** July 13, 1995 — [file name: Master6.29] ••* 

u,;// U ^itiirj \U ftfl. -f. ,yV. "/f^f-*~ 11 

J

 " t.tlu.J* V' f u"

11 ° • 
P.13 

03/24/95 

Q8/16/95 

JW" 

20:55 

09:34 

o 

©202 208 4620 

©303 969 2822 

WASO NR/AQ NPS ©012/022 

WASO DENVER •»-»-» AQD D.C. ©012/016 

y-^ 

^X IM A ;n <rw /^° / *•+ cL*. 3n~tti~»*) 

203 

Levels should be adequately conservative. These FLMs have, in 

fact, recommended significant impact levels that are more 

restrictive than those being proposed today by EPA. Their 

recommended levels vere developed using the ratios derived from a 

comparison of significant impact levels, already used by EPA for 

[ang_NAA_s) purposes, and the respective 

""MnPTYTF- For comparative purposes the significant 

impact levels being proposed today by EPA and the levels 

recommended by the FLMs are shown below. 

Pollutant 

Sulfur Dioxide 

Particulate Matter 

Nitrogen Dioxide 

Averaging 

Time 

Annual 

24-hour 

3-hour 

Annual 

24-hour 

Annual 

Levels 

Proposed by 

EPA (ug/m3) 

o.i 

0.2 

1.0 

0.2 

0.3 

0.1 

Levels 

Recommended by 

FLMs (ug/ms) 

0.03 

0.07 

0.48 

0.08 

0.27 

0.03 

The EPA wishes to emphasize that the specific significant 

impact levels that it is proposing today for the Class I 

increments are not intended to serve as thresholds for 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT RE PRE 8 ENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** August 16, 1995 — [file name: Masters.29] *** 
P.M 

08/24/95 20:55 ©202 208 4620 WASO NR/AQ NPS ; ©013/022 

08/16/95 09:34 ©303 969 2822 WASO DENVER —, AQD D.C . ' ©013/016 

0- 204 

determining whether an adverse impacts on AQRVs will occur/: An 

adverse impact on AQRVs in a Class I area depends upon the 

sensitivity of the particular AQRV and involves an assessment of 

potential harm. An ambient pollutant concentration that is 

deemed to be of relatively insignificant consequence for purposes 

of increment consumption should not automatically be considered 

inconsequential relative to the. inherently faet-speoific 

demonstration upon which an adverse impact on AQRVs is to be 

based. Thus, the fact that a source's predicted ambient impact 

is less than an applicable class I increment significant impact 

vould not rStxeve^a permitting authority of the duty to 

consider the FLM'6 demonstration that a proposed source vill have 

an adverse impact on AQRVs in a Federal Class I area. 

The EPA is declining to establish significant impact levels 

for fact-bound, site-specific AQRVs. The FLM is entrusted vith 

protecting AQRVs and the decision to establish any appropriate 

significant impact levels for the AQRVs should rest vith the FLM. 

Any significant impact levels for AQRVs may necessarily be sitespecific since each AQRV and its associated critical pollutant 

loadings may be different from area to area and even vithin 

individual Federal Class I areas. 

As described in section IV.C.I.e., the FLM's Role in 

Triggering a Class I Increment Analysis, the EPA is proposing 

regulations that call for the filing of a notice by the FLM, the 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL BPA POLICY 

*** August 16, 1995 — [file name: Mastar6.29] •*• 
P.15 

08^24/95 20:56 ©202 208 4620 WASO NR/AQ NPS ©014/022 

08/16/95 09:35 ©30 3 969 2822 WASO DENVER -,-, AQD D.C. ©014/016 

1 205 

Federal official vith direct land management responsibility, the 

Administrator or the Governor of an adjacent State containing a 

Federal Class I area to trigger the duty of a source to conduct a* 

Class I increment and Class I impact analysis. The notice vould 

* • ' ~~ / I 

allege that emissions from a proposed sourceA cause or contribute /LjA 

to a change in the air quality in a Federal Class I area and 

\ s . \**\JT 

vould identify the potential effects of such change. ti^'y^ K, ^ 

Sources not receiving the notice are not required to conduct V \Jb 

a Class I increment analysis. Thus, the significant impact 

levels that EPA is proposing for class I increments vould apply 

to proposed sources that have received this notice. A 

determination that a proposed source receiving a class I notice 

has an insignificant impact on Class I increments vould exclude 

it from further increment analysis but not from a class I area 

impacts assessment. The EPA requests public comments on its 

proposal to establish significant impact levels for Class I 

increments in general and the proposed levels, specifically. 

5. Clarification of Miscellaneous Issues. 

The discussion vhich follovs addresses several relatively 

discrete issues. The EPA is clarifying current policy in areas 

vhere there is potential for significant confusion or uncertainty 

and, in some instances, is proposing conforming changes to the 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** August 16, 1995 — [file same: Masters.29] •*• 
P.16 

OS/24/95 20:56 ©202 208 4620 WASO NR/AQ NPS ©015/022 

08/18/95 09:35 ©30 3 969 2822 WASO DENVER AQD D.C . ©01S/016 

207 

Finally, the EPA is proposing to add significant impact 

levels for the Class II and Class III increments. See proposed 

section 51.166(b)(23)(v) and section 52.21(b)(23)(v) . The 

proposed levels are the same as those levels at existing section 

51.165(b)(2), vhieh define a significant contribution to a 

violation of the NAAQS, and simply codify current EPA policy 

vhich allows the significant impact levels from section 51.165(b) 

to be directly applied to the PSD program to determine a 

significant contribution to either the NAAQS or PSD increments. 

The EPA requests comment on the need to include these significant 

impact levels in the PSD regulations and the need for significant 

impact levels for Class II and Class III increments. 

Furthermore, the EPA requests comment on the proposed significant 

impact levels for the class ll and Class III increments, 

specifically vhether thaj_^should be lower ^tjjlan the levels used 

for NAAQS compliance. ^ W^ /"«&* of U^^M^ 

b. Analysis of Impacts on Federal Class II Areas 

Today'6 proposal also clarifies the requirement for the 

"additional impact analysis" under existing sections 51.166(o) 

and 52.21(o). In addition to the central requirements that each 

PSD source must demonstrate that its allowable emissions vill not 

cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS or PSD increment, 

each such source is generally required to prepare an additional 

analysis for the pollutants that it will emit. This additional 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW • DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL BPA POLICY 

*** August 16, 1995 — [file name: Has ter 6.29] *** 
P.17 

08/24/95 20:57 ©202 208 4620 

08/16/95 09:35 ©303 969 2822 

WASO NR/AQ NPS 

WASO DENVER -*-»-• AQD D.C. 

1016/022 

_016/016 

216 

6. information Clearinghouse (Federal Class I areas). 

The CAAAC recommended that the EPA establish a clearinghouse 

of information about Federal Class I areas. The EPA is currently 

working on a clearinghouse project to be incorporated into the 

EPA's public NSR bulletin board (NSR BB) which is hosted by the 

Office of Air Quality Planning and standards (OAQPS) Technology 

Transfer Network (TTN). Users bf the NSR BB may search for, 

retrieve, then read and/or download full text of recent policy 

and guidance material. The users may also solicit from or 

provide to other parties in the NSR permitting community, 

information pertaining to areas of interest within NSR. 

The EPA is expanding the NSR bulletin board's capability in 

two respects to address the CAAAC's recommendations. First, 

consistent with the proposed requirement to improve permitting 

authority and FLM coordination, described in section IV.C.2., 

above, the EPA will install a section exclusively for posting 

notice of major NSR permit applications by permitting authorities 

and/or permit applicants. All FLMs vill have access to the 

database: This segment of the NSR BB vill provide very basic 

source information, such as the name and type of source, its 

ation vse> UTM coordinates/ the distance betveen the proposed 

source and all Federal Class I areas vithin 500 km, and the 

proposed emission rate or net emissions increase of each air 

pollutant associated vith the project. It also vill allow permit 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW • DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** August 16, 1995 — - [file name: Mas ter 6.29] **• 
P.18 

08*/24/95 20:57 ©20 2 208 4620 WASO NR/AQ NPS ©017/022 

08/17/95 10:13 ©303 969 2822 WASO DENVER -»-.-• AQD D.C . ©001/008 

National Park Service 

Air Resources Division 

P.O. Box 25287 Denver, CO 80225-0287 

FACSIMILE COVER SHEET 

Date: oftf Telephone: (303) 969-2070 

7

f

 ' Fax (303) 969-2822 

** fan* Ma/6^ t/ / 

From:ToU i. 

Subject: CQ^T^^^XJ 6^-

MUM. fy,», T b<»J *~- flW r u« U 

Cil-I VNL \- TJI'T-TU**. 

Number of pages: 

(including This cover sheet) 

Office location: Room 215, 12795 W. Alameda, Lakewood. CO 80228 
P.19 

08'/24/95 20:57 ©20 2 208 4620 WASO NR/AQ NPS ©018/022 

08/17/95 10:15 ©30 3 969 2822 WASO DENVER -»-»-» AQD D.C . ©006/006 

1 7 

(C) Any measures undertaken to mitigate the potential 

adverse impacts of proposed emissions increases, including 

the estimated effect of any mitigation. 

(iv) In the final permit determination, the permitting 

authority shall address any comments made by the Federal 

Land Manager concerning the permitting authority's 

preliminary determination. 

(7) Mitigation of .adverse impacts. The plan shall 

provide that a proposed major source or major modification 

may mitigate its potential adverse impacts, if any, on air 

quality related values in a Federal Class I area. The 

permitting authority may issue a permit for a proposed major 

source or major modification that would otherwise be denied 

a permit under paragraph (p) (6) of this section, if the 

permitting authority determines, in consultation with the 

Federal Land Manager, that the source has mitigated its 

adverse impact on air quality related values - The owner or 

operator of a proposed major source or major modification 

may mitigate an adverse impact by*pbtaining enforceable and 

permanent emissions reductions or^eufficient amount and in 

such location that the reductions will offset the change iii. 

air quality in the Federal Class I a\eja that would hav^, 

resulted from the proposed source. 

(q) * * * 

(2) The plan may set forth the minimum information 

which must be submitted by public commenters to accompany 

any recommendations for control technology alternatives for 

which permit applicants would not otherwise be responsible 

to consider in determining best available control technology 

as of the date an application is complete according to 

paragraph (j) (5) (iii) of this section. Such information may 

. include the name and location of the source utilizing the 

control technology, manufacturer and type of control device, 

date of installation and operation of control device, and 

performance requirements and available test data. 

(3) The plan shall provide that--

(i) After any cut-off date established pursuant to 

paragraph (j) (5) (iii) of this section, the permitting 

authority shall notify a permit applicant within 10 working 

days upon receiving a public comment on any control 

THIS DOCUMENT IS A PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW AND DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

**+ July 13/ 1995 -- [filename 51_166_6.29] *•* 
. P.20 

08*24/95 20:58 ©202 208 4620 WASO NR/AQ NPS ©019/022 

08/17/95 10:15 ©303 969 2822 WASO DENVER •»-»-. AQD D.C. ©005/00 6 

IS 

modification within 100 kilometers of a Federal Class I 

area--

(i) The affected Federal Land Manager shall be 

notified within 30 days from receipt by the permitting 

authority of advance notification of a permit application, 

and 

(11} The affected Federal Land Manager shall be given 

reasonable notice and an opportunity to participate ln preapplication meetings with the applicant. 

(4) Permit application coordination. The plan shall 

provide that--

(i) The Federal Land Manager of any Federal Class I 

area within 100 kilometers of a proposed major source or 

major modification shall be provided with a copy of the 

permit application and other relevant information; 

(ii) The Federal Land Manager shall be provided with a 

copy of a permit application requested within 7 days from 

the date information is registered on the applicable EPA 

electronic bulletin board (in accordance with paragraph 

(n)(4) of this section); 

(5) Completeness determination coordination. The plan 

ahall provide that prior to making the completeness 

determination under paragraph (n) (1) of this section, the 

permitting authority shall--

[\ 

^J (i) Ensure that the applicant has provided any 

^ analysis required pursuant to paragraph (p)(2)(i) of this 

•^ section; 

V (ii) Give the Federal Land Manager 30 days from 

** receipt of an application to review the application, where 

£ the Federal Land Manager has received an application 

<, pursuant to paragraph (p) (4) of this section; 

(iii) Consider any comments provided by the Federal 

jer within the time period under paragraph 

-.&.ttils section; ana -

T (l'l." 1 

(iv) ^Consult with the Federal Land Manager about any 

inconsistency between ehe determination by the permitting 

authority and the Federal Land Manager's recommendations. 

THIS DOCUMENT IS A PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW AND DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** July 13, 1995 -- [filename 51_166_6.29] *** 
P.21 

00/24/95 

08/17/9$ 

20:58 ©202 208 4620 WASO NR/AQ NPS ©020/022 

10:14 ©303 969 2822 WASO DENVER *— AQD D.C ©004/006 

+ 

(p) Soufces poterftikUv Aimiacti^o Federal Clas Claes? I ujTfa**^ 

area9 ^tiLM> . 

(1) Protection of air quality related values. The 

Federal Land Manager and the Federal Official have an 

affirmative responsibility to protect the air quality 

related values of Federal Class I areas and to consider, in 

consultation with the Administrator, whether a proposed 

source or modification will have an adverse impact on such 

values. 

(2) General requirements. (i) Notification of 

potential impacts on a Federal Class I area and requirement 

for impact asseesment. The plan shall provide that where 

the Federal Official, Federal Land Manager, the 

Administrator, the Governor of an adjacent State, or the 

governing body of an adjacent Indian Tribe containing a 

Federal Class I area, files a notice alleging that emissions 

from a proposed major source or major modification may cause 

or contribute to a change in the air quality in such area 

and identifying the potential adverse impact of such change, 

a permit shall not be issued unless the owner or operator of 

such source: (A) demonstrates to the satisfaction of the 

permitting authority that emissions will not cause or 

contribute to ambient air quality concentrations in the 

Federal Class I area which violate the maximum allowable 

increases over baseline concentrations, and IB) provides an 

analysis of the potential impacts on air quality related 

values at the Federal Class I area. The plan may provide 

that a permit otherwise prohibited under thia clause may be 

issued in accordance with the variance provisions in 

paragraph (p) (8) through (p) (11) of this section. 

(ii) Available information on air quality related 

values and analvtical methods. The Federal Land Manager or 

Federal Official shall provide to the owner or operator of a 

proposed major source or major modification that may have an 

adverse impact on air quality related values in a Federal 

Class I area all available information about such values and 

methods to analyze potential impacts. 

(iii) Consultation with Federal Land Manager. The 

plan shall provide for consultation and coordination with 

the Federal Land Manager including the procedures contained 

in paragraph (p)(3) through (p)16) of this section. 

(3) Pre-application coordination. The plan shall 

provide that, for a proposed major source or major 

THIS DOCUMENT IS A PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAOEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW AND DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** July 13, 1995 -- [filename 51_166 6.29] •*• 
P.22 

.06V24/95 20:59 ©20 2 208 4620 WASO NR/AQ NPS ©021/022 

08/17/95 10:14 ©30 3 969 2822 WASO DENVER ->•>-> AQD D. C ©003/006 

fi 

. I .rbll, flA » lUltt IPS'V all required analyses or determinations under paragraph (o) , 

JS*L (p), (r),. (s) and (u) of this section, as applicable. 

I 

for the undemonstrated technology or application waiver 

under paragraph (s) of this section. 

SL y*. (iv) Information and data used or consulted to perform 

* fS*; all reauired analvses or detBrminat'nna un^er 

^ i £ $* * * * * 

£ ^ $ * 

* r V $ (3) The plan shall provide that upon request of the 

z*^ * Permitting authority, the owner or operator shall provide 

^/ yl >y <" any information and data used or consulted to perform all 

vj> S^- required analyses or determinations under paragraph (k) . (1) 

^ ^ I and (m) of this section. 

S^- >/ * (i) Name and type of source; 

j% (4) The plan shall provide that an application shall 

$> not be considered complete unless the permit application has 

been registered on the applicable EPA electronic bulletin 

j^. board. To register, at a minimum, the following must be 

>C\ provided: 

(ii) Nature of proposed project, i.e.. new facility or 

modification; 

(iii) Source location (including Universal Transverse 

Mercator coordinates) and the distance between the source 

and each Class I area within 250 kilometers; 

(iv) Anticipated allowable emissions, or increase in 

emission rate, for each affected air pollutant regulated 

under the Act; 

(v) Source contact mailing address and telephone 

number; and 

(vi) The permitting agency responsible for issuing the 

permit. 

(5) The plan shall provide that prior to making a 

completeness determination, the permitting authority shall 

provide for any Federal Land Manager review and coordination 

required under paragraph (p)(5) of this section. 

* * * * * 

THIS DOCUMENT IS A PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW AND DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL BPA POLICY 

••• July 13, 1995 -- [filename Sl_166_6.29] •** 
P.23 

>0£V24/95 21:00 ©202 208 4620 

08/17/95 10:13 ©303 969 2822 

WASO NR/AQ NPS 

WASO DENVER -»-»-» AQD D.C . 

fSd^ fo»-"**£-frs- fujm ST reji\ 

©022/022 

©002/006 

J 

^ 

^4 

$v! 

C 

a 

determining compliance with the national ambient air quality 

standards, concentrations in excess of the following: 

Pollutant 

S02 

PM-10 

NO, 

CO 

Averaging Time 

Annual 

24-Hour 

3-Hour 

Annual 

24-Hour 

Annual 

6-Hour 

1-Hour 

Significant Impact 

A/Ovs/m? 

(v) significant means, in reference to the predicte d 

ambient impact that emissions from a proposed major source 

or majo r modification will have for purposes of determining 

compliance with the maximum allowable increases in pollutant 

concentrations contained in paragraph (c) of this section / 

1.0 ng/vp} 

0.5 mg/m' 

2. o mg/m* 

paragraph 

concentrations in excess of any of the following: 7 

Pollutant 

SO, 

PM-10 

Averaging 

Time 

Annual 

24-Hour 

3-Hour 

Annual 

24-Hour 

Class I 

Significant 

Impact 

0.1 ng/m2 

0.2 /ig/m3 

1.0 ng/m} 

0.2 jig/ms 

0.3 /zg/ms 

Class II 

Significant 

Impact 

C/lasa III 

\t 

/xg/m» 

5)M9/n»; 

'2 S /jig/m* 

Mg/m* 

Mg/m3 

ignificant 

Impact 

Mg/m3 

Mg/m1 

M 9 / m

J 

Mg/m3 

Mg/m3 

* * * * 

(27) Indian Reservation means all land withi n the 

limits of any Indian Reservation under the jurisdiction of 

t he United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance 

of any patent, and including rights-of-way running through 

t he reservation. 

* + 

THIS DOCUMENT IS A PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGE T REVIEW AND DOES NOT RgBRBODNT OFPI0IAI__gPA POLICY 

*•* July 13, 1995 -- ^filename 51 166 6.29!