P.1 

OAR Box 1802 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

42) IV-E-37 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 11/4/200811:57:59 AM Sheet 42 of 117 
P.2 

90-37 

-c- 33 

MEETING SUMMARY 

EPATCOMPLEX MANUFACTURERS GROUP" MEETING 

NEW SOURCE REVIEW REFORM 

August 18, 1999 

•.,«•>•- f C 

EP/\A:"C"CKET 

The meeting was held at the offices of EPA, N.C. Mutual Building, 411~W7ChlipeTHill—" 

Street, Durham, North Carolina. The meeting began at approximately 1:00 pm and closed at 

3:10 pm. Attached is a list of attendees. . 

John Seitz opened the meeting by welcoming the participants. He asked if the industry 

group had received the recent EPA letter containing the questions raised by EPA on the group's 

proposal for NSR reform. The industry representatives replied that they had received it. 

Mr. Seitz also indicated that EPA had recently met with the "PAL group." He also indicated that 

Bob Pereiasepe was pleased with the ideas presented by the several industry groups and wanted 

more meetings with the groups to discuss their proposals. Mr. Seitz also mentioned that 

Mr. Pereiasepe may have a meeting collectively with all the groups at some point in time. 

Mr. Seitz informed the participants that the minutes of this meeting will be docketed. He 

suggested that the meeting be used to discuss some ofthe important questions raised by EPA in 

their letter. 

Leslie Ritts said that the industry group was delighted to receive EPA's questions. She 

said that the questions were good and the group welcomed them. Ms. Ritts gave a brief 

background on the proposal, and identified some ofthe questions that the group would like to 

discuss at the meeting. She said that the group will also respond to the questions in writing in the 

near future. Mr. Seitz said that some ofthe questions were common to other groups who have 

submitted NSR reform proposals to EPA. Mr. Seitz also asked if the group had talked to the 

States recently, and requested that the group keep EPA informed ofthe States' responses. 

Ms. Ritts replied that the group had only talked with individual States but not with 

STAPPA/ALAPCO, and said that Christine Shaver was also aware of their proposal. 

Ms. Ritts explained that their proposal was the base program and did not compete with 

the other proposals, such as the PAL Group and the Utility Group proposals. Chuck Knauss 

explained that this group was a broad base group dealing with the applicability of NSR. 

Mr. Knauss further explained that there were three modules in place at the stakeholders' meeting 

held in Washington DC on February 2-3,1999, i.e., the PAL Group, the Utility Group, and the 

General Manufacturing proposals, and that the proposal submitted by the General Manufacturing 

Group (the group meeting with EPA today) was the baseline proposal. He also explained that in 

this proposal the group had attempted to address the concerns raised by EPA, States and David 

Hawkins that they want to look at emission units themselves and not the upstream or downstream 

processes because they do not want units to net out of controls. The proposal builds on the State 

control programs. Mr. Knauss said that the cornerstone of their proposal was to rationalize the 

application of control technology, and that they had included the emissions based applicability 

test because of its certainty. He thought that the proposal provided for broader application of 
P.3 

controls. He also said that the group was willing to discuss adjustments in the proposal based on 

EPA's questions. 

Regarding the question about number of units in each size category (greater than 100 tpy, 

between significance level and 100 tpy, and less than significance levels), Ms. Ritts said the 

group did not have much data, although some industries within the group (e.g., refineries) may 

have such information. For example, one facility had one 100 tpy unit that netted out. Others 

may have as many as five such units that did not go through PSD permitting. An industry 

representative said that there were approximately 150 refineries, and that could result in a large 

number of units netting out. Ms. Ritts said that generally there were a lot of big units that were 

netting out. Similarly, for the next size category (40-100 tpy level), a facility could have 

anywhere from 1 to 13 units per year that could net out. When asked about average, an industry 

representative said that the average number of units would be 1 to 3 (per year per facility???). 

When asked by David Solomon if the group knew how many total number of units there were in 

each category, Ms. Ritts replied that they did not have exact data. Mr. Seitz said that EPA's 

concern was about the number of units that would avoid Federal BACT by staying below the 

100 tpy level because State BAT was not defined. Mr. Solomon said that it would help EPA if 

the industry could provide a table showing the number of units in each ofthe three categories at a 

typical facility. Ms. Ritts replied that because it was hard to define one typical facility, the group 

will provide data for three typical facilities. Mr. Knauss said that they will provide written 

responses and asked when the EPA would like to receive the responses. Mr. Seitz replied that 

because of an upcoming meeting with Mr. Pereiasepe, EPA would like to receive the responses 

within the next 2 to 3 weeks. 

Ms. Ritts asked if the EPA had received responses regarding the non-applicability 

determination request. Mr. Seitz replied that they had received responses from 9 out ofthe 10 

regions, but that EPA was not inclined to making a decision simply based on those responses. 

He also said that it was David Hawkins' position that the controls should be Federal BACT-level 

controls. Bill Lewis said that State programs were needed, and thought that the State of Iowa 

had indicated in their letter that States were not going through the BACT process because the 

sources were netting out. Mr. Seitz explained that the Iowa letter was based on the transitional 

rule for NSR and that the letter had suggested being careful if EPA was going toward a PSD 

program because of differences in BACT between States. Mr. Lewis commented that there will 

always be some inconsistencies, to which Mr. Seitz replied that the EPA was concerned with the 

magnitude of inconsistencies. 

Mr. Seitz also said that EPA could agree with the group on the definition of State BAT, 

but questioned the enforceability EPA had with respect to State BAT. He also questioned about 

the applicability, i.e., when does one rely on State BAT. With respect to EPA's enforceability, 

Mr. Lewis commented that although EPA may not veto State decisions, they (EPA) usually 

communicated with the States regarding control technology decisions. Mr. Seitz replied that 

EPA staff usually had competing responsibilities, and that EPA needed to look at their own 

management structure. 

2 
P.4 

Bill Petersen said that the industry group wanted to eliminate netting, and that their 

proposal includes controlling emissions at significantly smaller emission levels. Mr. Knauss said 

that the group is proposing to install Federal BACT for the larger units, and for smaller units they 

are proposing to utilize the flexibility built into the State BAT programs which allow speedy 

determinations, for example, by allowing use of off-the-shelf presumptive controls. Mr. Seitz 

asked what the definition of that State BAT would be, and how EPA could enforce it. Ms. Ritts 

replied that the industry group had predicated the program on some minimum level of control 

somewhat similar to the State programs in California or New Jersey. She also said that the group 

envisioned that the NSR rulemaking would list minimum elements for each program and the 

requirements for implementation and management of these elements. Ms. Ritts indicated that the 

industry group supported the States in their stand that EPA should not veto State decisions. She 

suggested that the RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC) could be updated and consulted 

for State programs. She also thought that this is what STAPPA wanted. When Mr. Solomon 

expressed EPA's concern about having to require consultation of RBLC for State programs, 

Ms. Ritts responded by saying that the idea was to ensure that all new sources would get good 

controls, which may not be as stringent as LAER, but would meet some minimum requirements. 

She realized that this may be a burden on some states in the beginning, but would ensure good 

controls on all new units. 

Mr. Knauss said that they had reviewed the inadequacies in State minor NSR programs 

with respect to what would be considered an acceptable level of control. He said that this 

proposal provided a level of assurance. He conveyed the group's willingness to talk about the 

proposal, but also conveyed reluctance towards replacing State BAT with Federal BACT in their 

proposal. 

When asked by Mr. Solomon as to how the minimum requirements could be set, 

Ms. Ritts replied that it could be done in a way similar to how States did it for RACT. Mr. Seitz 

said that the State control programs have to be real, and approved by the States and David 

Hawkins, and asked how the program would work. Barbara Bankoff mentioned the two ways 

that were discussed at the EPA meeting with the PAL Group on August 11, 1999, i.e., by either 

defining minimum elements in the rule, or by including the control requirements in the permit 

and making it subject to public comment. When asked by John Medley as to how either of these 

two options would work together with the current program, Mr. Knauss replied that the new 

program would be a replacement program, and not an alternative program. Mr. Solomon asked 

why a State that has an established program would want to switch to another program, and 

explained that the EPA could not mandate that the States stop implementing an approved 

program and replace it with a revised program. When asked by Ms. Ritts if Mr. Solomon was 

suggesting that EPA did not have jurisdiction over the States, Mr. Seitz replied that this was a 

political and a legal issue that EPA was in the process of reviewing. He explained that some 

States argued that their programs were more stringent than the Federal program, and that any 

minimum elements that are established by EPA would potentially not cover as many sources as 

their current program does. Mr. Knauss asked if Mr. Seitz was suggesting that the proposed 

program be an alternative program, instead of being a replacement. Mr. Seitz replied that the 

EPA had not discussed it with the States, but it was important for these States to protect their 
P.5 

current programs. Therefore, he explained, that EPA was trying to determine if there was a good 

way to define the proposed program. 

With respect to EPA's objection to State minor NSR decisions, Ms. Ritts said that EPA 

should not be able to veto at the time of Title V permitting. She said that EPA should either 

sanction the program in the beginning when it is established, or participate as public during the 

comment period associated with the permitting of a source and raise any objections at that time. 

Mr. Seitz once again asked the industry group for a clarification on the number of units in 

each emissions size category. An industry representative said that the two larger categories 

(>100 tpy and significant-100 tpy) accounted for most ofthe emissions, but the smallest size 

category accounted for the most number of units. Mr. Knauss said that the industry group will 

try to get more data, and asked if there was any database that EPA could provide for this purpose. 

Mr. Seitz asked Carol Holmes if the compliance database contained any helpful information such 

as the size of units. Ms. Holmes replied that she did not know and that she will check. 

Mr. Sewell suggested to the industry group to also look at annual emissions inventories. 

Tammy Wyles suggested looking at the Title V permit applications. 

Mr. Seitz assured the participants that Mr. Pereiasepe will look at the responses provided 

by the industry group. He also said that there had been suggestions made recently to keep these 

discussions continuing for another six months, but insisted that there was a need to expedite 

these discussions. Mr. Seitz then left the meeting to attend to another prior commitment. 

Mr. Sewell commented that, under this proposal, units that are greater than significance 

level could take some level of control to get below the significance level and avoid good 

controls. Ms. Ritts replied that even if that were to happen the unit would at least be controlled, 

which may not be the case if the unit netted out altogether. Mr. Solomon said that netting also 

had its benefits, e.g., installation of SCR to avoid NSR. 

Ms. Ritts said that she did not understand the question about how to prevent backsliding 

for States that had more stringent minor source programs than the proposed program. 

Dennis Crumpler explained that EPA's concern was that mandating minimum elements would 

result in scaling down of some rigorous State programs. Ms. Ritts said that the industry group 

did not know as to how many States had good minor NSR programs, and offered to collaborate 

with EPA to obtain this information. Mr. Solomon said that the States with non-attainment areas 

are likely to have better programs. Mr. Nickel suggested that it would help to look at both the 

States that have good programs as well the States that did not. Norm Morrow asked if EPA was 

more concerned about non-attainment areas. Mr. Solomon replied that although non-attainment 

areas are of greater concern in general, EPA is interested in ensuring that the program achieves 

its goals in both the attainment and the non-attainment areas. 

Mr. Knauss said that netting raises the issue of burden of proof. The proposal eliminates 

netting and "brings in" controls, which will result in environmental benefit. Mr. Solomon agreed 

that netting in general presented administrative challenges, but he also said that the benefit to the 

environment depended on the alternative. For example, if all new units regardless of size were to 

4 
P.6 

be controlled then the alternative would be good, but if only the major units were controlled and 

minor units were not, then it was not clear whether the environment would benefit. 

Mr. Solomon also said that aggregation of emissions was important. For example, if five 

new 10 tpy units were installed as part ofthe same project, then under the current rule, each of 

these units would go through NSR and BACT, while under the proposal, these units could be 

installed without controls. Bill Petersen said that it was not always clear as to when aggregation 

was needed under the current rule. Jeff Muffat said that in EPA's assessment everything was one 

project. He further said that the various divisions in his company were very different from each 

other and many projects were therefore independent. However, it was the opinion of EPA 

Region V that these projects were all part ofthe same project. Mr. Morrow said that the industry 

group will further discuss this concern. 

There was a brief discussion about the stringency of State minor NSR programs. 

Ms. Ritts said that in New Jersey, California and Texas, controls were required even for units 

that netted out, but there were other States that did not have such a requirement. With respect to 

State BAT programs, Mr. Sewell said that some States had formal BAT determination process, 

while some States had process weight tables which may not be as stringent. 

Mr. Solomon asked if five new 99 tpy units installed at a greenfield source would avoid 

review under the proposal. Ms. Ritts replied that the proposal did not change the rules for the 

greenfield sources (???). With respect to modifications of existing units, Mr. Solomon asked if 

each existing unit would get a 39 tpy "freebie" at modification. Mr. Solomon also asked whether 

the proposal allowed aggregation of emissions across units in the case where two existing units 

were being modified such that if each unit had a 39 tpy increase, then the combined increase 

would exceed 40 tpy thereby requiring controls. 

Mr. Solomon asked what the "achievable emission rate" mentioned in the proposal 

meant. Mr. Knauss explained that the achievable emission rate was built on the NSPS hourly 

emissions test and was calculated by annualizing the maximum achievable hourly emission rate 

by the annual hours of operation. The applicability test would be performed by comparing the 

achievable emission rates before and after the modification. Mr. Solomon asked whether NSR 

would be triggered in the case that NSPS is triggered based on this test. Mr. Nickel replied that 

NSR would not necessarily be triggered in such a case. Mr. Sewell asked that if a natural gas 

boiler, that was permitted to burn oil as a backup fuel, was being modified, then which hourly 

emission rate for S02 (gas or oil) would be used in this test. Mr. Nickel replied that the test 

would be based on "gas-before-to-gas-after" and "oil-before-to-oil-after" comparisons. 

Mr. Solomon asked whether a unit would actually have to achieve its nameplate rating, and by 

when, in order to use this test. Mr. Knauss indicated that, although only an idea at this time, the 

industry group was considering a 5-year proposal, i.e., the unit will have to achieve its nameplate 

rating within 5 years of installation. Mr. Nickel added that the source would have to show what 

the maximum achievable emission rate could have been in order to use this test. 

Mr. Solomon asked if the proposal for new units also applied to replacement units, e.g., a 

turbine replacing a boiler and vice-versa, or an identical boiler replacing a boiler, etc. 
P.7 

Mr. Solomon also asked that if the emissions ofthe replacement unit were slightly higher than 

the existing unit, would it then be considered a new unit. He also asked that, when undergoing 

replacement, what would actually be considered the emissions unit. Mr. Knauss replied that the 

industry group will discuss this question about when a replacement unit will be considered a new 

unit. 

With respect to reconstruction, Ms. Ritts said that STAPPA had asked the industry group 

whether the PTE-to-PTE test was important enough for the group to remove reconstruction from 

the proposal, and that reconstruction could present an accounting challenge. She inquired about 

EPA's thinking on reconstruction. Mr. Solomon said that it would help EPA if the group could 

explain when a reconstructed unit would be considered a new unit. Mr. Solomon asked how the 

existing sources would be controlled under the proposed achievable-to-achievable emissions test, 

which was one ofthe concerns raised by David Hawkins. Mr. Knauss replied that 

reconstruction, as proposed, would serve as a backstop, and not as a demarcation between new 

and replacement units as interpreted by Mr. Solomon. 

There were some brief discussions about the following: 

• Routine replacement 

• Pollution prevention- Mr. Knauss indicated that installation of low-NOx burners could 

increase CO above significance levels, which may not be pollution 

prevention. 

• Batch processes- Mr. Solomon indicated that batch processes were a concern, for 

example, in cases where several products were involved. 

• Class I areas- Mr. Sewell asked if the proposal addressed Class I areas. 

Mr. Knauss replied that it did not. 

Ms. Bankoff asked about the glidepath approach. Bill Harnett replied that Mr. Pereiasepe 

was considering a sector-based approach due to complexities within different industries. He 

provided an example that PALs could be based on all sources within a facility, or across several 

facilities, but explained that it would require a re-proposal because the current proposal did not 

contain such a concept. Mr. Nickel said that their proposal included all industries. Mr. Harnett 

said that, in his opinion, EPA could not mandate such a concept. He also said that if the 

participation was less than 100 percent, then the concept would "fall apart." 

Ms. Ritts asked when the EPA would like to receive the industry group's responses to 

EPA's questions. She also asked whether a brief conference call to discuss the responses would 

be useful. Mr. Crumpler said that the conference call would be helpful, and asked when the 

industry group could be ready for the call. Ms. Ritts said that she will call Mr. Crumpler to 

schedule a date for the conference call. 

The meeting was then adjourned. 

L> 
P.8 

ATTENDEES 

EPATCOMPLEX MANUFACTURERS GROUP" MEETING 

NEW SOURCE REVIEW REFORM 

August 18, 1999 

Name 

Bill Lewis 

John Dege 

Norman Morrow 

Chuck Knauss 

Leslie Ritts 

Henry Nickel 

Bill Burkhart 

Maxine Dewbury 

Tammy Wyles 

Barbara Bankoff 

John Medley 

Hugh Dickey 

Jeff Muffat 

Bill Petersen 

Julie Becker 

Katharine Fredriksen 

Tom Wigglesworth 

John Seitz 

Bill Harnett 

Dennis Crumpler 

David Solomon 

Mike Sewell 

Dan DeRoeck 

David Svendsgaard 

Anna Marie Wood 

Carol Holmes (by phone) 

Greg Foote (by phone) 

Jon Devine (by phone) 

Lea Anderson (by phone) 

Don Toensing (by phone) 

Malay Jindal 

Valerie Everette 

Affiliation 

Morgan Lewis (CAIP) 

DuPont (CMA) 

Exxon Chemical (CMA) 

Swidler Berlin 

Hogan & Hartson 

Hunton & Williams 

Procter & Gamble 

Procter & Gamble 

Georgia Pacific (AF&PA) 

for Eli Lilly 

Mobil (API) 

Chevron (API/CCEEB) 

3M 

Shaw Pittman 

Alliance of Automobile Mfrs 

Koch Industries 

Nat'l Petrochemical & Refiners Assoc. 

EPA/OAQPS 

EPA/OAQPS 

EPA/OAQPS 

EPA/OAQPS 

EPA/OAQPS 

EPA/OAQPS 

EPA/OAQPS 

EPA/OAR 

EPA/OECA 

EPA/OGC 

EPA/OGC 

EPA/OGC 

EPA/Region VII 

PES (EPA Contractor) 

PES (EPA Contractor) 

Telephone No. 

(202)467-7145 

(302)773-0900 

(281)870-6112 

(202) 424-7644 

(202) 637-6573 

(202)955-1561 

(513)634-6366 

(513)634-4827 

(404) 652-7281 

(202)434-4810 

(703) 849-6193 

(415)894-6553 

(651) 778-4450 

(202) 663-8852 

(202)326-5511 

(202) 737-1977 

(202) 457-0480 

(919)541-5616 

(919)541-4979 

(919)541-0871 

(919)541-5375 

(919) 541-0873 

(919)541-5593 

(919)541-2380 

(202) 260-8772 

(202) 564-8709 

(202) 260-7620 

(202) 260-6984 

(202) 260-8347 

(913)551-7446 

(919)941-0333 

(919) 941-0333 

1 
P.9^ 

ly-i 

* &KJ * 

.. . .7 3 

'•* # !S ^ 

i" ir vj -c 

» ^ . . .7 

J VO f * M ^ _ 

fO "fc" 

&t r 

r" 

I 

••* -io 5 w 

= 2 * 

J> rg a 1 * * £ 

± T P» ts ^ V 7 

_- ._. — ... -£ o .0 

yH 

-£• — Oft .! 5 ^ l ^ 

r.\

 :.T\ Ul 

r 

c$ 

^ 

«£ >