P. 1



# OAR Box 

# 1802 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# 62 ) IV-E-5 6 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 11/4/2008 11:57:59 AM

Sheet 62 of 117P. 2 

# 131 - 

# E- S(p Meetin g Summary Conferenc e cal l wit

h Davi d Hawkins , NRD C o n Ma y 4,200 0 Attendees : Davi d Hawkins , Karen Blanchard , Ann aWood , Caro l Holmes , Denni s Crumpler , Lyn n Hutchinson , TomDriscoll , Bil l Harnet t Purpos e ofth e call : To discus s th e Clea n Uni t concept a s describe d i

n th e attachment , and to discus s option s fo

r limitin g netting , an

d fo r addressin g industry' s concern s abou t debottleneckin g an d linkin g issues
. Afte r TomDriscol l provide d asummar y ofth e attache d pape

r describin g th e Clea

n Unit concept , Davi d Hawkin s provide d feedbac k o n th e concept . H e ha

d majo r concern s tha

t th e Clea n Unit concep t a s describe d woul d no t

necessarily b e better

fo r th e environmen

t tha n th e curren t program . H e suggeste d tha t t o tes t th e concept

w e might mak e a n assumptio n tha

t th e progra mbega n in 199 0 an

d the n examine wha

t BACT woul d b e today
. W e woul d then compar

e th e technologie s tha

t woul d hav e been clea

n i n 1990 an

d se e ho w they diffe

r fromwha t w e would determin e t o b e clea n today
. H e indicate d aconcer n tha t i f low NOX burner s wer

e determined to b e clea

n in 1990 , an

d they ha d a3 0 yea r lifetime , then i f

amodificatio n wer

e mad e today , w e woul d mis s th e extrareduction s w e woul d ge t fromth e additio n o f

SC Rwhich ha s evolved a s aclea

n technolog y durin g th e las t decade
. Further , h e di d no t believ e tha

t thi s concep t woul d b e a"carrot " t

o ge t industr y wh o doe s not currently mee

t th e definitio n o f

clea n t o appl y control s now , bu t

instead , they woul d wait

unti l they neede d or

wante d t o mak e achange
. H e though t th e concep t

migh t b e mor e acceptabl e i f

asafeguar d wer e buil t i n t o ensur e tha t whe n amodificatio n i s made tha

t th e "clea n technology " i s withi n X % (perhap s 5-10% ) o f wha t BAC T would b e a

t th e time ofth e change
. H e sai d tha

t th e only wa

y thi s concept

coul d wor k i s i f ther e ar e n o plaintiffs , an

d befor e thi s woul d b e acceptabl e to th e environmenta l community , th e safeguar

d h e spok e abou t woul d need t o b e added
. Othe

r concern s include d th e leve l o f contro l tha

t woul d b e determine d to b e clean , an d th e time an

d resource s i t

woul d tak e fo r EP A to develop th e lis t

o f clea n technologies , which , afte r citin g th e recen

t cour t decisio n o n periodi c monitoring , h e indicate d th e nee d fo r a rulemaking exercis e fo

r thi s effort
. I f

w e pursu e this , h e urge d OAQPS to wor k wit h th e Office o f Reinventio n to ensur

e tha t th e concept

o f pollutio n preventio n i s no t discourage d b y th e emphasi s o n add-o n controls , an d suggeste d tha

t th e definitio n o f

clea n b e tie d to aperformanc e base d metric
. Next w e aske d fo

r Davi d Hawkins ' feedbac

k o n way s t o limit

nettin g sinc e thi s wa s a

n issu e raise d b y STAPPA/ALAPC O a s bein g ver y important
. H e suggeste d tha t EP A conside r th e dua l sourc e definitio n whic h EP A ha d adopte d year s ago , and als o reducin g th e contemporaneou s perio d o f time , perhap s b y th e us e ofth e projec t net approach
. Lastly , w e describe d th e industry' s concern s abou

t debottleneckin g an

d linkin g an

d gav e severa

l kind s o f situation s a s illustration s a s t o wher

e industr y indicate d tha

t they di d no t

believ e they shoul d b e caugh t b y th e 1 i i 

### ; i L_..

_! 

### : PT'AArMCPP " IP. 3

NS Rnet . H e note d tha

t i t appeare d t

o hi mtha t industr y wante d to us e creditabl e decrease s fo r nettin g purpose s bu t

no t creditabl e increases
. H e di d no t see mtotall y oppose d t o th e notio n pu t fort h b y a n ALAPC O membe

r tha t emission s unit s b e exempte d whic h ar e no t physicall y changed , ar

e subjec t to enforceable permi t

conditions , and hav e bee n subjec t t o a n ambien t air qualit y impact s analysis
. H e cautione d tha t th e environmenta

l communit

y woul d b e examinin g th e whol e NS RRefor

mpackag e befor

e coming to an

y conclusion s a s t o whethe

r an d th e exten

t t o whic h the y coul d suppor

t it
.