P.1 

OAR Box 1802 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

36) IV-E-31 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 11/4/200811:57:59 AM Sheet 36 of 117 
P.2 

MEETING SUMMARY 

EPA/NEDA MEETING 

A-90-37 

BH/f-3/ 

w " B '.f.'.'c. 

NEW SOURCE REVIEW REFORM EPA AIR DOCKET 

November 23, 1998 I - — " 

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 

4:15 pm. Attached is a list of attendees. 

The meeting opened with a brief discussion of some of the items discussed at the 

WEPCO litigants meeting held in Washington DC on Friday, November 20,1998. Leslie Ritts 

of Hogan & Hartson mentioned that NEDA is excited about streamlining the NSR regulations. 

Ms. Ritts said that they are concerned about the NSR applicability to routine maintenance, such 

as like-kind replacements or routine repair. Also, they recommend not doing case-by-case 

BACT; instead, they recommend that EPA develop a list of presumptive "good technology". 

Ms. Ritts also observed that in order to make the regulations simpler, Lydia Wegman had 

recommended eliminating netting calculations when determining applicability, but this was 

likely to be unpopular with certain industries. Ms. Ritts mentioned that a 90-day moratorium on 

issuing EPA's final NSR rule had been floated to determine if simplification of the NSR program 

is feasible, and that a conference call will be held on* December 8,1998 to further discuss any 

recommendations for simplification. NED A/CARP also mentioned that the discussion of an 

approach should include "NSR lookback" and current enforcement initiatives. It was mentioned 

that the Settlement Agreement was not signed by the meeting participants. A question was 

raised as to whether the Settlement Agreement would remain unsigned during the 90-day 

extension. 

David Emery of Phillips Petroleum asked how many NSR-related rules were being 

developed as a part of the reform effort. Bill Burkhart of Procter & Gamble mentioned that there 

were five rules at one time, but was not sure as to how many there were now. Karen Blanchard 

of EPA explained that the two main rules were the NSR Reform rule and the NSR Transitional 

Area rule, both of which are planned to be promulgated by June 30,1999. Ms. Blanchard also 

explained that another rule pertained to minor NSR regulations for tribal lands. It was asked 

whether the transitional area rule will "handle" traditional areas, to which Ms. Blanchard replied 

yes. EPA also explained that it will be reviewing clean monitoring data on NOx in 2004. Areas 

considered clean (i.e., < 0.084 ppm) would continue with a PSD program; others would need to 

implement non-attainment NSR. 

Barbara Bankoff, representing Eli Lilly & Company, asked about PSD significant levels 

for CFC's under Title VI. Dennis Crumpler of EPA explained that he was not sure of the status 

of the levels for Title VI because the NSR team has not discussed the matter yet, and therefore 

has not decided anything. However, Mr. Crumpler said, it was a part of the overall reform 

package and had also been addressed by John Seitz in a letter to Louisiana DEQ. 
P.3 

1 

Ms. Ritts mentioned Christine Shaver's (NPS) letter dated May 1998. She asked about 

the FLAG program, and what it meant for Class I area review. She said that the letter was an 

honest goodfaith effort by Ms. Shaver, but that it was short of certainty needed by industry when 

planning projects; it left a significant room for discretion on the part of the FLM. She mentioned 

that Donna Lamb (USFS) has indicated that "we are making progress in better defining 

AQRVs," but that the published lists of AQRVs such as White Pine, Yellow Birch, Poison Ivy 

etc. for individual areas such as the James River Face Wilderness Area were too generic to be 

useful, and that de minimis values and better tools were needed. She also noted that such lists 

were not available from the NPS and were presumably part of the FLAG program. She said that 

she did not feel any better regarding the program, and asked if meeting with the NPS would help. 

Ms. Blanchard offered that EPA will be happy to talk to the NPS collectively. 

Bill Beck of Mobil also shared what the USFS had put on their website. He indicated 

that unlike PSD increments, for which there is specificity, there is no information with respect to 

flora and fauna, i.e., it is not clear as to what is considered an adverse impact. Ms. Ritts said that 

currently it is also unclear with the FLM's as to what models one should use to assess impacts in 

Class I areas relative to AQRVs, e.g., how to determine deposition rates on a pond. Also, who 

decides which model should be used, Fish and Wildlife Service or Forest Service? Or, is it the 

FLM who decides? There are also some new models that were recently developed which add to 

the uncertainty. Bill Burkhart said that [when permitting] the industry has to deal with FLM, 

environmental justice, reform issues etc, which create a significant amount of uncertainty. A 

quick resolution is needed, especially in today's global market where projects can be very time 

sensitive. 

David Emery said that asking the FLM is not the best solution because the FLM may take 

up to a year to decide what applies to a given project and whether the project will be ok with 

respect to Class I area impacts. He also said that at any given time his company evaluates 

several projects, but given that only certain projects can be built due to financial restraints, it is 

critical to know which projects will be environmentally permissible, or if Class I areas will be a 

concern. Bill Burkhart also reiterated that there is currently too much uncertainty, and that 

simplification is needed. Ms. Blanchard said that she understood that uncertainty adds 

complexity, but that EPA is currently not certain about how to address it, but it should be noted 

that simplification may remove flexibility. Maxine Dewbury of Procter & Gamble said that we 

need to start with a clean slate. Ms. Ritts said that environmental justice and the FLM issues 

stand out more than others. Ms. Blanchard said that the existing grandfathered sources are major 

contributors to air pollution, and that removing the grandfathering of sources would be a good 

solution. However, it is unclear exactly how to do that. 

When asked by Dan DeRoeck of EPA about the FLM and State permitting issues, 

Ms. Ritts reiterated that FLM discretion still overrides on the critical issues of AQRVs and the 

choice of analytical methods used to determine alleged negative impacts. Ms. Blanchard said 

that currentiy plants have to wait until public comment period to find out "yes or no" on permits. 

Ms. Ritts said that the plants will not have to wait now because the source will get notification 

earlier. However, the NPS program, including the FLAG program, is a mystery, and that they 

need to meet with the NPS. The U.S. Forest Service has always maintained red, yellow and 

3 
P__L 

green areas within Class I areas, but only in notice(s) without any rulemaking. Roy Carwile of 

Alcoa said that Tennessee has laid out a timetable, but that it was still unclear as to what the 

AQRVs are and how to establish them. Ms. Blanchard suggested looking at the Tennessee MOU 

which may remove some uncertainty although ALCOA representatives who are familiar with it 

said that it only partially addresses pivotal issues. Ms. Ritts indicated that she was not sure it 

was a template for other similar agreements because some people were disturbed by it. However, 

she will look at it and then contact Ms. Blanchard. 

Bernie Paul asked if there were any comments or feedback on PALs. He mentioned that 

Eli Lilly supports PALs. Mike Sewell of EPA said that they have just received the summary of 

comments on the July 24,1998 Notice of Availability from the contractor, and that they are in 

the process of reviewing it. Eli Lilly also recommended that a meeting between NSR and 

permitting officials might be very beneficial given the interface of the two programs. 

The meeting was then adjourned. 

3 
P.5 

ATTENDEES 

EPA/NEDA MEETING 

NEW SOURCE REVIEW REFORM 

November 23, 1998 

Name 

Ernie Rosenberg 

Roy Carwile 

Barbara Bankoff 

Jodie Miner 

Todd Hyde 

Bernie Paul 

David Emery 

Jerry Fulmer 

Ellen Siegler 

Maxine Dewbury 

Leslie Ritts 

Bill Burkhart 

John Medley 

Bill Beck 

Cheryl Russell 

David Markwordt 

Sally Shaver 

Susan Wyatt 

Dennis Crumpler 

Karen Blanchard 

Mike Sewell 

Lea Anderson 

(connected by telephone) 

Affiliation 

Occidental 

Alcoa 

for Eli Lilly 

Eli Lilly 

Merck 

Eli Lilly 

Phillips Petroleum 

for Alcoa 

Hogan & Hartson 

Procter & Gamble 

Hogan & Hartson 

Procter & Gamble 

Mobil 

Mobil 

Boeing 

EPA/OAQPS 

EPA 

EPA 

EPA/OAQPS 

EPA/OAQPS 

EPA/OAQPS 

EPA/OGC 

Telephone No. 

(202)857-3051,-3040 

(412) 553-2680, -4822 

(202)434-4810,-347-4015 

(317)433-3426,-276-1680 

(908)423-3994,-1322 

(317)276-0331,-1800 

(918)661-3041,-6146 

(412)851-0704 

(202) 637-5728 

(513)634-4827,-5481 

(202)637-7153,-6573 

(513)634-6366,-5481 

(703) 849-6193, -6295 

(703) 849-6245, -6295 

(703)465-3610,-3034 

(919)541-0837 

(919)541-5572,-0072 

(919)541-5674 

(919)541-0871 

(919)541-5503 

(919)541-0873 

(202) 260-8347 

4-