P.1 

OAR Box 1802 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

) IV-E-55 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 11/4/2008 11:57:59 AM Sheet 61 of 117 
P.2 

r~ l7 

f 

EPA AIR DOCKET 

MEETING SUMMARY 

PA/"COMPLEX MANUFACTURERS GROUP" MEETING 

NEW SOURCE REVIEW REFORM 

December 8, 1999 

3T-£ -55 

The meeting was held at the offices of EPA, N.C. Mutual Building, 411 W. Chapel Hill 

Street, Durham, North Carolina. The meeting began at approximately 3:00 pm and closed at 

5:00 pm. Attached is a list of attendees. 

Bill Harnett opened the meeting by welcoming the participants. He informed the 

participants that EPA's NSR team will not be able to talk to Bob Pereiasepe during December 

because of Mr. Pereiasepe's schedule. However, a meeting with Mr. Pereiasepe was currently 

scheduled for January 13,2000, during which the sector approach for the utilities will be 

discussed. Mr. Harnett also indicated that an EPA meeting with STAPPA/ALAPCO was 

scheduled for next week. A question was raised by the industry representatives as to whether the 

sector approach will be considered for other industries if the discussion with Mr. Pereiasepe on 

January 13,2000 goes well. 

Mr. Harnett also said that there was a need to talk to Mr. Pereiasepe about a suggestion 

made by the CAA Advisory Committee to have another stakeholder meeting at some point in the 

future when this process of meeting with the industry groups and with EPA management was 

completed. He said that Mr. Pereiasepe will focus on the NSR reform process after December 

and probably "go fo:rward" with some decisions. Leslie Ritts said that the industry group had 

heard that the reform package is moving forward within EPA and that it is near final. 

Mr. Harnett replied that this was not true, and that EPA had not "put pen to paper" because EPA 

still had to decide on the major issues. Furthermore, he indicated that there had been no seniorlevel meeting within EPA since summer of 1999, and that there were a lot of questions and major 

decisions were yet to be made. 

Chuck Knauss asked about what EPA's sense of timing was with respect to 

promulgation. He asked if EPA was considering promulgation by March 2000. Mr. Knauss also 

mentioned that the industry group had met with STAPPA/ALAPCO before Thanksgiving and 

had received good, thoughtful questions from them. He explained that there were a total of 

approximately 20,000 sources in Title V, of which approximately 1,000 may qualify for the 

utility offramp, and another 500-1,000 may opt for PALs. Therefore, 18,000+ sources would be 

covered by the base NSR program. Mr. Knauss said that STAPPA/ALAPCO thought of their 

(complex manufacturer's) proposal to be good but also thought that this proposal "may be dead" 

within EPA. He mentioned that the complex manufacturer's proposal contained a workable 

program with simplified applicability determinations and adds speed to control determinations. 

He also said that the complex manufacturer's proposal satisfied STAPPA/ALAPCO position as 

well as EPA's reform proposal dated July 23,1996 and Notice of Availability dated July 24, 

1998. Mr. Knauss then asked for EPA's candid position on the complex manufacturer's 

proposal. Mr. Harnett replied that nothing within EPA "was dead," and that everything was 

forwarded to Mr. Pereiasepe and to Carol Browner. Mr. Harnett said that all issues will stay on 

I 
P.3 

the table until Mr. Pereiasepe has decided on them. Assuming that the complex manufacturers 

will want to meet with Mr. Pereiasepe, Mr. Harnett said that the issue of simplicity will come up 

and that the PALs did not add simplicity. He also indicated that the issue of how to bring 

existing units to better levels of control will need to be addressed. 

Bill Pedersen asked for EPA's current thoughts on netting. He said that earlier there was 

a concern within EPA about sources netting out of review, and now that the industry group is 

willing to give up netting, he has detected that there were some believers in netting. He also 

indicated that the industry and the EPA apparently had different goals. The industry's goal was 

to get all the small changes out ofthe system, while EPA's goal was to upgrade controls over 

time. He then said that the potential-to-potential test was the only way to achieve this, and that 

the industry had offered this test with no netting. He said that the industry has also offerred 

reconstruction with no netting, and asked what else can the industry offer. Ms. Ritts explained 

that, unlike NSPS, currently there was no reconstructed source program within NSR, and that 

their reconstruction was different from NSPS. Mr. Knauss briefly explained the complex 

manufacturer's proposal and the three levels of control that depended upon the emissions from 

the unit, i.e., Level A control for units with less than significant emissions, Level B for units with 

emissions between significant level and 100 tpy, and Level C control for units with emissions 

greater than 100 tpy. He also explained that the complex manufacturer's proposal contained 

reconstruction as a backstop. Replying to a comment from EPA, Mr. Knauss said that there 

could be emission increases even in the current program. Mr. Harnett said that EPA was 

concerned that there could be more emission increases under the complex manufacturer's 

proposal as compared to the current program. 

There was a discussion on the potential-to-potential test. Bill Lewis said that the industry 

group would like to identify what concerns EPA had with the potential-to-potential test. David 

Solomon asked what percentage of existing units would get controls under the complex 

manufacturer's proposal. He said that for an existing unit, an allowable-to-allowable test means 

that if the unit operates at the same design level, then it will not get any controls. He indicated 

that in such a case reconstruction was the only way to bring it under control and asked how else 

could this unit get good controls. Mr. Knauss asked if the EPA was interested in having a money 

test in NSR. He explained that reconstruction addressed EPA's and States' concerns that the 

maximum achievable hourly test needs a backstop. Mr. Harnett replied that accounting for costs 

would be a "nightmare" and would involve more recordkeeping and reporting. Mr. Harnett 

explained that the goal was to achieve what the current program was achieving, but make it more 

simple. He then asked if the complex manufacturer's proposal accomplished that goal. 

Mr. Knauss replied that in his opinion the complex manufacturer's proposal achieved that goal, 

and did it more simply. He explained that the NSPS-type hourly test simplified it significantly. 

Also, under the complex manufacturer's proposal, all new units would get controls. 

Furthermore, the industry would not need the routine repair and maintenance exclusion. 

Mr. Solomon said that under the complex manufacturer's proposal, the existing units did 

not seem to have a certainty of getting good controls, whereas in the allowables-based PALs, the 

existing units would be on a glide path to controls. He then asked how this program was better 

than the allowables-based PAL. Mr. Lewis replied that the complex manufacturer's proposal 
P.4 

assured that more units would get controls than the current program. He further said that the 

glide path did not "fit with the statute" and cannot be a base program. He further explained that 

most sources would not opt for PALs because of resources. Mr. Knauss added that in his opinion 

PALs could not be done for all ofthe 18,000+ sources in the base program. There was a 

significant amount of discussion on the topic of existing units. Mr. Knauss explained that for the 

existing units the industry could not propose a "birthday-based" backstop because the sources 

were too diverse. Therefore, the industry group had proposed reconstruction as the backstop. 

Jon Devine said that the discussion had been theoretical so far and indicated that it would 

help EPA if the industy group could provide an analysis of how the complex manufacturer's 

proposal would work at a facility as compared to the current system, and asked if such a study 

had been done. Ms. Ritts replied that the group had responded to EPA's question about number 

of units in each emission size category, but had not done an analysis for reconstruction or 

modification to existing units. She said that such an analysis would be burdensome, but that the 

group could do it if necessary. Mr. Lewis explained that it was clear that a lot of sources were 

not going through NSR under the current program. On the other hand, the complex 

manufacturer's proposal provides for more controls with no netting. However, he said that if 

necessary the group could do a more robust analysis. Anna Wood asked if the group could pick 

a real-world facility for this analysis. Ms. Ritts replied that the group had picked 4 or 5 existing 

facilities in their previous responses and had used actual data for the last 3 years or so. 

Mr. Solomon asked why in the last 15-20 years there have been only a few permit applications 

even though the capacities have gone up significantly. Bill Burkhart replied that it is because the 

emissions have not gone up. 

Mr. Solomon asked what the response was from the States regarding a uniform BAT. 

Ms. Ritts replied that the responses were mixed and that some States even said that their current 

program would become more stringent as a result of this. She also said that one State thought 

that this would level the playing field between States. When asked by Mr. Solomon whether this 

meant that some States would have to improve their program, several industry representatives 

replied yes. Mr. Knauss explained that both the Levels B and C controls were BACT, and that 

the difference was only in how they would be determined. Mr. Solomon asked what difference 

would there be in control level between Levels B and C. Ms. Ritts replied that the main 

difference was that Level B would be a quicker determination but that the difference in control 

level would be very little, if any. Maxine Dewbury replied that the difference may be around 5% 

or 10%. When asked by Mr. Solomon whether the industry could guarantee that Level B control 

would be no more than, say, 5% different from Level C, or that Level B would be at least a 95% 

control, Ms. Ritts replied that the industry has been considering a 90% control level for Level B 

to avoid industry-by-industry and pollutant-by-pollutant differences. Matt Tanzer said it was 

possible for the industry to make such a committment, but that their (complex manufacturer's) 

proposal only contained general guidelines and the details needed to be worked out. 

Mr. Solomon raised cost as an issue when determining control levels. The industry 

representatives indicated that their main concern was not the cost. Instead, the concern was the 

process used in making BACT determinations and the time involved in that process. With 

respect to a speedy process, Mr. Solomon asked what the biggest obstacles were in obtaining a 
P.5 

timely permit in those cases where the source was clearly subject to PSD. Mr. Tanzer replied 

that first it takes 2-3 months just to prepare a permit application because it involves modeling, 

calculation of current actuals, defining of future potentials etc. all of which take time. Norm 

Morrow said that State BAT determinations could be made within a short time whereas the 

Federal BACT determinations could take up to 18 months. The industry representatives said that 

it took a significant amount of time, effort and cost to obtain permits under the current program 

and that it was a waste of resources. 

There was a brief discussion on certain specifics ofthe complex manufacturer's proposal 

including a discussion on the cost test for reconstruction (e.g., 50% cost test proposed by the 

industry). Mr. Knauss asked whether EPA would consider the complex manufacturer's proposal 

seriously if the group filled in the details about Level B controls, reconstruction etc. He said that 

the industry needed to know EPA's position on their (complex manufacturer's) proposal before 

they undertook this major effort of filling in details. Mr. Harnett replied that the industry should 

not fill in the details yet because he could not guarantee that Mr. Pereiasepe would accept this as 

a base program. He indicated that it was very unlikely that the allowable-to-allowable test would 

be a base program. However, Mr. Pereiasepe may allow the test on a sector-by-sector basis 

under specific circumstances as an offramp. Also, it was possible that Mr. Pereiasepe may 

decide that offramps were not needed. Mr. Pedersen asked that if the potential-to-potential test 

was off the table, then "no netting" would be automatically off the table, and then what would be 

left, i.e., what will then be the base program. Mr. Harnett replied that it was an issue and that 

EPA needed to work on that issue. 

Mr. Harnett suggested that the group should meet with Mr. Pereiasepe in January, maybe 

during the first 2 weeks of January. He indicated that Mr. Pereiasepe would first need to know 

the group's concerns regarding the current program before the proposed program would make 

sense to him. Mr. Pereiasepe would also be interested in what the States' responses have been. 

He also said that an analysis similar to that suggested by Mr. Devine would also help. Ms. Wood 

reminded to use an existing facility for the analysis. Ms. Ritts indicated that the group will do 

the analysis (by mid-January??). John Medley asked what the industry group should think about 

with respect to offramps. Mr. Harnett replied that PALs were an option. Also, the group's 

proposal had possibilities in it. However, Mr. Harnett said that EPA had mostly been focusing 

on the base program. 

Mr. Pedersen asked about what EPA thought was wrong with the potential-to-potential 

test. Dennis Crumpler pointed to a EPA study done of Texas and Illinois that showed that there 

was a significant gap between actual and potential emissions. This meant that the sources had a 

significant amount of unused capacity. Henry Nickel mentioned that in the case of utilities there 

was a lot of underutilized capacity during the 1980's but now the production had increased. 

Mr. Pedersen said that the actual-tp-potential test always "puts you in the ratchet." There was a 

brief discussion regarding unused capacity and the actual-to-potential versus 

potential-to-potential tests. 

Mr. Knauss indicated that the group will address today's discussion with Mr. Pereiasepe. 

Mr. Harnett said that EPA will follow up with the industry group after the meeting with 

4 
P.6 

Mr. Pereiasepe. He also indicated that he will discuss with Mr. Pereiasepe whether the final 

package could be made available to the group before it "hits the street." 

The meeting was then adjourned. 
P.7 

J * 

4* 

ATTENDEES 

EPATCOMPLEX MANUFACTURERS GROUP" MEETING 

NEW SOURCE REVIEW REFORM 

December 8, 1999 

Name 

Leslie Ritts 

Maxine Dewbury 

Tammy Wyles 

Henry Nickel 

Chuck Knauss 

Bill Lewis 

John Medley 

Bill Burkhart 

Norbert Dee 

Bill Pedersen 

Matt Tanzer 

Andy Gates 

Jeff Muffat 

Norman Morrow 

David Solomon 

Dennis Crumpler 

Karen Blanchard 

Bill Harnett 

Mike Sewell 

Kathy Kaufman 

Tom Driscoll 

Michael Ling 

Anna Wood (by phone) 

Carol Holmes (by phone) 

Jon Devine (by phone) 

Malay Jindal 

Valerie Everette 

Affiliation 

Hogan & Hartson 

CIBO/Procter & Gamble 

Georgia Pacific (AF&PA) 

Hunton & Williams 

Swidler Berlin 

Morgan Lewis 

Mobil (API) 

Procter & Gamble 

NPRA 

Shaw Pittman 

GE 

Reynolds Metals Co. 

3M 

Exxon Mobil 

EPA/OAQPS 

EPA/OAQPS 

EPA/OAQPS 

EPA/OAQPS 

EPA/OAQPS 

EPA/OAQPS 

EPA/OAQPS 

EPA/OAQPS 

EPA/OAR 

EPA/OECA 

EPA/OGC 

PES (EPA Contractor) 

PES (EPA Contractor) 

6 

Telephone No. 

(202) 637-6573 

(513)626-4446 

(404) 652-7281 

(202)955-1561 

(202) 424-7644 

(202)467-7145 

(703) 849-6193 

(513)626-4411 

(202) 457-0480 

(202) 663-8852 

(203)373-3512 

(804)281-3482 

(651)778-4450 

(281)870-6112 

(919)541-5375 

(919)541-0871 

(919)541-5503 

(919)541-4979 

(919)541-0873 

(919)541-0102 

(919)541-5135 

(919)541-4729 

(202) 260-8772 

(202) 564-8709 

(202) 260-6984 

(919) 941-0333 

(919) 941-0333 

> 

e-Mail 

lsritts@hhlaw.com 

dewbury.md@pg.com 

trwyles@gapac.com 

hnickel@hunton.com 

chknauss@swidlaw. com 

whlewis@mlb.com 

j ohn_h_medley@email .mobil. com 

burkhart.wt@pg.com 

norbert_dee@npradc.org 

bill.pedersen@shawpittman.com 

matthew.tanzer@corporate.ge.com 

cagates@rmc.com 

j cmuffat@mmm.com 

norman.l.morrow@exxon.com 

solomon.david@epa.gov 

crumpler.dennis@epa.gov 

blanchard.karen@epa.gov 

harnett.bill@epa.gov 

sewell.mike@epa.gov 

kaufman.kathy@epa.gov 

driscoll.tom@epa.gov 

ling.michael@epa.gov 

wood.anna@epa.gov 

holmes.carol@epa.gov 

devine.jon@epa.gov 

malay.jindal@pes.com 

valerie.everette@pes.com 
P.8 

AJ&IM^ 

jzl8J99_ ePA/a-^>k M<m*$-_knr's (j^-uf" /^fc y ( W &frm) 

ffiuzuj^- <-T*/^/ 

"BILL L&JIS 

x/o/iklMe&og? 

5,1/ ^But^leiCT' 

Bf(* Tk^ir^ Ahr 

spj^UcB. SOLpVAOTfO. 

Bl^thwZTT , 

(TJ fta ServoeA ^ 

AH?/ ^Tt5 

Jew ^vmc . 

MfB/cAj.P 

i/v/o&L-

& < ^ 

<TcT 

. $7.3 /&2 £ y ^ ^<6^ , md&pcj\ 

ZCL^SS/S^f A^cU@Wv«4nrc 

7*5 3T&6/93 jd/iJ^Jh&^'l.'dJ. CO-* 

C 

£pA 

- e PA / OECA 

?/9 -S*// -S2JST. SptMaP .-CXVJv^ £^ . £*•/% 

7/<^ / <?r;v * rt" ' " 

tftf : SHI -° Ol- k"ufwi. KdUycO-e-roOy.. y?i/ 

.Com 

i n - sm - H T ^°? iv A «. I'^Tj.'WlcUe M«vu e i e &f,x. ^ •/ 1 

J 

<f