P. 1 

# OAR Box 1802 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# 42 ) IV-E-3 7 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 11/4/200811:57:59 AM

Sheet 42 of 117P. 2 90-3 7 

# -c- 

# 33 MEETIN G SUMMAR Y EPATCOMPLE X MANUFACTURER S GROUP " MEETIN G

NE W SOURC E REVIEW REFOR M

August 18, 1999 •.,«•>• - f C EP/\A:"C"CKE T Th e meetin g wa s hel d a t

th e office s o f

EPA , N.C . Mutua l Building , 411~W7ChlipeTHill— " Street , Durham , Nort h Carolina . Th e meetin g bega n at approximatel y 1:0

0 p man d close d a t 3:1 0 pm . Attache d i s alis t o f attendees . . Joh n Seit z opene d th e meetin g b y welcomin g th e participants . H e aske d i f th e industr y grou p ha d receive d th e recen t EP A lette r

containin g th e question s raise d b y EP A o n th e group' s proposa l fo r

NS Rreform . Th e industry representative s replied tha t the y ha d receive d it . Mr . Seit z als o indicate d tha t EP A ha d recentl y me t

wit h th e "PA L group. " H e als o indicate d tha t Bo b Pereiasep e wa s please d wit h th e idea s presente d b y th e severa l industr y group s an d wante d mor e meeting s wit h th e group s t o discus s thei r proposals . Mr . Seit z als o mentione d tha t Mr . Pereiasep e ma y hav e ameetin g collectivel y wit h al l th e group s at som e poin t

i n time . Mr . Seit z informe d th e participant s tha t th e minute s o f

thi s meetin g wil l b e docketed . H e suggeste d tha t

th e meetin g b e use d t o discus s som e ofth e importan t question s raise d b y EP A i n thei r letter . Lesli e Ritt s sai d tha t

th e industry grou p was delighte d t o receiv e EPA' s questions . Sh e sai d tha t th e question s wer e goo d an d th e grou p welcome d them . Ms . Ritt s gav e abrie f backgroun d o n th e proposal , an d identifie d som e ofth e question s tha t th e grou p woul d lik e t o discus s at th e meeting . Sh e sai d tha t th e grou p wil l als o respon d t o th e question s i n writin g i n th e near future . Mr . Seit z sai d tha t som e ofth e question s wer e commo n t o othe r group s wh o hav e submitte d NS Rreformproposal s t o EPA . Mr . Seit z als o aske d i f th e grou p ha d talke d t o th e State s recently , an d requeste d tha t th e grou p kee p EP A informe d ofth e States ' responses . Ms . Ritt s replie d tha t

th e grou p ha d onl y talke d wit h individua l State s bu t not wit h STAPPA/ALAPCO , an d sai d tha t Christin e Shave r

wa s als o awar e o f

thei r proposal . Ms . Ritt s explaine d tha t

thei r proposa l wa s th e bas e progra man d di d not compet e wit h th e othe r proposals , suc h a s th e PA L Grou p an d th e Utilit y Grou p proposals . Chuc k Knaus s explaine d tha t

thi s grou p was abroa d bas e grou p dealin g wit h th e applicabilit y o f NSR . Mr . Knaus s furthe r

explaine d tha t

ther e wer e thre e module s i n plac e at th e stakeholders ' meetin g hel d i n Washingto n D C o n February 2-3,1999 , i.e. , th e PA L Group , th e Utilit y Group , an d th e Genera l Manufacturin g proposals , an d tha t th e proposa l submitte d b y th e Genera l Manufacturin g Grou p (th e grou p meetin g wit h EP A today ) was th e baselin e proposal . H e als o explaine d tha t i n thi s proposa l th e grou p ha d attempte d t o addres s th e concern s raise d b y EPA , State s an d Davi d Hawkin s tha t

the y wan t

t o loo k a t emissio n unit s themselve s an d not th e upstrea mo r

downstrea m processe s becaus e the y d o not wan t unit s t o ne t

ou t o f controls . Th e proposa l build s o n th e Stat e contro l programs . Mr . Knaus s sai d tha t th e cornerston e o f

thei r proposa l wa s t o rationaliz e th e applicatio n o f

contro l technology , an d tha t the y ha d include d th e emission s base d applicabilit y tes t becaus e o f

it s certainty . H e though t tha t th e proposa l provide d fo r broader applicatio n o fP. 3

controls . He als o said tha

t th e grou p wa s willin g to discus s adjustment s in th e proposa l base d o n EPA' s questions . Regardin g th e questio n abou t numbe r of unit s i n each siz e categor

y (greate r tha n 10 0 tpy , between significanc e level an d 10 0 tpy , an d les s tha n significanc e levels) , Ms . Ritt s sai d th e grou p di d no t hav e muc h data , although som

e industrie s withi n th e grou p (e.g. , refineries ) ma

y hav e suc h information . Fo r example , on

e facilit y ha d one 10 0 tp y uni t tha t nette d out . Other s ma y hav e a s man

y a s fiv e suc h unit s tha t did not g o throug h PS D permitting . A n industr y representativ e sai d tha

t ther e wer e approximately 15 0 refineries , an d tha t coul d result

in alarg e numbe r o f unit s nettin g out . Ms . Ritt s said tha t generally ther

e wer e alo t of bi g unit s tha

t were nettin g out . Similarly , fo

r th e nex t siz e categor

y (40-10 0 tpy level) , afacilit y coul d hav e anywher e fro m1 to 1 3 unit s pe

r yea r tha t coul d net out . Whe n asked abou

t average , a

n industr y representativ e sai d tha

t th e averag e numbe

r of unit s woul d b e 1 to 3 (per yea r per facility???) . Whe n aske d b y Davi d Solomon i f th e grou p knew ho w man

y tota l numbe r o f unit s there wer

e i n each category , Ms . Ritt s replie d tha t they di d not

hav e exac t

data . Mr . Seit

z sai d tha t EPA' s concer n wa s about

th e numbe

r o f unit s tha t woul d avoi d Federa

l BAC T by stayin g belo w th e 10 0 tp y leve l becaus e Stat

e BA T wa s not defined . Mr . Solomon said tha t i t woul d help EP

A i f th e industr y coul d provide atabl e showing th e numbe r of unit s i n eac h ofth e thre e categorie s a

t a typica l facility . Ms . Ritt s replie d tha t becaus e i t wa s har d to defin e on e typica l facility , th e group will provid e datafo

r thre e typica

l facilities . Mr . Knaus s said tha t they will provide writte n response s an

d aske d whe

n th e EP A would lik

e to receiv e th e responses . Mr . Seit z replie d tha

t becaus e o f

a n upcomin g meetin g wit

h Mr . Pereiasepe , EP

A woul d lik

e to receiv e th e response s withi n th e next

2 to 3 weeks . Ms . Ritt s aske d if

th e EP A ha d receive d response s regardin g th e non-applicabilit y determinatio n request . Mr . Seit z replie d tha

t they ha d receive d response s fro

m9 out ofth e 1 0 regions , but

tha t EP A wa s no t incline d t o makin g adecisio n simply base d on thos e responses . He als o sai d tha

t i t wa s Davi d Hawkins ' positio n tha t th e control s shoul d b e Federa l BACT-leve l controls . Bil l Lewi s said tha t Stat e program s wer

e needed , an

d though t tha t th e Stat e o f Iow a ha d indicate d in thei r

lette r tha t State s wer

e no t goin g throug h th e BAC T proces s becaus e th e source s wer

e nettin g out . Mr . Seit

z explaine d tha

t th e Iow alette

r wa s base d o n th e transitional rul e fo r NS Rand tha

t th e lette r ha d suggeste d bein g carefu

l if EP A wa s goin g towar

d aPS D progra mbecaus e of

difference s in BAC T between States . Mr . Lewi s commente d tha t ther e wil l alway s b e som

e inconsistencies , to which Mr . Seit z replie d tha

t th e EP A wa s concerne d wit

h th e magnitude o f

inconsistencies . Mr . Seitz als o sai d tha

t EP A could agre e wit

h th e grou p on th e definitio n o f

Stat e BAT , but questione d th e enforceabilit y EP A ha d wit h respec t t o Stat e BAT . H e als o questione d about th e applicability , i.e. , whe

n doe s on e rel y o n Stat e BAT . Wit

h respec t to EPA' s enforceability , Mr . Lewi s commente d tha

t although EP

A ma y no t vet o Stat e decisions , they (EPA ) usuall y communicate d wit

h th e State s regardin g contro l technolog y decisions . Mr . Seit z replie d tha

t EP A staf f usuall y ha

d competin g responsibilities , an d tha t EP A neede d to look

a t thei r ow n managemen

t structure . 

# 2P. 4

Bil l Petersen said tha

t the industr

y grou p wanted t o eliminat e netting , and tha

t thei r proposa l include s controlling emission s a t significantl

y smalle r emissio n levels . Mr . Knaus s sai d tha t th e grou p i s proposin g t

o install Federa

l BACT fo r th e large r units , an d fo r smalle r unit s they ar e proposin g t o utiliz e th e flexibilit y built int o th e Stat e BA T program s which allo w speed y determinations , fo

r example , b

y allowing us e of

off-the-shel

f presumptiv e controls . Mr . Seit z asked wha t th e definitio n of

tha t Stat e BA T would be , an

d ho w EP A coul d enforc e it . Ms . Ritt s replie d tha t th e industr

y grou p ha d predicate d th e progra

mon som e minimumleve l o f

contro l somewha t simila r t o th e Stat e program s i

n Californi ao

r New Jersey . Sh

e als o sai d tha

t th e grou p envisione d tha

t th e NS Rrulemaking would lis t minimu melement s fo

r each progra

man d th e requirement s fo

r implementatio n an

d managemen

t of thes e elements . Ms . Ritt s indicate d tha t th e industr y grou p supporte d th e State s in thei r stand tha t EP A should no t

veto Stat e decisions . She suggeste d tha

t th e RACT/BACT/LAE

RClearinghous e (RBLC ) could b e update d an d consulte d fo r Stat e programs . Sh

e als o though

t tha t thi s i s wha

t STAPP A wanted . Whe

n Mr . Solomo n expresse d EPA' s concer

n abou t having to requir

e consultatio n of

RBL C fo r Stat e programs , Ms . Ritt s responde d by saying tha t th e ide awa s to ensur

e tha t all ne w source s woul d ge

t goo d controls , which ma

y no t b e a s stringen

t a s LAER , bu

t would mee

t som e minimumrequirements . Sh e realize d tha

t thi s ma y b e aburde

n on som e state s i n th e beginning , but

woul d ensur

e goo d control s on al l new units . Mr . Knaus s said tha

t the y ha d reviewed th e inadequacie s in Stat e minor NS Rprogram s wit h respec t to wha t would b e considere d a

n acceptabl e level of

control . He sai d tha

t thi s proposa l provide d alevel o f

assurance . He conveyed th e group' s willingnes s to tal k about th e proposal , but

als o conveyed reluctanc e toward s replacin g Stat e BA T wit h Federa l BAC T in thei r proposal . Whe n asked b y Mr . Solomon a s t

o ho w th e minimu

mrequirement s coul d b e set , Ms . Ritt s replie d tha

t i t could b e don

e i n awa y simila r t o ho w State s di d it

fo r RACT . Mr . Seit

z said tha t th e Stat e contro l program s hav e t o b e real , an d approved b

y th e State s and Davi d Hawkins , an

d asked ho w th e progra

mwoul d work . Barbar

aBankof f mentione d th e tw o way s tha t wer e discusse d a

t th e EP A meeting wit

h th e PA L Grou p on Augus t

11 , 1999 , i.e. , b y either defining minimu

melement s in th e rule , o

r by includin g th e contro l requirement s i n th e permi t an d makin g it

subject t o publi c comment . Whe

n asked by Joh

n Medle y a s to ho w eithe

r o f thes e tw o option s woul d wor

k togethe r wit h th e curren

t program , Mr . Knaus s replie d tha t th e new progra mwoul d b e areplacemen

t program , an

d no t a n alternativ e program . Mr . Solomo n aske d wh y aStat e tha t ha s a n establishe d progra

mwoul d wan

t to switch to anothe

r program , and explaine d tha

t th e EP A could no t

mandat e tha t th e State s stop implementin g a n approve d progra man d replac e i t wit h arevise d program . Whe

n asked by Ms . Ritt s if

Mr . Solomo n wa s suggestin g tha

t EP A did not hav e jurisdictio n ove

r th e States , Mr . Seit

z replie d tha

t thi s wa s a politica l an d alega l issu e tha t EP A wa s in th e proces s o f

reviewing . He explaine d tha t som e State s argue d tha

t their program s wer

e mor e stringen t tha n th e Federa

l program , and tha

t an y minimumelement s tha

t ar e establishe d b

y EP A woul d potentiall y no t

cove r a s man y source s a s their curren t progra mdoes . Mr . Knaus s asked i f Mr . Seit z wa s suggestin g tha

t th e propose d progra mb e a n alternativ e program , instea d o f bein g areplacement . Mr . Seit z replie d tha

t th e EP A ha d no t discusse d it

wit h th e States , but

it wa s importan

t fo r thes e State s t o protec t

thei rP. 5

curren t programs . Therefore , he explained , tha t EP A wa s tryin g t

o determin e i f

there wa s agoo d wa y t o defin e th e propose d program . Wit h respec t to EPA' s objection to Stat e mino r NS Rdecisions , Ms . Ritt s sai d tha t EP A shoul d no t b e abl e to vet

o a t th e time o f Titl e V permitting . Sh

e said tha t EP A shoul d either sanctio n th e progra

mi n th e beginnin g whe

n i t i s established , o

r participate a s publi c durin g th e commen t perio d associate d wit

h th e permittin g of

asourc e an

d rais e an y objection s a

t tha t time . Mr . Seit z onc e again asked th e industr y grou p fo r aclarificatio n o n th e numbe r o f unit s i n each emission s siz e category . A n industr y representativ e sai d tha

t th e tw o large

r categorie s (>10 0 tp y an

d significant-10 0 tpy ) accounted fo r mos t ofth e emissions , but

th e smalles t

siz e categor y accounte d fo

r th e mos t numbe r of units . Mr . Knaus s said tha t th e industr

y group wil l tr y to ge t mor e data , an d asked if ther e wa s an y databas e tha

t EP A could provid e fo

r thi s purpose . Mr . Seit z asked Caro l Holme s if

th e complianc e databas e containe d an y helpful informatio n such a s th e siz e of

units . Ms . Holme s replie d tha t sh e did not kno w an d tha t sh e wil l check . Mr . Sewel l suggeste d to th e industr

y grou p to als o loo

k a t annua l emission s inventories . Tamm y Wyle s suggeste d lookin g a t th e Titl e V permit

applications . Mr . Seit z assure d th e participant s tha t Mr . Pereiasep e wil l loo

k a t th e response s provide d by th e industr

y group . H

e als o sai d tha

t ther e ha d bee n suggestion s mad

e recentl y t o keep thes e discussion s continuin g fo

r anothe r six months , but

insiste d tha

t ther e wa s anee d t o expedite thes e discussions . Mr . Seit z then lef t th e meetin g t

o attend to anothe

r prio r commitment . Mr . Sewel l commented that , unde

r thi s proposal , unit s tha

t ar e greate r tha n significanc e level coul d tak

e som e level o f contro l t o ge t belo w th e significanc e leve l and avoi d goo d controls . Ms . Ritt s replie d tha t eve n if tha t wer e t o happen th e uni t

woul d a t leas t b e controlled , which ma y no t b e th e cas e i f

th e unit nette d out altogether . Mr . Solomon sai d tha t nettin g als o ha d it s benefits , e.g. , installatio n o f SCRto avoi d NSR . Ms . Ritt s said tha

t she did no t

understan d th e questio n abou t ho w t o prevent

backslidin g fo r State s tha t ha d mor e stringen t minor sourc e program s tha

n th e propose d program . Denni s Crumple

r explaine d tha

t EPA' s concer

n wa s tha t mandatin g minimumelement s woul d result in scalin g down of

som e rigorou s Stat

e programs . Ms . Ritt s sai d tha t th e industr

y group di d no t kno w a s to ho w man

y State s ha

d goo d mino

r NS Rprograms , and offered to collaborate wit h EP A to obtai n thi s information . Mr . Solomon said tha t th e State s wit

h non-attainment

area s ar e likely t o hav e bette

r programs . Mr . Nicke l suggeste d tha t it woul d help t o look

a t bot h th e State s tha t hav e goo d program s a s well th e State s tha t di d not . Nor

mMorro w aske d i f

EP A wa s mor e concerne d about

non-attainmen

t areas . Mr . Solomon replie d tha t althoug h non-attainment area s ar e o f greate r concer n in general , EP

A i s intereste d in ensurin g tha t th e progra

machieve s it s goal s in bot

h th e attainmen

t an d th e non-attainmen

t areas . Mr . Knaus s said tha

t nettin g raise s th e issu e of

burde n of proof . The proposa

l eliminate s nettin g an d "bring s in " controls , which wil l result i n environmenta

l benefit . Mr . Solomo n agree d tha t nettin g in genera

l presente d administrativ e challenges , but he als o sai d tha

t th e benefit

t o th e environmen

t depende d on th e alternative . For example , i f

al l new unit s regardles s of siz e wer e to 

# 4P. 6

b e controlle d then th e alternativ e woul d b e good , but i f onl y the majo r unit s wer e controlle d an d mino r unit s wer e not , then it

wa s no t clea r whethe r th e environmen

t woul d benefit . Mr . Solomon als o said tha

t aggregatio n o

f emission s wa s important . For example , if

five ne w 1 0 tp y unit s wer

e installe d a s par

t ofth e sam

e project , then unde

r th e current

rule , each of thes e unit s would g o throug h NS Ran d BACT , whil e unde

r th e proposal , thes e unit s coul d b e installe d without

controls . Bil l Petersen said tha t i t wa s not alway s clea

r a s t o whe n aggregatio n wa s needed unde

r th e curren t rule . Jef f Muffa t said tha t i n EPA' s assessmen

t everythin g wa s on e project . He furthe

r said tha t th e variou s division s i

n hi s compan

y wer e ver y differen t fro meac h othe r an d man y project s wer

e therefor e independent . However , i t wa s th e opinio n o f

EP A Regio n V tha

t thes e project s wer

e all par t ofth e sam

e project . Mr . Morro w sai d tha t th e industr

y grou p wil l furthe

r discus s thi s concern . Ther e wa s abrie f

discussio n abou

t th e stringency of

Stat e minor NS Rprograms . Ms . Ritt s said tha

t i n Ne w Jersey , Californi aan d Texas , control s wer

e require d eve

n fo r unit s tha t nette d out , but

ther e wer e othe r State s tha t did not hav e suc h arequirement . Wit

h respec t to Stat e BA T programs , Mr . Sewell sai d tha t som e State s ha d forma l BAT determinatio n process , whil e som e State s ha d proces s weigh

t table s which ma

y no t b e a s stringent . Mr . Solomon asked i f

fiv e ne w 9 9 tpy unit s installe d a

t agreenfiel d sourc e woul d avoi d review unde

r th e proposal . Ms . Ritt s replie d tha t th e proposa

l did no t chang e th e rule s fo

r th e greenfield source s (???) . Wit h respec t to modification s of

existin g units , Mr . Solomon asked i f each existin g unit

woul d get a3 9 tpy "freebie " a

t modification . Mr . Solomon als o aske d whethe r th e proposa

l allowed aggregatio n of

emission s acros s unit s in th e cas e wher e tw o existin g unit s wer e being modified suc

h tha t if eac h unit ha d a3 9 tpy increase , the n th e combine d increas e woul d exceed 4 0 tp y thereb y requirin g controls . Mr . Solomon aske d wha

t th e "achievabl e emissio n rate " mentione d i n th e proposa l meant . Mr . Knaus s explaine d tha t th e achievabl e emissio n rat e wa s buil t

o n th e NSP S hourly emission s tes t

an d wa s calculate d by annualizin g th e maximu machievabl e hourly emissio n rate by th e annua

l hour s of operation . Th

e applicabilit

y tes t woul d b e performe d b y comparin g th e achievabl e emissio n rate s befor e an d afte r th e modification . Mr . Solomo n aske d whethe r NS R woul d b e triggere d in th e cas e tha t NSP S i s triggere d base d on thi s test . Mr . Nicke l replie d tha t NS Rwould no t

necessarily b e triggere d in suc h acase . Mr . Sewel

l asked tha

t i f anatura l ga s boiler , tha t wa s permitte d t o bur

n oi l a s abacku

p fuel , wa s bein g modified , the n whic h hourl y emissio n rat

e fo r S0 2 (ga s o

r oil ) woul d b e used in thi s test . Mr . Nicke l replie d tha t th e tes t woul d b e base d o n "gas-before-to-gas-after " an d "oil-before-to-oil-after " comparisons . Mr . Solomon asked whethe r aunit woul d actuall

y hav e to achiev e it s nameplat e rating , an

d by when , in orde

r to us e thi s test . Mr . Knaus s indicate d that , although onl y a n ide aa t thi s time , th e industr y grou p wa s considerin g a5-yea

r proposal , i.e. , th e unit

wil l hav e t o achiev e it s nameplat e ratin g withi n 5 year s of

installation . Mr . Nicke l added tha t th e sourc e woul d hav e to sho w wha t th e maximu

machievabl e emissio n rat

e coul d hav e been i n orde

r t o us e thi s test . Mr . Solomo n aske d i f

th e proposa

l fo r ne w unit s als o applie d t o replacemen t units , e.g. , a turbin e replacin g aboile

r an d vice-versa , o

r a n identica l boile r replacin g aboiler , etc .P. 7

Mr . Solomon als o asked tha t i f th e emission s ofth e replacemen t unit wer e slightl y highe

r tha n the existin g unit , woul d i

t then b e considere d ane

w unit . H e als o aske d that , whe

n undergoin g replacement , wha

t woul d actually b e considere d the emission s unit . Mr . Knaus s replie d tha t th e industr y grou p will discus s thi s questio n abou t whe n areplacemen

t uni t wil l b e considere d ane w unit . Wit

h respec t t o reconstruction , Ms . Ritt s said tha t STAPP A ha d aske d th e industr

y grou p whethe r th e PTE-to-PT

E tes t wa s importan

t enoug h fo r th e grou p to remov e reconstructio n fro m th e proposal , an

d tha t reconstructio n could presen t a n accountin g challenge . Sh e inquire d about EPA' s thinkin g on reconstruction . Mr . Solomon said tha t it would help EP

A i f th e grou p coul d explai n whe

n areconstructe d uni t

woul d b e considere d anew unit . Mr . Solomon asked ho w th e existin g source s woul d b e controlle d unde r th e propose d achievable-to-achievabl e emission s test , which wa s on e ofth e concern s raised by Davi d Hawkins . Mr . Knaus s replie d tha t reconstruction , a s proposed , woul d serve a s abackstop , an d not a s ademarcatio n between ne w an d replacemen

t unit s a s interprete d by Mr . Solomon . Ther e wer e som e brie f discussion s abou

t th e following :

• Routin e replacemen t

• Pollutio n prevention

- Mr . Knaus s indicate d tha t installatio n o f

low-NO x burner s coul d increas e CO above significanc e levels , whic h ma y no t b e pollutio n prevention .

• Batch processes - Mr . Solomon indicate d tha t batc h processe s wer

e aconcern , fo

r example , i n case s wher

e severa l product s wer

e involved .

• Clas s I areas - Mr . Sewel l asked if th e proposa

l addresse d Clas s I areas . Mr . Knaus s replie d tha

t it di d not . Ms . Bankof

f asked about

th e glidepat

h approach . Bil l Harnet

t replie d tha

t Mr . Pereiasep e wa s considerin g asector-base d approach du e t o complexitie s withi n differen t industries . H e provide d a n exampl e tha

t PAL s coul d b e based on all source s withi n afacility , o r acros s severa

l facilities , but

explaine d tha

t it would requir

e are-proposa

l becaus e th e curren

t proposa l di d no t contai n suc h aconcept . Mr . Nicke l said tha t their proposa l include d al l industries . Mr . Harnet t said that , i n hi s opinion , EP

A coul d no t

mandat e suc h aconcept . H e als o sai d tha t if th e participatio n wa s les s tha

n 10 0 percent , then th e concep t woul d "fal l apart. " Ms . Ritt s aske d when th e EP A would lik

e to receiv e th e industr

y group' s response s to EPA' s questions . Sh

e als o aske d whethe

r abrie f conferenc e call t o discus s th e response s woul d b e useful . Mr . Crumple

r sai d tha t th e conferenc e call woul d b e helpful , an d aske d whe

n th e industr y group coul d b e read

y fo r th e call . Ms . Ritt s said tha t sh e wil l call Mr . Crumple

r to schedul e adat

e fo r th e conferenc e call . The meetin g wa s the n adjourned . 

# L>P. 8 ATTENDEE S EPATCOMPLEX MANUFACTURER S GROUP " MEETING NE W SOURC

E REVIE W REFOR

M August 18, 1999

Nam e Bil l Lewi s Joh n Deg e Norma n Morro w Chuc k Knaus s Lesli e Ritt s Henry Nicke l Bil l Burkhar t Maxin e Dewbur y Tamm y Wyle s Barbar aBankof

f Joh n Medle y Hug h Dicke y Jef f Muffa t Bil l Peterse n Juli e Becke r Katharin e Fredrikse n To mWiggleswort h Joh n Seit z Bil l Harnet t Denni s Crumple r Davi d Solomo n Mik e Sewel l Da n DeRoec k Davi d Svendsgaar d Ann aMari e Woo d Caro l Holme s (b y phone ) Gre g Foot e (b y phone ) Jo n Devin e (b y phone ) Le aAnderso n (b y phone ) Do n Toensin g (b y phone ) Mala y Jinda l Valeri e Everett e Affiliatio n Morga n Lewi s (CAIP ) DuPon t (CMA ) Exxo n Chemica l (CMA ) Swidle r Berli n Hoga n & Hartso n Hunto n & William s Procte r & Gambl e Procte r & Gambl e Georgi aPacifi c (AF&PA ) fo r El i Lill y Mobi l (API ) Chevro n (API/CCEEB ) 3 M Sha w Pittma n Allianc e o f

Automobil e Mfr s Koc h Industrie s Nat' l Petrochemica l & Refiner s Assoc . EPA/OAQP S EPA/OAQP S EPA/OAQP S EPA/OAQP S EPA/OAQP S EPA/OAQP S EPA/OAQP S EPA/OA R EPA/OEC A EPA/OG C EPA/OG C EPA/OG C EPA/Regio n VI I PE S (EP A Contractor ) PE S (EP A Contractor ) Telephon e No . (202)467-714 5 (302)773-090 0 (281)870-611 2 (202 ) 424-764 4 (202 ) 637-657 3 (202)955-156 1 (513)634-636 6 (513)634-482 7 (404 ) 652-728 1 (202)434-481 0 (703 ) 849-619 3 (415)894-655 3 (651 ) 778-445 0 (202 ) 663-885 2 (202)326-551 1 (202 ) 737-197 7 (202 ) 457-048 0 (919)541-561 6 (919)541-497 9 (919)541-087 1 (919)541-537 5 (919 ) 541-087 3 (919)541-559 3 (919)541-238 0 (202 ) 260-877 2 (202 ) 564-870 9 (202 ) 260-762 0 (202 ) 260-698 4 (202 ) 260-834 7 (913)551-744 6 (919)941-033 3 (919 ) 941-033 3 

# 1P.9 ^

ly-i * &

* K J . . . . 7 3 

### '• * 

### # ! 

### S ^ i " i r v j - c » ^ . . . 7 J V O f * M ^ _ f O "fc " 

# & t r

r " I •• * -i o 5 w 

# = 2 * J > r g a 1 * * £ ± T P » t s ^ V

7

_ - ._ . —.. . - £ o . 0 yH -£ • —Of t . ! 

# 5 ^ l ^ r. \ : .T \ U l 

## r c $ ^ 

## « £ >