P.1 

OAR Box 1802 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

65) IV-E-59 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 11/4/200811:57:59 AM Sheet 65 of 117 
P.2 

MEETING SUMMARY 

EPA MEETING WITH ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPJS 

NSR SECTOR-BASED APPROACH 

April 04, 2000 

The meeting was held via a telephone conference. The meeting began at approximately 

9:00 am and closed at approximately 11:20 am. Attached is a list of attendees. Also attached are 

the meeting agenda and handout. 

Karen Blanchard opened the meeting by welcoming everyone. She gave a brief overview 

ofthe sector-based approach and solicited comments from the environmental groups. She then 

introduced Kathy Kaufman to present the details. 

INTRODUCTION 

Ms. Kaufman presented the concept ofthe sector-based approach (first page ofthe 

meeting handout titled "New Source Review Sector-Based Approach"). She explained that the 

sector-based approach is being designed as a voluntary program for utilities and would be the 

same or better than NSR while "catching" the existing coal-fired units. She further explained 

that under this approach, the new units will go through NSR and BACT/LAER analysis, and the 

existing units will be subject to BACT/LAER depending upon the potential-to-potential test. 

The existing units must also, in aggregate, meet a certain target emission level resulting in 

emission reductions over time. This program will cover NOx, S02, CO and PM-10. Also, only 

the coal-fired units would be covered. 

A question was raised by an environmental group representative as to what the incentive 

is for a source to join in. Ms. Kaufman replied that the incentive would be that the source would 

avoid permitting and have certainty. The source could make any changes without triggering 

NSR as long as there is only an increase in actual emissions but no increase in potential 

emissions and as long as specific, lower and lower target levels are met over time. It also helps 

companies in investment planning. 

David Hawkins asked if the facility took an enforceable cap at current baseline, i.e., 

actuals cap, would it not achieve the same certainty as this approach, i.e., they could still make 

any modifications under the cap. He explained that under the base program, sources could 

choose actuals cap and operate with less constraint and less expense than this approach. 

Mr. Hawkins agreed with the requirement to reduce emissions, but did not understand why a 

source would choose this sector-based approach over PALs. Anna Wood said that Joel Bluestein 

had indicated that utilities will likely not utilize PALs. Carol Holmes indicated that the utilities 

had not expressed any comments thus far on the sector-based approach. Greg Foote agreed with 

Mr. Hawkins, i.e., why would a source choose this approach which requires NSR and BACT on 

new sources when under an actuals cap the source would not trigger NSR as long as the cap is 

not exceeded. Ms. Kaufman said that EPA did not have any specific examples of who would 

I 
P.3 

utilize this approach. Mr. Hawkins suggested to evaluate who could benefit from this approach 

and what that benefit is. 

Catherine Morris said that she was under the impression that this approach will replace 

PALs, and asked if it could be configured such that utilities are not offered PALs. Ms. Kaufman 

said that it was not intended to replace PALs, but indicated that utilities had shown lack of 

interest for PALs. Mr. Hawkins commented that a likely reason for PALs to be less attractive to 

utilities is that their units have "huge chunks" of emissions and therefore they have less ability to 

"mix and match." 

NOx and S02 LEVELS 

Ms. Kaufman presented target ranges that EPA was considering for NOx and S02, i.e., 

0.1-0.15 lb/MMBtu for NOx and 0.25-0.60 Ib/MMBtu for S02. She indicated that the levels 

would have to be met on a company-wide average basis by the end ofthe program. 

Mr. Hawkins asked for clarification on whether these levels would be converted to annual 

tonnage caps ans at what operating rate. Ms. Kaufman replied that they will be converted to 

tonnage caps using the first year of program as the operating rate. Mr. Hawkins asked for further 

clarification on whether it would be calculated by multiplying the operating hours or utilization 

for year 2000 (if entering in year 2001) times the lb/MMBtu rate. Ms. Kaufman concurred. 

Ms. Holmes said that it would be a floating average, i.e., at the end ofeach year the source will 

use its Btu burnt and the target level for that year. Any excess or deficit could be sold or bought. 

Mr. Hawkins asked that if this is a floating activity level, will there be a cap on actual capacity. 

Ms. Kaufman replied that EPA has not thought about that. 

Regarding S02 level, Mr. Hawkins asked what was 0.60 lb/MMBtu based on. 

Ms. Kaufman replied that 0.25 lb/MMBtu was based on BACT level and the 0.60 lb/MMBtu was 

half of the acid rain level. When asked by David Wooley whether scrubbers can do much better 

than these levels, Ms. Kaufman replied yes but explained that the levels would have to be met 

based on an average across the company. Mr. Hawkins said that 0.60 lb/MMBtu was too lenient, 

and that a more reasonable company-wide average is needed because there are companies whose 

average is already below 0.60 lb/MMBtu. Furthermore, 0.60 lb/MMBtu cannot be justified to 

meet BACT/LAER which is the goal of NSR. Mr. Wooley and Michael Fiorentino agreed. 

Mr. Denne argued that if the level is tied to BACT, no one will opt in. Mr. Hawkins agreed that 

it would be a disincentive, but the threshold question needs to be resolved. 

UARG's PROPOSAL 

There was a brief discussion on the UARG's proposal. Mr. Hawkins thought that it was a 

good idea to set dates and targets for the utilities, but preferred the dates and targets being 

considered by EPA because they are more environmentally beneficial. He asked if EPA had the 

2-
P.4 

authority to adopt such a regulation. He suggested that EPA should ask what tiie utilities think 

about EPA's authority to adopt their (UARG's) approach. 

Ms. Blanchard asked if anyone was interested in receiving a copy ofthe UARG proposal. 

Mr. Wooley and Ms. Wood replied yes. 

OUTPUT-BASED TARGETS 

Ms. Kaufinan asked if the levels should be input- or output-based, and if output-based, 

how they should be measured. Mr. Hawkins said that the current data collection system 

supported an input-based targets. For output-based targets, there currently are no reporting 

requirements, but in future there could be, such as MWH production etc. He preferred an outputbased system. 

Ms. Morris thought that the industry would prefer an output-based system, but 

acknowledged that such a system would require the industry to report their output information. 

She was surprised when Ms. Blanchard indicated that utilities comments were that the output 

information could not be readily submitted. Mr. Hawkins said that it could be because of 

confidentiality reasons. 

TIMEFRAME 

Ms. Kaufinan said that EPA was considering a 10-year length ofthe program and that the 

program would begin "right away." Mr. Hawkins said that NRDC was currently supporting a 

legislation to require industry-wide caps by the year 2005. A tighter date would be a disincentive 

to opt in. When asked by Ms. Kaufman, Mr. Hawkins replied that the target levels for that cap 

were in the order of 0.15 lb/MMBtu for NOx and 0.30 lb/MMBtu for S02. When asked by 

Ms. Kaufman if those targets were achievable by 2005, Mr. Hawkins replied that 0.15 lb/MMBtu 

was achievable for NOx in 22 states during summer by 2003, and that it could be extended to all 

states by 2005. 

Ms. Kaufinan asked if a shorter timeframe than 10 years was reasonable and whether 

there should be intermediate targets. Mr. Hawkins advocated intermediate targets, and also 

supported annual reduction, such as a rolling 2-year average, rather than a step reduction. For a 

shorter period, say 5 years, step reduction would not be a problem, but for 10 years a step 

reduction would prevent the environment to see a benefit until the end of that intermediate 

period. Ms. Morris definitely supported intermediate targets under a 10-year timeframe, but 

would also likely support it under a 5-year program. 

Ms. Morris asked if over the 5- or 10-year timeframe any new regulations would 

supercede this program. Ms. Blanchard replied that any new regulations miist be met, i.e., 

whatever is most stringent would apply. 
P.5 

Mr. Denne commented that this program could result in cheaper electricity. 

UNITS COVERED 

Ms. Kaufman said that EPA was considering limiting this approach to coal-fired units. 

She said that industry wanted to include oil and gas units as well. A compelling argument was 

that cleaner units would be penalized by not allowing them to opt in. She asked how the 

program goals would be met while allowing oil and gas units to be covered. 

Mr. Hawkins commented that allowing oil and gas units would create a windfall of credit 

producers, and that separate target levels would be needed for such units, i.e., separate 

BACT/LAER levels. Melissa McCullough said that another alternative was to give each 

company a separate target level based upon their units, i.e., a target for each fuel would be used 

to calculate the company-wide average target depending upon the percentage of coal, oil and gas 

units the company had at the start ofthe program. 

Mr. Hawkins asked how the selling of units would affect the program. Ms. Kaufman said 

that EPA was still evaluating that. Ms. Holmes said that a facility would still have to participate 

in the program even if it is sold to another company that may or may not be in the program. The 

new owner would not have to bring in its other facilities, but would have to keep this facility in 

the program. Ms. Wood said that another idea was that a unit should be allowed to be sold if it 

had BACT/LAER, or maintain it in the program at the level at which it left and compensate for it 

with the other units remaining in the program. 

Ms. Kaufman sought comments on when different owners are represented at the same 

facility. Mr. Hawkins asked how a company that opts in all of its units, would opt in a unit in 

which it only had 30% ownership, saying that this needs to be discussed. In an output-based 

system, i.e., lb/MWH, there could be an allocation for the company, but under tonnage-based 

system it would be hard to determine. When asked by Ms. Wood why the two were different for 

allocation, he said that he was not sure, but that it may be due to the leakage concern. 

Ms. Blanchard asked the participants to provide their written comments within two 

weeks. 

OPTING IN INDIVIDUAL UNITS 

Mr. Hawkins asked if a company could opt in plant-by-plant indicating that companies 

would like that flexibility. Ms. Kaufinan replied that it was an open issue and EPA was seeking 

comment on it. Ms. Wood said that utilities wanted unit-by-unit opt in. Mr. Hawkins said that 

"cherry-picking" would be problem because it would allow strategic participation to allow 

shifting emissions from one unit to another. Ms. Wood asked if there was a possibility that a 

company would have to opt in a "bad" unit if a "good" one was opted in. Mr. Hawkins replied 

that it would be complicated, but there is a need to evaluate options to address this potential 

H 
P.6 

problem without giving up environmental integrity. An EPA representative said that there were 

also concerns about how to define a company for purposes of this program. Ms. Morris said that 

if the target levels are less stringent than BACT, then the whole company should be required to 

opt in. Ms. Kaufinan said that currently the approach is designed for company-wide opt in. 

Ms. Kaufinan said that EPA's current thinking was to not allow individual units to opt in. 

Ms. Morris initially agreed that there would be no way to work a system if individual units were 

allowed to opt in. But she also inquired as to whether a unit could be allowed to opt in but would 

have to surrender all their allowances, i.e., it would not be allowed to trade. She explained that 

the benefit for the unit would be that somewhat less than BACT level control could be installed 

to meet the target (assuming that the target is less than BACT). Mr. Hawkins said that it would 

become complicated if there were lots of options. He said that the program needs some basic 

principles, and acknowledged that it cannot solve everyone's problems. The EPA should not 

attempt to solve the problem of individual units opting in. Simplicity "trumps" flexibility. 

TRADING 

Tim Denne asked if the company would be allowed to trade outside the company for acid 

rain. Mr. Hawkins asked what would be the net environmental benefit if the difference between 

the target level under this approach and the acid rain program could be sold to another company 

that has not opted in. Ms. Blanchard agreed that there needs to be a safeguard against that 

occurring. There was a brief discussion on whether the emission reductions would be surpluses 

for netting as they are for offsets. 

When indicated by Ms. Kaufinan that the program as currently designed did not have 

tonnage limits, Mr. Hawkins asked how the targets would be measured and what would a source 

bank. Ms. Kaufinan replied that EPA was still considering whether banking would be allowed, 

but trading etc. would be done on an annual basis by multiplying the activity level by the target 

level. 

Ms. Kaufman asked if it would be reasonable to allow trading with a company not in the 

program. Mr. Hawkins said that regardless of whether trading is with the same or different 

owner, it must take into account local air quality issues, e.g., increments, FLM provisions etc. 

He would like to see those safeguards when trading from plant to plant. Ms. Kaufinan pointed 

out that under this program potential increases are not allowed, but actual emission increases 

would require modeling. She said that the industry had complained about this provision and 

asked for comments from the participants. Mr. Hawkins asked would the modifications and 

significant emission increases not be "caught" under base NSR, and said that the same should 

apply under this program, i.e., significant emission increases should not be allowed without an 

air quality review. Ms. Kaufman said that EPA was trying to determine how many sources 

would be "caught" under base NSR versus this program. She agreed that even though a lot of 

new sources have never modeled and base NSR would not "catch" some of these sources, this 

program needs to have local air quality safeguards. 
P.7 

Ms. Kaufman asked if trading or averaging is allowed for PM-10, how compliance would 

be ensured. When asked by Mr. Hawkins whether PM-10 was being singled out because of local 

air quality concerns, Ms. Kaufinan replied yes. Mr. Hawkins said that local air quality was also a 

concern for NOx and S02. He said that there may be more scenarios for PM-10, but emission 

increases for any pollutant raise air quality concerns. He asked if EPA was talking about having 

a mechanism for establishing regulations for PM-10, such as the SIP call for NOx. Ms. Morris 

asked if trading could be disallowed for PM-10 and CO. Ms. Kaufman replied that it was still an 

option being considered. 

SHUTDOWNS and FUEL SWITCHES 

Ms. Kaufman asked whether there should be any credit for shutdowns. EPA is currently 

thinking of assigning the target rate, and not zero, as the level to the shutdown unit. 

Mr. Hawkins said that a shutdown unit is always replaced somewhere else in the utility sector 

whether in the same company or elsewhere. Therefore, allowing credit for shutdowns would 

shift emissions to another place and result in leakage. There is a precedent for it in the acid rain 

program. He supported the assignment ofthe company-wide average to the shutdown unit. 

Ms. Morris asked if EPA was thinking about providing incentives to allow more 

shutdowns or whether it was a fairness issue. Ms. Kaufman said that EPA was not thinking of 

incentives. Ms. Morris asked if a replacement would be handled differently from a straight 

shutdown. Ms. Kaufman was not sure. Ms. Blanchard asked for suggestions. Ms. Morris said 

that she needed to think about it more, but would like to see incentives to shutdown more and 

more units. She did not support allowing the source to trade emissions from shutdowns. 

Ms. Kaufinan asked whether fuel switches from coal to gas to be treated the same as 

shutdown, and whether the credit should be down to the gas level or the target level. 

Mr. Hawkins said that if the program applied uniformly to the entire utility sector, then there 

would be no problem in allowing credit down to the gas level. He said that allowing more credit 

to fuel switching than controls is ok since fuel switching also reduces other pollutants while 

controls only reduce one pollutant. Lynn Hutchinson indicated that a concern with allowing full 

credit to the gas level isthat it would be a disincentive to promote good control technology. 

SUPERIOR ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE 

Ms. Kaufman asked how to define superior environmental performance, and whether 

specific projects can be allowed to participate. She said that it may provide additional certainty, 

but that meeting with the States for a case-by-case determination may be a "killer" because ofthe 

bureaucracy issue. Ms. Blanchard indicated that Bob Pereiasepe wanted a superior 

environmental performance project to be defined. 

Ms. Morris suggested to integrate it into the target levels. She also talked about how to 

design a C02 cap. Ms. Blanchard reminded everyone to keep in mind the Kyoto and the 
P.8 

Nolenberg Amendments, i.e., not to violate them. Mr. Hawkins pointed to the Rio Treaty -

reduce CO to 1990 levels - and that it did not touch on either the Kyoto Protocol or the 

Nolenberg Amendment. Ms. Blanchard acknowledged Mr. Hawkins comment. 

Ms. Morris asked what types of projects EPA was considering. She said that the idea is 

to have a carbon cap. A voluntary cap would encourage retiring plants or replace with gas 

without putting on controls. 

END OF PROGRAM 

Ms. Kaufman asked what would happen at the end ofthe program, i.e., at year 5 or 10. 

Mr. Hawkins replied that an increase in emission rate should not be allowed at the end. He 

favored a reiteration ofthe process, i.e., evaluate if targets can be improved. He realized that the 

company would have the option of not opting in again, in which case EPA needed to consider 

other options. 

Mr. Paul suggested that a unit that meets the backup number could get the clean unit 

exemption at the end. Mr. O'Sullivan said the he would prefer a new target level at the end, i.e., 

a number that is achievable at that time. Therefore, if a unit that just signs up at the end of the 10 

years, then they must meet the new level, but those that are already in the program should be ok 

for the next 10 years. Mr. Paul agreed that BACT should be re-analyzed at the end ofthe 

program. He also said that they support the "30-year concept," and anything that supports that 

concept would be preferable. 

Mr. Hawkins asked if EPA was planning to prepare a package soon for review by the 

EPA Assistant Administrators (AA). Ms. Blanchard replied that EPA was planning to meet with 

STAPPA/ALAPCO later in the week and then hold more discussions internally. The goal was to 

prepare a package for AA review within a few weeks and to hold a meeting with Mr. Pereiasepe. 

Mr. Hawkins suggested that it would be helpful to provide Mr. Pereiasepe with an accompanying 

document that explains the complexities and how a cap could resolve issues. 

Mr. Hawkins appreciated EPA's efforts. Ms. Blanchard thanked everyone for attending 

the meeting and reminded everyone to provide comments to Ms. Kaufinan within 2 weeks. 

The meeting was then adjourned. 

> 
P.9 

ATTENDEES 

EPA MEETING WITH ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS 

NSR SECTOR-BASED APPROACH 

April 4, 2000 

Name 

Joe Gossman 

Tim Denne 

Michael Fiorentino 

David Hawkins 

Catherine Morris 

Larry Shapiro 

David Wooley 

Don Toensing 

Karen Blanchard 

Greg Foote 

Carol Holmes 

Lynn Hutchinson 

Kathy Kaufinan 

Melissa McCullough 

Pam Smith 

Anna Marie Wood 

Malay Jindal 

Valerie Everette 

Affiliation 

Environmental Defense Fund 

Center for Clean Air Policy 

Clean Air Council 

NRDC 

Center for Clean Air Policy 

Environmental Enforcement Project 

Clean Air Task Force 

EPA Region VII 

EPA/OAQPS 

EPA/OGC 

EPA/OECA 

EPA/OAQPS 

EPA/OAQPS 

EPA/OAQPS 

EPA/OAQPS 

EPA/OPAR 

PES (EPA Contractor) 

PES (EPA Contractor) 

% 
P.10 

NEW SOURCE REVIEW SECTOR-BASED APPROACH 

DISCUSSION WITH PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS 

APRIL 4,2000 

AGENDA 

(Please note: times given for each discussion element are approximate.) 

9:00 - 9:10 Introductions and purpose of meeting 

9:10 -10:00 Basic program elements and rationale for program goal 

What should be the basis for emission rate targets for NOx, S02, and 

PM 10? e.g. (a) bring all sources to BACT/LAER levels? or 

(b) achieve emission reductions equivalent to what NSR/PSD would have 

achieved? How can these levels be estimated? 

Either way, what are the BACT/LAER levels that should be used? Should 

they be input or output based? If output based, how would this be 

measured? 

Emission levels or caps could be reduced annually over the program, or at 

set intervals (e.g. every few years). What are the advantages/ 

disadvantages of each method? 

10:00-10:15 Units covered. 

If the program also covered existing oil- or gas-fired units, how could the 

emission rate targets be set up to accommodate those units? 

What are the pros and cons of allowing individual facilities to opt in? 

10:15 -10:45 Averaging or trading? 

How would allowing trading affect the structure ofthe program, timing, 

and emission limits? What would be the effect of allowing site to site 

trading, trading across companies, or trading with facilities who opt in? 

If averaging or trading is allowed for PM10, how should compliance be 

determined and demonstrated? 

10:45 -11:15 Restrictions on averaging or trading 

How can a system be set up to accommodate different geographic 

distributions of emissions, and to protect existing trading programs? 
P.11 

If a source increases emissions more than they have previously modeled, 

would it have to ensure that there are no adverse effects on Class I areas, 

or localized adverse ambient impacts? 

How can the system accommodate shutdown units? 

How could facilities which switch to gas be used to meet the caps? 

If a company increased its actual emissions in a nonattainment area, must 

it still obtain offsets? 

11:15 -11:40 Superior environmental performance 

How do we incorporate the goal of performance superior to the base 

program? 

Require a superior environmental performance project to be proposed on a 

case-by-case basis? or 

Require a specific type of project? If a project could involve non-criteria 

pollutants, what would be the legal rationale? 

11:40 -11:50 What happens at the end ofthe program? 

Revert to base NSR program, or 

Reset a new declining cap or new emission levels for another xx years, or 

Put off the decision until we assess, sometime later, how Well the program 

is working. 

11:50 -12:00 Wrap-up 

/ 0 
P.12 

FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 

DOES NOT REPRESENT EPA POLICY OR POSITION 

NEW SOURCE REVIEW SECTOR-BASED APPROACH 

Goal: To develop an approach that would have an end result of ensuring that existing power 

plants are well controlled, while providing maximum flexibility and certainty under NSR for 

existing units. This voluntary off ramp to the NSR program would achieve environmental results 

that are superior to the existing program. 

The Big Picture: 

The program: 

Overall requirements: 

A voluntary program for the utility industry, based on declining average 

emission rates for existing coal-fired units. 

Who is covered: 

Which pollutants: 

New facilities or units, must apply BACT or LAER, and meet other 

normal NSR requirements when they construct. 

All modifications to existing units that trigger a potential to potential 

emissions test must apply BACT or LAER. 

All existing units covered under this approach would be free to make any 

and all physical or operational changes without triggering a PSD or NSR 

review if their potential emissions do not increase. 

However, existing units must, in the aggregate, achieve emission 

reductions equivalent to specific target levels by the program end date. 

There would also be some intermediate target or targets. 

Any utility company with coal-fired units, on an opt-in basis. 

NOx, S02, CO, and PMIO 

W 
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 

DOES NOT REPRESENT EPA POLICY OR POSITION 

Rationale for program goal 

What would be reasonable targets for NOx and S02? 

The basis for emission rate targets for NOx, and S02 is to bring all sources to 

levels of performance greater than current levels, e.g., average of around 0.1 to 

0.15 lbs/MMBtu NOx and 0.25 to 0.6 lbs/MMBtu S02.1 

What would be a reasonable target for PMIO? 

For PMIO, our target could be a systemwide average in the range of around 0.03 

lbs/MMBtu, which is the NSPS level, to 0.015 lbs/MMBtu, which represents 

some BACT determinations that have been made. 

What would be a reasonable target for CO? 

We believe good combustion practices represents best control for CO, and would 

be a reasonable target. 

Are output-based targets realistic? How would they be measured? 

We are currently investigating developing output-based targets, but we have not 

developed an understanding of how they would be measured. 

What would be a reasonable time frame in which to expect all units, as a systemwide 

average, to achieve these emission rates? 

Our preliminary thoughts are that perhaps 10 years may be a reasonable 

expectation as a time-frame in which to achieve these emission rates systemwide. 

Should there be intermediate targets over the life ofthe program? 

We believe there should be one or two intermediate targets. What would be a 

reasonable basis for determining what those targets should be? 

coal. 

1

 Note that S02 levels in the West perhaps should be lower based on use of low sulfur 
P.14 

FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 

DOES NOT REPRESENT EPA POLICY OR POSITION 

Units covered 

Working assumption: all coal-fired units at a company would be covered. 

If the program also covered existing oil- or gas-fired units, how could the emission rate 

targets be set up to accommodate those units while still achieving the overall program 

goal of superior environmental results? 

Likewise, if companies could opt-in individual facilities, how could the emission rate 

targets be set up to accommodate those units as well, and at the same time preserve 

overall reductions across the industry? 

Our current thinking is not to allow companies to opt-in individual units, because 

it would be difficult to allow this and at the same time achieve the overall 

program goal. 

Averaging or trading? 

How would allowing sources to trade affect the structure ofthe program, timing, and 

emission limits? What would be the effect of allowing: 

- site to site trading 

- trading across companies 

- trading with facilities which opt in 

Our current thinking is to allow trading across sites and across participating companies, 

but not to allow companies to opt-in individual units (as indicated above). 

If averaging or trading is allowed for PMIO, how could compliance be determined and 

demonstrated? 

Restrictions on averaging or trading 

How can a system be set up to accommodate different geographic distributions of 

emissions? 

e.g. We need to protect existing trading programs (OTR/Regional NOx Strategy, 

Grand Canyon Visibility Commission program under development). 

If a source increases emissions more than they have previously modeled, we 

believe it would be appropriate to take steps to protect against adverse effects in 

Class I areas and/or localized adverse ambient impacts. 

13 
P.15 

FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 

DOES NOT REPRESENT EPA POLICY OR POSITION 

Likewise, if a company increased its actual emissions in a nonattainment area, we 

believe it must still obtain offsets. 

How can the system accommodate shutdown units or facilities which switch to gas ? 

We believe that units which shutdown or switch to gas during the life ofthe 

program could be counted. What specific emission rate could be assigned to 

them? We could assign each unit an emission rate equivalent to the program 

goal. 

What happens when a participating company sells a facility to a non-participating 

company? 

We believe that the emission rate the facility has been carrying under the program 

should accompany the facility as part ofthe sale. The selling company would 

then recalculate its cap. 

Superior environmental performance 

Given our plan to make this voluntary offramp to the NSR program something that would 

achieve superior environmental results, how should we incorporate the goal of 

performance superior to the base program? 

Require a superior environmental performance project to be proposed on a caseby-case basis? or 

Require a specific type of project? If a project could involve non-criteria 

pollutants, how could this be accepted legally? 

What happens at the end of the program? 

Revert to the base NSR program (with availability of clean unit exclusion), or 

Reset a new declining cap or new emission levels for another 10 years based on 

what is achieveable at that time, or 

Delay the decision until we assess, sometime later, how well the program is 

working. 

N