p. 1



# OAR Box 1781 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



## Document

Number: 

# 63 ) ll-K-2 0 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/29/2008 10:46:21 AM Sheet 63 of 142

### i \>,

\

* - • 

# /r-fd-Si P. 2

(Sli p Opinion ) NOTICE : Thi

s opinio n i

s subjec tto forma

l revision before publication . Reader

s ar e requeste d t o notif

y the Environmenta

l Appeals Board , U.S . Environmenta l Protection Agency

, Washington , D.C . 20460 , o f

an y typographica

l o r othe r forma

l errors , i n orde r tha

t correction s ma

y b e mad e before publication . aV'l , ..*« Q •
BEFOR E TH E ENVIRONMENTAL APPEAL S BOAR D UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIO N AGENC Y WASHINGTON , D.C .

I n th e Matte r of

: Hadso n Powe r 1 4 - Buen a Vist a Permi tNo . 2113 0 PS D Appea l Nos . 92-3 , 92- 4 

### 92- 5

[Decide d Octobe r 5 , 1992 ]

REMAND ORDER

Before Environmental Appeals Judges Nancy B. Firestone, Ronald L. McCallum and Edward

E. Reich.P. 3

HADSO N POWE R1 4 - BUENA VISTA PS D Appea l Nos
. 92-3 , 92- 4 92- 5

REMAND ORDER

Decide dOctobe r

5 , 199 2

Syllabu s The Souther

n Environmenta

l La w Center, Qea n Ai

r fo r Rockbridg

e (CLEAR ) an d th e Count y o f Rockbridg

e hav e filed petition s seekin g revie w o f a Prevention o f

Significan t Deterioratio n (PSD) permitissue d t o Hadson Power 1 4 - Buena Vista . The permitwas issue d by th e Virgini

a Departmen

to f Ai r Pollutio n Contro

l (VDAPC ) pursuan

tto a delegatio n fro

m th e U.S . EPA

, an d thus i s considere d a

n EPA-issue

d permitfo

r purpose s o f appeal . The permitauthorizes th e constructio n o f a 66. 5 megawat

tcoal-fire d electri c generatin g plan

ti n Buena Vista

, Virginia . Th e propose d facilit

y i s located 1 5 k

m nort h o f th e Jame s Rive r Fac e Wilderness an

d 5 6 k m southwes to

f the Shenandoa

h Nationa l Park . Th e mos tsignifican

tissu e raise

d i n th e petition s i s th e rejectio n b y VDAP C o f advers e impac

tdetermination s b

y th e Federa

l Lan d Manager

s (FLMs ) o f th e Wildernes s an d th e Park

. Other issue s raise

d includ e th e exclusio n o f source s mor

e tha n 10 0 k m fro m th e clas s I area

s from th e incrementconsumptio n analysis , exclusio n o f constructio n emission s fro

m th e ai r qualit y analyses , th e adequac

y o f th e emissio n limit

s for NO „ coordinatio n o f

th e PS D revie w wit h th e Nationa

l Par k Service' s environmenta

l impa a assessment , allege d deficiencie s i n th e notic e provide d o n th e draf

tpermit , an d various ai r qualit y modelin g issues . Held : VDAP

C erre d in rejecting th e FLMs

' advers e impac tdeterminations . The stat e base d it s rejection s largel

y o n it s interpretation o

f the burden o n th e FLMs , whic h interpretation s EPA'

s Administrator specificall

y foun d to b e invali

d i n In re Old

Dominion Electric Cooperative, PS D Appea l No . 91-3 9 (Adm'r

, Jan. 29 , 1992) . Here , unlik e i n Old Dominion, this error was no tharmless becaus e VDAP C ha s no tarticulate

d an y alternative , legally supportabl e basi s fo r rejecting the advers e impa a determinations . VDAP C als o erre

d i n categoricall

y excludin g constructio n emission s from th e ai r qualit y analyses , i n failing to giv e public notic e o f

it s intentio n t o us e a

n ai r qualit y mode l no tpreviously subje a t o publi c scrutiny , an d i n providin

g a n incomplete descriptio n o f propose d incrementconsumptio n i n it s publi c notic e o f

th e draf tpermit. N o error i

s found i n VDAPC'

s determinatio n o f

th e NO , emission s limitation , i n th e exclusio n o f source s mor

e tha n 10 0 k m from the clas s I area

s from th e incrementconsumptio n analysis , an

d i n th e degre e o f

coordinatio n wit

h th e Nationa

l Par k Service' s environmenta

lP. 4

2 HADSO

N POWE R1 4 - BUEN

A VIST A review . Revie

w o f th e ai r qualit y modelin g issue s i s denie d du e t o th e inadequac y o f th e petition s i n statin g a basis fo r review. The permiti

s remande

d t o VDAP

C to perfor

m a substantive review o f th e adverse impa a determinations , to reope n th e publi c commentprocess , an d to address the othe r deficiencie s i n accordanc e wit h this opinion . Befor e Environmenta l Appeal s Judge s Nanc y B . Firestone , Ronal d L. McCallum an d Edward E . Reich . Opinio n o f

th e Boar d b y Judg e Reich : Thre e petition s hav e bee n filedwith th e Environmenta l Appeal s Boar dseekin g revie w of

aPreventio n o f

Significan

t Deterioratio n (PSD ) permi t Issue d t o Hadso n Power 1 4 - Buen aVist

a("Hadso n Power" ) for th e constructio n ofa66. 5 megawatt coal-fire delectri c generatin g powe r plan t i n Buen aVista , Virginia
. Pursuan t t o adelegatio n o

f authorit y fromth e U.S
. EPA

, Regio n III , th e Virgini aDepartmen t o f Ai r Pollutio n Contro l (VDAPC

) issue dth e final permi t

o n Apri l 18 , 1992
. Becaus e of th e delegation , th e Virgini apermi t i s considere da n EPA-issuedpermi t fo r purpose s o f

federal la w (4 0 C.F.R
. §124.4 1 (1991) ; 4 5 Fed
. Reg
. 33,41 3 (Ma

y 19 , 1980)) , an di s subje at o revie w b y th e Agenc y unde r 4 0 C.F.R
. §124.1 9 (1991)
. PS D Appea l No
. 92- 3 wa s filedby di e Souther n Environmenta l La w Cente r (SELC ) o n behal f

of itsel f an dothe r

variou s groups . l On e o f thes e groups , Clean Ai r for Rockbridg e (CLEAR) , an dCLEAR's presiden t (Michae l Lonergan ) an dtreasure r (Saundr aMartis) , als o filed aseparat e petitio n raisin g additiona l reason s t o revie w th e permi t (PS D Appeal No
. 92-5)
. Th e thir dpetitio n fo r review , PS D Appea l No
. 92-4 , wa s filedb y th e Count y of Rockbridg e (di e "County")
. A t th e reques t of thi s Board , VDAP

C provide darespons e t o di e petition s for revie w

Thes e group s ar

e th e Conservation Counci l o f Virginia , Nationa l Park s an d ConservationAssociation , Virgini a Counci l o f Trou tUnlimited , Virgini

a Wildlif e Federation , Sierr a Club , Environmenta

l Defens e Fund, Th

e Wilderness Society , Southsid e Concerned Citizens , Clea

n Ai r fo r Rockbridg

e (CLEAR)

, an d Michae l Lonerga n and Saundr

a Martis, individuall

y an d a s presidentan

d treasure r o f CLEAR , respectively .P. 5

HADSON POWE

R1 4 - BUEN

A VIST A 3
an dsubmitte drelevan t portion s of

di e administrativ e record
. 2 Pursuan t t o leav e grante db

y th e Board , bot h SEL

C an dCLEA

Rfiled a repl y t o VDAPC' s response . Unde r di e rule s tha t

govern thi s proceeding , aPS D permi t ordinaril y wil l no t

b e reviewe dunles s i t

i s base do n aclearl y erroneou s finding of fact o r conclusio n o f

law , o r involve s a n importan t

matte r of polic y o r exercis e o f

discretio n dia t

warrant s review
. See 4 0 C.F.R
. §124.19 ; 4 5 Fed
. Reg
. 33,41 2 (Ma y 19 , 1980)
. Th e preambl e t o th e promulgatio n o f

dies e rule s state s tha t

"thi s powe r

o f revie w shoul db e onl y sparingl y exercised, " an ddia t "mos t permi t condition s shoul db e finally determine da t

di e Regional [o r

State ] level. " Id. Th e burde n o f demonstratin g dia t

revie w i s warrante di s o n th e petitioner
. Fo r th e reason s se t

fort h below , w e conclud e dia t petitioner s hav e me t

th e burde n o f

showin g tha t

revie w of

several issue s i s warranted , an ddia t di e permi t

shoul db e remande dt o di e stat e for furthe r actio n consisten t with thi s opinion
. i

BACKGROUND Unde r di e PSD program , owner s o r operator s o f

majo r emittin g facilitie s i n attainmen to r unc i as s ifiabl e area s * mus tobtai n a PS D permi t prio r t o th e constructio n of

dia t facility
. Clean Ai

r Ac t (CAA ) §165 , 4 2 U.S.C
. §7475
. I n Ma y 1988 , Hadso n Powe r

applie dfor

aPSD

Eac h petitio n wil l b e referre

d t o wit h referenc

e to th e petitioner , e.g., "SEL C Petition a t." Likewise, VDAPC'

s response s will b e referre d t o wit h reference t o eac

h petitioner , e.g., "Response to SEL C Petitio n a

t. " Attachment

s to VDAPC'

s response s wil l b e referre

d t o a s "Respons

e to Petitions , Attachmen

t." 3 Du e t o th e extensiv e briefing o f thes e issue s o n appeal , furthe r briefing woul d no tb e helpfu l See In re Renkiewicx SWD-18, UI C .Appea l No . 91-4 , sli p op . a

tn. 5 (EAB

, Jun e 24 , 1992 ) ("Althoug h §124.1 9 * * * contemplate s tha tadditiona

l briefing will b e submitted upo n th e gran to f a Petition fo

r Review , a dire a reman

d withou tadditiona

l submission s i s appropriat e where , a s here , i tdoe s no tappea

r tha tfurthe r brief s o n appea

l woul d she d lighto n th e issue s to b e addressed o n remand.") .

A n attainmentare

a i s on e i n whic

h th e nationa

l ambien tai r qualit y standard

s for particula

r pollutants ar

e met . PS D rules apply t o thes e area s (an d t o thes e pollutants ) t o ensur e tha

tai r qualit y i s maintained . See 4 0 C.F.R . §52.21(a) . PS

D rules als o appl

y to area s where attainmentstatus cannotb e classified . 4 0 C.F.R . §52.21(i)(3);/n re American Re-Fuel Company of

Essex County, PS

D Appea l No . 86-1 , unpub . op . a

tn. 5 (Adm'r

, Oa . 6 , 1986) . Th

e Cit y o f Buena Vist

a an d Rockbridg

e Count y ar e attainmentarea

s fo r TS P and SO „ an d ar e unclassifiabl e fo

r 0 „ C O & NO , See 4 0 C.F.R

. §81.347 .P. 6

4 HADSON POWE R1 4 - BUEN

A VIST A permi t t o buil dacoal-fire dpowe r plan t l n Buen aVista , Virgini acapabl e o f producin g 66. 5 megawatt s o f electrica l power . Th e propose dfacilit y i s locate d1 5 k

mnort h of

th e Jame s Rive

r Fac e Wildernes s (di e "Wilderness" ) an d5 6 k

msouthwes t

o f th e Shenandoa h Nationa l Par k (th e "Park")
. On e of

th e state dpurpose s o

f di e PS D progra mi s "to preserve , protect , an denhanc e th e ai r qualit y i n nationa l park s [and ] nationa l wildernes s areas. " CAA§l60(2),42U.S.C.§7470(2)
. Therefore , man y o f thes e park s an dwildernes s area s ar e designate da s clas s I area s unde r CA A §l62(a) , 4 2 U.S.C
. §7472(a)
. A s discusse dbelo w i n mor e detail, clas s I area s ar e entide d t o additiona l protectio n unde r di e PS D program . Bot

h th e Wildernes s an ddi e Par k ar e clas s I areas . PS D permi t

applicant s mus t

demonstrat e tha t

emission s from apropose dfacility "wil

l no t cause , o r

contribut e to , ai r

pollutio n i n exces s of, " inter

alia, certai n statutoril y allowabl e increase s i n pollutio n levels , calle d"increments. " CA A §l65(a)(3)
. Onl y smal l increment s ar e availabl e i n clas s I areas . CA A §l63(b)(l) ; 4 2 U.S.C
. §7473(b)(l)
. Becaus e th e propose dfacilit y i s locate di n comple x terrai n withi n 10 0 k mof tw o clas s I areas , existin g model s wer e determine dt o b e invali d fo r th e ai r quality analysi s i n thi s case . EP A approve dahybri dmode l create db y Hadso n Powe r fromexistin g model s t o perfor mth e incremen t

consumptio n analysis
. EP A allowe dHadso n Powe r t o divid e th e Par k int o norther n an dsoudier n portion s fo r th e incremen t consumptio n analysis
. See Memorandu mfromExecutiv e Director , VDAPC , t o Virgini aAi

r Pollutio n Contro l Boar dMember s a t 5- 3 (Mar
. 26 , 1992 ) (Respons e t o Petitions , Attachmen t IV ) (hereinafte r

"VDAP C Memo.")
. Hadso n Power followe dVDAPC' s polic y of examinin g onl y th e effect o f increment-consumin g source s withi n 10 0 k mo f aclas s I area , an di n on e instanc e wen t beyon ddi e minimu mrequirement s of thi s polic y b y modelin g source s fa r mor e dia n 10 0 k

mfromth e norther n portio n of

di e Park
. EP A ha s alongstandin g polic y o f usin g significanc e level s t o determin e whedie r

apropose dsourc e wil l caus e o r contribut e t o a n incremen t

violation
. ' Accordin g t o VDAPC, di e ne t effec t o f emission s

5 See 4 3 Fed . Reg

. 26,39 8 (Jun

e 19,1978 ) (adopting minimu m amounto f

ambien t impa a tha

ti s significant) . Thes e significance levels , however , d o no tapply t o analyses o f incrementconsumptio n in clas s I areas . Hadson Powe r requeste d and received EP A (continued... )P. 7

HADSO N POWE R1 4 - BUEN

A VIST A 5 fromHadso n Power' s propose dfacility an dpreviousl y permitte d projects , after

considering th e offset s provide dby Georgi aBonde d Fibers , Inc
. ('Georgi aBonde dFibers") , * i s t o consum e 4 8 t o 91 % of S0 2 7 an d749 6 of

NO T increment s availabl e i n th e Wilderness , an d6 9 t o 90 % o f

S0 2 an d91 % o f

NO , increment s availabl e i n th e souther n portio n o f

di e Park
. VDAP

C Memo , a t

5-2
. VDAP

C conclude dtha t Hadso n Powe r

wil l no t caus e o r contribut e significand

y t o aclas s I incremen t

violatio n i n eithe r

area . Id. a t

5-1 0 t o 5-12
. Th e Qea n Ai

r Ac t als o require s tha t

writte n nodc e of

a propose dPS D permi t

b e provide dt o di e Federa l Lan dManage r (FLM ) fo r aclas s I are atha t

ma y b e affecte db y emission s fromth e propose d facility. CA

A §l65(d)(2)(A)
. I

f di e incremen t

analysi s Indicate s n o violatio n of aclas s I increment , a s VDAP C conclude dwa s th e cas e here , apermi t ma y b e issue dunles s th e FL M demonstrate s t o di e state' s satisfactio n dia t

di e propose demission s wil l hav e a n advers e impac t o n ai r quality-relate dvalue s (AQRVs ) i n th e clas s I area . CA A §l65(d)(2)(C)(ii)
. A s discusse di n mor e detai l below , o n Januar y 31 , 1992 , di e Par k FL M 8 submitte dafinal advers e Impac t determinatio n for

Hadso n Power' s draf

t permit
. See Lette r

fromJame s M
. Ridenour , Director , Nationa l Par

k Service , t o Wallac e N
. Davis , Executiv e Director , VDAP C '(...continued ) approva l t o us e significance level s proportiona l to th e clas s n level s for th e analysi s o f incrementconsumptio n in th e Wilderness an d th e Par k clas s I areas . See Memorandu m from John Calcagni , Director, EP A Ai r Qualit y Managemen

tDivision , t o Thoma

s J . Maslany , Director, Region H

I Air , Radiatio n an d Toxic

s Division (Sept. 10 , 1991 ) (Respons e to Petitions , Attachmen

tV) . Hadso n Powe

r intend s t o provide eigh tpercen to f it s stea m generatio n to Georgia Bonde d Fibers , a manufacture r locate d acros s the Maur

y Rive r from th e propose d facility. Whil

e operatin g unde r this contractua l arrangemen

twit h Hadson Power, Georgi

a Bonded Fiber

s ha s agreed to shu tdow n it

s boilers , an

d the resultin g emission s reductio n will partiall

y oBse tth e emission s fro

m Hadson Power. VDAP

C Memo , a

t5-34 . A tthe tim e o f permitissuance , Hadson Powe r an d Georgia Bonded Fiber

s wer e negotiatin g this agreement . Id. Thes e offset s were include d i n Hadson Power' s incrementconsumptio n analysi s i n supporto f

it s permi tapplication . Id. 7 Thes e percentage s relat e to th e differen

tSO , increment

s wit h various averagin

g periods . See VDAP

C Memo , a

t5-1 1 t o 5-12 . 8 The Par

k FL M i s th e Assistan

tSecretar y fo r Fis h an d Wildlif e an d Parks , Departmen

to f th e Interior.P. 8

6 HADSO

N POWE R1 4 - BUEN

A VIST A (Jan
. 31 , 1992) , SEL

C Petition , App
. D (hereinafte r "Par k AID")
. O n February 3 , 1992 , th e Wildernes s FL M ' als o submitte dafinal advers e impac t determinatio n fo

r Hadso n Power' s propose dfacility. See Letter fromJo y E
. Berg , Fores t Supervisor , Jefferso n Nationa l Forest , t o Donal dL
. Shepherd , Director , Regio n n , VDAP C (Feb
. 3 , 1992) , SEL

C Petition , App
. C (hereinafte r "Wildernes s AID")
. VDAP C rejecte dth e FLMs ' advers e impa adeterminations
. Th e final permi t

allow s emission s of

79 7 ton s pe r

year (tpy ) for NO „ 35 8 tp y for

S0 2 , an d96. 5 tp y for

volatil e organic compound s (VOCs)
. See Permit , Par

t I , Conditio n 22 , Respons e t o Petitions , Attach

men t X (hereinafte r

"Permit")
. Hadso n agree s t o contro l it s NO , emis

sion s throug h combustio n control s an ddi e applicatio n o f selectiv e catalyti c reductio n (SCR) , whic h VDAP C decide di s th e bes t

availabl e contro l technolog y (BACT ) fo r dii s pollutant
. Th e permi t reflect s th e us e o f SC Rby requirin g tha t

th e boiler s b e designe dt o achiev e a n emissio n rat e of

0.1 0 lbs/10 6 Btu
. Permit , Part I , Conditio n 7
. Accordin g t o VDAPC , SC

Rha s neve r

bee n applie dl n circumstance s like Hadso n Power's , an dt o allo w fo r contingencie s tha t

ma y resul t from th e applicatio n o f

dii s technology , di e permi t allow s NO , emission s of 0.2 5 lbs/10 * Btu
. Permit , Par t I , Conditio n 20
. Th e permi t als o allow s revie w o f th e NO x emissio n limi t

prio r t o initial issuanc e o f

a n operatin g permi t an deac h renewa l of

suc h permit
. Id. Thes e appeal s followed
. I 0 Th e numerou s issue s raise di n thi s appea l ma

y b e summarize da s follows
. First , severa l issue s pertai n t o th e incremen t

consumptio n analysis
. SEL C maintain s tha t

th e incremen t

consumptio n analysi s i s fault y becaus e of

VDAPC' s polic y of excludin g source s mor e dia n 10 0 k mfrom aclas s I area . Th e County contend s dia t

Hadso n Power' s propose demission s violat e th e S0 2 incremen t for th e Park
. I n arelate dissue , SEL C contend s dia t

di e notic e of di e publi c hearin g o n th e draf t permi t wa s defectiv e becaus e i t di dno t includ e di e predicte dincremen t consumptio n a t

di e Park
. CLEA Rargue s tha t

emission s fromth e constructio n of di e propose d

' Th e Wildernes s FL M i s th e Jefferso n Nationa l Fores tSuperviso r i n th e Fores t Service , Departmen to f Agriculture . Th e Wildernes s i s locate d i n th e Jefferso n Nationa l Forest . 1 0 Althoug h VDAP

C rejeae d bot h FLMs'findings , neithe r FL M sough trevie w o f

th e final permi tdecisio n unde r §124.19 .P. 9

HADSO N POWE R1 4 - BUEN

A VIST A 7 facility ar e require dt o b e includedi n th e ai r quality analysis
. Second , several issue s pertai n t o VDAPC' s rejectio n o f di e advers e impac t determinations.
. SEL

C contend s dia t

VDAPC' s rejectio n of

di e FLMs ' advers e impac t

determination s i s clea

r erro r unde r In re Old Dominion Electric Cooperative, PSD Appeal No
. 91-3 9 (Adm'r , Jan
. 29 , 1992)
. SEL C an ddi e Count y als o conten ddia t VDAP C faile dt o seriousl y conside r o r direcd y addres s di e FLMs ' specifi c determinations
. Third , SEL C assert s dia t

th e permi t

doe s no t

reflec t emissio n limit s base d upo n BAC

T for NO T . Fourth , SEL

C an ddi e Count y contes t th e adequac y an dreliabilit

y o f th e modelin g an dai r

quality analysi s submitte db y Hadso n Power i n suppor t

of it s permi t application
. Lasdy , th e Count y an dCLEA

Rargu e tha t

th e permi t

shoul dno t

b e issue dunti l di e Nationa l Par

k Servic e complete s it s environmenta l revie w o f a propose deasemen t

linkin g th e propose dfacility an dGeorgi aBonde d Fibers
. ANALYSIS I
. Increment

Consumption Analysis Th e Clean Ai

r Ac t require s al l PS

D permi t applicant s t o sho w tha t emission s fromdi e propose dfacility "wil l no t cause , o r contribut e to , ai r pollutio n i n exces s of

an y * * * maximu mallowabl e increas e * * * for an y pollutant. " CA

A §l65(a)(3)
. l i A

s note dabove , thes e maximu mallowabl e increase s ar e calle d"increments. " Th e Ac t als o contain s provision s whic h discus s di e relationshi p betwee n thi s requiremen t

a s i t relate s t o clas s I area s an ddi e affirmativ e

1 1 Sectio n l65(d)(2)(C)(i ) o f th e CA A als o require

s a n incrementconsumptio n analysis . I

tprovides tha

twhe n a n FL M "file s a notice allegin g tha

temission s from a propose d * * * facilit

y ma y caus e or contribut

e t o a change i n th e ai

r qualit y in [ a clas s I area] , a permitshal

l no tb e issued unles s th

e [applicant

] demonstrate s tha

temission s o f particulat

e matte r an d sulfu r dioxid e wil

l notcaus e o r contribut

e t o concentration s whic h excee d th e maximu

m allowabl

e increases fo

r a clas s I area. " SEL

C contend s tha

t th e Park' s Septembe r 25,199 0 lette r to VDAP C wa s notice for th e purpose s o f this seaion . SEL C Petitio n a

t24 , n.14 . I

n othe r words , SEL

C contend s tha

tth e Par k FLM' s Septembe r 25 , 199 0 lette r triggere

d a n obligatio n fo

r Hadso n Powe r t o perfor

m a n increment analysis . W

e canno taddress thi

s issue , a s the September 25 , 199 0 lette r i s no ti n th e recor d before us . I

n an y event, Hadso

n Powe r wa s require d t o perfor

m a n increment consumptio n analysis under CA A §l65(a)(3) . an

d ther e ha s bee n n o showin g tha

tthis analysis woul d hav

e bee n an y differen ti f performe d pursuan

tt o CA A §165(d)(2)(C)(i) .P.1 0

8 HADSON POWE R1 4 - BUEN

A VIST A responsibilit y o f

FLM s t o protec t

th e ai r quality-relate dvalue s of suc h areas . Sectio n 165(d)(2)(C) , provide s i n part : (ii ) I n an y cas e wher e di e Federa l LandManage r demonstrate s t o di e satisfactio n o f th e Stat e tha t

di e emission s fromsuc h facility wil l hav e a n advers e impac t o n th e ai r quality-relate dvalue s (includin g visibility ) o f suc h lands , notwithstandin g di e fact tha t th e chang e i n ai r quality resultin g fromemission s fromsuc h facility wil l no t caus e o r contribut e t o concentration s whic h excee ddi e maximu mallowabl e increase s for aclas s I area , apermi t

shal l no t b e issued
. (iii ) I n an y cas e wher e th e owne r o r operato r o f suc h facility demonstrate s t o di e satisfactio n of th e Federa l Lan dManager , an ddi e Federa l LandManager s o certi

fies, dia t di e emission s fromsuc h facility wil l hav e n o advers e impa ao n th e ai r quality-relate dvalue s o f

suc h land s (includin g visibility) , notwithstandin g di e fact tha t di e chang e i n ai r

quality resultin g fromemission s fromsuc h facility wil l caus e o r contribut e t o concentration s whic h excee dth e maximu mallowabl e increase s fo

r clas s I areas , th e State ma y issu e apermit
. Thus , th e incremen t

analysi s determine s wh o ha s th e burde n of demonstratin g whethe r

dier e i s a n advers e impac t o n ai r quality-relate d value s an dt o whos e satisfactio n di e demonstratio n mus t b e made
. I

f th e analysi s demonstrate s a n incremen t violation , di e applican t

bear s th e burde n o f

demonstratin g tha t

di e propose dfacility wil l no t hav e a n advers e impact
. I

f a n incremen t

violatio n i s no t

established , di e FL

M bear s th e burde n of

demonstratin g dia t

di e propose dfacility wil l hav e a n advers e impact
. VDAP C polic y i s "tha

t source s beyon d10 0 kilometer s fromclas s I area s d o no t

consum e increment. " Respons e t o SEL C Petitio n a t

8
. Therefore , "[l] t

ha s bee n th e consisten t

polic y of th e VDAP

C t o requir e analyse s o f

th e cumulativ e impac t

du e t o appropriat e clas s I increment

consumin g source s withi n 10 0 k mo f eithe r o f di e tw o clas s I area s i n Virginia. " Id. Hadso n Powe r performe dan incremen t consumptio n analysi s consisten t

wid i VDAP

C policy
. SEL

C contend s dia t

dii s policy ,P.1 1

HADSON POWE

R1 4 - BUEN

A VIST A 9 by excludin g source s beyon d10 0 km , fails t o conside r al l increment

consumin g sources . SEL C represent s tha t

both di e VDAP

C an dFLM

s agre e tha t asubstantia l portio n o f

th e ai r pollutio n proble ma t

di e tw o clas s I area s result s fromtranspor t fromsource s mor e tha n 10 0 k m awa y fromthos e areas , an dSEL C assert s tha t

som e o f dios e source s clearl y consum e clas s I increment
. SEL C Petitio n a t

24-25
. Accordin g t o SELC , Hadso n Powe r

canno t demonstrat e whedie r

i t wil l violat e a n incremen t

withou t considerin g thes e sources , an dtherefor e VDAP C clearl y erre dl n issuin g th e permi t base do n dii s allegedl y incomplet e incremen t

analysis
. SEL C dispute s VDAPC' s assertio n dia t it s polic y i s consisten t wit h th e limitation s of

ai r quality modelin g an dexceed s di e requirement s o f

man y othe r

states
. SEL

C list s afe w state s tha t

i t say s routinel y mode l increment-consumin g source s beyon d10 0 km
. SEL C argue s tha t

VDAPC' s "categorical determinatio n dia t source s beyon d10 0 k mar e no t

clas s I increment-consumin g source s i s clearl y illegal an d contrar y t o EP

A policy. " SEL

C Petitio n a t

25
. VDAP C explain s an ddefend s it s polic y a s follows : Th e DAP C polic y tha t

source s beyon d10 0 kilometer s fromClas s I area s d o no t consum e incremen t

i s no t contrar y t o la w an dpolicy
. I t ha s bee n th e consisten t polic y o f th e VDAP

C t o requir e analyse s o f th e cumulativ e impac t

du e t o appropriat e Clas s I increment-consumin g source s withi n 10 0 k mof eithe r of th e tw o Clas s I area s i n Virginia
. Thi s i s don e usin g EPA-approve dmodel s an dtechniques
. Th e model s use dar e widel y understoo dby expert s i n th e fieldt o overpredic t

pollutan t concentration s a t

grea t distance s (i n exces s of

5 0 km)
. I t

i s th e VDAPC' s opinio n tha t cumulativ e Clas s I impac t analyse s shoul db e restricte d t o incremen t

consumin g source s withi n 10 0 kmo f Clas s I areas . Th e above-describe dpolic y wa s carefull y designe dt o b e conservative , tha t is , designe dt o overestimat e incremen t

consumptio n i n orde r t o provid e a s muc h protectio n of th e Clas s I incremen t

a s i s reasonable
.P.1 2

1 0 HADSON POWE R1 4 - BUEN

A VIST A Respons e t o SEL

C Petitio n a t

8
. Boti i SEL

C an dVDAP

C discus s di e Administrator' s recen t decisio n i n Old

Dominion, supra. I n tha t case , petitioner s (includin g SELC ) challenge dapermi t

issue dby VDAP

C t o Ol dDominio n because , amon g othe r

reasons , Ol dDominio n di dno t perfor ma n incremen t analysi s relativ e t o impact s a t th e Park
. Ol dDominio n wil l b e locate d approximatel y 13 5 k

mfromth e Park' s neares t boundary
. VDAP

C indicate dtha t

n o demonstratio n wa s require dsinc e it s polic y i s t o requir e aclas s I incremen t analysi s onl y for

source s proposin g t o locat e withi n 10 0 k

mo f aclas s I area . I n upholdin g VDAPC' s action , di e Administrato r

note dtha t

th e demonstratio n a t

di e Wilderness , whic h i s close r t o Ol dDominion' s propose dlocatio n an ddierefor e potentiall y subjec t t o eve n greate r

advers e impacts , showe ddia t clas s I increment s woul dno t

b e violate ddiere
. Th e Administrato r als o mentione da s a consideratio n "diat

EP A ha s no t issue dan y final guidanc e dia t woul d contraven e th e State' s policy. " Old Dominion, unpub
. op . a t 6
. I n a footnot e t o thi s statement , th e Administrato r said : Draf t guidanc e release dby EP A i n Octobe r

199 0 an d distribute dt o di e State s recommend s analysi s beyon d 10 0 kilometer s whe n ther e ar e potentia l impact s o n a clas s I area . Whil e thi s guidanc e ha s no t ye t becom e final, i t reflect s EPA' s concer n tha t increment s analysi s includ e clas s I area s whe n ther e ar e reasonabl e question s abou t

apropose dfacility's impact s o n suc h areas . A s adraf t policy , however , i t

doe s no t hav e di e sam e weigh t

a s abindin g Agency positio n an ddoe s no t prohibi t th e State s fromadoptin g diei r ow n policie s tha t ar e consisten t

with th e Clean Ai

r Ac t an d applicabl e regulations
. Nevertheless , EPA' s draf t polic y reflect s th e Agency' s lates t thinkin g o n whe n i t

i s appropriat e t o requir e incremen t analyse s for

clas s I areas , an di s base dupo n di e availabilit y an dfeasibilit

y of modelin g tool s fo

r assessin g suc h impacts
. Fo r thi s reason , Virgini ashoul dconside r reexaminin g it s curren t policy
. Old Dominion, unpub
. op . a t n.6
.P.1 3

HADSO N POWE R1 4 - BUEN

A VIST A 1 1 SELC , i n it s petition , focuse s o n di e Administrator' s advic e t o Virgini at o reexamin e it s curren t policy
. VDAPC, o n th e othe r hand , focuse s o n th e statemen t

tha t a s adraf t policy , th e 199 0 draf

t guidanc e doe s no t hav e di e sam e weigh t

a s abindin g Agenc y positio n an ddoe s no t prohibi t state s fromadoptin g diei r ow n policie s consisten t

with di e Ac t an dimplementin g regulations
. Th e issu e presente di n Old Dominion wa s somewha t different tha n th e issu e presente dhere
. I n Old Dominion, th e issu e wa s whethe r apropose dsourc e mor e tha n 10 0 k mfrom aclas s I are a neede dt o d o a n incremen t analysis
. Here , th e issu e i s whether , whe n apropose dsourc e locatin g withi n 10 0 k mo f aclas s I are adoe s it s incremen t

analysis , i t

mus t conside r odie r source s mor e tha n 10 0 k m fromth e clas s I area . However , th e underlyin g technica l issues , relatin g t o th e likelihoo dof

asubstantia l impac t

o n aclas s I are ao f

asourc e mor e tha n 10 0 k

mawa y an ddi e accurac y of

modelin g a t

suc h distances , ar e essentiall y di e same . W e finddi e Old

Dominion decisio n conclusiv e a s t o th e effect o f th e 199 0 draf

t guidance , whic h continue s t o remai n i n draf t form
. Fo r th e reason s state di n di e footnot e i n Old Dominion previousl y quoted , di e draf

t guidanc e doe s no t

provid e abasi s fo

r overturnin g th e state' s action
. However , SEL

C als o argue s tha t

th e VDAP

C polic y i s contrar y t o curren t

EP A policy , no t

jus t th e draf t guidanc e discusse di n Old Dominion. I n suppor t

of it s position , SEL

C quote s fromdire e docu

ments
. Th e first

documen t

cite di s th e preambl e t o th e 197 8 PS D regulations
. I n discussin g comment s receive do n di e "Guidelin e o n Ai r Quality Models, " on e issu e identifie dwa s whethe r th e modele destimat e of sourc e impac t

shoul db e limite dt o acertai n distanc e o r aminimu m numerica l impac t

o r both
. I n addressin g thi s issue , th e documen t says : [T]h e Administrato r

intend s t o limi t

generall y th e appli

catio n of ai r qualit y model s t o adownwin ddistanc e of n o mor e dia n 5 0 kilometers
. Thi s i s becaus e dispersio n parameter s commonl y i n us e ar e base do n experiment s relativel y clos e t o sources , an dextendin gP.1 4

1 2 HADSON POWE R1 4 - BUEN

A VIST A thes e parameter s t o lon g downwin ddistance s result s i n grea t uncertaint y a s t o th e accurac y of th e mode l estimate s a t

suc h distances
. Also , sinc e th e ai r quality impac t o f man y source s fall s of

f rapidl y t o insignificant levels , EP A doe s no t

inten dt o analyz e th e impac t o f a sourc e beyon ddi e poin t wher e th e concentration s fromth e sourc e fall belo w certai n level s (whic h ar e generall y base do n di e Clas s I increments)
. 4 3 Fed
. Reg
. 26,39 8 (Jun e 19 , 1978)
. Th e preambl e the n states , i n th e languag e dte d b y SELC : However , sinc e th e 197 7 Amendment s provid e specia l concer n for

Clas s I areas , any reasonabl y expecte d impact s for

thes e area s mus t

b e considere dirrespectiv e o f th e 5 0 kilomete r

limitatio n o r

th e abov e significanc e levels
. Id. A secon ddocumen t cite db y SEL

C i s EPA' s "Guidelin e o n Ai r Quality Models, " revise da s of Jul y 1986 , whic h state s a t page s 7- 8 tha t "[s]inc e i n man y case s Clas s I area s ma y b e threatene da t

distance s greate r tha n 5 0 k

mfromne w sources, " som e procedur e i s neede dt o determin e i

f asignificant

impac t wil l occu r

an didentif

y di e mode l t o b e use di n suc h cases . Finally , SEL

C quote s from a197 9 memorandu m1 Z whic h con tain s th e followin g sentences : 'Ver y larg e sources , however , ma y b e expecte dt o affect

'ai r qualit y relate dvalues ' a t

distance s greate r

dia n 10 0 kilometers
. Th e appropriat e Federa l LandManage r shoul db e notifie di f suc h impact s ar e expeae do n acas e by cas e basis. " SEL C reason s tha t

i f th e FL M i s t o b e notified , di e potentia l impa aof thes e source s shoul db e assesse ddiroug h modeling
.

1 2 Memorandu m from Davi d G . Hawkins , Assistan tAdministrato r fo r Air , Noise , an d Radiatio n t o Regiona l Administrator s (Mar . 19.1979 ) (entitle d "Notificatio n t o Federa l Land Manage r Unde r Sectio n 165(d ) o f th e Clea n Ai

r Act") .P.1 5

HADSON POWE

R1 4 - BUEN

A VIST A 1 3 VDAPC, i n it s respons e t o SELC' s petition , doe s no t addres s di e interpretatio n o r

significanc e o f

an y o f thes e document s bu t

relie s solel y o n di e rational e fo

r it s polic y a s previousl y discussed , di e lac k o f bindin g effe ao f

th e 199 0 draf

t guidance , di e faatha t

th e analysi s her e wa s consisten t

with dia t o f severa l othe r

source s recend y permitte di n Virgini anon e o f

whos e permit s wer e remanded , an ddia t neidie r FL M petitione dfor

revie w o f

th e permit
. 1 J W e finddia t

di e document s cite dby SEL C d o no t clearl y establis h arequiremen t

t o mode l source s beyon d10 0 km
. Th e 197 8 Federa l Register

doe s evidenc e dia t

EP A intende ddi e ai r

quality analysi s for clas s I area s t o exten dt o "an y reasonabl y expeae dImpacts " withou t regar dt o di e 5 0 k

mlimi t otherwis e applicable
. However , thi s preambl e languag e i s no t

self-executin g an dha s t o b e viewe di n ligh t of subsequend y develope dpolic y an dAgenc y practice
. EPA' s mos t

curren t "Guidelin e o n Ai

r Qualit y Models " i s th e Jul y 198 6 revisio n (supplemente di n 1987) , whic h a t Sectio n 7.2.6
. states : Sinc e i n man y case s Clas s I area s ma y b e threatene da t distance s greate r

dia n 5 0 k

mfromsources , som e procedur e i s neede dt o determin e (1 ) i f asignificant impa awil l occur , an d(2 ) identif y di e mode l t o b e use di n settin g a n emissio n limi t i f di e Clas s I increment s ar e threatene d(model s fo r thi s purpos e shoul db e approve dfor

us e o n acase-by-cas e basi s a s require di n Sectio n 3.2)
. Thi s procedur e an ddi e model s seleae dfo

r us e shoul db e determine di n consultatio n wit

h di e EP A Regional Offic

e an ddi e appropriat e FLM
. Whil e thi s guidelin e recognize s th e potentia l threa t t o ai r quality from source s beyon d5 0 km , i

t onl y require s tha t

aprocedur e an dmodel s b e establishe di n consultatio n wit h di e EP A Regional Offic

e an dth e appropriat e FLM
.

1 Concernin g thi s las targument , see infra not e 27 .P.1 6

1 4 HADSO

N POWE R1 4 - BUEN

A VIST A Regio n UJ, whil e encouragin g th e stat e t o conside r revisin g it s policy , nonetheles s appear s t o hav e accepte dVirginia' s polic y relativ e t o incremen t

analysi s a s consisten t

wit h curren t federal la w an dEP

A policy
. " W

e not e tha t

i n th e Region' s comment s o n th e Hadso n Powe r draf t permit , " th e Regio n di dno t rais e an y objectio n t o di e state' s incremen t

analysis
. Ther e wer e extensiv e discussion s betwee n th e Regio n an dVirgini ao n modelin g issue s ye t i t doe s no t appea r dia t di e Regio n objeae dt o di e applicatio n o f Virginia' s policy
. l 6 Unde r dios e circumstances , VDAP C satisfie dit s obligatio n unde r curren t polic y o f consultin g with di e EP

A Regional Offic

e regardin g di e developmen t of procedure s an dmodel s fo r considerin g source s beyon d5 0 km
. 1 7 Finally , whil e th e 197 9 memorandu mrecognize s tha t ver y larg e source s mor e distan t

dia n 10 0 k

mca n affe aAQRVs , thi s memorandu m i s focuse do n di e proces s fo r notifyin g FLM

s an dcanno t

by itsel f b e interprete da s requirin g inclusio n o f suc h source s i n th e incremen t analysis
. W e recogniz e tha t

Hadso n Powe r

di dcondu aincremen t

con sumptio n modelin g includin g source s far mor e tha n 10 0 k

mfromth e norther n par t

o f th e Park
. 1 8 Thi s doe s no t chang e ou r

analysis
. Th e fact tha t apermitte e goe s beyon dth e minimu mrequirement s of VDAP C polic y doe s no t

i n an y wa

y invalidat e a n odierwis e acceptabl e policy
. Indeed , i t

woul db e poo r

publi c polic y t o creat e suc h astron g disincentiv e for

goin g beyon dminimu mrequirements
.

Thi s i s consisten twit

h th e Administrator' s statementin Old Dominion tha

t"EP A ha s no tissue d an

y final guidanc

e tha twoul d contravene th e State' s policy. " Old Dominion, unpub . op . a

t6 . 1 5 Lette r from Bernar

d E . Turlinslo , Chief

, Ai r Enforcemen

tBranch, Region II

I to Wallac e N. Davis , Executiv

e Direaor , VDj\P

C (Jan . 31 , 1992) , Respons e t o Petitions , Attachmen

tVII . See Respons e to Petitions , Attachmen tVII . 1 7 Th e recor d i s les s clea

r a s to VDAPC'

s consultatio n wit

h th e FLMs

. W e note , however , tha

tthis i s th e mos trecen

ti n a serie s o f

PS D permit s issue d b

y VDAP C fo r source s impactin g thes e class I areas . Throug h th e cours e o f

thes e permitproceedings , th e FLM s hav e presente d their position s to , an d engaged in a dialogu e with , VDAPC . 1 8 I ti s no tallege d dia

tsource s beyon d 10 0 k

m wer e include d i n th e incremen t consumptio n analyses fo

r th e southern portio n o f th e Par k o r for th e Wilderness . A s note d above , VDAP

C concluded tha

tHadson Powe

r woul d no tviolat

e an y incremen ti n eithe r th e norther

n o r southern portions o f th e Par k o r i n th e Wilderness .P.1 7

HADSON POWE

R1 4 - BUEN

A VIST A 1 5 Havin g determine ddia t

Virgini apolic y doe s no t contraven e curren t Agenc y policy , w e woul dstrongl y reiterat e th e Administrator' s suggestio n tha t

Virgini areexamin e it s curren t policy , i n ligh t

o f th e potentiall y seriou s consequence s t o ai r quality of

it s exclusio n policy
. W e woul dsimilarl y urg e th e Agenc y t o mov e expeditiousl y t o issu e it s final guidanc e addressin g dii s concern , whic h th e state , a s th e Agency' s delegatee , wil l b e constraine dt o follow
. Th e Count y contend s dia t eve n excludin g source s beyon d10 0 km , Hadso n Power' s modelin g showe di t woul dcontribut e t o violation s o f

di e clas s I three-hou r

incremen t

fo r SO z i n th e Park , an d dierefor e th e permi t

shoul dno t

hav e bee n Issued
. Specifically , th e Count y contend s dia t

di e allowabl e diree-hou r S0 2 incremen t

for th e Par k i s 2 5 ug/m J , an ddia t

Hadso n Power' s modelin g showe dtha t i t wil l consum e 32. 1 ug/m 3

. VDAP C doe s no t

contes t tha t Hadso n Power' s preliminar y modelin g prediae dincremen t violation s i n th e Park
. VDAP C concluded , however , dia t di e violation s ar e du e primaril y t o tw o previousl y permitte dbu t no t ye t construae dsources , no t Hadso n Power , an ddia t

Hadso n Powe r

woul dcontribut e onl y asmal l amoun t t o thes e violations
. Hadso n Powe r requeste dan dreceive dapprova l fromVDAP

C (an dEPA

) t o condu amodelin g wid i different meteorologica l data
. " I n addition , becaus e significanc e level s for clas s I incremen t

consumptio n ha dno t

bee n establishe db y EP

A VDAP C proposed , an dEP

A approved , dia t

fo r dii s permit , th e clas s I significanc e level s b e proportiona l t o thos e use dfo r clas s n areas . 2 0

1 9 See VDAP

C Memo , a

t5-4, whic

h states : EP A polic y normall y require s tha tth e applican

t(Hadson-14 ) mus tus e it s ow n meteorologica

l dat a in assessin g th e effect s o f multipl e sources . Whe

n Hadson modele d Coor s [anothe r incrementconsumin g source ] • * • emission s usin g Buena Vist a meteorologica

l data, incrementviolations were » • » prediaed . I n June 199 1 (VDAPC ] propose d to EP

A tha tHadson b e allowed t o us e meteorological dat

a mos tappropriat

e to eac h regio n o f

(th e Park] ; i n August1991 , EP

A agree d to le tHadson mode

l Coor s wid i Coor

s meteorologica

l data, an d di e incrementviolatio n wa s resolved . 2 0 See supra note 5 .1 6 HADSON POWE R1 4 - BUEN

A VIST A Base do n dii s analysis , VDAP C conclude ddia t

Hadso n Powe r

woul dno t contribut e significandy t o di e violation
. Th e Count y ha s no t demonstrate ddia t

dii s conclusio n I s i n error . I n anothe r

issu e relate dt o di e incremen t analysis , SEL

C argue s tha t th e publi c notic e of

th e hearin g o n th e draf

t permi t wa s defectiv e becaus e i t

failedt o includ e di e prediae damoun t of incremen t consumptio n l n th e Park
. (Th e notic e di dprovid e the amoun t for th e Wilderness. ) VDAP

C regulation s requir e tha t th e publi c notic e stat e "th e degre e o f incremen t

consumptio n tha t

i s expeae dfromdi e source. " Virgini aAi

r Pollutio n Contro l Regulation s § 102-08-0 2 (R ) (2 ) (c)
. VDAPC , whic h doe s no t

den y di e omission , respond s dia t th e publi c notic e wa s no t defectiv e becaus e i

t presente dth e worst-cas e clas s I incremen t consumptio n expeae dfromHadso n Power' s emissions
. Thi s worst
cas e consumptio n wa s expeae di n th e Wilderness , no t di e Park
. Accordin g t o VDAPC , th e "degre e of incremen t

consumptio n tha t

i s expeaed " doe s no t

requir e numerou s incremen t consumptio n value s at variou s receptors , onl y th e maximu mincremen t consumed
. I n addi

tion, VDAP

C note s dia t

di e actua l figures wer e sen t t o th e FLM

s an d mad e availabl e a t

th e VDAP

C Roanok e office an da t

loca l publi c librarie s i n Buen aVis aan dLexington
. W e findth e VDAPC' s explanatio n unpersuasive
. Th e Qea n Ai r A arequire s meaningfu l publi c participatio n i n th e PS D permittin g process . Sectio n 165(a)(2 ) require s apubli c hearin g allowin g fo r intereste dperson s "to appea r an dsubmi t

writte n an dora l presentation s o n th e ai r

qualit y impa aof

suc h source , alternative s thereto , contro l technolog y requirements , an dodie r appropriat e considerations. " I n implementin g thi s provision , th e Agency regulation s definin g di e requirement s for

stat e PS D plan s requir e th e reviewin g authorit y to : Notif y th e public , by advertisemen t i n anewspape r

o f genera l circulatio n i n eac h regio n i n whic h th e propose dsourc e woul db e construaed , of di e application , th e preliminary determination , tbe degree of increment

consumption tbat

is expected

from tbe source o r

modification , an do

f di e opportunit y fo

r commen t a t apubli c hearin g a s wel l a s writte n publi c comment
.P.1 9

HADSO N POWE R1 4 - BUEN

A VIST A 1 7 40.C.F.R
. §51.l66(q)(2)(iii ) (emphasi s added)
. Th e stat e regulatio n cite db y SEL

C i s identica l t o dii s federal regulation
. T o allo w for

meaningfu l comment , th e publi c mus t b e apprise d o f al l o f th e propose dsource' s incremen t consumptio n a s determine d throug h th e modelin g analysis
. W e d o no t believ e tha t

di e phras e "degre e o f

incremen t

consumption " can b e rea da s allowin g fo r providin g dat aa t

onl y on e location , albei t th e on e with th e greates t projeae dconsumption
. Differen t potentia l commenter s ma y hav e a n interes t i n differen t

area s t o b e impaae dan dwoul dwant , an dwoul d reasonabl y b e entide d to , availabl e dat ao n incremen t consumptio n a t di e are ao f

thei r particular

concern . Otherwise , thei r abilit y t o commen t o n th e ai r

qualit y impa aan dpropose dalternative s woul db e severel y limited
. Whil e VDAP C indicate s dia t

suc h dat awer e mad e availabl e a t

designate dlocation s withi n th e vicinit y o f th e propose d plant , th e regulatio n specifically require s thes e dat at o b e i n th e publi c notice
. VDAP

C wil l b e require dt o provid e ane w publi c notic e i n respons e t o th e reman dordere db y thi s decision , an dsuc h notic e shoul ddetai l al l o f

th e incremen t

t o b e consume dby di e propose d source , includin g an y incremen t consume da t

di e Park
. Finally , CLEA

Robject s t o th e permi t o n th e ground s tha t Hadso n Powe r

failedt o includ e emission s fromth e constructio n of th e propose dfacility i n it s demonstratio n tha t neithe r anationa l ambien t ai r quality standar do r

a n incremen t

wil l b e exceeded
. Accordin g t o CLEAR , inclusio n of

constructio n emission s i s require db y th e Clean Ai r A aan dfederal an dstat e regulations
. CLEA Rcite s sectio n 165(a)(3 ) o f th e Qea n Ai

r Act, whic h provide s dia t

n o majo r emittin g facility ma

y b e construae dunles s "th e owne r o r operato r of suc h facility demonstrate s * * * dia t emission s fromconstruction o r

operatio n of

suc h facility wil l no t

caus e o r contribut e t o ai r

pollutio n in exces s o

f [any applicabl e PS D incremen t o r nationa l ambien t

ai r qualit y standard.] " (Emphasi s added. ) CLEA R als o cite s Virgini aAi

r Pollutio n Contro l Regulation s section s 120-08

- 02(L) an d(B)(3) , whic h respectivel y requir e th e ai r quality demon

stration s t o includ e "secondar y emissions " an ddefin e "secondary emissions " a s "emission s whic h woul doccu r a s aresul t

of th e constructio n o r

operatio n of amajor

stationary sourc e * * * bu t d o no t com e fromdi e majo r

stationary sourc e * * * itself. " I n addition , CLEA RP.2 0

1 8 HADSO N POWE R1 4 - BUENA VIST A point s t o th e Clea n Ai r Aa' s prohibitio n o f

construction , rathe r tha n jus toperation , prio r t o permi tissuanc e a s additiona l authority . VDAPC , i n its response , state s tha t"[t]her e i s n o requiremen t t o includ e constructio n sit e emission s associate d wid i di e propose d sourc e i n it s ai r quality analysis. " Respons e t o CLEA RPetitio n 1 . VDAPC furthe r states. - I n addition , di e secondar y emission s mus tb e specific , well-define d an d quantifiable . likewise , temporar y emissions , suc h a s thos e from construction , woul d hav e t o b e quantifiabl e t o b e include d i n an y demonstratio n o f impaa . EP

A guidanc e doe s no tInclud e an y suggeste d methodolog y t o quantif y emission s from th e temporar y constructio n phase . Id. Despit e VDAPC' s rathe r categorica l statemen ttha tther e i s n o requiremen tt o includ e constructio n emission s i n th e ai r qualit y analysis , suc h emission s generall y mus tb e considered . I n additio n t o di e languag e o f

sectio n 165(a)(3 ) itself , thi s i s clearl y demonstrate d b y th e inclusio n o f

a provisio n i n th e PS D regulation s allowing , upo n writte n reques to f

a governor , th e Administrato r t o exclud e from th e incremen tanalysi s "concentration s o f particulat e matte r attributabl e t o th e increas e i n emission s from constructio n o r othe r temporar y emission-relate d activitie s o f ne w o r modifie d sources. " 4 0 C.F.R. §52.21(f)(3) . Ther e woul d b e n o reaso n t o includ e a provisio n relatin g t o th e exclusio n o f

constructio n emission s unles s the y wer e otherwis e included . 2 1 Th e obligatio n t o conside r constructio n emission s wa s als o clearl y articulate d i n Save tbe Valley, Inc. v. Ruckelshaus, 56 5 F . Supp . 709 , 71 0 (D . D.C . 1983 ) ("Pursuantt o th e plai n languag e o f th e statut e

It i s unclear

whether thi s potentia l exclusio n coul db e availabl e here
. Th e preambl e t o th e promulgatio n o f thi s provisio n indicate s tha t i t i s applicabl e onl y wher e th e stat e ha s a full y approve dPS

D program . See 4 5 Fed
. Reg
. 52,71 9 (Aug
. 7 , 1980)
. However , th e regulatio n o n it s fac e i s no t s o limited
. I n an y event , ther e clearly ha s bee n n o reques t

fromth e governor , th e prerequisit e t o invokin g thi s provision
.P.2 1

HADSON POWE

R1 4 - BUEN

A VIST A 1 9
an dIt s obviou s inten t

t o regulat e pollutio n attendan t t o constructio n * * *.")
. Thus , VDAP

C wa s i n erro r

i n citin g a s abasi s for

exclusio n o f constructio n emission s th e absenc e of an y lega l obligatio n t o conside r diem
. I t i s possibl e tha t

th e constructio n emission s wil l b e i n whol e o r i n par t fugitiv e i n nature
. a T o th e exten t thi s i s th e case , fugitive emission s mus t

b e include donl y i

f quantifiable
. aVDAP

C assert s tha t ther e i s n o methodolog y fo r quantifyin g constructio n emissions
. However , l n th e absenc e of adetailin g of

wha t di e constructio n emission s ar e expeae dt o be , i t i s no t possibl e t o determin e whedie r constructio n emission s a t Hadso n Powe r

can b e properl y exclude do n thi s basis
. I n addition , 4 0 C.F.R
. §52.21(i)(6 ) provide s a s follows : Th e requirement s of

paragraph s (k) , (m) an d(o ) of dii s sectio n [relatin g t o sourc e impa aanalysis , ai r qualit y analysis , an dadditiona l impa aanalysis ] shal l no t appl y t o amajo r

stationary sourc e o r

majo r modifi

catio n wid i respe at o aparticula r pollutant , i

f th e allowabl e emission s o f

tha t pollutan t fromth e source , o r th e ne t emission s increas e of

tha t pollutan t fromth e modification : (i ) Woul dimpa an o Clas s I are aan dn o are a wher e a n applicabl e incremen t i s know n t o b e violated , an d
"Fugitiv e emissions " ar

e defined a

s "thos e emission s whic

h coul d no treasonabl

y pas s throug

h a stack, chimney , vento r othe r functionall y equivalen

topening. " 4 0 C.F.R

. §52.21(b)(20) . 2 3 See Ne w Source Revie w Worksho

p Manua l a tc.47 (Draft

, Oct . 1990 ) (restating curren tpolicy tha

t"(t]h e applican tmus tals o includ e an

y quantifiable fugitiv

e emission s from th e propose d sourc e o r an y nearb y sources" ) (emphasi s added) . W e note tha

t VDAP C als o argues tha

t"secondar

y emissions " mustb e quantifiabl e butw e d o no tbeliev e thes e emission s woul d necessarily b e secondar y a s oppose d to primary

. Secondar

y emission s ar

e thos e "whic

h woul d occu r a

s a resulto f

the constructio n o r operatio n o f a majo r stationar

y sourc e * * * butd o no tcom e from the majo r stationar

y sourc e * * * itself. " 4 0 C.F.R

. §52.21(b)(20) . Here , presumabl y muc h o f th e emission s woul d com e from th e constructio n o f th e facilit y itself .P.2 2

2 0 HADSON POWE R1 4 - BUEN

A VIST A (ii ) Woul db e temporary
. Constructio n emission s can b e considere dtemporary
. I t i s possibl e tha t becaus e constructio n emission s ar e predominatel y o f particulat e matte r an ddier e hav e bee n n o concern s abou t particulat e matte r

impact s raise di n thi s appeal , thi s provisio n migh t b e applicable
. However , i n th e absenc e of

aclear descriptio n of

propose dconstructio n emission s an dho w dii s provisio n migh t apply , w e canno t

sustai n VDAPC' s actio n base do n speculatio n a s t o di e possibl e applicabilit y o f thi s provision
. VDAPC' s exclusio n o f

constructio n emission s base do n it s misreadin g o f

it s lega l obligations , an dit s generalize dassertio n tha t suc h emission s mus t

b e an dcanno t

b e quantified , canno t

b e sustained
. VDAPC , o n remand , mus t supplemen t

di e recor dwid i aful

l descriptio n of anticipate dconstructio n emission s an dmus t eithe r includ e dios e emission s i n it s ai r

quality analysis , o r

sho w why the y can b e properl y excluded
. n . Adverse Impact

Determinations A
. Legal

Background Th e Qea n Ai

r A acontemplate s a n activ e rol e fo r FLM s i n th e PSD permittin g process . A n FL M i s entide dt o notic e of apropose d PS D permi t

i f emission s fromth e propose dsourc e ma y affe ath e FLM' s clas s I area . CA

A §165(d)(2)(A)
. Th e FL M ha s a n "affirmative responsibilit y t o protea " th e AQRV s i n th e clas s I area . CA A §16 5 (d)(2)(B)
. Th e FL M doe s dii s b

y determinin g whedie r

di e emission s fromth e propose dsourc e wil l hav e a n advers e impa ao n th e AQRV s i n th e clas s I area . " A s note dabove , th e outcom e of di e incremen t

consumptio n analysi s establishe s wh o bear s th e burde n o f provin g th e presenc e o r absenc e o f

a n advers e impaa
. Accordin g t o VDAPC , th e incremen t consumptio n analysi s in thi s cas e indicate s dia t Hadso n Power' s

A s explaine d wit

h referenc e to th e incremen

tconsumptio n analysis arguments , th e FL M wil l hav

e t o eithe r establis h th e existenc e o f a n adverse impa a o r certif y it s absence , dependin g upo n wh o bear s th e burden o f

proo f o n thi s issue . See CA

A §§l65(d)(2)(Q(u ) an

d (iii) .HADSON POWE R1 4 - BUEN

A VIST A 2 1 propose demission s wil l no t caus e o r

significandy contribut e t o a n incremen t

violation
. Therefore , i n thi s case , th e FLM s bea r th e burde n o f demonstratin g a n advers e impaa. 2 5 Unde r th e applicabl e Qea n Air' A aprovision , i

f th e FL M demonstrate s t o th e satisfactio n o f di e stat e 26 tha t emission s fromth e propose dsourc e wil l hav e a n advers e impa a o n th e AQRV

s i n th e clas s I area , th e permi t shal l no t b e issued
. CA

A §l65(d)(2)(C)(il)
. State s d o no t

hav e unfettere ddiscretio n t o reje aa n FLM' s advers e impa adetermination
. Old Dominion, unpub
. op . a t n.9
. I f a stat e determine s dia t

a n FL M ha s no t

satisfaaoril y demonstrate da n advers e impa ao n AQRV s fromth e propose dfacility, th e stat e mus t provid e a"rationa l basis " for suc h aconclusion , "given th e FLMS ' affirmativ e responsibility an dexpertis e regardin g di e Clas s I area s withi n thei r

jurisdiction. " 5 0 Fed
. Reg
. 28,54 9 (Jul y 12 , 1985)
. Arbitrar

y an dcapriciou s rejection s of advers e impa adetermination s ar e no t sustainable
. Old

Dominion, unpub
. op . a t n.9

- B
. Tbe Wilderness Th e Wildernes s FL

M identifie dwate r

quality a s th e AQR

V tha t woul db e adversel y impaae db y Hadso n Power' s propose demissions
. Specifically , th e Wildernes s FL M conclude ddia t

base do n Hadso n Power' s modeling , th e propose dfacility's projeae demission s wil l increas e S0 2 concentration s i n th e Wildernes s b y tw o t o thre e percent , whic h i n tur n wil l produc e a0.0 1 uni t decreas e i n p H an da1 ueq/ 1 decreas e i n aci dneutralizin g capacit y (ANC ) i n th e Wilderness ' streams , whic h ar e alread y sensitiv e t o acidification
. Wildernes s AI D a t 4
. Thes e

2 5 A s previously stated , dii s permiti s bein g remanded fo r VDAP C t o determin e whethe r constructio n emission s mus tb e include d i n th e ai r qualit y analysis . I

f VDAP C determine s dia

tthey mus tbe , an

d i f th e result

s o f th e incrementconsumptio n analysi s sho w tha tth e propose d facilit

y will caus e o r significantl y contribut

e t o a n increment violation , Hadson Powe

r wil l assum e th e burden o f

demonstratin g t o th e FLM s th e absenc e o f

a n advers e impact

. Becaus e EP

A i s th e final permittin g authorit y for th e Hadso n Power facility, notwithstandin g th e delegatio n to Virginia , i ti s ultimatel

y EPA' s "satisfaction " wit

h th e FLM' s finding tha

ti s a tissue . See Citizens forClean Mr v. EPA, 95 9 F.2

d 83 9 (9t h Cir . 1992 ) (i n reviewin g PS

D permi tissue d by delegate d state , cour tfocuse d no to n di e stat

e actio n bu tinstead o n EP

A - whethe r Agency' s final decision , i n a n administrativ

e appea l unde r 4 0 C.F.R

. §124.19 , allowing th e permitt o issu e wa s reasonable) .P.2 4

2 2 HADSO

N POWE R1 4 - BUEN

A VIST A consequence s wil l b e particularl y advers e i n Belfas t Creek , aprimary strea mi n th e Wildernes s identifie db y Fores t Servic e screenin g criteri a a s havin g ver

y hig h aci dlevel s an ddiu s unabl e t o tolerat e additiona l sulfur loading
. Id. a t

5
. VDAP C rejeae ddi e Wildernes s FLM' s advers e impa adetermi

natio n becaus e th e FL

M "provide dn o definitiv e dat aa s t o di e specifi c effects tha t

asmal l chang e i n sulfu r deposition , ad dneutralizin g capacity , an dp H unit s wil l hav e o n th e streams " i n th e Wilderness
. VDAP C Memo , a t

5-13 , 5-86
. I n addition , VDAP C expresse dit s "uncer

tainty " abou t

som e assumption s use di n th e advers e impa aanalysis
. Id. a t 5-88
. Th e onl y assumptio n VDAP C single dou t

i s th e FLM' s assumptio n dia t

'all dry/S0 2 deposite dwa s converte dt o sulfate whic h affects th e aci dneutralizin g capacit y of th e soil. " Id. VDAP C als o rejeae ddi e Wildernes s FLM' s advers e impa a determinatio n o n di e groun ddia t di e Fores t

Servic e criteri afo

r determinin g advers e impact s ar e inadequat e becaus e the y fail t o "includ e ascientifically accepte dminimu mimpa abelo w whic h a specifi c source' s contributio n woul db e considere dinsignificant
. Thi s i s along-standin g fundamenta l principl e o f federal an dstat e PS D * * * permittin g policie s an dprocedures. " VDAP C Memo , a t

5-88
. VDAP

C furthe r state ddia t

i t canno t accep t "th e notio n dia t

'any ' emissio n increas e an dsubsequen t increas e i n pollutan t

depositio n i s a n acceptabl e demonstratio n of advers e impaa. " Id. O n appeal , SEL

C contend s dia t

VDAP C rejeae ddi e Wildernes s FLM' s quantifie dadvers e impa afinding widiou t respondin g specifically t o it
. SEL

C assert s tha t

becaus e wate r

quality i s th e AQR

V of concern , th e FL M nee dnot , a s VDAP

C woul drequire , demonstrat e mor e dia n a n advers e impa ao n wate r quality
. I n othe r

words , SEL

C argue s tha t havin g demonstrate da n advers e impa ao n wate r quality , th e FL

M nee d no t g o an y furthe r

an ddemonstrat e di e effects o f tha t advers e impac t o n wate r quality
. SEL

C Petitio n at

3-4
. I n addition , SEL

C state s tha t VDAP C di dno t explai n ho w o r

wh y th e FLM' s assumptio n o n sulfur depositio n invalidate ddi e advers e impa adetermination
. Id. a t 5-6
. SEL C note s tha t

instea do

f addressin g di e demonstratio n o f advers e impact , VDAP

C flady state dthat

i t canno t accep t th e notio n dia t an y increas e i n pollutan t depositio n demonstrate s advers e impaa
.P.2 5

HADSON POWE

R1 4 - BUEN

A VIST A 2 3 SEL C contend s di e Wildernes s FL M specifically quantifie ddi e advers e impaa , an ddiu s doe s no t bas e he r determinatio n o n th e assumptio n dia t "any " emissio n increas e produce s a n advers e impaa
. SEL C Petitio n a t 2-7
. SEL

C furthe r contend s dia t

Old Dominion plainl y rejeae d VDAPC' s positio n tha t

de minimis criteri aar e require dfo r evaluatin g a n advers e impa adetermination
. Id. a t 11-14
. I n sum , SEL

C contend s dia t VDAP C erroneousl y failedt o conside r di e FLM' s conclusions
. Similarly , th e Count y contend s dia t VDAP C di dno t seriousl y conside r th e advers e impa adeterminations
. VDAP C respond s widiou t

referenc e t o Old Dominion b y merel y repeatin g it s response s t o th e comment s o n th e draf

t permit
. 2 7 W e conclud e dia t

VDAP C clearl y erre db y failing t o conside r th e merit s o f

th e specifi c quantifie dadvers e impa ademonstratio n submitte db y di e Wildernes s FLM
. Althoug h VDAP C attempt s t o us e muc h o f th e sam e reasonin g i t employe di n Old

Dominion, w e conclud e tha t

di e facts of

thi s cas e requir e adifferen t outcome
. I n Old Dominion, a s i n thi s case , th e Wildernes s FL M prediae d a n advers e impa ao n wate r quality , namely , tha t

di e propose d emission s woul dproduc e atw o t o nin e percen t decreas e i n AN

C an d p H i n th e Wilderness ' streams
. M VDAP C rejeae ddii s finding, identifyin g severa l reason s why th e FL M ma y hav e overestimate dth e

2 7 I n addition , VDAP

C repeatedly note s (here an d wid i referenc

e t o othe r arguments ) tha

tneithe r FL

M petitione d fo

r revie w o f th e final permi

tdecision . Althoug

h VDAP C doe s no tindicat

e wh y dii s faa i s relevant

, w e assum e VDAP

C believe s tha

tth e absenc e o f

a petitio n b

y th e FLM

s demonstrate s acquiescenc e t o issuanc e o f th e final permit. W

e disagre e wid i th e inferenc e made b y VDAP C from th e FLMs

' failur e to file a petition . Neithe r advers e impa a determinatio n ha s bee n withdrawn . Indeed , afte r th e final permitwas issued , di e Wddernes s FL M reiterate

d her concern s expresse d i n th e advers e impa a determination . SEL C Reply , App . 7 . Ther

e ar e man y possibl e consider ation s diatma

y affe a a FLM'

s decisio n whethe r t o file a petitio n for review , and speculatio n a s t o thos e reason s i s no tproductive . Therefore , w e fin d i tirrelevan

ttha t neithe r FL

M petitione d for revie

w o f th e permit

. 2 8 Thus , i n Old

Dominion, ther

e wa s n o disput

e Uia tth e Wilderness FL

M quantified di e advers e impact . Instead , th e issu e wa

s whethe r this quantified , advers e impa a wa s credible , an

d VDAP C conclude d i

twa s not .P.2 6

2 4 HADSON POWE R1 4 - BUEN

A VIST A impa aof th e propose demissions
. 2 9 VDAP C als o relie dupo n th e absenc e o f

guidanc e a s t o significanc e o r de minimis level s for determinin g advers e impact s a s abasi s for rejectin g th e Wildernes s FLM' s finding. Th e Administrato r plainl y rejeae ddii s reasoning , statin g "[njationa l guidanc e o n de minimis impact s fo r clas s I ai r

quality relate dvalue s i s i n n o wa y aprerequisit e t o areasonabl e determinatio n by apermit-issuin g audiorit y tha t th e [FLM

] ha s demonstrate da propose dsourc e wil l hav e advers e impacts. " Old Dominion, unpub
. op . a t n.20
. VDAPC' s relianc e i n thi s cas e upo n th e reasonin g plainl y rejeae di n Old

Dominion i s clearl y erroneous . VDAP C ha s no t pointe d to , an dw e hav e no t

found , an y authorit y t o indicat e dia t nationa l standards , includin g aminimu mstandard , fo r assessin g advers e impact s ar e a"long-standin g fundamenta l principle " of PS D permittin g procedures
. Th e onl y authorit y o n thi s issue , Old Dominion, unequivocall y indicate s di e opposite
. I n describin g it s reason s for rejectin g th e Wildernes s FLM' s advers e impa adetermination , VDAP C state ddia t

i t "canno t accep t di e notio n dia t

'any ' emissio n increas e * * * i s a n acceptabl e demonstratio n o f advers e impaa. " VDAP C Memo , a t

5-88
. Th e Wildernes s FLM , however , doe s no t

bas e he r advers e impa adeterminatio n o n "any " emissio n increase , bu t

o n th e projeae dimpa aof atw o t o thre e percen t increas e i n SO z concentration s tha t wil l resul t

fromHadso n Power' s propose demissions
. VDAPC' s reasonin g seem s t o ignor e thi s fact, whic h distinguishe s dii s cas e fromth e Par k FLM' s advers e impa a determinatio n i n Old

Dominion, wher e th e determinatio n reste do n di e unprove n assumptio n dia t an y emission s fromth e propose dfacility woul dhav e a n advers e impaa
. Old Dominion, unpub
. op . a t 14
. Th e Fores t

Servic e ha s develope dcriteri afo r assessin g advers e impacts , whic h ar e detaile di n th e Wildernes s AID
. Whil e VDAP C ha s th e discretio n t o accep t o r reje aa n advers e impa adeterminatio n founde do n dios e criteria , i t mus t provid e arationa l basi s for doin g s o

2 9 I n sum , thes e reasons were tha tth e FL M did notsuppl y it

s calculations until afte r th e publi c commentperiod , dia tmodelin g conducte d b

y th e EP A (RELMAP

) showe d pollutantdepositio n one-tent h o f tha testimated b

y th e FLM , an d dia tanothe r Regio

n ha d questione d a simila

r analysi s i n anothe r case . Old

Dominion, unpub . op . a t12 .HADSON POWE R1 4 - BUEN

A VIST A 2 5
an dcanno t

summaril y reje ath e determinatio n becaus e di e criteri ad o no t contai n ade minimis impa ao r significanc e leve l tha t

i s no t require db y law
. VDAPC' s approac h o f summaril y rejectin g a n advers e impa adeterminatio n becaus e o f th e lac k o f suc h guidanc e o r

criteri a i s a n abdicatio n o f

it s responsibility t o asses s a n advers e impa a determination , ^ an da s suc h eviscerate s som e o f th e clas s I are a protectio n provide dby th e Qea n Ai r Aa
. I n Old Dominion, VDAPC' s relianc e o n invali dreasonin g wa s harmles s erro r

becaus e VDAP

C als o relie dupo n odie r reasonabl e ground s for

rejectin g th e advers e impa adetermination , namel y tha t th e FL M overestimate dth e impa ao f th e propose demissions
. Here , unlik e th e situatio n i n Old

Dominion, VDAP

C ha s no t

presente dan y odie r reasonabl e basi s for

rejectin g th e Wildernes s AID
. J 1 VDAP C assert s tha t

di e Wildernes s AI

D wa s inadequat e becaus e i t failedt o provid e "definitiv e dat aa s t o di e specifi c chang e tha t asmal l chang e i n sulfur

deposition , [ANC

] an dp H unit s wil l hav e o n th e streams " i n th e Wilderness
. VDAP C Memo , a t

5-86
. Thi s statement , a s SEL C correcd y notes , fails t o acknowledg e dia t water quality i s th e AQR V o f concern . Th e FL

M i s require donl y t o stat e th e impa aon th e AQRV , an ddemonstrat e tha t

i t i s adverse
. I n thi s case , th e FL M identifie dan dquantifie ddi e impa ao n th e AQR V o f concern , wate r quality , by showin g tha t th e propose demission s woul dincreas e acidificatio n b y producin g a0.0 1 uni t decreas e i n p H an da1 ueq/ 1 decreas e i n ANC
. I n addition , di e FL M qualitativel y describe dwh y dii s impa ai s advers e by indicatin g tha t stream s i n th e Wildernes s ar e alread y aci dsensitiv e an ddia t increase s i n acidificatio n coul d reasonabl y b e expeae dt o produc e ashif t toward s mor e aci dtoleran t species
. VDAP

C apparend y woul drequir e a n FL M t o quantif

y th e adversit y produce dby a n impa ao n a n AQRV , for example , by quantifyin g th e degre e of shif t t o mor e aci dtoleran t

specifies
. Thi s

3 0 See Old

Dominion, unpub . op . a t13 . J l Wid i respe a to the specific ground s relied upo n i n Old Dominion, {see supra note 29) , th e onl y on e raise d i n thi s cas e concern s th e us e o f RELMAP . SEL C argues , an

d VDAP C agrees , tha

tRELMA P i s irrelevan

to n this issu e owin g t o th e proximit y o f th e propose d sourc e an d th e Wilderness . In addition , VDAP C state s tha

teve n though RELMA

P ha s bee n use d fo

r othe r permits , it

s result s wer e "inconclusiv

e an d no ta majo

r factor " i n this case . Respons e to SEL C Petition a

t7 .P.2 8

2 6 HADSON POWE R1 4 - BUEN

A VIST A woul dimpos e arequiremen t no t foun din th e Clean Ai

r Aa
. See CA

A §l65(d)(2)(C)(u)
. Therefore , VDAP C erre di n rejectin g di e Wildernes s AI D o n thi s ground
. VDAP C als o expresse s a n "uncertainty " abou t som e assumption s di e Wildernes s FL

M relie dupon . VDAP

C specifically mention s onl y on e assumption , tha t

"all dr y deposite dS0 2 wa s converte dt o sulfate, " whic h affect s acidification , an dsummaril y state s tha t thi s assumptio n "increase s th e likelihoo dtha t

th e analysi s ma

y overestimat e tb e p H uni t chang e a s calculate dIn th e * * * advers e impa adetermination. " VDAP C Memo , a t 5-88
. VDAPC , however , failedt o detai l why thi s assumptio n wa s i n erro r an dho w i t

woul dlea dt o overestimation
. i2 VDAP C doe s no t provid e a n alternativ e o r preferabl e assumption
. Thi s i s i n stark contras t t o th e scenari o i n Old

Dominion, wher e Agency modelin g confirme ddia t

di e FL M overestimate dimpacts
. Fo r thes e reasons , w e conclud e dia t VDAP C clearl y erre dby relyin g o n reasonin g rejeae di n Old Dominion an dfailing t o conside r di e merit s o f

th e advers e impa adeterminatio n a s required
. Becaus e th e recor dshow s dia t

VDAP C di dno t hav e an y odie r

dear , supportabl e rational e fo r

rejectin g di e Wildernes s AID , th e erro r i s no t harmless
. Consequendy , -w e reman d thi s permi tt o VDAP C fo r reconsideratio n o f th e merit s o f

th e Wildernes s FLM' s advers e impa adeterminatio n i n accordanc e with thi s opinion
. SEL C raise s othe r

issue s i n it s petitio n dia t ma y reappea r

i n th e reman dproceedings , an ddierefor e w e wil l briefl y addres s the mhere
. SEL C contend s dia t

VDAPC' s failure t o conside r th e cumulativ e impa a of al l previousl y permitte dsource s o n di e clas s I area s i s clear error . SEL C relie s upo n th e statemen t i n Old Dominion tha t

"i n determinin g whedie r apropose dsourc e wil l caus e a n advers e impa ao n visibility , th e cumulativ e visibilit

y impact s of

th e pendin g PS D applican t an dal l PSD-permitte dsources , includin g dios e no t ye t construaed , mus t

b e assessed. " Old

Dominion, unpub
. op . a t n.24
. " SEL

C contend s tha t

3 2 VDAP

C als o failed t

o respon d to evidenc e provide

d wid i di e petitio n dia

tth e assumptio n i s a vali

d one . See SEL

C Petition , Attachment

s F an d G . M I n Old Dominion, other PS

D permitted source s were examine d fo r their cumulative impa a o n visibility . SEL C argues , an

d w e agree , dia

tnon-visibilit

y AQRV s shoul d b e similarl

y assessed .P.2 9

HADSON POWE

R1 4 - BUEN

A VIST A 2 7 VDAP C failedt o mee t

thi s requiremen t

becaus e i t

di dno t includ e i n th e cumulativ e analysi s previousl y permitte dsource s beyon d10 0 k mo f th e clas s I areas . Thes e source s wer e no t includedbecaus e die y wer e no t include di n Hadso n Power' s incremen t modeling
. VDAP C respond s b y referrin g t o it s incremen t consumptio n analysis , notin g tha t

"i t ha s worke dt o develo p policie s an dprocedure s designe dt o ensur e consistenc y an dprotectio n of Qas s I increment." Respons e t o SEL

C Petitio n a t

4 (emphasi s added)
. VDAP C furthe r respond s dia t

it s consisten t

polic y ha s bee n t o "requir e analyse s of th e cumulativ e Impa adu e t o appropriat e clas s I increment-consuming source s withi n 10 0 k

mo f th e Wilderness
. Id. (Emphasi s added. ) W e fin dVDAPC' s referenc e t o di e incremen t consumptio n analysi s unresponsiv e t o th e issu e of advers e impa aanalysis , which , a s th e Qea n Ai

r A amake s plain , i s separate
. M Th e incremen t consumptio n analysi s focuse s o n whethe r an dt o wha t

exten t di e propose dsourc e wil l consum e an y of th e availabl e increment
. A n advers e impact , whic h ma y exis t eve n i f n o incremen t

i s violated , see CA A §l65(d)(2)(C)(ii) , focuse s o n broade r concerns , namely , whethe r emission s fromth e propose dsourc e wil l hav e a n advers e impa ao n AQRV s suc h a s visibilit

y o r vegetation
. VDAPC' s respons e indicate s dia t n o source s beyon d10 0 k mof th e clas s I area s wer e includedi n th e cumulativ e impa aanalysis
. Unlike VDAPC' s polic y fo

r incremen t

consumption , however , ther e i s n o 10 0 k mcut-of f for requirin g a n advers e impa adetermination
. See CA A §l65(d)(2)(C)(ii)
. See also, Old Dominion (advers e impa a determinatio n submitte dfo r Park , 13 5 k

mfrom facility). VDAPC' s respons e indicate s dia t

i t als o di dno t

conside r an y non-increment

consumin g sourc e withi n 10 0 k mo f th e clas s I areas , eve n thoug h suc h sources , i f the y exist , ma

y contribut e t o a n advers e impa ao n th e clas s I areas . Accordingly , w e conclud e dia t base do n di e recor dbefor e us , i t i s no t clear tha t VDAP C conduae dseparat e incremen t consumptio n an dadvers e impa aanalyses
. When assessin g th e advers e impa a determination s o n remand , VDAP C i s require dt o conside r th e

M Indeed , VDAP

C relies upo n this distinctio n in it s argumen

ttha tth e Par k AI D wa s properly rejected becaus e clas s I incremen tsignificanc

e level s ar

e no trelevantt o adverse impa a determinations .P.3 0

2 8 HADSO

N POWE R1 4 - BUEN

A VIST A cumulativ e impa aof

al l previousl y permitte dPSD source s o n th e clas s I area . " SEL C als o assert s tha t

VDAP C erroneousl y rejeae ddi e rol e o f episodi c depositio n o f

sulfur (a s th e resul t

o f storms ) i n causin g a n advers e impaa
. VDAP

C respond s dia t

di e FL M di dno t

quantif y th e impa ao f suc h episodi c deposition
. SEL C replie s tha t

quantificatio n i s no t require dbecaus e th e advers e impa ai s quantifie dan di t i s "well accepted " dia t

episodi c depositio n wil l exacerbat e th e advers e impaa
. SEL C Petition , a t

15
. W e agre e tha t

th e FL M ha s failedt o quantif

y di e impa ao f

Hadso n Power' s propose demission s i n ligh t of stor m episodes
. Althoug h th e Wildernes s FL M ha s quantifie da n impa afrom th e propose demissions , namel y increase dsulfur deposition , ther e ha s bee n n o demonstratio n a s t o ho w o r t o wha t exten t thi s impa awoul d b e exacerbate db y storms
. * W e reje aSELC' s argumen t dia t VDAP C erre di n thi s respea . I n addition , SEL

C contend s dia t

VDAP C clearl y erre db y issuin g th e permi t

withou t requirin g offset s t o eliminat e th e advers e impaa
. SEL C Petitio n a t

18
. Thi s argumen t

presuppose s tha t

ther e i s a n advers e impa at o offset , an ddia t offset s ar e require db y law
. SEL C contend s dia t

becaus e VDAP

C "ha s failedt o provid e an y reasonabl e basi s for rejectin g th e FLM' s findings o f advers e impact , thes e findings stand. " Id. SELC' s argument , i n essence , i s tha t a n odierwis e unsatisfaaor y advers e impa adeterminatio n woul dhav e t o b e accepte d merel y becaus e th e permittin g authorit y articulate dinappropriat e reason s for

rejectin g it
. W

e disagree
. I n suc h circumstances , areman d fo r reconsideratio n woul db e di e mos t appropriat e relief

. I n addition , eve n i f a n advers e impa ai s determine dt o exist , offset s ar e no t require db y law , althoug h die y hav e bee n recognize da s amean s t o

This i s no tt o sa

y tha tther e i s n o reasonabl e cut-of

f base d o n distance , s o tha t source s beyon d dia

tdistance nee d no tb e considere d in a n adverse impa a analysis . Thi s cut-of f i s bes tdetermine d by di e permitting authorit y o n a case-by-case basis . Whe n determinin g i

f a sourc e contributes to a n adverse impact

, the source' s distance from the clas s I are a i s a n appropriat

e consideration . * * Th e Wildernes s FL

M merel y asserted dia

t"[ajcut e pulse s o f

sulfat e i n precipitatio n durin g storm s ca n b e responsibl e for increases in acidity " an d dia t21 % o f th e precipitatio n i n th e are a come s fro

m th e directio n o f

the propose d source . Wilderness AI D a t4 . Fro m this , th e FL

M conclude s tha

tHadson Power' s propose d emission s woul d "frequend y ad d t o di e acidit

y o f precipitation a

tdi e Wilderness. " Id.P.3 1

HADSON POWE

R1 4 - BUEN

A VIST A 2 9 alleviat e a n advers e impact , thu s allowin g apermi t t o issue
. See In re Multttrade Limited

Partnership, PS D Appeal Nos
. 91- 2 et alia, (Adm'r , Reman dOrde r

an dDismissa

l o f Petition s fo

r Review , Jan
. 21 , 1992)
. Accordingly , SELC' s argumen t i s withou t

merit
. C
. TbePark I n Septembe r

1990 , th e Par

k FL M publicize dit s preliminar y conclusio n tha t

AQRV s i n th e Par

k ar e currend y experiencin g advers e impacts , an ddia t

emission s fromHadso n Powe r an dodie r

propose d facilities woul dexacerbat e thes e alread y advers e conditions
. 5 7 O n Januar y 3 , 1992 , VDAP

C rejeae ddies e preliminar y determinations , largel y fo r

th e sam e reason s i t

rejeae ddie mi n Old

Dominion. M I n Old Dominion, th e Administrato r wa s no t persuade db y th e Par k FLM' s reasonin g "tha

t sinc e certai n [AQRVs] , visibilit y primarily , ar e subje at o deterioratio n i n th e Park , th e addition of ne w source s o f pollutio n * * * wil l b y necessity onl y exacerbat e existin g impaire d conditions. " Old

Dominion, unpub
. op . a t 9
. Th e Administrato r conclude ddia t

th e Par k FL M ha dfailedt o demonstrat e acausa l lin k betwee n th e sourc e an ddi e prediae dimpaa
. Withou t thi s link , th e Par k FLM' s determinatio n reste do n di e unprove n an dunacceptabl e assumptio n tha t

an y increas e i n pollutant s produce s a n advers e impaa
. VDAP C rejeae dmodelin g performe db y th e Par k o n th e groun ddia t

i t overstate dimpacts
. VDAP C instea drelie dupo n modelin g performe d b y Regio n UJ , whic h di dno t confir mth e Par k FLM' s findings. Becaus e VDAP C di dno t

abus e it s discretio n i n rejectin g di e advers e impa a determination , VDAPC' s relianc e o n othe r grounds , namel y th e absenc e o f de minimis criteria , wa s harmles s error .

3 7 See 5 5 Fed . Reg

. 38,40 4 (Sept. 18 , 1990) . 3 8 SEL C als o argues tha

tin th e Januar

y 3 , 199 2 respons e t o th e Par k FLM' s preliminar

y advers e impa a determination , VDAP C sai d dia ti tneed s EP

A guidance o n th e impa a o f th e 199 0 Qea n Ai

r A a Amendment

s (th e "Amendments" ) before i tcan determin e if

there i s a n adverse impa a o n AQRV s i n th e Park

. The Amendments , whic h wer e enacte d prio r t o th e issuance o f this permit, ar

e intende d t o reduc e acid depositio n an d ozon e pollution , an

d t o increas e visibility . SEL C argues tha

tVDAP C canno trel

y o n th e benefits t o b e produced by di e Amendment s a s a basis fo

r rejecting a n advers e impa a determination . Becaus e th e statementa tissu e was made o n Januar y 3 , 1992 , befor

e th e draf tpermi tissue d i n this case , an d was no tmade i n respons e t o th e Par k FLM' s final advers e impa a determination , i ti s irrelevan

tto thes e proceedings .P.3 2

3 0 HADSO

N POWE R1 4 - BUEN

A VIST A Followin g th e Old

Dominion decision , di e Par k FL M submitte d afinal advers e impa adeterminatio n durin g th e publi c commen t perio d o n Hadso n Power' s draf t permit
. Instea dof

performin g it s ow n modeling , di e Par

k FL M relie dupo n Hadso n Power' s modeling , whic h show s tha t

di e propose dfacility will annuall y contribut e a s muc h a s .3 3 ug/m 3 o f N0 2 i n th e Park
. 3 9 Thi s amoun t i s thre e time s greate r

tha n Virginia' s clas s I incremen t consumptio n significanc e level
. Accordin g t o di e Par

k FLM, thi s quantifie dambien t impa ao n ai r

quality i n th e Par k wil l exacerbat e alread y advers e condition s i n th e Park
. Th e Par k FL M describe ddii s impa aqualitatively , concludin g tha t dii s amoun t

o f increas e i n N0 2 will : (1 ) contribut e t o alread y hig h ozon e level s i n th e Park , thu s impactin g ozon e sensitiv e vegetation , (2 ) deposi t additiona l nitroge n i n sensitiv e stream s an dsoils , an d(3 ) exacerbate alread y advers e visibilit

y conditions
. Par

k AI D a t 1
. VDAP C agree s tha t

th e AQRV

s i n th e Par

k ar e currend y experiencin g advers e impacts
. VDAP C Memo , a t

5-13
. Nevertheless , VDAP C rejeae ddii s advers e impa adeterminatio n o n th e groun ddia t di e Par k FL M failedt o demonstrat e dia t Hadso n Powe r

woul d significandy worse n th e impacts
. Id. Specifically , VDAP C note ddia t "curren t tool s ar e inadequat e t o demonstrat e individual sourc e impacts , especiall y i n ligh t of pollutan t contribution s fromothe r states, " an ddia t "[t]h e FLM' s positio n dia t any emissio n increas e i s unacceptabl e i s contrar y t o th e concep t o f [a ] d e minimi s [impaa ] whic h ha s bee n par t

of both th e PSD an dnonattainmen t are aprovision s for anumbe r

o f years. " VDAP

C Memo , a t

5-8 5 (emphase s added)
. I n othe r words , VDAP

C argue s a s i t

di di n Old

Dominion tha t

di e Par k FL M failedt o provid e alin k betwee n th e propose dfacility an ddi e prediae dadvers e impaa
. Addressin g di e amoun t o f NO- , prediae dt o reac h di e Par

k an ddi e thre e specifi c advers e impact s identifie db y th e Par k FLM , VDAP C conclude dtha t

dier e i s alac k

of scientifi c an dEP

A consensu s o n assessin g ozon e impact s du e t o NO x emissions , an ddia t dii s lac k o f consensu s "raise s seriou s question s abou t th e credibilit

y of an y modelin g o f

poin t sourc e impacts. " VDAP

C Memo , a t

5-86
.

3 9 SEL C contend s and VDAP

C doe s no tdisput

e tha tNO , ca n b e use d t o represent al l nitroge n compounds . See SEL C Petition , a

t7 n.5 .P.3 3

HADSO N POWE R1 4 - BUEN

A VIST A 3 1 O n appeal , SEL

C contend s dia t

VDAP C clearl y erre di n rejectin g th e advers e impa adeterminatio n because , i n contras t t o th e situatio n i n Old Dominion, th e Par

k FL M di dno t

rel y o n di e assumptio n dia t an y increas e i n pollutant s produce s a n advers e impaa
. Instead , SEL C notes , di e Par

k FL M conclude ddia t

Hadso n Power' s modele dimpa a o n ai r quality i n th e par k

(an annua l contributio n o f .3 3 ug/m 3 NOj) , wil l exacerbate alread y direatene d AQRV s i n th e Park
. SEL

C argue s tha t VDAP C erroneousl y disregarde ddii s analysis , an drelie dupo n reasonin g rejeae di n Old

Dominion. *° VDAP C respond s dia t

"[w]hil e ai r

quality modelin g performe d b y Hadso n doe s quantif

y th e NO z impa aupo n th e [Park] , th e impa a canno t b e legitimatel y compare dt o di e clas s I incremen t significanc e level s adopte db y Virginia. " Respons e t o SEL C Petitio n a t

2
. VDAP

C furthe r respond s dia t

becaus e significant

impa alevel s canno t

b e use d "in th e contex t

o f advers e impact , an dsinc e th e Nationa l Par k Servic e ha s no t establishe dscientifically accepte dminimu mimpact s belo w whic h aspecifi c source' s contributio n can b e considere dinsignificant , - th e [Par k FLM's ] finding of

advers e impa ai s clearl y base do n di e assumptio n tha t

an y additiona l impa ai s considere dadverse. " Id. a t 3
. W e agre e wit

h SEL C dia t VDAP C clearl y erre dby failing t o conside r th e merit s of

th e particular

advers e impa adeterminatio n submitte dby di e Par

k FL M i n thi s case . VDAP

C mad e di e sam e mistake her e tha t i t mad e i n connectio n wid i di e Wildernes s AID , apparend y hopin g for

th e sam e result s a s i n Old Dominion despit e di e explici t rejectio n o f

som e of it s argument s i n tha t

cas e an ddi e significant factual difference s betwee n tha t cas e an ddii s case . Th e mos t obviou s differenc e i s tha t here , di e Par

k FL M di dno t bas e hi s advers e impa adeterminatio n o n th e assumptio n dia t "any " increas e i n pollutant s woul dproduc e a n impaa , bu t o n Hadso n Power' s modele dN0 2 impa ao n Par k ai r quality
. Unlike th e situatio n i n Old Dominion, th e Par

k FL M ha s attempte dt o lin k th e emission s

SEL C make s severa l argument

s tha tappl y t o VDAPC'

s rejection o f

bot h th e Par k an d th e Wildernes s FLM'

s advers e impa a determinations . Fo r example , SELC'

s argumen

t tha tVDAP C shoul d conside r th e cumulativ e impa a o f

al l previousl

y permitted facilities applie s t o bot

h advers e impa a determinations . Eac h o f thes e argument

s wa s addressed wid i reference to th e Wilderness , an d diere i s n o nee d to repea

ttha tdiscussio n here .P.3 4

3 2 HADSON POWE R1 4 - BUEN

A VIST A fromHadso n Power' s propose dfacilit y wit h di e prediae dadvers e impaa
. Also , unlik e Old Dominion, th e Par

k FL M di dno t

rel y o n it s ow n modeling , whic h wa s reasonabl y rejeae db y VDAP C i n Old Dominion, bu t

upo n Hadso n Power's
. VDAPC' s attempt s t o discredi t di e modelin g for

thes e purpose s ar e no t

persuasive , becaus e VDAP C relie dupo n Hadso n Power' s modelin g i n othe r respects , an dbecaus e VDAP C failedt o explai n ho w o r why it s doubt s abou t

th e modelin g undermin e th e Par

k FLM' s conclusions
. W e d o agre e wid i VDAP

C tha t reference s t o th e significanc e level s for determinin g incremen t

consumptio n d o not , by themselves , establis h a n advers e impaa
. 4 I But , di e Par k FL M doe s no t

represen t dia t di e impa ao n ai r

quality is th e advers e impaa
. Instead , di e Par k FL M state s tha t

AQRV s in th e Par

k ar e alread y experiencin g advers e impaas , aconclusio n wid i whic h VDAP C agrees , an ddia t

dies e advers e impact s wil l b e exacerbate db y di e prediae dimpa ao n ai r quality , specifically , th e modele damoun t of N0 2 prediae dt o reac h th e Park
. Th e advers e impa apresente db y th e Par k FL M i n thi s cas e i s no t

th e quantifie dimpa ao n ai r

qualit y itself , bu t th e exacerbatio n o f

alread y existin g advers e impact s fromtha t ai r qualit y impact , whic h i s qualitativel y describe di n th e Par k AID
. Whil e thes e dat ad o no t directl y quantif y th e advers e impa ao n th e AQRV s themselves , an ddiu s ma y b e entide dt o les s weigh t

dia n th e dat apresente di n th e Wildernes s AID , the y certainl y warran t

seriou s substantiv e consideration
. A t aminimum , t o fulfil

l th e statutor y objectiv e o f providin g protectio n t o clas s I areas , VDAP C wa s oblige dt o conside r th e merit s of thi s demonstration , an dno t summaril y dismis s it , whic h VDAP C appear s t o hav e don e by erroneousl y relyin g o n apositio n flatly rejeae di n Old

Dominion, tha t

is , th e absenc e of

standards , includin g ade minimis standard , by whic h t o asses s th e Par k FLM' s conclusions
. Fo r th e sam e reason s discusse dwit h referenc e t o th e Wildernes s AID , w e conclud e dia t

suc h reasonin g i s clearl y erroneous . Again , i n

See Memorandu

m from Joh

n Calcagni, Direaor , EP

A Ai r Qualit y Managemen

t Division , t o Thoma

s J . Maslany , Director, Regio

n II I Air , Radiatio n an d Toxic s Divisio n (Sept . 10 , 1991 ) (VDAPC' s us e o f clas s I I incrementconsumptio n level s fo r Hadson Power' s clas s I incrementconsumptio n analysi s "doe s not includ e their us e fo

r determinin g whethe r a sourc e shoul d condu a a n adverse impa a analysis for an y [AQRV ] in a clas s I area, o r whethe r a source woul d hav e a n adverse impa a o n a

n AQRV) .P.3 5

HADSO N POWE R1 4 - BUEN

A VIST A 3 3 contras t t o Old Dominion, thi s erro r

i s no t harmles s becaus e th e recor d doe s no t sho w a n alternative , supportabl e rational e for rejectin g th e Par k AID
. Accordingl y w e dire aVDAP C t o reevaluat e th e Par

k AI D o n remand
. HI
. Best Available Control

Technology

for NO x SEL C assert s i n it s petitio n tha t di e permi t

fails t o requir e bes t availabl e contro l technolog y (BACT ) for emission s o f

NO,
. BAC

T * 2 i s require db y 4 0 C.F.R
. §52.21(j)(2 ) for eac h pollutan t

subje at o regulatio n unde r

di e Clean Ai

r A atha t di e facility woul dhav e di e potentia l t o emi t

i n significant

amounts
. Ther e i s n o disput e tha t BAC T i s require dfor

NO , emission s fromth e Hadso n Powe r plant
. VDAP C determine ddia t

BAC T fo r NOx shoul db e base dupo n th e us e o f

selectiv e catalyti c reductio n (SCR ) technology
. SEL

C agree s wit h dia t determinatio n an di n faacommend s VDAP C for tha t selection
. n SELC' s concer n i s with ho w di e SC Rrequiremen t

i s translate dint o permi t

terms
. Part I , Conditio n 7 o f

di e permi t

provide s dia t

nitroge n oxid e emission s shal l b e controlle db y " acontinuou s coal fee dsystem , stage d combustion , lo w exces s air , an dselectiv e catalyti c reductio n (SCR). " Conditio n 7 furthe r

provide s dia t

di e SC Rsyste mshal l b e designed , construae dan doptimize dt o achiev e anitroge n oxide s emission s rat e

"Bes tavailabl e control technology " i

s defined i n par

tas :
a n emission s limitation * * * based o n di e maximu m degre e o f reductio n fo

r eac h pollutantsubje a to regulation unde r A a whic h woul d b e emitted from an y propose d majo

r stationar

y sourc e » • » whic h th e Administrator

, o n a case-by-case basis , takin g int o account energy , environmental an d economi c impact

s an d odie r costs , determine s i s achievable for suc h sourc e * * * throug

h applicatio n o f productio n processe s o r availabl e methods , systems , and techniques , includin g fuel cleanin g o r treatmen to r innovative fuel combustio n technique s fo r control o f

such pollutant . 4 0 CF.R. §5 2 Jl(b)(12) . 4 3 SEL C Petitio n a

t31 .P.3 6

3 4 HADSO

N POWE R1 4 - BUEN

A VIST A
of 0.1 0 lbs/10 6 Bt

u o n a30-da

y rollin g average . Conditio n 8 provide s diat : I n di e even t

dia t di e nitroge n oxide s emissio n rat e exceed s 0.1 0 lbs/10 6 Bt

u o n a30-da

y rollin g average , th e permitte e shal l d o eidie r o r both of di e following , a s necessary :
a . Maintai n th e ammonia-to-nitrogen-oxide s mol e rati o a t di e desig n level , provide ddia t n o detrimenta l effe ao n equipmen t downstrea m o f th e SC Rsyste moccurs . b
. Replac e and/o r

ad dcatalys t

a s necessary t o achiev e anitroge n oxide s emission s limi t o f 0.1 0 lbs/10 6 Bt

u o n a30-da

y rollin g averag e t o th e exten t tha t catalys t replacemen t

o r additio n doe s no t excee d5 0 percen t

i n an y 3-yea

r period
. SEL C doe s no t

obje at o di e 0.1 0 lbsAO 6 Bt u desig n level
. However , Par

t I , Conditio n 2 0 of

di e permi t

establishe s th e NO , emission s limitation s applicabl e t o th e operatio n of eac h primar y coal boile r a s 0.2 5 lbs/10 6 Btu , 94. 8 lbs/h r a s a30-da

y rollin g averag e an d 39 8 tons/ty

r a s a n annua l average . I n afootnote , thi s limi t i s charaaerize da s a"worst-case " emissio n limi t i n th e even t

o f margina l performanc e o r

deterioratio n o

f di e SC Rsystem
. SEL

C take s exceptio n t o th e 0.2 5 lbsAO 6 Bt

u emissio n limitatio n a s no t reflectin g BACT
. More specifically , SEL

C assert s tha t

thi s limitatio n "i s no t

th e emissio n limitatio n base do n di e maximu mdegre e of reductio n considerin g cos t an dtechnica l feasibility. " 4 4 SEL C point s ou t

tha t othe r coal-fire dboiler s hav e bee n permitte dwit

h lowe r NO , emissio n rate s usin g eithe r SC Ro r selectiv e non-catalyti c reductio n (SNCR)
. Mos t o f dies e hav e bee n permitte da t 0.1 7 lbs/10 6 Btu
. SEL

C furthe r cite s a s suppor t

alette r fromEP A Regio n

4 4 SELC Petitio n a t31 .P.3 7

HADSO N POWE R1 4 - BUEN

A VIST A 3 5
mt o VDAP

C durin g di e commen t

perio drecommendin g tha t di e permi t limitatio n b e se t

a t 0.1 0 lbs/10 6 Bt

u o r 80 % control
. (Th e 0.2 5 rat e i s base do n 50 % control. ) 4 ' I n addition , SEL

C make s referenc e t o aNO x guidelin e of 0.1 5 lbs/10 6 Bt

u for ne w coal-fired , boiler s adopte di n Jun e 199 1 b y th e Virgini aAi

r Pollutio n Contro l Board
. SEL C state s tha t

dii s leve l can b e consistend y achieve dan dimprove dupon . SEL C furthe r state s tha t

wit h adesig n limi t

o f 0. 1 lbsAO 6 Btu , a n operatin g limitatio n o f 0.1 5 i s "clearl y technicall y an deconomicall y feasible. " SEL C Petitio n a t

32
. VDAPC , i n it s response , stresse s tha t dii s i s th e first

applicatio n o f SC Rtechnolog y t o aspreader-stoke r boiler
. I t

als o note s tha t

SC R ha s no t bee n operate dcommerciall y o n acoal-fire dboile r i n th e Unite d States , althoug h i t

ha s bee n establishe do n pulverize dcoal-fire dboiler s i n Japa n an dGermany
. In ligh t o f this , VDAP

C assert s tha t

"[t]h e risk s involve di n afirst-time applicatio n necessitat e mor e moderat e regulation. " Respons e t o SEL C Petitio n a t

10
. VDAP C elaborate s o n it s concern s by identifyin g di e followin g a s bein g o f

primar y concern : potentia l difference s i n th e propertie s o f coal use doversea s an di n thi s country , an d potentia l difference s i n th e charaaeristic s o f as h produce db y spreader-stoke r an d pulverize dcoal firing. Mor e specifically , VDAP

C sate s that : [T]h e as h produce db

y aspreader-stoke r

boile r i s mor e coarse , causin g ahighe r tendenc y t o blin ddi e SC R catalyst
. Othe r

difference s involv e exces s air , furnac e temperature , furnac e volume , an dhea t transfe r surfac e arrangement
. Al

l of thes e faaors affec

t temperatur e

4 5 SEL

C Petitio n a t3 2 an d Appendi x L (Lette r from Bernar d E . Turlinsld , Chief , Ai r Enforcemen tBranch , Regio n III , t o Wallac e N . Davis , Executiv e Direaor , VDAPC (Jan . 31 , 1992)) .3 6 HADSON POWE R1 4 - BUEN

A VIST A
an dtemperatur e fluctuation s withi n th e SC Runit , whic h ar e critica

l t o optima l SC

Rperformance
. Respons e t o SEL

C Petitio n 10-11
. Finally , VDAP

C argue s tha t

th e approac h take n a t

Hadso n Powe r i s "totall y consistent " with di e preceden t se t by th e Chamber s Work s cogeneratio n facility i n Ne w Jersey , on e of th e facilities cite di n th e SEL C petition
. VDAP

C explain s tha t

sinc e th e Chamber s Works ' boiler s woul dhav e ha duncontrolle dNO , emission s o f 0.2 7 lbsAO 6 Bt

u an ddi e permi t set s a n emissio n limitatio n o f 0.1 7 lbsAO 6 Btu , i t

onl y require s 37 % NO , removal
. A

t Hadso n Power , uncontrolle demission s woul db e a t th e rat e o f

0.5 0 lbsAO 6 Bt

u an dth e emissio n limitatio n i s 0.2 5 lbsAO 6 Btu , thu s requirin g a50 % reduction
. Therefore , th e reductio n require d a t Hadso n Powe r

i s greater , o n apercentag e basis , tha n a t th e Chamber s Works
. Respons e t o SEL C Petitio n a t

11
. I n it s repl y t o th e VDAP

C response , SEL

C indicate s dia t

apermi t issue dt o Orland o Utilitie s Commission' s Curti s E
. Stanto n Energ y Cente r Secon dUnit , issue dprio r t o di e Hadso n Powe r

permit , als o se t amaximu memissio n limitatio n a t 0.1 7 lbsAO 6 Bt

u an ddia t di e issuanc e o f thi s an dth e Ne w Jerse y permit s demonstrate s tha t SC Rwith a n emissio n rat e of

0.1 7 lbsAO 6 Bt

u o r lowe r i s BAC T fo r th e Hadso n Powe r plant
. We not e dia t

di e explanatio n VDAP

C give s i n it s respons e t o th e petitio n repeat s almos t

verbati mit s respons e t o simila r comment s raise do n di e draf

t permit
. See Respons e t o Petitions , Attachmen t I V a t 5-7 1 t o 5-72
. SEL

C wa s undoubtedl y awar e of th e rational e se t

fort h b y th e VDAP C i n it s respons e t o comments
. Yet , SEL C ha s no t explicid y addresse ddi e explanatio n given by VDAP C i n eithe r

it s petitio n o r

it s reply
. Mos t

significandy , SEL

C doe s no t

addres s a t

al l th e transferabilit

y of SC Rtechnolog y t o spreader-stoke r boilers
. A s previousl y noted , di e petitione r ha s th e burde n o

f demonstratin g dia t

revie w of apermi t conditio n i s warranted
. Recendy , dii s Boar dhel ddia t

"[t] o satisf

y th e requirement s o f

4 0 C.F.R
. §124.19(a) , i t

i s no t enoug h fo

r [petitioner ] t o includ e i n it s petitio n fo r revie w amer e referenc e t o comment s mad e durin g di e commen t perio do n di e draf

t permit. " In reAdcom Wire, RCR A Appea l No
. 92-2 ,P.3 9

HADSO N POWE R1 4 - BUEN

A VIST A 3 7 sli p op . a t

1 0 (EAB , Sept
. 3 , 1992)
. Instead , §124.19(a ) require s a petitione r t o "sho w why di e [State's ] response s t o th e issue s [raise di n th e publi c commen t

period ] ar e clearl y erroneou s o r Involv e importan t polic y consideration s o r exercise s of

discretio n dia t

shoul db e re viewed. " Id. SELC' s failure t o respon dt o di e primar y rational e se t fort h b y VDAP

C fatally flaws it s petitio n i n thi s regard
. A s such , revie w o f thi s issu e i s denied
. I n denyin g review , w e recogniz e tha t SEL C ma y ultimatel y prov e corre atha t

aleve l mor e stringen t tha n 0.2 5 lbsAO 6 Bt

u can b e consistend y achieved
. Eve n VDAPC, i n it s interna l documents , seem s t o hav e conclude ddia t

di e us e of

U.S
. coal s shoul dno t

b e asignificant concern . I n referrin g t o th e Chamber s Work s project , VDAP C states : I n issuin g th e Chamber s Work s permit , th e reviewin g audiorit y determine ddia t di e coal t o b e burne da t

dia t facility i s no t

significand

y different

fromth e coa l bein g burne da t successfu l SC

Rapplication s i n German y an d Japan
. Th e sam e determinatio n applie s t o Hadso n Power , a s n o specifi c difference s in coal quality hav e bee n shown
. I n suppor t

o f thi s determination , di e Depart

men t ha s receive dcorrespondenc e fromSC Rvendor s indictin g dia t

di e constituent s of

typical Virgini acoal ar e no t prohibitiv e t o SC

Roperation
. VDAP C Memo , a t

5-29
. Thus , th e large r concer n seem s t o b e th e transferability of

SC Rtechnolog y t o aspreader-stoke r boiler
. I n thi s regard , whil e acknowledgin g di e technica l difference s betwee n pulverize dcoa l an dspreader-stoke r boiler s a s previousl y discussed , VDAP C state s tha t

"neithe r th e applican t

no r th e agency' s researc h ha s show n tha t

di e ga s streamfrom aspreader-stoke r boile r i s physicall y o r chemicall y differen t

a s t o preclud e di e applicatio n of dii s technology. " Id. Whil e thi s doe s no t

direcdy addres s wha t

leve l of performanc e can b e consistend y maintained , i t doe s give som e reassuranc e a s t o th e transferability o f

th e technology
. W e als o recogniz e that

di e permi t

require s arevie w of

th e NO , emissio n limitatio n prio r t o issuanc e an deac h renewa l of a n operatin gP.4 0

3 8 HADSON POWE R1 4 - BUEN

A VIST A permit
. **I t

provide s tha t

"di e Departmen t

ma y revis e th e NO , emission s rat e downwar dt o refle ath e maximu mNO , emission s rat e tha t i s demonstrate dt o b e consistend y achievabl e o n a30-day rollin g average , no t

includin g period s o f

malfunction. " Permit , Par t I , Conditio n 20
. W

e woul dexpe adia t

i f th e performanc e o f

Hadso n Powe r o r an y othe r

spreader-stoke r

boile r demonstrate s th e achievabilit

y o f amor e stringen t

emissio n limitation , th e curren t limi t wil l b e reconsidere dan dadjuste dappropriately
. 47 I n th e contex t

o f it s objection s t o th e NO , emissio n limitation , SEL C raise s on e furthe r

poin t tha t need s t o b e addressed
. I t note s dia t althoug h di e ai r

qualit y modelin g for

th e Hadso n Powe r

plan t i s base do n ashutdow n o f

boiler s a t th e Georgi aBonde dFiber s plant , th e permi t doe s no t actuall y requir e th e shutdow n of dia t plant
. Instead , i t provide s tha t

Hadso n Power

shal l ceas e t o operat e beyon d9 0 day s after commencin g operatio n unles s on e of th e followin g occurs : i
. arestrictio n tha t

render s th e existin g boiler s a t th e hos t facility inoperabl e i s mad e federall y enforceable , o r ii
. th e permitte e demonstrate s dia t th e permittee' s facilit

y i n concurren t

operatio n with di e existin g boiler s doe s no t increas e th e ne t impa ao n ai r

quality
. Suc h demonstratio n shal l b e don e i n amanne r acceptabl e t o (h e Department
. Permit , Part

I , Conditio n 38(d)
. SEL C expresse s aconcer n tha t i f Hadso n Powe r

wer e operatin g at

aleve l belo w 0.2 5 lbsAO 6 Btu , Georgi a

4 6 See Virgini

a Ai r Pollution Contro

l Regulation

s §120-08-04(P)(1 ) (a

n operatin g permi tma y b e issue d for a ter

m notto excee d five years) . W e not e tha

ta s t o emission s o f

ammonia , th e permi

testablishe s a n emissio n limitatio n bu tindicate s dia tlowe r limit

s ma y b e impose d "afte

r revie w o f instack-testing an d optimizin g th e selectiv e catalyti c reductio n system. " Whil e i ti s possibl e suc

h a n approac h coul d hav

e als o bee n use d fo

r NO , emissions , w e recognize tha tthis migh

tno t full y addres s potential deterioratio n o f di e SC Rsystem . W

e d o no tfind di e mechanism chose n b y VDAP

C t o deal wit

h th e technica

l uncertaintie s o f

applicatio n o f

SC Rt o spreader-stoker technolog y t o b e i n clear error.P.4 1

HADSO N POWE R1 4 - BUEN

A VIST A 3 9 Bonde dFiber s coul dstart u p an demi t

di e differenc e betwee n Hadso n Power' s operatin g rat e an ddi e 0.2 5 lb
. limit , sinc e th e ai r quality analysi s wa s premise do n di e 0.2 5 lb
. limit
. A s such , th e permi t

doe s no t provid e a n incentiv e t o minimiz e emissions
. tt Relativ e t o thi s condition , SEL C als o state s tha t

i t shoul db e mad e mor e specific
. I t

shoul deithe r

requir e shutdow n of

di e Georgi a Bonde dFiber

boiler s or , i n th e alternative , b e revise dt o stat e th e tota l limi t i n term s o f

emission s rathe r

tha n "ne t impa ao n ai r

quality, " whic h SEL C finds t o b e "vagu e an dundefined. " SEL C Petitio n a t

33
. VDAP C provide s arespons e t o thi s Issu e i n th e contex t o f addressin g asimila

r commen t

mad e by th e County
. I n it s response , VDAP C indicate s tha t

"[n] o regulator y framework i s l n plac e fo

r di e departmen t

t o appl y a n emission s ca p t o asele anumbe r o f facilities i n attainin g th e ambien t

ai r standards
. I n addition , VDAP C regulation s d o no t allo w th e operatio n of

Georgi aBonde dFiber s t o b e governe dby apermi t issue dt o Hadso n Powe r 1 4 - Buen aVista. " Respons e t o Count y Petitio n a t

13

- Concedin g t o VDAP

C tha t i t canno t regulat e th e Georgi a Bonde dFiber s facility direcd y i n th e Hadso n Powe r permit , tha t

stil l doe s no t full y respon dt o th e concer n raise dby th e petitioners
. Clearly , i f appropriate , VDAP

C can regulat e th e condu aof Hadso n Powe r base do n whedie r

th e Georgi aBonde dFiber s boiler s ar e operating , thu s addressin g th e issu e o f concurren t

operatio n raise dby th e Count y an dSEL

C (an dno t

specifically addresse db y VDAPC)
. Whil e SEL

C link s thi s issu e wit

h di e NO , BAC

T issue , w e thin k thi s linkag e i s tenuou s a t best
. Th e BAC

T limi t fo r Hadso n Power

i s i n n o wa y dependen t

upo n di e availabilit

y of offsets a t Georgi aBonde d Fibers
. SEL

C ma y b e assumin g tha t

eve n i f th e permi t

containe da n emissio n limi t

of 0.1 5 o r 0.1 7 lbsAO 6 Bt

u tha t di e provisio n relatin g t o concurren t

operatio n woul db e di e same , thu s lowerin g tota l emissions
. However , i t

i s equall y possibl e tha t

modelin g widi di e lowe r emissio n limi t coul dreduc e o r

eliminat e th e nee dfo

r offset s fo

r NO , entirely ,

4 8 A somewha t

simila r concern i s raise db y di e County
. See Count y Petitio n a t

10
.P.4 2

4 0 HADSO

N POWE R1 4 - BUEN

A VIST A resultin g i n th e deletio n o f di e offse t provisio n a s i t

relate s t o NO,
. W

e declin e t o speculat e o n diis
. 4 ' Mor e importan t

i s whethe r

th e conditio n i s consisten t wit h di e assumption s mad e i n th e underlyin g ai r quality modeling
. Th e modelin g assume ddia t

Hadso n Powe r

woul db e operatin g a t

a0.2 5 lbsAO 6 Bt u limi t an ddia t di e boiler s a t

Georgi aBonde dFiber s woul d b e shu t down
. Th e permi t

provisio n objeae dt o b y SEL C an ddi e Count y allow s continue doperatio n o f th e existin g boiler s i

f thi s "doe s no t increas e th e ne t

impa aof

ai r quality, " demonstrate d"i n amanne r acceptabl e t o [VDAPC]. " W e assum e di e "increase " i s measure drelativ e t o di e scenari o a s modeled , i.e
. wid i Hadso n Powe r operatin g a t

it s allowabl e emissio n limitatio n an dwid i di e Georgi aBonde dFiber s boiler s shu t

down
. W

e d o no t finddia t allowin g thi s additiona l flexibility , with di e limitation s a s specified , i n an y wa y allow s advers e impact s beyon dthos e considere di n th e underlyin g mode l an dw e findn o erro r i n it s formulation
. IV
. Air Quality Modeling Ai r quality model s attemp t

t o describ e th e cours e o f pollutant s a s the y leav e th e sourc e b y quantifyin g th e qualitie s o f ai r pollutio n transpor t "t o provid e numerica l estimate s of groun dleve l concentra
tion s base dupo n facility an dmeteorologica l parameters. " J
. Bromberg , Clean Air Act Handbook, a t

8 6 (2 ded
. 1985)
. PS D permi t applicant s us e modelin g t o demonstrat e complianc e wid i di e requirement s fo r obtainin g apermit
. Fo r

example , Hadso n Power

use dmodelin g i n thi s cas e t o demonstrat e tha t it s propose demission s woul dno t caus e o r contribut e significand

y t o aviolatio n of

th e availabl e increments , an d di e FLM s use dHadso n Power' s modelin g result s i n thei r advers e impa a determinations
. SEL C an ddi e County conten ddia t Hadso n Power' s modelin g doe s no t adequatel y conside r

loca l topograph y an dmeteorology
. See SEL C Petitio n a t

33-35
. SEL

C assert s tha t

du e t o Hadso n Power' s

4 9 Whil

e SEL C object s tha tPermit , Par tI , Condition 38(d ) "doe

s no tprovid

e incentive for emission s from Hadso n Powe r an d Georgi a Bonded t o b e minimized, " SEL C Petitio n a t33 , i tdoe s no tcit

e an y lega l requirementfo

r the combine d emission s to b e minimized .P.4 3

HADSO N POWE R1 4 - BUEN

A VIST A 4 1 propose dlocatio n i n avalley of th e Blu e Ridg e Mountains , di e sit e i s subje at o frequent

temperatur e inversion s an dai r stagnation , an dtha t thes e condition s wer e no t considere di n th e modeling
. * ° Th e Count y similarly argue s tha t di e meteorologica l an dai r quality dat acolleae dby Hadso n Powe r ar e incomplete , unreliable , inaccurat e an dunsuitable
. 5 1 Th e Count y argue s tha t thes e faulty dat a rende r di e modelin g result s suspea . Both SELC' s an ddi e County' s petition s fail t o articulat e adequatel y asubstantiv e basi s fo r review
. Th e County' s petitio n fo r revie w consist s of

alette r statin g that : Th e Count y take s exceptio n t o several condition s o f di e fina l permi t an dherein reiterates its opposition to tbe issuance of

tbe permit

as it set forth in its "COMMENTS

OF THE COUNTY

OF ROCKBRIDGE, VIRGINIA IN

OPPOSITION

TO THE ISSUANCE

OF THE AIR PERMIT,"

whic h comment s ar e attache dheret o an d incorporate dherei n b

y reference
. Count y Petitio n a t1 (emphasi s added) . I n odie r words , th e ground s for revie w asserte di n th e County' s petitio n ar e identica l t o di e County' s comment s o n Hadso n Power' s draf t permit
. 5 2 SELC' s petitio n t o revie w th e ai r

quality dat aals o repeat s comment s mad e b y i t an dodier s

Specifically , SEL

C protest s th e us e o f

ai r stabilit y dat a collecte d in Greensboro , N.C , a non-valle

y location . SEL

C i s als o dissatisfied dia

tth e ai r qualit y dat a use d i n di e modellin g wer e colleae d from September to April, an d d o no tinclud e th e summer whe n ai r stagnatio n frequently occurs . SEL C contend s tha

tthes e limited da u confli a wit h VDAP C regulations requiring a ful l year' s wort

h o f da u unles s i

ti s determine d dia

ta complet e an

d adequat

e analysi s ca n b e performe

d usin g da u from a shorter period . Virgini a Ai r Pollutio n Contro

l Regulation

s §120-08-02(N)(l)(d) . 3 1 Fo r example , th e Count

y als o contests th e us e o

f meteorologica

l da u colleae d i n Greensboro , N.C . 3 2 The Count

y raise s on e additiona

l issu e i n it

s lette r tha

ti tdid no trais e i n it

s comments o n th e draf

tpermit , namel y tha tVDAP C faile d to conside r seriously th e adverse impa a determinations , a

n argumen

taddressed supra.P.4 4

4 2 HADSO

N POWE R1 4 - BUEN

A VIST A
o n th e draf

t permit
. 5 3 Neidie r

petitione r

make s a n argumen t

whic h addresse s th e adequac y o f VDAPC' s respons e t o thos e comments
. u I n dii s case , VDAP

C provide dsignificant , substantia l response s t o th e comment s o n thes e issues
. VDAP C Memo , a t

5-4 9 t o 5-69
. Becaus e th e Count y an dSEL

C failedt o mee t

di e requiremen t

o f §124.1 9 t o addres s thes e responses , w e den y revie w of di e variou s substantiv e issue s raise d relativ e t o th e ai r

qualit y analyses
. See Adcom Wire, supra. SEL C raise s anothe r

issue , concernin g th e publi c notic e o f th e model s dia t

wer e use di n thi s case . Th e Clea n Ai r A arequire s th e Agency t o specif

y th e ai r qualit y model s t o b e use dfor PS D permits
. CA A §l65(e)(3)(d)
. Thes e model s ar e liste di n th e "Guidelin e o n Ai r Quality Model s (Revised) " (1986 ) an d Supplemen t A (1987 ) (hereinafte r collectivel y "Guidelines")
. See 4 0 C.F.R
. §52.21(/)
. I f th e recommende d model s ar e inappropriat e i n agive n case , othe r non-Guidelin e model s ma y b e use dpursuan t

t o 4 0 C.F.R
. §52.21(0

- That sectio n provide s dia t "[w]ritte n approva l of

th e Administrato r

mus t b e obtaine dfo

r any " non Guidelin e model
. "In addition , us e o f amodifie do r

substitute dmode l mus t b e subje at o notic e an dopportunit y fo r publi c commen t

* * *. " Id. Th e Virgini apermittin g regulatio n contain s a n identica l requirement
. See Virgini aAi r Pollutio n Contro l Regulation s §120-08

- 02(M)(2)
. I n thi s case , th e model s containe din th e Guideline s wer e apparentl y no t

appropriat e given Hadso n Power' s propose dlocation , an ds o Hadso n Powe r

sough t an dobtaine dVDAP

C an dEP A approva l

3 3 SELC'

s petitio n refer

s to , an d include s a

s attachments , th e comment s mad e o n th e draf tpermitby Dr

. Michae l Williams, Edga

r W . Spencer, Edwi

n J . Goller an

d di e County . SEL

C Petitio n a

t34 . The onl y exceptio n t

o thi s i s SELC' s referenc e t o VDAPC'

s response tha

ti t collecte d da u for a perio d les s tha n on e yea r becaus e historica

l da u gadiered elsewher e showe d dia

ta complete an

d adequat

e analysi s could b e mad

e widi les s dau . SEL

C Petition , a t35 . SEL C assert s tha t"(gjive n Buen a VLSU' S uniqu e meteorologica l conditions , i ti s clea r error t o rely o n historica l ai r qualit y da u gadiered i n othe r area s a s a basis fo

r condition s i n th e Buena Vis u valley. " Id. SELC' s mer e allegatio n o f

clea r error i s fa

r from satisfyin g it s burde n unde r § 124.1 9 o f providin g a "statemen

to f reasons " showin g tha

tth e permi ti s base d o n clea

r error . See In re Waste-Tecb Services and BP Chemicals America, Inc, RCR A Appea l No . 88-8 , unpub . op . a tn. 2 (Adm'r

, Sept. 22 , 1988 ) ("petitio n fo r review mus tno tonl y identify disputed issues , bu tdemonstrate tha

tspecia l an d importan

t reasons necessiut e review").P.4 5

HADSO N POWE R1 4 - BUEN

A VIST A 4 3 t o us e anon-Guidelin e model
. 5 S VDAP C failed, however , t o submi t thi s non-Guidelin e mode l t o notic e an dcommen t prio r t o it s use . SEL C contend s dia t

stat e an dfederal regulation s requir e publi c notic e an dcommen t

before anon-Guidelin e mode l ma y b e used , an d dia t suc h notic e canno t

b e provide di n connectio n wit h di e draf

t permit , whic h i s "issue dlon g after th e decisio n t o us e di e mode l i s mad e an d[dierefore ] doe s no t give di e publi c a n opportunit y t o affect th e choic e o f

models. " SEL

C Petitio n a t

36
. I n an y event , SEL

C notes , th e notic e o f

di e draf t permi t an dpubli c hearin g i n thi s cas e di dno t indicat e Hadso n Power' s us e o f anon-Guidelin e model
. SEL C i s corre atha t

ther e i s aregulator y obligatio n t o submi t anon-Guidelin e mode l t o notic e an dpubli c comment
. However , di e federal regulation , §52.21(/) , provide s dia t suc h notic e an dopportunit y fo r commen t

shal l procee di n accordanc e wid i di e procedure s develope dfor

publi c participatio n i n th e proces s of issuin g apermit
. *

3 5 As describe d by VDAPC : Becaus e th e applicant' s propose d locatio n i s i n complex terrai

n an d widii n 10 0 kilometer

s o f tw o Class I areas , som e uniqu e problems wer e encountere d during th e modelin g analysis o f ai r qualit y impacts . I n orde r t o determine di e maximu m impa a o n receptors located a t elevation s betwee n th e suc k to p an d di e plum e heigh

t(intermediat

e terrain) , i twa

s necessar

y for Hadson-1 4 t o develo p a model dia t woul d compar

e result s from th e simpl e terrai

n an d complex terrai

n model s i n this region where th e model s overlap . Th e wors tcas e from eithe r mode

l woul d b e selecte d an

d incorporate

d into di e overall mode l output . Becaus e n o suc h mode l ha s bee n approved b y EP A for genera

l use , Hadson-1 4 create

d a hybri d model , ISCSTCPX

, base d o n tw o established EP A model s (ISCS

T an d COMLPE

X 1) ; EP A approved ISCSTCP

X in Ma y 1991 . VDAP C Memo , a

t5-3 . This regulation provide

s dia tus e o f a non-Guideline mode

l "mus tb e subje a to notic e and opportunit

y fo r public commentunde r procedures develope d i n accordanc e wid i paragrap

h (q ) o f this section. " Paragrap

h (q ) requires th e applicatio n o f 4 0 C.F.R . Par t124 , which "contain

s EP A procedures fo

r issuing , modifying, revoking an d reissuin g o r terminating al

l • • • PS D permit s • • •. " 4 0 C.F.R

. §124.1 .P.4 6 i 'i »

44 HADSO N POWE R1 4 - BUEN

A VIST A Th e sam e i s tru e of

th e Virgini aregulation
. 3 7 W e interpre t

thi s regulator y languag e a s allowin g th e notic e an dopportunit y fo r publi c commen t o n th e us e of anon-Guidelin e mode l t o b e provide dwid i di e notic e an dopportunit y fo r publi c commen t

o n th e draf

t permit
. SEL

C agree s tha t

ther e i s n o explici t

regulator y languag e requirin g notic e an d commen t o n th e non-Guidelin e mode l prio r t o tha t stag e o f

th e proceedings , instea darguin g dia t di e regulation s implicid y requir e notic e an dcommen t

o n anon-Guidelin e mode l prio r t o it s use , whic h woul db e prio r

t o th e draf

t permit
. w SEL

C Petitio n a t

3 6 n.19
. I n ligh t of th e clear referenc e i n §52.21(/ ) t o th e permittin g procedure s i n Part 124 , however , w e declin e t o g o beyon ddii s languag e an dsearc h for a n allege dimplici t

requirement
. SEL C furthe r contend s dia t

VDAPC' s notic e o f

Hadso n Power' s draf t permi t failedt o mentio n di e us e o f di e non-Guidelin e model
. VDAP C disagrees , notin g tha t

"all appropriat e informatio n includin g * * * di e ai r

qualit y analyse s * * * coul db e reviewe db y di e publi c a t loca l librarie s i n Buen aVist aan dLexington " an da t

di e loca l VDAP

C office i n Roanoke
. Respons e t o SEL C Petitio n a t

13
. I n addition , VDAP C note s tha t

th e notic e of

di e draf t permi t indicate ddia t

a n informa l briefin g woul dtake plac e o n Januar y 15 , 1992
. A t thi s briefing , VDAP

C staf f discusse dth e mode l use dby Hadso n Powe r i n th e ai r qualit y analysis
. Id. W e ar e no t persuade dby VDAPC' s response , whic h i s strikingl y simila r t o it s explanatio n fo

r failin g t o includ e i n th e notic e th e prediae damoun t

o f incremen t

consumptio n i n th e Park
. Fo r th e sam e reason s discusse dabov e wit h referenc e t o incremen t consumption , VDAPC' s failure t o mentio n th e non-Guidelin e mode l i n di e publi c notic e o f di e draf t permi t an dpubli c hearin g deprive dth e publi c o f a

5 7 VirginiaAi

r Pollution Contro

l Regulation

s §120-08-02(M)(2 ) provides dia tnotic e an d commen to n di e us e o f non-Guideline model s shoul d procee d i n accordanc e wid i subseaio n (R) , whic

h i n tur n provide s fo r public notic e of

, amon g othe r things , VDAPC' s preliminar

y determinatio n o n di e permi tapplication . 3 8 Accordin

g to SELC

, thi s implici trequirementstem s from- th e fa a tha tt o b e include d i n th e Guidelines , a mode l mus tb e subje a to notic e an d comment . SEL

C Petitio n a t3 6 n.1 9 (citing 4 2 U.S.C. §7475(e)(3) ; 4 3 Fed . Reg . 26,39 9 Quae 19 , 1978)) . SELC' s argumen

toverlook

s tha tHadson Power' s mode l i s no tto b e included i n th e Guideline s fo

r futur e application widiou tfurthe r public notice , butwas use d i n this cas e only .P.4 7

* > • >

HADSO N POWE R1 4 - BUEN

A VIST A 4 5 meaningfu l opportunit y t o commen t o n th e draf

t permit
. VDAP

C i s required , i n connectio n with an y publi c notic e necessitate dby it s respons e t o th e reman dordere db y thi s decision , t o give notic e of th e non-Guidelin e mode l use db y Hadso n Power
. Comment s o n th e mode l ma y persuad e th e stat e tha t som e change s t o di e mode l ar e appropri

ate
. Further , an y comment s coul dsuppor t arenewe dchalleng e t o di e modelin g assumption s i n an y furthe r appea l afte

r completio n o f

th e reman di f properl y mad e i n light

oiAdcom Wire, supra. V
. National

Park Service Environmental

Assessment Hadso n Powe r

propose ddia t

it s facility b e service dby acoa l conveyo r an dutility improvement s runnin g betwee n i t an dGeorgi a Bonde dFibers
. Th e coal conveyo r an dutilit

y improvement s (steam , condensat e an dwate r

lines ) woul dru n throug h Gle n Maur y Park , a par k owne dby th e Cit

y o f Buen aVist

aan dsupporte dby federal fund s unde r th e Lan dan dWater

Conservatio n Fun dAct, 1 6 U.S.C
. §460/

- 8(0(3)
. Accordingly , di e Departmen t of th e Interio r

(DOI ) mus t approv e th e us e of

Gle n Maur

y Par k fo r thi s purpose . Th e Cit y of Buen aVist

arequeste dsuc h approval
. Th e DOI , throug h th e Nationa l Par k Servic e (NPS) , notifie ddi e publi c dia t i t woul dprepar e a n environmenta l assessmen t of th e propose dcoal conveyo r an dutilit

y improvement s i n orde r t o determin e whethe r

t o prepar e a n environmenta l impa astatemen t unde r di e Nationa l Environmenta l Polic y A a(NEPA) , 4 2 U.S.C
. §4332
. See 5 7 Fed
. Reg
. 2,92 8 (Jan
. 24 , 1992)
. While thi s appea l wa s pending , an dbefore th e NP S complete dit s environmenta l review , Hadso n Powe r notifie ddi e Cit y o f Buen aVist

atha t i t i s abandonin g it s plan s t o us e th e coal conveyor , an dwil l Instea d rel y upo n truc k deliver y of coal
. Hadso n Powe r informe d di e Cit

y of Buen aVist

atha t i t i s contemplatin g reroutin g th e utilit

y improvement s t o avoi dGle n Maur y Park
. I n respons e t o CLEAR'

s commen t

tha t VDAP C shoul ddefer consideratio n of

di e permi t

applicatio n unti l NP

S complete s it s environmenta l revie w pursuan t t o NEPA

, VDAP C state ddia t

di e outcom e o f

di e NEP A proces s woul dhav e n o affe ao n th e PSD permi t decisio n becaus e "Hadso n Power include dfue

l deliver y by truc k

i n it s analyse s a s acontingen t

i f th e conveyo r

syste mcoul dno t

b e utilized
.P.4 8

46 HADSON POWE R1 4 - BUEN

A VIST A Th e VDAP

C ha s evaluate dbod i alternative s an dfoun ddie mt o b e in accordanc e wid i PSD requirements. " VDAP C Memo , a t

5-41
. O n appeal , CLEA

Rassert s tha t

VDAPC' s respons e i s inadequat e becaus e i t

fails t o explai n why "i

t woul dno t

hav e bee n 'feasible ' o r 'reasonable ' t o awai t

th e completio n o f

a[NEPA

] revie w tha t

wil l certainl y provid e aweald i of informatio n relatin g t o th e environmenta l impact s o f

th e Buen aVist

aplant " a s require dby 4 0 C.F.R
. §52.21(s ) an d Virgini aAi

r Pollutio n Contro l Regulation s §120-08-02(1")
. CLEA R Petitio n a t

4
. CLEA Rcontend s dia t

b y "refusin g t o defer

consideratio n of di e permi t

an ddiereb y allowin g th e proje at o g o forward , VDAP C undermine ddi e efficac

y of di e NEP A review. " Id. CLEA

Rals o assert s i n contradictio n t o VDAP C tha t di e ai r quality analysi s submitte dby Hadso n Powe r

assume dcoal deliver

y by conveyor , an ddi dno t includ e di e possibility o f

deliver y by truck , an ddierefor e th e permi t i s base do n ai r qualit y dat adia t

d o no t refle ath e tru e situation
. CLEA RRepl y a t 2-3

- 5 9 NEP

A §102(2)(C ) require s tha t a n environmenta l impa a statemen t shal l b e included"i

n ever y recommendatio n o r

repor t o n * * * majo r

federal action s significand y affecting di e qualit

y of th e huma n environment. " 4 2 U.S.C
. §4332(2)(C)
. Federa l approva l of privat e action s i s afederal actio n whic h ma y trigge r th e nee dfo

r a n environmenta l impa astatemen t unde r NEPA
. 4 0 C.F.R
. §1508.18(a)
. Th e NP S i s currend y proceedin g wid i it s obligation s unde r thes e provision s i n connectio n wit h di e propose dus e of

di e Gle n Maur

y Park
. Th e federal PS D regulation s provid e dia t Wheneve r

an y propose dsourc e o r modificatio n i s subje at o aaio n by aFedera l Agency whic h migh t necessitat e preparatio n of a n environmenta l impa a statemen t pursuan t

t o th e Nationa l Environmenta l

5 9 The Count

y als o contend s dia

tVDAP C shoul d notissu e th e permi tuntil th e pendin g NEP

A proces s i

s complete . Th

e Count y merel y repeat s the comment

s i tmad e o n di e draf

tpermitwithou texplainin g ho w o r wh y VDAPC' s responses t o th e comment s ar e inadequate , an

d diereb y foils to compl

y wit h th e requirements o f

4 0 C.F.R . §124.19 . See Adcom Wire, supra. Accordingly, w e deny revie w o f di e County' s claims .P.4 9

HADSO N POWE R1 4 - BUEN

A VIST A 4 7 Polic y A a* * * , revie w by th e Administrato r conduae d pursuan t t o thi s seaio n shal l b e coordinate dwid i di e broa denvironmenta l review s unde r tha t A a• * * t o th e maximu mexten t

feasibl e an dreasonable
. 4 0 C.F.R
. §52.21(s)
. Th e Virgini aregulatio n i s virtuall y identical
. See Virgini aAi

r Pollutio n Contro l Regulation s §120-02-08(T)
. Unde r th e plai n languag e o f

thi s regulation , coordination i s al l tha t i s require do f

th e PSD permittin g authority , an donl y t o di e exten t feasibl e an dreasonable
. A s use di n thi s regulation , "coordinate " i s bes t give n it s everyda

y meaning , namel y t o harmoniz e o r t o a atogethe r

i n aconcerte dway . I n ou r

view , dien , dii s regulatio n doe s no t requir e a stat e t o refrai n fromissuin g aPS D permi t unti l di e NEP

A revie w proces s i s complete
. Accordingly , w e reje aCLEAR's argumen t tha t VDAP C clearl y erre db y failing t o defer consideratio n o f

dii s PSD permi t

unti l NP S complete s it s revie w of th e propose deasemen t for Gle n Maur

y Park
. *° W

e als o disagre e wit

h CLEAR's argumen t

tha t deferrin g di e permi t i s necessar y becaus e th e NEP A revie w woul dprovid e aweald i o f informatio n relatin g t o th e impa aof th e propose dfacility. T o th e exten t informatio n woul db e relevan t t o th e PS D permit , suc h informatio n shoul dhav e alread y bee n supplie di n th e PS D permi t process . I

f VDAP C believe dan y relevan t

informatio n wa s lacking , i t i s authorize dt o reques t

suc h informatio n unde r Virgini aAi

r Pollutio n Contro l Regulation s § 120-08-0 2 (R)
. 6l Ther e i s nothin g i n th e recor d t o suggest , an dCLEA

Rdoe s no t

demonstrate , tha t

VDAP C lacke d informatio n relevan t

t o th e PS D permi t

proceedin g dia t

woul db e provide di n th e NEP

A process . Moreover , w e conclud e dia t VDAP C sufficiend

y explaine dwh y coordinatio n wid i di e NP S shoul dno t

b e require di n thi s case . Th e

Ther e ma y b e times wher e th e federa l aaio n triggerin g NEP

A requirement s involve s th e propose dsourc e itself
. I n thos e circumstances , whic h ar e no t presen t here , waitin g fo r completio n o

f th e NEP A proces s ma

y b e appropriate
. That regulation provides , in part , dia t VDAP C "shall advis e di e applican t o f any deficienc y i n th e applicatio n o r in th e informatio n submitted. " See also 4 0 C.F.R
. 5124.3(c ) ("the Regiona

l Administrato r

ma y reques t additiona l informatio n fro ma n applican t bu t onl y whe n necessar

y t o clarify , modify , o r

supplemen t

previousl y submitte d material")
.4 8 HADSO N POWE R1 4 - BUEN

A VIST A onl y portio n o f

th e NEP A revie w relevan t

t o thi s permi t

proceedin g i s tha t pertainin g t o th e coal conveyance . 62 Hadso n Power' s recen t decisio n t o abando n di e plan s fo r coal conveyanc e acros s Gle n Maur y Par k eliminate s an y nee dt o awai t completio n o f

th e NP S NEP A review
. Even i f th e coa l conveyanc e optio n wer e stil l pending , VDAP C indicate s dia t it s permi t

decisio n i s base do n a n ai r quality analysi s tha t

include d di e truc k deliver y option , an ddierefor e th e outcom e o f di e NEP A revie w i s Irrelevant
. Th e recor dsupport s thi s conclusion
. 6i Becaus e th e outcom e o f

th e NEP A revie w woul dno t

provid e an y significant

ne w informatio n t o th e proceeding , o r chang e th e outcome , w e agre e wit h VDAP C tha t coordinatio n o f

di e PS D permi t

proces s an dth e NEP

A revie w proces s i s no t

reasonabl y require di n thi s case . CONCLUSION Fo r th e reason s se t

fort h above , th e Boar dremand s dii s permi t t o th e State : 1
. t o describ e emission s relate dt o di e constructio n o f

Hadso n Powe r

an dt o includ e suc h emission s i n th e ai r quality analysi s o r

demonstrat e wh y the y can b e properl y excluded ; 2
. t o determin e whedie r th e Wildernes s FL M demonstrate ddia t

Hadso n Pow

er' s propose demission s wil l adversel y impa aAQRV

s i n th e Wilderness ; an d 3
. t o determin e whedie r th e Par k FL M demonstrate dtha t

Hadso n Power' s

Ther e i s nothin g in th e recor d dia tindicates ho w o r wh y th e utilit

y improvement

s relat e t o th e PS

D permit . 6i See VDAP

C Memo , a

t5-36 (Th e information submitted by Hadso n Power suggest s tha

tth e plan trequires * • • eithe r on e trai n locomotiv e o r u p t o 4 0 coa l truck s each day" ) an

d 5-3 8 (Th e Hadso

n Powe r ai r qualit y analysis di

d includ e potential fugitiv e dus tfrom coa

l handling operations (rai l and truc

k transfe r options , storage , an

d crushing).") .P.5 1

HADSO N POWE R1 4 - BUEN

A VIST A 4 9 propose demission s wil l adversel y impa aAQRV

s i n th e Park
. VDAP C i s hereb y direae dt o reope n di e permi t proceeding s for

th e limite dpurpos e o f

reconsiderin g dies e issue s i n amanne r consisten t wit h thi s opinion
. Afte

r reconsiderin g thes e issues , VDAP C shal l reissu e adraf t permi t an dreope n di e publi c commen t perio dt o allo w comment s o n it s reconsideration
. Th e notic e o f di e publi c commen t perio dshal l b e i n accordanc e wid i al l applicabl e federal an dstat e regulations , an dshal l provid e fo r publi c comment , i n accordanc e wid i thi s opinion , o n al l incremen t t o b e consume dby di e propose dsourc e (includin g an y incremen t t o b e consume da t

th e Park) , an dHadso n Power' s us e o f

anon-Guidelin e mode l i n it s ai r quality analyses
. Th e State' s final permi t

decisio n i s subje at o revie w unde r 4 0 C.F.R
. §124.19 , an dappea l o f

di e reman dproceeding s i s require dt o exhaus t administrativ e remedie s unde r 4 0 C.F.R
. §124.19( 0 (Hi)

- Revie w of al l odie r issue s raise di n th e petition s for revie w i s denied
. S o ordered
.P.5 2



### CERTIFICAT

E O F SERVIC

E I hereb y certif

y tha t copie s o f

th e foregoin g Reman dOrde r i n th e matte r

o f Hadso n Powe r 1 4 - Buen aVista , PS D Appea l Nos
. 92-3 , 92-4 , 92- 5 wer e sen t t o th e followin g person s i n th e manne r indicated : Firs t Clas s Mai l Postag e Prepaid : Wallac e N
. Davi s Commonwealt h o f

Virgini a Departmen t

o f Ai r Pollutio n Contro l 200-20 2 Nort h Nint h St
. P.O
. Bo x 1008 9 Richmond , V

A 2324 0 Davi dW
. Carr , Jr
. Souther n Environmenta l La w Cente r 20 1 W
. Mai n St
. Suit e 1 4 Charlottesville , V

A 22901-409 0 Leann e M
. Shan k Natki n & Heslep , P.C
. 1 3 S
. Mai n St
. P.O
. Bo x 420 5 Lexington , V

A 2445 0 Davi dA
. Wirt h Assistan t Professo r

o f La w Washingto n & Le e Universit y Schoo l o f

La w Lega l Practic e Clini c Lexington , V

A 2445 0 Han dDelivery : Bessi e Hammie l Hearin g Cler k U.S
. EP A Headquarter s Roo m370 8 

# Q^yLiAM eJ-U )i^Us^ Brend aH
. Selde n Lega l Staf

f Specialis t Dated : 

### OCT

5 

### 199 2P.5 3 

# r • • 'Kip*' * li! V W , miW »,. w ,. w . 1 « j
- r' « r