P.1 

OAR Box 1802 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

58) IV-E-53 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 11/4/2008 11:57:59 AM Sheet 58 of 117 
P.2 

-.04/J3f99 FRI 12:42 FAX 415 744 1076 US EPA AIR DIV Q002 

Summary of March 9.1999 Meeting between U.S. EPA and SCAQMD on LAER 

At U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards (OAQPS) 

Durham, Neath Carolina. 

(Muting Agenda attached) 

Attendees: U.S. EPA staff from Region DC as well as OAQPS, General Counsel, ind 

Enforcement, and SCAQMD staff and Home Rule Advisory Group (HRAG) members, 

and two public representatives. 

1. Tom Curran, the senior ranking U.S. EPA staff present made opening remarks, / 

followed by Lee Wallace, on behalf of the SCAQMD HRAG, and PomPom Gangutf 

on behalf of SCAQMD staff. -Meeting Agenda was distributed and PomPom Ganguli 

stated that the six LAER Issue Papers had not received SCAQMD Governing Board 

approval although they represent the joint views of the staff and the HRAG. An 7 

attempt to have environmental representatives come to .OAQPS was not success""' 

• although the LAER Issue Papers were mailed te all HRAG members, including 

environmental representatives ^Ganguli also stated that thia meeting was a 

continuation of the dialogue started between SCAQMD and U.S. EPA, Region IX, in 

1998. 

Under the topic of Public Process for LAER Determinations, there was a lot of 

discussion on the RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC). Of all the issues 

discussed at this meeting, EPA was most interested in keeping the RBLC up-to-date ' 

and accurate. The NSR Ref w a proposal may also require States to send in 

RACT/BACT/LAER detaminations within 60 days of pennit issuance. At one point, 

David Solomon suggested tying-entry of the pennit information intothe RBLC 

database before the source could begin construction. Furthermore, he suggested 

placing the burden on the permittee to send tbe data to EPA. Rich Biondi said that to 

justify spending more money on the RBLC, EPA needed mora certainty that people 

, were using it. Lee Wallace suggested that ihe cunent process was not working 

because the burden of conducting LAER searches is placed on the pennit applicant 

who is in the weakest position of all these parties to obtain information from other 

businesses. Ron Wilkniss requested ^feedback mechanism to flag LAER 

determinations that failed to perform as expected during the processing of a pennit 

application. PomPom Ganguli said that the federal RBLC did not include new 

information on achieved-in*practice LAER technology that were permitted at higher 

emission levels, 

Greg Adams reiterated the need for public participation in LAER determinations, 

Ganguli focused on the new format instituted at the SCAQMD to report BACT 

determinations and the public process with the Scientific Review Committee. While 

there was acknowledgment of a 30-day public comment period in establishing more ' 

restrictive BACT, there was no acknowledgement by U.S. EPA that direct public ' 

input into LAER was an issue. 

2*d VZSZ 96E 606 OSS QWOODS W«Z2i0T 66, 91 Odd 
P.3 

04/16/99 FRI 12:43 FAX 415 744 1076 US EPA AIR DIV kg03 

EPA's traditional position has been that LAER is determined by the Stale or Local 

permitting authority and the public review period for permits provides the public 

adequate opportunity to review, and comment on LAER determinations. 

Frank Blazack of U.S. EPA was introduced as the keeper of the actual RBLC. He 

said that the RBLC was never meant to be a definitive listing of LAER. Frank also 

mentioned that EPA was considering a vendoMriented candidate LAER site. Lee 

Wallace introduced the concept of a presumptive rebuttal that apeunitte-e could use if 

the RBLC could be kept up to date. 

3. David Solomon asked the following cations throughout the meeting, on various 

topics: 

a) How/big an issue was it? -

b) Was it a local issue only-or did it have national significance? 

c) What were the concrete examples and evidence in support of the issue? 

It appeared from Tom Curran that U.S. EPA was not interested in opening or 

reevaluating any national LAER policies. Cunan seemed most interested in our 

comments on the RBLC and whether or not the relocation suggestions would trigger 

environmental justice concerns. 

4. David Solomon requested that SCAQMD work through the Region DC office on 

LAER issues. Bob Wyman commented that Region DC was bound by national LAER 

policies and unable to respond to actual situations appropriately. 

5. The LAER Determination Cutoff Date was not particularly controversial sinee U.S. 

EPA seemed to he leaning toward an application deemed-complete test in the NSR 

Reform proposal (the NSR Reform proposal also contains additional clarification 

tiiat sources would not have to consider candidate technologies that had not 

complied the Achieved-In-Pracdce criteria 90 days before the application is deemed 

complete). Dennis Crumpler of U.S. EPA who was handling this particular issue 

stated that nothing precluded a state from moving beyond this criteria and requiring 

an applicant to investigate a promising technology. Wyman asked for clarification. 

Jon Devine of U.S. EPA essentially said that States and Locals have tiie option to 

enforce a more rigorous policy. ' 

With respect to emerging technology, Tom Cuiran thought that it was in industry's 

favor to have specific information criteria stipulated before t third party could insist 

that a permittee investigate the new technology. * 

a 

6. Achieved-ln-Practjce criteria was covered next by Ron Wilkniss without any 

substantial feedback from EPA. Alex Ross argued against end-of-pipe strategies. 

Man Haber thought that the group's concerns could be addressed in a Region K 

breakdown policy that was under development Lee Wallace said that the 50% 

. operating load criteria was in effect acting as a de-fecto maximum thet a new 

technology needs to meet This meant thai no performance demonstration was* 

E'd P2S£ 96£ 686 DSS CIUOfcDS WBZi2l 66. 91 HdU 
__^ _ P.4 

,04/16/99 FRI 12:43 FAX 415 744 1076 . US EPA AIR DIV El004 

needed et higher nameplaie ratings. Specifically, it was not representaxive of 

equipment capacity levels in numerous industries. EPA wanted concrete examples of 

such cases. 

7. Bob Wyman introduced the concept of narrowing down the scope of the source 

categories. U.S. EPA basically believed these were purely cost issues and that if a 

particular source subcategory had a problem, it could be argued out with the 

pennifdng authority at the appropriate time. 

8. Lee Wiilace introduced the concept of cost in LAER, focusing on the problems with 

the 1989 John Calcagni memo. He mentioned that potential emissions reductions 

from LAER implementation at that time wen significant whereas such reductions 

now are much smaller. Dennif Crumpler was identified as having actually written the 

Calcagni memo. When Jon Devine questioned Lee as to tbe statutory authority, Lee 

cited the 1977 House Report on this issue. Greg Adams tried to impress upon EPA 

* . just how small a 10 TPY source (an autobody shop painting 2 cars a day) was. 

PomPom Ganguli gave EPA the spray booth report prepared for the October 1998 

Governing Board meeting with cost data. Eventually Rich Biondi agreed that ther? 

seemed to be a problem with the small emitters but offered no recourse. 

David Solomon thought it was unfair of Bob Wyman to cite the $10,000 per ton that 

the President quoted with the new ambient air standards, which was meant for retrofit 

applications. Solomon said that establishing any cuioff figure always resulted ia 

industry trying to game the standard. Wyman suggested thai EPA pilot the Ideas that 

they heard from SCAQMD today. David Solomon suggested that a local solution 

could be worked out witii Region DC as long as national LAER policies were left 

unchanged. Affordability was net discussed in depth.' Pollution prevention and the 

problems of focusing on endof-pipe-only solutions as detailed in the 1998 

Environmental Law Institute Report were listened to politely by EPA. 

9. David Sobmon asked if we had analyzed the impact of a more lenient LAER policy 

on the SIP*attainment demonstration. Weexplained we had not, but did not think it ' 

was a significant issue (offsets will account for any emissions shortfalls). 

10. Alexander Ross stated that all spray booths listed in the October 1998 SCAQMD 

Board package for potential add-on controls^ could use UV-cured and low-VOC 

coatings as alternative LAER. At one point in the discussion after Alexander Ross 

had spoken, Matt Haber suggested that we focus our efforts on VOCs only, 

Lee Wallace noted mat EPA Regjon.DC probably had not seen many examples of 

problems with LAER for NOx because LAER for smaller boilers had been made 

more stringent very recently. EPA agreed to leave the issue open for more 

. information. 

t ' d f2E£ 96£ 606 DSS OTUOtDS UbS2i0T 66 , 9T add 
. EL5_ 

04/16/99 FRI 12:44 FAX 415 744 1076 US EPA AIR DIV !<&$$&<hr 

11. Matt Haber thought that this meeting vw*oti_d^g(IWol Browner and Felicia 

Marcus' promise to meet with industry on BACT/LAER. He stated thai EPA would 

be walling to discuss these issues but did not want a long, drawn out process. 

12. Barbara Baird discussed relocations, acknowledging that the SCAQMD SIP would 

have to change as a result Barbara explained that we were focusing on relocations of 

the same source, with no net emissions increase and often with legitimate reasons for 

moving beyond the owner's control. Tom Curran asked if there would be 

environmental justiee issues treating relocations like existing sources. Barbara 

explained that there were sufficient safoguards in our air toxics rules. David Solomon 

questioned if this was any different than a new source moving into the basin for ihe 

first time. PomPom Ganguli said that the proposal was essentially transferring the 

control of these sources from NSR to the SIP for emission reductions through local 

retrofit rules. The group suggested that relocating with old LAER might be one 

approach. David Solomon suggested that perhaps incremental costs and not absolute 

. costs could be investigated in Ae case of a relocation. He wanted to see specific case 

studies. 

* 

13. At one point in.the discussion, EPA rebutted our statement that large numbers of 

sources axe impacted saying that many areas in the country are now at 25 TPY for 

metfor sources and would be in the same boat 

S'd PZSB 96E 606 3SS OWObOS WEZsZt 66, 9T Odd