p. 1



# OAR Box 

# 1781 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 60 ) ll-K-1 7 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/29/200810:46:20A M Sheet 60of 142P. 2

*'?*!*: BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATO R U.S . ENVIRONMENTA

L PROTECTIO

N AGENC Y WASHINGTON , D.C . t ! 

### M %^K< Inth e Matte r of : OldDominio

nElectri c Cooperativ

e Clover , Virgini a Permi t Applicant PS DAppea l No . 91-3 9 

# 0.-74-.3 7

ORDE RDENYIN

GREVIE W I n a petitio n date d Jun e 3 , 1991 , th e SouthernEnvironmenta l LawCenter , e t al . (Petitioners ) - / requeste d revie wo f a Preventio no f Significan t Deterioratio n(PSD ) permi t issued t o Ol d Dominio n Electri c Cooperativ e (Old Dominion) , fo r th e constructio no f a 78 6 megawat t pulverize d coal-fire d stea m electri c generating statio n i nHalifaxCount ynea r Clover , Virginia . Th e propose d facilit ywil l b e operate d b yVirgini a Electri c & Powe r Compan y(Virgini a Power) , a 50 % co-owne r o f th e facility , o n behal f o f bot hOl d Dominio nan d Virgini a Power . Th e permi t determinatio n wa s mad e b yth e Virgini a Departmen t o f Ai r Pollutio nContro l (Virgini a o r th e State ) onApri l 29 , 1991 , pursuan t t o a delegatio n o f authorit yfro mth e U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y(EPA) , Regio nIII , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania . Becaus e o f th e delegation , th e Virgini a permi t i s considere d an •i / Th e SEL C file d it s petitio no n behal f o f itsel f an d th e Conservatio n Counci l o f Virginia , Sierr a Club , Nationa l Park s an d Conservatio n Association , Trou t Unlimited , Environmenta l Defens e Fund , Natura l Resource s Defens e Council , Th e Wildernes s Society , Southsid e Concerne d Citizens , an d Virgini a Wildlif e Federation .P. 3

2 Becaus e o f th e delegation , th e Virgini a permi t i s considere d a n EPA-issue d permi t fo r purpose s o f federa l la w(4 0 CFR§124.4 1 (1990) ; 4 5 Fed . Reg . 3341 3 (Ma y19 , 1980)) , an

d i s subjec t t o the revie wprovision s o f th e applicabl e EPAregulation s befor e becoming final , 4 0 CF R§124.1 9 (1990) . Unde r th e regulation s governing thi s proceeding , ther e i s n o revie wa s o f righ t from th e permi t decision . Se e generall y4 0 CF R§124.19 . Revie wi s discretionary . Ordinarily , a petitio n fo r revie wo f a PS D permi t determinatio ni s no t grante d unles s i t i s base d o n a clearl yerroneou s finding o f fac t o r conclusio no f law , o r involve s an importan t matte r o f policyo r exercis e o f discretio n tha t warrant s review . Th e preambl e t o th e regulation s state s tha t "thi s powe r o f revie wshoul d b e onl ysparingl y exercised, " an

d tha t "mos t permi t condition s shoul d b e finall y determine d a t th e Regiona l [State ] leve l * * *. " 4 5 Fed . Reg . 33,41 2 (Ma

y19 , 1980) . Th e burde no f demonstrating tha t th e permi t shoul d b e reviewe d i s therefor e onth e Petitioners . Afte r examining th e issue s raise d b yPetitioners , I conclud e tha t Petitioner s hav e no t satisfie d tha t burde n i n thi s instance . Virgini a an

d Ol d Dominio nfile d response s t o th e petitio n stating thei r oppositio n t o an yrevie wo f th e permi t determination ; Petitioners , i n turn , file d a repl yt o th e responses . Petitioners ' principa l objection s t o th e permi t ar e addresse d below , seriatim .P. 4

3 A . Incremen t Analvsis . U Sectio n165(a)(3 ) o f th e Clean Ai r Ac t provide s tha t a permi t applican t mus t demonstrat e tha t emission s fromth e propose d facilit y"wil l no t cause , o r contribut e to , ai r pollutio n i n exces s of, " inte r alia , certai n statutoril yallowabl e increase s i n pollutan t levels , calle d "increments, " i n an yare a wher e PS D requirement s apply , including speciall ydesignate d mandatory"clas s I " areas—certai n nationa l park s an

d wildernes s areas—wher e require d measure s t o protec t ai r qualit yar e particularl ystringent . Se e als o 4 0 CFR §52.21(k) . Acomplementarydemonstratio nrequiremen t appear s i n Sectio n165(d)(2)(C)(i ) o f th e Act , whic hprovide s tha t i n an y cas e wher e th e Federa l Lan d Manage r fo r a mandatoryclas s I are a file s a notic e alleging tha t emission s from th e propose d facilit y maycaus e o r contribut e t o a chang e i n ai r qualit yi n th e are a an d identifying th e potentia l advers e impac t o f suc hchange , a permi t shal l no t b e issue d unles s th e permi t applican t demonstrate s tha t th e facility' s emission s o f particulat e matte r an d sulfu r dioxid e (S0 2 ) wil l no t caus e o r contribut e t o a violatio n o f a n incremen t i n th e clas s I area . Th e Petitioner s clai mtha t Ol d Dominio ndi d no t performth e require d demonstratio n fo r th e ShenandoahNationa l Par k (Park) , whic hi s a clas s I area , notwithstanding notificatio nfro mth e
2-1 Se e Petitio n a t paragraph s I.A. & B . an d VI . ("Statement o f Reason s fo r Souther nEnvironmenta l LawCenter , e t al . Appea l o f Ol d Dominio nElectri c Cooperativ e (Clover , VA ) PS D Permi t No . 30867, " date d Jun e 3 , 1991 ) (hereafte r th e "Petition") .P. 5

4 Park' s Federa l Land Manage r o f th e propose d facility' s potentia l advers e impact s o n ai r qualit yrelate d value s i n th e Park . - / Petitioner s contend tha t th e State' s failur e t o requir e thi s demonstratio n i s particularl yegregiou s becaus e th e Stat e had receive d modeling result s fro manothe r permi t applican t whic h indicate d tha t existing permit s currentl yexcee d th e clas s I incremen t a t th e Par k an d tha t emission s fro mth e Ol d Dominio n facilit yan

d source s close r t o th e Par k woul d resul t i na violatio no f th e clas s I increment . According t o Petitioner s th e failur e o f th e Stat e t o requir e suc ha demonstratio nunde r th e circumstance s i s reversibl e error . Specifically , becaus e ther e i s n o disput e tha t Ol d Dominio ndi d no t submi t a demonstratio n fo r th e Par k pursuan t t o eithe r Sectio n165(a)(3 ) o r Sectio n 165(d)(2)(C)(i) , Petitioner s argu e tha t Ol d Dominion' s permi t applicatio n wa s no t complete , an d therefor e th e Stat e erre d i n issuing th e permit . Th e validit yo f Petitioners ' argumen t rest s entirel yon thei r assertio n tha t suc ha demonstratio ni s require d eve nthough

2-1 Petitioner s assume tha t th e Federal . Lan d Manager' s Septembe r 25 , 199 0 lette r t o Virgini a constitute d notic e withi n th e meaning o f sectio n 165(d)(2)(C)(i ) o f th e Act . Se e petitio na t 9 . Thi s assumptio n appear s t o b e erroneous . Th e Septembe r 25 , 199 0 lette r i npertinen t par t constitute d elaboratio nan d transmitta l o f a Septembe r 18 , 199 0 Federa l Registe r notic e i nwhic hth e Federa l Land Manage r fo r th e Par k announce d preliminaryfinding s o f advers e impac t unde r sectio n 165(d)(2)(C)(ii ) o f th e Act . Fo r thi s reaso n th e Petitioners ' clai mtha t Ol d Dominio ndi d no t performth e demonstratio n require d b ysectio n165(d)(2)(C)(i ) i s no t properl ybefor e me . Nevertheless , t o th e exten t th e discussio naddressing Petitioners ' clai munde r sectio n165(a)(3 ) o f th e Ac t als o applie s t o Petitioners ' claim s unde r sectio n 165(d)(2)(C)(i) , I hav e addresse d th e substanc e o f thes e claims .P. 6

th e propose d facilit ywil l b e locate d approximatel y13 5 kilometer s fro

mth e Park' s neares t boundary . EPAguidanc e ha s no t specifie d tha t th e demonstratio n requiremen t applie s regardles s o f ho wdistan t a clas s I are a may b e fromth e sourc e i n question . Thus , EPAha s implicitl y countenance d th e vie wthat , a s a practica l matter , pollutio n source s mayb e to o distan t fro ma specifi c are a t o hav e anything excep t a n imperceptibl e o r insignifican t effec t o n th e are a i n question . I nothe r words , th e mer e possibilit yo f pollutio n molecule s being transporte d fro m a sourc e t o a clas s I are a i s not , b yitself , sufficien t reaso nt o trigge r th e demonstratio n requirement s o f th e CleanAi r Act . I nth e cas e o f th e propose d Ol d Dominio nfacility , th e Stat e followe d it s polic yo f no t requiring modeling o f incremen t impact s fo r propose d facilitie s locate d mor e tha n10 0 kilometer s fromth e Park . - / I t als o rejecte d th e notio ntha t th e result s fro mth e othe r permi t applican t wer e determinativ e o f th e pending applicant' s impac t on th e clas s I area . - / According-t o Virginia , th e polic yi t follow s reflect s it s concer ntha t th e model s use d fo r thi s analysi s overpredic t pollutan t $-1 I t i s th e polic yo f th e Stat e "t o requir e a Clas s I incremen t analysi s fo r PS D source s proposing t o locat e withi n10 0 kilometer s o f an

yClas s I area. " Virginia' s respons e t o Petition , date d Jul y30 , 1991 , a t 4 .

- / Virgini a indicate d tha t th e finding s o f th e othe r permi t applican t d o no t provid e evidenc e tha t i t clearl yerre d i n failing t o requir e th e demonstration . According t o Virginia , a t th e tim e ODEC' s applicatio nwa s deeme d complet e ther e wer e n o demonstrate d exceedance s o f th e clas s I incremen t i n th e Park .P. 7

6 concentration s a t lon g distance s an

d tha t substantia l question s exis t abou t thei r accuracywhe nemploye d a t distance s greate r thanapproximatel y5 0 kilometers . I nVirginia' s view , therefore , whe ni t require s analysi s fo r distance s up t o 10 0 kilometers , i t i s providing a nadde d measur e o f environmenta l protectio n beyon d wha t i s strictl yjustifie d b yth e limite d accurac yo f th e models . Accordingly , i t di d no t requir e modeling fo r th e Park , whic hi s mor e tha n 10 0 kilometer s fro mth e propose d facility . Th e Stat e did , however , requir e analysi s o f potentia l increment s impact s a t th e Jame s Rive r Fac e Wildernes s (th e Wilderness) , whic hi s locate d approximatel y9 9 kilometer s fro mth e propose d facility . Th e analysi s fo r th e Wildernes s demonstrate d t o th e State' s satisfactio n tha t th e clas s I increment s woul d no t b e violate d i n this : area . Considering thes e finding s fo r th e Wilderness , whic h i s locate d close r t o th e facilit ytha nth e Par k (an d therefor e potentiall ysubjec t t o eve n greate r advers e impact s tha n th e Park) , an

d considering tha t EPAha s no t issue d an yfina l guidanc e tha t woul d contraven e th e State's , policy , &l Virgini a di d no t &l Draf t guidanc e release d b yEPAi n Octobe r 199 0 an d distribute d t o th e State s recommend s analysi s beyond 10 0 kilometer s whe n ther e ar e potentia l impact s o na clas s I area . Whil e thi s guidanc e ha s no t ye t become final , i t reflect s EPA' s concer ntha t increment s analysi s includ e clas s I area s whe nther e ar e reasonabl e question s abou t a propose d facility' s impact s o n suc hareas . A s a draf t policy , however , i t doe s no t hav e th e same weigh t a s a binding Agenc ypositio nan d doe s no t prohibi t th e State s from

adopting thei r ow

n policie s tha t ar e consisten t wit hth e Clea n Ai r Ac t an d applicabl e regulations . Nevertheless , EPA' s draf t polic yreflect s th e Agency' s lates t thinking on whe n i t i s appropriat e t o requir e incremen t analyse s fo r clas s I areas , an

d i s base d upo nth e availabilit yan d feasibilit yof . modeling tool s fo r assessing suc himpacts . Fo r thi s reason , Virgini a shoul d conside r reexamining it s curren t policy .P. 8

• ' * 7 clearl yer r i n deeming Ol d Dominion' s applicatio ncomplet e eve n thoughOl d Dominio n di d no t suppl ya demonstratio nfo r th e Park unde r Sectio n165(a)(3 ) o f th e Clean Ai r Act . Therefore , review o f th e permi t fo r th e reason s state d b yPetitioner s i s no t justified . U
B . Finding s o f Advers e Impact s o n Ai r Qualit yRelate d Values . - / Sectio n165(d)(2)(C)(ii ) o f th e Ac t provide s that , notwithstand

in g tha t th e emission s fro ma propose d facilit yd o no t caus e o r contribut e t o exceedance s o f th e clas s I incremen t i nanarea , a permi t shal l no t b e issue d i nan ycas e wher e th e Federa l Lan d Manage r o f a mandatoryclas s I are a demonstrate s t o th e satisfactio n o f th e Stat e tha t th e emission s fromth e facilit y

- / Althougha Federa l Lan d Manager' s assertio no f anadvers e impac t unde r Sectio n 165(d)(2)(C)(i ) trigger s a dut yo nth e par t o f th e applican t t o perfor m an incremen t analysis , n o erro r occur s whe n th e Stat e subsequentl ydetermine s tha t th e Federa l Lan d Manager' s assertio nlack s sufficien t har d scientifi c dat a t o sustai nth e charg e o f an advers e impact . Assuming , arguend o Cse e not e 3 supra) , tha t th e Federa l Lan d Manager' s demonstratio n fo r th e Par k unde r sectio n 165(d)(2)(C)(ii ) constitute d notic e unde r sectio n165(d)(2)(C)(i) , suc ha determinatio nwa s mad e i nthi s instance . (Se e discussio n i n paragraphB . o f th e text. ) Requiring th e applican t t o suppl ya separat e demonstratio nunde r suc hcircumstances , i.e. , afte r th e permi t issue r ha s examine d an d rejecte d th e merit s o f th e Federa l Lan d Manager' s finding s woul d serv e n o legitimat e purpose . Cf . Unite d State s Posta l Service , Boar d o f Governor s v . Aikens , 46 0 U.S . 71 1 (1983 ) (onc e th e merit s o f a cas e ar e heard , i t i s erro r t o focu s o nth e procedura l questio n o f whethe r th e plaintif f succeede d i n establishing a prima faci e case , rathe r tha no nth e ultimat e questio no f th e merits) . A t most , th e failur e o f th e applican t t o submi t a demonstratio n i n suc hcircumstance s constitute s harmles s error . &l Se e generall yPetitio n a t paragraphII .P. 9

8 wil l hav e an advers e impac t o nth e ai r qualit yrelate d value s (including visibility ) o f th e clas s I area . Se e als o 4 0 CFR §52.21(p)(4) . Petitioner s clai mtha t th e Stat e clearl yerre d i n rejecting th e advers e impac t determination s o f th e Federa l Lan d Manager s fo r th e Par k an d th e Wildernes s tha t Ol d Dominio n woul d hav e a nadvers e impac t o n th e ai r qualit yrelate d value s o f thei r respectiv e clas s I areas . I disagree . Whil e th e permi t issue r mus t giv e reasonabl e consideratio n t o a Federa l Land Manager' s assertio n o f a nadvers e impact , th e fina l decisio n rest s wit hth e permitting authority . - / Se e generall y5 0 Fed . Reg . 28544 , 2854 9 (July12 , 1985) . Sectio n 165(d)(2)(C)(ii ) clearl ystate s tha t a demonstratio nb ya Federa l Land Manage r tha t a facilit y wil l hav e an advers e impac t o nth e ai r qualit yrelate d value s o f a clas s I are a mus t b e mad e t o th e "satisfactio n o f th e State. " —I Fo r th e reason s discusse d below , th e Stat e di d no t commi t clea r erro r i n rejecting th e Federa l Lan d Managers ' assertion s regarding th e propose d facility' s advers e effect s on th e Par k o r th e Wilderness .

-I Thi s i s no t t o suggest , however , tha t th e permi t issuer' s discretio n i nrejecting a finding i s unfettered . Se e generall y 5 0 Fed . Reg . 28544 , 2854 9 (July12 , 1985) . I t merel ysignifie s that , s o long a s i t i s no t exercise d i n anarbitraryo r capriciou s manner , th e permi t issuer' s discretio n take s precedenc e unde r th e statute .

— / Similarly , EPA' s implementing regulation s provid e tha t a permi t shal l no t b e issue d whe n th e permi t issue r concur s wit h th e Federa l Land Manager' s demonstration . Se e 4 0 CFR §52.21(p)(4) .P.1 0

9 Advers e Impacts—Th e Park . ^Th e Federa l Lan d Manager' s advers e impac t determinatio n fo r th e Park i s containe d i n a lette r date d Septembe r 25 , 1990 , an d i na Decembe r 19 , 199 0 lette r and supporting documents . Th e Federa l Lan d Manage r reasone d tha t sinc e certai n ai r qualit yrelate d values , visibilit yprimarily , ar e subjec t t o deterioratio ni n th e Park , th e additio n o f ne wsource s o f pollutio n(referring no t jus t t o th e propose d Ol d Dominio nfacility , bu t als o t o tha t facilit y plu s severa l othe r propose d source s schedule d fo r constructio ni n Virgini a ove r th e nex t severa l years ) wil l b ynecessit yonl y exacerbat e existing impaire d conditions . Virgini a conclude d tha t th e Federa l Lan

d Manager' s determinatio nwa s largel ya qualitativ e analysi s an d di d no t revea l an ysignifican t lin

k betwee nth e propose d sourc e an d ai r qualit ya t th e Park . Nevertheless , th e Stat e asked EPAfo r assistanc e i nfurthe r . evaluating th e Federa l Lan d Manager' s claim . Th e Federa l Land Manager' s clai m o f anadvers e impac t fro m th e propose d Ol d Dominio nfacilit ylargel yhinge s on th e assumptio n tha t ther e i s a demonstrabl e causa l connectio nbetwee n th e facilit yan

d th e predicte d advers e impac t o nth e Park . However , th e fact s t o suppor t suc ha clai mar e no t containe d i n th e Federa l Lan

d Manager' s determination , no r wa s th e clai m verifiabl e insofa r a s EP Awa s abl e t o determine . Th e fact s d o showtha t ai r qualit yi n th e Par k i s adversel yimpacte d b y existing sources . However , i nrespons e t o th e State' s reques t HI Se e Petitio na t paragraphII.A .P.1 1

1 0 fo r assistance , EPAconducte d a preliminarymodeling analysi s ("RELMAP" ) i n a n effor t t o asses s th e Federa l Lan d Manager' s advers e impac t finding fo r th e Park . Se e not e 2 3 an d accompanying text , infra . Thi s analysi s di d no t confirmth e Federa l Land Manager' s finding . Base d onth e RELMAP analysis , EPAfoun

d tha t i t coul d no t conclud e tha t Ol d Dominio nwoul d hav e a nadvers e impac t o n th e Park , o r th e Wilderness . Virgini a di d no t clearl yerr , then , whe n i t issue d th e permi t afte r i t an d EP A wer e unabl e t o confirmth e Federa l Lan d Manager' s assertions . Virgini a ultimatel yrejecte d th e finding s o f th e Federa l Lan d Manage r o nsevera l grounds , concluding generally , however , tha t th e finding s wer e unsubstantiate d an d speculative . —/ Finally , I not e fo r th e recor d tha t th e Park' s Federa l Lan d Manage r subsequentl yentere d int o anagreemen t wit hOl d Dominio n tha t provide s fo r environmentall ybeneficia l reduction s i n pollutan t level s fro mth e propose d facilit yan d fro mlevel s o f allowabl e pollutan t emission s a t an existing facility . —/ Th e 12-1 Th e Federa l Lan d Manage r fo r th e Par k als o use d th e MPTE R mode l t o predic t S0 2 concentrations , whic hwer e the n converte d t o sulfate s an

d use d t o estimat e short-term(24-hour ) impact s on visibilit yi n th e Park . Th e Stat e evaluate d an d responde d t o the modeling results , finding them"clearl yinadequate " fo r thi s purpose , tending t o overstat e impacts . Modeling cite d b y Petitioner s an

d performe d b

yDr . Michae l William s i s als o highl y likel yt o overstat e short-ter mimpacts . Thes e analyse s ar e contradicte d b

yth e analyse s submitte d b yOl d Dominio nan

d EP A Regio nIll' s RELMAP analysis . I t i s no t erro r fo r th e Stat e t o determin e that , i n ligh t o f contradictoryevidence , th e MPTE R mode l an

d Dr . Williams ' analysi s wer e no t sufficientl y convincing .

— / Th e highlight s o f th e agreemen t ar e describe d i nth e State' s respons e t o th e Petition . Se e Virgini a Response , date d Jul y30 , 199 1 (Appendix , Documen t No . 40) .P.1 2

1 1 latte r reduction s ar e terme d "offsets. " ^-1 A s a result , th e Federa l Land Manage r fo r th e Par k ha s note d i nth e agreemen t tha t base d o n th e performanc e o f th e term s therei ni t withdraw s it s advers e impac t determination , ^-l Advers e Impacts—Th e Wilderness , l&l Petitioner s clai m th e Stat e erre d i n rejecting th e Federa l Lan d Manager' s finding s o f advers e impac t fo r th e Wilderness . Whil e th e Federa l Lan d Manager' s analysi s supporting it s finding o nth e Wildernes s present s a somewha t stronge r technica l cas e tha nwa s presente d fo r th e Park , th e State' s decisio n t o issu e th e permi t nevertheles s di d no t constitut e clea r error . Th e determinatio n tha t Ol d Dominio nwoul d hav e an advers e impac t o nai r qualit y

— / :Th e offset s consis t o f reduction s i n S0 2 an d NO ^ emission s fro mVirgini a Power' s Mt . Stor m(Wes t Virginia ) facilit yi n amount s greate r tha n th e actua l emission s o f thes e pollutant s projecte d fo r th e propose d Ol d Dominio nfacility . Se e Virgini a Response , date d Jul y30 , 199 1 (Appendix , Documen t No . 40) . —I Th e Stat e argue s tha t th e Federa l Lan d Manager' s advers e impac t determinatio n fo r th e Par k wa s absolutel ywithdraw ni nth e agreemen t an

d tha t th e issue s raise d b ythi s determinatio nhav e become moo t b

yth e withdrawal . Petitioner s respond b ypointing ou t tha t th e agreemen t i s executoryan d argu e tha t th e Federa l Lan d Manager' s withdrawa l i s conditione d upo ncomplet e executio n o f th e term s o f th e term s o f th e agreement . Petitioner s als o questio nth e legalit yo f th e withdrawal , alleging tha t i f i n entering int o th e agreemen t th e Federa l Lan d Manage r withdre wit s advers e impac t finding the n th e for mo f suc hwithdrawa l contravene s applicabl e procedura l requirements . Fo r purpose s o f deciding whethe r t o exercis e m ydiscretionarypower s o f revie wo f th e State' s permi t determination , I d o no t fin d i t necessaryt o resolv e th e exac t lega l statu s o f th e advers e impac t finding . Fo r m ypurposes , th e largel yqualitativ e natur e o f th e Federa l Lan d Manager' s advers e impac t finding an d th e failur e o f th e subsequen t analysi s conducte d b yEPAt o corroborat e tha t finding lea d m e t o conclud e tha t th e Stat e di d no t commi t clea r erro r in issuing th e permit . li / Se e petitio n a t II.A .P.1 3

1 2 relate d value s a t th e Wildernes s wa s base d o nth e Federa l Lan d Manager' s finding s o f increase s i nsulfur depositio n an d acidification . HI

Se e Decembe r 14 , 199 0 lette r from JoyE . Berg , Fores t Supervisor , t o Wallac e Davi s o f th e State . Th e singl e sourc e modeling metho d use d b yth e Federa l Lan

d Manager , whic hprojecte d a 2 % t o 4 % increas e i nsulfu r deposition , appear s o nit s fac e t o b e reasonable , bu t th e Stat e note d severa l reason s wh yth e metho d mayhav e significantl yoverestimate d impacts , ^l Se e Boar d Boo k Respons e a t Sectio n V.B . A s discusse d furthe r below , EPA' s regiona l RELMAP modeling support s th e State' s view regarding overestimation : i t suggest s an increas e i ndepositio n onl yl/10tha s larg e a s th e Federa l Lan d Manager' s estimat e fo r th e Wilderness . I n addition , a s als o discusse d belo w(paragrap h C ) , th e Federa l Land Manage r fo r th e Lye Broo k Wildernes s use d a simila r analysi s i n estimating impact s o f th e propose d Halfmoo n Cogeneratio n projec t an d significan t question s abou t it s accuracy ther e hav e bee n raised . Thes e question s abou t th e accuracyo f th e Federa l Land Managers ' finding s .sugges t tha t th e Stat e acted reasonabl yi n exercising it s discretio nunde r th e Ac t t o rejec t th e Federa l Land Manager' s findings . Se e CA A§165(d)(2)(C)(ii )

— / Th e Federa l Land Manage r fo r th e Wildernes s di d no t clai m tha t Ol d Dominio nwoul d hav e a n advers e impac t o n visibility .

— / Th e origina l lette r fromth e Federa l Land Manage r indicate s th e analysi s wa s base d o n th e annua l S0 2 impac t predicte d b yOl d Dominion' s modeling , bu t doe s no t provid e detail s o f th e calculations . Thos e detail s ar e containe d i n a separat e pape r tha t wa s reviewe d b yth e State . Se e generall yBoard Boo k Respons e a t Sectio n V.B . Th e Stat e di d no t receiv e detaile d analysi s fromth e Federa l Land Manage r unti l afte r th e clos e o f th e publi c commen t period .P.1 4

1 3 an d 4 0 CFR§52.21(p)(4) . Moreover , Petitioner s hav e no t persuade d m e tha t ther e i s an yothe r evidenc e i n th e record t o suppor t it s contention . Fo r thes e reasons , n o reviewabl e erro r stem s fromth e State' s rejectio n o f th e advers e impac t determinatio n fo r th e Wilderness . Petitioners ' "Rationa l Basis " Argument . HI Petitioner s argu e tha t t o hav e a rationa l basi s fo r rejectin g th e Federa l Land Managers ' analyse s o f th e impact s o f th e propose d facilit y o nth e Par k an

d th e Wilderness , th e Stat e mus t arriv e a t it s determinatio n afte r conducting it s ow n analysi s o f th e impact s allege d b

yth e Federa l Lan

d Managers . Petitioner s describ e severa l facet s o f th e State' s lega l an d polic yconclusion s whic h lea d themt o conclud e tha t th e Stat e neve r analyze d th e advers e impact s allege d b

yth e Federa l Lan

d Managers , thu s signifying t o Petitioner s tha t th e State' s action s lac k a rationa l basis . Whil e i t i s true , a s Petitioner s assert , tha t th e Stat e appear s a t variou s point s t o surrende r responsibilit yfo r independentl yanalyzing th e Federa l Lan d Managers ' advers e impac t findings , 22.1 a jus t reading o f th e State' s respons e t o th e HI se e Petitio na t paragraph s II.B . an d II.C . (l) , (2) , (3) , & (5) . 221 Fo r example , th e Stat e relie d i n par t o nth e absenc e o f guidanc e o nd e minimi s level s fo r clas s I are a advers e impact s a s a basi s fo r it s rejectio n o f th e Federa l Lan d Manager' s advers e impac t determinatio n fo r th e Wilderness . Se e "Board Boo k Response " a t Sectio n V.B . Nationa l guidanc e o nd e minimi s impact s fo r clas s I ai r qualit yrelate d value s i s i n n o waya prerequisit e t o a reasonabl e determinatio nb ya permit-issuing authorit ytha t th e Federa l Lan d Manage r ha s demonstrate d a propose d sourc e wil l hav e advers e impacts . However , i nthi s (continued... )P.1 5

1 4 finding s b

yth e Federa l Lan

d Manager s reveal s tha t th e Stat e rejecte d th e finding s o f advers e impac t becaus e i t eithe r wa s unabl e t o verif yth e assertion s mad e b yth e Federa l Land Manager s o r i t believe d tha t thei r analyse s tende d t o overstat e impacts . See , e.g. . Boar d Boo k Respons e a t Sectio n V.B . (Virgini a identifie s severa l reason s wh yth e Federa l Land Manager' s analysi s o f advers e impact s fo r th e Wildernes s mayhav e overstate d impacts) . Thes e realitie s overshado wth e criticism s tha t migh t otherwis e b e directe d a t some o f th e State' s specifi c argument s fo r rejecting th e Federa l Lan d Managers ' findings . Fo r example , a s t o th e Park , th e Federa l Lan d Manager' s reasoning , a s note d previously , relie s i n substantia l par t o nth e fac t tha t visibilit yan

d othe r ai r qualit yrelate d value s i nth e Park hav e deteriorated , an

d conclude s therefromtha t th e additio no f othe r source s o f pollutio n wil l inevitabl ycaus e furthe r damag e t o th e Park . Th e problemwit hth e Federa l Lan d Manager' s clai m

o f an advers e impac t o n th e Park fro mth e propose d Ol d Dominio n facilit yi s tha t i t hinge s o nanunprove nassumption , i.e. , tha t an yemission s from

th e facilit ywil l hav e an advers e impac t on th e Park . Th e trut ho f thi s assertio n i s no t self-evident . Moreover , th e fact s t o suppor t suc ha clai mar e no t containe d i n
22.1 (.. . continued ) instanc e an

yStat e erro r regarding d e minimi s level s mayb e viewe d a s harmless . A s note d elsewhere , whil e th e Federa l Lan d Manager' s metho d fo r determining advers e impact s a t th e Wildernes s wa s reasonable , Virgini a explaine d tha t i t mayhav e overstate d th e impacts . I t wa s no t clea r erro r fo r th e Stat e t o rejec t th e Federa l Land Manager' s finding fo r thi s reaso nan d th e reason s note d previously .P.1 6

1 5 th e Federa l Land Manager' s determination , no r wer e an yuncovere d i nth e analysi s conducte d b yEPA . Among othe r things , th e Federa l Land Manage r di d no t provid e an yquantitativ e measure s o f th e impac t o f thes e source s (othe r tha nth e MPTE Rmodeling properl yrejecte d b yth e Stat e (se e supr a not e 12)) , an d di d no t attemp t t o isolat e th e Ol d Dominio nfacilit yfromth e collectiv e impac t tha t supposedl ywoul d resul t fro mth e constructio no f th e othe r facilitie s i n Virgini a ove r th e nex t severa l years . Unde r th e circumstances , sinc e th e logi c behin d th e Federa l Lan

d Manager' s conclusion s i s no t especiall ycompelling , an d sinc e ther e i s n o verificatio n o f th e conclusion s throughquantitativ e analysis , i t wa s no t unreasonabl e fo r th e Stat e t o rejec t thos e conclusions . Petitioner s ar e unreasonabl e i narguing , a s they do , tha t i nth e absenc e o f quantifiabl e tool s t o measur e an d identif yth e sourc e o f an advers e impac t o na clas s I area , i t wa s incumben t upo n th e permi t issue r t o refut e th e Federa l Lan d Manager' s "qualitativ e analysis"—a s Petitioner s refe r t o it—o r accep t i t a s prove n fact . 211 & sth e record stands , th e Federa l Land Manager' s so-calle d "qualitative analysis " coul d

211 Th e cours e o f Petitioners ' argumen t run s a s follows : EPAha s no t approve d model s fo r assessing episodi c impact s o f propose d source s o n th e Clas s I areas . Give ntha t th e quantitativ e tool s ar e no t available , th e FLMmus t properl y presen t a qualitativ e analysis . Unles s th e Stat e can provid e a rationa l basi s fo r refuting th e qualitativ e analysis , i t mus t accep t th e FLMs ' findings . Th e Stat e ha s provide d n o rationa l basi s fo r a finding contraryt o th e FLMs ' exper t an

d wel l reasone d qualitativ e assessments . Petitio n a t 22 .P.1 7

1 6 jus t a s easil yb e terme d an "unverifie d supposition " insofa r a s i t purport s t o attribut e a causa l connectio nbetwee n th e proposed facilit yan

d advers e impact s o n ai r qualit yrelate d values . Th e recor d demonstrate s tha t neithe r th e Stat e no r EPARegio nII I 211 ha s bee n able , despit e reasonabl e efforts , t o confirmth e suppositio nwit hreliable , scientifi c studie s o r data . Likewise , th e Stat e decline d t o accep t th e suppositio n base d upo n th e Federa l Land Manager' s "qualitative analysis. " N o erro r result s fro mrejecting th e finding s o f th e Federa l Lan d Manage r unde r thes e circumstances . Cumulativ e Impacts . 211 Petitioner s asser t tha t th e Stat e erre d whe n i t contende d tha t th e Federa l Lan d Manage r fo r th e Park mus t demonstrat e tha t emission s fro m eac hne wsourc e mus t b y itsel f hav e an advers e impac t o nai r qualit yrelate d values , including visibility . AlthoughPetitioner s recogniz e tha t Federa l Lan

d Manager s mus t asses s whethe r eac hsourc e wil l

211 Petitioner s acknowledg e tha t th e concerte d action s o f EPA an d th e Stat e bea r onth e determinatio n o f whethe r o r no t t o sustai n a finding o f anadvers e impact . Specifically , Petitioner s assert , citing th e Federa l Register . 5 0 Fed . Reg . 28549 , tha t th e Federa l Lan d Manage r an

d th e reviewing authorit y (meanin g th e Stat e an

d th e Environmenta l Protectio nAgency ) "shar e responsibility " t o determin e whethe r anadvers e impac t wil l resul t froma propose d facility . A s previousl ynote d i nth e text , supra . th e Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc yparticipate d i n tha t share d responsibilit yby , inte r alia , responding t o th e State' s reques t fo r assistanc e fo r technica l guidance . I n recognitio n o f tha t responsibility , I hav e take nth e result s o f th e Agency' s respons e t o th e State' s reques t int o accoun t i n evaluating whethe r o r no t t o revie wth e State' s permi t determination . (Se e discussio n abov e regarding th e RELMAP modeling analysis. ) 211 Se e Petitio n a t paragraphII.C.(4) .P.1 8

1 7 contribut e t o a nadvers e impact , Petitioner s tak e th e positio n tha t th e Federa l Land Manager s ca nmee t thei r burde nunde r Sectio n165(d)(2)(C)(ii ) b ymerel yshowing tha t propose d source s collectivel ywil l adversel yimpac t clas s I areas . 2AI j disagree . PS D permi t determination s ar e mad e individuall yunde r th e Ac t o n a case-by-cas e basis , an d th e Stat e i s no t require d t o withhol d o r den

ya permi t applicatio nfo r a qualifie d sourc e base d upo n th e suppositio n tha t ther e migh t b e a nadvers e impac t o nvisibilit yi na n are a i f othe r pending application s ar e subsequentl yapproved . Whil e i t mayb e pruden t i nsuc hcircumstance s fo r a Stat e t o conside r th e collectiv e potentia l impact s onvisibilit yfro m al l prospectiv e source s tha t hav e no t ye t receive d fina l permits , nothing cite d b

yPetitioner s require s thi s typ e o f planning . Unde r existing EPApolicy , th e Stat e i s no t require d t o evaluat e th e collectiv e impac t o f thos e prospectiv e source s tha t hav e no t ye t receive d permits . Whil e EPA' s policymayresul t i n situation s wher e applicant s a t th e en d o f a permitting queu e fac e denia l o f thei r application s becaus e an area' s visibilit y"growt h 24-1 Petitioner s not e tha t EPAha s previousl yconclude d tha t " a source' s impac t o n visibilit ymus t b e considere d i nth e contex t o f background visibilit yimpact s cause d b ybot hexisting an

d previousl ypermitted , bu t no t ye t buil t sources. " Se e Petitio n a t 2 4 (citin

g 5 0 Fed . Reg . a t 2854 8 (July12 , 1985)) . Petition

er s ar e correc t tha t unde r EPArules , i ndetermining whethe r a propose d sourc e wil l caus e an advers e impac t o nvisibility , th e cumulativ e visibilit yimpact s o f th e pending PS D applican t an d al l PSD-permitte d sources , including thos e no t ye t constructed , mus t b e assesse d agains t background visibilit yconditions . Petitioner s evidentl ysee k extensio no f thi s polic yb ysuggesting tha t al l propose d source s having applie d fo r permit s shoul d b e include d i n th e analysis .P.1 9

1 8 margin " ha s bee ndeplete d (b ythos e a t th e fron t o f th e queue) , tha t possibilit yi s no t dispositiv e o f th e issu e raise d b y Petitioners . I t i s enought o not e tha t th e State' s polic yo f no t considering prospectiv e bu t a s ye t unpermitte d source s i s consisten t wit hEPA' s presen t cumulativ e impac t polic yfo r visibility . EPA' s polic ycontain s a n adequat e safeguar d agains t impermissibl e encroachment s o nvisibilit yi nclas s I areas . Specifically , b

yrequiring everypermitte d bu t no t ye t constructe d sourc e t o b e take nint o consideration , EPA' s policy consider s th e potentia l advers e impact s o f everyne wsourc e capabl e o f causing anadvers e impac t o n th e are a i n question . — / I t als o obligate s th e Stat e t o refrai n fro missuing permit s wheneve r th e additio no f on e mor e sourc e i nconjunctio nwit hal l previousl ypermitte d source s (includin g thos e no t constructed ) woul d hav e th e effec t o f causing anadvers e impac t o nvisibilit y i nth e clas s I area . I nan yevent , ther e i s n o compelling need t o speculat e furthe r o n th e potentia l impac t o f th e unpermitte d source s tha t Petitioner s hav e identifie d a s caus e fo r concern . I t suffice s t o not e tha t th e RELMAP modeling analysi s conducte d b yEPARegio n II I di d accoun t fo r visibilit yimpact s o f al l prospectiv e source s (permitted o r not) , an d coul d no t confir

mthe presenc e o f anadvers e impac t fromtha t cumulativ e growth .

— / Whethe r th e relevan t Federa l Land Manage r o r th e sourc e bear s th e burde n o f demonstrating th e impac t woul d depend upo n whethe r th e sourc e cause s o r contribute s t o anexceedanc e o f th e clas s I increment . Se e 4 0 CFR§52.21(p)(4)-(5) .P.2 0

1 9 RELMAP Modeling Analvsi s o f Advers e Impacts . —I <ph e Stat e aske d EPARegio n II I fo r technica l assistanc e i n assessing th e finding s o f th e Federa l Land Manager s fo r th e Par k an d th e Wilderness . Th e Regio n responde d b yperforming th e RELMAP analysis , th e result s o f whic hi t formall yreporte d t o th e Stat e o nJanuary25 , 1991 . 211 Th e Regio nnoted , inte r alia , tha t th e Federa l Lan

dManage r fo

r th e Parkdi d no t provid e a technica l analysi s fo r it s finding s i n eithe r th e Federa l Registe r notic e announcing it s preliminaryfinding s o r th e accompanying Technica l Suppor t Document ; an d tha t th e reasoning underlying th e finding s wa s basicall ytha t visibilit yi s impaire d alread yan d therefor e an yadditiona l emission s fro mne wsource s woul d caus e an advers e impact . EPAattempte d t o quantif yth e impact s i n orde r t o provid e a reasonabl e basi s fo r evaluating th e finding s o f th e Federa l Lan

d Managers . Th e Regio nconclude d tha t it s technica l assessmen t using th e RELMAP mode l di d no t substantiat e th e contentio n tha t emission s fro mth e propose d Ol d Dominio n facilit y woul d caus e advers e impact s on th e visibilit yvalue s an d aquati c resource s o f th e Par k o r th e Wilderness . 23.1 _VK Regio nII I readil yacknowledge d i n it s lette r t o Virgini a tha t th e assessmen t i t performe d had deficiencies . I nrecognitio no f th e
2&I Se e Petitio n a t paragraphII.D . 211 Lette r from

Thoma s J . Maslany , Director , Air , Radiatio n & Toxic s Division , EPARegio n III , t o Wallac e Davis , Executiv e Director , Virgini a Departmen t o f Ai r Pollutio nControl , date d January25 , 199 1 (Administrative Recor d #53) . 2&I id . a t 4 .P.2 1

2 0 deficiencies , i t conclude d b ynoting that , althoughn o advers e impac t wa s found , "[w] e d o reserv e th e opportunit yt o revisi t thes e issue s a s additiona l analytica l tool s become availabl e fo r us e i nth e future. " O n appeal , th e Petitioner s argu e tha t thes e deficiencie s rende r th e assessmen t flawed , fo r they"[do ] no t suppor t a conclusio n o f n o advers e impac t * * *. " 21/ Thi s argumen t b

yPetitioner s doe s no t persuad e m e t o revie w th e State' s permi t determination . Unde r th e circumstance s presente d her e I d o no t read th e Ac t a s imposing a burde nonth e permi t issue r t o prov e tha t th e propose d facilit ywil l no t hav e anadvers e impac t o n th e two clas s I areas . Neithe r EP Ano r Virgini a i s contending tha t Regio n Ill' s technica l assessmen t prove s o r i s capabl e o f proving suc han impac t wil l no t occur . Rather , th e assessmen t EP Aperforme d represent s a measured , analytica l respons e t o th e Federa l Land Managers ' findings , using availabl e tools , an d i s b ycompariso nmor e technicall yrigorou s an d probativ e tha n th e analyse s the yused . I t showe d tha t th e allegation s o f th e Federa l Lan d Manager s coul d no t b e substantiate d b

yth e analysi s EPAconducted . Therefore , unti l suc htim e a s mor e sophisticate d tool s ar e applie d t o measur e th e impac t o f source s unde r th e circumstance s presented , th e assessmen t performe d b yEPArepresent s th e bes t availabl e evidenc e i n th e recor d o f th e facility' s impac t o nth e tw o areas . Th e fac t tha t th e assessmen t mayb e inconclusiv e doe s no t mak e i t clea r erro r fo r Virgini a t o hav e grante d th e Ol d Dominio n permit . 211 se e Petitio n a t 28 ,P.2 2

2 1 A s th e delegate d permi t issuer , th e Stat e wa s authorize d t o rejec t th e Federa l Land Managers ' finding s afte r concluding on reasonabl e grounds , a s i t di d here , tha t theycoul d no t b e substantiated . &l



### c . Consistenc yBetwee nRegions . —/ Th e Petitioner s argu e tha t ther e ar e parallel s betwee nthi s proceeding an d a PS D permi t proceeding i n EPARegio nII , involving^th e Halfmoo n Cogeneratio n

' i Project , wher e th e Regio nprovisionall yaccepte d finding s o f advers e impac t o n th e Lye Broo k Wildernes s b yth e Federa l Lan

d Manage r fo r tha t area . However , Regio n I I i s reconsidering it s initia l acceptanc e o f th e finding s a s a resul t o f subsequen t analyse s performe d b yth e .Halfmoon applicant , whic hten d t o show , inte r alia , lowe r long-ter mS0 2 level s an

d correspondingl ylowe r depositio n tha n originall yindicated . Th e initia l estimate s may hav e bee n significantl yoverstate d an d therefor e th e issu e i s being revisited . Accordingly , I a mno t persuade d tha t ther e i s suc ha fundamenta l spli t i happroac hbetwee n th e tw o permi t

— / Petitioner s hav e criticize d th e RELMAP analysi s a s being significantl ylimite d b yit s regiona l scal e an d it s inabilit yt o captur e episodi c impacts . Th e RELMAP result s wer e base d on larg e gri d size s an

d wer e monthl yaverages . Th e monthl yaverage s generall yar e no t a problem fo r assessing sulfat e depositio n becaus e th e effect s o f concern ar e usuall yno t o f a nepisodi c nature . However , th e gri d siz e i s a limitatio nfo r th e Wilderness . Overall , however , th e analysi s constitute d a reasonabl e assessmen t o f th e Federa l Lan d Manager' s finding s regarding advers e impact s fro msulfu r deposition . Ql Se e Petitio n a t paragraphII.E .P.2 3

2 2 issuer s t o warran t revie wfo r th e purpos e o f achieving nationa l uniformity . D . Quantit yo f N0 XEmissions . 22.1 Th e Petitioner s rais e concern s abou t th e adequacyo f consideratio ngive n b yth e Stat e t o th e annua l amoun t o f N0 Xemission s from th e propose d facility . Th e Petitioners ' concern s manifes t themselve s i nnumerou s argument s wherei n th e Petitioner s basicall ycontend tha t additiona l analyse s shoul d have , bu t wer e not , performe d b yth e applican t (e.g. , relating t o ozon e formatio no r nitrificatio n impact s upo n th e Chesapeak e Bay) . Th e Stat e ha s adequatel y responde d t o thes e argument s b ydemonstrating tha t th e submission s i t require d o f th e applican t full ysatisf yal l o f th e requirement s se t fort hi nEP Aregulation s an

d guidelines . —/ I t point s ou t tha t modeling o f N0 Xemission s fo r impac t o nozon e formatio nwa s no t require d becaus e ther e i s currentl yn o acceptabl e EPA-approve d metho d fo r assessing ozon e impact s attributabl e t o individua l poin t source s o f N0 Xemissions . —/ Th e Stat e furthe r point s ou t tha t th e propose d facilit yi s

22.1 Id . a t paragrap hIII .

— / EPAdoe s no t currentl yrequir e N0 Xemission s t o b e addresse d unde r th e existing PS D progra mwhe nanozon e violatio n i s identified . However , EPAi s considering reassessing tha t policy i nligh t o f sectio n 182(f ) o f th e amende d Act .

— / Ol d Dominio n di d suppl ymodeling showing t o th e State' s satisfactio n tha t N0 Xemission s woul d compl ywit hclas s I an d clas s I I increment s an d NAAQ S limitations .2 3

located quit e fa r fromth e Chesapeak e Ba y(approximatel y22 0 km) . Also , th e Chesapeak e Ba yi s no t a clas s I area . Fo r al l o f thes e reasons , th e Stat e di d no t requir e Ol d Dominio nt o performan y impac t analysi s fo r th e Bay . Th e Stat e als o note s tha t th e analyse s o f impact s o f th e propose d facilit yo n fores t an d vegetatio narea s wa s als o don e i naccordanc e wit hEPA requirements . Th e Petitioner s hav e no t persuade d m e tha t th e Stat e ha s committe d an yreviewabl e erro r a s alleged .

E . BAC T Analysis—Consideratio n o f Environmenta l Impacts . —I Th e Petitioner s contend tha t Virgini a di d no t giv e adequat e attentio n t o environmenta l impact s i nit s analysi s o f bes t availabl e contro l technolog y(BACT ) fo r th e facility' s NO x emissions . Th e Stat e respond s b ysuggesting tha t th e Petitioners ' discussio n appear s t o confus e th e BAC T determinatio n wit hth e separat e issu e o f the facility' s complianc e wit h Nationa l Ambien t Ai r Qualit yStandard s (NAAQS ) o r increments . I a mincline d t o agre e wit hth e State . Whil e collatera l environmenta l impact s ar e relevan t t o th e BAC T determination , thei r relevanc e i s generall ycouche d i n term s o f discussing whic h availabl e technology , among several , produce s les s advers e collatera l effects , and , i f i t does , whethe r tha t justifie s it s utilizatio n eve n i f th e technolog yi s otherwis e les s stringent . Se e generally , Columbi a Gul f Transmissio nCompany . PS D Appea l No . 211 Se e Petitio n a t paragraphIV .P.2 5

2 4 88-11 , a t 7 (June 21 , 1989 ) ("Fo r example , i f th e mos t effective technolog

ywoul d impos e exceptiona l demand s o n loca l wate r resources , s o tha t us e o f th e technolog ywoul d hav e advers e impact s o n th e environment , then , unde r thos e circumstances , the applican t woul d hav e a soun d basi s fo r foregoing us e o f th e mos t effectiv e technologyi nfavo r o f some les s water-intensiv e technology.") ; Nort hCount yResourc e RecoveryAssociates , PS D Appea l No . 85- 2 (Remand , Jun e 3 , 1986 ) (environmenta l impac t o f pollutant s no t regulate d unde r th e Clean Ai r Ac t maynecessitat e a mor e stringen t emissio nlimi t fo r regulate d pollutant s undergoing BAC T review) . Th e Petitioners ' discussio no f collatera l environmenta l impact s i s no t frame d i n thi s manne r an d make s n o specifi c compariso n o f alternativ e technologies . Therefore , consideratio n o f thi s issu e a s presente d b yth e Petitioner s i s rejecte d a s lacking i n specificit yan d clarity . —I i n an

yevent , Virgini a di d no t clearl yer r i ndeciding no t t o asses s environmenta l impact s i nconducting th e BAC T analysi s i nth e manne r pu t fort hb yPetitioners . Clea n Fue l Alternative . 211 Petitioner s alleg e tha t the Stat e unlawfull yfaile d t o conside r natura l ga s a s an alternative fue l fo r th e propose d facility , contraryt o th e dictate s o f

— / "[A] n objectio n t o a permi t ter mo r conditio n mus t b e articulate d wit hth e requisit e specificity , clarit yan d suppor t t o enabl e meaningfu l consideration. " I nr e Resourc e Technolog y Services , Inc. , RCR AAppea l No . 83-1 , a t 2 , n. 2 (Septembe r 17 , 1983) , citing Vermon t Yanke e Nuclea r Powe r Corp . v . NRDC , 43 5 U.S . 519 , 553-55 4 (1978) .

— / se e Petitio na t paragraphIV.B .P.2 6

2 5 Sectio n403(d ) o f th e Clean Ai r Ac t Amendment s o f 1990 , amending th e definitio n o f BAC T i n Sectio n 169(3 ) o f th e Act . Th e Stat e respond s t o thi s contentio nb ypointing ou t tha t i t ca nimpos e alternativ e fue l requirement s o n a napplican t i f th e applican t canno t mee t al l federa l an d stat e ai r emissio n limitations . I n thi s case , however , th e applican t me t al l o f thos e limits , an d sinc e th e modelin g withi n th e relevan t impac t area s ha s demonstrate d tha t th e NAAQ S wil l no t b e violated , th e Stat e di d no t requir e th e us e o f natura l gas . Th e Stat e di d no t fee l i t wa s authorize d t o "redefin e th e source, " — / i.e. , t o alte r th e fundamenta l scop e o f th e project , sinc e Ol d Dominio nhad previousl yconsidere d th e alternativ e o f using ga s turbine s t o powe r th e facility , bu t ultimatel yrejecte d tha t approac hbecaus e o f highe r capita l cost , lowuni t efficiency , an d th e unavailabilit yo f natura l ga s i nth e Clove r area . N o clea r erro r i s apparen t i nth e State' s handling o f thi s matter , althoughEPA doe s no t vie wth e ne wstatutorylanguag e a s being limite d t o instance s wher e a napplicabl e NAAQ S o r incremen t i s a t risk . Rather , EPAconstrue s th e 199 0 Amendment s a s conferring discretio n o n th e permi t issue r t o conside r clea n fuel s othe r tha nthos e propose d b yth e permi t applicant . Se e Lette r fro m WilliamG . Rosenberg , Assistan t Administrato r fo r Ai r an d

211 Traditionally , EPAdoe s no t requir e a PS D applican t t o chang e th e fundamenta l scop e o f it s project . See , e.g. f Spokan e Regiona l Waste-to-EnergyFacility , PS D Appea l No . 88-1 2 (EP AJun e 9 , 1989 ) (Orde r Denying Review) ; Pennsauke n Resourc e Recovery Facility , PS D Appea l No . 88- 8 a t 1 1 (EP ANovembe r 10 , 1988 ) (Orde r Denying Review) .P.2 7

2 6 Radiation , EPA , t o HenryA . Waxman , Chairman , Subcommitte e on Healt han

d Environment , Hous e Committe e on Energ yan d Commenc e (Oct . 17 , 1990 ) (enclosur e a t 4) . 211 Th e Stat e exercise d it s discretio ni naccor d wit hEPA' s reading o f th e Amendments . Selectiv e Catalyti c Reductio n(SCR) . —/ Petitioner s argu e tha t th e Stat e faile d t o giv e adequat e consideratio nt o SCR a s a nalternativ e contro l technolog yfo r N0 Xemission s fromth e propose d facility . I t argue s tha t th e technolog ysettle d upo n b

y th e Stat e i s roughl yone-hal f a s effectiv e a s SCR . I nsupport , th e Petitioner s poin t t o comment s i nth e record b yEP A Regio nII I tha t mak e referenc e t o numerou s instance s o f SCRus e fo r coal-fire d powe r plant s i n Japa n an d German

yan d o f on e instanc e i n th e Unite d States , i n a propose d coal-fire d cogeneratio n industria l boile r i n Ne wJersey , wher e a permi t ha s bee nissue d requiring tha t i t b e employed . Th e Stat e counter s b y asserting tha t i t i s no t require d t o conside r foreign application s o f SCR , citing Mecklenbur g Cogeneratio n Limite d Partnership , PS D Appea l No . 90- 7 (Orde r Denying Review , Decembe r 21 , 1990 ) (notin

g tha t SCRhad no t bee n employe d domesticall y wit ha facilit yan d fue l sourc e th e same a s th e applicant's) , an d second , tha t th e Ne wJerseypermi t mayb e disregarde d becaus e th e projec t i s no t ye t operationa l and , thus , th e us e o f SCRha s no t bee ndemonstrated .
211 However , th e BAC T analysi s shoul d includ e consideratio no f cleane r form s o f th e fue l propose d b yth e source . 4-2 / Se e Petitio n a t paragraphIV.C .P.2 8

2 7 Th e SCRissu e Petitioner s rais e i s altogethe r familia r b y reaso no f th e Mecklenbur g decision . — ' On th e on e hand i t i s immediatel yclea r tha t th e additio n o f th e Ne wJerse yfacilit yt o th e SC Rroll s i s a ne wan d noteworth

yevent ; o nth e othe r han d i t i s byn o mean s immediatel yclea r tha t th e even t render s Virginia' s decisio nclearl yerroneous . I nth e on e yea r sinc e Mecklenbur g wa s decided , ther e hav e bee n instance s o f acceptanc e o f SCRfo r larg e scal e facilitie s o f th e typ e propose d b yth e permi t applicant , bu t no t s o a s t o rende r clearl yerroneou s th e rejectio no f SC Ro n technica l grounds , a t leas t a t th e time th e Stat e issue d th e Ol d Dominio n permit . I nthi s regard , i t i s relevan t tha t th e Ne wJerseyplan t had no t ye t employe d SCRa t th e tim e o f th e State' s permitting decisio ni nthi s case . Th e actua l us e o f SCRi n coal-fire d boiler s wa s stil l limite d t o foreign , primaril yEuropean , facilities . Bot hOl d Dominio nan d the Stat e distinguishe d thos e facilitie s fro mOl d Dominion' s b

y

— ' A s i n Mecklenburg , i t i s undispute d tha t th e Stat e analyze d th e permi t applicatio n b yemploying a systematic , rationa l metho d o f analyzing BAC T fo r th e facility . See , e.g. , Virgini a Respons e a t 22 . Unde r th e methodology , al l o f th e "available " contro l technologie s ar e ranke d i n orde r o f stringency , an d th e mos t stringen t contro l technolog yi s evaluate d first . I f th e permi t applican t doe s no t inten d t o us e tha t technology , i t demonstrate s tha t th e technolog

ywoul d b e technicall yinfeasibl e o r justifie s rejectio n base d o n consideratio n o f energy , environmenta l o r economi c impacts , i n whic hcas e th e nex t mos t stringen t contro l alternativ e i s evaluate d a s BACT , an d s o forth . See , e.g. , Mecklenbur g a t 3-4 . Als o a s i nMecklenburg , a fai r reading o f th e recor d demonstrate s tha t th e necessarystep s t o th e analysi s wer e adequatel yfollowe d i n thi s case . Specifically , th e Stat e addresse d SC Ra s an availabl e technolog yan d considere d i t i n detai l befor e rejecting i t onground s o f technica l infeasibility . Tha t analysi s include d consideratio no f th e Ne wJerse yfacility , whic hwa s permitte d jus t prio r t o th e State' s decisio ni nthi s case .P.2 9

2 8 pointing t o potentiall ysignifican t difference s i ncoa l typ e (particularly , trac e elemen t content ) an d boile r designtha t ma y adversel yaffec t catalys t lif e an d operating characteristics . Althoughthes e difference s apparentl ywer e no t closel y scrutinize d b

yth e State , th e recor d als o doe s no t conclusivel y demonstrat e tha t th e Stat e shoul d hav e require d SCRi n thi s instance . A s note d a t th e beginning o f thi s Order , th e regulation s governing appeal s o f permi t determination s contemplat e tha t th e permi t issuer—i n thi s cas e th e State—shal l mak e th e permi t determination , an d tha t revie wb

yth e Administrato r shal l b e onl ysparingl yexercised . Eve nthoughEP A Regio nIII , fo r example , migh t wel l hav e arrive d a t a differen t determinatio n had i t bee nth e permi t issue r o f record , th e Petitioner s hav e no t persuade d m e tha t th e State' s choic e represent s clea r error , becaus e th e evidenc e "for " an d "against " SCRwa s (a t th e time o f permi t issuance ) i n suc hclos e balance . Difference s o f opinio ni nsuchcircumstance s d o no t necessaril y translat e int o erro r b yon e an

d correctnes s b

yth e other ; rather , theycan easil yreflec t genuin e difference s o f opinion—i.e. , difference s bes t lef t fo r resolutio nt o th e informe d discretio n o f th e permi t issuer . Consequently , I declin e t o revie wth e State' s determinatio n no t t o requir e SCRfo r th e Ol d Dominio n facility . However , a s mor e informatio ncome s t o ligh t (for example , whe n th e Ne wJerseyfacilit ycome s onlin e o r othe r simila r facilitie s ar e permitte d fo r SCR) , an yfutur e claim s o f technologica l o r economi c infeasibilit yb ypermi t applicant s (o rP.3 0

2 9 permi t issuers ) wil l inevitabl yb e subjec t t o greate r scrutiny , an d t o b e sustainable , th e claim s wil l hav e t o b e accompanie d b y a detailed , case-specifi c analysi s o f al l relevan t factors . BAC T Analvsis—Timin g Considerations . — / Th e Petitioner s clai mtha t "th e BAC T analysi s fo r th e [Ol d Dominion ] plan t i s contraryt o th e lawan d regulation s becaus e th e decisio nwa s effectivel ymad e prio r t o th e publi c involvemen t proces s an d wa s no t mad e o n a case-specifi c basis. " Petitio n a t 58 . Thi s allegatio ndoe s no t stat e an ybasi s fo r concluding tha t th e Stat e erred . I t i s essentiall yirrelevan t that , a s Petitioner s allege , th e Stat e mayhav e hel d a fixed vie wo f ho wth e BAC T determinatio nshoul d b e mad e during th e perio d preceding th e publi c commen t process . Erro r woul d onl yensu e i f i t wer e allege d an

d show n tha t th e Stat e thereafte r refuse d t o conduc t a meaningfu l evaluatio n o f th e public' s comments . Th e Petitioner s mak e n o suc hallegatio n an d hav e no t show

n an yinstanc e i n whic h ther e i s substantia l reaso nt o believ e tha t th e Stat e di d no t giv e ful l an

d fai r consideratio n t o publi c comment . Accordingly , revie wi s no t warranted ; Petitioner s hav e no t show n o r allege d an yerror . F . Petitioner s asser t tha t th e permi t shoul d no t issu e unti l EPAha s reviewe d an d revise d th e long-ter mvisibilit ystrateg y

&2.I Id . a t paragraphIV.D .P.3 1

3 0 fo r protecting th e Par k an d th e Wilderness . 42 / Matter s such a s these , whic hrelat e t o adoptio n o f a long-ter mstrateg

yt o preven t visibilit yimpairmen t unde r Sectio n169 Ao f th e Clean Ai r Act , ar e beyond th e scop e o f thi s permi t proceeding unde r Sectio n 16 5 th e Act . EPAha s previousl ydetermine d tha t th e visibilit y provision s fo r ne wsource s a s implemente d throughth e PS D progra m constitut e a full yadequat e long-ter mstrateg

yt o preven t futur e impairmen t o f visibilit yfro mne wsources . Se e 5 2 Fed . Reg . 45135 , 7807-780 8 (1987) . B yraising th e long-ter mstrateg

ya s an issue , Petitioner s ar e attempting t o us e thi s proceeding t o moun t a notherwis e impermissibl e collatera l attac k onEPA' s implementatio n o f Sectio n 169A . Thi s i s th e wron g foru mi n whic h t o maintai n suc ha nattack ; accordingly , revie wo f thi s issu e wil l no t b e entertained . G . Additiona l Publi c Comment . 41 / EPARegio nII I commente d o nth e draf t permi t an d criticize d aspect s o f Ol d Dominion' s modeling a s i t relate d t o incremen t consumptio nfo r th e Wilderness . A s a result , certai n assumption s i nth e modeling wer e change d an

d Ol d Dominio n agree d t o tighte n it s emissio n limit s s o tha t n o incremen t violatio nwoul d b e shown . Th e Stat e revise d th e permi t accordingl yan d issue d i t i nfina l for m withou t soliciting furthe r commen t fromth e public . Althoughth e

— / Jd . a t paragrap hV . 44 / id . a t paragrap hVII .P.3 2

3 1 revise d permi t call s fo r reduce d S0 2 emissions , Petitioner s argu e tha t th e Stat e o r th e Administrato r shoul d solici t furthe r commen t o n th e revise d modeling . I n m yopinio n n o furthe r commen t i s necessary . First , Petitioner s d o no t alleg e i n thei r Petitio n tha t th e State' s failur e t o solici t additiona l commen t constitute d clea r erro r o r otherwis e me t th e criteri a fo r reviewing a permi t determinatio nunde r 4 0 CFR§124.19 . Se e Petitio na t paragraphVII . Second , eve ni f Petitioner s had mad e suc ha nallegation , I woul d declin e th e reques t becaus e I d o no t fin d tha t Virgini a clearl yerre d i ndeciding no t t o reope n th e commen t perio d i n thi s case . Th e decisio n b

yth e permi t issue r t o reope nth e publi c commen t perio d i s discretionary , a s i s clea r fro mth e plai nterm s o f th e regulatio n tha t authorize s a reopening o f th e commen t perio d b

yth e permi t issuer . Se e 4 0 CFR§124.14(b ) (th e permi t issue r "may " reope n th e commen t perio d i f i t appear s tha t substantia l ne wquestion s wer e raise d during th e publi c commen t period) . Ther e i s n o indicatio nth e Stat e abuse d it s discretio n b yno t reopening th e commen t perio d i nthi s case . Th e record reveal s tha t during th e publi c commen t period , EPARegio n II I objecte d t o th e inpu t o f certai n assume d value s i n Ol d Dominion' s incremen t modeling fo r th e Wilderness . Although Ol d Dominio n believe d th e assume d value s t o b e conservative , i t accepte d Regio n Ill' s reques t t o substitut e actua l value s instead . Th e resulting analysi s indicate d th e potential , unde r certai nconditions , fo r incremen t violation s i n th e Wildernes sP.3 3

3 2 unles s th e draf t permi t wa s modifie d somewhat . Ol d Dominio n oblige d b

yagreeing t o a tightening o f th e permit' s S0 2 emissio n limit s s o tha t ther e woul d b e n o incremen t violation . Petitioner s believ e th e modifie d permi t an d revise d modeling shoul d b e subjecte d t o anadditiona l perio d o f publi c comment . Virgini a disagrees , arguing tha t th e initia l modeling wa s adequate , tha t th e commenter—EP ARegio n III—i s satisfie d wit h th e respons e b

yOl d Dominio n an

d th e State , an

d tha t i nan

yeven t n o furthe r publi c commen t i s require d b yth e regulations . Whil e ther e mayb e time s whe na revise d permi t differ s s o greatl yfromth e draf t versio n tha t additiona l publi c commen t i s require d (th

e discretionarywording o f 4 0 CFR§124.14(b ) notwithstanding) , thi s i s no t on e o f thos e instances . Th e incremen t modeling underlying th e S0 2 emission s i n th e draf t permi t wa s properl ysubjecte d t o publi c comment . Regio n Ill' s concern s wit hth e modeling wer e addresse d b yth e permi t applican t i na manne r tha t satisfie s Regio nIII , an d i t i s self-eviden t tha t Petitioner s ar e i n n o positio n t o oppos e th e decisio n t o tighte nth e permit' s S0 2 emissions . Petitioner s ar e no t wors e of f wit hth e revisio n tha n withou t it . Moreover , ther e i s n o reaso nt o believ e tha t tightening th e emission s limitatio ni s likel yt o resul t i nunanticipate d advers e environmenta l consequence s i n compariso nwit hretentio no f th e previous , les s stringen t S0 2 emission s limitation . Th e revise d permi t b yal l account s i s a logica l outgrowt ho f th e notic e an d commen t proces s an d al l commenter s hav e had a fai r an d reasonabl e opportunit yt oP.3 4

3 3 presen t thei r view s o n th e permit . T o requir e furthe r commen t i n th e fac e o f Ol d Dominio n an d Virginia' s responsibl e action s migh t discourag e substantiv e response s t o publi c comment s i nth e future , a s wel l a s introduc e additiona l delayt o th e permi t proceeding . Conclusio n Fo r th e reason s state d above , i t i s m yconclusio ntha t revie wo f th e State' s permi t determinatio ni s no t warranted . I t meet s al l necessaryrequirement s o f federa l law . Therefore , th e petitio n fo r revie wi s denied . I naccordanc e wit h4 0 CFR §124.19(f)(2) , th e Regiona l Administrato r o f EPARegio nII I o r hi s delegate e shal l "promptly " publis hnotic e o f thi s fina l actio ni n th e Federa l Register . S o ordered . — /

Dated : 

# 3L1111>-

41 / Matter s raise d b yPetitioner s bu t no t specificall yaddresse d i nthi s Orde r wer e no t deeme d critica l t o deciding whethe r discretionaryrevie wo f th e permi t determinatio n shoul d b e exercised . Accordingly , suc hmatter s ar e als o rejecte d a s ground s fo r reviewing th e permi t determination .P.3 5

,./. ' 1
CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E

I hereb ycertif ytha t copie s o f th e foregoing Orde r Denying Revie wi n th e matte r o f Ol d Dominio n Electri c Cooperative , Clover , Virginia , PS D Appea l No . 91-39 , wer e sen t t o th e following person s b yFirs t Clas s Mail , Postag e Prepaid : Davi d W . Carr , Jr . Souther n Environmenta l LawCente r 20 1 Wes t Mai n Street , Suit e 1 4 Charlottesville , V

A2290 1 JohnS . Seitz , Directo r Offic e o f Ai r Qualit yPlanning & Standard s U.S . EPA , Regio n II I 84 1 Chestnu t Building Philadelphia , PA1910 7 Charle s A . Partizi a Paul , Hastings , Janofsk y& Walke r 105 0 Connecticu t Avenue , N W Twelft hFloo r Washington , D C 2003 6 Wallac e N . Davi s Executiv e Directo r Commonwealt ho f Virgini a Dep' t o f Ai r pollutio n Contro l 9t hStree t Offic e BIdg . Room80 1 P . 0 . Bo x1008 9 Richmond , V

A2324 0 Bessi e Hammie l Hearing Cler k A-31 0 Room370 8

Dated : 

### JAN29 

### 199

2 Brenda H . Selde n Lega l Staf f Specialis t