Meeting Summary

PSD Reform Workgroup

San Francisco, California

March 2-3, 2004

Participants

Dan Johnson – WESTAR / David Collier – OR / Frank Van Haren - WA
John Bunyak – NPS / Susan Johnson – NPS / Rich Fisher – USFS
Mary Anderson – ID / Cindy Cody – EPA/8 / Barbara Roberts – EPA/HQ
Meredith Bond – FWS / Colleen Cripps – NV / Kevin Golden – EPA/8
Dave Svendsgaard – EPA / Scott Bohning – EPA/9 / Roger Kohn – EPA/9
Mary Uhl – NM / Terry O’Clair – ND / Cheryl Heying – UT
Dave Klemp – MT / Regg Olsen – UT / Mahbubul Islam – EPA/10
Bill Harnett – EPA/HQ / Bob Lebens – WESTAR / Alvin Chun – EPA/9
Gerardo Rios – EPA/9

Agenda review and meeting objectives

Alvin Chun led a group discussion on the meeting objectives and what participants hope to get out of the meeting. Some common themes included closure on the list of issues that will be addressed by the workgroup, closure on the work plan and timeline, and focus on issues.

Updates

Bill Harnett provided updates on EPA’s NSR-related initiatives, and Terry O’Clair discussed a recently signed agreement between the state of North Dakota and EPA related to the implementation of North Dakota’s PSD program.

Initiative goal, guiding principles and list of issues/questions

An ad hoc workgroup formed to review and discuss the preliminary list of questions and principles from the Tempe meeting presented their recommendations for changes, additions and revisions. Their work included preliminary recommendations for some of the issues, including areas of agreement and the views of different parties when agreement could not be reached. Where there were different perceptions of what the question or principle meant, the group suggested clarifying language.

After considerable discussion, the full workgroup agreed on the guiding principles that will be used in the evaluation of recommended changes to the PSD program, and to a final list of questions/issues that should be addressed in our recommendations to reform the PSD program.

Finally, the workgroup reviewed and finalized the goal of this initiative as follows:

The goal of the PSD Reform Initiative is to develop recommended changes to EPA rules that implement the Prevention of Significant Deterioration provisions of the Clean Air Act (Title I, Part C), changes that will create a comprehensive program to manage and protect PSD increments and Class I air quality related values (AQRVs) as resources. The changes should establish a practical program that eliminates disincentives in the current rules which are discouraging state and local agencies from addressing cumulative increment consumption and Class I AQRV protection.

Approaches to reform the PSD program

The workgroup agreed to initially develop two different sets of recommendations. In both cases, evaluation of options will be based on the extent to which the options are consistent with the guiding principles. The workgroup will strive for consensus recommendations, but in instances where consensus cannot be reached, alternative views will be included in the workgroup’s recommendation package.

In general, the two approaches that will be evaluated are 1) refinements to the current program, and 2) implementing PSD using a new approach. In the first case, the workgroup will develop recommendations based on implementing the PSD program within its current framework. In concept, these recommendations will address the list of questions/issues as “process improvements”, or refinements to the current PSD approach. In the second case, the workgroup will develop a new framework, conceptually asking what we might do if we could make a fresh start at implementing PSD.

Work plan and timeline

The workgroup split into two groups to develop work plans and timelines. In both cases, recommendations should be completed on the policy questions by the first week of September, to facilitate review by the WESTAR air directors (tentatively meeting in late September) and, the STAPPA/ALAPCO membership (scheduled to meet in mid-October). A face-to-face meeting will be held in late June to coordinate and share preliminary results. Preliminary dates are June 29-30 in Denver, and September 8-9, place TBD.

Notes from the “PSD Fundamentals” group, which will be developed into a work plan and timeline over the next few weeks, are presented below:

PSD Fundamentals Work Plan (3-3 draft)

Purpose:

  • Recommend solutions to Issues/Questions within framework of existing program
  • Will include minor changes, as opposed to major restructuring of existing regulations

Work Products:

  • Recommendations and rationale for addressing Issues/Questions

Process:

  • Establish Work Group and sub-group membership and 3 sub-group leaders
  • Entire Work Group discuss Definitions – first call
  • Sub groups:
  • Emissions Inventory
  • Methods of analysis of increment consumption, AQRV and Periodic Review
  • Increment exceedances and inter-jurisdictional coordination
  • Full Work Group must include states, EPA, FLMs; sub-groups do not
  • Consensus desirable, but may not be achievable in all cases
  • Minority opinion with alternative recommendations and rationale will be included in report
  • Forward recommendations from sub-groups to full Work Group
  • Written interim recommendations to full PSD Policy Work Group prior to face-to-face meetings
  • Focus on policy issues first, then technical issues

Timeline:

  • Quarterly subcommittee and joint face-to-face meetings
  • June, September (prior to WESTAR business meeting), December, February
  • Bi-weekly conference calls

Resources:

  • Contractor recommendation drafter preferred
  • In absence of contractor, subcommittee and WESTAR staff will produce work products
  • Financial
  • Contractor support
  • State travel support needed ($900/meeting x 4 x number of state employees)
  • Conference calls (EPA could provide)

Notes from the “New framework” group, which will be developed into a work plan and timeline over the next few weeks, are presented below. Initially, this group includes Susan Johnson, David Collier, Cindy Cody, Cheryl Heying, Bill Harnett, Dave Klemp, Barbara Roberts, Mahbubul Islam, Gerardo Rios, Rich Fisher, and Frank Van Haren.

New framework

  1. So2, PM10 -> 1975 -> 1999/2002 -> state budgets

NO2 -> 1988 – 1999/2002 -> state budgets

  1. 1999/2002 inventories
  • trigger all areas as of 1999/2002
  • trigger areas by permit appl
  • is it back to zero?
  • Can we go to negative or positive starting points?
  • Geographic areas (e.g. reconsidering baseline areas)
  • Should there be criteria (e.g. buffer zone around class I
  1. Any permit program changes
  2. Definition of air quality management function
  • E.g. national increment review
  • Linking to regional modeling
  • How are increment violations dealt with

5. Defining EPA role? And FLM role

+++++++++++++

  1. What areas are triggered currently?
  2. What do state inventories include?
  3. Short term emissions
  4. Mobile
  5. Area
  6. Locations
  7. Are there other frameworks?
  8. Involvement of tribes and others

Work plan

Facilitation support

  • Question what contractors could do for us
  • Just meeting facilitator

Meeting:

  • Bi-weekly conf calls (90 minutes)
  • Call 1
  • Written up framework
  • Report re tribes
  • Other frameworks
  • Meetings end of June, early September
  • Final framework – mid April
  • Final list of questions – mid May
  • Progress report for June meeting (close on status by mid June)
  • Face to face in early September
  • Completion of all work by Feb 2005

Contractual support

  • Administrative: Bill H will seek if EPA can provide
  • Facilitation: EPA to see if they can provide through Regional Offices – continuity important

Closing and Action Items

The meeting adjourned at approximately 3:00. Recapping next steps and action items:

Dan Johnson will prepare a meeting summary and circulate to the PSD mailing list.

Bob Lebens/Kevin Golden will set up first conference call of the PSD Fundamentals group for March 8th, and circulate call in details to the workgroup.

  • Dan Johnson/Dave Svendsgaard will set up and circulate information regarding EPA’s conferencing system.
  • Bob Lebens will set up periodic conference calls for the PSD Fundamentals group, and the sub-groups identified in their work plan.

Dan Johnson will set up 90 minute conference calls for the New Framework group every two weeks, beginning Monday, March 22nd at 1:30 EASTERN time.

Dan Johnson will speak with Bob Gruenig with the National Tribal Environmental Council to solicit suggestions on how/when tribes should be involved in this initiative.

  • Bill Harnett will determine if contractual support to provide the workgroup with administrative assistance might be available through an on-going contract that provides assistance to EPA for their NSR reform initiative.
  • Bill Harnett/Dave Svendsgaard will determine if meeting facilitation support could be provided through EPA Regional Offices.

Dan Johnson will contact Scott Archer to solicit BLM’s participation in the initiative.

PSD Reform Initiative – Guiding Principles

The goal of the PSD Reform Initiative is to develop recommended changes to EPA rules that implement the Prevention of Significant Deterioration provisions of the Clean Air Act (Title I, Part C), changes that will create a comprehensive program to manage and protect PSD increments and AQRVs as resources. The changes should establish a practical program that is eliminates disincentives in the current rules that are discouraging state and local agencies from addressing cumulative increment consumption and Class I AQRV cumulative analysis and protection.

The following is a list of guiding principles that are to be used in developing recommendations for changes to the PSD program.

  1. The PSD reform initiative should evaluate new approaches to implementing PSD in addition to changes to the program as it is currently being implemented.
  1. The reformed PSD program should not impose infeasible requirements on a state or applicant, and should not require the use of data and/or tools that are not available.
  1. The initiative should focus primarily on policy issues, taking into consideration technical issues.
  1. Implementation of new tools and information about how to track increment should not stymie new source review processes nor should permitted sources be penalized. Recommendations should provide a framework for implementation, rather than narrowly defining implementation requirements.
  1. Recommendations should consider source equity when new tools or information (e.g., modeling) indicates that an increment has been exceeded.
  1. The reformed PSD program should be cost effective, cost efficient, and should take into consideration federal, state, and local resource limitations.
  1. The analysis used to track increment should not be so complex as to be a disincentive to do the analysis.
  1. The reformed PSD program should be accurate in evaluating effects on air quality and AQRVs.
  1. Recommendations should address AQRV protection.
  1. Recommendations should take into consideration past work, including NSR Reform recommendations not yet implemented (e.g. significance levels) and FLAG.

List of Issues and Questions to be Addressed in the PSD Reform Initiative

The following is a list of issues and questions that should be addressed in recommendations to EPA on changes needed to the PSD program:

1. Definitions

A.PSD Program

B. Periodic Review (SIP adequacy)

C. Tracking

D. Cause or contribute

E. Increment

  1. Actual emissions (for discussion of actual vs allowable, see 2(D) below)
  2. Adverse AQRV impact

2. Emissions Inventory Issues

A. Which sources are included in the baseline, and which are included in an increment analysis?

B. How are emissions estimated when there are limited data?

C. How should fugitive emissions at major and minor sources and minor, area, and mobile source emissions be addressed in an increment analysis?

D. How should short-term increment calculations be addressed, from both a policy and technical standpoint? When there are different ways of estimating emissions, which one should be used and do they fall within the box so we can decide on our own.

E. How to incorporate natural emissions in baseline?

3. Varying methods of analysis of increment consumption (developing a tiered approach to analysis).

A. Does the statute allow flexibility for the PSD program to be implemented using alternative approaches?

B. What are the differences (if any) between Class I and Class II increments? Is the requirement to protect all time periods or the 2nd highest value (for any short term time frame) of the baseline period?

C. What happens when new technical tools or emissions data becomes available that significantly changes a prior increment analysis (e.g., new model, AP42 factors, met data, etc.)?

D. Should the policy and technical protocol account for increment tracking that may be used as a planning tool vs. using it to monitor and resolve violations? In other words, this question is focused on refinement of the analysis methods for planning vs. increment violations.

E. What role, if any, does monitoring play in increment analysis?

F. What geographic area is used in an increment analysis? (May be different for permit decision and periodic analyses.)

G.How does a state determine that an increment has been exceeded?

  1. How is increment consumption calculated? (i.e. how are model results interpreted in time and space.)
  2. Is there a different way to trigger increment (i.e. increment could be triggered by construction, operation, universal fixed date, etc.). How to incorporate into tracking.

4. What happens when increment consumption exceeds the available increment?

A. How does permitting proceed?

B. How does the state handle the SIP revision? Sixty days for a SIP revision is unrealistic.

  1. How and to what extent may a state use emission reductions since the baseline date expected from national and/or regional measures to address an increment exceedance or to mitigate an adverse impact on AQRVs?
  2. What happens when an increment is exceeded because of minor, area or mobile sources?

5. AQRV issues

A. Is a cumulative AQRV analysis required with a PSD/NSR permit application?

B. What is required when it is determined that an AQRV is adversely impacted (in the permitting and program management context)?

C. How is an AQRV analysis done?

D. Should the PSD program address ozone impact to AQRVs, and if so, how?

6. Inter-jurisdictional Coordination

  1. To what extent should states collaborate when there are interstate impacts?
  2. In states where local governments or tribes have independent authority, yet are responsible for overlapping PSD triggered areas within a state requiring evaluation for increment consumption or where a violation has occurred that needs to be addressed: Who has the responsibility for determining how the modeling should be done? Who should do it? How are violations to be addressed, etc. and how would that coordination occur?
  3. Are FLMs being adequately and timely informed and consulted throughout the PSD process?
  4. What criteria and procedures will EPA use to evaluate increment analysis and periodic review.
  5. What criteria and procedures will FLMs use to evaluate increment analysis and periodic review and AQRV analysis.

Preliminary Draft – do not cite or quote