P.1 

OAR Box 1802 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

39) IV-E-34 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 11/4/200811:57:59 AM Sheet 39 of 117 
P.2 

i 

i 

L . „ . - - - -- -

EPAAIn JOC'v.l" 

*- X*7-.., A-90-37 

y. * '- iv-^.54 

• | 

MEETING SUMMARY 

FOURTH WEPCO LITIGANTS MEETING 

NEW SOURCE REVIEW REFORM 

January 7, 1999 

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

10:30 am and closed at approximately 11:10 am. Attached is a list of attendees. 

Lydia Wegman opened the meeting by indicating that EPA will send the invitation letters 

"later this week" for the upcoming face-to-face meeting on February 2/3,1999. Ms. Wegman 

indicated that there will be no restrictions on attendance at the meeting. 

Ms. Wegman asked if the WEPCO litigants had reached an agreement and whether the 

industry had a proposal in preparation for the upcoming meeting. Chuck Knauss indicated that 

the industry has had a few meetings, and a few more meetings were planned, and that they have 

been trying to develop a proposal. Mr. Knauss also indicated that the industry understood the 

parameters but that there were a lot of issues to be resolved. Mr. Knauss further said that 

they (the industry) will make as much progress as possible prior to the meeting, but could not 

promise a fleshed out proposal. Mr. Knauss mentioned that it was important to understand other 

stakeholders' views which will only be possible at the meeting. There was a brief discussion on 

who had been attending the industry meetings. 

Ms. Wegman asked if the industry was planning to meet with the State agencies and 

Dave Hawkins. Mr. Knauss replied that the industry was planning to talk to both the States and 

Mr. Hawkins, and that the industry will attempt to work out the details in their proposal. 

Ms. Wegman indicated that EPA would like this process to be "stakeholder-generated," and that 

EPA would like to participate in it, but not lead. Ms. Wegman also said that the new ideas have 

a lot of interest, but that there were some pitfalls also. Therefore, EPA is encouraging the 

industry to review them and reach a consensus first. 

Ms. Wegman asked for comments from Dave Hawkins on "how to make this work?" 

Mr. Hawkins said that he had talked to some people in the environmental community, but had 

not talked to the States. He indicated that the most practical approach would be a declining cap 

as a substitute for reviewing each process change. When asked by Ms. Wegman as to whether 

that would occur at the time grandfathering ends, Mr. Hawkins explained that the preference 

would be to reduce emissions earlier rather than waiting several years. Furthermore, the 

reductions would be on a scale independent of any future rules, but that the emissions at any time 

must comply with all rules. When asked by Anna Wood whether, in addition to meeting 

standards, the emission reductions will represent a well-controlled facility, Mr. Hawkins replied 

that the emissions levels would either represent today's state-of-the-art and reduce according to a 

pre-determined scale (e.g., a straight line) or the future target could be based on a dynamic 

definition wherein the state-of-the-art would be defined in the future at certain intervals in time. 

The emissions reduction could be measured over a 10-year period using a 2- or 3-year averaging. 
P.3 

When asked by Bill Pedersen how the "cap and trade" between facilities would work 

once a declining cap was established, Mr. Hawkins replied that the question of local air quality 

will have to be addressed given that some facilities may in fact increase emissions. When asked 

bu Ms. Wood whether a well controlled facility could be "P2," Mr. Hawkins responded that the 

main concern was the total emissions from a facility to the atmosphere. 

Mr. Pedersen asked what if a facility did not reduce emissions, instead it increased 

capacity while maintaining the same emission level. Mr. Hawkins responded that if the higher 

capacity would replace production elsewhere, then it would represent an environmental plus. 

Mr. Hawkins further expressed that the preference would be for a system that did not forgo 

emissions reduction. Mr. Pedersen responded by saying that "I do not hear a 'no'." 

Tammy Wyles asked whether the emission cap would be based on permitted or actual 

emission levels. Mr. Hawkins explained that the preference would be for actual emissions 

because that is what the environment will "see." When asked by Chuck Knauss about how the 

cyclical nature of businesses would be accounted for in determining actual emissions, 

Mr. Hawkins replied that the definition of "current actuals" is less critical, and that it only 

represented the starting point. The current system focussed on staying at current actuals. 

Mr. Hawkins also indicated that rather than reviewing level of controls for individual units (new 

or existing), the preference would be to examine the level of performance for the facility as a 

whole. Also, the facility would enhance performance so that a decline in emissions is achieved. 

When asked about how the rate of decline would be determined, Mr. Hawkins reiterated the two 

options discussed above, i.e., based on upfront definition of state-of-the-art or a dynamic 

definition that would vary with time. 

When asked by Mr. Pedersen whether compliance with future regulations would satisfy 

the declining requirement, Mr. Hawkins expressed that he was not sure, but it was an option that 

could be discussed. 

Mr. Knauss asked who the EPA had talked to from the States. Dennis Crumpler replied 

that EPA had spoken to Bill Becker, Bob Hodanbosi from STAPPA and John Paul from 

ALAPCO. Ms. Wegman stressed that it would help if the industry discussed these matters 

amongst themselves and with the States. 

Mr. Crumpler asked Mr. Knauss to fax a list of people to invite for the upcoming meeting 

on February 2/3,1999. There was a brief discussion on some new participants who might be 

present at the meeting, e.g., Conference of Mayors, Ms. Wegman's list of subcommittee 

members, printing industry, and iron and steel industry. When asked whether the meeting will 

be a standard stakeholder meeting or a FACA process, Ms. Wegman replied that the meeting will 

be held under the auspices of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC), which is a 

FACA process. Mr. Crumpler informed the participants that the meeting will be held at 

JW Marriott (1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, 202-393-2000) and that the rooms for overnight stay 

will be available at Hotel Washington (202-638-5900). 

The meeting was then adjourned. 

i.yyy 

'•' i 7 

£ 
P.4 

ATTENDEES 

FOURTH WEPCO LITIGANTS MEETING 

NEW SOURCE REVIEW REFORM 

January 7, 1999 

Name 

Chuck Knauss 

Henry Nickel 

Bill Lewis 

Bill Pedersen 

Tammy Wyles 

Betty Cox 

Lisa Jaeger 

? Hatcherson 

? Wilcox 

Jacki Savage 

Christine Bates 

Dave Hawkins 

Lydia Wegman 

Karen Blanchard 

Dennis Crumpler 

Mike Sewell 

Dan DeRoeck 

Greg Foote 

Lea Anderson 

Jon Devine 

Carol Holmes 

Rich? 

Malay Jindal 

Valerie Everette 

Affiliation 

Swidler & Berlin 

Hunton & Williams 

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & 

Trowbridge 

Georgia Pacific/AF&PA 

API 

Brecewell & Patterson 

7 

7 

Daimler-Chrysler 

General Motors 

NRDC 

EPA/OAQPS 

EPA/OAQPS 

EPA/OAQPS 

EPA/OAQPS 

EPA/OAQPS 

EPA/OGC 

EPA/OGC 

EPA/OGC 

EPA/OECA/AED 

EPA/OECA 

PES (EPA Contractor) 

PES (EPA Contractor) 

Telephone No. 

(202) 424-7644 

(202)955-1561 

(202)467-7145 

(202) 663-8852 

(404)652-7281 

(202) 682-8250 

(202) 828-5847 

7 

7 

(248) 576-8054 

(313)556-7885 

(202) 289-6868 

(919)541-5505 

(919)541-5503 

(919) 541-0871 

(919)541-0873 

(919)541-5593 

(202) 260-7620 

(202) 260-8347 

(202) 260-6984 

(202) 564-8709 

7 

(919)941-0333 

(919)941-0333 

3