Memo to:	Annie Nikbacht, EPA

Robin Dunkin, EPA

David Sanders, EPA

Jay Hudson, Santee Cooper

From:	Dave McNeill, UDAQ

Date:	September 9, 1996

RE:	Comments - NSR Paper

I just got back from two wonderful weeks in the fog along the Oregon coast and, to my surprise, sitting on the top of my pile of papers is this document. Well, if I can remember my English and pseudo analytical stuff, here goes.

Please note that I will mix grammar and technical comments since, as you will see, the latter depends on the former. However, I must state from the outset that it was very difficult to develop technical comments on this because it is a very "draft" draft. For example, on page 6 at the top, the first two lines tell us that the controls in an AOI would be different from those in an AOV, and then gives as an example an AOI with those controls required in an AOV. There are many such examples throughout the document which lead me to feel that it is just not ready for our review or the development of a technical position.

l.	(grammar). Pg. 1: line 13} "1977 adopted a sweeping set.."

2.	(g) 2:18} either "that a source.." or "that sources.."

3.	(technical) I believe this represents a good background discussion of where the federal NSR and NSPS programs came from and are today.

4.	(g) 4:9-14} Because there is no "2.b", there is no need for a "2.a". Therefore, it should read something like, "Different planning and control requirements would apply within and AOI, such that a refutable presumption would be built into the AOI strategy. This option..."

5.	(g) 4:5-29} These options should be consistent in their tense. Therefore, option three should be modified at line 21 to read, "respective AOI would not be subject to..", and option four would be modified at line 24 to read, "A cap would be established for all emissions..."

6.	(g) 4:30} delete the redundant "that."

7.	(g) 5:2} Perhaps, the use of either "the" or "EPA's" between "with" and "transition" would be helpful.

8.	(t) Just to let you know, I have some technical issues with these options which will be discussed as each option is detailed. I didn't want you to think I was only correcting grammatical errors. At the end, I have an overall technical comment which could have gone to the front of the document, but I wanted to see if anyone really plowed through this whole thing.

9.	(g) 5:8} "or major modifications of stationary..."

10.	(g) 6:14} "if it is determined.."

11.	(t) Option 2: What happens in an AOV? This option states that an AOI will be treated differently, but does not say what the comparison would be. Is it a given that AOVs will have LAER and 1:1 offset? Is this contained in another base programs document? I just don't know.

12.	(t) Option 2: What about an AOV which would be and AOV, even if it were uninhabited and undeveloped and the AOI is many miles upstream. What if a new major source were to be proposed in this AOV, and it would not affect the status of the AOV, nor influence the attainment status of any other area. Does this allow the flexibility to not require LAER or offsets?

13.	(t) Option 2.a: While this may be the politically correct thing to propose, it will result in a technological nightmare for the agencies who are supposed to implement it. Who will have the final say? A source brings out their technical experts who prove beyond doubt that a source won't impact. The environmentalists' or the government bring out their experts who say there is a chance or it does impact. The cost to make a decision will skyrocket, and nobody will be happy. And, when the decision is made on the local level, then it could all start over again when the decision hits the desk of the regional offices. Will the presumption be that they impact, and it is up to the source to demonstrate that they don't, or will the monkey be on the state's back to prove impact? This is very unclear.

14.	(g) 8:16} "Minor sources would be subject to any..."

15.	(t) Option 3: This option does not take into account the fact that the impact from a source is not just dependant upon the amount of a pollutant which that source emits, but there are various plume characteristics which also determine the impact. For example, a source may be emitting 25,000 tons/year of a pollutant at 500 °C and not impact the attainment status of nearby or distant areas. They may elect to install a "scrubber" which reduces the emissions to 2,500 tons/year, but because the stack gas exit temperature is cooled to 100 °C, and the 22,500 tons emitted at the new source for which this offset is used are cooler, they could cause a violation of a standard nearby, or significantly impact the attainment status of a distant area, and yet the source would be able to totally avoid the NSR and PSD process. It is only through the PSD or NSR programs that such a determination could be made.

16.	(g/t) 9:24} "but could be traded between source..." Note: this may not be necessarily so; hence, the "could."

17.	(g) 9:28} "multiple requirements, that action..." Note: remove the extraneous "then."

18.	(g) 10:12} "expedite the permitting process."

19.	(t/g) 10:13} "Removes the disincentive to siting and constructing new sources." Note: The intent of this line is remarkably unclear. What disincentive? Social, economic, political, environmental? Is the intent to demonstrate that without this program, there is no incentive to replace outdated facilities or put new sources somewhere besides where they aren't? I cannot comment until I understand the intent.

20.	(g) 10:19} Should be a statement, not a question (i.e., "The reduction of a ton of NOx at one point may not...").

21.	(t) PSD Increment options table: It does not make any sense to discuss tenths of a g/m3. This was probably just in here for discussion purposes, but should probably give ranges using integers.

22.	(t) Page 11 - PSD Options: Because the values for the increment are so extremely small, it makes absolutely no sense to propose or promulgate a PM2.5 increment at this time, and to set a schedule for the proposal without the base of information necessary to make an informed decision is not logical. Option one is one extreme of the spectrum. Regardless of what may be found at a later date, this option precludes promulgation of an increment, whether it is technologically feasible or not. Option two would have the increment proposed once the accurate models and emissions factors are developed, regardless of how reasonable it is to do so. Option three would again have EPA saying, "Here it is. Trust me. I'll help you." It reminds me of the MACT fiasco.

I believe that a hybrid option exists which has not been discussed. "Commit up front the necessary resources to develop and validate accurate models and emission factors. Do not propose or promulgate PM2.5 increments until such time as accurate models and emissions factors are developed, validated, and confirm the need and for such increments as well as the possibility of implementing them with any degree of confidence."

23.	(t) Page 11 - PSD Options (Continued): While the current PSD program is helping control the degradation of the air quality in attainment areas, there are two thoughts that should be considered at this time:

23. (cont'd)	A. There are portions of the existing program which have not, do not, and never will work. For example, tracking increment - and particularly minor source consumption of the increment. Therefore, this may be an appropriate time to refine the PSD program to delete such "paper-work- only" requirements.

B. It would not be logical to eliminate the PSD program based on an assumption that future programs will protect air quality in attainment areas. The scope of the regional haze program is far from understood at this point in time. If a broad statement could be included that this elimination would be based on findings after the other programs are developed and implemented, then it may be worth having.

24.	(g) 13:14} "incorporates"

25.	(t) 15:21-22} I need to understand this. A source wants to have a permit, so they (the source) commit the state to have an adequate enforcement program? I don't think so.

26.	(t) Finally, I have a number of issues with this paper which seem to pop up throughout it. The absolute vacuum which exists when discussing emission factors for PM2.5 is barely discussed in this paper. Such items as control efficiency and emission rates, as well as several atmospheric chemistry questions would make an NSR program for PM2.5 almost impossible to implement within the near future. Is it possible for one to perform a New Source Review without such information? The models which we routinely use for tracking the consumption of the increment are barely adequate for PM10. Questions about the regulation of condensibles and secondaries abound. Stack test methods need to be developed and field tested before emission factors can be developed and verified, which needs to be done before the models can be tested and verified. The Regional Haze program needs to be developed or, at least, described in some detail before one can assume that it will help protect the air quality in attainment areas (or, AOAs).

Frequently, there are several options given for various programs. This document discusses the fact that many more options exist which are not presented. I feel that it should also strongly state that the desired solution will possibly/probably be a hybrid of the options presented.

And, as a final finally, there are several significant problems with the PSD program which have plagued the states practically since the inception of the program. This would be the perfect time to work with those who have had to implement the program and find "fixes" for those problems, including such items as minor source increment consumption tracking, etc.