2.  We met with EPA last week to get their guidance on what we must do to get SIP approval for Section 107.  We were informed teat there is a “strong” rumor that EPA is thinking about a SIP call for affirmative defenses for excess emissions.  We told them that we knew that implementation was an issue and we would address that.  And we said that we agreed with much of the 1999 Herman guidance, but differed on details.

3.  Here are few of the things we heard: ◦ The defense is not operative if a violation of NAAQS or PSD increment occurs ◦ A rigorous demonstration of non exceedance is not anticipated.  Look at the nearest ambient monitor for the pollutant of concern, without regard to distance, wind direction, etc.  If the monitor show no problems with NAAQS or increment, the demonstration can be based on that look.  If the monitor shows a possible problem, more investigation would be warranted.

4.  The maintenance issue is not approvable.  We brought to them 2 scenarios. 1.The case of a continuously operating production unit, pot line, glass manufacturing, etc. Their response was to modify permits, under -081, to create alternate emissions limits. 2.In the case of an upset during maintenance activities, those should be allowable under the upset provisions. We can say that in the Upsets subsection.  The rest is close to SIP approval, so should we force a SIP call on maintenance?

5.  Contemporaneous record keeping is not defined so we can define it as within 12 hours (?) of the start of the event.

6.  We were asked to add “That the excess emissions were not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance.” to the startup and shutdown subsection of 107.

7.  We were asked to add “Repairs were made in an expeditious fashion when the operator knew or should have known that applicable emission limitations were being exceeded.” to the Upsets subsection of the rule.