1. New Source Review (NSR) Program Basics
Laura McKelvey
U.S. EPA OAQPS
RTP, NC

2. Why are we here? To gain a better understanding of
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program
To understand how proposed rule will change that program
To support your ability to make comments on the proposed rule

3. Background: Components of NSR program?
The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) pollutants
Any NAAQS precursors
Any pollutant regulated under the New Source Performance Standards (CAA, Section 111)
Any pollutant otherwise regulated under the Act, except the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP, CAA Section 112)
Any Class I or Class II substance regulated by Title VI of the Act, Stratospheric Ozone Protection

4. PSD Permit Requirements
Main requirements
Install Best Available Control Technology (BACT)
Perform air quality analysis to assess impacts on air quality
Perform class I area analysis to assess impacts on national parks and wilderness areas
Perform additional impacts analysis
Allow for opportunities for public involvement

5. NA NSR Permit Requirements
Main requirements
Install Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) technologies
Obtain emission offsets
Perform alternative sites analysis
Show statewide facility compliance w/air regulations
Allow for opportunities for public involvement

6. Minor NSR Permit Requirements
CAA silent on specific requirements
Minimal requirements found in 40CFR
New sources and modifications cannot violate NAAQS or FIP/SIP/TIP control strategies, nor interfere with attainment or maintenance of NAAQS
State program requirements vary greatly
State programs:
Impose controls on new and modified sources
Provide for synthetic minor permits
May permit and control air toxics as well as criteria pollutants
May apply to sources with emissions above de minimis levels

7. History of PSD
PSD added to CAA in 1977 Amendments to protect clean areas while allowing for well- controlled economic growth
Rules implementing PSD found in 40 CFR Part , FIP in Part 52.21
Requirements did not specify how increment should be calculated

8. Why did EPA propose this rule?
North Dakota MOU
Requests from WESTAR and groups
Current methods not adopted into regulations, thus open to inconsistent application
North Dakota situation
North Dakota
North Dakota is one of many states authorized by EPA to administer the PSD program in accordance with state regulations. The state has primary responsibility
for making decisions relating to air quality permitting in their state. EPA, is responsible for overseeing the state actions and ensuring that permitting decisions are made in accordance with their approved State Implementation Plan, or “SIP.”
For several years, beginning in 1999, North Dakota and EPA worked together to determine if the 24-hour Class I increment for SO2 had been consumed and violated in the western part of the state. Modeling reports prepared by EPA and by the state arrived at different conclusions, as a result of differing methodologies used to measure consumption of the increment. North Dakota had relied on alternative modeling practices and monitored data to conclude that the increment was not violated in the parklands.
Unable to agree upon the air quality in North Dakota, the two parties ultimately decided to develop a Memorandum of Understanding that identified points of agreement and unresolved issues and defined a procedure for deciding whether an increment violation had occurred. The MOU directed North Dakota to conduct another model run using practices specified in the MOU and submit the report to EPA for approval. The EPA Administrator and North Dakota Governor signed the MOU in February 2004.
After reviewing North Dakota’s initial modeling submission, EPA has:
issued a preliminary statement in June 2005 indicating that North Dakota has the discretion in its SIP to evaluate PSD compliance using their modeling techniques and that those techniques are consistent with the Act.
not issued a final decision on the air quality issues in North Dakota,
proposed a rule to address the modeling practices employed in North Dakota with the intent to request comment on these issues and then reach a final decision on them.

9. How did we get here?
We failed to adequately consult tribes on proposed rule
Letters to tribal leaders offering to delay acting on rule to consult with them, particularly Class I tribes
Series of conference calls to present and discuss rule
Participants requested this training and consultation

10. How we will move forward?
Walk through agenda
Roles
Parking lot issues
What else?

11. Contacts Laura McKelvey Phone: 919-541-5497 mckelvey.laura@epa.gov
Raj Rao
Phone:
Jessica Montañez
Phone:
Janet McDonald
Phone: