U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS

INFORMATION TRANSFER AND PROGRAM INTEGRATION DIVISION

TRANSCRIPT

OF

NSR REFORM SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING

AS TO

NEW SOURCE REVIEW REFORM RULEMAKING

SHERATON IMPERIAL HOTEL AND CONVENTION CENTER

RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA

SEPTEMBER 17, 1996

9:00 A.M.

REPORTED BY: SHARON ANDREWS, CCR, CVR, CLVS

P R O C E E D I N G S

MS. WEGMAN: WE WERE WAITING, HOPING MORE PEOPLE WOULD SHOW, BUT I GUESS THAT I'M WONDERING IF MAYBE THEY WERE DELAYED BY THE WEATHER. WELL, I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD. I THINK WE STILL OUGHT TO TRY AND GET STARTED, BECAUSE WE WANTED TO WIND UP NO LATER THAN FOUR O'CLOCK TODAY SO PEOPLE COULD GET OUT OF HERE AND CATCH THEIR FLIGHTS, AND THERE ARE, I KNOW, SEVERAL THINGS THAT WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT.

I'M LYDIA WEGMAN, AND I'M GLAD TO SEE ALL OF YOU HERE AGAIN. I REALLY APPRECIATE EVERYONE TAKING THE TIME. I KNOW SEVERAL OF YOU WERE HERE YESTERDAY. I COULDN'T BE HERE, AND I KNOW THAT PAT WILL TRY TO DO A LITTLE BIT OF THE SUMMARY OF THE COMMENTS FOR THOSE WHO WEREN'T HERE SO WE CAN ALL BENEFIT FROM WHAT WAS SAID YESTERDAY.

I JUST WANTED TO NOTE A COUPLE OF THINGS BEFORE WE GET STARTED AND REMIND EVERYBODY HERE THAT WHEN WE STARTED NEW SOURCE REVIEW, OUR NEW SOURCE REVIEW REFORM EFFORT, EPA HAD SEVERAL GOALS IN MIND. AND I DON'T KNOW, DENNIS, IF YOU HAVE YOUR CHART WITH THOSE GOALS JUST TO REMIND US ALL OF THEM.

AND ONE REASON I WANT TO DO THIS IS THAT I THINK IN THE RUSH OF THE DETAIL -- AND I KNOW THE FRUSTRATION SOME OF YOU FEEL ABOUT THE PACKAGE -- THAT WE FORGET THAT WE DID HAVE SOME GOALS IN MIND, AND WE OUGHT TO TRY TO KEEP THEM IN MIND AS WE GO THROUGH THE DISCUSSION.

WE WERE, IN FACT, TRYING TO RESPOND TO CONCERNS ABOUT PROGRAM COMPLEXITY AND ALL THE THINGS THAT YOU SEE UP THERE AND -- BUT, AT THE SAME TIME, MAINTAIN THE CURRENT LEVEL OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. AND I KNOW THAT SOME PEOPLE MAY FEEL THE PACKAGE IS MORE COMPLEX THAN IT NEEDS TO BE AND THAT WE HAVE NOT ACHIEVED THE GOAL OF REDUCING THE COMPLEXITY, AND PERHAPS YOU FEEL THAT THERE IS STILL MORE UNCERTAINTY THAN YOU WOULD WANT.

WHEN IT COMES TO THE ISSUE OF COMPLEXITY, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT, AS WE GO THROUGH THIS, IF THERE ARE AREAS WHERE YOU FEEL WE CAN STILL ACHIEVE THE LEVEL OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION WE HAVE TODAY, BUT REDUCE THE COMPLEXITY -- AND I KNOW IN THE APPLICABILITY AREA WE'VE GOT A LOT OF DIFFERENT APPROACHES, AND IT DOES SEEM VERY COMPLEX.

I'D APPRECIATE HEARING FROM YOU HOW YOU THINK WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO STREAMLINE IT WHILE STILL PROVIDING THE FLEXIBILITY WE WERE TRYING TO BY PROVIDING THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS, AND MAINTAINING OUR CURRENT LEVEL OF PROTECTION.

IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL TO ME IF YOU HAVE SOME SPECIFIC SUGGESTIONS. I KNOW YOU MAY NOT HAVE THEM TODAY, BUT IF YOU COULD AT LEAST PUT YOUR MINDS TO IT, IT WOULD BE USEFUL TO US BECAUSE WE'RE NOT TRYING TO INCREASE THE COMPLEXITY, BUT WE WERE TRYING TO INCREASE FLEXIBILITY. AND I KNOW THERE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT THE MULTI-LAYERED NATURE OF THIS PACKAGE. SO, IN GENERAL, WE'D LIKE TO HEAR ABOUT WAYS TO IMPROVE WHAT WE HAVE IN THE PACKAGE.

ONE OTHER THING I WANT TO MENTION, I HEAR THAT THERE'S SOME TALK OF, GEE, WE REALLY DON'T WANT THIS PACKAGE AT ALL NOW THAT WE'VE SEEN IT. WE REALLY DON'T LIKE WHAT'S IN CLASS I, AND APPLICABILITY IS REALLY AWFULLY DIFFICULT TO DEAL WITH, AND MAYBE THE OLD SYSTEM WASN'T SO BAD AFTER ALL. AND WE COULD PERHAPS TAKE SOME OF THE PIECES OF THIS CURRENT PACKAGE AND TURN IT INTO GUIDANCE RATHER THAN HAVING A COMPLETE NEW SET OF RULES.

LET ME JUST SAY, FROM MY STANDPOINT, THAT ISN'T WHAT THE AGENCY'S GOAL IS. WE REALLY WERE OUT AND ARE OUT TO TRY TO REFORM THE REGULATORY STRUCTURE FOR THIS SYSTEM. I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO DO MUCH WITH GUIDANCE. WE WOULD HAVE OUR LEGAL CONSTRAINTS, AS WELL AS POLICY DIFFICULTIES, AND I THINK THERE WOULD BE NO GUARANTEE THAT THE STATES WOULD FEEL OBLIGED TO FOLLOW GUIDANCE. THERE ARE ALWAYS ISSUES ABOUT LAWSUITS ON GUIDANCE.

AND FROM OUR STANDPOINT, MY PERSONAL STANDPOINT, I WOULD MUCH RATHER TRY TO GET THIS RULE IN SHAPE TO GO FINAL RATHER THAN TRYING TO LOOK AT GUIDANCE. I DON'T SEE GUIDANCE AS AN OPTION. IF THERE ARE SOME -- VERY FEW, LIKE ONE OR TWO SPECIFIC ELEMENTS -- WHERE YOU, AS YOU READ THROUGH THE PACKAGE, THINK THAT GUIDANCE WOULD BE MORE EFFECTIVE THAN THE RULE, I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN HEARING THAT.

BUT I DON'T WANT THERE TO BE ANY FALSE EXPECTATION THAT WE COULD TURN THIS ENTIRE PACKAGE INTO GUIDANCE OR PICK AND CHOOSE THE PIECES THAT INDIVIDUALS LIKE AND ISSUE THAT AS GUIDANCE. SO I JUST WANTED TO LAY THAT ONE OUT THERE.

I THINK WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO PAT, AND MAYBE YOU'LL GIVE US AN OUTLINE OF WHAT YOU HEARD YESTERDAY AT THE HEARING.

MR. RAHER: OKAY. THANK YOU, LYDIA.

I WANT TO START OUT AFTER YESTERDAY'S HEARING AND TODAY'S WORKSHOP AND ASSURE ALL OF YOU THAT THE FACT THAT THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATION IS JUST DOWN THE HALL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STATE OF THIS PACKAGE. THERE REALLY WAS A NATURAL DISASTER DOWN HERE, AND THAT'S THE REASON THEY'RE HERE.

AS LYDIA SAID, A LOT OF THE DISCUSSION YESTERDAY CENTERED AROUND -- I THINK IF YOU WERE GOING TO CAPSULIZE IT -- THE FACT THAT MANY OR MOST OF THE CONCEPTS THAT WE AS A GROUP LABORED OVER IN MANY SUBGROUPS AND MANY HOURS AS A FULL COMMITTEE HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED BY THE AGENCY IN THEIR ATTEMPT TO PRESENT AN OVERALL REFORM PACKAGE.

BUT IF YOU LOOK AT MANY OF THE COMMENTS, THEY IDENTIFIED EITHER COMPLEXITIES WHICH PEOPLE BELIEVED WERE NOT NECESSARY OR INTERPRETED AS NOT NECESSARY; STATES BELIEVED THAT THE PACKAGE PLACED TOO MUCH OF A BURDEN ON THEIR ADMINISTRATION COMPARED TO EXISTING PROGRAMS AND EXISTING NEW SOURCE REVIEW; AND THERE WERE QUESTIONS AS TO WHETHER THE PROGRAM'S AREAS, PARTICULARLY WITH RESPECT TO APPLICABILITY, MIGHT ACTUALLY INCREASE IMPACTS ON AIR QUALITY.

SO WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO, IF WE'RE GOING TO -- I WOULD PROPOSE IF WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO GET THROUGH THESE ISSUES TODAY IN THE TIMELY MANNER THAT WE HAVE SET FORTH BEFORE US ON OUR SCHEDULE, THAT WE PROCEED AS FOLLOWS:

I'D LIKE TO IDENTIFY EACH OF THE ISSUES THAT WERE PRESENTED IN THE PACKAGE TO WHICH COMMENT WAS MADE YESTERDAY IN THE PUBLIC PROCEEDING AND THEN TRY TO SUMMARIZE THE CONCERNS THAT WERE HEARD AND THEN HAVE LYDIA IDENTIFY, OR DAVID SOLOMON OR SOMEONE, IDENTIFY A PERSON WITHIN THE AGENCY TO ADDRESS NOT A RESPONSE TO THOSE, BUT RATHER AN INDICATION OF WHAT THE AGENCY WAS ATTEMPTING TO ACHIEVE THROUGH THE LANGUAGE THAT THEY PRESENTED TO US IN THIS PROPOSAL.

THEN ON EACH OF THOSE ISSUES, I'D LIKE TO OPEN IT UP TO COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO EITHER RAISE QUESTIONS, HOPEFULLY RAISE -- BECAUSE WE ARE AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE -- POTENTIAL RESOLUTION OF ISSUES, AND TO SEE WHETHER WE AGREE WITH THE AGENCY IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY WERE ATTEMPTING TO ACCOMPLISH AND WHETHER THE LANGUAGE DOES THAT.

BUT WE WILL MOVE THROUGH EACH ONE OF THOSE, AND THEN AT THE END ANY ISSUES THAT WERE NOT ADDRESSED AT YESTERDAY'S HEARING, BUT THAT INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS BELIEVE WITH RESPECT TO APPLICABILITY OR ANY OF THE OTHER ISSUES ARE IMPORTANT AND SHOULD BE BROUGHT UP FOR DISCUSSION, BECAUSE OF YOUR OWN INDIVIDUAL REVIEW OF THE PACKAGE, WE CAN GO AHEAD AND BRING THOSE UP AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME.

THAT SHOULD AT LEAST GIVE US THE ABILITY TO PRESENT TO THE AGENCY SOME INPUT THAT IS NECESSARY FOR THEM TO GET ANY BENEFIT FROM THE FACA PROCESS; AND AT A COUPLE OF PLACES IN THE PROCEEDING, WE WILL ALSO BE OPENING IT UP FOR ANY COMMENT FROM THE PUBLIC AS WELL.

SO IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION TO THAT PROCESS, LET ME START BY ADDRESSING OR RAISING FOR YOU SOME OF THE CONCERNS AND ISSUES AND QUESTIONS THAT WERE IDENTIFIED WITH RESPECT, UNDER APPLICABILITY, TO WHAT HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS THE CLEAN UNIT EXCLUSION AND UNLESS THEY -- PROBABLY THE CLEAN FACILITY EXCLUSION AS WELL, BECAUSE THERE WASN'T A LOT OF DIFFERENTIATION WITH RESPECT TO THESE ISSUES YESTERDAY.

BASICALLY, THERE WERE FIVE ISSUES THAT APPEARED TO COME UP IN MOST OF THE TESTIMONY. FIRST OF ALL, THERE WAS BOTH A CONCERN ON INDUSTRY, STATES, AND ENVIRONMENTAL INTERESTS THAT THE LIMITATION ON THE CLEAN UNIT EXCLUSION WOULD BE TIED TO A BACT AND LAER DETERMINATION. THERE WERE, FROM INDUSTRY'S STANDPOINT, QUESTIONS AS TO WHY IT WAS LIMITED TO BACT AND LAER. WHY WASN'T MACT OR RACT OR EVEN NETTING OUT ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CLEAN UNIT EXCLUSION?

SECOND, THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT THE TEN-YEAR WINDOW OF APPLICABILITY FOR REVIEW AS TO WHETHER OR NOT INDIVIDUAL PIECES OF EQUIPMENT, OR THE FACILITY ITSELF, HAD GONE THROUGH A BACT OR LAER ANALYSIS. AND THE CONCERNS THERE WERE, YOU KNOW, IS THIS TOO LONG? FOR INSTANCE, IF YOU LOOK AT A TEN-YEAR WINDOW NOW, THAT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN A BACT DETERMINATION THAT WAS DONE THROUGH TOP-DOWN BACT. AND IS THAT A PROBLEM?

HAS TECHNOLOGY CHANGED SO MUCH THAT THAT TEN-YEAR PERIOD -- WE WILL LOSE A TECHNOLOGY BENEFIT IN TERMS OF NEW TECHNOLOGY? AND SO THERE WAS A QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS AN ADVERSE -- POTENTIAL FOR AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON ACTUAL ADMISSIONS. AND I THINK UNSAID, BUT SOMETHING THAT WE AS A COMMITTEE SHOULD DISCUSS IS, YOU KNOW, DOES NETTING UNDER THE CURRENT PROGRAM BASICALLY ACCOMPLISH THE SAME PROCESS SO THAT, ALTHOUGH THESE MAY BE VERY, VERY VALID CONCERNS, ARE THEY CONCERNS UNDER THE PRESENT PROGRAM AS WELL? AND IS THERE ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PROPOSED PROGRAM AND THIS PROGRAM?

THIRD, THERE WAS A -- THERE IS A PROPOSED PROVISION OF TREATING STATE PROGRAMS THAT ARE EQUIVALENT TO BACT OR LAER AS EQUAL TO BACT AND LAER FOR THIS PURPOSES OF THIS EXCLUSION, AND THERE WAS A QUESTION THAT THERE DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE ANY STANDARDS OR PROCEDURES, ET CETERA, FOR MAKING THAT EQUIVALENCY DETERMINATION AND THAT THAT OPENED UP MORE COMPLEXITY FOR THE STATES, MORE BURDEN FOR THE STATES, AND POSSIBLY BE A LESS PROTECTIVE ATMOSPHERE.

FOURTH, THE TITLE V PROCESS COULD BE USED TO APPROVE CLEAN UNITS, PROBABLY THROUGH THE MACT AND RACT ANALYSIS-TYPE ISSUES THAT SOME PEOPLE HAD RAISED, AND THERE WAS A SUGGESTION THAT THIS EXTREMELY COMPLEX TITLE V PROCESS COULD, IN EFFECT, OVERLOOK A CAREFUL REVIEW OF THESE INDIVIDUAL UNITS AND LEAD TO BAD DECISIONS.

AND THEN FINALLY THE STATES, I THINK, HAD A UNIVERSAL CONCERN THAT THIS ENTIRE CLEAN UNIT EXCLUSION, AND EVEN A CLEAN FACILITY EXCLUSION, WAS A VERY COMPLICATED, CASE-BY-CASE ANALYSIS THAT STATES FELT PLACED GREATER BURDEN ON THEM UNDER THIS NEW PROGRAM THAN, IN FACT, THERE WOULD BE UNDER THE EXISTING PROGRAM. AND I THINK THEY HAD BUDGETARY AND PERSONNEL CONSTRAINTS IN MIND, AND WE SHOULD TRY TO ADDRESS WHETHER OR NOT THAT TYPE OF INCREASED COMPLEXITY IS REALLY THE CASE.

THOSE WERE, TRYING TO BOIL IT DOWN, THE FIVE BASIC, I THINK, SIGNIFICANT ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED. AND I'D LIKE TO ASK, I GUESS, DAVID SOLOMON TO ADDRESS TO US, AS A FACA, UNDER THE CLEAN EXCLUSION AND CLEAN UNIT AND CLEAN FACILITY EXCLUSIONS WHAT THE AGENCY WAS ATTEMPTING TO PRESENT TO US, WHAT CONCEPTS THEY WERE ATTEMPTING TO ADDRESS, AND POSSIBLY TOUCHING ON SOME OF THESE, ALTHOUGH WE'RE NOT ASKING HIM FOR A DEFENSE OF THESE KIND OF ISSUES.

DAVID?

MR. SOLOMON: THANKS, PAT.

ESSENTIALLY, WHAT THE AGENCY WAS TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH IN THE CLEAN UNIT TEST WAS TO RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE MANY UNITS OUT THERE THAT DO HAVE STATE-OF-THE-ART TECHNOLOGY AND TO QUESTION THE VALUE ADDED IN TERMS OF PUTTING THOSE UNITS THROUGH REVIEW WHEN THEY MAKE PHYSICAL CHANGES OR CHANGES IN THE METHOD OF OPERATION.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE PSD PROCESS, YOU CAN TRIGGER PSD REVIEW. RIGHT NOW WE HAVE THE ACTUAL-TO-POTENTIAL TEST. SO IT'S QUITE POSSIBLE TO HAVE A UNIT -- EVEN A FAIRLY NEW UNIT, IF IT DOESN'T HAVE A HIGH ENOUGH BASELINE AND UNDERGOES A MODIFICATION -- TO TRIGGER REVIEW. THE REVIEW WOULD INCLUDE A TECHNOLOGY REVIEW, ESSENTIALLY DETERMINING IF ANOTHER TECHNOLOGY OTHER THAN WHAT IS APPLIED TO THE UNIT CURRENTLY WOULD BE NECESSARY IN AN AIR QUALITY REVIEW.

THE AGENCY FELT THAT IF THE UNIT HAD STATE-OF-THE-ART TECHNOLOGY THE ODDS ARE/WERE -- THE ODDS WOULD BE THAT THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW PROCESS WOULD NOT REQUIRE A DIFFERENT TYPE OF TECHNOLOGY. AND MORE LIKELY THAN NOT IF IT WAS A FAIRLY NEW UNIT, IF IT HAD BEEN PERMITTED WITHIN THE LAST TEN YEARS UNDER BACT OR LAER, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN AN AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT DONE SO THAT THE SOURCE'S EMISSIONS WOULD HAVE BEEN DEMONSTRATED NOT TO CAUSE OR CONTRIBUTE TO VIOLATIONS OF AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS.

WE FELT UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES IT MADE SENSE TO AFFORD THESE UNITS MAXIMUM FLEXIBILITY IN TERMS OF MAKING PHYSICAL CHANGES OR CHANGES IN METHOD OF OPERATION TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE A RECONSTRUCTION. A RECONSTRUCTION WOULD STILL BE TREATED AS A NEW UNIT.

IN LOOKING AT THE VARIOUS APPLICABILITY SCENARIOS AVAILABLE, WE FOUND THAT ESSENTIALLY A NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARD -- THAT IS, AN HOURLY POTENTIAL TO HOURLY POTENTIAL -- WAS A TEST THAT PROVIDED THE MOST FLEXIBILITY TO THESE TYPE OF UNITS AND, THEREFORE, CAME UP WITH THE CLEAN UNIT TEST.

IN TERMS OF RESPONDING TO SOME OF THE CONCERNS, WE FELT THAT, ONE, IF A BACT OR LAER DECISION HAS BEEN MADE WITHIN A CERTAIN TIME PERIOD -- THE TIME PERIOD WE PROPOSED WAS TEN YEARS, AS PAT INDICATED; THERE ARE COMMENTERS THAT FEEL THAT THIS MAY BE TOO LONG, BUT ESSENTIALLY THAT WAS THE PERIOD WE INITIALLY CHOSE -- THAT A BACT OR LAER DECISION MADE WITHIN RECENT HISTORY WOULD PROBABLY STILL BE CURRENT IF THAT UNIT WERE TO BE PUT THROUGH A BACT OR LAER DECISION PROCESS TODAY, AGAIN CONSIDERING THE EXISTING CONTROLS.

WE WOULD NOT BE LOOKING AT THAT UNIT AS IF NO CONTROLS APPLIED AND THEN MAKING AN ASSESSMENT.
THE BACT DECISION-MAKING PROCESS, AS IT STANDS TODAY, WOULD BE LOOKING AT THE EXISTING SOURCE, ITS EXISTING CONTROL CONFIGURATION, IN DETERMINING THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF ESSENTIALLY RIPPING THOSE CONTROLS OUT, PUTTING IN BRAND NEW CONTROLS; OR OVERLAYING AN ADDITIONAL LEVEL OF CONTROLS.

AND, AGAIN, THE AGENCY'S EXPERIENCE WAS IN THOSE CASES, ALMOST TO THE CASE, YOU WOULD NOT SEE THOSE EXISTING CONTROLS BE TAKEN OUT OR ENHANCED. ESSENTIALLY, THE BACT PROCESS WOULD DEFAULT TO THOSE CONTROLS, AND, THEREFORE, WE SHOULD RECOGNIZE THAT.

SO WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO IS, ONE, RECOGNIZE THAT A RECENT BACT OR LAER DECISION THAT RESULTED IN CONTROLS IF IT WAS DONE TODAY, REALIZING OR ACCEPTING THOSE CONTROLS ON THE UNIT TODAY WOULD NOT REQUIRE ANY TYPE OF ADDITIONAL CONTROLS. WHAT WE ALSO WANTED TO DO WAS ALLOW FOR CONTROLS THAT WERE NOT APPLIED THROUGH A BACT OR LAER PROCESS, BUT REALIZING THAT IN MANY INSTANCES THOSE CONTROLS MAY HAVE BEEN OR MAY ARE -- MAY BE EQUIVALENT TO BACT OR LAER.

FOR EXAMPLE, UNDER TITLE III A SOURCE MAY NOW BE APPLYING MACT. IT'S QUITE POSSIBLE THAT THAT MACT STANDARD MAY BE EQUIVALENT TO WHAT OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE BEEN ASSESSED UNDER A BACT OR LAER ANALYSIS.

SOURCES WITH RACT. IN SOME CASES IT MAY BE POSSIBLE THAT A RACT LIMIT COULD EQUAL WHAT OTHERWISE WOULD BE APPLIED AS LAER, FOR EXAMPLE; OR IF THE SOURCE WENT BEYOND RACT IN COMPLYING WITH RACT, THAT THAT SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED.

SO, AGAIN, THE INTENT HERE WAS TO GIVE MAXIMUM FLEXIBILITY TO THOSE UNITS WHERE IF WE LOOK AT WHAT WOULD BE THE RESULT OF A NEW SOURCE REVIEW PROCESS WE WOULD SEE VERY LITTLE, IF ANY, VALUE ADDED IN TERMS OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT OR EMISSION REDUCTIONS.

MR. RAHER: THANK YOU, DAVID. AND I GUESS YOU WOULD BE -- MANY OF THE SAME COMMENTS YOU WERE JUST MAKING IN TERMS OF THE AGENCY'S INTENT APPLY TO THE CLEAN FACILITY ANALYSIS AS WELL?

MR. SOLOMON: YES.

MR. RAHER: OKAY.

MR. SOLOMON: PROBABLY EVEN MORE SO BECAUSE YOU'RE LOOKING AT A FACILITY THAT WITHIN THE LAST TEN YEARS YOU'VE DONE A PSD AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS AT THE SOURCE'S FULL ALLOWABLE EMISSION LEVEL, AND IT'S BEEN DEMONSTRATED TO BE ACCEPTABLE. THE WHOLE FACILITY HAS BACT OR LAER ON IT. BASICALLY, WHAT THE PROPOSAL SAYS IS THAT AS LONG AS THE SOURCE COMPLIES WITH THE TERMS OF THE PERMIT, IT CAN MAKE ANY PHYSICAL CHANGE OR CHANGE IN THE METHOD OF OPERATION.

MR. RAHER: ALL RIGHT. OKAY.

BEFORE WE GO TO OUR TRADITIONAL CONCEPT OF PUTTING UP YOUR CARD ON END FOR COMMENTS ON THIS, MAYBE IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA -- LYDIA SUGGESTED THAT IT APPEARS THAT THE PLANES HAVE ARRIVED AND, IN ADDITION, SOME OF THE TRAFFIC JAM MAYBE IS BREAKING UP, AND MORE PEOPLE ARE SHOWING UP. SO MAYBE WE COULD GO AROUND AND INTRODUCE OURSELVES, AND THAT WAY EVERYBODY WILL REACQUAINT THEMSELVES WITH MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.

MIKE?

MR. SEWELL: MY NAME IS MIKE SEWELL, AND I'M WITH THE EPA. I WORK ON NEW SOURCE REVIEW ISSUES.

MR. KATAOKA: MARK KATAOKA, EPA OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL.

MR. DRESDNER: I'M ROBERT DRESDNER, WITH OECA.

MS. PATTON: VICKIE PATTON, WITH THE EPA'S OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL.

MR. HAWKINS: DAVE HAWKINS, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL.

MR. BECKER: I'M BILL BECKER, WITH STAPPA AND ALAPCO.

MR. JOHN PAUL: I'M JOHN PAUL, WITH THE REGIONAL AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY IN DAYTON, OHIO, AND ALSO REPRESENTING STAPPA AND ALAPCO.

MR. TROUT: JOHN TROUT, LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY, AND ALAPCO'S PERMITTING CHAIR.

MR. BATES: CHRIS BATES, GENERAL MOTORS.

MR. KNAUSS: CHUCK KNAUSS, WITH SWIDLER AND BERLIN.

MR. PEDERSEN: BILL PEDERSEN. SHAW PITTMAN.

MR. NICKEL: HENRY NICKEL. HUNTON & WILLIAMS.

MR. BUMPERS: BILL BUMPERS, WITH BAKER AND BOTTS.

MS. ODOULAMY: JUDY ODOULAMY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.

MR. BERNIE PAUL: BERNIE PAUL, WITH ELI LILLY & COMPANY.

MR. RUSCIGNO: JOHN RUSCIGNO, OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.

MR. BUNYAK: JOHN BUNYAK, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE.

MS. MALKIN: KAREN MALKIN, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE.

MS. ATAY: ICLAL ATAY, NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.

MR. AMAR: PRAVEEN AMAR, WITH THE NORTHEAST STATES FOR COORDINATED AIR USE MANAGEMENT. THAT'S NSCAUM.

MR. BEASLEY: BOB BEASLEY, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.

MR. DANIEL: I'M JOHN DANIEL, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.

MR. ROSENBERG: ERNIE ROSENBERG, OCCIDENTAL.

MS. BANKOFF: BARBARA BANKOFF FOR SIEMENS.

MR. BARR: MIKE BARR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS.

MR. FOTIS: STEVEN FOTIS, VAN NESS FELDMAN. FILLING IN FOR MARK CARNEY, OF U.S. GENERATING.

MR. DEROECK: DAN DEROECK, EPA-OAQPS.

MR. SOLOMON: DAVID SOLOMON, EPA-OAQPS.

MR. RAHER: IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT HASN'T --

MS. RITTS: LESLIE RITTS, WITH NEDA.

MR. RAHER: OKAY. I THINK WE HAVE IDENTIFIED THE CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED. THE QUESTIONS WERE RAISED ON CLEAN UNITS AND CLEAN FACILITIES. I THINK STILL -- WE WOULD ASSUME THAT THE AGENCY BELIEVES THAT THIS IS NOT CREATING A SIGNIFICANT BURDEN ON THE STATES. THAT WAS THE ONLY ISSUE THAT WAS LEFT UNADDRESSED, AND I THINK, JOHN PAUL, YOU MAY WANT TO TRY TO ADDRESS THAT SO THAT THE COMMITTEE AND THE AGENCY CAN BETTER UNDERSTAND WHY THIS IS A GREATER BURDEN THAN THE CURRENT PROGRAM.

BUT ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE WITH RESPECT TO EITHER THE CONCERNS OF THE AGENCY'S LANGUAGE IN ATTEMPTING TO PRESENT A METHOD FOR MAKING AN APPLICABILITY EXCLUSION WORKABLE OR THE WAY THAT THE PACKAGE LANGUAGE THAT'S IN THE PACKAGE WITH RESPECT TO THESE TWO ISSUES?

DAVID?

MR. HAWKINS: I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROCEDURES THAT THE AGENCY ENVISAGES FOR THE EVALUATION OF THIS CLEAN UNIT APPROACH, AND I'LL JUST STATE THEM, AND THEN MAYBE WE CAN DISCUSS THEM. ONE IS SOME CLARIFICATION ON WHO IT IS THAT WOULD EVALUATE WHETHER THE UNIT WAS OR WAS NOT A CLEAN UNIT.

WOULD THIS BE DONE BY THE POTENTIAL APPLICANT? WOULD IT BE REVIEWED BY ANYONE? WOULD IT BE IN THE FORM OF A SUBMISSION FROM THE APPLICANT WITH SOME SORT OF DOCUMENTATION TO A PERMITTING AUTHORITY THAT THE UNIT WAS ELIGIBLE UNDER ONE OF THESE TESTSEVIN? AND THEN WOULD THERE BE A RECORD THAT WOULD REFLECT A PERMITTING AUTHORITY'S REVIEW AND CONCLUSIONS WITH RESPECT TO THAT? WOULD THERE BE ANY NOTICE OR COMMENT FOR THE PUBLIC TO BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT OR ANY KIND OF AN EVEN FILE THAT WOULD ALLOW THE PUBLIC LATER ON TO FIND OUT THAT THESE DETERMINATIONS HAD BEEN MADE?

AND I GUESS NOT JUST THE PUBLIC, BUT THERE HAS BEEN ENFORCEMENT ACTION IN THE PAST TAKEN AGAINST SOURCES THAT HAVE BEEN ALLEGED TO CONSTRUCT WITHOUT A PERMIT, AND WHAT WOULD BE THE RECORD THAT ANY INTERESTED ENTITIES WOULD BE ABLE TO LOOK AT? IF AN ISSUE AROSE THAT A SOURCE HAD CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT A REQUIRED PERMIT, AND THE SOURCE CLAIMED ELIGIBILITY UNDER THIS TEST, WHAT WOULD BE THE PROCEDURE FOR SORTING OUT THAT DISPUTE?

MR. RAHER: SO, DAVID, WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR IS BOTH THE PROCEDURES AND WHO WOULD BE MAKING DETERMINATIONS FOR QUALIFICATIONS OF THIS AND IF THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CURRENT PROGRAM WHERE SOMEBODY CERTAINLY COULD CONSTRUCT, AND THEN THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE SOME KIND OF REVIEW AND ENFORCEMENT, AND UNDER THE NEW PROGRAM IF YOU COULD SAY, OH, BY THE WAY, THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN COVERED IF I HAD DONE A CLEAN UNIT EXCLUSION, ASSUMING THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE PREAPPROVED?

MR. HAWKINS: YEAH. AS I UNDERSTAND IT UNDER THE CURRENT PROGRAM, THE NETTING TRANSACTIONS AREN'T NECESSARILY REVIEWED. ALTHOUGH, TYPICALLY, THEY MAY BE, BUT THEY AREN'T NECESSARILY REVIEWED. BUT IF THERE WERE A SUBSEQUENT -- SUBSEQUENT INQUIRY INTO THE CORRECTNESS OF A SOURCE'S DETERMINATION, --

MR. RAHER: RIGHT.

MR. HAWKINS: -- IT WOULD BE ESSENTIALLY A MATTER OF MATHEMATICS FOR LOOKING AT WHAT WENT UP, WHAT WENT DOWN, AND WHEN IT WENT UP AND WHEN IT WENT DOWN AND WHETHER THAT FIT WITHIN THE WINDOW THAT WAS ALLOWED.

HERE, I THINK, THERE ARE JUDGMENTS THAT ARE BEING CALLED FOR IN THE SENSE OF COMPARING THE -- EITHER THE PROGRAM OR THE DETERMINATION, OR IS THIS JUST AN ABSOLUTE TEST THAT IF THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS CALLED A BACT DETERMINATION, THAT'S THE END OF THE INQUIRY? AND THOSE ARE SORT OF THE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS I'M SEEKING ANSWERS TO.

MR. SOLOMON: ESSENTIALLY, WE PROPOSED THREE WAYS BY WHICH A SOURCE WOULD ACHIEVE THE CLEAN UNIT LABEL. THE FIRST METHOD IS THROUGH ACTUALLY GOING THROUGH A NEW SOURCE REVIEW DETERMINATION; THAT IS, HAVING BEEN ISSUED A PERMIT UNDER THE PSD OR THE NONATTAINMENT MAJOR NEW SOURCE PROVISIONS.

THE SECOND TEST IS WHERE A STATE HAS A MINOR NEW SOURCE REVIEW PROGRAM THAT EPA HAS CERTIFIED AS RESULTING IN BACT- OR LAER-EQUIVALENT DETERMINATIONS, THERE ARE CERTAIN STATES THAT WILL SUBJECT ANY EMISSIONS INCREASE, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THEY ARE NOT GOING THROUGH MAJOR NSR TO BACT. AND IN MANY CASES THAT BACT IS EQUIVALENT TO WHAT OTHERWISE WOULD COME OUT OF A MAJOR NSR, AND WE WANTED TO RECOGNIZE THAT, AND EPA WOULD HAVE TO CERTIFY THAT AS COMING OUT OF THE STATE PROGRAM.

AND THE THIRD IS WHERE THE STATE THROUGH ITS TITLE V PROCESS, WHEN THE TITLE V PERMIT IS UP FOR RENEWAL, WOULD AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT -- THE APPLICANT WOULD COME IN AND STATE THAT UNITS A, B, AND C THEY BELIEVE TO HAVE BACT-EQUIVALENT LEVELS OF CONTROL. THE STATE WOULD REVIEW THAT. IF THE STATE FELT THAT, YES, INDEED, THAT TECHNOLOGY THAT WAS JUST APPLIED AS MACT WOULD HAVE MET BACT, WOULD THEN PROPOSE TO THE PUBLIC, WHEN THAT TITLE V PERMIT IS OPENED, THAT THESE UNITS AS LISTED WOULD RECEIVE A LABEL AS CLEAN UNIT AND, THEREFORE, ELIGIBLE FOR A CLEAN UNIT TEST FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. THAT IS THE DURATION OF THAT TITLE V PERMIT.

MR. RAHER: DAVID, COULD I -- JUST A CLARIFICATION HERE. YOU SAID IN THE TITLE V PROCESS YOU ACTUALLY WOULD "LABEL" A UNIT A CLEAN UNIT. LET'S ASSUME UNDER A BACT OR LAER DETERMINATION THAT HAS BEEN MADE IN THE LAST TEN YEARS.

DO YOU ENVISION SOME TYPE OF ACTIVITY BY EITHER THE STATE REGULATORY AGENCY OR THE PERMIT-HOLDER OF LABELING THAT PIECE OF EQUIPMENT AS A CLEAN UNIT, OR IS IT JUST THE EXISTENCE THAT WE DID, IN FACT, AND CAN PROVE THAT THIS UNIT WENT THROUGH A BACT OR LAER DETERMINATION IN THE LAST TEN YEARS?

MR. SOLOMON: I WOULD PROBABLY SAY THAT THE LATTER. I DON'T NECESSARILY NEED -- SEE THE NEED FOR ANY ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS. IF THE STATE AND SOURCE IS DOCUMENTED THAT A PSD PERMIT WAS RECEIVED, IT WOULD BE TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF THAT PERMIT.

MR. RAHER: OKAY. DAVID, DO YOU WANT TO JUST, WELL, JUST CLARIFY IT? WE'VE GOT ANOTHER QUESTION, BUT IF WE CAN STATE --

MR. HAWKINS: WHY DON'T I WAIT?

MR. RAHER: OKAY.

MR. SOLOMON: I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY ANOTHER POINT, TOO, IN TERMS OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE WITH THE CLEAN UNIT. MANY OR PROBABLY THE BULK OF THE ISSUES THAT ARISE IN APPLICABILITY DEAL WITH MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING UNITS. WHAT IS A PHYSICAL CHANGE OR CHANGE IN THE METHOD OF OPERATION? WHAT IS ROUTINE? WHAT IS NOT ROUTINE?

AND THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROVISION WAS TO, AT LEAST WITHIN THE SCOPE OF CHANGES TO EXISTING UNITS, PROVIDE A MUCH MORE SIMPLIFIED AND STRAIGHTFORWARD TEST FOR THOSE UNITS THAT HAVE STATE-OF-THE-ART TECHNOLOGY FOR WHICH A PSD REVIEW WOULD REALLY NOT RESULT IN ANY ADDITIONAL EMISSION REDUCTIONS, BUT PROVIDE A LONG AND LENGTHY PERMITTING PROCESS FOR THE APPLICANT.

MR. RAHER: OKAY.

MS. ATAY: I UNDERSTAND THAT --

MR. RAHER: COULD EACH PERSON PLEASE IDENTIFY THEMSELVES FOR THE RECORD? IT WILL MAKE IT A LITTLE EASIER ON THE TRANSCRIPT -- IN THE TRANSCRIPT.

MS. ATAY: I'M ICLAL ATAY, FROM NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.

I UNDERSTAND THE FACT THAT IF SOMEBODY HAS UNDERGONE A BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY REVIEW AND HAVE ALREADY INSTALLED BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY, AND THE FACT THAT SUBJECTING THAT FACILITY TO REVIEW AGAIN WOULD NOT CHANGE THE TECHNOLOGY THAT WOULD HAVE REQUIRED, THEREFORE WOULD NOT HAVE ANY IMPACT ON THE RESULTING EMISSIONS, WOULD BE RIGHT.

BUT ONE OF THE VERY IMPORTANT REVIEWS IN THE PSD PROCESS IS THE FACT THAT AIR QUALITY IMPACTS ON INCREMENT ANALYSIS. I MEAN, IF YOU HAD DONE THE REVIEW YOU MAY NOT EVEN PERMIT, EVEN WITH WHATEVER TECHNOLOGY, THE EMISSION INCREASE BECAUSE THERE IS NO INCREMENT AVAILABLE IN THE AREA; OR THERE MAY BE SIGNIFICANT EMISSION INCREASES, AND OFFSETS MAY BE REQUIRED. AND THERE MAY BE OTHER ILLUSTTATIONS.

COMPLETE EXEMPTION FROM PERMIT REVIEW BASED SIMPLY ON TECHNOLOGY CONSIDERATIONS MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE. DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENT ON THAT?

MR. RAHER: IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE AGENCY WHO HAS THOUGHT ABOUT THAT ISSUE, OR YOU CAN THINK ABOUT IT?

MR. SOLOMON: IT IS A FAIR QUESTION TO THE EXTENT THAT IF A SOURCE WAS PERMITTED EIGHT OR NINE YEARS AGO, AND SUBSEQUENT TO THAT THERE HAS BEEN ADDITIONAL GROWTH WITHIN THE AREA, BE IT MAJOR OR MINOR, THAT IF THE SOURCE WOULD UNDERGO THE SAME REVIEW TODAY, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEIR ACTUAL EMISSIONS AND WHAT THE POTENTIAL OR ALLOWABLE WOULD BE COULD DEMONSTRATE AN INCREMENT VIOLATION. BUT THAT IS ALSO APPLICABLE TO A LOT OF SOURCES OUT THERE, EVEN MINOR SOURCES.

UNFORTUNATELY, MOST OF THE STATES DO NOT TRACK INCREMENT AT MINOR SOURCES UNTIL SUCH TIME AS A PERMIT EXISTS, AND I WOULD THROW IT BACK OUT TO THE STATES TO ASK IF THIS IS THE TOOL THAT THEY WANT IN TERMS OF TRACKING INCREMENT.

MS. ATAY: IN THE CASE OF NEW JERSEY, I WOULD SAY "YES."

MR. RAHER: THANK YOU.

MR. SOLOMON: JUST TO RESPOND TO NEW JERSEY'S CONCERN, I MEAN ONE THING WE DO IN THIS PACKAGE IS WE PUT A SORT OF A LAUNDRY LIST OF APPLICABILITY APPROACHES FROM WHICH THE STATE CAN PICK AND CHOOSE. IF IN NEW JERSEY THEIR CONCERN IS THAT THIS TYPE OF TEST WOULD ALLOW FOR POTENTIAL INCREMENT VIOLATIONS, THEN IT WOULD BE UP TO NEW JERSEY TO DECIDE IF THEY WANTED TO USE THIS TEST FOR THEIR UNITS OR DEFAULT TO A DIFFERENT TEST THAT WOULD ALLOW YOU TO KEEP A BETTER TRACK OF INCREMENTS.

MS. ATAY: THAT'S ALL RIGHT, BUT IF INEQUITY BETWEEN STATES IS NOT GOOD, STATES SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO SIMILAR STANDARDS. IF NEW JERSEY EMPLOYS SOMETHING LIKE THIS, AND OTHER STATES DO NOT, WE ARE SUBJECT TO EMISSIONS FROM THEIR STATES BECAUSE AIR POLLUTIONS DO NOT KNOW BORDERS IN THE FIRST PLACE. AND, ALSO, IT CREATES AN ECONOMIC IMBALANCE BECAUSE NEW JERSEY IS A MORE STRICTER STATE THAN OTHER STATES. WE DO NOT PROVIDE AN EXEMPTION, WHERE OTHER STATES DO PROVIDE IT.

MR. RAHER: JOHN PAUL?

MR. JOHN PAUL: JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS. ONE IS THAT -- I MEAN I'M GOING TO TAKE A LOT OF NOTES, AND WE'LL TRY TO GIVE YOU DETAILS IN OUR WRITTEN COMMENT. BUT JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME DIRECT FEEDBACK, WHICH IS A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAILED THAN WHAT WE SAID YESTERDAY, FIRST OF ALL, WITH REGARD TO PAST BACT/LAER DETERMINATIONS, I KNOW THAT WE'VE NEVER CONSIDERED IN DOING A BACT OR LAER DETERMINATION WILL THIS REPRESENT BACT OR LAER TEN YEARS DOWN THE ROAD.

SO THERE ARE GOING TO BE BACT OR LAER DETERMINATIONS WHICH WERE NOT THE TOP, BUT THEY WERE -- YOU KNOW, MAYBE THE AGENCY YIELDED TO SOME OF THE OTHER ARGUMENTS AS TO WHAT WAS BACT. SO, I MEAN, CLEARLY THERE'S GOING TO BE THOSE THAT ARE IN THERE.

MR. RAHER: JOHN PAUL, JUST TO HELP TO FOCUS ON THE ISSUE, DO YOU THINK THAT THAT KIND OF DETERMINATION IF REDONE SIX OR SEVEN YEARS LATER, AS DAVID WAS SAYING IN HIS INTRODUCTORY COMMENT, RECOGNIZING THE CONTROLS ARE NOW ON, AND NOW YOU'RE DOING THE COST ANALYSIS AND SO FORTH -- DO YOU THINK THAT THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT ONES THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE ADDITION OF NEW CONTROLS?

MR. JOHN PAUL: SURE. I MEAN IT -- WE WOULD AT LEAST HAVE TO EXAMINE THAT AND -- TO BE ABLE TO JUSTIFY TO THE PUBLIC THAT, INDEED, WHAT IS ON THERE, THAT THEY PUT ON PRIOR TO, IS BACT OR LAER, OR DOES IT NEED TO BE INCREASED? SO I WOULD SAY --

MR. RAHER: NO, I GUESS -- I THINK WHAT DAVID WAS SAYING IS NOT THAT YOU WOULDN'T -- NOT UNDER TODAY'S PROGRAM THAT YOU WOULDN'T DO THAT, WE KNOW YOU WOULD DO IT. THE QUESTION IS WHEN YOU DO THAT UNDER TODAY'S PROGRAM, HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU ACTUALLY FIND THAT YOU'RE CAUSING SOURCES TO HAVE TO UPGRADE AN EXISTING SOURCE THAT'S ALREADY GONE THROUGH BACT OR LAER?

IF YOUR PEOPLE COULD -- IF MEMBERS OF THE ASSOCIATION COULD GIVE SOME THOUGHT TO THAT, I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL BECAUSE I THINK WE HEARD OR THE AGENCY REALLY SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU CONSIDER THE COST OF THE EQUIPMENT AND THE CONTROLS THAT ARE ON THERE NOW SIX OR SEVEN OR SO YEARS LATER, THEY, THEY AT LEAST, FELT THAT IT WAS REASONABLE THAT THERE WOULDN'T BE A CONSTANT INCREASE IN THAT EQUIPMENT. SO IF YOUR MEMBERS COULD THINK ABOUT THAT AND LOOK AT THAT IN THE COMMENT, IT WOULD PROBABLY BE VERY HELPFUL.

MR. JOHN PAUL: SURE, WE WOULD. AND I THINK THAT A COMMENT THAT WAS MADE BY DAVID HAWKINS YESTERDAY IS -- WAS A GOOD ONE IN THAT THE NSPS, THAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE LOOKED AT AND REVIEWED ON A PERIODIC BASIS. SO I THINK THERE'S A RECOGNITION BY CONGRESS THAT TECHNOLOGIES CHANGE AND THAT WE NEED TO KEEP UPDATED ON THAT. BUT I DIDN'T WANT TO GET -- I'LL SAVE THE DETAIL FOR LATER.

MR. RAHER: RIGHT.

MR. JOHN PAUL: THE OTHER POINT, THE BACT/LAER EQUIVALENTS UNDER STATE PROGRAMS -- I MEAN, I THINK STATE PROGRAMS ARE GOING THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION, MOST OF THEM THAT WE SEE, IN THAT THERE'S A LOT OF PRESSURE FROM OUR LEGISLATURES TO NOT BE MORE STRINGENT THAN THE FEDERAL PROGRAM.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS A REAL CONCERN WITH STATES AND LOCALS RIGHT NOW IS THAT WE -- ON THE NATIONAL SCALE WE HEAR A LOT OF PUSH FOR STATE AND LOCAL FLEXIBILITY: THAT ON THE STATE AND LOCAL LEVEL, WE GET THIS PUSH FOR DON'T BE MORE STRINGENT THAN THE FEDERAL PROGRAM. AND WE'RE WONDERING WHERE THIS IS ALL GOING TO FALL OUT.

IF YOU -- IF YOU REALLY DO AWAY WITH A LOT OF THE NATIONAL STRINGENCIES, AND THEN YOU GET LEFT WITH A STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAM THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T BE MORE STRINGENT THAN THE NATIONAL PROGRAM, THEN WE'RE REALLY IN A BIND AS FAR AS GETTING GOOD TECHNOLOGY AND REALLY CONTROLLING AIR POLLUTION.

MR. SOLOMON: LET ME JUST ASK A QUESTION.

MR. JOHN PAUL: YES.

MR. SOLOMON: IS IT THE CONCEPT ITSELF THAT'S CONCERNED OR IMPLEMENTING IT? FOR EXAMPLE, IF IT WAS A FIVE-YEAR LOOK-BACK OR IF IT ONLY WHERE BACT OR LAER RESULTED IN CONTROLS -- I MEAN IT COULD BE POSSIBLE THAT EIGHT YEARS AGO THE DECISION WAS NO CONTROLS WERE BACT, SO YOU HAVE AN UNCONTROLLED UNIT. IT WAS SATISFACTORY AT THAT POINT IN TIME, AND NOW THERE IS A TECHNOLOGY THAT CAN CONTROL THAT POLLUTANT AND ITS COSTS ARE REASONABLE.

SO MY QUESTION IS, IS IT THE BASIC TESTS THAT, REALLY, YOU FIND IT JUST TO BE UNWORKABLE, OR IS IT THAT IT JUST NEEDS FURTHER REFINEMENT TO ENSURE THAT IT IS ONLY APPLIED WHERE THE PSD PROCESS WOULD TRULY PROVIDE NO VALUE ADDED TO THE ENVIRONMENT AND TO THE STATE?

MR. JOHN PAUL: WELL, WHENEVER WE LOOK AT QUESTIONS LIKE THAT, WE GO BACK TO OUR BASIC PRINCIPLES, AND OUR BASIC PRINCIPLES ARE THE BEST TIME TO PUT ON CONTROLS IS WHEN A NEW SOURCE IS BUILT OR A SOURCE IS MODIFIED, AND WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT ANY RESULTANT AIR QUALITY IMPACT IS ANALYZED AND DEALT WITH.

SO I GUESS WHAT SCARES US IS THIS -- YOU KNOW, SOME KIND OF A PRESUMPTION THAT WHAT A SOURCE HAS GOT ON THERE IS BACT -- OBVIOUSLY, THE LONGER BACK YOU GO THE LESS SURE WE ARE OF THAT -- AND THEN THIS SECOND ASSUMPTION THAT THEY ARE SOMEHOW EXEMPTED FROM THE PROCESS.

IF WE WERE LOOKING AT A MODIFICATION, AND WE WERE RECONFIRMING THAT IT'S BACT OR LAER, AND THAT WAS SOME KIND OF A STREAMLINE PROCESS, THAT, I THINK, WE COULD LIVE WITH. BUT WE NEED SOME KIND OF AN UPDATED LOOK AT THE TECHNOLOGY AND THE IMPACT.

MR. SOLOMON: AGAIN, --

MR. RAHER: GO AHEAD.

MS. WEGMAN: GO AHEAD, DAVID.

MR. SOLOMON: THE EXEMPTION ONLY APPLIES IF ITS ACTUAL OR ITS POTENTIAL HOURLY EMISSIONS DO NOT INCREASE, SO IT'S NOT JUST THIS UNIT IS EXEMPT REGARDLESS OF ITS POTENTIAL IN TERMS OF WORST CASE EMISSIONS. SO IF IN THIS CASE THE NSPS WOULD APPLY BECAUSE ITS HOURLY EMISSIONS INCREASE, THEN THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE TIME TO OPEN IT UP FOR PSD AND TECHNOLOGY REVIEWS.

SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THE TERMS OF THE EXCLUSION; AND THAT IS, IT'S AN NSPS-TYPE OF TEST. WHAT IS ITS MAXIMUM HOURLY EMISSIONS? ARE THEY INCREASING? YES, THE TEST WOULD NOT APPLY. DO THEY REMAIN THE SAME OR DECREASE? YES. THEN YOU WOULD BE ELIGIBLE.

MR. JOHN PAUL: OKAY, AND THEN THAT -- SEE, THEN THAT GETS US CONFUSED BECAUSE THEN I'M STARTING TO WONDER WHAT IS IT THAT THEY'RE BEING EXEMPTED FROM IF THEY'RE MEETING ALL OF THESE TESTS, AND WE HAVE TO CONFIRM THAT THEY'RE MEETING THESE TESTS.

AND THEN I'M FURTHER CONCERNED WITH WHAT ARE ALL THE SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS, TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS ENFORCEABLE, THAT WE HAVE TO PUT ON THIS.

AND, EVENTUALLY, WE'RE CONCERNED THAT THE PROCESS TO EXEMPT A SOURCE BECOMES MORE COMPLICATED THAN THE PROCESS TO REVIEW IT. IF, INDEED, WHAT THEY'VE GOT ON THERE IS BACT OR LAER, IF, INDEED, THEY HAVE NO AIR QUALITY IMPACT -- THEN WE SHOULD HAVE A PROCESS WHICH IS STREAMLINED WHICH GETS THEM THROUGH THE PROCESS REAL QUICKLY.

MR. RAHER: DAVID?

MR. HAWKINS: YEAH. WELL, LET ME JUST FOLLOW UP WITH THAT LAST COMMENT OF JOHN'S. I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HASN'T BEEN EXAMINED IS WHETHER THIS EXEMPTION IS NEEDED GIVEN IF SOME OF THE OTHER CHANGES TO NSR WERE ADOPTED.

IF THE LIBERALIZATION OF THE NETTING CALCULUS WAS ADOPTED, IF THERE WERE SOME FORM OF ACTUAL-TO-FUTURE ACTUALS THAT WAS ADOPTED -- IN OUR VIEW IT WOULD HAVE TO BE ENFORCEABLE FUTURE ACTUALS -- IS THERE STILL A BASIS FOR CLAIMING THAT THIS ADDITIONAL TEST IS AN EXEMPTION, WITH THE ACCOMPANYING COMPLICATIONS, IS NEEDED? WHAT ARE THE -- WHAT ARE THE -- ARE THERE REALLY HARDSHIPS AND INAPPROPRIATENESS FROM, IN EFFECT, FORCING THE FACILITY TO UNDERGO A NETTING CALCULATION IN THAT CONTEXT, AND THAT -- SO THAT'S THE FIRST POINT.

AND THE SECOND ONE IS CLOSELY RELATED; WHICH IS, I THINK WE DO HAVE TO BE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE LOSING BY THIS EXEMPTION, EVEN IF IT WERE IMPLEMENTED, YOU KNOW, IN A PERFECT MANNER THAT PRECISELY TRACKED THE REGULATORY LANGUAGE.

FIRST, AS MS. ATAY INDICATED, WE'RE LOSING THE CHECK AGAINST AIR QUALITY TEST. AND I DON'T THINK IT'S AN ADEQUATE ANSWER TO SAY THAT THERE ARE LOTS OF OTHER FACILITIES THAT WE LET TAKE PLACE WITHOUT AIR QUALITY TESTS BEING CONDUCTED BECAUSE HERE WE'RE -- I MEAN THAT WOULD BE AN ARGUMENT FOR ELIMINATION OF THE ENTIRE NSR PROGRAM THAT -- WHICH I'M SURE PEOPLE ARE READY TO APPLAUD.

BUT THE, YOU KNOW, THE FACT THAT -- THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A DECISION MADE TO HAVE A THRESHOLD ABOVE WHICH WE WOULD CONDUCT THESE REVIEWS OBVIOUSLY MEANS THAT BELOW THAT THRESHOLD THE REVIEWS AREN'T CONDUCTED. THAT FACT ALONE CAN'T BE USED AS AN ARGUMENT THAT, THEREFORE, THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY REVIEWS CONDUCTED ABOVE THE THRESHOLD EITHER. IT'S KIND OF A BOOTSTRAP ARGUMENT.

AND BY DEFINITION WE'RE DEALING -- IF SOMEONE IS APPLYING FOR THIS EXEMPTION, IT'S BECAUSE THEY AREN'T COMMITTING TO NET OUT OF REVIEWS. SO THERE IS GOING TO BE A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT THAT CAN HAVE AN IMPACT, EITHER ON THE INCREMENTS OR ON THE AMBIENT STANDARDS.

AND IN THE CASE OF THE PSD PROGRAM, THERE WOULD BE A REVIEW AGAINST THOSE INCREMENTS, EVEN UNDER THE HYPOTHETICAL WHERE THERE WOULDN'T BE AN UPGRADING OF THE BACT DETERMINATION, AND THAT REVIEW AGAINST THE INCREMENTS MIGHT WELL CAUSE THERE TO BE A REQUIREMENT FOR ADDITIONAL EMISSION REDUCTIONS.

SECOND, IN THE CASE OF NONATTAINMENT NEW SOURCE REVIEW, WHATEVER CALCULATED EMISSION INCREASES THERE WERE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS -- AGAIN, EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE LAER DETERMINATION WERE NOT MODIFIED -- THOSE EMISSION INCREASES WOULD HAVE TO BE OFFSET. SO WE'RE LOSING THE BENEFIT OF THE OFFSET REDUCTION REQUIREMENT IN THE NONATTAINMENT AREA THROUGH THIS EXEMPTION.

AND THEN, FINALLY, I DON'T THINK YOU CAN REASONABLY ARGUE THAT 100 PERCENT OF THESE INSTANCES THERE NEVER WOULD BE AN UPGRADE IN THE TECHNOLOGY DETERMINATION. DAVID SOLOMON, YOU KNOW, TO HIS CREDIT, HAS IDENTIFIED ONE EXTREME SITUATION WHERE THE TEN-YEAR-OLD DETERMINATION WAS THAT NO CONTROLS WAS "BACT OR LAER." AND YOU COULD SEE MANY OTHER GRADATIONS WHERE SOME MODEST OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENT WAS IMPOSED WHICH WAS NOT AT ALL INCOMPATIBLE WITH A FUNDAMENTAL RE-ENGINEERING OF THE PIECE OF EQUIPMENT TEN YEARS LATER.

SO I THINK THOSE ARE ALL SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS EXEMPTION AND GIVES RISE TO A MORE THOROUGH INQUIRY AS TO IS THIS REALLY NEEDED.

MR. RAHER: LET'S TRY TO FOCUS ON THE ISSUES, AND WITH THE CARDS UP, SO THAT WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ISSUE. BUT I THINK WE NEED TO, YOU KNOW, SEE IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER ISSUES WE NEED TO FLAG FOR THE AGENCY OR POTENTIAL WAYS TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED TO THIS DATE.

JOHN?

MR. JOHN PAUL: I WANT TO FOLLOW UP WITH WHAT DAVE SAID. IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT INHERENT IN THE SUGGESTION THAT THERE IS AN EXEMPTION IS THAT THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT NET EMISSIONS INCREASE, AND EPA IN THE PREAMBLE SAID THAT THESE NEWER SOURCES ARE MUCH MORE LIKELY TO BE RUNNING AT FULL OPERATIONS SO, THEREFORE, WERE VERY MUCH LESS LIKELY TO BE RUNNING INTO THE ACTUAL VERSUS POTENTIAL ISSUE. WHICH CERTAINLY IS AN ISSUE, BUT NOT AS LIKELY, AS EPA POINTED OUT, FOR THESE NEW SOURCES.

IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT -- BECAUSE WE'RE NOT TALKING INCREASES IN HOURLY EMISSIONS, WE'RE TALKING INCREASES IN ANNUAL EMISSIONS -- THAT WHEN WE LOOK AT BACT AND LAER DETERMINATIONS AND WE LOOK AT DOLLARS PER TON, THAT IS DONE ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. THEREFORE, THESE PREVIOUS DECISIONS WERE NOT MADE BASED UPON THE HIGHER ANNUAL EMISSION RATE. SO THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A TECHNOLOGY THAT WAS WORKABLE -- IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE TOP OF A TOP-DOWN BACT. HOWEVER, BASED ON THE ECONOMICS BECAUSE THE NUMBER OF TONS PER YEAR WAS LOWER, THE DOLLARS PER TON WAS LIKELY TO BE A HIGHER NUMBER AND COULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

THE OTHER THING ABOUT GOING BACK TEN YEARS, IN 1988 THERE'S A -- SUMMER OF 1988 -- A SITES MEMO THAT BASICALLY DEALT WITH LAER THE SAME WAY AS LOOKING AT TOP-DOWN BACT. AND IT SAID, BASICALLY, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT A COMBINATION OF CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES, LOOKING NOT ONLY AT THE HARDWARE -- THE ADD-ON CONTROLS -- BUT ALSO THE POLLUTION PREVENTION. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR COATING OPERATIONS YOU LOOK AT THE, YOU KNOW, POUNDS PER GALLON, THE TRANSFER EFFICIENCY AS WELL AS ADD-ON CONTROL EQUIPMENT, AND ALL THREE OF THOSE THINGS HAVE TO BE LOOKED AT.

AND WHEN YOU THINK BACK -- SO, THEREFORE, TEN YEARS AGO THAT WAS BEFORE THE SITES MEMO. SO WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT A LOT OF DETERMINATIONS MADE, ESPECIALLY ON THE LAER SITE TEN YEARS AGO, REALLY MET THAT REQUIREMENT OF LOOKING AT THE COMBINATION OF NOT ONLY LOW VOC COATINGS, BUT ADD-ONS AS THEY ALSO MADE SENSE AS WELL AS TRANSFER EFFICIENCY.

ANOTHER THING IS THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT DETERMINATIONS, SOME OF THEM HAVE TO DO WITH COATING CONTENT, AND COATINGS CERTAINLY ARE CHANGING AND CHANGING VERY RAPIDLY. SO A COATING DETERMINATION THAT MAY HAVE BEEN BACT OR LAER TEN YEARS AGO OR FIVE YEARS AGO OR TWO YEARS AGO IS PROBABLY NOT A BACT OR LAER DETERMINATION NOW, AND THERE IS NO CAPITAL EXPENDITURE FOR COATINGS THAT, YOU KNOW, WOULD BE RENDERED USELESS IF A LOWER VOC COATING WERE REQUIRED TO BE USED.

SO, YOU KNOW, WHERE IS -- YOU LOOK AT THE EQUIPMENT, AND PERHAPS IT'S REASONABLE TO LOOK AT A REASONABLE PAYBACK PERIOD ON THE EQUIPMENT WHEN THE BACT OR LAER DETERMINATION INCLUDED COATINGS. THAT IS NOT THE CASE. THAT MONEY SPENT LAST YEAR ON COATINGS, WELL, THAT WAS USED ON LAST YEAR'S COATINGS. AND NEXT YEAR'S COATINGS, THEY'RE GOING TO BUY SOMETHING. SO THEY DON'T HAVE THE EXPENDITURE.

I WANT TO JUMP JUST A LITTLE BIT ONTO THE TITLE V ISSUE. TITLE V IS A VERY COMPLEX PROGRAM, AND WE ALL ANTICIPATE A LONG TIME TO REVIEW AND GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF ISSUING PERMITS. TO FURTHER COMPLICATE THE TITLE V PROCESS BY INDUSTRIES SUGGESTING WE WOULD LIKE ALL OF THESE EMISSIONS UNITS TO BE EVALUATED AS CLEAN UNITS WILL SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF EFFORT REQUIRED FOR TITLE V, AND WE'LL SEE COMPLAINTS THAT TITLE V TAKES TOO LONG. WE'RE GOING TO SEE THAT ANYWAY, BUT THIS WILL JUST ADD TO THAT.

AND THIS IS NOT TITLE V'S FAULT THAT PEOPLE WOULD WANT TO USE TITLE V AS A MECHANISM FOR REVIEW OF CLEAN SOURCES. SO WE ARE VERY MUCH AGAINST USING TITLE V AS THE MECHANISM: JUST BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO GIVE TITLE V A BLACK EYE.

MR. RAHER: MORE OF A BLACK EYE.

PRAVEEN?

MR. AMAR: PRAVEEN AMAR, WITH NSCAUM.

I JUST HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION OF DAVID. THE SECOND CRITERIA FOR THE CLEAN UNIT WHERE YOU SAY THE EPA WILL CERTIFY BACT/LAER FROM A STATE MINOR SOURCE REVIEW PROGRAM, ARE THERE OTHER REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE STATE MONITORING NEW SOURCE REVIEW PROGRAM WHICH THE EPA WOULD ALSO CERTIFY -- I MEAN THERE ARE OTHER THINGS BESIDES TECHNOLOGY; THAT IS, MONITORING REQUIREMENTS, THE EFFECTS ON NOX -- OR WOULD IT BE SIMPLY THE EMISSION LIMIT WHICH WILL FIND -- WHICH WILL RESULT IN EPA'S CERTIFICATION?

MR. SOLOMON: EPA WILL BE LOOKING TO SEE IF THE TECHNOLOGY AND PERMIT CONDITIONS THAT ARE APPLIED TO THAT UNIT ARE EQUIVALENT TO WHAT WOULD OTHERWISE RESULT FROM A MAJOR NEW SOURCE REVIEW.

MR. AMAR: OKAY, WOULD THE EPA THEN LOOK AT THE MINOR SOURCE REVIEW PROGRAM ITSELF AS FEDERALLY ENFORCEABLE OR JUST THE EMISSION LIMITATION PART OF IT? I MEAN THERE HAVE BEEN QUESTIONS ABOUT STATES MINOR SOURCE REVIEW PROGRAMS RECENTLY, MORE THAN JUST THE TECHNOLOGY.

MR. SOLOMON: I DON'T THINK THAT'S A QUESTION WE'VE LOOKED AT IN THAT DETAIL.

MR. RAHER: GOOD POINT.

LYDIA?

MS. WEGMAN: AS FOLKS SPEAK, I'D BE INTERESTED IF ANYONE HAS A REACTION TO DAVID HAWKINS' QUESTION; WHICH IS, IF WE WERE TO DO SOME OF THE OTHER LIBERALIZATIONS THAT ARE IN THIS PACKAGE -- PARTICULARLY, I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE INDUSTRY FOLKS -- IF YOU FEEL YOU COULD LIVE WITHOUT THE CLEAN UNIT CLEAN/CLEAN FACILITY TEST. I'D JUST BE INTERESTED IN ANY REACTIONS TO THAT POINT.

MR. RAHER: JOHN?

MR. BUNYAK: JOHN BUNYAK, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE.

DAVID CARR -- EXCUSE ME. DAVID HAWKINS AND ICLAL IDENTIFIED THE POTENTIAL INCREMENT OR STANDARD PROBLEMS WITH EXEMPT -- WITH THE CLEAN UNIT EXEMPTION. THESE EMISSIONS COULD ALSO CAUSE IMPACTS ON AIR QUALITY RELATED VALUES AT CLASS I AREAS, AND THERE WOULD BE NO MECHANISM FOR THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGER TO GET IN THE LOOP ON THAT.

ONE WAY TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACTS ON CLASS I RESOURCES IS TO MINIMIZE THE EMISSIONS. I THINK THAT THERE SHOULD BE EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE SURE THAT ANY INCREASED EMISSIONS ARE GOING TO BE CONTROLLED TO THE BEST THEY CAN, WHICH LEADS TO ONE GENERAL COMMENT ON THE APPLICABILITY PROVISIONS.

EPA DOES A GOOD JOB WITH IMPROVING THE FLM COORDINATION/NOTIFICATION PROVISIONS, BUT, ON THE OTHER HAND, THEY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE 50 PERCENT -- 50 PERCENT OR MORE OF THE SOURCES WILL BE EXEMPT FROM PSD REVIEW THAT WOULD OTHERWISE UNDERGO REVIEW UNDER THE CURRENT REGULATIONS, WHICH MEANS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GETTING BETTER NOTIFICATION, BUT, ON THE OTHER HAND, A LOT OF THOSE SOURCES WON'T BE GOING THROUGH THAT PROCESS.

MR. RAHER: BILL?

MR. BUMPERS: THANKS. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T GET AWAY FROM THIS WITHOUT SOMEBODY SAYING "ATTABOY" OR "WAY TO GO" BECAUSE I ACTUALLY THINK THIS IS A PRETTY GOOD PROVISION, AND I REALLY APPRECIATE EPA'S ATTEMPT TO RECOGNIZE THE FACT THAT YOU GET VERY MARGINAL BENEFIT WHEN YOU GO THROUGH THIS REVIEW PRETTY CLOSE ON THE HEELS OF A PSD DETERMINATION.

FROM A UTILITY INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE OR SOME OF THE MORE MAJOR COMBUSTIONS FORCE PERSPECTIVES, I'D SAY THIS IS PROBABLY NOT A HUGE BENEFIT IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT REALLY BIG SOURCES OR BIG UNDERTAKINGS. BUT MY EXPERIENCE IS IS THAT A LOT OF THE UTILITY UNITS AND A LOT OF THE OTHER NON-UTILITY UNITS WOULD GET A LOT OF BENEFIT FROM THIS BECAUSE THEY ARE CONSTANTLY COMING TO US AND ASKING QUESTIONS: IS THIS A MODIFICATION? DO I HAVE TO DO A BEFORE AND AFTER ACTUAL-TO-POTENTIAL OR ACTUAL-TO-FUTURE ACTUAL ANALYSIS?

AND THAT CONSUMES HUGE AMOUNTS OF TIME JUST TO FIGURE THAT OUT; AND ONCE THEY FIGURE THAT OUT, THEN THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS, WELL, GEE, NOW WE HAVE TO GO IN AND SUBMIT AN APPLICATION. AND THE REALITY IS THAT MAYBE YOU HAVE TO PUT ON SOME DIFFERENT KIND OF CONTROLS OR MAYBE YOU HAVE TO TAKE SOME KIND OF A PERMIT LIMITATION THAT'S RELATIVELY PAINLESS, BUT IT IS A HUMONGOUS AMOUNT OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND RESOURCE ALLOCATION FOR WHAT I EXPECT TO BE A NEGLIGIBLE OR MINOR ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT.

MOST OF THE TYPES OF PROJECTS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ON SOURCES THAT HAVE GONE THROUGH PSD OR NEW SOURCE REVIEW AND HAVE TECHNOLOGY IN THE LAST TEN YEARS IS MINOR EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS SO THAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO GET REDUCTIONS IN THE EMISSIONS PER HOUR OR EMISSIONS PER PRODUCT GENERATED. AND THERE IS, I THINK -- I COMPLETELY DISPUTE THE CONTENTION THAT I'VE HEARD THAT IT NECESSARILY THEN -- EXTENSION NECESSARILY MEANS YOU'RE GOING TO END UP WITH AN INCREASED UTILIZATION AND INCREASED EMISSIONS.

YOU CAN'T DRAW THAT CONCLUSION AT ALL. IT DOESN'T MEAN, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH NEW SOURCE REVIEW, THAT WE'RE GOING TO START OPERATING THIS UNIT AT 20 PERCENT HIGHER CAPACITY UTILIZATION DURING THE COURSE OF THE YEAR. THAT'S JUST NONSENSE.

IT TYPICALLY WILL SIMPLY GO TO EITHER WHAT YOU CAN'T CLEARLY CHARACTERIZE AS A ROUTINE PROJECT, BUT YOU STILL DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THE HOOPLA OF FIVE YEARS OF DATA GATHERING AND MODELING, OR IT'S AN EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT WHICH IS GOING TO GET YOU BETTER ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE, FOR THE MOST PART.

TO RESPOND DIRECTLY TO THE QUESTION YOU RAISED, OR THAT DAVID RAISED, LYDIA, I THINK THE ANSWER IS "NO." WE DON'T WANT TO LIVE WITHOUT THIS EVEN IF WE GET SOME OF THE FLEXIBILITY, AND THE REASON IS IS THAT IN SOME INDUSTRIES -- AND I CAN THINK OF SORT OF BATCH-PROCESSING CHEMICAL PHARMACEUTICALS WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO BE DOING PROJECTS ON A MORE FREQUENT BASIS THAN EVERY TEN YEARS, WHERE YOU HAVE TO MAKE SOME MINOR CHANGES TO ACCOMMODATE A NEW PROCESS OR A NEW PRODUCT, BUT YOU'RE STILL NOT GOING TO CHANGE YOUR EMISSIONS IN ANY GREAT DEGREE -- THIS PROVIDES A GREAT DEGREE OF RELIEF.

I THINK IT IS A REAL EVEN-HANDED APPROACH THAT IS BROADER THAN THE MICROMANAGEMENT THAT SOME OF THE STATES ARE OBLIGATED TO DEAL WITH, BUT IT IS A GOOD POLICY DECISION WHICH SAYS, BY AND LARGE, THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO IMPOSE SUCH COSTS ON ALL OF THE INDUSTRY AND ALL OF THE STATES FOR WHAT IS LIKELY TO BE EXCEPTIONALLY MINOR ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS. AND I THINK IT'S A GOOD, BALANCED APPROACH, AND I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT.

MR. RAHER: ERNIE?

MR. ROSENBERG: ERNIE ROSENBERG, OCCIDENTAL.

I WANT TO START, ALSO, BY SAYING THAT PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THIS PACKAGE, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE AND THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE GROUPS THAT I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH, IS THE ACCEPTANCE BY EPA THAT NSR FOR FACILITIES THAT ARE ALREADY WELL-CONTROLLED IS SIMPLY A BAD USE OF RESOURCES FOR INDUSTRY AND FOR STATE REGULATORS AND FOR THE FEDERAL REGULATORS. THAT'S JUST AN ENORMOUS CHANGE.

INSTEAD OF THIS BEING DRIVEN BY A LAWYERLY ANALYSIS OF WHAT'S REQUIRED BY EVERY COMMA AND PERIOD IN THE CLEAN AIR ACT, IT STARTS FROM, FIRST, PRINCIPLES, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE YOU GETTING FROM THIS FROM AN AIR QUALITY STANDPOINT? SO FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE I THINK THE CLEAN UNIT EXEMPTION IS AN EXTRAORDINARILY IMPORTANT CONCEPTUAL STEP ON THE PART OF THE AGENCY.

IN RESPONSE TO -- AND I -- BUT I AGREE THAT THERE'S TOO MUCH COMPLEXITY HERE, AND I THINK THAT THERE IS -- THERE IS -- THERE ARE TOO MANY HOOPS TO JUMP THROUGH.

THE REAL KEY THAT WILL COME UP WITH REGARD TO -- THAT HAS COME UP WITH REGARD TO THIS, THAT REALLY WILL COME UP WITH ALMOST ALL OF THE DISCUSSION ON THE REFORM PARTS OF THIS PACKAGE AS OPPOSED TO THE CLASS I PARTS OF THE PACKAGE, IS THAT WE'VE GOT TO COME TO SOME KIND OF UNDERSTANDING ABOUT WHAT'S THE VALUE OF NSR AND START FROM THAT, AS OPPOSED TO STARTING FROM THE ANALYSIS OF EVERY HYPOTHETICAL THAT MIGHT ARISE UNDER EVERY CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE YOU CHANGE THE RULES.

THAT KIND OF ANALYSIS INEVITABLY OVERLOOKS THE CURRENT VALUE THAT COULD HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED BY MODIFICATIONS, BUT THAT ISN'T ACHIEVED BECAUSE OF THE COST AND COMPLEXITY OF THE PROCESS, AND IT OVERLOOKS THE AMOUNT OF RESOURCES THAT ARE WASTED ON THE PROCESS THAT TODAY COULD BE FOCUSED ON MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE EMISSION REDUCTION STRATEGIES THAN NEW SOURCE REVIEW PROVIDES.

SO IF -- I MEAN, IF WE SIT AROUND TODAY WITH A DISCUSSION THAT SAYS, WELL, I CAN DREAM UP A SCENARIO UNDER WHICH THIS WOULD CAUSE AN INCREASE ABOUT WHICH WE'D BE CONCERNED, WE MIGHT AS WELL ALL GO HOME BECAUSE YOU'LL NEVER BE ABLE TO REFORM THIS PACKAGE IN A WAY THAT WON'T UNDER SOME HYPOTHETICAL BE ABLE TO GENERATE SOME KIND OF A PROBLEM.

AS FAR AS THE BURDENS ON THE TITLE V PROCESS GO, I THINK THAT -- I CERTAINLY AGREE WITH JOHN'S COMMENTS ABOUT THE EXISTING TITLE V PROCESS. BUT A CHANGE -- THESE KINDS OF CHANGES AND THESE KINDS OF LIMITATIONS AND THE UPGRADING OF MONITORING THAT'S GOING TO BE REQUIRED INEVITABLY ARE GOING TO RAISE THESE ISSUES. IT'S ONLY GOING TO RAISE THE ISSUES FOR CASES WHERE THERE HAS BEEN WHAT WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN A MAJOR MODIFICATION.

SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE BURDEN ON THE TITLE V PROCESS IS MINIMAL AS LONG AS THE TITLE V PROCESS ITSELF IS REFORMED SO THAT IF THERE'S NO REAL DECISION TO BE MADE AT THAT POINT, YOU DON'T GO THROUGH A SIGNIFICANT PERMIT MODIFICATION.

AND, FINALLY, WE'RE TRIPPING EACH OTHER UP ON THIS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE HOURLY EMISSIONS AND THE ANNUAL EMISSIONS, AND WE'VE GOT TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT THAT. IN SOME CASES WE'RE USING THAT ARGUMENT TO SAY, WELL, LOOK, THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY INCREASE IN HOURLY EMISSIONS, SO THERE'S -- IT'S HARD TO SEE THAT YOU'D HAVE AN IMPACT ON INCREMENTS OR WHATEVER.

ON THE OTHER HAND, WE'RE LOOKING AT WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN TO ANNUAL EMISSIONS, AND WE'RE HEARING AGAIN THAT OLD ARGUMENT -- THAT I SUBMIT HAS ABSOLUTELY DATA TO SUPPORT IT IN THE REAL WORLD -- THAT BECAUSE YOU GO THROUGH A MODIFICATION YOU SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE THE UTILIZATION OF THE FACILITY. THAT MAY BE TRUE IN SOME SECTORS, BUT IT'S NOT TRUE OVERALL. AND IF THAT IS TRUE OF SOME SECTORS, LET'S IDENTIFY THOSE SECTORS AND DESIGN A TEST THAT WORKS AROUND THAT.

THE IMPORTANT THING TO BEAR IN MIND HERE IS NOT WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN DESIGN SOME KIND OF PROBLEM IN THIS THING. THE PROBLEM -- THE IMPORTANT THING HERE IS IS IT -- DOES IT MAKE SENSE FOR A GIVEN CONCERN TO HAVE A NATIONWIDE PROCESS THAT WILL REQUIRE EVERY CHANGE TO GO THROUGH AN ANALYSIS BECAUSE SOME SMALL FRACTION OF THE CHANGES MIGHT HAVE BEEN, IN RETROSPECT, SOMETHING YOU WISH HADN'T HAPPENED. THAT'S NOT THE WAY TO MAKE A DETERMINATION OF WHAT THE IMPACT ON AIR QUALITY WILL BE.

MR. RAHER: OKAY, THE LAST THREE CARDS, AND THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ISSUE.

CHUCK?

MR. KNAUSS: I'M CHUCK KNAUS.

A FEW OBSERVATIONS AND THEN A QUESTION REGARDING TIMING FOR DAVID, IF HE COULD CONSIDER IT.

I THINK THAT THE CLEAN UNIT AND CLEAN FACILITY EXCLUSION COMBINED WITH PAL REFLECT AN EFFORT TO IMPLEMENT A POLICY OF MOVING OFF CHANGE-BY-CHANGE ANALYSIS AND TRYING TO FREE UP RESOURCES FROM HAVING TO SCRUTINIZE EVERY CHANGE WITH THE COMPLEXITY THAT DAVE MENTIONED. I THINK IT'S CLEAR AS WE TRY TO ANALYZE CLEAN UNIT THAT THERE ARE MANY THINGS THAT WOULD FALL OUT UNDER OTHER EXCLUSIONS OR WOULD NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF A PHYSICAL CHANGE OR A CHANGE IN METHOD OF OPERATION. THIS MAY PROVIDE A MORE SIMPLE WAY OF MAKING THAT DETERMINATION. THAT MAY BE ITS GREATEST BENEFIT.

I THINK THE TIME PERIOD OF TEN YEARS IS REFLECTIVE OF A PERIOD NEEDED TO RETURN INVESTMENT ON THE TECHNOLOGY, AND I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE.

IN TRYING TO EVALUATE THIS EXCLUSION, AS WELL AS OTHER EXCLUSIONS IN THE PACKAGE, WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHEN THEY MIGHT BE EFFECTIVE. AND IT WOULD BE USEFUL TO HEAR JUST A HYPOTHETICAL TIME LINE PRESENTED AS TO THIS PACKAGE -- ASSUMING PROMULGATION AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, ONE YEAR, ONE AND ONE-HALF YEARS, TWO YEARS; I'M NOT SURE HOW LONG IT MIGHT TAKE TO PUSH FORWARD -- AND THEN WITH RESPECT TO THE FIRST CATEGORY THAT DAVID MENTIONED, PRESUMPTIVE BACT, WHEN THE -- WHERE YOU HAVE BACT OR LAER IN PLACE, IN WHICH CASE IT WOULD AUTOMATICALLY QUALIFY FOR THIS EXCLUSION AS OPPOSED TO A DETERMINATION THAT HAS TO BE MADE THROUGH A STATE PROGRAM, WHEN WOULD THAT -- WHEN COULD WE EXPECT THAT SORT OF DECISION TO TAKE PLACE? AND THEN WITH RESPECT TO HAVING CERTIFIED PROGRAMS, ARE WE LOOKING FOUR YEARS OUT?

I THINK FOR THIS EXCLUSION, AS WELL AS OTHERS, I NOTE THAT BECAUSE -- WITH RESPECT TO THE GUIDANCE COMMENT -- GUIDANCE ON A FEW ISSUES COULD, IN FACT, BE IMPLEMENTED IMMEDIATELY TO THE EXTENT IT'S INTERPRETING CURRENT LAW AND CURRENT REGULATION, AS OPPOSED TO WHAT'S LAID OUT HERE WHICH MAY BE FIVE YEARS OR FOUR YEARS AWAY.

MR. RAHER: DAVID?

MR. SOLOMON: ACTUALLY, DENNIS IS THE ONE TO SPEAK TO TIMING OF THE PACKAGE, BUT RIGHT NOW OUR SCHEDULE WOULD PROBABLY PUT US -- ASSUMING WE COME UP WITH WORKABLE RESPONSES TO THE MANY ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED -- A YEAR FROM THE DATE OF PROPOSAL.

AT THAT TIME, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE AGENCY WERE TO USE A CLEAN UNIT TEST AS PART OF THE FEDERAL REGULATIONS, IT WOULD BE EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY IN THOSE STATES WHERE THEY HAVE A DELEGATED PROGRAM. IN OTHER STATES, THE STATES WOULD HAVE TO AMEND THEIR PROGRAMS TO PROVIDE FOR THAT TYPE OF TEST. IN THAT CASE WE COULD BE LOOKING ANYWHERE FROM THREE TO FOUR YEARS OUT FROM TODAY.

MR. RAHER: STEVE?

MR. KNAUSS: DAVID, WHAT IS --

MR. RAHER: I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD.

MR. KNAUSS: DO YOU KNOW OFF THE TOP JUST HOW MANY DELEGATED --

MR. SOLOMON: ABOUT --

MR. KNAUSS: -- YOU KNOW, WHAT THE RELATIVE NUMBERS ARE?

MR. SOLOMON: I THINK IT'S APPROXIMATELY TWELVE OR SO STATES HAVE DELEGATED. IT MAY BE ELEVEN NOW, AND THE REST ARE SIP APPROVED.

MR. KNAUSS: SO WE'RE LOOKING AT 35 OR SO THAT WOULD BE FOUR YEARS BEYOND PROMULGATION?

MR. SOLOMON: WELL, I WOULD SAY TWO YEARS, DEPENDING ON HOW QUICKLY THE STATE PROCESS MOVES ALONG.

MR. KNAUSS: OKAY.

MR. KATAOKA: THAT'S FOR PSD. ALL NONATTAINMENT PROGRAMS, RIGHT, --

MR. SOLOMON: RIGHT.

MR. KNAUSS: OKAY.

MR. KATAOKA: -- ARE NOT DELEGATED.

MR. RAHER: STEVE?

MR. SOLOMON: THE NONATTAINMENT NEW SOURCE REVIEW PERMITTING IS NOT A DELEGATED PROGRAM.

MR. RAHER: STEVE?

MR. FOTIS: STEVEN FOTIS, OF VAN NESS FELDMAN.

IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION AS TO WHAT YOU THINK THE IMPACT MIGHT BE OR IMPLICATIONS IF ONE WAS TO NOT OFFER THIS EXEMPTION, ONE OBSERVATION FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE IS THAT IT WOULD PROBABLY INCREASE THE NEED FOR PAL'S AS A WAY TO PROVIDE A SIMPLE -- A SIMPLIFIED TEST FOR APPLICABILITY, AND THAT, I THINK, IS OBVIOUSLY -- AT LEAST IN THE EARLY YEARS -- IS GOING TO BE MORE INTENSIVE FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE PERSPECTIVE.

AND, ALSO, JUST TO NOTE THAT IN THE PROPOSAL, THAT EPA WOULD NOT OR HAD INDICATED AN INTENT TO NONAUTHORIZE THE USE OF PAL'S BY NEW GREENFIELD SOURCES IN ATTAINMENT AREAS. SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO, OBVIOUSLY, EXPAND THE PAL CONCEPT THERE TO ALLOW IT. I MEAN, THAT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE OF, I THINK, EPA'S THINKING THAT PAL'S WOULDN'T BE NECESSARY FOR NEW GREENFIELD SOURCES, AND YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE IT AVAILABLE IN THAT SITUATION.

MR. RAHER: DAVID? DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER --

MR. HAWKINS: YEAH, JUST A BRIEF EFFORT TO SEE -- I SENSE THAT, IN SOME REGARD, WE'RE TALKING PAST EACH OTHER. WE RAISE -- WE RAISE SITUATIONS WHERE THERE WOULD BE INCREASES IN EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH A MODIFICATION, AND THE RESPONSE FROM BILL AND ERNIE IS THAT NOT EVERY CHANGE RESULTS IN AN INCREASE, AND, THEREFORE, THERE'S NO BENEFIT AT ALL FROM THIS. AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE SORT OF COMMENTS THAT TALK PAST ONE ANOTHER.

I THINK WHAT THOSE COMMENTS IN TOTO POINT UP IS THAT THE CLEAN UNIT EXEMPTION IS NOT SUFFICIENTLY DISCRIMINATING. IT EXEMPTS THOSE UNITS WHERE THERE IS NO REAL INCREASE IN EMISSIONS, BUT IT ALSO EXEMPTS THOSE UNITS WHERE THERE IS ONE. AND THE JOB IS TO SEE IF IT'S POSSIBLE TO COME UP WITH A MORE DISCRIMINATING TECHNIQUE THAT DEALS WITH THE CONCERNS THAT I AND THE STATE AND LOCAL AND PARK SERVICE ENFORCERS HAVE RAISED WITHOUT, IF IT'S POSSIBLE, SWEEPING IN THE CHANGES THAT EVERYONE WOULD AGREE DON'T RAISE ANY POTENTIAL FOR INCREASED EMISSIONS THAT REQUIRE THIS DEDICATION OF RESOURCES.

MR. RAHER: OKAY. IF THERE ARE NO OTHER COMMENTS --

MS. WEGMAN: JOHN HAS A COMMENT.

MR. RAHER: OH. I'M SORRY, JOHN. I MISSED YOU.

MR. RUSCIGNO: JOHN RUSCIGNO, STATE OF OREGON.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A QUICK COMMENT ABOUT USING THE TITLE V MECHANISM. OREGON'S ABOUT YEAR AND ONE-HALF INTO ISSUING TITLE V PERMITS, AND IT'S QUITE A CHALLENGE TO GET THESE OUT IN THE TIME PERIOD UNDER THE CURRENT PROGRAM. ADDING ANOTHER REVIEW IS JUST A BACK-BREAKER. I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. WE DON'T NEED IT.

MR. RAHER: SPOKEN BY SOMEONE WHO'S GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS.

LET'S MOVE ON THEN TO THE NEXT ISSUE. AGAIN, AS LYDIA HAS SUGGESTED -- PARTICULARLY THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS, BUT ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WILL BE COMMENTING ON THIS RULE -- AGAIN, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL NOT ONLY TO ADDRESS WAYS TO IMPROVE IT, BUT ALSO WHAT IT MEANS WITH RESPECT TO THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PACKAGE AS A WHOLE, OR, AS I THINK STEVE MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, WHAT IMPACT WOULD ITS ELIMINATION HAVE ON OTHER PROGRAMS WILL BE EXTREMELY USEFUL TO THE AGENCY IN TERMS OF ITS TRYING TO ASSESS WHAT REVISIONS OR CHANGES IT SHOULD MAKE TO THIS PROVISION.

THE NEXT ISSUE THAT SEEMED TO RAISE A GREAT DEAL OF DISCUSSION INVOLVED THE NETTING BASELINE ITSELF. JUST TO REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION, THE PROPOSED RULE SUGGESTS THAT A UTILIZATION LEVEL OR, I THINK, CAPACITY FACTOR THAT THEY USED WILL BE THE HIGHEST CONSECUTIVE TWELVE-MONTH PERIOD IN THE TEN YEARS PRECEDING THE PROPOSED CHANGE; AND IN NONATTAINMENT AREAS AND IN THE OZONE TRANSPORT REGIONS, THE BASELINE COULDN'T BEGIN PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 11, 1990.

THE GENERAL COMMENTS THAT WERE RECEIVED, I THINK, FELL INTO THREE CATEGORIES. GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE INDUSTRY MEMBERS COMMENTED FAVORABLY ON THIS. AS YOU'LL RECALL FROM OUR EARLIER MEETINGS, THIS WAS DESIGNED TO ADDRESS INDUSTRIES THAT ARE CYCLICAL, THAT FIND IT DIFFICULT AND CONSTRAINING WITH NO EQUIVALENT BENEFIT TO OPERATE UNDER THE CURRENT PROGRAM. SO, GENERALLY, THEY APPRECIATED THIS ABILITY TO OPERATE IN A MORE OPEN MANNER.

THEY DID HAVE SOME COMMENTS, HOWEVER, IN THAT THE FIRST ONE WOULD BE THAT THE UTILIZATION FACTORS IN THE PAST, THAT MAY BE VERY COMPLICATED TO DEVELOP. AND THAT IS -- THE COMMENT COMES FROM PEOPLE WHO HAVE DIFFERENT PRODUCTS, DIFFERENT PROCESSES, ETC. THIS IS NOT, FOR INSTANCE, A PLANT THAT CHURNS OUT THE SAME PRODUCT WITH THE SAME PROCESS FOR TEN YEARS. IF YOU HAVE TO GO BACK AND ATTEMPT TO IDENTIFY WHICH YEAR YOU'RE GOING TO USE IN THAT LAST TEN YEARS, THEY FELT THAT THE COMPARABILITY ISSUE FOR DETERMINING THAT UTILIZATION RATE WOULD BE EXTREMELY DIFFICULT.

AND I THINK WE ALSO HEARD THAT THE STATES THOUGHT THAT THEY WOULD HAVE, OBVIOUSLY, ADDED BURDEN IN SITTING DOWN WITH THEIR SOURCES TO MAKE THAT ANALYSIS.

A SECOND COMMENT WAS THAT USING CURRENT ALLOWABLE EMISSIONS RATE IS NOT THE BEST WAY TO GO IN THAT THE CURRENT EMISSION FACTORS ONLY WORK, AGAIN, IF THE PAST PRODUCTS AND OPERATIONS WERE THE SAME. ALSO, IT'S PUNITIVE TO COMPANIES THAT ACTUALLY HAVE INSTALLED POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAMS. THEY WILL, IN EFFECT, LOSE THEIR BASELINE, HAVING DONE SOMETHING THAT HAS BENEFITTED THE ENVIRONMENT.

AND SO IN TERMS OF IDENTIFYING WHAT THE CURRENT ALLOWABLE EMISSION RATE WAS, THE SUGGESTION WAS THAT YOU SIMPLY ADJUST, BASED ON WHATEVER THE CURRENT REGULATIONS WERE SINCE THE TIME OF THE HIGHEST FACTOR THAT YOU'RE USING. DAVID HAWKINS RAISED THE FACT THAT, IN FACT, WHAT YOU SHOULD BE LOOKING AT HERE IS CURRENT ACTUALS IN TERMS OF MAKING YOUR DETERMINATION.

AND THEN, FINALLY, THE STATES AGAIN RAISED THE WHOLE QUESTION OF WHETHER THIS ADDS A BURDEN IN TERMS OF THE OVERALL NETTING BASELINE THAT IS GREATER THAN THE BURDEN TODAY.

AND I GUESS, JOHN PAUL, AGAIN, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL -- EITHER NOW OR IN THE WRITTEN COMMENTS -- TO GET A BETTER DESCRIPTION AS TO WHY LOOKING AT A GREATER TIME PERIOD, ASSUMING THAT YOU ADDRESS THE OTHER ISSUES WE JUST IDENTIFIED, WHY THAT WOULD CREATE A GREATER BURDEN ON THE STATE.

SO AGAIN, I THINK, IN SUMMARY, YOU HAD PEOPLE FROM INDUSTRY APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE FACA DID, IN FACT -- DID RECOMMEND AN INCREASED BASELINE PERIOD FOR CYCLICAL INDUSTRIES. THE AGENCY IDENTIFIED TEN YEARS -- ACTUALLY, I THINK THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE CAME UP WITH -- AND THEN IT HAS PLACED THESE TESTS OR METHODS FOR DETERMINING THAT BASELINE WITHIN THAT.

DAVID, BASED ON YOUR -- BASED ON WHAT YOU HEARD YESTERDAY, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS IN TERMS OF WHAT THE AGENCY WAS ATTEMPTING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE, AND ANY GENERAL CLARIFICATIONS?

MR. SOLOMON: AS YOU MENTIONED, WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO WAS ACCOMMODATE THE CONCERNS WE'VE HEARD FROM CYCLIC INDUSTRIES, THAT USING THE LAST TWO YEARS AS BEING REPRESENTATIVE IN MANY CASES WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE, ESPECIALLY IF THERE WAS A DOWNTURN.

WE ALSO FELT THAT THE INFORMATION BEING REQUESTED -- THAT IS, OPERATIONAL LEVEL PLUS EMISSION FACTOR -- IS THE TYPE OF INFORMATION CURRENTLY REQUIRED, ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE MORE READILY AVAILABLE WITHIN THE LAST TWO YEARS THAN GOING BACK OVER TEN YEARS. BUT THE TYPE OF CALCULATION ITSELF IS THE TYPE -- IS THE EXACT SAME CALCULATION THAT IS DONE TODAY, ONLY WITH A DIFFERENT SET OF NUMBERS. AND THERE MAY BE SOME VALIDITY IN TERMS OF GOING BACK TEN YEARS AND THE ACCURACY OF THAT TYPE OF DATA, BUT THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS.

MR. RAHER: OKAY.

ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, CLARIFICATIONS, SUGGESTIONS IN TERMS OF HOW TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED AT YESTERDAY'S HEARING, THE VALIDITY OF THOSE ISSUES, OR THE IMPACTS?

JOHN?

MR. TROUT: I WANT TO JUST PUT ON THE TABLE A DISCUSSION I HAD WITH DENNIS CRUMPLER THAT IT APPEARS THAT -- AND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS DETERMINING THE ACTUAL EMISSIONS AS OF A SPECIFIC DATE. AND THE FIVE-YEAR CONTEMPORANEOUS PERIOD HAS NOT BEEN CHANGED IN THE REGULATION, SO WE'RE GOING BACK FROM A -- YOU KNOW, THE TIME THE CONSTRUCTION WOULD START, WE'RE GOING BACK FIVE YEARS AND THEN DETERMINING ACTUAL EMISSIONS, WHICH THEN ADDS THAT TEN-YEAR PERIOD FROM THAT POINT BACK.

SO IT APPEARS THAT WHAT WE ACTUALLY ENDED UP WITH HAS A POSSIBILITY OF GOING BACK FIFTEEN YEARS TO DETERMINE AN ACTUAL EMISSIONS RATE. SO, YOU KNOW, DAVE, WOULD YOU --

MR. RAHER: JOHN? JOHN, YOU AND DENNIS MAY HAVE JUST HAVE UNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU SAID, BUT I -- IT SORT OF WHIZZED RIGHT -- WHIZZED RIGHT BY ME THERE AS TO HOW WE WENT FROM TEN TO FIFTEEN. SO IF ONE OF YOU COULD JUST SLOW THAT DOWN A LITTLE BIT MORE, WE MIGHT HAVE IT, AND WE MIGHT BE THERE.

MR. SOLOMON: MY QUESTION IS, JOHN, ARE YOU DESCRIBING THE CURRENT SYSTEM OR THE PROPOSAL?

MR. TROUT: PARDON?

MR. SOLOMON: NO, I -- THE QUESTION IS IN TERMS OF WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DESCRIBE, IS IT WHAT'S IN THE PROPOSAL OR IS IT THE CURRENT SYSTEM?

MR. TROUT: WE BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT'S IN THE PROPOSAL --

MR. SOLOMON: OKAY.

MR. TROUT: -- IS A CONTEMPORANEOUS PERIOD IS WHAT -- THAT'S WHAT NETTING'S ALL ABOUT. REMEMBER, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NETTING, AND CONTEMPORANEOUS MEANS TO GO BACK FIVE YEARS FROM THE POINT WHEN CONSTRUCTION STARTS AND DETERMINE ACTUAL EMISSIONS AND THEN LOOK AT WHEN THE INCREASE IS GOING TO START. THAT'S THE CONTEMPORANEOUS PERIOD.

NOW, SO THE ACTUAL EMISSIONS AS OF A SPECIFIC DATE USED TO BE THE TWO YEAR, YOU KNOW, THE AVERAGE OF THE TWO YEARS PREVIOUS TO FIVE YEARS AGO. NOW THE TEN-YEAR LOOK-BACK OF WHAT THE ACTUAL EMISSIONS ARE GO FROM THE BEGINNING, WHICH IS FIVE YEARS AGO. SO IT APPEARS THAT WHAT WE MAY HAVE ENDED UP WITH IS GOING BACK FROM -- FROM NOW FIFTEEN YEARS FOR A POSSIBLE DETERMINING OF ACTUAL EMISSIONS, WHICH IS THE STARTING POINT FOR THE NETTING CALCULUS.

MR. SOLOMON: RIGHT.

MR. TROUT: SO I'LL LET YOU TALK WITH DENNIS. DENNIS UNDERSTANDS IT, AND I JUST WAN TO THROW --

MR. SOLOMON: LET ME JUST --

MR. TROUT: -- THAT OUT ON THE TABLE.

MR. RAHER: NO, NO, NOW THAT'S NOT THE TEST WE'RE USING, JOHN.

MR. FOTIS: NOW WAIT. WHEN THE FEDS, STATES AND LOCALS AGREE, THAT'S THE TEST WE'RE USING.

MR. TROUT: RIGHT. RIGHT. RIGHT.

MR. SOLOMON: LET ME CLARIFY THE INTENT. THE INTENT WAS TO PROVIDE FOR A FINITE AND DISCRETE TEN-YEAR PERIOD LOOKING BACK FROM THE DATE OF THE MODIFICATION PERIOD. YOU COULD NOT USE A TIME OUTSIDE OF THAT TEN YEARS, AND THE SOURCE WOULD HAVE THE DISCRETION TO PICK WITHIN THAT TEN YEARS ANY TWELVE-MONTH PERIOD. THERE'S NO INTENT --

MR. TROUT: OKAY, THAT'S WHAT WE UNDERSTOOD THE INTENT WAS. --

MR. SOLOMON: OKAY.

MR. TROUT: -- IT MAY NOT BE HOW IT CAME OUT --

MR. SOLOMON: OKAY.

MR. TROUT: -- IN THE LANGUAGE.

MR. RAHER: OKAY. SO WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING, THAT THE AGENCY HAS TO CAREFULLY LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE SO THAT IT DOESN'T EXCEED THAT LIMIT?

MR. TROUT: THAT'S CORRECT.

MR. RAHER: OKAY.

MR. TROUT: YES.

MR. RAHER: FINE.

ANY ADDITIONAL -- STEVE?

MR. FOTIS: STEVEN FOTIS, OF VAN NESS FELDMAN. I JUST WANT TO FLAG AN ISSUE THAT WE WILL BE GIVING WRITTEN COMMENTS ON IN MORE DETAIL. BUT IT HAS TO DO WITH -- AND IT'S AN ISSUE THAT'S NOT IN THE REFORM PACKAGE, BUT IT PERTAINS TO LIMITATIONS ON NETTING WHERE THERE IS CURRENTLY A REQUIREMENT THAT IN ORDER TO NET OUT YOU HAVE TO HAVE COMMON SOURCE OR OWNERSHIP. IT'S A COMMON OWNERSHIP AND OPERATOR REQUIREMENT.

AND WE UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC OF THAT AND HOW IT'S NECESSARY IN MANY CASES, BUT THERE ARE SITUATIONS -- IN PARTICULAR, COGENERATION FACILITIES -- WHERE IT DOES WORK. AND IT'S SOMETHING -- IT'S AN AREA THAT WE WOULD REALLY LIKE TO WORK WITH THE AGENCY AND SEE IF THERE IS A WAY WHERE YOU COULD GET NETING -- TO GET NETTING WORK -- TO WORK IN A SITUATION WHERE THERE IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT.

MR. SOLOMON: THAT WAS AN ISSUE THAT WAS RAISED VERY -- I GUESS WE SLIGHTLY TOUCHED ON AT SOME OF THE OTHER MEETINGS, AND I THINK THE BIGGEST ISSUES CAME FROM OECA IN TERMS OF ENFORCEABILITY RELATIVE TO THE DECREASES AT THE SOURCE THAT WAS NOT ACTUALLY RECEIVING THE PERMIT.

SO IF YOU COULD PROVIDE ANY SUGGESTIONS AS TO HOW THAT CAN BE DONE AND PROVIDE THE ENFORCEABILITY THAT WOULD BE NEEDED TO ENSURE THAT THE DECREASES OCCUR, AND THEY'RE PERMITTED, THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL.

MR. FOTIS: I WOULD LIKE TO WORK WITH YOU, FIRST OF ALL, TO UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT THAT PROBLEM IS, AND THEN ABSOLUTELY.

MR. RAHER: DAVID?

MR. HAWKINS: A COUPLE OF QUICK THINGS. FIRST ON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER VOLUNTARY REDUCTIONS WOULD BE PUNISHED, I THINK THAT A RULE SHOULD BE DESIGNED SO IT DOESN'T DETER REDUCTIONS IN ACTUAL EMISSIONS.

HAVING SAID THAT, I THINK THAT IT'S ALSO APPROPRIATE TO RECOGNIZE THAT IF YOU HAVE A FACILITY THAT TEN YEARS AGO HAD AN ACTUAL EMISSION RATE THAT WAS 20 PERCENT OF ITS ALLOWABLE RATE, AND TODAY THAT SAME ACTUAL EMISSION RATE IS STILL 20 PERCENT OF ITS ALLOWABLE, AND IT HAS MADE NO POLLUTION PREVENTION OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF EMISSION REDUCTION IN THE INTERIM -- TO SAY THAT THAT SOURCE CAN NOW USE AN EMISSION RATE THAT'S FIVE TIMES HIGHER THAN IT EVER HAS ACTUALLY BEEN AS A BASIS FOR CALCULATING WHETHER THERE'S AN INCREASE IS INAPPROPRIATE.

THE SECOND COMMENT RELATES AGAIN TO THINKING ABOUT THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THIS PROPOSAL AND OTHER COMPONENTS, AND I THINK THAT THIS PROPOSAL HAS TO BE EVALUATED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ACTUAL-TO-FUTURE ACTUALS APPROACH BECAUSE THE PINCH, IF THERE IS ONE, WITH RESPECT TO SOURCES AND THE MISUSE OF RESOURCES, IF THERE IS ONE, HAS TO DO WITH THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE CALCULATION RULES RESULT IN WHAT IS VIEWED AS AN ARTIFICIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE BASELINE AND THE PROJECTED FUTURE EMISSIONS.

AND IF THE -- AND, OBVIOUSLY, THAT PINCH CAN BE REDUCED BY PUSHING ON THE BEFORE OR PUSHING ON THE AFTER, AND THIS PROPOSAL DOES BOTH. AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO REFLECT THAT IT BOTH ALLOWS THE USE OF HIGHER BEFORE EMISSIONS AS WELL AS LOWER AFTER EMISSIONS, AND EVALUATE THESE TWO THINGS JOINTLY.

MR. RAHER: OKAY.

JOHN?

MR. TROUT: I'D LIKE TO START OUT WITH ONE VERY POSITIVE. WE'RE VERY PLEASED THAT EPA DID WRITE IN ON THE NONATTAINMENT SIDE NOT GOING BACK BEFORE NOVEMBER OF 1990. SO THAT'S, I THINK, A GOOD RECOGNITION OF THE REAL PROBLEMS THAT THAT CAUSES US.

WE, AS STAPPA/ALAPCO, AN ASSOCIATION OF MANY STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES, OBVIOUSLY, HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE FROM MANY AGENCIES, AND SOMETIMES IT'S DIFFICULT FOR US TO TRY TO BALANCE THE THOUGHTS OF THE DIFFERENT AGENCIES. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING AND WE HAVE TO RESOLVE FOR OUR FINAL WRITTEN COMMENTS -- AND PARTICULARLY THE CALIFORNIA AGENCIES ARE LOOKING (SIC) -- THAT ON AN INDIVIDUAL EMISSIONS UNIT, A POTENTIAL-TO-POTENTIAL TEST AS BEING A FAIR WAY TO RESOLVE THE NETTING ISSUE THAT -- YOU KNOW, THE ACTUAL VERSUS POTENTIAL ISSUE.

SO WE'RE DISCUSSING THAT WITHIN THE ASSOCIATIONS AND WILL COME OUT WITHIN OUR WRITTEN COMMENTS WITH A RECOMMENDATION, BUT WE WANTED PEOPLE TO KNOW THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT ON A SINGLE EMISSIONS UNIT POTENTIAL-TO-POTENTIAL TO RESOLVE THIS ISSUE.

MR. RAHER: OKAY. JOHN, I APPRECIATE SORT OF THE FOREWARNING ON THAT, AND MAYBE IF ANY OF THE OTHER INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT, THEY CAN TALK TO YOU OR JOHN PAUL OR BILL AND GET A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION AND INPUT BACK TO YOU ON THAT.

WHO ELSE WAS HERE? JOHN?

ICLAL?

MS. ATAY: HI, THIS IS ICLAL ATAY, FROM NEW JERSEY DEP.

I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE TWO POINTS. I AGREE WITH DAVID THAT THIS NETTING BASELINE ISSUE NEEDS TO BE TIED IN WITH ACTUAL-TO-FUTURE ACTUAL APPLICABILITY TESTS. I WOULD LIKE TO START MY COMMENT BY GIVING YOU AN EXAMPLE.

LET'S TAKE A SOURCE, A FACILITY THAT'S ALLOWED TO EMIT 250 TONS PER YEAR OF NITROGEN OXIDES EMISSIONS, AND THEY ARE ALLOWED TO EMIT AT 8,760 HOURS PER YEAR, AND THERE ARE NO OPERATING RESTRICTIONS ON THEIR EQUIPMENT. THEY'RE ALLOWED TO BURN GAS AND COAL. LET'S SAY THIS IS A BOILER. AND, TRADITIONALLY, LET'S SAY IN THE LAST TEN YEARS, THIS FACILITY HAS ALWAYS BURNED GAS, AND THEY HAVE OPERATED 2,000 HOURS PER YEAR, SO THEY HAVE EMITTED ABOUT 50 TONS PER YEAR.

THEY DECIDE THIS YEAR THAT THEY WANT TO BURN COAL NOW. THEIR PERMIT ALLOWS THAT, AND THEY WANT TO OPERATE 8,760 HOURS PER YEAR, SO THEY WILL EMIT AT 250 TONS PER YEAR. THIS WILL NOT SUBJECT THEM TO NEW SOURCE REVIEW BECAUSE IT'S PERFECTLY ALLOWED IN THEIR PERMIT. EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EMISSION INCREASE, THEY WILL NOT BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW.

HAVING GIVEN THAT EXAMPLE, I WOULD LIKE TO TELL YOU AN APPLICABILITY TEST THAT WE USE IN NEW JERSEY, AND IT'S IN OUR SIP FOR NONATTAINMENT AREAS. WE USE A TEST OF POTENTIAL-TO-POTENTIAL UNLESS FOR NETTING PURPOSES DECREASES IN THE ACTUAL EMISSIONS IN THE CONTEMPORANEOUS PERIOD. THE REASON WE DO THAT IS THE POTENTIAL EMISSION RATE IS A GIVEN ALLOWABLE EMISSION RATE TO A FACILITY. AS IN THE EXAMPLE I HAVE GIVEN TO YOU, EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY OPERATE BELOW THAT, AT ANY ONE TIME WITHIN THE RESTRICTIONS OF THEIR PERMIT THEY CAN GO UP TO THEIR POTENTIAL.

AND FUTURE POTENTIAL IS THIS IS WHAT YOU ALLOW THEM TO OPERATE AT. YOU EVALUATE THE TECHNOLOGY OF THEIR FUTURE POTENTIAL. YOU SAY IF YOU OPERATE AT THIS FUTURE POTENTIAL EMISSION RATE -- THIS IS BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY -- YOU EVALUATE THE INCREMENTS IN AIR QUALITY EFFECTS AT THEIR FUTURE POTENTIAL EMISSION RATES. AND YOU SAY TO THEM IT'S OKAY FOR YOU TO EMIT AT THIS PTE. AIR QUALITY IS OKAY. PAL IMPACTS ARE OKAY. INCREMENTS ARE OKAY. TECHNOLOGY IS OKAY. YOU GIVE THEM A PERMIT.

THE PREVIOUS PTE WAS DONE AS WELL AT THAT LIMIT, SO YOU LOOK AT FUTURE, NOT PTE. AND FUTURE PTE, YOU LOOK AT THE DIFFERENCE. AND IF THIS DIFFERENCE IS SIGNIFICANT, THEY MAY BE SUBJECT TO NEW SOURCE REVIEW. THEY MAY SAY, OKAY, WE HAVE EMISSION REDUCTIONS. WE ARE GOING TO NET OUT. THEN YOU LOOK AT ONLY AT THE EMISSION DECREASES IN THE ACTUAL EMISSIONS, NOT IN EMISSIONS THAT HAVE -- THE ENVIRONMENT HAS NEVER SEEN. SO YOU GIVE THEM CREDIT FOR EMISSION DECREASES IN ACTUAL EMISSIONS.

IF THEY HAVE INSTALLED SCR TECHNOLOGY IN ANOTHER BOILER AT THEIR FACILITY, AND THEY HAVE DECREASED THEIR EMISSIONS BY 50 TONS OF NOX, THEN YOU CAN GIVE THEM CREDIT FOR THE CHANGE. THEN YOU -- THIS IS A TEST. THIS IS FAIR, AND IT'S EASILY IMPLEMENTABLE.

THE WAY OF DOING HERE, GOING BACK TEN YEARS AND TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT THEIR ACTUAL EMISSIONS WILL BE, IT'S GOING TO BE A MIND-BOGGLING THING. WHAT IS THE CRITERIA HOW THEY SHOULD DOCUMENT THEIR EMISSIONS? WE HAVE SEEN IN COMMENTS YESTERDAY THE PRODUCTION ACTIVITY LEVEL CAN BE SHOWN IN MANY DIFFERENT WAYS THAT WILL GIVE YOU DIFFERENT VALUES IN WHAT THE ACTUAL EMISSIONS ARE. AND IT REALLY IS INEQUITABLE BETWEEN INDUSTRIES BECAUSE SOME INDUSTRY MAY COME AND MIGHT FIND A WAY OF CALCULATING THEIR ACTUAL EMISSIONS THAT SOME OTHER INDUSTRY MAY HAVE -- MAY NOT HAVE FIGURED IT OUT IN THEIR FAVOR.

POTENTIAL LIMIT IS A FAIR WAY OF DOING IT. THAT'S THEIR ALLOWABLE. THAT'S WHAT -- AT THE LEVEL WE HAVE EVALUATED THEM AND TOLD THEM IT'S OKAY FOR THEM TO EMIT UP TO THAT LEVEL.

THE FUTURE ACTUAL AS WELL, YOU TOLD THEM YOU CAN EMIT UP TO 250 TONS, BUT YOU TELL ME YOU'RE GOING TO BE ONLY AT 50, SO I'M EXEMPTING YOU. NOW FOR FIVE YEARS YOU'RE GOING TO LOOK AT WHAT ARE YOU DOING, AND DO YOU REALLY -- ARE YOU REALLY BELOW THAT OR ABOVE THAT? IF YOU'RE ABOVE THAT, WHAT HAPPENS TO YOU?	IT REALLY DOESN'T GIVE THE PUBLIC THE ASSURANCE OF, OH, WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO ME NOW? THIS FACILITY IS BUILDING HERE. THEY'RE ALLOWED TO EMIT UP TO 250 TONS, BUT THEY'RE SAYING THEY WILL ONLY EMIT 50. SO WHY AREN'T THEY COMMITTING TO 50? IT WILL PUT US IN A REALLY DIFFICULT SITUATION OF GOING TO PUBLIC AND PERMITTING THESE FACILITIES.

IT WILL BE VERY DIFFICULT TO IMPLEMENT ACTUAL-TO-FUTURE ACTUAL. POTENTIAL-TO-POTENTIAL, LESS DECREASES IN ACTUAL EMISSIONS AS CREDIT, WILL BE A FAIR AND IMPLEMENTABLE WAY OF DOING THIS.

THANK YOU.

MR. RAHER: KAREN?

MS. MALKIN: KAREN MALKIN, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE.

I'D JUST LIKE TO SUPPORT ICLAL'S COMMENTS AS WELL AS DAVID'S, AND JUST POINT OUT THAT, AGAIN, AS IN THE FIRST ISSUE OF THE CLEAN UNIT EXEMPTION, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WAYS TO GET OUT OF THE FULL PSD REVIEW. AND, OF COURSE, EVEN THOUGH THE CLEAN AIR ACT HAS PROVIDED FEDERAL LAND MANAGER WITH AN AFFIRMATIVE RESPONSIBILITY, AS WELL AS OUR OWN ORGANIC ACT FOR THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE -- WE HAVE RESPONSIBILITIES OVER THAT AS WELL -- WE'RE NOT, AS A CONCEPT, OPPOSED TO, YOU KNOW, GETTING OUT OF WORK. WE'RE CERTAINLY OVERBURDENED AND VERY LIMITED IN OUR STAFF. IT'S JUST A MATTER OF HOW IT'S DONE.

AND I SUPPORT THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED SO FAR. I ALSO THINK THAT THE TEN YEARS LOOK-BACK PRESENTS A PROBLEM. IT'S JUST THE SAME ISSUE THAT PEOPLE WERE TALKING ABOUT AND WE TALKED ABOUT IN THE CLEAN UNIT. WE'VE HAD -- TECHNOLOGY CAN ADVANCE TREMENDOUSLY IN TEN YEARS. I KNOW WE DID A LITTLE STUDY ON THAT WITH NOX, AND IT WAS JUST REALLY AMAZING THE DIFFERENCE IN BACT OVER THE PAST TEN YEARS FOR NOX. SO WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING BACK TEN YEARS, IT REALLY IS A CONCERN IF WE'RE REALLY SERVING THE ENVIRONMENT. I THINK FIVE YEARS IS MORE APPROPRIATE.

MR. RAHER: OKAY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE NETTING BASELINE ISSUE?

BEFORE WE TRY TO TAKE A BREAK -- WE STARTED A LITTLE LATE, SO WE'LL JUST GO A LITTLE LONGER -- LET'S MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ISSUE, WHICH WAS THE ISSUE OF PAL'S. I'LL TRY TO GIVE YOU A BRIEF SUMMARY AND THEN ASK DAVID TO JUST GIVE US AN ANALYSIS OF WHAT THE AGENCY WAS ATTEMPTING TO ADDRESS HERE.

FIRST, THERE WAS GENERAL SUPPORT, I THINK, FOR THE CONCEPT OF PAL'S. A NUMBER OF SOURCES HAVE ATTEMPTED TO DEVELOP PAL'S. STATES ARE HAVING MORE EXPERIENCE WITH THEM. THE SOURCES ARE HAVING MORE EXPERIENCE WITH THEM. BUT THE FOLLOWING WERE COMMENTS IN TERMS OF HOW THAT PAL CONCEPT WAS PRESENTED IN THE OVERALL EPA PACKAGE.

FIRST OF ALL, THERE'S AN INDICATION THAT THE PAL WOULD BE SUBJECT TO PERIODIC OPENING AND POSSIBLE DOWNWARD ADJUSTMENT, AND THERE WAS THE COMMENT THAT THIS REALLY, IN EFFECT, CONFUSES A PAL WITH THE CONCEPT OF NETTING: THAT THE PAL IS REALLY A PREAPPROVAL OF A LIMIT, AND IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF THEN REASSESSING IT AND REOPENING IT. THERE WAS THE COMMENT THAT IF YOU GO THROUGH THIS ENTIRE PROCESS AND GET YOURSELF A PAL AND KNOW THAT IT'S JUST GOING TO BE REOPENED CONSTANTLY, THAT IT WILL NOT ACTUALLY BE USED BY INDUSTRY.

SECOND, THAT IN A LIMITED NUMBER OF CASES THE PAL MAYBE SHOULD BE SET AT ALLOWABLES AND NOT ACTUALS; FOR INSTANCE, IF THE SOURCE HAS GONE THROUGH A LAER OR OFFSET REVIEW OR NETTED OUT WITH ENFORCEABLE LIMITS AFTER 1990 OR A PSD PERMIT HAD BEEN ISSUED AFTER 1990.

THIRD IS THAT THERE WERE SOME SUGGESTIONS THAT THE PAL AUTHORITY ACTUALLY SHOULD BE CLARIFIED AND THAT THE FINAL RULE SHOULD NOT HAVE IT AS AN OPTION, AS WE HEARD ABOUT EARLIER, BUT THE STATES SHOULD SEE IT AS A REQUIRED PROVISION OR PORTION OF A FEDERAL NEW SOURCE REVIEW PROGRAM AND THAT EVEN THAT STATES SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED TO ADOPT PAL'S IN THEIR MINOR SOURCE PROGRAM.

IN TERMS OF WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU ATTEMPT TO OR AT SOME POINT IN TIME IN THE FUTURE DO TERMINATE YOUR PAL, THERE WAS A SUGGESTION THAT WE SHOULD NOT HAVE SOURCES MOVING IN AND OUT OF PAL'S. WE SHOULD NOT HAVE A SELF-SELECTION PROCESS WHERE ONLY THE SOURCES THAT BENEFIT FROM A PAL OBTAIN A PAL. SO IF A PAL IS TERMINATED IN THE FUTURE, THAT A BACT AND LAER ANALYSIS WOULD BE APPLIED RETROSPECTIVELY TO ANY ACTIONS THAT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN TAKEN UNDER THE PAL.

AND, FINALLY, THAT THERE WAS A QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE AGENCY SHOULDN'T REQUIRE SOME TYPE OF ANALYTICAL PROCESS OR NOTICE IF WITHIN THE PAL THERE ARE ACTUALLY SHIFTING, MAJOR SHIFTING, OF OPERATIONS WITHIN A FACILITY THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED TO ACTUALLY CREATE OR CAUSE A POTENTIAL LOCAL ADVERSE AIR IMPACT, ALTHOUGH THE TOTAL EMISSIONS WOULD STAY BELOW THE PAL LIMIT.

THOSE WERE THE GENERAL COMMENTS THAT WE WERE ABLE TO PULL OUT OF THE TESTIMONY YESTERDAY. AS I SAID, THE GENERAL CONCEPT IS THAT PAL'S ARE USEFUL. THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER THEY WERE NOW LIMITED BY THE AGENCY IN THE PROPOSAL IN A WAY THAT MAKES THEM LESS BENEFICIAL THAN SOME STATES AND SOURCES HAVE FOUND THEM TO BE IN THEIR DEVELOPMENT.

THERE WAS ALSO ONE OTHER QUESTION THAT'S SIMILAR, OR STATEMENT, SIMILAR TO THE ONE LYDIA ISSUED; AND THAT IS, THAT PALS CAN BE AND ARE BEING DEVELOPED AND NEGOTIATED TODAY AND THAT THE AGENCY SHOULD CLARIFY THAT THAT AUTHORITY EXISTS TODAY AND DOES NOT, UNDER THE LANGUAGE IN THE PACKAGE, SUGGEST THAT YOU COULD ONLY DEVELOP A PAL ONCE THE SIP HAS BEEN AMENDED.

DAVID, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THE PAL CONCEPT?

MR. SOLOMON: AS YOU INDICATED, WE ARE IMPLEMENTING PAL'S TODAY. HOWEVER, WE ARE, TO SOME EXTENT, LIMITED IN OUR ABILITY TO IMPLEMENT PAL'S WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE EXISTING REGULATIONS; FOR EXAMPLE, THE FIVE-YEAR CONTEMPORANEOUS PERIOD. MANY OF THE PAL'S WE SEE HAVE A LIMITED LIFE. THE TWO-YEAR ACTUAL EMISSION BASELINE IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE ADHERING TO RIGHT NOW IN PAL'S, AND WHAT WE TRIED TO DO IN THE PACKAGE WAS TO EXPAND AND ACTUALLY BRING MORE FLEXIBILITY TO PAL'S.

AND YOU PROBABLY ALL NOTICED THAT THERE ARE QUITE A FEW QUESTIONS THAT WE RAISE WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE PAL APPROACH, SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS SPEAKING TO THE ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED. FOR EXAMPLE, SHOULD PAL'S HAVE A LIMITED LIFE? DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO ISSUE A PAL THAT GOES ON AD INFINITUM, OR IS THERE A NEED AFTER A CERTAIN NUMBER OF YEARS TO REEVALUATE THE BASIS OF THE PAL BASED ON CERTAIN CHANGES. FOR EXAMPLE, IN A NONATTAINMENT AREA RACT REQUIREMENTS WOULD REDUCE EMISSIONS AT THE SOURCE. IF THOSE EMISSIONS ARE GIVEN OVER TO NEW UNITS UNDER A PAL, HAS THE AREA REALLY SEEN THE TYPE OF REDUCTIONS THAT IT EXPECTED UNDER THE APPLICATION OF RACT?

SO THE QUESTIONS WE'RE HEARING, I THINK, ARE THE KIND OF QUESTIONS THAT WE'VE RAISED, AND WE'D REALLY LIKE TO TURN IT OVER TO THE GROUP IN TERMS OF YOUR THINKING ON THOSE ISSUES.

MR. RAHER: OKAY, MIKE?

MR. BARR: WE CERTAINLY DO AGREE THAT THE PAL CONCEPT FITS WELL WITH THE OBJECTIVES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE AND ESPECIALLY IN PROVIDING FOR CERTAINTY, MORE PREDICTABILITY FOR EVERYBODY. FROM A MANUFACTURING POINT OF VIEW -- THE ABILITY TO HANDLE NEW MARKETS, NEW PRODUCTS, NEW PROCESSES -- PAL'S SEEM IDEALLY SUITED FOR THAT PURPOSE AND REDUCING COST AND DELAY FOR THOSE INDUSTRIES AND STATES THAT WANT TO SERIOUSLY EXPLORE THE CONCEPT.

THE JULY PROPOSAL, IN FACT, WE THINK HAS A LOT OF MERIT, BUT IT DOES NEED SOME MORE FLEXIBILITY. IT DOES MAINTAIN THE CURRENT LEVEL OF PROTECTION, AND MAYBE TOO WELL. IT SHOULD ALLOW THE STATE TO SET THE BASELINE AT THE LEVEL REQUIRED BY ALL THE CURRENT REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS AS LONG AS THE SOURCE REMAINS SUBJECT TO PAL ADJUSTMENT AS NEW RULES ARE ADOPTED.

THAT'S A VERY SIMPLE APPROACH THAT WOULD BE VERY PROTECTIVE FOR EVERYBODY AND WOULD AMPLY PROTECT THE PLAN, THE STATE, THE INDUSTRY, IF THE INDUSTRY CHOSE TO HAVE THAT TYPE OF -- TO SUBJECT ITSELF TO THAT TYPE OF CHANGE.

THE PROPOSAL SHOULD ALSO ALLOW A BASELINE OF MORE REPRESENTATIVE ACTUALS. WE TALKED ABOUT THAT BEFORE. AND SETTING A BASELINE OF MORE REPRESENTATIVE ACTUALS PLANT-WIDE AS IF THE ENTIRE PLANT WOULD BE UNDERGOING NEW SOURCE REVIEW, SUBJECT TO THE GENERAL BASELINE RULE -- EITHER THE CURRENT ONE OR, PREFERABLY, THE NEW ONE -- WOULD BE ANOTHER WAY TO SET THE LEVEL OF THE PAL.

THE SOURCE UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, I THINK, WOULD STILL BE SUBJECT TO NEW RULES, BUT IT SHOULD DO SOME EVALUATION FIRST TO SEE IF IT'S ALREADY FULFILLING OR PARTLY COMPLYING WITH ANY NEW RULES AND MAYBE HAS EARNED -- BY TAKING THAT TYPE OF A SOURCEWIDE, MORE REPRESENTATIVE ACTUAL BASELINE, MAYBE A SOURCE HAS EARNED SOME RELIEF FOR THE PAL TERM, AND THERE SHOULD BE SOME DEFERRAL OF THE REQUIREMENTS UNTIL THE PAL IS RENEWED.

IF THE PAL LEVEL, ON THE OTHER HAND, IS SET AT RECENT BACT OR LAER OR AT SOME LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION, ANYBODY WHO HAS THAT TYPE OF A PAL, I THINK, HAS EARNED A GREAT DEAL OF TIME IN PROTECTING AGAINST NEW RULES AND REGULATIONS. THE PROPOSED BASELINES IN THE JULY PROPOSAL ARE, THEREFORE, TOO RESTRICTIVE AND ARE LIKELY TO NEEDLESSLY LIMIT PALS, ESPECIALLY THOSE IN ATTAINMENT AREAS.

STATES LIKE OREGON, CALIFORNIA, AND TEXAS HAVE DESIGNED THEIR OWN RESPONSIBLE PAL PROGRAMS WHICH EPA SHOULD DEFINITELY LISTEN TO AND ACCOMMODATE. THOSE STATES THINK PAL'S ARE PROTECTIVE AND WORTHWHILE BASED ON REAL-WORLD EXPERIENCE.

YOU SHOULD ALLOW STATES, ALSO, TO REVIEW AND ADJUST PAL PROVISIONS OVER TIME. DON'T LEAVE THOSE TYPES OF ADJUSTMENTS TOTALLY OPEN-ENDED BECAUSE THERE REALLY WOULD BE FAR TOO MUCH RISK FOR ANYBODY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROGRAM.

STANDARDS LIKE THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE LEVELS ON REVIEW ARE FAR TOO VAGUE. ASSESSING "AIR QUALITY CHANGES" MIGHT ALSO BE TOO VAGUE. THESE CONCERNS CAN AND SHOULD BE ADDRESSED UP FRONT IN THE PAL PERMIT WITH APPROPRIATE RANGES OF LIMITS RIGHT UP FRONT. THAT'S PART OF A GOOD, WELL-DESIGNED PAL PROGRAM AND A WELL-DESIGNED PAL PERMIT. ALL OF THIS SHOULD BE REVIEWED THOROUGHLY BY THE PUBLIC AND INDUSTRY WHEN A PAL PROGRAM IS SET UP AT A STATE LEVEL AND, IF NECESSARY, WHEN INDIVIDUAL PAL PERMITS ARE ISSUED AND RENEWED.

AS EPA HAS RECOGNIZED, WE THINK PAL'S ARE EXCITING. THEY'RE AN INNOVATIVE OPTION. WE'VE ENDORSED THEM THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PROCESS. STATES AND COMPANIES ARE EXPERIMENTING. EPA IS ALLOWING SOME FLEXIBILITY. LET'S EXPAND THAT FLEXIBILITY, DO MORE EXPERIMENTS, AND GET MORE OF THE BENEFITS.

MS. WEGMAN: CAN I JUST ASK ONE QUESTION? MIKE, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "MORE REPRESENTATIVE ACTUALS"?

MR. BARR: THE SAME THING AS THE BASELINE PROPOSAL IS TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW. THE CURRENT BASELINE --

MS. WEGMAN: OKAY.

MR. BARR: -- IS MORE REPRESENTATIVE --

MS. WEGMAN: RIGHT.

MR. BARR: -- WITHIN SOME TIME PERIOD. ACTUALLY, I DON'T THINK THERE IS A LIMIT ON FIVE YEARS, AS I READ THE CURRENT REGULATIONS, BUT, OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT READINGS. WE'VE BEEN TALKING IN THIS -- THE JULY PROPOSAL INCLUDES THE HIGHEST TWELVE MONTHS OUT OF TEN YEARS. YESTERDAY AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, I THINK IT WAS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF CHRYSLER WHO SAID FROM AN OPERATING PERSPECTIVE THEY WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE, AND IT WOULD BE MORE MANAGEABLE, IF IT WAS THE HIGHEST TWELVE MONTHS OF EMISSIONS DURING A TEN-YEAR PERIOD. THAT WAS MORE REPRESENTATIVE. AND SO THAT'S SORT OF A COMBINATION OF THE CURRENT TEST AND THE PROPOSED TEST.

MAYBE ALL THOSE THINGS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO -- AS STATE OPTIONS. BUT WHATEVER OPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE FOR UNIT-BY-UNIT OR SOURCE-BY-SOURCE NEW SOURCE REVIEW FOR SELECTING THE BASELINE SHOULD ALSO BE AVAILABLE TO STATES WHEN THEY SELECTED THIS LINE OF PAL PROGRAM.

MS. WEGMAN: THANKS.

MR. RAHER: BERNIE PAUL?

MR. BERNIE PAUL: THIS IS BERNIE PAUL, FROM ELI LILLY.

I'D LIKE TO ECHO BOTH MIKE'S SUPPORT AND CONCERNS ABOUT THE PAL PROGRAM. I'D LIKE TO RAISE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW IT MIGHT WORK. FIRST OF ALL, DOES THE PAL HAVE TO BE A PLANTWIDE APPLICABLE LIMIT? CAN A SOURCE HAVE THIS TYPE OF EMISSION CAP APPLY ONLY TO A SPECIFIC AREA OF A PLANT SITE? IT MAY BE EASIER FOR A COMPANY TO MANAGE ITS OPERATIONS FOR A CERTAIN AREA AND NOT WANT TO INTERMINGLE DIFFERENT TYPES OF OPERATIONS WITHIN THAT SAME SOURCE.

ANOTHER QUESTION I'D LIKE TO RAISE AS A FUTURE ISSUE FOR THE PAL PROGRAM IS WHETHER YOU COULD HAVE MULTIPLE CAPS AT A PLANT SITE, AGAIN TO ALLOW A SOURCE TO BETTER MANAGE ITS EMISSIONS, UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF A PAL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? I HAVEN'T THOUGHT TOO HARD ABOUT HOW TO WORK ALL THAT OUT, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE IT MAY BE EASIER FOR SOME COMPANIES TO MANAGE THEIR OPERATIONS THAT WAY.

MR. RAHER: YEAH.

MR. SOLOMON: I DON'T THINK THE AGENCY SEES THE NEED TO DIFFERENTIATE IN TERMS OF ONLY APPLYING A PAL ACROSS THE WHOLE FACILITY AS OPPOSED TO MULTIPLE UNITS. I THINK THE ISSUES ARE MORE BASELINE, THE ABILITY TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE, BUT THERE'S NOTHING THAT PRESCRIBES A PAL AS ONLY APPLICABLE ACROSS THE WHOLE SOURCE AS OPPOSED TO JUST THE POWERHOUSE OR ONE CHEMICAL PRODUCTION FACILITY, AND I COULD ENVISION DEFINITELY HAVING MULTIPLE PAL'S.

MR. BERNIE PAUL: THANK YOU.

MR. RAHER: MIKE, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO STATE ON THIS ISSUE, OR IS IT ANOTHER ISSUE?

MR. BARR: JUST QUICKLY. IN EXPERIMENTING WITH PAL'S IN CALIFORNIA, WE'VE HAD THEM ON JUST LIKE A WHARF OR JUST A PARTICULAR MANUFACTURING FACILITY WHERE IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE FROM A MONITORING POINT OF VIEW AND EFFICIENCY OF PLANT OPERATION TO LUMP THEM TOGETHER. SO THAT THERE COULD BE -- RATHER THAN HAVING FIFTY DIFFERENT OR A HUNDRED DIFFERENT UNITS, THERE COULD BE, IN EFFECT, HALF A DOZEN DIFFERENT PAL'S WITHIN A PLANT.

MR. SOLOMON: AND AS PART OF CERTAIN PAL PROJECTS, WE ARE ACTUALLY LOOKING AT IMPLEMENTING PAL'S AT JUST CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE FACILITY; FOR EXAMPLE, POWERHOUSE.

MR. RAHER: JOHN BUNYAK?

MR. BUNYAK: JOHN BUNYAK, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE.

EPA ACKNOWLEDGES THAT CERTAIN CHANGES UNDER THE PAL CAN CHANGE A SOURCE'S IMPACT AREA AND MUST BE ASSESSED TO DEMONSTRATE PROTECTION OF THE STANDARDS, THE INCREMENTS, AND AIR QUALITY RELATED VALUES, BUT THERE'S REALLY NO MECHANISM FOR THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGER TO BE INVOLVED IN THAT DETERMINATION. I THINK THERE SHOULD BE SOME SPECIFIC FLM CONSULTATION PROVISIONS IN THE PROPOSAL THAT WOULD ALLOW THE FLM TO MAKE SOME ASSESSMENT ON AQRV'S.

MR. RAHER: OKAY.

DAVID HAWKINS?

MR. HAWKINS: YEAH. WELL, GENERALLY, I THINK THE CONCEPT OF A PAL, AS A CONCEPT, IS ATTRACTIVE AS A WAY OF REDUCING TRANSACTION COSTS, AND THE -- I THINK THE KEY ISSUES ARE DESIGN ISSUES IN TERMS OF WHAT DOES THE PAL PROVIDE FOR IN TERMS OF TOTAL EMISSIONS AND AIR QUALITY IMPACT PROTECTIONS.

THERE ARE JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS I WANTED TO MENTION. ONE THAT YOU SUMMARIZED, PAT, IN YOUR INTRODUCTION THAT I JUST WANT TO EXPAND UPON FOR A SECOND -- AND THAT IS THE ISSUE OF TERMINATION OR THE DURATION. I THINK THE WAY THE PAL CONCEPT WOULD OPERATE, DURING THE TERM OF A PAL THE FACILITY COULD UNDERTAKE ANY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS IT WISHED -- POSSIBLY SHORT OF INTRODUCING TOTALLY NEW UNITS, BUT POSSIBLY INCLUDING TOTALLY NEW UNITS -- AS LONG AS THE EMISSIONS STAYED WITHIN THE PAL LIMITS DURING THE TERM OF THE PAL.

THIS SCENARIO I THINK WE HAVE TO ADDRESS AS A DESIGN PROBLEM IS HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH A SITUATION WHERE A PAL IS CREATED FOR A FIVE-YEAR TERM, AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY OCCURS, LET'S SAY, IN YEARS FOUR AND FIVE OF THAT TERM SO THAT MAJOR NEW PRODUCTION CAPACITY IS ALL READY TO RAMP UP JUST AS THE PAL IS EXPIRING.

SO IT'S EASY FOR THE FACILITY TO LIVE WITH THE PAL LIMITS DURING THAT FIVE-YEAR TERM BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T REALLY THAT PRODUCTION CAPACITY TO FULL USE, BUT THE PAL THEN EXPIRES, AND ALL OF THIS ACTIVITY WHICH WAS CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT EITHER TECHNOLOGY OR AIR QUALITY REVIEW, BECAUSE OF THE PREDICATE THAT THERE WERE THESE PAL LIMITS THAT WERE GOING TO PROVIDE THE EQUIVALENT SAFEGUARDS -- ALL THIS CONSTRUCTION CAN NOW CONTINUE TO OPERATE WITHOUT THOSE PAL LIMITS IN PLACE UNDER THAT EXPIRATION SCENARIO.

AND THAT'S A DESIGN ISSUE THAT I THINK WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH. BECAUSE IF WE DON'T DEAL WITH IT, I THINK YOU COULD EASILY SEE THAT SCENARIO DEVELOPING. IT'S A RATION -- IT WOULD BE A RATIONAL BUSINESS PLANNING APPROACH TO GET STUFF IN THE GROUND AT A TIME PAL REALLY DIDN'T IMPOSE ANY SIGNIFICANT CONSTRAINTS AND WITH THE EXPIRATION THEN LIMITING ANY CONSTRAINTS IN THE FUTURE.

MR. RAHER: JOHN PAUL?

MR. HAWKINS: I'M SORRY. JUST A --

MR. RAHER: OH.

MR. HAWKINS: -- ONE OTHER ITEM.

MIKE BARR HAS MENTIONED THE STATE EXPERIENCE WITH PAL'S, AND THERE'S BEEN REFERENCE TO SOME PAL'S THAT HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED WITH EPA AS WELL. I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL IF THERE IS ANY KIND OF A COMPENDIUM OF THOSE PAL'S THAT HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED -- IT SURELY CAN'T BE THAT MANY -- TO GET SOME SORT OF A DOCUMENT THAT SUMMARIZES THEIR FEATURES, THEIR CHARACTERISTICS, AND ANY OPERATING EXPERIENCE THAT HAS ACTUALLY OCCURRED WITH RESPECT TO THEM.

I, YOU KNOW, TAKE MIKE'S COMMENT THAT THE STATES THAT HAVE THESE HAVE EXPERIENCE THAT SATISFIES THEM THAT THEY, INDEED, PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT, AND IT WOULD BE USEFUL TO GET A SUMMARY OF WHAT THAT EXPERIENCE IS.

MR. RAHER: ACTUALLY, THERE IS AN ARTICLE THAT'S BEING PUBLISHED VERY SHORTLY IN ONE OF THE AIR QUALITY PERIODICALS -- AND WE'LL TRY TO FIND THE NAME -- WHICH DOES ACTUALLY SUMMARIZE THEM, AND WE CAN GET THAT AND LET EVERYBODY KNOW THAT A LITTLE LATER.

JOHN?

MR. DANIEL: I'M JOHN DANIEL, FROM VIRGINIA.

VIRGINIA IS VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THE PAL CONCEPT. IN FACT, WE'RE GOING THROUGH A MINOR NEW SOURCE REVIEW REGULATION CHANGE NOW THAT WILL ALLOW THIS CONCEPT, AND WE'RE DOING IT FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS.

ONE, WE THINK IT WOULD GIVE THE SOURCES GREATER OPPORTUNITIES TO RESPOND TO CHANGING MARKET CONDITIONS WHERE THEY NEED TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT SO THEY CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SOMETHING THAT'S OUT THERE.

BUT SECOND, AND PROBABLY PRIMARY IN OUR MIND, IS IT'S GOING TO TAKE SOME OF THE WORKLOAD OFF AN OVERWORKED PERMITTING STAFF SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO PERMIT VERY LITTLE PIDDLING CHANGE THAT COMES ALONG IF IT DOESN'T EXCEED THE PAL. SO WE'RE EXCITED ABOUT THIS CONCEPT AND LOOKING FORWARD TO HAVING IT IN THE PSD REGULATION AS WELL.

MR. RAHER: GOOD.

CHUCK?

MR. KNAUSS: FIRST, I WANT TO SUPPORT THE PREPARED REMARKS OF MIKE BARR. HE REALLY HIT MOST OF THE KEY ISSUES.

MR. BARR: THAT WAS PURELY CONTEMPORANEOUS. EXTEMPORANEOUS, SORRY.

MR. KNAUSS: I THINK SEVERAL OTHER POINTS, POINTS RAISED BY OTHERS, MERIT NOTING. I THINK, FIRST, THAT, YOU KNOW, PAL'S AND CAPS CAN BE DONE TODAY AND ARE BEING DONE UNDER THE CURRENT REGS. IN ADDITION, THE BASELINE I THINK WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT -- UNDER CURRENT REGS THE BASELINE NEED NOT BE THE LAST TWO YEARS. IT CAN BE A REPRESENTATIVE PERIOD, AND I GUESS I'M PUZZLED WHY THE AGENCY FEELS CONSTRAINED RIGHT NOW TO BE LOOKING AT CURRENT ACTUALS AS THE PAST TWO YEARS GIVEN WHAT THE REGULATION SAID. AND IF I HEARD THAT, THEN I'VE MISINTERPRETED WHAT YOU SAID.

MR. RAHER: DAVID, DO YOU WANT TO JUST RESPOND?

MR. SOLOMON: YEAH. WE'RE WORKING WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE EXISTING REGULATIONS, WHICH IS THE LAST TWO YEARS OR ANOTHER REPRESENTATIVE PERIOD --

MR. KNAUSS: OKAY.

MR. SOLOMON: -- OF TIME, BUT IT'S STILL THE ACTUAL BASELINE AS DEFINED IN THE REGULATIONS WITH THE AMBIGUITY OF WHAT IS ANOTHER REPRESENTATIVE --

MR. KNAUSS: REPRESENTATIVE PERIOD.

MR. SOLOMON: -- MORE REPRESENTATIVE PERIOD.

MR. KNAUSS: RIGHT.

MR. SOLOMON: RIGHT.

MR. KNAUSS: I THINK WITH RESPECT TO -- AND THE OTHER -- THE OTHER POINT THAT I HEARD WAS THAT IT CAN BE LIKE UNITS, BUT NEED NOT BE THE ENTIRE FACILITY, AND I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT POINT.

WITH RESPECT TO DAVID'S QUESTION ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS IN THE LAST TWO YEARS, I GUESS I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE LAST TWO YEARS CAP. THE PAL'S NEED NOT HAVE A TIME LIMIT, AND IF THERE WERE A TIME LIMIT, YOU WOULD BE LOOKING BACT BASELINE IN THE SAME WAY -- HOWEVER IT ENDS UP BEING CALCULATED, ACCORDING TO THE CURRENT REGS OR ACCORDING TO REVISED REGS -- FOR DETERMINING WHAT THE NEW ONE MIGHT BE. BUT THERE IS NO FIVE YEARS, NEED NOT BE A FIVE-YEAR LIMIT.

I GUESS THAT'S SOMETHING --

MR. HAWKINS: CAN I JUST ENGAGE (SIC) ON THAT A LITTLE?

MR. RAHER: SURE. GO AHEAD.

MR. HAWKINS: I DIDN'T SAY THERE WAS A FIVE-YEAR LIMIT IN THE RULES, BUT THERE IS NO -- THERE IS NO DESIGN SPEC WITH RESPECT TO DURATION. IN THE ABSENCE OF A DESIGN SPEC, THERE WOULDN'T BE ANYTHING TO PREVENT THE CREATION OF PAL'S FOR A LIMITED TERM THAT WOULD EFFECTIVELY ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF MAJOR NEW CAPACITY THAT WOULD NOT EMIT AT ANYTHING RESEMBLING ITS POTENTIAL OR ITS FUTURE ACTUAL EMISSIONS DURING THE TERM OF THE PAL, BUT WOULD SHORTLY AFTER THE TERMINATION OF SUCH A PAL BE IN A POSITION TO EMIT IN AMOUNTS MUCH GREATER THAN THE AMOUNT THAT WAS CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE PAL. THAT'S THE DESIGN ISSUE THAT I THINK WE NEED TO ADDRESS.

MR. RAHER: DAVID, MAYBE WE SHOULD ASK THE AGENCY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY ENVISION A PAL TERMINATING; OR IF IT TERMINATED, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN WITH RESPECT TO THOSE KINDS OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, BECAUSE IT'S PROBABLY AN ISSUE THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED.

MR. SOLOMON: YEAH. TO ADDRESS DAVID HAWKINS' CONCERN, I MEAN, WITHIN THE PAL STRUCTURE WE WOULD ASSUME THAT THE LIMITATIONS THAT APPLIED IN ORDER FOR THAT NEW UNIT TO BE BUILT IN TERMS OF THE EMISSIONS ALLOCATION TO THAT UNIT AND OTHER UNITS WOULD STILL BE BINDING. THE SOURCE WOULD NOT HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY UNDER THAT ALLOCATION TO MAKE CHANGES ANY MORE, BUT THAT WAS A CONDITION OF CONSTRUCTION.

SO IF THE SOURCE WAS ALLOCATED 500 TONS FOR UNITS A, B, AND C AND BROUGHT UNIT D WITHIN THAT 500 TONS, WE WOULD ENVISION THAT LIMIT AS STILL APPLYING AS A TERM OF THE CONDITION OF CONSTRUCTION. BUT IF THE PAL EXPIRED, IT WOULD EXPIRE AS AN APPLICABILITY TEST, NOT AS AN EMISSION LIMITATION ON THAT NEW UNIT AND THE UNITS UNDER THE PAL.

MR. RAHER: THAT JUST SEEMED TO MAKE SOME CARDS GO DOWN.

MR. SOLOMON: PAT?

MR. BARR: PAT, THAT'S BEEN OUR EXPERIENCE, TOO, THAT THERE -- THE LIMITS REALLY SERVE TWO FUNCTIONS. ONE IS ENFORCEMENT, AND THE OTHER IS APPLICABILITY, AND THE ENFORCEABLE LIMITS OUGHT TO CONTINUE. IT IS A DESIGN FEATURE FOR THE PROGRAM. IT'S AN IMPORTANT ONE THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED, I THINK, BY EPA. AND IF EPA COULD LEAVE AS MUCH FLEXIBILITY UP TO THE STATES AS POSSIBLE, THAT WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED.

THERE ARE POWERFUL REASONS, I THINK, FOR SOURCES WHO CHOOSE A PAL TO KEEP PAL AND NOT GET OUT OF THE PAL, BUT IT IS AN IMPORTANT POINT.

MR. RAHER: JOHN, DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT ON THIS PARTICULAR --

MR. TROUT: YEAH. I THINK THIS GOES BACK TO THE ONE -- STAPPA AND ALAPCO PRINCIPLES, THAT THE CHEAPEST AND BEST TIME TO CONTROL A NEW SOURCE IS THE TIME THAT IT'S INSTALLED. AND THE ISSUE HERE, I THINK, IS IF A PIECE OF EQUIPMENT IS INSTALLED WITHOUT GOOD CONTROLS -- AND LATER BECAUSE THERE WANTS TO BE AN INCREASE, WE GO BACK AND LOOK AT IT -- NOW THERE HAS BEEN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WAS SPENT TO PUT THAT IN, AND IT WILL BE MUCH EXPENSIVE TO RETROFIT WITH GOOD CONTROLS.

EVEN IF THAT IS SUBJECT TO A REVIEW, THE ECONOMICS OF PLAYING INTO THE PROBLEM THAT IT'S CHEAPER TO DESIGN INTO A NEW SOURCE GOOD CONTROLS THAN IT IS RETROFIT. SO I THINK ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT DAVID HAWKINS IS REALLY ADDRESSING HERE IS THAT IF A PIECE OF EQUIPMENT IS INSTALLED, THE ECONOMICS CHANGE AS TO WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED IF THEY WERE TO INCREASE TO THEIR FULL POTENTIAL.

MR. RAHER: BILL?

MR. PEDERSEN: YEAH, JUST A THOUGHT ON POSSIBLE -- POSSIBLE SIMPLIFICATION OF ALL THE CONCEPTS IN THIS APPLICABILITY PART OF THE PACKAGE. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE CLEAN UNIT EXCLUSION, AND YOU LOOK AT THE PAL, THEY'RE REALLY TWO SUGGESTIONS WITH SIMILAR RESULTS, AND THE RESULT IS SOME TYPE OF AN ALLOWABLE-TO-ALLOWABLE ACCOUNTING SYSTEM.

I THINK -- I THINK IT WOULD BE WORTH DOING TO SEE IF YOU COULD RESTATE A CLEAN UNIT AS A TYPE OF A PAL, AND IT SEEMS -- IT SEEMS TO BE LOGICAL, AND I THINK IT MIGHT BE A WAY OF STRIPPING OUT SOME OF WHAT I'D CERTAINLY AGREE IS THE EXCESS COMPLEXITY OUT THE CLEAN UNIT APPROACH. I HAVEN'T TRIED TO DO IT, BUT I'M -- I CERTAINLY PLAN TO THINK ABOUT IT SOME MORE.

MR. RAHER: MIKE, DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER --

MR. BARR: JUST A RESPONSE. I THINK THAT'S AN EXCELLENT IDEA. I THINK THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE CLEAN UNIT IS, IS A TYPE OF A PAL UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES THAT, AS EARNED, MAY BE MORE TIME PROTECTION BY BEING A CLEAN UNIT.

ON THE ISSUE OF THE APPROPRIATE TIME FOR NEW SOURCE REVIEW: WHEN AN ENTIRE PLANT HAS JUST GONE THROUGH NEW SOURCE REVIEW, IT'S INCREDIBLY WASTEFUL AND DELAYING TO EVERYBODY, INCLUDING THE AGENCY, TO REQUIRE THE LOOK AT THAT TECHNOLOGY OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. AND SO THAT GENERAL PRINCIPLE IS UNDERSTANDABLE, BUT IT'S NOT NECESSARILY CORRECT.

MR. RAHER: OKAY. I THINK WE'VE HAD A GOOD DISCUSSION ON PAL'S. WE'VE HAD SOME CLARIFICATION AND SOME OF THE ISSUES RAISED. ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE PAL CONCEPT?

ALL RIGHT, WE'VE GOT A COUPLE MORE POINTS ON APPLICABILITY, BUT I THINK EVERYBODY NEEDS TO GET UP AND GET SOME BLOOD FLOWING. AND SO WHY DON'T WE RECONVENE IN TEN MINUTES, WHICH WOULD BE 11:05, AND THEN WE'LL TRY TO FINISH THIS UP AND MOVE INTO THE NEXT AREA.

(10:56 A.M. RECESS 11:19 A.M.)

MR. RAHER: ALL RIGHT. WE LEFT OFF TALKING ABOUT SOME OF THE ISSUES DEALING WITH APPLICABILITY, AND THERE ARE TWO APPLICABILITY ISSUES LEFT THAT WE STILL NEED TO ADDRESS AS SOON AS MR. BECKER SITS DOWN. THERE ARE SO MANY MEMBERS AROUND THE TABLE THAT HE CAN'T EVEN MAKE IT TO HIS SEAT.

MR. BECKER: I'M THE ONLY ONE THAT'S NOT HERE.

MR. RAHER: THAT'S RIGHT. YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE THAT'S HOLDING IT UP.

LET'S GO NOW TO THE ISSUE OF POLLUTION CONTROL PROJECTS. ONCE AGAIN, JUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF YOUR BACKGROUND, REMEMBER THAT THE AGENCY HAS PROPOSED A GENERAL EXCLUSION BASICALLY FOR ADD-ON CONTROLS, FUEL SWITCHES TO CLEANER FUELS, AND POLLUTION PREVENTION PROJECTS.

THE COMMENTS THAT WERE RECEIVED YESTERDAY -- AGAIN NOT EXTENSIVE, BUT I THINK IMPORTANT AND ONES THAT I THINK THE COMMITTEE SHOULD ADDRESS -- IS, FIRST OF ALL, THERE WERE THE STATES SUGGESTING AGAIN THAT THIS MIGHT BE TOO MUCH OF A BURDEN IN TERMS OF THE REVIEW ON IT, ALTHOUGH I THINK THAT WAS LESS CRITICAL THAN ON THE OTHER ISSUES BECAUSE, OBVIOUSLY, POLLUTION CONTROL PROJECTS ARE ONES THAT THEY ARE WELCOMING AND LOOKING AT.

SOME INDIVIDUALS THOUGHT THAT, AND CONCERNS, THOUGHT THAT THE DEFINITION OF THE PCP WAS TOO NARROW. THEY WANTED IT TO COVER THE INSTALLATION OF -- OR SUGGESTED THAT THE AGENCY AND THE FACA CONSIDER ACTUALLY COVERAGE OF NEW UNITS, THE ACTUAL CHANGES REQUIRED BY STATE AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS THAT MAY BE DESIGNED TO REDUCE POLLUTION, PROGRAMS SUCH AS EPA'S 33/50 PROGRAM. AND ONE OR MORE MEMBERS SUGGESTED THAT EVEN CROSS-MEDIA PROGRAMS, SUCH AS WATER POLLUTION PROJECTS, SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR PURPOSES OF POLLUTION CONTROL PROJECTS.

OTHER COMMENTS WERE THAT THE POLLUTION CONTROL PROJECT ANALYSIS -- WITHOUT THOSE ADDITIONS -- REALLY IS EXTREMELY COMPLEX AND DIFFICULT TO EXPLAIN, LET ALONE ADMINISTER. THE EXAMPLE WAS TO REFERENCE THE AGENCY'S DISCUSSION OF ERC'S AND THE RELATIONSHIP OF THAT TO THE OVERALL PCP PROGRAM, AND YOU CAN -- THE SUGGESTION WAS DEMONSTRATES THE COMPLEXITY, AND THAT THERE SHOULD BE EITHER SOME WAY TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE OR EVEN POSSIBLY ELIMINATE THE POLLUTION CONTROL PROJECT.

AND THEN THE NEXT QUESTION WAS WHETHER OR NOT POLLUTION CONTROL PROJECTS, AS DEFINED, COULD ACTUALLY LEAD TO EMISSIONS INCREASES AS OPPOSED TO DECREASES.

DAVID, AGAIN WE TURN TO YOU TO GIVE US A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND: THE THOUGHT PROCESS THAT THE AGENCY HAD IN TRYING TO GENERATE WHICH -- AN OPTION WHICH CLEARLY BY ITS NAME IS ONE THAT THIS FACA AND MANY OF THE PEOPLE ON IT WOULD SUPPORT; THAT IS, DOING SOMETHING TO IMPROVE POLLUTION CONTROL PROJECTS.

MR. SOLOMON: AS YOU'RE AWARE, WE CURRENTLY HAVE A POLICY MEMO OUT WHICH EXCLUDES OR ALLOWS FOR THE EXCLUSION, WITH CERTAIN SAFEGUARDS, OF POLLUTION CONTROL PROJECTS. WE ALSO HAVE THE WEPCO RULEMAKING, WHICH EXCLUDES CERTAIN TYPE OF ACTIVITIES AS POLLUTION CONTROL PROJECTS AT UTILITIES. AND WHAT WE DID WAS TO BUILD UPON THOSE TWO EXCLUSIONS TO COME UP WITH AN EXCLUSION THAT WOULD APPLY ACROSS THE BOARD -- BASICALLY TO ALL FACILITIES -- TRYING TO PROVIDE AS MUCH OF A STREAMLINED AND SIMPLIFIED EXCLUSION AS WE CAN, AND, ESSENTIALLY, WE THINK WE'VE DONE THAT.

TO THE EXTENT THAT THE PROJECT QUALIFIES UNDER THE DEFINITION OF POLLUTION CONTROL PROJECT, IT IS EXCLUDED UNLESS IT'S DETERMINED THAT THERE WILL BE AN INCREASE IN EMISSIONS. THE WAY THE EMISSIONS INCREASE IS DETERMINED IS ESSENTIALLY AN ACTUAL-TO-ACTUAL TYPE OF TEST. SO IF THE UNIT IS NOT GOING TO BE OPERATED ANY DIFFERENTLY AFTER THE APPLICATION OF THE CONTROL DEVICE, THERE IS NO ASSESSMENT OF AN EMISSIONS INCREASE. AND, AGAIN, ONLY IF THE EMISSIONS WILL INCREASE ACTUALLY AND ONLY IF THAT INCREASE -- IF THERE'S A CONCERN ON THE STATE'S PART THAT THAT WOULD CAUSE OR CONTRIBUTE TO AN VIOLATION WOULD THE PROJECT NOT BE ALLOWED TO GO AHEAD.

MR. RAHER: ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO THAT? ICLAL?

MS. ATAY: WE IN THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY --

MR. RAHER: ICLAL, COULD YOU JUST --

MS. ATAY: OKAY.

MR. RAHER: -- IDENTIFY YOURSELF --

MS. ATAY: THANK YOU.

MR. RAHER: -- FOR THE RECORD?

MS. ATAY: ICLAL ATAY, NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.

WE IN NEW JERSEY HAVE USED THE POLLUTION CONTROL PROJECT GUIDANCE OF EPA IN ISSUING NOX RACT COMPLIANCE PLANS, AND IT HAS WORKED WELL BECAUSE WE HAD COME OUT WITH REGULATIONS THAT MANDATED PEOPLE TO INSTALL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY TO REDUCE THEIR NITROGEN OXIDES EMISSIONS. THE SAME CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CAUSED AN INCREASE IN CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS.

SINCE WE WERE IN AN ATTAINMENT AREA FOR CARBON MONOXIDE AND A SEVERE NONATTAINMENT AREA FOR NOX, THAT WAS A GOOD PROVISION, AND IT HELPED US IMPLEMENT RULES AND NOT SUBJECT THE FACILITY TO PSD REVIEW FOR SOMETHING WE HAD MANDATED TO THEM TO INSTALL.

HOWEVER, I HAVE CONCERN WITH THE EXPANDED USE OF THE POLLUTION CONTROL PROJECT. WE HAD PEOPLE APPROACH NEW JERSEY, AND THEY WANTED TO INSTALL A NEW POWER PLANT. THE NEW POWER PLANT WOULD CAUSE THEIR EMISSIONS OF NOX TO GO FROM 1,000 TONS TO 500 TONS, AND THEY WANTED TO EMPLOY A TECHNOLOGY THAT WOULD ACHIEVE THE 500 TONS PER YEAR EMISSIONS.

HOWEVER, FOR THE LAST TEN YEARS WE HAD ASKED ALL OF THE FACILITIES THAT INSTALLED SIMILAR POWER PLANTS TO INSTALL A TECHNOLOGY THAT WOULD ACHIEVE ONLY 100 TONS PER YEAR OF EMISSIONS, AND THE COST BETWEEN THE 100 TONS PER YEAR FACILITY AND THE 500 TONS PER YEAR FACILITY WAS ONLY MINIMAL. AND FOR THIS FACILITY TO ASK TO BE EXCLUDED -- SAYING THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE 500 TONS PER REDUCTION IN THE POLLUTION CONTROL PROJECT, AND WE'RE REPLACING OUR POWERHOUSE; THEREFORE, WE SHOULD BE EXCLUDED -- WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN OUR CASE.

IF EVERYBODY ELSE CAN INSTALL -- THERE'S A MINIMAL COST DIFFERENCE; THE TECHNOLOGY IS AVAILABLE READILY -- WHY SHOULDN'T THEY INSTALL THE TECHNOLOGY THAT ONLY ACHIEVES 100 TONS PER YEAR?

MR. RAHER: ICLAL, LET ME CLARIFY ONE THING, IF I COULD. OBVIOUSLY, THAT EXAMPLE, WHICH IS A GOOD EXAMPLE, WAS NOT NEARLY ADD-ON CONTROL, AND IT CERTAINLY WASN'T A FUEL SWITCH WHICH THE AGENCY SAID IT'S -- YOU KNOW, THEY WOULD CONSIDER AS POLLUTION CONTROL PROJECTS. YOU WOULD PUT THAT THEN IN THE CLASSIFICATION SOMEBODY WOULD BE ASKING FOR THAT AS A POLLUTION PREVENTION PROJECT, AND YOU THINK THAT THAT'S AN AREAS THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED BECAUSE OF YOUR EXAMPLE. CORRECT?

MS. ATAY: CORRECT.

MR. RAHER: ALL RIGHT. GOOD. GOOD POINT.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE PCP ANALYSIS OR ISSUES AS THEY WERE DISCUSSED? NO COMMENTS? OKAY.

I THINK WITH RESPECT TO APPLICABILITY NOW, I'D LIKE TO ASK ANYBODY WHO HAS LOOKED AT THE PACKAGE, ADDRESSED ISSUES, ET CETERA, TO RAISE ANY ADDITIONAL ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO APPLICABILITY. THERE WAS ONE ADDITIONAL COMMENT -- NOT LISTED IN THE PACKAGE AS SUCH AS A PROPOSED REGULATION, BUT MORE AS A QUESTION -- THAT WAS RAISED AT YESTERDAY'S HEARING THAT I WILL START OFF THIS ANALYSIS WITH; AND THAT IS, WHETHER THE PACKAGE SHOULD ALSO INCLUDE FROM AN APPLICABILITY STANDPOINT THE QUESTION OF ALLOWING PRE-PERMIT CONSTRUCTION.

I KNOW THAT WE HAD SEVERAL DISCUSSIONS AND ANALYSES THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT -- THROUGHOUT THIS FACA -- AS TO THAT, AND THIS WAS RAISED AGAIN YESTERDAY AT THE HEARING AND WAS BROKEN DOWN REALLY INTO TWO CATEGORIES. THE FIRST ONE WAS WITH RESPECT TO EXISTING SOURCES TO ALLOW MODIFICATIONS AND ADDRESSES ONCE THE PERMIT APPLICATION WAS FILED AND COMPLETE, DEEMED COMPLETE -- ALLOW THOSE TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT THE OWNER'S RISK AND ALSO EVEN TESTING OF THOSE MODIFICATIONS SO LONG AS THERE ARE NO VIOLATIONS OF EXISTING EMISSION LIMITS. WITH RESPECT TO A GREENFIELD SOURCE, IT WAS MORE IN THE LINE OF KEEPING THE EXISTING RULES WITH RESPECT TO CLEARING AND FOUNDATIONS.

THE ISSUE WAS RAISED WITH RESPECT TO THAT QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE WOULD BE TOO MUCH PRESSURE PLACED ON STATES BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE INVESTMENT HAD ALREADY BEEN MADE, ALTHOUGH OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE OTHER PERMIT- OR CERTIFICATE-TYPE PROGRAMS IN WHICH CONSTRUCTION IS ALLOWED IN THE MOBILE SOURCE AREA UNDER EPA'S REGULATION THAT DOESN'T MANDATE THAT THE AGENCY GRANT THE CERTIFICATE JUST BECAUSE THE CARS HAVE BEEN BUILT.

AND THERE WAS ALSO SOME SUGGESTION THAT, IN FACT, THERE MAY BE TOO MUCH PRESSURE ON THE SOURCE. BECAUSE ONCE YOU'VE MADE THE INVESTMENT, AND YOU HAVE EVERYTHING IN PLACE, BASICALLY WHATEVER THE PUBLIC OR THE PERMITTING AUTHORITY WOULD WANT YOU WOULD AGREE TO BECAUSE YOU HAD YOUR CAPITAL INVESTMENT ALREADY SUNK.

SO THOSE -- THAT WAS AN ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO APPLICABILITY THAT WAS NOT IDENTIFIED AS SUCH IN OUR PACKAGE THAT WE GOT BUT THAT WAS BROUGHT UP AT THE HEARING. ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS ON THAT?

BILL?

MR. BUMPERS: ACTUALLY, QUITE BRIEF. IT SOUNDS TO ME -- WELL, NUMBER ONE, I THINK FOR EXISTING SOURCES, GIVING OWNERS THE ABILITY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROJECTS AT THEIR OWN RISK IS AN EXCELLENT IDEA. IT IS MY EXPERIENCE WITH THE MODIFICATIONS ARE THAT SOURCES ARE ON A FAIRLY SHORT TIME LINE. THEY USUALLY WANT TO MAKE CHANGES BECAUSE THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH THEIR FACILITY, AND IN THE END YOU KNOW WITH RELATIVE CERTAINTY WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO END UP. THERE'S NOT THAT MUCH QUESTION ABOUT WHAT IS GOING TO APPLY TO YOU.

THAT HAVING BEEN SAID, IT SOUNDS TO ME THAT THE CONCERNS OFFERED SORT OF ARE A GOOD BALANCE, AND THAT IS RISK ON BOTH SIDES: RISK THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE SUBJECT TO PRESSURE IF YOU DO IT, AFTER YOU'VE MADE THE INVESTMENT, TO GO AHEAD AND PUT IN A RETROFIT VERSUS RISK ON THE OTHER SIDE THAT ECONOMIC FORCES WILL TELL THE STATE NOT TO DO ANYTHING MORE. IT LOOKS LIKE A GOOD BALANCE TO STRIKE.

MR. RAHER: WELL, WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT BALANCE.

JOHN?

MR. JOHN PAUL: STAPPA AND ALAPCO WILL HAVE MORE DETAILED COMMENTS IN OUR WRITTEN COMMENTS. WE HAVE SOME -- HAD SOME OF OUR MEMBERS -- AND AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, THEY'RE IN THE NORTHERN PART OF THE COUNTRY -- WHO BELIEVE THAT IT IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE CONSTRUCTION SEASON IS NOT NEAR AS LONG UP IN MINNESOTA AS IT IS IN FLORIDA, FOR EXAMPLE. SO WE ARE GOING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE.

I KNOW IN A FORMER LIFETIME, WHEN I WAS IN ONE OF THOSE NORTHERN CLIMATES, WE DID HAVE A WAIVER PROVISION -- NOT FOR PSD PERMITS BECAUSE THAT WAS CLEARLY NOT ALLOWED, BUT IN OFFSET PERMIT SITUATIONS. AND CAREFULLY CRAFTED WAIVERS DO WORK, AND IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE INDUSTRY NOT THEN HAVE ANY RIGHTS GIVEN TO IT BECAUSE THEY SPENT MONEY DOING THINGS.

AND WE ALWAYS GET INTO, YEAH, WE ALL SAY THAT IT'S GOING TO COUNT THAT YOU'VE ALREADY SPENT SOME MONEY, BUT, AGAIN, A CAREFULLY CRAFTED WAIVER PROGRAM WAS VERY WORKABLE IN MICHIGAN, AND WE WILL PROBABLY BE SUGGESTING A LITTLE BIT OF FLEXIBILITY IN THIS ISSUE.

ON -- IF YOU WANT OTHER ISSUES, --

MR. RAHER: YEAH.

MR. JOHN PAUL: -- ON APPLICABILITY --

MR. RAHER: I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY UNLESS THERE ARE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON PRE-PERMIT CONSTRUCTION, I THINK IF ANYBODY ELSE HAS ISSUES ON APPLICABILITY, WE SHOULD NOW RAISE THEM.

JOHN?

MR. JOHN PAUL: OKAY. THE -- OKAY, THE WEPCO --

MR. RAHER: I'M SORRY.

DAVID, DID YOU HAVE --?

MR. HAWKINS: MINE'S APPLICABILITY, ALSO, SO --

MR. RAHER: OKAY. THAT'S FINE. GO AHEAD.

MR. HAWKINS: THANK YOU.

MR. JOHN PAUL: WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT THE WEPCO ISSUE, AND THAT, OF COURSE, GETS INTO THE SAME ISSUE OF THE ACTUAL VERSUS POTENTIAL EMISSIONS. WE AT THIS POINT WOULD POINT OUT THAT WE ARE CONCERNED THAT IF THE WEPCO PROVISIONS WERE EXTENDED TO OTHER INDUSTRIES THAT A WHOLE LOT OF RESOURCE COULD BE CONSUMED IN LOOKING IN THE ISSUE OF WHAT COULD AND WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED. IN THE INDUSTRY SECTOR, WE DON'T HAVE NEAR THE INFORMATION FOR THE OTHER SOURCE CATEGORIES AS THE UTILITIES HAVE, AND WE ALSO SUGGEST THAT THERE CERTAINLY IS AN ISSUE OF CERTAINTY FOR INDUSTRY WHERE AN ISSUE MAY BE LOOKED AT FIVE OR TEN YEARS IN THE FUTURE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY COMPLIED WITH THE ORIGINAL REQUIREMENTS AND CERTAINLY IN THE FUTURE COULD THEN BE REQUIRED TO RETROFIT IF THEY DID NOT MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS.

SO THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT OF CERTAINTY FOR INDUSTRY, SO IT SETS UP AN ISSUE WHERE WE COULD HAVE CONFRONTATIONS YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, AND WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.

MR. RAHER: DAVID?

MR. HAWKINS: YEAH. WELL, I ALSO WANTED TO RAISE THE ACTUAL-TO-FUTURE ACTUALS ISSUE. AS YOU KNOW, IN THE PAST WE'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS IN TRYING TO FIND OUT -- TRYING TO PINPOINT THE DIFFICULTY THAT INDUSTRY WOULD HAVE ACTUALLY HAVING A FUTURE ACTUAL PROJECTION BE AN ENFORCEABLE OBLIGATION, AND THIS HAS AGAIN TO DO WITH THE LINKAGE.

IF, IN FACT, THE RULES ADOPT AN APPROACH THAT ALLOW THE BASELINE TO BE SOMETHING THAT THE FIRM ACTUALLY FEELS IS REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS EMISSIONS IN THE PAST, AND IT ASSERTS THAT ITS FUTURE ACTUALS WON'T BE MORE THAN THAT, WHAT IS THE DIFFICULTY WITH HAVING THAT ASSERTION BE ACCOMPANIED BY AN ENFORCEABLE OBLIGATION? SO THAT'S THE FIRST QUESTION.

THE SECOND ISSUE, IF I COULD JUST GO BACK TO THE QUESTIONS THAT BERNIE PAUL RAISED WITH RESPECT TO THE PAL'S AND THE IDEA OF PAL'S THAT COVER LESS THAN AN ENTIRE FACILITY, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT COME TO MIND. ONE IS THAT THE -- THERE ARE OFTEN PROJECTS AT EXISTING FACILITIES WHICH -- WHERE THE EQUIPMENT BEING MODIFIED OR INSTALLED ITSELF MAY ONLY HAVE MODEST EMISSION INCREASES ASSOCIATED WITH IT. BUT IT IS LINKED IN A PROCESS TO OTHER EMITTING UNITS WHICH, AS A RESULT OF INSTALLING THIS NEW EQUIPMENT OR UPGRADING THIS NEW EQUIPMENT, THOSE OTHER PIECES OF EQUIPMENT WILL HAVE VERY SUBSTANTIAL INCREASES IN EMISSIONS.

YOU MAY HAVE A PROCESS WHICH IS SUPPLIED BY A BOILER, BUT THE PROCESS MAY BE MODIFIED IN A WAY THAT THE DEMAND ON THE BOILER IS INCREASED BY A FACTOR OF TWO OR THREE WITH THE EMISSIONS FROM THAT BOILER GOING UP CORRESPONDINGLY AND WITH A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN ACTUAL EMISSIONS.

I GUESS MY CONCERN IS IF -- WITH A PAL THAT COVERS LESS OF A -- LESS THAN ALL OF A FACILITY, DO WE NEED TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT PAL'S THAT ARE DESIGNED TO SORT OF THROW A LASSO AROUND THE EQUIPMENT THAT ITSELF WON'T HAVE MUCH OF AN INCREASE AND EXCLUDE THE EQUIPMENT THAT WILL HAVE A VERY SIGNIFICANT INCREASE FROM THE CALCULATION?

THE SECOND FEATURE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT SORT OF SUBFACILITY PAL IS THE ISSUE OF COMPLEXITY. HOW MUCH OF A DEMAND ON TRACKING WILL THIS PLACE ON THE REGULATORY AGENCIES IF THEY HAVE TO SORT OF KEEP TRACK OF LOTS OF LITTLE CIRCLES WITHIN A FACILITY, EACH OF WHICH HAS ITS OWN -- EACH OF WHICH HAS ITS OWN PAL? AND WHAT WILL THAT DO TO REPORTING AND RECORD-KEEPING IN TERMS OF TRACKING EMISSIONS? SO, I GUESS, THOSE ARE THE POINTS I WANTED TO PUT ON THE TABLE.

MR. RAHER: YOU'RE SUGGESTING THAT THAT WOULD BE MORE COMPLICATED THAN HAVING A PERMIT LEVEL FOR EACH AND EVERY PIECE OF EQUIPMENT WHICH OBVIOUSLY TAKES RECORD-KEEPING?

MR. HAWKINS: WELL, THE -- AS I UNDERSTAND THE CURRENT SYSTEM, EQUIPMENT BASED -- THE EQUIPMENT-BASED SYSTEM TYPICALLY DOESN'T HAVE, UNLESS THEY'VE TRIED TO NET OUT OF REVIEW, DOESN'T HAVE AN ANNUAL EMISSION LIMIT ASSOCIATED WITH IT. SURE, I COULD CONCEIVE OF SOME SITUATIONS WHICH ARE MORE COMPLEX THAN THIS, BUT, AGAIN, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE MULTIPLE-PAL APPROACH INTRODUCES COMPLEXITY INTO A TOPIC THAT WAS INTENDED TO LESS COMPLEX.

MR. RAHER: OKAY. ANY OTHER -- BERNIE?

MR. BERNIE PAUL: I HAVE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS TO OFFER IN RESPONSE TO DAVID'S CONCERNS. FIRST OF ALL, I THINK FOR A LOT OF INDUSTRY TYPES WHERE YOU'RE MAKING A LOT OF SMALL CHANGES, THAT SOME BE THROWN INTO THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW PROGRAM, AND OTHERS MAY NOT; THAT IF YOU ESTABLISH A MANAGEMENT SYSTEM LIKE PAL'S FOR THOSE, THAT THOSE SMALL INCREMENTAL CHANGES ARE NOT LIKELY TO HAVE THE SORT OF DOWNSTREAM EFFECT THAT YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT. I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THAT COULD EXIST, BUT I THINK THAT IS A VERY RARE SITUATION, AT LEAST IN OUR INDUSTRY, AND I WOULD EXPECT IN A LOT OF OTHER INDUSTRIES THAT THAT WOULD ALSO BE TRUE.

WITH REGARD TO COMPLEXITY, I WAS -- I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT HAVING MULTIPLE PAL'S AT A PLANT SITE BECAUSE I THINK IT WOULD ELIMINATE, PERHAPS, SOME COMPLEXITY FOR OUR OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT PEOPLE IF THEY KNOW THAT THEY HAVE TO MANAGE AN EMISSIONS CAP FOR A CERTAIN AREA. THEY DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON IN A DIFFERENT PART OF THE PLANT. LEAVE THAT UP TO SOME OTHER ORGANIZATION TO DO THAT. SO THAT YOU WOULD END UP WITH PERHAPS HIGHER COMPLIANCE BECAUSE PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO.

MR. RAHER: OKAY. ANY OTHER ISSUES OR COMMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THOSE TOPICS OR ANY OTHER APPLICABILITY ISSUES? I KNOW ONLY MENTION THAT WITH RESPECT TO THE PACKAGE THAT WE WERE GIVEN THERE WAS A PROVISION IN IT, OR PROPOSAL, REFERENCING THE CMA EXHIBIT "B." I CAN SUMMARIZE VERY EASILY FOR YOU THOSE COMMENTS YESTERDAY. THERE WAS ONE FOR AND ONE TOTALLY AGAINST, AND THAT WAS ABOUT AS LONG AS THE COMMENT ON BOTH OF THOSE TOOK, SO --.

DAVID?

MR. HAWKINS: JUST TO FOLLOW UP, IS THERE ANY INTEREST IN DIALOGUE ON THIS QUESTION OF THE ENFORCEABILITY OF THE FUTURE ACTUALS? I WOULD BE INTERESTED IF THERE IS -- IF THERE ARE INDUSTRY FOLKS WHO WANT TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE.

MR. RAHER: OKAY. WOULD ANYBODY -- LET'S TAKE THAT UP, AND THEN WE'LL GO TO THE OTHER COMMENTS.

BILL?

MR. BUMPERS: I'LL MAKE A BRIEF COMMENT AND THEN DEFER TO HENRY BECAUSE I SEE HIM REACHING FOR THE CARD AS WELL.

MR. RAHER: YOU NEED TO HELP HENRY OUT. HE ONLY HAS ONE ARM.

MR. BUMPERS: OH, THAT'S RIGHT. IT WASN'T FROM ANY ARM-TWISTING TO SUPPORT WEPCO, I'M SURE.

THE BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THAT IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO TAKE SOME CAPPED EMISSION LIMIT ON THE ACTUAL-TO-FUTURE ACTUAL, IN PART BECAUSE AT LEAST UNDER THE CURRENT WEPCO RULE -- AND I THINK IF YOU EXTEND IT TO OTHER INDUSTRY SOURCES, IT SHOULD BE EXTENDED SIMILARLY -- IS THAT WE HAVE THE BENEFIT CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING RULES TO REDUCE FROM THE PROJECTED FUTURE ACTUAL THE DEMAND GROWTH THAT WE WOULD OTHERWISE BE MEETING ANYWAY.

AND YOU CAN'T CLEARLY PROJECT THAT, KNOW IT WITH COMPLETE ACCURACY. AS A RESULT, TRYING TO TAKE SOME FIRM CAP ON WHAT YOUR EMISSIONS WOULD BE WOULD SORT OF DEFEAT THE PURPOSE OF THE WEPCO ACTUAL-TO-FUTURE ACTUAL METHODOLOGY AND BE EXCEEDINGLY DIFFICULT.

MR. SOLOMON: SO IF THE DEMAND GROWTH WERE ELIMINATED, THAT WOULD AVOID THAT PROBLEM?

MR. NICKEL: YEAH, DAVID --

MR. BUMPERS: RIGHT. SO WHICH ONE DO WE ELIMINATE? I THINK YOUR SUGGESTION, WHICH ISN'T THERE, OUGHT TO BE ELIMINATED. SIMPLE ENOUGH.

MR. RAHER: HENRY, DO YOU WANT TO --

MR. NICKEL: YEAH, I'LL JUST MAKE A COMMENT. I MEAN, AS DAVID WELL KNOWS, HIS ACTUAL-TO-ACTUAL APPROACH IS IDENTICAL TO THE CURRENT ACTUAL-TO-POTENTIAL APPROACH. UNDER AN ACTUAL-TO-POTENTIAL REGIME, YOU CAN ALWAYS AVOID NEW SOURCE REVIEW BY CAPPING YOUR PAST ACTUAL EMISSIONS. SO THIS REALLY ISN'T ANYTHING NEW, AND, AS EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS, IT IS THAT CAPPING ON CAPACITY WHICH HAS CAUSED PEOPLE GREAT ANXIETY AND WAS ONE OF THE MAJOR MOTIVATING FORCES FOR ALL OF THESE DISCUSSIONS FROM INDUSTRY'S STANDPOINT.

GOING BEYOND THAT, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, AS BILL WAS MENTIONING, IT'S -- THE NECESSITY FOR THERE TO BE A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PHYSICAL CHANGE AND THE FUTURE ACTUAL EMISSIONS MAKES CAPPING PAST ACTUALS INAPPROPRIATE. UNDER THE WEPCO RULE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE QUESTION IS POSED WHETHER OR NOT THE INCREASE IN UTILIZATION COULD HAVE BEEN ACCOMMODATED DURING THE REPRESENTATIVE BASELINE YEAR. I THINK THAT'S A VERY EASY TEST TO APPLY.

IT BASICALLY SAYS IF, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU LOSE A PUMP, AND DURING THE REPRESENTATIVE BASELINE YEAR THAT PUMP WAS OPERATING IN A MANNER THAT WOULD ALLOW YOU TO FULLY UTILIZE THE UNIT, YOU WOULD NOT PROJECT ANY INCREASED ACTUAL EMISSIONS IN THE INCREASE IN UTILIZATION TO THAT PUMP BECAUSE THAT INCREASED UTILIZATION COULD HAVE BEEN ACCOMMODATED DURING THE PREVIOUS BASELINE YEAR. SO THAT'S -- THAT'S THE ANSWER, AND, OF COURSE, YOU'VE REALLY BROUGHT US BACK TO WHERE WE BEGAN THIS ENTIRE PROCESS, YOU KNOW, WITH YOUR SUGGESTION.

MR. RAHER: THIS IS NOT CONTINUING THE DEBATE THAT WE STARTED FOUR YEARS AGO, DAVID, IF YOU WANT TO TRY TO ADDRESS THAT BECAUSE I, YOU KNOW, I THINK YOU --

MR. HAWKINS: YEAH, I JUST THINK THAT WE NEED TO BE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT IT IS THAT'S BEING PROPOSED, AND THIS WHOLE CONCEPT OF FUTURE ACTUAL EMISSIONS, GIVEN THE RESPONSE WE'VE HEARD, HAS TO BE ACKNOWLEDGED AS IN MANY CASES A FICTION. IT IS -- IT IS A PROJECTION WHICH THE APPLICANT WANTS TO HAVE RECOGNIZED BY THE REVIEWING AUTHORITY, BUT DOESN'T WANT TO LIVE WITH ITSELF. AND IF IT'S CLEAR THAT THE APPLICANT DOESN'T WANT TO LIVE WITH THAT PROJECTION, THEN WE SHOULD GET IT OUT OF THE PROCESS BECAUSE ALL IT IS, IS OBFUSCATION.

MR. RAHER: ERNIE?

MR. ROSENBERG: I'M GOING TO HAVE --

ERNIE ROSENBERG, WITH OCCIDENTAL.

-- A FAIRLY RADICAL SUGGESTION, WHICH IS THAT PERHAPS EPA DOESN'T HAVE TO NAIL DOWN EXACTLY HOW THIS IS GOING TO BE DONE ACROSS THE BOARD. ONE OF THE PROBLEMS THAT WE'RE HAVING WITH APPLICABILITY IS THAT THERE'S SO MUCH DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DIFFERENT KINDS OF INDUSTRIES, BOTH IN TERMS OF WHAT THE VARIABILITY IS OF THEIR EMISSIONS AND IN TERMS OF HOW MUCH YOU CAN NAIL DOWN IN TERMS OF EITHER PAST OR FUTURE EMISSIONS AND THAT A ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL APPROACH PROBABLY DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE AND THAT THE AGENCY SHOULD ALLOW THE STATES TO ADOPT DIFFERENT APPROACHES SO LONG AS THE BASELINE FROM WHICH YOU'RE STARTING IS REPRESENTATIVE OF THAT FACILITY'S ACTUAL OPERATION, AND YOU'RE NOT CAUSING A CONSTRICTION OF ITS PRODUCTION, PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY, AND THAT THE FUTURE POINT THAT YOU'RE MEASURING THE INCREASE AGAINST IS ENFORCEABLE AND THAT -- SO LET'S LOOK AT THE ENTIRE PACKAGE OF THINGS THAT EPA'S DOING AND NOT LOOK AT NSR IN A VACUUM.

THE TITLE V PROGRAM AND THE COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE MONITORING PROGRAM, WHEN THEY ARE IN PLACE, PROVIDE AN AWFUL LOT OF ASSURANCE PLUS AIR QUALITY TRACKING FROM THE IMPROVED MONITORING THAT YOU'VE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO HAVE BEFORE SO THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A DIFFERENT SET OF MECHANISMS SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO CONFOUND THE NSR PROCESS WITH THE AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROCESS AND VICE VERSA.

AND WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THIS AT CMA, WE COULDN'T EVEN COME UP WITH A SINGLE APPROACH WITHIN CMA THAT REALLY ADDRESSED ALL THE VARIABILITY WITHIN THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY, AND I SUGGEST THAT EPA SIMPLY STEP BACK FROM THIS AND MAKE THAT -- REPRESENT -- AND MAKE THOSE THE CRITERIA: A STARTING POINT THAT'S REPRESENTATIVE AND A FUTURE POINT THAT'S ENFORCEABLE.

MR. RAHER: ICLAL?

MS. ATAY: I'M GOING TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO NSR REFORM COMMITTEE TO EVALUATE SITE BY SITE THE ACTUAL-TO-FUTURE ACTUAL METHODOLOGY WITH THE POTENTIAL-TO-POTENTIAL -- FUTURE POTENTIAL METHODOLOGY WITH ACTUAL -- CREDITING ACTUAL EMISSION DECREASES AND LOOK AT THE -- COMPARE THINGS FOR COMPLEXITY, IMPLEMENTATION, EASE OF IMPLEMENTATION, ENFORCEMENT ISSUES, EASE OF ENFORCEABILITY, ASSURANCE OF PROTECTION OF AIR QUALITY, AND SEE WHICH METHODOLOGY WOULD BE THE BEST METHODOLOGY.

I THINK THAT WE CAN REACH A RESOLUTION IN THAT. I REALLY HAVE TRULY CONCERNS ON ACTUAL-TO-FUTURE ACTUAL EMISSIONS WITH RESPECT TO GOING TO A LOCAL AREA TRYING TO PERMIT A FACILITY. THAT WOULD RAISE A LOT OF EYEBROWS, YOU KNOW, SAYING THAT SOMEBODY HAS 1,000 TONS OF EMISSIONS POTENTIAL ALLOWED IN THEIR PERMIT, BUT THEY WILL ONLY EMIT, YOU KNOW, 250 TONS. WHAT ASSURANCE IS THERE WHEN THE PERMIT SAYS YOU EMIT UP TO 1,000 TONS? SO I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE CAREFULLY EVALUATE.

MR. RAHER: I THINK IN TERMS OF THE PROCESS WHERE WE ARE THAT'S A GOOD RECOMMENDATION. IT PROBABLY REQUIRES NEW JERSEY TO MAKE THAT IN A WRITTEN COMMENT TO THE AGENCY WHERE THEY CERTAINLY WILL DO THAT. AS A FACA, WE REALLY DON'T HAVE A MECHANISM FOR COMING TOGETHER AGAIN.

BUT, AGAIN, TO THE EXTENT OTHER PEOPLE HERE ON THE FACA OR INTERESTED PARTIES WOULD LIKE TO

COMMENT ON THAT IN THEIR WRITTEN COMMENTS TO THE AGENCY, I WOULD HOPE THAT, ICLAL, THEY COULD CONTACT YOU, AND YOU COULD GIVE THEM --

MS. ATAY: YES.

MR. RAHER: -- THE NECESSARY INFORMATION SO THAT THEY MIGHT DO THAT.

DAVID?

MR. HAWKINS: JUST ONE FURTHER COMPLICATION THAT'S POINTED UP BY ICLAL'S COMMENT. IF YOU HAVE A FACILITY THAT HAS ONE OF THESE FUTURE ACTUAL PROJECTIONS -- SAY, 250 IN A PERMIT THAT ALLOWS 1,000 -- WHAT OPPORTUNITIES ARE THERE FOR EMISSIONS REDUCTION CREDITS OR OPEN-MARKET CREDITS IF THEY GO BELOW THIS 1,000 AND GO IN THE RANGE OF ABOVE 250 BUT BELOW 2,000 (SIC). ARE WE IN A SITUATION WHERE THEY ARE ACTUALLY CURRENCY FOR DOING SOMETHING THAT THEY ALREADY SAID THEY WOULD DO?

IT'S JUST ANOTHER RAMIFICATION OF THIS DISCONNECT BETWEEN ACTUALS FOR PURPOSE OF APPLICABILITY AND WHAT'S PERMIT ALLOWABLE. I'M NOT SURE THAT'S BEEN THOUGHT THROUGH AS WELL.

MR. RAHER: IF THERE ARE NO OTHER APPLICABILITY COMMENTS, WHY DON'T WE MOVE ON THEN AND SEE WHETHER THERE ARE GENERAL COMMENTS FROM THE GROUP IN TERMS OF OUR NEXT TOPIC, WHICH IS NSR TECHNOLOGY REQUIREMENTS AND UNDEMONSTRATED TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS.

THERE WAS NOT A GREAT DEAL OF DISCUSSION WITH RESPECT TO THESE ISSUES YESTERDAY. THERE WAS GENERAL REFERENCE TO THE TOP-DOWN BACT STATEMENTS IN THE PACKAGE, AND, AGAIN, THERE WERE CERTAIN -- THERE WERE PEOPLE SUPPORTING AND OPPOSING. BUT I THINK, IN GENERAL, THESE ISSUES ARE OPEN FOR DISCUSSION TO THE EXTENT THAT ANY COMMITTEE MEMBER WOULD LIKE TO EITHER RAISE ISSUES OF CLARIFICATION OR EXPAND ON COMMENTS OR RAISE COMMENTS THAT THEY THINK ARE APPROPRIATE IN THE FEATURE.

HENRY?

MR. NICKEL: YEAH, I WANTED A POINT OF CLARIFICATION. IN READING WHAT YOU'RE DOING ON BACT AND TOP-DOWN BACT, AM I CORRECT IN READING THAT BASICALLY WHAT YOU HAVE SAID IS THAT WHAT WE'VE, YOU KNOW, ALL KNOWN TO LOVE AS TOP-DOWN BACT IS THE WAY IN WHICH BACT ANALYSES WILL BE CONDUCTED IN THOSE CASES WHERE EPA HAD THE PERMIT PROGRAM UNDER PART 52 AND THOSE CASES WHERE STATES DELEGATED THE PERMIT PROGRAM UNDER PART 52?

WHEREAS, THOSE STATES THAT HAVE SIP PSD PROGRAMS WOULD HAVE GREATER LATITUDE TO WAIVE THE FACTORS AND WOULD NOT NECESSARILY HAVE TO APPLY A TOP-DOWN APPROACH BUT COULD COMPARE DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGIES WITHIN THE RANGE IF THEY CONSIDER THE ENTIRE RANGE AND WEIGHT THE FACTORS AS THEY DEEMED APPROPRIATE FOR THEIR OWN LOCAL NEEDS.

IS THAT DISTINCTION SOMETHING THAT YOU WERE PROPOSING, OR ISN'T IT?

MR. CRUMPLER: I HAD HOPED IT WAS CLEAR.

MR. SOLOMON: YEAH, JUST GO AHEAD.

MR. CRUMPLER: YES, THAT'S A VERY ACCURATE PICTURE OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO, I THINK.

MR. SOLOMON: THE KEY IS IN THE STATES WITH A SIP-APPROVED PROGRAM, THAT THEY DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY'VE MET THE TWO CORE CRITERIA; THAT IS, THEY'VE LOOKED AT THE SPECTRUM OF AVAILABLE CONTROLS, INCLUDING THE MOST STRINGENT. AND IF THEY DO NOT CHOOSE THE MOST STRINGENT OR THE MORE STRINGENT TECHNOLOGIES, THEY NEED TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION AND JUSTIFICATION GIVEN THE STATUTORY ENVIRONMENTAL, ENERGY, AND ECONOMIC CRITERIA.

MR. RAHER: BILL?

MR. BECKER: AND HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT FROM THE TOP-DOWN APPROACH?

MR. CRUMPLER: YOU COULD TAKE IT FROM BOTTOM-UP OR INSIDE-OUT OR --

MR. BECKER: BUT DON'T YOU -- IF YOU -- UNDER BOTH SCENARIOS, DON'T YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN WHY YOU HAVEN'T IDENTIFIED THE MOST STRINGENT IF YOU CHOOSE SOMETHING LESS STRINGENT -- WHETHER YOU STARTED FROM THE TOP OR STARTED FROM THE BOTTOM?

MR. CRUMPLER: THAT'S CORRECT.

MR. BECKER: OKAY. SO HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT FROM THE TOP-DOWN APPROACH?

MR. SOLOMON: WELL, THERE ISN'T THAT MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE, ONLY THAT TOP-DOWN REALLY FOCUSES IN ON THE TOP THAT IS PUT IN THE TABLE FIRST. THE ANALYSIS IS DONE. WHEREAS, THERE MAY BE OTHER APPROACHES THAT DON'T NECESSARILY START AT THE TOP BUT STILL RECOGNIZE THE MORE STRINGENT TECHNOLOGIES AND ADDRESS THOSE TECHNOLOGIES ALSO.

MR. NICKEL: WELL, ALSO, YOU DON'T HAVE TO MAKE A FINDING THAT THE TOP IS INFEASIBLE BASED UPON THE FACTORS. YOU CAN MAKE YOUR SELECTION ON OTHER CRITERIA THAN FEASIBILITY.

MR. RAHER: PRAVEEN?

MR. AMAR: JUST A QUICK QUESTION. IT HAS TO DO WITH THE CLEARINGHOUSE, AND THE POINT IS BEING MADE THAT EPA'S PROPOSING MANDATORY SUBMITTAL OF BACT DETERMINATIONS. AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, HOW WOULD THAT HAPPEN?

MR. RAHER: DENNIS?

MR. CRUMPLER: WELL, THIS IS A CLEAN AIR ACT REQUIREMENT. IT ACTUALLY CAME OUT OF THE 1990 CLEAN AIR ACT, AND THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION, I KNOW, IN THE SIP WORLD ABOUT WHAT THE STATES PUT IN THEIR SIP'S. CAN THEY IMPOSE REGULATIONS UPON THEMSELVES AND THAT SORT OF THING. BUT AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, THE CLEAN AIR ACT SAYS THAT THEY SHOULD BE REPORTED TO THE RACT/BACT/LAER CLEARINGHOUSE, SO THAT'S WHAT WE SAID. STATES HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE THAT IT IS REPORTED.

NOW WHAT WE TRIED TO DO IN THE REGULATIONS IS PUT IN ENOUGH ALTITUDE THAT ALLOWS THE STATES TO HAVE SOURCES REPORT THAT INFORMATION. THERE ARE STILL SOME OUTSTANDING ISSUES RELATIVE TO HOW YOU Q.A. THAT INFORMATION, HOW IT GETS LOGGED INTO THE SYSTEM. AND WE TRIED TO PUT IN A LITTLE BIT OF LANGUAGE THERE THAT INDICATES THAT THE EVOLUTION OF THE COMMUNICATION AGE IS ALSO GOING TO IMPACT THIS WHOLE PROCESS BECAUSE EPA IS IN THE PROCESS OF MOVING A LOT OF ITS COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION TRANSFER TO THE INTERNET SYSTEM. AND THE RACT/BACT/LAER CLEARINGHOUSE WOULD BE, IN FACT, IMPACTED BY THAT.

MR. AMAR: DOES THE PROPOSAL THEN REQUIRE A CERTAIN TIME LIMIT BEFORE WHICH THE STATE AND THE SOURCE HAVE TO SUBMIT THE INFORMATION TO THE CLEARINGHOUSE? THOSE'S A TIME PERIOD, I'M WONDERING?

MR. SOLOMON: PRAVEEN, IS YOUR CONCERN THAT THE STATES WON'T OR THE STATES SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED --

MR. AMAR: NO, THE STATES SHOULD BE REQUIRED, BUT I WAS JUST TRYING TO FOUND OUT THE CURRENTNESS, SO TO SPEAK, OF THE CLEARINGHOUSE. YOU WANT THE INFORMATION IN TIME.

MR. CRUMPLER: YEAH. THERE IS -- THERE IS A TIME REQUIREMENT IN THE PROVISIONS, AND I THINK IT'S NINETY DAYS?

MR. SOLOMON: IT'S SIXTY DAYS.

MR. AMAR: SIXTY DAYS, OKAY.

MR. SOLOMON: WE COULD --

MR. AMAR: OKAY.

MR. SOLOMON: YEAH, WE COULD WRITE WITHIN THE REGULATION THAT THE PERMIT IS NOT VALID UNTIL IT'S SUBMITTED. I DON'T THINK WE'D WANT TO DO THAT, --

MR. AMAR: NO, NO, NO.

MR. SOLOMON: -- BUT I WOULD HOPE THAT THE STATES COULD WORK AMONG THEMSELVES TO ENSURE THAT AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS PRACTICABLE THEY CAN GET THE PERMITS TO US. I MEAN, THIS IS A TOOL FOR THE STATES AND FOR THE APPLICANTS AND FOR THE PUBLIC. IT'S NOT FOR EPA.

MR. RAHER: ICLAL, DO YOU HAVE --

MS. ATAY: I JUST WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON WHAT PRAVEEN IS SAYING. WE IN THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY WE DRAW PLANS, WORK PLANS, WITH EPA ON WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO, HOW WE'RE GOING TO IMPLEMENT OUR SIP, AND THIS ITEM IS WITHIN OUR WORK PLAN WHICH IS CALLED THE "NATIONAL PERFORMANCE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT" RIGHT NOW.

AND WE CHOSE NOT TO PUT THIS IN OUR RULES BECAUSE WE -- OUR RULES DO NOT REGULATE OURSELVES. THEY DO REGULATE THE INDUSTRIES IN THE STATE.

THE SECOND THING I WANT TO -- WELL, IS THERE A WAY OF FACILITATING THE INFORMATION FLOW INTO THE BACT/LAER CLEARINGHOUSE BECAUSE ALL PSD AND NONATTAINMENT PERMIT DECISIONS GO TO EPA REGIONS ANYWAY TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER, AND COULD WE TIE IN THE BACT/LAER CLEARINGHOUSE WITH THE FEDERAL REGISTER PUBLICATION BECAUSE THEN YOU DON'T MISS BECAUSE ALL DECISION GO.

MR. SOLOMON: I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT NOT ALL REGIONS ADHERE TO THAT PROCESS. THERE ARE MANY REGIONS IN WHICH THE STATE WILL ISSUE A PERMIT, AND THEIR REGION MAY NOT EVEN RECEIVE A COPY OF THAT PERMIT. IT DEPENDS UPON WHAT TYPE OF OPERATING AGREEMENTS THE REGION HAS WITH THE INDIVIDUAL STATES.

MS. ATAY: BUT IT'S IN PART 1, 40 CFR 124. "EPA MUST BE NOTIFIED OF PSD PERMIT DECISIONS. PSD PERMIT NOTIFICATION MUST GO TO THE REGION." I MEAN THAT'S A RULE REQUIREMENT.

MR. SOLOMON: BUT EPA IS IMPLEMENTING A DIFFERENTIAL OVERSIGHT, AND, AGAIN, THAT IS DEPENDING ON WHAT AGREEMENT IT HAS THE -- THE REGION HAS WITH THE STATE.

MS. ATAY: OKAY.

MR. RAHER: BILL?

MR. BECKER: THANKS, PAT. I WANT TO EXPLORE A COMMENT YOU MADE IN THE SUMMARY JUST TO MAKE SURE OR TO CLARIFY TO MAKE CERTAIN --

MR. RAHER: YOU CAN'T HOLD ME RESPONSIBLE FOR SOMETHING I DIDN'T DO, BUT THAT'S OKAY.

MR. BECKER: THIS IS GET-BACK TIME.

MR. RAHER: YEAH.

MR. BECKER: I THOUGHT YOU HAD SAID IN YOUR SUMMARY OF THE HEARING YESTERDAY THAT CERTAIN PEOPLE OPPOSED THE TOP-DOWN BACT PROVISION, AND IF THAT'S TRUE, I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO EXPLORE THAT SOMETIME AT THIS MEETING. BECAUSE WHEN WE MET LAST, WHICH WAS PROBABLY ABOUT EIGHT YEARS AGO, WE TALKED A LOT ABOUT TOP-DOWN BACT. AND THE INDUSTRY CONCERNS AT THE TIME, I REMEMBER, WERE THAT THERE WASN'T SUFFICIENT AND TIMELY GUIDANCE TO PROMPT GOOD DECISIONS BY REGULATORS, AND WE TALKED ABOUT GETTING THE BACT/LAER CLEARINGHOUSE IN SUFFICIENT ORDER TO ADDRESS THAT CONCERN HEAD-ON, AND WE EVEN ON THIS END RAISED OUR HANDS AND SAID WE WILL DO WHATEVER IT TAKES, INCLUDING A MANDATORY REQUIREMENT, TO HELP GET THAT BACT/LAER CLEARINGHOUSE IN ORDER. BECAUSE THE INSTALLATION OF VERY GOOD CONTROLS, AT LEAST THE INITIAL CONSIDERATION OF VERY GOOD CONTROLS, IS REALLY A BEDROCK PRINCIPLE OF THIS WHOLE REGULATION.

AND IF WE'RE NOW HEARING -- AND I DON'T KNOW. WE'RE CLARIFYING. IF WE'RE NOW HEARING THAT SOME ARE WALKING AWAY FROM THIS VERY IMPORTANT NOTION OF TOP-DOWN BACT, THEN I'D LIKE TO EXPLORE WHY ESPECIALLY SINCE WE ARE, GIVEN DIMINISHED RESOURCES, STILL WILLING TO MAKE YOUR JOB OF ANALYZING AND OF RELYING UPON THE BEST TECHNOLOGIES EASIER.

MR. RAHER: HENRY?

MR. NICKEL: BILL, YOU MAY NOT HAVE HEARD US, BUT FROM THE VERY BEGINNING OUR CONCERN WITH TOP-DOWN BACT, OUR OVERRIDING CONCERN, WAS THE FACT THAT IT WAS A SET OF CRITERIA THAT REQUIRED THE STATES TO WEIGHT CERTAIN FACTORS MORE HEAVILY THAN OTHER FACTORS AND THAT IT PROHIBITED A COMPARISON BETWEEN TECHNOLOGIES AND THE STATES DETERMINING WHICH WAS BEST WITHIN THE PERMISSIBLE RANGE. SO THAT A GOOD CLEARINGHOUSE OR BACT CLEARINGHOUSE DIDN'T SOLVE THAT PROBLEM.

NOW WHAT I SEE THAT THE AGENCY HAS PROPOSED, IT IS RESPONSIVE TO OUR CORE CONCERNS AT LEAST WITH RESPECT TO THE STATES THAT HAVE SIP AUTHORITY. AND WE CLEARLY ARE NOT PREPARED AND HAVE NEVER BEEN PREPARED TO ENDORSE TOP-DOWN BACT WHICH HAS AS ITS CORE CRITERIA IN TERMS OF WEIGHING A FEASIBILITY STANDARD AND LOOKING AT EACH TECHNOLOGY ALONE WITH RESPECT TO THE OTHER FACTORS AS SOMETHING THAT WAS ACCEPTABLE.

SO, I MEAN, WE LIKE THE WAY THE AGENCY HAS MOVED, BUT THAT'S IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS THAT I THINK A NUMBER OF US HAD CONSISTENTLY MADE THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS.

MR. RAHER: BILL, I THINK THAT'S TRUE, AND THAT'S HOW I INTENDED TO CHARACTERIZE THIS: THAT THE CONCERN IS THE CLARIFICATION HENRY WAS TALKING ABOUT, THAT THE REFERENCE TO THIS IN THE AGENCY'S PACKAGE IS HOW IT'S BEING HANDLED IN THIS PACKAGE AND NOT SORT OF CARTE BLANCHE APPROVAL, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT HENRY'S JUST CLARIFIED NOW. SO I DON'T THINK ANYBODY WAS OBJECTING TO THE -- WHAT YOU BUSINESS WAS A WAY TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES, BUT AT THE SAME TIME THEY'RE NOT JUST SAYING THAT TOP-DOWN IS ACCEPTABLE ACROSS ALL PROGRAMS.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? OH, I'M SORRY. KAREN?

MS. MALKIN: I JUST WANT TO GO BACK TO SOMETHING I HEARD DENNIS SAY. IF I UNDERSTOOD YOU CORRECTLY, FOR THE SIP-APPROVED STATES IT IS EPA'S INTENT THAT YOU COULD ACTUALLY USE A BOTTOM-UP APPROACH? I HEARD YOU SAY "BOTTOM-UP"? AND, YOU KNOW, HOW WOULD THAT WORK? AND WOULD YOU EVER EVEN CONSIDER THEN THE BEST, MOST IN TERMS OF MOST ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIVE TECHNOLOGY? HOW WOULD -- THAT SEEMS TO BEING TURNING THE WHOLE TECHNOLOGY-FORCING ASPECT THAT'S WORKED SO WELL, AND LET ME JUST GIVE YOU A COUPLE OF QUICK EXAMPLES.

IN ONE YEAR ALONE -- AND THESE ARE JUST THE PERMITS THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AGENCIES THAT HANDLE CLASS I AREAS, FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE AND PARK SERVICE, JUST IN ONE YEAR, I MEAN, WE WERE ABLE TO -- BY POINTING OUT, LOOKING AT THE CLEARINGHOUSE, AND FROM OUR OWN KNOWLEDGE -- WE WERE ABLE TO GET SO2 REDUCED OVER 1300 TONS IN JUST FROM WHAT WAS INITIALLY PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT. SO I'M CONCERNED. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY A "BOTTOM-UP APPROACH?"

MR. CRUMPLER: WELL, THAT'S JUST THE DIRECTION OF THE FLOW OF INFORMATION. WE'RE STILL ADHERING TO THE TWO CORE CRITERIA WHICH WE PROPOSED WHICH SAYS YOU HAVE TO -- YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE ENTIRE SPECTRUM OF TECHNOLOGIES, INCLUDING THE MOST STRINGENT, IN THE POOL OF TECHNOLOGIES THAT ARE ANALYZED. OKAY? SO THAT TECHNOLOGY -- THAT TOP TECHNOLOGY IS GOING TO ALWAYS FALL IN THE POOL OF CANDIDATES. SO IT'S JUST A MATTER OF HOW THOSE CANDIDATES ARE ANALYZED, AND WHICH -- DO YOU TAKE THE LEAST OPTION FIRST AND PROCEED UPWARD, OR DO YOU TAKE TOP ONE FIRST AND PROCEED DOWNWARD? AND YOU ALSO HAVE TO JUSTIFY IN YOUR ANALYSIS THE REJECTION OF THE MORE STRINGENT TECHNOLOGIES. THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THE TOP-DOWN TECHNOLOGY OR THE MOST STRINGENT TECHNOLOGY, BUT IT MEANS WHAT DO YOU -- HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY REJECTION OF MAYBE TWO OR THREE MORE STRINGENT TECHNOLOGIES.

MR. RAHER: SO IT'S REALLY -- I THINK, KAREN, WHAT DENNIS IS SAYING, YOU LOOK AT THE PACKAGE AS MORE PROCESS VERSUS THE PRINCIPLE AS YOU LOOK AT THE TWO -- AT THE PROGRAMS.

MS. MALKIN: NOW AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, I GUESS I'M HAVING A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT WOULD WORK. UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM YOU LOOK AT THE BEST TECHNOLOGY, THE TOP, FROM THE TOP DOWN, AND IF THAT -- AND YOU EVALUATE THAT TOP ONE FIRST, AND YOU MAY NOT GO TO LOOKING AT THE OTHER LESSER -- LESS ENVIRONMENTALLY BENEFICIAL TECHNOLOGIES IF THAT TOP ONE MEETS YOUR TEST. AND HERE -- SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND IN A BOTTOM-UP APPROACH HOW YOU WOULD GET TO LOOK AT TOP TECHNOLOGY IF THE -- I WOULD SEE HOW THE BOTTOM ONE -- YOU'RE DOING THE REVERSE.

MR. SOLOMON: YEAH, TOP-DOWN PROCESS HAS A STRUCTURE TO IT. IT IS A PROCESS. IT IS A METHODOLOGY. IT IS A STEP-BY-STEP. THERE ARE FIVE STEPS STARTING AT THE TOP. BUT, BASICALLY, IT BUILDS ON THE TWO PRINCIPLES THAT YOU CONSIDERED THE BEST, AND IF YOU DON'T CHOOSE THE BEST, YOU JUSTIFY ACCORDING TO STATUTORY CRITERIA WHY. SO YOU START AT THE BEST, AND YOU DO THE ANALYSIS.

IF THE STATE CAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION USING A DIFFERENT METHODOLOGY, WHATEVER THAT METHODOLOGY WAS, THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE. THEY DO NOT HAVE TO FOLLOW EPA'S STEPS TO COME TO THAT CONCLUSION AS LONG AS THEY'VE DEMONSTRATED THAT THEIR CONCLUSION WAS DERIVED FROM IMPLEMENTING THE TWO PRINCIPLES. --

MR. RAHER: BOB?

MR. SOLOMON: THIS --

MR. RAHER: EXCUSE ME.

MR. SOLOMON: I SEE KAREN IS STILL LOOKING PUZZLED.

MR. RAHER: AT LUNCH YOU CAN DISCUSS THIS SCINTILLATING TOPIC.

BOB?

MR. BEASLEY: THE OAQPS COST CONTROL MANUAL DISCUSSES LOOKING AT COSTS BASED ON AVERAGE COST AND ALSO ON INCREMENTAL COST. AND WHILE IT'S SOMEWHAT AMBIGUOUS AS TO HOW TO WEIGHT THESE TWO, IT DOES -- AND I THINK WE ALL HAVE IN OUR PERMITTING EFFORTS LOOKED AT BOTH TYPES OF COSTS. IF YOU USED A PURELY TOP-DOWN BASIS, YOU WOULD STOP ONCE YOU GOT TO SOMETHING THAT HAD AN AVERAGE COST THAT WAS ACCEPTABLE. YOU WOULD NEVER GET TO THE NEXT-BEST, SO YOU WOULD NEVER DO AN INCREMENTAL COST ANALYSIS AND NOT DISCOVER THAT TECHNOLOGY THAT'S ALMOST AS GOOD BUT A WHALE OF A LOT CHEAPER.

MR. RAHER: BILL, DO YOU HAVE --

MR. BECKER: YEAH, JUST A QUICK COMMENT. I AGREE WITH WHAT KAREN WAS SAYING. IF -- IF THERE'S NOT THE PRESUMPTION THAT AT LEAST WE'RE GOING TO START WITH THE BEST, AND WE MAY END UP WITH THE SECOND OR THIRD OR FOURTH OF FIFTH BEST, BUT IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO START WITH THE BEST, THEN THIS WHOLE DYNAMIC OF DISCUSSING EXEMPTIONS AND APPLICABILITY AND WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GOING TO SIMPLIFY BY IMPOSING A LESSER NUMBER OF SOURCES TO THIS RULE, IT CHANGES.

IF WE'RE GOING TO START WITH THE BEST, LET'S START AT THE TOP. AND IF WE END UP SOMEPLACE LOWER THAN THE TOP, FINE. BUT IF YOU ALLOW, UNDER THE GUISE OF FLEXIBILITY, AGENCIES TO START WITH THE WORST, IT'S GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT FROM A REGULATORY STANDPOINT FOR US TO GET TO THE BETTER DECISION.

AND IF WE DON'T, THEN IT'S GOING TO AFFECT THE REST OF THIS RULE, AND I WOULD URGE THAT THE INDUSTRY THINK CAREFULLY THROUGH ITS PRIORITIES AS TO WHAT IT WANTS OUT OF THIS: WHETHER IT'S WILLING TO PUT ON THE BEST OR SOMETHING CLOSE TO IT OR WHETHER IT WANTS TO AVOID SOME OF THE RULES ON SOURCES THAT THEY FEEL VERY STRONGLY SHOULDN'T BE REGULATED UNDER THIS RULE.

MR. RAHER: HENRY? ON THIS ISSUE, AND THEN WE --

MR. NICKEL: YEAH. LET ME JUST SAY THAT AS FAR AS I'M PERSONALLY CONCERNED I DON'T CARE WHERE YOU START, WHETHER YOU START AT THE BOTTOM OR WHETHER YOU START AT THE TOP. YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN YOUR SELECTION AND WHAT I CARE ABOUT IS TO BE ABLE TO COMPARE TECHNOLOGIES SO THAT I CAN LOOK DOWN TO THE FOURTH LEVEL, SEE THAT THE INCREMENTAL COST ANALYSIS SHOWS TREMENDOUS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MORE STRINGENT TECHNOLOGY AND THE NEXT LEVEL LESS STRINGENT TECHNOLOGY. AND I CAN GO TO THAT LESS STRINGENT NEXT TECHNOLOGY AND REJECT THE TOP THREE.

IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF LOOKING AT THE TOP. IT'S A QUESTION WHAT ARE THE DECISIONAL CRITERIA THAT GOVERN THE SELECTION. AND AS I READ THE PROPOSAL, AT LEAST IN THE SIP STATES, YOU HAVE VERY FLEXIBLE DECISION CRITERIA.

MR. RAHER: LESLIE, IS IT ON THIS TOPIC OR ANOTHER?

MS. RITTS: IT'S ON THIS --

MR. RAHER: OKAY.

MS. RITTS: -- TOPIC. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S NECESSARY TO SAY ANYTHING MORE AFTER HENRY, BUT WE'RE JUST GETTING ALL TIED UP IN KNOTS OVER THE RUBRIC. YOU'RE STILL GOING TO CONSIDER THE TOP TECHNOLOGY. YOU'RE STILL IN MOST CASES GOING TO PUT THE TOP TECHNOLOGY ON UNLESS THERE'S SOME REALLY COMPELLING REASON NOT TO, AND YOU'RE GOING TO CONSIDER THESE AIR QUALITY RELATED VALUES IN THAT DETERMINATION. SO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE BIG DEAL IS.

MR. RAHER: NO, I THINK THIS IS -- THIS IS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION.

AND I THINK, BILL, WHAT WE SAYING IS TO THE EXTENT THAT A SIP PROCESS -- A STATE HAS GONE THROUGH THAT HAS GREATER FLEXIBILITY, MAYBE THAT'S A BENEFIT. THAT'S WHY THEY WANT TO GET IT THROUGH HERE AND NOT --

MR. BECKER: OKAY, REAL QUICKLY. I DON'T THINK THIS IS RUBRIC. THIS IS -- THIS IS AN ANALYSIS THAT CHANGES THE WHOLE DYNAMIC OF WHETHER THERE IS THE PRESUMPTION THAT SOMEONE WHO IS BUILDING A NEW FACILITY IS GOING TO START WITH THE BEST AND WORK ITS WAY DOWN OR WHETHER THERE'S GOING TO BE ALLOWANCE TO START WITH THE WORST AND NEVER GET UP TO THE BETTER FACILITIES EVEN IF IT'S IN THE DATABASE. AND I THINK THAT DECISION WHERE WE END UP WITH IS GOING TO BE AFFECTED BY WHERE WE START, AND IT'S GOING TO CHANGE HOW WE FEEL ABOUT ALLOWING SOME OF THESE EXCLUSIONS.

MR. BUMPERS: YEAH, I REALLY -- I WAS GOING TO MAKE A SEPARATE POINT, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO WHAT BILL SAID, AND I'M SOMEWHAT AMAZED THAT HE HAS SUCH CONCERNS THAT THE STATES WOULD BE SO INEPT AT LOOKING AT THE TECHNOLOGIES THAT WE'RE GOING TO COME IN AND START WITH THE LEAST STRINGENT TECHNOLOGY AND NEVER MOVE. THAT'S ABSURD. TO START WITH, AND AS YOUR CLIENTS, I THINK THEY'D BE OFFENDED BY THE PRESUMPTION OF IT.

BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAS BOTHERED US FROM THE START IS THAT IF YOU GO STRICTLY TOP-DOWN, YOU MAY NEVER GET TO AN INCREMENTAL COST ANALYSIS, AND THAT IS OFFENSIVE. THAT IS ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS TO NEVER BE ABLE TO, AS HENRY SAID, COMPARE THE TECHNOLOGIES AND THE RELATIVE COST-EFFECTIVENESS. AS AN OLD ECONOMIST -- AND I MAKE NO APOLOGIES FOR IT -- I'D SAID IN THE SAME FORUM MANY TIMES --

MR. RAHER:

MR. BUMPERS: EMPHASIS ON "OLD" AT THIS POINT.

BUT, AND I'VE SAID THIS BEFORE, YOU CAN'T FIND AN ECONOMIC TEXTBOOK IN THE COUNTRY THAT WILL TELL YOU THAT YOU SHOULD MAKE ANY DECISIONS ON THE BASIS OF AVERAGE COST, AND IF YOU IGNORE INCREMENTAL COSTS OF TECHNOLOGIES AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTIVENESS OF IT, YOU ARE DESTINED TO MAKE VERY POOR CHOICES.

AND I THINK DAVID HIT IT RIGHT. AS LONG AS YOU ADHERE TO THE PRINCIPLES, AND YOU'RE MAKING THE CORRECT COMPARISON AND JUSTIFYING WHY YOU DON'T TAKE THE MOST STRINGENT TECHNOLOGY OR MORE STRINGENT TECHNOLOGIES, YOU'RE GOING TO GET TO THE RIGHT AND SAME RESULTS. AND I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT THE STATES MAINTAIN THE FLEXIBILITY TO DO THIS IN A RATIONAL PROCESS.

MR. RAHER: JOHN?

MR. BUNYAK: JOHN BUNYAK, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE. I GUESS I'LL THROW IN MY TWO CENTS. I THINK IN THEORY, WHETHER YOU USE BOTTOM-UP OR A TOP-DOWN APPROACH, YOU SHOULD COME TO THE SAME LEVEL, BUT PAST HISTORY DOESN'T SEEM TO DICTATE THAT. PRIOR TO EPA'S TOP-DOWN POLICY, SOURCES WERE COMING IN PROPOSING NSPS, AND IT WAS DIFFICULT FOR THE STATES TO GO BEYOND THAT. SO I THINK THE PARK SERVICE IS A MAJOR ADVOCATE OF TOP-DOWN AND WOULD ENCOURAGE THE EPA TO INCLUDE THE STATE SIP PROPOSAL AS WELL.

MR. RAHER: WHAT -- ICLAL, ONE LAST COMMENT, AND WE'RE GOING TO BREAK FOR LUNCH AND COME BACK AND DISCUSS A COUPLE OF MINOR ISSUES, LIKE CLASS I.

MS. ATAY: I HEAR THAT THE REAL INTEREST HERE IS NOT THE WAY HOW THE ANALYSIS WAS DONE, BUT WHETHER INCREMENTAL COSTS -- THE DECISION IS BASED ON A TOTAL COST BASIS OR AN INCREMENTAL COST BASIS. I WOULD SAY THE DECISION CANNOT BE BASED ALONE ON TOTAL COST, OR IT CANNOT BE BASED ALONE ON INCREMENTAL COST. BOTH HAVE TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AT THE SAME TIME.

FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT INSTALLATION OF ONE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY AND YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE A SELECTION BETWEEN CONTROL TECHNOLOGY "A" OR CONTROL TECHNOLOGY "B," CONSIDERATION OF TOTAL COST AND LOOKING AT INCREMENTAL COSTS MAY LEAD YOU TO SELECT THE MORE STRINGENT CONTROL AS THE MORE APPROPRIATE OPTION. HOWEVER, IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ADDING CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES IN SERIES, CONTROL TECHNOLOGY "A" PLUS CONTROL TECHNOLOGY "B" OR JUST CONTROL TECHNOLOGY "A," THE INCREMENTAL COST DECISION MAY LEAD YOU TO DECIDE THAT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY "A" ALONE WOULD BE SUFFICIENT. SO THEY SHOULD BOTH BE TAKEN -- GIVEN CONSIDERATION TOGETHER, NOT ONE OR THE OTHER.

MR. RAHER: I'M NOT SO SURE THAT THE PACKAGE DOESN'T ALLOW THAT AT THE PRESENT TIME AS PROPOSED AS YOU WOULD --

MS. ATAY: I SEE THAT --

MR. RAHER: RIGHT.

MS. ATAY: -- IT DOES ALLOW --

MR. RAHER: IT DOES. RIGHT. OKAY.

MS. ATAY: YEAH.

MR. RAHER: ALL RIGHT. IF THERE ARE NO MORE DISCUSSIONS ON THE TECHNOLOGY SIDE, WHY DON'T WE TAKE A -- IS THERE ANYTHING --

MS. BANKOFF: PAT?

MR. RAHER: I'M SORRY. BARBARA?

MS. BANKOFF: WE DIDN'T EVEN GET TO UT/A OR POLLUTION PREVENTION. ARE YOU PLANNING TO DO THAT AFTER LUNCH OR IGNORE IT OR?

MR. RAHER: ACTUALLY, I THINK I JUST OVERLOOKED IT. THAT'S ALL.

MS. BANKOFF: THAT'S WHAT I --

MR. RAHER: WHY DON'T WE TAKE THAT UP RIGHT AFTER LUNCH, --

MS. BANKOFF: OKAY.

MR. RAHER: -- AND THEN WE'LL MOVE ON THEN?

MS. BANKOFF: ALL RIGHT. I MEAN, THE OTHER THING IS -- UNLESS OTHER PEOPLE HAVE COMMENTS, I JUST HAVE A VERY BRIEF ONE, WHICH SEEMS APPROPRIATE TO THIS DISCUSSION. TWO MINUTES.

MR. RAHER: OKAY.

MS. BANKOFF: LESS THAN TWO MINUTES?

MR. RAHER: SURE.

MS. BANKOFF: I MEAN, BASICALLY I WANTED TO SAY THAT I THINK THE UT/A APPROACH WAS -- OH, SORRY -- I'M SORRY. I WAS DOING OKAY BEFORE, BUT --.

I APPRECIATE WHAT WAS DONE ON UT/A, AND I WANTED TO COMMEND THE FOLKS WHO WORKED ON THAT. SOME OF THE ONES WHO AREN'T HERE AS WELL. I APPRECIATED THE BASIC APPROACH AND THE INTENT AND LIKE THE FACT THAT FOR UT/A IN NONATTAINMENT AREAS THERE IS SOME RECOGNITION OF RISK-SHARING, AND THE PROPOSAL ADOPTS THE CONCEPT THAT WE HAD RECOMMENDED ON GROSS AND MARGINAL FAILURE. AND I THINK THAT'S ALL TO THE GOOD.

THE ONE THING THAT I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT IS THAT THERE STILL NEEDS TO BE A SEPARATE SUBCATEGORY, I BELIEVE, FOR DEMONSTRATED POLLUTION PREVENTION, WHICH WE HAD RECOMMENDED. IT WAS AN UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION FROM THE ENTIRE GROUP. AND I THINK THAT THE MAIN REASON IS THE WAY IT'S CURRENTLY SET UP, THE AGENCY'S APPROACH TO LAER DOESN'T ALLOW FOR CONSIDERATION OF COLLATERAL EMISSIONS, ENERGY IMPACTS, OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT, AND I THINK THAT WITHOUT THAT SEPARATE SUBCATEGORY, THERE REALLY IS A DISINCENTIVE TO DOING A NUMBER OF APPROACHES THAT ARE POLLUTION PREVENTION.

I MEAN BOTH JOHN -- SORRY TO USE YOUR NAME, BUT JOHN AND EVEN DAVE MENTIONED SOMETHING THIS MORNING ABOUT COLLATERAL EMISSIONS. JOHN HAD MENTIONED USING LOW VOC COATINGS. THERE'S NOT MUCH INCENTIVE TO DOING THAT IF YOU HAVE TO DO ADD-ON TECHNOLOGIES, AND I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS ENOUGH -- THERE IS ENOUGH OF A SAFEGUARD MECHANISM THAT'S ALREADY SET UP IN THE UT/A PROPOSAL THAT THE SAME THING COULD BE USED FOR A SUBCATEGORY FOR DEMONSTRATED P2. SO I WOULD STRONGLY URGE THAT THAT BE RECONSIDERED. OTHER THAN THAT, I THINK IT'S VERY HELPFUL.

MR. RAHER: OKAY. ALL RIGHT, WELL, WE CAN AGAIN REVISIT THIS RIGHT AFTER LUNCH AS WELL AS LOOKING AT ANY OF THE OTHER ISSUES THAT THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS WOULD LIKE TO RAISE BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO CLASS I.

WHY DON'T WE TAKE A BREAK RIGHT NOW?

(12:17 P.M. LUNCH RECESS 1:28 P.M.)

MR. RAHER: ALL RIGHT, LET'S BEGIN. I THINK BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE ISSUE OF CLASS I REQUIREMENTS, I'M GOING TO DO THREE THINGS: FIRST OF ALL, ASK IF THERE ARE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS SIMILAR TO BARBARA'S COMMENTS ON UNDEMONSTRATED TECHNOLOGY OR ANY OF THE OTHER TECHNOLOGY REQUIREMENT ISSUES.

I'D LIKE TO THEN ASK IF THERE'S ANYBODY ON THE FACA THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ANY CLARIFYING COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS BASED ON WHAT WE'VE ALL HEARD TODAY ON ANY OF THE ISSUES, SORT OF AS A CLEANUP OF THIS PHASE.

AND THEN WE'D LIKE TO ASK ANYBODY IN THE PUBLIC, IN THE AUDIENCE, IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ANY GENERAL COMMENTS, AND THEN WE'LL MOVE ON THE CLASS I.

IS THERE ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS AS A FOLLOW-ON TO BARBARA'S COMMENTS ON THE UNDEMONSTRATED TECHNOLOGY, ETC.? DID THAT -- DID SHE PRETTY WELL CAPTURE MANY OF THE THOUGHTS? OKAY.

IS THERE ANYONE ON THE COMMITTEE WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SORT OF GENERAL COMMENTS ON WHAT YOU HEARD THIS MORNING, ANY AREAS WHERE WE THINK THAT THE AGENCY SHOULD PLACE MORE EMPHASIS, DO A LITTLE MORE ANALYSIS, OR WE, AS COMMITTEE MEMBERS, SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THAT KIND OF ACTIVITY FOR WRITTEN COMMENTS?

HENRY?

MR. NICKEL: YES, I JUST WANTED TO GIVE ME REACTION TO A RECOMMENDATION WE HEARD FROM TWO OF THE STATE REPRESENTATIVES EARLIER; AND THAT IS, CONSIDERING A POTENTIAL-TO-POTENTIAL ACCOUNTING APPROACH WITH ACTUAL EMISSIONS CONSIDERED FOR PURPOSES OF OFFSETS.

I THINK -- AND I THINK THAT YOU'VE HEARD THIS FROM A NUMBER OF US BEFORE -- THAT WOULD BE REAL SIMPLIFICATION. IT WOULD BE REAL REFORM. IT WOULD RESPOND TO THE CENTRAL CONCERN THAT A NUMBER OF US HAVE ABOUT LOSING CAPACITY THAT YOU'RE AUTHORIZED TO USE, AND WE'RE ALWAYS -- AND CONSTRUCT A FACILITY TO USE.

IT WOULD ENABLE YOU TO MOVE AWAY FROM A NUMBER OF THESE OTHER RULES, WHICH THERE IS NO QUESTION AT ALL INVOLVE MORE COMPLEX JUDGMENTS THAN APPLICATION OF THAT PARTICULAR APPROACH. I KNOW JUST FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE WEPCO RULE, I THINK YOU COULD -- YOU COULD GET RID OF 90 PERCENT OF THE WEPCO RULE.

THE ONE THING THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT TODAY THAT WOULD HAVE TO REMAIN, OF COURSE, WOULD BE POLLUTION CONTROL EXCLUSION. AS WAS DISCUSSED EARLIER, YOU WILL HAVE SOME COLLATERAL INCREASES, AND THAT HAS TO BE ADDRESSED THROUGH THAT TYPE OF EXCLUSION. BUT I THINK THAT THIS WOULD BE VERY PROMISING AND CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT WHEN WE PREPARE OUR COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSAL.

MR. RAHER: I WOULD -- I BELIEVE -- WE'RE NOT PUTTING WORDS IN HER MOUTH, BUT I BELIEVE ICLAL AGREED TO MAKE AVAILABLE TO ANYONE THE NEW JERSEY PROGRAM AND HOW IT WORKS AND ANY, YOU KNOW, ANY DESCRIPTION OF IT THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY THAT'S NOT EVIDENT FROM THE LANGUAGE FROM THE PROGRAM ITSELF. AND THAT MAY BE VERY, VERY USEFUL FOR ANY OF THE GROUPS, INCLUDING YOUR OWN STATE ASSOCIATION AND SO FORTH TO LOOK AT AND SEE WHETHER WE COULD GIVE SOME FEEDBACK TO THE AGENCY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS SIMPLIFICATION WOULD BE USEFUL OR NOT.

ICLAL?

MS. ATAY: I COULD SEND A COMPARISON OF THE ACTUAL-TO-FUTURE ACTUAL WITH POTENTIAL-TO-POTENTIAL CURRENT NEW JERSEY PROGRAM TO EVERYONE IN THE NSR REFORM IF THEY WANT IT.

MR. RAHER: I ACTUALLY THINK THAT THE WOULD BE --

MR. NICKEL: IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL.

MR. RAHER: IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO THAT? I THINK THAT WOULD BE EXTREMELY HELPFUL, AND IT WOULD GIVE ALL OF US A PIECE OF PAPER TO TAKE A LOOK AT AND MAYBE FACILITATE THE DISCUSSION.

MR. SOLOMON: I JUST HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS, NOT QUESTIONS -- SUGGESTIONS. WE DO RAISE THE POTENTIAL-TO-POTENTIAL TEST WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF CMA EXHIBIT "B," AND OUR BIGGEST CONCERN IS THE POTENTIAL FOR ALLOWING REAL INCREASES IN EMISSIONS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE NOT OCCURRED AND THEIR IMPACT ON AIR QUALITY. AND I KNOW THAT WITHIN THE PACKAGE WE SOLICIT COMMENT ON HOW THAT ISSUE COULD BE ADDRESSED.

WHAT I'VE HEARD FROM NEW JERSEY WAS ALONG WITH THE POTENTIAL-TO-POTENTIAL TEST THERE WAS SOME KIND OF AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT OR INCREMENT ANALYSIS. SO THE MEMBERS HERE THAT ARE COMMENTING, IF YOU CAN PROVIDE ANY COMMENTS ON HOW EPA COULD DEAL OR SHOULD DEAL WITH THE POTENTIAL AIR QUALITY RAMIFICATIONS OF GOING TO THE POTENTIAL-TO-POTENTIAL TEST THE AGENCY WOULD APPRECIATE THAT.

AND JUST A CLARIFYING REQUEST FROM NEW JERSEY. ALONG -- IS IT A STRAIGHT POTENTIAL-TO-POTENTIAL TEST, OR, AS I UNDERSTOOD IT, THERE'S ALSO AN INCREMENT AND NOX TEST THAT GOES ALONG?

MS. ATAY: THERE'S NO INCREMENT AND NOX TEST THAT GOES ALONG. WE DID -- IF SOMEBODY DOES THE NETTING ANALYSIS USING POTENTIAL-TO-POTENTIAL, THEY ARE COMPLETELY EXCLUDED FROM THE PROGRAM. HOWEVER, NEW JERSEY HAS ITS OWN AUTHORITIES THAT MAY ALLOW US TO REQUIRE AN AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS TO BE DONE.

THE ONLY THING IS THAT IN THIS POTENTIAL-TO- POTENTIAL TEST IT'S NOT SIMILAR TO WHAT'S IN THE RULE. IT'S QUITE DIFFERENT THAN THAT. IT'S YOUR POTENTIAL EMISSIONS NOW, YOUR FUTURE POTENTIAL EMISSIONS THAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR NOW, AND CREDIT ONLY IS GIVEN FOR NETTING PURPOSES IF YOU HAVE MADE ACTUAL EMISSION REDUCTIONS. NO CREDIT FOR ALLOWABLE REDUCTIONS. CREDIT FOR ONLY ACTUAL EMISSION REDUCTIONS. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE.

MR. SOLOMON: BUT THE QUESTION I HAVE, THOUGH, IS THAT -- MAYBE I'M A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED. BUT IF I HAVE AN EMISSION UNIT, AND ALL I'M DOING IS MODIFYING THAT UNIT -- AND WE'RE NOT TALKING REDUCTIONS, JUST TALKING MODIFYING THAT UNIT OR REPLACING THAT UNIT -- IS THAT STILL A POTENTIAL-TO-POTENTIAL TEST, OR IS THAT AN ACTUAL-TO-POTENTIAL TEST?

MS. ATAY: IT'S A POTENTIAL-TO-POTENTIAL TEST. BECAUSE IF YOU'RE MODIFYING YOUR UNIT AND YOU ARE STILL STAYING WITHIN THE ALLOWABLE EMISSIONS LIMIT THAT WAS ESTABLISHED FOR YOU, THOSE ALLOWABLE EMISSIONS LIMITS HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS, INCREMENT ANALYSIS, AND IN THE CASE OF NEW JERSEY ALSO HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENTS AND WERE FOUND TO BE ACCEPTABLE AS FAR AS THE ENVIRONMENT IS CONCERNED; THEREFORE, THERE IS NO NEED RE-SUBJECT YOU IF YOU'RE GOING TO STAY WITHIN YOUR ALLOWABLES.

MR. SOLOMON: BUT MY QUESTION IS THERE'S A DISCONNECT FROM WHAT I HEARD THIS MORNING RELATIVE TO YOUR CONCERN ABOUT THE CLEAN UNIT TEST IN THAT THERE YOU SAID THERE WAS POTENTIAL FOR INCREASES IN EMISSIONS THAT WOULD GO UNREVIEWED, AND WHAT I'VE HEARD NOW IS BASICALLY THE SAME TYPE OF TEST WITHOUT AN AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT.

MS. ATAY: THAT'S QUITE DIFFERENT, DAVID, BECAUSE IN THE CASE OF A CLEAN UNIT EXEMPTION, I CAN COME UP AND SAY, OKAY, THIS UNIT IS EMITTING 100 TONS OF NOX NOW, AND IT HAS BACT/LAER -- IT HAS BEEN MADE A DEMONSTRATION ON IT TWO YEARS FOR BACT AND LAER. NOW I'M GOING TO INCREASE THOSE 100 TONS PER YEAR EMISSIONS ALLOWABLE TO 400 TONS PER YEAR EMISSIONS. BECAUSE MY PERMIT SAID THAT I CAN ONLY OPERATE 1,000 HOURS, NOW I'M GOING TO INCREASE 1,000 HOURS TO 4,000 HOURS. YOU WILL COMPLETELY EXEMPT THEM FROM REVIEW BECAUSE IT'S CLEARLY BACT. BUT FOUR TIMES MORE EMISSIONS WOULD HAVE FOUR TIMES MORE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT.

MR. SOLOMON: BUT WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT AND YOUR POTENTIAL-TO-POTENTIAL TEST?

MS. ATAY: IT VARIES QUITE SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE IN THIS CASE I'M TALKING ABOUT BEING BOTH EQUAL TO ALLOWABLE AND ACTUAL. IF THEY ARE GOING TO STAY WITHIN THE 100 TONS PER YEAR, THEY'RE GOING TO BE POTENTIAL-TO-POTENTIAL, DELTA IS ZERO, NO EMISSION INCREASE. BUT THE POTENTIAL, THE ALLOWABLE, AND THE ACTUAL WHICH IS EQUAL TO EACH OTHER, 100 TONS PER YEAR IS GOING TO GO TO 400 TONS PER YEAR. IN THIS CASE THEY WILL BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW, BOTH FROM AN AIR QUALITY AND A TECHNOLOGY PERSPECTIVE.

MR. RAHER: I THINK IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL, ICLAL, YOU KNOW, IF YOU COULD IN YOUR COMPARISON ALSO TAKE A LOOK AT THE CLEAN UNIT PROPOSAL.

MS. ATAY: YES, I WILL PUT SOME EXAMPLES IN THERE --

MR. RAHER: OKAY.

MS. ATAY: -- TO ILLUSTRATE WHAT WE MEAN.

MR. RAHER: RIGHT. I THINK IT WILL REFRESH EVERYONE'S RECOLLECTION AS TO WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT TODAY AND HELP US LOOK AT BOTH OF THESE PROGRAMS.

MS. ATAY: OKAY.

MR. RAHER: THANK YOU.

YEAH, DENNIS?

MR. CRUMPLER: ICLAL -- THIS IS DENNIS CRUMPLER -- I ALSO HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. IN YOUR ANALYSIS WOULD YOU PLEASE, IF YOU CAN, EXPLAIN HOW YOU TREAT SOURCES THAT MAY BE GRANDFATHERED OR HAVE NEVER GOTTEN PERMITS, FOR EXAMPLE, AND FOR HOW THE STATE HANDLES THE AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS WITH RESPECT TO THOSE SOURCES IN PROSPECTIVE PERMITTING ACTIONS? IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN THAT SOURCE GOES FORWARD OR PROPOSES A PROJECT, HOW WOULD THE STATE HANDLE THE POTENTIAL-TO-POTENTIAL TEST THERE?

MS. ATAY: OKAY. THAT GOES A LITTLE BIT INTO DIFFERENT ISSUES WHERE WE WILL BE COMMENTING AS WELL. THERE ARE A LOT OF EXCLUSIONS PROVIDED FOR IN HERE. EVEN THOUGH I WOULD SUPPORT EXCLUDING PERMIT APPLICANTS FROM MANY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE BURDENS OF THE NSR PROGRAM, I REALLY WOULD BE RELUCTANT TO SUPPORT NOT LOOKING INTO AIR QUALITY IMPACTS OR INCREMENT ANALYSIS, AND I WOULD ALSO BE RELUCTANT TO SUPPORT -- IF SOMEBODY IS MAKING AN INVESTMENT, CAPITAL INVESTMENT, IN THEIR FACILITY, REPLACING EQUIPMENT AND REPAIRING EQUIPMENT AND PUTTING IN A NEW INCREMENT -- NOT TO USE CURRENT TECHNOLOGY, TODAY'S AVAILABLE DEMONSTRATED TECHNOLOGY TO DO THAT.

AND I DON'T THINK ANY OF THE INDUSTRY PEOPLE WOULD OBJECT TO THAT. THEY'RE SPENDING THE MONEY; WHY NOT USE THE GOOD STUFF THAN USE TO BAD STUFF INSTEAD.

MR. RAHER: BOB BEASLEY?

MR. BEASLEY: THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF COURT CASES RECENTLY ADDRESSING THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT LIMITS HAVE TO FEDERALLY ENFORCEABLE, AND I KNOW EPA IS STILL TRYING TO DEAL WITH HOW TO HANDLE THAT ISSUE.

THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE IN THE REGULATION DOES USE THE TERM "FEDERALLY ENFORCEABLE" A NUMBER OF TIMES, AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT IN THIS PROCESS THAT ALL BE SORTED OUT; AND THAT THOSE CASES WHERE IT CAN'T BE SUPPORTED TO KEEP THAT LANGUAGE THERE, THAT THE "FEDERALLY ENFORCEABLE" PART BE STRICKEN, PERHAPS REPLACED WITH "PRACTICALLY ENFORCEABLE."

MR. RAHER: OKAY. WE WILL LEAVE THAT TO THE EPA LAWYERS TO SORT OUT FOR US.

RICH?

MR. FISHER: I JUST WANT TO GO ON RECORD BY SAYING THAT I THINK THE POTENTIAL-TO-POTENTIAL TEST MAKES SENSE FROM THE FORESTERS' PERSPECTIVE. I'M RICH FISHER, WITH THE FOREST SERVICE. AND I THINK THE PAL'S MAKE SENSE AS WELL, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE ADDRESS, WHEN CONSIDERING A PLANTWIDE APPLICABILITY LIMIT, ADDRESS -- AGAIN, TO ADDRESS JOHN BUNYAK'S EARLIER COMMENT -- THAT WE CONSIDER THE EFFECTS OF CHANGING SOMETHING IN THE PAL ON THE HURD OR ON THE CLASS I AREAS.

AND IF THE EMISSIONS, THE STACK HEIGHTS CHANGE, AND THE OPERATING CONDITIONS OF THE UNITS AS THEY ARE MANIPULATED ON THE PAL CHANGE -- THEN, PERHAPS, WE OUGHT TO BE LOOKING AT WHAT KIND OF EFFECTS OR IMPACTS THAT HAS FAR AFIELD, DOWNWIND. THAT'S THE EXTENT OF MY COMMENTS.

MR. RAHER: OKAY. ANY OTHER -- ERNIE?

MR. ROSENBERG: JUST IN GENERAL IN TERMS OF THE DISCUSSION WE'VE HAD, I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR EPA, IN LOOKING AT THESE COMMENTS, AND THE OTHER COMMENTERS TO BE AWARE OF THE FACT THAT AVOIDING OR INSTALLING TECHNOLOGY IS OFTEN NOT THE ISSUE. IF THERE WERE A WAY TO INSTALL THE TECHNOLOGY WHEN YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING NEW WITHOUT INCURRING ALL THE DELAYS AND BURDENS OF THE PERMITTING PROCESS, THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE IN A LOT OF CASES.

THE PROBLEM IN MANY CASES THAT MAKES FACILITIES LOOK FOR, YOU KNOW, ESCAPES CHUTES FROM THE SYSTEM IS NOT THAT THEY'RE UNWILLING TO PUT IN CONTROLS, IT'S JUST THAT THEY CAN'T AFFORD THE DELAY THAT'S INVOLVED IN NEW SOURCE REVIEW PROCESS. SO AS WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS, LET'S LOOK FOR -- AND I REALIZE IN THE STRUCTURE OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT THIS IS DIFFERENT, DIFFICULT -- BUT LET'S LOOK FOR OPPORTUNITIES WHERE YOU CAN ACKNOWLEDGE YOU'VE ALREADY GOT THE CONTROL.

THAT'S WHY I THINK THE CLEAN UNIT EXCLUSION IS SO IMPORTANT, BECAUSE IT GIVES A FACILITY AN OPPORTUNITY TO BUY FLEXIBILITY AND RAPID RESPONSE TO ITS MARKETS BY PUTTING IN GOOD CONTROLS, WHICH I THINK IS A WIN-WIN SITUATION FOR EVERYBODY.

MR. RAHER: BILL?

MR. BECKER: I APOLOGIZE, PAT. I'M NOT --

MR. RAHER: WELL, THEN WE'RE GOING TO CUT YOU OFF.

MR. BECKER: -- I'M GOING TO TAKE THE HOOK.

I THOUGHT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT -- I THINK YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, ERNIE. YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. WHAT WE'VE LEARNED FROM INDUSTRY -- WHAT I'VE LEARNED FROM INDUSTRY IS THAT MOST TIMES CERTAINTY AND QUICK DECISIONS IS MUCH MORE IMPORTANT THAN STRINGENCY OF REGULATION, AND I USED TO WORK FOR INDUSTRY, AND I KNOW THIS. AND THAT'S WHY I THOUGHT THAT THE STATES AND LOCALITIES AGREEING TO A MANDATORY REQUIREMENT TO MAKE IT -- TO PROVIDE THE DATABASE TO MAKE QUICK DECISIONS QUICKER AND EASIER WAS A GOOD TRADE TO ENSURE THAT WE HAD THOSE VERY GOOD DECISIONS THAT YOU'RE AGREEING TO FOLLOW AS A TRADE FOR QUICK DECISIONS. THE GOOD DECISIONS ARE THE TRADE FOR QUICK DECISIONS.

AND THAT'S WHY I WAS SO DISAPPOINTED TO HEAR THAT NOT EVERYONE FEELS THAT WAY, AND I THINK -- I THINK THE COMMONALITY WE HAVE HERE IS WE WILL GIVE YOU CERTAINTY AND WE WILL GIVE YOU QUICK DECISIONS, GIVE US THE BEST DECISIONS; AND IF YOU ARRIVE A SECOND BEST, AT LEAST GO THROUGH THE SAME KIND OF PROCESS.

MR. BEASLEY: COULD I? COULD I JUST ADD SOMETHING TO THAT? I REALLY DON'T -- I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU, BILL, WHICH IS PROBABLY THE FIRST YOU'LL EVER HEAR AND MAYBE THE LAST TIME YOU'LL HEAR THAT. BUT --

MR. BECKER: THEN LET'S MOVE ON.

MR. BEASLEY: NO. BUT THE RIGIDITY OF PUTTING A REQUIREMENT IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM MEANS ENFORCING A CHOICE AT THE FRONT END WHEN YOU'RE DESIGNING THE SYSTEM IS THE PROBLEM. THERE ARE SOME SOURCES AT SOME TIMES IN THEIR ECONOMIC LIFE WHERE SPEED IS IMPORTANT. THERE ARE SOME SOURCES WHERE AT POINTS IN THEIR ECONOMIC LIFE AVOIDING A BIG HIT IN TERMS OF CAPITAL EXPENSES AT THAT POINT IS IMPORTANT. ONCE AGAIN, THERE'S NO GOOD ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL FIX HERE.

AS FAR AS THE DISCUSSION OF TOP-DOWN BACT AND THE USE OF GOOD CONTROLS, I DIDN'T HEAR PEOPLE SAYING THAT THEY WEREN'T WILLING TO START WITH LOOKING AT GOOD CONTROLS. I HEARD PEOPLE SAYING DON'T FORCE US TO STOP THERE IF THERE'S -- IF YOU'RE MAKING A STUPID DECISION IN TERMS OF INCREMENTAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS.

MR. BECKER: I DIDN'T HEAR THE SAME, BUT WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT LATER.

MR. RAHER: OKAY. IF THERE ARE NO OTHER GENERAL CLOSING COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS ON WHAT WE DISCUSSED THIS MORNING, ARE THERE ANY -- IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE PUBLIC AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT ON ANY OF THE -- ON THE ISSUES THAT WERE DISCUSSED?

ALL RIGHT. LET'S MOVE ON THEN TO THE DISCUSSION WITH RESPECT TO CLASS I PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS. AGAIN, I WILL TRY TO BRIEFLY GIVE YOU A SNAPSHOT OF THE OVERALL ISSUES THAT CAME UP YESTERDAY WITH RESPECT TO CLASS I.

I THINK YOU CAN DIVIDE IT INTO -- INTO TWO CATEGORIES. THE FIRST ONE WAS, OBVIOUSLY, THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGERS, I THINK, APPRECIATED THE RECOGNITION THAT THE PACKAGE GIVES TO THE DIFFICULTY AND COMPLEXITIES THAT THEY HAVE WITH DEALING WITH THEIR OBLIGATIONS.

ON THE OTHER HAND, THOSE INDIVIDUALS THAT WERE, THE PERMITTEES HAVING TO DEAL WITH THIS, WERE EXTREMELY CONCERNED AND DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE PACKAGE ADEQUATELY ADDRESSES THE FACT THAT THERE APPEARS TO BE NO CHECK OR BALANCE ON THE POTENTIAL DELAY THAT THE PACKAGE CAN CAUSE FROM WHAT WAS CHARACTERIZED AS "UNBRIDLED DISCRETION" TO CAUSE CONTINUAL DELAYS IN REVIEWS.

AND I THINK THAT THERE WERE MANY PEOPLE WHO RAISED ISSUES AS TO THE LEGAL SUFFICIENCY OF THE ISSUES AS PRESENTED IN THE OVERALL PACKAGE.

THERE WERE A NUMBER OF REQUESTS THAT THE CLASS I PROVISIONS OF THIS PACKAGE BE SEVERED, AND THERE WERE VERY FEW COMMENTS WHICH ACTUALLY IDENTIFIED CURRENTLY AVAILABLE MEANS FOR CORRECTING THE ISSUES THAT WERE IDENTIFIED AS TROUBLESOME.

WE DIDN'T HEAR, BUT MAYBE JOHN PAUL AND BILL AND OTHERS FROM THE STATES CAN ADDRESS WHETHER OR NOT THEY BELIEVE THAT THE CLASS I PROVISIONS WOULD ALSO CAUSE INCREASED BURDEN ON THE AMOUNT OF WORK, TIME, EXPENDITURES THAT THAT WOULD HAVE TO HAVE SIMILAR TO THE OTHER NEW SOURCE REVIEWS, BUT I THINK IT DOES HOLD -- OBVIOUSLY, IF THE COMMENTS ARE CORRECT, IT DOES GO BACK TO THE STATE PERMITTERS AS TO WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

THAT'S A PRETTY QUICK SUMMARY OF THE ISSUES. ANYBODY FROM EPA WANT TO SORT OF ADDRESS THE OVERALL GOALS THAT THE AGENCY HAD WITH RESPECT TO PUTTING OUT THIS PORTION OF THE PACKAGE?

MR. DEROECK: I'D JUST LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT THE ENTIRE CLASS I PROCEDURE AS PROPOSED.

MR. RAHER: THAT'S A -- WE DON'T HAVE VOTING PROCEDURES HERE, BUT IF WE DID, WE COULD DEBATE THAT.

MR. DEROECK: JUST TO ADD TO WHAT PAT HAS SAID, WE WORKED THROUGH THE CLASS I PROCESS WITH SEVERAL WORKING GROUPS. AND AS THE PROCESS EVOLVED, CONSENSUS WAS REACHED ON CONCEPTS, BUT I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT IN MOST CASES CONSENSUS WAS NEVER REACHED ON THE EXACT WAY TO ADDRESS OR RESOLVE -- ADDRESS THOSE CONCEPTS. AND SO WE TOOK IT UPON OURSELVES, NATURALLY, TO PUT ON PAPER A PROCEDURE THAT WOULD DEAL WITH CONCEPTUAL CONSENSUS, BUT AS WE FOUND AS WE WENT ALONG, THERE WAS DISAGREEMENT FROM BOTH SIDES AS TO HOW -- HOW WE CHOSE TO DEAL WITH THOSE CONCEPTS, AND I GUESS THAT'S WHERE WE ARE TODAY.

WE DID TRY TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS THAT FOCUSED ON THE FACT THAT THE EXISTING PROCESS WAS AMBIGUOUS. THE PROCEDURES, IN FACT, DIFFERED FROM -- BETWEEN THE PART 51 AND THE PART 52, AND THERE WAS A CLEAR LACK OF ROLES AND AUTHORITY: NOT JUST ON THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGER'S PART, BUT AS TO WHO WAS REQUIRED TO DO WHAT AND WHO COULD REQUIRE WHO TO DO WHAT.

AND THERE WAS A GENERAL CONCERN THAT THE PROCESS WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY LOADED UP FRONT, SO TO SPEAK, SO THAT INFORMATION COULD BE SHARED AND PROCESSED IN A TIMELY WAY SO THAT DECISIONS COULD BE MADE IN A TIMELY WAY. AND THERE WAS A LACK OF COORDINATION SO THAT OFTENTIMES THE PROCESS DRAGGED ON, OR IT WAS SAID OFTENTIMES THAT THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGER DIDN'T ENTER INTO THE -- ENTER ONTO THE SCENE UNTIL THE LAST MINUTE, AND THAT IN ITSELF DELAYED THE PROCESS FOR QUITE SOME TIME.

SO WE DID ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES IN THE PACKAGE: TRYING TO ADDRESS THE AMBIGUITY, TRYING TO PUT A PROCEDURE IN PLACE THAT WE BELIEVE REFLECTED THE INTENT OF CONGRESS AND THE STATUTE. AND WE TRIED TO IDENTIFY ROLES AND AREAS OF AUTHORITY. AND BY THE WAY, MY PERSONAL BELIEF, AND IT WAS OUR INTENT, WAS THAT WE DID REFLECT THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND THE STATUTE IN TRYING TO PRODUCE IN THE PACKAGE AN UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PERMITTING AGENCY OR THE PERMITTING AUTHORITY IS THE CAPTAIN OF THE SHIP, SO TO SPEAK, AND THEY DO MAKE -- THEY DO HAVE THE BOTTOM-LINE AUTHORITY TO MAKE DECISIONS AS THE PROCESS GOES ON AND THAT THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGER HAS A ROLE IN THAT, AND THERE IS A CORE COORDINATION RESPONSIBILITY BUT THAT THE PERMITTING AUTHORITY DOES, INDEED, HAVE THAT AUTHORITY AND RIGHT TO MAKE THE DECISIONS AS THE PROCEDURE PURSUES.

MR. RAHER: AND YOU -- AND FROM THE AGENCY'S STANDPOINT, YOU WERE ATTEMPTING TO ADDRESS BY ELIMINATING AMBIGUITY AND THE FRONT LOADING AND THE COORDINATION PROCESS, THE WHOLE QUESTION OF DELAY? THAT WAS ONE OF YOUR GOALS, CORRECT?

MR. DEROECK: YES. BY PUTTING IN THERE SPECIFIC STEPS WHERE CERTAIN THINGS HAD TO BE ADDRESSED -- TIME SCHEDULES FOR ADDRESSING THEM, POINTS WHERE COORDINATION NEEDED TO TAKE PLACE, AND THEN A DECISION COULD BE MADE, AND LOADING ALL THESE THINGS UP FRONT WHERE THE INFORMATION WAS AVAILABLE EARLY, WHERE DECISIONS WERE MADE AT APPROPRIATE TIMES, THAT WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH THESE AFTER THE FACT SORT OF TYPE DECISION-MAKING DILEMMAS THAT WERE COMING UP UNDER HISTORICAL PSD PERMIT DETERMINATIONS.

THERE WERE -- THERE APPEARED TO BE, AT LEAST, MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT WHAT THE PROGRAM WOULD TURN OUT TO BE AS A RESULT OF THE PROPOSAL, AS I UNDERSTOOD THE COMMENTS YESTERDAY, AND PERHAPS SOME OF THOSE ARE WHERE WE CAN START TODAY.

THE PURPOSE OR INTENT WAS NOT TO TURN TO STATUTE ON ITS HEAD, AS ONE COMMENT SAID, BUT TO FOLLOW THE STATUTE IN REQUIRING, FOR ONE THING, THAT A NOTICE FROM THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGER OR OTHER FEDERAL OFFICIAL NEEDED TO BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING, AND WE SAID BEFORE THE -- BEFORE THE COMPLETION DETERMINATION WAS MADE IN ORDER TO ALLEGE AN ADVERSE OR POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACT , AND THAT WOULD TRIGGER A CLASS I ANALYSIS. AND THAT CLASS I ANALYSIS WOULD THEN PLACE THE BURDEN ON THE PERMITTING AUTHORITY -- I'M SORRY, THE PERMITTEE -- TO AN INCREMENT ANALYSIS AND THAT WAS CLEARLY THE INTENT OF THE ACT TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS NO INCREMENT VIOLATION ON THE PART OF THE PERMITTEE.

AGAIN, IN THE ABSENCE OF THAT NOTICE, THERE WOULD BE NO REQUIREMENT TO DO A CLASS I INCREMENT ANALYSIS, AND THAT WAS THE TRIGGER FOR IT. THAT WAS WRITTEN IN THE STATUTE. IT WAS NOT IN OUR REGULATIONS BEFORE THAT POINT, AND SO OUR INTENT THERE WAS TO BE PARTICULARLY CONSISTENT WITH THE CLEAN AIR ACT IN ESTABLISHING THAT MECHANISM THAT WOULD TRIGGER A CLASS I ANALYSIS.

AND MAYBE WE CAN START WITH THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE.

MR. RAHER: WELL, IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL IF THERE WERE ANY OTHER AREAS OF CLARIFICATION THAT WE GET THEM SORT OF ALL OUT ON THE TABLE SO THAT PEOPLE CAN LOOK AT THE PACKAGE AS A WHOLE.

MR. DEROECK: OKAY. THERE WAS A COMMENT THAT THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGER'S AUTHORITY APPEARED TO BE ARBITRARY AND OVERWHELMING. I FORGET WHAT THE VARIOUS WORDS WERE. ABSOLUTE. AGAIN, THAT WAS NOT OUR INTENT. OUR INTENT WAS TO DEFINE THOSE POINTS IN THE PROCESS WHERE THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGER'S ROLE WAS APPROPRIATE AND NECESSARY, AND THAT INVOLVED PREAPPLICATION INPUT. IT INVOLVED COMPLETION DETERMINATION INPUT. IT INVOLVED ANALYTICAL DETERMINATION INPUT AND THE RIGHTS AND ABILITIES TO COMMENT ON THE PERMITTING AUTHORITY'S FINAL DETERMINATION. I THINK THOSE ARE ALL CONSISTENT WITH THE ACT, ALTHOUGH THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN SPELLED OUT PRECISELY BY THE ACT.

AGAIN, EACH STEP OF THE WAY THE PERMITTING AUTHORITY HAS THE RIGHT AND THE RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE THE ULTIMATE DECISION AS TO HOW AND WHEN TO PROCEED AS LONG AS THEY CONSULT WITH THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGER ON POINTS OF DISPUTE AND ADDRESS THE CONCERNS THAT THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGER HAS IN SHAPE OR FORM.

ANOTHER COMMENT WAS THAT THERE COULD BE UNNECESSARY DELAYS IN THE PROCEDURE, AND, AGAIN, THAT WAS REALLY THE OPPOSITE OF OUR INTENT IN THAT WE INTENDED MANY OF THE PROCEDURES TO TAKE PLACE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE IN THE PERMITTING PROCESS SO THAT THE INFORMATION NECESSARY TO DO AN ANALYSIS COULD BE PROVIDED UP FRONT, THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGER'S CONCERNS COULD BE EXPRESSED UP FRONT, AND THE ANALYSIS WOULD PROCEED AT THE SAME TIME THAT THE REST OF THE PERMIT ANALYSIS WOULD SO THAT THERE WOULDN'T BE A NEED FOR A SEPARATE CLASS I ANALYSIS AFTER THE REST OF THE PERMIT HAD ALREADY BEEN PROCESSED AND A DETERMINATION WAS IMMINENT.

THERE WAS A COMMENT CONCERNING THE FACT THAT WE WERE EXTENDING THE COMPLETION DETERMINATION PROCESS BY AT LEAST SIXTY DAYS, AND THE PROPOSED PROCEDURE ACTUALLY SAYS IT ALLOWS THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGER THIRTY DAYS TO REVIEW AN APPLICATION AND TO RESPOND TO THE PERMITTING AUTHORITY AS TO WHETHER THEY BELIEVE THE PERMIT WAS COMPLETE WITH RESPECT TO CLASS I INFORMATION, BUT I THINK THAT IS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION. OUR INTENT WAS TO PROVIDE A THIRTY-DAY PERIOD OF REVIEW PRIOR TO A COMPLETENESS DETERMINATION.

AND THAT'S -- OUR UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT ALSO THAT OFTENTIMES THAT IS A STANDARD PERIOD OF TIME FOR COMPLETENESS DETERMINATIONS. IT MAY VARY FROM SOME -- IN SOME STATES, BUT THE THIRTY DAYS WAS NOT AN UNREASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME TO MAKE THAT TYPE OF DETERMINATION.

ANOTHER COMMENT WAS THAT IT -- THE APPROACH WE CHOSE REVERSED THE BURDEN FROM THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGER TO THE APPLICANT, AND, AGAIN, THAT WAS NOT OUR INTENT NOR DO I BELIEVE THAT THAT IS OUTCOME IN THAT THE BURDEN IS ON THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGER TO MAKE THE INITIAL FINDING OF POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACT WHICH TRIGGERS THE CLASS I ANALYSIS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

THE BURDEN IS THEN RIGHTFULLY ON THE APPLICANT TO SHOW THAT THE CLASS I INCREMENTS WOULD NOT BE VIOLATED. IF THEY CAN SHOW THAT, THEN THAT'S A DETERMINATION THEY NEED TO MAKE TO THE PERMITTING AUTHORITY. IF THAT CAN BE DEMONSTRATED, THEN THE BURDEN IS NOT ON THE APPLICANT TO MAKE A FURTHER FINDING UNLESS THE FEDERAL LAND -- WELL, THEN THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGER HAS TO SHOW THAT THERE WOULD, INDEED, BE AN ADVERSE IMPACT.

SO I THINK THAT PRETTY MUCH COVERS MOST OF THE COMMENTS INVOLVING THE --

MR. RAHER: ALL I WOULD ADD TO THAT IS -- AND I APOLOGIZE. I DON'T ACTUALLY RECALL WHO BROUGHT THIS UP IN THE HEARING YESTERDAY, BUT THERE WAS A REFERENCE TO A CLASS I PROGRAM THAT IS BEING USED BY THE STATE OF OREGON AS WELL AS -- JOHN PAUL, WAS THAT YOUR REFERENCE? --

MR. JOHN PAUL: (NODDED AFFIRMATIVELY)

MR. RAHER: -- TO THE STATE OF OREGON AND ALSO WITH RESPECT TO THE SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRIBUTION AS POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMS TO THE EXTENT THAT PARTIES FELT THAT THIS PROPOSAL WAS TOO STRINGENT OR NOT ACCEPTABLE.

AND, JOHN PAUL, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN GIVE US ANY MORE OF AN --

MR. JOHN PAUL: YEAH, LET ME --

MR. RAHER: -- INPUT ON THAT.

MR. JOHN PAUL: SURE. LET ME JUST SAY THAT IN OUR CONFERENCE CALLS ON THIS, THAT BOTH OF THOSE INDICATED THAT THEY HAD A VERY GOOD WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH THEIR FEDERAL LAND MANAGERS. AND WHAT WE -- WHAT WE'RE ASKING THEM TO DO IS TO PROVIDE THE BASIS FOR THAT WITH THE AGENCY AND TO REVIEW THE PROPOSAL AS TO HOW THEY FEEL THAT WOULD AFFECT THAT RELATIONSHIP THAT THEY HAVE WITH THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGERS.

SO IT'S NOT TO SAY THAT THEY NECESSARILY ENDORSED EVERYTHING THAT'S IN THE PROPOSAL. IT'S JUST TO SAY THAT THOSE ARE TWO AGENCIES THAT WE'VE HEARD FROM THAT HAVE A GOOD WORKING RELATIONSHIP THAT WE WILL GO TO TO SUPPLEMENT OUR COMMENT AND TO GIVE YOU THE, YOU KNOW, THE BENEFIT OF WHAT IT IS THAT WORKS REAL WELL THERE.

MR. RAHER: AND ALSO AS LONG AS THAT MICROPHONE -- CAN YOU GIVE US ANY MORE INPUT IN TERMS OF THE DISCUSSIONS AMONG THE STATES AS TO IN THEIR REVIEW OF THIS PORTION OF THE PACKAGE WHAT PROJECTED IMPACTS THEY THOUGHT THEY MIGHT SEE IN TERMS OF WORKLOAD, ET CETERA, SIMILAR TO THE NSR PORTION?

MR. JOHN PAUL: YES. AND THAT WAS ONE WHERE, OBVIOUSLY, WE HAD VARYING OPINIONS ON THAT. WE HAVE SOME STATES THAT ARE OPPOSED TO THIS, AND WHAT WE'RE DOING IS ENCOURAGING THOSE STATES TO MAKE THEIR COMMENTS KNOWN, YOU KNOW, TO EPA. SO WE REALLY ARE PRETTY MUCH NEUTRAL ON THE PROPOSAL AS AN ASSOCIATION. WE'VE GOT STRONG FEELINGS BOTH WAYS. WE WANT TO GIVE THE AGENCY THE BENEFIT OF THE PROGRAMS THAT FEEL THAT THEY HAVE THE GOOD RELATIONSHIP AND HOPE THAT WE CAN BUILD ON THOSE.

MR. RAHER: OKAY. WE'VE HEARD NOW BOTH FROM THE AGENCY IN TERMS OF CLARIFICATION OF SOME OF THE POINTS THAT THEY HEARD THE OTHER DAY AS WELL AS WHAT THEY INTENDED TO DO IN ATTEMPTING TO ADDRESS A STATUTORY PROVISION THEY WERE TRYING TO IMPLEMENT.

WHAT ARE COMMENTS THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE FACA MAY HAVE WITH RESPECT TO, NOW, THE CLASS I PORTION OF THE PACKAGE?

MIKE?

MR. BARR: I HAVE A QUESTION FOR DAN ABOUT THE WHAT I THOUGHT WAS A CONSENSUS BEFORE. I'M JUST READING FROM ONE OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT WAS GENERATED BEFORE THAT SAID THAT THERE APPEARED TO BE CONSENSUS, WITHIN THAT WORKGROUP I GUESS YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, THAT THE "FLM'S UNDERTAKE THE INITIAL TASKS OF LISTING THE RESOURCES THAT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR AREAS BEING SET ASIDE BY CONGRESS; SECONDLY, IDENTIFYING WHAT RECEPTORS WITHIN THEIR AREAS ARE RESPONSIVE TO AIR QUALITY CHANGES; THIRD, SPECIFYING HOW THOSE RECEPTORS ARE IMPACTED BY CHANGES IN AIR QUALITY; AND, FOUR, OUTLINING CRITICALLY IMPORTANT METHODS FOR ASSESSING THOSE EFFECTS."

DO YOU THINK YOUR PROPOSAL CARRIES OUT THAT CONSENSUS OF THE WORKGROUP?

MR. DEROECK: I THINK IT ADDRESSED IT, BUT IT ALSO RECOGNIZED THAT WE COULDN'T SAY ULTIMATELY THAT UNTIL EVERYTHING IS IDENTIFIED AND ADDRESSED DOWN TO THE FINAL DETAIL THAT YOU COULDN'T MAKE AN AQRV ASSESSMENT OR THERE COULDN'T BE AN ADVERSE IMPACT.

MR. BARR: WHAT HAPPENED TO THE IDEA THAT THE FLM SHOULD HAVE SOME AFFIRMATIVE RESPONSIBILITY -- I THINK THAT'S THE TERM IN THE STATUTE -- TO ENGAGE IN A PROCESS OF IDENTIFYING THE AIR QUALITY RELATED VALUES UP FRONT, PREFERABLY THROUGH A RULEMAKING, SO THAT THE RULES OF THE GAME WOULD BE CLEAR?

MR. DEROECK: WELL, WE STOPPED SHORT OF RULEMAKING, BUT WE DID SAY THAT THEY SHOULD -- DURING THE PREAPPLICATION MEETING -- THEY SHOULD IDENTIFY ALL AQRV'S THAT THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT. THEY SHOULD UNDERSTAND WHAT POLLUTANTS WOULD BE EMITTED BY THIS PARTICULAR SOURCE AND WHETHER THERE WAS EVEN A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THOSE POLLUTANTS AND THE AQRV'S OF CONCERN, THAT IT WAS TO THEIR ADVANTAGE TO IDENTIFY THESE AQRV'S UP FRONT AND TO, IN THEIR WRITTEN NOTICE THEY HAD TO IDENTIFY THE SPECIFIC AQRV'S OF CONCERN, THE POLLUTANTS THAT WERE TO BE EMITTED, AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO AS PART OF THE WRITTEN NOTICE, AND THAT WAS WHERE THE APPLICANT HAD TO FOCUS THEIR CLASS I ANALYSIS.

THAT WAS THE INTENT, THAT ALL OF THAT BE UNDERSTOOD UP FRONT AND THAT THE CLASS I ANALYSIS WOULD NOT GO BEYOND THE ADVERSE -- POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS, OR LET ALLEGATIONS THAT WERE MADE IN THAT WRITTEN NOTICE.

MR. BARR: IS IT YOUR INTENT THAT THAT HAS TO BE DONE CASE BY CASE, PROJECT BY PROJECT, PARK BY PARK, AREA BY AREA?

MR. DEROECK: THAT'S PRETTY MUCH WHERE WE STAND RIGHT NOW: IN LIGHT OF THE PRESENT KNOWLEDGE AND INFORMATION AVAILABLE, THAT IF WE WAITED FOR SOME -- FIRST OF ALL, I'M NOT SURE A NATIONAL AQRV POLICY IS APPROPRIATE, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S POSSIBLE RIGHT NOW. AND WE DID NOT BELIEVE THAT THE PROGRAM SHOULD BE HELD ON HOLD UNTIL WE KNEW EVERYTHING WE NEEDED TO KNOW ABOUT EACH AQRV.

MR. RAHER: MAYBE WE CAN HEAR FROM OREGON AND GET A BETTER IDEA.

JOHN?

MR. RUSCIGNO: I UNFORTUNATELY WON'T BE ABLE TO GIVE YOU ALL THE DETAIL OF OUR PROGRAM -- I'M NOT THE EXPERT ON CLASS I FOR OUR STATE -- BUT WE HAVE A GOOD RELATIONSHIP, AND IT WORKS. IT'S NOT TO SAY WE ALWAYS AGREE, BUT WE WORK TOGETHER. WE GET TOGETHER IN PREAPPLICATION MEETINGS. WE ARE ABLE TO GET ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT POTENTIAL IMPACTS.

WHAT BOTHERS ME IS THE PRESCRIPTIVE NATURE OF THE PROPOSAL. OUR UNDERLYING RULE IS THAT -- THAT MAKES A GOOD WORKING PROGRAM IS NOT NEARLY AS PRESCRIPTIVE AS THIS. AND JUST BEING SO PRESCRIPTIVE, IT -- TO ME IT -- THERE'S A GREATER LIKELIHOOD OF LENGTHENING THE PROCESS, I THINK.

MS. WEGMAN: JOHN, IS YOUR PROCESS FRONT-END LOADED THE WAY THIS ONE WASN'T TRYING TO BE?

MR. RUSCIGNO: NO. NO, IT'S NOT. AND ONE THAT BOTHERED ME IN THIS FRONT-END LOADING, WE HEAR A LOT OF RUMORS ABOUT POTENTIAL SOURCES THAT MAY BE COMING INTO OUR STATE, SOME NEAR CLASS I AREAS. AND IF I HAVE TO NOTIFY THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGER FOR EVERY RUMOR I HEAR, THAT BECOMES UNWIELDY. SO WE TYPICALLY DO IT WHEN WE GET A COMPLETE APPLICATION IN.

BUT IN MOST OF THE MAJOR SOURCES, THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGER HEARS THE SAME RUMORS WE DO. SO HE HAS THAT INFORMATION. SO I'M A LITTLE WARY OF BUILDING THE COMPLETENESS -- COMPLETENESS DETERMINATION WITH THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGER. I THINK THAT COULD LENGTHEN OUT THE PROCESS. WE DON'T HAVE IT, AND IT SEEMS TO WORK WITHOUT THAT.

MS. WEGMAN: SO YOU DON'T TALK TO THE FLM'S, AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, UNTIL AFTER THE COMPLETENESS DETERMINATION IS MADE?

MR. RUSCIGNO: SOMETIMES WE TALK TO THEM, BUT IT'S VERY -- IT'S AN INFORMAL ONE.

MS. WEGMAN: YEAH.

MR. RUSCIGNO: THEY'LL HEAR ABOUT IT, ASK US WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT IT. IF -- THEY'LL HEAR WE HAVE AN APPLICATION IN AND ASK US QUESTIONS ABOUT IT, AND WE TALK WITH THEM AND SOMETIMES WILL BRING THE PERMITTEE IN ALSO, BUT THERE'S NOT A FORMAL ROLE OF THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGER IN THE COMPLETENESS DETERMINATION.

MR. RAHER: KAREN?

MS. MALKIN: A COUPLE POINTS. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY MYSTERY OF AIR QUALITY RELATED VALUES ARE. IT JUST -- THE CONFUSION -- WHEN WE KNOW THEY'RE VISIBILITY, SOILS, STREAMS, RESOURCES IN THE PARK. WHAT I THINK YOU'RE REALLY GETTING AT, MIKE, WAS YOU WANT TO KNOW SPECIFIC CASE -- YOU WANT -- YOU KNOW -- WANT TO KNOW THE SPECIFIC POLLUTANT-LOADING NUMBERS, OR YOU WANT -- THAT'S THE KIND OF NUMBER YOU WANT. YOU WANT IMPACT NUMBERS. YOU DON'T -- BECAUSE I THINK THE AQRV'S ARE KNOWN.

AND ALL I CAN SAY, AND WE'VE SAID IT BEFORE, I MEAN, WE'D LOVE TO KNOW -- WE'D LOVE TO HAVE SOME MAGIC NUMBERS AND KNOW THAT THESE ARE THE NUMBERS THAT ARE PROTECTIVE. BUT IT'S JUST NOT THAT SIMPLE, AND CONGRESS RECOGNIZED THAT, AND I'M JUST GOING TO -- IF YOU BEAR WITH ME -- GIVE A BRIEF EXCERPT FROM THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.

IT SAYS, "EACH CASE OF SUSPECTED CLASS I INTRUSION MUST BE ANALYZED ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS WITH THE DECISION ON WHETHER OR NOT A PERMIT IS ISSUED RESTING WITH THE STATE. THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGER HOLDS A POWERFUL TOOL. HE IS REQUIRED TO PROTECT FEDERAL LANDS FROM DETERIORATION OF AN ESTABLISHED VALUE EVEN WHERE CLASS I NUMBERS ARE NOT EXCEEDED."

SO IT'S -- IT IS -- IT IS A CASE-BY-CASE DETERMINATION, AND I THINK THIS PROCESS HAS BEEN SET OUT -- I MEAN, I'D BE KIDDING YOU IF IT DOESN'T PUT -- IT IS MORE FORMAL, AS JOHN POINTED OUT, AND IT PUTS SOME VERY TIGHT TIME BURDENS ON THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGER WHICH -- AND WE KIND OF HAD TO SWALLOW HARD TO LIVE WITH THE SEVEN DAYS TO REVIEW AN ELECTRONIC BULLETIN BOARD, WHICH WE ALL HOPE AND PRAY IS GOING TO BE UP AND RUNNING AND UP-TO-DATE, TO REQUEST A PSD PERMIT APPLICATION, WHEN NOW WE'RE SUPPOSED TO GET THEM ROUTINELY? I MEAN, WE DON'T ALWAYS, TRUE, BUT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE GETTING THEM. SO THAT'S JUST ONE EXAMPLE.

THE NOTIFICATION WE TALKED ABOUT AND PRELIMINARY ADVERSE IMPACT. I MEAN THERE'S A LOT MORE PAPERWORK BURDENS ON US UNDER SOME VERY SPECIFIC TIME FRAMES, BUT, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WANTED MORE CERTAINTY AND MORE UP-FRONT KNOWLEDGE, AND THIS PACKAGE CERTAINLY DOES THAT. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT I THINK, YOU KNOW, EPA HAS REALLY -- I DON'T ENVY THE JOB THEY'VE HAD TRYING TO BALANCE ALL THE DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS.

MR. RAHER: I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR PEOPLE TO ADDRESS THE ASSUMPTION THAT KAREN HAS PUT OUT THERE THAT WE ALL KNOW WHAT THE AQRV'S ARE. THAT'S A REAL PIVOTAL ISSUE HERE THAT IS IMPORTANT.

MIKE?

MR. BARR: I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL, KAREN, JUST TO HAVE A LIST OF SOME EXAMPLES OF WHAT THEY ARE AND HOW THEY'VE BEEN QUANTIFIED AND MIGHT BE MEASURED OR ASSESSED. IF PEOPLE KNOW WHAT THEY ARE OR IF THEY ARE AVAILABLE IN SOME SOURCES ALREADY, I THINK THAT WOULD BE EXTREMELY HELPFUL IF YOU COULD PROVIDE THAT.

MS. MALKIN: OKAY. AGAIN, I GUESS WE'RE -- I'M NOT COMMUNICATING THIS CLEARLY. THE -- WHEN -- THE TERM "VALUES" DOES NOT MEAN A NUMBER. OKAY? VISIBILITY IS AN AIR QUALITY RELATED VALUE. VISIBILITY IS NOT A NUMBER. THAT'S A RESOURCE WITHIN OUR PARKS AND WITHIN OUR FORESTS THAT IS SET ASIDE TO BE PROTECTED. PEOPLE COME TO THE NATIONAL PARKS TO BREATHE CLEAN AIR, TO SEE HEALTHY TREES AND VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE, AND TO SEE THE MAGNIFICENT, CLEAR VISTAS. NOW THAT'S PART OF THE VISIBILITY ASPECT.

THE VEGETATION, THAT'S ANOTHER AQRV, BUT THAT'S DIFFERENT FROM AN IMPACT NUMBER AND WHAT'S AN ADVERSE IMPACT WHICH IS, I THINK, IS WHAT YOU WERE -- WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT. AND THAT'S THE KIND OF INFORMATION THAT -- YOU KNOW, POLLUTANT-LOADINGS -- THAT WE'VE BEEN RESEARCHING, AND WE HAVE SOME KNOWLEDGE OF BUT CERTAINLY DO NOT HAVE COMPLETE KNOWLEDGE. AND IT IS A CASE-BY-CASE DETERMINATION, AS THE LAW REQUIRES.

MS. WEGMAN: KAREN, COULD I JUST ASK YOU TO ADDRESS WHAT JOHN RUSCIGNO SAID. DO YOU HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE -- I MEAN, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE OREGON PROGRAM IS LESS PRESCRIPTIVE, YET IT'S WORKING OUT. DO YOU HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF WHETHER THAT IS THE CASE IN OREGON OR WHETHER YOU HAVE HAD PROBLEMS WITH OTHER STATES? I'M JUST CURIOUS. THERE'S A DIFFERENCE OF --

MS. MALKIN: I REALLY DON'T --

MS. WEGMAN: -- IMPRESSION HERE.

MS. MALKIN: MAYBE I'LL DEFER TO JOHN. I REALLY DON'T HAVE ANY -- I HAVEN'T HAD ANY PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT THE OREGON --

MS. WEGMAN: I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT -- AND MAYBE YOU AND JOHN CAN ADDRESS THIS A LITTLE BIT -- IS, I MEAN, WE HAVE LAID OUT A FAIRLY CLEAR AND, SOME MIGHT ARGUE, CERTAINLY PRESCRIPTIVE PROGRAM FOR HOW TO GET THIS NOTIFICATION TO OCCUR. I GUESS WHAT I'M WONDERING, GIVEN WHAT JOHN HAS SAID AND PERHAPS WHAT JOHN PAUL MAY FIND OUT AS WELL, MAYBE THAT LEVEL OF PRESCRIPTION ISN'T NECESSARY, AND I'M TRYING TO GET A READ FROM YOU ON THAT.

MR. BUNYAK: I'LL TRY TO ADDRESS THAT, LYDIA.

MS. WEGMAN: OKAY.

MR. BUNYAK: THIS IS JOHN BUNYAK, PARK SERVICE. I THINK OVERALL THERE ARE A LOT OF STATES THAT PROVIDE US WITH THE PROPER NOTIFICATION AND SEND US APPLICATIONS AND INVITE US TO PREAPPLICATION MEETINGS AND KEEP US IN THE LOOP. SO, I MEAN, IT'S NOT A TOTAL DISASTER IN THAT AREA. BUT THERE ARE -- ON THE FLIP SIDE OF THAT, THERE ARE OCCASIONS WHERE WE DON'T HEAR OF APPLICATIONS. AND, YOU KNOW, YEARS AGO BACK IN 1990 -- WELL, VIRGINIA IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE THERE WERE FIFTEEN OR TWENTY -- I THINK FIFTEEN COGENERATION UTILITY-TYPE SOURCES THAT WERE UNDERGOING PSD REVIEW, AND A LOT OF THOSE SOURCES WERE BETWEEN 100 AND 200 KILOMETERS, AND WE WEREN'T EVEN NOTIFIED OF THOSE TYPE SOURCES. AND ONCE WE DID, WE WERE ALARMED OF THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THOSE SOURCES, AND WE LOOKED AT THEM AND GOT INTO THE FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE THE ADVERSE IMPACT DETERMINATION PROCESS AND SO FORTH.

SO I THINK IN GENERAL THERE ARE SOME STATES OUT THERE THAT WE WORK WELL WITH. THERE ARE OTHERS THAT WE JUST DON'T HAVE THAT COOPERATIVE RELATIONSHIP.

MS. WEGMAN: THANKS.

MR. RAHER: JOHN?

MR. DANIEL: WELL, I GUESS MAYBE VIRGINIA DID TRIGGER ALL OF THIS MESS TO START WITH. THAT MIGHT BE THE POLITE WAY TO PUT IT. --

MR. RAHER: COULD YOU USE YOUR MICROPHONE, JOHN, --

MR. DANIEL: YEAH.

MR. RAHER: -- AND GET A LITTLE CLOSER?

MR. DANIEL: WE'VE GOT A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH BOTH THE NATIONAL -- SHENANDOAH NATIONAL PARK LAND MANAGER AND ALSO THE JAMES RIVER FAC LAND MANAGER, AND I THINK WE HAVE A GOOD WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH BOTH OF THEM. THAT DOESN'T MEAN, HOWEVER, THAT THE PERMITTING PROCESS DOESN'T GET VERY CONTENTIOUS AND TIME-CONSUMING.

AND FOR ANY STATE THAT THINKS IT'S NOT GOING TO BE TIME-CONSUMING, THEN I'VE GOT NEWS FOR YOU. IF YOU'VE GOT A CLASS I AREA, AND YOU GET INVOLVED IN THIS, IT'S GOING TO TAKE A LOT OF TIME TO DEAL WITH ALL OF THE ISSUES THAT GET RAISED. SO IT'S -- IT'S NOT A REAL SMOOTH PROCESS, BUT I THINK WE DO HAVE A GOOD WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE LAND MANAGERS, BUT IT GETS VERY CONTENTIOUS AT TIMES, ALSO.

MR. DEROECK: JOHN, DOES THE PROCEDURE THAT'S PROPOSED CREATE MORE DELAYS, OR DO YOU SEE WHERE IT ADDRESSES SOME OF THE PROBLEMS THAT YOU'VE HAD IN THE PAST?

MR. DANIEL: I DON'T THINK WHAT YOU HAVE PROPOSED IS THAT MUCH DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE ARE ALREADY DOING. AS SOON AS WE KNOW THAT A SOURCE IS GOING TO BE PSD ANYWHERE IN THE STATE, WHETHER IT'S WITHIN 100 KILOMETERS OR 200 KILOMETERS OR ANYWHERE, WE LET THE LAND MANAGERS KNOW THAT. OBVIOUSLY, IF IT'S CLOSE IN, THEN THERE'S A LOT MORE DETAIL WORK THAT HAS TO BE DONE WITH THE LAND MANAGERS.

THE ONE THING THAT WE DO LIKE IN THIS PROPOSAL IS EPA'S PROPOSED LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE COMPARED TO WHAT THE LAND MANAGERS HAVE PROPOSED. THESE ARE VERY CLOSE TO WHAT WE SUGGESTED TO EPA A LONG TIME AGO AS A WAY TO DEAL WITH WHAT IS INSIGNIFICANT. SO I THINK OUR CURRENT PROCESS IS -- TRACKS PRETTY CLOSE WITH WHAT YOU'VE GOT IN HERE.

MR. RAHER: OKAY.

ICLAL?

MS. ATAY: JUST -- IT'S ICLAL ATAY, FROM NEW JERSEY. THE EPA JUST FII (SIC). IN NEW JERSEY WE WORK CLOSELY WITH THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGER. WHEN WE RECEIVE A MAJOR APPLICATION, WE DO SEND A COPY OF THE APPLICATION TO THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGER AS SOON AS WE RECEIVE IT, AND THEN THE PERMIT REVIEWER IDENTIFIES THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGER -- THE PERSON IN THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGER'S OFFICE WHO WILL BE WORKING ON THAT APPLICATION, AND THEY DO COMMUNICATE OVER THE PHONE TO IDENTIFY THEIR CONCERNS. HOWEVER, WE HAVE FOUND OUT THAT THE DELAY MOST OF THE TIME IS CAUSED BY THE DILEMMA THAT THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGER FACES -- THE FACT THAT THERE ARE NO VALUES.

THE APPLICATION COMES IN. WE KNOW WHAT THE AIR QUALITY IMPACTS ARE OF THAT SPECIFIC APPLICANT. WHAT'S NOT KNOWN IS WHAT'S THE CURRENT LOADING OF POLLUTANTS AND OTHER THINGS THAT AFFECT VEGETATION, VISIBILITY, AND OTHER AQRV'S AND THIS ADDITIONAL IMPACT -- WHETHER THIS ADDITIONAL IMPACT WOULD BE AN ADVERSE IMPACT OR NOT AN ADVERSE IMPACT. AND TO IDENTIFY THE CURRENT LOADING IN THE AREA IS A LONG-TIME STUDY THAT IS NOT REASONABLE FOR A SIGNIFICANT -- ONE SINGLE APPLICANT TO BEAR THE BURDEN OF. SO WE HAVE COME UP WITH AN AGREEMENT WITH THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGER IN OUR AREA THAT IF ANY NEW FACILITY COMES IN, AND THEY MINIMIZE THEIR IMPACTS, THEY MINIMIZE -- THEY APPLY BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY, THE PERMITTING CAN PROCEED IF THEY CONTRIBUTE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WOULD ALLOW FEDERAL LAND MANAGER TO CONDUCT STUDIES TO IDENTIFY WHAT THE LOADING IS TO COME UP WITH THESE NUMBERS WHAT THE LOADING IS SO THAT IN THE FUTURE THEY WILL BE ABLE TO SAY, OKAY, THIS IS THE LOADING IN THE AREA AND WHATEVER ADDITIONAL IMPACT COMES UP THAT MAY BE ADVERSE AND NOT ADVERSE.

AND THAT HAS BEEN A VERY STREAMLINED PROCESS. WE WORK WELL BETWEEN THE APPLICANT, THE AGENCY -- PERMITTING AGENCY -- AND FEDERAL LAND MANAGER.	MR. RAHER: ICLAL, DO YOU HAVE ANY ROUGH ESTIMATE AS TO WHAT THIS CONTRIBUTION COSTS?

MS. ATAY: WELL, I BELIEVE WE HAVE PERMITTED FOUR FACILITIES UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, AND EACH FACILITY CONTRIBUTED $50,000 TOWARDS THIS STUDY.

MR. RAHER: OKAY.

MS. WEGMAN: ICLAL, AND DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT'S HAPPENED TO THE MONEY? HAVE THE FLM'S BEEN DOING STUDIES OR?

MS. ATAY: WE ARE IN THE PROCESS CONDUCTING -- TALKING TO FEDERAL LAND MANAGER TO GIVE US SOME INFORMATION ON THE PROCESS OF THE STUDIES AND THE INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN COLLECTED AS A RESULT OF THAT.

MS. WEGMAN: AND WHEN DID THIS PROGRAM START?

MS. ATAY: I BELIEVE IT HAS BEEN FOUR YEARS.

MR. RAHER: HENRY?

MR. NICKEL: YES. ONE THING I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN SEEING FROM THE PARK SERVICE ON THIS WHOLE QUESTION OF AIR QUALITY RELATED VALUES IS EXAMPLES OF WHAT KINDS OF ADVERSE EFFECTS ARE ACTUALLY CAUSED BY POLLUTANT LOADINGS THAT ARE LOWER THAN THE CLASS I INCREMENTS. I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EMISSIONS THAT COME INTO A PARK, AND THOSE EMISSIONS WOULD COMPLY WITH THE CLASS I INCREMENTS. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A TRIVIAL LEVEL OF POLLUTION.

AND I WOULD BE VERY INTERESTED IN UNDERSTANDING WHERE THAT KIND OF POLLUTION CAUSES AN ADVERSE EFFECT, AND I'M DISTINGUISHING CAUSING AN ADVERSE EFFECT IN THAT CONCENTRATION FROM CONTRIBUTING TO AN EXISTING ADVERSE EFFECT. OBVIOUSLY, THERE ARE IMPAIRMENTS IN VISIBILITY THAT ARE CAUSED BY EXISTING SOURCES, AND ANY SOURCE THAT LOCATES WITHIN A GOOD DISTANCE FROM THE PARK MAY CONTRIBUTE, YOU KNOW, A MICROGRAM TO THE CURRENT LOADINGS OF THE PARK, BUT IT CAN'T BE SAID THAT THAT CAUSES A NEW IMPAIRMENT IN VISIBILITY THAT IS ADVERSE.

SO I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN BOTH UNDERSTANDING BETTER WHAT THESE OTHER AIR QUALITY RELATED VALUES ARE AND, SECOND, HOW THE RATHER TRIVIAL AMOUNT OF POLLUTION THAT COMES IN WHEN PEOPLE ARE ALREADY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CLASS I AREAS COULD IN AND OF ITSELF CAUSE AN ADVERSE EFFECT.

MR. RAHER: OH, JOHN?

MR. BUNYAK: I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS. THERE SEEMS TO BE A FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING WITH TRYING TO TIE INCREMENTS TO EFFECTS ON AIR QUALITY RELATED VALUES. THE INCREMENTS FOR SO2 AND NO2 AND PM, SOME OF THE PROBLEMS WE'RE SEEING ARE SULFATE DEPOSITION, NITRATE DEPOSITION, CHANGES IN VISIBILITY, WHICH CAN'T BE MEASURED BY LOOKING AT A SMALL INCREASE IN SO2.

WE JUST -- IT SEEMS REASONABLE THAT YOU COULD HAVE A SMALL SO2 IMPACT, YET HAVE A SIGNIFICANT SULFATE CONCERN BECAUSE ALL THE SO2 CONVERTED TO SULFATES. SO FROM AN INCREMENT STANDPOINT, YOU'D HAVE A VERY SMALL SO2 CONTRIBUTION. YET FROM AN AIR QUALITY EFFECTS STANDPOINT, YOU COULD HAVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS WITH RESPECT TO SULFATE AND NITRATE DEPOSITION.

MR. RAHER: JOHN? (SIC)

MR. NICKEL: BUT BEAR IN MIND, IT'S ALL OF THE -- ALL OF THE SULFATE -- SULFUR COMPOUNDS ARE MEASURED IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE INCREMENT, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE EFFECTS THAT ARE POTENTIALLY OCCURRING AS A RESULT OF DIFFERENT FORMS OF THE POLLUTANTS.

BUT MY QUESTION IS GIVEN THE KIND OF -- THE AMOUNT OF POLLUTION THAT COMES IN WHEN PEOPLE APPLYING WITH THE INCREMENTS, WHICH MEANS THAT THEY'RE VERY LOW SULFUR EMITTERS, THEY'RE VERY LOW NO2 EMITTERS, THEY'RE VERY LOW PARTICULATE EMITTERS -- CAN YOU GIVE ME, AND NOT TODAY BUT IT WOULD BE VERY USEFUL IN TERMS OF EVALUATING THESE PROTOCOLS IS EXAMPLES OF HOW THAT KIND OF POLLUTION IN AND OF ITSELF CAUSES AN ADVERSE EFFECT.

MR. RAHER: ALSO, JOHN, AND MAYBE BETWEEN YOU AND KAREN AND RICH, YOU KNOW, WHAT STRIKES ME HERE IS BOTH WHAT YOU AND KAREN SAID AND WHAT JOHN DANIEL HAS SAID AND OREGON. IT'S SURPRISING. WE SEEM TO HAVE -- WE HAVE OREGON. WE HAVE THE SOUTH COAST. WE NOW HAVE VIRGINIA THAT SEEMS TO HAVE DEVELOPED A GOOD WORKING RELATIONSHIP. WE HAVE NEW JERSEY.

HAVE WE CREATED A POTENTIAL FEDERAL PROGRAM HERE TO ADDRESS AN ISSUE THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE BECAUSE THE PARK SERVICE, INTERIOR, FOREST SERVICE, ET CETERA, NOW HAS FOR, WHAT ARE YOUR OWN REASONS, DEVELOPED THESE RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE INDIVIDUAL STATES WHERE THE MAJOR CLASS I AREAS ARE?

I MEAN NEW JERSEY IS HANDLING IT ONE WAY. VIRGINIA IS HANDLING IT ANOTHER WAY. OREGON IS HANDLING IT ANOTHER WAY. IS THERE A PROBLEM OUT THERE THAT IS SO PERVASIVE THAT IT DOES REQUIRE THE PROPOSAL THAT'S OUT THERE? YOU MIGHT -- IF YOU CAN IDENTIFY THE STATES OR LOCALITIES OR CLASS I AREAS THAT SEEM TO HAVE THAT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THAT'S A RELEVANT QUESTION FOR US TO ASK.

MR. BUNYAK: WELL, SOME OF THOSE STATES YOU IDENTIFIED IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT IT TOOK CONTROVERSY OVER AN ADVERSE --

MR. RAHER: RIGHT. RIGHT.

MR. BUNYAK: -- ACTION TO GET INVOLVED. I MEAN, YOU MENTIONED VIRGINIA WHERE WE HAD OUR ADVERSE IMPACT DETERMINATION THERE. WE'RE GOING THROUGH A SIMILAR MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH TENNESSEE THAT'S KIND OF A FALLOUT OF THE TENN. ELECTRICAL APPEAL THAT WE HAD THERE, --

MR. RAHER: RIGHT.

MR. BUNYAK: -- SO IT SEEMS LIKE IT HAS TAKEN SOME ADVERSE ACTIONS IN ORDER TO GET THAT NEXT STEP.

AND WHAT -- I VIEW THE PROPOSAL AS A WAY TO MAYBE CIRCUMVENT THAT AND THEN TRY TO GET THE PROCEDURES IN PLACE SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT INITIAL ADVERSARIAL-TYPE ACTION.

MR. RAHER: OKAY.

JOHN, YOU HAD A COMMENT?

MR. RUSCIGNO: I JUST WANTED TO ADD A LITTLE BIT ABOUT OUR PROGRAM. IT'S A GOOD WORKING RELATIONSHIP, BUT IT DOES GET CONTENTIOUS AT TIMES. WE'VE HAD SIMILAR EXPERIENCES TO NEW JERSEY. THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGER COMES AND IS TWISTING OUR ARM, USUALLY ON VISIBILITY ISSUES, AND THEY WANT THE PERMITTEE OR THE APPLICANT TO INSTALL SOME MONITORS UP IN THE WILDERNESS AREA.

AND WE'RE ALWAYS IN THE POSITION OF HAVING TO JUDGE IS THIS REALLY A POTENTIAL IMPACT OR NOT. SOMETIMES THE PERMITTEE STEPS IN AND SAYS FORGET IT. I'LL JUST PUT UP THE MONITORS TO SAVE TIME, AND WE LET IT -- AND THAT'S THE WAY IT HAPPENS. OTHER TIMES PERMITTEES OR THE APPLICANT SAYS I DON'T THINK THERE'S A GOOD CASE THERE, AND WE AGREE, AND IT DOESN'T GO IN. WE RETAIN THE RIGHT TO MAKE THAT FINAL DECISION, AND IT SEEMS TO WORK.

THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGER IN OUR AREA MAYBE WANTS MORE AUTHORITY IN THAT DECISION, BUT UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM HE DOESN'T HAVE IT.

MR. RAHER: I THINK WHAT DAN WAS SAYING IS CERTAINLY THE PROPOSAL DOESN'T UNDERCUT THAT CONCEPT AT ALL. IT STILL LEAVES IT WITH THE DECISION AT THE STATE -- AT THE STATE LEVEL AND YOUR CONTROL.

I GUESS THE QUESTION I WAS TRYING TO ASK IS, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY'S GOT THIS INFORMAL -- AND, JOHN, YOU'RE RIGHT, AND YOU'VE HAD TO JUMP ON SOME PEOPLE, BUT, YOU KNOW, IF THE PROCESS -- ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE DIFFERENT IN EACH AREA, IT'S LIKE MIKE BARR SAID. YOU KNOW, NOT -- OR ERNIE. NOT ONE SIZE FITS ALL. MAYBE THE SAME IS TRUE WITH CLASS I, AND WE SHOULD AT LEAST LOOK AT THAT IN VIEW OF SOME OF THE COMMENTS WE'VE HAD.

RICH, YOUR CARD?

MR. FISHER: WHAT STRIKES ME, I GUESS, MOST ABOUT THIS WHOLE CONVERSATION IS THAT WE'VE BEEN DOWN THIS ROAD BEFORE. ALL OF US, I THINK, AT THE TABLE HAVE HEARD THESE SAME DISCUSSIONS THREE YEARS FOR MANY, MANY MEETINGS, AND I GUESS I'M JUST SURPRISED AT THE OUTSET ABOUT THE DETAILED DISCUSSION AND THE POINTS BEING BROUGHT UP BECAUSE I THOUGHT WE PUT A LOT OF THESE THINGS TO BED.

WE IN THE FOREST SERVICE DISCUSSED SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE DONE OVER THE YEARS, AND WE DISCUSSED THAT, I THINK, THREE YEARS AGO. SO, AGAIN, I'M SURPRISED AT MR. NICKEL'S COMMENT ABOUT SHOW US. SHOW US WHAT YOU'VE GOT. CLEARLY, THAT'S ON THE TABLE IN THE RECORD FOR THIS MEETING.

EPA, AS MR. BARR POINTED OUT, DID NOT ADOPT ALL THE WORKGROUP RECOMMENDATIONS, AND I THINK HE WAS REFERRING TO THE WORKGROUP THAT I WAS A PART OF, BUT THAT'S OKAY. I MEAN, IT'S EPA'S DISCRETION TO PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT IT WANTED OUT OF THE WORKGROUP THAT -- THE WORKGROUPS' PRODUCTS THAT CAME OUT OF THIS MEETING. EPA SELECTED SOME OF THE THINGS, AND THAT WAS GOOD, AND DISCARDED SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS AND THAT WAS OKAY. I'M SURE THEY DID THAT WITH OTHER WORKGROUP OUTPUTS AS WELL.

AND SO IN SUMMARY AS FAR AS WORKGROUP OUTPUT, I'M SATISFIED ON THE PART OF THE FOREST SERVICE THAT WHAT HAS BEEN INCLUDED IS JUST FINE. IT COULD HAVE GONE FURTHER, BUT IT'S OKAY THE WAY IT IS.

WITH REGARD TO THE LENGTH OF TIME IT TAKES TO PROTECT THE CITIZENS' PUBLIC LANDS, IT IS NOT A SIMPLE PROCESS, AS PEOPLE HAVE POINTED OUT, AND IT TAKES SOME TIME. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROCESS IN HAVING PUBLIC MEETINGS WHICH ASK CITIZENS, ASK INDUSTRY, ASK ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS/ADVOCACY GROUPS, ASK STATE ORGANIZATIONS -- THEY HAVE ALL PARTICIPATED IN THESE MEETINGS -- JUST WHAT IT IS THEY WANT TO PROTECT, I.E., SPECIFICALLY, WHAT THE AQRV IS AND WHAT LEVEL.

SO WE HAVE GOTTEN FEEDBACK FROM THOSE WHO ARE AFFECTED SPECIFICALLY AROUND THESE PARTICULAR CLASS I AREAS THAT WE MANAGE, 88 OF THEM, WHAT IT IS THEY WANT TO PROTECT. IT IS UPON THAT ADVICE AND RECOMMENDATION THAT WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO ASSEMBLE INFORMATION THAT OUR DECISION-MAKERS CAN MAKE A JUDGMENT ON. SO WE FEEL WE'VE GONE THROUGH A PROCESS WHICH ILLUMINATES AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE WHAT THE ISSUES ARE, WHAT THE AQRV'S ARE, AND HOW WE CAN GO ABOUT ADDRESSING THEM.

STILL IT LEAVES A LOT TO BE DETERMINED. AS KAREN WAS POINTING OUT, IT IS NOT AN EXACT SCIENCE. IT IS A BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE IN MOST CASES, AND IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT THING TO DETERMINE.

I GUESS ONE THING I WOULD BRING UP WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE ABOUT IT'S SMALL -- YOU KNOW, AQRV -- RATHER THE RESOURCES ARE SMALL ISSUE, SMALL ISSUES -- YOU KNOW, SMALL POTATOES -- WITH REGARD TO THE EXISTING SOURCES AND THE EXISTING BURDEN OUT THERE. I WOULD ENCOURAGE EPA TO MAKE SURE THAT THE BATON -- THE MESSAGE HAS BEEN PASSED FROM THIS FACA GROUP TO THE OTHER EXISTING FACA GROUP ADDRESSING EXISTING SOURCES AND REGIONAL HAZE, PARTICULATE, AND OZONE.

THAT, INDEED, WE ARE CONCERNED THAT EXISTING SOURCES ARE A BIG PART OF THE PROBLEM IN ADDRESSING CLASS I AREAS AND THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME MARRIAGE BETWEEN RECOMMENDATIONS THAT COME OUT OF THIS GROUP AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ITEMS THAT THEY GENERATE. AND FROM WHAT I HAVE SEEN IN A BRIEF TWO-HOUR SESSION YESTERDAY AT ONE OF THEIR WORKING GROUPS, IT'S REALLY NOT BEING ADDRESSED AS, PROBABLY, AS MUCH AS MANY OF US WOULD LIKE TO SEE HERE.

MR. RAHER: OKAY. ICLAL?

MS. ATAY: ICLAL ATAY, FROM NEW JERSEY DEP. I HAVE A SIMPLE QUESTION ON COMPLETENESS. IN THE PAST -- IN CURRENT RULES A COMPLETENESS DETERMINATION IS BEING MADE BY THE PERMITTING AGENCY SOLELY. THE PROPOSED RULES INDICATE THAT THE COMPLETENESS DETERMINATION WILL BE MADE BY THE PERMITTING AGENCY AND COMPLETENESS DETERMINATION WILL BE MADE BY THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGER.

AND WHAT CONSTITUTES A COMPLETE APPLICATION, THE CRITERIA, IS LISTED -- IS OUTLINED IN THE RULES. THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE A BACT ANALYSIS, AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS, VISIBILITY ANALYSIS, INCREMENT ANALYSIS IS OUTLINED IN THE RULES. I'M QUESTIONING WHETHER IS THIS AN APPROPRIATE USE OF RESOURCES TO HAVE DOUBLE COMPLETENESS REVIEW.

MR. DEROECK: WE DIDN'T SEE IT --

MS. ATAY: THANK YOU.

MR. DEROECK: WE DIDN'T SEE IT AS A DOUBLE OR A DUPLICATIVE REVIEW. WE SAW IT AS THE PERMIT COULDN'T BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE IF IT DIDN'T ADDRESS CLASS I ISSUES.

MS. ATAY: WELL, THE PERMITTING AGENCY HAS BEEN ADDRESSING THEM UNTIL NOW TO MAKE SURE THAT THE VISIBILITY ANALYSIS WAS THERE, THE IMPACT ANALYSIS WAS DONE. WE WOULD NEED TO CLARIFY IF THERE IS SOMETHING ADDITION -- IN ADDRESS TO THOSE THAT THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGER WOULD MAKE SO THAT IT WOULD BE CLEAR TO THE APPLICANTS AND THE PERMITTING AGENCY WHAT ADDITIONAL ITEMS IS BEING LOOKED AT.

MR. DEROECK: WELL, THE INTENT, AGAIN, WAS THE PROVIDE THE APPLICANT WITH, FIRST OF ALL, THE CLAIM THAT THERE WOULD -- THAT THERE WAS A POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACT AND WHAT THE POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS WERE SO THEY KNEW WHAT INFORMATION WOULD BE EXPECTED OF THEM IN THE APPLICATION IN TERMS OF PROJECTING ANY PREDICTED POLLUTANT IMPACTS AS FAR AWAY AS THAT CLASS I AREA WAS.

THOSE WERE THE IMPACTS THAT NEEDED TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE APPLICATION.

THE PERMITTING AUTHORITY CONTINUES TO MAKE THE COMPLETENESS DETERMINATION, BUT THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGER HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE INPUT INTO THAT FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE. BUT THEY DON'T MAKE THE COMPLETENESS DETERMINATION. THEIR INPUT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AND CONSULTATION IS EXPECTED IF THERE'S DIFFERENCES OF OPINION, BUT THE PERMITTING AUTHORITY STILL MAKES THE COMPLETENESS DETERMINATION.

BUT IT NEEDS TO CONSIDER WHAT IT BELIEVES TO BE SUFFICIENT CLASS I INFORMATION TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS THAT WERE ALLEGED BY THE WRITTEN NOTICE THAT'S REQUIRED PRIOR TO THAT DETERMINATION --

MR. RAHER: ICLAL, DO YOU WANT TO --

MR. DEROECK: -- RATHER THAN WAITING --

MR. RAHER: YOU CAN GO AHEAD.

MR. DEROECK: -- RATHER THAN WAITING TILL PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OR SOME PERIOD WELL INTO THE ANALYTICAL PROCESS TO FIND OUT THAT THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGER HAS A CONCERN, AND THE APPLICANT NEVER EVEN WAS AWARE OF IT AND CERTAINLY DIDN'T ATTEMPT TO ADDRESS IT BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T KNOW IT EXISTED.

MS. ATAY: WELL, I THINK TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT, IT NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED A LITTLE BIT IN THE RULES BECAUSE IT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME READING THEM. FOR EXAMPLE, IF I'M LOOKING INTO A BACT ANALYSIS, IF THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A BACT ANALYSIS SUFFICIENT ENOUGH, I MAY HAVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUEST FROM THEM, HOWEVER, I WILL STILL CALL THE APPLICATION COMPLETE AND START THE REVIEW PROCESS.

AND IF THEY SUBMITTED A VISIBILITY ANALYSIS AND ALL THE IMPACT ANALYSES THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGER, I WOULD STILL CALL THE APPLICATION COMPLETE, BUT I WOULD GET FEDERAL LAND MANAGER'S INPUT. I WOULD ASSURE THAT DURING THE TECHNICAL REVIEW PROCESS FEDERAL LAND MANAGER'S CONCERNS ARE ADDRESSED. I WILL NOT GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT UNTIL THEY ARE DONE SO, BUT I WILL START THE REVIEW.

IT APPEARS TO ME RIGHT NOW FROM THE APPLICATION I CANNOT CALL THE APPLICATION COMPLETE UNTIL THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGER TELLS ME I DON'T NEED ANY MORE INFORMATION, WHICH WASN'T THE CASE IN THE PAST.

MR. RAHER: OKAY. I THINK THAT'S A POINT THAT THE AGENCY NEEDS TO LOOK AT FROM AN OPERATIONAL STANDPOINT.

DAVID?

MR. HAWKINS: YEAH, DAVE HAWKINS. I JUST WANTED TO SPEAK TO THAT BECAUSE IT -- ACTUALLY, I THINK THE PROPOSED TEXT OF THE RULE DOES NOT HAVE THE RESULT THAT ICLAL INDICATED. IT REQUIRES THAT THE PERMIT -- THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGER HAVE A THIRTY-DAY PERIOD TO PROVIDE COMMENTS ON -- FROM THE INITIAL RECEIPT OF THE APPLICATION -- TO PROVIDE COMMENTS WITH RESPECT TO COMPLETENESS, THAT THE PERMITTING AUTHORITY NEEDS TO CONSIDER THOSE COMMENTS, AND THAT THE PERMITTING AUTHORITY NEEDS TO COMMUNICATE WITH OR CONSULT WITH THE FLM IF THE PERMITTING AUTHORITY DISAGREES WITH AN FLM VIEW ABOUT COMPLETENESS.

SO THAT ISN'T REQUIRING A DOUBLE SIGN-OFF. IT'S REQUIRING A COMMUNICATION PROCESS TO OCCUR AT THIS EARLY STAGE SO THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO OCCUR LATER ON. I THINK THAT THE TEXT OF THE REGULATION DOESN'T DISPLACE THE PERMITTING AUTHORITY'S DECISION TO CALL SOMETHING COMPLETE. SO I THINK THE, YOU KNOW, THE OUTCOME IS IF YOU AND THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGER HAVE A DISAGREEMENT, AND YOU THINK THAT THE PERMIT SHOULD BE REGARDED AS COMPLETE, THIS RULE ALLOWS YOU TO DO THAT, BUT IT REQUIRES THAT YOU HAVE GIVEN THE FLM AN OPPORTUNITY TO STATE HIS OR HER VIEWS AND THAT YOU HAVE INFORMED THE FLM THAT, WELL, YOU SAID YOU DON'T THINK IT'S COMPLETE FOR THIS REASON, BUT I THINK IT IS COMPLETE, AND I PLAN TO MAKE IT COMPLETE. SO IT REALLY DOESN'T REQUIRE CONCURRENCE BY THE FLM IN THAT CONCLUSION. IT ONLY REQUIRES THAT THE FLM BE CONSULTED AND INFORMED. THAT'S THE WAY I READ IT.

MR. RAHER: I THINK, OBVIOUSLY, WE HAVE SOMEONE WHO AT LEAST HAS READ IT A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY, SO THE AGENCY SHOULD PROBABLY TRY TO CONSIDER ADDRESSING THAT.

KAREN?

MS. MALKIN: WELL, ICLAL, IF I UNDERSTOOD YOU CORRECTLY, YOU SAID THAT YOU WOULD CALL AN APPLICATION COMPLETE EVEN THOUGH THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGER MIGHT NEED SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN ORDER TO DO OUR DETERMINATION ON ADVERSE IMPACT FOR AQRV'S, BUT YOU WOULD STILL HAVE THE WORK DONE. YOU WOULD GET THAT INFORMATION LATER EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE CALLING THE APPLICATION COMPLETE.

WELL, UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S BEEN OUR EXPERIENCE THAT OTHER STATES DON'T DO THAT. IN YOUR CASE IT'S SORT OF A SEMANTIC GAME. WE'RE STILL GETTING THE INFORMATION. EVEN THOUGH YOU CALLED THE APPLICATION COMPLETE, YOU'RE ASKING FOR NEW INFORMATION, AND IT WILL BE ADDED INTO THE PERMIT APPLICATION. SO IT'S THERE.

BUT THESE PROCEDURES SORT OF HELP SET EVERYTHING OUT AND MAKE IT CLEAR FOR EVERYONE UP FRONT, THAT THEY UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WILL NEED TO BE SOME -- THERE ARE SOME INFORMATIONAL NEEDS REGARDING IMPACTS TO AQRV'S IF THEY'RE LOCATING NEAR A CLASS I AREA. AND IT JUST SETS IT OUT AND MAKE -- AND PUTS EVERYTHING UP FRONT AND CLEAR.

AND I THINK IT'S BEEN SAID BEFORE: THESE PROCEDURES ARE REFLECTED IN A NUMBER OF EPA POLICY MEMOS AND DRAFT MANUALS, GUIDANCE, AND SO FORTH THAT HAVE BEEN ISSUED OVER THE YEARS, AND IT'S JUST PUTTING IT IN ONE PLACE. THERE ARE, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, SOME SPECIFIC TIME LIMITATIONS, YOU KNOW, IN PARTICULAR PUT ON THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGER WHICH, YOU KNOW, WILL BE DIFFICULT BUT YET FOR THE CLARITY AND CONSISTENCY, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S A GOOD ATTEMPT TO GET -- TO GET US INTO A CONSISTENT PROCESS SO YOU DON'T HAVE PEOPLE SHOPPING -- FORUM SHOPPING.

MR. RAHER: ARE THERE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE CLASS I ISSUES OF THE PACKAGE? WITH CAN GIVE THE -- DAVID.

MR. HAWKINS: YEAH, THIS IS A COMMENT INSPIRED BY A NUMBER OF THE STATEMENTS AT YESTERDAY'S PUBLIC HEARING. I WAS -- I WAS SOMEWHAT SURPRISED BY THE VEHEMENCE OF THE OPPOSITION TO THE CLASS I PROPOSALS IN THIS RULEMAKING BY MOST OF THE INDUSTRY PEOPLE WHO SPOKE, AND AT LEAST IT APPEARS TO ME TO BE BASED ON A MISREADING OF WHAT'S IN THE PROPOSAL. THERE WERE A NUMBER OF CHARACTERIZATIONS ABOUT HOW THIS SOMEHOW GIVES FEDERAL LAND MANAGERS FINAL SAY OVER THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND SIMILAR TYPES OF COMMENTS.

AND I REALLY DON'T THINK THAT IS THE CASE, AND IF THERE'S A MISUNDERSTANDING -- EITHER ON MY PART OR ON THE PART OF THE OPPONENTS -- I THINK IT WOULD BE USEFUL TO HAVE SOME DISCUSSION TO TRY TO CLARIFY THAT UNDERSTANDING BECAUSE THIS IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE PROPOSAL.

WHEN WE STARTED THIS COMMITTEE, SUBCOMMITTEE, FOUR YEARS, ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS WE DISCUSSED WAS THE FACT THAT WE HAD AN INADEQUATE SYSTEM FOR PROTECTING CLASS I RESOURCES, AND I THINK THERE WAS GENERAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT THERE WAS ADVERSE IMPACT OCCURRING. AND THEN THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION BACK AND FORTH ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS EXISTING SOURCES OR NEW SOURCES, AND THERE -- OBVIOUSLY, THIS RULEMAKING DOES NOT HAVE ANY -- IT DOESN'T ADVANCE THE AGENDA WHATSOEVER ON DEALING WITH WHAT EVERYBODY HAS STATED IS A PROBLEM; AND THAT IS THE IMPACT OF EXISTING SOURCES. SO IT DOES TRY TO AMELIORATE THE SITUATION WITH RESPECT TO NEW SOURCES AND YET RECOMMENDATIONS WERE MADE YESTERDAY THAT EVEN THAT SHOULD BE DROPPED FROM THIS REFORM EXERCISE, WHICH WOULD BE VERY OBJECTIONABLE FROM OUR STANDPOINT.

AND IF THAT'S BASED ON SOME SORT OF MISUNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THESE PROVISIONS ACTUALLY REQUIRE, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO CLARIFY THAT. IF IT'S BASED ON A CORRECT UNDERSTANDING AND SIMPLY A DISAGREEMENT ABOUT WHAT THE AGENCY IS TRYING TO DO, EVEN THOUGH IT'S CORRECTLY UNDERSTOOD, THAT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT TOO.

MR. RAHER: AND I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT POINT BECAUSE, OBVIOUSLY, ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT I HEARD YESTERDAY DURING THE HEARING WAS THE QUESTION THAT THE COMPLETENESS DETERMINATION COULD, IN EFFECT, BE HELD UP FOREVER. AND I THINK I HEARD YOU SAY, DAVID, THAT UNDER YOUR READING THAT HAS TO BE AT LEAST A CONSULTATION, BUT IF THE STATE PERMITTING AUTHORITY DEEMS THE INFORMATION, ALL THE INFORMATION NECESSARY, THAT THAT IS THEIR DECISION.

MR. HAWKINS: YEAH, IT'S A SHORT PROVISION. IT SAYS, "CONSULT WITH THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGER ABOUT ANY INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE DETERMINATION BY THE PERMITTING AUTHORITY AND THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION."

MR. RAHER: RIGHT.

OKAY. WELL, IF THERE ARE SOME ISSUES ABOUT THAT THAT MEMBERS HERE FROM INDUSTRY WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS, I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL.

BILL?

MR. PEDERSEN: YES. I HAVE READ THESE CLASS I AREA PROVISIONS, AND I DO NOT THINK I MISUNDERSTOOD THEM. I THINK MY PROFESSIONAL COMPLIMENTS TO WHOEVER IT WAS WHO WROTE THEM BECAUSE THEY HAVE A -- THEY HAVE A VERY CONSISTENT THEME. IF THERE -- THERE IS SOMETHING OF AN AIR OF TWO DIFFERENT MESSAGES IN THE DESCRIPTIONS OF WHAT THIS THING NOMINALLY SAYS AND HOW IT REALLY WORK.

I WOULD DESCRIBE IT AS HAVING BEEN CONSTRUCTED WITH A LOT OF CARE TO MAXIMIZE THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGER TO ASSERT WHATEVER THEY WANT AND GET WHATEVER RESULT THEY WANT AND TO DO SO BASICALLY BY USING THE INERTIA OF THE SYSTEM AND BY EMPOWERING THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGER TO RAISE UNDOCUMENTED CONCERNS. SO THAT AT EVERY POINT IN THE PERMIT PROCESSING SYSTEM, THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGER CAN RAISE A CONCERN WITHOUT MUCH OF AN OBLIGATION TO SUPPORT IT, AND THEN THE PERMITTING PROCESS HAS TO STOP, AND IT HAS TO CONSIDER WHETHER THAT CONCERN IS JUSTIFIED OR NOT.

AND QUITE PREDICTABLY, THE RESULT WILL BE THAT EITHER PEOPLE WITH GIVE UP ON THESE PROJECTS, OR THEY WILL BUY OFF THE FLM IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER EVEN WHEN THERE IS NO TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR BELIEVING THAT THIS PARTICULAR SOURCE HAS ANY ADVERSE IMPACT.

I MEAN, GO THROUGH THE COUNT. THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGER HAS, AT A MINIMUM, A VERY STRONG VOICE IN THE COMPLETENESS DETERMINATIONS. SO IT WILL BE DIFFICULT TO MAKE A COMPLETENESS DETERMINATION OVER THE FLM'S OBJECTION. THE PREAMBLE SAYS SOMETHING LIKE WHEN THE FLM ASKS FOR MORE DATA, ONLY IF THERE IS NO POTENTIAL LINKAGE BETWEEN THE EMISSIONS AND THE AIR QUALITY VALUE THAT'S ASSERTED TO BE IN DANGER CAN -- SHOULD THAT REQUEST BE DENIED.

THEN YOU -- AND WE'VE HEARD ABOUT THE RESTRICTIVE DEADLINES THAT ARE IN THE PROPOSAL, BUT THE PROPOSAL IS EQUALLY CLEAR THAT THE FLM CAN COME LATER AND RAISE CONCERNS THAT WERE NOT RAISED DURING THE WINDOW PERIOD WITHOUT BEING PREJUDICED IN ANY WAY BY HAVING FAILED TO RAISE THEM.

AND FINALLY WHEN IT COMES TIME TO THE INSTALLATION -- THE ACTUAL QUESTION OF CONTROLS, MANY STEPS LATER, THE PACKAGE SAYS THAT THE STATE SHALL DEFER TO THE FLM'S EXPERTISE ON THESE ISSUES, INCLUDING, I SUPPOSE, AIR QUALITY MODELING ISSUES ON WHICH THEY ARE NOT EXPERT OR NO MORE EXPERT. AND THEN IT HAS TO TOUCH A NUMBER OF BASES IF IT DISAGREES. AND, AGAIN, IT'S NOMINALLY TRUE THAT IF YOU TOUCH ALL THE BASES YOU CAN DISAGREE.

BUT AT EVERY STAGE THERE IS A WEIGHT ON THE SCALE IN FAVOR OF THE FLM AND AGAINST ANYONE WHO WANTS TO DISAGREE WITH THE FLM.

NOW YOU COUPLE THAT WITH THE OTHER THEME OF THE PACKAGE, WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY NO REAL BURDEN OF JUSTIFICATION ON THE FLM. THE PACKAGE DOES NOT MENTION ANY REAL PHYSICAL TECHNICAL AIR QUALITY RELATED VALUES. IT MENTIONS VISIBILITY A COUPLE OF TIMES BECAUSE THAT IS MENTIONED IN THE CLEAN AIR ACT, AND SO THE FLM HAS COMPLETE FREEDOM TO SAY WE THOUGHT OF THIS, WE THOUGHT OF THAT, WE NOW DECIDED THAT WE SHOULD -- WE SHOULD -- WE SHOULD HAVE A TIGHTER FOCUS ON THIS PROBLEM.

AND I THINK THAT ALL OF THIS IS PARTICULARLY TROUBLESOME PRECISELY BECAUSE AIR QUALITY RELATED VALUES ARE A REAL ISSUE. THIS IS NOT A CONCERN THAT'S GOING TO GO AWAY. BUT NO ONE HAS DENIED THAT NEW SOURCES ARE A TINY PART OF THE AIR QUALITY VALUES PROBLEM.

AS LONG AS WE HAVE A SYSTEM THAT FOCUSES ON EXISTING -- ON NEW SOURCES LIKE THIS AND AS LONG AS WE HAVE A REAL CONCERN AND AS LONG AS WE HAVE SUCH ARBITRARY POWER ON THE FLM, WE CAN PREDICT -- AND CERTAINLY WE CAN FEAR -- THAT PERMIT APPLICANTS WILL GET HIT AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN IF THIS RULE IS PROMULGATED SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONLY TARGET OUT THERE.

MR. RAHER: JOHN?

MR. BUNYAK: I'D LIKE TO MAKE ONE COMMENT ON THE NOTIFICATION PROVISIONS IN THE PROPOSAL. IT'S TRUE THAT THE APPLICANT DOESN'T HAVE TO INCLUDE A CLASS I INCREMENT ANALYSIS OR OTHER IMPACTS ANALYSIS UNLESS THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGER LINKS THE PROPOSED EMISSIONS TO SOME PRELIMINARY IMPACT DETERMINATION.

I GUESS I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THE POINT THAT IF TIMING IS CRUCIAL AND IF THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGER HAS ALREADY GONE ON RECORD AS MAKING A PRELIMINARY ADVERSE IMPACT DETERMINATION WITH RESPECT TO SOME OTHER APPLICATION, I THINK IT WOULD BEHOOVE THE APPLICANT TO STICK THAT STUFF IN THERE RATHER THAN WAITING FOR US TO CERTIFY THE NEED FOR THAT.

I GUESS -- AND THEN ONE -- A COUPLE OF EDITORIAL COMMENTS TO ADDRESS BILL'S CONCERN THERE, AND I THINK FROM OUR STANDPOINT WE LOOK AT ROLE OF AFFIRMATIVE RESPONSIBILITY. WE TAKE THAT ROLE VERY SERIOUSLY, AND I'M NOT GOING TO APOLOGIZE FOR THE NEED TO HAVE ADEQUATE INFORMATION TO DO OUR JOB.

IT'S OUR ROLE TO PROTECT THE CLASS I AREAS -- THE GRAND CANYON, THE GREAT SMOKEY MOUNTAINS, SHENANDOAH NATIONAL PARK, AND SO FORTH -- FOR THE BENEFIT OF EVERYBODY. IT'S NOT JOHN BUNYAK'S CLASS I AREAS; IT'S ALL OF OUR CLASS I AREAS.

THANKS.

MR. RAHER: DAVID?

MR. HAWKINS: WELL, I JUST WANT TO MENTION A COUPLE OF PROVISIONS THAT ARE IN THE ACTUAL RULE IN RESPONSE TO BILL PEDERSEN'S CONCLUSIONS. FIRST, THERE IS A DEFINITION OF "AIR QUALITY RELATED VALUE" THAT SPECIFICALLY LISTS "VISIBILITY OR A SCENIC, CULTURAL, PHYSICAL, BIOLOGICAL, ECOLOGICAL, OR RECREATIONAL RESOURCE THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY A CHANGE IN AIR QUALITY." AND SO THERE IS A SPECIFIC DEFINITION. PERHAPS IT ISN'T AS SPECIFIC AS BILL WOULD LIKE, BUT I DIDN'T WANT TO LEAVE THE IMPRESSION THAT THERE WAS NO LISTING OF THE TYPES OF RESOURCES THAT WERE CONSIDERED IN THE RULE.

SECOND, WITH RESPECT TO THE FLM'S ABILITY TO STOP THE PROCESS WITH ESSENTIALLY NO INFORMATION, I'M SURE THERE ARE A LOT MORE REFERENCES BUT JUST A COUPLE THAT ARE WORTH POINTING OUT: ONE IS THAT THE FLM IS REQUIRED, IF REQUESTED, TO PROVIDE ALL AVAILABLE INFORMATION ABOUT AIR QUALITY RELATED VALUES AND METHODS TO ANALYZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS. IT IS ALSO REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ITS COMMENTS WITH RESPECT TO COMPLETENESS IF IT WANTS TO CREATE AN OBLIGATION ON THE PART OF THE PERMITTING AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER THEM OR TO CONSULT.

AND IT IS -- IF IT WANTS TO ASSERT THE POSSIBILITY OF AN ADVERSE IMPACT, IT IS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT "A DEMONSTRATION THAT A PROPOSED MAJOR SOURCE OR A MAJOR MODIFICATION WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON AIR QUALITY RELATED VALUES AFTER HAVING IDENTIFIED WHAT THOSE SPECIFIC VALUES ARE IN AN INITIAL NOTIFICATION."

SO I THINK THAT TO CHARACTERIZE THIS AS ALLOWING SORT OF THE NEAREST ASSERTION THAT, GEE, THERE MAY BE SOME PROBLEM DOESN'T CORRECTLY CHARACTERIZE THE PROPOSED RULE.

MR. RAHER: ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE CLASS I PORTION OF THE PACKAGE?

LYDIA?

MS. WEGMAN: I WOULD ASK BILL AND OTHER INDUSTRY FOLKS WHO REALLY HAVE OBJECTIONS TO THIS THAT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO US, RATHER THAN GETTING SWEEPING DENUNCIATIONS OF THE PACKAGE, EVEN THOUGH THAT MAY BE WHAT YOU WOULD FEEL, IF WE COULD GET SOME MORE SPECIFIC SUGGESTIONS FOR HOW WE MIGHT BALANCE THESE CONCERNS THAT YOU HAVE WITH THOSE OF THE FLM'S. I MEAN, I THINK WE CLEARLY ARE TRYING TO ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF THE FLM'S WITHOUT TRYING TO OVERLY BURDEN YOU, AND IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO KNOW FROM YOU -- NOT NECESSARILY TODAY, ALTHOUGH IF YOU WANT TO IT'S FINE -- WHAT ELEMENTS OF OUR EFFORTS TO GIVE THE FLM'S MORE UP-FRONT NOTIFICATION AND INVOLVEMENT MAKE SOME SENSE AND ARE WORKABLE AS OPPOSED TO THOSE WHICH ARE PROBLEMATIC.

MR. PEDERSEN: I THINK -- I THINK THAT THE DIRECTION OF SUCH A FIX IS CLEAR; AND THAT IS, PARTICULARLY IN A SITUATION WHERE THE NEW SOURCES ARE A SMALL PART OF THE PROBLEM AND WHERE THERE IS THIS GREAT CONCERN ABOUT ARBITRARY POWER, WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS FIXES THAT PUT A GREATER BURDEN OF JUSTIFICATION -- AND I MEAN AN EXPLICIT BURDEN OF JUSTIFICATION -- ON THE FLM TO ASSERT WHAT THE VALUE IS, WHAT -- HOW IT CAN BE QUANTIFIED IN NUMBERS THAT RELATE TO THE POLLUTION, AND WHETHER THE IMPACT OF THIS NEW SOURCE WILL BE SIGNIFICANT IN A CAUSATION SENSE AS HENRY SAID.

A COUPLE OF POINTS -- THEY AREN'T NEW -- THE MODELS USED FOR MAKING THESE PROJECTIONS SHOULD BE GUIDANCE MODELS. THE AIR QUALITY RELATED VALUES SHOULD BE DEFINED IN ADVANCE IN SOME MANNER AND SHOULD HAVE SOME TYPE OF QUANTITATIVE SUPPORT, AND THERE SHOULD BE DE MINIMUS LEVELS FOR AIR QUALITY RELATED VALUES BELOW WHICH YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT.

AT PRESENT THE PACKAGE SAYS, WELL, AIR QUALITY RELATED VALUES ARE TOO INCHOATE. WE COULDN'T -- WE COULDN'T PRESUME TO SET -- WE, EPA, COULDN'T PRESUME TO SET DE MINIMUS LEVELS, AND THE FLM ISN'T OBLIGED TO SET THEM. I DON'T BUY THE NOTION THAT VISIBILITY IS A VALUE; IT'S NOT A NUMBER. I MEAN GOOD HEALTH IS A VALUE, TOO, BUT WHEN YOU GO TO THE DOCTOR, HE SAYS THIS NUMBER. YOU LOSE TWENTY POUNDS. YOU GET YOUR CHOLESTEROL DOWN. THAT'S WHAT REGULATION IS ABOUT.

MR. RAHER: DAVID?

MR. HAWKINS: I THINK KAREN WAS UP.

MR. RAHER: OH, I'M SORRY, KAREN. I DIDN'T SEE YOUR CARD.

MS. MALKIN: I'D JUST LIKE TO ASK BILL A QUESTION. YOU SAY YOU WANT TO HAVE DE MINIMUS THRESHOLD LEVELS FOR AQRV'S. WELL, HOW DO YOU TELL -- ALL THOSE LITTLE DE MINIMUS LEVELS ADD UP TO A BIG, CUMULATIVE IMPACT OVER TIME. AND AS JOHN BUNYAK AND OTHERS HAVE POINTED OUT, YOU KNOW, THESE ARE NOT THE FLM'S CLASS I AREAS. THESE ARE SET ASIDE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS, AREAS TO BE TREASURED BY THE WORLD OVER, AND HOW DO YOU ADDRESS THAT CUMULATIVE ISSUE?

MR. PEDERSEN: I THINK WE SHOULD ADDRESS IT THROUGH A PROGRAM THAT ADDRESSES ALL SOURCES: LARGE, SMALL, EXISTING, OR NO. THEN WE WOULD -- THEN WE WOULD HAVE SOME KIND OF AN AUTOMATIC CHECK ON WHETHER THE REGULATION WAS REASONABLE OR WHETHER WE WERE JUST BEATING UP ON ONE CLASS OF SOURCES BECAUSE THEY WERE ALREADY IN THE SYSTEM.

MS. MALKIN: WELL, COULD YOU ELABORATE ON THAT? WHAT SORT OF PROGRAM WOULD THAT BE? AND HOW COULD YOU --

MR. PEDERSEN: I CAN'T GO ANY FURTHER RIGHT NOW.

MR. RAHER: DAVID?

MR. HAWKINS: WELL, BILL HAS JUST SPOKEN TO THE CONCERN THAT I WANTED TO ADDRESS AS WELL. THE PROPOSAL THAT THERE BE A SHIFTING OF THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO A GREATER DEGREE THAN THIS RULE ESTABLISH, YOU KNOW, MIGHT BE -- MIGHT BE A USEFUL PROPOSAL FOR A FULLY INTEGRATED SYSTEM AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE WHEN WE'VE GOT A FUNCTIONING PROGRAM THAT DEALS WITH THE ADVERSE IMPACTS THAT ARE BEING CREATED BY THE NEW SOURCES.

BUT TO SUGGEST THAT WE SHOULD ESTABLISH A VERY HIGH BURDEN OF PROOF AND, IN EFFECT, REQUIRE A CATALOG OF WHAT IS CURRENTLY UNCATALOGABLE (SIC) BUT, NONETHELESS, EVENTUALLY DAMAGED IS, IN SOME CASES IRREVERSIBLY BY INCREASED AIR POLLUTION -- TO REQUIRE THOSE THINGS NOW AND SAY LATER ON WE WILL ADDRESS WHAT HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ONE OF THE MAJOR PROBLEMS OF THOSE ADVERSE IMPACTS, I THINK, IS A PROBLEM IN SEQUENCING. IT'S, YOU KNOW, A LITTLE LIKE TELLING THE GUY IN THE PLANE, JUMP, WE'LL SEND YOU THE PARACHUTE LATER.

MR. RAHER: ALL RIGHT, WITH THAT EXAMPLE ARE THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSIONS ON THE CLASS I ISSUES?

WE CAN -- I WILL GIVE YOU THE OPTION I WAS GOING TO GIVE YOU A FEW MINUTES AGO. IT'S EVEN MORE RELEVANT NOW. WE CAN EITHER TAKE A BREAK, WHICH WILL PUT US VERY, VERY CLOSE TO 4:00 OR 4:30, OR WE CAN MOVE IMMEDIATELY TO MISCELLANEOUS REFORMS IN THE CLEAN AIR ACT IMPLEMENTATION REVISIONS AND DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE ANY COMMENTS ON THOSE BY ANYBODY HERE. THERE WERE NOT EXTENSIVE COMMENTS YESTERDAY AT THE HEARING, SO THERE'S NOTHING TO REPORT FROM THAT STANDPOINT AT THE HEARING. THERE MAY BE IN THE WRITTEN COMMENTS.

IF THERE ARE ANY SPECIFIC COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS, I THINK THIS WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE TIME. IF THERE ARE TONS OF THEM, WE'LL TAKE A SHORT BREAK. IF THERE ARE NOT, WE MAY BE ABLE TO WRAP UP FASTER.

DAVID?

MR. HAWKINS: THE ONE COMMENT THAT I WANTED TO FLAG WAS MY COMMENT AT YESTERDAY'S HEARING ABOUT THE SHUTDOWN CREDIT ISSUE. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE COVERED IN THE MISCELLANEOUS.

MR. RAHER: ACTUALLY, YOU'RE RIGHT. IT IS. WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD AND ADDRESS THAT ISSUE BECAUSE I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE.

MR. HAWKINS: SURE, AND I'LL DO IT QUICKLY BECAUSE I WOULD ALSO ENDORSE WRAPPING UP.

THE PROPOSAL HAS ALTERNATIVES FOR EXPANDING THE USE OF SHUTDOWN CREDITS IN THE -- IN NONATTAINMENT AREAS FOR OFFSET -- FOR PURPOSES OF SATISFYING OFFSETS. THIS HAS LONG BEEN A CONCERN OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY. THE AGENCY'S RATIONALE FOR SUPPORTING AN EXPANSION OF THE USE OF THESE OFFSET CREDITS IS ESSENTIALLY PREMISED ON THE FACT THAT THE 1990 AMENDMENTS, AS WRITTEN, HAVE A NUMBER OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS WHICH, IF IMPLEMENTED, WOULD PROVIDE GREATER SECURITY THAT THE USE OF OFFSET -- OF SHUTDOWN CREDITS WOULDN'T' DETERIORATE AIR QUALITY IN PLACES THAT NEED TO IMPROVE IT.

THE ONLY PROBLEM WITH THAT ANALYSIS IS THAT IT IGNORES THE FACTS ON THE GROUND. IT IGNORES THE FACTS THAT THE VERY PROVISIONS THAT ARE POINTED TO AS ENSURING A GREATER SENSE OF CONFIDENCE THAT THE STATES WILL ACTUALLY GET THE WORK DONE ON TIME, THAT THOSE VERY PROVISIONS HAVEN'T BEEN IMPLEMENTED ON TIME. AND I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE A REALLY PRETTY STRANGE DEFENSE IF, PERHAPS, A YEAR FROM NOW OR WHENEVER THIS RULE GOES FINAL IF THE AGENCY IS IN THE POSITION OF HAVING THAT KIND OF A RATIONALE AT A POINT WHEN THOSE THINGS STILL HAVEN'T BEEN IMPLEMENTED AND YET POINTING TO IT AS SORT OF SAFETY NET.

SO I THINK THE AGENCY NEEDS TO EVALUATE THIS GIVEN THE FACTS THAT EXIST, NOT GIVEN THE STRUCTURE OF A LAW THAT HASN'T BEEN IMPLEMENTED ON SCHEDULE.

MR. SOLOMON: DAVID, THERE ARE TWO OPTIONS WITHIN THE PACKAGE FOR TREATING PRIOR SHUTDOWNS. I ASSUME YOUR CONCERNS ARE EQUAL OF TERMS OF BOTH OF THEM, OR DO YOU FIND ONE TO BE LESS EGREGIOUS THAN THE OTHER?

MR. HAWKINS: WELL, AS MY COLLEAGUE TO MY LEFT CAN VOUCH, FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS NOW WE HAVE BEEN HEARING FROM THE STATE AGENCIES THAT THEY ARE FACING THE IMPOSSIBLE TASK OF IDENTIFYING THE EMISSION REDUCTIONS NEEDED NOT ONLY TO DEMONSTRATE ATTAINMENT, BUT TO EVEN DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MINIMUM EMISSION REDUCTION MEASURES NEEDED TO SATISFY THE 15 PERCENT OR THE 3 PERCENT PER YEAR. THAT HAS BEEN A CONSTANT REFRAIN, WHICH HAS BEEN BASICALLY ENDORSED AND ACCEPTED BY THE AGENCY IN GIVING MORE TIME TO DO THESE JOBS.

TO SAY THAT WE CAN, THEREFORE, ALLOW REDUCTIONS IN EMISSIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED TO INSTEAD OF CONTRIBUTING TO MEETING EITHER ONE OF THOSE OBJECTIVES, EITHER A SET OF REQUIREMENTS TO DEMONSTRATE ATTAINMENT OR CONTRIBUTING TOWARD THE MINIMUM EMISSION REDUCTIONS, TO SAY WE CAN TAKE THOSE REDUCTIONS WHICH HAVE OCCURRED AND INSTEAD DEDICATE THEM TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW FACILITY THAT IS LESS WELL-CONTROLLED THAN IT OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE TO BE BECAUSE YOU COULD TAKE THOSE POUNDS OR TONS AND USE THEM TO OFFSET THE EMISSIONS WHICH ARE GREATER THAN THEY OTHERWISE WOULD BE, I THINK, SIMPLY REFLECTS AN INCREDIBLE DISCONNECT BETWEEN THESE TWO COMPONENTS OF THE PROGRAM.

IT DOESN'T REFLECT THE FACT THAT THESE OFFSET TRANSACTIONS CAN HELP CONTRIBUTE TOWARD PROGRESS ON A GOAL THAT WE WOEFULLY BEHIND ON. SO, YES, I HAVE PROBLEMS WITH ANY EXPANSION OF THE SHUTDOWN CREDIT POLICY.

MR. RAHER: BERNIE?

I'M SORRY, CHUCK. DO YOU WANT TO STAY ON THAT ISSUE?

MR. KNAUSS: I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY. THE STATES CAN MAINTAIN THE CURRENT RESTRICTIONS, RIGHT, DAVID? THE TWO ALTERNATIVES THAT ARE LAID THERE ARE AT THE OPTION OF THE STATE, BUT AS I READ THE PROPOSAL, THE STATES COULD MAINTAIN THE RESTRICTIONS AS --

MR. SOLOMON: IF THE STATE WANTED TO BE MORE STRINGENT AND DISALLOW ANY USE OF PRIOR SHUTDOWNS, THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO US.

MR. KNAUSS: RIGHT.

MR. RAHER: I THINK I KNOW WHAT YOUR ANSWER IS GOING TO BE, BUT GO AHEAD, DAVID.

MR. HAWKINS: I HAVE A HARD TIME REGARDING THAT AS A SERIOUS RESPONSE. I MEAN THE FACT IS THAT WHILE THE STATES HAVE THE THEORETICAL POTENTIAL, THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE AROUND THIS TABLE WHO WOULD BE IN WITH BOTH GUNS BLAZING ARGUING THAT THE STATES SHOULD NOT EXERCISE THAT AUTHORITY IF THEY SOUGHT TO DO SO.

MR. SOLOMON: RIGHT. AND WE RECOGNIZE THERE ARE MANY STATES WHO REGULATE -- WHO ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BE MORE STRINGENT BY THEIR OWN STATE LAW THAN THE FEDERAL RULES.

MR. RAHER: BERNIE.

MR. BERNIE PAUL: BERNIE PAUL, WITH ELI LILLY. I HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION REGARDING A CLASS OF COMPOUNDS. I'M NOT SURE WHETHER THEY WOULD BE CONSIDERED REGULATED AIR POLLUTANTS OR NOT. I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THERE IS A PROPOSAL TO CREATE A SIGNIFICANT MODIFICATION DEFINITION FOR "OZONE-DEPLETING SUBSTANCES" AND THE REMOVAL OF THE HAP COMPOUNDS THAT FORMERLY HAD SIGNIFICANT MODIFICATION DEFINITIONS.

THERE'S A GROUP OF COMPOUNDS OUT THERE UNDER THE SNAP PROGRAM, WHICH IS UNDER TITLE VI DEALING WITH ALTERNATIVES TO OZONE-DEPLETING SUBSTANCES. SINCE THEY ARE IN THE REGULATIONS, I'M NOT SURE WHETHER THEY ARE REGULATED AIR POLLUTANTS OR NOT, AND I WOULD LIKE THE AGENCY TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE AREN'T SOMEHOW THROWING THOSE COMPOUNDS INTO THE PSD PROGRAM INADVERTENTLY. ONE, IN PARTICULAR, IS AMMONIA. IT IS A VOC, SO IT'S NEVER BEEN IN THERE BEFORE, BUT IT IS SNAP COMPOUND.

MR. RAHER: ALL RIGHT. I DON'T -- I DON'T THINK THE AGENCY WAS INTENDING TO DO THAT, BUT YOU'VE RAISED THE POINT. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT A FACA IS ALL ABOUT, TO RAISE THOSE KINDS OF ISSUES FROM THE OUTSIDE AND ASK THE AGENCY TO BE SURE THAT THAT'S THE SITUATION.

JOHN?

MR. TROUT: GETTING BACK TO THE SHUTDOWN CREDITS, THE STAPPA/ALAPCO DRAFT COMMENTS AT THIS POINT ARE GOING TO SUGGEST THAT ALTERNATIVE (2) BE ADOPTED. NOTWITHSTANDING THE TRUTH THAT THERE ARE SOME NONATTAINMENT AREAS THAT ARE HAVING TROUBLE WITH THEIR ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATES, WHAT WE'RE GOING TO SUGGEST IS THAT THESE SHUTDOWN CREDITS, THESE REDUCTIONS, ARE REALLY PART OF THE TOTAL AIR RESOURCE, AND WE BELIEVE THAT THE STATES AND LOCALS SHOULD BE HELD RESPONSIBLE AND ACCOUNTABLE FOR DEALING WITH THAT AIR RESOURCE, COMING UP WITH ATTAINMENT PLANS THAT ARE WORKABLE, AND ALSO ALLOWING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

ONE OF THE -- THE NEWER CONCEPTS WHICH WE CLEARLY HAVE SEEN IN THE LOUISVILLE AREA IS THE JOBS-PER-TON CONCEPT, AND, BELIEVE ME, THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOLKS HAVE TOLD COMPANIES THAT THE JOBS-PER-TON WAS NOT HIGH ENOUGH AND SAID WE DON'T REALLY HAVE A PLACE FOR YOU HERE.

SO THE MESSAGE IS COMING ACROSS. WE ARE LOOKING AT THESE AS A RESOURCE. AND, YES, THEY CAN BE USED FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OR FOR SOLVING NONATTAINMENT PROBLEMS. BUT WE BELIEVE THAT THE STATE OR LOCALS SHOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DECIDE HOW THEY WANT TO USE THAT RESOURCE.

MR. RAHER: ANY OTHER -- PRAVEEN?

MR. AMAR: A CLARIFYING QUESTION WITH RESPECT TO NUMBER 9 HERE, THE "MAJOR THRESHOLD VALUES." AND I'M WONDERING, ARE WE GOING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE TIMING. I HEARD YESTERDAY THAT WE GO THROUGH NSR PROCESS EVERY FIFTEEN YEARS, SO THE ISSUE OF FINE PARTICLE STANDARD-SETTING BY EPA MAY HAPPEN NEXT YEAR, AND I SEE THE LANGUAGE WITH RESPECT TO THRESHOLD FOR PM-10. BUT HOW DOES ONE HANDLE NOW, KNOWING WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN NEXT YEAR, WHAT TO DO FOR THE PRECURSORS FOR FINE PARTICLES? THAT COULD BECOME A VERY MAJOR ISSUE, AND THERE'S NO REFERENCE AT THIS TIME HERE TO FINE PARTICLES.

MR. RAHER: ANY THOUGHTS BY THE AGENCY WITH REGARD TO THAT?

MR. DEROECK: WELL, THERE IS A FACA PROCESS GOING ON NOW DEALING WITH FINE PARTICLES, OBVIOUSLY, AND WE ARE CONTRIBUTING TO THE -- BOTH THE INTERIM AND THE LONG-TERM POLICY THAT WILL BE USED TO IMPLEMENT THAT.

MR. AMAR: SO WOULD WE HAVE TIME TO HAVE THAT KIND OF RESOLUTION TO SHOW UP IN THE LANGUAGE HERE NEXT YEAR?

MS. WEGMAN: I THINK IT WILL DEPEND ON THE TIMING OF THE FACA PROCESS, --

MR. AMAR: OF COURSE.

MS. WEGMAN: -- YOU KNOW. IF WE GET A RECOMMENDATION, WHICH WE HOPE TO, FROM THE FACA BEFORE, WELL-BEFORE, THIS PACKAGE GOES FINAL, THEN WE COULD TRY TO FOLD SOMETHING INTO IT. I THINK IT'S PREMATURE AT THIS POINT. AS DAN SAYS, WE'RE TRYING TO SORT IT OUT IN THE FACA PROCESS, BUT WE COULD FOLD IT IN IF WE GET SOMETHING SOON.

MR. AMAR: IF THE TIMING IS RIGHT.

MS. WEGMAN: RIGHT.

MR. DEROECK: RIGHT.

MR. RAHER: IF NOT THOUGH, OBVIOUSLY, SOMETHING --

MR. AMAR: WE WILL BE IN THE YEAR 2005 --

MR. RAHER: RIGHT.

MR. AMAR: -- FIGURING OUT WHAT PM-2.5 MEANS.

MR. RAHER: RIGHT.

MS. WEGMAN: NO, I THINK WE'LL PROBABLY FIGURE IT OUT A LITTLE BEFORE THEN.

MR. RAHER: ANY OTHER GENERAL COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS, EITHER ON MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES OR THE CLEAN AIR ACT IMPLEMENTING REVISIONS?

KAREN?

MS. MALKIN: JUST A FEW MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS. THERE WERE A NUMBER OF REFERENCES THROUGHOUT THE DAY TO THE PROBLEM OF EXISTING SOURCES. WE DID HAVE AN EXISTING SOURCES WORKGROUP, AND, AS I RECALL, THERE WERE SOME EFFORTS AND SOME POINTS THAT WE HAD CONSENSUS ON.

AND ONE WAS BEING -- WAS ON INCREMENT TRACKING AND THAT THERE NEEDS -- THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE CUMULATIVELY, CONSISTENTLY ACROSS THE BOARD, AND WE NEED SOME GUIDANCE ON HOW TO DO THAT. SOME STATES ARE DOING IT FAIRLY WELL, AND OTHERS ARE JUST SORT OF TURNING THE OTHER WAY. AND THAT WHEN INCREMENT IS, IN FACT, VIOLATED, THERE WOULD BE SIP CALLS. SO I WOULD ASK EPA TO RECONSIDER THAT AND HOW THAT COULD BE WORKED INTO THIS PACKAGE.

AND THE OTHER POINT IS REALLY A QUESTION. RICH MENTIONED THAT WE SAT IN ON PART OF THE FACA WORKGROUP MEETING YESTERDAY PERTAINING TO NEW SOURCE REVIEW OR, I GUESS, NEW SOURCE ISSUES, AND THAT GROUP SEEMS TO BE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THEY'RE GOING TO TURN OVER A FRAMEWORK OF A NEW PROGRAM OVER TO US, THIS SUBCOMMITTEE, TO WORK OUT THE DETAILS, AND I DIDN'T THINK WE WERE MEETING AGAIN. I JUST WANTED TO GET A CLARIFICATION ON THAT.

MS. WEGMAN: I'M GOING TO HAVE TO GET A CLARIFICATION. I NOTED RICH'S COMMENT THERE, AND I'M GOING TO HAVE TO TALK TO THEM. BUT WHICH GROUP WERE YOU TALKING WITH YESTERDAY, RICH? OR YOU CAN TELL ME AFTERWARDS.

MR. FISHER: FAC PROGRAMS --

MS. WEGMAN: FAC PROGRAMS.

MS. MALKIN: YEAH, AND IT'S A NEW SOURCES SUBGROUP OF THAT.

MS. WEGMAN: RIGHT.

MS. MALKIN: YEAH.

MR. DEROECK: THIS WAS A WORKING GROUP, AND THEY WILL BE PRESENTING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THEIR SUBCOMMITTEE. SO, I MEAN, AT THIS POINT IT'S EVEN ANYTHING OFFICIAL.

MS. WEGMAN: YEAH, BUT WE WILL FOLLOW UP, RICH, AND TRY TO SEE WHERE IT'S GOING.

MR. RAHER: ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER GENERAL COMMENTS?

JOHN, IS YOUR SIGN UP OR DOWN?

MR. TROUT: OH, I'M SORRY.

MR. RAHER: THAT'S ALL RIGHT. WE'RE FORMALISTIC ON THESE SIGNS HERE.

IF THERE ARE NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS, ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC IN THE AUDIENCE WITH RESPECT TO ANY OF THE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED TODAY OR ANY OF THE ISSUES IN THE PACKAGE?

YES, SIR. IF YOU COULD, IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE --

MR. BESSETTE: MY NAME IS BOB BESSETTE. I'M WITH THE COUNCIL OF INDUSTRY BOILER OWNERS.

ONE QUESTION. I'VE LEARNED SOME THINGS. I'M JUST NEW TO WASHINGTON, SO I'M SORT OF NEW AT THIS. I'M A COUNTRY BOY. BUT I WAS DRIVING DOWN ON FOURTEENTH STREET ONE DAY --

MR. RAHER: THAT'S NOT THE COUNTRY, BOB.

MR. BESSETTE: NO. I LEARNED SOMETHING. TWO PEOPLE CAME UP TO ME, ONE WITH A SQUIRT BOTTLE AND A SQUEEGEE, AND THEY KNOCKED ON MY WINDOW. THEY ASKED ME IF I WANTED TO WASH MY WINDOW. I JUST HAD MY CAR CLEANED THAT MORNING, BUT I SAID, "NO, MY WINDOW IS CLEAN."

HE KNOCKED AGAIN, AND HE SAYS, "ARE YOU SURE?" AND HE SAID, "MY BUDDY IS STANDING OVER THERE."

AND I LOOKED OVER AND I SEEN "MY BUDDY" WITH A BAT. I SAID, "YEAH. HOW MUCH?"

HE SAID, "TWO BUCKS."

I SAID, "DO IT."

IF I CAN -- IF YOU CAN WRITE INTO THIS REGULATION THAT FOR $50,000, THAT SAME EXTORTION MONEY, THAT I CAN TAKE CARE OF THE FLM VERSUS AN UNKNOWN EFFECT -- AN UNKNOWN, UNDEFINED EFFECT -- ON ME AND MY POTENTIAL TO IMPACT MY FACILITY IN THE FUTURE, I WOULD BE VERY, VERY HAPPY. BECAUSE ANYTIME WE CAN MAKE A DECISION BASED ON FACT, WE CAN MOVE THE COUNTRY FORWARD, AND I CAN MOVE THE PLANTS FORWARD. WHEN I DON'T HAVE THOSE FACTS, WHEN I DON'T HAVE THEM, YOU STOP EVERYTHING FLAT.

THANKS.

MR. RAHER: ALL RIGHT. WE'LL PUT THAT NOT THE TABLE FOR EPA AND ENSURE YOUR -- FOR GENERAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE TO DISCUSS.

YES, SIR.

MR. EMERY: YES, SIR. MY NAME IS DAVID EMERY. I'M WITH PHILLIPS PETROLEUM. I TESTIFIED YESTERDAY ON BEHALF OF API ABOUT THE CLASS I AREAS AMONGST OTHER DETAILS, AND I'VE HEARD A NUMBER OF THINGS HERE WHICH WERE VERY NEW TO ME. I MUST ADMIT THAT I HAVE NOT BEEN PART OF THIS PROCESS FOR TWO OR THREE YEARS OR THE FOUR YEARS, APPARENTLY, THAT YOU'VE ALL ENJOYED WORKING ON THIS ISSUE. BUT I HAVE -- YEAH, I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY'S ENJOYING THIS TOO MUCH.

I HAVE READ THE RULE, AND THERE WAS A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I WANTED TO SAY ON BEHALF OF API, OR AT LEAST ON BEHALF OF MYSELF HERE, AND, FIRST, TO EPA. YOU TALKED A NUMBER OF TIMES ABOUT YOUR "INTENT" IN THE CLASS I AREA, AND I WANT TO TELL YOU NO ONE THINKS THAT YOU'RE INTENDING TO DO SOMETHING WRONG, OR WE'RE NOT TRYING TO ASCRIBE EVIL INTENT TO YOUR WRITING THE RULE.

WHAT WE SAID YESTERDAY MEANS THAT WE READ THE RULE, AND OUR READING OF THE RULE SHOWS THAT IT'S ABSOLUTELY AN UNWORKABLE PROGRAM. I DON'T THINK THAT WAS YOUR INTENT. WE THINK THAT'S THE WAY IT IS.

I'D ALSO LIKE TO SAY THAT I'M NOT PERSUADED BY MR. HAWKINS TELLING US THAT WE JUST MISREAD THE RULE, AND I DON'T THINK I'D BE EMPLOYED VERY LONG IF I LET NRCD LAWYERS READ THE RULES FOR MY COMPANY. ALTHOUGH I'M SURE HE HAS MORE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THIS THAN MYSELF, IT STILL -- WE HAVE TO GO OFF OUR READING OF THE RULE, AND ALL THE INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES THAT I'VE TALKED TO READ THE RULE APPROXIMATELY THE SAME WAY: THAT IT IS UNWORKABLE.

I DON'T THINK THE AQRV'S ARE DEFINED. THINGS LIKE IT'S A STREAM, IT'S A BENEFIT OF VISIBILITY, OR AIR QUALITY VALUE OR WHATEVER IS -- THAT'S NOT A GOOD DEFINITION TO ME. I CAN'T MAKE A DECISION OFF THAT. THIS IS A TERRIBLE RULE FOR INDUSTRY. I DON'T KNOW HOW ANYBODY COULD SAY I CAN GET A PERMIT AT THIS TIME TO PUT THIS PLANT IN WITH THE WAY THIS RULE IS WRITTEN. AND IN THAT KIND OF SCENARIO, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN GO FORWARD. I STILL THINK IT'S AN UNWORKABLE RULE.

ONE NOTE THAT I DID HEAR TODAY, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS GOOD, WAS THAT WE DON'T NEED THIS RULE. PEOPLE, STATES -- OREGON, NEW JERSEY, SOUTH COAST, VIRGINIA, TENNESSEE -- THEY ALL HAVE WORKABLE PROGRAMS RIGHT NOW WITHOUT THIS COMPLEX RULE THAT NOBODY CAN UNDERSTAND, AND WE COULD ARGUE ABOUT, FOR A LONG TIME, ABOUT WHAT IT ACTUALLY MEANS. AND WE'LL PROBABLY ARGUE ABOUT IT IN A COURT IF IT ACTUALLY GOES FORWARD, BUT THAT'S NOT GOING TO HELP ANYBODY. THIS IS JUST A TERRIBLE RULE FOR INDUSTRY, IN MY OPINION.

MR. RAHER: THANK YOU.

ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS?

YES, SIR.

MR. LUND: YES, MY NAME IS STEVE LUND, AND I'M WITH CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT. RIGHT NOW WE'RE DEEPLY INVOLVED IN DOING SOME CLASS I MODELING ANALYSES AND TRYING TO MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS. A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT KIND COME UP DURING THIS PROCESS, AND I THINK THEY'RE IN THE ORIGINAL PSD APPLICATION OR WHEN THE PSD APPLICATION OR REGULATIONS WERE FIRST DEVELOPED.

MY FIRST STEP AS A MODELER IS USUALLY TO WORK WITH A COMPANY, WHETHER IT'S CP&L OR SOMEBODY ELSE, TO DO A SITING ANALYSIS. I COULD TAKE THE CURRENT PSD REGULATIONS, MODEL MY PLAN, AND BASICALLY TELL MY CLIENT -- WHETHER IT'S CP&L OR SOME OTHER CLIENT -- THAT THE FACILITY COULD GO IN. WE'RE GOING TO MEET PSD INCREMENTS. WE'RE GOING TO MEET AIR QUALITY STANDARDS. WE COULD DO THAT ALL UP FRONT AS A PLANNING OPTION, JUST AS THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER THINGS IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL FIELD THAT GET LOOKED AT.

WITH THIS CLASS I ISSUE WE'RE REALLY STUCK BECAUSE, ESSENTIALLY, I STILL CAN GO AND MODEL INCREMENTS, AND I CAN STILL MODEL NAQS, BUT FOR AIR QUALITY RELATED VALUES THE COST OF DOING THAT IS JUST ALMOST PROHIBITIVE. AND I'D JUST LIKE TO HAVE THAT THROWN OUT THAT, YOU KNOW, IF A REGULATION IS OUT THERE, IT OUGHT TO BE USABLE AT THE FRONT END SO I COULD ADVISE MANAGEMENT WHETHER IT WOULD WORK OR NOT.

MS. WEGMAN: IF I COULD JUST ASK YOU, THE COST IS PROHIBITIVE -- THE COST IS PROHIBITIVE BECAUSE IT'S NOT CLEAR UP FRONT, AND YOU HAVE TO KEEP GOING BACK, OR --

MR. LUND: RIGHT NOW --

MS. WEGMAN: -- YOU KNOW WHAT THE AQRV IS?

MR. LUND: RIGHT NOW I'M RUNNING A MEASA-PUFF. I'M TRYING TO SET UP A MEASA-PUFF TO DO SOME MEASA-PUFF MODELING FOR A FACILITY AND FOR NO-LIFE FOR TWELVE SERVICE STATIONS, SIX UPPER AIR STATIONS -- GETTING ALL THE DATA, REDUCING THE DATA, Q.A.-ING THE DATA, PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER IN A FORMAT THAT THE MODEL WOULD EVEN USE HAS JUST TAKEN MONTHS UPON MONTHS OF EFFORT ON OUR PART.

AND CP&L IS IN A POSITION -- APPARENTLY, BECAUSE I'M DOING IT -- TO ABSORB THAT EFFORT, BUT I CAN'T SEE THAT HAPPENING FOR MOST PSD CLIENTS. IF I -- I USED TO WORK IN CONSULTING, AND IF I COSTED OUT MY TIME FOR THE EFFORT THAT I'M GOING THROUGH RIGHT NOW, IT WOULD JUST BE -- IT WOULD BE $100,000. THIS $50,000 I HEARD IS ALMOST -- THAT'S GREAT, YOU KNOW? I WOULD TEND TO AGREE TO SOME OTHER PEOPLE AND ANSWER "THAT'S A DEAL." AND, PLUS, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE CERTAIN CERTAINTY.

AND I THINK INDUSTRY, IN GENERAL, WORKS -- WOULD WORK BETTER WITH THIS CERTAINTY THAT A REGULATION COULD PROVIDE. RIGHT NOW THE CLASS I ISSUE IS OUT THERE; THE CERTAINTY ISN'T THERE. SO -- THAT'S THE END OF MY COMMENT.

MR. RAHER: KAREN, I THINK YOU OUGHT TO GO BACK AND TAKE A LOOK THAT NEW JERSEY PROGRAM, THE $50,000 A PERMIT. WE MAY HAVE RESOLVED THIS ISSUE.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC?

MS. MALKIN: I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY. THAT'S A FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE PROGRAM THAT WAS SET UP FOR, YOU KNOW FOR A SPECIFIC CLASS I AREA WHERE THERE SOME SPECIFIC RESEARCH NEEDS. YOU KNOW, AND WE'RE -- THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF RESEARCHES TO EXTORTION AND SO FORTH, AND THAT IS NOT AT ALL WHAT WE'RE ABOUT. I MEAN OUR JOB IS TO PROTECT THE CLASS I AREAS, AND IT IS HARD TO DO WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION, AND YET YOU CAN SEE EFFECTS. AND WE ALL HAVE EYES. WE CAN GO OUT THERE. WE CAN, YOU KNOW, SEE THE MOTTLING ON THE VEGETATION. WE CAN SEE THE VISIBILITY IMPAIRMENT.

BUT, YOU KNOW, THAT INTUITIVE OR VISUAL KNOWLEDGE DOESN'T TELL US, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE EXACT POLLUTANT LOADING IS THAT CAUSED THAT. SO, YOU KNOW. --

MR. RAHER: WELL, I THINK SOME OF THESE GENTLEMEN ARE ATTEMPTING TO SAY THAT THEY DON'T KNOW HOW THEY CAN INDIVIDUALLY CARRY IT. YOU'RE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND YOU CAN'T CARRY IT. AND I THINK THE REFERENCE WHETHER WE CREDIT $50,000 OR NOT, I THINK THAT REFERENCE IS TO TRY TO DEVELOP A PROGRAM THAT SOMEHOW, AS A NATIONAL ASSET, IS NATIONALLY PROTECTED RATHER THAN LOOKING AT INDIVIDUAL SOURCES AS THEY GO THROUGH A PERMIT PROCESS TO ATTEMPT TO ADDRESS.

AND I THINK THAT IS WHAT NEW JERSEY HAS SAID, IN A SENSE, THAT THIS IS A WAY TO DO THAT, AND I JUST COMMEND EVERYBODY. WE MAY LAUGH AT THIS. WE MAY LOOK AT IT. BUT, YOU KNOW, LET'S -- WE'RE TRYING TO BE CREATE HERE. A FACA DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO RECOMMEND SOMETHING THAT WE ALL KNOW IS INTUITIVELY CORRECT. MAYBE SOMEONE JUST OUT OF THE AUDIENCE HAS SAID TO US A PROGRAM THAT COULD WORK, AND I DON'T KNOW IF NUMBER IS $50,000 OR IF IT'S $60,000 OR IF IT'S EVEN POSSIBLE, BUT I CERTAINLY WOULDN'T SUGGEST THAT THIS AGENCY NOT LOOK AT IT WHEN THEY GO BACK.

AND AS ANOTHER FEDERAL AGENCY AND AS THE OTHER FEDERAL LAND MANAGERS HERE, I WOULD ASK YOU TO DO THE SAME THING IN YOUR MANAGEMENT BECAUSE I THINK IT'S AN INTERESTING CONCEPT THAT SOMEONE SITTING OUT THERE ALL DAY LONG LISTENING TO US HAS COME TO.

YES, SIR?

MR. NIZAKA: THANK YOU. MY NAME IS MARK NIZAKA. I REPRESENT THE PRINTING INDUSTRY THROUGH A GROUP KNOWN AS THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION BOARD OF THE GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRIES. TWO -- A COMMENT OR A CLARIFYING QUESTION AND THEN ONE FURTHER QUESTION.

I THINK I HEARD YOU SAY A FEW MINUTES AGO THAT YOU WOULD TRY TO COORDINATE THE EFFORTS OF THIS FACA WITH THE OTHER FACA, WHICH HAS BEEN CONVENED ON THE REGIONAL HAZE, FINE PARTICULATE, AND OZONE. DID I HEAR THAT CORRECTLY?

MS. WEGMAN: UH-HUH (YES). YES.

MR. NIZAKA: OKAY, THANK YOU. ALTHOUGH I ASSUME THAT THAT FACA HAS JUST RECENTLY BEEN CONVENED AND IS NOT NEARLY AS FAR ALONG AS THESE EFFORTS, CAN YOU GIVE ME A LITTLE FURTHER EXPLANATION AS TO HOW THAT COORDINATION MIGHT TAKE PLACE?

MS. WEGMAN: WELL, THAT FACA WAS CONVENED EARLIER THIS YEAR, AND IT'S TRYING TO MOVE FAIRLY QUICKLY, ACTUALLY, ON PARTICULATE MATTER AND OZONE. PAT RAHER IS CLOSELY INVOLVED WITH IT AS, I THINK, SOME OTHER PEOPLE MAY BE. AND WHAT I WILL DO, MY OFFICE -- THE OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS -- IS BASICALLY RUNNING BOTH OF THESE FACAS AND SO I WILL GO BACK AND SPEAK WITH THE FOLKS MORE CLOSELY INVOLVED WITH THE PARTICULATE AND OZONE FACA AND SEE WHAT WE CAN DO TO COORDINATE US.

AS DAN SAYS, HE ACTUALLY -- DAN DEROECK IS INVOLVED IN BOTH THIS AND THE OTHER NSR ISSUES, SO IT'S NOT AS THOUGH WE HAVE A COMPLETE WALL OF SEPARATION HERE. WE ARE TRYING TO DO SOME COORDINATION, BUT I WILL BE SURE TO GO BACK AND DO THAT.

MR. NIZAKA: THANK YOU. THE OTHER QUESTION IS THIS. AN OBSERVATION FIRST AND THEN THE QUESTION, I GUESS. IN LOOKING AROUND THE TABLE AND OBSERVING WHERE YOU ALL ARE FROM, THE GROUPS YOU REPRESENT, IT SEEMS THAT THERE'S A LARGE FOCUS HERE ON LARGER INDUSTRIES AND NOT A LOT OF REPRESENTATION FROM SMALLER BUSINESS GROUPS.

THE PRINTING INDUSTRY IS MADE PRINCIPALLY PRIMARILY OF SMALL BUSINESSES. I SERVE ON FACA THAT'S BEEN CONVENED UNDER THE COMMON SENSE INITIATIVE FOR THE PRINTING INDUSTRY, AND WE FOCUS A LOT IN THAT FACA PROCESS ON SMALL BUSINESS ISSUES, ALTHOUGH WE ALSO HAVE SOME VERY LARGE PRINTERS REPRESENTED IN THE FACA AS WELL.

I GUESS THE QUESTION I HAVE HERE FOR YOU TODAY IS HOW DO YOU PROPOSE OR WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO TO TRY TO STREAMLINE THE PROCESS FOR SMALL BUSINESSES THAT WILL INEVITABLY BE CAUGHT UP IN THE REVISIONS TO THE THRESHOLDS WHICH ARE MANDATED BY THE 1990 ACT?

IT'S SOMETHING WE'RE STRUGGLING WITH IN OUR FACA, AND, FRANKLY, SEVERAL OF US FROM OUR FACA ATTENDED THESE MEETINGS THE PAST TWO DAYS FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRYING TO BECOME FAMILIAR WITH WHAT YOU WERE DOING HERE TO SEE HOW, PERHAPS, WHAT YOU'RE DOING MIGHT RELATE TO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO THROUGH OUR CSI FACA PROCESS.

MS. WEGMAN: YEAH, I WOULD SAY WE HAVEN'T INVESTIGATED ANY SPECIFIC PROVISIONS FOR SMALL BUSINESSES. THIS GROUP HAS BEEN IN BUSINESS FOR, AS WE'VE SAID, FOUR YEARS, AND WE HAVE TRIED TO GET COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. THE PROPOSAL, OF COURSE, HAS JUST BEEN OUT ABOUT A MONTH OR SO, AND WE ARE VERY INTERESTED IN COMMENTS FROM YOU ON IT.

WE'D BE HAPPY TO MEET TO TALK ABOUT IT, BUT I WOULD SAY THE COMMENT PROCESS ON THIS RULE WOULD BE THE VEHICLE FOR DOING IT. I MEAN ANY SUGGESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE FOR HOW WE MIGHT DO OTHER THINGS FOR SMALL BUSINESS. WE -- I MEAN THIS IS A NATIONAL RULE, AND WE HADN'T INTENDED TO DEVELOP SPECIFIC REVISIONS FOR SMALL BUSINESS.

MR. NIZAKA: OKAY. WELL, WE WILL BE SUBMITTING WRITTEN COMMENTS BEFORE THE CONCLUSION OF YOUR COMMENT PERIOD, BUT THANK YOU.

MS. WEGMAN: OKAY.

MR. RAHER: ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC?

ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS? LYDIA, I THINK -- THAT'S RIGHT. THAT'S RIGHT. I THINK, YOU KNOW, IN THE TWO DAYS -- BOTH AT THE HEARING AND IN THE COMMENTS TODAY -- YOU'VE SEEN BOTH A NEED FOR UNDERSTANDING AND ADDRESSING SOME OF THE ISSUES. I THINK ALL THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS HERE WANT TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE WRITTEN COMMENTS AND AS MUCH SUPPORT -- NEW JERSEY IS GOING TO BE PROVIDING SOME INFORMATION TO US ALL. THAT PROBABLY SHOULD GO IN THE DOCKET --

MS. WEGMAN: YEAH.

MR. RAHER: -- FOR EVERYBODY TO HAVE AVAILABLE AND TO REVIEW AND COMMENT AND COORDINATE ACTIVITIES. AND, OBVIOUSLY, AS A FACA, WE'RE PREPARED TO PROVIDE WHATEVER FURTHER ASSISTANCE WE CAN TO YOU.

MR. SOLOMON: I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT TO THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AT LEAST THAT THE COMMENT PERIOD WILL BE CLOSING OCTOBER 21ST SO THAT INFORMATION OR COMMENTS THAT YOU WANT US TO CONSIDER DURING THE RULEMAKING, PLEASE HAVE IT TO THE DOCKET BEFORE THAT DATE.

MS. WEGMAN: AND I'LL ALSO NOTE, I MEAN, WE REMAIN AVAILABLE TO MEET WITH PEOPLE IF FURTHER CLARIFICATIONS OR DISCUSSIONS ARE DESIRED.

I WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY ONCE AGAIN FOR PUTTING THE TIME AND EFFORT INTO WORKING WITH US ON THE NSR RULEMAKING. AT THIS POINT I DON'T KNOW WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO NEED ANOTHER MEETING OF THIS GROUP, AND I'M NOT GOING TO SAY FOR CERTAIN THAT WE DON'T NOR WILL I SAY THAT WE DO. I THINK WHAT WE'D LIKE TO DO IS COMPLETE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PROCESS AND SEE WHAT WE HAVE. IT IS NOT INCONCEIVABLE TO ME THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO CALL A MEETING TO GO OVER SOME IDEAS WE HAVE ON HOW TO CHANGE THE PACKAGE, BUT, AS I SAY, AT THIS POINT I DON'T WANT TO MAKE ANY COMMITMENTS EITHER WAY. I'LL JUST NOTE THAT WE MIGHT TO HAVE ANOTHER MEETING OF THE GROUP.

I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE ALL THE TIME EVERYBODY HAS TAKEN TO GIVE US YOUR FEEDBACK YESTERDAY AND TODAY, AND I KNOW WE'LL GET A GREAT DEAL MORE IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT -- WHEN THE WRITTEN COMMENTS COME IN.

AGAIN, IF ANYBODY DOES WANT TO MEET INDIVIDUALLY, WE CAN DO THAT AND PREFERABLY DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, AND THANKS VERY MUCH FOR ALL YOUR TIME.

MR. RAHER: WE WILL BE PUTTING ON ERNIE ROSENBERG AND DAVID HAWKINS' COMPUTER THE -- ON THEIR CALENDARS THE FIVE-YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF THE FACA. SO FIVE YEARS FROM NOW WE CAN ALL COME BACK AND HAVE A CELEBRATION, AND, HOPEFULLY, THE RULE WILL BE OVER.

THANK YOU.

* * * * *

ADJOURNED AT 3:19 P.M.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

COUNTY OF DURHAM

C E R T I F I C A T E

I, SHARON ANDREWS, CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER, CERTIFIED VERBATIM REPORTER, CERTIFIED LEGAL VIDEO SPECIALIST, AND NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, DULY COMMISSIONED, QUALIFIED AND AUTHORIZED TO ADMINISTER OATHS, AND TO TAKE AND CERTIFY HEARINGS DO HEREBY CERTIFY:

THAT ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1996, THE NSR REFORM SUBCOMMITTEE HERING WAS HELD ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS, AS NOTICED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER AT VOL. 61, NO. 162, PAGE 43030, ON AUGUST 20, 1996;

THAT THE FOREGOING PROCEEDINGS WERE REPORTED BY ME AND THEREAFTER REDUCED TO TYPEWRITTEN FORM UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION, AND THAT THE FOREGOING 219 PAGES CONSTITUTE A TRUE AND ACCURATE TRANSCRIPT OF THOSE PROCEEDINGS TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY AND UNDERSTANDING;

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I HAVE HERETO AFFIXED MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL THIS ____ DAY OF ________, 1996.

SHARON ANDREWS, CCR, CVR, CLVS

MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:

DECEMBER 9, 1996