P. 1 

# OAR Box 1802 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# ) IV-E-5 5 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

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

r~ l 7 

# f EP A AI R DOCKE T MEETIN G SUMMAR Y

PA/"COMPLE X MANUFACTURER S GROUP " MEETIN G

NE W SOURC E REVIE W REFOR M December

8, 1999 

# 3T- £ -5 5

Th e meetin g was hel dat

th e office s o f

EPA , N.C . Mutua l Building , 41 1 W . Chape l Hil l Street , Durham , Nort h Carolina . Th e meetin g bega n at approximatel y 3:0 0 p man d close d a t 5:0 0 pm . Attache di s alis t o f attendees . Bil l Harnet t

opene dth e meetin g b y welcomin g th e participants . H e informe d th e participant s tha t

EPA' s NS Rtea mwil l not b e abl e t o tal k

t o Bo b Pereiasep e durin g Decembe r becaus e o f

Mr . Pereiasepe' s schedule . However , ameetin g wit h Mr . Pereiasep e wa s currentl y schedule dfor

January 13,2000 , durin g whic h th e secto r approac h for

th e utilitie s wil l b e discussed . Mr . Harnet t

als o indicate dtha t

a n EP A meetin g wit h STAPPA/ALAPC O wa s schedule dfor

nex t week . A questio n was raise d b y th e industry representative s a s t o whethe r th e secto r approac h wil l b e considere dfo r othe r industrie s i f

th e discussio n wit h Mr . Pereiasep e o n Januar y 13,200 0 goe s well . Mr . Harnet t

als o sai dtha t

ther e was anee d t o tal k

t o Mr . Pereiasep e abou t

asuggestio n mad e b y th e CA A Advisor y Committe e t o hav e anothe r stakeholde r

meetin g at

som e poin t

i n th e future whe n thi s proces s o f meetin g wit h th e industr y group s an d wit h EP A managemen t wa s completed . H e sai dtha t

Mr . Pereiasep e wil l focu s o n th e NS Rreformproces s after Decembe r an dprobabl y "g o fo:rward " wit h som e decisions . Lesli e Ritt s sai d tha t th e industr y grou p ha d hear dtha t th e reformpackag e i s movin g forwar d withi n EP A an d tha t i t i s near final. Mr . Harnet t

repliedtha t

thi s was no t

true , an d tha t

EP A ha d not

"pu t pe n t o paper " becaus e EP A stil l ha dt o decid e o n th e majo r issues . Furthermore , h e indicate d tha t ther e ha d bee n n o senior

leve l meetin g withi n EP A sinc e summe r o f 1999 , an d tha t

ther e wer e alo t

o f question s an dmajo r decision s wer e ye t

t o b e made . Chuc k Knaus s aske dabou t

wha t EPA' s sens e o f

timin g wa s wit h respec t

t o promulgation . H e aske di f EP A was considerin g promulgatio n b y Marc h 2000 . Mr . Knaus s als o mentione dtha t

th e industry grou p ha d me t wit h STAPPA/ALAPC O befor e Thanksgivin g an d ha dreceive dgood , thoughtfu l question s fromthem . H e explaine d tha t ther e wer e atota l o f approximatel y 20,00 0 source s i n Title V , o f whic h approximatel y 1,000 may qualif y for th e utilit y offramp , an danothe r 500-1,00 0 ma y op t

for PALs . Therefore , 18,000 + source s woul d b e covere db y th e bas e NS Rprogram . Mr . Knaus s sai d tha t STAPPA/ALAPC O though t o f thei r (comple x manufacturer's ) proposa l t o b e goo d bu t als o though t

tha t thi s proposa l "ma y b e dead " withi n EPA . H e mentione dtha t th e comple x manufacturer' s proposa l containe d aworkabl e progra mwit h simplifie dapplicabilit y determination s an d add s spee d t o contro l determinations . H e als o sai dtha t

th e comple x manufacturer' s proposa l satisfie d STAPPA/ALAPC O positio n a s wel l a s EPA' s reformproposa l date dJul y 23,199 6 an d Notic e o f Availabilit y date d Jul y 24 , 1998 . Mr . Knaus s the n aske dfor EPA' s candi d positio n o n th e comple x manufacturer' s proposal . Mr . Harnet t

replie dtha t

nothin g withi n EP A "wa s dead, " an d tha t everythin g wa s forwarde dt o Mr . Pereiasep e an dt o Caro l Browner . Mr . Harnett sai d tha t al l issue s wil l sta y o n 

# IP. 3



### th e tabl e unti l Mr . Pereiasep e ha s decide don them . Assuming tha t th e complex manufacturer s wil l wan t to mee t wit h Mr . Pereiasepe , Mr . Harnet t sai dtha t th e issu e o f

simplicit y wil l com

e up and tha t th e PAL s di d no t

ad d simplicity . H e als o indicate dtha t th e issu e o f

ho w t o brin g existin g unit s t

o bette r level s of contro l wil l needt o b e addressed . Bil l Pedersen aske d fo

r EPA' s curren

t thought s o n netting . H e sai dtha t earlier ther e wa s aconcer n withi n EP

A abou t source s nettin g ou

t of review , an

dno w tha t th e industr

y grou p i s willin g to giv e u

p netting , he ha s detecte dtha t ther e wer e som e believer s i n netting . He als o indicate d tha

t th e industr

y an d th e EP A apparently ha

ddifferen t goals . The industry' s goa l wa s t o ge t all th e small change s ou

t ofth e system , whil e EPA' s goa l wa s to upgrade control s ove r time . H e the n sai d tha

t th e potential-to-potentia

l tes t wa s th e onl

y wa y to achiev e this , andtha

t th e industr y ha d offere d thi s tes t wit h n o netting . He sai dtha

t th e industr

y ha s als o offerred reconstructio n wit

h n o netting , and askedwha t els e ca n th e industr

y offer . Ms . Ritt s explaine d that , unlik e NSPS , currently ther

e wa s n o reconstructe dsourc e progra mwithi n NSR , andtha

t their reconstructio n wa s differen t fromNSPS . Mr . Knaus s briefl y explaine dth e complex manufacturer' s proposa

l an d th e thre e level s of

contro l tha

t depende dupo n th e emission s from th e unit , i.e. , Level A contro l fo r unit s wit h les s tha n significan

t emissions , Level B fo

r unit s wit h emission s between significan t level an d10 0 tpy , andLevel C contro l fo r unit s wit h emission s greate r tha n 10 0 tpy . H e als o explaine dtha t th e complex manufacturer' s proposa l containe d reconstructio n a s abackstop . Replyin g to acommen t fromEPA , Mr . Knaus s sai dtha t there coul d b e emissio n increase s eve n i n th e curren

t program . Mr . Harnet

t sai dtha t EP A wa s concerne d tha

t ther e coul d b e mor

e emissio n increase s unde

r th e complex manufacturer' s proposa l a s compare d t o th e curren t program . Ther e wa s adiscussio n o n th e potential-to-potentia l test . Bil l Lewi s sai dtha

t th e industr

y grou p would lik

e to identif y wha t concern s EP

A ha dwit h th e potential-to-potentia

l test . Davi d Solomon aske d wha

t percentag e of

existin g unit s woul dge

t control s unde

r th e complex manufacturer' s proposal . He sai d tha t fo r a n existin g unit , a

n allowable-to-allowabl e tes t mean s tha t i f th e uni t operate s a t th e sam e desig n level , the n i t

wil l no t get an y controls . H e indicate d tha t in such acas e reconstructio n wa s th e onl y wa y to brin g it

unde r contro l andaske dho w els e coul d thi s uni t

ge t goo d controls . Mr . Knaus s askedif th e EP A wa s intereste di n havin g amone y tes t i n NSR . H e explaine d tha t reconstructio n addresse dEPA' s andStates ' concern s tha t th e maximu machievabl e hourly tes t

need s abackstop . Mr . Harnet t replie dtha

t accountin g fo

r cost s would b e a"nightmare " and woul d involv e mor e recordkeepin g an

dreporting . Mr . Harnet

t explaine d tha

t th e goa l wa s to achiev e wha

t th e curren t progra mwa s achieving , bu t

mak e i t mor e simple . He the n asked i f

th e complex manufacturer' s proposa l accomplishe dtha

t goal . Mr . Knaus s replie d tha

t i n hi s opinio n th e complex manufacturer' s proposa l achieve dtha

t goal , an d di d it mor e simply . H e explaine dtha t th e NSPS-typ e hourly tes t

simplifie dit

significantly . Also , unde

r th e complex manufacturer' s proposal , al l ne w unit s woul dget controls . Furthermore , th e industr

y would no t

needth e routin e repai

r an dmaintenanc e exclusion . Mr . Solomo n sai d tha

t unde r th e complex manufacturer' s proposal , th e existin g unit s di d no t see mto hav e acertaint

y o f gettin g goo dcontrols , wherea s in th e allowables-base dPALs , th e existin g unit s woul d b e o n aglide pat h to controls . He then askedho w thi s progra mwa s better tha n th e allowables-base d PAL . Mr . Lewi s replie dtha t th e complex manufacturer' s proposa lP. 4

assure dtha t

mor e unit s woul dge t

control s tha n th e curren t

program . H e furthe r

sai d tha t th e glid e pat h di dnot

"fi t wit h th e statute " an d canno t b e abas e program . H e furthe r explaine d tha t mos t source s woul dno t

opt for PAL s becaus e o f

resources . Mr . Knaus s adde d tha t i n hi s opinio n PAL s coul dnot

b e don e for

al l ofth e 18,000 + source s i n th e bas e program . Ther e wa s a significan t

amoun t o f discussio n o n th e topi c o f existin g units . Mr . Knaus s explaine d tha t for th e existin g unit s th e industr y coul dno t propos e a"birthday-based " backsto p becaus e th e source s wer e to o diverse . Therefore , th e industry grou p ha d propose d reconstructio n a s th e backstop . Jo n Devin e sai dtha t

th e discussio n ha d bee n theoretica l s o fa r an d indicate d tha t

i t woul d hel p EP A i f

th e indust y grou p coul dprovid e an analysi s o f ho w th e comple x manufacturer' s proposa l woul dwor k

a t afacility a s compare d t o th e curren t system , an d aske d i f

suc h astud y ha d bee n done . Ms . Ritt s repliedtha t th e grou p ha d responde d t o EPA' s questio n abou t numbe r o f unit s i n eac h emissio n siz e category , bu t ha d not don e an analysi s fo r

reconstructio n o r modificatio n t o existin g units . Sh e sai d tha t suc h an analysi s woul d b e burdensome , bu t tha t th e grou p coul dd o i t

i f necessary . Mr . Lewi s explaine d tha t i t wa s clea r

tha t alo t o f source s wer e not goin g throug h NS Runde r th e curren t

program . O n th e othe r

hand , th e comple x manufacturer' s proposa l provide s for mor e control s wit h n o netting . However , h e sai d tha t i f necessar y th e grou p coul dd o amor e robus t analysis . Ann aWoo d aske d i f th e grou p coul d pic k areal-worl dfacility for

thi s analysis . Ms . Ritt s replie d tha t th e grou p ha d picke d 4 o r 5 existin g facilitie s i n thei r

previou s response s an d ha d use d actua l dat afor th e las t 3 year s o r

so . Mr . Solomo n aske dwh y i n th e las t 15-2 0 year s ther e hav e bee n onl y afe w permi t application s eve n thoug h th e capacitie s hav e gon e u p significantly . Bil l Burkhar t repliedtha t

i t i s becaus e th e emission s hav e not

gon e up . Mr . Solomo n aske dwha t th e respons e was fromth e State s regardin g aunifor mBAT . Ms . Ritt s replie dtha t

th e response s wer e mixe d an d tha t som e State s eve n sai d tha t thei r curren t progra mwoul dbecom e mor e stringen t a s aresul t

o f this . Sh e als o sai d tha t

on e Stat e though t tha t thi s woul dleve l th e playin g fieldbetwee n States . Whe n aske d b y Mr . Solomo n whethe r thi s mean t tha t som e State s woul dhav e t o improv e thei r program , severa l industr y representative s repliedyes . Mr . Knaus s explaine dtha t bot h th e Level s B an d C control s wer e BACT , an d tha t th e differenc e wa s onl y i n ho w the y woul d b e determined . Mr . Solomo n aske d wha t differenc e woul dther e b e i n contro l leve l betwee n Level s B an d C . Ms . Ritt s replie d tha t th e mai n differenc e wa s tha t

Leve l B woul db e aquicke r determinatio n bu t

tha t th e differenc e i n contro l leve l woul db e very little , i f any . Maxin e Dewbury replie d tha t th e differenc e ma y b e around 5 % o r 10% . Whe n aske db y Mr . Solomo n whethe r th e industry coul d guarante e tha t Leve l B contro l woul db e n o mor e than , say , 5 % differen t fromLeve l C , o r

tha t Leve l B woul d b e a t

leas t a95 % control , Ms . Ritt s repliedtha t th e industry ha s bee n considerin g a90 % contro l leve l for Leve l B t o avoi dindustry-by-industr y an dpollutant-by-pollutan t differences . Mat t

Tanze r sai d i t wa s possibl e fo r

th e industr y t o mak e suc h acommittment , bu t tha t thei r (comple x manufacturer's ) proposa l onl y containe dgenera l guideline s an d th e detail s neede d t o b e worke d out . Mr . Solomo n raise dcos t

a s an issu e whe n determinin g contro l levels . Th e industr y representative s indicate dtha t thei r mai n concern was not

th e cost . Instead , th e concern wa s th e proces s use di n makin g BAC T determination s an d th e tim e involve d i n tha t process . Wit h respec t t o aspeed y process , Mr . Solomo n aske d what th e bigges t

obstacle s wer e i n obtainin g aP. 5



### timely permi t

i n thos e case s wher

e th e sourc e wa s clearly subject to PSD . Mr . Tanze

r replie d tha t first i t take s 2- 3 month s jus t

to prepar e apermit applicatio n becaus e i t

involve s modeling , calculatio n o f

current actuals , defining of

futur e potential s etc . all of

whic h tak e time . Nor

m Morro w sai d tha

t Stat e BA T determination s coul db e made withi n ashor t time wherea s th e Federa l BAC T determination s coul d tak e u p to 1 8 months . The industr y representative s sai d tha

t i t too k asignifican

t amoun t of time , effor

t an dcos t t o obtai n permit s unde

r th e curren t progra m and that i t wa s awast

e o f resources . Ther e wa s abrie f

discussio n on certain specific s ofth e complex manufacturer' s proposa l includin g adiscussio n on th e cos t tes t fo r reconstructio n (e.g. , 50 % cos t tes t propose db y th e industry) . Mr . Knaus s asked whethe r EP A woul dconside

r th e complex manufacturer' s proposa l seriously i f

th e grou p filled in th e detail s abou

t Level B controls , reconstructio n etc . He sai d tha t th e industr y neede d to kno w EPA' s positio n on their (complex manufacturer's ) proposa l befor e the y undertook

thi s majo r effor t of filling in details . Mr . Harnet t replie dtha

t th e industr

y shoul d no t fill i n th e detail s ye t

becaus e h e coul dno t

guarante e tha

t Mr . Pereiasep e woul daccep t thi s a s abas e program . He indicate d tha t i t wa s ver y unlikely tha

t th e allowable-to-allowabl e tes t woul d b e abas e program . However , Mr . Pereiasep e ma y allo w th e tes t

o n asector-by-sector

basi s unde r specifi c circumstance s a s a n offramp . Also , it

wa s possibl e tha

t Mr . Pereiasep e ma

y decide tha t offramp s wer

e no t needed . Mr . Pedersen askedtha t i f th e potential-to-potentia

l tes t wa s of f th e table , then "n o netting " wouldb e automatically of f th e table , andthe n wha

t woul d b e left , i.e. , wha

t wil l the n b e th e bas e program . Mr . Harnet t replie dtha

t i t wa s a n issu e andtha

t EP A neede d to wor

k on tha t issue . Mr . Harnet

t suggeste d tha

t th e grou p shoul dmee

t wit h Mr . Pereiasep e i n January , mayb e during th e first 2 week s of

January . He indicate dtha

t Mr . Pereiasep e woul dfirs t nee dto kno w th e group' s concern s regardin g th e curren t progra mbefor e th e propose dprogra

mwoul dmak

e sens e t o him . Mr . Pereiasep e would als o b e intereste din wha t th e States ' response s hav e been . H e als o sai d tha

t a n analysi s simila

r to tha t suggeste db y Mr . Devine woul dals o help . Ms . Woo d reminde d to us e a

n existin g facilit

y fo r th e analysis . Ms . Ritt s indicate dtha t th e grou p wil l do th e analysi s (by mid-January??) . Joh n Medle y aske dwha

t th e industr

y grou p shoul dthink

about wit h respec t t o offramps . Mr . Harnet

t replie dtha

t PAL s wer e a n option . Also , th e group' s proposa l ha d possibilitie s in it . However , Mr . Harnet t sai dtha t EP A ha dmostly been focusin g o n th e bas e program . Mr . Pedersen aske d abou

t wha t EP A though t wa s wrong wit

h th e potential-to-potentia

l test . Denni s Crumple

r pointe d to aEP

A stud y done of Texa s an dIllinoi s tha

t showedtha

t there wa s asignifican

t ga p between actua

l an dpotentia l emissions . Thi s mean

t tha t th e source s had a significan t amoun t o f unuse d capacity . Henr

y Nicke l mentione dtha

t i n th e cas e of

utilitie s there wa s alo t o f underutilize d capacit

y durin g th e 1980' s but

no w th e productio n ha

dincreased . Mr . Pedersen sai d tha

t th e actual-tp-potentia

l tes t alway s "put s you i n th e ratchet. " Ther e wa s a brie f discussio n regardin g unuse d capacit y an dth e actual-to-potentia

l versu s potential-to-potentia

l tests . Mr . Knaus s indicate d tha

t th e grou p wil l addres s today' s discussio n wit h Mr . Pereiasepe . Mr . Harnet

t sai d tha t EP A wil l follo w u

p wit h th e industr

y grou p afte r th e meetin g wit

h 

# 4P. 6



### Mr . Pereiasepe . He als o indicate d tha t h e wil l discus s wit

h Mr . Pereiasep e whethe

r th e final packag e coul d b e mad

e availabl e to th e grou

p befor e i t "hit s th e street. " The meetin g was then adjourned .P. 7

J *4* ATTENDEE S EPATCOMPLE X MANUFACTURER S GROUP " MEETIN G

NE W SOURC E REVIEW REFOR M December

8, 1999

Nam e Lesli e Ritt s Maxin e Dewbur y Tamm y Wyle s Henr y Nicke l Chuc k Knaus s Bil l Lewi s Joh n Medle y Bil l Burkhar t Norber t De e Bil l Pederse n Mat t Tanze r And y Gate s Jef f Muffa t Norma n Morro w Davi d Solomo n Denni s Crumple r Kare n Blanchar d Bil l Harnet t Mik e Sewel l Kath y Kaufma n To mDriscol l Michae l Lin g Ann aWoo d(b y phone ) Caro l Holme s (b y phone ) Jo n Devin e (b y phone ) Mala y Jinda l Valeri e Everett e Affiliatio n Hoga n & Hartso n CIBO/Procte r

& Gambl e Georgi aPacifi c (AF&PA ) Hunto n & William s Swidle r Berli n Morga n Lewi s Mobi l (API ) Procte r & Gambl e NPR A Sha w Pittma n G E Reynold s Metal s Co . 3 M Exxo n Mobi l EPA/OAQP S EPA/OAQP S EPA/OAQP S EPA/OAQP S EPA/OAQP S EPA/OAQP S EPA/OAQP S EPA/OAQP S EPA/OA R EPA/OEC A EPA/OG C PE S (EP A Contractor ) PE S (EP A Contractor ) 

# 6 Telephon e No . (202 ) 637-657 3 (513)626-444 6 (404 ) 652-728 1 (202)955-156 1 (202 ) 424-764 4 (202)467-714 5 (703 ) 849-619 3 (513)626-441 1 (202 ) 457-048 0 (202 ) 663-885 2 (203)373-351 2 (804)281-348 2 (651)778-445 0 (281)870-611 2 (919)541-537 5 (919)541-087 1 (919)541-550 3 (919)541-497 9 (919)541-087 3 (919)541-010 2 (919)541-513 5 (919)541-472 9 (202 ) 260-877 2 (202 ) 564-870 9 (202 ) 260-698 4 (919 ) 941-033 3 (919 ) 941-033 3

> e-Mai l

lsritts@hhlaw.co m dewbury.md@pg.co m trwyles@gapac.co m hnickel@hunton.co m chknauss@swidlaw . co m whlewis@mlb.co m j ohn_h_medley@emai l .mobil . co m burkhart.wt@pg.co m norbert_dee@npradc.or g bill.pedersen@shawpittman.co m matthew.tanzer@corporate.ge.co m cagates@rmc.co m j cmuffat@mmm.co m norman.l.morrow@exxon.co m solomon.david@epa.go v crumpler.dennis@epa.go v blanchard.karen@epa.go v harnett.bill@epa.go v sewell.mike@epa.go v kaufman.kathy@epa.go v driscoll.tom@epa.go v ling.michael@epa.go v wood.anna@epa.go v holmes.carol@epa.go v devine.jon@epa.go v malay.jindal@pes.co m valerie.everette@pes.co mP. 8



### AJ&IM^ 

### jzl8J99_ePA/a-^> k M<m*$-_knr's (j^-uf " /^fc y ( W &frm )



# ffiuzuj^- 

# <-T*/^ /

"BIL L L&JIS 

## x/o/iklMe&og? 5,1/ ^But^leiCT' Bf( * Tk^ir^Ahr spj^UcB . SOLpVAOTfO . 

## Bl^thwZTT

, (T J ft aServoe

A ^ AH?/ ^Tt5

Je w ^vmc . 

# MfB/cAj.P i/v/o&L-

& < ^ 

### <Tc T 

## . $7. 3 /&2 £ y ^ ^<6^ , md&pcj\



# ZCL^SS/S^f

A^cU@Wv«4n r 

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



## C

£p A

- e P A / OEC A 

### ?/ 9 -S*/ /

-S2JST. SptMa P .-CXVJv ^ £^ . £*•/ % 

## 7/<^ / <?r; v * rt 

## " ' "

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

## i n - s m - H T^° ? i

v A « . M 

## «v u e 

## i e &f 

## , x 

## . ^ •

/ I'^Tj.'WlcUe 1 

# J

< f