# UNITED

STATES ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY REGION

III 1650

Arch Street Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania

19103-2029 DATE:

May2,

2012 SUBJECT:

Technical

Support Document Approval

of Revision

to Allegheny

County’s

Portion

of the Pennsylvania

State Implementation

Plan

(SIP) Revising Allegheny

County

Health Department (ACHD) Prevention

of Significant Deterioration

(PSD)

of Air Quality Regulations FROM:

Paul

T. Wentworth,

P.E. Office

of Permits

and

Air Toxics (3AP1O) TO:

Kathleen

Cox, Associate

Director Office

of Permits

and

Air Toxics (3AP1O) TECHNICAL

SUPPORT DOCUMENT EPA-R03-OAR--2012-0378 APPROVAL

OF REVISIONS

TO ALLEGHENY

COUNTY

RULES

AND REGULATIONS

FOR PREVENTION

OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION

(PSD) I. BACKGROUND On December

14, 1983,

the U.S. Environmental

Protection

Agency

(EPA) delegated authority

to the ACHD

to implement

and enforce

the provisions

of

40 CFR

52.2

Ion behalf

of EPA,

(see

48

FR 55625, December

14,1983), 

# based

on CAA

§

301

in conjunction

with

CAA

§ 101

and

110

of the CAA Amendments

of 1977 authorizing

the Administrator

to delegate

EPA authority

to implement

and enforce

the federal

PSD regulations

to any State which

has submitted adequate implementation

and enforcement

procedures. On February

13, 2003,

the ACHD requested

that EPA update

and affirm

the existing delegation

of authority agreement

between Allegheny

County

and

the EPA based

on

the representations

included

in Allegheny

County’s

February

13, 2003

letter

to EPA

(see

68

FR 14617).

On March

18, 2003,

EPA formally

notified

ACHD

that

as

of the publication

of date

of the information

notice

in the Federal

register

(March

26, 2003), pursuant

to

40 CFR

52.2

1(u), ACHD

was delegated

full PSD authority

to implement

all portions

of the Federal

PSD program in

40 CFR 52.21.

Future additions,

revisions,

or deletions

to

40 CFR 52.2lwhich

are adopted

by

# EPA

are automatically

incorporated

into

this delegation

of authority agreement.

EPA noted

that authority

is delegated

to ACHD

for

all sources

located

in Allegheny

County

subject

to review pursuant

to the federal

PSD program.

This includes

all source categories

listed

in

40 CFR

52.21 for each pollutant

regulated

by

the CAA

(see

68

FR 14617). II. SUMMARY

OF THIS ACTION The Pennsylvania

Department

of Environmental

Protection

(PADEP)

on behalf

of the Allegheny

County

Health Department

(ACHD) submitted

a revision

to the Allegheny

County portion

of the Pennsylvania

State Implementation

Plan

(SIP)

on July

1, 2008.

This

SIP submission

adds Allegheny

County’s Prevention

of Significant Deterioration

(PSD) regulations at Article

XXI Section 2102.07,

entitled, “Prevention

of Significant Deterioration,”

by incorporating

by reference,

the federal

PSD program

at

40 CFR

52.21

in

its entirety.

The purpose

of this

SIP revision

is

to replace

the delegated

PSD program

with

a SIP approved program.

In addition,

ACHD requests

that

as their regulation automatically

incorporates

by reference

all future changes

to

40 CFR 52.21,

that

such future changes

be automatically incorporated

into

the

SIP. EPA

is also proposing

to make

a determination

that

the proposed

SIP revision

will satisfy the Clean

Air

Act (CAA) requirements

of

§

§

11 0(a)(2)(C),

(D)(i),

and

(J)

for

the 1997 ozone

and particulate

matter

less

than

2.5 micrometers

(PM 2 . 5 ) National

Ambient

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

and

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS

by including

the following

SIP elements:

the PSD portion

of New Source

Review

(NSR) Reform,

nitrogen

oxides

(NOx)

as

a precursor

to ozone, PM2.5

and

its precursors

and greenhouse

gases (GHGs)

as

a regulated

PSD pollutant. EPA

is proposing

to approve ACHD’s

SIP revision

for

the PSD permitting

program. EPA proposes

approval

of ACHD’s submission

because

it substantively

satisfies

CAA requirements.

Additionally,

EPA

is proposing,

as

a separate

action,

to determine

that

the ACHD has

met

its obligations

pursuant

to the PSD portion

of the infrastructure

requirements

of the Clean

Air

Act (CAA)

to implement,

maintain,

and enforce

the 1997 8-hour

ozone

and PM 2 . 5 National

Ambient

Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS)

and

the 2006

PM 2 . 5 NAAQS

and Greenhouse gases.

This action

is being

taken

under

the CAA. The

SIP revision submitted

by ACHD

on July

1, 2008 contained

a provision

in §2102.07(d)

that would

relieve

a person

of the duty

to comply

with

the PSD requirements

as promulgated

by EPA

and incorporated

in

§

2102.07

if such person

was “legally temporarily relieved

of the duty

to comply”.

On May

1, 2012

the PADEP submitted

a letter notifying

EPA that

they

were withdrawing

that portion

of the

SIP revision. III. EVALUATION NSR Reform On December

31, 2002

(67

FR 80186),

EPA published

final

rule changes

to

40 CFR

parts 51 and

52, regarding

the CAA’s

PSD

and Nonattainment

NSR programs.

On November

7, 2003 2(68FR63021),EPApublishedanoticeoffinalactiononthereconsiderationoftheDecember31,2002,finalrulechanges.TheDecember31,2002,andtheNovember7,2003,finalactionsarecollectivelyreferredtoas“NSRReform.”The2002NSRReformRulesarepartofEPA’simplementationofpartsCandDoftitleIoftheCAA.PartCoftitleIoftheCAAisthePSDprogram,whichappliesinareasthatmeettheNAAQS(“attainment”areas),aswellasinareasforwhichthereisinsufficientinformationtodeterminewhethertheareameetstheNAAQS(“unclassifiable”areas).PartDoftitleIoftheCAAisthenonattainmentNSRprogram,whichappliesinareasthatarenotinattainmentoftheNAAQS(“nonattainment”areas).Collectively,thePSDandnonattainmentNSRprogramsarereferredtoasthe“NewSourceReview”orNSRprograms.EPAregulationsimplementingtheseprogramsarecontainedin40CFR51.165,51.166,52.21,52.24,andpart51,appendixS.The2002NSRReformRulesmadechangestofiveareasoftheNSRprograms.Insummary,the2002Rules:(1)providedanewmethodfordeterminingbaselineactualemissions;(2)adoptedanactual-to-projected-actualmethodologyfordeterminingwhetheramajormodificationhasoccurred;(3)allowedmajorstationarysourcestocomplywithaPlantwideApplicabilityLimit(PAL)toavoidhavingasignificantemissionsincreasethattriggerstherequirementsofthemajorNSRprogram;(4)providedanewapplicabilityprovisionforemissionsunitsthataredesignatedcleanunits;and(5)excludedpollutioncontrolprojects(PCPs)fromthedefinitionof“physicalchangeorchangeinthemethodofoperation.”OnNovember7,2003(68FR63021),EPApublishedanoticeoffinalactiononitsreconsiderationofthe2002NSRReformRules,whichaddedadefinitionfor“replacementunit”andclarifiedanissueregardingPALs.Afterthe2002NSRReformRuleswerefinalizedandeffective(March3,2003),industry,state,andenvironmentalpetitionerschallengednumerousaspectsofthe2002NSRReformRules,alongwithportionsofEPA’s1980NSRRules(45FR52676,August7,1980).OnJune24,2005,theUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheDistrictofColumbia(D.C.CircuitCourt)issuedadecisiononthechallengestothe2002NSRReformRules.NewYorkv.UnitedStates,413F.3d3(NewYorkI).Insummary,theD.C.CircuitCourtvacatedportionsoftherulespertainingtocleanunitsandPCPs,remandedaportionoftherulesregardingrecordkeepingandtheterm“reasonablepossibility”foundin40CFR52.21(r)(6)and40CFR51.166(r)(6),andeitherupheldordidnotcommentontheotherprovisionsincludedaspartofthe2002NSRReformRules.OnJune13,2007(72FR32526),EPAtookfinalactiontorevisethe2002NSRReformRulestoremovefromfederallawallprovisionspertainingtocleanunitsandthePCPexemptionthatwerevacatedbytheD.C.CircuitCourt.Withregardtotheremandedportionsofthe2002NSRReformRulesrelatedtorecordkeeping,onDecember21,2007,EPAtookfinalactiontoestablishthata“reasonablepossibility”applieswheresourceemissionsequalorexceed50percentoftheCAANSRsignificancelevelsforanypollutant(72FR72607).The“reasonablepossibility”provisionidentifiesforsourcesandreviewingauthoritiesthecircumstancesunderwhichamajorstationarysourceundergoingamodificationthatdoesnottriggermajorNSRmustkeeprecords.3Finally,onJanuary19,2010,EPAdeniedapetitionfromtheNaturalResourcesDefenseCouncil(NRDC)andSierraClubrequestingEPAtoreconsiderandstaytheWisconsinDepartmentofNaturalResourcesSIPrevisionthatincorporatedEPA’sNewSourceReviewReformsof2002.PetitionerssubmittedcommentsarguingthattheseNSRReformprovisionswere“backsliding”,andthusprohibitedunderCAAsections110(1)and193.EPAapprovedtheWisconsinSIPrevisionsandaddressedPetitioners’argumentsaboutbackslidingby(1)notingthattheprovisionshadbeenupheldbytheNewYorkIcourt,(2)thatthegeneralanalysisthatEPAhaddonetosupportthe2002rulesupportedNSRReforminWisconsin,and(3)PetitionershadnotprovidedanyinformationorargumentsdemonstratingthatthegeneralanalysisdidnotapplyinWisconsin,andthatinformationintherecordcounteredPetitioners’specificargumentsthattherevisionswouldbebacksliding.Additionally,inresponsetocomments,EPAperformedananalysisspecifictoWisconsintoexaminetheimpactsofapplyingreforminthatState.Ourfindingswereconsistentwiththoseofthesupplementaryenvironmentalanalysis(SEA)forthe2002ReformRule(neutral).NRDCv.Jackson:OnJune16,2011,theU.S.CourtofAppealsfortheSeventhCircuit(SeventhCircuit)deniedthepetitionsforreviewfiledbyNRDCandSierraClubchallengingEPA’sapprovalofthe2002NSRReformprovisionsintotheWisconsinSIP.TheprimaryissueaddressedintheopinionwaswhetherEPA’sapprovalofWisconsin’sNSRSIPwasbackslidingprohibitedbyCAAsections110(1)and193.TheCourtheldthatEPA’sdecisionwasnotcontrarytotheseprovisions.First,theCourtfoundthatPetitioners’argumentswerearepeatoftheargumentsthattheyhadmadeandlostinNewYorkI.Second,theCourtheldthatthegeneralanalysisthatsupportedtheNSRReformprovisionswhentheywerechallengedafterpromulgation“supplysubstantialevidencefortheEPA’sdecision[withrespecttotheWisconsinSIP]andshowthatitisneitherarbitrarynorcapricious.”But,theCourtdidnotethatsomestateshaveimplementedtheNSRReformprovisionsandthattheexperienceinthosestatesmightsupportorrefuteEPA’sconclusionsandthat“[altsomepoint,preferringpredictionsoverfactsisnolongerrational.”TheproposedrevisiontotheACHDportionofthePennsylvaniaSIP,whichincorporatesbyreferencethefederalPSDprogramin40CFR52.21,includesonlythoseprovisionswhichwereupheldbytheD.C.Circuitin2005,andreaffirmedintheSeventhCircuit’sdenialofthepetitiontoreconsiderEPA’sapprovalofNSRReformintoWisconsin’sSIP(NRDCv.Jackson).Furthermore,ACHDhasbeenimplementingtheNSRReformregulationssincetheiradoptionthroughtheirdelegationofthefederalPSDProgramwithnoknownlinkbetweenreformandadecreaseinairqualityoraninterferencewithreasonablefurtherprogress.Thisisnotunexpectedgiventhelimiteduniverseofaffectedsources.NSRReformonlyaffectspermittingofmodificationstoexistingsources,andmorespecifically,modificationstoexistingemissionsunits.Anygrowthoccurringfromnew,greenfieldsiteswouldbecontrolledandpermittedthesamebothpre-andpost-reform.Therefore,anyconcernsaboutNSRReformwouldberelatedtounregulatedgrowthfromexistingmajorsources.InthespecificcaseofAlleghenyCounty,theCountymaintainsarobustminorNSRprogramthatspecificallyregulatesminorchangestomajorstationarysources.SowhileafacilitymayescapetherequirementsofmajorNSR,theydonotescapetherequirementtoobtainapre-constructionpermitthatincludestherequirementtomonitoremissionsafterachangeandmayalsoincludeanairqualityimpactanalysis.Finally,thedemonstrationofreasonablefurtherprogressfornonattainmentareasdoesnotrelyonthis4NSRrule,butonothercontrolrequirementssuchasReasonablyAvailableControlTechnology(RACT).InfrastructureElementsInaproposedrulepublishedintheFederalRegisteronSeptember1,2011(76FR54410)EPAstatedthatbecausetheAlleghenyCountyPSDprogramiscurrentlyimplementedthroughaFederalImplementationPlan(FIP),therequirementsofCAA§§110(a)(2)(C),(D)(i),and(J),havealreadybeenaddressed.TheFIPisimplementedthroughregulationsat40CFR52.21.ThesearethesamerulesthattheCountyhasincorporatedbyreferenceintotheirrulesandthattheyareproposingasaSIPrevision.SincetheSIPrevisionincorporatesbyreferencethefederalPSDprograminitsentirety,theCAArequirementsof§§110(a)(2)(C),(D)(i),and(J)forthe19978-hourozoneandPM2.5NAAQSandthe2006PM2.5NAAQSwillbesatisfiedbythisSIPrevision.V.RECOMMENDEDAGENCYACTIONIrecommendthattheJuly1,2008proposedrevisionstothePennsylvaniaSIPthataddsAlleghenyCounty’sPreventionofSignificantDeterioration(PSD)regulationsatArticleXXISection2102.07byincorporatingbyreference,thefederalPSDprogramat40CFR52.21initsentiretybeapprovedasarevision.5