U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 April 2014



## Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed Prevention of Significant Deteriorati on Permit Major Modification

for Sierra Pacific Industr ies - Anderson DivisionT ABLE OF C ONTENTS



### 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1

2. BIOMASS & GHG BACT COMMENTS............................................................... 5

3. CRITERIA POLLUTANT BACT COMMENTS ................................................ 23

4. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS COMMENTS.......................................................... 29

5. PSD PERMIT COMMENTS ................................................................................. 32

6. GHG AAQIR COMMENTS .................................................................................. 39

7. PROCEDURAL COMMENTS .............................................................................. 41

8. COMPLIANCE COMMENTS .............................................................................. 47

9. OTHER AIR QUALITY-RELA TED COMMENTS ........................................... 52

10. OTHER GENERAL COMMENTS ....................................................................... 59

### 1. I NTRODUCTION

Sierra Pacific Industries-Ande rson Division (SPI or SPI-Anders on) is an existing lumber manufacturing facility lo cated in Anderson, Shasta County, Calif ornia. The facility is located within the jurisdiction of the Shasta County Ai r Quality Management Di strict (Shasta County AQMD or District). The site cu rrently contains a wood-fired boile r with associated air pollution control equipment and conveyance systems that pr oduces steam to dry lumber in existing kilns and generates up to 4 megawatts of electricity for on-site power needs. Construction of the existing equipment was authorized by a Preven tion of Signification Deterioration (PSD) permit issued by the Shasta County AQMD on June 15, 1995. See online docket # V.10, SPI PSD Permit Issued by SCAQMD 15JUN1995

.

On March 3, 2003, the United States Environmen tal Protection Agency, Region 9 (EPA or EPA Region 9) withdrew the PSD delegation from several permitting authorities in Region 9, including SCAMQD, making EPA the PSD permitting authority for Shasta County. See 68 FR 19371. However, the PSD permit issued by the Dist rict (Permit No. 94-PO -18) for the existing equipment at the SPI-Anderson f acility is still in effect.

In March 2010, SPI submitted a PSD application to EPA for an approval to construct and operate a new cogeneration unit and ancillary equipment at its Anderson facility. This change to the facility is a PSD major modification under the Clean Air Act and EPA’s PSD regulations at 40

CFR 52.21. See online docket #III.02, SPI-Anderson Ambient Air Quality Impact Report_12SEP12 at pp. 8-9. On October 4, 2010, EPA determined that SPI’s PSD application was administratively complete.

On September 13, 2012, EPA Region 9 proposed to issue a PSD permit modification (2012 Proposed Permit) for the new cogeneration unit and ancillary equipment for nitrogen oxides (NO x ), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (P M), PM less than 10 microns in diameter (PM 10 ), and PM less than 2.5 mi crons in diameter (PM 2.5 ). We accepted comments for the 2012 Proposed Permit from September 13, 2012 throug h October 17, 2012. On February 19, 2013,

after consideration of the public comments received, EP A Region 9 issued a PSD permit modification and explained that it would be effective in 30 days unless our action was appealed to the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board (E AB) (2013 Permit). Within that 30 day time frame, various parties filed appeals with the EA B, which suspended the permit’s effective date. On July 18, 2013, the EAB remanded the 2013 Permit to EPA Region 9 because it determined that our decision not to hold a public hearing prior to issuing the permit was contrary to applicable regulations. The EA B directed EPA Region 9 to reopen the permit proceedings to hold a public hearing, issue a final permit decisi on and respond to any new comments received during the hearing. ( See In re Sierra Pacific Industries , PSD Appeal Nos. 13-01 to 13-04, slip op. at 67 (EAB July 18, 2013)).

On July 12, 2013, the Court of Appeals for the Circ uit for the District of Columbia issued a decision that will, upon the date it becomes fina l and effective, invalidate EPA’s regulation deferring from the PSD requirements the ca rbon dioxide emissions resulting from the combustion of certain biological materials, includ ing materials such as wood, wood waste, forest residue, and agricultural material. See Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. EPA , 722 F.3d 401 (D.C.Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 2 Cir. 2013). As of this document, the D.C. Circ uit’s decision is not yet final and effective and could be subject to additional legal proceedings. To facilitate EPA’s ability to proceed on this permit application in the interim, SPI submitte d material regarding greenhouse gas (GHG) (i.e.,

CO 2 , methane, and nitrogen oxide) emissions fr om the proposed new equipment and requested

that EPA review such materials and include GHG emission limits and related requirements

Following the EAB’s remand and the D.C. Circu it’s decision, EPA Region 9 revised the 2013 Permit to incorporate GHG emission limits and rela ted requirements. We also revised certain other conditions (primarily rela ted to monitoring, performance test ing, and recordkeeping) in the

2013 Permit to address minor technical issues we identified since February 2013. On November 8, 2013, EPA Region 9 proposed to issue the re vised Proposed Permit (Revised Proposed Permit), which included GHG requirements and minor technical changes to other permit conditions, and announced a public informa tion meeting and pub lic hearing. On November 9, 2013, EPA received a request to ex tend the public comment period. On November 22, 2013, EPA granted the request for the extensi on, and notified the public of the new deadline of January 10, 2014 for submittal of public comments.

EPA announced the public comment period th rough public notices published in the Record Searchlight and on Region 9’s website on November 8, 2013 and November 22, 2013. On both these dates, EPA also distributed the public no tice to parties in accordance with 40 CFR Part 124, including notices sent by electronic mail (e-m ail) and United States postal mail. Parties notified by EPA included (1) agen cies, organizations, and public members for whom contact information was obtained through a number of different methods, including requests made directly to EPA Region 9 through our website (o r through other means) from parties seeking notification regarding perm it actions in California and within the District (i.e., within Shasta County); and (2) other parties known to EPA that may have an interest in this action. EPA provided notice to numerous government agenci es in accordance with 40 CFR Part 124, including, but not limited to, the California En ergy Commission (CEC), th e District and other local neighboring air districts, a nd Indian tribes in the area. Ou r e-mail list consisted of more than 400 individuals, and our postal mailing list cons isted of more than 700 individuals who are local residents, members of organi zations or government agencies.

The administrative record for the Revised Pr oposed Permit was made available for public inspection at EPA Region 9’s Office in San Fran cisco, California. Additionally, we made the Revised Proposed Permit, Supplemental Fact Sheet/Ambient Air Quality Impact Report for Greenhouse Gas Emissions, dated November 2013 (GHG AAQIR), and Fact Sheet/Ambient Air Quality Impact Report dated September 2012 (2012 AAQIR), and certa in other supporting documents available on Region 9’s website. 1 These documents were also available for public inspection at the Shasta County AQMD and the following local public libraries within Shasta County: (1) Anderson Public Library in Anders on, California; (2) Redding Public Library in Redding, California; and (3) Shas ta Lake Gateway Library in Shasta Lake, California.

1 See EPA Region 9’s Air Permit website at http://www.epa.gov/region9/air/permit/r9-permits-issued.html , and the

electronic docket for th e SPI-Anderson PSD permit modification at http://www.regulations.gov (docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0634).Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 3 On December 10, 2013, EPA held a pub lic information meeting at the City of Anderson Community Center in Anderson, California to provide the opportunity for the public to speak directly to EPA permitting and technical staff re garding the project. EPA staff displayed postersized maps, diagrams and informational materials especially prepared fo r the public meeting, and

had hand-out materials available to anyone interested. EPA staff also answered questions from the public regarding the proposed permit and the impacts of the proposed project on air quality. Following the public meeting, the EPA held the public hearing to receive oral and written comments. The public hearing was attended by approximately 40 members of the public.

During the public comment period, which commenced on November 8, 2013 and ended January 10, 2014, EPA received the following comments:

 Written comments from 10 members of the public and SPI submitted by e-mail or postal mail;

 Oral comments made by 15 members of the publ ic and SPI at the publ ic hearing held on December 10, 2013; and

 Written comments submitted by 4 members of the public provided during the public information meeting and public hearing held on December 10, 2013.

EPA received one public comment after the close of the comment period. EPA’s response to the

written and oral comments is contained in th is document. We have summarized the comment

letters and oral testimonies. In some cases , we used the original comment given by the

commenter.

EPA made the following changes to the proposed PSD permit issued for public comment in November 2013. These changes are indicated in strikethough/redline vers ion of the final PSD permit in the Administrative Record ( See docket #VI.10, SPI-Anderson PSD Permit SAC 12-
01_Strikethru 25APR2014 ).

 Permit Condition X.G.1 (Fuel Restrictions) – (1) Added th e following to the list of biomass

fuels allowed for combustion in the biomass boiler: (i) Mill residues including hog fuel, shavings, sawdust, trimmings, and bark; and (ii) Forest residues including treetops, nonmerchantable sections of the stem, branches , and bark, left on th e ground after logging or accumulating as a result of a storm, fire, delim bing, or other similar disturbance; and (2) Replaced “wood and wood wastes” with “Non-merc hantable forest biomass consisting of byproducts and residuals of fore st management activities.”

 Permit Condition X.H.7 (Monitoring Conditions) – Removed redundant permit language regarding submittal of a CEMS performance test protocol to EPA, and replaced it with a

reference to Permit Condition X.I.2.d

.Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 4  Permit Condition X.I.2.c (Performance Tests) – Clarified that annual performance tests of

PM 10 , CO, CO 2 , and NO x , shall be conducted at no less than 90% of the facility’s maximum steam production rate of 250,000 lb/hr.

 Permit Condition X.J.2 (Recordkeeping and Reporting) – Added calculation procedures for

restriction that the bioma ss boiler shall not exceed 468 MMB tu/hr on a monthly basis

 Permit Condition X.J.3 and 4 (Recordkeeping and Reporting) – Clarified that the Permittee

shall calculate and record the 12-month rolling sum of CO, NO x , PM, PM 10 , and PM 2.5 emissions in tpy by the last day of the month, rather than the 30 th day of the month.

 Permit Condition X.J.4 (Recordkeeping and Reporting) – Added GHG emission factors for

CH 4 and N 2 O, and global warming pot entials (GWPs) for CO 2 , CH 4 , N 2 O, and SF 6 based on revisions to the GHG Reporting Rule in 40 CFR Part 98 that became effective on January 1,

2014.

 EPA made a number of admi nistrative wording changes to the “Equipment List” and “Abbreviations and Acronyms” s ections, and permit conditions X.H.11 (Monitoring Conditions); X.I.1, 3, and 4 (Performance Tests); X.J.12 (Recordkeeping and Reporting).Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 5 

### 2. B IOMASS 

### & GHG BACT C OMMENTS

2.1 Comment : The Center for Biological Divers ity (CBD) stated that although SPI characterizes its analysis as vol untary, it is in fact required by the CAA. CBD stated that although the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeal ha s stayed issuance of the mandate vacating the PSD deferral, the decision is in all other respects final, and that EPA must apply the law as it exists at the time of permit issu ance, and the law is that EPA must require BACT for all pollutants “s ubject to regulation.”

Response : It appears from the context of these statements that CBD did not intend them to be comments on the process or substance of EPA’s proposed permit, but rather to make a legal argument in response to statemen ts made by SPI. The commenter does not

state that SPI’s characterization of its GHG an alysis as voluntary is manifested in the proposed permit or in EPA’s record supporti ng it. Therefore, EPA is responding only

that we made our determinations for GHG BA CT issues without re gard to whether the process was voluntary or manda tory, and we note that the proposed and final permits impose the GHG related permit conditions as ma ndatory requirements in the same way

and to the same extent as the other permit conditions.

2.2 Comment: CBD commented that the GHG BACT dete rmination is inconsistent with CAA requirements because the AAQIR fails to explain why biomass combustion was identified as a control measure at Step 1 of the BACT analysis. Citing EPA’s Draft New Source Review Manual (October 1990), CBD stat ed that the purpose of Step 1 of the BACT analysis is to identify control m easures such as “inherently lower-emitting processes/practices,” add-on controls, and combinations thereof and that identifying combustion of a primary fuel as a “contro l measure” for emissions caused by combustion of that same fuel is fundamentally ill ogical because it cannot be “inherently lower emitting” than itself. According to the commente r, “there is no basis in science, law, or logic for concluding that combustion of biom ass is ‘inherently lower-emitting’ than combustion of biomass.” In a footnote, CBD stated that the AAQIR does not mention and therefore can find no support in an EPA guidance document, specifically, “Guidance for Determining Best Available Control Technology for Reducing Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Bioenergy Production,” Ma rch 2011 (Bioenergy BACT Guidance).

Response: The function of Step 1 of any BACT an alysis is to “[i]dentify all available control options with practical potential fo r application to the specific unit for the regulated pollutant under evaluation.” See GHG AAQIR at 17; EPA, “PSD and Title V Permitting Guidance for Greenhouse Gases” (March 2011) (PSD and Title V GHG Guidance) at 24. As EPA has explained “[t]he purpose of Step 1 of the process is to cast a wide net and identify all control options w ith potential application to the emissions unit under review that should be subject to scruti ny under later steps of the process.”

In Step 1 of the BACT analysis in the GHG AAQIR, EPA identified the following options as available t echnologies to control CO 2 emissions: (i) utilization of biomass fuelResponses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 6 alone, (ii) carbon capture and sequestrati on (CCS), (iii) good bo iler design, (iv) good combustion practices, (v) efficient operation, and (vi) boiler design alternatives (i.e., stoker and fluidized bed). See GHG AAQIR at 19. Therefore, EPA identified

“utilization of biomass fuel al one” as one of several GHG contro l alternatives at Step 1 of our BACT analysis for the SPI PSD Permit.

Furthermore, the identification of biomass co mbustion as a control measure at Step 1 at this facility is consistent with EPA’s Bioe nergy BACT Guidance, which lists this option as the first among three categories of options that a permitting authority may choose to focus on. Although the Bioenergy BACT Guid ance is not cited in the GHG AAQIR, EPA relied in part on this guidance and incl uded it in the docket for our proposed action. The Bioenergy BACT Guidance recommends that the Step 1 analysis address the extent to which the BACT analysis for GHGs should include a comparative evaluation of biomass fuels and other fuels types such as fossil fuels. Bioenergy BACT Guidance at 15. Where a permit applicant can demonstrate that utilizing biomass fuel is fundamental to the primary purpose of the project, the pe rmitting authority need not list and undertake a comparative evaluation of other fuel types. Id.

The SPI Anderson facility is a lumber mill th at generates a significant amount of sawdust and other mill residuals. SPI also operates ot her lumber mills in the area that generate mill residuals and owns and manages forests supplying the mills. The permit application states that the proposed project would be located near SPI’s lu mber manufacturing facility. SPI PSD Permit App lication, March 2010 at 3-4

. SPI’s application also states that the Anderson facility cu rrently generates more wood waste than the existing cogeneration unit can consume. Id. Thus, as defined by the perm it applicant, the use of biomass fuel is a design element of the proposed facility that is inhere nt to the applicant’s purpose for building the cogeneration facility. 2 Since utilizing biomass fuel is fundamental to the primary purpose of SPI’s project, EPA identifie d the use of biomass fuel as a Step 1 option in the GHG AAQIR. EPA’s purpose was to inform the public that we were not considering other fuel types to be potential control options for this facility and that biomass fuel was the only fuel option that would be subject to further examination in subsequent steps of the top-down process.

EPA’s GHG AAQIR did not characterize biom ass combustion as “inherently loweremitting.” Our GHG AAQIR identified three categories of GHG contro l alternatives for all GHG pollutants: (i) add-on control options ; (ii) inherently lo wer-emitting control options; and (iii) other control options. For CO 2 , under the category of “add-on control options,” we identified CCS; under the categ ory of “inherently lower-emitting control options,” we identified “good boiler desi gn, good combustion practices, and efficient operation;” under the category of “other contro l options,” we identif ied “utilization of biomass fuel alone” and “boiler design alte rnatives.” GHG AAQIR at 19, Table 5-2.

2 The commenter does not appear to question this judgmen t, as there is no request in the comment that EPA consider other fuel types besides biomass in the BACT analysis for this facility.Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 7 Therefore, as shown by the record, EPA did not categorize combustion of biomass as an “inherently lower-emitting control option.”

EPA is in the process of evaluating the ex tent to which biomass can be considered “inherently-lower emitting” w ith respect to its emission GHGs. As discussed in the Bioenergy BACT Guidance, this assessment is not as straightforward as it has traditionally been for other fuels and pollutants because of the role of offsite sequestration of CO 2 in biogenic material. See Bioenergy BACT Guidance at 20-21. EPA believes this unique attri bute of biomass fuel is best considered in the context of Step 4 of the BACT analysis. Thus, listing the combustion of biomass fuel alone as an option in Step 1 of the BACT analysis enab les it to be subject to further scrutiny at subsequent steps of the BACT analysis.

In this context, EPA disagrees with the comm enter’s view that the Agency should not list an option for consideration at Step 1 of th e BACT analysis based on an initial judgment that is it not “inherently lower emitting” or in fact “control.” This approach would prejudge the outcome of subsequent steps of the BACT analysis. Rather than eliminating the option of utilizing biomass fuel alone at Step 1, a thorough BACT analysis should include the option and examine how the directemissions from biom ass combustion alone

would rank in relation to other control t echniques under consideration. Even if the combustion of biomass alone ranks below other options under consideration based on direct stack emissions, it is st ill beneficial to examine the extent to which biomass fuel

has other environmental benefits or adverse impacts. EPA be lieves it is appropriate for a Step 4 environmental impacts analysis to examine the environmental benefits and adverse impacts of all technologies rema ining under consideration at this step. This analysis need not be limited to only the top or most effective technology. See Bioenergy BACT

Guidance at 17-18.

2.3 Comment: CBD stated that the record actually confirms that biomass combustion does nothing to “control” the facility’s emissions because, according to CBD, the emissions limit in the Revised Proposed Permit (0.36 lb CO 2 e/lb steam produced or 433,620 tpy) is actually higher than the uncontrolled emissions estimate in SPI’s GHG BACT analysis (433,000 tpy).

Response : As discussed above, EPA did not list biomass combustion at Step 1 of the BACT analysis on the grounds that it was i nherently lower emitti ng. The option still warrants evaluation at subseque nt steps of the BACT analysis even if it does not necessarily “control” or reduce stack emission in the manner desired by the commenter. Furthermore, the comment does not correctly de scribe the emissions limit in the permit.

Permit Condition X.A.1. of the Revised Proposed Permit (and the Final Permit) contains the following emission limit for CO 2 e:

CO 2 e emissions from U1 [Unit 1, the new st oker boiler authorized by the permit]

shall not exceed 0.36 CO 2 e lb steam produced (12-month annual rolling averageResponses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 8 basis). This CO 2 e limit shall apply at all times, including during startup and shutdown periods.

The commenter’s reference to an annual limit of 433,620 tpy does not appear in the Revised Proposed Permit (or in the Final Pe rmit) or in EPA’s GHG AAQIR. This figure appears to be based on the comm enter’s conversion of the lb CO 2 e / lb steam produced emission limit that is in the permit into a tons per unit basis. However, the commenter did not provide its calculations or any othe r basis upon which EPA might further evaluate this conversion or any discrepancy as alleged by the commenter.

2.4 Comment: CBD commented that the record confirms that biomass combustion does nothing to control emissions because the AAQI R, at Step 3 of the BACT analysis, identifies biomass combustion (in combinati on with other measures such as good boiler design and efficient combustion practices) as “the baseline from which all other

alternatives will be evaluated.” [citing AAQIR at 26.] According to CBD, EPA’s proposed control measures are simply a de scription of the proposed facility design, meaning that their implementation as BACT will result in zero actual emissions

reductions.

Response: As discussed above, biomass fuel was a ppropriately listed at Step 1 of the BACT analysis because it was a fundamental pa rt of the design of the facility and the only fuel type subject to further evaluation at subsequent steps of the BACT analysis. Step 3 of EPA’s BACT analysis ranked the effectiveness of the va rious control methods applying a baseline comprised of a group of control methods: good boiler design, good combustion practices, and efficient operation / proper combustion practices and use of a properly designed boiler and uti lization of biomass fuel alone. EPA’s BACT analysis also included the add-on control opt ion of capturing and sequestering CO 2 emissions. There is nothing inappropriate with using a lower-ranked option as the baseline against which the permitting authority judges other optio ns. This does not demonstrate that the lower-ranked option should not be on the list.

There is also nothing inappropria te with Step 1 of the BACT analysis including an option that is “simply a description of the proposed facility design” and then evaluating whether the design can be improved or controls can be added to reduce emissions from that baseline. The PSD permit review process wo rks best when the a pplicant incorporates techniques for reducing emissions into its pr oposed design. It is clear that good design, combustion, and efficient operation mean that more steam can be produced with less fuel, resulting in fewer emissions. The design and efficiency components of our GHG BACT determination for the SPI PSD permit are c onsistent with GHG BACT determinations made by several other permitting agencies permitting agencies for biomass boilers. See

id . at 21, Table 7.1-5 (table of recent BACT determinations by various permitting agencies, including several identifying “good combustion practices” as BACT). Finally, permitting agencies often make BACT determina tions for emissions of criteria pollutants, such as carbon monoxide, based on good design and efficient operation. In fact, EPA’sResponses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 9 CO BACT determination for this project is 0.23 lb/MMBtu (3-hour block average) employing good combustion practices. See , 2012 AAQIR (for criteria pollutants) at 18-

19.

To the extent that the commenter is a lleging that EPA’s action is unsupported and erroneous because our BACT analysis is based on combustion of biomass alone, the

commenter is incorrect. The record is clear that our BACT analysis considered combustion of biomass as one component of a multi-part approach to controlling GHG emissions. GHG AAQIR at 29.

2.5 Comment: CBD commented that EPA should evalua te different forms of biomass to determine if they could be considered “cl ean fuels” in relation to other biomass feedstocks. According to the commenter, EPA must evaluate whether there is a statutory basis for considering certain forms of biomass to be “clean fuels” based on life cycle GHG emissions (as opposed to comparing fuel s based on stack emissions). CBD also

commented that EPA must determine whether the text and structur e of the CAA’s PSD provisions allow consideration of relative carbon debt peri ods in determining whether certain fuels are “inherently lower-emitting” for BACT purposes. According to CBD, different forms of biomass will produce roughly the same amount of CO 2 at the stack; therefore, stack emissions offer little or no basis for identifying whether particular forms of biomass are “inherently lower-emitting;” however, biomass fuels may differ in their lifecycle emissions or carbon-debt period, de pending on the feedstock and what would happen to it if it were not burned for ener gy. CBD stated that there are carbon-debt differences between whole trees, logging residu es and mill waste. For example, regarding mill waste, the carbon debt depends on the likely alternative fate of the material. If mill waste would be otherwise stored or disposed of in a manner likely to generate methane, for example, the carbon debt associated with combustion would be relatively short. CBD

states that mill waste could also be crafte d into durable wood products and the carbon

debt associated with that a lternative use would be longer.

Response: EPA is in the process of evaluating the effect of CO 2 emissions from biogenic feedstocks on the carbon cycle. That pro cess can help inform whether EPA may classify certain biomass feedstocks as a “clean fuel” or “inherently lower emitting,” as these terms have been used historically by EPA and others in the context of a PSD BACT analysis. While EPA has reached no conclusion on this point, EPA has previously recognized that a PSD BACT analysis at a bioenergy facility can incorporate consideration of the net atmospheric c ontribution of combusting biomass fuels. 3 For example, EPA’s Bioenergy BACT Guidan ce states, “[B]ecause sequestration of CO 2 emissions in living plant material outside th e boundaries of the f acility may counteract

the emission from such facilities on a c ontinuous basis, this unique dynamic merits consideration in the BACT analysis.” Bioenergy BACT Guidance at 8; see also, id. at

3 The commenter uses the terms “lifecycle GHG emissions” and “carbon-debt period,” which EPA understands to describe essentially the same concept that is intended by EPA’s use of the term “net atmospheric contribution”Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 10 21-24. EPA also observed that “given its tr aditional focus on ‘collateral’ environmental impacts and benefits, Step 4 of the BACT analysis seems well-suited to enable permitting authorities to consider the potential sequest ration of carbon in biogenic resources outside the boundaries of the facility when ev aluating BACT for greenhouse gases.” Id. at 21. Thus, EPA has suggested in the Biogenergy BA CT Guidance that the text and structure of CAA’s PSD provisions allow a PSD permitting authority to consider, at Step 4 of the BACT analysis, the net atmospheric contri bution of using biomass fuels for energy production. The challenge, as EPA has noted, is that “a cas e-by-case analysis of the net atmospheric impact of biomass fuels would likely be prohibitively time-consuming and complex for facilities and perm itting authorities.” Bioenergy BACT Guidance at 23.

EPA interprets the commenter’s request that EPA determine whether it may classify certain forms of biomass (particular biomass fe edstocks) as “clean fu els” or “inherently lower emitting” as, in effect, calling for EPA to identify different biomass feedstocks as options at Step 1 of the BACT analysis. The next step that the commenter appears to contemplate is that EPA would then rank thes e different feedstock options at Step 3 of the BACT analysis based on the net atmosphe ric contribution (“lifecycle emission” or “carbon debt period” in the commenter’s lexic on) rather than ranking in the traditional

manner based on direct stack emissions. This is not the approach that EPA recommended in the Bioenergy BACT Guidance, and EPA is not prepared to apply the commenter’s apparent process in the context of this pe rmit application. As EPA explained in the Bioenergy BACT Guidance, “additional detail ed examination of science and technical issues is needed to ensure that permitti ng authorities would be able to reasonably calculate and implement account ing for the amount of GHG emissions above [a business as usual scenario.]” Id. at 23. Considering the “cha llenge of conducting a complete analysis for each permit application,” EPA ha s observed that “a more practical approach to accounting is needed.” Id.

As previously stated, EPA is not currently pr epared to classify any particular biomass feedstocks as a “clean fuel” or “inherently lo wer emitting” or to engage in a quantitative ranking and comparison of the net atmospheri c contribution of such fuels. EPA is currently engaged in revising a tool fo r assessing GHG emissions and biogenic feedstocks, the “Accounting Framework for Biogenic CO 2 Emissions from Stationary Sources,” September 2011 (Accounting Framewor k). In September 2012, EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) concluded a peer review of the Accounting Framework and issued an 81-page report. See, SAB Review of EPA’s Accounting Framework for Biogenic CO 2 Emissions from Stationary Sources , EPA-SAB-12-011, September 28, 2012 (SAB Comments). Although EPA has be gun the process of assessing the carbon cycle implications of biogenic feedstocks, this evaluation involves complex policy and technical issues that require further consid eration before EPA can specify particular categories of biomass as “clean fuels” or “inherently lower-emitting” fuels for the purposes of a BACT determination.Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 11 Recognizing the complexity of these issues, EPA chose not to prolong its review of this permit application by attempting to complete the type of net atmospheric contribution assessment described in the Bioenergy Guidance . After identifying biomass as the only fuel under consideration in the BACT analysis for this facility in a manner consistent with EPA’s Bioenergy BACT Guidance, EPA’s GHG AAQIR follo wed EPA’s PSD and Title V GHG Guidance and focused on energy efficiency and add-on controls for GHG emissions as part of the BACT analysis.

EPA agrees with the commenter that consider ation of the carbon cycle is relevant to the

determination of BACT for a biomass-fired em issions unit and that case-by-case analysis that considers the attributes of particular feedstocks is pref erable. Since EPA’s Accounting Framework is still under developmen t, EPA lacks the tools at this time to undertake a quantitative compar ison of the net atmospheric contribution of different biomass feedstocks that might be utilized at the facility SPI seeks authorization to construct. Nevertheless, in response to several points raised by CBD, EPA is revising

Permit Condition X.G. , Fuel Restrictions to clarify that SPI will be limited to particular types of biomass fuels, such as mill residue s, untreated wood debris from urban areas, agricultural crops and residues, forest residue s, and non-merchantable forest biomass. EPA is clarifying that the option of using biom ass fuel alone identified in Step 1 of the analysis entails using the specific types of biomass feedstocks reflected in revised Permit

Condition X.G . We assume it is technically feasible to use all of the specified feedstocks,

but have not broken each feedstock out into a di stinct Step 1 option or attempted to rank them at Step 3 for the reasons discussed above.

This revision is supported by a basic, qualita tive evaluation in a Step 4 context of the environmental impacts of the specific biomass feedstocks SPI intends use to fire the

boiler. Based on its current understanding and information, EP A is able to make a rough qualitative assessment that the feedstocks SPI seeks to use are unlikely to result in a significant increase in atmospheric CO 2 loading. The SPI Anders on facility is a lumber mill that generates a significant amount of sa wdust and other mill residuals. SPI’s permit application states that the Anderson mill generates approximately 160,000 bone dry tons (BDT) of mill waste annually, and that the ne w cogeneration unit is expected to burn a maximum of 219,000 BDT annually. See SPI PSD Permit Application, March 2010 at 3- 4. SPI also intends to burn mill residues from lumber mills it owns and operates in Shasta Lake, approximately 18 miles from A nderson; Red Bluff, approximately 26 miles from Anderson; and Arcata, approximately 155 miles from Anderson. See id .; Second Recirculated Draft EIR, February 2012, at 2.0-32 . In addition to mill waste, SPI seeks to feed the boiler with untreated wood waste (e.g., pallets and crates), ag ricultural residues, and forest management residues. See SPI PSD Permit Applica tion, March 2010 at 3-4.

In the Bioenergy BACT Guidance, EPA observe d that it appeared possible to conclude that a negligible atmospheric contribution would result from using mill residue in bioenergy production. Bioe nergy BACT Guidance at 23. The commenter also acknowledges that the carbon impacts from burning mill residues are generally viewed asResponses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 12 less significant than the imp act of burning trees harvested solely for the purpose of

biomass fuel. See CBD Comments at 5-7. Although the commenter notes that mill waste may be used to create durable wood products , SPI has informed EPA that there is no

market for its mill waste due to the closure of several former facilities that previously manufactured particle board, orient ed strand board and pulp and paper. 4

Based on this assessment, the Final Permit includes a revision to Permit Condition X.G.

, Fuel Restrictions. The revision is intended to clarify that SPI will be limited to the following types of biomass fuels: mill resi dues; untreated wood de bris from urban areas (e.g., pallets and crates); ag ricultural crops and residues; forest residues; and nonmerchantable forest biomass. EP A believes that these revisions to Permit Condition X.G. will limit the facility to the types of biomass fuels that are generally considered to have lower net atmospheric contributi ons when combusted. In additi on, the record reflects that SPI’s proposed cogeneration projec t is not intended to use timber harvested solely for the purpose of biomass combustion. See Second Recirculated Draft EIR, February 2012, at 2.0-20. Nevertheless, in response to the co mmenter’s concerns, EPA’s revisions to

Permit Condition X.G. are intended to preclude the use of this type of feedstock. 5 Thus

our final determination for SPI Anderson facil ity is that BACT is comprised of three components: (i) combustion of specific biomass feedstocks (per the fuel restrictions in

Permit Condition X.G. ); (ii) energy efficient design, ope ration and maintenance; and (iii) operation as a cogeneration unit. 6

2.6 Comment: CBD commented that EPA must assess whether there are available fuel mixes (other than the assumed fuel mix of 75% mill waste and 25% other material) that would result in shorter carbon debt periods. Ac cording to CBD, requiring the facility to use only mill waste rather than forest-sour ced material could reduce the carbon debt associated with biomass combustion compared to the assumed and permitted fuel mixes, depending on what would happen to the mill wa ste if it were not used as fuel. CBD

stated that EPA should evaluate a mill waste only alternativ e under CAA section 165(a)(2) to determine whether that alte rnative could reduce air quality and other environmental impacts relati ve to the proposed project.

4 If there were an existing market for its mills waste, th en diverting these wastes to the production of energy would have the potential to cause “leakage effects” (i.e., if mill wastes go to a biomass energy facility rather than another type of end-user, then the other end-user would need to make up the shortfall, possibly by increasing forest harvests).

5 The assessment of net atmospheric impacts of combustion of roundwood feedstocks is a more a complex exercise, and EPA is drawing no conclusions at this time with respec t to how the net impact of su ch feedstocks compares to the feedstocks that SPI is authorized to use under the final permit conditions.

6 Specifically, our BACT determination is: 0.36 pounds of CO2e per pound of steam (12 month rolling average); combustion of biomass (as regulated by Condition X.G. “Fuel Restrictions”) at all times except during start up and shutdown (during which time the boiler will burn natura l gas); and energy efficient design and use of good combustion and operational and maintenance practices, including a state of the art stoker bo iler, and operation of the stoker boiler as a cogeneration unit at the facility. AAQIR at 29.Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 13 Response : As explained above, the assessment of the carbon cycle in connection with biogenic feedstocks is a complex evaluati on involving a range of policy and technical issues. Thus, EPA is not prepared at this time to make the type of bright line determinations suggested by the commenter. With the refinements described above,

Permit Condition X.G. of the Final Permit sets forth th e types of biomass fuels that SPI will be allowed to burn in the new boiler. These fuels include: mill residues; untreated urban wood debris; agricultural crops and residu es; forest residues; and non-merchantable

forest biomass. See Final Permit Condition X.G . EPA has no grounds to require that the applicant adhere to a specific fuel use mi xture given the complexi ties associated with comparing the net carbon contribution of the fuel types that are permissible under Permit

Condition X.G

.

2.7 Comment: In a footnote, CBD stated that re liance on the Bioenergy BACT Guidance would be unlawful, referencing comments it made on the Bioenergy BACT guidance,

which CBD attached as Exhibit 1 and inco rporated by reference. CBD’s comments on the Bioenergy BACT Guidance st ate that the Act and EPA’s regulations require a caseby-case analysis of BACT and that th e Bioenergy BACT Guidance “effectively constitutes presumptive BACT” rather than a case-by-case analysis. CBD criticizes the guidance for substituting broad policy judgm ents for the case-by-case analysis required by the statute and regulations. Also, CBD’s comments on the Bioenergy BACT

Guidance criticize EPA’s consideration of net atmospheric contributi ons at Step 4 of a BACT analysis and argue the guidance omits considering other relevant factors in the Step 4 environmental impacts analysis.

Response : CBD’s comments on the Bioenergy BACT Guidance do not appear relevant to the SPI Anderson project. For example, EPA’s Bioenergy BACT Guidance simply “provides an illustration of reasoning that a permitting authority may use” to support a

BACT determination. Id. at 1. The document does not “p rovide a final determination of BACT for a particular source, since such a determination can only be made by individual permitting authorities on case-by-case record in each case.” Id . at 5. Recognizing this, EPA has conducted a case-by-case analysis for the SPI Anderson project. Furthermore, the Bioenergy BACT Guidance explains that it is “interim guidance only” and that the

results of a more “detailed examination of the science and tec hnical issues ... may outweigh many of the considerations menti oned in this guidance.” For the reasons discussed elsewhere in this document, EP A does yet have the capability to conduct a more thorough Step 4 analys is for this facility.

Moreover, we also point out that our propos ed and final BACT determinations do not

conclude that BACT is combustion of bioma ss alone. Our final BACT determination for the SPI PSD permit is: (i) combustion of sp ecific biomass feedstocks (per the fuel

restrictions in Permit Condition X.G. ); (ii) energy efficient design, operation and maintenance; and (iii) operat ion as a cogeneration unit. Our proposed and final BACT limit is: 0.36 pounds of CO 2 e per pound of steam (12 month rolling average); combustion of specific biomass feedstocks at all times except during start up and shutdown (duringResponses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 14 which time the boiler will burn natural gas) ; and energy efficient design and use of good combustion and operational and maintenance prac tices, including a state of the art stoker boiler, and operation of the stoker boiler as a cogenerati on unit at the facility. GHG AAQIR at 29.

Finally, as discussed above, parts of the Bioenergy BACT Guidance reflect the legal analysis that the commenter’s request regard ing whether the PSD pr ovisions in the Clean

Air Act afford discretion to examine the ne t atmospheric contribution of using biomass fuels in stationary sources. EPA has conc luded in the Biomass BACT Guidance that the Act’s instructions that permitting authorities consider “environmental impacts” when establishing BACT may be cons trued to afford discretion to examine the net atmospheric contribution of using biomass fuel in the c ontext of a Step 4 of the top-down BACT

process.

2.8 Comment: CBD commented that SPI’s GHG cost e ffectiveness threshold of $7 per ton

of CO 2 is unsubstantiated. CBD stated that SPI does not explain why a comparison of

CO and CO 2 emission factors for external natural gas combustion is an appropriate way of scaling the cost effectiveness of CO 2 controls at a biomass facility. CBD also stated

that CO emissions from biomass tend to be c onsiderably higher than those from natural gas, and that SPI did not explain why it used CO as a basis for comparison, rather than NOx or PM or anything else.

Response : Our BACT determination for the SPI A nderson project did not set or rely on a

cost-effectiveness thresh old, and did not reference SPI’s $7 per ton of CO 2 removed costeffectiveness value. EPA’s evaluation of cost s, at Step 4 of the BACT analysis in the GHG AAQIR, compared the costs of CCS to th e cost of a new cogeneration unit similar to that proposed for the SPI Anderson projec t. In EPA’s cost analysis for CCS, the addition of CCS (including both the capture e quipment and the pipeline) is expected to cost approximately $138,904,547, which would re present a 185% increase in the estimated cogeneration pr oject costs of $75,000,000. See GHG AAQIR at 27-28.

2.9 Comment : CBD also stated that SPI’s GHG cost e ffectiveness threshold of $7 per ton of

CO 2 is too low. CBD stated that a more relevant comparison would be cost of GHG allowance under CA AB32 ($11.48 or $11.10). CBD stated that the EPA has estimated the social cost of carbon as ranging from $12 to $116 per ton. CBD stated that SPI’s $7 per ton cost effectiveness value is below re levant regulatory thre sholds and fails to internalize even a fraction of the potential so cial cost of the facility’s emissions.

Response: As stated above in response to the previous comment, EPA’s BACT analysis in the GHG AAQIR did not rely on SPI’s cost effectiveness threshold of $7 per ton of CO2 removed. Instead, EPA compared the costs of CCS to the cost of a new cogeneration unit similar to that pro posed for the SPI Anderson project. See GHG AAQIR at 27-28.Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 15 2.10 Comment : CBD commented that EPA must identify, or require SPI to identify, a wellsubstantiated, realistic cost-effectiveness threshold and then evaluate the cost

effectiveness of alternative biomass fuels w ith lower life cycle emissions (i.e., shorter carbon debt periods) against this threshold and require the facility’s fuel supply to comply with the lowest-emitting cost effectiveness mix.

Response: EPA disagrees with the comment, and we believe our approach of comparing the costs of CCS to a new cogeneration unit similar to that proposed for the SPI Anderson project is appropriate and consistent with the approach taken in the context of other PSD permitting actions, as well as a decision by the Environmental Appeals Board (EAB). We note that CBD did not provide a statutory or regul atory basis for its claim that EPA or SPI “must” identify a cost-effectiveness thre shold. In fact, the CAA’s definition of BACT, at section 169(3), requires consider ation of “energy, environmental and economic impacts and other costs,” but does not mandate any particular type of cost analysis. See 42 U.S.C. 7479(3). The EAB has reviewed a similar issue in the context of an EPA Region 9 PSD permit authorizing construction of the Palmdale Hybrid Power Project, a 570 MW hybrid solar–natural gas power plant. In that case, EPA Re gion 9 had applied a cost comparison approach to evaluate CCS, and similar to Region 9’s consideration of CCS for the SPI Anderson project, compared the estimated annualiz ed capital costs for the entire project ($35 mill ion) to the estimated annua l capital costs for CCS ($78 million) and eliminated CCS as economically infeasible. In re City of Palmdale , PSD Appeal No. 11-07, slip op. (September 17, 2012) ( Palmdale ). In Palmdale , the EAB recognized the that “economic impacts” anal ysis required by the BACT provisions does

not mandate the use of the cost-effectiveness approach that permit issuers have typically applied based on EPA guidance. Palmdale , slip op. at 54, n.39 (“Th is general approach is based on EPA guidance, see NSR Manual at B.3, and is not mandated by statute or regulation, see generally 42 U.S.C. §7479(3) (BACT definition); 40 CFR 52.21(b)(12)(same).”). The EAB then concl uded that the Region’s comparison of costs of the entire project to co sts of CCS “was neither inappropriate nor inadmissible.” Id. at

55.

For these reasons and consiste nt with the discussion of fu el mixes provided in the responses above, EPA also disagrees with CBD’s comment that it must evaluate the

cost-effectiveness of alternative biomass fuel s against a cost-effectiveness threshold and restrict fuel use to the lowest-emitting cost-effective mix.

2.11 Comment: CBD commented that SPI and EPA also failed to evaluate the availability and cost-effectiveness of pre-combustion CO 2 removal technology in combination with a biomass gasification system. CBD stated that SPI rejected gasification on the

unsubstantiated assertion that “gasification would amount to redefining the source,” but did not provide evidence that gasification would not meet SPI’s operational criteria. According to CBD, a gasification unit would use the same biomass fuels and the boiler is already designed to run on natural gas duri ng startup and shutdown. CBD stated thatResponses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 16 EPA cannot reject pre-combustion CO 2 removal options without first demonstrating that gasification would improperl y redefine the source.

Response: EPA agrees with the comment and has revised and supplemented its BACT analysis to include pre-combustion CO 2 removal and CCS as a control option at Step 1. See Supplemental GHG BACT Analysis for Pre-Combustion CCS . Hence, EPA is no longer excluding this control option at Step 1 based on a re defining the source rationale. EPA’s revised BACT analysis includes pre-combustion CO 2 removal and CCS, but, as explained in our supplemental analysis, this co ntrol option is eliminated at Step 4 based on its cost. In particular, we note that the cost of pre-combustion CO 2 removal and CCS will involve expenditures for transportation a nd sequestration similar to those associated with post-combustion CO 2 removal. These aspects of CO 2 removal and CCS, whether pre-combustion or post-combustion, woul d require the construction of a CO 2 pipeline that

would exceed 175 miles because the SPI Ande rson facility is not located near any commercially available geologic storage sites. Therefore, similar to our analysis of postcombustion CO 2 removal and CCS, we have determined that the costs of pre-combustion

CO 2 removal and CCS are disproportionately high (e.g., $109 million for the pipeline alone) when compared to the costs of the rest of the project (approximately $75 million).

2.12 Comment: CBD commented that SPI’s BACT anal ysis and EPA’s AAQIR rejected CCS based on excessive costs based in part on assumptions related to construction of a pipeline for use in enhanced oil recovery (EOR). CBD stat ed that EOR is not the only possible way to sequester CO 2 , and that CO 2 can also be injected into local geological formations under proper condi tions. CBD stated that Ca lifornia Department of Conservation maps show that the facility is located atop sedimentary basins with historic and active gas fields that are poten tial injection zones for captured CO 2

. 7 CBD stated that a search performed on the NATCARB GIS view er for the sedimentary basin within a 10- mile radius of Anderson, California show s saline formation sequestration capacity estimates ranging from 370 million metric tonne s to nearly 5,100 million metric tonnes. 8

CBD also stated that SPI must provide, and EPA must evaluate , information pertaining to the technological and economi c feasibility of local CO 2 storage.

Response : EPA does not disagree with the comment er’s suggestion that local geological formations may provide potential sites for injection of captured CO 2 . For example, EPA’s proposed “New Source Performance Standards for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New Stationary Sources: Electric Generating Units” (NSPS for GHGs from EGUs) includes the following statement: “Geologic storage potential for CO 2 is widespread and available throughout the U.S. and Canada. Es timates based on DOE studies indicate that areas of the U.S. with appropriate geology have a storage potential of 2,300 billion to more than 20,000 billion metric tons of CO 2 in deep saline formations, oil and gas

7 California Department of Conservation, Oil, Gas & Geothermal Fields in California (2001), available at http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/petroleum/doc uments/MAP_OIL_GAS _GEOTHERMAL.PDF and see online docket # IV.49N CBD Public Comments - Ex 14 (MAP_OIL_GAS_GEOTHERMAL)

8 http://www.natcar bviewer.com/Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 17 reservoirs and un-mineable coal seams.” 79 FR 1473 (January 8, 2014). 9 However, with regard to this permitting action, it does not app ear that, at this time, any such potential

sites have been characterized to en sure safe and secure storage of CO 2 . Regarding the

commenter’s reference to the NATCARB GIS View er, we note that this tool provides a high-level overview of CO2 geologic storage potential and a starti ng point for further investigation, and is not intended to serve as a substitute for site specific assessment and testing. 10 Thus, availability of potential sequestration sites is just an initial step in a complex process to identify actual suitabili ty of such sites for long-term storage. 11 As EPA’s proposed NSPS for GHG from EGUs al so noted, “[E]ach potential geologic sequestration site must undergo appropriate site characterization to en sure that the site can safely and securely store CO 2 .” Id

.

It should be noted that typical CCS projects are expected to inject CO 2 into deep underground rock formations that are often a mile or more beneath the surface. 12 These formations consist of porous rock that would hold the CO 2 and are covered by impermeable, non-porous layers of rock that trap the CO 2

. 13 Thus, assessment of potential geologic sequestration sites to determine their suitability for long-term storage is a complex process involving many technical considerations. Before using a geologic

formation for CO 2 injection and storage for a co mmercial-scale operation, further investigation would first involve finding a suit able site (exploration) , then a study of the site and subsequent monito ring (site characterization). 14 The explorati on phase involves three stages site screening, site selecti on, and initial site characterization. The exploration phase lays the groundwor k to ensure safe storage of CO 2 and compliance with the Underground Injection C ontrol (UIC) program requirements. 15

9 The California Geological Survey has identified more than 100 geologic storage sites in California that “collectively underlie approximately 33 pe rcent of the state.” Background Repo rt for the California Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Review Panel, California Institute for Energy and Environment, December 31, 2010, at Appendix F, “Review of Saline Formation Storage Potential in California,” at p. 9-4; available at http://ucciee.org/downloads/Background_Reports_for_CCS.pdf

. 10 See ‘About Atlas’ at http://www.natcarbviewer.com/

11 In fact, assessment of the suitability of potential geologic storage sites is just one part of evaluating the storage aspects of CCS (and storage is just one part of CCS, which also involves capture and transport). As the Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage summarized, “CO2 storage projects are multi-phase operations that include: (1) a pre-injection phase of site characterizati on that involves geologic evaluation of site suitability, modeling to predict the extent of the CO2 plume and pressu re front, and identification and plugging of artificial penetrations that could serve as conduits for fluid moveme nt; (2) an operational phase during which CO2 is injected and the injection well is tested, ground water geochemistry is monitored, and the CO2 plume is tracked; and (3) a post-injection phase of site monitoring to verify that the project poses no risk to underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) and site closure.” Report of the Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage, August 2010, at 38.

12 See http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ccs/index.html.

13 Id.

14 See NETL and U.S. DOE’s Best Practices for Site Screening, Site Selection, and Initial Characterization for Storage of CO2 in Deep Geologic Formations (2013 Revised Edition) at ES-2

. 15 Id.Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 18 The site characterization phase involves classifying the storage resources as “Appraised but Sub-Commercial” and builds on the previo us studies to develop a more detailed

characterization of the subsur face similar to what would be expected of a commercial project. The large-scale detailed character ization conducted at a site could include: (1) additional drilling and testing of wells to understand the geomechanic al and geochemical properties of the rocks, as well as testing of stimulation techniques to enhance injectivity; (2) additional 2D/3D seismic data should be acquired, processed, and integrated with rock property data from existing and new wells drilled; (3) subsurface mapping to further

understand the subsurface architecture of the in jection area, define the areal extent of a project site, validate contingent storage resource estimates for future financial investments, establish conti nuity of injection zones and confining zone, and identify potential leakage issues that could be create d by regional small-scale reservoir faulting or juxtaposition of injectio n or confining zone(s). 16 Additionally, DOE best practices guidance states that the costs associated with detailed site characterization in this phase are expensive and should be conducted only for sites being planned for commercial project status. 17

One important reason for careful initial site ch aracterization for geolog ic sequestration of

CO 2 is to ensure that sequestration will no t threaten actual or potential underground sources of drinking water (USDWs). In 2010, pursuant to its author ity to protect USDWs in the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA promulga ted regulations regard ing the injection of CO2 into geologic formations. 75 FR 77229-77282 (December 10, 2010). The new regulations, established a ne w class of well, Class VI, and technical criteria for permitting, geologic site characterization, ar ea of review (AoR), well construction, operation, integrity testing, m onitoring, plugging and post-cl osure care. 75 FR 77230, 77235. In the preamble to the final rule, EPA summarized the “unique risks” to underground sources of dri nking water (USDWs) from CO 2 sequestration as: “[l]arge

CO 2 injection volumes, the buoyant and mobile nature of the injectate, the potential presence of impurities in the CO 2 stream, and its corrosivity in the presence of water . . . .” 75 FR 77234. EPA also stated, “Pr oper siting, well construction, operation and monitoring of GS [geologic sequestration] proj ects are therefore necessary to reduce the

risk of USDW contamination.” Id.

Although there may be potential for CO 2 storage in local sedimentary basins, EPA is not aware of any geological storage sites near th e SPI Anderson facility that have actually been properly surveyed, charac terized and assessed for CO 2 sequestration. Nor has EPA received any applications for Class VI UIC pe rmits in the vicinity of the SPI Anderson facility. Thus, it is reasonabl e to conclude that there are no commercial entities that are presently willing and able to take CO 2 from SPI Anderson’s projec t and inject it in a local geologic formation. Moreover, there is no precedent for requiring a lumber mill and bioenergy producer like SPI to undertake such a process absent the availability of such a

16 See NETL and U.S. DOE’s Best Practices for Site Screening, Site Selection, and Initial Characterization for Storage of CO2 in Deep Geologic Formations ( 2013 Revised Edition) at 42

. 17 Id.Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 19 commercial entity, given the technical complex ities of assessing potential formations for suitability, constructing wells likely more th an one mile deep, as well as proper operation and monitoring of a geologic storage site, and the relatively small quantities of CO 2 expected from the SPI Anderson project. 18

Finally, it is important to note the economic infeasibility of local CO 2 storage for SPI

Anderson at this time. CCS is a new t echnology, for which high start-up costs can be expected. 19 Although EPA’s proposed NSPS for GHGs from EGUs summarized several examples of CCS demonstration projects, the co sts of those projects were offset in part either by (1) an industrial application such as food processing or s oda ash production; (2) an associated enhanced oil recovery (EOR) operation; or (3) techni cal and/or financial support from the Department of Energy. 20 As noted in EPA’s AAQIR for the SPI Anderson project, the SPI Anderson faci lity is located in a small town, 21 with little associated industry that could purchase its CO 2 , no EOR operations, and no immediate expectation of financia l support from DOE.

Other than asserting that SPI and EPA must assess the technological and economic feasibility of local CO 2 storage, CBD did not appear to question SPI’s cost estimate for the pipeline. We note, however , that it was reasonable to include an assumption in the BACT analysis for the SPI Anderson projec t that CCS would involve a pipeline to a location where EOR operations could be loca ted. EPA’s proposed NSPS for GHGs from EGUs identified availability of EOR as an oppor tunity to reduce the costs of CCS. 79 FR

1478. 22 In this case, SPI’s estimate for a 175 mile pipeline was for a “hypothetical” EOR operation in Brentwood, California, which is 25 miles west of Stockton, and not for a pipeline to an actual EOR operation. Most EOR operations in Calif ornia are located in the southern part of the San Joaquin Valley, even further from Anderson, which is located in the northern part of the state. Thus, it is would be reasonable to assume that a CO 2 pipeline would be at least 175 miles in leng th and possibly even longer to reach an EOR operation in California, in which case the co sts associated with CCS for this project

18 The SPI Anderson project is expected to emit approximately 400,000 tpy of CO 2 ; a single 550 MW coal-fired power plant would emit approximately 5,000,000 metric tons of CO 2 per year. Report of the Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage, August 2010, at 28.

19 See EPA’s proposed NSPS for GHGs from EGUs, describing CCS as an “emerging technology” that involves “unique cost premiums associated with FOAK [first-of-a- kind] plants that mu st demonstrate emerging technologies and iteratively improve upon initial plant designs.” 79 FR 1476.

20 For example, see Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Research, D evelopment, and Demonstr ation at the U. S. Department of Energy (February 10, 2014); 79 FR 1475.

21 According to the 2010 Census, the population of Anderson was 9,932 persons. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0602042.html

22 S ee also 79 FR 1482: “EPA expects that for th e immediate future, captured CO 2 from affected units will be injected underground for geologic sequestration at sites where EOR is occurring. Underground injection is currently the only technology available that can accommodate the large quantities of CO 2 captured at EGUs, and EOR provides an associated econ omic incentive and benefit.”Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 20 would be even higher than those estimated. We note further that a recent survey of CO 2 pipelines in the United States showed that there are no CO 2 pipelines in California. 23

2.13 Comment: One individual expressed the followi ng concern: I am concerned on the BACT determinations specific for greenhouse gas emissions, and the examples in the AAQIR relate to five other faci lities. Each one of these f acilities, three of them, are within the past year. The ot her two are within the past tw o years. Being an engineer myself, I am concerned about having a hard greenhouse gas emission limit for a project where there really isn't a history of making sure the greenhouse gas emission limits even work. I would suggest that instead of a hard limit, that this beco mes something else for the first year or three years to really watch a nd see what happens. What I mean by that is right now having a hard limit with the facili ty when there’s so much other open burning and areas of pollution in this region seem s to discourage having good combustion. It seems like we're trying to encourage open burning because a guy can get a permit over

the counter. (David Brown)

Response: In EPA’s GHG BACT analysis for th e SPI-Anderson facility, EPA considered

recent GHG BACT determinations made at similar facilities according to the RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC), as well as other permit determinations not included in the RBLC. ( See Table 5-8 of GHG AAQIR at 27.) Based on our review of

the available control methods for GHG emissi ons from biomass-fired boilers and other pertinent information used to evaluate th e feasibility of these methods, we have concluded that BACT for the proposed biom ass-fired stoker bo iler is 0.36 pounds of

CO 2 e per pound of steam (12-month rolling averag e basis), (2) combustion of biomass at all times except during periods of startup, s hutdown and flame stabilization (in which natural gas fuel is allowed to be combuste d), and (3) energy efficient design and use of good combustion and operational and maintenan ce practices as described in SPI’s permit application and subsequent submissions to th e EPA, which include, but are not limited to, (i) construction and operation of an efficient, state-of-the-art, air- cooled, reciprocating stepgrate stoker boiler that ensures good co mbustion; (ii) operation of the boiler as a cogeneration unit at the Facility; and (iii) operation and maintenance of the boiler in

accordance with the manufacturer’s recommen dations. We presume the commenter is referring to the proposed GHG BACT limit of 0.36 pounds of CO 2 e per pound of steam (12-month rolling average basis). This limit is consistent with other GHG BACT

determinations made at similar facilities . Additionally, the limit was proposed by the SPI-Anderson facility, and the applicant has not proposed a lternate limits. The comment does not include any specific information or facts demonstrating that EPA’s analysis or

determination was incorrect or flawed. Ther efore, the PSD permit and our evaluation for this project has not changed.

23 U.S. Department of Energy, “An Assessment of the Co mmercial Availability of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Technologies as of June 2009,” (June 2009) PNNL-18540 at 14, Fig. 2.Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 21 2.14 Comment: One individual provided the following comment: [R]esearch says that a 50 MW plant produces 650,000 tons of CO 2 /year. That equals 13,200 per MW. So, 4MW=52,800 tons/year and 31MW= 409,200 tons/year, or an ~87% increase. Since the permit from the Region would allow both plan ts to operate, combined emissions equal 462,000 tons per year. Not something to be tacked on after a final permit has been

issued. (Heidi Strand of Citizens for Clean Ai r/ Marily Woodhouse of Battle Creek Alliance)

Response: The comment discusses GHG emissions fr om “both plants.” We understand the commenter’s reference to “both plants” to mean the proposed new equipment (i.e., proposed 31 MW cogeneration unit employi ng a 468 MMBtu/hr biomass-fired boiler, and emergency engine unit), and the existing equipment currently at the facility (i.e., existing 4 MW cogeneration unit employing a 116.4 MMBtu/hr biomass-fired biomass boiler, and switchgear and associated equi pment). The commenter’s reference to emissions being “tacked on” is unclear. To the extent the commenter is referring to the

inclusion of CO 2 emissions limits in this permit, we note that EPA’s February 2013

Permit relied on the Biomass Deferral Rule and did not include BACT determinations or include permit conditions regulating GHG emissi ons. In July 2013, the Court of Appeals

for the District of Columbia vacated the Deferral Rule. Center for Biological Diversity v.
EPA, 722 F.23d 401 (D.C. Cir. 2013). Although the D.C. Circuit has not issued the mandate in its decision, SPI requested th at EPA review mate rials related to GHG emissions from the proposed new equipment and include appropriate emission limits and related requirements in the proposed pe rmit modification. EPA’s 2013 AAQIR for the Revised Proposed Permit provides additional information regarding the reasons for reviewing GHG emissions and including CO 2 emission limits in the permit.

The comment has not provided any specific in formation or facts demonstrating that EPA’s analysis or determination was incorrec t or flawed. Thus, EPA has not changed its evaluation or the PSD permit as a result of the comment.

2.15 Comment: One individual provided the follo wing comment: [W]ithout knowing the outcome of the legal [proceeding]/decision from the court of appeals, we have no real way of knowing exactly what will or will not be allowed. [W]hat is the truth? (Elray Kleis)

Response: In July 2013, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated the

Deferral Rule. Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA, 722 F.23d 401 (D.C. Cir. 2013). Although the D.C. Circuit has not issued the mandate in its decisi on, SPI requested that

EPA review materials related to GHG emissi ons from the proposed new equipment and include appropriate emission limits and re lated requirements in the proposed permit modification. EPA’s AAQIR for the proposed permit provides additional information regarding the reasons for reviewing GHG em issions and including CO2 emission limits in the permit.Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 22 The comment does not include any specific in formation or facts demonstrating that EPA’s analysis or determination was incorr ect or flawed. Therefore, EPA has not changed its evaluation or the PSD pe rmit as a result of the comment.Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 23 

### 3. C RITERIA 

### P OLLUTANT 

### BACT C OMMENTS

3.1 Comment: Include “Post Final Deci sion Material Not Included in the Administrative Record”; include my original comments. Include a copy of EPA’s March 6, 2013 email response to Ms. Celeste Draisner. (Celeste Draisner)

Response: The commenter submitted comments on October 17, 2012 during the comment period for the 2012 Proposed Permit; however, the commenter submitted these comments to an EPA address that was not specif ied in the public notice for that action.

Because these comments were not submitted in accordance with EPA’s public notice for the 2012 Proposed Permit, they were not addressed in EPA’s responses to public comments document that issued with the final permit on February 19, 2013 (2013 RTC),

and were not included in the administrative record for the 2013 Permit. However, EPA addressed these comments in a March 6, 2013 letter that was mailed directly to commenter. EPA is including the comment er’s comments submitted on October 17, 2012, and EPA’s March 6, 2013 responses as part of the administrative record for this action, and is also including the comments and EPA’s responses to them below, at comments 3.2 through 3.11; 4.1 and 4.2; and 9.1

3.2 Comment: I am disappointed in EPA Region 9’s decision to not address BACT (Best Available Control Technology) seriously. What specific and actual examples of filtering technology are being provided by EPA Region 9 in their “fact sheet” ? SPI-Anderson Fact Sheet AAQIR/ Fact Sheet, available at: http://epa.gov/region9/air/permit/r9-permitsissued.html#pubcomment

. (Celeste Draisner)

Response: To the extent of the commenter’s refere nce to “filtering technology” refers to the application of BACT for PM emissi ons from the project, the 2012 AAQIR and 2013 RTC contained a detailed BACT analysis for particulate emissions from each emissions unit in the project. Pages 19-22 of the 2012 AAQIR discuss BACT for PM, PM 10 and

PM 2.5 from the stoker boiler in the Project . Pages 24-26 of the 2012 AAQIR discuss BACT for PM, PM 10 and PM 2.5 from the cooling tower. Pages 51-53 of the 2013 RTC discusses BACT for PM, PM 10 and PM 2.5 from the emergency engine. We concluded that

BACT for PM emissions from the stoker boi ler is 0.02 lb/MMBtu (3-hour block average) using a multiclone and ESP during normal operation. This emissions limit is in conjunction with a 9.4 lb/hr (3-hour block average) mass emission rate limit during normal operations. BACT during periods of startup and shutdown, during which the ESP will be required to be in operati on, is 8.93 lbs/hr (24-hour average).

3.3 Comment: Are wet electrostatic precipitators (W ESP or wet ESP) being considered for use at the proposed Anderson manufacturing f acility? A WESP operates with saturated air streams (100% relative humidity). WESPs are commonly used to remove liquid droplets such as sulfuric acid mist from indus trial process gas streams. The WESP is alsoResponses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 24 commonly used where the gases are high in moisture content, contain combustible particulate, or have particle s that are sticky in nature. (Celeste Draisner)

Response: The 2012 AAQIR discusses BACT for PM, PM 10 and PM 2.5 from the stoker boiler on pages 19-22: “[t]he applicant has proposed a total PM, including filterable and condensable particulate, emission limit of 0.02 lb/MMBtu (3-hour block average) utilizing an ESP preceded by a multiclone. SPI has proposed the most stringent PM,

PM 10 , and PM 2.5 emission limit of biomass stoker boilers that have been constructed.” 2012 AAQIR at 20. We concluded that BACT for PM, PM 10 and PM 2.5 for the stoker boiler to perform this operation is 0.02 lb /MMBtu (3-hour block average) using a

multiclone and ESP. See 2012 AAQIR at 21.

Section 169(3) of the Clean Air Act defines BACT as an emission limitation, not a control technology. Therefore, our BACT analysis for PM, PM 10 , PM 2.5 does not differentiate between wet ESP and ESP. We will note, however, that wet ESPs are not typically used for this type of application. As noted by yourcomment, wet ESPs are used in situations for which dry ESPs are not suite d, such as when the material to be collected is wet, sticky, flammable, explosiv e, or has a high resistivity.

3.4 Comment: The preferred and most modern type of WESP is a downflow tubular design. This design allows the collected moisture and particulate to form a slurry that helps to keep the collection surfaces clean. Will the downflow tubular design be utilized here? (Celeste Draisner)

Response: As we explained in our response to comment 3.2 above, SPI proposed the most stringent PM, PM 10 , and PM 2.5 emission limit for biomass stoker boilers that have been constructed, and EPA concluded that BACT for PM, PM 10 and PM 2.5 for the stoker boiler is 0.02 lb/MMBtu (3-hour block averag e) using a multiclone and ESP. Section 169(3) of the Act defines BACT as an em ission limitation, not a control technology. Therefore, our BACT analyses for PM, PM 10 , PM 2.5 did not differentiate between different types of ESP technologies.

3.5 Comment: Plate style and upflow design WESPs ar e very unreliable and should not be used in applications where particulate is st icky in nature. Are the particulates at the proposed Anderson facility of a type that coul d be effectively filtered out by a plate style and unflow design? (Celeste Draisner)

Response: See EPA’s responses to comments 3.3 and 3.4 above.

3.6 Comment: ESPs continue to be excellent de vices for control of many industrial particulate emissions, including smoke from el ectricity-generating utilities (coal and oil fired), salt cake collection from black liquor boilers in pulp mills, and catalyst collection from fluidized bed catalytic cracker units in o il refineries to name a few. These devices treat gas volumes from several hundred thousand ACFM to 2.5 million ACFM (1,180Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 25 m3/s) in the largest coal-fired boiler applicati ons. For a coal-fired boiler the collection is usually performed downstream of the air preheater at about 160°C (320°F) which provides optimal resistivity of th e coal-ash particles. For some difficult applications with

low-sulfur fuel hot-end units have been built operating above 371°C (700°F). (Celeste Draisner)

Response: EPA appreciates the additional info rmation. We do not interpret this comment as requesting a response.

3.7 Comment: The original parallel plate–weight ed wire design has evolved as more efficient (and robust) discharge electrode designs were developed, today focusing on rigid (pipe-frame) discharge electrodes to which many sharpened spikes are attached (barbed wire), maximizing corona produc tion. Transformer-rectifier systems apply voltages of 50 – 100 kV at relati vely high current densities. Modern controls, such as an automation voltage control, minimize electr ic sparking and preven t arcing (sparks are quenched within 1/2 cycle of the TR set) , avoiding damage to the components. Automatic plate-rapping systems and hopper-e vacuation systems remove the collected particulate matter while on line, theoretically al lowing ESPs to stay in operation for years at a time. Which of these BACT methods, pr ocedures and determinations have you, as the EPA Region 9 Presiding Officer, considered? (Celeste Draisner)

Response: See EPA’s responses to comments 3.3 and 3.4 above.

3.8 Comment: Please provide and describe what te sts have been conducted to determine resistivity under the previous Sierra Pacifi c permit and how that would apply to this “modified PSD permit.” A widely taught concep t to calculate the collection efficiency is the Deutsch model, which assumes infinite re mixing of the particles perpendicular to the gas stream. Was the Deutsch model used here, as part of your agency’s BACT analysis? (Resistivity can be determined as a func tion of temperature in accordance with IEEE

Standard 548. This test is conducted in an air environment containing a specified

moisture concentration. The test is r un as a function of ascending or descending temperature or both. Data are acquired usi ng an average ash layer electric field of 4 kV/cm. Since relatively low applied voltage is used and no sulfuric acid vapor is present in the environment, the values obtained indicate the maximum ash resistivity.) (Celeste Draisner)

Response: Permit Condition X.I.2.c. of the Final Permit requires annual PM 10 performance tests for the new stoker boiler (U1). Permit Condition X.I.1 of the Final Permit specifies the EPA test methods required for these tests. These EPA test methods along with monitoring, recordkeeping, reporti ng requirements in the Final Permit will ensure compliance with our BACT determination for the new stoker boiler. Resistivity may be an indicator of ESP performance; however, the EPA’s permit requires actual emissions testing to directly quantify emissions.Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 26 3.9 Comment: Ideally, BACT considers energy, envir onmental, and economic impact. How specifically are these issues be ing addressed by EPA Region 9? (Celeste Draisner)

Response: The EPA considered energy, environm ental and economic impacts in its BACT analyses for each emissions unit included in the Project. See 2012 AAQIR at 15- 16, 18, 21 and 26; see also 2013 RTC at 15, 33, 49 and 51-53 (i.e., EPA’s responses to comments 18, 53, and 87, and the Appendix to the 2013 RTC). See also, GHG AAQIR.

3.10 Comment: BACT can be add-on control equipmen t or modification of the production processes or methods. Were any add-ons to the previous factory, under this permit, looked at? Were any add-ons used? (Celeste Draisner)

Response: The Project involves the construction of new equipment at the existing SPIAnderson facility, including a new stoker boiler equipped wi th a selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) system to control NO x emissions and a multiclone and ESP to control PM emissions. The Project also includes a new cooling tower, and a new emergency engine. The PSD requirements for BACT apply to the Project for NO x , CO, PM, PM 10 , and PM 2.5 . (Table 6-1 of the 2012 AAQIR.)

The facility’s existing equipment is permitted by the Shasta County AQMD. Our BACT analyses for NO x , CO, and PM for the Project considered many recent BACT determinations made by different state agenci es nationwide. We consider these recent

BACT determinations to be more relevant to our PSD permit than the permits issued by Shasta County Air Quality Management District for the existing equipment. Please refer to Tables 7.1-1, 7.1-3 and 7.1-5 of the 2012 AAQ IR for comparisons of similar units for various pollutants. In add ition, please see our response to comments 16 and 54 of the

2013 RTC document.

3.11 Comment: BACT includes fuel cleaning or tr eatment and innovative fuel combustion techniques. BACT may also be a design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard, if imposition of an emissions standa rd is infeasible. Were any of the above items and conditions considered in your BACT determination? (Celeste Draisner)

Response: The EPA found that emissions standard s were feasible. The following is a summary of the BACT determinations a nd emissions standards imposed through the

Final Permit:

 For U1 (boiler), emissions limitations for NO x , CO, PM, PM 10 , PM 2.5 are located

in Sections X.C. and X.D.

 For U2 (cooling tower), emissions limitations for PM, PM 10 are located in Section

X.E. Also, Permit Condition X.F.14. of the final permit states that the drift rate of the cooling tower shall not exceed 0.0005%. The cooling tower is not expected to

have measurable emissions of CO or NO x
.Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 27  For U3 (emergency engine), emissions limitations for NO x , CO, PM and PM 10 are located in Section X.E

.

3.12 Comment: A commenter provided genera l information on PM and NO x controls. This information appears to have come from Chapter 1.6 of EPA’s AP-42 Manual for Wood

Residue Combustion in Boilers. The commente r stated that EPA should consider BACT more carefully. (Celeste Draisner)

Response: The 2012 AAQIR contains our top-down BACT analyses for PM and NO x emissions. Additionally, our 2013 RTC for the 2013 Permit responded to all comments regarding these analyses. The comment ha s not provided any specific information or facts demonstrating that EPA’s analysis or de termination was incorrect or flawed. Thus, we have not changed our evaluation or the permit as a result of the comment.

3.13 Comment: [W]hat guarantee do we have that best available c ontrol technology is sufficient and what does “the greatest extent [feasible]” actually mean? (Elray Kleis)

Response: A BACT analysis is performed on a cas e-by-case basis, and considers energy, environmental, and economic impacts in de termining the maximum degree of reduction achievable for a proposed new facility or m odification at an existing facility. EPA Region 9 performed a BACT analysis in accordance 40 CFR 52.21 and EPA’s relevant BACT guidance and policies for the proposed modification of the SPI-Anderson facility, which consists of a proposed 468 MMBtu/ hr biomass-fired boiler, 256 hp (190 kW) natural gas-fired emergency engine, and three- cell cooling tower. These BACT analyses are contained in the 2012 AAQIR and GHG AAQIR documents. For the proposed emission units, each BACT determination specifies an emissions limitation that reflects the maximum degree of reduction achievable fo r each applicable pollutant, or require the use of design, alternat ive equipment, work practices or operational standards to reduce emissions to the maximum extent. As required in 40 CFR 52.21 and the Clean Air Act,

these BACT determinations are at least as stringent as any app licable standard of performance under 40 CFR Parts 60 (New Source Performance Standards), or 61 or 63 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants). Thus, the control technologies and measures determined as a result of the BACT analysis for minimizing emissions for the proposed equipment reflec t emissions reductions achievable at the facility to the greatest extent feasible.

3.14 Comment: So I think a good enough proposal woul d be 10-mile radius where they compensate the surrounding areas with stoves or wood stoves or whatever it may be. I think it’s a lot of pollution and it should maybe be taken down a notch. See if this is the best technology available that we can get to bring those ambient air numbers down if there's nothing else available. I mean, th e technology -- we don’t know what the best technology is. I guess that’s kind of the ongoing factor. (Antonio Damian, Jr.)Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 28 Response: The commenter requests that EPA consid er requiring SPI to provide stoves or wood stoves to areas surrounding the facility w ithin a 10 mile radius as compensation forthe air pollution increases resulting from the proposed new equipment at the SPIAnderson facility. The Clean Air Act and EP A’s PSD regulations provide authority for permitting agencies to impose BACT in PSD permits through a case-by-case analysis. The commenter’s proposal for wood stove purchases is not consistent with the concept of BACT as set forth in the Act and EPA’s regul ations. Pursuant to the Clean Air Act and EPA’s PSD regulations, BACT is an emissions limitation (i ncluding a visible emission standard) based on the maximum degree of re duction for each applicable NSR pollutant that would be emitted from any proposed new facility or major modification at an existing major facility that EPA determines is achievable taking into account energy, environmental, and economic impacts and other costs. ( See Section 169(3) of the Clean Air Act; 40 CFR 52.21(b)(12).) BACT is a pplied to the proposed pollutant-emitting equipment within a facility that is s ubject to the PSD permitting program. ( See 40 CFR 52.21(j).) Thus, we have not changed our eval uation or the PSD permit as a result of the

comment.

3.15 Comment: I realize that -- I'm hoping that it's being built with the best available control technology. I think that is important consid ering the air basin that we have here. (David Craft)

Response: EPA Region 9 performed a BACT anal ysis in accordance 40 CFR 52.21 and EPA’s relevant BACT guidance and policies for the proposed modification of the SPIAnderson facility, which consists of a pr oposed 468 MMBtu/hr biomass-fired boiler, 256 hp (190 kW) natural gas-fired emergency engi ne, and three-cell coo ling tower. These BACT analyses are contained in the 2012 AAQIR and 2013 AAQIR documents. EPA’s BACT determinations, as well as associat ed monitoring, testing, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, are contained in the Final Permit for the project. Thus, SPI is required to construct the proposed new equi pment in accordance with the terms and requirements in the permit.Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 29 

### 4. A IR 

### Q UALITY 

### A NALYSIS 

### C OMMENTS

4.1 Comment: PSD increment is the amount of polluti on an area is allowed to increase. PSD increments prevent the air quality in clea n areas from deteriorating to the level set by the NAAQS. The NAAQS is a maximum a llowable concentration “ceiling.” A PSD increment, on the other hand, is the maximum a llowable increase in c oncentration that is

allowed to occur above a baseline concentra tion for a pollutant. Please explain how the baseline concentration in Shasta County wa s determined and where our “ceiling” is currently at. What efforts, if any, were cons idered in regards to PSD increments at the proposed Anderson facility? (Celeste Drainser)

Response: Please refer to our response to comment 3.1 for additional information regarding this comment, which was originally submitted to EPA on October 17, 2012.

Section 8 of the 2012 AAQIR discusses air qua lity impacts. Since PSD increment consumption calculations reflect only the ambient pollutant concentration change attributable to increment-affecting emi ssions a determination of the baseline concentrations in Shasta County was not necessary for the project. The increment modeling conducted to determine compliance wi th the PSD increments for the project was conservative because it only considered increment-consuming sources rather than including both increment-consuming and incr ement-expanding sources. Only incrementchanging sources are included when demonstr ating compliance with the PSD increments since the predicted increment consumption concerns only changes occurring since the applicable baseline dates.

PSD increments have been established for some pollutants, but not all. For the Project, only the increments for PM 10 , PM 2.5 and NO 2 pollutants (and appli cable averaging times) apply because there are no established in crements for CO. Section 8.4 of the 2012 AAQIR provides the analysis of Class II increment consum ption resulting from the Project. As explained in section 8.4.1 of the 2012 AAQIR, EPA expects that emissions from the project will exceed “significa nt emission rates” (SERs) for CO, NO 2 , PM 10 and

PM 2.5 ; therefore, we conducted additional analys es of how the Project would affect NO 2 , PM 10 and PM 2.5 PSD increments. In section 8.4.2 of the 2012 AAQIR, we explained that we use “significant impact levels” (SILs) to characterize impacts on air quality – generally, if modeling indicates that a sour ce’s impacts will be below a SIL for a given pollutant, further air quality analysis is us ually not necessary. On the other hand, if modeling indicates that a source’s impacts will exceed a SIL, EPA requires additional modeling that looks at impacts from a project as well as im pacts from nearby sources of air pollution to determine the impact on PSD increments and the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). In the case of this project, EPA determined that the project

could exceed SILs for annual and 1-hour NO 2 and 24-hour PM 2.5 . ( See 2012 AAQIR at 32 and Table 8.4-2.) Section 8.4.3 of the 2012 AAQIR discusses the additional modeling, called a cumulative impact analysis, and EPA’s conclusions.Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 30 For the cumulative analyses, the “ceiling” fo r the applicable pollutant and averaging time are given in the “NAAQS” column of Table 8.4-3. As can be seen for each of the pollutants in Table 8.4-3 the “Cumulative Imp act w/ Background” column is lower than the NAAQS or “ceiling.” Moreover, the “PSD Increment Consumption” column from

Table 8.4-3 shows that the maximum incremen t consumed in the Project area for the applicable pollutant and averaging time is less than its respective PSD increment. As

summarized in section 8.4.3.5 and Table 8.4- 3, EPA found that emissions from the project will not cause or c ontribute to exceedances of the NAAQS or increments.

4.2 Comment: The baseline concentration is defined fo r each pollutant and, in general, is the ambient concentration existing at the time that the first complete PSD permit application affecting the area is submitted. Significant deteri oration is said to occur when the amount of new pollution would exceed the applicable PSD increment. It is important to note, however, that the air qualit y cannot deteriorate beyond the concentration allowed by the applicable NAAQS, even if not all of the PSD increment is consumed. Will significant

deterioration be the case here? How were am bient concentrations determined at this proposed facility? (Celeste Drainser)

Response: Please refer to our response to comment 3.1 for additional information regarding this comment, which was originally submitted to EPA on October 17, 2012.

Section 8 of the 2012 AAQIR discusses air qual ity impacts and EPA’s conclusion that the project will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the applicable NAAQS or applicable PSD increments. For each of the NAAQS analyses, the applicant assessed maximum measured background concentration data from representative monitors in the Project area from 2011. These background c oncentrations and the project’s modeled impacts, included with other nearby modele d source impacts when appropriate, were compared to the NAAQS to demonstrate that the project will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of any applicable NAAQS.

Section 8.2 of the 2012 AAQIR discusses backgr ound ambient air quality. It explains

that the basis for NO 2 background values are ambient air concentrations recorded at a monitor located on Manzanita Avenue in Chico, California which EPA determined was the closest and most representative NO 2 monitor to the site. CO (1-hour and 8-hour) background concentrations were also recorded from the monitor located on Manzanita Avenue in Chico. Section 8.2 of the 2012 AAQI R also explains that the basis for PM 2.5 and PM 10 background values are ambient air concentr ations recorded at monitors located at the Redding Department of Health and Anderson, respectively. Table 8.2-1 of the 2012 AAQIR shows the maximum background c oncentrations in the area and the corresponding NAAQS.

EPA’s 2012 RTC document contains additional information regarding our analysis of

PM 2.5 increments and NAAQS. In particular, with respect to PM 2.5 (annual) standard, we found that adding the project’s predicted PM 2.5 (annual) impact (0.27 ug/m3) to theResponses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 31 existing background concentr ation yields a total PM 2.5 (annual) concen tration of 5.57 ug/m 3 , which is less than [40%] of the PM 2.5 (annual) NAAQS. ( See 2013 RTC at 3-4.)Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 32 

### 5. PSD P ERMIT 

### C OMMENTS

5.1 Comment: In our review of the fuel conditions included in the proposed permit, we do not see a requirement that the fuel be “clean cellulosic biomass” as defined in 40 CFR 241.2. We would request that this condition be included in the proposed permit language [as was done in the PSD permit SJ 85-06 issued by EPA Region 9 for the Rio Bravo Poso facility in Irvine, California (permit amendm ent issued May 15, 2012)]. Testing of urban

wood waste fuel associated with the Oroville POPI facility (attached) has i ndicated that

wood fuel associated with urban wood waste contains high levels of metals including lead and arsenic exceeding levels found in virgin wood materials. Contaminants associated with urban wood waste including plas tics and plastics associated with orchard

waste have resulted in levels of dioxin in fly ash as high as 2600 ppt WHO TEQ. We have attached a report of findings prepared for the Butte County District Attorney. (Hal Thomas, Special Deputy District Attorn ey for Yolo, Glenn, and Butte Counties in California)

Response: While we understand the commenter’s c oncerns regarding emissions from the combustion of contaminated wood debris, we do not believe that the term “clean

cellulosic biomass” will add to or enhance the regulatory basis for the PSD permit, and therefore we are not adding it to the Final Pe rmit. As noted by the commenter, EPA has promulgated a definition of the term “clean ce llulosic biomass” pursu ant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) at 40 CFR 241.2. See also “Identification of Nonhazardous Secondary Materials That Ar e Solid Waste,” 76 FR 15456 (March 21, 2011) (NHSM Rule). EPA’s definition of “cl ean cellulosic biomass” includes “clean construction and demolition wood” and provide s that these fuels are not considered “secondary materials” or “solid wa stes” unless they are discarded. See 40 CFR 241.2. EPA’s NHSM Rule explains that combustion of clean cellulosic biomass is regulated

under section 112 of the Clean Air Act a nd EPA’s National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) regulatio ns at 40 CFR part 63 for major and area sources, whereas the combustion of solid waste is regulated pursuant to Section 129 of

the Clean Air Act and EPA’s New Source Perf ormance Standards (NSPS) regulations at 40 CFR part 60. 24 (76 FR 15545.) Thus, the primary regulator y significance of the term “clean cellulosic biomass” is to distinguish th is type of fuel from “solid waste.” The substantive requirements that would actually regulate combustion of these fuels are found

24 As EPA explained in the NHSM Rule preamble, “The definition of solid waste incineration unit in CAA section 129(g)(6) states that the term ‘‘solid waste’’ will have the meaning established by the Administrator of EPA under RCRA. Today’s rule would establish under RCRA which non- hazardous secondary materials constitute ‘‘solid waste’’ when used as a fuel or an ingredient. This defin ition of ‘‘solid waste’’ is being used by EPA to establish CAA emissions standards for CISWI units (under CAA section 129) and boilers and process heaters (under CAA section 112). . . . If . . . renewable energy sources or biog enic fuels qualify as clean cellulosic biomass, they are an alternative fuel (see the full definition in today’s rule at 40 CFR 241.2) and are not su bject to the section 129 AA standards, but rather, would be subject to the section 112 CAA standards.” 76 FR 15545.Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 33 in either EPA’s section 112 rules applicab le to boilers at 40 CFR part 63, Subparts DDDDD (major sources) 25 and JJJJJJ (area sources), 26 or EPA’s section 111 rules for

commercial and institutional solid waste incinerators, 40 CFR part 60, Subparts CCCC

and DDDD. 27

EPA anticipates that SPI’s new boiler will be subject to the boiler NESHAP for either major or area sources. The Final Permit includes Permit Condition X.G. , Fuel Restrictions, which authorizes SPI to burn untreated wood de bris from urban areas (such as pallets and crates), in addition to agricu ltural crops and residues, mill residues, forest residues, and non-merchantable forest biom ass. The Final Permit’s reference to

“untreated wood debris” falls w ithin the scope of “clean cell ulosic biomass,” as defined at 40 CFR 241.2. As a result, SPI’s new bo iler would be subject to EPA’s part 63 regulations promulgated under CAA section 112 as either a major or area source. The part 63 regulations, which apply independently of the PSD permit, require an owner or operator to keep record s of monthly fuel use, including types of fuel and amounts used.

See 40 CFR 63.7555(d)(1) and 40 CFR 63.11225(c)(2)( iv). If a NHSM is used, the owner or operator must keep records demonstr ating that the material is not a solid waste pursuant to 40 CFR part 241. See 40 CFR 63.7555(d)(2) and 63.11225(c)(2)(ii). EPA’s part 63 regulations also require an owner or operator to s ubmit initial notifications and periodic compliance cer tifications signed by a responsible official regarding fuel types

used and whether solid wastes were combusted. See 40 CFR 63.7545(e)(8)(iii) and 63.7550(c)(5)(vi); 40 CFR 63.11225(a)(4)(v) and (b )(4). Finally, EPA’s part 63 rules require an owner or operator to provide at least 30 days prior no tice if the owner or operator will start or restart combustion of solid waste. See 40 CFR 63.7545(g); 40 CFR 63.11225(f).

5.2 Comment: The proposed permit does not restrict the distribution of fly ash to agricultural lands and both Bu tte and Glenn Counties have been the disposal site for

biomass ash contaminated with metals above hazardous waste levels. Dioxin contaminated fly ash was deposited on agricu ltural lands in the Chico area at levels exceeding the State agricultural soils health standard of 40 ppt. Adequate testing and waste characterization of fly ash generated in the Anderson facility must be required to protect public health as fly ash from Anderson may be disposed of in our counties. As

contaminants in urban wood fuel are effectiv ely unregulated by the proposed permit, it is important to public health and the quality of North Valley soils that biomass fuel be

restricted to clean cellulosic biomass and that distribution of fly as h to agricultural soils be limited to ash that meets applicable st ate and federal standards including metals

25 National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollu tants for Major Sources: In dustrial, Commercial and

Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters , 78 FR 7138 (Jan. 31, 2013); codified at 40 CFR 7480-7560.

26 National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial and

Institutional Boilers , 78 FR 7488 (Feb. 1, 2013); codified at 40 CFR 11193-11226.

27 Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units: Reconsideration and Final Amendments; NonHazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Waste , 78 FR 9117 (Feb. 7, 2013); codified at 40 CFR 60.2000-

60.2265 and 40 CFR 60.2500 – 60.2875.Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 34 standards for agricultural soil amendments. (Hal Thomas, Special Deputy District Attorney for Yolo, Glenn, and Butte Counties in California)

Response: Please see our response rega rding the Final Permit’s fuel restrictions and clean cellulosic biomass in our response to comment 5.1 above. In addition, since the fly ash is solid waste, the Final Permit does not di rectly regulate the dist ribution and fate of fly ash produced from the new biomass boiler.

5.3 Comment: To ensure the health of resident s in Northern California, the Butte Environmental Council (BEC) requests that la nguage be included in proposed permit NO.

SAC 12

‐ 01 to limit feedstock at the Sierra

‐ Pacific Industries Anderson Facility

incinerator to clean cellulosic biomass.

SPI may intend to burn only the timber waste of its own industry. However, the financial incentive to accept urban wood waste from other counties is compelling. This is particularly true for the Bay Area, which has a “zero

‐ waste” policy within its own

borders that does not extend to poorer Northern California counties. BEC has addressed the result of this pract ice at Pacific Oroville Power Industr ies Covanta facility in Oroville,

CA.

High levels of dioxin were found in samples taken from waste ash piles originating from the POPI facility. These elevated levels of dioxin were found in the waste ash and in soil samples taken within a two

‐ mile radius of the POPI facility even when fuel stocks were

found to have as low as 3% contamination of non

‐ wood materials.

Biomass facilities are only requ ired to test for criteria pol lutants. Although Butte County Air Quality Management Dist rict (BCAQMD) did monitor POPI’s burn piles, the percentage of “other materials” in the piles was not found to exceed allowable levels. The facility voluntarily conducted a stack test for toxics in 2009 that also showed toxic

emissions within allowable levels. Neverthele ss, several ash tests, and even soil tests proximal to the facility, showed elevated leve ls of dioxins that exceeded state standards, endangering human and environmental health.

Dioxin from incinerators is carried in the smoke plume to depose on soil, where it can remain for decades. Dioxin from soil bioaccumulates in the fat of food and game

animals. Residents in the Anderson area are raising food animals a nd are therefore at higher risk of exposure to dioxin pollution. The Anderson area is similar to the area surrounding the Oroville POPI plant, which showed in a recent survey (Gary Bess Consultants, 2013) that 12% of survey re spondents raised animals for consumption.

The practice of paying orchardist s and farmers to take waste ash for use as an agricultural

soil amendment necessitates that burn stock is restricted to clean cellulosic biomass. Our experience trying to hold Cova nta accountable for remediati ng their toxic legacy fromResponses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 35 burning other materials has taught us: prevention is the most cost

‐ effective way to

address contamination. (Robyn Di Falco of Butte Environmental Council)

Response: See EPA’s response to comment 5.1 above.

5.4 Comment: No railroad ties or other contamin ated railroad ties should be burned. (John Livingston of Sierra Club Shasta Group)

Response: The PSD permit does not allow the SPI-Ande rson facility to combust railroad

ties or other contaminated material in th e proposed 468 MMBtu/hr biomass-fired boiler.

Permit Condition X.G.1 restricts fuel used in the boile r to the following biomass fuels:

 Untreated wood pallets, crates, dunn age, untreated manufacturing and construction wood debris from urban areas;

 All agricultural crops or residues;

 Mill residues including hog fuel, shavi ngs, sawdust, trimmings, and bark.

 Forest residues including treetops, n on-merchantable sections of the stem, branches, and bark, left on the ground after logging or accumulating as a result of a storm, fire, delimbing, or other similar disturbance.

 Non-merchantable forest biomass cons isting of byproducts and residuals of forest management activities identified to follow all of the following practices;

o Harvested pursuant to an approved ti mber management plan prepared in accordance with the Z'berg-Nejedly Fo rest practice Act of 1973 or other locally or nationally approved plan; and

o Harvested for the purpose of forest fi re fuel reduction or forest stand improvement.

Additionally, Permit Condition X.D.1 allows SPI to use Public Utilities Commission (PUC) quality pipeline natural gas in the boiler during periods of boiler startups,

shutdowns and flame stabilization. EPA has not revised its evaluation or the PSD permit

based on this comment.

5.5 Comment: Page 3, Table 1. In the “Descripti on” column, please change “Maximum annual average heat input of approximately 468 MMBtu/hr and steam generation rate of 250,000 lbs/hr” to “Maximum heat input of approximately 468 MMBtu/hr, a maximum annual average heat input of 425 MMBtu/hr, and a nominal steam generation rate of approximately 250,000 lbs/hr.” (Shane Young of SPI-Anderson)

Response: EPA has made this clarification to the “D escription” in the Final Permit. This change is administrative in nature and does not significantl y change the permit or EPA’s analysis.Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 36 5.6 Comment: Page 4, Table 2. In the “Description” column, please change “Biomass-fired with natural gas burners for start-up” to “Biomass-fired.” The existing boiler does not include natural gas-fired burners. (Shane Young of SPI-Anderson)

Response: EPA has made this clarification to the “D escription” in the Final Permit. This change is administrative in nature and does not significantl y change the permit or EPA’s analysis.

5.7 Comment: Page 4, Table 2. In the “Description” column, please change “Equipped with one 30,400 ft3, 2 hog fuel bins, 2 wood chip fu el bins” to “Equipped with one 30,400 ft3 fuel storage bin, 2 hog fuel bi ns, 2 wood chip fuel bins.” (SPI-Anderson)

Response: EPA has made this clarification to the “D escription” in the Final Permit. This change is administrative in nature and does not significantl y change the permit or EPA’s analysis.

5.8 Comment: [Change Permit Condition X.H.7 as follows:] “The Permittee shall submit a CEMS performance test protocol to the EPA no la ter than 30 days prior to the test date to allow review of the test plan and to arrange for an EPA observer to be present at the test. The performance test shall be conducted in accordance with the submitted protocol and any changes required by EPA.”

The term “observer” by itself does not clearly distinguish or limit the type of person that may qualify as an observer. This is understood to be an EPA representative or contracted individual with EPA to provide obser vations and not a 3r d party or non-EPA representative that may interpre t this condition otherwise to en title them to be present at

the test. The addition of “EPA” to observer does not limit or modi fy any other permits for the facility or the respective person(s) that are allowed access by those permits. (Shane Young of SPI-Anderson)

Response: Since the CEMS performance test protocol must be submitted to the agency for review and to arrange an observer, the observer would be an actual employee of EPA or a person who has been given the authority to represent EPA in an official capacity (e.g., an EPA contractor). This would not include a third-party or non-EPA employee. Therefore, we do not agree that th e requested change is necessary.

5.9 Comment: [Permit Condition X.H.7:] As a second comment pertaining to this language, this item (X.H.7) is redundant in its enti rety and duplicative with I.2.D (Performance Test). We suggest removing from the “Monitoring Conditions” section (X.H.7) and leave with the suggested language change above within the “Performance Test” section only (I.2.D) (Shane Young of SPI-Anderson)

Response : EPA agrees that Permit Conditions X.H.7 and X.I.2.d (rather than I.2.D ) are similar. Permit Condition X.H.7 require s SPI to submit a continuous emissionsResponses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 37 monitoring system (CEMS) performance test pr otocol no later than 30 days prior to the test date. This condition applies to CEMS performance tests for NO x , CO and CO 2 emissions since, according to Permit Condition X.H , these are the only pollutants for which SPI is required to install a CEMS. Permit condition X.I.2.d requires SPI to submit a performance test protocol no la ter than 30 days prior to the test date, and applies to all pollutants for which SPI is required to conduct a performance test. According to Permit

Condition X.I.2.a , these pollutants include lead, PM, PM 10 , PM 2.5 , SO 2 and volatile organic compound emissions, as well as NO x , CO and CO 2 emissions. Since Permit

Conditions X.H.7 and X.I.2.d are similar, EPA has revised Permit Condition X.H.7 to state the following: “The Permittee shall s ubmit a CEMS performance test protocol in

accordance with Condition X.I.2.d .” This change is administ rative in nature and does not significantly change the pe rmit or EPA’s analysis.

5.10 Comment: [Change Permit Condition X.H.11as follo ws:] “The Permittee shall furnish the EPA with a written report of the results of performance tests as identified in this

Permit within 60 days of completion.”

This item should limit the requirement to rela te to the PSD permit. Suggest to add the language above to clearly distinguish and identi fy the “tests” required for the facility to

submit to EPA. There are other “tests” that ma y and will be performed at the facility that are not required or related to the PSD permit. The above clarity is intended to minimize confusion. (Shane Young of SPI-Anderson)

Response: EPA has made the suggested change to Permit Condition X.H.7 of the Final Permit. This change is administrative in nature and does not si gnificantly change the permit or EPA’s analysis.

5.11 Comment: [Change Permit Condition I.2.C as follo ws:] “Annual performance tests of

PM 10 , CO, CO 2 , and NO x , shall be conducted at no less than 90% of the facility’s maximum steam production rate of 250,000 lb/hr . The performance test requires for CO, NOx, and CO2 shall be demonstrated using th e annual relative accuracy test auditing of the CEMS, for each applicable pollutant, required in Condition X.H.6.”

It is impractical from a compliance/enforcem ent perspective to require a facility to conduct performance testing at 100 % of design. Typically the re quirement is to be within 10% of the design (or 90% of the maximum heat or design steam for the facility). It is also important to clearly di stinguish that the design st eam production rate is 250,000 lb/hr for performance testing purposes. (Shane Young of SPI-Anderson)

Response: The comment is actually referring to Permit Condition X.I.2.c . EPA has made the suggested change which does not significan tly change the permit or EPA’s analysis.Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 38 5.12 Comment: [Permit Condition J.2 states:] “The Perm ittee shall record th e efficiency of U1 daily. The heat input, as determined from the U1 efficiency and steam production rate, shall not exceed 468 MMBtu/hr on a monthly basis.”

This condition is confusing and uncertain as to the intent. It app ears the intent is to compare the maximum heat rating design valu e (468 MMbtu/hr) with actual heat average on a daily basis, also in mmbtu/hr (24-hr averag e). If this is correct, then “efficiency” is

the incorrect term for this item and desi gn heat would be more appropriate. The calculation of daily boiler heat in MMbtu/hr units is performed by multiplying the

manufacturer ratio of maximum heat desi gn to design steam (468 MMbtu/hr divided by 250,000 lb/hr) by the total steam generated each day (lbs/day), then dividing by 24 (hours). Suggest to strike J.2 above in its entirety and replace with condition below:

The Permittee shall calculat e and record on a daily basis, the average boiler heat (MMbtu/hr). The calculation shall be based on manufacturer ratio of maximum design heat rating to design steam [max de sign (MMbtu/hr) divi ded by design steam (lb/hr)]. The heat input, as determined fr om this, shall not exceed 468 MMbtu/hr on a monthly basis. (Shane Young of SPI-Anderson)

Response: EPA has made the suggested change, based on the comment, to Permit

Condition X.J.2 which does not significantly cha nge the permit or EPA’s analysis.

5.13 Comment: [Change Permit Condition J.3 as follows:] “By the last 30th day of each month, the Permittee shall calc ulate and record the 12-mont h rolling sum of CO, NOx, PM, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions in tpy for U1 for the previous 12 months in accordance

with Condition X.A.1.”

The month of February does not have 30 days and many months have 31. It appears the

intent of the condition is to have the report on the last day of a month. (Shane Young of SPI-Anderson)

Response: EPA has made the suggest ed clarification to Permit Condition X.J.3 of the Final Permit. This change is administrative in nature and does not significantly change the permit or EPA’s analysis.

5.14 Comment: Apply the above comments regarding Permit Condition J.3 to J.4. (Shane Young of SPI-Anderson)

Response: EPA has made the suggest ed clarification to Permit Condition X.J.4 of the Final Permit. This change is administrative in nature and does not significantly change the permit or EPA’s analysis.Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 39 

### 6. GHG AAQIR C OMMENTS

6.1 Comment: Page 10, Table 3-1. In the “Unit” co lumn, please change “Stoker Boiler with Vibrating Grate” to “Stoker Bo iler with Reciprocating Grate.” (Shane Young of SPIAnderson)

Response: This correction has been made in the Final Permit. This change is administrative in nature and does not signifi cantly change the permit or EPA’s analysis.

6.2 Comment: Page 10, Table 3-1. In the “Descrip tion” column, please change “Biomassfired with natural gas burners for start-up a nd shutdown” to “Biomass-fired with natural gas burners for startup, shut down, and flame stabilization.” (Shane Young of SPIAnderson)

Response: This correction has been made in the Final Permit. This change is administrative in nature and does not signifi cantly change the permit or EPA’s analysis.

6.3 Comment: Page 10, Table 3-1. In the “Descripti on” column, please change “Composed of two-cells with an expected water load of 4.24 gallons per minute per square foot” to “Composed of three cells with an expected water load of 4.24 gallons per minute per square foot.” (Shane Young of SPI-Anderson)

Response: This correction has been made in the Final Permit. This change is administrative in nature and does not signifi cantly change the permit or EPA’s analysis.

6.4 Comment: Page 10, Table 3-1. In the “Descrip tion” column, please change “Biomassfired with natural gas burners for start-up” to “Biomass-fired.” The existing boiler does

not include natural gas-fired burners. (Shane Young of SPI-Anderson)

Response: This correction has been made in the Final Permit. This change is administrative in nature and does not signifi cantly change the permit or EPA’s analysis.

6.5 Comment: Page 10, first paragraph, first sentence. Please cha nge “The proposed biomass boiler of the cogeneration unit is expected to have a maxi mum annual average heat input of 468 million British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr), and an annual average heat input of 425 MMBtu/hr” to “The proposed bi omass-fired boiler that is part of the cogeneration unit is expected to have a maximum heat input of 468 million British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr), and an a nnual average heat input of 425 MMBtu/hr.” (Shane Young of SPI-Anderson)

Response: The requested change would not change the PSD permit or EPA’s analysis. As a general matter, we do not revise or re issue the AAQIR for issues that are primarily

administrative or editorial in nature.Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 40 6.6 Comment: Page 30, under “Clean Fuels”, last sent ence. Please change “This control option is technically feasible only for natural gas since alre ady SPI proposes to use this fuel in the engine” to “This control option is technically feasible only for natural gas since SPI already proposes to us e this fuel in the engine.” (Shane Young of SPIAnderson)

Response: EPA notes this requested change. This change is administrative in nature and does not change the PSD permit or EPA’s analysis.Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 41 

### 7. P ROCEDURAL 

### C OMMENTS

7.1 Comment: I am deeply concerned that EPA Re gion 9 (Region) is only providing the public with 30 days to research, write and submit written comments on a multitude of substantial changes. Changes your agency in stituted. Region a lluded to substantial changes in the proposed permit in your Novemb er 8th, 2013 notice. Region’s changes to the permit are of a substantial magnitude a nd warrant a 90 day written comment period after the hearing. I am officially requesti ng the written comment period be extended to 90 days after the December 10th, 2013 public he aring. I [cannot] help but notice this hearing falls in between Thanks giving and Christmas. I think it would benefit everyone involved to extend the comment period. (Heidi Strand of Citizens for Clean Air)

Response: On November 22, 2013, EPA issued a pub lic notice to announce that we were extending the public comment period for an additional 28 days. The public comment period, which commenced on November 8, 2013, ra n for a total of 64 days and ended on January 10, 2014 instead of on December 13, 2013. EPA found no basis for extending the public comment period by an additional 90 days after the December 10, 2013 date of the public hearing.

7.2 Comment: The Appeals Board ruled Region 9 must consider Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and hold a public hearing. (Heidi Strand of Citizens for Clean Air)

Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter’s ch aracterization of the EAB’s decision. The EAB decision, issued on July 18, 2013, orde red EPA Region 9 to reopen the permit proceedings to hold a public hearing, issu e a final permit decision and respond to any

new comments received during the hearing. See In re Sierra Pacific Industries , PSD Appeal Nos. 13-01 to 13-04, slip op. at 67 (EAB July 18, 2013). Additionally, in light of the July 12, 2013 decision from the Court of A ppeals for the Circuit for the District of Columbia vacating EPA’s Biomass Deferral Rule, the Board declined to reach the challenge to the Region’s deci sion to rely on this rule. See Ctr. for Biolog ical Diversity v.

EPA , 722 F.3d 401 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The Board de nied review of all other procedural and substantive challenges that Petitioners ra ised during the appeal process. Therefore,

the Board’s decision did not order EPA Region 9 to consid er or re-consider BACT. However, we note that EPA did consider re levant BACT issues and addressed public

comments related to BACT. See 2012 AAQIR, Section 7; see also, 2012 RTC.

7.3 Comment: One of the major concerns raised in this EAB appeal was Region 9’s attempt to “modify” the expired and out of complian ce 4 MW facility’s permit. Not only do they plan to issue a significantly out-of complian ce 4 MW facility a new 5 year permit without coming into compliance, they want to “modify ” that expired permit to also allow Sierra Pacific to build a new 31 megawa tt biomass facility next door. (Heidi Strand of Citizens for Clean Air)Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 42 Response: When the commenter states “4 MW facility,” we understand the commenter to be referring to the existing 116.4 MMBtu/h r biomass-fired boiler, and associated equipment, currently at the SPI-Anderson faci lity. This unit is cap able of generating 4 MW of electrical power. SPI submitted a PSD application to EPA to construct a new 468

MMBtu/hr biomass-fired boiler and other asso ciated ancillary e quipment at the SPIAnderson facility. The new biomass-fired boi ler will be capable of producing 31 MW of electrical power. Thus, the existing and new equipment will be located at the site of the SPI-Anderson facility.

The commenter refers to a “5 year permit.” We understand the commenter to be referring to the Clean Air Act title V operating permit that was issued to the facility by the Shasta County AQMD. The SPI-Anderson facility cu rrently has both a PSD permit and a title V operating permit for the existing equipment at th e facility. Both permits were issued by the Shasta County AQMD. The PSD permit was issued by the AQMD in 1995 and

authorized the construction of the 116.4 MMB TU/hr biomass-fired boiler and associated equipment. 28 The facility’s initia l title V operating permit wa s issued in July 2000, and renewed in September 2006 and again in Se ptember 2013. The title V operating permit covers the existing equipment at the facility and contains the Clean Air Act requirements that apply to these units, such as the PSD pe rmit. For the proposed new equipment, SPIAnderson has 12 months after the new equi pment commences operation to apply for a title V permit for this equipment.

Regarding the commenter’s concern regardi ng modifying the existing PSD permit issued by the Shasta County AQMD, EPA has addres sed this comment in the 2013 RTC. ( See 2013 RTC at 15, response to comment #15). On July 18, 2013, the EAB responded to all issues appealed to the Board regardi ng the PSD permit modification for the SPIAnderson facility. The EAB ordered the EPA Region 9 to hold a public hearing, declined to reach the challenge to the Region’s decisi on to rely on the Agency’s Biomass Deferral Rule, and denied review of a ll other procedural and substan tive challenges, including the issue regarding categorizing SPI’s proposed boile r as a “major modification” rather than as a “major stationary source.”

7.4 Comment: Deborah [Jordan] has decide d not to address any of th e concerns we raised in our petition to the EAB. Instead, she has scheduled the ordered hearing with every intention of issuing the ‘modifi ed’ permit without addressing the concerns we raised in our petitions and as if no objection existed. (Heidi Strand of Citizens for Clean Air)

Response: EPA believes it has addre ssed the concerns raised in comments from the public and in proceedings before the EAB. See e.g., 2013 RTC, 2014 RTC. 29 The EAB’s

28 EPA stated in previous documents that Shasta County AQMD issued the PSD permit in 1994. This is incorrect. The AQMD received SPI’s PSD application on November 21, 1 994. The District issued the draft permit (as defined in 40 CFR 126.6) and public notice for the permit action for public comment on May 1, 1995. The District issued its final PSD permit on June 15, 1995.

29 EPA’s EAB filings are available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/oa/EAB_Web_Docket.nsf/EAB+Dockets?OpenPageResponses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 43 decision regarding the 2013 Permit held that EPA Region 9 clearly erred in failing to grant the requests for a mandatory public hearing under 40 CFR 124.12(a)(1); however, the EAB denied review of all other pro cedural and substantive challenges made by

Petitioners. See In re Sierra Pacific Industries , PSD Appeal Nos. 13-01 to 13-04, slip op. at 67 (EAB July 18, 2013). The comment doe s not include any specific information or facts demonstrating that EPA’s evaluation or the PSD permit was inco rrect or flawed.

7.5 Comment: A public hearing always fo llows environmental review. (Heidi Strand of Citizens for Clean Air)

Response: The comment suggests that the PSD permit is part of an environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A), which applies to federal agencies. NEPA, however, does not apply to EPA’s actio n in issuing the PSD permit. EPA’s PSD permit action does not trigger NEPA because Congress exempted all Clean Air Act actions from NEPA under the Energy Suppl y and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974. In addition, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) applies to State and local agencies, and not to federal agencies su ch as EPA. We understand that the project was subject to CEQA, as carried out by the Shasta County Resource Management Planning Division.

EPA’s regulations governing the PSD permitting process are the implementing federal regulations at 40 CFR 52.21, and the public participation and decision-making regulations at 40 CFR part 124. Pursuant to these regulations, EPA provided notice to the public on November 8, 2013 to commen ce the public comment period and to announce a public hearing that was sche duled and held on December 10, 2013.

7.6 Comment: Deborah Jordan has chosen to ignore the pleas of Shasta County residents for

an authentic environmental review process under the Clean Air Act. (Heidi Strand of Citizens for Clean Air)

Response: See EPA’s response to comment 7.5 above.

7.7 Comment: Region 9 Air Director Deborah Jordan we nt against the intent of the Appeals Board by still not conducting the permitting process in this case according to EPA’s guidelines.

EPA REGULATIONS Title 40. Protection of Environment Part 70 – State operating permit programs
S/S 70.7 Permit issuance, renewa l, reopenings, and revisions.

(2) Proceedings to reopen and issue a permit sh all follow the same procedures as apply to initial permit issuance and shall effect only the parts of the permit for which cause to reopen exists...Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 44 That procedures for an initial permit it to: ...The Clean Air Act calls for any permit th at undergoes significant changes to undergo a new review process. A new Environmental Revi ew and the review process that follows is required according to the Clean Air Act. [emphasis added] (Heidi Strand of Citizens for Clean Air)

Response: The commenter is referring to the im plementing regulations for a title V operating permit program which are at 40 CF R Part 70. The PSD and title V operating permitting programs are separate and distinct programs.

The PSD program applies to the proposed c onstruction of a new major facility or the major modification of an existing facility that is located in an area that is classified as

attainment or unclassifiable with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA Region 9 is currently the permitting authority for issuing PSD permits in Shasta County, California, which is classified as attainment or unclassifiable with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA Region 9’s action is a PSD permit

modification for the construction of new emi ssion units at the SP I-Anderson facility. EPA’s regulations governing the PSD permitting process are the implementing federal regulations at 40 CFR 52.21, and the public participation and decision-making regulations at 40 CFR Part 124.

The title V operating permitting program applies after a facility or emission unit has begun operation. Shasta County AQMD is th e title V operating permitting authority for facilities in Shasta County. The AQMD ha s an approved title V operating permitting program and has regulations that EPA has approved as meeting the requirements of 40

CFR Part 70.

Therefore, the regulations cited by the co mmenter do not apply to EPA’s action on the PSD permit modification for the SPI-Anderson facility.

7.8 Comment: In order for a meaningful public hear ing, the Region first must conduct a new Environmental Study on the project . This study would include CO 2 emissions. Tacking

Best Available Control Technol ogy on after Region 9’s Air Dir ector has issued the final permit is a slap in the face to the citizens w ho gave so generously of their time to be meaningfully involved in this process. (Heidi Strand of Citizens for Clean Air)

Response: It is unclear what is meant by this comment. EPA Region 9’s action is a PSD permit modification for the construction of new emission units at the SPI-Anderson facility. EPA has prepared the 2012 Propos ed Permit and Revised Proposed Permit for this project in accordance with the imple menting PSD regulations at 40 CFR 52.21, and followed EPA’s public participation regulati ons at 40 CFR Part 124. Moreover, EPA has prepared the 2012 AAQIR and the GHG AAQIR, which is a new analysis of GHG emissions that would result from the proj ect. These documents and other supportingResponses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 45 documentation were made available to the pub lic during the public comment periods held from September 13, 2012 – October 17, 2012, a nd from November 8, 2013 – January 10, 2014. The comment does not include any speci fic information or facts demonstrating that EPA’s evaluation or determination, or th at EPA’s process for carrying out the public participation regulations at 40 CFR Part 124 fo r the PSD permit was incorrect or flawed. The comment does not supply sufficient detail for EPA to respond further.

7.9 Comment: Include any other RTC docum ents that are BACT-related. (Celeste Draisner)

Response: Any public comments and supporting doc uments referenced in EPA’s 2013

RTC and in this 2014 RTC are included in th e administrative record for the permit or referenced appropriately in the applicable document. See RTC 3.1 for additional

information.

7.10 Comment: Please include all public comments. (Celeste Draisner)

Response: All public comments submitted in a ccordance with EPA’s public notice issued on November 8, 2013 and public notice extension issued on November 22, 2013 is in the administrative record for EPA’s action on the PSD permit. See RTC 3.1 for

additional information.

7.11 Comment: February 10th, 2013 is the very earliest they can approve the permit if they

don’t recirculate this one as a draft.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ST ATEMENT (EIS) DATABASE The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Database provides information about EISs prepared by federal agencies, as well as EPA's comments conc erning the EISs. All EISs are filed with EPA, and EPA publishe s a “Notice of Availability” each week in the Federal Register. The “Notice of Availa bility” is the start of the 45-day public comment period for Draft EISs. This notice is also the start of th e 30-day “wait period” for Final EISs, in which agencies are genera lly required to wait 30 days before making a decision on a proposed action. (Heidi Strand of Citizens for Clean Air)

Response: The comment quotes the guidance document NEPA and CEQA: Integrating

State and Federal Environmental Reviews . This document was prepared to help integrate the processes for NEPA, which applies to fe deral agencies, and CEQA which applies to State and local agencies and is essentially the state version of NEPA. The regulations governing the NEPA and CEQA processes do not apply to EPA’s action on the PSD permit. EPA’s regulations governing the PSD permitting process are the implementing federal regulations at 40 CFR 52.21, and the public participation and decision-making regulations at 40 CFR part 124.

Moreover, EPA’s PSD permit action does not trigger NEPA because Congress exempted

all Clean Air Act actions from NEPA under the Energy Supply and EnvironmentalResponses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 46 Coordination Act of 1974. Documents prep ared under NEPA are referred to as Environmental Impact Statements (EIS ) and documents prepared under CEQA are referred to as Environmental Impact Re ports (EIR). We understand from our Environmental Review Office at EPA Region 9 that NEPA was not triggered for this project; thus, no federal agency was required to prepare an EIS. In addition, to our knowledge, we understand that the project wa s subject to CEQA which was carried out by the Shasta County Resource Management Planning Division, and that the County issued a final EIR for the project in 2013.

7.12 Comment: If the PSD permit process is not part of CEQA or NEPA, is it part of the

Clean Air Act? (Heidi Strand of Citizens for Clean Air)

Response: In response to this comment submitted di rectly to EPA staff, we stated in a December 10, 2013 email to the commenter th at the PSD permitting process is a Clean Air Act permitting program. We also stated that general information about the PSD permitting process can be found at the following webpages.

Overview: http://www.epa.gov/region9/air/ permit/psd-pub lic-part.html PSD permitting process: http://www.epa.gov/region9/air/permit/psd-issuing.html Public participation: http://www.epa.gov/region9/air/pe rmit/psd-public-guidelines.html

7.13 Comment: According to Sierra Pacific’s PSD Permit SAC 12-01 signed by Deborah Jordan on Feb 19th, 2013 (page 1): “The PSD perm it previously issued by the District to SPI is still in effect and applies to existi ng equipment at the SPI-Anderson site.” Could you tell me the date Shasta County renewed this permit? (Heidi Strand of Citizens for Clean Air)

Response: To our knowledge, the PSD permit i ssued by Shasta County AQMD (Permit No. 94-PO-18) for the existing equipment cu rrently at the SPI-Anderson facility was issued on June 15, 1995. 30 This permit is currently still in effect.

30 Id. at 28Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 47 

### 8. C OMPLIANCE 

### C OMMENTS

8.1 Comment: The Anderson, California facility has been in “significant non-compliance” of their 4 MW PSD permit for the entire 5 years it was in existence. (Heidi Strand of Citizens for Clean Air)

Response: EPA’s action is a PSD permit modifi cation for the construction of new emission units at the SPI-Anderson facility. EPA Region 9 is currently the permitting authority for issuing PSD permits in Shasta County, California

. EPA’s regulations governing the PSD permitting process are the implementing federal regulations at 40 CFR 52.21, and the public participation and d ecision-making regulati ons at 40 CFR Part

124.

The commenter appears to be referring to the facility’s title V operating permit, which is renewed on a 5-year basis, for the existing biomass-fired boiler that is capable of generating 4 MW of electricity and other associated equipment at the SPI-Anderson facility. Shasta County AQMD is the title V operating permitting aut hority for facilities within Shasta County, California. The AQMD has an approved title V operating permitting program and has regulations that EPA has approved as meeting the title V implementing regulations in 40 CFR Part 70.

The commenter has not provided any specific information or facts demonstrating that EPA’s current action on the PSD permit modifi cation incorrect or flawed. EPA does not have enough information to respond further.

8.2 Comment: The commenter provided information on various SPI facilities located in the cities of Anderson, Arcata, Lincoln, Loyalt on, Quincy, Sonora and Susanville, all of

which are located within California. This information appears to be title V operating permit actions and enforcement and/or complian ce-related actions taken by the applicable local air pollution control agency and/or the Air Resources Board in the state of

California. The commenter indi cates that this information shows a pattern and practice of the agency’s disreg ard for the public good. (Heidi Strand of Citizens for Clean Air)

Response: EPA Region 9’s action is a PSD permit that authorizes th e construction ofnew emission units at the SPI-Anderson facility. The PSD permitting program is a preconstruction program that requ ires a new major facility or major modification at an existing facility obtain a PSD permit before construction. The PSD permit contains BACT emissions and operational limits for the proposed new emission units, and testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and re porting to ensure that the fa cility is complying with these limits. If SPI fails to comply with any condition or term set forth in the PSD permit, the facility may be subject to enfo rcement action pursuant to section 113 of the Clean Air Act. Our enforcement office ensures compliance with environmental requirements and, when warranted, will take civil or criminal enforcement action.Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 48 Shasta County AQMD is the title V operating permitting authority for facilities within Shasta County, California. The AQMD ha s an approved title V operating permitting program and has regulations that EPA has a pproved as meeting the title V implementing regulations in 40 CFR part 70.

8.3 Comment: The Best Available Control Technol ogy (BACT) will allow the operator to collect data on the performan ce of the system. The operato r should not be allowed to collect data that is relied upon by the EPA to ensure permit compliance. The operator should be required to have an independent company do the daily monitoring or a fee should be charged by EPA to allow the Shasta County Air Pollution Agency to do the monitoring. There are many inst ances where owners of the fa cility will choose when to

take the data and when it is not in their best interest to take the data. If the operator is

allowed to take the data then a fee should be paid to th e County to allow them to randomly check for compliance. (John Livingston of Sie rra Club Shasta Group)

Response: EPA finds no basis for requiring conditions in the PSD permit for an independent company to conduct daily monitori ng at the facility, nor for charging the facility fees to allow the SCAQMD to do the monitoring. EPA Region 9’s action is a PSD permit modification for the construction of new emission units at the SPI-Anderson facility. The PSD permit contains BACT emissions and operational limits for the proposed new emission units, as well as te sting, monitoring, record keeping and reporting to ensure that the facility is complying with these limits. If SPI fails to comply with any condition or term set forth in the PSD permit, the facility may be s ubject to enforcement action pursuant to section 113 of the Clean Air Act. Our enforcement office ensures compliance with environmental requirements and, when warranted, will take civil or

criminal enforcement action. We have not revised the permit based on this comment.

8.4 Comment: [W]ho is physically going to be the watchdog, and if they are not maintaining it properly, will it be closed? (Elray Kleis)

Response: EPA Region 9’s action is a PSD permit modification for the construction of

new emission units at the SPI-Anderson f acility. The PSD permit contains BACT emissions and operational limits for the pr oposed new emission units, as well as testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and re porting to ensure that the fa cility is complying with these limits. If SPI fails to comply with any condition or term set forth in the PSD permit, the facility may be subject to enfo rcement action pursuant to section 113 of the Clean Air Act. Our enforcement office ensures compliance with environmental requirements and, when warranted, will take civil or criminal enforcement action.

8.5 Comment: Probably the real reason why I’m here is because we had a brief history that the -- the history of SPI -- the history of SPI when I did my research besides living here, I thought I would do some research online. Wh en I did research online, I got concerned

about a commitment to environmental standard s, past fines and so forth. So I’m hoping that the testing and the accuracy and so forth of the emission control devices will be on aResponses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 49 fairly strict basis, as strict as practical in terms of calibrati on and so forth, and they would seriously consider remote tes ting, so that we know what’s going on off site in real time 24/7. Remote testing and possibly even availa ble third-party oversight, so we know that there’s no -- so the naysayers can say there’s no pollution between the EPA and corporation versus, you know, what’s in the public’s best interest. (David Craft)

Response: The comment does not clearly explain “remote testing” or “third-party oversight,” or how they may be evaluated as compliance options in the PSD permit. The PSD permit contains testing, monitoring, reco rdkeeping and reporting requirements to ensure that the facility is complying with the applicable BACT em issions and operational limits. If SPI fails to comply with any conditi on or term set forth in the PSD permit, the company may be subject to enforcement acti on pursuant to section 113 of the Clean Air Act. Our enforcement office ensures compliance with environmental requirements and, when warranted, will take civil or criminal enforcement action. We have not revised the permit based on this comment.

8.6 Comment: [The] 4 megawatt facility according to ECHO, EPA’s own website, was out of compliance for its entire existence, five-y ear existence, but it wa s there. How do you modify a permit that does not exist? And why is the best available control technology being looked at for a 4 megawatt facility that has ne ver been in compliance? “Significant non-compliance” is what it says on th e ECHO website. (Celeste Draisner)

Response: See EPA’s response to comment 8.2 above.

8.7 Comment: To not redo the environmental study on th is project after such a monumental change is to totally disregard the Environmen tal Justice mandate. The mandate calls for early, prolonged and meaningful involvement of the effected community. The mandate calls for the federal agencies involved to go above and beyond their usual efforts to help and involve the effected community. EPA is the lead agency of this mandate. I

understand it is a mandate and not a law. But for Region 9 to not even consider Environmental Justice and its role in this pe rmitting process after the citizens won in the Appeals Court is disheartening to say the least. (Heidi Strand of Citizens for Clean Air / Marily Woodhouse of Battle Creek Alliance

Response: EPA does not understand the comment er’s reference to “not redo the environmental study on this project after such a monumental change.” EPA prepared a new AAQIR reviewing GHG impacts from the pr oject and made the document available during the public comment period. See GHG AAQIR.

The comment also raises questions about EPA Region 9’s efforts for addressing environmental justice in the process for proposing the PSD permit modification for the SPI-Anderson project. Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority po pulations and Low-Income populations , states in relevant part that “each Federal agency sh all make achieving environmental justice partResponses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 50 of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, dispr oportionately high and

adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policie s, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.” ( See section 1-101 of Exec. Order 12898, 59 Fed. Reg. 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994).) EPA define s environmental justice as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the deve lopment, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. 31 In September 2011, EPA issued Plan EJ 2014 which was generally a strategy to help in tegrate environmental justice into EPA’s activities (e.g., permitting). EPA took a numbe r of other actions to address EJ in permitting, including issuing a Federal Register notice titled EPA Activities to Promote

Environmental Justice in th e Permit Application Process which committed each EPA regional office to develop its own plan to address EJ in permitting with regard to enhanced outreach. ( See 77 Federal Register 38051, June 26, 2012). In response to this, EPA Region 9 issued the EPA Region 9 Regional Implem entation Plan to Promote Meaningful Engagement of Overburdene d Communities in Pe rmitting Activities (May 1, 2013). 32

Prior to issuing the Proposed Permit and Re vised Proposed Permit for public comment in September 2012 and November 2013, we reviewed demographic data for the community surrounding the immediate project area and nearby cities fo r the purpose of addressing environmental justice prior to proposing the permit and issuing public notification

materials in accordance with 40 CFR Part 124. In accordance with the EPA Region 9 Regional Implementation Plan to Promote Meaningful Engagement of Overburdened Communities in Permitting Activities (May 1, 2013), we considered socioeconomic, linguistic isolation, education and other relevant factors to help inform our public outreach activities. For our most recent pe rmit proposal issued for public comment in November 2013, in addition to sending th e public notice by U.S. postal mail and electronic mail to members of the public on our mailing and publishing the public notice

in the Redding Record Searchlight as required by 40 CFR Part 124, we also performed the following outreach activities during the public comment period to assist us in meaningfully involve the affected co mmunity in the permitting process.

 EPA Region 9 granted a reque st to extend the public comment to provide the public

more time to review and comment on EPA’ s action. The public comment period was extended for an additional 28 days.

 EPA Region 9 held a public information meeting prior to the public hearing. The

public information meeting was held at th e same location as the public hearing in Anderson, CA which within the affect community and nearby the SPI-Anderson facility. During the public in formation meeting, EPA presen ted posters on the project

31 See http://www.epa.gov/compliance/environmentaljustice/basics/ejbackground.html

32 See http://www.epa.gov/compliance/environmentaljustice/resources/policy/plan-ej-2014/permitting/2013-05- region-09-plan.pdfResponses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 51 and the permitting process, as well as spoke to members of the public regarding the project and answered questions.

 EPA Region 9 made the permit documents availa ble in local libraries in local libraries,

at the local air permitting agency, and on the EPA Region 9 website.

8.8 Comment: Anderson, located in Shasta County has been officially recognized as an Environmental Justice Community by the Enviro nmental Appeals Board. The need for a

reasonable time to review and comment on the complex proposed changes Region has initiated are especially acute in this case. (Heidi Strand of Citizens for Clean Air)

Response: The commenter requested an extension of the public comment period. EPA granted the commenter’s request and exte nded the public comment period for an additional 28 days. Regarding the commente r’s point regarding environmental justice, we would like to point out the following statement made in the EAB’s July 18, 2013 decision regarding the SPI-Anders on PSD permit modification:

In his Petition, however, Mr. Coleman assert s that Shasta County already has been identified as an environmental justice community by the Board in its decision in Knauf I . Coleman 1st Am. Pet. at 6. Mr. Coleman is mistaken; he has misread the

Board’s decision in Knauf I . In that case, the Board remanded a PSD permit because there was not a sufficient response in the re cord to environmenta l justice concerns raised by a commenter. Knauf I , 8 E.A.D. 121, 175 (EAB 1999). The Board did not make a finding regarding whether an envi ronmental justice community in Shasta County was affected by the permit in that ca se. When the case later returned to the Board, the Board again did not reach the f actual issue of whether an environmental justice community was affected by the permit. See Knauf II , 9 E.A.D. 1 (EAB 2000). Rather, the Board upheld the Region’ s conclusion that no one in Shasta County, including anyone in any environm ental justice communities, would be adversely affected by the permit because “the additional [particulate matter] from the proposed Knauf facility will not exceed the federal NAAQS [National Ambient Air Quality Standards] or PSD increment for [particulate matter].” Id. at 16. The Board expressly refused to consider the petitioners’ challenge to the Region’s demographic analysis of Shasta County. Id . at 17.

In Re Sierra Pacific Industri es (Anderson Processing Facility) , PSD Appeal Nos. 13-01, 13-02, 13-03 & 13-04, Order Remanding in Part and Denying Review in Part, Decided July 18, 2013.Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 52 

### 9. O THER 

### A IR 

### Q UALITY 

### -R ELATED 

### C OMMENTS

9.1 Comment: Currently, Shasta County has rated 2 nd worst in California for filthy air quality, behind Los Angeles. What is EPA Region 9 doing to help solve our air quality problems? (Celeste Draisner)

Response: Please refer to our response to comment 3.1 for additional information regarding this comment, which was originally submitted to EPA in October 2012.

This permit decision is for the approval to construct and operate equipment associated with the project. EPA is committed to pr otecting human health and the environment; however, this permitting action only addresse s the approval to construct and operate

emissions units at the SPI-Anderson facility.

9.2 Comment: The effect of this new f acility on the air quality in the valley areas has been grossly underestimated. (John Livingston of Sierra Club Shasta Group)

Response: It is unclear why the commenter believ es the effect of th e project on the air quality in the valley areas has been gro ssly underestimated. As part of the PSD permitting requirements, a thorough air quality analysis has been performed for this project. The results of this analysis and deta ils of the appropriate a nd relevant inputs and the impacts of this project are contained in Section 8, especially Sections 8.4 and 8.5 of the 2012 AAQIR. The introduction to the 2013 RT C contains further discussion of the results presented in these two sections. Ba sed on the information which is presented in the 2012 AAQIR, EPA concludes that the proj ect will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the applicable NAAQS or appl icable PSD increments and that the air quality impacts in the vicinity of the faci lity have been adequately estimated.

9.3 Comment: How can EPA say that the CO 2 emissions from the plant will have a negligible effect when they are equivalent to 90,000 automobiles? This is approximately a doubling of the pollution from existing conditions. If there is not a comparable offset in the valley areas, this permit should not be allo wed. If no offset is required, the air quality in Shasta County will be adversely affected by this facility. (John Livingston of Sierra Club Shasta Group)

Response: EPA determined that the permit modifi cation does not require an ambient air quality impact analysis for GHG emissions because there is no NAAQS or PSD Increments for GHG pollutants and it is therefore not possible to compare the

modification’s GHG emissions to a standard or increment. See PSD and Title V GHG

Guidance at 47-48. Furthermore, although it is cl ear that GHG emissi ons contribute to global warming and other climate changes th at result in impacts on the environment, climate change modeling and evaluations of risks and impacts of GHG emissions is typically conducted for changes in emissions orders of magnitude larger than the emissions from individual projects that mi ght be analyzed in PSD permit reviews.Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 53 Quantifying the exact impacts attributable to a specific GHG source obtaining a permit in specific places and points woul d not be possible with curren t climate change modeling. Given these considerations, GHG emissions w ould serve as the more appropriate and credible proxy for assessing th e impact of a given facility. Thus, EPA believes that the most practical way to address the considerations reflected in the Class I area is to focus on reducing GHG emissions to the maximum ex tent. In light of these analytical challenges, compliance with the BACT analys is is the best technique that can be employed at present to satisfy the additional impacts analysis and Class I area requirements of the rules related to GHGs. See, PSD and Title V Guidance at 48.

Neither EPA regulations nor guidance require pollutant mitigation or offset practices to be control technologies that must be considered in the PSD permitting process. Applicants are only required to evaluate inherently lower-emitting process/practices/designs (that result in reductions from equipment at the facility) and add-on control technologies, and a combin ation of these control alternatives. See, PSD and Title V Guidance at 25. While the practic es identified by the commenter may be a part of an overall climate change plan, th ey are not applicable to the PSD permitting process for this specific facility.

9.4 Comment: The air quality in Shasta County, esp ecially in the Sacramento Valley, is slowly deteriorating due to po llution from agricultural burni ng, forest fires, and winds pushing Sacramento pollution north. The ne w cogeneration plant will significantly adversely affect the existing air quality in the county, especially near the plant. If the winds are from the south the poor air quality from the cogeneration plant will concentrate due to the northern mountains providing a ba rrier. The citizens of Shasta County will suffer the pollution from the facility and thei r health will be negatively impacted. Why should the citizens accept reductions in air quality when this facility is only designed to profit a privately held corporation? (John Livingston of Sierra Club Shasta Group)

Response: See EPA’s responses to comments 4.1 and 9.1. The air quality impacts portion of the 2012 AAQIR, Section 8, and especially Sections 8.2, 8.4 and 8.5, assessed the impacts of the project on ambient air quality, which includes impacts on PSD increments and the NAAQS. The NAAQS are set to protect public h ealth and public welfare. Section 8.4 of the 2012 AAQIR states that PSD increments are limits on cumulative air quality degradation. They are set to prevent air with pollutant c oncentrations lower than the NAAQS from being degraded to the level of the NAAQS. Table 8.4-3 shows that the project complies with the Class II PSD increments and the NAAQS. EPA concluded air pollution emissions from the project will not cause or contribute to viola tions of any NAAQS or any applicable PSD increments for the pollutants regulated under the PSD program. The new cogeneration plant is not predicted adversely affect existing air quality in the county, especially near the plant.

9.5 Comment: Due to the lack of information avai lable from the regulatory agency, we found figures regarding biomass facility em issions from the Partnership for Policy Integrity. Using their figures for typical em issions from a 50 megawatt plant (based onResponses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 54 rates from biomass facility permits issued) we compared a 4 megawatt plant to a 31 megawatt plant to determine its CO2 emissions , number of gallons of water used for cooling, number of tons of wood used, number of gallons of diesel fuel used to cut and transport the wood, and tons of waste ash produced per year:

As can be seen above, there are huge increases in significant effects fr om a larger facility. Yet, your agency wants to modify the existi ng permit without any substantive analysis of these significant effects. (Marily Woodhouse of Battle Creek Alliance)

Response: EPA disagrees with the comment. EP A processed SPI’s PSD application in accordance with the PSD regulations in 40 CFR 52.21 and the public participation requirements in 40 CFR part 124. EPA conducted a BACT analysis for NO x , CO, PM,

PM 10 , PM 2.5 and GHGs, including CO2, because th ese pollutants result in emissions increases that are sign ificant as defined in 40 CFR 52.21 (b)(23). EPA also conducted an air quality analysis for these pollutants (except for GHGs since no NAAQS has been established for this pollutant) based on our independent review of the SPI’s air quality modeling and monitoring data submitted as part of the PSD application and through discussions with the Federal Land Managers fo r nearby Class I areas (i.e., national parks and similar federal lands). EPA determined that the emissions increases from the proposed project will not cause or contribute to a violati on of any NAAQS or applicable

PSD increment. The comment does not in clude any specific information or facts demonstrating that EPA’s analysis or dete rminations were incorrect or flawed.

Moreover, the commenter has not provided a legal or technical basis for EPA’s consideration of the impacts of number of gallons of water us ed for cooling, number of tons of wood used, number of gallons of diesel fuel used to cut and transport the wood, and tons of waste ash produced per year in its evaluation of BACT and impacts on air quality. The comment does not supply suffi cient detail for EPA to respond further.

9.6 Comment: The expansion of this plant w ould mean 356,400 more tons of CO 2 would be added to the atmosphere each year, from just one point source at the biomass plant. As Miller points out, this does not include emissions from loggi ng, transport, landfills, and

soil carbon releases. Where is the EPA’s anal ysis regarding what im pacts would occur to climate and air quality from an 87% increas e at the point source, much less the otherResponses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 55 uncalculated tons of CO 2 released from the associated activities? (Marily Woodhouse of Battle Creek Alliance)

Response: EPA analyzed air quality impacts from the proposed project and determined that air pollution emissions from the project wi ll not cause or contri bute to violations of any NAAQS or any applicable PSD incremen ts for the pollutant s regulated under the PSD program. This analysis considered emissi ons from other nearby stationary sources. See e.g., 2012 AAQIR at 28. EPA also determined that the proposed project does not require an ambient air quality impact anal ysis for GHG emissions because there is no NAAQS or PSD Increments for GHG pollutant s and it is therefore not possible to compare the modification’s GHG emissions to a standard or increment. We find no basis for considering emissions from activities from non-stationary facili ties such as logging, transport, and soil carbon releases. The comment does not include any specific information or facts demonstrating that EPA’s analysis or determina tion was incorrect or flawed. The comment does not supply suffici ent detail for EPA to respond further.

9.7 Comment: Emissions from vehicles and wood burning are known to increase particulates in the air and cau se respiratory problems. Biom ass plants have been found to operate at ~ 24% efficiency. Enlarging this inefficient and polluting plant will combine with other increasing emissions to cause more cumulative effe cts to the health and wellbeing of the greater Shasta Count y area, and its surrounding counties. (Marily Woodhouse of Battle Creek Alliance)

Response: Tailpipe emissions from vehicles used at the facility are not regulated under the PSD program, which applies to stationary sources. EPA analyzed air quality impacts from the proposed project and determined th at air pollution emissions from the project

will not cause or contribute to violatio ns of any NAAQS or any applicable PSD increments for the pollutants regulate d under the PSD program. The NAAQS are protective of public health and welfare. EPA also determined that the proposed project does not require an ambient air quality imp act analysis for GHG emissions because there is no NAAQS or PSD Increments for GHG polluta nts and it is therefore not possible to compare the modification’s GHG emissions to a standard or increment.

9.8 Comment: Jobs are good. Taxes enable governme nt to perform critical services. Greenhouse gas emissions are problematic. Due to the closure of a Southern California nuclear power plant, greenhouse gas emissions have increased for the first time since 2008. If greenhouse gases are indeed causing pr oblems, all increases must be cautiously considered and the cumulative impacts of la ndscape changes taken into account. We, as in all of us, are totally dependent upon th e systems the earth has designed. We have changed much of that landscape and cannot go back in time. But if we acknowledge our earth connection, we can main tain a sustainable world. (Virginia Phelps)

Response: EPA evaluated BACT for GHGs. EPA de termined that the proposed project does not require an ambient air quality imp act analysis for GHG emissions because thereResponses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 56 is no NAAQS or PSD Increments for GHG polluta nts and it is therefore not possible to compare the modification’s GHG emissions to a standard or increment.

9.9 Comment: I was just commenting on that the ambi ent air quality will be increased with the proposal. So I guess the drums are b eating. It’s going to be roughly 85,000 cars sitting in one spot, emitting po llution for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. It’s a lot of air pollution around here. We have the weather and ev erything. So I think that's quite a bit. I think the other kind of comparison we came up with was that it’s roughly 150,000, 200,000 chimneys in the area that are -- woul d be going up. So, I guess, my proposal would be to Sierra Pacific, if any, they would be inclined to maybe buy wood stoves for everybody in the surrounding area within 10 mile s or something like that to compensate for the pollution they're putting out. I mean, they're up there with that ambient air quality pretty high. I guess your standa rd is 188 and you are at 153. So that’s a lot of pollution

that isn't here and will be here forever. I’m not sure how long this bio fuel thing is going. It’s probably going to go for 50 years, 60 y ears or so. So that ’s 85,000 cars running 24/7, 150,000, 200,000 wood burning stoves going 24/7 on th is property. So there is air pollution. There is air pollution there. Th ere’s the highway that's going down I-5 that also is polluting the air. A nd so I think maybe there should be some consideration, for possibly in the ten-mile radius, to supp ly EPA wood stoves for everyone at Sierra

Pacific’s cost or half or so mething to compensate for the air pollution, because there is quite a bit and it will be he re forever and they are self-monitored. I know that EPA monitors this from afar and our air polluti on and air quality, and the Shasta County Air Quality Management District, will supervis e it also. But I think it’s quite a bit of pollution in the area with their other unit, Wheelabrator, down the road. So I think a good enough proposal would be 10-mile radius where they compensate the surrounding

areas with stoves or wood stoves or whatever it may be. I thi nk it’s a lot of pollution and it should maybe be taken down a notch. (Antonio Damian, Jr.)

Response: EPA finds no legal basis for requiring SPI, as part of the PSD permitting process, to compensate surrounding areas wi th stoves or wood stoves within a 10-mile radius of the facility.

9.10 Comment: I’m just taking this right out of th e Record Searchlight. 330,000 tons of greenhouse gases. Is this being released in to the valley? Why? Why can’t that be controlled? Cogeneration is a good idea. Po lluting the air, using it as a garbage pit is not. Four hundred seventy-tw o tons of carbon monoxide should not be released in the air, and 272 tons of nitrous oxide, a major pollu tant should not be released in the air. Why not create a technology that captures and uses these gases, instead of just using the air as a garbage pit. This va lley is -- holds the air in, and when you have these kind of pollutants, it's going to affect two things, pe ople with respiratory issues and we have a wonderful recreation industry up he re. If we get the air too polluted, it’s going to affect that. I just want to be sure that these gases are captured. (Russ Wade)Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 57 Response: EPA conducted a BACT analysis for NO x , CO, PM, PM 10 , PM 2.5 and GHGs since these pollutants result in emissions incr eases that are significant as defined in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23) for the proposed project. This BACT determination, which is contained in the Final Permit, represents the maximum degree of reduction for each of these pollutants. EPA also conducted an air qu ality analysis for these pollutants (except for GHGs since no NAAQS has been estab lished for this pollutant) based on our independent review of the SPI’s air qualit y modeling and monitoring data submitted as part of the PSD application and through disc ussions with the Federal Land Managers for nearby Class I areas (i.e., national parks and si milar federal lands). EPA determined that the emissions increases from the proposed project will not cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS or appl icable PSD increment.

9.11 Comment: And I’d like to point out something. Th ey should have the people out here in Whiskeytown National Forest and the Lassen National Forest provide the labor and the shredders and what have you. The Wheelabrato r and this type of plant up here, Sierra Pacific, they should provide the trucking and haul that wood out of the woods up there to down here instead of setting it on fire and letting it burn. About 30 percent of their fires get out of control and burn everything, burn all kinds of stuff up, burn businesses up, burn homes, burn everything and they’re not held accountable. You cannot fire those people for doing something stupid. They’re pr otected by that. No, you cannot fire them. Anytime you get that, what you’re getting is an ego stretched out past their shoulders. I know people that are volunteer fire fighters a nd they’ve been called both of these fires, the one up there in Lassen Park that got aw ay and cost $15 or $17, or I forget how many millions of dollars. They had that fire put out almost and go, and the wind was blowing like hell. The same thing happened up here in Whiskeytown National Forest. There was a fire up there. I forget the name of it, something Ridge. I don’t know. But anyway, they were on that fire and they had it almo st out. And the guy made them let it go. It

doesn’t make sense. The amount of emissions th at they put in the air, in these forests, doing that type of burning is nothing compared to what a business puts out. We need these businesses and they do a good job and th ey burn them clean. You don’t see nothing but steam coming out of either one of these facilities. And the Environmental Protection Agency has already seen that, I notated, back in ‘09 and ‘12 and ‘13. That should have been good enough. That’s why I commended th e Environmental Protection Agency for

that.

Response: EPA finds no legal basis under the PSD regulations or the Clean Air Act for regulating forest resources in the PSD permit.

9.12 Comment: The first thing I would like to bring up is the issue of atmospheric thermal decline. The temperatures in Redding have been a little bit warmer in the morning than Anderson actually is. So I re ally feel like Anderson kind of needs its own air monitoring device, so we know exactly what is going on in Anderson itself. Just because of the I-5Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 58 corridor, a relatively small ai r basin here, I don’t think Reddi ng or Chico could be a really good representative of that. (David Craft)

Response: It is unclear what the commenter mean s by the “issue of atmospheric thermal decline.” The background concentrations from background monitors in Chico and Redding which were used in the air quality analyses for the project are appropriately representative for this source and consis tent with EPA’s Guideline on Air Quality Modeling, in Appendix W to 40 CFR Part 51 (GAQM or Appendix W) and EPA guidance; thus, an additional ambient air monitor in Anderson is not required.

Section 8.2 of the 2012 AAQIR discusses backgr ound ambient air quality. It explains

that the basis for NO 2 background values are ambient air concentrations recorded at a monitor located on Manzanita Avenue in Chico, California which EPA determined was the closest and most representative NO 2 monitor to the site. CO (1-hour and 8-hour) background concentrations were also recorded from the monitor located on Manzanita

Avenue in Chico. Section 8.2 also explains that the basis for PM 2.5 and PM 10 background

values are ambient air concentrations reco rded at monitors lo cated at the Redding Department of Health and Anderson, re spectively. Table 8.2-1 of the 2012 AAQIR shows the maximum background concentra tions in the area and the corresponding NAAQS.

Furthermore, Sections 8.4 and 8.5 of th e 2012 AAQIR discuss air quality impacts and EPA’s conclusion that the Project will not cau se or contribute to an exceedance of the applicable NAAQS or applicable PSD increments.

9.13 Comment: The second thing has to do with particul ates. There have been times in the past, I know, they got construction going on up there and there’s some old larger log decks. I remember one time the wind was blowing from the north and we looked up and thought there was a fire. It was not a fire just black particulat es that were blowing off the property that looked like smoke. I’m sure ther e’s going to be mitigation measures to try and deal with dust and particulates. (David Craft)

Response: EPA’s Final Permit requires BACT emission limits for particulates for the proposed 468 MMBtu/hr biomass-fired boiler an d its associated c ontrol equipment, 256 HP natural gas-fired emergency engine, and three-cell cooling tower. The Final Permit requires installation and operation of multiclone collectors and an ESP for reducing particulate pollution at the boiler, and operati on of the emergency engine restricted to testing and maintenance (i.e., a maximum of 100 hours per year) which results in

minimal annual emissions. The Final Permit al so requires SPI to c onduct periodic testing of particulates for the boiler and emergency engine, and weekly tests of blow-down water quality for the cooling tower to de termine particulate emissions.Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 59 

### 10. O THER 

### G ENERAL 

### C OMMENTS

10.1 Comment: Removing biomass from the forest is not sustainable given climate change and warming. The amount of biomass removed from the forest must be limited. (John Livingston of Sierra Club Shasta Group)

Response: EPA finds no legal basis for limiting the amount of biomass from forests in the PSD permit. Additionally, the comment is not clear on how this information should be analyzed within the contex t of EPA’s evaluation of BACT and impacts on air quality. The comment does not include any specific in formation or facts demonstrating that EPA’s analysis or determination was incorr ect or flawed. The comment does not supply sufficient detail for EPA to respond further.

10.2 Comment: Commenter presented methods for conve rting raw biomass to other forms of biomass which can be used energy or for co-f iring with fossil fuels like coal or oil. (AfroAsian Energy Development Consortium Inc (AED))

Response: The comment is not requesting in any changes to the PSD permit or EPA’s analysis.

10.3 Comment: The commenter submitted a FOIA reque st to EPA Region 9 during the public comment period which requested “All communi cation inside and outside your agency from July 13th, 2013 to November 8th, 2013. Specifically all communication in any

form with Sierra Pacific Indus tries regarding your ag ency’s intent to circulate a petition for the proposed permit ‘modification’ for Si erra Pacific Industries-Anderson released November 8th, 2013. (Heidi Strand of Citi zens for Clean Air)

Response: According to our EPA Region 9 FOIA Office, EPA provided all responsive documents for this FOIA request to the commenter on January 9, 2014. Electronic versions of all responsive documents were made available online at the following webpage: https://foiaonline.regulat ions.gov/foia/action/public/v iew/request?objectId=090004d2801

57f21

10.4 Comment: Dear Shaheerah Kelly, per your Public Notice published on November 8th, it

states “...construction of the modificati on may commence.” Could you define what

‘Construction of a modi fication’ means?

Per your public notice of th e extension of public comment period on Permit Application

No. SAC 12-01: The public notice states “On November 8t h, 2013, we announced a new version of the permit...” Does this not trigger a 90 day re circulation process as required for all new draft permits?Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 60 It is our understanding that th e public hearing follows this 90 day recirculation process. Will Region 9 be holding a public hearing af ter the 90 day recirculation of the draft permit? (Heidi Strand of Citizens for Clean Air)

Response: EPA responded in a December 6, 2013 email as follows.

“Dear Ms. Strand,

Thank you for your comments. We will include them and respond when we provide our response to comments document. Please be aw are that the public comment period ends on January 10, 2014.

Regarding your question about what is mean t by “construction of the modification,” we assume you are referencing our public notice, which states, “If EPA issues a final decision granting the PSD permit modification, a nd there is no appeal, construction of the modification may commence, subject to th e conditions of the PSD permit and other applicable permit and legal requirements.” This statement means th at if EPA issues a final permit, SPI can begin the process of constructing and installing the new equipment authorized by the permit, including a new bi omass-fired boiler, a new emergency engine and a new cooling tower.

We would like to note that your reference to a 90-day recirculation process is unclear. On November 8, 2013, we announced a 30-day public comment period, which is required by EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 124.10. We recently announced that we are extending the public comment period to January 10, 2014. Since we announced the public comment period, the draft permit has been available on our website at http://www.epa.gov/region9/air/ permit/r9-permits-issued.html . It will help us to better respond to your question if you clarify why you believe there is a 90-day recirculation

process.

On Tuesday, December 10th, we will hold a public information meeting prior to the public hearing to provide the public with an opportunity to ask clarifying questions. More information about the public informa tion meeting and public hearing can be found in the attached public notice.”

10.5 Comment: Dear Shaheerah, thank you for your quick response. In answer to my question is this new construction or a modification, you responded: “This statement means that if EPA issues a final permit, SPI can begin the process of constructing and installing the new equipment authorized by the permit, including a new biomass-fired boiler, a new emergency engine and a new cooling tower.”

Will this new equipment be placed in a new building?Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 61 According to the following document, there is a 90 day recirculation process. NEPA and CEQA: Integrating State and Federal Environm ental Reviews, Draft for Public Review and Comment, March 2013.

Finally, a Record of Decision (ROD) may onl y be issued 30 days after the Notice of Availability of a Final EIS and 90 days afte r the Notice of Availability for a Draft EIS have been published (40 CFR 1506.10(b)(1)-(2)).

~ Office of the President and the Governor’s office of Planning and Research (State of California)

Please explain why this does not apply.

[P]er EPA guidelines, a public hearing is to gather comments from the public during the scoping/beginning of the permitting process. If Region 9 skips this process, and does not recirculate the revised/draft permit then the purpose of a public hearing is defeated. The

intent of the Environmental Appeals Board ruling has not been respected. The Region's December 10th public hearing on the permit is only valid as a scoping meeting before recirculating the draft permit for review.

While EPA regulations require a 45 day minimum for recirculating a draft permit, I feel due to the complexity and controversy, a 90 day recirculation is appropriate. (Heidi Strand of Citizens for Clean Air)

Response: EPA responded to this comment in a December 9, 2013 email as follows.

“Dear Ms. Strand,

Thank you again for your comments. As menti oned previously, we will include them and respond when we provide our response to comments document.

You asked “will this new equipment be placed in a new building?” The new equipment

will be installed in a new bu ilding within the existing property of the Sierra Pacific Industries facility.

The PSD permit is not part of the NEPA or CEQA processes. Therefore, the regulations governing the NEPA and CEQA processes do not apply to the PSD permit. EPA’s regulations governing the PSD permitting pr ocess are at 40 CFR 52.21, and EPA’s public participation regulations for the PSD permit are at 40 CFR part 124. These regulations require EPA to provide at least 30 days fo r public comment period, and require EPA to provide notice of a public heari ng at least 30 days prior to th e hearing. As mentioned in the previous e-mail message, EPA did this. Additionally, we recently announced that we are extending the public comme nt period to January 10, 2014.Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 62 In accordance with our regulations, EPA w ill be accepting oral and written comments during the public hearing scheduled for December 10.”

10.6 Comment: I contacted Ross Bell, the Shasta Qualit y Air District Manager, in December

2013 to determine what the emissions are current ly from the 4 megawatt plant. He didn’t know. When asked if there were any monitori ng documents he said there might be some

in the files somewhere. This lack of know ledge on the part of a regulating agency is troubling, particularly in light of the large increase in emissi ons and other effects that will occur if the biomass plant is enlarged to a 31 megawatt plant. If one of the main regulatory agencies is unable to monitor the effects of a 4 megawatt plant, how will they be able to monitor and analyze the additional direct and indirect effects of a plant that has increased its size, effects, and emissions by 87%? (Marily Woodhouse of Battle Creek Alliance)

Response: As explained in our September 2012 and November 2013 public notices, and the 2013 RTC, EPA’s action is a modification to an existing PSD perm it originally issued by Shasta County AQMD in 1995 for the 4 MW biomass stoker boiler cogeneration unit and associated equipment. 33 The original PSD permit was issued pursuant to a delegation of EPA’s PSD permitting authority under 40 CF R part 52 to Shasta County AQMD. In 2003, EPA rescinded the PSD delegations for se veral California air districts, including Shasta County. See 68 FR 19371 (April 21, 2003).) We have not re-delegated PSD permitting authority to Shasta County; therefor e, EPA is the PSD permitting authority for this action. However, the PSD permit issued by the District (Per mit No. 94-PO-18) for the existing equipment at the SPI-Ander son facility is still in effect.

The EPA’s action is to modify this PSD pe rmit to authorize construction of a new 31 MW biomass stoker boiler cogeneration un it and ancillary equipment at the SPIAnderson facility. The PSD permit contains several BACT emissions and operational limits. The permit also contains monito ring, testing, recordk eeping and reporting requirements for assuring compliance with thes e emissions and operational limits. If SPI fails to comply with any condition or term set forth in the PSD permit, the may be subject to enforcement action pursuant to section 113 of the Clean Air Act.

10.7 Comment: The expansion of this plant c ould require approximately 177,390,000 more gallons of water per year to be used for cool ing than are currently be ing used. Is it not the EPA’s responsibility to safeguard the public trust resource of water? Does it fulfill the EPA’s mandate to protect the public, a nd the environment that sustains them, to modify a permit that allows over 177 million more gallons of water per year to be used for a privately owned, for-profit biomass plant? (Marily Woodhouse of Battle Creek Alliance)

33 Id. at 28Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 63 Response: The comment is beyond the scope of EPA’s action. The PSD permit is a Clean Air Act permitting program for regulat ing major sources of air pollution. EPA processed SPI’s PSD application in accord ance with the PSD regulations in 40 CFR 52.21 and the public participation requiremen ts in 40 CFR part 124. EPA conducted a BACT analysis for NO x , CO, PM, PM 10 , PM 2.5 and GHGs since these pollutants result in

emissions increases that are significant as defined in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23). EPA also conducted an air quality analysis for thes e pollutants (except for GHGs since no NAAQS has been established for this pollutant) base d on our independent revi ew of the SPI’s air quality modeling and monitoring data submitted as part of the PSD application and through discussions with the Federal Land Ma nagers for nearby Class I areas (i.e., national parks and similar federal lands). EP A determined that the emissions increases from the proposed project will not cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS or applicable PSD increment. EPA’s permitting action does not include evaluating water discharges from the facility. Furthermore, the comment is not clear regarding how the information provided regarding wa ter use at the facility should be analyzed within the

context of EPA’s evaluation of BA CT and impacts on air quality.

10.8 Comment: Biomass plants use huge amounts of water for cooling also: 14,000-18,000 gallons per day for each megawatt. This m eans that the current daily usage for the 4 megawatt plant is up to 72,000 gallons a day; at 31 megawatts that could increase to 558,000 gallons a day. According to the Partnership for Policy Integrity ( www.pfpi.net ) about 85% of that is evaporated and the balance is returned to the river (the Sacramento in this case) as a heated solution containi ng concentrated pollutants such as aluminum and phosphorus. (Heidi Strand of Citizens for Cle an Air / Marily Woodhouse of Battle Creek Alliance)

Response: See EPA’s response to comment 10.7 above.

10.9 Comment: Marily wanted to attend the meeting. She wanted clarification from Region 9 if the waste water from the plant was goi ng to be cleaned before going into the

Sacramento River. (Heidi Strand of Citizens for Cle an Air / Marily Woodhouse of Battle Creek Alliance)

Response: See EPA’s response to comment 10.7 above.

10.10 Comment: The expansion of this plant will re quire 351,000 more tons of wood per year on an ongoing basis, year after year. The la nd has finite limits of what it can produce, even in more optimal conditions than are occurr ing presently. Where is all of the fuel for an 87% larger single biomass plant s upposed to come from year after year? (Marily Woodhouse of Battle Creek Alliance)

Response: According to SPI’s PSD permit a pplication, the SPI-Anderson lumber operation produces approximately 160,000 bone dry tons (BDT) of wood waste per year, which approximately 60,000 BDT are consum ed by the existing cogeneration unit,Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 64 20,000 BDT are trucked to other biomass power plants, and the roughly 80,000 BDT balance is trucked to other markets (e.g. w ood chips to pulp mills). The new proposed boiler will have the capacity to consume a maximum of 219,000 BDT per year, in which roughly 80,000 BDT will be generated by the faci lity’s existing lumber operations at its current output, and additional wood fuel will be transported by truck to the facility from SPI’s other lumber operations in California. SPI PSD Permit Application, March 2010 at 3-4. According to SPI’s application, the additional wood fuel will come from lumber operations at Arcata, Shasta La ke, and Red Bluff, as well as in-forest materials from SPIowned or controlled timberlands, and vari ous sources of agricu ltural and urban wood

wastes. Id

.

10.11 Comment: If the EPA approves a modification of this permit to enlarge the biomass plant, it will increase the am ount of logging of grown forests to replace them with tree plantations that lack diversit y. Replacing grown, existing fo rests with tree plantations simplifies plant and animal communities because it reduces habitat. A forest is made up of different kinds and sizes of trees that prov ide what is termed “structure” by ecologists, and has an “understory” of many kinds of shrubs and other plan ts. In turn, the structure and understory provide food, resting and denni ng habitat for all the other forms of wildlife, from microorganisms to bugs to bird s to mammals. “Large-scale clear-cutting

of forests should be avoided because it reduces biomass and biological diversity. Further, the loss of vegetation results in the rapid loss of nutrients from the soil, which eventually reduces the productivity of the entire ecosystem. Both biomass production and biological diversity decline as a resu lt.” (Pimentel et al. 1992) (Marily Woodhouse of Battle Creek Alliance)

Response: The comment is not clear on how the information provided regarding logging and forest diversity should be analyzed with in the context of EPA’ s evaluation of BACT and impacts on air quality. The comment doe s not include any specific information or facts demonstrating that EPA’s analysis or determination was incorrect or flawed. The comment does not supply sufficient deta il for EPA to respond further.

10.12 Comment: An increase in ash production from the amount of 525,600 pounds per year to 16,293,600 pounds per year will require a great deal more transportation (increasing fuel usage and coincident air quality impacts) and more landfill space. The ash is mixed with water for disposal. Some ash may also ha ve high concentrations of heavy metals, depending on what is being burned. (Marily Woodhouse of Battle Creek Alliance)

Response: The comment is not clear regarding how ash production at the facility should be analyzed within the contex t of EPA’s evaluation of BACT and impacts on air quality. EPA processed SPI’s PSD application in accordance with the PSD regulations in 40 CFR 52.21 and the public participation requiremen ts in 40 CFR part 124. EPA conducted a BACT analysis for NO x , CO, PM, PM 10 , PM 2.5 and GHGs since these pollutants result in

emissions increases that are significant as defined in 40 CFR 52.21 (b)(23). EPA also conducted an air quality analysis for thes e pollutants (except for GHGs since no NAAQSResponses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 65 has been established for this pollutant) base d on our independent revi ew of the SPI’s air quality modeling and monitoring data submitted as part of the PSD application and through discussions with the Federal Land Ma nagers for nearby Class I areas (i.e., national parks and similar federal lands). EP A determined that the emissions increases from the proposed project will not cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS or applicable PSD increment. The comment doe s not include any specific information or facts demonstrating that EPA’s analysis or determination was incorrect or flawed. The comment does not supply sufficient deta il for EPA to respond further.

10.13 Comment: Fueling this plant will cause an increase in fuel consumption for transportation that will use many more hundreds of thousands of gallons of diesel. This is another cumulative impact that is being ignored. (Marily Woodhouse of Battle Creek Alliance)

Response: Tailpipe emissions from vehicles used at the facility are not regulated under the PSD program. The PSD program applies to stationary sources. EPA addressed a similar comment in our response to comment #18 in our 2013 RTC.

10.14 Comment: SPI, and their proponents, have made a point of talking about the handful of jobs that the expanded plant could provide . Shasta County ha s a population of 177,223 people; Tehama County has 63,463 people. The other surrounding counties number additional tens of thousands more people. All of these people will be impacted by reduced air quality, water loss, and loss of fore st cover. The EPA is a public agency that should be acting in the best in terests of the majority of th e population. This permit must not be modified to allow huge in creases in cumulative impacts. (Marily Woodhouse of Battle Creek Alliance)

Response: EPA’s 2012 AAQIR analyzed air quality impacts and concluded that the proposed project will not cause or contribu te to a violation of the NAAQS or PSD

increments. See also, 2013 RTC at 3-5.

10.15 Comment: Barnosky et al. published a scientific paper in 2012 that examined the potential of biological systems to change sudde nly at all scales, from local to global. They wrote: “Localized ecological systems ar e known to shift abruptly and irreversibly from one state to another when they are forced across critical threshol ds. It is now well documented that biological systems on many s cales can shift rapidl y from an existing state to a radically different st ate. Biological states are neith er steady nor in equilibrium.

The shift from one state to another can be caused by either a ‘threshold’ or a ‘sledgehammer’ effect. State shifts resulti ng from threshold effects can be difficult to anticipate, because the critical threshold is reached as incremental changes accumulate and the threshold value generally is not known in advance. By contrast, a state shift caused by a sledgehammer effect--for example the clearing of a forest using a bulldozer-- comes as no surprise. In both cases, the stat e shift is relatively abrupt and leads to new mean conditions outside the range of fluctuati on evident in the previous state. HumansResponses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 66 have already changed the biosphe re substantially. The biolog ical resources we take for granted at present may be subject to rapid a nd unpredictable transformations within a few human generations.” We call upon the EPA to act with foresight and knowledge to protect the future. The corollary significan t effects that enlarging this biomass plant would contribute to must be acknowledged, not ignored. (Marily Woodhouse of Battle Creek Alliance)

Response: The comment is not clear how the info rmation provided should be analyzed

within the context of EPA’ s evaluation of BACT and impacts on air quality. The comment does not include any specific inform ation or facts demonstrating that EPA’s analysis or determination was incorrect or flawed. The comment does not supply sufficient detail for EPA to respond further.

10.16 Comment: I would like to show my support of this project. As a lifetime resident of Anderson and business owner in Anderson, SPI has always been such a good neighbor and community supporter. My facility is acr oss the street from SPI, and SPI is a good neighbor. They are a good company with good business ethics. I see no reason this project should not move forward. We need the quality jobs this project will provide. (Tom Water of Harvest Printing)

Response: The comment is not requesting in an y changes to the PSD permit or EPA’s analysis.

10.17 Comment: I'm the Superintendent of the high sc hools located in the south of Shasta County. I’d like to say that Sierra Pacific is not in our community. They are part of our community. They support a multitude of project s around here that benefit our kids at the high school level, whether it's grant programs or educationa l programs that without their

assistance we would not be ab le to duplicate. They ha ve been supportive for many, many years and they’re a part of the fiber that exists down here, and they’ve always been responsive and responsible to ou r community. I would say that down the road if there is an issue, that there are plenty of governme nt agencies, because I deal with a bunch of them, I'm sure they would step in and advise them on how to correct them and stuff. Like I said, they've always been responsive. They ’re a part of what ex ists here. It would create jobs and jobs are an important part of a community. Jobs that support families and families generate kids and schools, it’s just a domino effect. We have an excellent relationship with Sierra Pacific even as a school district. Th ey have no need to help us, and they always have. And they’ve always been responsible about the manner in which they do it. So we would ask also that th is project be approved and to support the community. (Tim Azevedo)

Response: The comment is not requesting in any changes to the PSD permit or EPA’s analysis.Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 67 10.18 Comment: I’m speaking from two perspectives toni ght. The first is as a member of the

Board of Directors of the Economic Devel opment Corporation in Shasta County. I’ve been asked by Chairman, Wayne Pohlmeyer, a nd Executive Director, Mark Lascelles, to provide full support on behalf of the Board of the EDC, for Sierra Pacific’s request. It not only offers a number of jobs in the cons truction phase, but also for the long haul, and we think it’s a very viable project and a good project. Secondly, I’m speaking as a

Certified Public Accountant. My firm represents a number of contractors, log truckers, timber fallers, who represent literally t housands of employees who are employed indirectly by Sierra Pacific I ndustries. These people work hard in the woods to literally remove every component of the harvested tim ber and bring it to the mill, including now slash that had previously been burned in the forest, now will be brought in to support this cogeneration plant. It’s a good project, a clean project and I sincerely hope EPA will respond favorably on Sierra Pacific's request. (Dave Scott)

Response: The comment is not requesting in any changes to the PSD permit or EPA’s analysis.

10.19 Comment: I’m a lifetime resident of Shasta Count y pretty much. I grew up watching a

number of lumber mills that functioned in our county. We watched those dry up and go away. Now we have an opportuni ty to make things a little bit better for our community by having a project like this. This is a good thing economically, job creating and supporting the community, which we desperatel y need. These people have worked and been good neighbors to all of us, whether it’s the county or this city. They’ve done an excellent job and being involve d in our community. I think if they have done everything required of them when they received that pe rmit some time ago, and then we come back again because we have to have more public hearings, which sometimes cause more delays and more delays and we get nowher e. I strongly encour age that the EPA get behind this project and support what Sierra Pacific is tryi ng to do and help keep our community strong. (Butch Schaefer)

Response: The comment is not requesting in any changes to the PSD permit or EPA’s analysis.

10.20 Comment: I am a former City Council member of Anderson. I also owned an insurance agency where I insured the trucks for the l oggers and the logging ope rations, and many of these people were employed by Sierra Pacifi c in their mills. We have a cogeneration plant in Anderson. It’s never been a problem and Sierra Pacific has never been a problem to us. Although, they are not in the City Anderson, they are our best neighbor outside the city. They provide a lot of services here for the people that work for them. They live here. They trade here. They bring money in to our community. Sierra Pacific has been a big supporter of our kids in th is town and the schools. Th ey support our fireworks that we have here and they support a lot of other things that we have. So if they have complied with it, I don’t know what the probl em is, other than somebody just thinks, I guess, we should just keep going and keep ha ving these hearings and whatever. They’veResponses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 68 got their permit already. I don’t know why we ha ve to keep doing this, but it’s taking up time. It’s preventing them from finishing their plan. But that will provide a lot of jobs in the city and county, and we need these jobs. We need this plant, and I wish it would get done now and give them their permit and let us go. (Norma Comnick)

Response: The comment is not requesting in any changes to the PSD permit or EPA’s analysis.

10.21 Comment: I’m the Principal at the Anderson New Technology High School located about a few blocks from here, and we ha ve many students who have benefited from scholarships that SPI has provided almost every year. SPI has always been a good neighbor to us. They participat e on panels and judge our studen ts’ projects as well as our senior boards each year. And we do need jobs in this community. I grew up here and watched the community change over time. We have students that are graduating, and many of them have to leave th e area because they can't find j obs here, so jobs are very, very important to this community. (Pat Allison)

Response: The comment is not requesting in any changes to the PSD permit or EPA’s analysis.

10.22 Comment: I have no connection to Sierra Paci fic Industries. I’m a licensed civil engineer, structural engineer. I’ve lived in this community, had a business here for a lot of years. The Environmental Protect Act says that mitigation measures are to be

examined. I think one that’s not examined nearly enough was spoken about from another speaker that we have control burns here every year. I think the mitigation measures

should include the fact that that material c ould be carried down here, processed in the plants such as the one that SPI has proposed expanding as opposed to burning it in place. It’s certainly viable. It releases a lot more into the air than thei r plant. I looked it up again tonight, just to be sure I had the number correct. I got it from the U.S. Geological Survey site. One mature oak tree puts 165 tons of water emission into the air every year, one tree. Now, I’m not going to compare em issions from burning fires to oak tree emissions, but it’s astounding to find out the volume of water provided by one oak tree.

So let’s talk about the volume s rather than the quality of the emissions. Guess how many

oak trees there are between here and Reddi ng. A thousand? Two thousand? Three thousand? Each one of them putting so mewhere, conservatively, around 100 tons of water per year. Now, if somebody wants to multiply that out and come back, you could build a case that would be a flood plain. We’d drown with that much water. So when you start talking about emissions and you come up with 472 tons, 272 tons, it sounds huge, until you put it into comparison about what one oak tree has. Now again, I want to make it clear I’m not comparing water vapor to emissions from burning trees up at Whiskeytown Lake. I will add that my family has been in this area for over 140 years. I have now retired from my business and this ar ea is extremely important to me. I am in the outdoors a lot. I do not want to see a degr adation of the area any worse than it is. I think this is not going to affect it. It would be minuscule. Regarding SPI, I just finishedResponses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 69 a long term on the Mosquito Board of Shasta County. We have had mild virus here, a lot of other things, and the SPI mill could have been a major contributor to this. They’re excellent. They work with us in every wa y keeping the mosquito populations down. It doesn’t get a lot of publicity, but they are a very good neighbor. They went out and worked with our people, used their cranes, along with other things. So as somebody else said, they are not just in this area. They are a part of this area. Secondly, this is my 14 year of retirement, but I had an engineeri ng planning business in town for a long time. When I sold that business ten or 12 years a go, I had 43 employees. I would say that firm now is down to 11 employees. We are in vita l need of leadership-type jobs in this community. SPI, everywhere you look on the boards of community activities, they provide those kind of people. I don't have the number now, but it's been published how many hours SPI employees put in at public service. Now, I realize you can be a great neighbor and still be a terrible polluter. I hope I made the poi nt to begin with that this pollution can be mitigated. It’s nowhere near the degree that’s been inferred by others and they are a wonderful neighbor. So I urge that their permit be approved. (John Dunlap)

Response: The comment is not requesting in any changes to the PSD permit or EPA’s analysis.

10.23 Comment: Good evening and thank you for this opport unity to speak in favor of Sierra Pacific Industries’ application for a permit m odification to allow for the construction and operation of an additional new cogeneration uni t at their current site in Anderson. My

name is Trish Clark. I served Shasta Count y as an elected official from 1986 to 2006, including terms as Mayor, City Councilman, Chairman of th e Board of Supervisors, and have also served during that period on the Shasta County Air Quality Control Board. It was my privilege during that period to work closely with Sierra Pacific Industries on many projects, some of theirs and some of mine. They have for many years proven themselves to be good and responsible stewar ds of the land and the environment. In striving constantly to ensure a healthy future for their lands and their company, they also provide for the future of our community. They are totally involved in supporting a community where their facilities are locat ed. They provide hundreds of good jobs, support for their employees and their families and they provide local scholarships for

students and have financia lly supported projects thr oughout Shasta County. I and currently the President of the Frontier Senior Center in Anderson. Sierra Pacific has from the beginning been a willing partner in providing support fo r that ongoing operation, fully and dependent senior-owned non-government s upported senior center. I am confident that this new cogeneration plant will in no wa y negatively impact this community and the city that has been my home since 1977. I thank you for your consideration and ask for swift approval of this project. (Trish Clark)

Response: The comment is not requesting in any changes to the PSD permit or EPA’s analysis.Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 70 10.24 Comment: First of all, I would like to thank ev erybody that came here, and I would like

to thank Sierra Pacific for he lping to bring people from th e community here. I would like to thank Trish Clark who spoke. I would lik e to thank Shane Young and Dave Brown for being kind to me when I met with them at the corporate offices. And I would like to thank Curtis Brown for disagreeing with me. I'll try to answer a few questions from the audience and will put my very brief comments on the record. In terms of why are we doing this, we the Citizens For Clean Air d ecided to ask the EPA for a public hearing because they are the permitting agency and we were hoping that we could get the factory built cleaner using best available control t echnology, which according to [Omer Shalev] of the EPA, is not being used because of i nvention. So we would like to see the factory built cleaner. That's why we asked for the co mmunity to come and why we asked for the EPA to come here, so that we would have th e factory built as clean as possible with the least amount of environmental impact to Sh asta County, especially to the children who

live here.

In terms of what Curtis Brown said of th e forest mismanagement, I am not going to disagree that the forests -- I mean, they’re in trouble. There’s a lot of fires, people operating on red burn days, cutting the tree s down or operating lawn mowers or heavy equipment. That’s bad. Fires can start very easily in Redding, Calif ornia. It’s a big problem. But that’s a separate issue from th e building of a factory that relies entirely on biofuels to operate. I would only point out that the most impact that it has had on the Forest Service and USDA and the policy, the bigge st lobbyist, is the timber. So there is some culpability of big timber in terms of how they lobby the USDA. I would encourage Sierra Pacific and all of the logging companies to use the power of logging to help protect our forests and help protect our community. (Celeste Draisner)

Response: The comment does not include any specific information or facts demonstrating that EPA’s analysis or dete rmination was incorrect or flawed. The comment does not supply sufficient deta il for EPA to respond further.

10.25 Comment: My question to EPA – I’m trying to be brief here. My question to EPA is do factories require permits to ope rate? Because ther e are a lot of factories that Sierra Pacific owns and is operating that do not have permits to operate. Knauf fiberglass operated for at least three years without a permit to operate, while in violation of emission limits for particulate matter. A nd, you know, particulate matter you can’t see it, but it's dangerous. You can’t see radon, but it will kill you. So my question is -- is the current facility in Anderson, the 4 megawatt faci lity, doesn’t have a permit to operate. It expired on its two-year extens ion last January 19. So we’re modifying a permit that doesn’t exist. How do you do that? How do you modify a permit to build a much larger facility next door on a pe rmit that doesn’t exist? (Celeste Draisner)

Response: EPA prepared the Proposed Permit and Revised Proposed Permit for this project in accordance with the implem enting PSD regulations at 40 CFR 52.21, and issued the proposed decisions in accordance with EPA’s public part icipation regulationsResponses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 71 at 40 CFR Part 124. The PSD program applie s to the proposed construction of a new major facility or the major modification of an ex isting facility that is located in an area

that is classified as attainment or unclassifiable with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA Region 9 is currently the permitting authority for issuing PSD permits in Shasta County, California, which is classified as attainment or unclassifiable with the National Ambient Air Quality Sta ndards (NAAQS). EPA’s PSD action does not involve issuing a “permit to operate.”

In addition to EPA’s PSD preconstruction perm itting program, SPI’s facility is subject to the CAA’s title V operating permit program. Shasta County AQMD is currently the title V permitting authority for Shasta County. 40 CFR Part 70, App. A. Shasta County AQMD issued SPI’s initial tit le V operating permit in Ju ly 2000, renewed the title V operating permit in September 2006, and rene wed the title V operating permit again on September 27, 2013. See also, In re Sierra Pacifi c Industries, Anderson Division, PSD Appeal No. 14-01 (EAB April 10, 2014) (O rder Dismissing Appeal for Lack of Jurisdiction).

10.26 Comment: On behalf of Sierra Pacific, I w ould like to thank you guys for taking your time and being here tonight. A little history about the project. This cogeneration project has been through proper permitting procedures in preparation of the draft Impact Report on July 9, 2009, in this very room. A scopi ng meeting was held July 21, 2009. The first draft Environmental Impact Report was published for 45 days, from August 6, 2010, to September 20, 2010. A recirculated draft E nvironmental Impact Report was published for 45 days, from September 2, 2011, to October 17, 2011, to address global climate change. A second recirculated draft of th e Environmental Impact Report was published for another 45 days, from February 15, 2012, to April 2, 2012, addressing global climate change again. On June 14, 2012, the Environm ental Impact Report was completed and in compliance with the California Environmental Compliance Act and CEQA guidelines and passed by the Shasta County Planning Commission. The Environmental Impact Report was appealed to the Shasta County Board of Supervisors on June 18, 2012. The Shasta County Board of Supervisors c onducted a duly-noticed public hearing and considered the appeal on July 17, 2012. Th e Board of Supervisors passed and adopted the Environmental Impact Report on that day. The PSD application was determined to be administratively complete on October 4, 2010. EPA Region 9 received public comment from September 14, 2012, to October 17, 2012. The previous PSD was signed on February 19, 2013, and this PSD permit was app ealed. That brings us to today, four years and five months later. This project has been under the most environmental scrutiny possible. Sierra Pacific Industries believes th at this is a good project in every aspect. The plant and the state-of-the-art technology will be among the most efficient and most emission compliant of its type in the nati on. The construction process will employ over

50 workers from various local contractors. The new plant will employ 8 to 10 new permanent jobs, in addition to approximat ely 300 indirect jobs will be created in transportation, forestry and related fields. The new facility will create green power and

renewable wood fiber sources. This will assist the state in obtaining 33 percent its powerResponses to Public Comments on the Proposed PS D Permit Major Modification for SPI-Anderson April 2014 Page 72 from renewable sources by 2020. Shasta Count y will benefit from th e project with new tax revenue and continue job stability. The ne w facility will also prepare Sierra Pacific for growth for the future. SPI invests in ne w and better technology and continues to keep its plants modern. This commitment will keep SPI strong and demanding in a competitive industry for years to come. Sier ra Pacific is a family-owned company and employs over 3,000 employees in California. We supply good paying stable jobs in the communities where we operate our facilities. Tonight we ask the EPA to approve this project so we can get people to work and st art getting ready for the future. Thank you for your consideration. (Shane Young of SPI-Anderson)

Response: The comment does not include any specific information or facts demonstrating that EPA’s analysis or dete rmination was incorrect or flawed. The comment does not supply sufficient deta il for EPA to respond further.

10.27 Comment: I’m here for myself. I’m a resident of Anderson. My kids go to Anderson schools. I really want to talk about two bullets on the displa y over here on the right. It’s talking about the best available control tec hnology, determinations and also effects on

ambient air. I look at ambient air in two different ways. One is looking at it literally on a facility on a postage stamp or in your car. I also look at ambient air as what’s happening in the county. There’s been a lot of speakers toni ght talking about control burns, fires, things of that nature. That’s exactly what I look at when I look at ambient air. When I think of the effect of the propos ed facility on ambient air, we need 20 of these facilities.

It’s ridiculous to still have as many controlled burns that’s happened that put out so much more pollution that is uncontro lled. These facilities are firs t class. They reduce VOCs,

CO and NO x emissions. CO 2 stays the same, but it’s an incr edible reduction. It’s by not having this facility having been approved earlier years ago, you know what, the effect today is there’s more pollution in the air toda y because this wasn’t approved years ago. (Dave Brown)

Response: The comment is not requesting in any changes to the PSD permit or EPA’s analysis.

10.28 Comment: [H]ow will this affect the community of people who rely on wood heat, when [SPI] uses all or most of the available pollutants? (Elray Kleis)

Response: The comment is not clear. EPA pr epared the 2012 Proposed Permit and Revised Proposed Permit for this project in accordance with the implementing PSD regulations at 40 CFR 52.21, and issued the proposed decisions in accordance with EPA’s public participation regulations at 40 CFR Part 124. In accordance 40 CFR 52.21, EPA conducted a top-down BACT analysis; an air quality analysis to show that the proposed project will not cause or contribute to a violati on of any NAAQS or applicable PSD increment, as well as an assessment of impacts on visibility and other conditions in nearby national parks and federal lands; and an additional impacts analysis. The comment does not supply sufficient deta il for EPA to respond further.