p.1 

OAR Box 1802 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

23) IV-E-18 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 11/4/200811:57:59 AM Sheet 23 of 117 
P.2 

July 21, 1998 

fr-W-s 7 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: 

To: 

Summary— January 13,1998 Meeting of Environmental and Industry 

Stakeholders with EPA and the Federal Land Managers Regarding the 

Promulgation of New Source Review Reform 

Air Docket A-90-37 

From: Dennis Crumpler, NSR Reform Team Leader, Integrated Implementation group, 

ITPID 

Attached is a list of attendees and agenda, summary of subject meeting; and handouts that 

were distributed to those in attendance. 
P.3 

New Source Review Reform and Transition 

Area Rulemakings Meeting 

Date: January 13,1998; 

Time: 12:15-2:00 p.m. est 

Attendees 

Pat Raher, Hogan & Hartson 

Molly Ross, US DOI 

Donna Lamb, USDA, FS 

Rob Brenner, USEPA, OAR 

Lydia Wegman, USEPA, OAQPS 

Greg Foote, USEPA, OGC 

Dennis Crumpler, USEPA, OAQPS 

Anna Wood, USEPA, OAR, OPAR 

Lea Anderson, USEPA, OGC 

AGENDA 

e> Welcome/Introductions 

Room 917 West Tower 

Waterside Mall 

401 M Street SW 

Washington, DC 20460 

David Hawkins, NRDC 

Tom Curran, OAQPS 

Ann A^ch'/nsc. USJD /r /7S 

7 W J Srety t US & f/r . n/rQPs 

JOUrs J2jU.<\\jg 

CM, SUus/er , DO/ . AJf°T 

ScuJ/n -5;/*/Q . 2)01 FlOX 

A-c& La^s. /ASf)A P^ 

t/X 

TcXef >W' 

\Lyn« /{jr^rKSo* , ZPA.OAQiH 

Tonya 7b-/v/ £,"4,0*6AS 

DcJjeSoeA £PA,OA$PS 

Lydia Wegman 

e> Description of Current strategies for promulgating NSR Reform 

Reform I versus Comprehensive Package 

The WEPCO Actual-to-Future-Actual test 

©> Class I Provisions: Given that Class I will have to be parfoTReform 

What are most important elements for the FLMs? Industry? 

- Where is the common ground? 

©> Brief Descriptioin of new NPS/FWS/FS AQRV initiative .... NPS, AQD 

©> Can EPA subsume NSR for Transition Areas into Reform? 

Tr 
P.4 

MEETING DATE: 

LOCATION: 

SUBJECT: 

ATTENDEES: 

MEETING SUMMARY 

Tuesday, January 13,1998 

Room 917 West Tower 

Waterside Mall 

401 M Street SW 

Washington, D.C. 

New Source Review Reform and Transition 

Area Rulemakings Meeting 

See Attachment 1 

INTRODUCTION 

A New Source Review (NSR) meeting was held on January 13, 1998 between the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and stakeholders participating in the rulemakings. 

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the issues surrounding the NSR Reform and 

Transitional Area rulemaking efforts. Particular issues discussed included: 

• Current strategies for promulgating NSR Reform; 

The WEPCO actual-to-future-actual test; 

• Class I provisions of the NSR Reform package; and 

• NSR provisions for transitional areas under the new National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS). 

A summary of the issues discussed is presented below. 

NSR REFORM STRATEGY 

Current approaches under consideration for promulgating the NSR Reform package are to 

promulgate either part of the initial Reform package or promulgate the comprehensive NSR 

Reform package. Under the first alternative, the NSR Reform package would be promulgated in 

kam\K:\7397\003\003\l-13MTG.SUM 

/ 
P.5 

more than one rulemaking effort. Specific elements of the initial Reform package would be 

promulgated (called Reform I) followed by promulgation of the remaining parts (called 

Reform II). Table 1 and Table 2 list the recommended elements of Reform I and Reform IL 

respectively. Under the second alternative, the NSR Reform package would be promulgated in 

one comprehensive package as originally proposed. 

Reform I versus Comprehensive Package 

The Agency requested industrial and environmental viewpoints regarding the significance 

of the Reform I and Reform II elements. The elements most critical to industry in EPA's 

recommended Reform I package included: 

Plantwide applicability limits (PALs); 

1/10 yr-basis for actual emissions; 

Pollution control projects; 

Ozone depleting substances (ODS); 

Prior shutdown credits; 

Judicial standing; and 

Class I provisions. 

The most critical element to industry is the Class I provisions. PALs are viewed as a 

critical issue and a way to resolve many of the current NSR concerns. Prior shutdown credits are 

also a very important element to industry particularly under the new NAAQS. 

Other Reform I elements were viewed as less critical to industry. 

Important elements in EPA's recommended Reform II package included the potential-topotential test and the actual-to-future-actual test. Provisions for the 1/10 yr-basis for actual 

emissions included as part of Reform I, however, could reduce the importance of these Reform II 

elements. The remaining Reform II elements were not considered critical to NSR Reform. 

2 

kam\K:\7397\003\003\l-i3MTG.SUM *** 
P.6 

Table 1 

Recommended Elements of Reform I 

Element 

PALs 

1/10 yr-basis for Actual 

Emissions 

Pollution Control Projects 

Undemonstrated Technology 

Application Waivers 

Ozone Depleting Substances 

BACT/LAER 

clarifications/RBLC 

Improvements 

1990 Act Amendment 

Implementing Provisions 

Military Exclusions 

Prior Shutdown Credits 

Judicial Standing 

Preconstruction Monitoring 

Class I Provisions 

Notes 

Has broad support, however, implementation details are 

lacking. Significant, but resolvable issues remain. 

Significant stakeholder (States) concerns exist with a 

10-yr look-back. 

Broad support, few issues. 

Noncontroversial. 

Noncontroversial; immediate relief has been requested by 

numerous companies. 

Definition of demonstrated in practice and the applicant's 

liability cut-off for emerging technologies. 

If the existing serious, severe, and extreme areas are likely 

to remain as such under the new designations, this will be 

relatively noncontroversial. 

Noncontroversial. 

Needs close coordination with NAAQS NSR 

development, some stakeholder concerns. 

Still important for SIP processing. 

Might include as guidance in final preamble to indicate 

more flexibility on part of the State. 

Provides balance for Package, numerous public comments 

will require response and possible revisions/additions. 

kam\KA7397\Q03\0O3\l-13MTG.SUM 
P.7 

Table 2 

Recommended Elements of Reform II 

Element 

Clean Unit and Clean Facility 

Potential-to-Potential Test 

Actual-to-Future-Actual Test 

• 

Propose Allowable Pre-permit 

Construction Activities 

Notes 

Will need substantial work to make these palatable to all 

stakeholders. 

EPA deposed to dismiss the settlement agreement per se. 

Hybrids in certain circumstances, i.e., transitional areas, 

might be considered. 

Several options: rescind WEPCO Rule, revise and make 

actual-to-future actual enforceable, hybrid with potentialto-potential. 

Still a highly charged issue with the Regions and States, 

if we go beyond what has already been allowed, e.g. 

climatic limitations. 

kam\KA7397\G03\Q03\l-13MTG.SUM 
P.8 

The most critical elements to the National Resource Defense Council (NRDC) for 

inclusion in EPA's recommended Reform I package included: 

• Judicial standing; and 

• Class I provisions. 

NRDC expressed the greatest concern with the: 

• 1/10 yr-basis for actual emissions; 

• BACT/LAER clarifications/RBLC improvements; and 

• Prior shutdown credits. 

NRDC indicated a safety valve was necessary in the 1/10 yr-basis for actual emissions for 

cases where a particular year is not representative of normal production. In the BACT/LAER 

provisions, NRDC disagreed with the Agency not needing to consider public comments received 

after a cutoff date regardless of the significance of the comments. With regard to prior shutdown 

credits, NRDC objected to dedicating these credits to offset new source emissions rather than 

contributing to air quality improvement. 

All Reform II elements were controversial to NRDC. 

WEPCO ACTUAL-TO-FUTURE-ACTUAL TEST 

The focus of the WEPCO actual-to-future-actual test issue was a general discussion of the 

significance of the actual-to-future-actual test as part of NSR reform. The actual-to-future-actual 

test is a Reform II element and would not be promulgated initially if the Agency only proceeds 

with the Reform I elements. 

kam\fc\7397\Q03\003\l-13MTG.SUM 
P.9 

CLASS I PROVISIONS 

The Class I discussion focused on industry and Federal Land Manager (FLM) concerns 

with the Class I provisions as well as the FLM concerns with industry's expectations of the role 

of the FLM. 

Industry Concerns 

The greatest industry concerns over the Class I provisions included: 

Industry believes FLMs want veto power over permit applications or at least want 

to be able to create substantial delays in the permitting process; 

Air quality related values (AQRVs) need clarification; 

Potential adverse impacts on AQRVs raised by FLMs during the permit process 

need to be defined; 

Industry needs to be able to visualize whether or not a proposed project will have 

an impact; 

There needs to be some de minimis value or cutoff to recognize that not all 

impacts are critical; 

Mitigation is a reasonable way to address impacts; 

EPA approved models must be used to demonstrate impacts on Class I areas; 

Adverse impacts on all AQRVs are not clearly defined; there is a need to define 

how those AQRVs will be addressed; 

Procedures to address emerging issues/newly identified adverse impacts on 

AQRVs are undefined; and 

Extending the FLM notification distance beyond 100 kilometers will become too 

burdensome. 

kam\KA7397\O03\003\l-13MTG.SUM 
P.10 

FLM Concerns 

The greatest FLM concerns over the Class I provisions and industry expectations of the 

role of the FLM included: 

• AQRVs need clarification; FLMs have formed a workgroup to define sensitive 

AQRVs and adverse impacts on AQRVs; 

• FLMs believe industry wants a "criteria document" defining AQRVs; 

• When defining AQRVs, FLMs cannot be held to the same standards as required 

when defining public health standards; 

• Emerging issues/newly identified adverse impacts on AQRVs need to be 

addressed; and 

• There is a need for education about the respective roles of the FLM and the 

permitting authority and about the role of the FLM in historical Class I permit 

actions. 

A FLM workgroup has been established to better define what resources will be addressed 

by FLMs for any permit application and at what level of concern. The FLMs recognized that 

some potential synergy exists between the inclusion of offset pools in the Reform package and 

FLM concerns over impacts on Class I areas. 

TRANSITIONAL AREAS 

EPA requested input from participants as to whether NSR for transitional areas could be 

included in the NSR Reform package or whether it needed to be a separate rulemaking. 

Respondents indicated the best approach would be to include transitional NSR provisions with 

the NSR Reform package. A separate NSR program for transitional areas would be a fragile 

structure. 

kam\K:\7397\Q03\003\l-13MTG.SUM 
P.11 

CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS 

The participants agreed that further discussion of Class I issues and prior shutdown 

credits would benefit EPA as well as stakeholders. Another meeting was scheduled for 

Wednesday, January 21,1998 at 4:00 p.m. eastern standard time. The telephone call-in number 

is (919) 541-4345. 

kanAKA7397\003\003\l-13MTG.SUM 
P.12 

ATTACHMENT 1 

New Source Review Reform and Transition 

Area Rulemakings Meeting Participants 

kam\K:\7397\003\003\l-13MTG.SUM 
P.13 

Attachment 1 

New Source Review Reform and Transition 

Area Rulemakings Meeting Participants 

MEETING DATE: 

LOCATION: 

SUBJECT: 

Tuesday, January 13,1998 

Room 917 West Tower 

Waterside Mall 

401 M Street SW 

Washington, D.C. 

New Source Review Reform and Transition 

Area Rulemakings Meeting 

ATTENDEES LIST: 

Lea Anderson, USEPA, OGC 

Ann Atchinson, USDA, FS 

David Bray, USEPA, OAQPS 

Rob Brenner, USEPA, OAR 

John Bunyak, US DOI 

Dennis Crumpler, USEPA, OAQPS 

Tom Curran, USEPA, OAQPS 

Dan de Roeck, USEPA, OAQPS 

John Devine, USEPA, OGC 

Tonya Fish, USEPA, OAQPS 

Greg Foote, USEPA, OGC 

David Hawkins, NRDC 

Lyn Hutchinson, USEPA, OAQPS 

Pete Lam, USDA, FS 

Donna Lamb, USDA, FS 

Pat Raher, Hogan & Hartson 

Molly Ross, US DOI 

Chris Shaver, US DOI 

Sandra Silva, US DOI 

David Solomon, USEPA, OAQPS 

Lydia Wegman, USEPA, OAQPS 

Anna Wood, USEPA, OAR, OPAR 

kam\K:Y7397\003\003U-l3MTG.SUM 
P.14 

Page 1 

Examples of Changes to Class I Area Procedures to Address Public Comments 

Provide more certainty to AQRV process: 

1. Clarify definition of "AQRV" 

2. Provide procedures for the review of AQRVs. (Provide for scientific peer review and public 

review.) Require FLM to submit "completed" AQRVs to Administrator. 

Provide more certainty as to what constitutes an adverse impact and what information an 

applicant must provide to carry out the adverse impact analysis: 

1. Clarify definition of "Adverse impact on air quality related values" — Impact is considered 

adverse when permitting authority concurs with the FLM findings. Adverse impact should be 

focus on certain types of effects, including (1) diminishment of area's national significance, (2) 

impairment of area's ecosystem, and (3) impairment of quality of the visitor's experience in the 

area. 

2. Provide permitting authority with the authority to determine (in consultation with the FLM) 

what additional information, if any, the applicant must provide to enable the FLM to carry out its 

adverse impact analysis and subsequent demonstration. 

3. Provide permitting authority with the authority to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether, 

and to what extent, to require applicants to address alleged impacts on AQRVs which have not 

yet been formally reviewed. 

Clarify procedures which provide the FLM with 30 days to review an application: 

1. State procedure applies to applications within 100 km and applications posted on the bulletin 

board when requested within 7 days of posting. 

2. Indicate that comments are to be submitted within the 30-day period (or permitting authority 

may establish a schedule for the timely submittal of such comments). 

Add language to authorize the permitting authority to shorten the minimum time (60 days) 

allowed for the FLM to carry out the adverse impact analysis with the consent of the FLM. 

Add procedures to cover the permit process when the permitting authority determines that the 

proposed source's emissions will cause or contribute to an increment violation. [Add statutory 

procedures which were never included in the regulations.] 

Add provision to Mitigation of adverse impacts: 

Mitigative measures are not limited geographically to the State in which the proposed source 

would locate. 

"prop_rev.001":l/ll/98 
P.15 

Table 1. Recommended Elements of Reform I 

Element 

PALs: 

1/10yr-basis for Actual 

Emissions 

Pollution Control Projects 

Undemonstrated Technology 

Application Waivers: 

Ozone depleting 

substances: 

BACT/LAER 

clarifications/RBLC 

Improvements 

1990 Act Amendment 

Implementing Provisions 

Military Exclusions: 

Prior Shutdown Credits 

Judicial Standing 

Preconstruction Monitoring 

Class I Provisions 

Notes 

Has broad support, however, 

implementation details are lacking. 

Significant, but resolvable issues remain 

Significant stakeholder (States) concerns 

exist with a 10-yr look-back. 

Broad support, few issues 

noncontroversial 

Noncontroversial; immediate relief has been 

requested by numerous companies 

Definition of demonstrated in practice and 

the applicant's liability cut-off for emerging 

technologies. 

If the existing serious, severe and extreme 

areas are likely to remain as such under the 

new designations, this will be relatively 

noncontroversial 

Noncontroversial 

Needs close coordination with NAAQS NSR 

development, some stakeholder concerns 

Still important for SIP processing 

Might include as guidance in final preamble 

to indicate more flexibility on part of the 

State. 

Provides balance for Package, numerous 

public comments will require response and 

possible revisions/additions 

3 
P.16 

Table 2. Recommended Elements of Reform II 

Element 

Clean Unit and 

Clean Facility 

Potential-toPotential test 

Actual-to-futureActual test 

Propose Allowable 

Prepermit 

construction 

activities 

Notes 

Will need substantial work to make these palattable to 

all stakeholders 

EPA diposed to dismiss the settlement agreement per 

se. Hybrids in certain circumstances, i.e., Transitional 

areas, might be considered 

Several options : recind WEPCO Rule, revise and 

make actual-to-future actual enforceable, hybrid with 

potential-to-potential ? 

Still a highly charged issue with the Regions and 

States, if we go beyond what has already been 

allowed, e.g. climatic limitations