EPA-450/2-80-083b
Appendix A - Summary of  Individual
  Comments on the May 22, 1980
    Proposed Visibility Regulations
                        by

                 PEDCo Environmental, Inc.
                   11499 Chester Rd.
                  Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
                  Contract No. 68-02-3512
                     Prepared for

            U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
             Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
            Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

                     October 1980

-------
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to report technical data of
interest to a limited number of readers.  Copies are available - in limited quantities - from
the Library Services  Office (MD-35), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; or, for a fee,  from the National Technical Infor-
mation Service, 5285  Port Royal Road, Springfield,  Virginia 22161.
                        Publication No. EPA-450/2-80-083b
                                        11

-------
           APPENDIX A

SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL COMMENTS ON
    THE MAY 22,  1980 PROPOSED
     VISIBILITY  REGULATIONS
               A-l

-------
                     CATEGORY IV-D COMMENTS
Number
  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  8

  9


  10

  11

  12

  13

  14

  15

  16

  17

  18

  19
Commenter

South Dakota Dept. of Game, Fish and Parks.

American Paper Inst./National Forest Products
Assoc. - request for reservation of time at
hearing.

Jerald N. Hutchins, Vancouver, WA.

Harold S. Winger, Mobile, Alabama.

Armin T. Dressel, Camden, AR.

R. Jett Freeman, Bay Minette, Alabama.

Charles A. Self, Bearden, AR.

Paul J. Hagelston, Hattiesburg, MS.

Council On Wage  and Price Stability -  "selected
for review by the RARG".

Bobby Jeffrey, Sheridan, ARK.

Richard Taylor,  Camden, ARK.

E. A. Reese, Jr., Arkadelphia, ARK.

Henry V. Nickel,  Hunton and Williams.

R. W. Sanders, DeQueen, ARK.

Deborah  G. Utz,  Quitman, MS.

Elizabeth F. Sprague,  Sweet Briar, Virginia.

Longview Fibre Company

American Iron  and Steel  Institute

Virginia Forestry Association
                                A-2

-------
IV-D Comments (continued)
Number

 20

 21

 22

 23

 24

 25

 26

 27

 28

 29

 30

 31

 32

 33

 34

 35

 36

 37

 38

 39

 40

 41

 42
Commenter

John M. McEntire, Pine Bluff, AR.

Al Cook, Malvern, AR.

R. R. Russell, Council on Wage  and  Price  Stability

Simpson, Inc.

David F. Stevens, Nachez Mississippi.

R. E. Maxwell, Grenada, MS.                       .

State of Washington,  Dept. of Natural  Resources

Town "of Crested  Butte, Colorado

El Paso Natural  Gas  Company

Virginia Farm Bureau Federation

Wolfgang Hauer,  Michigan Botanical  Club

Katharin Anglemyer,  Washington, B.C.

Mary Anglemyer,  Washington,  B.C.'

Utah Environment Center

Western Energy Supply & Transmission

Frances Bollar,  Hollywood, California

Jane Heath,  Temple,  Arizona

Harold Crump,  Front  Royal, Virginia

Clifford N.  Smith, McNeal, Arizona

Robert Morgan, Wilkes-Barre, PA

Ken Warrow,  Florida

Elaine Stansfield, Los Angeles, CA

.. Commonwealth of  Kentucky,  Bepartment  for Natural
Resources  and Environmental  Protection
                               A-3

-------
IV-D Comments (continued)
Number



  43



  44



  45



  46



  47



  48



  49



  50



  51



  52



  53



  54



  55



  56



  57



  58



  59



  60



  61



  62



  63



   64



   65



   66
Commenter



Deborah Morningstar, Tallahasse, Florida




Mrs. Richard Tear, Acton, Mass.



Myra and Alan ErWin, Sacramento, California



Colorado-Ute Electric Association



Carlton N. Owen, Warren, Arizona



Sidney M. Hirsh, Tucson, Arizona



H. M. Phillips, Mobile Alabama



Liberty National Life Insurance Co.



State of Alaska, Department of Fish and Game




Scott Frazier, Los  Bahos, LA



Robert W. McConnochie, Pompano Beach, Florida



James R. Hamilton,  Richmond, VA



Robert Franz, Glenolden, PA



John New, State University College



Mrs. J.  C. Yarbrough, Atlanta,  GA



League of Women Voters of the  U.S.



Virginia Agribusiness Council



Brunswick Pulp Land Company



M.  R. Warner, Houston, Texas



Steve Frye,  College Place, WA



North Carolina Forestry  Association,  Inc.



Mark Gailey, Shingletown, CA




United  Power Association



American Pulpwood Association
                              A-4

-------
IV-D Comments (continued)
Number

  67,

  68

  69

  70

  71

  72

  73

  74 .


  75

  76

  77

  78

  79

  80

   81

   82

   83

   84

   85.

   86

   87

   88

   89
Commenter

Mississippi Forestry Commission

David Vosa, Chicago, Illinois

Ron Graybeal, San Francisco, CA

Conservation Call, San Diego, CA

Josephine Ciak, North Arlington, NJ

Royce Satterlee, Whitefish, MT

Southern Arizona Environmental Council

National Council of the Paper Industry for Air
and Stream  Improvement, Inc.

Walter  Rivers, Larkspur, California

Montana Pole and Treating Plant

Town  of Wallingford, Connecticut

Union Camp  Corporation

Mrs.  Kathleen  Oss,  Minneapolis, MN

Mrs.  M. Mathews,  Minneapolis, MN

Missouri  Dept.  of Natural  Resources

Michael Barry  and Laura Corbin,  Tucson,  Arizona

 Stephen Tognoli,  Douglas,  Arizona

 Matthew Brennan,  E. Northport,  NY

 Office of State Forester,  Salem Oregon

 Ms.  Ethel Thorniley and friends,  Detroit, Michigan

 Ralph Leon, Douglas, Arizona

 Lee Grant Snyder, Incline Village, Nevada

 Friends of the Earth, Brunswick, Maine
                                A-5

-------
IV-D Continents

Number

  90

  91

  92

  93

  94

  95

  96

  97

  98

  99

  100

  101

  102

  103

  104

  105


  106

  107

  108


  109

  110

  111

  112
(continued)

 Commenter

 New Mexico Citizens for Clean Air and Water

 Connie Hewett,  Hereford, Arizona

 Rick Hewett,  Hereford,  Arizona

 Carol Ruckdeshel,  St.  Marys,  Georgia

 Stephen Austin, Littleton, Colorado

 Bob Jackson,  Minneapolis, MN

 Duane Lamers, Grosse Points,  MI

 St. Regis Paper Company

 Washington Forest Protection Assoc.

 Derin Gulp, Boston, MA

 Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air

 H. H. Hillman, Naco, Arizona

 Willa Rapstine, Willcox, Arizona

 Ray Friendly, Bisbee, Arizona

 Dick Wilson, Des Ploines, 111.

 Eugene Marc Trisko on behalf of Stern Brothers,
 Inc.

 Friends of the Earth

 Mike Staten, Chatom, Alabama

 State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental
 Protection

 Michael Rees, Minneapolis, Minnesota

 Alabama Forestry Association

 Alleghany Mining Corporation

 Ronald Davidson, Hampton, Arkansas
                               A-6

-------
IV-D Comments

Number

 113

 114

 115

 116

 117

 118

 119

 120


 121

 122

 123

 124

 125

 126

 127

 128

 129

 130

 131

 132

 133

 134

  135
(continued)                  •         .

 Commenter       .                    '

 League of Women Voters of Texas '•

 Georgia Forestry Association,  Inc.

 Marie Jensen,  Northfield, MN

 John-ston Lumber Company

 Brian McGill,  Washington, D.C.

 W.  G. Wern..., Mesa Arizona

 Douglas and Natalie Danforth,  Bisbee, Arizona

 Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer
 Services

 Catherine C.  Keim, Sacramento, CA

 Nancy Seidman, Arlington, VA

 Carl Peiser,  Winslow, Arizona

 Kenneth Van Leuven, Bisbee, Arizona

 Atlantic Electric Company.       ;

 Marie A. Burling, McNeal, Arizona

 L. M. Mitchell, Potter Valley, CA

 Clyde McGoldrick, Pearce, Arizona

 Louisiana Forestry Association

 Elaine Roberts,' Forest Park,  GA

 Brand S  Corporation

 Jacqueline Wolff; Hollywood,  CA

 California State  Grange

 Thomas Suk, Davis,  CA

 Sarah Maxwell,  Davis,  CA
                               A-7

-------
IV-D Comments

Number

 136


 137


 138

 139


 140

 141

 142

 143

 144

 145

 146

 147

 148

 149

 150

 151

 152

 153

 154

 155

 156

 157

 158
(continued)

 Commenter

 Evans,  Kitchel and Jenckes,  on the  behalf  of
 Phelps  Dodge Corporation

 Wilderness Workshop of the Colorado Open Space
 Council

 Oregon  Women for Agriculture

 NC Dept.  of Natural Resources and Community
 Development

 John Matovich, Regina, Montana

 Anna Leigh, Rucson, Arizona

 Jeffrey Zimmerman, Tempe, Arizona

 Burlington Northern

 Bram L. Jacobson, Phoenix, Arizona

 Aldenlee Spell, Rushland, PA

 Michael Gregory, McNeal, Arizona

 Terri Martin, Cedar City, Utah

 Brita Miller, Tucson, Arizona

 Gordon Berry, Bisbee, Arizona

 Mrs. Neville Kirk, Annapolis, MD

 Mr. and Mrs. Carl Henry, Northfield, MN

 Barrie and  Karen Mayes, Prescott, AZ

 Neil Peterson,  Sierra Vista, AZ

 Calvin Dahm, St. Paul,  Minnesota

 National  Rural  Electric Cooperative Association

 Kennecott Corporation

 Raymond Eustan, Vista,  CA

 Chemical  Manufacturers  Association

                 A-8

-------
IV-D Comments




Number




 159




 160




 161




 162




 163




 164




 165




 166




 167




 168




 169




 170




 170a




 171




 172




 173




 174




 175




 176




 177




 178




  179




  180



  181
(continued)



 Commenter



 Colorado-Ute  Electric Company



 Briggs and Pat Ackert, Tucson,  AZ




 Hunton and Williams for UARG




 Jane Newton,  Philomath, OR



 Ed Herschler, Government of Wyoming



 Shea and Gardner for Magma Copper  Co.




 Joyce Vincent, Minneapolis, Minnesota



 Garnett Bowyer, Grant County Schools




 Marie Pettit, Harrisonburg, VA



 Donovan and Suzanne Fletcher, Sierra Vista, AZ




 Nevada Cattlemen's Association




 The Bunker Hill. Company



 Correction to above.




 Crown Zellerbach



 Scott Paper Company



 Oregon Seed Council



 Kerr-McGee Corporation



 Montana Power Co.



 Oregon Forest Protection Assn.



 Calif. Air Resources  Board



 Colorado Mountain  Club



 Art Johnston, Bisbee,  AZ




 Clem Pederson



 Tucson Audubon  Society
                                A-9

-------
IV-D Comments
Number
 182
 183
 184
 185
 186
 187
 188
 189
 190
 191
 192
 193
 194
 195
 196
 197
 198
 199
 200
 201
 202
 203
 204
 205
(continued)
 Commenter
 Southern Arizona Hiking Club
 Sierra Club,  Denver,  Colorado
 Tennessee Wildlife Resources  Agency
 Idaho Veneer Company
 Dorothy Walker,  McNeal, AZ
 Barbara Jones,  McNeal, AZ
 Western Oil and Gas Association
 David Pardee, Tucson, AZ.
 Keoki Skinner,  Naco,  AZ
 Adele Annerino,  Phoenix, AZ
 Occidental Oil Shale, Inc.
 Montana State Airshed Group
 U.S. Department of Interior
 Society of American Foresters
 No Oilport, Inc.
 Western Forestry and Conservation Assoc,
 City of Colorado Springs
 James Wick, Portland, OR
 James Jones, Phoenix, AZ
 Southwest Hawk Watch, Phoenix, AZ
 International Paper Company
 Boise Cascade Corporation
 Colorado Cattlemen's Association
 George Momper, Bisbee, AZ
                               A-10

-------
IV-D Comments




Number




 206




 207




 208




 209




 210




 211




 212




 213




 214




 215




 216




 217




 218




 219




 220



 221




 222




 223




 224




 225




 226




 227




  228



  229
(continued)



 Commenter                        . -  •



 Continental  Forest Industries




 Commonwealth of Virginia




 Utah Audubon Society



 Department of Environmental Quality



 Pacific Power and Light Company




 Friends of the Earth



 Eastman Kodak Company



 Richard Kamp, Naco, AZ



 State of California Department of 'Forestry




 Olympic Park Associates



 Gordon Tate, Master Idaho State Grange



 South Carolina Forestry Association



 State of South Dakota



 Kaiser Refractories



 Environmental Research and Technology, Inc.



 Departments of Planning, Zoning and Building



 South Branch Vocational Center



 Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission




 County Commission of Grant County



 International  Paper Company



 Office of Kane  County Commission



 Wildlife Management  Institute




 H.  Ramos  and friends, Douglas,  AZ



 American  Mining Congress
                               A-11

-------
IV-D Comments

Number

 230

 231

 232



 233

 234

 235

 236

 237

 238

 239

 240

 241

 242

 243

 244

 245

 246

 247

 248

 249

 250

 251

 252
(continued)

 Commenter

 Wayne Ursenbach,  Salt Lake  City,  Utah"

 John Werner,  Bisbee,  AZ

 Herb Crase,  Watershed Forester -  North Carolina
 Department of Natural Resources and Commercial
 Development

 David Levy,  Durham, NC

 Oregon Women for Timber

 Society of American Foresters

 Brown Company

 Hiwassee Land Company

 State of Nevada Executive Chamber

 Virginia Manufacturers Association

 Montana Dept. of Natural Resources and Conservation

 The Standard Oil Co.

 U.S. Dept. of Commerce, General Counsel

 American Petroleum Inst.

 Dept. of Energy - Secretary

 M. Zarich - Indianapolis, IN

 Arkansas Forestry Comm.

 Public Utility Dist., #1 of Douglas County, Wash.

 Robert R. Reid, Jr., Birmingham, AL

 Santa Fe Research Corp.

 Patricia Byrne, Sun City, AZ

 Rick Breault, Evergreen Park, IL

 U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service
                               A-12

-------
IV-D Comments




Number




 253




 254




 255




 256




 257




 258




 259




 260




 261




 262




 263




 264




 265




 266




 267




 268




 269




 270




 271




 272




 273



 274




 275



  276
(continued)



 Commenter



 Kay Wicker,  Mpls,  MN.



 National Assoc. of.Manufacturers




 Florida Power & Light  Co.



 Virginia State Air. Pollution Control Board




 Texas Eastern'Transmission Corp.



 Jacksonville Electric  Authority



 Illinois State Natural History Survey Div.




 Shell Oil Co.



 General Electric



 Utah International, Inc.




 West Associates



 Allegheny Power  Service Corp.



 Weyerhaeuser Co.



 Rio Blanco Oil Shale Co.



 Salt River Project



 Sunoco Energy Development Co.



 Burlington Industries



 McFarland Cascade



 Hunton & Williams for UARG



 VEPCO




 American Paper Inst.



 Union Oil Co. of California




 Holland  & Hart .for .ASARCO



 American Textile Manufacturers  Assoc.
                               A-13

-------
IV-D Comments

Number

 277

 278

 279

 280

 281

 282

 283

 284

 285

 286

 287

 288

 289

 290

 291

 292

 293

 294


 295


 296

 297

 298

 299
(continued)

 Commenter

 National Parks and Conservation Assoc.

 Council On Wage and Price Stability

 AMAX

 National Coal Assoc.

 Marge Burgess, Denver, Colorado

 South Carolina Public Service Authority

 West Associates

 Rockwell International (guidelines)

 Arizona Dept. of Health Services

 American Public Power Assoc.

 Atlantic Richfield Co.

 Salt River Project  (guidelines)

 Tampa Electric Co.

 Tucson Electric Power Co.

 State of Utah, Office of the Governor

 Basin Electric Power Cooperative

 California Forest Protective Assoc.

 Conference of State Manufacturers Associations
 with Virginia Manufacturers Assoc. letter.

 U.S. Dept. of the  Interior - Fish  and Wildlife
 Service  (guidelines)

 Duke Power Co.

 Interstate Paper Corp.

 Arizona  Public Service Co.  (guidelines)

 National Coal Assoc.  (guidelines)
                            .  A-14

-------
IV-D Comments



Number




 300




 301




 302




 303




 304




 305




 306




 307




 308




 309




 310




 311




 312




 313




 314




 315



  316






  317




  318




  319




  320




  321






  322
(continued)



 Commenter




 Hunton & Williams for UARG (guidelines)




 Coleman, Furniture Corp.
    - -••-         .          ?&'                     • •



 Southern California Edison Co.




 Sierra Club




 Florida Forestry Assoc.



 Evans, Kitchel & Jenckes,  P.C.  (guidelines)       .




 State of Montana - Office of the Governor




 Merck-& Co., Inc.



 New Mexico Dept. of Health & Environ.




 Mead



 Atlantic-Richfield Co.  (guidelines)




 Western Regional Council




 Pacific Gas and Electric Co.




 National Coal Assoc.



 Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (guidelines)




 Brunswick  Pulp &.. Paper Co.  (guidelines)



 Nevada Dept. of Conserv.  and Natural  Resources,

 Division of Environmental  Protection



 Environmental Research's  Tech.  (guidelines)




 E.  I. DuPont de Nemours &  Co.




 Associated Oregon  Industries




  International Assoc.  of Fish and Wildlife Agencies




  Dept. of  Energy -  enclosing "Potential Visibility


  Impairmant From Industrial Source Emissions"




  Duke Power Co.  (guidelines)
                               A-15

-------
IV-D Comments
Number
 323
 324
 325
 326
 327
 328
 329
 330
 331
 332
 333
 334

 335
 336
 337
 338
 339
 340
 341
 342
 343
 344
 345
 346
 347
 348
  349
  350
  351
  352
  353
(continued)
 Commenter
 Southern Forest Products  Assoc.
 Potlatch Corp.
 Dept.  of Energy (guidelines)
 U.S.  Dept.  of the Interior
 Western Regional Council  (guidelines)
 Platte River Power Authority
 Texaco Inc.
 Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
 Tennessee  Gas Transmission
 Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality (guidelines)
 Hunton & Williams for UARG (see also IV-D-271)
 Hawaii Dept. of Land and Natural Resources,
 Division of Forestry and Wildlife
 Cities Services Co.
 Dept. of Agriculture - Office of the Secretary
 Hugh Sebastian, Albion, Michigan
 Jane Sturtevant, Albion,  Michigan
 San Diego Gas and Electric
 Illinois Department of Conservation
 Bert Barry, Saint Louis,  Missouri
 Video-Info Publications
 Paul Rea and Deborah McGee,
 Barbara Girdler, Riverside,
 J. Gate, Waltham, MA
 M. Troland, Oceanside, NY
 Potomac Electric Power Co.
 W. C. Thompson, Arthur,  W. Va.
 A. Bunder
 Davis & Davis,  Largo, Florida
 A. Benioff, Berkley, California
 I. Leander, Evanston, Illinois
 B. Heckel,  Laguna  Beach, California
Greely, CO
Connecticut
                               A-16

-------
IV-F Comments

Number

   1

   2

   3
   5

   6


   7

   8
   10

   11


   12


   13


   14

   15

   16

   17


   18
Commenter            ''                         ,

Transcripts of Proceedings, Washington, B.C.

Transcripts of Proceedings, Salt Lake City, Utah

Comments of Friends of the Earth made at the
Proceedings

Statement of Williams B. Harrison, on behalf of
Southern Company.Services

State of Hunton and Williams

Statement of Jack Jenkins, Utah International Inc.
representing the National Coal Association

Statement of J. W. Gnann, Union Camp Corporation

Statement of Elaine Fielding of the American
Paper Institute and the National Forest Products
Assoc.

Statement of Russell Hulse, Western Energy  Supply
and Transmission Assoc.
                      r
Statement of Southern  California Gas Company

Statement of Eugene M.  Trisko,  for Stern  Brothers,
Inc.

Statement  of Priscilla Robinson,  for  Southwest
Environmental  Service

 Statement  of  Edwin Roberts,  Atmospheric  Sciences,
Arizona Public Service Co.

 Statement  of  Utah Power and Light Co.

 Statement of  National Assoc.  of State Foresters

 Statement of North Idaho Forestry Assoc.

 Statement of John Thielke, for Puget Sound Power
 and Light Co.

 Statement of John McKenzie, for Pacific Gas
'and Electric Company
                               A-17

-------
IV-F Comments (continued)
Number

  19


  20


  21

  22

  23

  24

  25

  26

  27

  28

  28a

  29

  30

  31

  32
Commenter

Statement of Nils I. Larson, for the State of
Arizona

Statement of Wallace W. Carey, for Industrial
Forestry Association

Comment of Ron Guenther, Fort Bragg, California

The Montana Power Co.

Governor Scott M. Matheson

John McNamara, Salt River Project

Utah Environment Center

Public Service Co. of Colorado

Michael Foster, Chevron

Western Systems Coordinating Council

Supplementary information to above

Ted Phillips, Pacific Power & Light

F. E. Templeton, Kennecott  Copper

Inland Forest Resource Council

Colorado-Ute Electric Assoc., Inc.
                              A-18

-------
IV-C Comments

Number
     £?


   4
   8

   9


   10


   11


   12

   13

   14

   15


   16
Commenter

Governor Herschler, Wyoming

Scott Paper Company (through Warren Magnuson)

Puget Sound Power & Light Company  (through
Warren Magnuson)

Allegheny Mining Corp.  (through Senator Robert
Byrd) x

Puget Sound Power & Light Company  (through
Rep. Al Swift)

Roberts - Citizen, through Sen. Herman Talmadge

Davidson - Forester, through Rep.  John
Hammerschmidt

Virginia Manufacturers  Association (through
Rep. William Whitehurst)

Governor Atajck, Oregon (through Sen. Mark
Hatfield

Representative  Beryl Anthony

Levy - Citizen  (through Rep. Ike Andrews)

Eads, Council on Wage  and Price Stability

Virginia Manufacturers  Association (through
Rep. Joseph Fisher)

Sanders - Forester  (through Rep. James Broyhill)
                              A-19

-------
Verville, South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks,
IV-D-1
Opposes regulation's application to prescribed burning:

     • Prescribed burning is not a major source which contributes
         to Class I visibility impairment.  Prescribed fires
         rarely emit more than 250 T/yr at a given location.
     • Prescribed fires contribute less than natural fires did
         years ago.

Opposes inclusion of Integral Vistas concept:

     • Protection of "buffer" areas around Class I areas was not
         legislative intent.

Establishing baseline or "natural" visibility levels will be
nearly impossible:

     - In some cases, natural levels were worse than present
         levels.

Federal Government should underwrite costs of monitoring visibility
of Class I areas.
                              A-20

-------
Fielding, American Paper Institute, IV-D-2
Request for time at June 30 hearing.
                               A-21

-------
Hutchins, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-3
Opposes the regulation's application to prescribed burnings:

     • Prescribed burnings for range and forest management
         should be specifically exempt.

Opposes inclusion of Integral Vistas concept:

     • Concept of Integral Vistas is not mentioned or implied in
         the Act.  Entire concept should be stricken from regu-
         lations .

Language is vague or confusing:

     • Language describing state responsibilities in weighing
         comments of Federal Land Managers must be more specific.
     • "Visibility impairment" needs better definition.  "Signifi-
         cant" impairment is not mentioned in the Act.  This
         concept should not be included in the regulations.
     • Are both prescribed fires and wildfires started accidentally
         by man to be considered man-made pollution?  (51.301(K))
     • The language in 51.304(e) "within its boundaries" is not
         clear.

States should not determine visibility impairment in Class I
areas:

     • The Act does not give responsibility to the state for
         identifying visibility impairment in Class I areas—this
         is clearly the responsibility of Federal Land Managers.
                               A-22

-------
Winger, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-4


Opposes the regulation's application to prescribed burning:

     • Alternates to prescribed fires  (chemicals, mechanical
         site clearing, uncontrolled wildfires) have greater
         environmental impact.                    •
     • Regulations governing prescribed fires are beyond the
         intent of Congress.
                               A-23

-------
Dressel, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-5
Opposes the regulation's application to prescribed burning:

     • Alternates to prescribed fires  (chemicals, mechanical
         site clearing, uncontrolled wildfires) have greater
         environmental impact.
     • Fire is a natural part of forest ecology.
     • Regulations governing prescribed fires  are beyond the
         intent of Congress.
     • Remote Class I areas are enjoyed primarily by a small,
         affluent segment of the public.  The  public is benefited
         more if visibility is protected more  in populated areas
         than in unpopulated areas.
                               A-24

-------
Freedman, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-6



Opposes regulation's application to prescribed burning:

     . Alternates to prescribed fires are undesirable  (chemicals,
         wildfires).
     • Prohibition of prescribed fires would increase  costs of
         silvicultural activities.
                                 A-25

-------
Self, Forester and Wildlife Biologist, IV-D-7


Opposes the regulation's application to prescribed burning:

     • Alternates to prescribed fires  (chemicals, mechanical
         site clearing, uncontrolled wildfires) have greater
         environmental impact.
     . Regulations governing prescribed fires are beyond the
         intent of Congress.
     - Fire is a natural part of forest ecology.
Refers EPA to E
Komarek, Sr. and associates at the Tall Timbers
Research Station, Tallahassee, Florida as recognized authorities
in fire ecology.
                                 A-26

-------
Hagelston, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-8
Opposes the regulation's application to prescribed burning:

     •  Most states and many local governments already have
         regulations and controls addressing prescribed burning
         and their,smoke impact.
     •  Prescribed burning is not a major point source which
         contributes to Class I visibility impairment.
     •  USDA Forest Service Technical Report SE-10 (December
         1976) contains adequate guidelines for the management
         of smoke from prescribed fires.
                                A-2 7

-------
Russell, Council on Wage and Price Stability, IV-D-9
COWAPS advises EPA that visibility regulations will be reviewed
by Regulatory Analysis Review Group.
                                A-28

-------
Jeffrey, Registered Forester, IV-D-10
Opposes regulations application to prescribed burning:

     • Stategically planned prescribed fires prevent massive
         wildfires.
                                A-2 9,

-------
Taylor/ Concerned Citizen, IV-D-11


Opposes regulation's application to prescribed burning:

     • Prescribed burning presents no real problem in the
         visibility management of forestry.
     • Prescribed burning is environmentally beneficial; it
         improves wildlife habitat, improves the forest fauna,
         and it prevents dangerous wildfires.
                               A-30

-------
Reese, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-12
Opposes regulation's application to prescribed burning:

     •  Regulations governing prescribed' fires are beyond the
         intent of Congress.
     •  Alternates to prescribed fires (chemicals, uncontrolled
         wildfires) have greater environmental impact.
     •  Fire is a natural part of forest ecology.
     •  Smoke management plans should address only populated
         areas - not unpopulated areas.  ,
                               A-31

-------
UARG, IV-D-13


Notice of Nature and Scope of the proposed visibility program is
inadequate:

     • Visibility monitoring interim and final guidance documents,
         not available.            -                      .......
     • Modeling guidance document, not available.
     • Portions of the guidelines for assessing costs of retrofit,
         not available.
     • Guideline for new source review, not available.
     • Guideline for prescribed burning, not available.

With no monitoring guidelines available, the criteria for selection
of impacting sources will be hampered.

With no modeling or other guidelines to show the relationship
between controls and visibility improvement it is impossible to
show how BART analysis will be conducted or to what degree they
will be effective.

     • "As a result, the proposals preclude public comment on_the
         specific nature of BART assessments and their potential
         impact on individual sources".
     • With supposedly major revisions to the BART guidelines,
         it is impossible to understand how BART assessments will
         be made or to evaluate their potential impact.
     • Author cites several court decisions in the D.C. circuit
        • which indicate documents supporting or defining the
         regulations should be available for public review and
         comment.  The author states the current proposals fail
         to apprise the public.
     • Basis for the proposed rules has not been included in the
         docket.  That is,'the background reports done for EPA
         and the report to Congress.

The agency should suspend the comment period and either  (1) repro-
pose the rules after the guidelines and other documentation, or
 (2) repropose rules to reflect the limitations in the agency's
data base.

     • Extend promulgation date and have a new proposal date.
     • The nine month period following promulgation for SIP
         revision is inadequate.
     • The thirty-nine day comment period is inconsistent with
         past EPA rule making policy for major issues.  In the
         past three months has been allowed for several rule
         makings.
     • If EPA will not repropose,  then a 30-day extention for
         comments and an additional 30-day rebuttal period should
         be allowed.
                               A-32

-------
Sanders, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-14
Opposes regulation's application to prescribed burning:

     •  Regulations governing prescribed burning are beyond
         the intent of Congress.
     •  Prescribed burning is not identified by EPA as a major
         point source affecting visibility.
     •  Fire is a natural and beneficial part of forest ecology.
     •  Alternates to prescribed fires (chemicals, uncontrolled
         wildfires) have greater environmental impact.
                               A-33

-------
Utz, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-15


Opposes regulation's application to prescribed burning:

     •  Fire is a natural and beneficial part of forest ecology.
     •  Smoke management plans already exist in most states.
        " These address problems affecting populated areas.
         Regulations requiring protection of unpopulated Class I
         areas might interfere with existing regulations.
     •  Prescribed fires contribute less than the counterpart
         wildfires do.
     •  Alternates to prescribed fires  (chemicals, mechanical
         site preparation, uncontrolled wildfires) have greater
         environmental impact.
                               A-34

-------
Sanders, Forester (through Rep. James Broyhill),  IV-C-16



Opposes the regulation of prescribed burning.

     •  No replacement for fire as a forestry tool.
     -  Uses no fossil fuel other than that to make firebreaks
     •  Would have to replace with machines.
     •  Cost to landowners would go up 15 times.
                                A-35

-------
David L. Bowden, Longview Fibre Company, IV-D-17


Opposes the regulation's application to prescribed burnings:

     • Forest lands should be managed to produce the maximum
         benefits in forest products to society.  Prescribed
        , burnings for range and forest management should be
         exempt.

Questions existence of visibility impairment:

     . Prevention and control of wildfire in modern times main-
         tains visibility standards which are below the naturally
         occurring levels of prior years.
                                A-36

-------
Earle F. Young, Jr., American Iron and Steel Institute, IV-D-18


Proposed rulemaking inconsistent with Clean Air Act:

     •  Section 169A(e) states that regulations shall not
         require buffer zones.
     •  Proposed Rulemaking - Section 51.302(c)(2) provides
         for buffer zones - "Integral Vistas".

Opposes inclusion of  Integral Vistas Concept:

     •  Might leave very little land area unregulated.

Time frame for submitting revised SIP including visibility
amendments is too short.

Questions whether specific point source located in_the_vicinity
of Class I regions are a significant source of visibility
impairment.

     •  Particles in size range 0.1-2.0  ym  influence visibility
         due to light scattering phenomena.

Opposes visibility determinations on humid days:

     -  When humidity  exceeds  70% R.H.,  most significant  source
         of visibility impairment is  from  nuclei  of condensed
         moisture.
                                A-37

-------
Charles F. Finley, Jr., Virginia Forestry Associations,  IV-D-19



Opposes the regulation's application to prescribed burnings:

     • Prescribed burnings for range and forest management
         should be exempt.
     • Controlled burning decreases number of uncontrolled ,
         wildfires.
     • Loss of prescribed burning would result in higher costs
         for the land owner and higher consumer costs of wood
         and paper products.
                                A-38

-------
John M. McEntire, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-20


Opposes the regulation's application to prescribed burnings:

     •  Prescribed burnings for range and forest management
         should be exempt.
     -  Fire is an excellent wildlife management tool.
                                A-39

-------
Al Cook, Concerned Citizen; IV-D-21

Opposes the regulation's application to prescribed burnings:

     • Prescribed burnings for range and forest management should
         be exempt.
     . Alternatives to prescribed burnings have a greater environ-
         mental impact.
                                A-40

-------
R. Robert Russel, Regulatory Analysis Review Group, Executive
Office of the President, Council on Wage and Price Stability,
IV-D-22
LIST OF CONCERNS - NOT SUPPORTING OR OPPOSING THE PROPOSED
RULEMAKING.

1.   Selection of areas to be protected by visibility standards:

     •  Result in additional areas subject to visibility regulations,
     •  Questions whether this addition aids the program or
         creates uncertainty.

2.   The kind of visibility protection to be afforded:

     •  Limits the states' discretion to one'source or group of
         sources and by the Federal land manager's discretion
         in identifying integral vistas.

3.   Controls on existing sources:

     •  Does not allow states to base standards on comparisons of
         the costs and benefits of controls on existing sources.
     •  Does not specify the existing sources that will be con-
         trolled.
     •  Does not specify means of determining BART.
     •  Does not indicate the cost of compliance.

4.   Controls on New Sources

     •  Prevent comparisons of the cost and benefits of costs and
         benefits of controlling new sources by the states.
     •  Does not specify the cost of denying a permit.
     •  Does not specify compliance time frame.
     •  Questions distinction between new and existing sources.
                               A-41

-------
Starr W. Reed, Simpson Timber Company, IV-D-23


Opposes the regulation's application to prescribed burning:

     • Prescribed burnings for range and forest management
         should be exempt.
     * EPA does not have a Congressional Mandate to force
         states to control all impediments to visibility.
     . Wood smoke is as much a part of the naturally occurring
         atmosphere as is water vapor and airborne pollen.
     • Alternatives to prescribed burnings  (herbicides, tractors)
         have greater environmental impact.

Attached Enclosure:   "Fire's Role in  the Forest Ecosystem  of
the Pacific Northwest" by Michael R.  Truax, Simpson Timber
Company, February 25, 1980, substantiates Simpson's opposition
with references.
                                A-42

-------
David F. Stevens, Research Forester, IV-D-24
Opposes the regulation's application to prescribed burnings:

     •  Prescribed burnings for range and forest management
         should be exempt.
     •  Alternatives to prescribed burning have greater environ-
         mental impact.
     •  Fire is an excellent wildlife management tool
                                A-43

-------
R. E. Maxwell, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-25


Opposes the regulation's application to prescribed burning:

     • Prescribed burning for range and forest management is
         necessary.                             ., „ w    •     *
     • Recommends distinguishing between prescribed burning and
         stationary sources.
     • Congress did not intend prescribed burning smoke  to be
         a significant source of visibility impairment.
     . Requires states without air quality problem to consider
         smoke management techniques for agricultural and
         forest management.
     • Alternatives to prescribed burning have  greater environ-
         mental impact.
                                A-44

-------
Bert E. Cole and Paul E. Krauss, State of Washington, Department
of Natural Resources, IV-D-26


Supports visibility regulation for prescribed burning:

     •  Without prescribed fire results in unregulated fire.
     •  Recommends using prescribed burning data in establishing
         the baseline for deriving the measurement of visibility
         impairment.
     •  Prescribed fire is the best alternative available over
         wildfire to maintain ecosystems.
     •  Recommends distinguishing between prescribed burning: and
         stationary sources.
     •  State should have adequate flexibility in considering
         smoke management techniques in the Smoke Management
         Plan achieving EPA1s visibility goal.
     •  Regional and urban plumes should be considered in the
         future.

Opposes inclusion of "integral vistas" outside Class I areas:

     •  Beyond intent and scope of the law.
                                A-45

-------
Heather Noble, Town of Crested Butte, Colorado, IV-D-27


Supports proposed visibility regulations.

Supports the provisions requiring best available retrofit
technology on existing sources.

Integral Vistas:

      • Criteria are vague.
      - Federal land managers discretion  in designating those
         vistas is undesirable.
      • Concerned about whether the vista is part of the reason
         the park or wildness was created being used as a
         criteria.
                                A-46

-------
El Paso Gas, IV-D-28


Opposes the definition of "potential to omit":

     •  Too encompassing with the assumption of continuous
         operation.

Supports definition of "reasonably attributal".

Comments on "visibility impairment":

     •  Questions data used for contrast threshold.
     •  Questions frequency of observed impairment which would
         trigger BART review (not explicit in regulations).
     •  Questions visible observation as means of identifying
         impairment - source.
     •  Opposes language and opinion that seasonal variability
         can be used as basis for aiding in setting standard.
         Author assumes seasons all same.

Opposes reanalysis of BART in future.

Opposes requirement for visibility monitoring:

     •  Until EPA promulgates a "reference method".

Comment on visibility models:

     •  Interim guideline document should have statement - only
         rough estimate until models refined.

Opposes Intergovernmental Cooperation:

     •  States the regulations are vague and subjective.  Claim
         present regulations may not be enforcable.

Opposes third alternative with respect to integral vistas.

     •  The  section, that gives 30 days for FLM to identify
         integral vistas after notified of new source, should
         be eliminated.
     • Too  great a burden on industrial planning.

Opposes - FLM recommend integral vistas and EPA promulgate list:

     • Specifically language "with  any change  it  feels is
         appropriate".
     • List should have review of State, and  EPA  should not
         make total decision.
                               A-47

-------
IV-D-28 (continued)

Opposes terms "natural and existing conditions":

     • Finds these confusing.
Comments on Document  "Preliminary Assessment of Economic Impacts
of Visibility Regulations".
Objects to language on the near-field plum impacts measurements:

      • Questions both language  and data.

Claims error in sources  identified:
        Claims  some
          not impact on Class  I areas,

 Claims faulty data used:

      • Based on fact NEDS data used.
sources identified always upwind and could
                                 A-48

-------
VA Farm Bureau Federation, IV-D-29
Opposes restricting prescribed burning:

     •  Fanners need as tool to prepare planting sites for tree
         seedlings.
                                A-49

-------
Michigan Botanical Club, IV-D-30


Supports the promulgation of regulations.

Opposes 30 day period for FLM to review new source permits,

     • Suggests a 1 year period for review.

Speed up Phase II:

     • More work on Haze problem.
     • Guidelines for monitoring and modeling needed.
                                A-50

-------
K. Anglemyer, IV-D-31
Support "integral vistair1-:
                                A-51

-------
M. Anglemyer/ IV-D-32

Support regulations proposed:
     • Strongest possible regulations.
                               A-52

-------
Utah Environmental Center, IV-D-33
Comments on Salt Lake City Public Hearing - Timing:

     • Public notified too late.
     • Meeting held during week of July 4, poor choice
     • Meeting held during daytime hours only.
                                A-53

-------
WEST Assoc., IV-D-34 (Western Energy & Supply & Transmission)


Opposes "integral vistas".

     • Does not follow Congressional intent.

Legal considerations of the regulations:

     • Esthetically based,, rather than health-related legislation
         and rulemaking may not be authorized and constitutional.
     • The rulemaking ignores scientific and Congressional under-
         standing of "visibility impairment".

Energy and economic considerations:

     • Could affect reliability of electric power supply.
     • Could lock up land mass larger than all states east of
        the Mississippi.

EPA has failed  (at the time this was written) to supply criteria/
guideline documents.

WEST proposes a six increment procedure:

     • The increments go to May, 1995.
     • The steps outline a research program.

The definition, causes and measurement of visibility impairment
are not developed enough to support the proposed regulations:

     • Modeling techniques need to be validated to  support
         BART determinations.
     • Monitoring needs to be developed and refined.
     • Siting power plants should not be subject to "eyeball"
         judgement.

There is no demonstration of visibility benefit in  the proposed
rule or the EPA "Retrofit Guidelines for Coal-Fired Power Plants"

      • This makes BART premature.
     - The control technologies may not control visibility
         impairment.
     • The reanalysis provision sets up a "moving target" for
         industry.

The New Source  Review provisions could  seriously affect energy
and other  forms of development in the western  states.

Research such as the VISTTA study must be continued and expanded.
                                A-54

-------
TV-D-34 continued

     •  Overview of SW visibility should be•completed.
     •  A visibility data bank factoring in historical visibility,
         air quality, etc. should be developed.
     •  Review of measurement techniques.
     •  Study aerosols and light scattering measurement compari-
         sons.
     •  Nature of sulfate conversion in plume study.
     •  Study of existing field observations of power plants to
         develop visibility/plume relationships.

The proposed regulations, presumed benefits, are unquantified
and uncertain compared to the energy and economic costs which
would be incurred.

The visibility regulations may have a profound affect on future
power production in the southwest.

     •  As much as 89% of the Western Region could be affected by
         these regulations.
     •  Visibility regulations may affect 75% of all coal-fired
         capacity operating in the Western Region.

The proposed regulations have not given adequate consideration
to the economic consequences.

     •  Power rates may rise by 33% in some areas because of
         visibility rulemaking.
     •  Could affect 1.5 million jobs in the Southwest.
     •  BART will serve to extend the lines of older, more
         inefficient power plants - capital is not available
         for BART and expansion.

The proposed rule could be unconstitutional:

     •  It would interfere with use of power plants and constitute
         a "taking" of property.
     •  Rule is in excess of statutory delegation.
     •  EPA has shifted the focus of visibility regulation from
         regional protection  (Congressional intent) to localized
         protection.
     •  Rulemaking that is technically flawed and with no scien-
         tific basis is legally unacceptable.

Opposes the concept of "integral vistas".

     •  Integral vistas are tantamount to "buffer zones" - which
         are prohibited in the Act.

WEST was concerned because guidance documents were not available
at the time of proposal of the regulations.

The threat of paragraph 120 penalties puts the utilities in an
untenable position.

     • The utilities would be  faced with complying with BART or
         paying noncompliance  penalties.

                               A-55

-------
Frances Dollar, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-35
Supports integral vistas,
                               A-56

-------
Jane Heath, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-36
Supports concept of integral vistas:

     •  The "agency in charge of the Class I areas" should
         decide where they exist.

Feels Phase II should be implemented as soon as possible:

     •  A specific date for the beginning of Phase II would be
         satisfactory.

Would like to see detailed guidelines for monitoring and control
techniques.

Federal Land Managers should have a strong, active role in the
program.
                               A-57

-------
Harold Wayne Crump, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-37
Supports concept of integral vistas:



     * Park service should determine where they exist.



Supports the requirement of modeling for all major new
sources,
                                A-58

-------
Clifford N. Smith, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-38
Supports visibility program.
                                A-59

-------
Robert E. Morgan, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-39


Supports the concept of integral vistas.

Supports addition of monitoring requirements to the regulations.

Federal Land Managers should have an aggressive role in the
program.
                                A-60

-------
Ken Warrow, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-40


Supports concept of integral vistas.

Supports the implementation of Phase II as soon as. possible.

Would like to see detailed guidelines.for monitoring.

Feels that Federal Land Managers should be given at least a
year to determine adverse affects of new sources:

     • Burden of proof should be placed on the source that
         there will be no adverse affects.
                                A-61

-------
Elaine Stansfield, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-41


Supports concept of integral vistas.

Would like to see specific guidelines on monitoring.

Feels the burden of proof of adverse affects should be on both
the source and the EPA.
                               A-62

-------
Raymond J. Swatzyna, Director of Division of Forestry of the
Department for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection
in Kentucky, IV-D-42
Concurs with the National Association of State Forester's
position (G. G. Moon Memo of July 1, 1980).
                               A-63

-------
Deborah Morningstar, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-43
Supports integral vistas.
                               A-64

-------
Mrs. Richard Teas, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-44
Supports the concept of integral vistas.

Urges EPA to give a specific date by which Phase II will be
implemented.
                                A-65

-------
Myra and Alan Erwin, Concerned Citizens, IV-D-45
Supports visibility program.
                               A-66

-------
Colorado-Ute Electric Assoc.,  IV-D-46
Protesting unavailability of documents:

     •  Could not obtain a copy of "Protecting Visibility:
         EPA Report to Congress".
     •  Guidelines not yet available.
An
                               A-67

-------
Carlton N. Owen, Wildlife-Biologist and Registered Forester in
Arizona, IV-D-47


Opposes regulation of prescribed burning:

     • Prescribed burning enhances forest resources.
     . Reduces forest diseases and insect populations.
     . Increases aesthetic appeal.
     • Reduces litter build-up.
     . Lessens chances of wildfires.
                               A-68

-------
Signey M. Hirsh, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-48


     • Judgement of where integral vistas exist should be made
         on the basis of preservation of resources rather than
         energy or economic considerations.
                               A-69

-------
Harold M. Phillips, Forester with International. Paper Company,
IV-D-49
Opposes regulation of prescribed burning:

     • "Prescribed fire is used judiciously when all atmospheric
         conditions are right" which "results in minimal
         degradation of air quality".
                                A-70

-------
George A. Blinn, Liberty National Life Insurance Company, IV-D-50


Supports the concept of integral vistas:

     • The agencies in charge of the Class I area should
         determine where they exist.
     • Judgement should be made on the basis of preservation
         of resources rather than energy on economic consid-
         erations.

Urges EPA to specify date by which Phase II will be implemented.

Would like to see detailed guidelines on monitoring existing
sources and modeling new sources.

Federal Land Managers should have key role in the program:

     • They should have up to one year to determine the  adverse
         impacts of a new source.
     • The burden of proof of no adverse impacts should  be on
         the source.
                                A-71

-------
Ronald O. Skoog, Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish
and Game, IV-D-51


Opposes regulation of prescribed burning:

     - Smoke from management fires is important to the ecosystem
         function in Alaska.
                               A-72

-------
Scot Frazer, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-52






Supports concept of integral vistas.



Federal Land Managers should have strong roles in the program.
                                A-73

-------
Robert W. McConnochie, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-53


Supports the concept of integral vistas:

     • Should include vistas from outside the park.
     • Judgement should be made on the basis of preservation
         of resources rather than energy or economic consid-
         erations.

Federal Land Managers should have a strong role in the program:

     • They should have up to one year to determine if a new
         source will have adverse impacts on a national park
         or wilderness area.

Responsibilities for implementation of regulations by National
Park Service and other Federal Land Managers needs to be more
clearly defined.
                               A-74

-------
James R. Hamilton, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-54

Supports concept of integral vistas:

     • They should include vistas from outside the parks.
     • Judgement should be made on the basis of preservation
         of resources rather than energy or economic consid-
         erations.

Supports "best available retrofit technology."

Federal Land Managers should have authority to implement
visibility protection for their own Class I areas,

     • They should have up to one year to determine if a
         source has adverse impacts on a park or wilderness
         area.

EPA_should issue "without delay" specific guidelines on
monitoring and new source modeling.
                             A-75

-------
Robert Franz/ Concerned Citizen, IV-D-55
       90 day limitation for designating integral vistas is
         not long enough.
       Endorses 30 day period to classify an integral vista
         when a new source permit is applied for.
                              A-76

-------
John G. New, Chairman of Biology Department at State University
College in Oneota, New York, IV-D-56
Supports concept of integral vistas.

Federal land managers should have strong roles in visibility
program.

     •  Burden of proof of no adverse affects should be on
         industry.

Urges EPA to establish specific date for implementation of
Phase II.

Feels it is urgent that modeling and monitoring are made part
of the program immediately.
                               A-77

-------
Connie Yarbrough, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-57
Supports concept of integral vistas:
     • Judgement should be made on basis of preservation of
         resources rather than energy or economic consider-
         ations .
Federal Land Managers should have an aggressive role in visi-
bility program.
Urges a specific date for implementation of Phase II.
Urges EPA to issue specific buidelines for monitoring and
modeling new sources.
                               A-78

-------
League of Women Voters of .U.S., IV-D-58


Support the proposed regulations - with comments:

     • Proposed definition of visibility impairments too
         subjective.
     • Support phased approach, but a schedule for later phases
         should be included in the final rule.
     • Identification of  integral vistas should be responsibility
         of the PLM's.
     • Monitoring provisions are inadequate.  Specific monitoring
         guidelines are necessary.
     • Requirements for long-term planning by states are vague.

Should encourage states to go beyond federal requirements for
"grandfathered" sources:

     ' States should establish compliance schedules.
     . EPA should propose legislation to control pollution  from
         older  (more than 15 years prior to August 7, 1977)
         sources.

Proposed rules do not adequately delineate EPA's role and
responsibilities.
                               A-79

-------
Mahlon K. Rudy, Director of Member Relations for the Virginia
Agribusiness Council, IV-D-59


Opposes regulation of prescribed burning:

     • Any new restraints on it would mean increased costs to
         landowners and higher prices for forestry products.
                               A-80

-------
George Anderson, Manager of Forest Improvement,  Department of
Brunswick Pulp Land Company, IV-D-60


Opposes regulation of prescribed burning.
                                A-81

-------
M
.  R.  Warmer,  Concerned Citizen,  IV-D-61
Supports concept of integral vistas:

     - Agency in charge of Class I areas should determine where
         they exist.

Federal Land Manager should have an aggressive, well defined
role:

     • Should be allowed up to a year to determine if a new
         source will have adverse affects on visibility.
     • Burden of proof of no adverse affects should be on
         source.

A specific date for implementation of Phase II is needed.

Calls  for detailed guidelines for monitoring techniques.
                                A-82

-------
James Frye, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-62


Urges specific guidelines for monitoring and new source
modeling.
                                A-83

-------
Ben Park, Executive Vice President of the North Carolina Forestry
Association, Inc., IV-D-63


Opposes regulation of prescribed burning:

     • Reduces wildfires.
     . Encourages regeneration.
                                 A-84

-------
Galley, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-64


Supports concept of integral vistas.

Federal Land Managers roles should be better defined andjnore
aggressive.                      ,                        ':
EPA should specify a date for the implementation of Phase II.

EPA should issue detailed, specific guidelines for monitoring
and modeling.
                                 A-85

-------
United Power Assoc. , IV-D-65
Posed seven questions:
1)
2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)
          What is present visibility in Class I areas?
          What instrumentation is utilized and how accurate is
          What is the appropriate value to attach to an obtained
          visibility value?                          .
          What criteria does the Department of Interior use to
          rank or compare one Class I area with another?
          What input does a park visitor have in rating
          visibility?
          Is visibility an absolute value or is it based upon
          subjective judgement?
          What does the Federal Land _ Manager use as  criteria in
          determining natural conditions?
 Questioned Economic  Impact.

      • What  criteria will be  used to determine  when economic
          impact becomes  a factor in visibility  impairment.


 Questioned relation  to health and welfare:

      . Does  decreased visibility impact on  health or welfare?


 Opposes  integral vista concept:

      • Appears EPA is expanding the statutory scope of 16 9A.


 Opposes  the  regulations:

      - Feels the regulations are unjustified.
                                A-86

-------
American Pulpwood Assoc., IV-D-66


Opposes Sec. 51.306 (f) (5) dealing with prescribed burning.

        Prescribed burning has less harmful effects than wildfires,
        Used for forest management purposes.
        Intent of the act was toward control of stationary sources,
        Strike reference to forest management from the proposed
          regs.
                               A-87

-------
Richard C. Allen, State Forester in Mississippi, IV-D-67
Opposes restriction of prescribed burning.
                              A-88

-------
David Vaso, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-68
Supports visibility program.
                               A-89

-------
Ron Graybeal, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-69
Supports visibility program.
                              A-90

-------
Roscoe A. Polland, Director of Conservation Call, IV-D-70


Federal Land Managers should have strong role in visibility
program.

     • They should have one year to determine adverse impacts
         on Class I areas.
     • The burden of proof of no adverse affects should lie
         on the source.

EPA should set a date for implementation of Phase II.

Would like to see specific guidelines on monitoring and new
source modeling as soon as possible.
                               A-91

-------
Josephine Ciak, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-71


Supports concepts of integral vistas:

     • When it only includes views from inside the park.
     • The agency in charge of the Class I area should determine
         where they exist.
     • Judgement should be made on the basis of the preservation
         of resources rather than energy or economic consider-
         ations .

Federal Land Managers should have well defined strong roles in
the program.

     - They should be permitted up to one year to determine
         the adverse impacts of a new source.
     • The burden of proof of no adverse affects should be
         on the source.

EPA should specify a date for the implementation of Phase II.

EPA should issue detailed specific guidelines on monitoring
and new  source modeling as soon as possible.
                               A-92

-------
Royce Satterlee, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-72





Opposes regulation of prescribed burning.
                                A-93

-------
Stephen L. Ramsdell, President of Southern Arizona Environmental
Council, IV-D-73
Supports visibility program.
                              A-94

-------
NCASI, IV-D-74
Opposes definition of visibility impairment as presented:
           1
     • Propose the definition:  a "humanly perceptible change
         in visual range, contrast, or coloration that inter-
         feres with the viewing of important scenic landmarks
         or panoramas, and is caused solely by manmade air
         pollution".  Based on the fact that any plume would
         be subject to the EPA proposed definition.
     • Adopting the NCASI definition would reduce the number
         of existing sources subject to 169A.
     • Provide more guidance to States and FLM's.

Opposes allowing FLM's to select impacting existing sources on a
visual basis.

     • A selected rating panel should make the observations on
         all selected areas.

Comment on inconsistency of selection of the 156 completed
visibility assessments:

      • Wide variation in the criteria among FLM's for listing
         particular sources as having a possible effect  on
         Class I area visibility.

Oppose use of unvalidated models.

      • Models should be validated before used to assess  changes
         in visibility resulting from existing sources or from
         those sources with additional control equipment.
      • After validation any model should be included in  EPA's
         Guideline On Air Quality Models.

Opposes use of unvalidated models to predict impact of new or
modified sources:

      • EPA should not require a visibility  impact  analysis in
         a PSD permit application unless a  source  is located
         close enough to a Class .1  area and is large enough to
         cause concern.
      • Suggests  further  research to determine  levels for when
         visibility  should be included in PSD  permit application,
                               A-95

-------
IV-D-74 continued

Opposes concept of integral vistas:

     • It is not explicit in paragraph 169A.
     . In effect extends boundaries of Class I areas.
     . Conflicts with present PSD  system where SO2 and TSP
         increments apply within the Class  I area only.
     . If integral vistas are in final regulations, they
         should be stringently reviewed, and very definite
         criteria for impact should be developed.

Supports concept of development of long-term visibility
protection  strategies.

Support the development of  smoke management guidelines for
prescribed  burning:

      • Forest service  should develop  these.
      • Consideration  should be given  to  tradeoffs with the
          impact from  potential wildfires.
                               A-96

-------
Walter Rivers, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-75
Supports concept of integral vistas:

     •  Judgement should be made on basis of preservation of
         resources rather than energy or economic reasons.
     •  Should include vistas encountered while approaching
         the parks.
     •  The agency in charge of the Class I area should decide
         where they exist.

Federal Land Managers should have a very active well defined
role in the program.

     •  They should be allowed at least one year to determine
         if there will be adverse impacts from a source.

Urges EPA to set a specific date for implementing JPhase II.

Would like EPA to issue detailed guidelines for monitoring.
                              A-97

-------
William C. Dockins, Timber Manager for Montana Pole and Treating
Plant/ IV-D-76


Opposes regulation of prescribed burning:

     • Promotes germination of seeds.
     - Reduces potential fire hazard.
                              A-98

-------
Charles F. Walters, General Manager of Electric Division of
Department of Public Utilities in Wallingford, Connecticut,
IV-D-77
Opposes the visibility program in general.
                               A-99

-------
Union Camp, IV-D-78


Opposes regulation of prescribed burning.

        Prescribed burning is conducted in a way as to minimize
          adverse environmental effects.
        Burning is used for site preparation as opposed to
          mechanical clearing or herbicides.
        Burning is used for wildlife management.
        It is a desirable substitute for wildfires.
                               A-100

-------
Kathleen Oss, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-79
Supports visibility program.
                               A-101

-------
Mrs. M. Mathews, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-80
Supports visibility program.
                               A-10 2

-------
Missouri Department of Natural Resources, IV-D-81


Comment on responsibility for visibility impairment determination:

     • Unclear whether FLM or State has responsibility.
     • Unclear how often observation should be made.

Opposed to states considering integral vistas as part of SIP's.

     • Since 169A(e) prohibits Administrator from requiring
         the use of automatic or uniform buffer zone or zones.

Presented problem not covered in proposed regulations  (author says)

     • A source may exist in one state - with no mandatory Class
         I areas, but may affect visibility in Class I area in
         another state.

Comment on definition of "visibility impairment".

      • Too subjective.
      • Will standard method be developed?

Comment on "natural conditions":

      • Too subjective.
      • Dependent on observer.

EPA should supply names and address of FLM's.

Opposed to application to EPA for BART exemption.

      • State is responsible for preparing the BART  analysis,  and
         require the source to install BART, but cannot determine
         exemption.

Opposed to the new  source procedures in  Section 51.307 as proposed:

      • Opposed to notifying FLM and appears to give veto power
         over state permit to FLM.
      • It appears FLM would be notified  twice for  the  same
         application.
      • Not clear what  "an adverse impact on visibility" refers
         to  in 51.307(b).
      • It is not clear  in 51.307(g) who  will resolve disputes
         between FLM  and state.

Comment on visibility .impairment:

      . Contrast  change  perceptible  of  0.02  to  0.05 was not
          included  in  the proposed regulations.
      • Training  available to  detect visibility  impairment?
                                A-103

-------
IV-D-81 continued
Comment on reanalysis of BART:

     • Should not be on a regular basis.              _         .
     . Should be a minimum grace period between BART  installation
         and reanalysis at that facility in order not to overly
         burden a company financially.       _                -oar-m
     . The state should have primary discretion to reanalyze BART.

Opposed to consultation with FLM on anything other than exemption
 (Section 169A(a)(2)).

      - Claim there  is no statutory basis for consultation._
      • State believes if Congressional  intent were there,  it
         would have been explicit.
                                 A-10 4

-------
Michael Barry and Laura Corbin, Concerned Citizens, IV-D-82


Supports concept of integral vistas.

Federal Land Managers should be given strong roles in the
program.

States should be required to set dates against which progress
can be measured.
                               A-105

-------
Stephen Tognoli, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-83
Supports visibility program.
                               A-10 6

-------
Matthew Brennan, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-84
Supports concept of integral vistas: .

     •  The agency in charge of the Class I area should determine
         where they exist.                        ,
     •  Judgement should be made on the basis of preservation
         of resources rather tha'n energy or economic consider-
         ations.

Federal Land Managers should have well defined, aggressive roles
in the program.

Urges specific date for implementation of Phase II.

EPA should issue specific guidelines for monitoring and new
source modeling.
                                A-10 7

-------
H. Mike Miller, State Forester in Oregon, IV-D-85


Opposes regulation of prescribed burning:

     • It controls insects.
     - It increases forest yields.
     • It reduces occurrence of wildfires.
     . It pollutes less than wildfires.
     . EPA is attempting to deal with natural source rather
         than man-made.
     . Smoke from prescribed fires has not been proven to
         adversely impact Class I areas.
     - Proposed regulations would not meet forest management
         needs.
     • Proposed regulations would not provide measurable air
         quality benefits as a result of  forced reduction of
         burning.

Opposes concept of integral vistas:

      • EPA is  attempting to regulate beyond  the  intent of
         Congress.                                .
      - It violates section 169A(e) of  the Clean Air Act.
         "Administrator shall not require the^use of  any
         automatic or uniform buffer  zones...".
      . It violates section 164:
         - EPA attempts to reclassify  integral vistas as
           Class  I areas.
         - Only  states have the  authority to redesignate
           areas  to  Class  I status.
      • Concept of integral vistas should be  removed  from  the
         final rules.

 Opposes  section  51.306(g):

      •  EPA is telling the  states how to do  the  job  rather
          than requiring that  it be done.

 Language is  unclear:

      -  EPA should clarify how it intends to evaluate impacts
          from prescribed burning when comparing them to the
          impacts from wildfire - the explanation given in the
          "Supplemental Statement of Basis and Purpose,   (3)
          Visibility  Impairment, p. 34773 is not consistent
          with the analysis techniques EPA uses for other
          sources.
                                A-108

-------
IV-D-85 continued.


Supports definitions of "significant impairment" and "adverse
impairment":

     •  They should include "the extent, intensity'and duration
         of the impairment as well as the other variable mentioned,
     •  Class I areas that may be significantly impaired by a
         source should be determined by the state on variables
         EPA identified.
                                A-109

-------
Ethel Thorniley et al, Concerned Citizens; IV-D-86

Support concept of integral vistas:
     • Including vistas encountered when approaching the parks.
Want a strong, aggressive role for Federal Land Managers.
Want EPA to add specific monitoring requirements to the regulations,
                                A-110

-------
Ralph Leon, Concerned Citizen, IV-D^87
Supports visibility program.
                               A-H1

-------
Lee Grant Snyder, Concerned Citizen, XV-D-88
Supports visibility program.
                                A-112

-------
Karin Tilberg, Co-Chairman of Firends of Earth, Marine Branch,
IV-D-89
Supports integral vistas,
                                A-113

-------
NM Citizens for Clean Air and Water, IV-D-90

Comment on ICP report "Preliminary Assessment of Economic Impact
of Visibility Regulations".

     • IGF found the impact would be twice as high as data sub-
         mitted by the utility  (Arizona Public Service Co.)
         would indicate on cost analysis.
     . The author also did cost analysis  for BART and found much
         lower figures than ICF.
                                A-114

-------
Connie Hewett, Concerned Citizen, 1V-D-91
Supports visibility program.
                               A-115

-------
Rick Hewett, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-92
Supports visibility program.
                                A-116

-------
Carol Ruckdeschel, Concerned Citizen, XV-D-93
Supports visibility program.
                               A-117

-------
Stephen B. Austin, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-94
Supports visibility program.
                               A-118

-------
Bob Jackson, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-95
Supports visibility .program.
                                A-119

-------
Duane E. Lamers, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-96
Supports visibility program.
                                 A-120

-------
John K. McBri.de, Silviculturist for St. Regis Paper Co., IV-D-97



Opposes concept of integral vistas:

     • Vistas tend to be self contained in Montana.

Opposes regulations of prescribed burning:

     • Best regulation of forest produced smoke is being done
         by the Montana State Airshed group.
     • Fire is a natural process and a natural tool.
                               A-121

-------
A. Stewart Bledsoe, Executive Director of the Washington Forest
Protection Association, IV-D-98


Endorses~coitiments of Mr. Elaine Fielding of the American Paper
Institute and the National Forest Products Association of June 30,
1980.
                                A-122

-------
Derry Gulp, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-99


Supports concept of integral vistas:

     *  When it means only views from inside the park.
     •  Federal Land Managers should determine such vistas.
     •  Judgement should be based on basis of preservation of
         resources rather than energy or economic considerations

Federal Land Managers should have a strong role in the program.

     •  They should have up to one year to determine adverse
         affects.
     •  Burden of proof of no adverse affects should be on the
         source.

EPA should specify a date for the implementation of Phase II.
                                A-12 3

-------
Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air, IV-D-100





Supports the proposed regulations.
                               A-12 4

-------
Citizen - Hillman, IV-D-101
Supports the proposed regulations,
                              A-125

-------
Citizen - Rapstine, IV-D-102
Supports the proposed regulations.
                               A-12 6

-------
Citizen - Friendly, IV-D-103
Supports the proposed regulations:

     •  Specific visibility standards should be set.
     •  Monitoring should be required for existing sources.
     .  Visibility standards should be included in NSO's and
         SCS's.
                                A-127

-------
Citizen, Wilson, IV-D-104
Supports the proposed regulations,
                                A-128

-------
Eugene Marc Trisko, IV-D-105


     • Presents comments on behalf of Stern Bros., Inc.
     • Comments consist of a detailed report entitled "Prevention
         of Significant Deterioration and Visibility Protection:
         Critical Constraints to Domestic Energy Development".
     • PSD and visibility regulations will limit the development
         of economically efficient mire mouth electric generating
         and synthetic fuel conversion facilities in West Virginia
         and most other coal reserve states.
     • Report states that application of BACT and the current
         NAAQS could substantially achieve all the objectives of
         PSD and visibility protection.
     • Up to 60% of West and 10% East may be off limits for new
         power plant siting due to Class I areas.
     • Siting studies done in 1975 and 1976 underestimate size
         of buffer zones surrounding Class I areas.
     • Integral vistas can extend 100 KM or more from Class I
         areas.  Siting studies available to Congress did not
         consider this concept.
     • Need to develop a long term dynamic plant siting model.
     • Recommends Congress rethink visibility and PSD to con-
         clusions siting problems and future coal development
         in' U.S.
                               A-12 9

-------
Smith, Attorney, EPA, IV-D-106


Questions the ability to meet the November 15, 1980 for final
promulgation of the regulations:

      • The extention of commenting period from August 5, 1980
to August 22, 1980 may hinder meeting the final date.
                                A-130

-------
Citizen - Staten, IV-D-107
Opposes provision to regulate.prescribed burning.

        Forest fires are a natural phenomenon.
        Already regulated by the states.
        Reduces hazard of wildfire and improves wildlife habitat.
                               A-131

-------
N.J. - Div. of Parks and Forestry, IV-D-108



Opposes regulation of prescribed burning.

        Reduces chance of wildfire.
     .  Raises productivity of woodland.  Creates a favorable
           seedbed for pine.                      . .          .
        Not burning produces more  favorable conditions for wild-
           life.
        Enhances the aesthetic value.
     .  Reduces undesirable insects and plant disease.
                                A-132

-------
Rees, Citizen, IV-D-109
Supports the proposed regulations, with comments:

     •  FLM should be responsible for conducting the visibility
         assessment review for new sources.
     •  FLM should have a clearly defined role in implementing
         visibility regulations.
     •  FLM should have 1 year to review new source impact.
     •  Burden of proof (new source) should be on the developer.
     •  EPA should specify a date for Phase II.
                               A-13 3

-------
AL Forestry Assoc., IV-D-110
Opposes the regulation on prescribed burning.

        Assures the objectives of planned silviculture, agriculture
          wildlife habitat, natural ecosystem management, and fire
          hazard reduction.
     .  Prescribed fires allo fires to be confined.
        Prescribed fires have a positive net impact on visibility
          protection.
        Important tool in management of timber land.
                                A-134

-------
Allegheny Mining Corp., IV-D-111


Opposes the proposed regulations in general.

Specifically sites a power plant which if ceases to purchase
fuel in the area  (the plant impacts on a Class I .area) will
causn economic hardship:

     • Vepco, Mt. Storm Plant is this company's primary customer.

Benefits of visibility do not justify cost:

     - ICF studies did not include local economy impact.
     • Costs -are  far out of line with the value to the public.

Visibility is not a health related issue.

Visibility impairment  is reversible.
                                A-135

-------
Citizen - Davidson, IV-D-112
Opposes the regulation of prescribed burning.

        Feels this is unwarranted.
        Prescribed burning is carried out in compliance with
          guidelines for proper smoke management.
        Periodic burning is a natural occurence.
        Improves wildlife habitat.
        Clears forest floor.
        Reduces chances of catastrophic fire due to fueld buildup.
        EPA1s regs are in direct conflict with proper smoke
          management.
                               A-13 6

-------
League of Women Voters of Texas, IV-D-113


Supports the proposed regulations, with comments:

     . Development of improved monitoring technology.
     • Specific standards for data collection should be set.
     • Later phases should have definite deadline dates rather
         than the terms "three years" or "ten to fifteen years"
     • Grandfathering should be modified to require BART by
         states.
     • Role of FLM should be further clarified.
                               A-137

-------
GA Forestry Assoc., Inc.,  IV-D-114


Opposes the regulation of prescribed burning.

     .  Hazard reduction - reduce chance of wildfire.
     .  Site preparation - reduces need for mechanical or
          chemical site treatment.
     .  Competition control - control hardwoods and brush in pine
          forests.
     .  Wildlife habitat maintenance - fire is used to favor game
          food species.
        The state maintains a smoke management, system.
     .  Less pollution will be produced with prescribed fires
          than with wildfires.
                               A-13 8

-------
Jensen, Citizen, IV-d-115
Supports the proposed regulations.
                                A-139

-------
Johnston Lumber Company, IV-D-116
Opposes regulation of prescribed burning.
                                 A-140

-------
McGill, Citizen, IV-D-117
Supports the proposed regulations:

     . Economic considerations should not be weighed unless they
         favor preserving the parklands.
                                A-141

-------
Leind, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-118

Supports the proposed regulations:
      - Monitoring provisions should be included.
                                A-14 2

-------
Danforth, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-119
Supports the proposed regulations,
                                A-143

-------
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Service, IV-D-120


Opposed to control of prescribed burning:

     • Prescribed burning is more desirable than other methods
         of control for silvicultural purposes,
     - Also claims that wood smoke existed in the air before
         man-made pollution therefore a  "national baseline
         for visual impairment should include smoke from
         wildfires  (as if they were to occur even if controlled
         burning is used).

Opposed to concept of integral vistas:

      • State has the authority now to protect the vistas outside
         Federally managed lands.
      . This is  an extention by EPA of the  jurisdiction granted
         by Congress.
                                A-144

-------
Keim, Citizen, IV-D-121
Supports proposed regulations.
                                A-145

-------
Seidman, Citizen, IV-D-122
Supports proposed regulations.
                                A-146

-------
Peiser, Citizen, IV-D-123.
Supports proposed regulations,
                               A-147

-------
Van Leuven, Citizen, IV-D-124

Supports proposed regulations.

      • Complaining  specifically about Phelps-Dodge Smelter in
         Arizona.
                                A-148

-------
Atlantic Electric, IV-D-125


Opposes BART Guidelines

     • Disagrees with requiring 40CFR60, Subpart Da for BART.

Opposes "visibility impairment determination" deadline.

     • Final rulemaking in November 1980 for this provision does
         not give the FLM adequate time to determine year-round
         visibility conditions.

Comments were made specifically on the effects of one power plant
the company owns.

Comments on the ICF guideline:

     • AE's England Station was in the guideline study.  AE
challenged the cost analysis as being too low by a factor of 3.
                               A-149

-------
Citizen - Burling, IV-D-126
Support the proposed regulations:



     - Monitoring should be required.



Opposes the grandfather clause for exempting facilities.
                               A-150

-------
N.C. Cattlemen's Assoc. - Env. Mft. Comm.,. IV-D-127
Opposes regulation of controlled burning.

        Will impair visibility only short time.
        Will remove accumulation of fuel in forest, thereby
          reducing chance of wildfire.
        Will increase the availability of food to wildlife.
        Prescribed burning is already regulated  (in California)
                               A-151

-------
Citizen - McGoldrick, IV-D-128

Supports the proposed regulations.
Opposes the grandfather clause with exemption for facilities,
                                 A-15 2

-------
LA. Forestry Assoc.,  IV-D-129
Opposes regulation of prescribed burning.

        Proper forest management enhances the Class I areas.
        Needs come before visual beauty.
        Prescribed burning reduces chance of wildfire.
                                A-15 3

-------
Citizen - Roberts, IV-D-130
Supports proposed regulations.
Opposes delegation of new source review to state agencies:
     • EPA should assume the responsibility of final review.
                                A-154

-------
Brands Corporation, IV-D-131
Opposes prescribed burning regulations.
                                A-155

-------
Citizen, Wolff, IV-D-132
Supports proposed regulations:

     • Supports integral vistas.
     - There should be a buffer zone around Class I areas,
                                 A-15 6

-------
CA. State Grange, IV-D-133
Opposes control of prescribed burning.

        If implemented, however, wild fires should be considered
          part of .a "baseline" for visibility impairment.
        Any restrictions on prescribed burning for visibility
          must be consistent with objectives of current state
          smoke management programs.
        Visibility program (burning)  must be coordinated with
          the other programs of federal and state agencies, and
          private breakdowns.
        This is needed (burning) to reduce fuel hazards.
        Increase productivity.
                              A-157

-------
Citizen - Suk, IV-D-134
Supports proposed regulations with exceptions:

     • Need modeling for new sources.
     . A specific date for BART installation should be set.
     - National Park Service needs a strictly defined role
         in the process.                                 .
     . Final regulations should state - burden of proof  is
         placed on developer  (new sources).
                                A-15 8

-------
Citizen - Maxwell, IV-D-135
Supports proposed .regulations.
                                A-159

-------
Evans, Kitchel & Jenckes, P.C., IV-D-136.


     - Comments submitted on behalf of Phelps Dodge Corporation.
     . Proposal exceeds statutory authority in several respects.
         Foremost is integral vistas.
     . EPA's reference to grad distant etc with respect to areas
         outside Class I area is meritless.  These references
         could have been and probably were to vistas  in one
         portion of a Class I area tc another.
     . Legislative history is not helpful but what relevant
         legislative history exists  indicated integral vistas
         are not permitted.                               -I/TO*
      . Use  of word  "over" clarifies  work "in" as  used in  169A
         and demonstrates informity  of EPA's position.
      . 169A clearly does not provide for protecting  integral
         vistas.                                   *       , . r,
      • Integral vistas  in essence establish buffer  zones  which
         are precluded  under  169A(e).
      . Definition of existing  major  stationary  source also goes
         beyond EPA's  statutory authority.   Should  not include
         reconstructed  sources.   These  sources  are  to be  grand-
         fathered by Act.
      - Definition of FLM is  not consistent with statutory
         definition in  302(i).                              i/m*
      - FLM given  far broader powers  than entitled to under 169A.
          169A gives FLM 3  powers.                 .
      •  State  is  to  prepare  summary of FLM conclusions and recom-

      -  Regulations3require FLM consultation beyond that required
        R undSr Act.  Sections 51.302(b)  (3) ,,  (c). (4) (ii) ,  c)  (4) (m) ,
          51.305(a), 51.306(b), (c) (i) , ,  (c) (2) (i)  , (c) (2)  (11) ,
          51.307 (b)(c)(e)(f)  and (g) are beyond  scope of 169A(d>.
      .  No role for FLM in BART.  References to FLM 51.302(c)(4)
          should be deleted.
      -  Visibility impairment should be  determined by average
          observer not those of highest  degree of visual  activity.
      .  51.307 attempts to apply 169A to new sources.  However,
          169A is not applicable to new  sources.  51.307  should
          be deleted.                                        _
      .  Believes EPA not fairly quoted Senator Muske  and  McClure.
          Need to look at full exchange.  Visibility  requests  dis-
          cussed in exchange between Muske and McClure is for  all
          requirements not just BART.                   _
      • EPA wrongly quotes House Conference proposal  rather  than
          final report to support certain aspects of  proposed
          regulations.
      • BART determinations are State determinations.
                                 A-160

-------
Wilderness Workshop of Colorado, IV-D-137


Support integral vistas concept.

Request oil shale retorts be added to the list of major
stationary sources.

The regulations should be promulgated.

Opposes the 90-day limit in 51.302(c)(2)(i)  and  (ii)  for FLM:

      • Recommends automatic updates  to  the  SIP's as  land
         plans are completed.

Opposes provisions 41.304(d) and 51.307(h)(1)(i):

      • These  require  identification  of  the  integral  vista  prior
         to the calendar year  in which  a new source  permit is
         filed.  This would be best  accomplished through land
         plan reviews.
      • There  should be no time constraints.

Recommend  a change of 51.307:

      • Approval of a  new  source permit  must be  contingent  on
         no perceptible change in  visibility and the FLM must
         agree before permit  is granted.

BART  reanalysis:

      •  Should be  automatic  and periodic.
                                A-161

-------
Oregon Women for Agriculture, IV-D-138
Opposes restrictions on agricultural burning.

        Limiting burning or using other methods would increase
          cost per acre to grass seed industry.
        Annual field burning is of short duration.
        Regulation of field burning is unnecessary.
                               A-16 2

-------
N.C. Dept. of Nat. Resources - Forest Res..Div., IV-D-139


Opposes any restriction on prescribed burning:

        Used for hazard reduction-control of wildfires.
        Economical means of controlling pine stands and
          preparing seedbeds prior to harvest.
     .  N.C. manages a voluntary smoke management program now.
        Burning only takes place under controlled conditions.
                               A-163

-------
Citizen - Matovich, IV-D-140





Opposes regulation controlling prescribed burning.
                                 A-164

-------
Citizen - Leigh, IV-D-141
Supports the proposed regulations.
                                A-16 5

-------
Citizen - Zimmerman, IV-D-142

Supports proposed regulations.
     . More emphasis on monitoring.
                                 A-166

-------
Burlington Northern, IV-D-143
Opposes reference to the control of prescribed burning:

     •  Wildfire is part of natural background, and this is
         a substitute.
     •  If the regulation is adopted, then prescribed burning -
         smoke management programs should be considered BACT.

Opposes integral vistas concept:

     •  Extends Class I to non-federal lands.
     •  Creates adverse social and economic impacts to
         communities in the Pacific NW.

Requests non-federal land managers be included in coordination
efforts:

     •  Non-federal land in west is intermingled ownership with
         federal lands where impact on Class I could occur.

Opposes modeling for visibility at this time:

     •  Models are not sophisticated methods for visibility at
         this time.

General support for other portions of regulations.
                               A-16 7

-------
Citizen - Jacobson, IV-D-144
Supports regulations.
                                 A-16 8

-------
Citizen - Spell, IV-D-145





Supports regulations.



Supports integral vistas.
                                A-16 9

-------
Citizen - Gregory, IV-D-146
Supports regulations.



Opposes the grandfather clause.
                                 A-170

-------
Citizen - Marion, IV-D-147


Supports regulations.                     •

Opposed to 30-day comment period for FLM's on new sources:

     • Should be one year.

Integral vistas - designation:

     • Present proposals allow too much latitude to FLM1s
         in designation.
     • Criteria should be set.

Major source categories:

     • Surface mining should be added.

Monitoring:

      • Monitoring program should be  required  in more detail,

The  role of FLM  should be strengthened and clarified.
                                A-171

-------
Citizen - Miller, IV-D-148
Supports regulations.
Should be guidance for enforcement of the regulations included.
                                A-172

-------
Citizen - Berry, IV-D-149
Supports regulations,
                                A-173

-------
Citizen - Kirk, IV-D-150
Supports regulations.
                               A-17 4

-------
Citizen - Mr. and Mrs. Carl Henry, IV-D-151
Supports regulations.
                               A-175

-------
Citizen - Barrie and Karren Mayes, IV-D-152





Supports regulations and shuttle buses at YoSemite.
                                 A-17 6

-------
Citizen - Peterson, IV-D-153
Supports regulations.
                               A-177

-------
Citizen - Dahm, IV-D-154





Support regulations.



Phase II - EPA should specify a date.
                                A-17 8

-------
National Rural Elec. Coop. Assoc., IV-D-155






Opposes regulations entirely:



     • Based on increased cost of control.
                               A-179

-------
Alfred V. J. Prather, Attorney, Kennecott Corporation, IV-D-156


Proposed visibility regulations go beyond scope of Clean Air Act.

     • "Grandfather" exemption modified - exclusion of sources in
         operation prior to August 7, 1962, has been narrowed.
     • Regulations conflict with Section 119 of the Act_providing
         for nonferrous smelter orders  (NSOs) by potentially re-
         quiring a smelter to add continuous control technology
         to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide.

Opposes extension of visibility protection  to include  "integral
vistas".

      • EPA's report to Congress on "Protecting Visibility" dated
         October 1979 implied that copper  smelters are one of
         the principal causes of reduced visibility  and  includes
         a map of areas within  60 miles of  Class  I areas which
         blankets the smelting  industry.
      • Inclusion of  integral vistas  expands sources  subject  to
         regulation  in opposition to Alabama Power case.

Opposes  extension of  the  powers and  rights  of federal  land
managers to include  designation of the  sources  to be regulated
and determination of  BART for  such sources.

      • State's authority  to determine BART should be recognized.
                                 A-180

-------
Citizen - Euston, IV-D-157
Supports regulations.
                               A-181

-------
Chemical Manufacturers Association, IV-D-158


Opposes the concept of "integral vistas":

     • Not authorized by the Act.
     - Violates the statutory prohibition in Section 169A(e)
         of the Act.

Definitions are vague:

     . Use of language "any humanly..."  and "natural conditions"
         in the definition of "impairment" is vague.

BART

      • Proposed methodology for  BART does not consider the
         impacted  source's knowledge of  control  and cost.

The regulations do not adequately  consider mobile  sources.
                                 A-182

-------
Colorado-Ute Electric Asspc., IV-D-159
Objects to the promulgation of regulations:

     • EPA should request a 5 year extention from Congress.
     • The regulations would impose too many financial burdens
         for BART.

Specific points were made against ICF guideline.

     • These dealt with Colorado-Ute plants cited in the study.
     • Cost estimates were low.
     • One plant is more than 15 years old and should not be
         included.
                                A-183

-------
Citizen - Ackert, IV-D-160
Supports regulations.
Request change - smelters:
     • Regulations should be tighter for smelters.
                                 A-184

-------
Hunton & Williams, IV-D-161


     • Concern over providing public an adequate opportunity to
         meaningfully review and comment on the proposed regula-
         tion.  These steps include:
         (1)   completion of necessary background work and pre-
               paration of the necessary guideline documents;
         (2)   publication of a complete proposal package for
               the visibility regulations after these materials
               had been completed, included in the rulemaking
               docket, and incorporated into the proposal;
         (3)   provision for an adequate period for the public
               to prepare initial comments on the completed
               proposal and background material;
         (4)   an opportunity for public hearing after the date
               for filing initial comments;
         (5)   a 30-day period for filing rebuttal and supplementary
               comments; and
         (6)   extension of the date for final promulgation
               established by the EPA-FOE consent decree, if
               necessary.
     • Agreed that certain actions taken by EPA are responsive
         to UARG's request but it is not possible to determine
         whether the amount of time is still adequate.
     • Appears EPA is raising new issues in guideline documents
         especially presumption that BART equal NSPS for power
         plants.
     • Other ways EPA has not adequately responded to the UARG.
         Not sure why different comment periods are necessary.
     • Request public hearing be held after initial comments,
         were filed.  Schedule renders hearing ineffectual..
     • Problems of schedules reflect the continuing inadequacy
         of EPA1s initial proposal and EPA continuing failure to
         integrate in a meaningful fashion the.new guideline
         documents and background material into original proposal.
      • May  ask District Court for a modification of rulemaking
         schedule.
                                A-185

-------
Citizen - Newton, IV-D-162
Opposes restrictions on prescribed burning.
                                A-186

-------
Governor - Wyoming, IV-D-163


Opposes future reclassification of Class I areas subject to same
requirements as mandatory Class I areas:

     •  Future Class I areas will be reclassified by state.
     •  States should have option to impose the same or
         different requirements on future Class I areas.

Terms vague - "adverse impact" and "significant impairment".

     •  Since subjective - States' judgement should be mandatory.

Requirement in paragraph 51.302(a)(5) unclear:

     •  Consultation with the FLM is seen as a threat.
     •  Not consistent with the Act.

Opposes provisions of paragraph 51.302(c)(4)(ii):

     •  Final decision on BART should be State's responsibility.

Opposes provision of paragraph 51.307(g):

     •  When a dispute arises between State and FLM - permit is
         not issued until an EPA review.  State should be the
         final authority.
                               A-187

-------
Patricia M. Hanlon, Magma Copper Company, IV-D-164


EPA does not have the authority to extend BART requirements to
source! other than "major stationary sources" as defined in
169A(g) (7) .

Opposes the requirement to revise state  imp lenient at ion plans to
protect "integral vistas".

EPA does not have the authority to require the states to impose
retrofit Schnology on sources that have previously  been subject
to BART analyses.

      • One determination  of  BART when  state  initiates SIP.

EPA mav not require  "major  stationary  sources" in  operation before
Augus?7?  1962? but  "reconstructed"  after  that date  to  install
BART.

      .  Magma  Copper  Company urges  EPA to delete  the  words  "or
        Deconstructed after  that date"  from proposed  51.301(a)
        and to delete subsection (h)  of proposed  51.301  in its
        entirety.

 EPA may not require  a state to apply the BART requirement to com-
 ponenS of major stationary sources unless the comp^ent^is itself
 a major stationary source as defined in_169A(g)(7) and meets tne
 other tests of 169A for BART applicability.
                                 A-188

-------
Citizen - Joyce Vincent, IV-D-165
Supports regulations.
                               A-189

-------
Superintendent-Grant County Schools, West Virginia, IV-D-166
Opposes regulations:
           s would have a direct economic effect on the area
         if local power plant were forced to bring in lower
         sulfur coal from another area.
                               A-190

-------
Citizen - Pettit, IV-D-167





Support integral vistas concept:



Opposes 30-day provision for FLM permit review.



     • Should be revised to 1 year.



A date for Phase II should be specified.



Guidelines on monitoring and modeling should be issued.
                                A-191

-------
Citizen - Fletcher, IV-D-168
                            \

Supports regulations:

     . Specifically as applies to smelters and power plants,
     - Support integral vistas.

Request change in  grandfather for smelters:

     • Older smelters should be  included.
                                A-19 2

-------
Nevada Cattlemen's Association, IV-D-169



Opposes restrictions on prescribed burning:

        Should not require SIP revisions for smoke management
          techniques.
      .  Providing a process which would occur naturally.
      .  More selective release of emissions.
                                A-19 3

-------
Bunker Hill, IV-D-170 and 170(a)


Opposes the Section 51.30(a) removal of reconstructed sources
from the grandfather clause:

     . The intent of Congress was to exempt all facilities in
         existence prior to August 7, 1962.

Opposes the integral vista provision:

     • Has no basis in the Act.
                               A-194

-------
Crown Zellerbach, IV-D-171


Designation of Class I areas:

     •  Congress did not intend for Department of Interior to
         select Class I areas, and EPA to "rubber stamp" the
         list.

Opposes the concept of 'integral vistas':

     •  Not part of Congressional intent.

Opposes the regulation of prescribed burning.

Included a copy of the American Paper Institute/National Forest
Product Association statement at the EPA hearing on June 30,
1980.  No summation of this was made since it is part of the
hearing record for API/NFPA.
                               A-195

-------
Scott, Paper Company, IV-D-172

Has reservations concerning visibility regulations application
on prescribed burning:

     • Cost of timber production will increase.
     • Productivity of forest lands will reduce.

Disapproves of state's proposed responsibility in carrying out
visibility regulations:

     • Says fiscally too expensive.

Overall costs out of proportion with potential benefits, so
dislikes visibility regulations.
                                A-196

-------
Schwabe, Williamson, Wyatt, Moore and Roberts, Oregon Seed
Council, IV-D-173


Opposes the regulation of prescribed burning:

     •  Smoke management techniques are required in the long
         term strategy - this is not allowed for in the Act.
     •  The state cannot exclude prescribed burning from the
         long-term strategy.
     •  EPA has made no economic assessment of the proposed
         rules (burning).
     •  EPA has proposed rules without the completion of the
         Forest Service guidelines.
     •  Nine months for SIP development is inadequate.

Opposes the definition of Visibility Impairment:

     •  The use of "Humanly Perceptable" goes beyond the require-
         ments in the Act.  There is no justification for the
         inclusion of non-interfering visibility charges in the
         national goal.
     •  Congress was concerned only with visibility problems not
         with abstract humanly perceptible changes which do not
         interfere with the management, protection, preservation,
         or enjoyment of a mandatory Class I Federal area.

Opposes definition of "significant impairment":

     •  A new definition should include an exemption "for smaller
         isolated (major stationary) sources which make an insig-
         nificant contribution to visibility impairment".
     •  The definition for visibility impairment should be
         replaced with the "new" definition for significant
         impairment.

Opposes the regulation of integral vistas:

     *,Paragraph 169A prohibits the requirement of automatic
         buffer zones.
     •  What impact would the recognition of an integral vista
         have on a Class I, Class II, Class III or nonattainment
         area in which the vista is located?  Would this require
         a SIP revision to protect the vista to Class I standards?
     •  EPA has "created an unprecidented and unsupported obli-
         gation for Congress in an effort to bolster the integral
         vista concept" by interpreting what the statute does
         not say.
                               A-197

-------
IV-D-173  (continued)


Statement by the Oregon Seed Council

Opposes regulation of prescription burning:

     • Grass seed is the major crop of the Willamette Valley.
         Field burning is used to reduce or eliminate disease
         and pests for optimum seed yield.
     • Grass seed burning is conducted under the strictest
         smoke management program in the U.S.
     . Total visibility impact along the Cascade range east of
         the Willamette Valley is estimated to be less than 50
         hours each  year.
     - Further reduction of prescribed burning would have severe
         economic impact.                                    .
      . Restricted field burning could increase f^1.0^^^1011
         for mechanical clearing and tilling up to 5,000,000
         gallons of  gasoline and diesel fuel per year.

Attached was an extensive report -  "Final  Report, Willamette
ValSEieS and Slash Burning Impact, Air Surveillance Network
Data Evaluation, 1978" Vols. 1 and  2.  Field Burning Report.

Also attached was  "An  Evaluation of Expected Private Losses  from
Selected Public Policies  for Reducing Open Field Burning, Willamette
Valley, Oregon".

No attempt was made  to summarize either of these documents.
                                A-19 8

-------
Kerr McGee Corp. IV-D-174
Opposes the integral vistas regs.

        Plain reading of the statute does not allow this  inter-
          pretation.
        Cites the Congressional Record quote from Costle  to sup-
          port their argument.
        Recommends deletion of:

          51.301(m)
          51.302(b)(i)
          51.302(c)(2)
          51.. 304
          51.307(b) (should be rewritten - delte reference to
          integral vista)
          51.307(h)

Opposes requirement that each individual BART determination be
included in SIP.

        This is not authorized by 119A.
        Not possible to require negotiation and BART determination
          within 9 months for each existing plant.
        Recommends new language for Section 51.302 (c) (4) (i) :

          (i)  The plan shall contain a legally enforceable
          mechanism for requiring major sources identified
          according to procedures in .subparagraph (ii) below
          to install and maintain BART controls as determined
          by the State.

Opposes Section 51.302(c)(4)(vi) requirement to install continuous
emission monitoring.

        Claims monitors may be of little value in meeting visi-
          bility stds.
        Administrator overstated requirement for monitoring.

Opposes Section 51.303(c).

        Claims the Act §169A(c) was set up as an appeal mechanism
          from State decision, but the section 51.303(c) .requires
          State concurrence on the granting of exceptions.

Opposes federal overview by EPA and the FLM1s in BART analysis
and determination.

        The States have primary responsibility for BART analysis
          and de te rmin at i on.
                              A-199

-------
Kerr McGee Corp  (continued) ,  IV-D-174

     .  Specifically opposes  language in:

        1)  Section 51.302(c)(4)(ii) -  consultation with  FLM.,
        2)  Section 52.302 (4) (ii)-               .
        3)  Section 51.302(c)(4)(ii) -  consultation with  FLM.

Opposes definition of  federal land  manager.

        The secretary  of  the  affected  department should decide
    «  "    who  the  "designated agent"  shall be.
      .  Section  51.301(s)  should be revised.

Opposes application of visibility regulation to new sources in
nonattainment  areas  (Section 51.307).

        Claims that this  is in defiance of the Alabama Power Co,
           vs.  Costle  decision.
                                A-200

-------
Montana Power Co., IV-D-175


Opposes the Integral Vistas regulation.

        Not provided for in the Clean Air Act.

Opposes Section 51.304(f) for identification of integral vistas
by FLM until December  31, 1985.

Opposes Section 51.304(d).

Commented on the fact  that all studies and guideline documents
were not in final form when regs proposed.

Opposes a case-by-case analysis for a new source without specific
criteria set forth in  advance.

        The process would be too subjective.

Opposes the participation of the FLM in decision-making in the
new source review process.

        Comment:  This type of federal regulation is confiscatory.
                              A-201

-------
James B. Corlett, Oregon Forest Protection Association, IV-D-176


Opposes the regulation's application to prescribed burnings:

     • Prescribed burnings for forest management is a necessity.
     . Questions Congressional authority allows EPA to regulate
         prescribed burning.
     . If venting smoke over Cascade Mountains Class I areas is
         unduly regulated, there is simply no place for it to go.

Opposes the proposal to regulate visibility of integral vistas
as a form of buffer outside of Class I areas:

      . Eliminates the entire Cascade Mountain range as a smoke
         venting area.

Definition of terms:

      . Visibility impairment - natural conditions  specification
       —is unclear.  What  are the  criteria establishing natural
         conditions?                         .         . .   •
        - disagree with  seasonal best visibility  as criteria  .
         representative of  natural  conditions.   Result in
         abnormal and distorted judgement basis.           _
        - the  frequency  of occurrence and duration  of  all kinds
         of weather  should  be  used  to  characterize natural
         conditions  on  a  seasonal basis.
        - average day of'a selected  season superior representation
         of natural  condition.
        - history of  forest  fires  should  be considered in  deter-
         mining constitution  of natural  conditions.
        -  smoke from prescribed burnings  impacts  visibility less
          than uncontrolled  wildfires.             _
      .  Integral Vistas  -  outside  statutory authority of  EPA:
        -  proposed rulemaking  inconsistent with Clean Air  Act
          Section 169A which authorizes prevention in Class I
          areas.                            .  .
        -  does not serve best  interests of citizens.

 Oppose discretion of Federal  Land Manager in designating integral
 vistas:

      • No opportunity for public comment or remedy procedure.
                               A-202

-------
Air Resources Board - State of California, IV-D-177
Clarify the definition of "Federal Class I Area".

     •  Does this definition include state and private lands
         redesignated by the state to Class I, and "federalized"
         by inclusion into the SIP?
     •  State should have the authority to designate Class I
         areas.

Integral vistas could encompass too large an area:

     •  Vast areas could be designated as an integral vista to
         a Class. I area.             .     .
     •  This could be of major economic, social, and regulatory
         impact.

Opposes present language in paragraph 51.307(g):

     •  Final decision should rest with the state.

Opposes regulation of open burning by EPA regulations.

     •  The State of California feels their own regulations are
         adequate at present.

Comment:  EPA should establish certification procedures for all
visibility monitoring instruments.'

Guidelines or regulations for visibility monitoring should be
developed by a working group such as SAMWG.

Provision for monitoring equipment (purchased by the agency)
should be borne by EPA.
                               A-203

-------
The Colorado Mountain Club, IV-D-178.


Redefine "significant impairment" section:

     • Phrase "in the judgement of the Administrator" should
         be left out.  51.301(1).                 .
     • Thinks federal land managers are too transient and too
         sympathetic towards commercial development thus snouia
         be included in regulations.

Expand concent of "integral vista" to include areas outside of

Class I area:

      • Views  from places  like  the high plains add much to over-
         all  beauty  of the mountains.                      .
      - Consider  some mechanism for designating vistas outside
         of Class I  areas.
                                 A-204

-------
Johnston, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-179


Supports visibility regulations in protecting wilderness and
national parks:

     • Noted past degradation in Grand Canyon.
     • Noted degradation by copper smelter plumes in Chiricahaus,

Supports Federal Land Managers proposal:

     * Have ability to review permits.

Supports active role by states in setting up definitive goals
of visibility:

     • Smelters should be controlled before 1987.
                               A-205

-------
Pederson, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-180


Disapproves of the control of prescribed burns:

     • Burns can only be made a few times a year.
     • Controlling these burns would take away a valuable
         tool of Fire Managers.
                               A-206

-------
Tucson Audubon Society, IV-D-181
Supports visibility regulations which will reduce emissions
from power plants and copper smelters:

     •  Tourist business for bird watching will suffer.
     •  Areas such as Saguaro National Monument need to ,
         have improved visibility.
                              A-207

-------
Southern Arizona Hiking Club, IV-D-182


Supports visibility regulations that protect Class  I areas  and
integral vistas:

     • industries  (copper smelters) are endangering scenic  views,

Supports state and agency cooperation  in  enforcement:

       Majority of citizens want  clean air
       People/groups using
                           areas in question should be permitted
         {JLJJLCS/ M J- W l«L j--* tJ \*.t~*-t~*.+ ~y »—-»••—— 	  j.                  ^
         to provide information on visibility degradation


Supports role of Federal Land Manager

Supports the setting of definite visibility goals by the states,

Received and approved the document "Criteria of  Identification

of Integral Vistas".
                               A-208

-------
Kirk Cunningham, Sierra Club, Rocky Mountain Chapter, IV-D-183


State does not have the staff, money, or will to control visibility
and recommend EPA/Land Manager to enforce and make decisions con-
cerning visibility.

Proposed regulations too vague, give too much discretion to the
regulator, and too many loopholes to be regulated.

Responsibilities of Federal and State agencies are not clearly
delineated.

Support 8/7/82 application of BART.

Definitions:

     Fuel conversion plant - are oil shale and coal conversion
          considered plants?  are "in situ1 oil shale or coal
          conversion considered a plant?
     Visibility impairment - agree.
     Natural conditions - agree.
     Reasonably atributable - visual means method is weak.
          Modeling should be included in the definition.
     Significant impairment - recommend using instrumentation
          in definition since visitors have no basis of compari-
          son.
     Colorado cannot meet 9-month deadline.

Questionable exercise of EPA authority to regulate interstate
commerce of air pollution (51.302 Ca)(ii)(F).

Unclear - 51.305(a)

     • Colorado will have difficulty anticipating monitoring
         research and base a program on this research.
     • For BART analyses, available visibility data may include
         photographs.
     • Identification of integral vistas is unclear and 51.304(d)
        •may be a loophole for noncompliance.
     - Recommend EPA fund state's plan preparations and assess-
         ment .
     • Notification is too close to construction.
     . Meaning of consultation  (51.307(g)) unclear.  Who makes
         the final decision?  Recommend EPA/Land Manager.
                             A-209

-------
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, IV-D-184


Supports visibility regulations as understanding prescribed
burning as a cost-effect land management technique.

     - State wildlife agencies should be given opportunity to
         review any rules dealing with prescribed burning.
     • Each state should establish its own set of rules regarding
         prescribed burning and visibility.

Clarification needed in 51.306(f)(5):

      • Should be rewritten - "Smoke management techniques for
         agricultural, forest; and wildlife management purposes,
         and"
                              A-210

-------
Idaho Veneer Company, IV-D-185
Opposes visibility regs. application to prescribed burning:

     •  Thinks forest management techniques will be severely
         inhibited.
                               A-211

-------
Walker, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-186


Supports vis. regs. application towards integral vistas:

     • As Class I areas, such as Chiricahuas, will be protected.
     • American heritage will be preserved.

Supports monitoring requirements.

     • Smelters should comply.

Supports role of Federal Land Manager  in insuring visibility.
                                 A-212

-------
Jones, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-187
Provides exemplification for the "integral vistas" concept
whereby the two Class I areas  (Chiricahua Wilderness and
Chiricahua Monument Wilderness) within vicinity of their resi-
dence have been affected by the Phelps Dodge Corporation's
Douglas Reduction Works.

     • Voiced that the Douglas smelter does not comply with
         all Clean Air Act regulations.

Feel that the federal land managers working for the U.S. Forest
Service and the National Park Se-rvice should be more vocal in
controlling the facility since their responsibility is the con-
trol and management of the Class I areas which are being affected.
                               A-213

-------
Robert Harrison, Western Oil and Gas Association, IV-D-188


Support comments made by the American Petroleum Institute.

Oppose protection for integral vistas:

     • Western states contain energy resources that would not „
         be available under integral vistas.
     • Results in serious economic harm to U.S.
     . Oppose expansionist interpretation of Clean Air Act
         Section 169A that underlies integral vistas.
     • Increased production of heavy oil in Kern County would
         be brought to a halt by unspecified new source permit
         requirements to prevent visibility impairment of vistas
         outside the Sequoia area.

Oppose Federal Land Managers authority to constrain activities
outside their jurisdiction without energy and economic consider-
ations.
                               A-214

-------
Pardee, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-189
Cites exemplification of adverse impact of pollution to scenic
vista surrounding the Painted Desert National Park, as well as
to the Park itself.

     • The Cholla Power Plant and its new sister, the Coronado
         facility, are the contributors.

Agrees with "integral vistas" concept:

     • Clear skies, inherent of Western heritage, affect life
         styles and economics of area - tourist dollar.

Park superintendents must be given role to protect.

EPA should strengthen monitoring requirements and establish
visibility requirements for these type areas.
                              A-215

-------
Skinner, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-190



Supports proposed visibility regulations:

     •  Integral vistas policy is needed.                 .
     -  Photographic monitoring of sources to xnsure compliance
         is needed.
                                A-216

-------
Annerino, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-191
Supports proposed visibility regulations:

     •  Need to protect Class I areas.
     •  Need to improve integral vistas.
     •  Insure monitoring and enforcement.
                              A-217

-------
R. E. Thomason, Occidental Oil Shale, Inc., IV-D-192


The technical basis for regulation is lacking:

     - Visibility is not defined.                  .•,.-,•*.
     . Visibility impairment's relationship to visibility,
         visual range, coloration and contrast is not specified.
     . Quantitative measurement method to determine a change
         in visual range, contrast,  and coloration are not
         established.                                .
     • Background documents cited by EPA are not available to
         the public.                                      .  .
      • Relationship between source.emissions and remote visi
         bility is not established.

Opposes establishing  'integral vistas':

      - Leaves  no discretion to states.
      . Imoinaes on State's right to  determine matters of  land  use.
      i PedirS I,£U Manager should not be  given  EXCLUSIVE discretion
         in  designating  integral vistas.

Oppose visibility monitoring  requirement without designation of
monitoring method.

Oppose  final determinations on exemptions  by Federal Land Manager.

Regulatory program should be  limited to:

      •  Requiring the state to assess visibility impairment using
          specified analytical tools.  Test for one year.
      .  Require the state to identify sources contributing to
          impairment and determine BACT using EPA modeling methods.
      .  New sources subject to BACT.
      .  Require state to receive and consider Land Manager s
          recommendations.  State has final word.
                               A-218

-------
Montana State Airshed Group, IV-D-193


Supports the phased approach of the proposed regulations.

The State should have primary responsibility for the program.

Opposes the regulation of prescribed burning:

     • Congress did not intend to control prescribed burning.
     • Smoke from forest burning is not a significant impair-
         ment in Class I areas.
     • It is recommended that smoke management systems be
         classified as BACT.

The definition of baseline should include large amounts of
wood smoke.

Nonfederal land managers should be included in the process of
developing long-range strategy for visibility protection.
                                                      f
Comments on Smoke Management:

     • Supports concept of developing national management  •
         guidelines.
     • Guidelines must be flexible enough to adapt to each
         geographic area.
     • Recommends no computer modeling for smoke management.

Supports the general concept of visibility regulations.
                               A-219

-------
Department of Interior, IV-D-194


     . Letter informing EPA that DOI commentors will be unable
         to respond by August 25, 1980.  Comments are expected
         to be submitted by mid-September.
                                A-220

-------
Win. F. Chestnutt, Society of American Foresters, Alabama Chapter,
IV-D-195


Oppose regulation's application to prescribed burnings:

     • Prescribed burnings for range and forest management
         should be exempt.
     • Prescribed burning is a safe and economical forest
         management practice.
     • Research by U.S. Forest Service at Southern Forest Fire
         Laboratory in Macon, Georgia, indicates that prescribed
         fire in forest management results in a NET REDUCTION of
         smoke and particulate matter compared to a burn under
         wildfire conditions.
     • Over extended period of time, smoke from forest fires is
         not a significant factor in visibility impairment.
     • Fire is a non-point source when used in a prescribed form.

Oppose regional haze under jurisdiction of EPA.
                                A-221

-------
No Oilport Inc., IV-D-196


Supports the proposed regulations:

     - Agree with the fugitive emission control requirement.
     • Agree with definition of visibility impairment, but
         the author feels there should be a baseline.
     • Agree with integral vista.
     . Agree with application of  regulations to new  sources.

Opposed to statement that water vapor plumes should  not be  con-
sidered plume  blight.
                                 A-222

-------
 Steel  Barnett, Western Forestry and Conservation Association,



 Opposes regulation's application to prescribed burning:

     • Prescribed burning is an essential forest management tool
         that must be maintained.
     • Important for wildlife preservation.
     • Venting smoke over Cascade Mountains is unduly regulated,
         no place for smoke to go.
     • Recommend that prescribed burning be exempted from
         visibility regulations.
     • Prescribed burning preferred to air quality effects of
         wildfire.

 Definition of terms:

     - Visibility impairment - natural conditions speficiation
         is unclear.  What are the criteria establishing natural
         conditions?
       -  Disagree with seasonal best visibility as criteria
          representative of natural conditions.  Result in
          abnormal and distorted judgement basis.
       -  The frequency of occurrence and duration of all kinds
          of weather should be used to characterize natural
          conditions on a seasonal basis.
          Average day of a selected season superior representation
          of natural conditions.
     •  Integral Vistas - outside statutory authority of EPA.
       -  Proposed rulemaking inconsistent with Clean Air Act,
          Section 169A which authorizes prevention IN Class I
          areas.
       -  Does not serve best interest of citizens.

Oppose discretion of Federal Land Manager in designating integral
vistas:

     •  No opportunity for public comment or remedy procedure.
                               A-223

-------
City of Colorado Springs, IV-D-198


Opposes integral vistas portion of regulations:

     • Not intended by Congress.  Quotes the Act, paragraph
         196A(e) concerning no uniform buffer zones.
     - In the State of Colorado there are 1.4 million  (Class
         I) acres, and with integral vistas another 52 million
         acres will be affected.
     • Would inhibit growth in Colorado.
     - FLM have authority extending beyond federal  lands under
         integral vistas.

Opposes participation of FLM  in decision making  process.

      • Consultation over BART analysis.
      • Consultation in designating  a work practice  or
         operational  standard instead  of BART.,      _  _
      • FLM consulted  by  state in  setting up  a visibility
         monitoring program in mandatory Federal Class I
         areas.

Monitoring is not yet adequate:

      •  Stay away from "intricate  instrumentation or complex
         modeling".
                                 A-224

-------
James L. Wick; Silviculturist, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-199


Opposes regulations application to prescribed burning:

     •  Important forest management tool - prescribed burning.
     •  Smoke from prescribed fires is less than smoke from
         wildfires.
     •  Ash*remaining from burning provides for nutrient recycling.
     .  Alternative methods to prescribed burning have a greater
         environmental impact.
     •  Smoke from prescribed burnings is a natural phenomena.
                               A-225

-------
James L. Jones, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-200
       Prosperity of Arizona depends on the Clean Air Act.
       Air pollution is major consideration in locating in
         Arizona
                                A-226

-------
Richard L. Gilinski, Southwest Hawk Watch,•IV-D-201
       Scenic areas need to be insured with stricter control on
         more obvious emission gases, i.e. copper smelting.
       Support tightening SC>2 pollution standards that are being
         sidestepped by implementing supplementary control
         systems and emitting large amounts of pollutants when
         meteorological conditions mask the act.
       Concerned about the effect of copper smelting on the
         unique raptor population in southeastern Arizona.
                                A-227

-------
Noel S. Yoho, International Paper Company, IV-D-202


Opposes regulation's application to prescribed burning:

       EPA's regulation of prescribed^burning is beyond the

                                             fire  through
                                     burning result in a substan-
            ann        in  particulate  production from all
          forest fires  ("Role of Smoke Management in Mitigating
          Mr Quality Effects from Wildland Fires" by the Society
          of American Foresters.                      Mf«4-v
        Wildfires result in exceeding particulate and safety

        Reducing^escribed fire conflicts  with land resource

        Recommend deleting section 51.306(f)(5) in the final rules
                                 A-228

-------
Boise Cascade Corporation, IV-D-203


Opposes regulation of prescription burning:

     • Prescribed fire is not a major stationary source.
     • Preferable to a wildfire, since it can be managed.

Opposes reanalysis requirement for SIP's:

     . Constitute a moving target for industry.

Opposes integral vistas regulation:

     • The Act does not provide for protection of vistas outside
         the Class I area.
     • Because a plume is visible from the Class I area, does
         not mean the plume contributes to visibility impair-
         ment within the  area.

Opposes the extensive latitude and authority granted the FLM's.

      • The determination  of visibility impairment should be kept
         to air experts.
      • FLM should be advisory rather than decision making in
         this area.
                               A-229

-------
Bill Prather, Colorado Cattlemen's Association, IV-D-204


Opposes the regulation's application to prescribed burnings:

     • Smoke from prescribed burning should be considered part
         of the baSeline or "natural" visibility impairment
         because it is a management tool in controlling the







         ££-..  t^">f i^fSrfedera?  aSdC;?a£nagencies.


      '
          on ranching practices and force some ranchers out of
          business.
                                A-230

-------
George Menper, Concerned Gitizen, IV-D-205


Supports visibility protection regulations, especially protection
of integral vistas.

     •  Cites personal experience of visibility impairment in a
         Class I area.
     •  Supports granting authority to local land managers.
     -  Recommends detailed monitoring program of other pollutants
         in addition to SC>2.
     •  Supports U.S. EPA's authority over states to assure
         strict adherence to the regulation.
                               A-231

-------
Charles E. Bush,  III,  Continental Forest Industries,  IV-D-206


Opposes the regulation's application to prescribed  burnings:

      - Smoke  from prescribed burning should be  considered part
          of the  baseline of visibility impairment because it is
          a tool  to control the timing, duration,  and impact of
          naturally occuring fires.  Prescribed  fires in areas
          where the ecosystem is fire-dependent  should also be
          considered part of the baseline
        The
IJ.1O J.VJ.C JL C-VA ^*-*-J- «~ "•* •*- —--^	— —
Clean Air  Act protects Class I areas from  large
          stationary emission
                      5— ^, ^.O ' W-1-<-*•"•-» -»- «•*..•-»-*»•»•—	    -r
                      sources.   Prescribed burning should
          not be considered such a  source
          not- DC tjuiioj-u-cj-cvj. ,3u.^ij. —•  .j-^—— ——
        EPA regulations should be consistent with the objectives
          of current state and local  smoke  management programs.
        States which do not have air  quality problems resulting
          from prescribed burning should  not have to develop smoke
          management techniques
          in
 .Ss odJ. y JLcy U.J-CL u. j_\-/ii \^j- j^-»- ^-— — —	
 greater use of alternative practices
                                                      could result
  lUCUlCL^ C71UGJ-L *•*  w—•—•***» — -a.--	                   .
Unnecessary regulation of prescribed burning
                           - • -•— —actices such
                                    which would be  less
                                                        as
                                                           chemical
          and mechanical site  preparation, 	 _       _   „_.
          desirable because  of their effects on the environment.
                                 A-232

-------
Jack W. Raybourne, Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries,
Commonwealth of Virginia, IV-D-207


Opposes the regulation's application to prescribed burnings:

     •  Prescribed burning is an important management tool in
         improving wildlife habitat, preparation of sites for
         reforestation, and reduction of hazardous fuel accumu-
         lation.
     •  Prescribed burning should continue to be considered as
         a sound forest and wildlife management tool used both
         inside and outside of Class I areas.
     •  Prescribed burning is currently conducted under the
         regulations of the Virginia Air Pollution Control Board.
                               A-233

-------
Joelle Reece, Utah Audubon Society, IV-D-208


Supports inclusion of Integral Vistas concept:

     • Regulation necessary in Utah because of pressure to
         develop energy resources near Class I areas with
         panoramic vistas.  Long term aesthetic gain must be
         protected from short term economic gain.

Supports flexibility given to states in developing regulatory
strategy for State Implementation Plans.

      . Provision to not require pollution  abatement that would
         not improve visibility is reasonable, and economically
         advantageous.

Supports visibility protection in  general:

      • Support Phase  I.                                    .   .
     ' . Support enforcement and further  development of  regulations
         to identify  and  control non-point sources.
                                 A-234

-------
Department of Environmental Quality, IV-D-209
State of Oregon
Comment:  Rules are very general and lacking in technical detail.

Guidelines issued by EPA should be used only as suggestions and
not requirements.

     *  Strict adherence to guidelines should not be required.

States should have a substantial role in the final determination
of integral vistas.

The time frame of nine months to analyze and schedule long range
control strategies is inadequate.

Identification of sources which impact on visibility will be
difficult.

     •  Monitoring and modeling tools for visibility are not
         well developed.

Prescribed burning should be considered in long-term control
strategies.

     •  The amount of emphasis placed on this as a strategy
         element should depend on relative contribution.
                               A-235

-------
Pacific Power and Light Company, IV-D-210
Comments on ICF Report.

     - Questions the credibility of  the  ICF  authors.
     • Visual observations  subjective.
     . Predicted impacts  for  visual  range  are  not accurate.
     . The ICF report  did not take into  account factors on Mount
         Rainier:   seasonal operations of  Centralia Power Plant,
         seasonal meteorology,  and seasonal visitor_usage
       The
         ment
report did not account for natural visibility impair-
       The  report gives  two conflicting values for blue-red ratio
          in two  places in the report,  and it also lists two con-
          flicting values for visual range reduction at two places
          in  the  report
          J.J.1  UH<=  .L.^J./W.L. v-.                                 .
        Challenges the  modeling assumptions made on the_impact
          analysis of Centralia on Mount Rainier.  The impact
          from SOo would be less than the ICF model predicts.
        Atmospheric discoloration would be less significant than
             *"         >     . *   __.	_ T _. _...«. T £ r~t VTf^ IS** T T ^>T»T
          ICF
  ^ J,JtV* it- mi- *-* ^fc.*. •—' -w •** —— — — — —-	  - - -               —
  states since the ozone  level  is  very low
          XV_-J7  O UCIL.CO (CJJ-iAx^v- ^-**>— w_v-.- —	—  —     .*           •   J3
        The cost of NOX reduction would be 11 times that outlined
          in the ICF report.
        Cost of SOo control would be 60% higher than ICF estimated.
        The ICF report concludes that Dave Johnson Power Plant
          would reduce visual range at the Wind Cave National
          Park only a minimal amount.  The power plant is 190 km
          distant on the east side of the Black Hills, but the
          park is on
          the west side of the mountain range.   The
          prevailing winds do not cross the mountain range


 Definitions

      •  BART - should be revised to apply only to  "each pollutant
          which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute
          to an impairment of visibility".
      .  "Significant impairment" and  "adverse impact" have  almost
          the same definition.  The reference to "interference
          with and impairment of the  visitor's visual experience
          should be deleted.

 Opposes the concept of  "integral vistas".

      • Not the clean meaning of the  Act.                 _
      - Paragraph 169A(e) of the Act  prohibits  an  automatic buffer
          zone.
                                 A-236

-------
IV-D-210 continued


BART Determinations.

     •  The FLM is given too much authority; especially in
         determining what sources will be subject, and if
         the BART analysis is acceptable.
     •  The FLM should be required to render an opinion on
         exemption within a fixed number of days.

New Source Review

     •  The FLM is unnecessarily involved.
                                A-237

-------
Friends of the Earth, IV-D-211


     • Response to Council on Wage and Price Stability issue of
         whether FLM can or should take into account non-air
         quality factors such as energy and economics.
     - FLM has affirmative responsibility to protect air quality
         values.  No mention of non-air quality factors.
     . Determination of BART requires non-air quality impact to
         be considered.
     - Provisions of 165(d)(D) allows President to waive require-
         ments in national interest.  National interest includes
         economic and energy impacts.
     • Clear  State may use non-air quality considerations in
         determining whether or not  a new source would adversely
         impact air quality related  values but does not along
         such considerations by FLM.
      . Regulations eliminate veto power given to FLM  if source
         would violate Class I increment.  Fails to require States
         to  obtain FLM consent before  issuing PSD  permit.  51.307
         should be revised  to reflect  FLM authority to  deny per-
         mits and make it clear that States  are prohibited from
         issuing permits without  consent of  FLM.
      - Object to definitions of stationary  source  and existing
         major  stationary  source,  especially any pollutant regu-
         lated  under Act.   Act defines "of  any pollutant  .
      •  Strongly support  integral  vistas.
      •  House Report  mentions  impact of Four Corners plants  on
         Grand  Canyon.                               .  .          ,
      •  Many references  to  scenic  values associated with many  parks.
      -  Act does not  have to mention integral vistas  for EPA to
          establish.   Integral vistas are  rationale tool to
          accomplish mandated  goal of visibility protection.
      •  Integral vistas procedures need to be modified.
          -  Designation is clearly responsibility of  Secretary
             of Interior - cannot be rejected by .States.
          -  Must give FLM enough time to estciblish.   Cannot
             establish integral vistas within 90 days.  Should
             allow designation if State plans within 120 days.
          -  NSR requirements should apply equally to integral
             vistas.
                                A-238

-------
Eastman Kodak Company, Kingsport,- Tennessee, IV-D-212


Comment on the language in Sections 51.300 (a) and .(b) .

     •  Applicability, of the proposed regulations should be
         restricted to include only those Federal Class I
         areas where the Department of Interior has properly
         identified visibility as an important value.

Opposes definition of "visibility impairment".

     •  The author feels that "any humanly perceptible change"
         and the criteria of "contrast" lead to a qualitative
         judgement.
     •  The agency should establish.measurable reduction in
         visual range and atmospheric discoloration.

Opposes "the assertion that the regulations would be applicable
to reviews of new sources located in non-attainment areas.

     •  Paragraph 169A is part of the PSD portion of the Clean
         Air Act and this does not apply to nonattainment areas.
     •  Paragraph 51.300(b) should be revised to exclude review
         of sources 'located in nonattainment areas.

Opposes definition of "reasonably attributable" as meaning
"attributable by means of visual observation or other monitor-
ing technique".

     •  There should be a demonstrated link between emissions
         from a source and visibility impairment prior to
         imposition of controls.
     •  Visual observation of a source concurrent with observed
         visual impairment is not sufficient without collabora-
         tive information.
     • Included in any such demonstration  (of visibility
         impairment)  should be an analysis  of mobile sources.
                               A-239

-------
Richard Kamp, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-213


Supports inclusion of Integral Vistas concept:

     • Integral vistas concept is necessary, but predicts there
         will be extensive legal disputes over the designation
         of areas as integral vistas.          -                '
     • Integral vistas concept is consistent with Congress s
         goal to preserve air quality in Class I areas because
         of the mobility of airborne pollutants.
     . Supports provision to allow federal  land managers 30 days
         to identify additional integral vistas after being
         notified of a new source permit.

Supports phased approach to visibility protection:

      - Protects the public against heavy visible pollution.
      . Supplied photographs of  low visibility during periods of
         loco ambient monitor readings, indicating a need to
         coordinate visibility  to ambient monitoring of total
         emissions.
      • Requests visibility protection  for Class II areas.

Measurement  of progress  in visibility  protection:

      . Visibility conditions  should  be subject  to an objective
         standard.  Photographic monitoring is  recommended  over
         a three year  period  with periods of public comment.
         • Author  supplies a proposal  for photodocumentation.

Cites non-ferrous  smelters as a major  cause of  visibility
impairment:

      .  States  that a  non-ferrous  smelter order  under  Section 119
          of  the  Clean Air Act is  not an exemption  from visibility
          regulations  as pointed out at Salt Lake  City  public
          hearing by Kennecott Copper.                  .
      .  States  that smelters  in southern Arizona alone  emitted in
          1979  what all the 4-corner states' power plants combined
          may emit in 1995.                          ...
      -  Disagreed with statement made at Salt Lake City hearing
          that the public does not care about individual plumes
          and is  concerned about regional haze and urban smog.
          Was concerned about the significant visual impact of
          smelter plumes.
                                 A-240

-------
David E. Pesonen, Director, California Dept. of Forestry
IV-D-214


Opposes the regulations due to. adverse impact on prescribed fires
as a forest and range management tool.

Specific Comments:

51.300            .

     • A goal requires a good faith effort but may not be
         realistic to achieve.
51.301
       The term "visibility impairment" should be deleted.
       In determining "significant impairment" the role of the
         Federal Land Manager versus the state is unclear.  Can
         Federal Land Manager be overruled by the state?
       Integral vistas should not include areas outside of
         Class I areas, should require that view be related
         to the Fundamental purpose for which the area was
         established, the term "reasonably attributable" needs
         further definition.
       Adverse impace - definition should be revised to be con-
         sistent with "visibility impairment" and the role of
         the Federal Land Manager.
51.302
 51.305
       Subsection  (b)(ii)(3) should describe acceptable consul-
         tation procedures.
       Integral vistas should not be protected to the same
         extent as mandatory Class I areas.
       Protection of  integral vistas may restrict the use of
         prescribed burning and thus "adversely  affect" the
         best land management practices of the state.
       90-day period  for  identification of visibility impair-
         ments is insufficient.  Recommend a minimum of one
         year.
        EPA  should  promulgate  a national  visibility monitoring
          guideline under  Section  319  of  the  Clean Air Act.
                                A-241

-------
IV-D-214 continued
51.306
51.307
Recommend changing the long-term strategy review and
  revision to not less than five years.



A bridge is not provided between new source reviews and
  the prevention of significant depreciation  (PSD) rule.
  Priority should be to first prevent problems where
  visibility is good, then make reasonable progress to
  improve visibility where "significantly  impaired .
                                 A-242

-------
Polly Dyer, Olympic Park Associates, IV-D-215
Supports inclusion of Integral Vistas concept:

     •  Recommends extending the integral vistas concept to
         include protection of views of areas inside Class I
         areas so they will not be marred or obscured by
         human-caused air pollution from outside vista points
         beyond the boundaries of Class I areas.
     •  Cites specific, potential problems from industrial
         growth near Olympic National Park.

States should not determine visibility impairment in Class I
areas:

     •  Superintendents of Federal Mandatory Areas should have
         the ultimate authority to determine when integral
         vistas are subject to visibility degradation from
         air pollution sources.
     •  Protecting public's rights to clean view of Class I
         areas is a federal responsibility rather than a
         state responsibility.

Federal Land Manager's authority in New Source Review is too
limited:

     •  Federal Land Manager acts only as a consultant under
         Section 51.307 of the regulation, thereby undermining
         the land manager's responsibility.

Recommends identification of visibility by advanced methods by
inaugurating Phase II guidelines within the current rules.

Recommends EPA and National Park Service initiate proposed
legislation to extend air pollution controls affecting Class I
areas to include effects from acid rain and other pollutants.
                               A-243

-------
Gordon Tate, Idaho State Grange, IV-D-216


Opposes the regulation's application to prescribed burning:

     . Prescribed burnings are essential to some agricultural

     . BuSfnfSfgSi^crSf^ble can be avoided in
         every instance.

Authority to protect visibility  should be granted to  states and
local governments rather than the Federal government.
                                A-244

-------
Robert R. Scott, South Carolina Forestry Association, IV-D-217


Opposes the regulation's application to prescribed burnings:

     • Prescribed burning is a significant forest management
         tool.
     • Alternatives to prescribed burning (mechanical and
         chemical methods)  involve high costs or risk.
     • A voluntary program, the Smoke Management Guidelines
         for South Carolina, exists to minimize particulate
         concentrations, and smoke in smoke-sensitive areas
         resulting from prescribed burning operations.
     • A regulatory program to restrict prescribed burning
         should be a last resort, upon failure of a voluntary
         program.
     • Recommends that EPA carefully consider programs which
         will encourage or discourage private investment in
         timberlands, especially in view of the need for
         alternative energy sources.
                               A-245

-------
North Dakota, Governor Janklow, IV-D-218


Concerned about visibility monitoring.

      • Visual observation is highly subjective.
      • Will  instrumentation be available in the near future?
      - Will  the states and FLM1s be responsible for monitoring?

Does  EPA propose  to establish  a national visibility standard?

      - If so, who would  be responsible  for enforcement?

Opposes  regulation of  integral vistas:

      - Paragraph  169A  was  intended to protect visibility within
         Federal  Class I areas.               _  .      .
      .  If implemented,  the  states  should participate  in  the
          selection of  integral vistas.

Too much final  authority is  being  granted to the  FLM and EPA.

      -  The  states should be given  more  authority.
      •  EPA has  veto  power  over a state  determination of  an
          individual  source.
      -  Will sanctions  be threatened if  the SIP is not approved.
      -  What options  do states have regarding SIP approval?

 Comment on ICF Report:

      -  How will this report affect new sources.
      •  What about long-range transport.
      -  How is one to determine cause of haze.
                                A-246

-------
Kaiser Refractories, IV-D-219
Believe the proposed regulations should not be promulgated:

     •  Oppose BART, since it would impose an unknown economic
         burden from continually upgrading emission control
         equipment.

     •  Oppose concept of "integral vistas".  This would establish
         federal land managers an authority over lands they are
         not strictly authorized to regulate.  Preclude siting
         of future major facilities from most places in the
         western U.S.

     .  Definition of "visibility impairment" is vague and an     :
         objective method for determining visibility impairment
         is needed.  Baseline visibility in most areas is not
         known and therefore impairment of such is impossible
         to define.
                              A-247

-------
Environmental Research and Technology, Inc., IV-D-220 (ERT)


Comments on the ICF Report.

     • The cost analysis was based on a draft ERT report, and
         was not accurate.
     . The ERT screening curves in the ICF Report were to be
         applied to NEDS data base for broad,, general industrial
         categories.  These should not be used for any specific
         sources.
     . All reference to specific  sources in  ICF's cost analysis
         report should be  deleted.
     . A presentation should refer only to the number and
         industrial classification of sources found  to have
         potential for visibility impairment.
                                A-248

-------
Todd M. Stamm, Departments of Planning, Zoning, and Building,
Latah County, Idaho, IV-D-221


Supports visibility protection regulations:

     •  Local governments should work with the enforcing agency
         to control pollution at the source. ..
     •  The Idaho Association of Counties has encouraged counties
         to avoid the intent of the Federal Land Policy and
         Management Act of 1976 by including industrial designated
         sites and standards of air quality acceptable for those
         sites in their land-use .plans.  Latah County does not
         support the Association's recommendation.
                               A-249

-------
Gerald Chadock, South Branch Vocational Center,, IV-D-222


Opposes the visibility protection regulations:

     • Personal observation of a Class I area for 21 years
         has not noted any change in the visibility.
     . Costs of control and regulation greatly exceed the
         benefits derived from protection of visibility
       Strict enforcement of regulations
results in use of
         less favorable alternatives as in the case of
         prescribed burning versus chemical or mechanical
         methods of land management.
                                A-250

-------
Robert M. Brantly, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission,
IV-D-223
Opposes the regulation's application to prescribed burning:

     •  Prescribed burning is a proven technique in habitat
         management for numerous species of wildlife in Florida
         and a good method of reducing fuel prior to the occur-
         rence of wildfires.  Alternatives to prescribed burning
         (chemical and mechanical methods) are not economically
         or environmentally attractive.
     •  The incidences of wildfire contributions to visibility
         inpairment should be included in the National and
         regional "baseline".
     •  EPA's'guidelines for prescribed burning techniques which
         limit its effect on visibility should be flexible and
         adaptable to the circumstances occurring in the individual
         states.

Opposes the inclusion of Integral Vistas concept:

     •  States that there are other remedies under the Clean Air
         Act which can be used to protect the vistas if necessary.
                              A-251

-------
Lester Carr, Jr., County Commission of Grant County, West Virginia,
IV-D-224


Opposes visibility protection regulations as written because of
the cost/benefit relationship:

     • Stated that proposed regulations should be modified to
         reflect the realities of the overall costs to society
         at large weighed against the minimal benefits of
         visibility improvement, of Class I areas.
     • Cited specific costs from a Grant County power plant
         which burns local coal and the economic impact of
         visibility protection regulations on citizens of the
         Grant County area.
                                A-252

-------
International Paper Company, IV-D-225
Language is vague and confusing:

     •  Support the general idea, but disagree with the strict
         definition of "visibility impairment".  Impairment
         implies deterioration while the wording specifies only
         that a "change" be perceived.  "Change" in the defini-
         tion should be specified as meaning a decrease in per-
         ceived visibility.
     •  How will an individual judge that visibility has been
         impaired and at the same time know what the visibility
         would be in the absence of man-made pollution?

Problems will occur in identifying the contribution of a source
or multiple sources to regional haze.  Monitor data will be
sketchy in that, long-term measurements are for the most part
not available in Class I locations.  Identification of impair-
ment will be by guess.  Promulgation of regulation should await
development of adequate methodology for obtaining data.

Concept of integral vistas was not intent of Congress.

Models currently available for single sources are unvalidated
and should not be used to predict reasonable improvement in
visibility from application of a control technology.
                               A-253

-------
Kane County Commission, Kanab, Utah, IV-D-226


Opposes the proposed regulations in general:

      . p-ronosal time for comments was too short.
      . Proposed regulations were not distributed to enough

         people.

Opposes the concept of integral vistas.

Too much authority has been  given  to the FLM.

There were an inadequate number of public hearings.
                                 A-254

-------
Laurence R. John, Wildlife Management Institute, IV-D-227


Opposes the regulation's application, to prescribed burnings:

     •  Prescribed burning is important in forest, range and
         marsh management.
     •  Request a positive, permissive approach to prescribed
         burning in the smoke management guidelines.
     •  Flexibility in the national guidelines is necessary
         to permit prescriptions to be fitted to local situations,
                               A-255

-------
H. Ramos, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-228


Supports visibility protection

     . States that mining companies should not be given time
         extentions to correct infractions of air pollution
         regulations. ._,
                                A-256

-------
American Mining Congress, IV-D-229
Opposes the integral vistas concept.

     • Paragraph 169A of the Act refers to "visibility in" not
         "visibility from".
     • Protection of visibility in a Class I area will provide
         some protection of visibility surrounding the Class I
         area, but that is not mandated by the Act.
     • Plain language in the act clearly states "visibility in".
     • Since the Act is not ambiguous, it is not necessary to
         resort to legislative history.
     • The author cites examples of legislative history from
         the House to support his contention.

Opposes the definition of "Federal Land Manager" in paragraph
51.301(sj.

     • Language used "or their designated agents" is not con-
         sistent with Section 302 of.the Act.
     • The definition in the proposed regulations seeks to
         expand the term Federal Land Manager to include
         designated agents.  This was not the intent of
         Congress.

Monitoring requirements should be established by States.

     • Paragraph 169A of the Act does not refer to any require-
         ment for continuous monitoring and does not specifically
         require EPA to mandate continuous monitoring with
         respect to BACT.
     • It is up to the state whether or not continuous monitor-
         ing should be mandated.

BART determinations should be left to States.

     • Section 169A clearly delegates authority for BART
         determination and identification of sources subject
         to BART to the States.
     • There is no authority for the provision in Section
         51.302(c)(4)(ii) relating to consultation between
         EPA, FLM, and the State.

New source review should not be included in this rulemaking.

     • Since Section 169A is silent with respect to new sources,
         they are not to be covered in this section of the Act.
     • The author cites legislative history to support the new
         source review for visibility impairment takes place
         under PSD.
                               A-257

-------
IV-D-229 continued

Opposes State concurrences for exemptions.

     • Congress did not require concurrence of the states in
         the statute.  The fact it is silent on the subject
         indicates it was not intended.
     . In addition, since a state may adopt more stringent
         requirements  (pursuant to paragraph 116), an EPA
         exemption does not mean the state cannot still require
         BART for a source.

Opposes the definition of "existing major source".

      • The proposed regulations in Section 51.01(a) defines_a
          "existing major  source" as a  source which was not  in
          operation prior  to August 7,  1962 or  reconstructed after
          that date.   It is the  "reconstruction"  language that
          AMC opposes.                                   .
      . The reference  to a reconstructed source was not in the  Act.

EPA should recognize  the  Visibility Modeling Limitations.

      - Modeling with  respect  to visibility  impairment is  in the
          early  stages of  development.                    _
      .  The  limitations of modeling  should be  recognized  in  the

      .  BART^wil^be  costly  to companies, but without modeling it
          will be difficult  to predict the effectivenes.s.
      .  Without  visibility modeling  it will  be  difficult if  not
          impossible  to demonstrate  no impact  from new sources.
      -  EPA should modify the regulation requirements to allow
          an adequate period to develop meaningful rules.
                                 A-258

-------
Wayne O. Ursenbach, University of Utah Research Institute, IV-D-230
Language is vague or confusing:

     • "Baseline visibility" and "significant impairment" are
         not sufficiently defined or definable in the rules.
     • Provides experimental data and experimental method for
         determining visibility and concludes that no one method
         will be satisfactory for the measurement of visual
         range on the reliable estimate of visibility impairment.
     • Recommends "baseline" average visibility for Class I
         areas in the arid and semiarid western United States
         be established at no more than 72 miles with an
         uncertainty of 10%.
     • Recommends "significant impairment" be defined at no less
         than 10% of the average baseline visual range since
         nothing less will result in any noticeable change in
         visibility.  This is consistent with the EPA position
         which defines impairment as any perceptible (by human
         observation) change.
     • Recommends visual range be modeled with a simple equation
         such as:


                        =• 0.006M*+ 0.15 miles'
          where M = the measured TSP in

     •  Recommends impairment due to long range transport of
         particulates over several hundred miles especially
         sulfate from distant large urban and industrial centers,
         be clearly defined and experimentally determined before
         BACT or other control requirements beyond PSD procedures
         are imposed on point sources.

Opposes inclusion of Integral Vistas concept:

     •  Long range transport of particulates from natural causes
         and from distant urban and industrial centers will
         sufficiently impact integral vistas and nullify any
         benefit from the unduly restrictive. requirement.
                              A-259

-------
Joan Werner, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-231


Supports inclusion of the integral vistas concept:

     • Aesthetics viewed from Class I areas have been impaired
         in some locations.
     . Federal Land Manager is best qualified to determine need
         for visibility protection and should be granted authority
         in visibility regulations.

Supports regulation of smelters:

     • Requests that old smelters as well as new smelters be
         stringently controlled.
                                A-260

-------
Herb Crase, North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and

Community Development, IV-D-232
                                                            ->



Opposes the regulation's application to prescribed burnings:


     •  Prescribed burning is the best available method of

         forest management and is important in reforestation.
                              A-261

-------
David W. Levy, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-233


Supports inclusion of Integral Vistas concept:

     . Protection of integral vistas is mandated by Congress

       specia  proon    iequlred of all Class I areas by
         the" Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program
         and of th£ visibilit? near all Class I areas by the
         visibility prevention and remedy program.
Supports protection of visibility in Class I areas in
                                                       general
       Protection of visibility is important, to North Carolina
                    ignificant portion of the economy of North
           ecausa s
          Carolina is  dependent on tourism.
       indusrialization
         North Carolina.
                          near
                               Class I areas is a threat in
 Recommends additions to the proposed regulations:

                   procedure should be applied to new sources to

                              °b
       PSD review

       A
                                               the Federal Land
          Managers to assess the impact of a new source on
          decision process
                                A-262

-------
Betty Denison, Oregon Women for Timber, IV-D-234
Requests that EPA assess the social costs of administering the
visibility requirements and bring them to the attention of
Congress before implementing them:

     • States that visibility protection of Class I areas
         contradicts the first purpose of the Clean Air Act
         to "promote...welfare, and productive capacity" of
         the Nation's population.
     • Cost of pollution controls and their economic impact
         on the general population outweigh the benefits of
         the enjoyment of a Class I area view.

Opposes the inclusion of the Integral Vistas concept:

     • Questions public commenting method in regard to integral
         vistas.  States that a few voices from the "public" do
         not represent majority need.

Opposes the regulation's application to prescribed burnings:

     • Prescribed burning is a sound ecological tool.
     • Fire should be defined as a natural activity even when
         man-prescribed and 51.306(f)5 should be omitted.

Opposes phased approach of the regulation:

     • Discriminates against single sources and fails to note
         that few single sources represent single individuals;
         i.e., single source regulation impacts a large number
         of people.
     • Discriminates against special interest groups directly
         dependent on the single sources.
                             A-263

-------
Society of American Foresters, IV-D-235


Opposes the regulation's application to prescribed burning:

     • Specific reference is inappropriate and Section 51.306(f) (5)
         should be deleted for lack of sufficient legislative
         basis
                                                      both exist-
                                                      should
                                                    burning.

Favors the phased approach to a visibility regulation
Focus is properly on major stationary sour
  ing (BART) and new source reviews  (NSR),
  clearly state no application to prescribed
                                               program.
Favors EPA's request that the USDA Forest  Service  in  cooperation
with land management and air regulatory  agencies,  prepare  guide-
lines for management of smoke from prescribed  fires.

     • Guidelines  should not dictate  rigid,  national  requirements
                                A-264

-------
C. M. Williams, Brown Company, IV-D-236
Opposes inclusion of Integral Vistas concept:

     •  Brown Company is located near a Class I area, and states
         that there can be no significant detrimental effect on
         the visual enjoyment of the vistas from the Class I
         area resulting from a vapor plume eleven miles away
         which evaporates or dissipates within a few hundred
         feet of the emission point.
     •  In the case of companies such as Brown Company, which
         have recently complied with PSD requirements, normal
         retirement and replacement of the existing facilities
         should be recognized by EPA.  It is unreasonable to
         subject facilities to additional regulatory require-
         ments.
                               A-265

-------
Louis H. Camisa, Hiwassee Land Company, IV-D--237


Opposes the regulation's application to prescribed burnings:

     • Prescribed burning is necessary to reduce fuel and
         thereby prevent uncontrollable wildfire.  Therefore,
         the smoke associated with the prescription fire
         minimized air degradation compared to  a wildfire.
     • Recommends that EPA include smoke from historical
         wildfires as part of the "baseline".
     - Recommends regulations distinguish between ma3or
         stationary emitting sources and prescribed burning.
     . Recommends that States be given authority to assess
         air quality and develop specific smoke management

      - Federal programs  for  smoke management  for Class  I  areas
         must  be  consistent with existing state programs  for
          smoke management, water quality, and pesticide use.
                                 A-266

-------
Robert List, State of Nevada, IV-D-238


Suggests need for guidelines to determine BART.

Opposes additional power given to Federal Land Manager in deter-
mining BART and selecting sources to be regulated.

Suggests research into visibility monitoring and modeling of
complex mechanisms of pollutant transport and complex terrain
problems.
                              A-267

-------
Virginia Manufacturers Association, IV-D-239


Oppose inclusion of "integral vistas" concept:

     • Development of new industries and the operation and
         expansion of existing industries would be severely
         restricted under this proposal.
     • Industries within the integral vista which meet all_air
         pollution regulations but identified as contributing
         to visibility deterioration, would be forced to con-
         tinually install new control equipment as new technology
         evolves  (BART), and could not predict future environ-
         mental expenditures.
      • Proposed regulation  goes  beyond Congressional intent.

Federal  land managers'  findings  shoudl be  subject to review by
the  State  agency  responsible for administering the Clean Air
Act  and  PSD requirements.

Other  sources  than  stationary  (i.e.  automobiles, natural  sources,
etc.)  can  be much more  significant to visibility impairment.

Suggest  that proposed regulations be considered more thorough
with regard to economic impact  (jobs) vs.  air quality benefit.
Recommend  that several  years of study should be undertaken before
these regulations be adopted.
                                A-268

-------
Ted J. Doney, Montana Department of Natural Fesources and
Conservation, IV-D-240


DNRC favors a State-centered approach to visibility protection
with the States retaining the primary responsibility for develop-
ment of the program.  EPA should avoid promulgating detailed
rules that would apply to the nation as a whole since visibility
impairment is a function of local meteorological conditions,
topography, and plant communities.

Suggests a stronger statement concerning prescribed fire for
forest management purposes.

The DNRC maintains that under the definition of "visibility
impairment", smoke from prescribed burning should not be classi-
fied as a visibility impairment since it exists under.natural
conditions.

Questions legality of protecting integral vistas.

     • Class I air standards are extended into non-federal lands.

Monitoring should be a shared responsibility of federal land
managers and the States and EPA should develop guidelines for
monitoring system development.

Montana encourages the participation of non-federal land'managers
in the development of the visibility program.

Department is concerned with national scope of proposed guidelines
and recommends that computer modeling not be considered as
national answer to managing smoke from prescribed fire.
                               A-269

-------
The Standard Oil Company, IV-D-241


SOHIO participated in the preparation of comments submitted by
the American Petroleum Institute.

Feels that the 9 month period allowed for the development of
SIP revision for protection of visibility is inadequate to
achieve the General Plan Requirements described in Section
51.302(c).

      • Ways in which pollutant emissions affect visibility are
         poorly understood.
      • Acceptable methods for monitoring visibility have not
         been established.
      - Phase I should serve as the time needed for development
         of monitoring and analytical techniques, and data
         collection.  A  limited  number of sources using BART
         could serve as  a testing ground.

Supports the need for greater research prior to promulgating
the proposed regulations:

      • Supports EPA's decision to defer emphasis on use of
         modeling until  later phases.
      • Case-by-case  analysis of  BART.     .
      . Improvement in monitoring techniques  and  a well-defined
         method  for  judging visibility  impairments are needed
         prior to promulgation.               _  _        '
      . Effects of natural  conditions on visibility will need  to
         be defined  also.

The need to protect  visibility  should be  balanced with the  need
to accomplish other  national  and regional goals, namely  the
development of valuable  new  resources (new source  review).

Disagree with concept of "integral  vistas",  in that  the  same
extent  of protection need not be applied  to the  vista as  to the
Class I  area.
                                A-270

-------
U. S. Department of Commerce, IV-D-242
Opposes the definition of adverse impact:

     • "Visual experience" or "impairment of the visitor's
         visual experience" are completely subjective and
         will create unnecessary problems.
     • The terms above should be deleted from the definition.

Comment on reanalysis:

     • The effect of these reviews could be early obsolescence
         of pollution control equipment - which might yield
         only marginal improvement in Class I area visibility.
     • EPA should include the age and control effectiveness of
         existing control equipment as a variable in the re-
         analysis of control options.

Comment on fugative emissions:

     • EPA proposes to take into account fugative emissions, if
         quantifiable, in determining a major source.  However,
         it is not specified what approach EPA "would recommend
         if the emissions from a source were almost entirely
         uncontrollable fugative emissions (e.g., from a large
         lime quarry or an open pit mine)."
     • Further clarification is needed.

Support the draft version of.the Regulatory Analysis Review
Group's report:

     • Specifically the recommendation that decisions as to
         appropriate control technology for BART be based on
         a comparison to visibility benefits and costs.
                              A-271

-------
American
        Petroleum Institute, IV-D-243
Comments on Visibility Definitions
      The
           proposed definition cannot be scientifically supported.

                         "
         properties
         coloration)
         of  the  scenic  quality of
        Opposes
                the
          vat ion
                                                     and "preser-

                                                      ignificant
         impairment" .

Opposes the concept of "integral vistas

     . These were not analyzed in the ICP report
       An
           se were no  ana
           assessment of the economic impact of this part of the

                                    '-
        If an area
                     designated,
         screening process first

Comments or monitoring  and modeling:
                                               through a rigorous
        The SIP requirements
                             and  "interim guidance monitoring"
                                         visual  range,  and  atmos-
          nterim guidance monitoring" needs more  specific  infor-
                                                at present  time
  Supports the phased approach.
  SIP revisions in nine
                       months is not practical,
       should be on a case by case basis.
 BART

 Comments on new source review:
        Present new source re
                              gulations protect visibility
           new source review.

  A copy of comments sent to EPA on August 10  1979 on the draft
  "Visibility Report to Congress" was attached.
         No  attempt  to  summarize  this was made.
                                 A-272

-------
IV-D-243 continued

Comments on "Interim Guidance for Visibility Monitoring":

     • Does not discuss drawbacks for visibility monitoring.
     • Give information about air quality only at sample point.
     • Did not discuss possible impact in non-ideal situations.
     • Fails to provide guidance on visibility assessment for
         new source review.

Comments on "User's Manual for the Plume Visibility Model (PLUVUE)."

     • Down plays possible errors -^Gaussian dispersion models.
     • Does not discuss problems with variation in temperal
         background.

Comments on "Preliminary Assessment of Economic Impact of Visibility
Regulations."

     • This report was for Phase I large sources only, but this
         was not clear.
     . No "integral vistas" impacting sources were analyzed.
     • No new sources were projected.
     • The ERT screening curves should be explained in terms
         of plume direction.

Comments on' "Workbook for Estimating Visibility Impairment".

     • Title is misleading since it is for new or modified sources.
     • The recommended modeling scheme has some basic inaccuracies.
     • The workbook makes too many assumptions dealing with plume
         color and plume and sky/terrain contrast parameters.
     • Extends calculations beyond the validated distances.
     • Uncertainty of SOX and NOX reactions are not accounted  for.

A copy of the Final Report - "Relationships Between Air Quality
and Human Perception of Scenic Areas", No. 4323, July 15, 1980,
API was attached.

     • No attempt was made to summarize this report.
                              A-273

-------
Department of  Energy, IV-D-244
               ons  have been improved substantially since the
               teaft!  However, areas exist whioh would restrict
         ocgblsnon      pursued to the exclusion
         olnaSonal energy objectives.  Balance of energy and
                             » when used in regulatory context
        ClaSfy'responXbllities of state  and EPA in NRS process
         where state has not assumed PSD  program.
        Recommends against integral vistas.  However, FLM should
                 vistas for state consideration.
      '

      -

      -                                       -ssr^SKS 2
          SghiighSdS; potential Phase II requirements  wh.ch are
          essentially unknown  at  this time.
  Specific comments on Preamble:
        Program overview should discuss visibility from natural
                      retain primary responsibility to develop
         AgSefSat if no emission control will improve visibility
           then BART is unnecessary.                  ^aoonablv
         Not clear what other measures can be used to reasonably
           a^t-T-ibute sources to visibility impairment.
         Approvid viability model should be available if modeling
           is to be used to assess visibility improvement.

           BcSons" £S                  --
           and time of occurrence.
                                A-274

-------
IV-D-244 continued
     •  Concerned over reanalysis for BART - "moving target".
         Resolve by stipulating a maximum dollars/ton of pollution
         figure on any future retrofit requirement.
     •  NSR procedures seem to exclude considerations of costs,
         energy and other requirements.  Since regional haze are
         sometimes manmade and can cover broad areas, it may be
         economically or technically infeasible to eliminate
         visibility impairment in Phase II, thus reasonable
         progress rather than an absolute no impairment of park
         visitor enjoyment appears prudent in both Phase I and
         Phase II.
     •  Control costs vary between Economic Impact and BART guide-
         lines.
     •  Energy costs associated with BART are quite large.
     •  Resolve definition of potential to emit to eliminate
         ambiguity.
     •  Definition of natural conditions is unacceptable to DOE.
         Natural conditions should not be the baseline for new
         source visibility impact estimation.  EPA method of
         estimation is quite questionable.
     •  Section 51.302(c)(4)(ii) unnecessarily complicates BART
         procedure.
     •  Providing December 31, 1985 for identifying integral vistas
         provides substantial uncertainty.  Deadline should be
         advanced.
     •  Cost of monitoring in all Class I areas in  36 states quite
         expensive.
     •  Require FLM to have a conference with state where he rejects
         a permittee's demonstration or drop the state's require-
         ment for a conference if state rejects FLM1s demonstration.
     •  Oil shale development could be  severely restricted under
         proposed regulations.
     .  Agrees with phased approach.
     .  Wide range of  visual range and  contrast changes that are
         capable of being perceived by human observer.  Perceptible
         range between 3 and 25 median of  10 contrast to 5 in
         proposal.
     •  Onsite monitoring for determining natural conditions quite
         expensive $100,000 per source.
     - EPA's interpretation of how to  handle NSR is  not outside
         that allowed by the Statute but believe that there is
         a range of options for dealing with NSR in  the statutes
         and EPA should  explain the alternatives and explain why
         they selected one of the alternatives.
                               A-275

-------
Zerick, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-245
Strongly in support of proposed visibility program.
                              A-276

-------
Arkansas Forestry Commission, IV-D-246
Opposes the regulation's application to prescribed burning:

     • Restricting use of controlled fire to protect pristine
         air qualities will result in use of alternate method-
         ologies which are more costly and capable of greater
         damage from .pollution to the air, soil and water.
                               A-277

-------
Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas County, 3CV-D-247


Oppose regulations since they would jeopardize every development
in the West and result in higher costs of operating existing
facilities (power plants) passed on to consumers.

Peel there is an inadequate scientific foundation.,

Believe a comprehensive reappriasal should be made of proposed
visibility impairment rule.
                              A-278

-------
Robert R. Reid, Jr., 1500 Brown-Marx Building, Birmingham,
Alabama, IV-D-248
General Comment:

Urge strenuously that EPA adopt strong visibility regulations
for air quality in our national parks and wilderness areas.

Specific Comments:

     • There is a strong need for protecting all areas that are
         integral to our national park and wilderness assets
         even though outside their actual boundaries.
     • Urge 'EPA to use current monitoring and tracing techniques
         to cover not only single visible sources but also the
         broader creation of overall haze.
     • Federal Land Managers should play a major role in
         determining adverse impacts.

If the land manager of a park or wilderness determines that a
source will have an adverse impact, the burden of proof should
be placed on the proponent of the outside development to show
that such adverse impact would not occur.
                               A-279

-------
Santa Fe Research Corporation, IV-D-249

Opposes the definition of "significant impairment" or "adverse
impairment".
Questions whether structure of regulations will be appropriate
when their scope is expanded to include regional haze in future
phases.
     • Structure of regulations is built around SIP process.
         Regional haze will involve addressing a multi-state
         phenomena.
                                A-280

-------
Patricia Byrne, 9318 Country Club Drive, Sun City, Arizona  85373,
IV-D-250
General Comment:

Supports full enforcement of the visibility requirements of the
Clean Air Act of 1977.
                               A-281

-------
Rick Breault, 8846 S. Albany, Evergreen Park, 111., IV-D-251


General Comment :

Supports the regulations.

Specific Comments:

      • The regulations should be expanded to  cover  the  areas
         outside  the parks that are visible  from within the

      . Sinclfttxe  National Park Service  and other Federal land
         agencies should be  in charge of this land,  it  is only
         right  that  they have a more clearly defined and aggres-
         sive role in  implementing visibility protection regula-
          e* should utilize some of the more sophisticated
          techniques in its regulatory program now and specify
          when the more comprehensive second phase of the regu
          lations will begin.
                                 A-282

-------
National Association of Manufacturers, IV-D-254


Opposes proposed visibility rulemaking:

     •  Goes far beyond intent of Congress.
     •  Too many variables involved of such a subjective nature.
     •  Industrial development would be discouraged within miles
         of Class I areas.
     •  Urges that a new proposed rulemaking be formulated that
         would reflect a balanced concern for industrial develop-
         ment, and be based on objective scientific foundations
         to provide a framework of certainty in protecting visi-
         bility inside Class I areas.
                              A-285

-------
Florida Power & Light Company, IV-D-255
Comments on BART

     • The BART guidance document in effect requires NSPS
          (Subpart l)a) for power plants - this is unwarranted
         and not always possible.
     - The BART guidelines do not address oil fired units.
     • BART guidelines should be revised.
     . BART guidelines provide no guidelines for assessment
         of a coal-oil mixture  (COM) fired unit.  FP&L is
         testing such a firing system.
     - BART guidelines do not specify how visual observation
          is used to determine which stationary sources are
          "reasonably attibutable" to visibility impairment.
      • Nine month time frame for SIP and BART is too  short.

Visibility impairment is reversible, and is aesthetic rather
than a threat to public health.

Opposes  the comcept of  "integral vistas".

      • Was not  intended by  Congress and is not  authorized by
          the Act.

Long  term strategy  (10-15 years)  cannot be developed by  a state
within none months.

Opposes  the  reanalysis  provision for  BART.

      • This would require numerous retrofits  of control  equipment.
      •  The cost of  continual retrofits would  be very high.
      .  Consider deleting paragraph 51.306(e).

 Opposes  the role played by  the FLM.

      .  FLM may identify a visibility impairment which results in
          a BART analysis.   The FLM may also recommend sources
          (suspected)  for BART analysis.          _          .
      •  The FLM has a primary role in identifying integral vistas.
      •  The points above were not prescribed in the Act,  but the
          FLM was to have an advisory position.
                                 A-286

-------
Commonwealth of Virginia, State Air Pollution Control Board,
IV-D-256
Disagrees with EPA's interpretation of Section 169A of CAA on
concept of integral vistas.  Protection is to be considered
only in the mandatory Class I Federal Areas.

     • Protection within the integral vista should not be
         to the same extent as that for the Federal Class I
         area.

Questions how observed visibility impairment will be attributed
to specific sources (except in obvious cases involving clearly
visible plumes).

     • What technique will be used to distinguish impairment
         due to natural causes from that due to human activity.

Questions how emission reductions achieved by BART will translate
to visibility improvement.

Although the CAA provides that BART determinations will be made
by the state, the EPA proposed guidelines for determining BART
leave little .for the states to determine.

Language is confusing, e.g. in the definition of the term
"statutory source" and "in existence", etc.

It appears to this state that considerable expense and labor
would have to be shouldered by the state.
                              A-287

-------
Texas Eastern Transmission Corp./ IV-D-257


Opposes regulations in that there is no need to "develop regu-^
lations that are subjective and lacking in scientific support.  ^

Language is vague or confusing:

     - Particularly noted by TETC is the definition of "visibility
         impairment".  Recommended is that the definition be
         expanded to include the term "significant or adverse
         and to delete the limited definitions of "significant
         impairment" and  "adverse impact".

"Visual observation and other monitoring techniques need to be
defined more specifically, as well as that for determining back-
ground visibility.

Opposes the inclusion of  the Federal Land Manager in the process
of  determining the application  of BART  to specific  sources.   Thi
deletes responsibility away from States.

Object to  the continual reanalysis of BART.   Recommend  that  after
initial application of BART, an existing  source  should  be  grand-
fathered for at  least ten years.

Object to  the exclusion of- the  cost  considerations  in the  New   _
Source Review process  (Section  51.307), as well  as  current modeling
practices.  Recommend costs be  considered as well as_the  use of
existing PSD increments  for Class  I  areas  as a decision-making
technique  until  visibility models  are validated.

Oppose  the concept of  "integral vistas".

      •  Identification  of  integral  vistas would essentially
          preclude future  industrial growth in West.
This
                                A-288

-------
Jacksonville Electric Authority, IV-D-258
Opposes the definition of visibility impairment.

     • A technical specification for "humanly perceptible" is
         needed.
     • A method for determining what are "natural conditions"
        - is needed.
     • A reference method for determining background is needed.

Opposes the concept of "integral vistas".

     • Section 51.304 has exceeded the intent of Congress.
     • There is no mention of integral vistas in the Act.
     • Paragraph 169 (e) states "not require... automatic or
         uniform buffer zone or zones".

EPA has extended the responsibilities of the FLM beyond what was
intended in the Act.

     • It is doubtful the FLM has the staff  (meteorologists and
         technicians)  to perform these responsibilities.
     • These responsibilities would require additional expendi-
         tures for personnel to assume duplicative responsibilities,
     • This appears to reduce the states' authority.
     • EPA should only require the FLM to assume responsibilities
         as assigned in the Act.

A uniform distance  (maximum) at which sources would be considered
for BART should be the current method of assessing point source
visibility impact.

     • Current methods of evaluating visibility are not adequate.
     • Models are not yet validated.

Comment on the ICF Report:

     v The report estimated that JEA's Northside plant would
         exceed a 13% visual range which might be required for
         the Okefenokee Wilderness Area.
     • The modeling was based on 1.4% sulfur fuel oil burned
         at the Northside plant.  The reduction to 1.3% sulfur
         oil to achieve the 13% threshold would entail minimal
         cost.
     • However, Northside actually burns 1.8% sulfur fuel oil.
         The cost to reduce this to 1.3% would be significant.
         The company estimates six to seven million dollars per
         year added cost.
     • JEA feels this would be an excessive cost.
    • • JEA feels there is erroneous data and questionable modeling
         techniques.

Additional research is needed.
                               A-289

-------
Annette M. Petrie, Illinois Institute of Natural Resources,
IV-D-259


Supports the regulation:

     - Protection of integral vistas is consistent with purpose
         of park and wilderness areas.
     • Recommended prompt implementation of Phase II of regula-
         tion.

Role of Federal Land Managers and National Park Service:

     • The role of these agencies in implementing protection
         for their own  Class I areas is not sufficiently defined.
     • Time alloted to  agencies to assess the  impact of new
         sources on visibility is insufficient.
                               A-290

-------
Shell Oil Company, IV-D-260
Visibility impairment is not well defined scientifically:

     • Human observations are subjective.
     • Present instrumentation does not always relate to human
         perception of visibility.
     • Modeling techniques are not yet verified.
     • EPA should limit its present rulemaking to existing
         sources that can be identified by visual observation
         to contribute to "significant visibility impairment".

"Significant impairment" and "adverse impact" have almost^the
same definition:.

     • This is confusing and duplicates meanings.
     • The only real difference is in paragraph 51.301(1) -
         "in the judgement of the Administrator".
     • The term "visibility impairment" is more applicable than
         "adverse impact".
     • The inclusion of the words "management, protection and
         preservation" in the definition of "significant impair-
         ment" is greater than Congressional intent.
     • Recommended definition of  "significant impairment":  "any
         man-caused change in atmospheric optical properties
          (including visual range, contrast, and atmospheric
         discoloration) which appreciably reduces public enjoy-
         ment of the scenic qualities of a federally designated
         Class I area".

Opposes the concept of "integral  vistas".

      • Unwarranted and unjustified expansion of Congressional
         intent.     .
      • Other programs - PSD, NSPS, and SIP, should be sufficient
         to protect visibility of integral vistas.
      • This will foreclose major  areas of the U.S. to major energy
         and mineral resource development.
      • EPA should conduct an economic impact analysis.

EPA has shown indifference to public comments.

      • EPA did not state the comments would be  considered in
         rulemaking.
      • Comments were to be made to a docket no.; not an
         individual.
                               A-291

-------
General Electric, IV-D-261


EPA should reschedule Final Rulemaking for November 15, 1985.

     . Follow a UARG proposed study.
     - Studies include:   (1) time needed to allow full consid-
         eration of findings of visibility research,  (2) scientific
         basis for understanding the causes and effects of visi-
         bility impairment,  (3) increased informational data
         base for weighing costs and benefits of BART, and (4)
         time to allow for development of models and  other methods
         of measurement and prediction.

GE proposes long term  (10-15 years) milestone dates:

      . Promulgation of guidelines in November, 1985.  _Setting
         forth a five-year mechanism for resolving  scientific
         uncertainties.
      • Promulgation in November, 1985 of guidelines for  states.
      • November, 1986  for revision  of SIP's.
      • May, 1987 - EPA complete review and approval of SIP's.
      • May, 1992, implementation of program addressing major
         sources and new  sources.
      • May, 1995, attain  reasonable progress  toward long-term
         objectives.

      • The  court ordered  date  of November  15,  1980  will  be met
         by promulgation  of this schedule.
      • The  intent of the  Act was the establishment  of a 10-15
         strategy.

 Sources  subject  to New Source  Review  should not  be  later subject
 to changing BART requirements.

 Opposes  the integral vista concept:

      • The  act prohibits  EPA from  creating protective buffer zones.
      • The  net effect  is  to enlarge the  boundries of  mandatory
          Class I Federal  areas beyond those  agreed to by Congress.

 Comments on newly  classified Class I  areas,  those identified after
 Section  51.302(b)(1).

      •  Subsequent  Class I areas should not be afforded visibility
          protection from existing  sources, unless a major modifi-
          cation  is made that directly affects the Class I area.

 Opposes  reanalysis of BART determinations (Sec.  51.306).

      .  BART reanalysis should be performed only if there is no
          current technology available at the time of initial
          determination.
                               A-292

-------
IV-D-261 continued
     .  Section 51.306(d)  and 51.306(e) should explicitly prohibit
         BART analysis for a controlled pollutant.
     •To do otherwise would leave the major source owners in a
         climate of uncertainty.
     •  BART should be determined and implemented only when a
         particular control technology at a specific source will
         control a demonstrated visibility impairment.

The State, not the FLM, should select sources for BART review.

     •  The analysis should be made by EPA and States, not the FLM.
Opposes certain definitions:
                                                           Depen-
     •  "Visibility impairment"  is too vague and variable.
         dent on human perception.
     •  "Natural Conditions" - vaguely defined,  transitory, purely
         subjective baseline.  Who is the one to "expect"  con-
         ditions to occur?  It will be up to the FLM.  What does
         the absence of man mean?
     •  "Potential to emit" - should be consistent with the PSD
         regulations.
     •  "Integral vista" - should be deleted.

Opposes Section 51.303(c):

     •  States remote from a source have veto power of exemption
         for an existing source.
     .  Concurrence from a state is not required for an exemption.
     •  A state with no Class I area could exercise control over
         new sources if long range transport were involved.
     •  States should not have control over  sources in other
         states.

GE requests the comment period be reopened  if substantive changes
are made to the draft guidelines.

Draft guidelines  should be presented in  final form with an oppor-
tunity for public comment before  promulgation of the regulations.
                               A-293

-------
Utah International, Inc., IV-D-262
Oppose concept of "integral vistas":

     • Inclusion of such will jeopardize new industrial (energy)
         development in the West and resultingly increase cost
         of operating existing facilities.
     - Disagree that integral vistas will not be identified
         carelessly.  Also object to allowance of a five year
         period to identify additional vistas.
     • Definition of "adverse impact" is too subjective as is
         the determination of an integral vista.  Authority of
         Federal Land Manager in this decision-making process
         goes beyond Congressional intent.  Identification of.
         vistas should not be made solely by federal agencies
         but by Congress or if EPA insists on this authority,
         then it should be subjected to a formal rulemaking
         process (i.e. for each individual vista).  Furthermore,
         the potential economic impact that each integral vista
         could have should subject the identification process
         to a regulatory analysis as required by Executive Order
         12044.
                               A-294

-------
WEST Assoc. (Western Energy Supply & Transmission), .IV-D-263


Discussion of Visibility Monitoring Considerations from the
Interim Guidance for Visibility Monitoring:

     • Definition of visibility - vague, overbroad and imprecise.
         Does not account for:  differing human perceptions;
         fluctuating properties in the atmosphere; .varying natural
         conditions such as seasons and weather; differences among
         target objects; imprecisions inherent in measuring instru-
         ments; and the relative contributions of man-caused and
         natural sources of emissions that affect visibility and
         its.impairment.  This definition is related  (in the guide-
         line) to regional haze - in contridiction to the proposed
         rules where localized visibility considerations  (plumes)
         are of primary concern.
     • Measuring and Quantifying Visibility - EPA recommends using
         a fixed point electronic telephotometer to measure visi-
         bility.  This is for only measuring at a fixed point,
         based upon certain assumptions.
       Using a scanning telephotometer to measure plume appearance
         will not yield useful information.  Such an  instrument
         has not been adequately developed .or tested.
       The guideline fails to provide for adequate measurement and
         quantification.
       Other methods should be used - photographs to  measure such
         as visual range.  Photography can a) provide a permanent
         visual record, conducive to excellent quality control,
         can be used for measurements at different wavelengths,
         and can be used to augment other measurements.
     • Source/Impairment Relationship - The guideline recommends
         collection of particulate matter and meteorology data
         for determining visibility impairment.  WEST contends
         that the relationship between these data bases has not
         been developed to the point of relating-them back to a
         specific source.
       It  is impossible to identify specific sources  by analyzing
         them either chemically or by particle shape.
       The guideline recommends using surface meteorological data
         to  identify sources  contributing to impairment.  Surface
         meteorological data  are only indicators.

 Discussion of Visibility Modeling Consideration  from  "Workbook  for
 Estimating Visibility  Impairment" and the  "User's Manual  for the
 Plume  Visibility Model  (PLUVUE)".

      • Modeling procedures fail to  account  for  transport  and
         diffusion, atmospheric chemistry,  optics  and coloration.
      • The first' two levels of  screening are too  simplistic to
         yield meaningful visibility  judgements.   The third
         level - computer modeling  contains  incorrect assumptions.
                               A-295

-------
IV-D-263 continued

     .  Transport and Diffusion - The computer model uses a
         Gaussian diffusion model.  This is unsuitable to
         complex terrain such as found in the West.  Further
         it cannot be applied to long distance, e.g., 50
         kilometers or more.                             .
     .  Atmospheric Chemistry - Component assumes conversion ot
         nitric oxide to nitrogen dioxide and nitrates and sul-
         fur dioxide into sulfates.  It ignores the complexity
         of these reactions.  Further, it does not address the
         contribution of reactive hydrocarbons.  It does not
         account for atmospheric moisture, aging of the Plume
         parcel, hydroxyl radical distribution, history of UV
         radiation or the variability of ozone.
     •  Optics and Atmospheric Particles - The model does not
         account for multiple scattering and diffused radiation
         in the atmosphere.
     -  Coloration and Perception  -  Model assigns a precise
         numerical value to coloration  - which  is  subjective.
         The model assumes  color  value  will  remain constant_in
         the atmosphere.  Certain parameters of visibility  im-
         pairment are not properly established.  The model will
         produce inaccurate and improper visibility  predictions.
      -  Other Infirmities -  1) The model assumes the  plumes will
         travel  in a  straight horizontal  line.  In fact this
         rarely  occurs.  2)  The current model  does not  use  a_
         sufficient data base for atmospheric  stability, mixing
         depth,  etc.   3) Model  uses only  methological  data  in
         . the  immediate  vicinity of source.   4}  The model's  base-
         line  values  such  as visual range  are  based  on  urban
         area  data  and  therefore bear no  relationship to the
         remote  federal areas.   5)  The model is based on the
         Mie  scattering theory.  There is no research to test
         this  theory in this application.   This will yield in-
          accurate results.
      .  In  its  present form, the model guideline cannot and should
         not be used.

 Discussion of BART considerations from the "Proposed Guidelines
 for Determining Best Available Retrofit Technology for Coal-fired
 Power Plants and Other Major Stationary Sources .

      - Contridictions/Case-By-Case Determinations.  The language
          that "BART for the majority of power plants...is  (NSPS)  ,
          - Subpart Da.  This specifically contravenes the language
          found in Section  169A(g)(2) of the Act.   It clearly
          conflicts with the definition in the proposed regu-
          lations.
                                A-296

-------
IV-D-263 continued

     *  The emissions limitations are supposed to be set on a
         case-by-case basis.  EPA has failed to provide for
         demonstration that BART is both technologically and
         economically justified.  EPA has also failed to pro-
         vide the required guidance under NSPS for equipment
         that meets a sliding scale emissions limit based on
         sulfur content of the coal burned.
       WEST believes this is in need of revision.
     •  Generalities/Control Strategies.  The guideline is not
         specific with regard to control equipment and types
         of sources.  For example, the guideline ignores design
         parameters for ESP's on utility boilers.
     •  Costs - A comparison of the Pullman-Kellogg study to the
         cost analysis by ICF for the Mohave plant indicate a
         large discrepancy in the cost estimates.  This needs
         to be resolved in the cost estimate guideline.
       WEST is stating that any application of BART at this time
         to protect visibility is premature.  They feel any cost,
         at this time, is excessive and there is no demonstration
         that expenditures for a strategy will measurably improve
         visibility at a site.
       Even if BART were possible, it would not be possible to
         perform an analysis in nine months.

Discussion of Procedural Considerations:

     •  The notice requesting comments on four technical documents
         totaling more than 750 pages was published on July 23,
         1980.  Comments were due on August 25, 1980, leaving
         only 23 business days to receive the notice, read the
         documents, prepare and submit comments to the docket
         and prepare testimony for a public hearing to be held
         the same day as the comments were due.
     •  The Notice of Guideline Availability was signed by Asst.
         Admin. Hawkins on June 18, but not published until
         more than a month later..

Conclusion:

     •  The four guidelines are technically and scientifically
         inadequate.
     •  The multi-year approach should be taken to avoid costly
         consequences, without visibility benefits.
                               A-297

-------
Allegheny Power Service Corp., IV-D-264


The three companies of the Allegheny Power System, being members
of the StiS? Air Regulation Group  (UARG) , adopt and incorporate
the views expressed by UARG which were previously submitted on
SJ propSsedPrulemaking.  These views will not be repeated here
in these comments.

Comments here are primarily directed toward the document  "Pre-
iSSSS Assessment of Economic Impacts of Visibility Regulations
 (SSfSl?" which was relied on for background  to the proposed
regulations:

      •  It is  submitted that EPA's reliance on the Draft Report
         as now constituted is  in error.        _         .
      -  It is  requested that EPA disavow and revise  certain  of _
         the  Draft  Report's statements and conclusions concerning
         visibility impairment  as being speculation and unsubstan-
         tiated.
                                 A-298

-------
Weyerhaeuser Company, IV-D-265
These comments supplement others submitted earlier by Neyerhaeuser.

Commend EPA upon realizing that prescribed burning is an important
tool to the forest landowners for successful forest management.

Opposes the concept of "integral vistas".

     • EPA does not have the legal jurisdiction to force the
         federal land manager to assume jurisdiction over lands
         outside of the Class I'area.
     • Development within "buffer zone" is at the whim of the
         federal land manager.  Similarly with regard to retro-
         fit procedure at a facility.
     • Not Congressional intent.
     • Illegal transfer of responsibility from state to federal.
     • Protection to a Class I area should be done by adequate
         public input (hearings, connect periods and results
         from public determinations) instead of according to
         federal whims.

Disagree with BART program, concerning replacement of control
equipment at facilities which may already be in compliance with
SIP, as well as continual replacement of equipment as new tech-
nology emerges.

No identification of visibility values in Class I areas was de-
manded of the Department of the Interior along with their (Dept.
of the Interior)  suggestion of areas needing visibility protection.

Object to federal land manager (who is lacking in all around
expertise)  having lead position in determination of new sources.
That is, opportunity to make a subjective judgement on PSD per-
mit issuance, especially since little or no appeal procedure is
available within regulation to override his decision.

Definitions within regulation are vague:

     • "Potential to emit" - attempts to include fugitive
         emissions, in contrast to that stated in Alabama
         Power.
     • "Visibility impairment" - should include such modifiers
         as "significant" or "adverse".

Question how natural visibility conditions will be established
and how man's contributions will be separated from such.

     • Believe wildfire smoke should be included in background
         visibility impairment.
                              A-299

-------
IV-D-265  continued


Measuring and monitoring of impairment will be difficult to
correlate with human perceptions.

Seems that reasonable further progress is being made by prescribed
burning, as well as when NSPS is applied to a new source.  These
two areas should either be deleted or addressed in later phases
of program.

States should be allowed for more than 9 months time to include
visibility protection within SIP, since technology for measuring
and monitoring are uncertain.

Phase I should allow states to carefully review and plan steps to
address any major problems to visibility in their SIP revision.
                                                               i
Oppose the unfairness imposed on a few point  sources, i.e. the
burden of  solving visibility problems when the greatest  impact
goes ignored.
                                A-300

-------
Rio Blanco Oil Shale Company, IV-D-266
Agrees generally with the logic concerning integral vistas, but
disagrees with the aspect that the authority has been granted
to the Federal Land Manager to add to the list until December
31, 1980.

     • A lengthy period allowing additional new vistas to be
         continually added is unfair and unwarranted.  They
         should be immediately identifiable.
     • If carried to extremes, the integral vistas concept
         could prohibit development in the West.

Experience in visibility monitoring leads RBOSG to know the
difficulty which will be involved in determining the unambiguous
visibility baseline, let alone detect an impact due to a source.

Applauds the decision by EPA to use air quality models only as
an "input in the decision-making process".

Approve of EPA's choice on a phased approach in promulgating
the regulations.  It is better to develop regulations that have
considered the socio-economic costs associated with such actions.
                               A-301

-------
Salt River Project, IV-D-267


Opposes the definition of "visibility impairment":

     • "visibility" as it is used in the regulations is too
         subjective.

FLM should not identify the visibility impairment:

     • Specifically requires EPA to provide guidelines.
     - States must identify.

Proposed rule is  "arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discre-
tion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law".

     - Not understand what  causes visibility degradation.
     - Basic concepts need  to be reevaluated for  technical
         relevance.

Background documents do not fulfill intended role -  providing
comprehensive guidance to states.

Due process necessitates delay  of proposed  rules  until  chal-
lenges of Section 120 penalties is  settled.

Congress did not have Constitutional  authority  to enact esthetic
legislation.

Effect of Section 120 - Noncompliance penalties.

      - Utilities may comply with unfair rule  rather than face
         possible Section  120  penalties.

Managed  agricultural/forestry  burning should  be treated as £oint
 sources  in  most cases.

      -  They are individually  ignited and controlled and can be
          modeled.

 The primary responsibility for implementation of the visibility
 program should not be shared between the States and FLM, but
 should rest with the State.

 A copy of the comments to the ANPR were included.  These were
 not summarized since they referred specifically to the ANPR.

 Comments on "BAIVU Guidelines":

      •  It would be desirable to assess visibility improvements
          corresponding to BART.
      .  Cost of replacement power for a derated boiler  to reduce
          NOX has to be evaluated.
                                A-302

-------
IV-D-267 continued, page 2
     •  Statement on ESP efficiency may not be accurate.
     •  Questioning statements on lime/limestone scrubbing -
         availability, reliability, and efficiency.
     •  Monitoring - section is vague:
     •  Serious concerns about cost model.
     •  Baghouses may not be able to maintain continuous,operation
         on utility boilers.
     •  Technical errors in section on ESP's.
     •  There are seven other technical comments, highly specific
         within the document.

Comments on the VISTTA study:

     •  Nitric oxide .(NO) was mistakenly identified as Nitrous
         Oxide (N2O).
     •  The natural sources in the Southwest have been ignored by
         the rulemaking, e.g. dust storms.
     •  "Carbonaceous material" referred to was soot.

EPA has changed direction from Congressional intent in the Act.

     •  Congress intended regional visibility protection.
     •  EPA has concentrated on localized visibility impairment -
         plume blight.
     •  No scientific guidance is provided concerning the cause
         of plume blight and regional haze.

Causes of visibility impairment:

     •  Nitrous oxide is primary cause of plume blight.
     •  Effect from particulate matter other than sulfate and
         nitrate.

Comments on "EPA Report to Congress"

Methodology Used for Assessment:

     •  Modeling technique is still developmental stage.
     .  Have not been able to decide on a method for measuring
         impairment.
     •  Report does not provide a baseline definition.

A page-by-page critique follows.  No attempt to summarize this
has been made.                  .......

Modeling is deficient for regulatory use.
                               A-303

-------
IV-D-267 continued, page 3


Opposes phased approach:

     - Will not overcome limitations of modeling in complex
         *t" f* IT IT 3 in
     . Regulatory action employing modeling should not be taken.

Opposes FLM role in identification of visibility impairment.

     • The Act does not delegate responsibility to FLM.
     . Usurped the states authority by EPA and gave to FLM.

Opposes concept of "integral vista":

     • Beyond intent of Congress.

Opposes FLM identifying major  stationary  source causing visi-
bility  impairment:

      •  In excess of the Agency's authority to delegate that
         function.
      •  FLM does not have  the technical capability.
      •  Visual observation is the only valid method.

FLM in  consultation with  state on  BART:


      •  Why?                         •
      •  Not in the  Act.

Definition of "significant  impairment":

      •  Cannot be  a simple subjective  determination.
      -  "Significant" must be quantified.


BART reanalysis:

      •  Was not  the intent of Congress.

Long Term Strategy:

      •  Congress did not intend for State to.consult with FLM.

 Reference to "...in a Federal  Class I area...":

      .  Section 165 refers to all Class I areas.
      .  EPA force Section 169A visibility requirements for Sectxon
          165 circumstances except for where there is no FLM.

 Opposes definition of "major source":

      •  Not realistic.
                                A-304

-------
IV-D-267 continued, page 4
Confusion over term "secondary emissions" and "secondary
pollutants":

     •  Clarify or use other form.

Comment on definition of "visibility impairment":

     •  It is incomplete.
     •  Should be changed:  "visibility impairment" means any
         humanly perceptible reduction in visibility or visual
         range to a prominent landmark along a sensitive atmos-
         phere along such a sight path".

"Natural Conditions" - opposes.

     •  Impossible to measure.
     •  Should substitute "conditions other than those resulting
         from manmade pollution".

Comment on definition of "significant impairment":

     •  Already quantified in "visibility impairment".
     -  Should be deleted.

Comment on definition of "integral vista":

     •  Not relevant.
     •  Exceeds Congressionally delegated authority.
     •  Might be called a "visibility sensitive vista".
     •  The term panorama should be deleted.
     •  Reference to visitor experience should be deleted.

Comment on definition of "reasonably attributable":

     •  "Other monitoring technique" must be qualified.
     •  Suggest "other proven equivalent monitoring technique".

Comment on definition of "adverse impact":

     •  Same as comment on "significant impairment".

Comments on "integral vistas":

     •  Should address only the vista not the entire area.
     •  FLM should not identify vista - not authorized by
         Congress.
     •  FLM should not have 30 days - should be treated as
         citizen.
     •  New source permit applications should not trigger I.D.
         of new integral vistas.
                               A-305

-------
IV-D-267 continued, page 5



Opposes FLM role in exemption process.


     • Veto power.
                               ,,                     •,       .   <  . . \
Opposes periodic review and update.

     - Congress intended one update in 10-15 years.


Comments on "Modeling Guideline".

     • Concerned with long range transport - Model doesn't work.
     • Atmospheric Chemistry - inadequate.
     • Optics - decrease accuracy.
     . Model unverified.
     . Use of Gaussian plume models over 50 km is inappropriate.
     • Other detailed comments concerning treatment of the model
         were made, but not summarized.


Comments on ICF Report:

      • Failed to  use valid screening  techniques.  The ERT  screen-
         ing curves are still draft and not intended for this
         application.                             .          .
      . Cost estimates are surprisingly low on an  industry-wide
         basis.                                           .  .
      •  ICF failed to mention further  effects of higher utility
         rates.
      .  Questions  the approaches  taken by  ICF on NOX reduction.
      -  Cited only studies by B&W on low NOX burners - does not
         apply  to other manufacturers of  boilers.
      .  Not possible  to  predict  the effect of combined NOX  control
         techniques  on  NOX emissions.
      •  Report relies on NEDS data which is not.  accurate.
      .  Specific comments  dealing point by point with the  report
         were made.  No attempt to summarize these  had been made.


 A copy of  the  letter from Horton and  Williams  to  Douglas  Costle,
 June 25,  1980 was enclosed.  This was the request for  rulemaking
 change and submitted separately, so no  attempt was  made  to
 summarize  it with this  submittal.
                                A-306

-------
Sunoco Energy Development Company, IV-D-26.8
Comments filed by the National Coal Association detail the
several specific issues of concern to Sunedco.  The NCA sub-
mi ttal represents their views.

Disagree with concpet of "integral vistas".  Feel that this
aspect could develop into legal problems. "Integral vista"
would result in the taking of private property for public use
without just compensation.

Disagree about the process of integral vista identification by
Federal Land Managers.  Final determinations will have to be
subjective a.nd open to dispute.

The integral vista concept will adversely lock up millions of
acres of land having great potential for energy resource develop-
ment .
                              A-307

-------
P. H. Klein, Burlington Industries, Inc., IV-D-269


Questions the cost/benefit relationship of the regulations:

     • BART could result in repeated retrofits as control tech-
         nology improves.  These retrofits are costly and
         generally result in minimal improvement.
     . Influence of Federal Land Manager is too great as stated
         in the regulations.  This adds to industry's cost in
         the PSD review process.
     • Recommend delay of issuance of regulations until cost/
         benefit relationship is conscientiously addressed.

Questions EPA's infringing on State's rights  in administering
programs:

      . Recommend delay of issuance of regulations until State's
         rights question is addressed.
                                A-308

-------
Joe Venishnick, L. D. McParland Co., IV-D-270


Opposes inclusion of Integral Vistas concept:

     • Visibility regulations should be limited to visibility
         impairment within Class I areas as this is the intent
         of Congress.
     • Supports visibility protection with limited restriction
         on industrial and forest management practices.

Opposes the regulation's application to prescribed burning:

     • Questions EPA's authority to regulate prescribed burning
         outside of Class I areas.
     • Smoke from prescribed burning for the purpose of restoring,
         maintaining, or improving natural ecosystems should be
         considered part of the baseline or "natural" visibility
         impairment.
     • States should determine whether additional smoke manage-
         ment techniques for prescribed burning is necessary.
     • Objectives of visibility program should be viewed in light
         of other desirable environmental objectives - aesthetics
         of forested areas, maintenance of wildlife habitat.
     • Regulations on prescribed burning should be postponed
         until after Phase I of the visibility program.
     • Evaluate alternatives to prescribed burning - use of
         chemical or mechanical scarification for site preparation
         in terms of cost and time  effectiveness.
                              A-309

-------
Hunton & Williams, IV-D-271


     • Coinments on proposed regulations only.
     • Filing comments one, three and four in August 22 letter.
         Comment two will be filed on August 25.  These comments
         (#2) deal with guideline documents, UARG's understanding
         of original proposal as influenced by the guideline
         documents and the implications of other material in the
         record for these guideline documents.
     • Agrees with four conclusions that have guided EPA in
         defining the general outline of proposal:

          First, that only those existing facilities to which
          visibility impairment can be reasonably attributed
          should be regulated for visibility purposes;

          Second, that visual observation is the most reliable
          technique for linking a facility with impairment, since
          other visibility monitoring and modeling techniques
          remain early in their development;

          Third, that even if a facility can be reliably linked
          with an impairment by visual observation, there remains
          no basis for regulation unless it  is also possible to
          define the relationship between emission reductions,
          on the one hand, and improvements  in visibility, on
          the other; and

          Fourth, that in determining whether emission  controls
          are appropriate, their costs and benefits must be
          identified and taken into account.

        However,  specifics of EPA's proposal  are  flawed  because
         they ignore four basic constraints:

          First,  limitations inherent  in  the congressional
          design for visibility protection;

          Second, constraints  imposed  by  the primitive  state  of
          the visibility art;

          Third,  constraints resulting from gaps in  the existing
          rulemaking  record; and

          Fourth,  limits on  the number of regulatory steps  that
          actually  can be  taken during any nine month period.

      •  Congress recognized several  things.
          - impairment is  reversible.
          - visibility is  an aesthetic value
          - costs and benefits be  identified.
          - if techniques  to assess are unavailable  then protec-
             tion programs  cannot  be fully defined.
                                A-310

-------
IV-D-271 continued
       Unlawful interjection of FLM.
       Regulations fail to specify in developing long term
        strategies, that states need only consider regulation
         of significant impairments in visibility.
       Integral vistas are not authorized.
       Once a source under NSR receives PSD permit,  further
         controls from a visibility protection viewpoint are
         not called for.
       Long term,strategies call for BART reanalysis and impo-
         sition of controls on PSD sources, source exerpt from
         BART etc.  This goes against congressional intent.
       Guidance on visibility assessment is grossly inadequate.
       Gaps in record which leave much of EPA's proposal un-
         supported.
       These deficiencies in proposal include:

          EPA's proposed guidelines for BART assessments do not
          define (a)  how visibility impairment is to be attrib-
          uted to specific existing sources or (b) the analyses
          for determining what BART ought to be and for rebutting
          the Agency's presumption that BART equals revise'd NSPS.

          That presumption, in turn,  has no factual basis in
          this record or the NSPS rulemaking record.

          No long-term strategy guidelines  have been issued.

          No new source review guidelines have been issued.

          The guidelines for visibility monitoring and modeling
          are incomplete and rely on  unvalidated techniques.

          And, the regulatory analysis for  the proposal is
          grossly incomplete.

       No way state can accomplish in 9 months all that EPA's
         proposal insists must be accomplished.   These include:

          Listing of "integral" vistas and  attribution of visi-
          bility impairment to its sources;

          Then, preparation of exemption applications by affected
          sources;

          To be followed by the conduct of  EPA proceedings on
          such applications, including public hearings;

          And ultimately for those sources  not exempted, determi-
          nation by the states of the best  available retrofit
          technology to protect visibility, including another
          round of public hearings preceded by 60 days notice.
                              A-311

-------
IV-D-271 continued
       A realistic proposal can be shaped given the above noted
         deficiencies.

       1. Obligate the Agency to develop as rapidly as is feasible
          the data necessary to prepare scientifically sound
          guideline documents; and
       2. Direct the states to:
          a.   Adopt procedures to implement the separate
               visibility programs of Section 169A and of
               PSD on a reasonable schedule after EPA pro-
               poses and promulgates scientifically sound
               guidance documents;
          b.   Develop the long-term data bases necessary
               to characterize realistically the causes of
               visibility impairment and the effects of con-
               trolling them; and
          c.   Formulate long-term strategies for visibility
               protection under Section 169A.

      • Some  impairment is inevitable and acceptable.
      • House Report talks about drastic interference in connection
         with visibility.
      . House version wanted maximum feasible process.  Conference
         report  reduced to reasonable progress.
      • Statutes  make  clear visibility is to be protected  if bene-
         fits outweigh the costs.  Section 169(A)  supports these
         statements.                                .
      • Impairment should deal with intensity, duration, frequency,
         time and extent.
      • Need  to develop visibility objectives.
      . Definition of  visibility  impairment and contract and natural
         conditions.  Neither is  appropriate.  Congress didn  t
          give EPA
the latitude to include contrast which is far
          more vague than range and discoloration             _  _
        Impairment should be measured not against natural conditions
          but against background conditions produced by. people
          whose enjoyment and welfare Section 169A was enacted.
        Regulations hopple state initiative by defining BART vs
          NSPS by excessively interjecting the FLM into state
          decisionmaking.                               .  .
        There are 22 interjections of FLM into State decisionmaking.
          It would be less cumbersome had EPA simply proposed that
          the FLM go ahead and make visibility decisions subject to
          EPA ratification.  ,
        FLM role is set out and limited in 169(A)(a)(2), (c)(3)  and
          (d) as well as 164(b) (1) (B).
        EPA should prune involvement of FLM in accord with Act.
        Revised BART guidelines indicate that "BART for the majority
          of power plants...is NSPS".  This presumption discourages
          case-by-case assessment.  EPA has not supported this pre-
          sumption .
                                A-312

-------
IV-D-271 continued
       States in developing long-term strategies should not be
         required to address insignificant impairments.
       Mere 169(A)(g)(6)  and 169(A)(a)(1)  and Congress's intent
         is quite clear with respect to concept of integral
         vistas.   Not authorized.
       Also omissions in Act indicate Congress did not intend for
         integral vistas to fall within visibility program
         169(A)(a)(3)  does not direct EPA to report to Congress
         on any such vistas and 169(A)(a)(2)  to (4) do not require
         the preparation of procedures for vista identification.
         Also 165(e)(l)  refers to adjacent areas and outlined
         what Congress had in mind for these areas.
       EPA proposes  to regulate integral vistas because Congress
         failed expressely to forbid it, but no regulatory body
         may regulate without specific authority.
       Regulations  should clearly state that only "listed" areas
         are protected under 169A and that the list cannot be
         augmented  if other areas  are redesignated Class I areas.
       Agency has failed to follow proper procedures in listing
         mandatory  areas where visibility is to be protected.
       Eliminate  confusion in Section 51.302(C)(1)(iii) with
         51.302(C)(2)(i)  regarding the  handling of new sources
         under PSD.
       New sources  are handled under PSD and are not subject to
         additional  visibility requirements.   Exchange between
         MSSRS. McClure and Muskie.
       No requirement in 169A for  reevaluation of BART limitations.
         No express  requirement as in III(b)(1)(B)  to reevaluate.
       Proposal  fails  to take into account the substantial time
         required to establish individual  visibility emission
         limitations.                    	
       More than  3 months are needed to identify and list integral
         vistas.
       Following  procedures for listing of integral vistas should
         be followed:
         1.     The  federal land manager must develop a record on
               each  potential "integral".vista.
         2.     Each  federal land manager must develop a proposed
               identification of "integral"  vistas and publish
               a  notice  of these proposals in the  Federal Register
               along with a statement of their basis and purpose.
         3.     The public should be  given  an  opportunity to make
               oral  presentations, to submit  written comments,
               and to  submit supplemental  and rebuttal comments
               on the  proposed identifications.
         4.    Final identifications  must  be  published along with
               a^statement of the  basis  and  purpose for the iden-
               tification,  and the decision  and record transmitted
               to EPA.
                              A-313

-------
IV-D-271 (continued)

         5.
         The Agency must prepare  an  independent  assessment
         of each  "integral" vista identified by  the  federal
         land managers,' responsive to Executive  Order  12044
         and Section  317 of the Act, and  determine whether
         they are vistas "in which...visibility  is an  impor-
         tant value."   Section 169A(a)(2).
     6.   The public must be given an opportunity to  make
         oral presentations, to submit  written comments,
         and to  submit supplemental  and rebuttal comments
         on the  proposed listing  of  "integral" vistas.
     7.   The final list must be published along  with a state-
         ment of its  basis and purpose.
     8.   The final promulgation by EPA  must be  subject to
         judicial review.

•  Two guideposts  are the one year  period under  169(A)(2)  for
    the  original  listing and the  2 year, 3 months actually
    consumed  to promulgate  the  list of  these areas.
•  All vistas  should be listed  at  one time.
•  Opportunity  for source to file  and have  considered an
    exemption  application  is severely limited if only 9
    months  is  permitted to  develop BART requirements.
-  Considerable  data needs  to be collected.
•  Recommend states only have requirement that certain sources
    install BART  within 9  months.   Actual  limits could take
    longer  to develop.
•  Adopt PSD definition for potential to emit.
•  Should not include fugitive  emissions in stationary source
    definition.   Should not include surface mines..
•  Requirement for continuous monitoring should not be
    imposed—no basis.
•  Regulations silent on startup,  shut down and malfunction.
-  Does manmade pollution include water'vapor?
                               A-314

-------
Virginia Electric and Power Company (Vepco), IV-D-272


"Costs per acre" to preserve and protect visibility could be
for more than the Federal 1980 "Natural Resources and Environ-
ment" budget.

     * Vepco's Mt. Storm plants may impact on the Dolly Sods
         and Otter Creek Class I areas of West Virginia.  The .
         costs to meet a 5% visibility reduction criteria, as
         related to area, would be Cbased on acreage of the
         Class I areas) $40,645 per acre and $14,700 per acre
         for capitol and annual operating costs, respectively.
     • In contrast, the total federal budget for parks divided
         by the total acreage is an expenditure of $128.50 per
         acre.
     • Based on a 1966 report - EPA stated the value of recreation
         areas would be $1.00 per visitor-day."  The annualized
         retrofit costs to Mt. Storm related to Dolly Sods and
         Otter Creek are equivalent to $4,000 - $18,000 per
         visitor-day.

Visibility is not a health related issue, and therefore no assess-
ment costs and benefits can be made involving human life and wild-
life protection.

Visibility Modeling

     • It is unwise to use an unvalidated model.
     • Many people place so much faith in computer techniques that
         early warnings about model limitations may not be heeded.
     • Strongly urge EPA to refrain from using any models for
         regulatory purposes until they are fully validated.

Comments on BART

     • Reanalysis of BART should not be required.
     • Installation of new varities of BART would have an
         extremely low cost-benefit ratio.
     • Vepco does not believe that there will be "grandfathering"
         of sources from future BART requirements as the preamble
         to the regulations indicated.
     • There is an implication EPA is considering doing the BART
         analysis for certain specific sources.  This would be
         contrary to the intent of Congress, that states have
         primary responsibility for conducting the visibility
         program.
                               A-315

-------
IV-D-272 continued

Comment on the "Preliminary Assessment of Economic  Impact of
Visibility Regulations".

     • This assessment covers only the costs  associated with  the
         few major sources affected  in "Phase I  .
     • No comparison of  cost to benefits  is made.   The report
         states  "in developing visibility regulations it  is
         important to assess the  potential benefits...  .
     . Cost estimates were not based on  the  application of  BART.
         They were determined from estimates  of  emissions reduc-
         tion to achieve alternate threshold  values of visibility
         impairment.  This may not be related to BART.
           •*•         .  •   __J-nJ1i_.3.....;.l-'U 4-^-t *-iV\-r\ i r* a I  O V7"OT*C
       The  assessment is riddled with
          example:   1)  Mt.  Storm Unit
                                      technical errors.  For
                                     1 is listed as starting
         operation prior'to August 7, 1962 and therefore "grand-
                 •"       Storm Unit 1 started operation September
          fathered
Mt
              Sitid •   *••*• *- •  *-* i-*-'-1-A" vj.*-*.*-—.«*- —-—	 - j.    ^        j_
              'l965.   This error changes the cost estimates at
         20.
         Storm by 50%
                         2)  The stated distances from Mt. Storm to
          Dolly Sods and Otter Creek Class I areas is in error
          The location of the Class 1 areas on Figure 1 of the
          report is in error.
        These errors make the report totally worthless
        The regulations should not be promulgated until the public
                                                          'seasonal
         can comment

Opposes the definition of natural conditions and use of
best visibility".

     • "In any season it is possible  for unusual weather  conditions
         to result in rare occurrences  of very  good visibility.
         These occurrences would be just as rare in the^absence
         of man-made impairment as they are under  existing con-

     . Taking°the"biste§ondition in a season may be an abnormal

     - ViSibilit^is often poor in West Virginia as a  natural
         occurrence.

Comments on Identification of Integral Vistas

      • Since  areas within Class  I  viewing  range are not_likely
         to change, Vepco  sees no  need to  identify new integral
         vistas  in the  future.
      - If  a new  integral vista were  identified subsequent to a
         tentative PSD  selection  site, it could disrupt the
         application  process for 18  months or more.
                                 A-316

-------
IV-D-272 (continued)

     •  Allowing an integral vista to be designated by a FLM in
         response to a PSD permit application would be a perver-
         sion of the basic concept of integral vistas.

Comments on the concept of integral vistas:

     •  EPA's attempt to expand visibility protection provisions
         to include vistas outside of Class I areas is contrary
         to the clear language of the Clean Air Act.
     •  Congress has not tried to restrict commercial or residential
         development outside the National Parks.
     •  Extending the visibility protection would further reduce
         the already negligible cost-benefit ratio.
     •  This could have tremendous economic impact.
                               A-317

-------
American Paper Institute/National Forest Products Assoc., IV-D-273


Department of Interior identified a total of 156 mandatory Class
I federal areas, and EPA has accepted the list without a review
or selection process.

      • Section 169A(a)(1) of the Act requires EPA to make the
         final determination.
      • EPA should fulfill its statutory duty, and perform an
         adequate review.

Comments on definitions:

      • "Potential to emit" - the court's decision  (Alabama
         Power Case) does not justify or include EPA's  definition.
         It does not exclude the use of permit  restrictions.
         The definition  should be revised to  include emission
         reductions due  to enforceable permit conditions.
      • "Fugative emissions" - this  should be  in a  separate rule-
         making with  specifics for  particular industries.
      - "Visibility  Impairment" - rather than  "any... change in
         visibility...which would have existed  under natural
         conditions"  it  should read,  "a...change in visual range..
         that  interferes with the viewing of  important  scenic
         landmarks  or panoramas, and is  caused  solely by man-made
         air pollution and is not attributed  to natural conditions
      .  "Natural  conditions"  should  include  forestry burning  for
         the purpose  of  wildfire hazard  reduction.
      .  "Significant impairment"  -  the work  "significant  should
         be inserted in  the definition.   This should also vary
         with  the  area where  the visibility is  protected, i.e.,
          the  Great Smokey Mountains.
      •  "Integral vista"  - there  is  no statutory authority for
          this  concept.                        .
      •  "Adverse impact"  - should include the word significant.

 Opposes the "grandfather" override by a modification section and
 other language.

      •  The PSD concept of "in combination"  included in the pro-
          posed regulations seem to attempt to circumvent the
          "grandfather" clause of the Act.

 Opposes the concept of  "integral vistas".

      • Extends the veto of PSD permit applications to source
          which may impact on integral vistas.
      • Contrary to the  intent of Congress and not  in the Act.
      • "Integral vistas" constitute a type of  illegal buffer
          zone.
      • Economic impact  analysis was not performed.
                                 A-318

-------
IV-D-273 continued
     • Guidance document not substantive.
     • There should be formal rulemaking procedures for each
         "integral vista" identified.

Comments on BART:

     • EPA failed to define which sources will be subject to
         BART.
     • The ICF report makes too many assumptions.
     • The ICF report uses an inadequate data base.
     • The ICF report uses unsupportable and rough-cut modeling
         techniques.
     • The reanalysis provision could cause a company to expend
         funds twice.
     • There should be a grace period for reanalysis, i.e., 10
         years for any source that has installed BART.

Comments on New Source Review:

     • The proposed regulations allow too much power to the FLM.
     • Lack of guidance as to how the relationship of PSD/BACT
         and maintenance of visibility is to be determined.

Monitoring and Modeling:

     • Validated dispersion - visibility models are not available.
     • Modeling should not be encouraged until the models are
         validated.
     • Observer panels of 25-50 members should be formed.

Opposes the regulations of prescribed burning.

     • Prescribed burning was not listed as a "major source"
         category in the Act.
     • Not subject to BART since it was used before August 7, 1962,
     • Prescribed burning is not fugative emissions unless it
         is listed in a specific rulemaking for that industry
         (Alabama Power decision).   Cannot include a source
         which activities result solely in fugative emissions.
     • The results (fire) do not exceed "natural background".
         Prescribed burning should be included in the definition
         of "natural background".
     • Fire is natural part of environment.
     • Prescribed burning is used for wildlife management,
         wildfire prevention, weed and disease control, and
         site preparation.
     • Existing programs for smoke management are adequate.
                               A-319

-------
IV-D-273 continued


Comments on the ICF Report:

     • Report employs assumptions which are not consistent with
         regulations.                                          _
     • Report uses inadequate data base.  Understates the no. ot
         pulp and paper mills built or modified since 1962 which
         could cause visibility impact.  Thirty mills were not
         identified in the report.
     • The report provides no assessment of potential benefits
         and effectiveness of regulations.  -No basis for evaluating
         cost-effectiveness.
                                A-320

-------
Union Oil Company of California, IV-D-274


Agree there is a need for control  (RACT) on existing sources
of plume blight of Class I areas.

Regional plume blight needs more study to make definite determi-
nations of the responsible sources.

BACT on new or modified sources should await adequate monitoring
and modeling techniques.

     • Denial of a permit should only come after weighing of
         the benefits including costs to the nation.

EPA should issue a comprehensive policy statement on visibility
impairment.

Opposes present definition of "visibility impairment":

     • "any... change in visibility..." was not envisioned by
         Congress.
     • The definition should refer to the interference with
         public enjoyment.

BART

      • EPA needs to publish guidelines  for BART on  other than
         power-plants.

Comment on fugative emissions:

      • Emission sources such as  from valves  and flanges  (VOC's)
         have been referred-to  in  the past as  fugative emissions.
      • These  sources, valves and flanges are easier to control
         than other types of fugative emissions.
      • The emissions from large  sources such as coal piles,  rock
         piles, roads,  etc. should not  prevent necessary mining
         and  energy projects.

SIP  revisions should be allowed  more than nine months.
                               A-321

-------
Holland and Hart, IV-D-275


     * Comments submitted on behalf of ASARCO (Smelting, Mining
         & Refining of Various Minerals)
     • Proposed regulations go beyond program authorized by
         Congress in Section 169A.
     • Recommends delaying promulgation until adequate scientific
         data is available.
     • Realizing delay may not be considered additional comments
         after the regulations are presented.

General Comments

     • ERT curves used in Preliminary Assessment of Economic
         Impact were not designed to make even tentative conclu-
         sions regarding specific levels of visibility impairment
         from specific sources.
     • ERT recommends references to specific sources  in assess-
         ment be deleted.
     • Regulations and procedures are too subjective.
     • No reasonable method for implementing "human perception
         standard".
      • No guidance:
          (1)   meteorological  conditions under which  Class  I
               areas should be observed.
          (2)   procedures  the  human observer should follow  to
               distinguish manmade sources  of pollution.
          (3)   limitations on  visual range  that  should be con-
               sidered acceptable in making visibility  impairment
               determination.
      • Similar limitations are inherent in  significant  impairment
         and adverse impact devinitions.
      - No  reliable procedures:
          (1)   distinguishing  manmade  from  natural pollution.
          (2)   qualtifying the contribution of  an  individual
               source to visibility problem.
          (3)   assessing the  improvement in visibility  that will
               result  from controls.

 Existing Major Stationary Source

      •  By  incorporating  the  proposed  PSD definitions  of stationary
          source, EPA has created administrative mechanism for
          extending visibility protection to any reconstructed,
          stationary source.   This is  totally unwarranted.
      •  Really can't just control new additions in some  cases.
      •  Reconstruction  wipes  out Act exemption.
      •  Agency's  interpretation of reconstruction flies  in the
          face of Section 119.   Reconstruction could require
          additional controls even when NSO.
                                A-322

-------
IV-D-275  (continued)
       169 is not similar to 169A.
       169(2) (c) defines construction and by including this
         definition, Congress made clear that it intended for
         PSD purpose to regulate not merely construction of
         entirely new but also modified sources as well.  169A
         is devoid of this type of language.
Integral Vistas
       Contrary to language of Section 169A.
       Legislative history enforces the need to protection in
         Class I areas.
       Quotes Rep. Maguire's statement concerning scenery in
         Class I areas as need for special visibility protection.
       Revise regulations to delete integral vistas.
       Guideline for identifying integral vistas is weak - no
         meaningful guidance.
Fugitive Dust
BART
FLM
       Revise regulations to make clear fugitive dust emissions
         do not count in potential to emit calculation.
       Once subject to controls, source should not be subject ot
         additional controls.  Delete reanalysis provision.
         Reanalysis allows data to be gathered on a visibility
         program after the program is being implemented.
       Definition inconsistent with Act's definition'.
       States have primary responsibility for development and
         implementation of visibility control programs supported
         by McClure and Muske exchange.
       Revise the following provisions:
         (1)   Section 51.302(a)(2)(6):  By Section 169A(d), the
               state (not the federal land manager) has authority
               to summarize the federal land manager's recommen-
               dations.
         (2)   Section 51.302(b)(3):  The state has authority
               for implementation of the visibility control
               program.       	
         (3)   Section 51.302(c)(4):  The state has authority for
               BART determinations.  The sole involvement of the
               federal land manager in a BART determination is
               to review a proposed BART exemption.
                               A-323

-------
IV-D-275 continued
PSD
         (4)   Section 51.305:  There is no statutory basis for
               requiring federal land manager assistance in ^ the
               process of developing techniques for visibility
               monitoring and observation techniques.  Addition-
               ally, the development of monitoring techniques is
               outside the federal land manager's area of exper-
               tise.
         (5)   Section 51.306:  The statute provides no role for
               the federal land manager in the development of
               the states' long-range visibility strategy.
       New sources and visibility should be under PSD.
       Without model, how can one assess impact on visibility
         from new source.
       Agency has adopted "regulate now, substantiate  later"
         approach.
                                A-324

-------
American Textile Manufacturers Institute, Inc., IV-D-276


Disagrees with aspect and definition of visibility impairment.
How will visibility baseline be established?..Visual observa-•
tion for requiring BART to a source is unfair.

Federal Land Manager is outstepping his jurisdiction in control-
ling integral vistas.  Integral vistas was not the intent of
Congress.  Opposes increased authority being provided to the
Federal Land Manager.

Demonstration projects employing BART should be conducted prior
to implementation of such to determine its effectiveness.

Oppose mandating BART reanalysis with every new technical
advancement.  Too costly.  Conflicts with CAA's grandfather
provision for older resources.
                               A-325

-------
National Parks and Conservation Association, (T. Destry Jarvis),
IV-D-277


Supports EPA's definition of "visibility impairment", but
strengthening changes are needed within regulations.

Supports EPA's initiative to protect "integral vistas":

      • Not only  inside - looking outside vistas, but outside-to-
         inside  views as integral vistas are recommended.
      . Propose that wording of the regulation be revised to
         leave no doubt that vistas must be protected rather
         than may be.                                  .
      • Responsibility for determining which areas  are integral
         vistas  belongs to agent in charge of Class  I area.
      . Final judgements about integral vista must  be made  on
         basis of preserving resources in question rather  than
         energy  or economic conservations.
      • Urged is  an even better defined and more  aggressive role
         for the National Park Service and  other federal  land
         managing agencies in implementing  visibility protection.

For new  sources, the key  role for  the  federal  land manager in
visibility assessment  should be more  thoroughly defined.

      - FLM should be allowed more  than 30  days  to  determine
          adverse impacts  from proposed facilities  (a year should
          be allowed).                                   .   ...
      -  Sectionl65(d)  of CAA Amendments give FLM responsibility
          to protect Class I areas  from "adverse impacts to air
          quality related values  (including visibility)  "from new
          facilities.  Proposed  visibility regulations conflict
          with this  by failing to require a state to obtain agree-
          ment of FLM before issuing a permit to a source whose
          emissions  are projected to exceed Class I pollution
          increments.

 For existing sources,  NPCA supports giving FLM a stronger role
 and more flexible time frame to retrofit existing sources.

      . 90 days  after promulgation of regulations is not proposed
          for FLM or state to identify existing impairment, but
          this is inadequate.
      - EPA's phased approach to implementation of regulations_
          will limit ability to control emissions from facilities
          impairing visibility during Phase I.  A date should be
          specified when Phase II will be implemented.
                                A-326

-------
IV-D-277 continued

Recommend incorporating some of the more sophisticated monitor-
ing and modeling techniques into regulatory program.

Disagree that the proposed visibility regulations will preclude
all development in large areas surrounding Class I parks.

Agree that energy demand must be balanced with need to preserve
our national heritage of parks and wilderness, but the FLM has
a clear mandate to protect Class I areas rather than focusing
on the energy demand of other interests.
                               A-327

-------
Council on Wage and Price Stability, XV-D-278


     - Report of Regulatory Analysis Review Group (RARG).
     - Regulations should be modified to consider broader range
         of factors necessary to balance the benefits and costs
         of visibility control.
     • Modify integral vistas:
         -  FLM should only nominate for State decision those
            vistas deemed important.
         -  Allow States to balance "competing interests.
         -  State identify integral vistas and include them in
            SIP-                                 ,   •  •     u
         -  If FLM disagrees with  State's vista  decisions, he
            should be able to petition EPA criterion  used by
            State in making integral vista decisions.   Should
            not be considered in EPA's review of SIP.
      • Questions visibility protection in Phase  I.
         -  Will Phase  I actually  provide benefits?
         -  How much Phase I control spending is enough?
         -  How will EPA address distributional  questions?
      - Narrow range of  costs in draft regulatory analysis.  _
      • Benefits to visibility program are extremely subjective.
      • Integral vistas  outside  authority of  the  Act.
      • Believe case-by-case analysis of  the  importance  of vista
         relative to other vistas  and relative to other land  uses
         is necessary.                                    .      "
      - Protecting integral vistas  may of course  generate important
         visibility benefits.   However,  the  proposed regulations
        . may  generate  unreasonable results.
      . Want competing  interests to be  included when protection
         of integral vistas  is  determined.
      • Five year period to  identify vistas  creates  a great  deal
          of uncertainty.
      - Concern of  future Class  I areas.                _  _
      • While  Phase  I  contains  basic structure_of visibility pro-
          gram, three  important questions remain.
                What assurance does EPA have that existing and
                new source visibility control expenditures in
                Phase  I will actually generate visibility improve-
                ment (i.e.,  greater visual range and color contrast)
                and visibility benefits  (i.e., greater visitor
                visual experiences in federal class I areas)?
                What assurance does EPA have that a dollar of
                pollution control cost expended  to  improve or
                protect visibility in Phase I will  generate visi-
                bility improvement and benefits  that are commen-
                surate with the improvement and  benefits achieved
                with a dollar of pollution control  expenditure in
                subsequent phases?  Phrased another way, how does
                EPA propose to determine the appropriate level of
(1)
(2)
                                A-328

-------
IV-D-278 (continued)

              visibility control in Phase I given that substan-
              tially better information concerning the causes
              and cures of visibility impairment will be avail-
              able in subsequent phases?             -,
         (3)   How does EPA propose to address the redistributional
              consequences of the proposed regulations?  For
              example, it appears that the proposed regulations
              force the residents of states wherein federal Class
              I areas are located to subsidize the benefits
              (i.e. , greater visual experiences) derived by
              visitors from other states who frequent the area.
    • Benefits derived from incremental improvements in visi-
        bility are not described as an appropriate parameter
        for BART decisions.
    • Use models even though limited to determine about improve-
        ment expected from application of BART.
    • Revise guidelines to clearly state that purpose of apply-
        ing BART to. existing sources is to improve visibility.
    • Concern over EPA's proposed definition of adverse impact
        will preclude state comparison of the costs and benefits
        of new source visibility controls.
    • Need to include appeal provisions 165(d)(2)(c)(iii) in
        regulations.
                             A-329

-------
Department of Interior, National Park Service, IV-D-278a


     • Disagree with RARG's recommendation that States determine
         integral vistas
       Concur with RARG
                   that the responsibility to consider a
                                                              to
    variety of factors is inherent only in the state review
    and decision making process.
•  State however does not have affirmative, responsibility
    protect air quality related values (FLM does).      _  _
-  Appropriate place for state involvement is in SIP revision
    process and it makes a determination as to whether the
    integral vistas is to be incorporated into the SIP.
    State is to provide opportunity for public to comment
    on adequacy of FLM determination.
.  Disagree that factors other than visibility should be
    considered in identifying integral vistas
       Cannot  support  RARG
         provided
                     1s economic impacts as no analysis is
        Fact is  that  three  power  plants  have  located within  50  KM
          of Class  I  areas  and three  large  coal  fired  boilers
          appear to be  able to locate within  1/2 mile  of  an
          eastern Class I area.
                                 A-330

-------
AMAX,  Inc.,  IV-D-279
Opposed to the inclusion of fugative emissions  in  the Potential
to Emit:

      • Has not been given specific  justification.
      • EPA has not shown that  fugative emissions from the 28
         source categories will consist primarily  of particles
         with sizes which will impair visibility.
      • Fugative emissions should not be counted or counted
         only to theextent they can significantly  impact
         visibility, e.g. particles less than 1 micron in
         diameter.

Agree with the statement that modeling is inadequate at this
time.

Opposes Section 51.302(a) consultation:

      • The state will consider what the FLM says in review,
         but the state makes the final decision.
      • EPA review should be procedural rather than substantive.
      • This should be stricken from the regulations.

Comments on Section 51.302(b):

      • Mandated consultation between the state  and FLM should
         be suggested, not mandated.

Opposes the integral vistas concept - Section 51.302(c)(2):

      • Section 169A speaks of "visibility in" mandatory Class I
         Federal areas.
      • Several citations of early work on the act  are used for
         examples of the intent of Congress.
      • Prohibition of an automatic buffer zone.
      • Even if integral vistas is authorized under the act -
         the states should identify them.

Opposes Section 51.303(e):

      • There is no authority in the act for requiring state
         concurrence for exemption.

Comments of Section 51.302(c)(4)  - BART:

      • The provisions of Section 51.302(c)(4)(ii)   are improper -
         FLM c-annot do more than comment to the state.
      - FLM do not have the expertise to make a BART judgement.
                               A-331

-------
IV-D-279 continued


     -  There is no provision in Section 169A of the Act that
         requires continuous monitoring.
     •  Because of the nebulous connection between a source s
         emissions and its impact on visibility, continuous
         monitoring should not be required.

Comments on Long Term Strategy - Section 51.306:

     •  Long Term Strategy as proposed unduly interferes with
         state prerogative.
     •  Periodic reviews of not less than three years appears
         to be excessive.                                 .
     .  The Act does not authorize reanalysis of BART.  This
         would create a moving target for  industry.  It is
         not in PSD permits.

Opposes Section 51.307 - New Source Review:

     - EPA is dictating to the state certain control strategy.
     - The states may choose another control strategy.  The
         state may choose  to regulate area or  mobile sources
         rather than new  "major  emitting  facilities".
                                 A-332

-------
National Coal Association, IV-D-280
Visibility impairment is a reversible phenomenon, and it is
an aesthetic value.

EPA has failed to provide scientifically sound techniques and
guidelines:

      • Nine months is inadequate time for SIP's even if guide-
         lines available.

Opposes the concept of integral vistas:

      • Goes beyond the authority granted in Section 169A.
      • Selection process would give too much authority to FLM.

Expanded role of the FLM in the regulations extends federal land
use planning into areas administered by the states:

      • Integral vista will expand authority of FLM.
      • FLM indirectly has control over future energy development.
      • The definition of powers of the FLM is vague in the
         regulations.

Opposes the definition of impairment:

      • "contrast" should not be included in the definition.

Comment on "Significant Impairment":

      • Should take into account not only visitor days, but
         times when visitors might view the scene.

Comments on BART:

      • Should be allowed to consider supplementry control
         systems.
      • An existing source should be able to petition the
         Administrator for an exemption.
      • Lack of objective economic analysis.

EPA should withdraw its proposed rulemaking,  and revise the
draft guidelines.
                                A-333

-------
Burgess, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-281


Promotes an attitude of "protect our vistas" from the increased
SSSS? dSlSng, and exploration activities withxn the area of
Colorado.

No direct comments made towards the proposed regulations.
                                A-334

-------
South Carolina Public Service Authority, IV-D-282


Comments about visibility impairment:

     • There are no objective criteria for distinguishing between
         "significant" or "adverse" impairment and "acceptable"
         impairment.
     • There is no satisfactory basis for valuing an incremental
         change in visibility or to permit comparison between
         value and costs.

Objects to the exemption procedure, Section 51.303:

     • The review by the FLM and the state reduce the flexibility
         of the procedure.
     • The requirement that a state concur on the exemption
         should be deleted.

Objects to the language in the New Source Review section.

     • The review by the FLM and the state reduce the flexibility
         of the procedure.
     • The requirement that a state concur on the exemption
         should be deleted.

Objects to the language in the New Source Review section:

     • The term "adverse impact" used in Section 51.307 is not
         clearly defined.  States could take this as too broad
         a definition.

Suggest alternate language for the regulations:

     • Instead of "impairment" - in terms of "adverse effect
         upon enjoyment".
     • Instead of the term "anticipated"  (Section 51.302(c)(4)(ii)
         use only "identified impairment" when referring to a
         PSD applicant.
     • Section 51.303(2)(1) should be revised to reflect the
         language in the BART guidelines.  In the guideline
         it is suggested the exemption  application and decision
         occur after a source has been  selected  for BART analysis.
         The language in the proposed regulations indicate  the
         request for exemption will take place after the BART
         analysis is complete.

Proposed regulations dealing with BART  reanalysis are deficient:

      • Fail to tie  new BART requirements with new or continuing
         visibility problems.  ,
      • Regulations  should make clear no BART reanalysis  required
         for sources previously  subjected to BART when there are
         no compelling needs or  alternate control strategies.
                               A-335

-------
IV-D-282 continued


The definition of "in existence" is too broad:

     . Failed to properly distinguish between "in existance"
         for purposes of Section 169A and "commenced construc-
         tion" under the PSD regulations.

Comment on "Proposed Guidelines for Determining BART":

      • The guideline states that BART for most powerplants will

      . There  is no analysis or  discussion to  prove this approach.
      . Suggest that the states  consider  imposing as part ot
         Phase I, controls to prevent "future phase" visibility
         impairment such as that associated with regional haze.
         This should either be  done at a time when the problem
         and  control can be specified or left up to the source.
                                A-336

-------
West Associates, IV-D-283


Recommends that a five-year study program be implemented in
lieu of the proposed regulations.

     •  Primary mechanism for new source visibility reviews
         should continue to be the protections inherent within
         current PSD regulations as applied to new sources.
     •  Additional protection built into new source performance
         standards, "...standards which have tight emission
         limits..." will effectively preserve visibility within
         the Class I areas during this five-year period.
                               A-337

-------
Rockwell International, IV-D-284
Discussed within these comments are technicalities involved
with visibility monitoring and modeling techniques.

     • In operating a visibility monitoring station, telephoto-
         metry and nephelometry and stressed the techniques of
         choice at this time.

Rockwell's Environmental Monitoring and Services Center submits
the following comments on the EPA documents "Interim Guidance   _
for Visibility Monitoring" and "User's Manual for  the Plume Visi-
bility Model  (PLUVUE)."  These comments address the following
points:

          A new visibility monitoring technique exists which has
          certain advantages over telephotometry.
1.


2.



3.


4.


5.



6.



7.
           There  is  evidence  that  some  of  the  reddish  or  brown
           color  of  plumes  and  hazes  is not attributable  to
           nitrogen  dioxide.

           The  integrated nephelometer  should  not be run  in  a
           constant  temperature environment.

           There  is  an unwarranted assumption  about visual ranges
           when the  telephotometry targets are not visible.

           All  parties will need far more guidance on  the data _
           processing and statistical analysis needed  to  establish
           whether a visibility degradation exists.

           The  PLUVUE model is believed to be  in error with regard
           to the generation of OH radicals, which influences the
           conversion of sulfur dioxide to sulfate.

           The document on model development  (EPA-450/3-78-110)
           has certain errors which could be propagated into the
           computer program or into values the user must specify.
                                A-338

-------
Arizona Department of Health Services, Division of Environmental
Health Services, IV-D-285


Comments on EPA Guideline documents for visibility impairment:

     • Guidelines fail to adequately describe the "appropriate
         techniques and methods "that the State must employ.
     • The document "Protecting Visibility - An EPA Report to
         Congress" stated that EPA had performed virtually no
         background monitoring.  Background data is necessary
         to determine what natural conditions are in a given
         area.  Without guidance presumably this must be gathered
         by . the state.
     • The "-EPA Report" also states that no studies, on the
         contribution of area or mobile sources, have been
         performed concerning their contribution to visibility
         impairment.
     • If baseline levels and the contributions from non-point
         sources were known, a state could then proceed with
         BART analysis.
     • The guidelines fail to tell what the cost of compliance
         will be for alternative definitions of BART on other
         than power plants.  Arizona is heavily impacted by
         copper smelters, but little is said about smelters.
     • The EPA documents do not adequately explore the methods
         by which states can measure the non-air quality impacts
         of alternative definitions of BART.
     • The guidelines fail to indicate what degree of improve-
         ment in visibility can be expected from alternative
         BART findings.
     • The EPA visibility models have not been validated.
     • The state has preliminary data to indicate the "Visibility
         Impairment Due to Sulfur Transport and Transformation
         in the Atmosphere (VISTTA)" is based on technical
         assumptions which may be invalid.
     • If "VISTTA" is invalid then,  (a)  the conversion of sulfur
         dioxide to sulfates in the plume of a power plant may
         be of a size which would not impair visibility; (b)
         regional haze is attributal to a multitude of sources;
         and  (c) plume blight is primarily caused by nitrogen
         dioxide and particulates rather than sulfur compounds.

The proposed grant to Arizona for implementation of a visibility
program in FY 80-81 is $2,500.

     • Without guidance or funding the state cannot proceed
         with a program.
                               A-339

-------
IV-D-285 (continued)


It is unrealistic to expect a State agency to be able to adopt
and implement visibility regulations in nine months:

     • It would take as much as nine months to adopt regulations
         that had already been drafted.
     - The identification requirements should be promulgated
         now and the BART and strategy requirements should be
         promulgated at least nine months after the identifi-
         cation requirements are met.
     • The phased approach should be adopted for the SIP s.

Opposes the major role played by the FLM in the regulations:

     • The state feels this is unjustified by language  in the
         Act.
     • Voluntary discussions with the  FLM and state should be
         carried out.                                      .  .
      - The FLM is integrated in the  states adoptzon of  a_visi-
         bility protection program - this is not in Section
         169A of the Act.
      . Under Section 51.302(c)(4)(ii)  the state must  consult
         with the FLM  or BART  determinations.   In  the Conference
         Committee  Report, only the  state is mentioned.
      • Under Section 51.305 the state  must consult with the  FLM
         on visibility monitoring -  there is nothing  in the  Act
         to support this.
                                A-340

-------
American Public Power Association, IV-D-286
Comment on "Visibility Impairment":

     •  It is unclear to what extent visual observations will
         be used to make a determination.
     •  Visual observation is very subjective.
     •  It is not fully understood how long range transport
         affects visibility.
     •  Recommend EPA change definition of "reasonably attribute"
         to "attributable by means of visual observation and
         other monitoring techniques".
     •  Neither visual nor instrumental methods should be used
         exclusively.

The role of the PLM is greater than Congress intended:

     •  FLM's are authorized under Section 302(c)(4)(ii) to help
         perform BART analysis - FLM's may not have the technical
         expertise.
     •  Section 304 authorizes identification of integral vistas -
         these are outside the Federal Class I areas hence FLM's
         are not appropriate individuals.
     •  FLM'.s have unauthorized responsibilities under Section
         51.30-7.  Final decisions should not be made by the FLM's.

The source should be included in negotiations of New Source Review
in Section 51.307.

Opposes the concept of "Integral Vistas":

     •  The Act is explicit in restriction of "buffer zones".
     •  Act only applies to,inside Class I Federal  areas.
     •  This may not even be necessary.  Many sources will retro-
         fit to prevent impact on the area, thereby reducing the
         impact on integral vistas.

Comments on the ICF Report:

     •  The economic analysis was neither accurate  nor complete.
     •  The case of the JEA's Northside Station is  cited.  The
         report said the Station was burning 1.4%  S fuel oil,
         and a reduction to 1.3% S would increase  visibility in
         a Class I Federal area.  However, Northside burns 1.8%
         S oil, and they estimate the cost of going to 1.3% oil
         to be $7 million annually.  ICF attributed negligible
         cost to the switch.
                               A-341

-------
P. W. Chapman, Jr., Manager, Environmental and Energy Conser-
vation, Atlantic, Richfield Company, IV-D-287
General Comments:

     Opposes the regulation due to lack of technical support
and possible adverse impact on the nation's goal of increasing
domestic energy supplies.

Specific Comments:

     • The scientific understanding of visibility is inadequate.
     • The concept of visibility impairment is nebulous.
     • The standards that are proposed in the rule to measure
         visibility are unclear.
     . There is an absence of visibility monitoring and modeling
         methodology - the EPA itself states that there is no
         satisfactory way to model visibility impairment.
     . The criteria for establishing and applying Best Available
         Retrofit Technology  (BART) is extremely vague.
     . Projected emissions from a new source would be analyzed
         for visibility impairment impacts on the gasis of non-
         existent or invalidated models and unspecified measure-
         ment techniques - a situation which is clearly
         imappropriate.
     - The proposed rule and the support documents do not evaluate
         adequately the impact of the proposed rule on energy
         supply  and costs.
     • Section 169A of the Clean Air Act authorizes the EPA  to
         protect the visibility in mandatory Class I areas.
         The concept of  integral vistas unduly extends this
         statutory authority to areas outside of Class I areas
         and should be deleted.  Furthermore, from a policy
         standpoint, the concept could have severe adverse
         impacts on energy development in  the western part of
         the country.
      • As  stipulated in  Section 51.304(f), the Federal Land
         Manager has five years to  identify integral vistas
         for existing  Class  I  areas.  This is an unnecessarily
         long period of  time.
      •  In  Section  51.307(h)(1)(i),  it is required  for new  source
         review  purposes that  the  State plan  shall provide  for
         protection of integral vistas  identified  prior  to  the
                                 a new source permit application
          ^ „_—   	 of a full year's notification
          of the identification of an integral vista is essential
          and two years would be preferred.
calendar year in which
is filed.  The minimum
                               A-342

-------
IV-D-287 (continued)
       The possible requirement for a multiple number of BART
         installations for a single source. Section 51.306(e),
         is not founded in the Clean Air Act Amendments, nor is
         it a reasonable requirement from an economic point of
         view.
       The definitions of "natural conditions", "significant
         impairment", and "adverse impact" must be quantified
         to some degree (Section 51.301(k)(1)(r).
       The role of EPA and the Federal Land Managers is about
         right, however, the veto power of the Federal Land
         Manager in situations of exemptions of sources from
         BART is still more authority than the Federal Land
         Manager should have and in the near future, the State/EPA
         Visibility Program must be amended to remove this
         authority.
       Current PSD-NSR programs will not be able to accurately
         define visibility impairments until the late 1980's
         or beyond.
       EPA has tentatively defined baseline visibility as an
         approximation of natural levels, but there is no way
         of knowing what the actual natural baseline conditions
         are.  Realistically, it cannot be defined.
       A more appropriate general definition of "impairment"
         than that proposed by the EPA (ANPR) would be:
       -    Impairment of visibility is a long-term change
            in the atmosphere from that which would exist
            under baseline conditions, as visually perceived
            by an average person.
       It is inappropriate for EPA to consider phased programs
         and long-term strategies while there remains much work
         to be done in the basic understanding of CAA77 and the
         documentation underlying it as they apply to visibility
         protection.
                              A-343

-------
Salt River Project, IV-D-288


Concerned that all documents relating to the rulemaking were not
available in the Docket.

Modeling - Guidelines:

     - Use Gaussian Models - in complex terrain they are
         inaccurate .
     - Not directed at what Congress intended.
     . Refer to actions to be accomplished by the FLM and other
         Congress did not specify.

BART - Guidelines:

     . Congress did not intend  for BART to be imposed more  than
       No guidance  given with  respect  to:   1) energy  and non-air
         quality  environmental impacts of  compliance.   2) Effec-
         tiveness of  existing  controls.   3)  Remaining useful  life
         of  source.   4) Degree of  improvement anticipated from
         proposed technology.
      . No cost/benefit analysis.

 Comments on  "Monitoring Guidance" :

      •  "Visibility  definition" is  header for a  section, but does
         not contain  a definition.
      .  Objects to simple visual observation of  a plume used to
         indicate visibility impact.
      .  Guideline  addresses FLM action  - inappropriate.
      -  Cost/benefit ratio  may not  be  appropriate.  Should  apply,
         as  regulations should, only  to areas within  the Class I

      .  Use  of "other monitoring techniques such  as airborne  in-
          struments  is questionable.  If exotic  techniques  employed
          then in past cannot be "reasonably attributable".
      •  QA procedures too costly.                       ._ .
      .  Calibration as specified:  for telephoto meter is  too
          frequent,  for nephelometer is too infrequent.
      .  Acceptance ranges for telephotometer and nephelometer
          should be established.

 Comments on "BART Guidelines":

      .  Questions the costs tables for the Navajo Generation
          Station.
      .  Continuous operation and performance of control equipment
          to meet levels of control for NOX, SO2  and particulate
          called  for  in the report has not been adequately demon-
          strated.
                               A-344

-------
IV-D-288 continued, page 2


     •  The report did not discuss land and relocation costs
         relating to the Navajo plant even though it was stated
         in the evaluation.
     •  A statement was made that a source may contribute to
         regional haze and this should be included in BART
         analysis.  1) This is a Phase II issue, 2)  it implies
         there are mechanisms for determining regional haze
         contribution.
     •  Photographic techniques are subjective.
     •  Statement that source may contribute to regional haze;
         the analysis should include removal of SO2 and primary
         particulate in a single system.  This makes assumptions
         on control technology and regional haze, a Phase II
         area.
     •  Cost analyses were simplistic and needed further study.
     •  Does not agree with EPA stand on scrubbers.
     •  Does not define the role of continuous monitoring.

Comments on "Workbook for Estimating Visibility Impairment":

     •  Objectionable" has not been defined.
     •  Regional haze is not necessarily a source specific
         problem.
     •  Reference to computer graphics is not appropriate - this
         is not applicable to visibility impairment.
     •  Several statements made that level-3 analysis should be
         performed even if the level-1 and level-2 test passes.
         Why have level-1 and level-2?
     •  Human visual perception is more complex than suggested.
     •  Questions a number of assumptions made in treating the
         model in level-3.
     •  One of the definitions of visibility impairment refers
         to "memory", this is too subjective.
     •  Disagree with some of the assumptions made on the level-1
         screening.
     •  Level-2:  No basis for adding 500 meters to the effective
         stack height.
     •  Level-2.   "Trapping of emissions by flow reversal".  No
         evidence - no reference - should not speculate.

Comments on "PLUVUE Model User's Manual":

     •  Definitions - have defined visibility, visibility impair-
         ment and related terms in terms of model output param-
         eters based on limited amount of data.
     •  Gaussian plume model should not be used for modeling long
         distance transport or in complex terrain.
                              A-345

-------
IV-D-288 continued, page 3


     -  Atmospheric chemistry is not adequately treated.
     .  Some of the treatments in the Atmospheric Optic module
         are over simplified in their assumptions.
     •  Regulatory commitment to a model should not be made until
         validated.
     -  Specification of background conditions will have large
         effect on results even if using a validated model.
     •  The balance of the comments were specific and on a page-
         by-page basis.
                               A-346

-------
Tampa Electric Company, IV-D-289
The proposed elements for a SIP revision are too burdensome with
a too short time frame.

     •  SIP revision should be for states to devise a long term
         strategy.
     •  BART would be delayed until a long term strategy has been
         developed, thereby giving more time to study and analyze
         the problem.
     •  Visibility impairment is reversible so there is no emergency
         need to proceed with the regulations.

Comments on definitions:

     •  "Reasonably attributable" - due to current models limita-
         tions.  The definition (as TECO interprets) specifically
         exempts sources implicated only by present models.
     •  "Visibility Impairment" - "human" adds subjectivity to
         the definition.
     •  Those definitions which also appear in the PSD regulations
         should be revised to conform to the finalized PSD
         regulations.

Comments on modeling:

     •  Current models are based on Gaussian dispersion assump-
         tions - will not work at long distances, i.e. greater
         than 10 km.
     •  There are a variety of other limitations with these
         models.

Opposes the concept of "integral vistas":

     •  Was not intended by Congress.
     •  The definition and references to SIP revision for integral
         vistas should be deleted.

Opposes application of Section 169A to new and modified sources:

     •  This is not authorized by .the Act.
     •  For new sources the program regulating visibility is
         contained in the PSD program requirements.
     •  The preconstruction review by the PLM and state are
         unwarranted and unjustified.

Comments on the ICF report:

     •  ICF identified visibility impact on the Chassahowitzka
         Wilderness area by the Big Bend and Gannon Stations.
         The facilities are alleged to cause 35.5% worst case
         reduction in visual range.
                              A-347

-------
IV-D-289 continued
       The impact to TECO financially would be 68.7 million
         annual cost for a 25.5% reduction.
       The cost per visitor day to Chassahowitzka would be
         (25.5%) $5,190 to (5% reduction) $363.
       The IGF cost figures are underestimates for control
         by 30%.
                                A-348

-------
Tuscon Electric Power Company,  IV-D-290
Comments on definitions in paragraph 51.301:
     • "Natural Conditions" has an inadequate definition,
     • "Significant impairment" is too vague.  Without threshold
         values, not enough is known to define.  A basis  for
         contrast change might be added - that is 2.5 sigma
         units times the threshold value of 0.04; the total
         contrast change of 0.14  (0.1+0.04) could be adopted.
         Visual range must also be defined - suggestion:  twice
         the measuring error  (about 15%) , or a reduction  in
         visual range equal to one sigma from annual arithmatic
         mean for the area, which ever is greater.  Suggested
         frequency of impact be no more than 18 days per  year
         of plume impact.
     • "Reasonably attributable" - should have clarifying
         language which will "finger print" the source.
         Accurate monitoring and duration data must be
         required.

Opposes the expanded role of the FLM in the proposed regulations:

     • The role of the FLM in the regulations goes beyond para-
         graph 16 9A of the Act.
     • The regulations allowing veto power to the FLM over
         existing sources is illegal.

Opposes the concept of integral vistas:

     • There is no basis in language in the Act for the extention
         of visibility protection.      ....... . ..

The proposed regulations make no allowance for long range trans-
port of areas and mobile sources.

Opposes concept of reanalysis for BART:

     • A source which if once reviewed and installed, controls
         should not be reviewed again.   This would be very dis-
         ruptive and uneconomic .
     • A source should not be required to install control for
         SO2, then three years later required to install NOX
         control.  This is not what Congress intended.

Comments on EPA's report to Congress, Chapter 4:

     •  Results questionable because:
          (1)  Regression studies by TEP of visibility vs. non-
               methane hydrocarbons,  auto NOX,  construction
               activities,  population,  and fertilizer use ex-
               plain 85% of the variability in Tuscon visibility
               without using smelter emissions as a variable.
                              A-349

-------
IV-D-290 (continued)

          (2)   It is  not possible  to  establish  a correlation
               between measured sulfates  and visibility with
               data collected for  TEP by  University of Arizona
               in 1974.                                  ,  ,
          (3)   All Pheonix data for 31 locations submitted  by
               UARG Vis. Comm.  tested by  regression techniques -
               sulfates explain very  little of  visibility
               variability.                                  .
          <4)   Trijones and Yuan may  have done  selective editing
               and manipulation of scientific data base or  com-
               pleted the report with insufficient data.
     -  To support TEP's statement, they have performed a multiple
         statistical  regression analysis  of visibility in Tuscon
         using four,  five and six variables which can be reasonably
         attributed to causing visibility impairments over time.
         They contend these variables explain almost all the
         variance in Tuscon visibility.  The analysis covers
         1950 to 1976 and a discussion (not summarized) is

     •  TEP offers"further explanation for the visibility impairment
         is due to other than the smelters.
     •  TEP contends the TSP level.  Tuscon is highest in the
         center city and the level of TSP reduces further from
         city center.  This is a large part of the visibility
         problem.                                           ,
     •  Urban plumes plus natural and agricultural dust  are  the
         major source  of visibility  impairment in Arizona.
                                                      «
Comments on visibility modeling.

     • SAI model is  in error in calculation of atmospheric  dis-
         coloration.   Model uses  single  scattering  approximation
         to model  the  diffuse  sky  intensity.  The modeled  atmos-
         phere will  show  discoloration when none is  present.
     • There is  detailed  discussion  of minor !"errors"  in the
         SAI model.                                  .
     • There can be  no modeling of visibility  (especially  tor
         power plants)  with  SAI,  PLUVU,  or box,  and especially
         as a  screening tool that can be accurate.

The  regulations  do not address visibility/benefits  - costs and
urban  and mobile sources.

     - The  28  source categories only produce 0.3%  of the total
          (what pollutant?) which  will impair visibility.

The  proposed  regulations should be withdrawn and resubmitted
after  development of data base and review process.
                               A-350

-------
Scott M. Matheson, Governor of Utah, IV-D-291
     •  No State more effected than Utah by visibility regulations.
     •  Proposed regulations delegate far too much responsibility
         to FLM and proceed too far on limited scientific data.
     •  Regulations exceed legislative intent of Section 169A.
     •  States are given leadership role in air quality matters.
     •  Trying to balance number of Federal goals and objectives
         is nearly impossible.
     •  Desire to protect mandatory Class I areas.
     •  Concur with phased approach.
     •  Use test visibility cases for BART demonstration.
     •  Definition of visibility impairment unrealistic.
     •  Can't-define natural conditions.
     •  Objects to integral vistas.
     •  Disagree with effect of integral vista strategy.
     •  If integral vistas concept is adopted, two alternatives
         suggested.
            State designate vista with FLM consultation.
         -  Identification of vistas through an explicit
            State/Federal cooperative effort.
     •  Public use and perception of vista would determine its
         importance.
     •  BART deficiencies:
         -  State role not clearly recognized.  FLM too much
            involvement.
         -  Cannot agree upon "reasonably attributing".
         -  Moving target.
     •  Burden to State
         -  First year cost would be $700,000 for Utah.
     •  Future Class I areas:
            Regulations imply integral vistas can be identified
            and protected for future non-mandatory Class I areas.
            Can not justify 169A to redesignated areas.  Refer-
            ences to integral vistas in NSR should be omitted.
                              A-351

-------
Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Upper Missouri River Basin
Region), IV-D-292


Opposes the concept of integral vistas:

     • "Integral vistas" is. contrary to the letter of the Clean
         Air Act.
     • The provision for FLM designating an area outside the
         Class I area is in effect redesignating non-federal
         land as a Class I federal area.
     • EPA is mandating the location of new facilities farther
         and farther away from Class I areas.  This will bring
         them closer to populated centers.
     • EPA should limit application of the regulations.

Comments on BART:

     • The nine month SIP revision period will be hard for most
         states to meet.
     • EPA has yet to determine the relationship between emis-
         sions and visibility impairment.
     • States' role in establishing a  selected source list for
         BART is not established, and  the decision can be over-
         turned by EPA and/or the FLM.

Opposes use of the term "reasonably attributed":

      • The use of this term lacks universal acceptance.
      . Analysis performed will constantly be under litigation.
      • By using subjective measures, EPA,implies meaningful
         information is not available.

The  reanalysis provision of BART makes a regulatory moving
target.

Questions the use of visibility monitoring at the present time:

      - EPA has published a guideline,  but the author has not
         reviewed the document because it was not available.
      • There is a great deal  of uncertainty with the monitoring
         techniques.
      • EPA should develop adequate visibility monitoring guidance
         including a  "reference method".

Comments on visibility modeling:

      •  The present models are inadequate,  and not meaningful.
      •  A moratorium of  at least two  (2)  years on regulations
         requiring visibility modeling is  suggested.   Decisions
         regarding new  sources  should  not be withheld.
                                A-352

-------
IV-D-292 continued
Opposes Section 51.306(i) - long term strategy:
       It is unfair to consider the effect of an existing source
         (or even pre-August 7, 1962 source) in conjunction with
         a new source.
       Forcing BART on an existing source because of increased
         pollution from a new source would be unfair and uncon-
         stitutional.
                               A-353

-------
California Forest Protective Association, IV-D--293


Opposes the need for Federal mandate of smoke management
techniques particularly in states like California where an
effective state program is already in place.

Opposes inclusion of the "integral vistas" concept:

     • Consideration of concept goes far beyond Congressional
         intent.
                                A-354

-------
Conference of State Manufacturers Associations, IV-D-294


Twenty-nine different state organizations have identified similar
viewpoints with the Virginia Manufacturers Association, IV-D-239.
Such include, for example:

          Associated Industries of Alabama
          Arizona Association of Industries
          California Manufacturers Association
                                A-355

-------
U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Ann Arbor, Michigan, IV-D-295


Support the establishing of visibility guidelines, but promote
two questions:

     • BART guidelines are required for fossil-fuel plants of
         750 MW or greater.  Utilities usually propose single
         units of ""GOO MW.  Each unit then under 750 MW would
         not be controlled by BART.  Therefore, what should be
         proposed is that the aggregate or combined emissions
         from the facility should be subject to a BART analysis.
     • When will a visibility modeling requirement be promulgated
         for PSD permits?  If not until 1983, as for monitoring,
         then many permits will be granted with inadequate
         visibility specifications.  Can PLUVUE be made a required
         interim visibility model method?
                                A-35 6

-------
Duke Power Company, IV-D-296
Visibility regulations should wait:

     •  Until scientifically sound techniques for modeling and
         assessment are available.
     •  Visibility impairment causes no adverse health effects,
         and it is reversible.
     •  Without data bases, states cannot revise their SIP's.

Comments on BART:

     •  The regulations are not clear whether new BART will apply
         upon reanalysis to sources which had previous BART con-
         trols.

Comments on Guideline "Preliminary Assessment of Economic Impacts
of Visibility Regulations":

     •  Question the identification of Class I areas and the
         identification of sources.
     •  Company challenges the review of Marshall Station as
         impacting on Linville Gorge Wilderness area.  This
         analysis was based on erroneous data.
                                A-35 7

-------
Interstate Paper Corporation, IV-D-297
Opposed to the regulations, in that little or no adequate evidence
supports the need for such measures.

     •  Interstate Paper named in the visibility problem to Wolf
         Island  (Georgia).  No scientific practices were probably
         used in the judgement made, according to this industry.
         Opinion is that of the Wolf Island manager.  Expect
         modeling studies to show no significant impact on visi-
         bility of Wolf Island area.
     •  Question the means to determine a baseline for visibility
         and that there must be some provision for this to
         recognize naturally occurring visibility limitations.
     •  "Proposed rules are much too vague."
                               A-358

-------
Arizona Public Service Company, IV-D-298


Supports the phased approach concept:

     • The approach presented in the regulations is premature.
     • At the present time there is an inadequate understanding
         of pollutant transformation mechanisms and pollutant
         transport mechanisms.
     • Lack of validated modeling techniques.
     • Lack of monitoring techniques.
     • Lack of cost/benefit methods for alternative control
         strategies.
     • Inadequate understanding of the human perception aspect
         of visibility.

The phased approach should be revised:

     • Phase I - Develop necessary scientific information and
         technical expertise.  An outlined research program is
         presented in 17 parts - this was not summarized.
     • Phase II - Propose regulations, for visibility protection.
         This would include SIP revisions with BART analysis and
         long term strategy.

Comments on definition of visibility:

      • No definition is accurately presented.
     • The definitions should  contain definite standards.

Comments on "impairment":

      • The Agency should define each indicator of  impairment,
         e.g. color, standard  person, contrast, etc.
      . EPA has not adequately  recognized the complications
         associated with the  inherent variability  of visibility.
      • Because of the random nature of  visibility  indicators
         impairment should be  defined - only if people  perceived
         a change in the statistics of  the  indicator  (e.g.,
         average, range).

Comment on the definition of  "Existing  Major Source":

      • Existing major  sources  which  emit a  pollutant not  deter-
         mined to affect visibility,  i.e. CO,  should not  be
          subject to BART review.                            ,
      •  If they emit more than one  pollutant, the  BART  review
          should be, for  only  the  related to  visibility  impairment.
                               A-359

-------
IV-D-298 continued, page 2
Definition of "potential to emit".

     • Should consider the Alabama Power decision - should be
         reviewed.

Definition of BART:

     • Continuous emission reduction requirement is not in the
         statute nor is it compelled by any other statutory
         provision.
     • Should delete reference to continuous system of reduction.
     • Should apply to each pollutant which cciuses or contributes
         to visibility impairment.
     • BART should take into consideration existing and/or plan-
         ned pollution control equipment.

Opposes definition of "visibility impairment"s

     • Replace existing definition with:  "Visibility impairment
         means a visibility condition determined or judged by
         visitors to Class I federal areas as being humanly
         perceptible and adversely causing reduction in visual
         range, reduction in contrast, or change in atmospheric
         coloration".
     . A decrease in visibility is an impairment only if it is
         due to a controllable source or, as a practical matter,
        • a source subject to the regulation.
                                                               i
The agency should delete the definition of "natural conditions"
entirely:

     • A concept of background visibility conditions should be
         developed.

Comment on "significant impairment":

     • Reference to "management, protection, preservation or
         enjoyment" should be deleted.

Role of the FLM:

     • Far exceeds the role Congress con templet ted.
     • Rarely have the expertise to determine the cause of
         visibility impairment.
     • The states should not be required to consult with the
         FLM on the entire SIP.
                               A-360

-------
IV-D-298 continued, page 3
BART:

     • Should amend the regulations so the SIP would not hold
         to the 5 year requirement for installation of BART.
     • Should not be affected by delays in Administrator or
         FLM response to an exemption request in the event the
         request.is denied.

EPA should specify the intended scope and uses of continuous
emission monitoring requirements:

     • This is an excessive requirement for BART.
     • Data can often be misleading and erroneous.
     . This should be replaced with intermittent performance
         "t"G S t S
     • Relationship between emissions and visibility has not
         been established.

Opposes the concept of "integral vistas":

      • Illegally extends limits set by Congress.
      • Contravenes 'statutorily mandated responsibilities im-
         posed on FLM's on basis of multiple use and sustained
         yield of land under their jurisdiction.
      • May extend to privately held land over which FLM does
         not have jurisdiction.
      • Conflicts with establishing Class I,  II  and III areas
         under the Clean Air Act.  Most areas of the country
         afforded Class  II protection.
      • State should not be required to revise the SIP each time
         the FLM decides to  identify  another area as an integral
         vista.
      • Section 51.304(d) should be ammended:   "Integral vistas
         identified within Class  I federal  areas prior to  three
         years of the  date in which a complete  new source  permit
         application  is  filed  should  be  subject to Section 51.302
          (c)(2)(iii)".

 Monitoring:

      . The Agency has  delegated  the responsibility of monitoring
         visibility  in Class I  areas  to  the FLM and  responsibility
         of research to the  states and the  FLM.
      • Guidance  document is  inadequate.   1)  Methods  other  than
          the electronic telephotometer.   2)  Particulate monitor-
          ing at  a  single point will not relate  back  to  visibility.
                                A-361

-------
 IV-D-298  continued,  page  4
Modeling:

      *  Validated methods  must  be  used  for  BART  and new  source
         review.

Long-Term  Strategy:

      •  The provision  requiring a  review  of all  pollutants  should
         be revised to  apply only to those regulated pollutants
         which  contribute to visibility  impairment.
      •  The reanalysis of  BART  provision  is a continuing exposure
         of existing  major stationary  sources to retrofit  require-
         ments.   This was not  intended by  Congress.
      •  A source  once  subject to a BART review should not be
         subject to a BART reanalysis.

New Source Review:

      *  Not all  states have procedures  which include public hearings
         on preconstruction permits.   The  procedures should be
         consistent with  present  state requirements.
      •  Agency should  provide guidance  on "adverse impact"  which
         will include a recognition of those sources, new  and
         modified which will not  adversely affect visibility.

Comments on the  "Criteria for  the Identification of Integral Vistas",

      •  The identification of the  integral  vista should  not be
         the judgement  of one  individual (i.e. the FLM).   The
         FLM should only  recommend an  integral vista.
      -  A panel of observers should review  and evaluate  each
         recommendation.
      •  The  identification process relies heavily on the FLM
         familiarity  and/or access to  legislative history  of
         the Federal  Class  I area.
      •  Rather than an "either-or"  choice on importance  there
         should be "degrees" or priorities  for fulfilling  the
         criteria.
      •  There should be  standardized methods for monitoring
         visitors and the  distance they travel to see the vista.
      •  Terms need to  be improved  and refined.

Comments on  the prediction  of visibility degradation through
model simulation:

      •  It  is arbitrarily  assumed  that  all  sulfate particles in
         power plant  plumes that  are created are 0.08 - 1 ym
         which are the most optically  active.
                               A-362

-------
IV-D-298 continued, page 5
     •  Most models do not allow for sedimentation of particles
         out of the plume nor for coagulation of particles in
         the plume.
     •  Most models assume Gaussian distribution.  This often
         fails to represent real plumes.
     •  The "box model" over predicts visibility degradation.

Comments on the EPA/SAI Model:

     •  Employs a Gaussian Plume which does not describe the
         behavior of real plumes.
     •  Assumes:  1) Concentrations of constitutants in plume
         are time-averaged - cannot be used to predict instanta-
         neous concentrations. . 2) Flat terrain - incorrect for
         rough or complex terrain.  3) Uniform wind speed - as
         speed increases, Gaussian model breaks down.  4) Does
         not account for atmospheric chemistry.  5) Is not
         reliable > 20 km from the stack.

The following documents were attached, but they were not summarized
since they are not comments in response to the proposed regulations
per se.

     1)   Physical Dynamics Inc.:  "Part I.  An Analysis of
          visibility Trends in the San Juan Basin in Northwest
          New Mexico" for Arizona Public Service Co.  "Part II,
          Statement on the Matter of Regulation of Visibility
          Impairment" for Arizona Public Service Co.  (for pre-
          sentation to the State of New Mexico).
     2)   "Some Aspects of Visibility monitoring in Southwest
          Class I Areas" - E. M. Roberts, Arizona Public Service
          Company.
                               A-363

-------
National Coal Association, IV-D-299


     • Relationship of draft guidelines to proposal regulations

         is unclear.
     • Analysis of guidelines revealed some major concerns.
       -  Raised significant new issues not in original proposal.
       -  BART = NSPS presumption for power plants is inconsistent

          with 169A.
       -  Leap to NSPS is contrary to "phased-in" approach.
     • General Comments on Proposal
       -  Visibility is reversible.
       -  Visibility is aesthetic value.
       -  Visibility protection will consume energy, produce
          adverse environmental side effects, require a great
          deal of capital, and impose cost on society.
       -  Because of lack of scientific data, program cannot
          be  defined.
      . Timing too stringent.
      • Cannot determine how impairment will be  attributed  to
          sources -  more guidance needed.
      - Without scientific data States will be unequipped to make
          trade-offs that  Congress  determined to be vital to the
          development of an acceptable visibility protection
          program.
      - Recommend that  EPA:                            .    .
       -  Obligate  itself to develop  the  necessary guideline
          documents.
       -  Direct the States  to adopt  visibility protection pro-
          gram that will  require  imposition  of  BART  controls  on
        '  a reasonable schedule  after EPA promulgates  the  nec-
          essary guidance document.
      -  Integral vistas are  at  best questionable and  is  beyond
          authority  of  the Act.   Place integral  vistas  before
          Congress.                                   .
      •  Process of  identification of integral vistas  is unaccept-

          able .
      •  Concern over role of FLM to an extent is Federal land use
          planning.
      -  FLM and integral vistas will have an impact upon
      •  FLM because of loose definition of adverse impact is given
          too much power to FLM.                              .
      -  Strongly disagree with definition of impairment especially
          with respect to contrast.
      -  When no major vista days are involved then they can not
          be significant impairment.
      •  BART should not be limited continuous emission reduction.
      •  Strongly object to integral vistas concept.
      -  Economic analysis needs to include cost  of BART for
          existing  sources.
      . Little information is to perform  detailed costs, energy
          demands.
                                A-364

-------
Hunton & Williams, IV-D-300
     •  These comments represent part two of the comments as
         noted in comment IV-D-271.
     •  Under the proposed regulations, before existing sources
         are subjected to regulation, it must be shown that:
       1.  Visibility impairment  (including reduction in visual
           range, contrast, coloration) is reasonably attributable
           to the source.
       2.  That current visibility is significantly impaired.
       3.  An improvement in visibility is reasonably antici-
           pated to result from a reduction in emissions.
       4.  The benefits associated with an anticipated improve-
           ment in visibility are not outweighed by the costs
           incurred in achieving this level of visibility improve-
           ment.  Those costs must also be affordable by the
           source.
     •  Lack of scientific data on visibility should require that
         EPA proceed cautiously with regulations.
     •  Agency has failed to explain how several factors which
         deal with the nature of the visibility are related.
         These factors include:
       -   Powerful natural forces that dominate visibility.
       -   The sources of atmospheric pollutants.
       -   The observer, what he views, and his perception.
       -   The statistical nature of visibility.
     •  A statistical analysis of when and how often certain events
         occur is required in order to characterize visibility
         distinguish significant and insignificant impairment,
         to value changes in visibility for the cost-benefit
         comparisons in BART assessments and to distinguish
         "adverse impacts" from insignificant impacts.
     •  While BART guidelines are responsive to Act, it departs
         from the requirement of 169A.  The most serious problems
         are:
       1.  The unsubstantiated conclusion that the revised new
           source performance standards (NSPS) level of control
           will typically reflect the appropriate level of BART
           control;
       2.  Failure to provide adequate guidance for attribution
           of visibility impairment to an individual source;
       3.  Failure to provide adequate guidance for determination
           of when visibility impairment is significant;
       4.  The inadequate nature of EPA's interim visibility
           monitoring and modeling guidelines.
       5.  Certain technical problems with the content of the
           BART analysis, including the methodology for analyzing
           control technology costs and for comparing the costs
           and benefits of additional control; the suggestion
           that states take into account Phase II visibility
                               A-365

-------
IV-D-300 continued
           impacts in making Phase  I BART  determinations;  and
           the failure to give  any  guidance  for weighing tne
           costs and benefits of visibility  control.
       Presumption that BART equals NSPS is  not supported by
         either the Act, the record in this  rulemaking or the
         record of NSPS.
       Focus of BART  is  on
              existing  facilities  and must consider
         current  capabilities.
      . Costs are  to be  considered in both BART and NSPS but the
         results  are  likely to  be different in each case.
         Additionally,  cost vs.  benefits of visibility protection
         are irrelevant to setting NSPS.
      • NSPS at most represents  a ceiling.
      . Definition of  visibility impairment is defective because
         EPA fails to provide adequate guidance on the meaning
         of visual range,  contract, coloration and natural

      - Us^of Monitoring and modeling must be based on comparable
         definition of humanly perceptible change.       ^
      - Agency must explain authority for using "contrast_.
      . EPA must explain basis and purpose for incorporation of
         terms  "natural conditions"._ How can EPA measure and
         characterize natural conditions.
      • Guidance needed on reasonably attributably.
      • EPA's  proposals on visibility monitoring are premature.
      . Monitoring guidelines suffer from a variety of  funda-
         mental flaws.  Need information on:
       -  O/M.
           Data handling.
       -  Calibration
        -  Quality assurance.
        Guideline more
          directed at monitoring regional  haze
          Also narrow in perspective—only monitors that are
                                                 on
          the market.
        Many
 UldiJS-cu.                          .    .  .
assumptions in guideline are not justified
     _          >.   «__.C	  _t-. «w\ 4 i~t -^ ~\  r* f~tfT\ /~« T ^
                                                           No
    Ily CtOO LUllf Ua-WAJ.^ J.J.* -3 «._*.«.—	 	      _.       ^
    information on monitoring for chemical  species  and
    particle size in terms of a distribution.       _  _
-  EPA has identified five factors which  affect  significance
    of visibility impairment, but has offered no  guidance.
               . _J         .    i__t_	l~. .! M  J- rt *-* V. T-_ -i t~rTic* a
      • Need more
      IT _!_ J.-O y «l-±llK-* *-*• -I- a- 4.Li^--j.* *-• f ~+* •—• — —	  _____        „
     guidance on using photographic  techniques
        IN6^U lUw-Lt; y u.J-w.o.xi^'V^  v-»j.*  w^^^---.*^j  ^	_/— j_
        Several major modeling issues  remain unresolved
           Models are unvalidated.                     _  .v..n-.
        -  Methodology  for  relating  model-calculated visibility
           parameters to  humanly perceived visibility is large
           hypothetical.                           .         .
        -  Methodology  for  relating  model calculations to  impair-
           ment and  to  improvements  has not been adequately
           discussed.
                                A-366

-------
IV-D-300 continued
Modeling Workbook

     • Four major issues
          No discussion of the role of human perception or its
          relationship.
          Too complicated—discussion on frequency of occurrence
          is extremely confusing.
          Need to discuss assumptions.
       -  Level 1 screening relies on unsupported assumptions.
          Level 2 also relies on unsupported assumptions but also
          is.flawed in its reliance on personal judgements in
          selection of input parameters, its focus on worst-case
          impact scenarios and its recommendation that Level 1
          be used when meteorological data are unavailable.
          Level 3 guidance is not offered in workbook.
     • Users manual is generally too complicated and inadequately
         documented.
     • Visibility model should not run beyond 10 km in rugged
         terrain.
     • User's manual does not provide sufficient guidance to
         ensure that plume chemistry is adequately considered.
     • The atmospheric optics also have several defects.
       -  Sensitive to background visibility.
       -  Does not accurately portray human visual perception.
       -  Relies on incompletely understood optical properties.
     • Models should be withheld from the regulatory context
         until they can be validated.

BART Guidelines

     • References to Phase II consideration in BART should be
         dropped.
     • Limited technical knowledge should cause EPA to reconsider
         BART in Phase I.
       -  Inadequate record.
          Plume effects are especially sensitive to "significance"
          factors.
       -  Need guidance on comparison of all costs with benefits
          of visibility improvement.
     • Several problems still exist in BART guideline which are
         discussed at length in Stearns-Roger and KVB reports.
         Basic problems are:
          Additional work should be done to clarify the
          importance of the cost dimensions.
       -  Consideration of retrofit costs.
          Guidance on selecting and costing different types of
          ESPs and baghouses.
       -  Further elaboration can be  found in KVB and Stearns
          and Roger reports.
                              A-367

-------
IV-D-300  continued
       EPA's and guideline documents provide inadequate guidance
         for the States to develop a reasonable source control
         requirement.
       Many rulemaking issues are unaddressed and implementation
         issues still exist.
       All guideline documents should be revised.
       May 22 regulations indicated that EPA was to prepare a
         guideline for NSR.  To date, no guideline has been
         offerred.  NSR program is deficient.
       FLM must carry burden of proof that a new source will
         have an adverse impact before State is required to
         take action.
       Guidelines needed on "adverse impact".
       Need more guidance on approvability of SIP's for long
         term strategy.
       Delete excessive reporting requirements.
Integral Vistas
       Guideline does not provide precise, objective or repro-
         ducible guidelines for the identification of integral
         vistas.
       -  Procedures are not clear.
       -  Fails to require documentation for the decisions that
          will be made.
       -  Explain how factors that are to be considered must be
          weighed when decisions are made.
       -  Improperly preclude the accessibility of a vantage
          point from FLM's consideration of natural visibility
          conditions.
          Subjectivity of integral vista guidelines are reflected
          by use of undefined nebulous terms such as "international
          of national significance", "predominant distinctive
          source quality", "visual resource specialist".
       -  The weakness in guideline suggests DARG's reading of
          Act is correct.  Had Congress intended such a concept
          it would have been expressly stated.
Regulatory Analysis
       ICF report only addresses one aspect of proposed regula-
         tions—BART for existing  sources.  It fails to consider:
       -  Cost of controlling  sources which may be included in
          long term strategy.
       -  Costs of controlling new sources under regulation at
          a  level more stringent than under PSD.
       —  Additional administrative costs.
                               A-368

-------
IV-D-300  continued
       ICF report also doesn't address two significant aspects
         of BART regulations:
          Inclusion of sources which impact "integral vistas".
       -  Establishment of a presumption that BART equals NSPS
          unless justification is presented to the contrary.
       ICF report employs "screening" technique to identify
         sources potentially subject to regulations.  This
         analysis is flawed because:
          The ICF approach treats the potential impact of a
          plume at the center point of a Class I area.  May
          understate seriously the potential impacts of the
          regulations.  Clearly ignores the integral vista
          concept of the proposed regulations.
          The ICF approach does not take into account varying
          meteorological conditions, a significant factor in
          determining the impact of a plume.  May be an over-
          statement of potential visibility impacts.
          The screening device used incorporates the Gaussian
          plume dispersion model.  While the Gaussian Model was
          developed for transport distances on the order of 10
          kilometers, it is used here to model effects over
          hundreds of kilometers.
       -  The chemical reactions component of the visibility
          screening device used by ICF fails to account for
          the state or form of final reaction products as a
          function of regional climatological conditions, and
          ignores some significant chemical reactions.
       -  The screening device is based on modeling a fixed,
          unrepresentative plume-observer-sun geometry.
          The screening device ignores differences in terrain
          typical of the East versus the West, thus rendering
          any conclusions based on this analysis suspect.
       ICF ignores benefit aspects of regulation.
       Steams-Rogers makes several recommendations regarding
         Retrofit Guidelines for Coal Fired Power Plants by
         Pullman Kellogg.
General
     •  EPA should evaluate a more representative selection of
         plant sites in determining the accuracy of BART
         methodology.
     •  Such site specific factors as fuel sources, regional
         wage and productivity, and land availability should
         be addressed in the Pullman-Kellogg report.
     •  Costs associated with down time required for retrofit
         should be more adequately addressed.
                             A-369

-------
IV-D-300  continued
       Costs associated with "remaining useful life criterion"
         should be addressed.
       Effects on cost due to escalation should be addressed.
NOV Control
       In evaluating retrofit applications utilizing low excess
         air (near theoretical), the potential for tube wastage
         and its associated costs must be considered.  In
         addition, slagging and superheat temperature control
         problems resulting from changes in excess air have cost
         implications which must also be considered.
       The BART document should clearly qualify retrofit by
         stating that NOX reduction is totally uncertain due to
         the number of factors involved, including furnace size,
         burner design, coal type, variability, etc.  There is
         no indication of what recourse a utility has if the
         retrofit is ineffective.
       The BART document should indicate, if possible, how the
         state is to determine existing boiler NOX levels in
         order to determine current NOX production.
       The EPA cost module estimates only the least expensive
         aspect of the NOX retrofit, i.e., the cost of material
         and labor to install NOX control devices.  It should
         address such items as derating of the boiler, operational
         problems, and replacement power cost which will probably
         far exceed the initial first cost of NOX retrofit.
       The EPA document should provide a means for the inexper-
         ienced engineer evaluating BART for NOX control to
         estimate the impact of the aforementioned items as well
         as those filed by UARG at the NAPCTAC meeting of
         February 27 and 28, 1980.
Particulate Control
       Electrostatic precipitator sizing is based solely on coal
         sulfur content.  Although coal sulfur content is a
         significant parameter for sizing cold-side E£5P's, hot-
         side ESP's are nearly insensitive to sulfur content.
         Ash characteristics, composition and particle size
         distribution also affect fly ash resistivity and, con-
         sequently, ESP sizing.  For hot-side precipitators, the
         ash sodium content is probably the most important
         variable.  The EPA draft report should discuss these
         other factors in ESP sizing, particularly for hot-side
         EPA's, and explain the site specific variability of ESP
         sizing criteria.
                               A-370

-------
IV-D-300  continued
     •  Electrostatic precipitator pressure drop is stated as
         1/2 inch WG.  This is too low if inlet and outlet nozzles
         and flow distribution devices are included.  ESP pressure
         drop should be 2 to 3 inches WG and the power required
         for this pressure drop should be included in the ESP
         energy requirements.  This change will increase ESP
         operating costs.
     •  The draft report does not address flue gas conditioning
         as a retrofit option for improving existing ESP removal
         efficiency.  In certain cases flue gas conditioning
         represents a viable, cost-effective approach for retro-
         fit particulate control and should be discussed.
     •  Fabric filter pressure drop is stated as 5 inches WG.
         This pressure drop is acceptable for the bags only, but
         total flange-to-flange pressure drop would be 6 to 7
         inches WG.  This would increase the fabric filter cost
         for power due to pressure drop by approximately 20 to
         40 percent.
     .  The ash handling system applicable to both ESP's and PF's
         is sized based on number of modules (hoppers) only.
         Total quantity of ash to be handled is an important
         parameter for ash handling system design and should be
         discussed.  The possibility that additional fly ash
         storage capacity may be required when increased retro-
         fit particulate control is incorporated should be dis-
         cussed.

SO2 Control

     •  The design criteria uses a base case design coal of 0.5
         percent sulfur.  Cost module extrapolations are then
         made for coal sulfur contents differing from the base
         case.  This results in rather extreme extrapolation for
         high sulfur coals (3 to 5 percent).  It would be more
         accurate to assume a more representative coal sulfur
         content for the base case (e.g., 2 percent sulfur) or
         provide an additional base case for higher sulfur coals
         (e.g., 4 percent sulfur).
     -  The scrubbing system includes a venturi scrubber preceding
         a spray tower.  The use of a venturi ahead of the spray
         tower is not typical and results in an extremely high
         system pressure drop (16 inches WG).  Elimination of
         the venturi from the base case would reduce system
         pressure drop to 7 to 10 inches WG (excluding pressure
         drop for unusual duct configurations or long runs of
         ductwork).  This change would decrease electrical
         operating costs for Booster Fans by about 30 to 40
         percent.
                              A-371

-------
IV-D-300  continued
       Filter cake discharge solids content is assumed to be 70
         wt %.  Filtered solids content of 70 percent is accept-
         able for a slurry.that is almost completely oxidized
         (whether from forced oxidation or for a low sulfur coal
         application) but a more representative value would be
         50 percent.  This would increase filter sizing and cost
         and disposal pond sizing and cost by approximately 40  ,
         percent.
       The limestone ball mills and lime slakers should be spared
         to ensure system reliability.  This change would increase
         feed systems cost by the increased equipment cost and
         associated labor, material and factored indirect costs.
       The approach to sludge disposal is questionable.  Assuming
         the use of 50 foot depth ponds completely ignores the
         geotechnical and hydrologic site specific conditions
         which affect pond design.  Also, no operating costs are
         assigned to sludge disposal.  At sites where space
         limitations or geotechnical or hydrologic conditions
         prohibit deep on-site ponds, trucking to a landfill may
         be required resulting in significant sludge disposal .
         operating costs.  The retrofit guideline document should
         provide means for determining the sludge disposal tech-
         nique applicable  and provide guidance for associated
         operating costs.
       The sheer number of SO2 section cost modules  (12 modules
         for  feed systems  alone)' could be reduced and would
        ' improve applicability with little sacrifice in accuracy
         of the cost modules presented in the document.
       The report does not adequately discuss lower levels of ...
         SO2  removal than  the NSPS of 90 percent removal  for the
         wet  scrubbing systems.  The only mention made is in
         extrapolation equations for cost module adjustments.
         Lower levels of removal should be discussed more
         completely.
       Most existing power plants have stacks which would not
         tolerate addition of  a wet FGD  System.  An additional
         cost module should be added  to  account  for the  addition
         of a new chimney  with the FGD System.
       Alternate  technologies  such as  coal cleaning or  fuel
         switching  should  be  addressed as  a  possible process
         alternative for  lower levels  of  SO2  removal.
 KVB Report
        BART determination must represent a coordinated effort
          among the State, utility, combustion consultants and
          boiler manufacturers as far as NOX is concerned.
                               A-372

-------
IV-D-300  continued
Stearns-Roger Report on BART Guideline

     •  Although many earlier comments on Pullman-Kel'logg document
         have been addressed, the following comments still apply:
     •  Although derating is discussed as an undesirable NOX con-
         trol technique, forced derating resulting from adverse
         side effects caused by the implementation of other NOX
         control methods is omitted.  The potential cost impacts
         of forced derating must be addressed.
     •  The document suggests the use of expert assistance for
         determining the impact of NOX control adverse side effects
         in an actual design case.  It neglects, however, to
         recommend the same assistance during use of the cost
         estimating procedure.  Without this assistance during
         this stage of cost development, large errors could be
         made.
     •  Sludge disposal charges should be estimated and included
         in the SC>2 control costing procedure.
     •  Additional guidance is needed to aid in the selection of
         a hot-side ESP, cold-side ESP, or baghouse for particu-
         late control.
     •  Guidance is needed concerning installations with existing
         controls.
     •  Sizing data for ESPs is too simplified and could result
         in sizeable errors.
     •  No guidance is given on incorporating site-specific factors
         into the costing procedure.
     •  No guidance is given which aids in the selection of one
         type of FGD system rather than another for costing.
     •  No direction is given as to when new stack costs are to
         be incorporated in the estimate.
     •  A means of adjusting the costs for variations in remaining
         useful life of the source is needed.

National Economic Research Associates, Inc.
Report on Economic Impact Assessment
       Economic impact has two deficiencies:
       -  Study only analyzes a portion of the costs.
          Study ignores completely how these costs compare to
          benefits which may .be attributed to the regulations.
       Also there are two shortcomings:
       -  Study violates minimal Congressional intent.
          Did not evaluate the regulations as proposed.
          Study cannot provide guidance to EPA in formulating
          the regulations.
       Study underestimates the potential costs.
                              A-373

-------
IV-D-300  continued
       By structuring study so that it excludes consideration
         of much of the proposed regulations and the benefits
         of visibility improvement, EPA has given every reason
         to doubt the sincerity of its attempt at performing
         an economic impact assessment.
                                A-374

-------
Coleman Furniture Corporation, IV-D-301
Objects to the proposed regulation:

     •  Questions the need for additional restrictions beyond
         existing PSD and nonattainment area regulation.
     •  Delete "integral vistas".  This outsteps Congressional
         intent and from Section 169A gives no authority to
         regulate outside the Class I areas.
     •  BART is a never ending procedure and should have a massive
         adverse impact on facility operating costs.  Feel BART
         should only be applicable once.
     •  Regulation only orients toward emissions from stationary
         sources.  Mobile sources are also contributors to visi-
         bility problems.
     •  A thorough economic analysis should be made of the effects
         from the proposed regulations.  Besides the high cost
         to industry_from BART, the expense on state and, govern-
         ment to monitor, manage, and implement these regulations
         will be high.  Curtail industrial growth.
                              A-375

-------
Southern California Edison Company, IV-D-302


The method of selecting sources in remote areas is very sub-
jective:

     • Adequate modeling techniques are not available.
     . The author feels it will be very difficult to distinguish
         between effects from the Los Angeles and Las Vegas
         urban plumes and a stationary source in the Southwest.

It may be impossible to site a new source in Southern California:

     • Increased number of Class I areas will preclude construc-
         tion of a new source.

EPA should moderate its schedule for promulgating the final
regulations until 1985.

The author presented data on the Mohave plant and rate of  forma-
tion of secondary particulates  (sulfates).  They calculated  a
formation of 500 Ibs/day of sulfates to the atmosphere.  The
author also calculated a formation rate of  100,000  Ibs/day for
the Los Angeles Basin.  However, this  calculation was based  on
some far reaching assumptions:   (1) the TSP on  a typical day
is 200 yg/m3,  (2) 50% of all TSP is in the  light scattering
range  (mass media diameter of 0.5 micrometers), and the average
sulfate concentration in the Los Angeles  Basin  is 20 yg/mj.
                                A-376

-------
Sierra Club, IV-D-303
     •  Support EPA's regulations.
     •  Inhibit FLM role in identifying and protecting integral
         vistas.
     •  Want EPA to review December 31, 1985 deadline for identi-
         fication of integral vistas by June 30, 1985.
     •  Must sort out EPA, State and FLM role in NSR.
     •  Regulations avoid cooperative effort between EPA and FLM
         on determining adverse impacts.
     •  Regulations should state that if EPA and FLM agree that
         facility will cause an adverse impact, State must deny
         permit.
     •  Want numerical index developed to measure quantitatively
         changes in visual perception.
     •  Regulations should call upon FLM to use all available
         discretionary powers to ensure his affirmative respon-
         sibility.  Require FLM to deny permit applications.
     •  Support BART analysis in 51.302(c)(4).
     •  Support Long-term strategy.  Want EPA to promulgate fine
         particulate standard.
                             A-377

-------
Florida Forestry Association, IV-D-304
                                                                !
Opposes the proposed regulation's application to prescribed
burning:

     • Alternatives of mechanical and chemical vegetation control
         are too costly or drastic from health viewpoint.
     • Without prescribed burning, dangerous concentrations of
         fuel on the forest floor would increase the incidence
         of wildfire, which is extremely costly both to the safety
         and economy of the citizens of Florida.
     • Florida has effective rules and laws which regulate the
         use of prescribed burning in the State.
     . Visibility impairment from prescribed burning is a temporary
         condition and is an acceptable trade-off compared to
         uncontrolled wildfire.
                                A-378

-------
Evans, Kitchel, and Jenckes, IV-D-305
(Representing Phelps-Dodge)
Requested copies of guideline documents, but they only arrived
on August 22, 1980.

     •  Detailed comments will follow.
                               A-379

-------
State of Montana, IV-D-306
     *  Agrees with EPA's phased approach.
     •  30 days for FLM review is inadequate for FLM to provide
         a meaningful review need to notify FLM even before
         complete permit application is received.
     •  State and FLM should coordinate their visibility monitor-
         ing activities.
     •  Not sure that concept of integral vistas is authorized
         under the Act but concept behind integral vistas is
         sound.
     •  Need good smoke management program.  Montana has one of
         the best.  While prescribed burning is definitely a
         problem, it can be minimized with an effective smoke
         management program.
     •  Need training of FLM personnel.
                              A-380

-------
Merck and Company, Inc., IV-D-307


Urges EPA to delete the integral vista provisions since they
impose mandatory Class I area requirements on sources outside
a Class I area, from the final regulation.

Oppose application of BART to pollutant-emitting facilities
which add new boilers after August 7, 1962 and which minimally
impact visibility:

     • Application of BART to stationary sources constructed
         after August 7, 1962 will encourage companies to
         operate older facilities exempt from BART with more
         significant impacts on visibility.  Recommended that
         EPA provide a limited period of exemption from BART
         review for sources subject to NSPS or BART requirements.
         Here EPA should then consider a provision which requires
         the state to consider the adequacy of existing controls
         satisfying NSPS or BACT in determining BART.
                              A-381

-------
State of New Mexico, IV-D-308


     • Find regulations difficult to enforce.
     • Definitions for visibility impairment and natural con-
         ditions "need further clarification.  Need method for
         determining "humanly perceptible change".
     • Interstate problems and.visibility could involve several
         state, RO's state, coordination, decision making, etc.
         and agreements would be precluded within the 9 months
         allocated for SIP development and submittal.
     • Future BART reviews could negate previous interstate
         agreements.
     • State lacks budget and resources to provide adequate
         Federal/State consultation.
     . 90 day period to assess those areas with visibility
         problems is unrealistic.•
     • Integral vistas only established are public notice and
         hearing with State participating in the decision.
     - How will states develop a SIP for long-term visibility
         improvement if the methodology will undergo revision
         (humanly perceptible change to models, etc.).
     • What assistance will be available from EPA to assist
         State in conducting BART analysis?
     • Who will train visibility observers?
     - States may not have legal authority to require sources
         to monitor visibility.  Could take  1 to 2 years to
         obtain this authority.
     • "Adverse impact" for vague-leaves too much to be inter-
         preted.
      • Guidance on visibility  improvement expected as a result
         of NSPS.
      • Reanalysis of BART  for  those  sources  which have been  con-
         trolled should not be required.
      • Long range strategy should be dropped until regional  haze
         component  is determined.
      • Too much power in regulations for FLM.
      - Difficult to develop  SIP  long-range projections if BART
         guidelines are changed.
                               A-382

-------
Mead Corporation, IV-D-309
Adopts and incorporates the views of the:

     • American Paper Institute:  National Forest Products
         Association, IV-F-8.
     . National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and
         Stream Improvement, Inc., IV-?-?.

Believes that the pending proposal exceeds authority granted
to Agency by Congress and outsteps original Congressional
intent.
                              A-383

-------
Atlantic Richfield Company, IV-D-310
Comment on BART:

     • The BART guideline fails to examine the trade-offs
         between BART and visibility.
     • None of the supporting documents address the cost vs.
         effect issue.

The visibility program outlined in the "Visibility Monitoring"
guideline is more than is necessary.

     . For an'isolated source, only  a telephotometric instru-
         mentation and a documentation camera are necessary.
     • Other data is valuable, but if it  is not measured across
         the optical path it cannot  apply to the source.
     • Nephelometer data and particulate  data collection for
         the elevated plume is impracticable.
     • "Visual range is useful	to  the lay person" - EPA  does
         not consider this.  The  Act is intended to protect
         visibility for the lay person.                    .
      . EPA is proceeding to regulate in a technical area without
         a complete plan, i.e.,  "radiance  measured at 550 mm...
         Data gathered at other wavelengths. . ..asses vista  color..
         when EPA has determined  the most appropriate formula".
      • Statistical Analysis -  "visual range  should be plotted  as
         a log normal probability plot".  How will data be
         interpreted?  What is  the significance?

 The  computer model" cannot at  this time predict  visibility  in
 very complex  terrain.

 Opposes  the concept of  "integral  vistas":

      • Contradicts the  express language  of  Section  169A of the
         Act.
      • EPA has  designated  a  "buffer zone".
      • An  unlawful geographical extention of the  visibility
         regulations.
                                A-384

-------
Western Regional Council, IV-D-311


Scientific understanding of visibility is limited.

     • More research should be done prior to implementation of
         the regulations.

Definition of visibility impairment:

     • "humanly perceptible" is too subjective.
     • There is no isolatable point of perception.
     • "Natural conditions" will vary greatly.
     • EPA does not have a scientific definition.

Supports the phased approach.

     • Initiation of plume blight control as first phase may
         be premature - lack of ability to attribute  impair-
         ment to a single source.

BART Determination:

     • EPA should consider carefully economic  ramifications
         be-fore imposing this financial burden.
     • Reanalysis of BART was not intended in  legislative
         history.
     • State is to have primary role for BART  under the
         legislation.

New Source Review Comments:

      • No subsequent BART requirement should be  imposed on a
         permitted new source.
      • It would be unreasonable at  a later date  to determine
         the predictive techniques  were inaccurate and retro-
         fit should now be required.
      • It is unclear in the  regulations when monitoring must
         take place.

Comments on the role of the  FLM:

      • FLM has sole responsibility  for designation of integral
         vistas - no state participation  is a  problem.
      • Only the states can reclassify an  area  as Class I.
      •• FLM has no veto over  authority of  the  state in redesig-
         nation of  classification  for nomhandatory Class  I areas.
      • Identification  and BART  of  existing  sources is supposed
         to be left up to the  states.
      • Role of FLM  should be revised  in  the proposed  regulations,
                              A-385

-------
IV-D-311 continued
Opposes the concept of "integral vistas".

     •  The legislative history does not support this concept.
     •  Statutory language does not support this concept.

Opposes the inclusion of nonmandatory Class I areas as subject
to the proposed regulations.

     •  Section 169A applies to mandatory Class I areas only.
     •  For areas designated Class I pursuant to Section 164,
         only PSD regulations would apply.
                               A-386

-------
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, IV-D-312
Opposes the definition of "visibility impairment".

     •  The use of "humanly perceptible change" is subjective.
     •  How can visibility data be adequately acquired and
         quantified?

Opposes the concept of "integral vistas".

     •  The time frame for identification of integral vistas
         is too short.
     •  No clear guidance is given as to how an integral vista
         is determined.
     •  Pugati've dust from a road should not be included as
         subject to integral vistas.

Comments concerning BART.

     •  BART must be clearly defined.
     •  There must be a limit set on the reanalysis of BART
         where BART has already been applied.

Visibility impairment is not irreversible.

     •  Postponement of these regulations will cause no harm.
     •  Further studies should be made.
                              A-387

-------
National Coal Association, IV-D-313


Opposes the concept of "integral vistas":

     • Was not part of Congressional intent.
     • Method of selection gives too much power to FLM's.
     • Could have major impact on energy development.  Especially
         true since FLM can identify additional sites for inte-
         gral vistas.                         „,,,,!
     • If EPA continues with integral vistas  :it should make
         each one subject to format rulemaking process.

Comments on definitions:

      . Opposes definition of "visibility impairment".  Contrast
         should not be included.
      • The definition for "significant  impairment   should in-
         clude some allowance of  the amount of visitor use
         involved in the  area.

Section  51.303(a)(1) does not allow adequate exemptions  as
specified  in  the Act.

Lack of  an objective economic analysis  for BART.

The denial of a new source  permit if the FLM rejects it  is  not
what Congress intended.

Visibility is reversible,  and  is  an aesthetic value.

Comments on  BART  guidelines.

      •  Requiring states  to  adopt NSPS  for  power plants is
          unjustified.
                                A-388

-------
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, IV-D-314
Comment on the "Workbook for Estimating Visibility Impairment".

     •  How can EPA claim this is the easiest and most accurate
         model available since the model has never been validated?
     •  Due to the time constraints for the commenting period
         detailed review of the guideline was not possible.
     •  The model is .only accurate up to 50 km.  Potential impacts
         beyond 50 km will have to be evaluated.
                               A-389

-------
Brunswick Pulp and Paper Company, IV-D-315


Opposes the definition of "visibility impairment".

     • The definition should be changed to "any humanly percep-
         tible change in visibility which interferes with manage-
         ment, protection, preservation or enjoyment of Class I
         areas, and is solely caused by man-made sources".

Questions the method of identification of causes of visibility
impairment:

     • The proposed regulations rely too much upon visual
         observation, and not enough upon objective monitoring
         techniques.
     • An example was used - the preliminary assessment of
         Wolf-Island, Georgia by the National Park Service in
         1978.  Some of the assertions in the report were based
         on invalid assumptions.  The example was attribution
         of haze to inland sources, but the prevailing winds
         were off the ocean.

There  should be a consistency of application of criteria  for
assessing impairment:

      • A panel of 25 to 50 members  should make evaluations._
      • The evaluations should be supported data or information
         from measuring instruments.

The  public should participate in evaluating visibility:

      • Since visibility is mainly  for enjoyment of public lands,
         the public should be involved in evaluating visibility
         impairment and integral vistas.

Comments on a Natural Baseline:

      • Assumptions may be made  that in the absence of man (and
         except  for) the visibility would be perfect.   This  is
         simply not the case because natural pollutants are
         present.
      • The regulations  should somehow prevent  this assumption
         from being made.
                               A-390

-------
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Protection, State of Nevada, IV-D-316


Opposes the proposed method of identifying integral vistas:

     •  The designation of an integral vista should not be up
         to the FLM or EPA, but up to state or local officials.

The proposed regulations are too broad and with too much federal
authority.

     •  Rather than saying no visual impairment can occur, the
         regulations should define what amount of impairment
         would interfere with the public enjoyment of lands.
     •  It is the state's sole responsibility to select impacting
         sources, and determine BACT.
     •  Undue authority has been given to the FLM and EPA.

The proposed regulations leave some unanswered questions:

     •  Can a reliable visibility monitoring system which can
         be used in all Class I federal areas be developed?
     •  Can a suitable model be developed?
     •  Can the problems of local meteorology of complex terrain
         associated with western mountains be resolved?
     •  Can chemical changes of the pollutants in the atmosphere
         be understood and accommodated in the above areas?
                              A-391

-------
Environmental Research & Technology  (ERT), IV-D-317


     • Propose a visibility model to replace SAI's PLUVUE.

       -  model is comparable to PLUVUE but supposedly "more
          applicable and easier to use for regulatory purposes."

       -  no other real criticisms or comments on PLUVUE.
                               A-392

-------
E. I. du Pont de Nemours Company, IV-D-318
Urges EPA to delete Section 51.306(d)(2) or to modify this
section (dealing with long-term strategy) to allow States
sufficient flexibility to review new major emitting facilities
and major modifications on a basis that would consider the
local circumstances.

     •  Requirement for States to conduct their visibility
         impact reviews strictly "in accordance with such
         guidance as is provided by the Agency", is a narrow
         restriction.  No single guideline can address all
         possible situations.
                                A-393

-------
Associated Oregon Industries, IV-D-319


Section 169A(e) was totally disregarded in the Federal Register's
publication of the proposed visibility rules.

     • This section prohibits the protection of "integral
         vistas" by the use of "any automatic or uniform
         buffer zone".
     • Language within this Section 169A(e) needs further
         clarification.

Disagrees with integral vistas concept, stating this was not
Congressional intent in the Act.
                                 A-394

-------
International Assoc. of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, IV-D-320


Urges cautious approach in promulgating these regulations:

     •  Proposed regulations should not be drawn so as to unduly
         regulate those lands of smoke producing fires that are
         essential to certain forms of land and wildlife manage-
         ment.
     •  Regulations should recognize positive aspects of prescribed
         burning as well as the ephemeral nature of smoke emis-
         sions and make a comparison as to the effects on the
         Class I areas.
                               A-395

-------
Department of Energy, IV-D-321
Note from docket regarding comment IV-D-325 which was sent
directly to OAQPS.  Comments are summarized under IV-D-325.
                              A-39 6

-------
Duke Power Company, IV-D-322
Plans to comment, but they have not yet (August 22, 1980)
received copies of the guideline documents.
                               A-397

-------
Ted H. Meredith, Vice President Forestry and Environmental
Affairs, Southern Forest Products Association, IV-D-323
General Comment:

Opposes the regulations because of possible regulation of
prescribed burning.

Specific Comments:

     • EPA does not have authority to regulate prescribed
         burning.
     • Regulations in regard to prescribed burning should
         allow the states to decide whether it is necessary
         to consider smoke management techniques.
     • Control of prescribed burning will increase the cost
         of lumber, plywood, paper, and housing.  It is
         inflationary.
     • Includes a copy of "Fire in the Management of Forests
         of the Southern Region."
                                A-398

-------
Potlatch Corp.,  IV-D-324 .


Support the,, general concept of visibility protection in Class I
federal areas:

     • Support phased approach.
     • Support the public hearings and workshops held by EPA.

Opposes regulation of prescribed burning:

     • EPA exceeded its statutory authority in writing this
         regulation.
     • Prescribed burning reduces the risk and incidence of
         wildfires.                                              .
     • Produces less smoke than wildfires.
     • Increases productivity - forest, site preparation for
         seeding and planting, weed control, and insect control.
     • Enhances wildlife habitat.
     • Better than chemicals and mechanical means.
     • EPA is considering banning 2.4.5-T.  If this happens, it
         will eliminate the chemical method of weed control.

Comments on the use of forest residues as alternate energy' sources

     • More energy may be used to transport and/or process the
         wood residues than the residues will produce.
     • More wood residues are converted to consumer products.
     • Conversion to energy may not reduce smoke emissions.
         Especially true when burned in a home stove or fireplace.

If EPA does decide to regulate prescribed burning-- the following
comments are made:

      • Postpone prescribed burning regulations until after
         Phase I.
      • Perform a cost/benefit analysis.
      • Consider smoke from prescribed burning part of  the
         "natural" or baseline visibility impairment.
      • States should have the option of deciding whether
         additional smoke management techniques are necessary.
      • EPA regulations  should be.coordinated with the  state,
         private  land owners,  and other federal agencies.
      • Prescribed burning should be separated from BART and
         new  source review.

Opposes  the concept of  "integral vistas":

      • Was not allowed  for in  the Act, and it was not  intended
         by Congress.
      • This would  cause  enormous and unjustified economic and
         other environmental problems.
                                A-39 9

-------
IV-D-324  continued

                                                         >
     •  Proposed sections dealing with integral vistas should
         be deleted from the regulations.

Opposes the role of the FLM in the regulations:

     •  The FLM has more authority in the regulations than is
         given by the Act.
     •  The FLM is given decision making authority, in the Act,
         only in the "exemption" section.
     .  The regulations give the FLM veto power over areas to
         be designated Class I.
     '  FLM are not qualified to make technical air pollution
         decisions.
     -  Role of FLM should be reduced to consultation except as
         specified in Section 169A(c)(3) and Section 165(d)(2)(c)
         of the Act.

The author finds the BART sections confusing and  inadequate.

     •  They appear to be premature.
     •  They might require control on sources who  have recently
         installed controls.
     •  Revisions are necessary to BART.

Comments on the New Source Review Requirements:

     •  FLM is given a major role in the permitting process
          (and should not be).
     • There are no clear specifications or guidelines on
         how a new source will be identified or controlled.
     • Lack of valid monitoring techniques make these regu-
         lations premature.
     • NSR regulations  should be postponed.

Comments on the monitoring of visibility impairment:
                                             '»«!	t .    ,            I
     • EPA should revise  Section 51.305  to make it clear the
         application of visibility monitoring  or  modeling
         techniques will  not be required until they  have been
         validated.

Comments on definitions:

     • The definitions  are not well  coordinated with the Act.
     •  "Natural Conditions" - prescribed burning  should  be
          included  in this definition.
                                A-400

-------
IV-D-324 continued
     •  "integral vista" should be stricken.
     •  "Potential to emit", "fugative emissions", "visibility
         impairment", and "significant imapirment" definitions
         are inadequate.

The Economics Impact document should be revised:

     •  It should thoroughly evaluate all socio-economic-energy-
         environmental costs and trade-offs involved.
                               A-401

-------
Department of Energy, IV-D-325


Comments represent preliminary comments on visibility support
documents.  Emphasize preliminary.

     • 30-day comment period inadequate to review substantial
         material.

BART Guideline:

     • Visibility improvement balanced against cost, energy and
         other environmental effects.
     • No evidence that this balancing is taken into account in
         this document.
     • Cannot agree that BART equals NSPS.
     • However, agree that BACT could equal NSPS.
     • Wide degree of visibility  improvement may result from
         applying BART.  Therefore wide range of costs.  BART
         should be case-by-case.
     • EPA's recommendation that  BART equal NSPS is at odds with
         balancing-requirement of statute.
     - Disagree with that control requirements for SC>2 under
         Phase II should be considered when Phase I requirements
         for particulate matter or set because no guidance has
         been provided to determine whether or how much SC>2 con-
         trol might be justified.
      • No economic assessment of  Phase II other than 3 power
         plants.
      • Believe it is questionable to require a system costing_
         over 10 times that needed in Phase I in order to avoid
         inefficient Phase II.
      • Phase II control for SO2 must be coupled with discussion
         of long range transport.  Phase  II should be discussed
          in larger context.
      • Cost information is not well documented.
                                                 !              i
Visibility Monitoring:

      • Generally  good.
      • Telephotometer wavelengths at which measurements are  taken
          are not  same  as used in  PLUVUE.
      • Only requires limited  meteorological monitoring.  With
          data  collected it will not be possible  to  describe
          adequately  plume behavior in  complex terrain.
      • Need  local mixing depth information.
      . Should  include  human perception monitoring  to  facilitate
          validation  and use of psychophysical models.
                               A-402

-------
IV-D-325 continued
Workbook for estimating visibility impairment:

     •  Concepts underlying assessment are sound.  Represent an
         improvement over previous procedures.
     •  Serious shortcomings.  Many assumed characteristics of
         impairment are based not on field data but PLUVUE model.
     •  Errors in PLUVUE model.  Gas-to-particle chemical conver-
         sion predicts conversion rates two orders of magnitude
         lower than measured in power plant plumes.
     •  Concern with conclusion that SO2 is regional problem.  It
         is not well-founded because it relies on the assumption
         that SC>2 conversion rates are so low that appreciable
         sulfate is not produced until many km's downwind.
     •  Inadequate guidance for Class I areas in complex terrain.
     •  Impairment perception thresholds for contract change and
         color change are probably too high and conflict with
         other documents.
     •  DOE contractor has reviewed codes associated with PLUVUE
         and has revealed numerous bugs with some of output and
         impact assessment guidance is suspect.
                              A-403

-------
Department of Interior, IV-D-326


     •  Express serious reservations about certain provisions of
         the regulations unless final regulations address their
         concerns.
     •  States have primary authority to remedy existing and pre-
         vent future impairment.
     -  FLM however have a major role.
     •  FLM has clear responsibility to consider only the protection
         of air quality related values.  Not to consider non-air
         quality factors.
     •  In NSR the FLM is to demonstrate, to satisfaction of State,
         any adverse impact.  If satisfactory demonstration State
         may not issue permit.
     •  Concur with proposed definition of visibility impairment.
         Adverse impact is case-by-case assessment.
     •  FLM1s responsibility to prevent issuance of a permit under
         NSR upon satisfactory demonstration of adverse impact
         within Class I area and does not extend to values outside
         the boundaries of Class I areas where others including
         DOI may have a variety of interests.
     •  State must have opportunity to consider and balance several
         factors including non-air quality welfare reading a
         decision to approve a new source.
     •  DOI also has interest and wishes to express concerns on
         sources even where no adverse impact has been demonstrated.
         State must afford FLM right to full expression.
     •  Have reservations about whether current regulations provide
         for balancing of factors with respect to integral vistas
         outside Class I areas.
     « Request EPA to reexamine legal premises for protecting
         integral vistas.
     • Finding of FLM of degradation of an integral vista must be
         accorded great weight, since State's decision must assure
         reasonable progress toward visibility goal.
     • Vistas are important since increments may not protect areas
         outside Class I areas.
     • State decides appropriate level of protection of -vista is
         SIP.
     • Current definition of integral vistas will not provide
         opportunity to protect all  vistas need to include out-to-
         in vistas also.  However, sweeping views of mountain
         ranges  from urban  areas would not be identified as out-to-
         in vistas since this would  not be related to visitor
         experience of the  park itself.
     - FLM has lead role in identifying vistas.  Thus  "criteria  for
         identification  of  integral  vistas" is not needed FLM will
         use  their procedure.
     • Support definition of visibility  impairment as  "any humanly
         perceptible  change...".
                               A-404

-------
IV-D-326 continued
       EPA should continue to place high priority on development
         of technical tools to measure impairment.
       Urges finalization of monitoring and modeling guidelines.
       Many detailed technical comments regarding the wording
         of the regulations and preamble to compliment the major
         concerns raised above.
       Should be a requirement for interstate cooperation.
       Extend deadline for submitting SIPs.
       Do not restrict to pollutant regulated under Act any
         pollutant.
       Significant impairment should consider visitor experience
         on "peak visitor use days".
       Recommend definition of the Indian Lands.
       Need criteria for reasonable progress.
       Natural conditions too vague,  should  clarify how certain
         factors such as diurnal and seasonal variability  will
         be considered.
       Clarification:
          Are synfuel plant fuel conversion  plants?
       -   Do regulations apply to surface mines by themselves
          or in combination with other facilities.
       51-307 NSR:
          Recommend  FLM  be  provided a copy of application.
          30 days  inadequate.
          If FLM takes longer than 30  days State  need not  consider.
          Require  consultation as soon as source  contacts  state—
          earliest possible time.
       -   Regulations  need  to distinguish between case where
          source's impact will not cause  the  Class  I  increments
          to be  exceeded.
       Regulations must  require  State  before  issuing  permit to a
         source  whose  emissions  exceed Class  I increments to
         receive certification from FLM.
       Clarify  role  of impact on Indian Lands.
       More  guidance  should be provided on what constitutes an
         adequate  FLM  demonstration.
       FLM should  develop integral  vista  criteria.
       Initial  90  day  period for identification of  vistas is
         inadequate.
       Integral vistas identified  after initial 90  days would
         not  be protected or for that matter listed until mid-1985.
       Not  clear what  December 31,  1985 deadline  represents -
         whether FLM1s authority to identify expires  on that date
         or whether  the  State  need not include those  vistas which
         are  not in  the  plan by  December  1985.
       Proposed regulations  seem to suggest that  integral vista
         identified by FLM  but not yet in State plan  is still
         protected if  it has been  identified prior  to  the calendar
         year in which a complete new  source permit application  is
         filed.  These seem unclear.
                              A-405

-------
IV-D-326 continued
       Procedures need to be developed to incorporate integral
         vistas into SIP in a timely manner.
       Regulations seem to say State has the discretion to dis-
         regard vista identified but which has riot yet been
         listed.  Does 51.302(C)(2)(iv) providing for a State
         appeal to Administrator apply in this case?  What are
         the consequences of the State failing to provide protec-
         tion to such an integral vista?  What action, if any,
         can the FLM take to prevent the issuance of a permit
         when an integral vista is not provided analysis and/or
         protection?  What action must the Administrator take to
         prevent such a permit from being issued?
       Problems with State determining BART.  These include:
       - the State may avoid having to ever conduct BART analysis
         by merely concluding that the impairment is not reasonably
         attributable to the alleged source;
       - the State's determination appears to be final and is
         reached prior to it's having to conduct any analysis;
       - the proposed regulations appear to provide no opportunity
         or mechanism for appeal of the State's determination by
         the FLM to the Administrator.
       Section  51.302(c)(4)(ii) should be rewritten to clearly
         require State to analyze BART for each source recommended
         by FLM unless States provide written determination  that
         BART analysis is not necessary.
       Regulations should require  State outline BART process and
         list of sources  to be  covered.
       51.306(e) with regard to BART grandfathering has  several
         deficiencies.                             •          .
       - Sound  reason for precluding a source from BART  require-
         ments  as new technology becomes available, this  is  un-
         necessarily  sweeping in its applicability.
       - It is  not clear  how the regulation defines "new tech-
         nology;" i.e.,  does it include new improvements  in
         existing technology?   Does the term  include new processes,
         techniques or work practices?  The answer to  each  of
         the  above questions should be  "yes."
       - The  proposed regulation might be  revised to  require BART
         reanalysis.
       - Where  EPA has prescribed  revised  New Source  Performance
         Standards  for a class  or  category of sources,  or where
         EPA  has  approved a petition  for BART reanalysis for a
         specific  source from  an FLM  or  a  State  showing that new
         advances have been made in NSPS,  BACT or other control
         measures,  and  that application  of reasonable  available
         additional  control measures  may present the  opportunity
         for  significant improvement  in  existing visibility im-
         pairments  in an applicable Federal Class  I  area.
                               A-406

-------
IV-D-326 (continued)
    • Regulations should distinguish between two types of impair-
        ment under BART.'
      - Any impairment which triggers State's BART analysis.
      - Significant Impairment where Administrator and FLM may
        not approve"an application for BART exemption.
    • Suggest source before BART analysis for review and approval
        by State.
    • Regulations lack monitoring requirements.  All that is
        required is a strategy to monitor.
    • Need procedures for 165 (e) analysis.
    - Establish firm deadline for Phase  II regulations.  If not
        EPA should at least report back  to Congress every 12 to
        18 months.
    • EPA should make it clear that it has several other key
        responsibilities in visibility after promulgation of
        regulations.
         review and where necessary promulgate plans.
         monitor State actions.
         if necessary, enforce State plan requirements.
     • Problems with preamble  language on BART requirements.
      - inconsistent with regulation language.
         preamble language might be construed to  allow or require
         visibility impact of each of•several sources to be
         analyzed in isolation from all  others.
     • Regulations should, provide for requirements for monitoring
        or  specify how the States are to meet their  obligation
        to  do NSR's without  such a requirement.
     • Need  to revise regulations to be consistent with 165(d).
        This needs to be made clear.
     • Do not publish  "Criteria for Identification of Integral
        Vistas".
     . Agree that  smoke management is an  ecologically sound
        management tool.   Should be considered  in State's long
        term strategy.
                               A-407

-------
Daniel J. Snyder, Visibility Task Force, Western Regional
Council, IV-D-327
General Comment:

Request a 60-day delay of the hearing to allow time to prepare
comments.
                               A-408

-------
Platte River Power Authority, IV-D-328


Comments on the draft "Workbook for Estimating Visibility Impair-
ment" , U.S. EPA, July, 1980.

     - Footnote on "integral vista" inappropriate since the
         regulations are only proposed.
     . Units "metric tons per day" used rather than grams per
         second.  Also units for "p" - shown as sm~2 in. one
         equation and m~2 in another.  p. 51.
     • Latest revision of Turner's "Workbook" should be
         referenced.  p. 56.
     • The mean visual ranges shown on Figure 13 for the South-
         west with visual range greater than 170 km are about
         50% too high.  For determining worst case conditions
         under very stable conditions, measurements with a
         nephelometer should be made at night.  pps. 58 & 59.
     • The example of an NSPS power plant with an S02 emission
         rate of 200 metric tons of SC>2 per day is much higher
         than could be expected with western coal.  p. 61.
     • The latest Briggs' plume rise equations should be used.
         p. 67.
     • There is no justification to adding 500 meters to a
         computed effective stack height.  p. 67.
     • Doppler acoustic radar cannot observe values of vertical
         temperature gradients, only presence of temperature
         inversions.  p. 72.
                               A-409

-------
Texaco, Inc., IV-D-329
Definition of visibility:

     . Public appreciation of scenic quality, visual air quality,
         visual range and atmospheric discoloration are not
         equivalent visibility parameters.

Monitoring:

     • Although there are several methods available, few compari-
         sons of the various methods have been made.
     . Data base must be accumulated using several methods which
         include human observation.

Natural Background:

     - Regulations using natural conditions as a background are
         not technically feasible because the difference between
         existing and natural conditions can never be.measured.

For Phase  I regulations, only the visual plume tracking is a
reliable method for assessing whether a change in visibility is
the result of pollution.

Modeling:

      • Is  not a generally useful predictive  tool in the forseeable
         future.                                             .
      • May be a useful assessment tool for existing sources  if
         properly  "tuned".

Support the concept of phased regulations:

      - The approach to Phase I  should be  different.
      . A basis  for the regulations  should be developed before
         compliance strategies  are  required.
      • A system of degradation  measurement - scenic beauty
         evaluation  (SEE) is suggested.
      . A SIP revision would require a plan to  develop modeling
         or pollutant concentration monitoring for  sensitive
         vistas.                                         j   «   j_
      - Other analysis would be  performed  on  frequency and effect.

Definition of  "Visibility  Impairment":

      • Not technically  feasible.
      .  "Any perceptible" could  lead to  a  changing  definition
         with  improved monitoring  techniques.,
      - Should be  defined:   "man-caused  change  in  atmospheric
         optical  properties (including  visual  range and atmos-
         pheric discoloration)  which appreciably  reduces  public
         enjoyment of  the  scenic quality  of  the vistas".
                                A-410

-------
IV-D-329 continued, page .2
Definition of "in existence" to encompassing:

     •  New or modified facilities with preconstruction approvals
         and permits after August 7, 1977 should not be "in
         existence" until after it is "in operation".

Opposes the concept of "integral vistas":

     •  Not authorized by Congress.
     •  The regulation and guidelines encourage the FLM to identify
         as-many vistas as possible.
     •  The judgement is highly subjective for selection of an
         integral vista.

New Source Review:

     •  The present NSPS and PSD provide adequate interim visibility
         protection for Phase I.
     •  There are no appreciable visibility protection benefits
         to compensate for the Nation's energy availability.
     •  These provisions should be deleted.

Identification of impairment:

     •  There should be some criteria.
     •  Present guidance is vague and scientifically unsupported.

Determination of BART:

     •  The extension of procedures for BART determination on
         power plants to other kinds of sources is tenuous.
     •  Use of modeling do determine the need or extent of SC>2
         or NOX control should not be made.
     .  BART guidelines should distinguish between appropriate
         economic analysis for power plants and other types
         of facilities.

Long-Term Strategy:

     •  No guidance to the states is offered.
     •  No validated models.

Where no scientifically sound basis is available for objective
implementation of a rule, that rule should be deleted from Phase
I.
                              A-411

-------
IV-D-329 continued, page 3


"Draft Report - Preliminary Assessment of Economic Impact":

     • Only takes into account the effect on existing sources.

"Criteria for Identification of Integral Vistas":

     • Did not take into account economic factors.
     • Could have a large effect on nation's energy independence,
         energy costs, balance of payments, and national security.

"Interim Guidance for Visibility Monitoring":

     • Should more thoroughly address the technically feasible
         goal of identifying impairment from existing sources.
     . Should enumerate the techniques that can be used.
     . Should not presume relationships among atmospheric
         optical properties.
                                                              I
"BART Guideline":

     • Unvalidated models should not be used.
     • The guideline should indicate the basis? for determining
         investment, operating and maintenance, and annualized
         costs.

"Workbook for Estimating Visibility Impairment":

     • Relies on generally invalid Koschmieder relationship of
         visual range to other atmospheric optical properties.
     • Use of unvalidated and erroneous models.

"User's Manual for PLUVUE":
                                                 ;             I
      • Absence of  a comprehensive consideration of the  limitations
         of the model.
                              A-412

-------
L. F. Fikar, Texas Utilities Services, Inc., IV-D-330
General Comments:

Fully support the comments of the Utility Air Regulatory Group.

Specific Comments:

     • Phased Approach:  Agree with the phased approach in which
         initially only direct visual observation is used to
         identify sources causing impairment of visibility in
         Class I areas.
     • Integral Vistas:  Recommend that all references of
         "integral vistas" be removed from the proposed regula-
         tions and that only Class I areas be considered for
         special visibility controls.
     • Role of Federal Land Manager:  The Federal Land Manager
         should be kept informed of all proceedings and allowed
         to comment, but all decision making on air quality con-
         trol requirements should be made by the State Air Control
         Agency.
                                A-413

-------
Mary Pat Darilek, Attorney for Tennessee Gas Transmission,
IV-D-331
Opposes the concept of integral vistas:

     • Violates the plain meaning of the statutory language.
     • Goes beyond the intent of Congress.
                                                               I
Regulations rely on subjective determination of visibility
impairment:

     • No standards are set forth to measure a "humanly per-
         ceptible change in visibility".
     • Regulations do not allow for review of sources affected
         by an adverse determination.

Opposes addition of visibility standards to new source permitting
requirements.

     • Section 169A does not mandate a separate visibility
         permitting procedure in addition to the other PSD
         regulations.
     • Any additional regulatory burden placed on sources seeking
         PSD permits would be unreasonable.
                                A-414

-------
William H. Young, Oregon's Department of Environmental Quality,
IV-D-332
Cost of maintaining and developing monitoring program as outlined
in interim guidance would be expensive.

     •  Oregon has 12 Class I areas and would need federal monetary
         assistance.
     •  The required nephelometer is difficult to operate and
         maintain and usually doesn't have the range suggested
         in the guidelines.

None of the three levels of modeling presented in the Workbook
for Estimating Visibility Impairment are suitable for Oregon.

     •  Levels 1 and 2 are conservative due to the mountainous
         terrain.
     •  Limited meteorological data is available.
     •  The application of Level 3 analyses is not clear.

The User's Manual for the Plume Visibility Model does not
address modeling needs for long range plans, area sources, and
multiple point sources.                                    •

     •  PLUVUE appears to be mainly designed for flat terrain.
     •  Dilution equations in model assume that 6y equals 6z
         which may not be true of a plume transported a long
         way.

Requires more definitive BART guidelines for wood products and
aluminum industries.
                               A-415

-------
Utility Air Regulatory Group/ Hunton & Williams, IV-D-333


     • Same basic comments as previously presented in IV-D-35,
         IV-D-271 and IV-D-300 with two exceptions (i.e., com-
         pletely new material not otherwise contained in 271 and
         300).
       -  Appendix G:  TRC Report "Review of the EPA Draft Report
          'Preliminary Assessment of Economic Impact of Visibil-
          ity Regulations'".
       -  Appendix H:  An Excerpt from Comments of the Utility
          Air Regulatory Group on the Environmental Protection
          Agency's Proposed Regulations for the Prevention of
          Significant Deterioration of Air Quality, Docket Number
          A-79-35  (November 5, 1979 as supplemented on November
          19, 1979).
     - While the comments are basically the same, some minor
         changes or additions were made.  These include:
       -  Pg. 33 discussion explaining which sources need not be
          subject to the States long term strategies as  set forth
          in 169A.
       -  Pg. 40 wording changes on effect of visibility and need
          for statistical analysis.
       -  Pg. 43 rewording of comments where EPA1s proposal departs
          from 169A.
       -  Pg. 44 rewording of 111(a)(1) discussion and legal
          standard for NSPS.
       -  Pg. 45-46 rewording of BART equal NSPS discussion.
       -  Pg. 50 addition of fourth item which  comments  on
         • 51.301(0) use of visual observations  or other  monitor-
          ing techniques to attribute visibility impairment.
       -  Pp. 52-53 wording changes on comments on monitoring
          guideline.
          Pg. 54 wording changes on significant visibility
          impairment.
          Pg. 55 reorganizing of guideline comments.  No substan-
          tive change.
       -  Pg. 60 rewording of comments on visibility monitoring.
       -  Pg. 67-69 reorganization and rewording of comments on
          visibility  improvements, Phase  II concerns and
          conclusions - no substantive change in comment.
       -  Pp. 77-83 rewording and some reorganization of comments
          on regulatory analysis - no substantive changes in
          comments.
       -  Pp. 84-96 reorganization and revised  wording on imprac-
          ticality of EPA's proposed schedule and recommendations.
          No major changes.
         Comments also includes  in Appendix B comments on EPA1s
          Report to Congress -  not reviewed in  detail because
          they have already been reviewed and considered.
                                A-416

-------
IV-D-333 continued
Appendix G
       Methodology used in regulatory analysis has serious flaws
         which underestimate the number of sources potentially
         affected and overestimates the costs which could be
         justified under those regulations.
       Most fundamental flaws are related to reliance on the
         modeling of visibility impairment and misinterpretation
         of the proposed visibility regulations.
       Specific comments are provided on the screening curves.
       Specific comments on analysis relating to emissions data,
         source to impact area distances, benefit assessments,
         and other factors.
       -  Emission Data - NEDS inaccurate, corrections for annual
          to 24-hr emissions.
          Source to Impact - Area distance fails to consider
          plume outside the Class I area which still could be
          visible from each of Class I areas.
       -  Benefit - Concern over NOX control assumptions.
       -  Other Factors - Fails to consider long term strategies.
                              A-417

-------
Libert K. Landgraf, State Forester in Hawaii, IV-D-334


Visibility program should be organized on regional level:

     • States should work out their own solutions.
     • Where problems cross state boundaries a regional approach
         is required.
     • Local governments cannot handle problems affecting a
         broad area.

Opposes regulation of prescribed burning:

     • Fire used as a management tool is a natural phenomenon.
     • Prescribed fire should not be unduly restricted.
     • It is certain that fires will occur.
                               A-418

-------
Cities Service Company, IV-D-335
Believe EPA has overstepped the intent of Congress in regards to
the concept of "integral vistas" and the authority given the
Federal Land Manager.

     • EPA also failed to address requirement that the visibility
         regulations should include provisions for "reasonable
         progress" in achieving national visibility goals.

Oppose any provision in the regulations to new source review,
saying that there is no support in Section 169A for new source
review for visibility.

Included within their comments are some editorial changes made
for the wording of the regulations.

Oppose several definitions and have supplied corrections for
incorporation to the regulations.
                               A-419

-------
U. S. Department of Agriculture, IV-D-336


Supports the affirmative role of the FLM in the proposed
regulations.

Supports the phased approach:

     • However, there is a lack of technical information.

Definitions:
                                                               i
                                                               i
     • They are in random fashion and  should be in  alphabetical
         order.                                                '
     • Revise the definition  "significant  impairment"  to  include
         reference to the FLM1s role.
     . "Integral vista" - should be  "integral view"  to agree with
         published landscape  management books.  It  should include
         reference to fundamental purpose  for which area  was
         established.
     • "Adverse impact" - role  of FLM  should be included  in the
         definition.
     • Add a term "Air Quality  Related Values" to the  definitions  -
         "The abiotic, biotic,  and  aesthetic attributes of Federal
         Class I areas the conditions  of which:   (1) can  be
         affected by air pollutants; and  (2) are  important to
         achieving the fundamental  purposes  for which  the area
         was established and  preserved by  Congress  and the re-
         sponsible Federal agency.

SIP  Revision

      - Subsections  (a)(2)(ii)  and  (a)(4)  should be  combined.
      • Subsection  (b)  should  be changed  from "...Forest Service
         and/or the Chairman..."  to "...  or  ...  in  writing".
      • To  subsection  (b)(ii)(3)  add "The  State  shall consult
         in person with  affected Federal  Land Manager  for the
         purpose of agreeing  on the scheduling  and  types  of
         State-Federal  consultations to be employed to- imple-
         ment  the visibility  program".
      •  (c) (2) (i) should  be  revised - "The plan  shall... .
      - The regulations  should state that  the FLM1s  will employ
         an appropriate  land  management  planning process  to
         establish  visibility prescriptions for Class  I areas
         and  integral  vistas.

 Identification of  Class  I areas (Subpart  (c)(4)(ii)):

      •  The 90-day  period is  insufficient.
      •  "Significant impairment" rather than "visibility impair-
         ment" should trigger a BART analysis.
                               A-420

-------
IV-D-336 continued
     • Before I.D. certain items need to be accomplished:

       (a)  Prepare visibility prescriptions for Class I
            and integral vistas.
       (b)  Inventory current visibility.
       (c)  Determine whether a "significant impairment" exists.
       (d)  If "impairment" then identify the source(s) causing
            the "significant impairment".

     • Identification of BART sources should be delayed - the
         identification by the FLM would be completed by
         December 31, 1985.

Delete "integral vista" from the final rule:

     • Legislative history does not support this concept.
     • No buffer zone was planned or intended..

If "integral vista" is retained then the comments:

     • Section 51.304(a) add "This identification will be made
         using the land management, planning process of the
         Federal Land Manager.
     • Delete Section 51.304(b).
     • Disagree with the first paragraph in the third column
         on page 34775 of the May 22, 1980 F.R.
     • The identification of integral vistas should be by
         December 31, 1985 with review of PSD permits on a
         case by case basis until then.
     • Delete Section 51.304(e).

Monitoring:

     • EPA needs to publish a visibility monitoring guideline.
     • The language "...evaluating visibility in ..." may be
         impossible with instruments in some cases because of.
         inaccessability and lack of electricity..
     • A monitoring strategy should not be based on on-going
         research.
     • Repropose this part when the national program and the
         guidelines are available.

Long-Term Strategy

     • Change from 3 to 5 years.

Opposes the regulation of prescribed burning:

     • Delete subsection (f)(5) from the final rule.
     • There are smoke management programs in existence.
     • The proposed rulemaking is directed at major industrial
         sources.
                               A-421

-------
IV-D-336  continued
New Source Reviews:

     " 30 days is not adequate to respond to a proposed permit.
     • EPA should promulgate a rule under Section 165(e) of the
         Act requiring proposed sources with potential to affect
         Class I areas to consult with FLM's for advance plan-
         ning.
     • (c) syas "where the State, in consultation..."  Change
         State to Administrator.
     • (c) is not consistent with Section 165(d)(2)(c)(i)(ii),
         and  (III) of the Act.  This should be rewritten under
         the PSD regulations.
     • Define a minimum process for dispute resolution.
     - PSD visibility requirements should be fully  recognized
         and coordinated between PSD rule and visibility rule.
     - Visibility modeling needs to be addressed in visibility
         rule or PSD rule.
                                A-422

-------
Hugh Sebastian, Concerned .Citizen, IV-D-337
Supports the concept of integral vistas:

     •  Should include vistas view from outside the parks.
     •  Determinations of integral vistas should be made on
         the basis of preservation of resources rather than
         energy or economic considerations.

EPA should issue specific guidelines for monitoring violators
using latest sophisticated techniques.
                               A-423

-------
Mrs. Jane Sturtevant, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-338
It is more important to preserve resources than energy or
economics.
EPA should issue specific guidelines on monitoring violators,
                               A-424

-------
San Diego Gas & Electric, IV-D-339


There is an absence of adequate monitoring and modeling
techniques.

Hasty promulgation of regulations -may be costly and ineffective
in future.

Visibility impairment is not related to public health.

A long time table such as proposed by .WEST should-be followed.

     • Monitoring, modeling, etc. and BART guidelines could
         be developed.
     • Give states more time.
     • More thorough cost analysis.
     • Better program - integrated with control of acid rain
         and atmospheric carbon dioxide.
                               A-425

-------
Alan S. Mickelson, Chairman of Northeastern Area State Foresters
and State Forester in Illinois, IV-D-340
                             •

Non-federal Land Managers should be included in the development
of the visibility program:

     • Favors a phased, state centered approach.
     • Allows local people involved to react to specific local
         problems.
     • Rules that apply nationally may in some cases work
         contrary to solvinv local problems.
     - Cooperation between the State, EPA, and Federal Land
         Managers is important for developing a monitoring
         system that should operate at the. state level.
     • Hopes EPA will recognize currently operational State
         smoke management systems.

Opposes regulation of prescribed burning:

     • Smoke from a prescribed fire should not be categorized
         as a man-made source.
     . Based on the definitions of visibility impairment and
         natural conditions smoke from prescribed fires can
         not have an adverse impact.
     • It is a sound forest and range management tool.
                                A-426

-------
Bert Barry, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-341


     - Judgement of where integral vistas exist should be made
         on the basis of preservation of resources rather than
         energy or economic considerations.
                                 A-427

-------
Charles Bensinger, of Video-Info Publications, IV-D-342


Supports the concept of integral vistas:

     • The agency in charge of the Class I area should determine
         where they exist.
     • That determination should be made on the basis of preser-
         vation of resources rather than energy or economic con-
         siderations.
                                                   .
Supports an aggressive role for the Federal Land Managers.

Urges EPA to issue specific guidelines for monitoring and new
source modeling.

Wants EPA to say when Phase II will be implemented.
                               A-428

-------
McGee, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-343


Applaud EPA's position regarding "integral vistas".

      - Support expansion of proposed regulations to include
         vistas viewed from outside the parks.

Agency in charge of Class I area should determine which areas
are "integral vistas".

Preservation of natural resources is of greater significance
than  the need for energy development.
                                 A-429

-------
Mrs. Reynolds Girdler, Riverside, Connecticut, IV-D-344


General Comments:

Generally supports the efforts of the EPA.

Especially in regard to the proposed clean air regulations for
parks and wildernesses.  They can't be too strong and they should
be retroactive.
                                 A-430

-------
Gate, Concerned Citizen, IV-D-345
Supports EPA's initiative to propose protecting "integral vistas",
and recommends expanding protection to include essential vistas
viewed from outside of the park.

Agency in charge of Class I area should determine the "integral
vista".

     • Supports better defined and more aggressive roles for the
         National Park Service and other federal agencies in
         charge.
                               A-431

-------
Mary Klaes Troland, Oceanside, New York, IV-D-346


General Comments:

Strong support of proposed regulations.

Should expand the regulations to include part vistas as viewed
from outside the park.

Urges EPA to call for the use of the most modern technology
available to determine levels of air pollution in the proposed
monitoring programs.
                               A-432

-------
Potomac Electric Power Company, IV-D-347


Opposes the concept of integral vistas:

     •  Goes beyond the intent of Congress.

Visibility impairment is reversible, and the principal reason
for regulating visibility is aesthetic value.

Comment on "criteria identification" guidelines:

     •  Criteria is far too subjective.
     •  FLM's have unlimited power.
     •  Guidelines should be more specific and definitive.
BART
       SIP requirements are premature since the states do not
         have the ability to meet the proposed revisions in
         9 months.
       EPA has not provided guidance for identifying a source
         of impairment or for characterizing an impairment.
       SIP should not be required until validated analytical
         techniques are available.
                              A-433

-------
Thompson - Citizen, IV-D-348





Supports the proposed regulations:



     • Feels they should be more stringent,
                               A-434

-------
Bunder - Citizen, IV-D-349





Supports the concept of "integral vistas".



     • Hopes NPS has an active role in implementation.
                               A-435

-------
Davis & Davis - Citizens, IV-D-350
                                                               i
Supports the concept of "integral vistas".

     • Propose regulations to protect vistas not in the
         Federal Class I areas.
     • FLM should make final judgement on selection of "integral
         vista" site.

More aggressive and defined role for NFS and other FLM's in
visibility protection.

Guidelines for monitoring and modeling should be issued.
                               A-436

-------
Benioff - Citizen, IV-D-351
NFS and other FLM should implement visibility protection for
Class I Federal areas.
                               A-437

-------
Leander - Citizen, IV-D-352
Supports the proposed regulations.
                                A-438

-------
Heckel - Citizen, IV-D-353
Support the concept of "integral vistas".

     •  Areas outside the park viewed in should be protected.
     •  Economics and energy should not be considered.

Better defined and more aggressive role for the NFS and other
FLM's for implementing visibility protection.

Guidelines for monitoring and modeling should be issued.
                              A-439

-------
Transcript of Public Hearing on Visibility Proposal, Washington,
D.C., June 30, 1980, IV-F-1


     • Comments presented were reviewed individually and
         summaries prepared.  See IV-F-3 through IV-F-11.
                               A-440

-------
Transcript of Public Hearing on Visibility Proposal, Salt Lake
City, Utah, July 2, 1980, IV-F-2
     •  Comments presented were reviewed individually and
         summaries prepared.   See IV-F-12 through IV-P-32.
                             A-441

-------
Friends of the Earth, IV-F-3


     • Regulations are important step to visibility program.
     . Proposal has too many weaknesses and does not meet
         Congress's intent.
     • Proposal fails to provide vital connection between PSD
         and visibility protection.
     • Proposal handcuffs FLM from discharging affirmative
         responsibility.  30 day review is unreasonable.  90
         days should be a minimum.
     • Disagreements between FLM and State should be subject
         to consultation with EPA.
     • Recommendations:                                      .
       -  FLM should develop criteria that could be used_to [judge
          whether proposed  source wouj.'i have  an adverse impact on
          visibility.  Some type of an index.
     . Regulations should make  it clear that  Congress  did not
         authorize the use  of economic or energy-related con-
         siderations to be  considered in determining if a new
         source impact would cause an adverse impact.
      • Guidance is needed on new source visibility  reviews.
      - Application of BART  does not exclude a source from a
         BART reanalysis.
      . Strongly support  integral vistas.
      . Identification with  90 days  is not enough  time, at least
         six months.
      - Restricting designations to  every  3  years  would severely
         inhibit  the identification.of  new  ones.
      . Department with  jurisdiction over  Class I  area  should
         be responsible  for choosing integral vistas.
      • Monitoring is insufficient.                    _
      - Support  counting  of fugitive emissions in  applicability
         under  visibility.                      _     ,.,..,_
      • Support  phased approach.  Set firm deadlines for future
         phases.
                                A-442

-------
William Harrison - Southern Company Services, UARG, IV-F-4


Phased Approach

     •  Visibility impairment is reversible.
     •  Aesthetic value - less urgency.

Costs & Benefits

     •  Costs critical as compared to benefits.

Technical Basis

     •  Lacking

Agrees with EPA's Approach

     •  Only sources who clearly contribute should be regulated.
     •  Visual observations most reliable.
     •  Even if a source is linked to impairment, no regulations
         unless relationship can be developed.

BART

     •  Not for all sources.
     •  Premature requirement.
     •  States only adopt procedures for conducting BART assessments.
     •  Nine months not enough time to determine BART on all sources
         who contribute.

Analytical Techniques

     •  Lack about to relation actions to degree of improvement.
     •  States can not establish emission limitations based on
         current methods.
     •  Less 4 months for states to really do analysis, consider
         comments and finalize SIP.

Monitoring

     *  No reference method.

Failure to publish guidelines on modeling, monitoring and NSR.

Lack complete reg. analysis.
                               A-443

-------
Hunton and Williams, IV-F-5
     • Deeply concerned over the content of the proposed
         regulations.
     • Docket as yet fails to reveal the basis for the proposed
         regulations.  If this is not corrected, then require-
         ments of 307(d) of the Act cannot be satisfied.
     • Reversible aesthetic effect.
     • Significant portions of the information essential to
         understand the meaning and implications of the proposed
         rules have not been developed, much less disclosed.
         (1) the visibility monitoring interim and final guidance
             documents;
         (2) the visibility modeling interim guidance document;
         (3) portions of the guidelines for assessing costs of
             retrofit control technology;
         (4) the guideline document for new source review; and
         (5) the guideline document of prescribed burning.
     • Given inadequacies of proposal, EPA must suspend comment
         period and repropose.
     • Current comment period is inadequate—need opportunity to
         exchange views.
     • Adequate procedures must be afforded for review and comment.
     • If reproposal is not forthcoming, request an additional
         30 days for comment.
     • Comments also include a summary of past and on-goings UARG
         activities with respect to visibility.
                                A-444

-------
National Coal Association, IV-F-6
Opposes the concept of integral vistas:

     • Goes beyond the statutory authority of EPA.
     • EPA is jeopardizing new energy development in the west.
     • Gives significant authority to the FLM.
     • A FLM could stop new projects at will by identifying an
         area as a new integral vista.
     • In effect extends the boundries of the Class I federal
         areas.
     • The identification of integral vistas should be left up
         to Congress.
                                A-445

-------
J. W. Gnan, Manager of Forest Development, Union Camp Corporation,
IV-F-7
General Comments:

EPA's treatment of prescribed burning in the proposed regulations:
(1) Does not reflect the net air quality benefits of prescribed
burning; (2) does not recognize the importance of prescribed burn-
ing as a natural resource management tool; and (3) imposes an^
inflexible requirement upon state agencies to regulate prescribed
burning.

Specific Comments:

     • The net impact of prescribed fire on visibility protection
         is a positive one.
                               A-446

-------
Elaine Fielding, Manager of Air Quality Programs, American Paper
Institute/National Forest Products Association, IV-F-8


General Comments:

Opposes the regulations on the basis of:  (1) the validity of
the EPA/Department of the Interior determination of areas merit-
ing visibility protection under Section 169A(a)(2) of the Clean
Air Act; (2) EPA's proposal to regulate "integral vistas" that
are outside mandatory Class I Federal PSD areas; and  (3) the
impact of the proposed regulations on prescribed forestry burning.

Specific Comments:

     • Review of the Department of the Interior workbooks on
         determination of areas where visibility is an air
         quality related value revelas inconsistencies, misunder-
         standings, and irrelevant comments.  EPA should provide
         more than a simple acquiescence with Interior's flawed
         evaluations.  EPA should, as part of this rulemaking,
         fulfill its statutory responsibility to perform an inde-
         pendent, critical review of the Interior evaluation
         process.
     • Congress did not give EPA the power to regulate visibility
         impairment that occurs outside mandatory Class I Federal
         areas.  However, if integral vistas must be included,
         the guidelines for integral vista selection warrant
         formulation with far greater respect for administrative
         procedures and appropriate public participation.  It is
         proposed that, any proposal to identify a specific inte-
         gral vista be publicly announced, followed by an oppor-
         tunity for public comment, and public hearings.
     • EPA has no regulatory authority to regulate prescribed
         burning.  Nonetheless, if EPA continues to assert such
         authority, the final regulations should clearly allow
         the states to decide whether it is necessary to consider
         smoke management techniques in order to make reasonable
         progress in achieving the visibility goal.
                              A-447

-------
Western Energy Supply  and  Transmission Assoc.  (WEST), IV-F-9

There is inadequate  scientific and technical foundation to permit
rulemaking at this time.
      • Validated models  are needed.
      • More  data is  needed - methods also.

Opposes BART proposals:
      - Do not demonstrate  visibility benefits from controls.
      . Reanalysis  provision could present extreme hardships
         to  utilities.

Increased costs  to the consumer

      • Visibility  regulations
                                will

                              will  be  coun
result from New Source costs:
     .terproductive
       V151JJJ.J-J.1-y ji.<=y u.o.o.i-J-^"'-'  »»j.j.—  ~ —  	  j.
       EPA should adopt  a  five year plan to study the problem.
                                                               i
The balance of the comments  are the same, as the WEST comments in
IV-D-263, already summarized.
                                A-448

-------
Southern California Gas Company, IV-F-10
Disagree with following definitions from Section 51.306:

     • "Potential to emit"
     • "Natural conditions"

Opposes concept of "integral vistas".

     • Beyond Congressional intent.
     • Assuming EPA persists in this aspect, the vistas should
         be expeditiously identified.

Concerned as to whether through periodic reanalysis, costly
changes in control equipment will be required as new BART tech-
niques are developed.

     • If so, this would involve facility shutdown every few
         years for new and expensive installation.
     • This would effect significant dislocation in energy
         production.
     • Would a source be exempt from installing BART if facility
         is to be retired within 3-5 years?
                              A-449

-------
Eugene M. Trisko, Attorney  Representing Stern Bros., Inc.
                                                  IV-F-11
General Comment:

Opposes the  regulation  because it does not address benefit/cost
analysis and may  be  unnecessarily stringent in controlling power
plants thus  creating an imbalance between air quality and energy

goals.

Specific Comments:

      . The attainment of a balance between national energy and
         environmental objectives — essential to the economic
         and social well being of the United States -- will  re-
         quire substantial legislative modification of the PSD
         and visibility protection policies.          -a-^m-v
      . As  a consequence of EPA's determination that visibility
         is an important value at all but two of the  158 manda-
         •** ^ *•***   C~             .•,.-,.._  	L ,	J_ J «„« A i-* VN/-V T •*-» /T
          tory Class I areas
                    visibility protection  is  being
          extended to over
                 100 roadless, inaccessible,  and infre-
          tsJS.tfcSild.C>-t L.W WV^J- _i-ww ,*, v ww — — — — r 	          •  • i« -1 • x.
          auently-visited wilderness areas.   Since  visibility
          protection for Class I areas  is  intended  primarily_to
          prevent aesthetic degradation, the  extension_of this
          *^ _.         . 	• _ .  1	_j« j-^. •! -K-* -P-*-,r\ ;-*"i-i *=n-i +•1 tr—^71 ci 1 "h^O
          policy on a
            strict basis  to  infrequently-visited
JJVjJ.-l.wy UJ.1 CL «3 ^*- -^v^u. i-'w.fc^-*-*--  »-"—  —	a.	   i-t<      ,
wilderness areas could only  generate  minimal direct
          user
               lJ,ilCOO C*.JL^O.*=» v^*-'v<.-fc.^-* -^**— j  ^	
               benefits.  Corresponding  costs,  however,  could be
        An
unacceptably high.                          .     r,^TTC5
 example of a cost  analysis  is  presented which-shows
costs of from $4,000  to  $18,000 per visitor-day for
visibility protection at two infrequently used wilderness
          areas.
        It is recommended  that  the  proposed definition of "significant
          impairment"  (51.301(1))  include a substantiality test:

           "Significant  impairment" means for purposes>of Section
           51 303 visibility impairment which, in the judgement
           of"the Administrator,  substantially interferes with
           the management, protection,  preservation, or equip-
           ment  of  the mandatory Class  I federal area...

        The proposed extension  of visibility protection to "integral
          viStas" surrounding Class I areas will greatly magnify
          the areas of severe siting constraint around_Class  1
          areas.  One consequence will be the elimination of
          dozens, and perhaps hundreds of potential minemouth
           (power) plant sites in the western coal and  oil sha
          reserve areas.
                                                  shale
                                 A-450

-------
IV-F-11  continued
       The proposed definition of "adverse impact" (51.301(r))
         for new source PSD reviews is overly broad and should
         be modified to include a substantiality test JLike the
         one suggested for "significant impairment".
       The addition of visibility as an "air quality related
         value" defeats the purpose of one of the hardest fought
         compromises in the PSD plan enacted in 1977:  Section
         165(d) of the Clean Air Act, as amended, allows a
         limited 18-day sulfur dioxide variance for certain
         sources whose emissions would cause or contribute to
         violations of PSD Class I area increments.
       EPA can assist Congress in its review of the visibility
         protection policy in 1981 by candidly assessing the
         costs and benefits of these proposed regulations with
         particular attention to their impact on the attainment
         of national energy development goals.
                                A-451

-------
Southwest Environmental Service, IV-F-12
Comments on long term strategy:

     • Should include specific objectives as well as a schedule.
     • The regulations must include required improvements in
         visibility.
     • All SIP revisions should be reviewed for visibility
         impact.
     • Concurrence of FLM should be required on any SIP revision
         affecting visibility.
                                A-45 2

-------
Arizona Public Service Company, IV-F-13


The proposed regulations have not followed the legislation:

     • Benefits are not balanced against energy and financial
         costs.

The regulations do not require a state to consider BART for
other than the 26 categories.

The regulations do not give the states visibility objectives
to achieve.

Comments on BART:

     • EPA has ignored the cost-benefit analysis.
     • EPA has not developed adequate guidelines.
     • Nine months for SIP revision is inadequate.
     • Reanalysis is illegal and inequitable.
     • The guidelines only list 23 pages of guidance for
         26 industrial categories.
                               A-453

-------
Ralph Jerman, Attorney in the Legal Department of Utah Power
and Light Company, IV-F-14


General Comments:

Opposes the regulations due to  impact  on  power  industry.

Specific Comments:
                                                        to areas
The proposed extension of visibility protection
  outside of Class I areas is beyond the scope of the
  Clean Air Act and beyond the intention of Congress.
Visibility regulations could impact on the development
  of energy resources in western states and the present
  economic impact analysis of the visibility  regulations
          is totally inadequate
      ,Ouaj.j.y _Lj.icu-iG=v,iu.a.i-»— •
   is essential that the Agency,  and  if necessary,  the
  Congress, at the request of  the Agency,  take  enough
        It is
  time to
                  ,  a
                  determine the causes of impairment to visibility
          and make adequate findings as to the               e
          will reduce those impairments.  This must be done before
          regulations setting up specific requirements are promul-
          gated.                              .
        The visibility regulations are fraught
                                        with subjective
                                        which cannot be
          and potentially arbitrary procedur
          adequately incorporated into planning and cannot be
          objectively evaluated with regard to compliance.
                                A-454

-------
National Association of State Foresters, IV-F-15
Favors phased approach to visibility protection.

Favors the State-centered approach, in that a flexible, area-
specific approach is perferable to the setting of national goals.

Commends EPA for its recognition of prescribed fire as an
ecologically sound forest and range management tool.

     • Agrees with EPA's classification of smoke management
         techniques as BMP, and even recommends their use as
         BAGT.

Disagrees with the strict definition of "visibility impairment":

     • Smoke from prescribed forestry burning should not be
         classified as a visibility impairment, since smoke
         from forest fires existed under natural conditions.

Disagrees with idea of "integral vistas":

     • This protection is an attempt by EPA to regulate outside
         of the jurisdiction granted to it by Congress, and is
         an interference with the states' authority to manage
         their air resources.

Agrees with the need for cooperation and consultation between
the EPA, the State, and the federal land manager in developing
a monitoring system for visibility at the State level.

     • Disagrees with a large and expensive national monitoring
         system.  Monitoring responsibility should be shared
         between the federal land manager and state.  Federal
         government should provide funding since protection is
         to federal lands.

Concerned that the program development will only involve the
EPA, the State, and the federal land manager.  Supports the
idea that non-federal land managers should also be consulted.

Respects and stresses their hopes that currently operational
state smoke management systems will be recognized by EPA and
not be compromised through the promulgation of national smoke
management guidelines.

     • Strongly recommends that computer modeling not be con-
         sidered as a national answer to managing smoke from
         prescribed fire.
                               A-455

-------
Roy G. Cox, Secretary, North Idaho Forestry Association,  IV-F-16
General Comments:

Generally supportive of EPA's efforts but opposed to possible
impacts on prescribed burning.

Specific Comments:

     . Questions whether EPA,has  authority  to  regulate  prescribed
         burning, particularly outside  of  "mandatory  Class  I
         federal areas
      • EPA
  I^LC^O. CLO. O. i.^-<-*•••? •                               f    .
  should limit its regulations to visibility impairment
         within Class  I  areas
       EPA
  should consider smoke from any prescribed fire for the
         *"* QXA^^WtJ-^A  V^^^AA k-' -^^-*.*i^J-  »—— ..-w- — •—  —i —	 	_£  ^
         purpose of  restoring, maintaining or improving natural
         ecosystems  as part of the  contribution to baseline-
         visibility  impairment.
       EPA should  specifically include provisions in the final
           gulations for states  to  determine whether consider-
re
          ation  of additional smoke management techniques for
          prescribed burning is necessary in the state program
          to  achieve the national visibility goal.
        EPA should coordinate its final regulations with the pro-
          grams  of Federal and state agencies and private land
          owners
                 to reduce the risk of uncontrolled wildfires
          and to increase the productivity of the multiple
          resources which farms and forests provide.
        EPA should thoroughly evaluate the alternatives to pre-
        '  scribed burning and view the objectives of its visibility
          program in the light of other desircible environmental
          objectives.                                .,-,,_
        EPA should postpone its regulations on prescribed burning
          until at least Phase II and preferably Phase III of the
          visibility program.
                                A-456

-------
Dr. John Thielke, Air Quality Specialist, Puget Sound Power
and Light Company, IV-F-17
General Comments:

     •  Endorses the statement of the Western System Coordinating
         Council (IV-F-28).
     •  Opposes the regulations because they will result in yet
         another regulatory stumbling block rather than a
         significant step in the direction toward clean air.

Specific Comments:

     •  The EPA should reassess the technical basis for visibility
         standard setting at this time and appraise the courts
         and Congress of the need for further research and study.
     •  Congressional direction should be requested to clarify
         how the term "reasonable progress" should be interpreted
         in paragraph (4) of Section 169A of the Clean Air Act
         Amendments.
     •  The consideration of visibility protection for vistas
         out of Class I areas should not be included in the
         proposed regulations until further direction is pro-
         vided by Congress.
     •  Determination of visibility impairment should be based on
         visitor related perspective rather than model oriented
         techniques.
     •  There is a lack of data and therefore uncertainty in the
         baseline values for visibility.   Therefore inclusion
         of visibility related concerns under PSD review should
         be flexible until such time when the effects of variable
         natural conditions are understood.
     •  The terms "significant impairment" and "adverse impact"
         in the proposed regulation (Section 51.301, paragraphs
         (1)  and (r))  should be modified to read, ...visibility
         impairment which, in the judgement of the Administrator,
         unreasonably interferes with...
     •  "Our major objection to the proposed regulations lies in
         the lack of a good scientific or technical basis which
         in turn, places control decisions at the discretion of
         the EPA Administrator."
                              A-457

-------
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, IV-F-18
The regulations as written are vague.

Visibility models have not been validated.

BART must be clearly defined.

Reanalysis of BART must be limited:

     - New and retrofitted existing  facilities should be granted
         a 10-year immunity  from additional retrofit requirements.
     • Should be explicit "grandfather" clause with exemptions
         related remaining life of the unit.
                                             •:',i
BART guidelines should include:

     • Feasibility
     • Benefit
     • Cost
     . Type, availability and  operating histoory.
     • Should not be LAER.
                                A-458

-------
State of Arizona (Nils I. Larson) ,  IV-F-19 '
     •  Concerned with the content and timing of proposed
         regulations.
     •  Proposed regulations and the technical support on which
         regulations are based do not give the States an adequate
         foundation upon which to develop visibility programs.
     •  Several questions in performing BART analysis:
       -  To what extent does a particular industrial plant
          contribute to a visibility problem?
       -  How are non-air quality and other environmental impacts
          of alternative definitions of BART to be measured or
          weighed?
       -  In'terms of visibility impairment, what is the cause    :
          and effect relationship of the emissions of particular
          pollutants from a specific source?
       -  How are the economic consequences of alternative BART
          definitions to be determined?
       -  Is BART only supposed to be concerned with emissions
          from stacks or are fugitive emissions also to be
          considered?
       -  Most importantly, since the definition of BART clearly
          requires a cost/benefit analysis, how are the degree
          and benefit of visibility improvement anticipated from
         . alternative BART determinations to be assessed?
     •  Proposed regulations rely almost entirely upon unvalidated
         models.                     .
     •  PSD goes too far in terms of detail  (no State flexibility)
         while visibility does not give enough detail.
     *  The development and implementation of a visibility program
         will take considerable State resources.
                               A-459

-------
Wallace W. Carey, Director of Private Forestry, Industrial
Forestry Association, IV-F-20
General Comment:
                                                             i
Opposes regulation of prescribed burning under proposed visibility
laws.

Specific Comments:

     • Prescribed burning is a necessary tool in modern forest
         management.
     • EPA does not have statutory authority to include prescribed
         burning in visibility laws.
     • If regulations are drafted that in any way restrict the
         use of prescribed burning, the background levels that
         are used should recognize the fact that there has never
         been what people call a pristine, perfectly clean air
         shed during the recorded history of the area and wild-
         fire smoke has been in the air for centuries.
     • There will be conflict with existing smoke management
                        Washington and Oregon,
regulations
in
       Hauling of residue  out  of  the woods  for  slash burning
          steam generators  is not  economically feasible  and could
          cause air pollution problems near  population centers.
       Prescribed burning  has  only  short  duration visibility
          effects.
                               A-460

-------
Guenther, Concerned Citizen, IV-F-21
Urges that the concept of "integral vistas" be more firmly
established for the purpose of protection.

     •  In addition to protection for these integral vistas
         (areas outside park boundaries viewable from within),
         essential vistas viewed from outside the park should
         also be protected.

Supports that the National Park Service and other federal agencies,
having responsibility for resource protection in implementing
visibility protection for their Class I areas, have the strongest
possible role.

     •  The federal land manager should have key position and ample
         time to assess advertising from any new pollutant sources
         proposed.  Proof of no adverse impact should be from
         source (new).

States that EPA should specify a firm date as to when Phase II
will be implemented.

Suggests EPA to use simple monitoring techniques (e.g. visual
smoke plume observation) only for gross measurements.  'More
sophisticated monitoring techniques should be used immediately.
Guidelines on monitoring and new source modeling should be
issued as soon as possible.
                               A-461

-------
Carlton D. Grimm, Manager, Generation System Development,
The Montana Power Company, IV-F-22


General Comment:

Opposes regulation due to lack of a valid scientific data base
and vague language.

Specific Comments:

      • Questions the scientific basis for setting a "visibility
         standard" considering the state-of-the-art of both
         visibility modeling and monitoring.
      . Visibility as proposed is subjective.
      - The definitions of "significant" or  "adverse" are not
         adequately qualified or quantified and are thus vague
         and  ambiguous.                                     .
      . Also questions  the concept of protecting vistas outside
         of Federal Class I areas.
                                A-462

-------
Governor Matheson, State of Utah, IV-F-23
       Desire and accept responsibility for visibility protection.
       Visibility is State responsibility.
       Lack of scientific and technical information on visibility.
       Definition of visibility impairment is unrealistic -
         threshold of human perception not a line but a range.
       Natural condition impossible to define.
       Integral vistas not authorized by Act.
       Effect of integral vistas strategies will be significant.
       Process of, identifying integral vistas unacceptable.
       If integral vistas are adopted - suggest two alternate
         approaches.
          States would designate the vistas after appropriate
          FLM consultation.                   .
          Vistas identified through an explicit State/Federal
          cooperative effort.  Criteria applied.jointly and
          public input sought.  State concurrence would be
          required.
          Specific reference of vista in legislation or legis-
          lative history would be mandatory.  Public use and
          perception would determine its importance.
BART
       State's role in selecting sources to be subject to BART
         not clearly recognized.  Section 51.302(c)(4) must be
         stricken.
       Impossible to determine "reasonably attributing".
       BART reanalysis represents moving target.
       Cost to States for visibility program could be substantial.
         In Utah the cost would be nearly $700,000.
       Favor phased approach.  Suggest one further requirement.
         EPA should solicit suggestions of test cases where
         visibility problems are representative.  From this list,
         select demonstration projects for BART analysis.  Federal
         financial assistance would be needed for these studies.
       During demonstration period, EPA and States could continue
         research into monitoring, modeling and transport
         mechanisms.
       Regulations have confused .requirements of 169A and 165.
       Section 51.307(h)  implies integral vistas can be identi-
         fied and protected for future, non-mandatory Class I
         areas.
                              A-463

-------
John R. McNamara, Associate General Manager, Salt River Project
Agricultural Improvement and Power District, IV-F-24


General Comments:
                                          •
Opposes regulations because 1) they depart from Congress'_stated
intent in addressing visibility impairment problem, 2) initial_
notions are eroding as a result of ongoing studies at the Navajo
Generating Station, 3) they inappropriately transfer to the states
the burden of visibility regulation, including development of
reasonable scientific bases for any proposed regulations.
                                A-464

-------
Mrs. Lloyd Bliss, Chairperson, Utah Environment Center, IV-F-25


General Comment:

Supports the proposed visibility regulations.

Specific Comments:

     •  Urge EPA to embark on a long-term plan to upgrade air
         standards in areas visible from Class I areas.
     •  Plans should include:

       1) prevention of pollution from new sources.
       2) upgrading of air standards for already recognized
          sources as technical means become available.
       3) creation of an effective monitoring program.
                               A-465

-------
Public Service Company of Colorado, IV-F-26


Opposes the concept of integral vistas.

     • EPA is creating buffer zones.
     • The concept is prohibited by legislation.

The definition of visibility is not clear.

Comments on BART:

     • The BART guideline is inadequate.          _    •-i • 4.
     . No link between control of  emissions  and visibility
         benefit was  shown.                            ma.a4-
     - EPA is questioning the ability  of  scrubbers  to meet
         opacity for  visibility, but this contradicts the
         NSPS regulations.

Comments on the ICF Report:

      • The report  states that the  Comanche Station  at Pueblo,
         Colorado  will affect visibility  in the Rocky Mountain
         National  Park,  82  km away.  The  Comanche Station  is
         230  km from  the Park.
      - The report  concludes additional NOX control  is needed
         for  Comanche.   The plant already has the recommended
         controls.
      • The appendix mentions the Comanche Station affecting_
         visibility in  the Grand Canyon.   The Grand Canyon is
          450  miles away and upwind of  the Comanche Station._
         Also mentioned is the  Jarbridge Wilderness Area which
          is  600 miles away.

 Opposes  the  role  of the FLM in the proposed regulations:

      •  Section 51.302(b)(3) consultation with FLM on SIP
          revisions is not supported in the Act.     _
      .  Section 51.302(c)(l) FLM may demonstrate  an_integral
          vista has not been properly designated  - is not
          supported in the Act.                         .
      •  Section 51.302(c)(4)(ii) State shall consult with FLM

      .  Sectional. 302 (c) (4) (iii)  State shall consult with  FLM
          on operational standard  other than BART.
      •  Section 51.304(a)
      . Section 51.305(a)
      . Section 51.306(b)
                                A-466

-------
IV-F-26 continued

     •  Section 51.306 (c).
     •  FLM does not have technical ability to perform all
         functions.

Opposes definition of "Potential to Emit":

     •  No plant operates continuously - year round.
     •  EPA should not condition a permit with limiting the
         hours of operation.
                             A-467

-------
Michael S. Foster, Environmental Specialist, Chevron, U.S.A.,
IV-F-27


General Comment:

Opposed to regulations, particularly with respect to the scope.
                                             111
Specific Comments:

     • A phased approach:'  Agree with the phased approach but
         feels that several desirable aspects have been left
         out. 1) New sources and modifications should not be
         vulnerable to permit denial based on visibility impacts
         until EPA has validated and approved visibility impact
         models.  2) Suggests that EPA adopt definition number
         three  (a visually perceptible impairment which is con-
         sidered  significant or adverse) initially,  and consider
         number two as a possible long-term strategy.

Definition:

     • "Significant Impairment" is good.
     • "Stationary Source" and  "Building, Structure, Facility
         or  Installation" should include only those  activities
         owned or operated by one person and located on contig-
         uous properties that satisfy all three of the following
         criteria:

        . 1.    They have the same first three digits under the
               SIC code.
         2.    They are dependent upon or affect the process
               of each other, and
          3.    They involve a common raw material or product.

      - Protection of integral vistas;  Protection of "-integral
         vistas"  should be deleted from the regulations.
      • Application of BART:  Suggest that BART equipment, once
         Installed on a source, be deemed satisfactory'.until  a
         major modification is  made on that source,  or at least
         the regulations should shield sources against  "Double
         BART"  for a reasonable period, say 10 years, to allow
         amortization of previously installed BART equipment.
      • "Visibility Offsets" from exempt sources";  Suggest an
         extension of the  "bubble concept"  to  include visibility
          related  emissions.
                              A-468

-------
Mulloy, James L., Chairman, Western Systems Coordinating Council,
IV-F-28 and IV-F-28a
General Comment:

The proposed rule can only result in reduced reliability and
increased cost to customers and should be balanced against other
national goals.  Visibility protection is a worthy goal, but con-
sidering our national priorities and current state of knowledge,
the proposed action is premature.

Specific Comments:

     •  Rules are vague and require subjective judgement during
         implementation.
     •  Could cost the western region over $3 billion to complete
         retrofits.
     •  Visibility impairment provides no realistic basis for a
         cost benefit determination.
     •  In two or three years, our state of knowledge would be
         much more advanced, that would be the time to proceed.
                              A-469

-------
Pacific Power & Light Company (Ted Phillips), IV-F-29


     • Problems—What is visibility and what is impairment.
     • What does human perception mean?
     • Considerable gaps in understanding of visibility.
     • Regulations at this time can only apply to single source
         situations.
     • No validated visibility models.
     • Opacity regulations are already in affect which are a type
         of visibility program.
     • Guidance needed on monitoring.
     • How measure impairment or improvement?
     • BART should not apply to each pollutant but only those
         which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute
         to visibility impairment.
     • Regulations should draw distinction between "any" and
         "significant" impairment.
     • Integral vistas not authorized by Act.
     -. 169A(e) forbids buffer zones.  Integral vistas introduce
         the buffer zone concept.
BART
       Regulations far exceed the requirements of the Act by
         essentially granting the FLM veto power over State
         decisions.
       FLM and EPA can review State BART decisions but initial
         decision is left to the State.  FLM should be involved
         as interested party.
       51.303.  FLM decision with respect to BART decision should
         have a fixed amount of review time associated with it.
       51.307(b) seems to imply that State must satisfy FLM that
         an adverse impact will not occur instead of the reverse
         as required by the Act.
       51.307(b) should be revised to specifically reflect pro-
         cedures and requirement of the Act.
                               A-470

-------
Dr. Frederick E. Templeton, Kennecott Corporation, IV-F-30
General Comments:

Do not believe that Congress intended the operations of these
smelters to be affected by the visibility requirements of
Section 169A of the Clean Air Act, but EPA's proposed visibility
regulations may nevertheless subject these smelters to additional
emission limitations.

Specific Comments:

     • EPA has changed the scope of the statute as enacted by
         Congress in at least two ways:                           .

     1)   EPA has proposed to include in its regulations, smelters
          that were in operation prior to 1962, whereas Congress
          specifically excluded them, and

     2)   EPA has proposed to extend visibility requirements
          to areas outside Class I areas, whereas Congress
          specifically limited such requirements to the areas
          themselves.

     • EPA should take a less active role in the visibility field
         and leave it to the states.  "We urge EPA to abandon the
         expansive view of its powers represented by these pro-
         posed regulations and to redraft the regulations to con-
         form to Section 169A, which makes the states, not EPA,
         the ultimate arbiter on visibility regulations.
                               A-471

-------
Island Forest Resource Council, IV-F-31


Concerned about regulation's application to prescribed burning:

     - Objective to decrease visibility impairment may have
         serious adverse effects on raw material supply (forest
         timber).                                      .    . _
     • Could affect maintenance of browse species for wildlife.
     . It is possible to restrict programs involving millions
         of dollars, while giving little in terms of increased
         air quality.  •
     • By regulating against visibility impairment in Class I
         areas, you are forcing smoke dispersement into popu-
         lated  areas.
     • Additional designation  of Class I areas ans related
         visibility regulations will only serve to tie up forest
         management program.
                                A-472

-------
Colorado-Ute Electric Assoc., Inc., IV-F-32
Opposes the proposed visibility regulations in general.

Comments on the ICF Report:

     • Incorrect tabulation of particulate emissions for
         Bullock Station.
     • Bullock Station started operation in 1952.
     • Comment on NOX control in study for Hayden Station.
         Also comments on the blue to red ratio which could
         be affected by NOX emissions.
     • Underestimated costs of retrofit.
                               A-473

-------
Governor Herschler, Wyoming, IV-C-3


State should have the option of reclassifying Class I areas
(downgrade the-classification).

Comments on definition of "potential to emit":

     • Must recognize enforceable permit conditions.

Comment on the definition of  "visibility impairment":

     • Cannot determine "a human perceptible change in visibility
         from that which would have existed under natural
         conditions".
     - General visibility impairment cannot be reasonably
         associated with given manmade activity.

Opposes consultation with FLM on SIP revision.

The State should identify integral vistas.

Opposes role of FLM.

      • Identification of integral vista.
      - Identification of candidate for BART.
      • Should not have decision making authority.

Long-term Strategy:

      • Should  review every  five years.

Comment on New Source Review:

      • The process  of review will  take too  long.   Some  States
         only  have  90 days.
      • Opposes the  final determination by EPA in  the  case  of
         a dispute  with the FLM and  State.
                               A-474

-------
Scott Paper Company (Through Warren Magnuson),  IV-C-4


Opposes the regulation of prescribed burning:

     •  State laws require the abatement of "extreme fire
         hazards".  Fire is one of the principal tools.
     •  Proposed regulations will increase cost of near term
         timber.
     •  Decrease productivity - particularly true on National
         Forest timberlands adjacent to Federal Class I areas.
     •  Will discourage small forest landowners from staying
         in business.
     •  Will.create a. "backlash" reaction to•classifying
         additional wilderness areas.
     •  Will aggravate the fiscal crisis at state level since
         states are not prepared to handle proposed regulations,
     •  Aggregate cost of regulations out of proportion to
         benefits gained.
                               A-475

-------
Puget Sound Power & Light Company  (Through Warren Magnuson)
IV-C-5


Lack of technical basis for regulations:

     • Being generated only to comply with court mandate
           —* ^              „_   .  i.  •	T 1_ _«.!_< -CT f^ V* -r T •! r* n
       Urge EPA
to reassess the technical basis for visibility
         standard setting at this time
      • Appraise the courts and Congress of the need  for further
         research and study.

 'Reasonable Further Progress" in Section  169A(4)  of  the Act.

      • Congressional direction should be  requested to  clarify
         the  term.

Opposes  the concept  of  "integral vistas":

      • Not supported by the Clean Air Act.
      • Not intended  by  Congress.

Protection of visibility is beset with uncertainties:

      • EPA should reformulate the basic long-term approach to
         visibility  protection from deterministic, model oriented
         techniques  to  statistical, visitor related perspective.
         Recognizing uncertainties the entire issue and deal
         with them.                                            . ..
      - Techniques for characterizing "natural" visibility should
         be  developed.                               .
      - Correlation between lines of visitor use and impairment -
          frequency,  duration, extent, and intensity should be
         reviewed to develop regulations.

 PSD

      •  Visibility protection through PSD shoxild remain flexible
          until baseline values  can be established.

 Definitions of "significant impairment" and  "adverse impact".

      .  Should have the language  "judgement of the Administrator,
          unreasonably interferes with..."

 Objects to the proposed regulations:

      • Lack of scientific  and technical basis.'
      • Significant impact  to the economy.
                                A-476

-------
Allegheny Mining Corp., (Through Senator Robert Byrd), IV-C-6


Visibility regulations would have severe economic impact.

     • Specifically power plants in the vicinity of Dolly Sods
         and Otter Creek in West Virginia were cited.
     • ICF cost estimates did not take into account the effect
         on the local economy from changing coal supplies.
     • Urge EPA to revise the regulations so as to limit the
         amounts that must be spent for visibility protection.

Visibility is not a health related issue and has no effect on
plants or animals.  It'is completely reversible.

Most wilderness areas are not important recreational attractions:

     • Extention of this policy on a strict basis to infrequently-
         visited wilderness areas could only generate minimal
         direct user benefits.
     • Costs could be unacceptably high.

Capital and annual operating costs were cited for four power
plants in the Otter Creek wilderness vicinity which were in
the ICF study.

     * Costs to control visibility impairment were listed.
     • These costs could not be financed under.any plausible
         set of circumstances.
     • This pollution control equipment would be unproductive.
     • Cost of protection for Otter Creek would be more than
         $18,000 per visitor-day at 5% visibility impairment
         and over $13,000 at 13%.
     • If Otter Creek and Dolly Sods benefit, the costs would
         be $7,500 per visitor day at 5% and $4,000 at 13%.

Cites quotes from, Latimer's Report, Power Plant Impacts on Air
Quality and Visibility;  Siting and Emission Control Implications.
 (Final Report, EF 79-101, August, 1979), prepared for EPA.

     • Large areas will be off limits for power plant siting.
      • Western coal may not be available to eastern plants.

Opposes "integral vistas":

      • Reduce even further the possible power plant  sites.

Opposes inclusion in PSD permit requirements.

Plants will be precluded  from nine month siting.
                              A-477

-------
Puget Sound Power
IV-C-7
and Light Company (Through Rep.  Al Swift)
This correspondence was identical to that sent to Senator
Magnuson - IV-C-5.  For a summary, see those comments.
                                A-478

-------
Roberts - Citizen, Through Sen. Herman Talmadge, IV-C-8


Supports the proposed regulations.

Supports the concept of integral vistas.

EPA should review all means source permits where visibility
is _i_nvolved.

The role of the FLM should be strengthened and clarified.

     • Especially where the state - new source review process
         is concerned.

The States and FLM's need more guidance on how to make an
"adverse impact" determination.

Method of settling disputes between FLM and States should be
clarified.

Major flow - lack of monitoring program.
                                A-479

-------
Davidson-Forester, Through Rep. John Hammerschmidt, IV-C-9



Opposes the regulation of prescribed burning:

     • Natural occurrence.
     • Pines would be overtaken by shade tolerant hardwoods.
     - Improves wildlife habitat.
     - Eliminates need for chemical or mechanical control.
     • Reduces chance of wildfire.
     • Improves condition for harvesting or replanting.
     • Smoke management is to keep smoke away from populated
         areas, but these regulations may do the opposite.
     • Forestry burning is only a secondary factor in
         visibility impairment.
     • Concern not given to economic impact.
                                 A-480

-------
Virginia Manufacturers Association (Through Rep. William
Whitehurst), IV-C-10
Opposes the concept of "integral vistas".
     •s
     •  Would create a buffer zone outside the Federal Class I
         area.

Opposes reanalysis of BART:

     •  An industry could be forced to continually install new
         pollution control equipment.

Opposes role of FLM:

     •  Could prevent or delay industrial development.
     •  Goes far beyond Congressional intent.
                                A-481

-------
Governor Atiyeh - Oregon (Through Sen. Mark Hatfield), IV-C-11


Opposes concept of "integral vistas":

     • Doubt whether Congress actually intended integral vistas
         be included.
     • Could bring unacceptable impacts on natural resources.
     • If Congress did intend this concept to be enacted, then
         the state should play a major role in determining sites
         and regulation.

Opposes regulation of prescribed burning:

      • Guidelines should not be allowed to evolve into strict
         rules.                                 .11
      . Burning is the only specific  source required  to be con-
         sidered in  the long-term strategy.  EPA has decided it
         adversely impacts.

SIP revisions cannot be done in 9 months:

      • Monitoring should be done in  summer recreational  season
         over several years.
      • Control strategies  should be  based on the results of
         this monitoring.

Concerned  about  identification of sources causing impact:

      • Models not well  developed.
                                 A-482

-------
Representative Beryl Anthony, IV-C-12


Opposes the regulation of prescribed burning:

     •  The regulations will result in the termination of
         prescribed burning.
     •  Environmentally safe.
     •  Improves wildlife habitat.
     .  Reduces chance of wildfire.
     •  Enhances forest reproduction.
                                 A-483

-------
Levy - Citizen  (Through Rep.  Ike Andrews),  IV-C-13


Support the proposed regulations.

Support the concept of "integral vistas".

     ' Mandated by Congress.

Special protection of Class I areas is needed because of the
tearit industry.
PSD:
       Regulations must require review of visibility impacts.
       Clear methods for FLM to object to permitting new source.
       Procedure for FLM to analyze the impact.
       Stated method by which EPA will review and weigh the
         FLM's comments in the permitting process.
Monitoring:
     • For compliance of new sources and current visibility is
         not mentioned in the regulations.
                               A-484

-------
Eads, Council on Wage and Price Stability, IV-C-14


Supports the phased approach.

Questions the assumption BART is equivalent to NSPS.

     • May raise the cost of compliance significantly.

Comments on BART guidelines:

     • Guidelines assume BART will be NSPS for the majority of
         the facilities.  The Act requires a case-by-case analysis.
     • Fails to describe, in either qualitative or quantitative
         terms, the nature and extent of visibility impairment
         to be improved.
     - The costs of BART for three sources are much higher than
         EPA estimated for all existing sources in their draft
         regulatory analysis.
     • Guidelines are confusing as to whether Phase I BART
         addresses visibility caused by a single source or
         regional haze created by multiple sources.
     • To what extent will the BART guidelines control the SIP
         revision requirements?
                                A-485

-------
Virginia Manufacturers Association (through Rep. Joseph Fisher),
IV-C-15
Opposes the concept of integral vistas:

     • Development and expansion of existing industries could
         be denied.
     • Would create a buffer zone.

Opposes the reanalysis of BART:

     • No way to judge future costs of BART.

Opposes role of FLM.

     - Could prevent industrial development.
     • Go beyond Congressional intent.
                              A-486

-------
                                     TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                              (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
 1. REPORT NO.
   EPA 450/2-80-0835
             3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
  Appendix A  - Summary of  Individual  Comments on  the
  May 22, 1980 Proposed Visibility Regulations
             5. REPORT DATE
                October 1980
             6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
 7. AUTHOR(S)
                                                              8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADPRES

  PEDCo Environmental, Inc.
  11499 Chester  Rd.
  Cincinnati, Ohio  45246
             10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
             11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.

                 68-02-3512
 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
  Office of Air  Quality Planning and Standards
  U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency
  Research Triangle Park, N.C.   27711
             13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
                 Final
             14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
  The Appendix to  "Summary of Comments and  Responses on  the May 22,  1980 Proposed
  Regulations for  Visibility Protection for Federal Class  I Areas" summarizes the
  public  comments  by individual  commenter.
                                 KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
                                                b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS  C.  COSATI Field/Group
  Response  to  comments
  Visibility
Public  comments
Visibility
  Release to  public
                                                19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
                                                   Unclassified
                           21. NO. OF PAGES
                                500
                                                20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
                                                                            22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4—77)   PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE

-------

-------