p. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1802 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# 18 ) IV-E-1 3 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 11/4/200811:57:59 AM

Sheet 18 of 117July 21,199 8

MEMORANDU

M 

## JU L 

## Z 8 EP A MR DOCKE T _P.2_ . 

# / - 'in - 21 2&:-E-)3

SUBJECT : Summary

- Ma y 26,199 8 Meeting betwee n Industr y Stakeholder s an

d Offic e of Ai r Qualit y Plannin g an

d Standard s Regardin g th e Promulgatio n of Ne w Sourc e Review Refor

m To : Ai

r Docke t A-90-3 7 From : Denni s Crumpler , NS RRefor mTea mLeader , Integrate d Implementatio n group , ITPI D Attendees : Nam e Lydi aWegma n Denni s Crumple r Da n deRoec k Main e Dewbur y Michel e Dubo w Lyn n Hutchinso n Ro b Kaufma

n Am y Lill y Bil l Pederso n Elle n Siegle r Davi d Solomo n Kare n Blanchar d Organizatio n

EPA , OAQP S EPA , OAQP S EPA , OAQP S Procto r & Gambl e EPA , OAQP S EPA , OAQP S America n Fores t

& AA M Shaw , Pittma n Pape r Assoc . America n Petroleu mInstitut e EPA , OAQP S EPA , OAQP S Phon e 919-541-550 4 919-541-087 1 919-541-559 3 513-634402 7 919-541-380 3 919-541-5795 202-463-258 8 703-505-778 8 202-663-885 2 202-682-827 1 919-541-537 5 919-541-550 3 Fa x

-246 4 -550 9 -550 9 -548 1 -550 9 -550 9 -242 3 -881 7 -800 7 -803 3 -550 9 -550 9 Bill Pederso n starte d th e meeting . H e provide d ahandou t of talkin g point s which i s attached . Discussion : • Industr

y raise d concer

n ove r recen t polic y memorandu

man d letter s regardin g BACT on debottlenecke d unit s a

t Westvac o Plant s as bein g inconsisten t wit h histori c EP

A policy . [I t wa s agree d tha

t discussio n o n thi s issu e wa s outside th e Refor mrulemaking , thu s was deferred t o anothe r occasion] . EP

A indicate d i

t woul d investigat

e th e implication s on the pollutio n contro l projec t

exclusio n tha

t wa s propose d • Kare

n Blanchar

d asked fo r specific example s of

FL M "unbridle d discretion " in holding

u p permits . • Discusse d de minimi s level s fo r Clas s 1 AQR

V advers e impacts . EP

A als o asked fo

r instance s wher

e inappropriat

e model s ha

d bee n require d o

r used . • EP A reporte d DOI/USDA F S i s developing lis t of mos t critica l AQRV s an

d sensitiv e receptor s vi aane

w effor t FLAG. . • Re-endorse d Allowabl e t o Allowabl e - noting ol d unused capacit y shoul d not

b e allowed a s basi s fo r netting .P. 3

• EP A gav e adescriptio n o f

Clea n Unit tes t an d asked fo r specifi c revision s t

o mak e i t simple r • Industr

y representative s supporte d technolog y a s abasi s fo r applicabilit

y exclusio n an

d als o advocate d tha

t net-out unit s shoul d get

th e clean-unit

exclusion . • Wit

h respec t t o th e propose d definitio n o f actua l emission s (based on 10-yea r look-back a t capacit y utilization ) industr

y ha d no problemwit

h normalizin g fo

r activit y wit h exceptio n o f

voluntar y reductions . • W e note d tha

t Potentia l t o emi t limit s a s abasi s becom

e highly problemati c i f

voluntar y reduction s ar

e no t mad e enforceable

• Lydi aWegma

n recapped th e schedule .

• Th e Fores t an d Pape r Product s Associatio n indicate d th e timin g of th e Ma y 9 9 promulgatio n i s problemati c becaus e State s need quic k authorizatio n i n som

e case s t o revis e their

SIP s t o allo w Pollutio n Contro l Projects . Th e MAC T requirement s fo

r th e pul p an d pape r industr y wil l otherwis e requir

e source s t o als o ge t PS D permit s which take s suc h along tim

e tha t th e source s coul d en

d u p having t o put on redundan

t contro l technologie s fo

r littl e or no environmenta

l gain . —w e discusse d th e notio n of gettin g State s to submit

SI P revision s fo

r paralle l processin g wit

h th e promulgatio n o f

NS R Reform , sinc e th e Pollutio n Contro l Project exclusio n wa s on

e of element s tha

t receiv e littl e disparagin g comment . Attachmen t (Agenda )P. 4

Agenda fo r Meetin g o n Ne w Source Review betwee

n EP A OAQPS and Industr

y Representative s Ma y 26,199 8

I . Purpos e o f

Meetin g A . Expres s ou

r view s t o EP

A o n ke y issues . B . Explor e th e possibilitie s o f

workin g wit

h EP A o n thi s ver

y complex package . II . Issue s A. BuckheU

Memo dated

March 18,1998on BACT

for debottlenecking projects 1 . Appear s t o b e areversa

l o f EPA' s long-establishe d polic y o n debottlenecking . 2 . Implication s fo

r pollutio n contro l projec t

exclusion . c?ff

& f7fS£~ *-^- f ^ r

* 3 . Implication s fo

r pollutio n prevention . B. Class I - Clearly abasically contentiou s issue . But ther e ar e change s tha

t w e thin k would a t leas t narro w th e difference s and improv e th e progra ma s well . 1 . Se t ade ininimi s level belo w which ther e wil l b e presume d t o b e n o advers e AQR V impact . (The curren

t reg s hav e such alevel - on e miicrogra mpe r cubi c meter. ) J8f

2 . Establis h adefinit

e set o f model s to b e use d fo

r AQR V analysis , i/ 3 . EP A shoul d itsel f

defin e th e pollutio n level s tha

t hav e a n advers e impac t

o n visibility , and shoul d us e th e existin g definitio n o f "advers e impac t

o n visibility " in th e fina

l NS Rrule . 4 . EP

A shoul d requir

e FLM s to defin

e by rul e AQRV s othe

r tha n visibilit y fo r eac h eligibl e area . C. Applicability 1. General

- Onl y a"potentia

l to potential " approach i s truly simple . Man y step s towar d suc h asimpl e syste

mca n b e taken without

eve n theoretically runnin g th e danger s EP A fears .P. 5

2. Pollution Control

Project exclusion - AF&P

A i s discoverin g tha

t som e state s ar e reluctan t t o grant ape p exclusio n t o "cluster " project s befor e th e promulgatio n o f

arul e de

fining th e exclusion . Thi s i s apar t o f th e rul e wher

e w e nee d action . In thi s regar d a . W e ver y muc h agre e tha

t emission s increase s frompollutio n contro l project s shoul d b e accounte d o n a"potentia l t o potential " basis . b . Th e exclusio n shoul d exten d t o ne w unit s tha t hav e apollutio n contro l purpose , no t jus t to modification s t o existin g units . A s lon g a s suc h ne w unit s fi t th e definitio n o f

pep , ther e i s n o reaso n t o exclude them . The y wil l no t induc e asourc e t o operat

e mor e intensively , sinc e pollutio n contro l project s do no t mak e a"botto mline " contribution . B y excludin g ne w unit s EP A woul d creat

e incentive s fo

r asourc e t o pu t

control s o n individua

l unit s when asingl e stand-alon e contro l uni t

woul d b e mor

e efficient . c . Stat e an d loca l requirements shoul d b e eligibl e fo r th e exclusio n a s they hav e been sinc e 1974 . 3.. The ten-year

lookback a . W e hav e alway s been fo

r thi s and hop e tha

t EP A promugate s it . b. . Th e point

i s t o allo w u s t o us e an

y activit y leve l tha t th e sourc e ha s reache d in th e pas t te n years . W

e agre e tha t th e activit y leve l shoul d b e normalize d to current emissio n rate s to reflect today s stat

e o f emissio n contro l technology . c . A s ou r comment s discuss , EP

A shoul d b e consistent

here . I f i t adopt s ate n yea

r baselin e fo r determinin g whethe

r a n individua

l uni t ha s ha d a n emission s increase , ate n yea r baselin e fo r generatin g nettin g credit s i s require d a s well t o avoi d paradoxica l results .

3992004 1 /DOCSDC I