P.1 

OAR Box 1790 

Prepped by Keeia Richards 

Document Number: 

229) ll-F-19 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/31/2008 12:43:17 PM Sheet 229 of 250 
A-90-3 7 

P.2 

^ % 

United States Department of the Interior flJKflj 

NAI ION AL MARK SERVICE 

T.O. Dox 0712? 

Wiuhinflioii. D.C '2n0l3-7l-J7 

NUMBER OF PAGES TO FOLL0W:__^ 

2to0-V)0b 

°\ 

/ 

FRON: ^c^ ^ 1-vJU^w 

SUBJECT: 

1/.(s cp 

DATE: W / l a 

cvflLj 

REMARKS : VHPV<L- ^WrJ l ^4v-4£ CLg> ^ «-^T*-

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

PLEASE CALL THE INDIVIDUAL FRON WHOH YOU ARE RECEIVING THE FAX. 

DENNIS, JOHN 

EADY, COLLETTE 

JOHNSTON. GARY 

KLIWINSKI, SHARON 

HALKIN, KAREN 

MCCLELLAND. LINDSAY 

HILLER, ABBY 

PECK. 0EB8Y 

202-208-5193 

202-208-4640 

202-208-5686 

202-208-4639 

202-219-3384 

202-208-4956 

202-208-4650 

202-208-4624 

WALKER, BILL 

WATKINS, UILNA 

WILSON, RITA 

202-219-3386 

202-208-4913 

202-208-3884 
P.3 

03/16/9 5 11:3 1 ©30 0 909 2822 H'ASO DENVER — AQD D.C. IgjOO.Vnn* 

National Park Service (NPS) Follow-up Comments on DRAFT 

Nev Source Reviev Reform Package (November 16, 1995, Draft) 

Below are follow-up comments on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 

draft New Sftnree Review (NSR) reform package. 

III. Applicability. B. "Clean Unic" Exclusion 

Under EPA'6 proposal, for sources chat have undergone a BACT or LAER review, 

PSD applicability with respeet to future modifications can be. based on tha 

allowable limit for the first ten years after tbe permit le issued. BACT/L&ER 

can change rapidly over cime. A BACT determination made 10 years age may have 

been lax and not reflective of current BACT. We reviewed EPA'6 Ranking 

Report6 and recent and hiatorical BACT determination* in the RACT/BACT/LAER 

Clearinghouse for natural gat fired turbines and for coal fired boilers. Our 

review indicates that, for natural gas iired turbines. BACT haa progressed 

from the New Source Performance Standard requirement (aa high aa 150 ppm) to 

current levels of U ppm (SCR) or IS to kl ppm (dry low-NC\ technology) . This 

represents a substantial improvement in available control technology, and 

demonstrates how, when implemented properly, BACT reviews can be technology 

forcing. Ue are concerned rhat. if an ^Appropriate number of exemptions are 

allowed, this development of new, improved technology will be gieatly delayed. 

Data for coal fired boilers indicate that NO, levels have decreased ever the 

past ten ye.ara from 0.6 or 0.7 lb/MMBtu to current levels of 0.17 lb/KM£tu. 

SO, levels have decreased fruiu approximately 1.2 lbs/HHBtu (some higher and 

some lower) to current levels of 0.12 or 0.13 lb/MMBtu. Note that even over 

the past five years, both N0B and SO, levels have been approximately halved. 

The Clearinghouse data dearly demonstrate thac eonrrol technology can improve 

significantly over a ten, and even a five year period. Therefore, we request 

che EPA reconsider the Clean Unit Exemption proposal. The look back period 

should be five years ar most., or ideally, the exemption should only apply to 

units which are using technology which represents cutieut 5ACT/LAER levels. 

TV. Thu RACT and LAER Requirement. . . The Top.Down 3ACI Process 

The NPS strongly support EPA's codification of the t-op-down BACT policy. Ue 

believe che top-down method meets the two goals of reform: it aimplifie* the 

process in that it provides for consistency and more certainty, and it does 

not sacrifice the current level of environmental protection and benefits 

obtained from the PSD program. 

Ue nffex the following comments in turther support of the top-down policy. 

Research and monitoring programs have demonstrated the need to reduce the load 

of pollution that affeete our Class 1 and Clafl9 IT areas. Ue view a cop-down 

BACT determination as the keystone of the PSD program, because it generally 

assures thee future sources vill install che b««t pollution control 

technologies so as to minimize future pollutant loading and the resulting 

impacts on sensitive resources. Top-down BACT alao may recult in technologyforcing BACT determinations, resulting in even less air quality impacts. 

EPA's current cop-down guidance has resulted in significant reductions in 

emissions. For example, wc believe that this guidance encouraged Virginia to 

promulgate r.e.chnolagy-forcing guidelines and enabled them to require stringent 
P.4 

03/16/95 11:52 ©303 969 2S22 WASO DENVER --- AQD D.C. Itfnru/nos 

technology in specific cases for projects near Shenandoah National Park (NP). 

Below is a table that illustrate s the difference between permitted and 

proposed emissions for sources proposed near Shenandoah NP. 

Pollutant 

sn, 

NO. 

voc 

Proposed 

Emiaaions 

(TPY) 

1R.949 

35,313 

2,042 

Permitted 

Emissions 

(top-down 

BACI) 

(TPY) 

6.811 

29,975 

1,963 

Difference 

(Pollution 

Prevented) 

(TPT) 

12.138 

2,338 

79 

5? 

Z 

TPY • Tons per Xear 

Finally, the NPS reserves the rigbr. r.o submit follow-up comments in the event 

EPA alters ics current thinking regarding top-down BACT aa a result of 

additional comments from concerned parties. 

V. Class I ArBas, 1. Improving FLM/Pennlttlnp Authmltv CoordinatJ,pi>. (I) 

FLM Notification 

EPA originally (July 11, 1994, draft) proposed a 200 km cutoff for preapplication notification and submittal of permit app\irations to the FLM, but 

changed the cutoff In the November 16, 1994, draft to 100 km. Eatly 

notification will better enable ua to carry out our "affirmative" 

responsibility to proteet AQRVs. The majority of sources that could have an 

adverse impact on Class I AQRVs will be located within the 200-kiu range. 

Where the FLM raises concerns about the impact ef a propoeed eource on a Class 

I area, improved nnr..fication will faeilitace che FLM's involvement early in 

the permitting process, when it may be substantially leas burdensome and 

cootly to resolve Class 1 area concerns. Therefore, NPS recommends thac EPA 

reinstate the ZOO tan cutoff for M M notification, at least until, the EPA's 

"Infotuiation Clearinghouse" database is on line and functional. 

We appreciate EPA's efforts to require State permitting authorities uo adopt 

procedures for the coordination of the FLM'e input on NSR permit applications 

prinr ro public notification of the draft NSR permit (i.e.. FLM involvement 

In pre-application meetings, completeness reviews, etc.). However, the FLM 

ohould be provided a minimum of 30 days rather than the proposed 21 days for 

the completeness review of NSK permit applications. 

On average, the NPS and FUS review and provide comments on a total of A0 

penults per year for new sources located near NPS aud/ur FVS Class I areas 

throughout the United Statec. Ua review th» AQRV, BACT, and modeling artalyEec 

for each application, and provide comments to che State permitting authority. 

With the downs Is ing ef the federal government and che already limited 

resources (staff and time) available to review these applications. 21 days 

does not provide enough time co conduct a thorough completeness review. The 

3o-JClAvvO U-(U.v 

ftl/te-rt) 

~1 
P.5 

03/16/93 11:32 9303 969 23j; WASO DENVER — AQD D r Ufl 0 0 5 ^ 0 0 S 

© 

completeness review provides us che opportunity co Identify issues and 

concents regarding AQRVs impacts early iu che permitting ptuceas. Theicfore. 

co minimise potantial permitting delays, we recommend that EPA allov the FLMs 

30 days, rather than z. days, to conduct a completeness review. 

V Clqee T Areas U. Class T S1pnif<c.anre T.evelal 

tP 

The Claee I increment significance levels proposed hy EPA in paragraph 

SI.166(b)(23)(v) are arbitrarily based on 4 percent of the Class I increments. 

T he NPS haa developed alternate significance levels based on the NAAQS 

eignifieatvee levels. These levels are discussed in detail in tbe attached 

position paper entitled. "NPS/FWS Position on Class 1 Significant impact 

Levels." We request* th*t EPA include these alternate significance levels in 

paragraph 51.166(b)(23)(v) and solicit public comment on them. 

In addition, as discussed in che attached paper, wc recommend that chic 

paragraph conr.a-ln rhe following caveat as a mechanism to ensure that the SIP 

Is revised in an expeditious manner in Lhe event a Class I increment Is being 

violated. 

A proposed major stationary source or major modification impacting 

a Class I area will be considered to cause or contribute, re. a 

violation of a Class I increment irrespective of the above 

significant impact levels if no action co remedy a Claoo I 

increment violation has been taken within fid days of the date che 

violation waa first brought to the State's attention, as requited 

by 40 CFR 51.166(a)(3), or within euch other timeframe mutually 

I agreeable to the State and FLM for the Class I area. 

Finally, to ensure that the FLMs receive adequate cumulative impacts 

information, we recommend that the regulations make clear that for any PSD 

source impacting a Class I area, irrespective of the significant Impact levela 

lietad in paragraph (b)(231(v). the owner or operator shall Submit all 

information necessary to determine whecher emissions from che proposed source 

or modification in conjunction with all other emissions impacting ehe Claoo 

I area would have an adverse impar.r. on any AQRV. 

S\e>i"*F t£.^£w£ 

IKlvJM-iP IF . . . 
PJ5_ 

03/18/83 11.33 530 3 968 2622 ^ASO DENVER — AQD D.C. C2]OO6/008 

March 15, 1995 

NPS/FWS Posiiion un Class I Significant Impact Levels 

EPA emphasizes that the Class I significant impact levels proposed ia the NSR Reform 

package are not intended to be used to determine adverse impacts on Air Quality Related 

Values (AQRVs). They are to be used only to determine whether a proposed new source or 

modification causes or contributes to a Class I increment violation. If an increment violation 

has occnrre.fi, or is predicted tn occur, a new source that does not exceed the significant impact 

levels could still he permitted (assuming no adverse AQRV impacts would occur). 

We believe EPA's interest in not penalizing a new source fox increment violations caused by 

other soujees is fair. Unless bulb lhe new and ihe "offending" sourcc(s) are under common 

ownership, the new source would likely have no ability or authority to correct ihc entire 

increment violation. Without some significant impact test, even a new source that has obtained 

offsets to ensure no net emissions increase would still not be eligible for a permit until the 

increment violation is remedied. Therefore, we agree that the use of significant impact levels 

with respect to Class 1 increments is appropriate. 

However, we also helieve. a. balance must he achieved to ensure that the Class I area is also 

treated fairly. In panicular. a mechanism is needed to ensure that the SIP is revised in an 

expeditious manner in the event a Class I increment is being violated. Although the regulatory' 

deadline (40 CFR 51.166(a)(3) and (4)) ahould provide some incentive for timely icmedial 

action, the SI? revision process could drag on for years if the State is recalcitrant. Therefore, 

we recommend that this caveat be added to paragraph 51.166(b)(23)(v): 

A proposed major stationary source or major modification impacting a Class I 

area will be considered to cause or contribute to a violation ot" a Class I 

increment irrespective of the above significant impact levels if no action to 

remedy a Class I increment violation has been taken within 60 days of the date 

the violation was first brought to the State's attention, as required by 40 CFR 

51.166(d)(3). or within suuh udier timeframe mutually agreeable io lhe Slate and 

FLM foi the Class I area. 

If Class I increment significant impact levels are to be established for the limited purpose 

described in the EPA NSR Reform package, then we believe they should be appropriately 

conservative and consistent with the formula originally used to establish the significant impact 

levels for the NAAQS (as listed in paragraph 51 lfifi(b)(21)(iv)) In other words, rather than 

arbitrarily setting the levels at 4 percent of the Class I increments, as proposed by EPA, each 

Class T increment significant impact level should be established by multiplying the ratio of the 

NAAQS significant impact level to the NAAQS. by the respective Class 1 increment. For 

example, the ratio of the S02 NAAQS 24-hour average significant impact level (5 ng/m3) to 

the NAAQS (365 ug/mJ) is 0.014. Muluplying this ratio by the 24-hour Closs I S02 increment 

(S |lg/m3) yields a significant unpad level of 0.07 |ag/m'\ Similarly, the annual and 3-hour 
P.7 

03/16/95 11:63 ©30 3 089 282! WASO DENVER AQD D.C. 121007/008 

SOj significant impact levels would be 0.03 and 0.48 ug/m', respectively. The resulting 

significant impact levels are more conservative than those proposed by EPA and would offer 

greater protection with respect io ihe Class I increments. The following table compares the 

EPA and the NPS/FWS proposed Class 1 significant impact levels for each polluuml fur which 

a Class I increment currently exists. 

Comparison of EPA and NPS/FWS Proposed Class I Increment Significant Impact Levels 

(All concentrations in adm5. 

Pollutant 

Sulfur Dioxide (S02) 

Particulate Matter (PM)()) 

Nitrogen Dioxide (NOJ 

Averaging 

Time 

Annual 

24-bour 

3-hour 

Annual 

24-hour 

Annual 

EPA 

Proposed 

Levels 

0.1 

0.2 

1.0 

0.2 

0.3 

0.1 

NPS/FWS 

Proposed Levels 

0.03 

0.07 

0.48 

0.08 

0.27 

0.03 

Again, as proposed, the significant impact levels would not be used to determine whether a 

source or modification would have an adverse impact on an AQRV. It must be made clear that 

these levels are to be used only for the limited purpose of assessing whether a source could 

cause or contribute ro a Class T increment violation. These levels are aoi to be used to 

determine whether a source needs to conduct an AQRV analysis. Without such clarification, 

given past experience, we envision permit applicants simply stating that their modeled 

concentrations arc below the Class I aica significant impact levels and therefore, would nul 

significantly impact any AQRVs. Consequently, in these instances, the permit applicant would 

not provide a cumulative ambient impact analysis, which is imperative to assess AQRV effects. 

A current example illustrates this concern. In responding to NPS concerns regarding nitrate 

deposition impacts at Great Smoky Mountains National Park (NP), a permil applicant recently 

wrote, ". . . according to the EPA's guidance on addressing Class I significant impact levels, 

the minimum significance level for impact in a Class 1 area is 4% nt" the Class I PSO 

increment." (Please note that 4% is the percentage in the NSR draft package.) The applicant 

thereby implies that because the modeled NO. impact is less than the 4 percent value, the 

impacts at Great Smoky Mountains NP should be considered "insignificant." and furthci 

analysis is uol waiiimted. However, in this case, we are concerned about nitrate (NOj) 

deposition impacts, which arc cumulative. One should not conclude that just because the N02 

impact may be considered ''insignificant" with regard to the increment that there is a 

corresponding insignificant impact on nitrate deposition effects. 

When evaluating the effects of emissions from a proposed source on a panicular AQRV, we 

are not concerned solely with the proposed project's estimated air quality impact, but rather 

with the lulal pulluraut concentration the AQRV will exueiicucc. Therefore, a cumulative air 

CC4/*iLtt*}niS£ 

//H/'Acrcs 

/?t>£t/s 
P.8 

OS'lO/S O li:* H TB'ouo oo o »»« « •..•».,„ -*-.-•_.- ...." , : : r Sr : • : "--

quality analysis, which may include modeling of sources in the area and use of any 

representative ambient monitoring data, is an important part of any analysis of potential effects 

on AQRVs. Without such an analysis, the total pollutant levels to which the AQRVs are 

exposed cannot be estimated. Without estimates of total pollutant levels, the FLM cannot 

perform a proper AQRV analysis. Consequently, we recommend that the regulations make 

clear that for any PSD source impacting a Class I area, irrespective ofthe significant impact 

levels listed in paragraph fb¥23¥v). the owner or operator shall submit all information 

necessary to determine whether emissions from the proposed source or modification in 

conjunction with all other emissions impacting the Class I area would have an adverse impact 

on any AQRV. 
TZ2 --'-•-•'»- IB: IS S20 2 20S 1620 »ASO NR'ACI .^ S 

P.9 

AUMU-pfB I^IUUS 'U1U 

United States Department of the Interior JgSS 

l> nr.i'a.- nr'.FKR T"' 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

P.O. Box 37127 

Washington. D.C. 2WISA [>7 

NUHBER OF PACES TO FOLLOW 

TO: 

FRON: 

SUBJECT: 

ZJC+38 

AJSJJ 

2-

DATE: 

3//S 

NARKS: M ^ t- ~T^T> JH^JrjJ ck- /^J/£ </ 

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

PLEASE CALL THE INDIVIDUAL FRON WO N YOU ARE RECEIVING THE FAX. 

DENNIS, JOHN 

EADY, COLLETTE 

JOHNSTON. GARY 

KLIWINSKI, SHARON 

HALJCIN, KAREN 

HCCLELLAND. LINDSAY 

NILLER. ABBY 

PECK, DEBBY 

202-208-6193 

202-208-4640 

202-208-5686 

202-208-4639 

202-219-3384 

202-208-4958 

202-208-4650 

202-208-4624 

WALKER. BILL 202-219-3386 

WATKINS. HILNA 202-208-4913 

WILSON, RITA 202-208-3884 
P.10 

NOR Package, Proposed NP6/D8FV8 Inserts to 11/16/94 OMB Version 

Preamble 

P. 314, Insert A,j fiist full para., after "adverse impact 

determination" fer : 

The NSR Class I Area Coordination Subgroup came up with the 

following criteria to be considered hy the permitting authority: 

(a) Scientific basis of the FLM's adverse impact determination; 

fb) Existing status of potentially affected Class I areas and their 

AQRVe; 

(c) Presence or mitiqating factors, such as offsets; 

(d) Permit conditions, such as pre- and post-construction 

monitoring, with contingent corrective action plan; 

(e) Informal mediation efforts during consideration of th« 

application; 

(f) Participation by the FLM duriny completeness review; 

(q) Public support/opposition to the permit; and 

(h) alternative siting. 

P. 315, Insert B,| after (2), deleting existing te.Yt and substitute 

following: 

Existing Adverse Impacts Previously Documented for the Class I Area 

Where the FLM has previously publicly documented or certified 

existing adverse impact conditionc at a Class I area, or dntarmined 

that one or more particular proposed sources would constitute an 

adverse impact to an AQRV at a particular Class I area, that 

information should be afforded substantial weight hy the permitting 

authority. The legislative history of the CAA instructs to "err on 

the side of protecting the air-quality related values for future 

generations." 6. Rep. No. 95-127, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 36 (1977). 

The permitting authority should consider that instruction, in light 

of existing conditions at a particular Class I area. 

P. 336, jTnsert C,( after "52.21(o) (3) , " delete rest of para, and 

substitute: 

In recognizing that Federal Class I and ll areas have AQRVs, which 

are mandated under various statutes for preservation unimpaired 

(e.g., Organic Act, Wilderncce Act), EPA is proposing to delete the 

lact sentence in (o)(i) of both current requlatiuns. These 

clarifications should help ensure that permit applicants consider 

all potential impacts to Class I and II area AQRVs. 

F. 343, Inserfc D, new section, before "7. Information 

Clearinghouse"; 

Generic Approaches to Address Any AQRV Issue 

The NSR Subcommittee, Existing Sources Subgroup discussed several 

options for addressing specific AQRV degradation in Class I areas. 

The group came to ooneensus on the need tn enforce existing rules 

requiring STP revisions in cases where PSD increment exceedanccc 

have been documented. In particular, the group discussed the need