p. 1



# OAR Box 1793 Prepped by Keeia Richards



### Document

Number: 

# 15 ) ll-F-5 7
Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 11/3/2008 11:31:54

AM Sheet 15of 45P. 2



### •me 

# Office,

* A^Q^ityPh^^sJ ^ U - S . Environmenta

l Protectio nAgenc y Research Triangl e Park . N C 277 U FA X Number : (919)341-550 9 £ff.

EPA AI R DOCKE T •HMOS
. 2oi/Zl^ - 33S¥ 

### Mtmnao . 

# E 919-541 - 5^ = 

### COMMENTS :

fO (°/

z
- T>00

) ^-A J £

7~<4-L-J-nn&T^sr±

<LZ'^t^~i<^e-s

S/AJO S T^rt S ^£< ^ 0/-«^ > iX£=r2^s>OA J 

# L A^ o t»*»»JOC f /***+*£ GG^S*^

/vr/^o e CoMcetiiO/^i

. 3/6-AJ/r £-&s&~&

f=»<e. 444.1/ s )

Numbe r o fPage

s (includin g cover soeet) : /<? - I f yoa di d no

t receiv e il l the pages, plets

e conac t th e 

# rP. 3 ,

1 0

no t b e redesignated ) o r redesignate d a s Clas s I pursuan t t o th e provision s o f paragrap h (g ) o f thi s sectio n o r sectio n 52.21(g ) o f thi s chapter
. (39 ) Federa l officia l mean s th e Federa l officia l charge d wit h direc t responsibilit yfo r managemen t o f an y land s withi n a Federa l Clas s I area . (40 ) Ai r qualit yrelate d valu e means , fo r purpose s o f thi s section , visibilit yo r a scenic , cultural , physical , biological , ecological , o r recreationa l resourc e tha t ma yb e affecte d b ya chang e i n ai r quality , a s define d b yth e Federa l Lan d Manage r fo r federa l land s an d a s define d b ya Stat e o r India n Governin g Bod yfo r nonfedera l land s withi n thei r respectiv e jurisdictions

. (41 ) Advers e impac t o n ai r qualit yrelate d value s means , fo r purpose s o f thi s section , a n unacceptabl e deleteriou s effec t o n an yai r qualit yrelate d valu e identifie d b ya Federa l Lan d Manager , resultin g i n whol e o r i n par t fro memission s fro ma propose d majo r sourc e o r majo r modification , tha t interfere s wit h th e management , protection , preservation , o r enjoymen t o f th e ai r qualit y relate d value s o f a Federa l Clas s I area . Thi s determinatio n shal l b e mad e o n a case-by-cas e basis t considerin g th e chang e in

. existin g ai r qualit y(a s affecte d b yexistin g an d newly-permitte d source s not ye t i n operation ) resultin g fro mth e emission s fro mth e propose d source . (42 ) Demonstrate d i n practic e mean s fo r th e purpose s o f thi s section , a contro l technolog ytha t ha s been-

- (i ) Liste d i n o r require d b yan yo f th e following : (A ) Th e EPA' s RACT/BACT/LAE R Clearinghouse ; (B ) Majo r sourc e constructio n permit s issue d pursuan t t o part s C an d D o f titl e I o f th e Act ; (C ) Emission s limitation s containe d i n federally

approve d plan s excludin g emission s limitation s establishe d b ypermit s issue d pursuan t t o program s fo r non-majo r sources ; (D ) Permit s an d standard s unde r sectio n 11 1 an d 11 2 o f th e Act ;

THI S DOCUMEN T I S A PRELIMINAR YDRAF T FOROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE W

AN D DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EP A POLIC Y ** * Octobe r 24 , 199 5 - - [filenam e 51_166_6.29 ] ** *P. 4

1 4 (vi ) Th e permittin g agenc yresponsibl e fo r issuin g th e permit

. (5 ) Th e pla n shal l provid e tha t prio r t o makin g a completenes s determination , th e permittin g authorit yshal l provid e fo r an yFedera l Lan d Manage r revie wan d coordinatio n require d unde r paragrap h (p)(5 ) o f thi s section

.

(p ) Source s potentiall yimpactin g Federa l Clas s I area s (1 ) Protectio n o f ai r qualit yrelate d values
. Th e Federa l Lan d Manage r an d th e Federa l Officia l hav e a n affirmativ e responsibilit yt o protec t th e ai r qualit y relate d value s o f Federa l Clas s I area s an d t o consider , i n consultatio n wit h th e Administrator , whethe r a propose d sourc e o r modificatio n wil l hav e a n advers e impac t o n suc h values
. (2 ) Genera l requirements

. (i ) Notificatio n o f potentia l impact s o n a Federa l Clas s I are a an d requiremen t fo r impac t assessment
. Th e pla n shal l provid e tha t wher e th e Federa l Official , Federa l Lan d Manager , th e Administrator , th e Governo r o f a n adjacen t State , o r th e governin g bod yo f a n adjacen t India n Trib e containin g a Federa l Clas s I area , files , prio r t o th e dat e a completenes s determinatio n i s mads pursuan t t o paragrap h (n ) (1 ) o f thi s section , a writte n notic e allegin g tha t emission s o f a particula r pollutan t fro ma propose d majo r sourc e o r majo r modificatio n ma ycaus e o r contribut e t o a chang e i n th e ai r qualit yi n suc h are a an d identifyin g th e potentia l advers e impac t o f suc h chang e oneac haffecte dai r qualit yrelate d valu e identifie d i n th e are a b y th e Federa l Lan d Manager , a permi t shal l no t b e issue d unles s th e owne r o r operato r o f suc h source : (A ) demonstrate s t o th e satisfactio n o f th e permittin g authorit ytha t emission s wil l no t caus e o r contribut e t o ambien t ai r qualit y concentration s i n th e Federa l Clas s I are a whic h violat e th e maximu m

allowabl e increase s ove r baselin e concentrations , an d (B ) provide s a n analysi s o f th e potentia l impact s o n ai r qualit yrelate d value s a t th e Federa l Clas s I area . Th e pla n ma yprovid e tha t a permi t otherwis e prohibite d unde r thi s claus e ma yb e issue d i n accordanc e wit h th e varianc e provision s i n paragrap h (p)(8 ) throug h (p)(11 ) o f thi s section

.

THI S DOCUMEN T I S A PRELIMINAR YDRAF T FOROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE W

AN D DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EP A POLIC Y ** * Octobe r 24 , 199 5 - - [filenam e 51_166_6.29 ] ** *P. 5

1 6 (i)

_Ensur e tha t th e applican t ha s provide d an y analysis " require d pursuan t t o paragrap h (p ) (2 ) (i ) o f thi s section ; (ii ) Giv e th e Federa l Lan d Manage r 3 0 day s fro m receip t o f a n applicatio n t o revie wth e application , wher e th e Federa l Land Manage r ha s receive d a n applicatio n pursuan t t o paragrap h (p)(4 ) o f thi s section ; (iii ) Conside r an

ycomment s provide d b yth e Federa l Land Manage r withi n th e time perio d unde r paragrap h (p ) (5 ) (ii ) o f thi s section ; an d (iv ) Consul t wit h th e Federa l Land Manage r abou t an y inconsistenc ybetwee n th e determinatio n b yth e permittin g authorit yan

d th e Federa l Land Manager' s recommendations

. (6 ) Preliminaryan d fina l permi t determination--N o Clas s I incremen t violation

. Th e pla n shal l provid e that , wher e th e permittin g authorit yha s determine d tha t th e emission s fro

m th e propose d majo r sourc e o r majo r modificatio n wil l no t caus e o r contribut e t o ambien t ai r qualit yconcentration s i n th e Federa l Clas s I are a whic h excee d th e maximu

mallowabl e increase s ove r baselin e concentrations-

- (i ) Th e permittin g authorit yshal l no t isstt e a prelimar ypermi t determinatio n unti l -Fth e Federa l Land Manage r wil l b e ha s bee n give n a t leas t 6 0 day s (fro mth e dat e o f issuanc e o f the completenes s determinatio n require d unde r paragrap h (n)(1 ) o f thi s sectio n tha t th e permi t i o complete ) prio r t o th e permittin g authority' s preliminar y permi t determinatio n t o submi t a demonstrateio n tha t a propose d majo r sourc e o r majo r modificatio n wil l hav e a n advers e impac t o n ai r qualit yrelate d values
. (ii ) I f th e permittin g authorit yagree s wit h th e Federa l Land Manager' s demonstratio n unde r paragrap h (p)(6)(i ) o f thi s section , th e permittin g authorit yshal l propos e t o den

yth e permit

. (iii ) I f th e permittin g authorit ydisagree s i s no t satisfie d wit h th e Federa l Lan d Manager' s demonstratio n unde r paragrap h (p)(6)(i ) o f thi s section , th e permittin g authorit yshal l consul t wit h th e Federa l Lan d Manager , referenc e th e Federa l Lan d Manager' s demonstratio n o f advers e impac t o n ai r qualit yrelate d value s i n th e publi c notic e announcin g th e preliminar ypermi t determinatio n THI S DOCUMENT I S A PRELIMINAR

YDRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O

F MANAGEMEN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W AN D DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLICY ** * Octobe r 24 , 199 5 - - [filenam e 5 1 16 6 6.29 ] ** *P. 6

1 7 require d unde r paragrap h (q ) (4 ) (iii)—o f thi s ocction,—aft d explain-an d propos e t o approv e th e permi t wit h a n explanatio ni n writin g (fo r inclusio n i n th e publi c record ! require d unde r paragrap h (q ) (4 ) (ii)—o f thi s sectio n th e reason s fo r proposin g t o rejec t th e Federa l Lan d Manager' s demonstration

. Th e permittin g authority' s writte n evaluatio n explanatio n shal l contai n address , a t a minimum , th e following : (A ) Th e basi s fo r an ydisagreemen t wit h th e dat a an d analyse s containe d i n th e Federa l Lan d Manager' s demonstratio n o f advers e impac t o n ai r qualit yrelate d values ; (B ) An yconclusion s th e permittin g authorit yreaches ! abou t whethe r th e advers e impac t projecte d impact s o f th e propose d source' s emission s wil l hav e a nadvers e impac t o n ai r qualit yrelate d values , tha t ar e inconsisten t wit h thos e th e conclusion s reache d i n th e demonstratedio n submitte d b y th e Federa l Lan d Manager ; an d (C ) An ymeasure s undertake n t o mitigat e th e potentia l advers e impact s o f propose d emission s increases , includin g th e estimate d effec t o f an ymitigation

. (iv ) I n th e fina l permi t determination , th e permittin g authorit yshal l addres s an ycomment s mad e b yth e Federa l Lan d Manage r concernin g th e permittin g authority' s preliminar ydetermination

. (7 ) Mitigatio n o f advers e impacts

. Th e pla n shal l provid e tha t a propose d majo r sourc e o r majo r modificatio n ma ymitigat e it s potentia l advers e impacts , i f any , o n ai r qualit yrelate d value s i n a Federa l Clas s I area . Th e permittin g authorit yma yissu e a permi t fo r a propose d majo r sourc e o r majo r modificatio n tha t woul d otherwis e b e denie d a permi t unde r paragrap h (p)(6 ) o f thi s section , i f th e permittin g authorit ydetermines , i n consultatio n wit h th e Federa l Lan d Manager , tha t th e sourc e ha s mitigate d it s advers e impac t o n ai r qualit yrelate d values
. Th e owne r o r operato r o f a propose d majo r sourc e o r majo r modificatio n ma ymitigat e a n advers e impac t b yobtainin g enforceabl e an d permanen t emission s reduction s o f sufficien t amoun t an d i n suc h locatio n tha t th e reduction s wil l offse t th e chang e i n ai: ; qualit yi n th e Federa l Clas s I are a tha t woul d hav e resulte d fro mth e propose d source .

THI S DOCUMEN T I S A PRELIMINAR YDRAF T FO ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE W

AN D DOES NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EP A POLIC Y ** * Octobe r 24 , 199 5 - - [filenam e 51_166_6.29 ] ** *P. 7

19 5 appropriat e amoun t o f time fo r th e FL M t o complet e an

ynecessar y analyse s withou t undul ydelayin g th e permi t process . I n addition , th e EP Arequest s comment s o n it s ow n role
. Sectio n 165(d)(2)(B ) o f th e Ac t provide s tha t th e FL M an d th e Federa l officia l charge d wit h direc t responsibilit yfo r lan d
managemen t hav e a n "affirmativ e responsibility " t o "consider , i n consultatio n wit h th e Administrator , whethe r a propose d majo r emittin g facilit ywil l hav e a n advers e impact. " Th e EP Ai s no t proposin g a specifi c role , beyond th e significan t programmati c change s relate d t o Clas s I are a protectio n propose d today , concernin g ho wi t shoul d consul t wit h the FLM
. Th e EP Arequest s comment s o n thi s issue

. (3 ) Rejectio n o f th e FLM' s demonstratio n o f a n advers e impac t o n AQRVs
. A o describe d above , Th e Ac t and EPA* s PS D regulation s provid e tha t wher e th e permittin g authorit y determine s tha t a propose d source' s emission s wil l no t caus e o r contribut e t o a violatio n o f a Clas s I increment , th e FLM mus t demonstrat e |ft

o th e satisfactio n o f the permittin g authority ! tha t th e propose d wil l hav e a n advers e impac t o n AQRV s wil l

occur . Th e permittin g authorit yi s thu s give n th e authorit yt o accep t o r injec t th e FLM' s demonstration

. Th e permittin g authority' s concurrenc e wit h suc h demonstratio n mean s tha t th e permittin g authorit ymus t propos e t o den yth e PS D permit

. Se e existin g section s 51.166(p)(3 ) an d 52.21(p)(4)
. [Se e als o

PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

GDRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O

F MANAGEMEN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIAL EP A POLICY ** * Octobe r 24 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master6.29 ] ** *P. 8

19 6
propose d section s 51.166(p)(6)(ii ) an d 52.21(p)(6)(ii). ] I f th e permittin g authorit ydetermine s tha t th e FL M ha s no t demonstrate d
t o it s satisfactio n tha t a propose d source' s emission s wil l hav e

a n advers e impac t o n AQRVs , th e permittin g authorit yma ypropos e t o issu e th e PS D permi t s o lon g a s i t ha s a rationa l basi s fo r doin g so. 5 9
Recen t permi t controversie s hav e underscore d th e nee d fo r nationa l guidanc e addressin g th e permittin g authority' s rol e i n evaluatin g th e FLM' s demonstratio n o f a n advers e impac t o n AQRV s
an d th e rational e fo r an ydecisio n t o disagre e wit h th e FLM' s findings

. Fo r example , i n a PS D permi t appea l proceeding , th e EPA' s Environmenta l Appeal s Boar d hel d tha t th e permittin g authorit yerre d i n summaril yrejectin g th e demonstration s o f th e FLM s fo r th e Shenandoa h Nationa l Par k an d Jame s Rive r Fac e Wildernes s tha t th e propose d facilit ywoul d hav e a n advers e impac t o n AQRV s i n thos e Federa l Clas s I areas. 6 0

5 9 Se e 5 0 FR 28544 , 2854 9 (July12 , 1985) ; se e als o Ol d Dominio n Electri c Cooperative , PS D Appea l No
. 91- 3 9 a t 8 and n . 9 (Jan
. 29 , 1992)
. 6 0 Hadso n Powe r 14--Buen a Vista , PS D Appea l Nos
. 92-3 , 92- 4 & 92- 5 (Oct
. 5 , 1992)
. Th e EPAEnvironmenta l Appeal s Boar d reasone d that , "State s d o no t hav e unfettere d discretio n t o rejec t a n FLM' s advers e impac t determination

. I f a stat e determine s tha t a n FLM ha s no t satisfactoril ydemonstrate d a n advers e impac t o n AQRV s fro mth e propose d facility , th e stat e mus t provid e a 'rationa l basis ' fo r suc h a conclusion , 'give n th e FLMs ' affirmativ e responsibilit yan d expertis e regardin g th e Clas s I area s withi n thei r jurisdiction. ' 5 0 F R 2854 9 (Jul y12 , 1985 )
. Arbitrar yan d capriciou s rejection s o f advers e impac t demonstration s ar e no t sustainable. " [Hadson a t p . 21
. PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

GDRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O

F MANAGEMEN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLICY ** * Octobe r 24 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master6.29 ] ** *P. 9

19 7
I n a n effor t t o provid e cleare r guidanc e an d promot e mor e
reasone d decision-making , th e EP Ai s proposin g t o establis h consideration s tha t mus t infor ma permittin g authority' s rejectio n o f th e FLM' s demonstratio n o f a n advers e impac t o n AQRVs
. I n doin g so , th e EP Aha s trie d t o balanc e th e competin g statutor yprovision s concernin g th e affirmativ e responsibilit y give n t o th e FL M t o protec t th e AQRV s o f Federa l Clas s I area s
and th e Stipulatio n tha t th e permittin g authorit ymus t b e satisfie d wit h th e FLM' s demonstratio n o f advers e impac t o n AQRV s i n anyparticula r situation

. Th e FLM s hav e exper t knowledg e abou t th e land s the ymanag e
an d ar e expressl yentruste d b yth e Ac t wit h a n affirmativ e responsibilit yt o protec t th e AQRV s o f Federa l Clas s I areas . Accordingly , th e EP Abelieve s i t i s appropriat e fo r th e permittin g authorit yt o giv e deferenc e t o recogniz e th e FLM' s scientifi c an

d technica l expertis e i n it a ow n evaluatio n o f th e FLM' o dcmonotratio n th e identificatio n and evaluatio n o f advers e effect s o n AQRVS
. Nevertheless , th e permittin g authorit yi a plainl ygive n authorit yt o determin e whethe r t o accep t o r rejec t th e FLM' o dcmonotration,—and i t ma yrejec t th e dcmonotratio n a o long a o i t ha a a rationa l baoi o fo r doing oo . Notwithstandin g th e FLM'b " particula r expertise , th e permittin g authorit yma ycal l
upo n expert s o f it s own choosin g t o evaluat e th e FLM' s finding s
(citation s omitted) ] PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

GDRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O

F MANAGEMEN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLICY ** * Octobe r 24 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master6.29 ] ** *P.1 0

19 8 concernin g th e estimate d impac t o f a propose d source' s emissions , th e scientifi c basi s upo n whic h the advers e impac t demonstratio n i s based , a s wel l a s th e case-specifi c conclusio n tha t suc h

sourc e impact s wil l adversel yaffec t th e AQRV s identifie d b yth e •fWL. Wher e th e permittin g authorit yi s no t satisfie d wit h th e ;FLM* s demonstratio n o f advers e impac t o n .AQRVs , Tth e EP Ai s alo o proposin g (1 ) a genera l consultatio n provisio n necessitatin g some for mo f communicatio n an d discussio n betwee n th e permittin g authorit yan

d th e FLM whe n a disagreemen t arioco ; an d {2}- : Ift addition,—th e EP Ai o propoain g t o a provisio n require§|| | th e permittin g authorit yt o highligh t th e issue s raise d b yth e FL M

an d explai n it s reason s fo r disagreemen t i n th e publi c record
. Th e permittin g authorit ywoul d satisf ythi s latte r requiremen t by includin g a brie f summaryo f the Clas s I are a impac t issue s i n th e publi c notic e announcin g the preliminar ypermi t determination , an

d fee explainin g i n writing , fo r incluoio n i n th e publi c record , it s specifi c reason s fo r rejectin g th e FLM' s demonstratio n o f advers e impact

. Se e propose d section s 51.166(p)(6)(iii ) an d 51.166(q)(4)(ii ) an d (iii ) an

d sectio n 52.21(p)(6)(iii)

. A s proposed , thi o th e permittin g authority' s writte n evaluatio n explanatio n mus t address , a t a minimum , th e followin g factors :

PRELIMINARY STAF F WORKING DRAF T FO R OFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIAL EP APOLIC Y ** * Octobe r 24 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master6.29 ] ** *P.1 1

19 9 i

. Scientific/Technica l Basis

. Th e permittin g authorit yohoul d accor d deferenc e t o recogniz e th e FLM' a ocicntifi c an d technica l expertioc

. Th e permittin g authorit ymus t conside r al l relevan t dat a an d analyse s submitte d byth e FLM an d offe r a reasone d explanatio n fo r it s disagreemen t wit h th e illf l technica l dat a an d th e resultin g analyses
. Se e propose d sectio n 51.166(p ) (6 ) (iii ) (A ) and 52.21(p)(6)(iii)(A)

. ii

. Descriptio n o f th e AQRV s an d Advers e Impact
. Th e permittin g authorit ymus t addres s th e FLM' s finding s atatcment o describin g th e ai r qualit yrelated-valu e and th e advers e impac t bein g demonstrate d fo r eac h affecte d AQRV , fefee mcthod a an

d procedure s b

ywhic h th e FL

M ha g identifie d th e AQRVo , b yafl- d explainin g an

yconclusion s i t reaches , abou t whethe r th e projecte d impact s o f th e source' s emission s wil l hav e a n advers e impac t o n th e AQRVs , tha t ar e inconsisten t wit h thoo c recommende d th e conclusion s reache d i n th e demonstratio n submitte d byth e FLM
. Se e propose d sectio n 51.166(p ) (6 ) (iii ) (B ) an d 52.21(p ) (6 ) (iii ) (B )
. iii

. Mitiqativ e Measures
. Th e permittin g authorit yohoul d fl|i| f describ e an yeffort s tha t have

- bee n undertake n t o mitigat e th e potentia l impact s o f a propose d sourc e o n th e Federa l Clas s I are a o f concern , includin g
an yestimate d emission s reductions , an d th e effec t o f suc h

PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

GDRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O

F MANAGEMEN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLICY ** * Octobe r 24 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master6.29 ] ** *P.1 2

21 0 determinin g th e nee d fo r a n AQR V analysi s o r whethe r a n advers e impac t o n AQRV s wil l occur . An advers e impac t o n AQRV s i n a Clas s I are a depend s upo n th e sensitivit yo f th e particula r AQR V

an d involve s a n assessmen t o f potentia l harm
. An ambien t pollutan t concentratio n tha t i s deeme d t o b e o f relativel y insignifican t consequenc e fo r purpose s o f incremen t consumptio n shoul d no t automaticall yb e considere d inconsequentia l relativ e t o th e inherentl yfact-specifi c demonstratio n upo n whic h a n advers e impac t o n AQRV s i s t o b e based
. Thus , a notic e ma yb e file d (a s describe d i n sectio n IV.C.I.e
. o f thi s preamble ) allegin g tha t a propose d source' s emission s ma ycaus e o r contribut e t o a*chang e i n th e ai r qualit yi n a Federa l Clas s I

are a an d identifyin g th e potentia l advers e impac t o f suc h change
. Th e fact , standin g alone , tha t suc h source' s predicte d ambien t impac t i s les s tha n th e applicabl e significan t impac t leve l for ! Clas s I increment s woul d neithe r reliev e th e applicant , fro m havin g t o complet e a n analysi s o f impact s o n AQRV s no r provid e § | categorica l basi s fo r th e permittin g authorit yt o rejec t th e FLM' s demonstratio n o f advers e impac t o n AQRVs
. Th e EP Arequesi i
comment s o n it s proposa l t o establis h significan t impac t levels ] fo r Clas s I increment s i n general , and th e propose d level s i n particular

. Th e EP Ai s declinin g t o establis h significan t impac t level s fo r fact-bound , site-specifi c AQRVs
. Th e FL M i s entruste d wit h

PRELIMINARY STAF F WORKING DRAF T FOR OFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AND BUDGE T REVIE W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EP APOLIC Y ** * Octobe r 24 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master6.29 ] ** *P.1 3

21 1 protectin g AQRV s and th e decisio n t o establis h an yappropriat e significan t impac t level s fo r th e AQRV s shoul d res t wit h th e FLM
. Anysignifican t impac t level s fo r AQRV s ma ynecessaril yb e site

specifi c sinc e eac h AQR V an d it s associate d critica l pollutan t loading s ma yb e differen t fro mare a t o are a an

d eve n withi n individua l Federa l Clas s I areas . 5
. Clarificatio n o f Miscellaneou s Issues
. Th e discussio n whic h follow s addresse s severa l relativel y discret e issues

. Th e EPAi s clarifyin g curren t polic yi n area s wher e ther e i s potentia l fo r significan t confusio n o r uncertaint y and , i n some instances , i s proposin g conformin g change s t o th e implementin g regulations

. Th e EP Ai s als o proposin g change s tha t largel ycodif yexistin g policy

.

a . Significan t Impac t Level s fo r NAAQ S an d Clas s I I and
II I Increment s
Th e EP Ai s proposin g severa l change s t o th e PS D regulation s
a t bot h sectio n 51.16 6 an d sectio n 52.2 1 t o mak e th e rule s consisten t wit h curren t practice

. First , th e EP Ai s proposin g t o revis e th e provision s o f existin g sectio n 51.166(k ) an d sectio n 52.21(k ) t o clarif ytha t a source , itself , mus t mak e a "significan t contribution " t o a violatio n o f an yNAAQ S o r PS D Clas s I i o r II I incremen t befor e tha t sourc e woul d b e denie d a PS D permit

. Second , th e EPAi s proposin g t o incorporat e int o th e

PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

GDRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O

F MANAGEMEN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLICY ** * Octobe r 24 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master6.29 ] ** *P.1 4 

### A -90-37 

## or - f . 5 7

KE Y ISSUE S 

# DRAF

T

Unite d States Departmen to f the Interio r

IN REPL Y agvci i TO: ' NATIONA L PAR KSERVIC E P.O . BO X 3 7 U 7 WASHINGTON

, D. C 20013-712

7

NUMBE R O F PAGE S T O FOLLOW :
TO : 

# * r

FROM :

SUBJECT : 

# TW > cU2~&zck~ 

# i d p-^*s\ 

# /UJkU v DATE : 

# Ud2L\

*A)4^ 

# Hi ] AP R 3 0199 6

REMARKS : 

### EP AAI R DOCKE T

I F YO UHAV E AN YPROBLEM S UIT H THI S FA XO RTROUBL E RECEIVIN

GA FA X PLEAS E CA UTH E INDIVIDUA L FRO N HHO N YO UAR E RECEIVIN

GTH E FAX . BLACKUELL , LAURE

N CONNIKS , BIL L DPMIS , JOH

N D1SALVO . CAROL EADY . COLLETT E JOHNSTON , GAR

Y KL1UINSKI , SHARO

N HALKIN . KARE

N 202-20 8

202-20 8 202-20 8 202-21 0 202-20 8 202-20 8 202-20 8 202-21 9 491 2 NCCLELLAM) , LINDSA Y •463 1 MILLER . ABB

Y -519 3 OLHELL , PEGG

Y -893 6 PECK . DEBB

Y -464 0 SHAFER . CRAI G •888 6 WALKER , BIL L -463 9 HATKINS . UILN

A -338 4 WILSON . RIT

A 202-208-495 8

202-208-465 0 202-219-893 3 202-208-462 4 202-219-893 4 202-219-338 6 202-208-491 3 202-208-388 4P.1 5 .a/

- .la * .a A^

L^«»VJ . 'ii i

CLAS S Z IB8DE 8 - NE W BODRC 8 REVIE

W REFOR M Readtvo-pag e legislativ e histor

y describin

g Federa l Lan

d Manager' s rol e i nPS D ne v sourc e reviev : althoug hth e federa l rol e i s otherwis e limited , the FL M i s t o aggressivel y see k the protectiono f the value s an dpurpose s o f Clas s I area s and , i n th e cas e o f doubt , t o err o nth e side o f protectin g th e clas s I resources . Industry' s concernabout Clas s I issue s i s overblown . DO I ha s revieved63 4 permit s sinc e 1978 , approximatel y 4 0 a year . I n th e vas t majority

o f cases , the FL M processe s th e permi t promptl y

an dha s no objection . W e have formall y appealedonl y four (4 ) permit s (Healy , Ten nLuttrell , Multitrade , an d IM C Fertilizer) , an

dthes e fou

r appeal s ver e resolvedthrough settlement s involvin g emissio

noffsets , additiona l controls , and/o r researchan

dfunding . We have initiall y oppose donl y fifteen(15 ) othe r permits , bu t ve di dno t appeal * an y o f these . OMB , DOE , an

d industr

y ar e pickin

g apar t EPA' s 6/29/9 5 proposedregulation . The proces s i s unfai r an dunwise . Th e rul e i s basedo

na FAC A tha t me t ove r the cours e o f tw o years , 1992-1994 . EP

A provideda draf t rul e t o the stakeholder s for commen t i nJun e 1994 . EP A sen t it s proposedrul e t o OM B i n Jun e 1995 . Thi s rul e va s leake dt o industry , vh o hav e activel y

attackedi t a t OM B throug

hmeetings , letters , an d telephon e calls . DOE , whic hva s representeda t th e FACA , i s joinin g vit hcertai nindustr y representative s onattack s on Clas s I issues . No t havin g seenth

e package , th e environmentalist s ar e objectin g t o the proces s an

dasking tha t th e rul e b e proposed . Certai nindustr

y representative s involve di nth e FAC

A appear s supportiv

e o f the Clas s I provision s an ddesirou s o f publishin

g the propose

drul e (withou

t extensiv

e changes ) ASAP . Th e change s t o applicability wil l substantially , an d appropriatel y

i nmos t cases , reduc e th e numbe r o f source s subjec t t o nev

sourc e revie

v (HSR) . Thi s combinationo f incentive s an

dreduce

dregulatio

ni s goo

dregulator

y reform . wit hrespec t t o source s stil l subjec t t o NSR , th e 6/29/9 5 regulation s ar e the produc t o f lon g hour s o f vor k an d negotiation . OM

B shoul db e extremel y reluctan t t o mak e substantiv

e changes . I nfact , thi s packag e represent s a skillfu l an ddelicat e balance . Althoug

hve ar e no t satisfie dvit heverything , v e strongl y

believ e tha t i t i s tim

e t o propos e for publi c reviev an dcomment , al l the mores o becaus e o f th e egregiou s leakin g o f thi s package . 1 'H
.P.1 6

L->rt«~ti i

contrar y t o industry' s allegations , thi s packag e vil l reduc e uncertaint y

an ddelay . Th e statu s quo i s untenabl e for Clas s I issues . The problems FLM s fac e include no notice ; n o analysi s (ai r qualit y o r AQRV) ; no time ; stat e rejectio no f advers e impac t determinationwithou t rationa l basis ; stat e refusa l t o conside r mitigationproposals , includin g offset s an

d monitoring ; duplicativ e notic e an

dcomment procedure s (FLM' s onadvers e impac t determination , an dstate' s o npermit) ; disparat e outcome s amon g state s (e.g. f

Virgini a included offse t provision s i npermits , wherea s Tennesse e refused) , an d evenvithi na stat e (Gov . Wilde r versu s Gov . Allen) ; inevitabl e litigation . Thi s packag e provide s schedule s an ddeadlines , define s everyone' s role , an devince s a carefu l an dappropriat e balance . Examples : direc t notificationfor source s withi n 10 0 k m versu s electroni c bulleti nboard notic e fo r .source s beyon d10 0 km ; informatio nsharing , wit hFL

M t o provid e al l pertimen t informatio nt o sourc e a s vei l ast o Clas s I electroni c database , an dsourc e t o provid e analyse s require d b y stat e (no

t FLM) . The FL

M ha s anappropriate , albei t focusedan

dtime-limited , opportunity t o mak e th e cas e fo r th e federa l interest , an dthe stat e ha s ultimat e authorit y o nthe completenes s determinatio nan dthe permi t decision . Do no t undervalue the politica l attractivenes s o f th e par k issue . Th e Republican s quickl y retreatedfro

m thei r attempt s t o cu t the NP S budge t becaus e o f the popula r suppor t for parks . Suppor t for park s help s define Clinton , vhos e vacation i nthe Teton s ( a Clas s I area ) identifiedhi m mor e closel y vit hpar k issues . . (Eve nGeorg e Bus hIntroduced hi s 198 9 Clean Ai r Ac t bil l wit ha speechi nthe Tetonsl ) Overall , th e NS R packag e ca

nbe presente

d a s excellen t refor m for industry providin

g incentives , reducin g regulation , improvin g certainty , an

dminimizin

g delay—whil e assurin g protectiono f pre-197 7 park s an

dvildernes s areas . 

## : 

# T- " ' *••* ' ° " -»• " «*<.« * «. u o »g i u P.1 7

OC T2 0 '9 S 04!89P1 1 ITPID-IIG/OP G l - . c ,,-'i UUd/U0 6
»

f(u./ne«0nJ-f*

- 1 7 - ^(/jyU

(B ) 7 An y conclusion s the permittin g authorit y

reaches t abou t vhethe r th e adverse-impaef e potentia l effect s o f the propose dsourc e vil l hav e a nadvers e Impac t o nai r qualit y relate dvalues , tha t are inconsisten t wit hHhoa e th e conclusion s rekched b y th e Federa l Lan

dManage r in*it s advers e impac t demonstratedion-by-the-Feaerai-fcand-Manageie an d (C ) An

y measure s undertake nt o mitigat e th e potentia l advers e impact s o f propose demission s increases , including th e estimatedeffse t oian y mitigation . (iv ) I nthe fina l permi t determination , th e permitting authorit y

shal l addres s an

y comment s mad e b

y th e Federa l LandManage r concernin g the permittin

g authority' s preliminar

y determination . (7 ) Mitigationo f advers e inlets . The pla nshal l provid e tha t a proposedmajo r sourc e o r majo r modificatio n may mitigat e it s potentia l advers e impacts , i f any , o nai r qualit y relate dvalue s ina Federa l Clas s I area . Th e permitting authority ma y issu e a permi t fo r a propose dmajo r sourc e or majo r modificatio ntha t woul dotherwis e b e denie d a permi t unde r paragrap h(p)(6 ) o f thi s section , i f th e permitting authority determines , i nconsultationwit hth e Federa l Lan

dManager , tha t the sourc e ha s mitigate dit s advers e impac t o

nai r quality

relatedvalues . Th e owne r o r operato r o f ,

a proposed majo r sourc e o r majo r modification ma y mitigat e anadvers e impact, . b y obtainin

g enforceabl e an

d permanen t emission s reduction s o f sufficien t amoun t an d i n suc hlocatio

ntha t the reduction s vil l offse t th e chang e i n ai r quality

i nthe Federa l clas s I are a tha t voul dhav e resulte dfro

m the propose

dsource .

* * * * *

( q ) * * * (2 ) The planma

y se t forththe minimu m information vhlc hmus t be submittedb y publi c commenter s t o accompan y an y recommendation s fo r contro l technolog y alternative s fo r whic hpermi t applicant s woul dno t otherwis e b e responsibl e t o conside r iq determinin g bes t availabl e contro l technolog y a s o f th e dat e a

happlicatio

ni | complet e according t o paragrap

h(j)(5)(iii ) o f thi s section . Suchinformationma y includ e the nam

e an dlocatio

no f the sourc e utilizing th e contro l technology , manufacture r an dtype o f contro l device ,

THI S DOCUMENT I S A PRSLIMINAS YDRAF T FO ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W AM D DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EP A POLIC Y *• * Octobe r 20 , 199 5 — [filenam

e 51_16 6 6.29 ] ** *P.1 8

OC T 2 0 '9 5 04:09PM ITPID-IIG/OPG p^"".' ' yw o



# ^ k 1 6

(iv ) consul t wit hthe Federa l Lan dManage r abou t an y inconsistency

betweenth

e determinatio

nb y the permitting authorit y

an dthe Federa l Lan

dManager' s recommendations . (6 ) Preliminar

y an dfina l permi t determination—N o Cl«« « T incramenfc ylolyfcion . The pla nshal l provid e that , wher e the permittin g authority

ha s determinedtha t the amission s fro

m the propose

dmajo r sourc e o r majo r modificationwil l no t caus e or contribut e t o ambien t ai r qualit y concentration s inthe Federa l Clas s I are a whic h excee dth e maximu

m allowabl e increase s ove r baselin e concentrations — (i ) The permittin

g authorit

y shal l no t issue a prelimar

y permi t determinatio nunti l Sthe Federa l Land Manage r viil-be has < bee ngivena t leas t 6 0 day s (fro m the dat e o f issuance"of"tfte"completenes s determinationrequire d unde r paragrap

h(n)(l ) oi' this"sectionfchat-*fehe-perm*«t-is eeapiefee ) p

r i e s-tee-the-pevmittin g -aatehes i ty^s-preiiminar y peemifc-determinatie ht o submi t . a demonstratelo ntha t a propose dmajo r aourc e or*ma^or"modificatio nwil l hav e an advers e impac t onai r quality relate dvalues . (ii ) I f th

e permittin

g authorit

y agree s wit hth e Federa l Lan

dManager' s demonstratio nunde r paragrap

h (P)(6)(i ) o f thi s section , th e permittin

g authorit y

shal l propos e t o den

y th e permit . (iii ) I f the permittin g authority

disagree s i s no t satisfiedvit hthe Federa l Lan dManager' s demonstration * under*paragrap

h(p)(6)(i ) o f thi s section , th e permitting authorit y

shal l consul t wit hth e Federa l Lan

d Manager , ffeferenee-the-Pedera!-6and-Manegej?*s-demenstrafcien-e.e adve»se-4»paet-en-a*»-qua-fcity-Feiated-va4uea-in-*he-pubii e neteiee-anneaneing-the-preik-kainB«y-permi*-determinetie n 22KJ\ »eqttired-an4es-parag»eph-f^t^lt-**i^^o*-*«4s-seetieR7-ai» d

r ^ \ explai na* d propos e t o approve. , the ne.ralt vit han W \ S-sxplenatLon I nwritin g (fo r inclusio

ni nthe publi c record ) A ^ J, »eqwre^-ttnder-pa3eagraph-fq)f-*^f*i^-e«-*fehis--seetie nth e Vvv ^ reason s fo r proposin g t o rejec t the Federal.Land tManager^ s V T demonstration . The permittin g authority' s "written ' evaluationshal l eencai naddress , a t a minimum , th e following : (A ) Th e basi s fa

r an y disagreemen t vit hthe dat a an d analyse s containedi nth e Federa l Lan

d Manager' s demonstrationo f advers e impac t o nai r qualit y

relate d values ; r H ... . * THI S DOCOKEN T I S A PRELIMINAR

YDRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W AN D DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EPA POLICY ** * Octobe r 20 V

199 5 ~''tXillitiMO

U51_166_6.29 ] ** * ^
.P.1 9

. '*\ / .'aVK* l 41JUU0/UU 0 OC T 2 0 '9 5 04:15PM ITPID-IIG/OPG p

3 ' 6

1 4 (p ) Souree a potentiall y impactin

g Federa l Clas s I
(1 ) Protectio

no f ai r quality

relate dvalues . The Federa l Lan

dManage r an

dthe Federa l Officia l have a n affirmative responsibility t o protec t the ai r qualit y relate dvalue s o f Federa l clas s I area s an d t o consider , i n consultationvit hth e Administrator , vhethe r a propose d sourc e o r modificatio nvil l hav

e a nadvers e impac t onsuch values . 

## (2 ) Ganera l yequirem*>n.ts . (i ) Notificatio no f potentia l impact s o na Federa l Clas s I are a ant } requiremen t for impac t assessment . Th e pla nshal l provide tha t wher e th e Federa l Official , Federa l Lan dManager , the Administrator , th

a Governo r o f anadjacen t State , o r the governing bod

y o f a nadjacent India

nTrib e containing a Federa l Clas s I area , files , pfior.^o.the.dat e a completenes s determinatio ni s made'pursuant'to'paragrap h n u l o f thi s section , a writtennotic e allegin g tha t Mlllfllt l til l I ll f Illl l >.-a.*> l * * » .«.». . a . emission s fro

m a proposedmajor sourc e or majo r modification ma y caus e o r contribut e t o a chang e i nthe ai r qualit y

i n suc hare a an

didentifyin

g th e potentia l advers e impac t o f

source : (A ) demonstrate s t o th e satisfactio

no f the permittin

g authority

tha t emission s vil l no t caus e o r contribut e t o ambient ai r qualit y concentration s i nth e Federa l Clas s I area whichviolat e th e maximu

m allowabl e increase s ove r baseline concentrations , an d(B ) provide s an analysi s o f the potentia l impact s o nai r qualit y

relate d value s a t th

e Federa l Clas s I area . The planmay provid e tha t a permi t otherwis e prohibite dunde r thi s claus e ma y be issuedi naccordanc e vithth e varianc e provision s in paragrap

h(p)(8 ) throug

h(p)(ll ) o f thi s section . (ii ) ftypilqble Informatio no nai r qualit y

relate d value s an

danalytica l methods . Th e Federa l Lan

dManage r o r Federa l Officia l shal l provid e t o th e owne r o r operato r o f a propose dmajo r sourc e or majo r modificatio ntha t ma y

have a n advers e impac t o

nai r qualit

y relate dvalue s i na Federa l Clas s I are a al l availabl e informatio nabou t suc hvalue s an d method s t o analyz e potentia l impacts . (iii ) Consultatio nwit hFedera l LandManager . Th e planshal l provide fer consultatio nan dcoordinationvit h

THI S DOCUMENT I S A PRELIMINAR

YDRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W AN D DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EPA POLICY *« * Octobe r 20 , 199 5 — [filenam

e 5l_l6 6 6.29 ] ** *

•..a ' J

.*- >OC T 2 0 '9 5 04.07P M ITPID-IIG/OP G r-.c o U5/00 «



### 1 0 th e provision s o f paragraph(g ) o f thi s sectio no r sectl-o n 52.21(g ) o f thi s chapter . (39 ) Federa l officia l mean s th e Federa l officia l charge dvit hdirec t responsibilit y fo r managemen t o f any land s withi na Federa l Clas s I area . (40 ) Air

- quality

relate dvalue means , fo r purpose s o f thi s section , visibility or a scenic , cultural , physical , biological , ecological , o r recreationa l resourc e that.may.b e affected.b

y a.change.in.ai r guality , a s definedby'th e Federa l "Lan

d "Manager " lor"£e&e r a l "iand s an

da s define db

y a Stat e or IndianGovernin g Bod y for nonfedera l land s vithi n thei r rispectiv . jurisdiction* . eW^ W _e*d.lr t 

## (4i ) ftflve.rge impqct . Q n

## ai r guaLfra r reloa dv^lires t^Lth , means , fo r purpose s o f thi s section,/ a deleteriou s effect , lVKA 

### -uc resultin g in-wheie-er-i»-par t fro m emission s fro

m a 'proposed majo r sourc e o r majo r modification,itha t interfere s wit hth e °^ic management , protection , preservation , o r enjoymen t o f th e -P^a ai r qualit y

relate dvalue s o f a Federa l clas s I area . r (42 ) pemonstrate di npractic e mean s fo r th e purpose s o f thi s section , a contro l technology tha t ha s been — (i ) Liste di no r require dby an y o f th e following : (A ) Th e EPA' s RACT/BACT/LAE RClearinghouse ; (B ) Majo r sourc e constructio npermit s issue dpursuan t t o part s C an

dD o f titl e I o f th e Act ; (c ) Emission s limitation s containe di nfederally * approve dplan s excluding emission s limitation s establishe d b y permit s issue dpursuan t t o program s fo r non-majo r sources ; (D ) Permit s an

dstandard s unde r sectio nil l an d11 2 o f th e Act ; (E ) Th e EPA' s alternative jcontro l Technolog y Document s an dContro l Technique s Guidelines ; o r (ii ) No t withstandin g paragraph(b)(42)(i ) o f thi s section , installe dan doperating ona nemission s uni t o r unit s whic hhav e operate da t a minimu m o f 5 0 percen t o f nameplat e capacit y

fo r 6 months , an

dth e pollutio ncontro l efficienc y

performanc e ha s bee nverifie dwit ha performanc e THI S DOCUMEN T I S A

PRELIMINARYDRAF T FO ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIEW

AN D DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EP A POLIC Y ** * Octobe r 20 , 199 5 — [filenam

e 5l_l66_6.29 ] ** *aiu/a^/a o 10:2 7 -a^zjje * 4 ^ o BAJ) U i>K/A y ft 1^)004/00 8

# 

# DR^ r

Sec . 52.2 1 (p)(2)(ii ) (propose dcompromis e language i nbold) : Availabl e informatio no nai r quality

relate dvalue s an

danalytica l methods . The Federa l Lan dManage r or Federa l Officia l shal l provid e t o the owne r o r operator o f a proposedmajo r sourc e or majo r modificationtha t ma y have anadvers e impac t o nthe ai r qualit y relatedvalue s i na Federa l Clas s I are a al l availabl e informationabou t suchvalue s an dmethod s t o analyz e potentia l 

### impact s a t th e earlies t possibl e date . I naddition , informatio n shal l b e mad e avail ^il s t o th e public .

Inser t t o Preamble , p . 205 , ne w paragrap

hafte r lin

e 5 t o addres s AQR V significanc e o r de minimu s issue ; Furthermore , vhil e the goa l o f establishin g critica l load s ma y be laudable , basedo

ncurren t scientifi c data , i t i s no t reasonabl e t o requir e suchsit e specifi c critica l loading s t o be establishedfor eachAQR

V a t eachClas s I area . For example , aci ddepositioni s one o f the mor e vei l understoo deffect s t o AQRVs . PH change s fro m mornin g unti l evenin

g an dfro m seaso nt o season . Ther e i s n o direc t linea r relationshi pbetweenp H o f precipitationan dpH chang e i nlake s an

dstreams . Detailedinformatio no nth e condition o f a watershe dan

dhydrologi c flo

w path s throug

htha t watershe d ar e neededt o determine the p H o f incomin

g streamwater . I ncarryin g ou t the congressiona l mandat e t o stud y th e feasibility

o f settin

g anaci ddepositionstandard , EP A an dpee r reviewer s decline dt o sugges t establishin g a se t standard , eve nthoug hthe effect s wer e wel l document . EP A request s commen t o nho w AQRVs ma

y b e protectedo

na cas e b

y cas e basis , an

dstil l provide mor e certainty for permi t applicants . Ar e ther e practica l alternative s t o establishin g significan t impac t o r d e minimu s levels ? Woul dinclusio no f cas e specifi c permi t determination s i na publi c databas e provide sufficien t guidanc e t o prospective permi t applicants ? 

# DRAFT