P. 1



# OAR Box 1790 Prepped by Keeia Richards



## Document

Number: 

# 218 ) ll-F- 7

Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/31/2008 12:43:17

PM Sheet 218 of 250P. 2
11' 0 1/9 1 11:1 0 1S202 20H 16^ 0 HAS O NR/A Q NF S AUJiD-W B i_OU l 'UU 5


# United State s Departmen

to f th e Interio r

iNftSfumcrenTO : NATIONA L PAR KSERVIC

E KO . Bo x J712 7 Washington , D.C . 20013-712 7 

# ir
- F- 7



# y f /g^ i


# £ DATE : _!'/j_

_

NUMBE RO F PAGE S T O FOLLO W i

_ TO : 73

W /W&gf

. Villi fejfa. a_/^/^ c 

### ^ J 

### lVc< (

FRON : _&_

_

______ _ 

# /4c& L

SUBJEC T 

# : AJS& f 7 

# *rjb*^-

REMARX S 

## : Km-\yf-

oT K 

## JtJn -ZjSfaUtr^uZh

<^M Jt-^Ov2>....

I F YO U HAV E ANYPROBLEMS UIT H THI S FA XO R TROUBL E RECEIVIN G A FA X PLEAS E CAL L (202 ) 208-4911
.P. 3 1 1 ' U1 ' H 1 11:1 1 'Q'2-. -vs ibTu»Ai u A h AUAT J —•
- ..USSU-ttb ifejuui'uu s

NATIONA L FARJ t SERVIC E AN

D O.S . PIS H AN

O WILDLIF E SERVIC E PRIORITIE S FO R NE V 60CRG E REVIE V PACKAG E — 11/3/9 * REPOR T FRO

M 11/1/9 4 CONFERENCE CALL . REQUESTED REFINEMENT S AN D OTHE RINFORMATIO

N

NOTE : A s discusse d o n 11/1 , w

e remai navailabl e t o discus s ch

e followin

g concern s wichEP

A o n 11/ 4 5:0 0 p.m . ESI . o r another mutuall y

convenien t time .

— 0PP3ETS : EP

A wil l ad

d regulator

y languag

e similar to tha t proponed b y NP S an d USFU S o n 10/2 1 (An d i n previou s communications ) int o th e NS Rpackag e tha t wil l R O to OMB .

— APPLICANTS ' IMPAC T ANALYSES : EP A wil l ad

d regulator

y language simila r t o tha t proposed b

y NP S an d USFW S o n 10/31/9 4 (an

d i npreviou s coramunlc./itlons ) int o th e NS R packag e tha t wil l g o t o OMB . Pleas e note , inorder fo r ch e FLMs to carr

y out thei r mandate s an

d hav e sufficient Informatio n o nwhichto bas e advers e impac t determination s oa , mi d fo r th e scate s to hav

e sufficient informatio nt o conduc t fh«»i r ow n permittin

g reviews , i t i a essentia l tha t permi t application completenes s determination s b e mad e jointl y

b y Aff«r.t.«

d FLMs an

d permittin

g authorities , s o cha t al l relevant informatio n need s an

d mandate s ar e fulfilled . USF S ha s supporte

d thi s positio

ninth e NS RSubooomlttc c deliberation s (see cop y o f transcrip t excerpt s attached) .

- . )fLA CONSULTATIO

N FO R CHANGE S EXCLUDE

D FRO N PSD/NSR : NP S an

d U S FV S appreeiat e EPA' s agreemen t that FLMs be consulte d withb

y permittin

g authoritie s t

o determine Impart s r o ai r quality

relate d value c (AQRVs ) whena sourc e request s tha t a n activity , suc ha s a pollutio

npreventio

nactivity , H A

excluded fro

m PSD/NSR . Fo r PAL s an d other applicabilit y an d ueccin

g evaluations , Whic hhave th e effec t o f removin g certai n activitie s fro m PSD/NS Rreviow , NP S an d USFU S woul d accep t EPA' s desire no t t o require FL

M consultation , s o lon g A S th * loo

k bac k period i c reduce d fro m th e currentl y

propose

d 1 0 year s C

o a recurrin

g fiv e yea r period , whichcoul d coincid e wit hTitl e V

permi t renewals . Se c Actachmen t 1 (showin

g example s where a loo k back o f 1 0 year s voul d preven t th e best , mos t innovativ

e contro l cechnologieo fro m bein g employed) ; Attachmen t 3 (showin g NP S an d USFW S mark-u

p of 10/V U 4 propose d language , uir.h AY*mple s o f place s wher e FL M consultation i s appropriate) .

— TRAC KINCREMENT : Givenour current understandin g tha t th

e Existin

g Source s Workgrou

p Rapor t wil l no c b e finalise d (e o includ

e th e consensu s reached b y th e grou p las t Jul y

regardin

g increment tracking ) before th e NS Rpackag e goe c t o OMB , w e as k EP

A t o revie

w ch e transcript s (se

e e.g. . Attachmen t 2 . excerpt s attached ) an d ou r previou s comment s an d includ

e provision s i

neh e NS Rpackag e to strengthe n Incremen t trackin

g requirements , to includ e requirfi-ftnt

s fo r trackin

g emiselon

e cumulatively . For example , 4 0 CF R51.166(c) , "Ambien t ai r increments. " coul d b e amended a s follows :P. 4 11'01/fl l 11:1 2 ©20 2 20 S 162 0 WAS P NR/AQ >P S -— . AQMD-PP B l_003/00 5

Th e plan shal l contai nemicsio nlimitation s an

d suc hothe r measures , includin

g methodolog

y fo r trackin

g omission s cumulativel y an d periodicall y

assessin

g Incremen

t consumption , a s ma y b e necessar

y r o ensur e tha t I

n area s designate

d a s Clae

o I , II , o

r III , increase s in pollutan t concentratio nover th

e baselin

e concentratio

n shal l be limite d to ch e following.. . (propose d ne w languag

e i s underlined for emphasis )

A s requested , followin g i s a lis t o f example s wher e increment trackin g an d violation s hav

e been identifie

d a s particular concerns :
1 ) Eve nwit hIt s limitation s o ncumulativ

e tracking , sinc e 1982 , Nort hDakot a ha s recognized increment exceedance s at Theodore Roosevel t Nationa l Park an d Losewoo

d Nationa l Vildlif e Refuge , ye t ha s neglecte d to correc t th

e proble

m throug hSI P revision s o r othe r measure s (-% g offsets) . 2 ) Lon g rangp . transpor t modelin g fo r Shenandoa

hNationa l Park , V

A lapact s ha s show n incremen t violation s vit hne w source s havin

g "Insignificant " impaote . 3 ) Similarly , lon

g range transpor t modelin g fo r Chaseahowie_k

a Nationa l Wildlif e Refuge , F L an

d Cap e RomaI n Nationa l Wildlif e Refuge . S C hav e show n incremen t violation s wit hne w source s havin

g "insignificant " impacts . 4 ) Possibl e increment exceedance s als o are bein g evaluate

d b y NP S an d USFW S for Breton Wildernes s Area , IA ; Acadi a Nationa l Park , ME ; Brigantin e Wildernes s Area , 

### NJ ; an d Okefenoke e Wildernes s Area , GA .

s ) Fo r Acadia , Breton , an d othe r Clas s I an d I I areao , ineroment may vei l b e full y consumed an

d even exceeded , but du e to lac

k o f cumulativ

e trackin

g b y permi t applicant s an d permittin

g authorities , th

e increment issue remain s unaddressed , t o th e detriment o f ou

r nationa l treasures . A ke y problem.i o th

e lac k o f cumulativ

e actua l emission s dat a o nwhichto bas e increment consumption . Stat e official s hav e privatel y

tol d FLM

s chat tho

y need a "push " fro

m EP A befor e che y wil l have th

e politica l wil l t

o addres s thi s wel l recognize d problem . O

n request , w

e wil l provide sample s o f correspondenc e showin g wher e th

e incremen t trackin g issu e ha s bee n raised .

— SI P REVISION S FO

R "GENERIC " ADVERS E IMPACT DETERMINATION : NP S an d USFWS aske

d tha t EP A conside r Includin

g suc hrequirement s (a

s describe

d i n10/1 4 paper ) i n th e NS Rpackage . Clearly , where pee r revieve d researc

hshow s tha t AQRV s in a particula r Clas s I are a are bein g adversely

impacte

d b y existin

g sources , an

d thi s researchha s bee n certifie d b y th e FL M an d mad e publicl y

available , com

e oorrccciv

c regulator

y actio nmus t be take

n t o "preserve , protect , an d enhanc e th

e ai r quality " i n tha t Clas s I area . Thi s issu e vac discusse

d b y eh e Existin

g Source s Workgrou

p an d th e ful l NS RSubcommittee . Relevan t excerpt s fro m th e transcrip t are attached , Attachment 2 . NP S an d USFW S reques t furthe r discussio n o n thi s important issu e vit hEPA .

—ANALYSI S O F AQRVR : I n severa l plaee e i nch e preambl e an d propose d regulation , EP A woul d have ch

e FL M Identify

t o permi t applicant s an d authoritie s th

e "importance " or "substantiv e value s o f importance " o r "significance " o f aP. 5 ui . m xt.i t '&'-v- -v s TFJ u».\s>- .\K-A U.\fs - - - AUilU-i-'P B i_uui'uu a

particula r AQR

V for a n Identifie

d Clas s I area . Soc e.g. . 10/5/9 4 proposed revisio nL o 4 0 CF R 31.166(p ) (3) . A S NPS . USFWS . an d USF S have explaine d at NS R Subcommittee , meeting e an d previou s documents , ou r mandate s preclude u s fro m holding on

e AIJK V abov e other s i

nimportance . Se

e e.g. . Attachmen t 2 (excerpt s fro m NS R Subcommitte e tranactipts ; note : other transcript s fro m previou s meeting s an

d workgrou

p document s ralee th e sam e concerns) . Therefore , w e reiterat e ou

r request s tha t you revis e th e NS Rpackage t

ndelet e auc

hlanguage . Se e Attachmen t 3 .
I n addition , proposed 4 0 CF R51.166(p)(2)(ii)(A ) obligate s th e FL M to provide th

e permittin

g authorie

y with : " A

current listing , fo r eac haffected Federa l Clas s I area , o r al l relevan t ai r qualit y relate d values , sensieiv e reoeptor s e

o specified ai r pollutants , an d critica l pollutan t loadin g for suc

hai r quality related value s an

d sensitiv

e receptors. " Tokenae fac e value , suc hlanguage coul d b e interpreted t o preclud

e state-supporte

d advers e impac t determination s i nth e absenc e o f precis e critica l loa d analyse s performe d l nadvanc e o f th e permi t unde r presen t consideration . Whil e ther e are obviou s advantage s t o source s inbein

g priv y t o suc hadvanc e knowledg e an

d ve vil l provid

e suc hinformatio

nwhe nlr . i s available , th a stat e o f eh e scienc e a s wel l a s th e FLMs 1 staf f an

d budgetar

y resource s simpl y

d o no t suppor t thi s propose d requirement . I norder e o protec t Clas s I areas , w e reques t tha t EP A revis e ch

e current proposa l t o stat e u

p front tha t suchinformatio n wil l be provide d "where available, " but that i t wil l no t be a requisit e t o a findin

g o f "advers e impact. " Th e legislativ

e histor

y o f th e PS D provision s inetruot c u o e o "err on th

e side o f protectin g th e ai r quality-related value s for futur e generations. " U e reques e cha t EP A uphol d Congress' s clea r intenc an d revis e th

e NS Rpackag e proposa l accordingly . ATTACHMENTS : 1 ) FIve-Yea r Loo k Bac k
2 ) lixcerpt s fro

m NS R Subcommittee Meeting s Transcript s (July 199 4 Meetings )
1 ) NP S an

d USFWS Mark-u

p o f th e 10/5/9 4 Propose

d NS RRegulator

y LanguageP. 6 

# 4TTAertfl£/o r/

FIVE-YEA

RLOO KBAO K

T n Septembe r 1 , 1994 , commenc e regardin g th e Jul y 11 , 1994 , draf t revision s co th e Ne w Sourc e Revie

v Refor m package . NP S indicate d tha t a five-yea r loo k bao k period , rathe r tha n ch e propose

d te nyear period , i s mor e appropriat e fo r th e "clea nunit " exemption . USFW S share s cha

e view .
I naddition c

o eh e "olea n unic " exemption , w e understan

d tha t EP

A i s currentl y proposing to exten

d th e ten-year loo

k hack t

o nettin

g transaction * an

d occtin

g PALs . A s yo u know , NP S an d USFW S strongl y

oppos e suc

hanextended loo

k bac k period . RAH " can change drasticall y ove r a te

nyea r period . A

five-yea r loo

k bac k voul d balanc e EPA' s desir e to tak e th e cycli c natur e o f industr y operation s ineo account , vhil e encouragin g developmen t o f new , Innovativ e technologie s t

o hel p defin

e cleaner RAC T an

d LAE Rlevol o fo r th

e benefi t o f huma n healt han

d th e environment . O f course , ou r particula r concer nis to preserv e an d enhanc e ai r qualie y an d ai r qualit

y relate d value s l u ch

e Clas s I an d I I area s unde r ou r jurisdiction . T o bette r protec t thes e areas , w o woul d prefe r c

o kee p th e tw o year loo

k bac k fo

r nettin

g an d hav e a tvo-yea r loo k bac k for th

e "clea n uni t exclusion " an d applicability

determinations . However , i u recognizin g EPA' s nee

d t o balanc e competin

g interests , w

e woul d accep t a five-yea r loo k back .
Inour recent conferenc e call , yo u requeste

d Chat w

e provide example s to demonstrat e ho

w contro l determination s coul d chang e substantiall y

ove r a te

n yea r period . W

e hav e reviewe

d th e EPA' s Rankin

g Report s an

d recen t an

d historica l BAC T determination s in th e RACT/BACT/LAE

RClearinghous e for natura l ga s fire

d turbine s an

d fo r coa l fire

d boilers . Ou

r revie w indicate s that , fo r natura l ga s fire

d turbines , BAC T ha s progresse d fro m th a Ne w Sourc e Performanc e Standar d requirement (as hig ha s ISO ppm ) t

o currwn c level s o f 4 pp m (SCR ) o r 1 5 t o 4 2 pp m (dr y low-NO , technology) . Thi s reprecant c a substantia l improvement i navailabl e contro l technology , an d demonstrate s hOV . vhenImplemente

d properly , BAC T review e ca nbe technolog

y forcing . W

c ar e concerned that , i f an inappropriat e number o f exemption s ar e allowed , thi s devclopmcn c o f new , improve d technolog

y wil l b e greatl y

delayed . Dat a for coa l fire d boiler s Indicat e that N0 „ level s hav e deareace

d ovor eh

e pas t tenyear s fro m . 6 o r . 7 lb/MMBT

Uto current level s of .1 / lb/MMBTU . S0 t level s hav e decreased fro

m approximatel y

1. 2 lbs/MMBT

U(som e higher an

d som e lower ) to curren t level s o f .1 2 o r .1 3 lh/MMRTU . Not e tha t evenove r th e pos t fiv

e years , bot hNO , an

d S0 2 level s hav

e beenapproximatel y halved . The Clearinghous e dat a clearl y demonstrat e tha t contro l technolog y canimprov

e signifieoncl y

ove r a ten , an

d eve n a five-yea

r period . We , therefore , reques t tha t EP A reconside r it s proposal s fo r a ten-year loo

k back . Th

e loo k bac k peiio d shoul d b

e fiv e year s a

t most , o

r th e exemptio

nahoul d onl y

appl y t o unit e whichar

c usin g technolog

y whic hrepresent s current BACT/LAE Rlevels .