p.1 

OAR Box 1781 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

98) IV-C-12 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/29/2008 10:46:22 AM Sheet 98 of 142 
P.2 

•rftO ^4 / ' * % UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

£ M^B 'd 5 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

A-lo-37 

EaT^-l l 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADiADQN 

'

 4 1999 

Honorable Rick Boucher 

House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515-4809 

Dear Congressman Boucher: 

This is in response to your letter of May 12,1999, that encouraged the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), as part of the current effort to reform the new source review (NSR) 

program, to reexamine the criteria that determine when major stationary sources are subject to 

the full program requirements. You stated that your understanding is that the basis for 

evaluation of sources is actual production and urged EPA to change this to potential, rather than 

actual.'levels for evaluation purposes. You expressed concern that the current method limits the 

domestic production ofa coke that is more environmentally friendly than a cheaper, but more 

polluting coke, which is bought offshore. You suggest that the existing program has the impact 

of degrading air quality while at the same time creating economic hardship for workers in the 

coal and coke industries. 

The current NSR regulations in no way limit the production of coke by any source. 

However, in accordance with the Clean Air Act, any new major source of air pollution 

emissions or a source that makes a physical change at a plant or a change in the method of 

operation that results in a significant increase in emissions, must obtain a preconstruction permit. 

A fundamental tenet of the Clean Air Act is that as new industrial production capacity is built, or 

old capacity is replaced or substantially modified, the best air pollution controls should be 

installed and the air quality consequences of the emissions should be evaluated. 

In areas designated attainment or unclassifiable, the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) requirements apply to new major sources and significant net emission 

increases of each pollutant resulting from a proposed modification at a major source. The PSD 

requirements include application of the best available control technology to the new or modified 

emissions units at which an increase occurs. Further, the source must analyze the impact of 

post-controlled emissions on the ambient concentrations as well as effects on soils, water, 

vegetation, visibility, and Class I areas (large National Parks and Wilderness Areas). 

Unacceptable impacts such as violations of national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) or 

allowable changes in ambient concentrations of pollutants (increments), adverse impacts on 

Class I areas, or localized impacts on soils, water, vegetation, and visibility must be mitigated 

before the source can begin construction on the proposed project. In those instances where a 

Internet Address (URL) • http:/A«ww.epagov 

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recyded Paper (Minimum 25% Postconsumer) 
P.3 

new source or modification is minor and does not trigger the major source NSR applicability 

thresholds, the minor new source or modification permitting process is to include an air quality 

impact assessment to insure that ambient air quality standards are protected. See 40 C.F.R. § 

51.160. A source that uses state-of-the-art emissions controls for each pollutant can often 

expedite the permitting process and optimize opportunities for expansion or growth. 

Your comments appear to refer to how the NSR rules calculate an emissions increase at 

sources undertaking a physical or operational change, thereby subjecting the source to all the 

major new source provisions. In general, the rules calculate the emissions increase from a 

change by comparing the actual emissions from all emissions units affected by the change to 

those units' post-change potential emissions. A source may take enforceable restrictions on 

operating parameters or direct emissions that prevent the calculated increase from exceeding the 

significant emissions threshold. Or, it may take credit for actual emission reductions of the same 

pollutant that have occurred in the several years (typically the last 5) preceding the change to 

yield a net emissions increase (or decrease) that is lower than the significant emissions threshold. 

It is crucial to note that the emissions increase calculation is necessary only when a 

facility makes a physical change or change in the method of operation that increases emissions. 

Changes that do not result in a significant net emissions increase do not trigger major NSR. 

Further, sources that simply increase operations without a physical or operational change—for 

instance, to take advantage of normal market fluctuations—are exempt from major NSR. [See 

40 C.F.R. § 52.21(b)(2)(iii)(f).] 

The EPA has, in a 1996 proposed rulemaking, sought public comment on changing this 

calculation to use potential emissions as the pre-change baseline. [See 61 FR 38250,38268-70 

(July 23, 1996).] The EPA presently is considering public comments on this proposal and hopes 

to complete final rulemaking by January 2000. We appreciate your comments and will include 

your letter in the public docket for this rulemaking. 

With respect to the environmental impact of coke bought offshore, we agree with your 

comment that the processes by which some foreign coke is produced may be more polluting than 

comparable US technology. However, it is our understanding that the foreign coke used in the 

U.S. is comparable in quality to that produced domestically, since U.S. iron and steel industries 

can only use coke that falls in a fairly narrow range of quality specifications. We would not 

expect, therefore, to see any appreciable impact on U.S. air quality from the use of foreign coke. 

It is not the intent of the new source review program to adversely affect the 

competitiveness of any industry. The program is designed to take advantage of the opportunity 

presented by major new construction or reconstruction to evaluate the effectiveness of available 

air pollution controls. In the case of the domestic coke industry, we believe that a number of 

factors may be responsible for the decline in production, including reduced demand, aging 

facilities, and increased foreign competition. We applaud the efforts by companies such as 

Jewell Coal and Coke to develop cleaner coke production technology. 

l a 
P.4 

k * 

I appreciate this opportunity to be of service and trust that this infonnation will be 

helpful to you. 

Sincerely, 

Robert Perciasepe 

Assistant Administrator 

3 
P.5 

-r'»>--,"a",fi UQ> f W1" 

I appreciate this opportunity to be of service and trust that this information will be helpful 

to you. 

Sincerely, 

Robert Perciasepe 

Assistant Administrator 

USEPA:OAQPS:ITMD:nG:DCrumpler:y|horpe:919-541-0871:NCMU:MD-12:5/27/99 

Revised 5/28/99.DCrumpler:pfinch:919-541-5281 

Control # AL-9901213 Due: 5/27/99 

FILENAME: F:\boueher3.wpd 

FILE: REG 149 E 

L 
P.6 

05/19/99 . 10:31 ©7036282.03 

RICK BOUCHER 

BTH DISTRICT. VIRGINIA 

COMMERCE 

SUBCOMMITTEES: 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS. TRADE A 

CONSUMER PROTECTION 

ENERGY AND POWEIa 

JUDICIARY 

SUBCOMMITTEE: 

COURTS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 

ASSISTANT vmw 

BOUCHER ABN. 12)002 

Coftgpe^ of tfje Umteb States 

tlotuefe ot ftepreftntattoe* 

May 12,1999 

The Honorable Carol M. Browner 

Administrator 

Environmental Protection. 

401 M Street, NW 

Washington, D.C. 2046*0 

WASHINGTON OFFICE: 

m» RAYDURN HOUSE OFFICE BUIUSNO 

WA6HmG70N,OCJ0616-4««> 

W2)2Ka38B1 

•-null: NINTHNET@MAILHOU8E.GOV 

WWW: hnpV/www.house.gov/t)oucher/ 

CONSTITUENT SERVICE OFFICES: 

taa EAST MAIN STREET 

ABINGDON. VIRGINIA 24310 

16*10)638-11«5 

111 SHAWNEE AVENUE EAST 

BO STONE GAP, VIRGINIA I4ITS 

C40IU1-64S0 

10B NORTH WASHINGTON AVENUE 

P.O. BOX 1MB 

PULASKI, VIRGINIA MM 1 

rMoieeo-oio 

agency 

Dear Administrator Brawn r: 

I understand that efl nts are currently underway at the Environmental Protection 

Agency to update the "New So iree Review Program." It is my understanding that the basis 

for evaluation of sources uldedboth the 1977 rale and the 1990 draft rule is actual 

production. I am writing td urie the EPA to change this basis from actual production to 

potential production for evlluxion purposes. Companies have been penalized by loss of 

production during previous yes rs due to EPA's use of actual production to establish permit 

limits. I am requestingkha: tht: EPA incorporate into the "New Source Review Reform 

Regulations" changes tyat vill allow a company to recoup potential production lost during 

the previous fifteen (15) y< ar j eriod. 

In Southwest Virgii ia, le area that I represent, coal and coke production is a pillar of 

the regional economy. The 19! 0 New Source Review Draft Rule currently in effect has very 

serious implications foi th s sc. -.tor, particularly for the coke industry. The current rule 

penalizes companies w lie , di ring the previous fifteen-year period, experienced decreased 

demand due to a varietr o ma kef and business, factors. Because Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) thresl sld for permitting purposes are presently based upon actual 

production levels, companies - •'hose production levels were abnormally depressed during 

this time were unable to in Jre, se their production to normal levels without being resubjected to the PSD pern] t n view process. Therefore, when tiie coke market improved in 

the years following 1983, iro< ucers in my district were unable to regain production lost 

through application of the ;xij Ling New Source Review program. 

As a result, the con pat ies that were forced to reduce production in 1983 and forward 

to stay in business during im< > of economic hardship have permanently lost production 

tonnage under the progpi . T ie establishment of a recoupment window for the previous 

fifteen years of potential f odaction would be fair and would serve as a more accurate 

representation ofa plant's sm ssions over the course of an economic cycle lant 

b 
P.7 

05/19/99 10:32 ©7036282203 BOUCHER ABN. ©00 3 

May 12,1999 

-page twoAs you may be aware, the Jewell Thompson Non-Recovery Coke Oven technology^ 

which was developed in Southwest Virginia and is in use at the Jewell Coal and Coke 

Company located in my congressional district, is the world's cleanest coke production 

facility and remains the industry standard for Maximum Achievable Control Technology 

(MACT). 

However, application of the 1977 New Source Review Program and the 1990 New 

Source Review Draft Rule has miniinized the potential economic and environmental benefit 

to be realized through use of this technology. The limits on coke production have resulted 

not only in adverse economic impacts for the companies in my Congressional District and 

their workers, but also in an inadequate domestic supply of coke. Consumers of coke are 

thus forced to rely more|heavily| on imported coke, much of which is produced overseas witii 

significantly fewer environmental controls. So, while tiie intent of the EPA is to improve air J 

quality, tiie effect of the implementation of the existing program is to degrade air-quality by ( 

increasing the use of "dirty" foreign coke, while at the same time creating economic I 

hardship for workers in the coal land coke industries in the United States. 

It is my hope that! as the EPA develops the New Source Review Reform Regulations, 

it will draft the regulations in such a way as to allow for a previous fifteen-year recoupment 

window where companies can be re-awarded potential production lost as a result of the New 

Source Review Program. The unintended consequences of tiie New Source Review program 

should not be to punish American coke producers who are producing the cleanest coke in 

tiie world. 

I appreciate your attention to my concerns and I look forward to your reply. If I can 

provide you or your staff with any additional information please give me a call. With kind 

regards and best wishes, I remain 

% Sinperely, 

RB/aeh i ' 

Rick Boucher 

Member of Congress 

0? 
05/19/99 10:30 ©7036282203 BOUCHER ABN. 

Congress af tfje UnftEfr State! 

JBflttgE af agnTTtfPTTtrrtflTgg 

P.8 

Biooi 

Fax Niimher 

(540) 62B--2Z03i. 

•••• v # 

* 

FAX NUMBER: 

FROM: 

DATE: 

COMMENTS: 

Rick Boucher 

9th District VIrpjfnia 

FAXCOVERSHEET 

i .. i • " 

i ! 

"Tht fwrdJ&Qurol fawner' 

• i | r"^ • 

ferafo) kiatn/\^jA^ 

i 
P.9 

* £% \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

| ^fe I RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK. NC 27711 

%«o« ^ April 5, 1999 

OFFICE OF 

AIR QUALITY PLANNING 

MEMORANDUM AND STANDARDS 

SUBJECT: Request to Clarify Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

Baseline Area and Corresponding Baseline Date for Breton National Wildlife 

Refuge and Wildemess Area 

FROM: Bill Harnett, Acting Director {j^ ^ IV A / ^ 

Information Transfer & Program Integration Division (MD-12) 

TO: Robert E. Hannesschlager, P.E., Acting Director 

Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division (6PD) 

Winston E. Smith, Director 

Air Pesticides & Toxics Management Division (4-APTMD) 

This responds to your memorandum to John Seitz, dated May 4,1998. You requested 

guidance for establishing an inventory of sources to assess the air quality impacts at Breton 

National Wildlife Refuge and Wildemess Area (Breton)--a Class I area under the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. In particular, you presented three questions 

establishing the needed inventory and then offered two possible approaches for responding to the 

questions. Your staff and mine have discussed these questions, and we gave preliminary 

responses to participants of the Breton air quality study at the meeting in Biloxi, Mississippi on 

January 21,1999. Participants of the meeting included representatives from EPA Regions IV 

and VI; the Minerals Management Service; Fish and Wildlife Service; the States of Alabama, 

Louisiana and Mississippi; and several onshore and offshore industries. 

Some participants recently requested an official written response from EPA to clarify the 

PSD policy for carrying out the Breton air quality study. This memorandum provides EPA's 

position concerning the appropriate policy for determining the amount of PSD increment 

currently being consumed at Breton by sources in the adjoining States and by sources offshore. 

Our policy is most like the approach which you provided as Alternative 2 in your May 4,1998 

memorandum. 

Question 1: How do we develop a PSD emission source inventory (or conversely, a baseline 

source inventory) developed for Class I areas with an impact region encompassing many 

States? 

Response: In a baseline source inventory, you (the study group) should include information 

about any source whose emissions are determined to affect the increment in the area of concern. 

? 

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable OH Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (40% Postconsumer) 
P.10 

Sources whose emissions affect the increment fall into one of two categories: 

• Major stationary sources whose emissions increased or decreased as a result of 

construction occurring after the major source baseline date; and 

*• Any source (stationary source, area source, mobile source) whose emissions increased or 

decreased on or after the minor source baseline date. 

For Breton, the major and minor source baseline dates are these: 

• The major source baseline date is fixed by regulation for each applicable pollutant 

(January 6,1975 for particulate matter and S02 and February 8,1988 for NOJ. 

- The minor source baseline date may vary from one area to another. So do two things: 

— First identify the applicable baseline area. From the information in your earlier 

communications, Breton is in the Southern Lousiana-Southeast Texas Interstate Air Quality 

Control Region (AQCR). 

— Then determine whether such an area already has a minor source baseline date. Again, 

from the information in your earlier communications, the minor source baseline dates for the 

Louisiana portion of the AQCR are August 1977 for particulate matter and S02, and February 

1988 for NOx. As explained in our response to question 2, the minor source baseline dates 

associated with other nearby States are irrelevant to the increment analysis at Breton. 

For a typical increment analysis, most of the sources affecting the increment normally would be 

located in the baseline area associated with the applicable minor source baseline date, and only a 

few would be located outside that baseline area. However, because of Breton's unique location, 

many sources whose emissions could consume its increment might be outside Breton's baseline 

area. You've chosen an acceptable way to identify those emissions by including sources located, 

at a minimum, within a radius of 100 kilometers of Breton. Adjust this approach as necessary. 

For example: 

• Inside the 100-kilometer radius, you needn't include small sources with only trivial 

impacts. 

*• Outside the 100-kilometer radius, you should screen very large sources for the potential 

impacts of their emissions and for possible inclusion in the inventory. 

Question 2: Because baseline areas are limited to intrastate regions, how do emissions from 

sources in one State affect the increments in another State when the States have different 

minor source baseline dates? 

Response: When you calculate the amount of increment consumed in a particular baseline area, 

only the minor source baseline date applicable to that baseline area is relevant. Baseline areas 

1 
P.11 

are limited to intrastate regions because of an EPA policy that prevents emissions from a source 

in one State from triggering the minor source baseline date (and establish the baseline area) in 

another State. See 45 FR at 52716, August 7,1980. However, once the minor source baseline 

date and corresponding baseline area are established in any portion ofa State, EPA believes that 

any change in air quality occurring in such area should affect the PSD increments for the area, 

regardless of the location of any source contributing to the change. This is consistent with 

Congress' intent that the maximum allowable increase in pollutant concentration (increment) in a 

baseline area generally be measured against the area's change in air quality which occurs 

following the establishment of its minor source baseline date. See statutory definition of 

"baseline concentration" at section 169(4) of title I of the Clean Air Act. 

Clearly, sources located outside the affected baseline area may contribute to a change in air 

quality within the affected baseline area. For emissions changes from such sources to affect the 

increment in the same way as emissions generated inside the affected baseline area, it is 

necessary to relate those changes to the area's minor source baseline date. Thus, as explained in 

our response to question 1, the only minor source baseline date relevant to increment 

consumption at Breton is the minor source baseline date established for the baseline area 

associated with Breton. 

Question #3: Should the PSD inventory include Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) sources? 

Response: Yes, EPA's position is that the PSD inventory should include OCS sources, where 

appropriate. Congress, in declaring its purpose for the PSD provisions in section 160 of the Act, 

addressed the potential for increased air pollution without distinguishing between the types of air 

pollution sources. EPA's longstanding policy has been that baseline concentrations reflect actual 

air quality in an area and that any emissions not included in the baseline count against the 

increment. 

Congress did identify certain circumstances (some permanent, others temporary) for which States 

could decide to exclude certain emissions from the increment-consumption process, but 

emissions from offshore sources was not among those exclusions. In 1990, Congress explicitly 

addressed the potential for air quality problems resulting from offshore sources by adding section 

328 of the Clean Air Act. New section 328 sought to protect Federal and State ambient air 

quality standards, ensure compliance with the PSD requirements, and spread the burden of 

achieving these goals more equitably between onshore and OCS sources. 

In 1992, EPA issued regulations at 40 CFR part 55 to implement the section 328 

requirements. The EPA believes that emissions from OCS sources may affect increments 

whether or not an OCS source itself is subject to 40 CFR part 55. However, the only emission 

increases at OCS sources that count against the increments at Breton are those increases which 

occur after Breton's minor source baseline date. Also, emission reductions at OCS sources will 

expand the amount of available increment at Breton when the reductions improve the air quality 

at Breton after its minor source baseline date. 

ID 
P.12 

I hope that this information helps the Breton air quality study group to determine the air 

quality impacts causing Breton's PSD increment to be consumed. If more questions come up, 

please contact Dan deRoeck at 919/541-5593, or E-mail at deroeck.dan@epamail.epa.gov. 
P.13 

j " 

? £% * UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY K . &\«^tW^ f # G % 

)l€^> I t^ 1

^ § HEGION6 . / 

X^U^J 1445 ROSS AVENUE. SUITE 1200 A. Jj • 

X«o ^ DALLAS, TX 75202-2733 ^ » 7 ->iv ^ 

•MAY * ;« TOO? ^ "/ ^ 

MEMORANDUM ^ 

SUBJECT: Request for Clarification of Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) Baseline Area and Corresponding 

Baseline Date 

FROM : A A Robert E. Hannesschlager, P.E., Acting Director 'fflJS***^ 

Ir Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division (6PD) r^i 

& 

Winston A, Smith, Director 

A ir Pesticides & Toxics Management division) fc'4-ABTMD) 

TO: John Seitz, Director fj •' »' 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD-10) 

This memorandum is to request guidance on establishing an 

inventory of PSD sources (or inventory of baseline sources) for 

the assessment of PSD impacfes at Class 1 areas. The issues 

address appropriate baseline date(s) and baseline areas as they 

apply to sources impacting a Class 1 area. Environmental 

Protection Agency Regions 4 and 6 are working with the Minerals 

Management Service (MMS)7 Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS); the 

States of Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi; and onshore and 

offshore industry on a cumulative air quality study of Breton 

National Wildlife Refuge and Wilderness Area (BNWA). Breton is 

a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Class I air 

quality area, which is potentially impacted by air emissions from 

both onshore and offshore sources. The FWS, the land manager for 

BNWA, contends that the PSD increment is or will soon be exceeded 

for sulfur dioxide (S02) and perhaps nitrogen-oxide (NOJ . The 

specific issues and each alternate view are described below along 

with additional background information. 

The Breton Air Quality Study (BAQS) will include sources 

located, at a minimum, within a radius 100 kilometers of BNWA. 

This includes sources in three States. Since there are multiple 

States involved with different minor source baseline dates, three 

questions have arisen: 

How is a PSD emission source inventory (or, conversely, a 

Baseline Source Inventory) developed for Class I areas with 

an impact region encompassing many States? 

IX-
P.14 

Because baseline areas are limited to intrastate regions, 

how do emissions from sources in one State affect the PSD 

increments in another State when the States have different 

minor source baseline dates? 

Should Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) sources be included in 

the PSD inventory? 

The parties involved are not in complete agreement on the 

answers to these questions. One position is that emission 

sources are included in the BNWA PSD emission inventory based on 

the baseline dates associated with the source's location. 

Another view is that the baseline dates associated with BNWA 

should be used to identify emission sources to be included in the 

BNWA PSD emission inventory independent of their location. The 

purpose of this memorandum is to obtain your guidance on the 

proper procedure to use in assessing the PSD increment at a 

receptor when the sources are located in regions with different 

Minor Source Baseline Dates. 

Alternative 1: 

There are three dates of significance to PSD increment 

assessments: 

1. Major source baseline date 

2.. Trigger date 

3. Minor source baseline date 

Both the major source baseline and trigger dates are the 

same fixed dates for all States. The minor source baseline date 

varies by source location based upon the date the first complete 

PSD application was received by the permitting authority after 

the trigger date. 

The region around the BNWA includes several States, all of 

which have the same major source baseline dates but could have 

different minor source baseline dates. The difficulty lies in 

identifying the emission sources to be included in the PSD 

increment assessment modeling for BNWA. The following PSD 

characteristics must be considered in addressing this issue: 

• PSD increment and baseline concentrations are fictitious 

concentrations that are defined by computer modeling 

studies. These concentrations cannot be measured in the 

atmosphere. The concentrations are determined from 

emissions of particular subset of sources that are selected 

13 
P.15 

based on the relationship of their construction/modification 

date to the baseline dates. 

Baseline areas for which baseline dates are established are 

limited to intrastate areas. That is, one State cannot set 

baseline dates in another State. 

The baseline dates associated with the location of a source 

determine whether the source is defined as a baseline or PSD 

source for impact modeling purposes. 

PSD sources can consume PSD increment beyond the baseline 

area associated with the source's location. 

PSD increment assessments at a location are only performed 

after the minor source baseline date is established for the 

location. 

Based on the above characteristics of the PSD program, the 

PSD increment analysis at BNWA should be performed with a 

modeling emission inventory of PSD sources from all States 

affecting BNWA. The sources selected for BNWA's PSD modeling 

inventory should be based on each source's construction/ 

modification date relative to the baseline dates associated with 

the lodation of the source (i.e., source location dependent not 

receptor dependent). Therefore, the emission sources from each | 

State contained in the BNWA PSD modeling inventory will be those 

sources each State has identified for use in their intrastate PSD 

assessments. 

e SDJ 

The following are some of the minor source baseline dates of 

concern for BNWA: 

Pollutants 

PM10 

S02 

NOx 

Alabama 

August 

1977 

August 

1977 

February 

1988 

Mississippi1 

iy..yxx,xi.:^£'.Xx.'HI>i':xi.'xxi**;x*'jxj. 

August 1978 

January 1989 

Louisiana 

August 

1977 

August 

1977 

February 

1988 

Florida 

December 

1977 

December 

1977 

March 1988 

Note: 1. The S02 and NOz baseline dates are based on Hancock and 

Harrison counties, respectively, which were the first complete 

PSD applications in the State. 

I 

As an example, Louisiana's minor source baseline date is 

the earliest of any of the States of concern. Actual emission 

14-
P.16 

•fi * 

changes from all sources located in Louisiana after this date 

should be included in the BNWA PSD modeling source inventory. 

However, for sources located in Mississippi, the BNWA PSD 

modeling source inventory for S02 should only include actual 

emission changes from all sources after August 1978. This same 

source selection rationale should be used for PSD sources in 

other States to ensure proper PSD increment analysis at the BNWA. 

[

Regulation of OCS sources, in the Central and Western Gulf 

of Mexico, is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of 

the Interior (DOI) and emissions from these sources are 

controlled to the extent that they may significantly impact any 

nearby onshore areas. The OCS is not classified with respect to 

National .Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) compliance status 

or PSD classes. These sources are not directly subject to a PSD 

program. Therefore, there is no applicable trigger date, 

baseline date, baseline concentration, or baseline area. Under 

this alternative, OCS sources would not be included in the PSD 

modeling inventory for the BNWA cumu'i a^yf inr--r.aT-n.aT.-h consumption 

study. ^TThis paragraph was provided by MMS.) ^ 

Alternative 2: 

The baseline date should be associated with Louisiana (i.e., 

the location of the receptor). M l sources, including those in 

other States and the OCS, within a given radius of the receptors, 

affect increment. The following is justification for this 

opinion. 

The definition of baseline area is any intrastate area 

(every part thereof) designated as attainment or unclassifiable 

under section 107(d)(1) of the act in which a major source or 

major modification establishing the minor source baseline would 

construct or would havfe^an air quality impact equal to or greater 

than 1 ug/m3 of the pollutant for which the minor source baseline 

is established. Since BNWA is in the waters of Louisiana, and 

thus in the same intrastate area, the minor source baseline date 

for Louisiana applies to the selection of sources for inclusion 

in the BNWA PSD modeling inventory. 

The definition of baseline concentration is the ambient 

concentration level which exists in the baseline area at the 

time of the applicable minor source baseline date. A baseline 

concentration is determined for each pollutant for which a 

baseline date is established and shall include: actual emissions 

from sources in existence on the minor source baseline date and 

.emissions from major stationary sources which commenced 

construction before the major source baseline date but were not 

\0 
P.17 

in operation by the minor source baseline date. [52.21(b) (13)] 

It would seem that the ambient concentrati on which exists 

in the baseline area, which includes Breton, at the time of the 

minor source baseline date would be composed of actual emissions 

from sources in existence on the minor source baseline date and 

would include all sources, including area and mobile, regardless 

of what State they are in. 

Conversely, it would seem that changes in emissions after 

the minor source baseline date, from all sources, regardless of 

>jfc' jurisdiction, affect the increment in the area, including BNWA. 

Therefore, sources in the other States began affecting the 

increment at BNWA once the baseline date for Breton was triggered 

and thus should be included in the PSD modeling inventory. 

The objective of the PSD program is to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality in a particular geographic area, 

regardless of which sources may be contributing to pollutant 

concentrations there. If the baseline date is set for a 

particular protected resource by geographic area rather than 

for a source, then the Louisiana minor source baseline date is 

applied to the whole area, including the OCS. The regulatory 

status of individual sources becomes insignificant. Instead only 

their impacts are significant; they either consume or expand the 

available increment. (This paragraph was provided by MMS.) 

There is another aspect from the modeling analysis that is 

germane to the baseline date issue. This analysis will involve 

^longer transport of emissions^for which chemistry and deposition 

need to be considered. In a traditional PSD modeling analysis, 

the calculations of chemistry and deposition were simplified, 

since they were assumed to have negligible effects over rather 

short distances - i.e. <50 kilometers (km). In a traditional PSD 

modeling analysis, only the changes in emissions from the 

baseline date would be input into the Industrial Source Complex 

(ISC) models. These changes of emissions could be positive or 

negative depending on whether the actual emissions had increased 

or decreased. The simplifications to the chemistry and 

deposition in the ISC model results in a linear relationship 

between emissions and concentrations. In most cases, this is 

acceptable because results can be presumed to be essentially 

the same as taking the difference between two separate modeling 

analyses: one modeling performed with current sources and one 

modeling performed with only emissions from baseline sources. 

This can be done under the assumption that the emission changes 

and the ambient concentration have a linear relationship. 

However, the ISC models become overly conservative beyond 

lip 
P.18 

50 kilometers, cannot accept input from OCS sources and cannot 

accept input from non-steady or intermittent sources. Therefore, 

the model or models identified as suitable may not be designed to 

accept "emission differences" as input. Modeling using baseline 

emissions to estimate the baseline concentrations will probably 

be needed in order to conduct the PSD increment modeling 

analysis. Therefore, to model the baseline concentrations at 

BNWA, it appears necessary to require that the same date be used 

in all States for the baseline emissions. If it is necessary to 

include sources from other States in the baseline concentration 

analysis beginning at the same baseline date, it would also be 

necessary to include increment consuming sources from other 

States in the current concentrations analysis. 

Careful examination of the other definitions also support 

this position: 

Major source baseline date - date after which actual 

emissions associated with construction at a major stationary 

source' affect the available PSD increment: January 6, 1975, 

for Particulate Matter and S02, and February 8, 1988, for NOx 

[52.21(b)(14) (i)l. This definition does not limit the affect 

of emissions to a given baseline area or even a specific State. 

Considering minor changes to major sources due to construction 

and even major changes across State boundaries, it is, in theory, 

possible, although highly unlikely, for an area's increment to be 

consumed without ever triggering the minor source baseline date. 

Minor source baseline date - earliest date after the trigger 

date which a complete PSD application is received by the permit 

reviewing agency. This marks the point in time which actual 

emissions changes from all sources affect the available increment 

regardless of whether the emissions changes are a result of 

construction [52.21(b)(14)(ii)]. Once again, this definition 

does not limit the effect of emissions to a given baseline area 

or even a specific State. 

The PSD Workshop Manual summarizes emissions increases that 

consume increment as: in general - are all those not accounted 

for in the baseline concentration and specifically include: 

• actual emissions increases after the major source 

baseline date, which are associated with physical 

changes or changes in the method of operation at a 

major source; and 

• Actual emissions increases at any stationary, area 

source, or mobile source occurring after the minor 

17 
P.19 

.1 

source baseline date (PSD Workshop Manual - draft 1990, 

page CIO) 

This summary does not limit the affect of emissions to a 

given baseline area or even a specific State. 

The DOI air quality regulations recognize that OCS 

facilities can rnpt-r-thn-ftf ra -i-nr-roTnont- rnriT..TiTrrti nn in adjacent 

onshore areas* ^art 30 section 250.45 (g) (2) (instates that 

emissions from o£b facilities cannot cause an exceedance of the 

maximum allowable increases over the baseline concentrations 

established in 40 Code of Federal Regulations 52.21 in an 

attainment or unclassifiable area. That means that OCS sources 

should be counted in the PSD increment consumption for any area 

that may be impacted bv OCS -sources. Likewise, the Clean Air 

Act, infSection 328(a)(4)(B)>^ recognizes that pollution from OCS 

activities could potentially" impact compliance with the PSD 

program. (This paragraph wa>s provided by MMS.) 

Under this alternative, any changes in emissions in any 

State or on the OCS, after Louisiana's minor source baseline 

date, would be counted toward increment consumption or increment 

expansion at BNWA. (This paragraph was provided by MMS.) 

Summary/Decision Request: 

Guidance is requested on the proper procedure to be used 

in developing a multi-State PSD emission source inventory or a 

Baseline emission source inventory for the assessment of the 

impacts at Class 1 areas. Clarification of this issue will 

enable the Breton Air Quality Study to continue to meet its goal 

of determining the increment consumption of the BNWA, PSD Class I 

area. If you have any questions, please call Reverdie Daron Page 

of Region 6 at (214) 665-7222 or Mr. Stanley Krivo of Region 4 at 

(404) 562-9123. 

% 
P.20 

March 30,1999 

NOTF. TO RTT J. HARNETT 

SUBJECT: Guidance for Completing a PSD Increment Analysis at Breton National Wildlife 

Refuge and Wilderness Area 

FROM: Dan deRoeck, EG 

Summary: The attached memo for your signature contains guidance explaining EPA's PSD 

policy for carrying out a Class I area increment analysis involving source contributions from 

multiple States as well as from offshore sources. The situation is somewhat unique in that 

Breton is an island off the coast of Louisiana, whose air quality is affected by onshore sources 

located in the States of Louisiana and Alabama, as well as by offshore sources located in the Gulf 

of Mexico. As explained in the memo, while such factors add some complexity to the required 

analyis, they do not change the fundamental approach for carrying out an increment analysis. 

That is, wherever the sources of emissions are located, emissions changes which affect increment 

are considered based on the major and minor source baseline date for the area where the 

increment is being measured. 

Background: On May 4,1998, Regions IV and VI requested guidance to help a study group 

(comprised of Government and industry stakeholders) calculate the amount of PSD increment 

being consumed at Breton. See attached memo to John Seitz. In response, several telephone 

conversations were held in which I explained our policy to persons from Regions IV and VI. 

Also, the issues were discussed in one of our monthly NSR conference calls involving Regional 

and Headquarters NSR contacts. 

On January 21,1999, the Breton Air Quality Study Group (Regions IV and VI, Alabama, 

Louisiana, Minerals Management Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, and several 

representatives from industry) met to attempt to resolve issues related to the development of an 

emissions inventory and modeling protocol to carry out the PSD increment analysis for Breton. 

The industry representatives indicated that, unless EPA provided some specific written guidance 

to direct the Group's effort, they would no longer suppport the study. The attached response 

provides the guidance being requested by the study group. Drafts of this response were reviewed 

by all Regions and the Office of General Counsel, and their comments were considered. In 

addition, the response was recently given to Tom Murawski for a plain english review. His 

comments were also incorporated into the attached memo. 

11