FEDERAL LAND MANAGERS' AIR QUALITY RELATED VALUES WORKGROUP (FLAG)
PHASE I REPORT
(December 2000)
C. 3. Other Air Quality Review Considerations
At all Class I areas where visibility has been monitored, visibility conditions have been found to be impaired (by human-caused pollution). The impairment comes primarily from older sources, not new sources. From a regional perspective, new or modified sources (using new/cleaner technologies) contribute far less to impaired AQRV conditions than old sources. New programs, such as EPA's NAAQS for fine particulate matter and 8-hour ozone levels have been legally challenged (as of December 2000) so their effectiveness in reducing overall regional pollutant levels from older sources is uncertain at this time. EPA has implemented a call for reducing NOx emissions from older sources in the eastern U.S. to meet existing ozone standards, however, this action is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. In addition to national ambient standards, most States are just now beginning the planning process to implement EPA's Regional Haze Regulations. If all of these requirements are implemented, then progress toward remedying impaired AQRVs is likely. However, given the sensitivity of some AQRVs to low levels of pollution, programs focused on reaching national goals, such as the NAAQS or visibility, may not fully remedy impacts on AQRVs in all locations. It is for this reason that the FLM should pursue all other reasonable strategies to protect AQRVs. The following sections discuss FLM issues that go beyond NSR.
a. Remedying Existing Adverse Impacts
The existence of adverse impacts is unacceptable to FLMs and contrary to the mandates of their specific agencies. Consequently, FLMs may request or participate in regional assessments to protect AQRVs, as appropriate. Regional assessments often use a multi-faceted approach to remedy impairment. For example, categories addressed by the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) include air pollution prevention; clean air corridors; stationary sources; sources in and near Class I areas; mobile sources; road dust; fire; and future regional coordination.
Clean Air Act requirements for remedying existing visibility impairment provide a mechanism for addressing impacts from specific sources or groups of sources. Negotiations at the Centralia Power Plant in the state of Washington provide an example of how to build partnerships and work collaboratively to obtain retrofit controls or more stringent control technologies for sources that affect a FLM area. Through a collaborative decisionmaking process, owners of the Centralia plant agreed to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions at the plant by 90%. In another case, the USDA/FS asked the state of Colorado to remedy existing impairment at Mt. Zirkel Wilderness. Following USDA/FS testimony about the Mt. Zirkel Wilderness, terms of a court-ordered consent decree that specified controls for the Hayden Power Plant were included in Colorado's long-term visibility strategy.
FLMs may also coordinate with others to ensure that emission reductions in nonattainment areas will improve air quality in FLM areas. Recommendations on urban planning were developed with FLM involvement to address nonattainment areas in California. Data documenting ozone effects on vegetation were provided to the planning authority.
b. Requesting SIP Revisions to Address AQRV Adverse Impacts
A SIP is the key vehicle a state uses to develop the pollution control programs that will be used to achieve and maintain the NAAQS as well as prevent significant deterioration of air quality. It is important for FLMs to be involved in SIP development, as participation provides an opportunity to influence planning of pollution control programs that can benefit air quality in FLM areas. Once a SIP is fully approved by EPA, it is legally enforceable under both State and Federal law. FLMs can use the SIP process to address existing impacts that are unacceptable by requesting a SIP revision. This approach is particularly useful for addressing impacts on AQRVs other than visibility, since the Clean Air Act does not provide specific requirements for other AQRVs. In an October 16, 1996, letter from the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the EPA to the Assistant Secretary of the Department of the Interior (DOI), the EPA acknowledged that the CAA provides authority to address adverse impacts on AQRVs in Class I areas from both new and existing sources. EPA committed to initiate rulemaking that will set forth the affirmative obligation for States to protect AQRVs as part of their CAA responsibility to prevent significant deterioration of air quality. EPA states this approach would require the protection of AQRVs as part of SIPs.
In an October 17, 1996, response, DOI offered to assist EPA in developing this adverse impact SIP rulemaking. In addition, DOI urged EPA "to require State Implementation Plans to prevent significant deterioration of air quality by adopting mitigation measures to address adverse impacts on AQRVs in Class I areas." These SIP revisions could be used to address multiple sources and regional pollution that adversely affect AQRVs in all Class I areas. DOI sent a follow-up letter to EPA in July 2000 reiterating the need for an AQRV "restoration and protection" rulemaking. EPA solicited public input regarding an AQRV rule, as well as a request from Northeastern states for more stringent secondary NAAQS. EPA will consider comments received and then decide on a course of action.
South Coast and San Diego, California, SIP revisions included FLM recommendations to reduce the impact of minor sources on AQRVs. South Coast recommendations addressed visibility while the San Diego recommendations addressed all AQRVs. EPA's NOX SIP Call in the east is another example of obtaining emission reductions through the SIP revision process. The NOX SIP Call is directed at 20 eastern States and the District of Columbia to address NOX emissions from existing large sources. Once this action is implemented, significant reductions in ozone formation and nitrogen deposition are anticipated.
c. Periodic Increment Consumption Review
As mentioned above, EPA has indicated its intention to the FLMs to establish a SIP revision requirement to address existing adverse impacts on AQRVs. The FLMs strongly support EPA exercising its authority in this way. In the interim, however, there are existing SIP revision requirements that are not being fully utilized. EPA's current regulations require States to conduct a periodic review of the adequacy of their PSD plan and program. [40 CFR §51.166(a)(4)] This would include an assessment of increment consumption in Class I and Class II areas. Few States have ever conducted a comprehensive, cumulative increment consumption analysis for one or more Class I areas. In addition, many PSD sources have not exceeded the significant impact levels for increment consumption; thus, few PSD permit applicants have had to perform a cumulative increment consumption analysis for Class I areas. Such a periodic increment consumption review would be beneficial given that the burden of proof for AQRV adverse impact determinations shifts from the FLM to the applicant when the increment has been consumed.
In its 1990 report Air Pollution: Protecting Parks and Wilderness From Nearby Pollution Sources the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) found that only 1 percent of the sources within 100 kilometers of five Class I areas it investigated were required to have permits under the PSD program, with 99 percent of the sources being minor or grandfathered sources. It also found that "non-PSD sources contribute from 53 to 90 percent of five of the six criteria pollutants emitted within a 100-kilometer radius of each of the 5 Class I areas." As part of its investigation, GAO noted that "a significant portion of total emissions of volatile organic compounds generally comes from small sources...and suggested that as part of the overall control strategy, States may want to consider lowering thresholds for regulating new sources to 25 tons of volatile organic compounds a year." According to the investigation, 55 percent of anthropogenic VOC emissions come from new sources or modifications totaling 5 tons per year or less. In a review of PSD permit applications near Mesa Verde National Park (a Class I area in Colorado), a cumulative modeling analysis of increment-consuming sources found that approximately 80 percent of the NO2 Class I increment at the park had been consumed, but much of it by minor sources.
The FLMs have encouraged EPA to provide clearer direction on how often these periodic reviews must occur as the lack of a prescribed time-frame for conducting such analyses has clearly led to noncompliance with this requirement over the past twenty years by States. The FLMs believe EPA should revise 40 CFR §51.166 to require that the periodic reviews be conducted no less frequently than every five years.