P.1 

OAR Box 1790 

Prepped by Keeia Richards 

Document Number: 

218) ll-F-7 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/31/2008 12:43:17 PM Sheet 218 of 250 
P.2 

11' 0 1/91 11:1 0 1S202 20H 16^0 HASO NR/AQ NFS AUJiD-WB i_OUl 'UU5 

United States Department of the Interior 

iNftSfumcrenTO: 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

KO. Box J7127 

Washington, D.C. 20013-7127 

ir- F- 7 

y f /g^i 

£ 

DATE: _!'/j_ _ 

NUMBER OF PAGES TO FOLLOW i _ 

TO: 73W /W&gf. Villi fejfa. a_/^/^c^JlVc<( 

FRON: _&_______ _ _ 

/4c&L 

SUBJECT : AJS& f7

*rjb*^-

REMARXS : Km-\yf- oT KJtJn -ZjSfaUtr^uZh <^M Jt-^Ov2>.... 

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

PLEASE CALL (202) 208-4911. 
P.3 

1 1 ' U1 ' H 1 11:1 1 'Q'2-. -vs ibTu»Ai u Ah AUATJ —•- ..USSU-ttb ifejuui'uus 

NATIONAL FARJt SERVICE AND O.S. PISH ANO WILDLIFE SERVICE PRIORITIES 

FOR NEV 60CRGE REVIEV PACKAGE — 

11/3/9* REPORT FROM 11/1/94 CONFERENCE CALL. REQUESTED REFINEMENTS 

AND OTHER INFORMATION 

NOTE: As discussed on 11/1, we remain available to discuss che following 

concerns wich EPA on 11/4 5:00 p.m. ESI. or another mutually convenient time. 

— 0PP3ETS: EPA will add regulatory language similar to that proponed by NPS and 

USFUS on 10/21 (And in previous communications) into the NSR package that will 

RO to OMB. 

— APPLICANTS' IMPACT ANALYSES: EPA will add regulatory language similar to that 

proposed by NPS and USFWS on 10/31/94 (and in previous coramunlc./itlons) into the 

NSR package that will go to OMB. Please note, in order for che FLMs to carry out 

their mandates and have sufficient Information on which to base adverse impact 

determinations oa, mid for the scates to have sufficient information to conduct 

fh«»ir own permitting reviews, it ia essential that permit application 

completeness determinations be made jointly by Aff«r.t.«d FLMs and permitting 

authorities, so chat all relevant information needs and mandates are fulfilled. 

USFS has supported this position in the NSR Subooomlttcc deliberations (see copy 

of transcript excerpts attached). 

-. )fLA CONSULTATION FOR CHANGES EXCLUDED FRON PSD/NSR: NPS and US FVS appreeiate 

EPA's agreement that FLMs be consulted with by permitting authorities to 

determine Imparts ro air quality related valuec (AQRVs) when a source requests 

that an activity, such as a pollution prevention activity, HA excluded from 

PSD/NSR. For PALs and other applicability and ueccing evaluations, Which have 

the effect of removing certain activities from PSD/NSR reviow, NPS and USFUS 

would accept EPA's desire not to require FLM consultation, so long AS th* look 

back period ic reduced from the currently proposed 10 years Co a recurring five 

year period, which could coincide with Title V permit renewals. Sec Actachment 

1 (showing examples where a look back of 10 years vould prevent the best, most 

innovative control cechnologieo from being employed); Attachment 3 (showing NPS 

and USFWS mark-up of 10/VU4 proposed language, uir.h AY*mples of places where FLM 

consultation is appropriate). 

— TRACK INCREMENT: Given our current understanding that the Existing Sources 

Workgroup Raport will noc be finalised (eo include the consensus reached by the 

group last July regarding increment tracking) before the NSR package goec to OMB, 

we ask EPA to review che transcripts (see e.g.. Attachment 2. excerpts attached) 

and our previous comments and include provisions in ehe NSR package to strengthen 

Increment tracking requirements, to include requirfi-ftnts for tracking emiselone 

cumulatively. For example, 40 CFR 51.166(c), "Ambient air increments." could be 

amended as follows: 
P.4 

11'01/fll 11:12 ©202 20S 1620 WASP NR/AQ >PS -—. AQMD-PPB l_003/005 

The plan shall contain emicsion limitations and such other measures, 

including methodology for tracking omissions cumulatively and 

periodically assessing Increment consumption, as may be necessary ro 

ensure that In areas designated as Claeo I, II, or III, increases in 

pollutant concentration over the baseline concentration shall be 

limited to che following... (proposed new language is underlined for 

emphasis) 

As requested, following is a list of examples where increment tracking and 

violations have been identified as particular concerns: 

1) Even with Its limitations on cumulative tracking, since 1982, North Dakota has 

recognized increment exceedances at Theodore Roosevelt National Park and Losewood 

National Vildlife Refuge, yet has neglected to correct the problem through SIP 

revisions or other measures (-% g offsets). 

2) Long rangp. transport modeling for Shenandoah National Park, VA lapacts has 

shown increment violations vith new sources having "Insignificant" impaote. 

3) Similarly, long range transport modeling for Chaseahowie_ka National Wildlife 

Refuge, FL and Cape RomaIn National Wildlife Refuge. SC have shown increment 

violations with new sources having "insignificant" impacts. 

4) Possible increment exceedances also are being evaluated by NPS and USFWS for 

Breton Wilderness Area, IA; Acadia National Park, ME; Brigantine Wilderness Area, 

NJ; and Okefenokee Wilderness Area, GA. 

s) For Acadia, Breton, and other Class I and II areao, ineroment may veil be 

fully consumed and even exceeded, but due to lack of cumulative tracking by 

permit applicants and permitting authorities, the increment issue remains 

unaddressed, to the detriment of our national treasures. A key problem.io the 

lack of cumulative actual emissions data on which to base increment consumption. 

State officials have privately told FLMs chat thoy need a "push" from EPA before 

chey will have the political will to address this well recognized problem. On 

request, we will provide samples of correspondence showing where the increment 

tracking issue has been raised. 

— SIP REVISIONS FOR "GENERIC" ADVERSE IMPACT DETERMINATION: NPS and USFWS asked 

that EPA consider Including such requirements (as described in 10/14 paper) in 

the NSR package. Clearly, where peer revieved research shows that AQRVs in a 

particular Class I area are being adversely impacted by existing sources, and 

this research has been certified by the FLM and made publicly available, come 

oorrcccivc regulatory action must be taken to "preserve, protect, and enhance the 

air quality" in that Class I area. This issue vac discussed by ehe Existing 

Sources Workgroup and the full NSR Subcommittee. Relevant excerpts from the 

transcript are attached, Attachment 2. NPS and USFWS request further discussion 

on this important issue vith EPA. 

— ANALYSIS OF AQRVR: In several plaeee in che preamble and proposed regulation, 

EPA would have che FLM Identify to permit applicants and authorities the 

"importance" or "substantive values of importance" or "significance" of a 
P.5 

ui. m xt.it '&'-v- -v s TFJu ».\s>- .\K-AU .\fs - - - AUilU-i-'PB i_uui'uua 

particular AQRV for an Identified Class I area. Soc e.g.. 10/5/94 proposed 

revision Lo 40 CFR 31.166(p) (3). AS NPS. USFWS. and USFS have explained at NSR 

Subcommittee, meetinge and previous documents, our mandates preclude us from 

holding one AIJKV above others in importance. See e.g.. Attachment 2 (excerpts 

from NSR Subcommittee tranactipts; note: other transcripts from previous 

meetings and workgroup documents ralee the same concerns). Therefore, we 

reiterate our requests that you revise the NSR package tn delete auch language. 

See Attachment 3. 

In addition, proposed 40 CFR 51.166(p)(2)(ii)(A) obligates the FLM to provide the 

permitting authoriey with: "A current listing, for each affected Federal Class 

I area, or all relevant air quality related values, sensieive reoeptors eo 

specified air pollutants, and critical pollutant loading for such air quality 

related values and sensitive receptors." Token ae face value, such language 

could be interpreted to preclude state-supported adverse impact determinations 

in the absence of precise critical load analyses performed ln advance of the 

permit under present consideration. 

While there are obvious advantages to sources in being privy to such advance 

knowledge and ve vill provide such information when lr. is available, tha state 

of ehe science as well as the FLMs1 staff and budgetary resources simply do not 

support this proposed requirement. In order eo protect Class I areas, we request 

that EPA revise che current proposal to state up front that such information will 

be provided "where available," but that it will not be a requisite to a finding 

of "adverse impact." The legislative history of the PSD provisions inetruotc uo 

eo "err on the side of protecting the air quality-related values for future 

generations." Ue requese chat EPA uphold Congress's clear intenc and revise the 

NSR package proposal accordingly. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1) FIve-Year Look Back 

2) lixcerpts from NSR Subcommittee Meetings Transcripts (July 1994 Meetings) 

1) NPS and USFWS Mark-up of the 10/5/94 Proposed NSR Regulatory Language 
P.6 

4TTAertfl£/or / 

FIVE-YEAR LOOK BAOK 

Tn September 1, 1994, commence regarding the July 11, 1994, draft revisions 

co the New Source Reviev Reform package. NPS indicated that a five-year look 

baok period, rather than che proposed ten year period, is more appropriate for 

the "clean unit" exemption. USFWS shares chae view. 

In addition co ehe "olean unic" exemption, we understand that EPA is currently 

proposing to extend the ten-year look hack to netting transaction* and occting 

PALs. As you know, NPS and USFWS strongly oppose such an extended look back 

period. RAH" can change drastically over a ten year period. A five-year look 

back vould balance EPA's desire to take the cyclic nature of industry 

operations ineo account, vhile encouraging development of new, Innovative 

technologies to help define cleaner RACT and LAER levolo for the benefit of 

human health and the environment. Of course, our particular concern is to 

preserve and enhance air qualiey and air quality related values lu che Class 

I and II areas under our jurisdiction. To better protect these areas, wo 

would prefer co keep the two year look back for netting and have a tvo-year 

look back for the "clean unit exclusion" and applicability determinations. 

However, iu recognizing EPA's need to balance competing interests, we would 

accept a five-year look back. 

In our recent conference call, you requested Chat we provide examples to 

demonstrate how control determinations could change substantially over a ten 

year period. We have reviewed the EPA's Ranking Reports and recent and 

historical BACT determinations in the RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse for natural 

gas fired turbines and for coal fired boilers. Our review indicates that, for 

natural gas fired turbines, BACT has progressed from tha New Source 

Performance Standard requirement (as high as ISO ppm) to currwnc levels of 4 

ppm (SCR) or 15 to 42 ppm (dry low-NO, technology). This reprecantc a 

substantial improvement in available control technology, and demonstrates hOV. 

vhen Implemented properly, BACT reviewe can be technology forcing. Wc are 

concerned that, if an inappropriate number of exemptions are allowed, this 

devclopmcnc of new, improved technology will be greatly delayed. Data for coal 

fired boilers Indicate that N0„ levels have deareaced ovor ehe past ten years 

from .6 or .7 lb/MMBTU to current levels of .1/ lb/MMBTU. S0t levels have 

decreased from approximately 1.2 lbs/MMBTU (some higher and some lower) to 

current levels of .12 or .13 lh/MMRTU. Note that even over the post five 

years, both NO, and S02 levels have been approximately halved. 

The Clearinghouse data clearly demonstrate that control technology can improve 

signifieoncly over a ten, and even a five-year period. We, therefore, request 

that EPA reconsider its proposals for a ten-year look back. The look back 

peiiod should be five years at most, or the exemption ahould only apply to 

unite which arc using technology which represents current BACT/LAER levels.