P. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1802 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# 33 ) IV-E-2 8 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 11/4/200811:57:59 AM

Sheet 33 of 117P. 2

MEETIN G SUMMAR

Y SECON D MEETIN

G O F WEPC O LITIGANT S NE W SOURC

E REVIE W REFOR

M ! November

20, 1998|

i EP< :

. AI R COCKE T The meetin g wa s hel d a

t th e office s of

Swidle r & Berlin , 300 0 K

StreetNW7"§mfe"3'00 ; Washington , DC . Th

e meetin g bega

n a t approximatel

y 10:00 a man d close d a t 12:0 0 noon , Attache d i s alis t

o f attendees . 

# J

Th e meetin g opene d wit

h adiscussio n of

th e statu s o f

th e Settlemen

t Agreemen

t t o suspend schedule d briefing s befor e th e Cour t relate d t o th e Decembe

r 19,199 7 order . Th e orde

r lifted th e stay s fo

r case s relate d t o EPA' s rulemaking s o n preconstructio n revie w o f ne w sources . Th e Settlemen

t Agreemen

t propose s th e Cour

t activitie s woul d b e suspended , provide d EP A act s o n anotic e o f

fina l rulemakin g fo

r th e ne w sourc e revie w (NSR

) refor mrul e b y Jun e 30,1999 . A cop y of th e Agreement , which ha

d bee n signed by th e Justic e Departmen t a s Counci l fo

r U S EPA , wa s distributed . The othe r litigant s ha

d not signe d th e Settlemen

t Agreement . Th e minute s fro

mth e firs t meeting wer

e discussed . Th

e minute s wer

e characterize d a s a

n attemp t to create atranscript , but

wit h the potentia

l to mis s som

e relevan t point s tha t ma y hav e bee n discussed . Preferenc e wa s give n to creatin g abrie f

meetin g summary . EP

A propose d revisin g th e first

meetin g minute s int

o atw o to thre e pag e summar y document . EP A representative s discusse d th e statu s o f regulator y developmen

t activitie s fo

r th e NS R refor mrule . EP

A i s summarizing comment s receive d o n th e July 24,199 8 Federa l Registe r Notic e o f Availabilit

y (NOA) tha

t propose d alternative s t o th e NS R requirements . EP A staf f ar e identifying th e specifi c issue s an d preparing staf

f leve l positio n paper s fo

r managemen

t review . Fina l position s o n eac h issu e wil l b e define d and incorporate d int o th e rulemakin g package . EPA intention s ar

e t o forwar

d acomplet

e rulemaking packagin g to th e Offic e of Managemen

t an d Budget (OMB ) b y th e en d o f

Januar y 1999 . Representative s of

th e litigant s expresse d astron g interes t i n reviewin g th e regulator

y languag e a s i t

i s develope d fo

r th e rulemakin g package . EP A representative s expresse d concer n tha t th e regulator

y timelin e did no t

accommodat

e an y additiona

l outside review . Option s propose d b y th e litigant s to incorporat e thei r revie w of th e regulator

y languag e include d informa l revie w of draft s a s section s ar

e developed , shortenin g th e time perio d fo r OM B review , or extendin g th e timelin e fo

r completio n o

f th e rulemakin g package . EP A wa s concerne d wit

h th e feasibilit y o f an y o f thes e approache s to provide mor e input fro mth e litigants . The discussio n moved to th e specific concern s wit h th e NS R requirement s by th e litigants , whic h woul d b e potentially impacte d b y th e rulemaking . Thi s include d bot h th e feature s o f th e current

progra min plac e an

d th e alternative s propose d in th e NOA . Som e o f th e issue s identifie d were :P. 3

• Ho w woul d th e plant-wide applicabilit y limi t (PAL) work ? • Isn' t

th e PA L approach inconsisten

t wit h th e provision s of

th e WEPC O decision ? • Doesn' t

th e potentia

l fo r routin e repair

and maintenanc e o

r an y facilit y chang e trigge r

th e requirement s fo

r NSR ? • Ho w th e burden s of NS R ar e limitin g implementatio n o f facilit y improvement s - project s ar

e no t bein g pursue d if

they trigger

NSR . • To o fe

w change s in facilitie s which impac t ai r qualit y emission s ar

e bein g reviewe d unde r NS R programs ; a

n estimat e wa s given o

f 2 to 4 preventio n o f

significan t deterioratio n (PSD ) permit s pe r stat e pe r year . • Shouldn' t

reviewin g agencies ' authorit y b e t o brin g mor

e source s int o NSR ? • Wha

t qualifie s a s routin e an

d non-routin e activities ? • Wha

t i s th e impact

of th e curren t actua l to futur e potentia l test ? • Wha

t characterize s a"significan

t project " an

d warrant s NSR ? • The magnitude o f

th e burden place d on source s becaus e of NS R requirements ' changin g behavior . The discussio n of

thes e issue s lea

d severa l o f th e meetin g participant s to suppor t th e concep t o f initiatin g amajor , philosophica l revie w o f ho w th e NS R progra

mshoul d work . Severa l specifi c area s an

d idea s wer

e identifie d fo

r consideratio n in investigatin g arevampe d NS R program . The

y include :

• Creatin g equipmen

t lif e limit s (time-limite d preferences , lik e patents , copyrights , etc. ) afte r whic h an y modificatio n woul d trigge r NS R • Eliminate case-by-cas e bes t availabl e contro l technolog y (BACT) determination s - hav e EP A set presumptiv e BACT s • Updat

e presumptiv e BAC T ove

r time - concer

n ove r preceden t o f NSP S revisio n proces s • Simplif

y NS R b y eliminatin g th e "netting " calculu s a s amean s t o sta y ou t o f revie w • Eliminate th e distinctio n between lowes t achievabl e emissio n rat

e (LAER) and BAC T • Asses s alternative s whic h eliminat e th e distinctio n between routin e an d non-routin e change s • Asses s alternative s to th e current-actua l and future-potentia

l comparison s in emission s EP A participant s propose d a90-da y effor t t o investigate th e feasibilit y o f amajo r restructurin g o f

th e NS R program . Objective s woul d include simplifying applicabilit y determination s whil e increasin g th e numbe r of NS R applications . A stakeholde r proces s woul d b e initiate d fo

r thi s effort . Participatio n fromrepresentative s beyond th e WEPC O litigant s represente d a

t thi s meetin g woul d b e necessary . Thi s woul d nee d t o includ e representatio n fo r th e Federa l Lan d Manager s (FLM) . The current rulemakin g activit

y woul d b e suspended . Th e meetin g participant s wer

e in genera

l suppor t o f th e concep t

of anew 90-da

y NS R refor

m initiative . A conferenc e call o n Decembe r 8,199 8 a t 10:00 a m(919-541-4407 ) wa s propose d t o discus s th e issue s associate d wit h th e refor meffor t and t o conside

r proceedin g wit

h another meetin g in January . The meetin g wa s then adjourned .P. 4

ATTENDEE S SECON D MEETING O

F WEPC O LITIGANT S NE W SOURC

E REVIE W REFOR

M November

20, 1998

Name Denni s Crumple

r Bruc e Buckheit Caro l Holme s Lydi aWegma

n Le aAnderso n Davi d Solomo n Jo n Devin e Davi d Hawkin s Chuc k Knaus s Henr y Nicke l Bil l Lewi s Lesli e Ritt s Joh n Rees e Bil l Peterso n Tamm y Wyle s Juli e Becke

r Bil l Burc h Dou g Toothma

n Bob Kella m Ann aMari e Wood Mik e Sewel l Lou Tos i (connecte d by telephone ) Affiliatio n EPA/OAQP S EPA/OECA/AE

D EPA/OECA/AE

D EPA/OAQP S EPA/OG C EPA/OAQP S EPA/OGC NRD C Swidle r & Berli n Hunto n & William s Morgan , Lewi s & Bockiu s Hoga n & Hartso n API Shaw , Pittman , Pott s & Trowbridg e Georgi aPacific/A

F & P A AAM A PE S PE S EPA/OAR/OAQP S EPA/OAR/OPA

R EPA/OAR/OAQP S Shumake r Loo p & Kendrick Telephon e No .

(919)541-087 1 (202 ) 564-226 0 (202 ) 564-870 9 (919)541-550 5 (202 ) 260-834 7 (919 ) 541-537 5 (202 ) 260-698 4 (202 ) 289-686 8 (202 ) 424-764 4 (202)955-156 1 (202 ) 467-714 5 (202 ) 637-657 3 (202 ) 682-827 3 (202 ) 663-883 2 (404 ) 652-728 1 (202)326-551 1 (703)471-838 3 (703)471-838 3 (919)541-564 7 (202 ) 260-877 2 (919)541-087 3 (419)321-139 7