P. 1 

# OAR Box 1802 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# 28 ) IV-E-2 3 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 11/4/200811:57:59 AM

Sheet 28 of 117P. 2 t ; * MEETIN G SUMMAR

Y A - °. O - 5 - 7 EPAAVEPC

O LITIGANT S MEETING NE W SOURC

E REVIE W REFOR

M September

3, 1998 Th e meeting wa s hel d i

n Washington , DC . Attached i s alis t o f attendees . Jo n Devine opened th e meeting by statin g tha t th e purpos e of

th e meetin g wa s t o discus s th e schedul e fo

r promulgatin g change s to th e NS R rules , to gai n industry' s input o n th e Notic e o f Availabilit y (NOA) , an

d to discus s th e relate d issue s i n th e NS R Refor

mRule . Th e purpos e wa s no t to conduc t

litigatio n settlemen

t discussions . Mr . Devine indicate d tha

t th e expecte d dat

e fo r promulgatin g th e NS R Refor mrul e i s Jun e 30,1999 . However , thi s dat e ha s not bee n discusse d wit

h Davi d Hawkin s o f

th e NRDC . Whe n aske d by Chuc

k Knauss , Davi d Solomon indicate d tha t th e promulgatio n packag e woul d cove r all outstandin g issue s tha

t hav e bee n raise d concerning th e NS R Refor mpackage . Th e Transitiona

l Are aRul e wil l b e propose d separately , an d woul d addres s NS R regulation s i n area s tha t ar e in attainmen

t of th e one-hou

r NAAQS , but

no t th e eight-hou

r NAAQS . Summar y o f NO A Mr . Solomon summarize d th e majo r concept s in th e NOA . He als o indicate d tha t th e EP A ha d concern s whethe

r deman d growt h i s aviabl e concep t

fo r th e utilit y o r an y other industry , whethe

r deman d growt h could b e tracke d unde

r th e restructure d utilit

y industry , an d whethe r a5-yea r perio d fo r trackin g emission s du e t o aphysica l or operationa

l chang e wa s sufficient . Mr . Solomon indicate d tha t th e actual-to-enforceable-future-actua l concep t wa s develope d afte

r considerin g comment s fromth e industry , State s an d th e environmenta

l groups , an d tha t i t coul d b e applie d to al l type s of facilities . Regulator y Language Industr y representative s requeste d tha t th e EP A provid e propose d regulator

y languag e implementin g th e NOA concepts , and cite d example s wher e regulator y languag e woul d clarif

y EPA' s intent . Whe

n indicate d b y Mr . Solomo n tha t EP A did no t inten d t o circulat

e specifi c provision s beyond thos e include d in th e Refor mrul e proposal , th e industr y representative s mentione d specifi c area s o f concer n tha t they woul d lik

e EP A to clarify , e.g. , woul d th e definitio n o f

PT E b e modified or

ho w woul d th e offsets b e determined . When indicate d b y Michael Bar

r tha t example s provide d in th e NOA wer e helpful , Mr . Solomo n agree d tha t specific example s o f

th e actual-to-future-actua

l tes t woul d b e good . Debottleneckin g Mr . Solomon explaine d tha t enforceabl e emissio n limit s woul d b e require d fo r an y unit sP. 3

whos e emission s ma

y increas e a s aresul t

o f aphysica l o r operationa

l chang e occurrin g elsewher e i n th e facilit

y (i.e. , debottlenecking) . He indicate d tha t thi s concep t

i s no t adeviatio n fromcurren

t EP A policy . Bil l Peterso n an

d Lesli e Ritt s maintaine d tha t th e EPA' s current

polic y on thi s matte

r i s ambiguous . I t wa s discusse d an

d agree d tha

t an y limit s on a

n upstrea muni t ma y limi t adownstrea

m unit . However , a

n increas e in th e utilizatio n of a n upstrea muni t coul d translate into increase d utilizatio n of

th e downstrea

munit , thu s requirin g limit s o n bot h units . I t wa s explaine d tha

t th e propose d rul e limit s emissio n increase s an d no t operationa

l capacity . Whe

n aske d b y Ms . Ritt s whethe r monitorin g o f

bot h th e upstrea

man d th e downstrea

munit s woul d b e required , Mr . Solomo n explaine d tha t in case s wher

e asingl e paramete

r controlle d al l associate d emissions , onl

y th e momtorin g o f

th e changed upstrea

muni t ma y b e sufficien

t while , i n othe

r cases , enforceabl e limit s an d monitorin g ma

y b e require d fo

r downstrea

munits . Henr y Nicke l maintaine d tha

t EP A ha d neve r cappe d emission s resultin g from debottlenecking , an

d tha t BAC T revie w wa s no t

require d fo

r downstrea

munit s despit

e a n increas e in emissions . However , Caro l Holme s an d Mr . Devin e explained , tha t debottlenecke d emission s mus t

b e include d in th e applicabilit y analysis , i.e. , th e increas e i n emission s a t bot h th e change d uni t

and an y othe r affecte d unit s mus t

b e considered . However , th e sourc e ma y take a n enforceabl e 10-yea

r limi t to avoi d NS R review , which i s arelie f fromth e current

polic y tha t require s apermanen

t limit . Whe

n asked fo r clarificatio n b y Mr . Knaus s (base d o n th e languag e i n 6 3 FR 39861) , Mr . Solomo n agree d tha t aphysica l o r operationa

l chang e at

auni t whic h i s alread y covere d by a

n enforceabl e 10-yea

r limit woul d no t nee d to b e evaluate d when calculatin g increas e in emissions . Majo r Modification s Mr . Nicke l wa s concerne d tha t th e EP A wa s suggestin g tha

t emissio n increase s du e t o increase d utilizatio n woul d b e limited , e.g. , th e highe r utilizatio n o f

aboiler , withou t

an y physica l or operationa

l change , t o produc e mor

e stea mtha n wha t th e emissio n limit s wer

e base d on . Mik e Sewell explaine d tha

t indee d fo r asourc e tha

t too k limit s to avoi d NS R applicability , th e emission s mus t

b e limited . Mr . Sewel

l an d Mr . Solomo n explaine d tha t thi s wa s no t

a chang e i n th e current

policy . Mr . Nicke l the n contende d tha t ther e wa s adifferenc e between change s to th e industria l facilit y an d change s t o th e suppor

t facility . Suppose , h e stated , tha t th e exampl e facilit

y pu t in al l of th e suppor

t facilitie s in Phas e I of

th e projec t

an d planne d t o put

i n th e manufacturin g facilitie s ove r a10-yea r perio d a s Phas e II o f

th e project . If

th e suppor

t facilitie s wer

e require d to hav e a

n enforceabl e limi t

befor e goin g to Phas e II , Phas e II woul d no t occur . Mr . Solomo n acknowledge d tha

t Mr . Nicke l ha

d aconcer n regardin g emission s capping . Severa l industr y representative s wer

e concerne d tha

t th e propose d polic y woul d subjec t "everythin g tha

t i s don e to asource " to NSR . The y als o commente d tha

t smal l changes , i.e. , change s wit

h les s tha n asignifican

t net emission s increase , shoul d no t requir e review , especiall yP. 4

fo r unit s whic h bega

n norma l operation s year s ago . Whe n aske d wh

y aphysica

l or operationa

l chang e tha t decrease s emission s need s to b e reviewed , Mr . Solomo n responde d tha t arevie w ma y b e necessar

y du e to a n overall increas e in emission s t o th e atmospher e despit e adecreas e a

t the change d unit . Mr . Solomon an d Greg Foot

e explaine d tha

t th e proposa

l i s no t changin g th e curren t polic y tha t require s areview of

all emission s increase s du e t o physica l o r operationa

l change . Whe n suggeste d by Mr . Nickel tha t EP A shoul d conside

r a n increas e in bot

h th e hourl y an d th e annua

l emissio n rate s befor

e asourc e i s deemed t o b e modified , i.e. , simila r to NSPS , Mr . Solomon explaine d tha t suc h aconsideratio n woul d ignor e th e statutor

y languag e pertainin g to physica l or operationa

l change . Mr . Nicke l explaine d tha

t EP A should follo w th e preceden t o f th e WEPC O rul e (5 7 F R 32314 ) an

d exclude fromth e definitio n of physica l o r operationa

l chang e an

y activities , suc h a s pum p replacement , tha

t would restor

e th e capabilit

y o f auni t t o th e leve l a

t whic h i t wa s capabl e o f operatin g i n th e representativ e baselin e year , regardles s o f ho w i t actually operate d during tha t year . Mr . Solomon agreed tha t routin e replacemen

t wa s a n importan

t exceptio n t o the definitio n of

physica l o r operationa

l chang e an

d tha t EP A need s t o d

o mor e wor k on th e definitio n of'routin e repair an d replacement. " 10-Year Baselin e and 10-Yea r Enforceabl e Emissio n Limi t Whe n aske d by Mr . Peterso n whethe r th e propose d 10-yea

r enforceabl e limi t

woul d b e se t a t baselin e emission s level o

r a t alevel les s tha

n asignifican

t increas e abov e th e baseline , Mr . Solomo n answere d tha t th e regulation s allowe d a

n increas e up t o th e significanc e level . Whe n aske d by Mr . Ban

* whethe r th e 10-yea

r limi t woul d se t th e baselin e emission s leve l i n perpetuit y fo r al l unit s include d in anettin g analysis , Mr . Foot e sai d tha t i t wa s yet unresolve d an d solicite d specifi c writte n comment s on th e issue . It wa s als o discusse d tha

t ther e wa s n o differenc e i n th e 10-yea

r an d th e permanen

t emissio n limit s excep t

th e perio d fo

r which they applied . Mr . Devin e emphasize d tha t th e EP A believe d th e emissio n limi t an d th e baselin e perio d shoul d eac h b e 1 0 years , a s bot h should cove

r representativ e utilizatio n periods . However , h e indicate d tha

t Davi d Hawkin s o

f NRD C considere d a10-yea r emissio n limit

to b e fa r to o shor t du e to longe

r lif e cycle s of

utilities . Also , Mr . Hawkin s believe d an d tha t ther e shoul d no t

b e 10

- yea r loo k bac k period . Instead , Mr . Hawkin s propose d tha t utilitie s b e subject

to adeclinin g emission s cap , becaus e utilizatio n decrease s ove r time unles s capita

l improvement s ar

e made t o upgrade agin g equipment . Mr . Peterso n maintaine d tha t a10-yea r emissio n limit

wa s to o long , an d that 2

- or 3-yea r limi t woul d b e reasonabl e t o judg e whethe r achang e cause s a

n emission s increase . Mr . Knaus s an

d Mr . Nickel insiste d tha

t th e 10-yea

r baselin e perio d shoul d no t translate into a10-yea

r emissio n limit

becaus e th e tw o ar

e unrelated . Whe

n aske d b y Ann a Wood , Ms . Ritt s and Mr . Knaus s endorsed a10-yea r baselin e perio d an

d ashorte r emissio n limit . Ms . Woo d note d tha

t th e propose d 10-yea

r limit wa s acompromis e relativ e to a20

- or 40-yea r lifecycle . Whe

n aske d b y Mr . Nickel , Mr . Devine explaine d tha t EPA' s RI A (Regulator

y Impac tP. 5

Analysis ) covere d th e entir e NS R Refor

mrule , an d tha t th e 10-yea

r emission s limi t

wa s no t separately analyzed . Mr . Devine solicite d comment s a s to wh y a10-yea r limi t woul d b e to o long . Mr . Nicke l asked whethe r th e propose d 10-yea

r baselin e woul d replac e th e current provisions , i.e. , 2-yea

r baselin e o r "anothe r representativ e period. " Mr . Solomo n replie d tha t i t would , an d tha t th e contemporaneou s perio d woul d b e 5 year s fo r an y uni t no t include d under

th e PAL . Mr . Nicke l provide d a n exampl e of

ho w th e current

provision s provid e greate

r flexibility . Plantwid e Applicabilit

y Limit s Mr . Sewell summarized th e PA L concept s include d i

n th e NOA , and requeste d inpu t o n tw o issues : (1 ) whethe

r th e contemporaneou s perio d concep t unde r Alabama Power

[63 6 F.2 d 323,40 0 (D.C . Cir . 1979) ] should appl y to PAL's , an

d (2 ) whethe

r PAL' s ar e more environmentally beneficia

l tha n th e curren

t nettin g procedures . Mr . Devin e an d Ms . Woo d als o showed interes t

in receivin g evidenc e o n whethe r PAL' s result

in les s emission s tha

n netting . The industr

y representative s state d tha t th e requirement s fo

r contemporaneou s nettin g perio d unde r Alabama Power

shoul d no t

b e aconsideratio n in developin g th e PA L provisions . Mr . Bar

r note d tha t acontemporaneou s perio d wa s no t require d unde

r th e NO x budget

rule . Ms . Woo d note d tha t th e NO x budget

rul e i s amarket-base d rule , whic h th e NS R rul e i s not . Mr . Peterso n state d tha t banke d emissio n reductio n credits , which coul d b e use d fo r NS R a t an y time , are no t require d t o b e contemporaneous . Whe n aske d by Mr . Sewel

l whethe r th e downwar

d adjustmen

t of PA L du e t o under

utilizatio n woul d b e attractiv e to th e industry , Mr . Bar r replie d tha

t they woul d no t

b e attractive . Davi d Hawkins' s Comment s on PAL' s Mr . Sewell briefl

y summarize d Davi d Hawkins ' verba l comment s made t o th e EP A o n Septembe r 2,1998 . Mr . Hawkin s did no t suppor t th e propose d PA

L provision s in general , an d ha d specifi c concern s regardin g their applicatio n to th e utilit

y industry . He preferre d tha t th e EP A propos e a

n emission s ca

p fo r utilitie s tha

t would decreas e ove

r time unti l al l unit s under

th e PA L me t th e utilit y NSPS . A

t tha t time , th e PA

L limi t woul d stop declining . Th e PA L woul d b e i n forc e fo r 3 0 years . E . Discussio n o

f NS RRefor

m Rul e Severa l aspect s o f

th e NS R Refor

mRul e wer

e briefl y discussed . Thes e include d th e Innovativ e Contro l Technolog y Waivers , Clea n Unit Test , and Pollutio n Contro l Projects . Denni s Crumple

r indicate d tha

t comment s on th e Innovativ e Contro l Technolog y provision s wer e favorable . Mr . Foot

e indicate d tha

t EP A i s stil l deliberatin g it s positio n o n th e Clea n Uni t test . Mr . Bar

r requeste d awritten overvie w of th e majo r comment s on th e Clea

n Uni t test . Th e meetin g wa s the n adjourned . 

# 4,' • , P. 6

ATTENDEE S EPA/INDUSTR

Y MEETING NE W SOURC

E REVIE W REFOR

M September

3, 1998 Name Michael Bar

r Juli e Becke

r Russel l Fry e Chuc k Knaus s Bil l Lewi s Henr y Nicke l Bil l Peterso n Joh n Rees e Lesli e Ritt s Le aAnderso n Jocely n deGrandpr

e Jo n Devine Gre g Foot e Caro l Holme s Ann aMari e Woo d Davi d Solomo n Denni s Crumple

r Karen Blanchar

d Mik e Sewell Stephen Edgerto n Janet McDonal d Affiliation

Pillsbury , Madiso n & Sutr

o America n Automobil e Manufacturer' s Associatio n (AAMA ) Chadbourne an

d Parke , representin g America n Fores t an d Product s Associatio n (AFPA) Swidle r an d Berlin , representin g AAM A Morgan , Lewis , and Brockius , representin g th e Chemica l Manufacturers ' Associatio n (CMA ) Hunto n an d Williams , representin g Utilitie s Associatio n Regulator

y Grou p (UARG) Sha w and Pittman , representin g APF A America n PetroleumInstitut

e (API ) Hoga n & Hartson , representin g AP I EPA/OG C EPA/OG C EPA/OG C EPA/OG C EPA/OEC A EPA/OPA R EPA/OAQP S EPA/OAQP S EPA/OAQP S EPA/OAQP S EC/ R Incorporate d (EP

A Contractor

Support ) EC/ R Incorporate d (EP

A Contractor

Support )