P. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1802 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# 66 ) IV-E-6 0 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 11/4/200811:57:59 AM

Sheet 66 of 117P. 2

MEETING SUMMAR

Y EP A MEETING WIT H STAPPA/ALAPC O NS RSECTOR-BASE

D APPROAC H AN

D CLEA N UNIT T April 07, 2000 i Th e meetin g wa s hel d vi aatelephon e conference . Th e meetin g bega

n a t approMmkeiy_„L. . ~

- 10:00 a mand close d a

t approximatel

y 12:25 pm . Attache d i s alis t of attendees'.—AlSolittache

d ar e th e meetin g agendaan

d handout . Bil l Harnet

t opened th e meeting b y welcomin g everyone . He sai d tha t th e purpos e o f

th e meetin g wa s to presen

t som e detail s of

th e NS Rsector-base d approach to STAPPA/ALAPC O an d to solici t their input o n tha t approach . H e als o sai d tha t anothe r purpos e o f

th e meetin g wa s to briefly discus s an

d to solicit STAPPA/ALAPCO' s input on som e recen t comment s receive d fromth e complex manufacturer' s grou p regardin g th e propose d clea n uni t test . Kath y Kaufma n presente d th e concep t

o f th e sector-base d approach (firs t pag e o f th e meetin g handout

title d "New Sourc e Review Sector-Base d Approach") . Praveen Ama r pointe d out tha t EP A shoul d mak

e it clea r tha t eve n thoug h th e progra

mi s voluntar

y t o op t in , i t i s no t voluntar y onc e you hav e opted in , i.e. , asourc e tha t opt s in mus t

mee t certai n level s an d dates . Ms . Kaufma

n agreed . Joh n Pau l aske d wha

t EP A ha d in mind wit

h respec t t o rat e of declin e versu s rate o f increas e a t certai n plants . He wa s concerne d tha t aplant tha t opt s in coul d immediately increas e emission s bu t

ma y no t se e decrease s unti l som

e time later . The consequenc e woul d b e immediat e air qualit y impacts , whil e benefit s ma y onl y b e realize d later . Ms . Kaufma n acknowledge d tha

t i t wa s one of

EPA' s concern s an

d sai d tha t sh e wil l tr y to brin g i t

u p fo r discussio n late

r i n today' s meeting . NO x an d S0 2 LEVEL S Ms . Kaufma

n presente d target

range s tha

t EP A wa s considerin g fo

r NO x an d S02 , i.e. , 0.1-0.1 5 lb/MMBt

u fo r NO x an d 0.25-0.6 0 lb/MMBt

u fo r S02 . Sh e indicate d tha

t th e level s woul d hav e t o b e met

o n acompany-wid

e averag e basi s b y th e en

d of th e program . Bil l O ' Sulliva

n asked i f th e end of th e progra mwa s 1 0 years . If

so , the n fo

r NO x ther e shoul d b e reduction s i n th e first five years , an d the n atoughe r BAC T in th e nex

t five years . H e sai d tha t thes e range s wer

e o k fo r th e first five year s but

ma y not b e o k fo r th e second five-yea

r period . Mr . Pau l commented tha t whethe r o r no t th e level s ar

e o k beyond th e first five year s depende d o n wha

t leve l i s selected . Mr . O'Sullivan sai d tha t fo r S0 2 th e lowe

r end o f th e rang e wa s reasonabl e becaus e it

fits well wit

h scrubbe r level s an d 1-3 % sulfu

r conten t in coal . But

fo r NOx , h e recommende d tha t EP A reevaluat

e th e level s fo

r th e second five-year

period .P. 3

BACKU P LEVEL S Mr . Pau l aske d i f

atarge t leve l i s set

and tradin g i s allowed , whethe r ther e shoul d b e a backu p leve l fo r individua l units , i.e. , a

n averag e level fo

r overal l purposes , an d another leve l tha t eac h individua

l uni t mus t no t exceed . He wa s concerne d tha t wit h averagin g som

e utilitie s ma y operat e individua

l unit s a t highe r rate s an d increas e emission s and loca l impacts . H e sai d tha t even thoug h ther

e i s modelin g to asses s loca l impacts , utilitie s hav e historicall y argue d agains t modeling . He suggeste d thre e options , (1 ) to hav e atarge t tha t al l unit s mus t

meet afte r 5 years , sa y 0.1 5 fo r NOx , (2 ) alowe

r targe t fo r averaging , sa

y 0.1-0.1 2 fo

r NOx , an d abackup level , sa y 0.20 , fo r individua l units , o r (3 ) n o backu

p fo r individua l units , bu t

th e averag e leve l shoul d b e a s lo w a s possibl e and th e unit s tha t increas e emission s shoul d b e identified . Also , source s mus t

commit t o modelin g t o addres s loca l ai r qualit y impacts . Ms . Kaufma

n clarifie d i f

Mr . Paul ha

d indee d sai d 0.20 a s backu p fo r NOx . Mr . Pau l sai d tha t in OTAG state s i t

woul d b e 0. 5 and aske d Rand y Raymond and Ra

y Menebroke

r i f th e leve l wa s o

k wes t of th e Mississippi . Mr . Raymond replie d tha t h e agree d wit

h th e level s tha

t Mr . Pau l had mentione d an d sai d tha t thei r recen t BAC T wa s 0.1 . Mr . O'Sulliva n sai d tha t th e uppe r end of th e range s bein g considere d b y EP A woul d b e o

k fo r backup , an d lowe

r end s woul d b e o k fo r average . Mr . Pau l als o sai d tha t thi s wa s abi g issu e fo

r STAPPA/ALAPCO , an d a backu p leve l woul d help get

buy-i n frommembershi

p regardin g th e sector-base d approach . Caro l Holme s sai d tha

t som e utilitie s wer

e surprise d about

th e nee d t o mode l eac h facilit y a t maximu mcapacity . Ms . Kaufma

n sai d tha t utilities ' commen

t wa s tha t i f EPA i s providin g thi s flexibility , the n i t

wa s no t reasonabl e t o hav e t o mode l an y increas e i n actua

l emissions . Lyn n Hutchinso n sai d tha

t th e utilities ' concer

n wa s tha t aproblemma

y b e reveale d under

thi s approach whic h ma

y no t b e reveale d unde

r th e bas e NS Rprogram . She als o sai d tha t there wa s a questio n abou

t whethe r to mode l actua

l or potentia l emissions . Mr . O'Sullivan sai d tha t h e di d no t understan d wh

y th e utilitie s were surprise d becaus e a n ai r qualit y analysi s i s neede d to serv e a s abaseline . Mr . Pau l sai d tha t som e utilitie s hav e neve

r been modele d an d wil l likel y sho w a problemwit

h S0 2 NAAQS . The

y ma y b e concerne d tha

t ambien t violation s woul d mea

n tha t they canno t

hav e atradin g progra

mallowin g the mt o increas e emissions . Mr . Raymon d sai d tha t i s th e basi s o f

NS Rprogram , i.e. , maintainin g th e ai r qualit y standards . Therefore , i f

asourc e canno t sho w complianc e wit

h th e standards , the n they shoul d no t procee d wit

h th e offramp . PM-1 0 LEVEL S Ms . Kaufma

n presente d th e rang e of

PM-1 0 target

level s bein g considere d by EPA , i.e. , 0.015-0.3 0 lb/MMBtu . Mr . O'Sullivan sai d tha t th e rang e wa s reasonable . Ms . Kaufma n aske d ho w th e averagin g an d trackin g woul d work . Mr . Paul sai d tha t i t shoul d b e eas y t o model fo r PM-1 0 an d ca n trac k easily . H e recommende d n o averagin g fo r PM-1 0 du e t o loca

l air qualit y concerns , i.e. , al l unit s mus t meet th e level . Mr . O'Sulliva

n agree d tha

t averagin g wa s o

k fo r NO x an d S02 , bu t

no t fo r PM-10 . H e als o sai d tha

t testin g fo r PM-1 0 ca n b e don e onc e ayear .P. 4

Mr . Pau l aske d wha

t abou t PM-2.5 . H

e sai d tha t th e industr

y ma y as k fo r it fo r certaint y reasons , an d tha

t EP A ma y hav e t o dea

l wit h i t i n 5 years . Mr . Ama

r agree d tha

t PM-2. 5 shoul d b e addressed . Ms . Kaufma n sai d tha t EP A ha d no t though t abou t tha t an d requeste d furthe

r comment s o n tha

t subject . Regardin g target

levels , Mr . O'Sulliva

n suggeste d tha

t 0. 3 coul d b e offere

d no w a s a

n average , and i f

th e industr

y canno t mee t tha t level , then g o dow

n t o 0.01 5 in th e secon d five-year period . Mr . Paul aske d wha t th e differenc e wa s between 0.01 5 an d 0.03 , an d whethe

r it wa s a goo d ES P versu s abaghouse . H e wa s thinkin g abou t wher e th e source s wer

e toda y a s compare d to wher e they wil l b e in future . Mr . O'Sulliva n sai d tha t generally abaghous e woul d b e neede d t o get dow n t o 0.015 . Th

e ES P require d t

o achiev e tha

t leve l woul d b e bi g and uneconomical . Therefore , alowe

r level ma y pus h th e industr

y t o instal l baghouses . Mr . Pau l sai d STAPPA/ALAPC O would lik e t o hav e atarget

level tha t woul d nee d abaghouse , i.e . source s shoul d no t b e abl e t o mee

t th e leve l wit

h ESP . Bo

b Hodanbos i sai d tha

t som e source s woul d tr

y to ge t mercur y control s fromS0 2 scrubber s an d no t frombaghouses . Mr . Ama r agreed . Mr . O'Sullivan sai d tha

t fo r unit s coming i n tha

t need retrofits , h e wante d alowe r leve l tha t woul d requir

e abaghouse . Mr . Pau l reiterate d tha

t STAPPA/ALAPC O woul d lik e to se e PM-2. 5 and mercur y addresse d i n thi s approach . Mr . Ama r asked i f mercur y wa s completely out

o f consideration . Ms . Kaufma

n sai d tha t EP A ha d talke d abou

t superior environmenta

l performanc e i n general , but no t abou t mercur y i n particular . Ms . Holme s sai d tha t EP A coul d no t

regulate HAP s unde

r NS R legally . Ms . Kaufma

n clarifie d tha

t fo r purpose s of

superior environmenta

l performance , EP

A will accep t

project s tha

t als o contro l mercury . C O LEVEL S For CO , Ms . Kaufma

n sai d tha t EP A wa s considerin g goo d combustio n practice s o n al l unit s a s th e target . Mr . O'Sullivan sai d tha t historicall y C O fo

r utilitie s ha s been lef

t a t "les s tha n 1 0 ppm. " I t

coul d b e sometime s a s lo w a s 1- 2 ppm . He sai d tha

t Ne w Jersey ha s set

aca p o f 10 0 pp m(a t 7 % oxygen ) a s RACT . He recommende d tha t EP A set uppe r limi t of 10 0 pp mor less . Mr . Ama

r aske d wha

t woul d b e BACT fo

r CO . Mr . O'Sulliva

n sai d tha t he di d no t know . War d Burn s sai d tha

t in EP A Regio n VI

I th e BACT fo

r C O wa s 0.1 6 lb/MMBtu . Mr . Ama r expresse d aconcer

n about movin g t o ahighe

r limit , and suggeste d alimi t muc h lowe

r tha n 10 0 ppm . Mr . O'Sulliva

n als o suggeste d tha

t EP A shoul d look

a t som e recent BAC T decision s an d set a n uppe r limit . OUTPUT-BASE

D TARGET S Ms . Kaufma

n aske d i f th e level s coul d b e output

based . Sh

e sai d tha t industr y ha d lot s of comment s regardin g output base d targets . Sh

e als o sai d a

n advantag e of

output base d target s i s tha t i t encourage s conservation . Mr . Paul sai d tha t anothe r advantag e i s tha

t i t wil l tak e car e of shutdowns . Ms . Kaufma

n agreed .P. 5

Mr . Pau l sai d tha

t STAPPA/ALAPC O lik

e output base d targets . Mr . O'Sullivan agreed . H e sai d tha

t a0.1 5 lb/MMBt

u level converte d t o 1.5 lb/MW H and tha t it wa s no t har d t o calculate . Mr . Ama

r though t tha t EP A ha d don e alo t

of wor k i n th e recen

t year s abou t

ho w t o measur e output an d tha t EP A coul d recommend asimpl e wa y to calculat

e output base d numbers . Mr . Raymond als o expresse d suppor t fo r output base d targets , bu t

sai d tha t th e difficult

y wa s tha t industr y wa s reluctant

to shar e detail s abou

t output . Mr . Ama

r aske d Mr . Menebroke

r ho w Californi adi d i t

pointin g out

tha t Californi aha

d output base d limits . Mr . Menebroke r sai d tha t h e di d no t kno w ho w i t

wa s done . Ms . Kaufma

n sai d ther e wa s anee d to look

a t thi s more . She sai d tha t th e dat awer

e availabl e an

d it ca n b e done , jus t

need t o figure out

ho w to d o it . Ms . Kaufma

n clarifie d tha

t everyone agree d tha

t output base d target s wer

e preferred . TIMEFRAM

E Ms . Kaufma

n sai d tha t EP A wa s considerin g a10-yea r lengt h of th e program . Sh

e als o aske d i f there shoul d b e intermediat e target s and wha

t thos e target s shoul d be . Mr . Ama r sai d tha t timefram e depende d o n th e level s selected . Mr . Pau l sai d tha t i t als o depende d o n ho w man

y unit s and which unit s (especially olde r units ) op t in , an d whethe

r there i s averaging . Mr . O'Sullivan sai d tha t if EP A wa s lookin g a

t al l unit s t o get

controls , the n 1 0 year s wa s ambitiou s and tha

t 1 5 year s ma

y b e mor e reasonable . Mr . Harnet

t sai d tha t th e inten t wa s t o giv e utilitie s certaint y and no t worr y about age . Even i f target s ar e 0.1 5 and 0.60 , i.e. , uppe

r end of ranges , i t woul d represent

significan t reduction s compare d to bas e NSR . H e als o sai d tha

t a n intent wa s t o giv e utilitie s flexibilit y t o pla n wher e they wan

t t o b e in 1 0 years . Mr . O'Sullivan sai d tha t th e age-base d concep t

cam e fromUAR

G and fel t tha t i t wa s areasonabl e concept , i.e. , a s unit s get olde r they ar e "brought in. " Olde r unit s do nee d par

t replacement s and shoul d g o throug h BACT . H e sai d tha t hi s thought s wer

e t o get th e unit s i n thi s progra

mand ge t themt o instal l BAC T i n acleane r way . Mr . Harnet

t sai d tha t EPA' s concer

n wa s tha t olde r unit s ma y no t op t i n and younge

r one s will , and furthermore , a s younge r unit s becom

e older , they wil l no t

op t in eithe r i n th e nex t

round . Mr . Pau l sai d tha

t regardin g timefram

e h e neede d to se e ho w th e level s wer e set an d ho w man y unit s wil l actually nee d controls . Dependin g upo n thes e number s i t ca n b e decide d whethe r 1 0 years , or

anothe r period , i s reasonable . Ms . Kaufma

n aske d wha

t wa s th e interpla

y between timefram

e an d th e backu

p levels . Mr . Harnet

t explaine d tha

t th e aci d rai n leve l fo

r S0 2 wa s 1.

2 lb/MMBtu , whil e thi s progra m wil l get 0. 6 lb/MMBtu . Similarly , NO x nationa l averag e i s 0. 4 lb/MMBtu , whil e thi s progra m wil l get 0.1 5 lb/MMBtu . However , he acknowledge d tha t it wa s har d to predic t

ho w man y source s wil l op t

in . Ms . Kaufma

n sai d tha t abacku p numbe r ma y help identif

y ho w man

y wil l op t in . Mr . Harnet

t sai d tha t eve n if th e source s ar

e require d to meet

acertai n leve l o n average , EP A coul d conside

r requirin g al l unit s abov e acertai n ag e to put som e controls . 

# 4P. 6

In conclusion , Mr . Pau

l sai d tha t th e State s di d no t

clearly kno w i f

1 0 year s wa s reasonable . He asked wha

t th e industr

y ha d to say . Ms . Kaufma

n sai d tha t th e industr

y had th e sam e concerns . Karen Blanchar d sai d tha t th e industr

y wa s als o concerne d about th e levels , an d di d no t wan t mee t one level now and anothe

r lowe r leve l afte r 1 0 years . Mr . O'Sullivan sai d i f th e leve l a t th e star t wa s higher , sa

y 0. 6 lb/MMBt

u fo r NOx , then it

woul d b e ok

to hav e th e source s meet

alowe r numbe r i n 1 0 years , but

settin g 0. 6 lb/MMBt

u fo r 2 0 year s woul d no t

b e reasonable . UNIT S COVERE

D Ms . Kaufma

n sai d tha t EP A wa s considerin g limitin g thi s approach to coal-fire d units . Sh e sai d tha t industr y wanted t o includ e oi l an d ga s unit s a s well , i.e. , wh y penaliz e clea

n units . EP A i s thinkin g o f

keepin g i t simple . Mr . Paul sai d tha

t STAPPA/ALAPC O i s consistent i n saying tha

t onl y coa l unit s shoul d b e included . Mr . Raymond sai d tha t i t woul d b e complicate d to brin g i n oi l an d ga s units . Mr . O'Sullivan sai d tha

t i t woul d b e complicate d when averaging fo r al l units . Th e limit s woul d hav e t o b e lower . Ms . Kaufina n asked i f a n algorith mfo r averagin g coul d b e develope d to include oi l and ga s units . Sh e indicate d tha

t there migh

t b e politica

l pressur e to include them . Mr . Paul sai d tha

t in a n outpu t base d system , conversio n to oi l an d ga s woul d b e creditable , but it woul d stil l b e generally comple x and he woul d prefe

r no t t o include oi l and ga s units . Mr . Raymond sai d tha

t aseparat e progra mshoul d b e develope d fo

r eac h fuel , bu tha

t woul d tak e time . Ms . Kaufma

n asked if th e State s woul d conside

r aprogra mi f EP A include s al l units . Mr . Raymond cautione d tha t EP A ma y no t lik e th e target

level s fo r acombine d program . Mr . Pau l sai d tha

t State s would conside

r it , but wil l no t lik e it . OPTING I

N INDIVIDUA L UNIT S Ms . Kaufina

n asked whethe

r individua l unit s shoul d b e allowe d to op t into th e program . Mr . O'Sullivan sai d tha

t aproblemwit

h voluntar y op t i n i s tha t th e industr

y i s deregulating , ownership s ar

e changin g an

d ther e i s mor e competition . Ther

e coul d b e ascenari o wher

e plant s unde r sam e ownership ar

e competin g and ma

y decide individually whethe r t o op t i n o r not . Mr . Paul sai d tha

t individua l unit s shoul d no t

b e allowe d to opt

i n an d receiv e mor

e benefit s tha

n i n th e bas e program . He suggeste d tha t i f th e progra mha s t o b e voluntar

y the n th e whol e compan

y shoul d opt

in . Whe n aske d ho w t o define a"company, " Mr . Paul suggeste d to mak e i t th e "bigges t

thin g yo u ca n thin k of, " i.e. , th e bigges t

entit y i n term s of

ownership . Whe

n aske d b y Ms . Kaufina

n of othe r participant s wha

t their thought s wer

e regardin g ho w to define a "company, " there wer

e n o opinion s expressed .P. 7

Mr . O'Sullivan wa s concerne d abou t source s "cherry-picking " clea n unit s an d leavin g out dirt y ones . Mr . Pau l sai d tha

t th e othe r concer n wa s tha t th e source s coul d only op t i n th e dirt y unit s an d keep operatin g the mmor e b y trading . Ms . Kaufma

n an d Ms . Holme s explaine d tha t th e rat e ca p woul d addres s th e latte

r concern . Mr . O'Sullivan sai d tha

t th e State s wer

e als o somewha

t confused wit

h th e overal l ownershi p issue , but

thei r opinio n wa s tha

t a t th e leas t th e obligatio n shoul d sta

y wit h th e unit . Ms . Kaufina

n indicate d tha

t th e industr

y agree d wit

h tha t idea . Ms . Hutchinso n sai d tha t som e thought s were tha

t i f auni t change s ownership , th e uni t mus t instal l BAC T and exi t

th e syste mo r th e ne w owne

r mus t kee p i t a t th e averag e applicabl e when th e uni t wa s bought . Mr . O'Sulliva n acknowledge d tha

t thi s wa s complicate d an d tha t th e State s wer

e no t entirel y clea

r about ho w t o addres s this . Mr . Menebroke r als o acknowledge d tha

t it wa s no t eas y t o g o from arul e tha

t applie s systemwide to arul e tha t bust s th e systemapart . GEOGRAPHI C DISTRIBUTIO N Ms . Kaufina

n aske d i f there shoul d b e geographi c restriction s t o protec t existin g programs , regiona

l tradin g and loca

l air quality . Mr . Paul sai d tha

t abacku p numbe r (backu p target level ) woul d help i n OTAG states . He sai d tha t adifferen t backu p numbe r ma y b e neede d fo r differen t regions . Mr . O'Sullivan sai d tha t h e woul d prefe

r t o set th e backu p numbe r slightl y highe r tha n 0.1 5 lb/MMBt

u fo r NOx , sa y 0. 2 lb/MMBtu . Mr . Paul sai d tha t som e o f th e wester

n states , suc h a s Colorado , Utah , etc. , shoul d als o b e consulted . Mr . O'Sullivan sai d tha

t som e Stat e programs , lik

e SI P an d visibilit y programs , ma

y b e mor e stringent tha n thi s NS Rprogram . He explaine d tha t i f thi s progra

mresulte d i n a

n increas e in emission s o f

asourc e a s compare d to th e emission s tha t wer e previousl y modeled , th e sourc e shoul d b e require d to mode l i n orde r to increas e thei r

emission s up t o thei r

potentia l t o emit . Regardin g offsets , Mr . O'Sulliva n indicate d tha

t whethe r o r no t asourc e need s offset s woul d depen d o n whethe

r or no t th e sourc e i s i n abudget , such a s th e NO x budget . H e sai d tha t thi s wa s asensitiv e issu e and shoul d b e considere d further . Ms . Kaufma n acknowledge d Mr . O'Sullivan' s concern . SHUTDOWN S an

d FUEL SWITCHE S Ms . Kaufina

n aske d whethe

r ther e shoul d b e an

y credit fo r shutdown s an d fue

l switchin g (fro mcoa l t o gas) . Sh

e conveye d th e commen

t fromth e industr

y group s tha

t th e tw o shoul d no t b e treate d th e same . Mr . Pau l suggeste d no t t o giv e credi t

fo r shutdowns , but

acredi t shoul d b e given fo r fue l switching . Mr . O'Sulliva n agree d tha

t ther e shoul d b e n o credi t

fo r shutdowns . Ms . Kaufina

n the n aske d ho w much credi t shoul d b e given fo

r fue l conversio n t o gas , i.e. , ful l o r partial credit , indicatin g tha t th e industr

y want s ful

l credit . Mr . Pau l aske d why ther e woul d no t b e aful l credit . Ms . Hutchinso n explaine d tha t th e environmenta

l group s had raise d a (j>P. 8

concer n abou t leakage , i.e. , givin g credit

woul d rais e emission s elsewhere . Mr . O'Sullivan sai d tha t currently ther

e wa s no credi t

fo r fue l switching , but

tha t it ma y b e o k t o giv e partia

l credit . He explaine d tha

t n o credit shoul d b e give n fo

r tha t portio n tha

t i s abov e RACT , e.g. , i f

th e coa l averag e targe t

wa s set a t 0.1 5 lb/MMBt

u fo r NO x an d ga s RAC T wa s 0. 1 lb/MMBtu , the n ther e woul d n o credi t

fo r reductio n to alevel abov e thi s RACT number . STATE versu s FEDERAL ROL E Ms . Kaufma

n asked a s to who woul d kee p track o f th e source s in th e program , e.g. , who woul d th e sourc e appl

y to in orde

r to op t in , who woul d review th e application , etc . Sh e sough t guidanc e fromth e STAPPA/ALAPC O participants . Sh e als o clarifie d tha

t th e progra

mwoul d hav e t o b e aFedera

l program , but

tha t th e State s coul d eithe

r choos e t o implemen

t i t or not . Mr . Pau l sai d tha

t i t sounde d reasonabl e an

d tha t i t coul d eithe

r b e aSI P requirement

or aTitl e V requirement . Ms . Kaufina

n sai d tha t i t woul d hav e to a

t leas t b e aSI P requirement , bu t

i t coul d additionally b e aTitl e V requirement . A Stat e representativ e sai d tha

t it woul d b e easie

r to implemen

t i f there wa s n o trading . Mr . Raymond sai d tha

t wit h tradin g cross-boundar

y issue s wil l hav e to b e addressed . Mr . Ama r asked ho w th e tradin g woul d wor k whe n th e uni t i s alread y subject to othe r requirement s such a s th e NO x SI

P call , sectio n 11 0 SI

P call , aci d rai n progra

metc . Mr . Raymond sai d tha t i t woul d b e difficul t t o implemen

t i f th e unit s wer

e subject to othe r suc h requirements , but

explaine d tha

t thi s progra mcover s mor

e pollutant s an

d it wa s doable . He agree d tha t State-to-Stat

e acceptanc e wa s th e wa y t o mak e i t work . Mr . O'Sulliva

n expresse d aconcer

n abou t mixin g othe

r program s an

d the n losin g th e benefit

of NS Rwhic h i s to reduc e emission s pe r uni t o f produc t produced . TRADIN G Ms . Kaufma

n explaine d tha

t tradin g wil l b e base d o n annua l tons . Beverly Warne

r asked i f th e source s woul d b e tradin g allowances . Ms . Hutchinso n explaine d tha t eac h facilit

y woul d measur e their input and output , and calculat

e thei r tonnage . I

f tha t tonnag e exceed s thei r

limit , the n they nee d t o g o out

an d get th e reduction s elsewhere . Ther e woul d b e areconciliatio n perio d (30,45,6 0 day s etc. ) afte r th e end of

th e yea r durin g whic h t o sho w complianc e fo r tha t year . Ms . Hutchinso n agree d wit h Ms . Warne

r tha t i f th e tonnag e wa s belo w th e limit , the n th e sourc e woul d b e generatin g credits . Mr . Ama r sai d tha t i t look s lik e th e aci d rai n program . Ms . Holme s explaine d tha t th e differenc e i s tha

t thi s i s afloating ca

p dependin g o n amoun

t of electricit y produced . Also , she sai d tha t EP A wa s stil l thinkin g abou

t whethe r or no t asourc e woul d b e allowe d to bank . Ms . Kaufma

n sai d tha t EP A wa s als o considerin g allowin g emission s t o b e banke d fo r on e year . A questio n wa s raise d abou t wha t woul d happen i f

asourc e exceede d their

limi t bu t coul d no t find anothe

r sourc e tha

t ha d acredit . Ms . Holme s sai d tha t th e sourc e woul d b e i n violatio n i n tha t case . 

# -3 -P. 9

Mr . O ' Sulliva

n sai d tha t thi s wa s to o complex . Mr . Ama r suggeste d t o no t

mak e th e progra mcomplicated . He sai d tha t thi s tradin g wa s to o complicated , an d tha t i f th e goa l wa s t o get control s b y acertai n time , then tradin g shoul d b e kep t simple . Whe

n aske d b y Ms . Hutchinso n a s to wha

t asimple progra

mwoul d look

like , tw o Stat

e representative s sai d tha

t they woul d prefe

r no trading . Several.Stat

e representative s suggeste d to kee p th e progra

m simple . Mr . Pau l mad

e th e followin

g suggestion s about

wha t th e progra mshoul d contain : coa

l only , companie s optin g i n an d not units , and output

base d targets . Mr . O'Sullivan sai d tha t no t allowin g bankin g wil l als o mak e it simple , i.e. , ever

y yea r th e averag e mus t

b e met . Ms . Holme s aske d ho w th e progra mwoul d get

th e unit s to instal l control s and meet emissio n rate s i n lieu o f

trading . Mr . Pau l sai d tha

t th e States ' ide awa s t o brin g i n th e unit s base d o n age . Mr . O'Sulliva n explaine d tha

t i f auni t wa s 3 0 year s ol d and wante d t o operate fo r anothe r 1 0 years , the n i t

need s t o provide aschedul e no w fo r puttin g controls . H e sai d tha t h e agree d wit h Davi d Hawkin s o

f NRD C o n thi s point . SUPERIO RENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE Ms . Kaufma

n sai d tha t Bo b Perciasep e wante d asuperior environmenta

l performanc e projec t t o b e defined . Sh

e sai d tha t EP A i s considerin g ho w t o defin e it , e.g. , shoul d aspecifi c typ e o f projec t b e allowed , o

r shoul d i t b e case-by-cas e and th e State s shoul d revie w i t etc . She aske d wha t th e States ' thought s wer

e regardin g superior

environmenta

l performance . Mr . Pau l suggeste d tha

t aharmonize d approach fo

r mercur y control s shoul d b e acceptable . H e sai d tha

t i f level s ar e lo w enough the n there i s n o nee d fo r asuperio r

performanc e project . Otherwis e ther

e ma y b e aneed in which cas e alis t o f project s shoul d b e offere

d tha t qualify . Mr . O'Sulliva

n sai d tha t h e woul d b e satisfie d wit

h lo w BAC T number s a s superior performance , bu t

nothin g mor

e tha n that . H e wa s concerne d tha t thi s superior

performanc e ma

y derai l th e program , i.e. , it

coul d b e a"poiso n pill. " Mr . Ama r agree d tha

t i f mercur y i s a non-starter , the n i t

shoul d no t

b e brough t in . Mr . Paul clarifie d tha

t States ' opinio n wa s tha

t i f th e numbe r wa s lo w enough , the n tha

t i s sufficient . EN D O F PROGRA

M Ms . Kaufina

n aske d wha

t woul d happen a

t th e en d of th e program . She sai d tha t industr y wante d longe

r tha n 1 0 year s of

certainty . Mr . Pau l suggeste d tha

t auni t tha t meet s th e backu

p numbe r coul d get th e clea n uni t exemptio n a

t th e end . Mr . O'Sulliva

n sai d th e h e woul d prefe

r ane w targe t

leve l a t th e end , i.e. , anumbe r tha t i s achievabl e a

t tha t time . Therefore , i f

auni t tha t jus t sign s u p a

t th e end o f th e 1 0 years , the n the y mus t

meet th e ne w level , but

thos e tha t ar e alread y i n th e progra

mshoul d b e ok fo r th e next 1 0 years . Mr . Paul agree d tha t BAC T shoul d b e re-analyze d a t th e en d of

th e program . H e als o sai d tha

t they suppor

t th e "30-yea

r concept, " and anythin g tha t support s tha

t concep t woul d b e preferable . 

### < §P.1 0

CLEA N UNI T TES T The following wer

e discussed :

• TomDriscol l sai d tha

t EP A i s evaluatin g th e reques t

fromcomplex manufacturer s t o refine th e clea n uni t test , an d i s seekin g inpu

t fromSTAPPA/ALAPCO .

• Replacemen

t Units : Mr . Raymond an

d Mr . O'Sulliva

n sai d tha t th e clea n uni t exemptio n shoul d no t apply to replacemen

t units . It coul d appl

y to re-built

units , but ne w replacement unit s shoul d b e treate d a s greenfield unit s and subject t o NSR . Whe

n aske d b y Mr . Driscol l wha t i f th e uni t wa s bein g replace d after , say , 6 year s an d th e BAC T wa s stil l th e same , Mr . O'Sulliva

n replie d tha

t it woul d the n b e o

k to appl y th e exemption , bu t

th e exemptio n shoul d onl y b e availabl e fo

r 1 4 mor e year s (2 0 minu s 6 ) i f

th e origina

l lif e wa s 2 0 years .

• Lis t o f Presumptiv e Controls : Mr . Driscol l sai d tha t EP A wa s considerin g developin g alis t of clea n technblogies . H

e als o sai d tha

t th e control s liste d woul d no t supercede an

y nonattainmen

t are arequirements . Mr . Paul sai d tha t thi s make s i t

arebuttabl e presumption , i.e. , i f aStat e (say , CA ) want s to b e mor

e stringent , the

y can . Ms . Warne

r aske d i f th e lis t woul d b e kep t

up to date , an

d whethe r th e lis t Woul d contai n th e maximu mo r th e minimumrequire d control . Mr . Ama r share d th e concer

n about th e lis t no t bein g updated . Mr . Raymond raise d concern s abou t whethe r th e lis t wil l b e aregulator

y lis t o r aguidanc e list , an

d whethe r i t wil l g o throug h som

e review . Mr . Driscol l sai d tha t h e thought o f th e lis t a s apresumptiv e lis t

whic h i s rebuttable . Onc e installed , th e contro l technolog y woul d get

alife , and if

ther e wa s achange , th e sourc e woul d g o throug h NSR . Mr . Paul sai d tha

t th e lis t mus t provide timelines s and certainty . H e explaine d tha t i t take s th e mos t time to decide wha

t i s BACT , an

d i f th e lis t ha s ver y goo d presumptiv e BACT , the n i t woul d benefi

t bot h th e State s an

d th e industry . He sai d tha

t th e lis t woul d als o help i n th e cas e of ane w uni t

goin g i n unde

r aPA L whic h mus t

ge t goo d controls . Mr . Driscol l agree d tha t th e lis t wil l hel p th e proces s ver

y much . Mr . Paul furthe

r sai d tha t becaus e th e lis t

i s presumptiv e and rebuttable , th e State s woul d reserv e th e righ t to sa y tha t an y given technology , even i f

o n th e list , i s no t

goo d enough . A

t th e least , w e kno w tha

t th e lis t ha s t o b e better tha n NSPS . Denni s Crumple

r sai d tha t a n improve d RBLC coul d b e use d aresourc e fo r thi s list . Ms . Warne

r aske d whethe

r there wil l b e separat

e list s fo r BAC T an d LAER . Mr . Driscol l replie d tha t there woul d probably b e separat e lists , but th e EP A need s t o think

mor e about it . Mr . O'Sulliva

n asked wh

y there wa s anee d t o mak

e tw o list s explainin g tha

t th e presumptiv e BAC T coul d b e equivalen

t to LAER . Ms . Holme s sai d tha t LAE Rma y b e to o stringent

fo r BACT . Mr . O'Sulliva

n argue d tha

t LAE Rwa s jus t anumbe r tha t coul d b e pu t

o n th e list . He wa s concerne d about

gettin g bogge d down b y tw o lists . Mr . Raymon d indicate d tha t havin g a singl e presumptiv e numbe

r woul d als o help i n th e cas e of sourc e goin g unde

r aPAL . Mr . Driscol l aske d whethe

r th e number s use d in Californi awoul d b e ok to us e fo r thi s oneP.1 1

stringent number . Tw o Stat

e representative s replie d yes . Mr . Driscol l als o aske d fo r hel p fromth e State representative s in preparing thi s lis t by suggestin g tha

t eac h Stat e coul d possibl y indicate wha

t their respectiv e BACT limit s were . Mr . O'Sulliva n aske d i f

ther e would b e aproces s involve d in establishin g thi s list . H e sai d tha t Ne w Jerse y ha s anon-regulator y publishe d lis t

o f state-of-the-ar

t technologie s tha

t i s revise d ever

y 2- 5 year s and i s subject

to a n informa l publi c commen

t process . H e suggeste d tha t EP A als o revis e it s lis t

a t leas t ever y 5 years . Mr . Hodanbos i sai d tha t 5 year s sound s reasonabl e bu t

it shoul d var

y by source " category . For

example , 5 year s ma

y b e to o lon g fo

r turbine s an d ma

y nee d t o b e shorter . Mr . O'Sulliva n replie d tha

t fo r turbine s Ne w Jerse y ha

d use d 2 years . A questio n wa s raise d a s to wha t woul d th e lis t

contain , i.e. , woul d it

specif y th e proces s alon g wit h th e contro l option , e.g. , "rotogravur e presse s wit

h therma l oxidizer. " Mr . O'Sulliva n sai d tha

t bot h shoul d b e specified . Mr . Driscol l indicate d tha

t EP A wa s "no t

tha t far " fromcompilin g th e list . Othe r Options : Mr . Driscol l sai d tha t EP A woul d als o conside

r othe r option s fo r asourc e t o ge t th e clea n uni t exemption . Ms . Warne

r suggeste d tha

t pollutio n preventio n (P2 ) coul d qualif y fo r thi s exemption . Mr . Driscol l sai d tha t technolog y transfe

r or BAC T determination s that

d o no t resul t i n an y add-o n control s wer

e als o bein g considered . Mr . Crumple

r clarifie d tha

t th e latte r optio n coul d resul t

i n case s wit

h n o control s a

t all . Mr . Raymon d agree d tha

t th e sourc e shoul d b e allowe d to meet th e presumptiv e BAC T i n an y manner , an d althoug h control s ar e preferable , othe

r mean s shoul d no t

b e disallowed . Mr . Driscol l explaine d tha

t EPA' s thinkin g wa s tha

t th e sourc e need s to mak

e acapita l investment

t o get th e exemption . A Stat

e representativ e agree d tha

t thi s wa s agoo d wa

y t o ge t other item s o n th e list . Offsets/Credits : Ms . Warne r asked i f th e emissio n reductio n credit s from aP 2 projec t coul d qualif y fo r th e clea n uni t test . Mr . Driscol l sai d tha

t EPA' s thinkin g wa s no t

t o allo w reduction s fromclea

n unit s to b e allowe d a s offset s or credits , i.e. , n o doubl e counting . Mr . O'Sullivan agree d sayin g tha t thes e reduction s woul d no t b e considere d surplus . Mr . Raymond als o agreed . Mr . Crumple r explaine d tha

t i f presumptiv e BAC T wa s 96 % contro l and asourc e achieve s 98 % control , th e extr a2 % woul d no t b e given acredi t

t o us e a s offsets . Mr . O'Sullivan agree d tha t th e extr a2 % woul d b e th e source' s complianc e margin . Ms . Warne

r als o agreed . Mr . Driscol l indicate d tha

t th e clea n uni t tes t wil l no t supercede an

y SI P requirement s that

ar e mor e stringent , i.e. , i f

auni t ha s to comply wit

h aSI P requirement

tha t i s mor e stringent , th e uni t woul d no t

b e allowe d to get

th e clea n uni t exemption . Lif e o f th e Exemption : Mr . Driscol l explaine d tha t EPA' s current

thinkin g wa s tha

t th e clea n uni t wil l get potential-to-potentia

l tes t fo r th e lif e o f th e contro l unit . Th e uni t

woul d b e allowe d t o d

o anythin g s o lon g a s th e potentia l t o emi t i s no t exceeded . Mr . O'Sullivan aske dP.1 2

wha t kind of lif e woul d assigne d to unit s sayin g tha t h e wa s oppose d to a30-yea r life . Ms . Warne

r ho w th e lif

e would b e determined . Mr . Driscol l sai d tha t th e exemptio n woul d b e fo r th e lif e of th e contro l technology and woul d depend upo n th e process . He sai d tha t EP A woul d see k input fromth e State s an

d th e manufacturers . Whe

n aske d b y Beverly Warner , Ms . Holme s explaine d tha

t th e premis e fo

r tyin g th e exemptio n to th e lif e of th e contro l wa s tha t i f aver y effective contro l i s installe d initially , the n th e sourc e woul d b e bette r abl e to recou p thei r cos t an d als o an y newe r contro l technolog y woul d no t resul t i n significan

t additiona l reductio n during th e lif

e of th e installe d technology . Ms . Warne r als o aske d whethe r EP A ha d considere d compiling vendor guarantees , to which Mr . Driscol l replie d no . Mr . Driscol l aske d if

acontro l could ge

t exemptio n fo

r th e remainde

r o f th e control' s lif

e i f th e contro l wa s stil l o n th e list . Mr . O'Sulliva n replie d yes , but

th e exemptio n woul d no t

b e automati c becaus e th e technolog y ma y hav e evolved . Mr . Paul sai d tha t th e lif e of th e contro l als o woul d nee d to b e considered , e.g. , i f th e contro l wa s 1 0 year s ol d and it s lif e wa s 1 0 years , the n n o mor

e exemptio n shoul d b e allowed . Cas e b v Cas e Determinations : Mr . Driscol l sai d tha t there ma y b e case s wher

e th e sourc e ma y sugges t abette r wa y to contro l tha

n wha t i s o n th e list . H e sai d tha

t EPA' s thinkin g wa s tha t th e Stat e shoul d wor

k wit h th e sourc e an

d get approva l fromth e applicabl e EP

A regio n fo r th e exemption . Mr . O'Sulliva n sai d tha t th e optio n shoul d b e on th e list . Mr . Driscol l agree d tha t onc e th e new wa

y of contro l wa s approve d fo

r th e exemption , it

shoul d b e include d o n th e list . Mr . O'Sulliva n suggeste d tha

t th e ne w contro l coul d g o throug h th e approva l proces s to ge

t on th e lis t first becaus e timelines s o f

gettin g it o n th e lis t woul d b e important . Tha

t wa y th e contro l woul d hav e anumbe r associate d wit

h it an d i f th e sourc e coul d meet

tha t numbe r they woul d ge

t th e exemption . Mr . Paul suggeste d no t t o hol d th e approva l fo r th e exemptio n waitin g to get th e contro l o n th e lis t

explainin g tha

t th e exemptio n certificat e itself , an d th e potential-to-potentia

l tes t woul d no t

"kic k in " unti l i t

wa s o n th e list . Previou s BAC T Determinations : Ms . Warne r aske d wha

t woul d happen i f

th e sourc e put

a new wa y o f contro l ayea

r befor e th e lis t come s out , i.e. , woul d th e sourc e b e allowe d to include i t o n th e list . Sh

e sai d tha t th e State s coul d get

inundate d wit

h such requests . Ms . Holme s aske d wha

t woul d happen i f

asourc e ha s previously installe d acontro l tha t i s include d i n th e list , i.e. , woul d th e sourc e b e allowe d t o reques t th e exemptio n eve

n i f th e uni t i s no t bein g modified . Ms . Warne r sai d tha t he r preferenc e woul d b e tha

t th e BAC T shoul d b e "frozen " fo

r source s tha

t hav e alread

y installe d th e control , i.e. , no t to g o back

in time . Sh

e explaine d that

th e purpos e of

th e lis t woul d b e t o encourag e source s t o pu t control s an d ne w technology , an d no t

to giv e exemptio n to source s tha t installe d control s previously i n orde r t o meet NSR , e.g. , th e sourc e shoul d not suddenly get

th e potential-to-potentia

l tes t jus t becaus e alis t o f control s fo

r th e clea n uni t tes t wa s released . Mr . O'Sullivan sai d tha

t he prefer s to giv e credi t

to asourc e fo

r puttin g goo d control s even i f i t i s 2 year s old , but

wa s concerne d wit

h bein g inundate d wit

h such requests . Mr . Pau l suggeste d t o specif

y ashor t loo k bac k period . Mr . Crumple

r agree d wit

h th e ide aof

a2-yea r look bac k perio d sayin g tha

t beyond th e look

back perio d th e sourc e woul d hav e t o evaluat e today' s BAC T to get

th e exemption . 

## i lP.1 3

• Mr . Raymon d sai d tha

t h e wa s stil l unclea

r about th e whol e ide abehin d th e clea n uni t test . He sai d tha

t h e considere d BAC T to b e aclea n unit , an d wa s strugglin g wit

h th e ide ao f

alis t othe r tha n th e RBLC . Mr . O'Sulliva n suggeste d to hol d anothe

r conferenc e cal l t o discus s further . Th e next

meetin g wa s schedule d fo

r Friday , Apri l 14,200 0 a

t 9:00 am . Ms . Blanchar

d asked th e Stat

e representative s t o provide an y furthe r comment s withi n th e nex t severa l days . Ger

i O'Sulliva

n agree d to coordinat

e th e STAPPA/ALAPC O comments . Apri l 21,200 0 wa s agree d a s th e deadlin e fo r comments . The meetin g wa s the n adjourned .



## 12.P.1 4

ATTENDEE S EP A MEETING WITH STAPPA/ALAPC O NS RSECTOR-BASE

D APPROACH AN

D CLEA N UNI T TES T April 7, 2000 Nam e Bil l O'Sulliva

n Ger i O'Sulliva n Bo b Hodanbos i Pravee n Ama r Joh n Paul Joh n Stoke s Ra y Menebroke r Chris ? Beverly Warne

r Rand y Raymon d War d Burn s Larr y Kertche r Karen Blanchar

d Denni s Crumple

r To mDriscol l Gre g Foot e Bil l Harnet

t Caro l Holme s Lyn n Hutchinso n Kath y Kaufma n Meliss aMcCullough Ann aMari e Woo

d Mala y Jinda l Valeri e Everett

e Affiliation NJDE P STAPP A STAPP A NESCAU M RAPC A MPC A CAR B CAR B Clea n Air Tas k Forc e Missour i Region VII EP A EPA/OAQP S EPA/OAQPS EPA/OAQP S EPA/OG C EPA/OAQPS EPA/OEC A EPA/OAQPS EPA/OAQP S EPA/OAQP S EPA/OPA R PE S (EP A Contractor) PE S (EP A Contractor) 

# 1 3P.1 5

NE W SOURCE REVIE

W SECTOR-BASE

D APPROAC H DISCUSSIO N WITH STAT E AN D LOCA L REPRESENTATIVE S APRI L 7,200 0 AGEND A (Pleas e note : time s given fo r each discussio n elemen

t ar e approximate. ) 9:00 - 9:1 0 Introduction s an d purpos e of

meetin g 9:1 0 - 9:4 0 Basi c progra melement s an

d rational e fo

r progra mgoa l Wha t shoul d b e th e basi s fo

r emissio n rate target s fo

r NOx , S02 , and PM10 ? e.g . (a

) brin g al l source s to BACT/LAE Rlevels ? or (b ) achiev e emissio n reduction s equivalen t to wha t NSR/PS D woul d hav e achieved ? How ca

n thes e level s b e estimated ? Eithe r way , wha t ar e th e BACT/LAE

Rlevel s tha

t shoul d b e used ? Shoul d the y b e input

or output based ? I f output based , ho w woul d thi s b e measured ? Emissio n level s o

r cap s coul d b e reduce d annually ove r th e program , or

a t set interval s (e.g . ever

y fe w years) . Wha

t ar e th e advantages / disadvantage s of

each method ? 9:40-10:0 0 Unit s covered .

If th e progra mals o covere d existin g oil

- or gas-fire d units , ho w coul d th e emissio n rat

e target s b e se

t u p to accommodat

e thos e units ? Wha t ar e th e pro s an

d con s of allowin g individua

l facilitie s t o op t

in ? 10:0 0 -10:3 0 Averagin g or trading ? Ho w woul d allowing tradin g affec t th e structur

e of th e program , timing , and emissio n limits ? Wha

t woul d b e th e effec

t o f allowin g sit

e t o site trading , tradin g acros s companies , or tradin g wit

h facilitie s who op t

in ? If averagin g o

r tradin g i s allowe d fo

r PM10 , ho w shoul d complianc e b e determine d an

d demonstrated ? Restriction s on averaging o r tradin g Ho w ca n asyste mb e se t u p to accommodat

e differen t geographi c distribution s of

emissions , an

d to protec t

existin g tradin g programs ? 

# HP.1 6

I f asourc e increase s emission s mor e tha n the y hav e previousl y modeled , woul d i t hav e t o ensur e tha t

ther e ar e n o advers e effect s o n Clas s I areas , o r localize d advers e ambien t impacts ? Ho w ca n th e syste maccommodat e shutdow n units ? Ho w coul d facilitie s whic h switc h t o ga s b e use d t o mee t th e caps ? I f acompan y increase d it s actua l emission s i n anonattainmen t area , mus t i t stil l obtai n offsets ? 10:3 0 -11:0 0 Stat e vs . Federa l Role s

T o who mdoe s acompany appl y fo r entr y t o th e program ? Wha t i f the y ar e locate d i n severa l state s o r eve n severa l EP A Regions ? Wh o review s th e sources' s application ? I s tha t separat e fromindividua l facility permi t applications ? Wh o manage s th e trackin g syste m(OAQPS , OAP , OECA...) . D o w e nee d t o ad d fields t o th e aci d rai n trackin g system ? 11:0 0 -11:2 5 Superio r environmenta l performanc e Ho w d o w e incorporat e th e goa l o f performanc e superio r

t o th e bas e program ? Requir e asuperio r

environmenta l performanc e projec t t o b e propose d o n a case-by-cas e basis ? o r Requir e aspecifi c typ e o f project ? I f

aprojec t coul d involv e non-criteri a pollutants , wha t

woul d b e th e lega l rationale ? Wha t happen s at

th e en d o f

th e program ? Rever t t o bas e NS Rprogram , o r Rese t ane w declinin g ca p o r

ne w emissio n level s fo r

anothe r x x years , o r Pu t of f th e decisio n unti l w e assess , sometime later , ho w wel l th e progra m i s working . 11:2 5 - 11:3 0 Wrap-u p 

# /

sP.1 7

FOR DISCUSSION

PURPOSES

ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT

EPA POLICY

OR POSITION NE W SOURCE REVIE

W SECTOR-BASE

D APPROAC H Goal : T o develop a

n approach tha

t woul d hav e a

n end resul t

of ensurin g tha

t existin g power plant s ar e wel l controlled , whil e providin g maximu mflexibility and certaint

y under NS Rfo r existin g units . Thi s voluntar y of f ram p to th e NS Rprogra

mwoul d achiev e environmenta l result s tha t ar e superior t o th e existin g program . Th e Bi g Picture : The program : Overall requirements : A voluntar y progra mfo r th e utilit y industry , base d o n declinin g averag e emissio n rate s fo

r existin g coal-fire d units .

Wh o i s covered : Which pollutants : Ne w facilitie s or units , mus t

appl y BAC T or

LAER , an d meet

other norma l NS Rrequirement s when they construct . Al l modification s t o existin g unit s tha t trigger apotentia l t o potentia

l emission s tes t

mus t appl y BACT o r LAER . Al l existin g unit s covere d unde r thi s approac h woul d b e free t o mak e an y and al l physica

l or operationa

l change s withou t

triggerin g aPS D or

NS R revie w i f thei r potentia l emission s do no t

increase . However , existin g unit s must , i n th e aggregate , achiev e emissio n reduction s equivalen

t to specifi c targe t

level s b y th e progra

men d date . Ther e woul d als o b e som

e intermediat

e targe t or targets . An y utilit y compan y wit h coal-fire d units , o n an opt-i n basis . NOx , S02 , CO , and PMIO



## IioP.1 8

• • < - * " FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES

ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT

EPA POLICY

OR POSITION Rational e fo r progra

m goa l Wha t woul d b e reasonabl e target s fo r NO x and S02 ? The basi s fo

r emissio n rat

e target s fo

r NOx , an d S0 2 i s to brin g al l source s to level s of performanc e greate

r tha n curren t levels , e.g. , averag e o

f aroun d 0. 1 t

o 0.1 5 lbs/MMBt

u NOx an d 0.2 5 to 0. 6 lbs/MMBt

u S02. 1 Wha t woul d b e areasonabl e target fo r PM10 ? For PM10 , ou r target could b e asystemwide averag e i n th e rang e of around 0.0 3 lbs/MMBtu , which i s the NSP S level , to 0.01 5 lbs/MMBtu , which represent s som e BACT determination s tha t hav e been made . Wha t woul d b e areasonabl e target fo r CO ? W e believ e goo d combustio n practice s represent s bes t contro l fo r CO , and woul d b e areasonabl e target . Ar e output-base d target s realistic ? Ho w woul d they b e measured ? W e ar e currently investigatin g developin g output-base d targets , but w e hav e no t develope d a

n understandin g of

ho w they woul d b e measured . Wha t woul d b e areasonabl e tim

e frame in whic h t o expect

al l units , a s asystemwide average , to achiev e thes e emissio n rates ? Ou r preliminar

y thought s ar

e tha t perhap s 1 0 year s ma

y b e areasonabl e expectatio n a s atime-fram

e i n which t o achiev e thes e emissio n rate s systemwide . Shoul d there b e intermediat e target s ove

r th e lif e of th e program ? W e believ e ther

e should b e one o

r tw o intermediat

e targets . Wha

t woul d b e a reasonabl e basi s fo

r determining wha

t thos e target s shoul d be ?

1 Not e tha t S0 2 level s i n th e Wes t

perhap s shoul d b e lowe

r base d o n us e o f

lo w sulfu r coal . 

# nP.1 9

FOR DISCUSSION

PURPOSES

ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT

EPA POLICY

OR POSITION Unit s covere d Workin g assumption : al l coal-fire d unit s a t acompan y woul d b e covered . If th e progra

mals o covere d existin g oil

- o r gas-fired units , ho w coul d th e emissio n rate target s b e set

u p to accommodat

e thos e unit s whil e stil l achievin g th e overal l progra m goa l o f superior environmenta

l results ? Likewise , i f

companie s coul d opt-i n individua l facilities , ho w coul d th e emissio n rat e target s b e set

u p t o accommodat

e thos e unit s a s well , and a t th e sam e tim e preserv e overal l reduction s acros s th e industry ? Ou r current thinkin g i s no t

t o allo w companie s t o opt-i n individua l units , becaus e i t woul d b e difficul

t t o allo w thi s and a

t th e sam e time achiev e th e overal l progra mgoal . Averagin g o r trading ? Ho w woul d allowin g source s t o trad e affec

t th e structur

e o f th e program , timing , an d emissio n limits ? Wha

t woul d b e th e effec

t o f allowing :

- sit e t o sit e tradin g

- tradin g acros s companie s

- tradin g wit

h facilitie s whic h op t

i n Ou r current thinkin g i s to allo w tradin g acros s site s an d acros s participatin g companies , bu t no t t o allo w companie s t o opt-i n individua l unit s (a s indicate d above) . I f averagin g or

tradin g i s allowe d fo

r PMIO , ho w coul d complianc e b e determine d an d demonstrated ? Restriction s o n averagin g or tradin g Ho w ca n asyste mb e se t up t o accommodat

e differen t geographi c distribution s o f emissions ? e.g . W e need to protec t

existin g tradin g program s (OTR/Regiona l NO x Strategy , Gran d Canyon Visibilit

y Commissio n progra

munde r development) . If asourc e increase s emission s mor e tha n they hav e previously modeled , w e believ e i t woul d b e appropriat

e t o tak e step s t o protec t

agains t advers e effect s i n Clas s I area s and/or

localize d advers e ambien

t impacts . \%P.2 0

FOR DISCUSSION

PURPOSES

ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT

EPA POLICY

OR POSITION Likewise , i f

acompan y increase d it s actua l emission s i n anonattainmen t area , w e believ e i t mus t stil l obtai n offsets . Ho w ca n th e syste maccommodat e shutdow n unit s o r facilitie s whic h switc h t o ga s ? W e believ e tha t

unit s whic h shutdow n o r switc h t o ga s durin g th e lif e o f th e progra mcoul d b e counted . Wha t specifi c emissio n rat e coul d b e assigne d t o them ? W e coul d assig n eac h uni t a n emissio n rat e equivalen t t o th e progra m goal . What happen s whe n aparticipatin g compan y sell s afacility t o anon-participatin g company ? W e believ e tha t

th e emissio n rat e th e facility ha s bee n carryin g unde r th e progra m shoul d accompan y th e facility a s par t o f th e sale . Th e sellin g compan y woul d the n recalculat e it s cap . Wha tar e Stat e vs . Federa l role s i n implementation ? Wh o run s th e program ? T o who mdoe s acompany appl y fo r entry t o th e program ? Wha t i f the y ar e locate d i n severa l state s o r

eve n severa l EP A Regions ? Wh o review s th e sources' s application ? I s tha t separat e fromindividua l facility permi t applications ? W e believ e thi s woul d b e aFedera l progra mtha t State s coul d choos e t o implement . Source s optin g i n woul d hav e t o hav e th e State' s buy-in , however , i n tha t th e source' s SI P requirement s woul d hav e t o change . Wh o manage s th e trackin g syste m(OAQPS , OAP , OECA...) . D o w e nee d t o ad d fields t o th e aci d rai n trackin g system ? W e believ e OA P woul d hav e t o manag e th e trackin g system . Superio r environmenta l performanc e Give n ou r pla n t o mak e thi s voluntar y offram p t o th e NS Rprogra msomethin g tha t woul d achiev e superio r

environmenta l results , ho w shoul d w e incorporat e th e goa l o f performanc e superio r

t o th e bas e program ? Requir e asuperio r

environmenta l performanc e projec t t o b e propose d o n acase - 

# \°iP.2 1

» • FOR DISCUSSION

PURPOSES

ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT

EPA POLICY

OR POSITION by-cas e basis ? or Requir e aspecifi c typ e o

f project ? I f

aprojec t coul d involv e non-criteri a pollutants , ho w coul d thi s b e accepte d legally ? Wha thappen s a tth e end of

th e program ? Rever t to th e bas e NS Rprogra

m(wit h availabilit

y o f clea n uni t exclusion) , or Reset ane w declinin g ca

p o r new emissio n level s fo

r anothe r 1 0 year s base d o n wha t i s achieveabl e a

t tha t time , or Dela y th e decisio n unti l we assess , sometim e later , ho w wel l th e progra mi s working .



# Ao