Notes from the PSD Training on 2/21/08 

Salt Lake City, Utah

These notes represent a summary of discussion at a training given by EPA
staff.  Statements made by the EPA trainers during these discussions do
not necessarily reflect current or future official agency policy and
these notes should not be relied upon as such.

Please see the binder materials as reference from the meeting.  The
following are areas of discussion that occurred during the training
session.  Questions from tribal participants are in regular font. 
Responses by EPA staff are italicized.

How are Areas of Influence defined?

Areas of influence are generally areas where the source may be outside
the nonattainment area but can impact the air quality in the
nonattainment area.  There is a similar concept in PSD where a source
outside a Class I area may impact the air quality in the Class I area. 
Under the PSD program we use the term Significant Impact Area and
generally it is assumed to be within 50 km of the Class I area.

What is the relationship between the PSD Refinements of Increment
Modeling Procedures rule and the Flexible Air Permits Rule?

How does the window of time for comment under the Flexible Air Permit
rule apply to the PSD NSR rule?   

The Flexible Air Permit rule and the Refinements of Increment Modeling
Procedures rule are two separate rules.  The timeframe for commenting on
one does not affect the other.

The Refinements of Increment Modeling Procedures rule is complex and it
could create a significant work load for some tribes.  I know that the
PSD program has been in place for sometime, but it is safe to say right
now that this is the first time tribes have seen its importance to their
programs and are developing their tribal infrastructure.

The Refinements of Increment Modeling Procedures rule will become
increasingly relevant once the Tribal NSR rule is final.  Once the
Tribal NSR rule is online then tribes will be paying very close
attention to all NSR and NSR related programs.  This includes the
Flexible Air Permit program which can become problematic.  Even though
the Flexible Air Permit program does alleviate tribes (and states) from
having to continually watch for every source permit application, since
the emissions from a source are lumped into one permit for every “x”
amount of years (x equaling 5 or 10 years to my understanding), with the
resources currently stretched for tribal programs, implementation will
become very difficult.  If a tribe has only a staff of one or two, the
collection of information for these three pending rules (Flexible Air
Permit, the PSD Refinements of Increment Modeling Procedures, and the
Tribal NSR rule) could become too much to carry out in addition to the
goals and objectives already laid out in current (and future) tribal air
program work plans.

One participant asks: How can we reasonably expect (and actually carry
out) the increasing demand of a tribal air program with dwindling
resources, when these resources are currently not enough to carry out
all the goals and objectives by both the Agency and tribes?  While to
describe this as a sort of “unfunded mandate” is incorrect, I am not
sure of what better analogy to use.  It seems that the Refinements of
Increment Modeling Procedures rule, the Flexible Air Permits rule, and
Tribal NSR rule would logically require more funding for tribes in order
to be able to add this work to their current workload.  We need more
money for more staff, but that is not a reality any of us see hope in
currently.  With the Refinements of Increment Modeling Procedures rule
slated for finalization in October 2008, there is little hope tribes
could increase the budget for FY2009, as we are currently working on the
2010 budget.

What is the Flexible Permit Rule?

Rule introduces the “flexible air permits” concept to both the major
NSR program and the Title V program.  

Under the Title V program, a “flexible air permit” would explain a
facility’s operational plans and possible changes to those plans for
the duration of the permit term – typically five years – as well as
plans for protecting the air quality.  This type of  permit includes
also 2 options:

Alternative Operating Scenarios (AOSs) – for example: an AOS for an
existing boiler will allow the unit to switch from oil to coal (if it
were previously able to do so) without a permit revision, even though
the change would be subject the source to different Clean Air Act
requirements.

Approved Replicable Methodologies (ARMs) – For example: An ARM could
specify a replicable testing procedure for updating an emissions factor,
rather than requiring a permit revision to accomplish its update.  To be
approvable, an ARM must deliver replicable results (usually numerical)
when operating on the same input data.   

Under the Major NSR program, a “flexible air permit” would be
accomplished through a “Green Group” – a collection of emission
points ducted to a common, high performing air pollution control device.
 The total annual emissions in the “Green Group” are protective of
the NAAQS and increments.  State, Tribal, and Local permitting
authorities retain discretion when a “Green Group” is appropriate. 
The permit would limit future emission growth over a 10-year period.

For more information visit:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/nsr/fs20070828.html" 
http://www.epa.gov/nsr/fs20070828.html 

What part of the proposal was considered policy changes or
clarifications and what part of the proposal was considered regulatory
changes?  When would policy changes be implemented?  At proposal or when
the rule goes final?

Most of this proposal lies in the area of policy change.  The purpose
behind this proposal is to clarify some key areas where the current
regulations allow the source and permit authority discretion on how to
address key calculations in reviewing increment consumption.  Generally
speaking, no changes are implementable at the proposal stage.  However,
since there are States currently allowing for wide ranging approaches to
these calculations, there are some who may, as current practice, be
employing these techniques.

Can you provide us with guidance in calculating and establishing Air
Quality Related Values (AQRVs)?

For the December 2000 Federal Land Managers (FLM) Air Quality Related
Value Group (FLAG) document, developed by the (FLMs) go here:   
HYPERLINK "http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/Permits/flag/" 
http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/Permits/flag/  @ 4 MB

If interested in a non-EPA course designed to provide the detailed
modeling requirements for Class I Area analysis go to:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.awma.org/events/view_event.html?typeid=3&id=10" 
http://www.awma.org/events/view_event.html?typeid=3&id=10 

Some participants expressed concern that they needed training on
modeling to be better able to review and understand the permitting
process.

We agreed to raise the need to ITEP, OAR, and others to determine how
best to try to address this need.

Variance Process – there was a lot of concern raised by the tribes
about the variance process.  Particularly would the tribes, EPA, or some
other federal agency act as the Federal Land Manager for Tribal Class I
areas? 

Our intention in the proposal is that the Tribe or EPA acting for and in
consultation with the tribe will be the decision maker.  

One participant brought up a discussion about confusion in reading the
language of the CAA.  They pointed out that the variance discussions are
found under section 165(d) where it speaks specifically of the Federally
owned Class I areas vs. section 164 which discusses the state and tribal
redesignated Class I areas (i.e., Non-Federal Class I areas). 
Specifically, the participant questioned whether CAA 165(d) would be
interpreted to apply to tribally designated Class I areas.

This is an area that EPA has never explored and we agreed we needed to
go back and review the language of the Act.

If a source has impacts on increments, but there are no increments
available, can the source obtain mitigating emissions reductions?  How
are they calculated?

	

Yes, the source can obtain mitigating emissions reductions.  They are
calculated based on reductions in actual emissions from one or more of
the sources that were modeled as increment consuming in this particular
area.  Thus, the mitigating emissions come from a source or sources
located in the vicinity of the proposed source.  Tribes might have to
work with the State if the increment consuming sources are coming from
outside the reservation boundaries.  

One of the tribes is in a situation were no major sources existed at the
time the mandatory major source baseline date was triggered and no
permit application has been filed after that.  They question how and
when the minor source baseline date gets triggered because they are
concerned about the impacts on their air quality.

Since there have never been any major sources in the area, the
increments are not being consumed even though the major source baseline
dates for SO2 and PM where established (i.e., triggered) in 1975 and for
NOx in 1988.  For that reason, when the first major source comes to the
area, this source will establish the minor source baseline date and will
start consuming increment from then on for the particular pollutants it
will trigger.  

We had a question about the legislative history of how the significant
impact area is determined.  The presenter said the area is determined to
be 50 km or the modeled area of significant impact, whichever is less. 
The question is why we went to the “whichever is less.” 

We generally only recommend that sources model out to the point of
significant impact because beyond that point the sources emissions are
not considered to "cause or contribute to" a violation of either the
NAAQS or increment.  Thus, modeling beyond the point of significant
impact may provide some additional air quality information but it will
not generally affect the outcome of the source's permit.  We put the
50-km limit on the modeling because that is the approximate range of
accuracy for Gaussian models, such as AERMOD.  States may (and some
probably do) require modeling beyond 50 km if the source's impacts are
still significant at the 50-km distance.  We limit it because the
results beyond 50 km could be questionable/inconclusive.  

On the issue of alternative 2 years of representative data, the
participants expressed concern that by allowing for alternative years,
this would place more burdens on the tribes in conducting permit
reviews.  

On AQRVs, does the tribe have to define them before they can object to a
permit based on impacts to AQRVs?  The concern is that developing AQRVs
is very difficult and takes significant investment of resources and
time.  In addition, it takes both technical and scientific capacity that
the tribes might not have on staff.

No, but it would make the permit process easier because then the source
and the reviewing authority will know what resources or values are
currently being specially protected by the tribe.

There was concern that the FLM oversight might get undermined by
political pressure when variances are granted.

Did the RIA look at impacts on the resources of the tribes?  There is a
concern that the flexibility allowed in the proposal would have
significant impact on the tribe’s ability to review and comment on
permits.  For example, they feel this rule is an unfunded mandate
because the Tribe and FLM have the burden to prove impacts on AQRVs and
there is no increase in funding available to the tribes to handle this
burden.

This rule does not impose any new Federal mandates on State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector, since the PSD increment
analysis is already required under existing regulations.  In this rule,
we are only proposing to refine our existing regulations and policy on
how this analysis may be conducted and are not imposing any additional
analytical requirements.  Concerns about permit review resources will be
raised to OAR and others to determine how best to try to address this
need.  For more information about the Statutory and Executive Orders:
see pages 31394-31396 of the proposal.  

What is the address of the NSR website?

  HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/nsr"  http://www.epa.gov/nsr 

For regulatory actions visit:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/nsr/actions.html" 
http://www.epa.gov/nsr/actions.html 

There was a concern expressed that a tribe’s AQRV may be a cultural or
spiritual practice.  If that is the case, the tribe may not be willing
or able to provide detailed information to the public on, for example,
what the AQRV specifically is or where it is located. 

One approach might be to provide a surrogate for that practice so that
sensitive information can be held by the tribe.  One participant gave an
example of how a tribe addressed this issue when it developed a water
quality standard.  The tribe identified a native plant for protection,
but did not discuss how that plant is used or why it is culturally
important.  Clearly, this is an area where EPA and the tribe will need
to work closely on how to provide enough information to the sources so
that they can address concerns without violating the need for the tribe
to protect their life ways.  

One suggestion for ways to bring more resources into reviewing permits
and variances might be to coordinate with DOI, particularly in their
role as the trustee for the tribe.

A comment was made that the final rule should be clearer on the fact
that sources should provide all appropriate data to tribes so they are
better able to review the permits and variances.

There was a lot of concern and discussion about the proposal to use
annual averaging data for the 3 and 24-hour increments vs. the current
maximum allowable.  A tribe requested EPA to review the Sierra Club
comments submitted to the docket for a good explanation of the concern.

There was concern expressed that by allowing the amount of discretion to
the States that this proposal allows, States may err on the side of
industry instead of putting the emphasis on protecting air quality due
to political pressure.

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  5 

