P.1 

OAR Box 1781 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

100) IV-C-14 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/29/2008 10:46:22 AM Sheet 100 of 142 
p ? 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

JUL I 2 1999 

A-^o-37 

ST-C- 14-

( 

Mr. Joe J. Mayhew 

Vice President 

Regulatory and Technical Affairs 

Chemical Manufacturers Association 

1300 Wilson Boulevard 

Arlington, Virginia 22209 

Dear Mr. Mayhew: 

This is in response to your letter of June 18,1999 that proposed that the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) proceed on a two-track approach to promulgating reforms to the new 

source review (NSR) regulations. You suggested that EPA promulgate a limited rule covering 

issues that are less controversial and repropose a final rule or issue a draft final rule that details 

EPA's current deliberations on the more contentious applicability issues. I also note in your 

attachment a recommendation to essentially abandon the proposed reform provisions relative to 

Class I area protection and rely on the pre-reform provisions along with the recently promulgated 

regional haze regulations. You indicated a date certain for final promulgation of outstanding 

issues should also be announced in the Federal Register notice. You suggest this approach would 

provide all stakeholders more time to reach closure on the outstanding issues but maintain a level 

of pressure that would force the process to an expeditious conclusion. 

The time that your members have invested in this process is greatly appreciated. As you 

know, EPA is committed to bringing the NSR reform effort to closure in 1999 after seven years 

of meetings and discussions with stakeholders. Despite the widely divergent views expressed in 

the public meeting held on February 2-3,1999 on NSR applicability, we nevertheless have 

considered all stakeholders' written proposals. Unfortunately, there still appears to be a number 

of unresolved concerns and no single approach clearly preferred by all affected parties. 

The EPA is committed to the goals stated in the reform proposal of eliminating excessive 

complexity, burden, and delays from NSR permitting without sacrificing environmental 

protection. We are now in the process of evaluating the recent submittals and the ensuing 

comments by the §tate representatives and others. The EPA NSR reform team is formulating

 ; 

recommendations on the numerous NSR reform issues based on all the information that has been 

submitted, including comments on the 1996 proposal, the 1998 notice of availability, and the 

most recent submittals and comments. Over the next few weeks, we will decide the course of 

action for this package. | 

u L. t COHCURRENCES 3E 

SYMBOL 

SURNAME} 

OATS 

-ZkJs. T 

to 

> 

A 

ERA Form 1320-1A (1/90) 

jnfcfc 05 

l(sfc>T 72 ••••«•••••#•••••# ••*•••••••••••«*• ••••••»«•••••••••< »•••««••««««•••••• 

PrbtUdmRtcycUdPaptr OFFICIAL FILE COPY 
P.3 71 

I 

We will give your letter careful consideration in this process. It will also be placed in the 

NSR reform docket along with the other submittals relative to the February 2-3,1999 public 

meeting. We will notify you if another public stakeholder meeting is planned. Thank you again 

for the Chemical Manufacturers Association's interest in seeing this project to a successful 

conclusion. 

Sincerely, 

/i<rf- r$M*fr€Ayi& 

Robert Perciasepe 

Assistant Administrator 

OAR/OAQPS/ITPID/IIG:DCrumpler:PFinch:RTP(MD-12):919-541-5281 

Control # OAR-9900825 Due: 7/2/99 File:f\finch\iig\cma2.wpd 
P.4 

N 06/22/99 TUE ,05:38 FAI 

CM 

8)003 

m 

CHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION 

June 18,1999 

Mr. Robert Perciasepe 

Assistant Administrator 

Office of Air and Radiation 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

401 M Street SW 

Washington, DC 20460 

Dear Bob and John: 

# % • 

Mr. John Seitz fy*?*T' 

Director YM/A^ 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

Recently representatives firom CMA met with John to suggest a way that you could proceed with the New 

Source Review rulemaking onyour current schedule without cutting off the promising discussions among 

industry, the state and local regulators and environmentalists. We are confident that continued 

discussions could lead to a proposal or proposals for either major reforms in the NSR program, 

alternatives to it, or both. We urge you to accept the approach discussed in the attachments to dus letter 

and not cut off the opportunity to improve tbe broken NSR process. Since we spoke with John, many 

other industiy groups have decided to support the approach CMA suggested. 

We understand your desire to get mis process behind you. While NSR discussions have continued for 

years, the recent commitment on all sides demonstrates a renewed focus that will provide real change and 

real progress toward revamping the NSR program. We should not throw this golden opportunity away. 

The new approaches being developed could result in improvements in the emission controls on many 

major sources while avoiding the delays, costs, uncertainties and waste of governmental resources of the 

existing program. To accomplish this change, however, we should not be so focused on a fixed date to 

push something out of the system at the expense of tnie reform. 

t 

i 

When we met, John posed a question that we recognize is critical: If there is no imminent threat that EPA 

will promulgate a rule based oh the 1996 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and the 1998 Notice of 

Availability, what would keep the momentum in the current negotiations? We think you' can keep the 

pressure on negotiations by promulgating a limited rule as proposed during our last meeting. At the same 

time you could either issue the rule you are now developing as a proposal or simply release it as a draft 

final rule with an expression of your intent to promulgate it by some date certain several months in the 

future.1 (Your office has previously used the device of issuing a draft final rule, in lieu of a reproposaL) 

Since all of the interest groups; would certainly not agree on all of the proposed elements, the pressure 

would remain to drive the negotiations to closure. This approach would also have the virtue of not 

wasting any of the efforts that EPA's staff has already made in preparation of a rulemaking package. 

We very much want to bring NSR reform to a positive conclusion with real improvements, environmental 

benefits and not a new round of conflict. Please give careful consideration to mis proposal that will keep 

the progress going. If you have questions please contact Ted Cromwell, Director of Air Programs, at 

(703)741-5246. 

1300 WILSON BLVD., ARLINGTON, VA 22209 • TELEPHONE 703-741-5000 • FAX 703-741-6000 

Vice President, 

Regulatory & Technical Afips 

iSjResponsiWeCare* 

T f f AMGeGomnA 

3 
P.5 

06/22/99 TUE 05:38 FAI / ©004 

May 25,1999 

PSD/NSR Reform: 

A Two-Track Solution 

In recent months, many people in industry, environmental groups and the state and local agencies 

have been expending a tremendous amount of effort in trying to reach consensus on genuine 

reforms to the New Source Review program. EPA staff have also been working hard, talking to 

these interest groups to help move the process along while continuing to prepare a final 

rulemaking package based, as we understand it, on the 1996 NPRM and the 1998 Notice of 

Availability. Unfortunately, these parallel efforts seem to be working at cross-purposes. We 

have a suggestion that we believe could harmonize both efforts, preserve EPA resources and still 

allow for a significant overhaul of the NSR program. 

The discussions among the three industiy groups (utilities, complex manufacturing and the PAL 

group) and regulators need more time to develop consensus and to better integrate the interests of 

the Federal Land Managers. This can be allowed while EPA also meets its legal obligations and 

commitment to completing the rulemaking this year. 

Most of the regulatory language proposed in 1996 does not involve the most contentious issues 

in the rulemaking. Rather, it contains provisions codifying changes made in the 1990 Clean Air 

Act Amendments, housekeeping matters and other noncontroversial changes to the regulations. 

Naturally, the preambles to the two notices were largely devoted to the controversial issues, but 

these issues accounted for relatively little of the language in the proposed changes to the actual 

language of the regulations. We have concerns, as expressed in our comments on the 1996 

NPRM, but we nevertheless suggest that EPA promulgate the non-controversial provisions. EPA 

could also meet its legal obligation to address the applicability issue by simply finding, based on 

the record, that no change to the regulations is needed at this time. Once EPA has done this, the 

groups outside of EPA can continue to work toward resolution of the more controversial NSR 

issues (rm while the drain on EPA staff is greatly reduced. Of course, the degree of EPA 

participation is entirely up to the Agency, but it would have the option of simply tracking the 

talks and asking for briefings when it wanted them. 

This approach would disappoint many since nearly every group of interests has something in the 

NPRM from which it would benefit. However, nearly every group of interests also has 

something that it would absolutely not want to see promulgated in either tiie 1996 proposal or the 

1998 NOA, or both. Since EPA's initially proposed changes will go well beyond merely 

codifying NSR per the 1990 amendments, EPA would be significantly changing the status quo if 

it pursued them, and the provisions that the various groups find unacceptable would drive the 

post-promulgation process. In short, there is no supportive constituency for a rule based on the 

two notices, with the possible exception of the FLMs. The promulgation of such a controversial 

rule would surely result in a continued, even increased demand on the agency's resources. 

This unfortunate outcome can be avoided. By promulgating a streamlined package of NSR 

changes that leave the controversial, non-mandatory issues for further discussion, EPA can 

achieve near term completion of the legally necessary changes to the NSR rules and maintain the 

prospect for truly refonning this program—increasing control while reducing the disruption to 

industry and the unproductive expenditure of permitting resources at the state, local and federal 

levels. 

< 

4 -

NSR 2-iraek fix OS2599.«loc 
P.6 

s

 06/22/99 TUE, 05:39 FAI ®005 

. S* 

CONTROVERSIA L PROVISION S NO T 

INCLUDE D IN 

CMAs PROPOSE D CHANGE S 

TO 

EPAS 199 6 REDLIN E 

Language Relating to Class I and Federal Land Managers 

Reference: 40CFRpart 52.21 sections b2(iii)(H), b3(vi)(C). b23(iii). b24. b35, b39-b42, m2. 

n3, ol,pl-p7 

40CFRpart 51.166 sections b2(iii)(H). b23fiii), b24, b32, b38-b41, m2. n3*. n4-

n5, ol,p2-p7 

Recommendation: Remove section or part of section that address Class I and/or Federal 

Land Managers, and where applicable maintain original language. 

Note: In 40CFR part 51.166 and 52.21: sections b2(iii)(H), b3(vi)(C). Recommend 

referencing regional haze, section 51.301(a), and deferring language relating to 

Class I. This is consistent with the language in 51.165 al(v)(C)(8). 

•Additions 

10 Year Qean Facility PAL Exemption 

Reference: 40CFRpart 52Jl and 51.166section b2(iii)(M)l- b2(iii)(M)2 

Recommendation: Defer this section until a later date. 

WEPCO 

Reference: 40CFRpart 52.21 section b21(vi), 

40CFRpart 51.166 section b21(vi) 

40CFRpart 51.165 section al(xii)(F) 

Recommendation: Defer these sections. 

Net Emissions Increase of a Major Stationary Source 

Reference: 40CFRpart 52.21 section and part 51.166 b23(iii) 

Recommendation: Defer this section. 

Pollution Control Project. 

Reference: 40CFRpart 52.21 section b32[i-ii], part 51.166 section b31[i-ii] 

Recommendation: Maintain the original language and add 40CFR part 51.165 section 

al(xxv)(A)(6) on pollution prevention. 

Reference: 40CFRpart 51.165 section al(xxv)(A)(l-5] 

Recommendation: Reinstate the original language, section al(xxxv) and delete sections, 

[al(xxvXaXD - al(xxv)(aX2)]. 

PAL 

Reference: 40CFRpart 52.21 sections b45-b46 qndxl-x5 

40CFRpart 51.166 sections b44-b45 and ul-u5 

40CFRpart 51.165 sections al(xxx)-al(xxxi) and a9(i)-a9(C) 

Recommendation: Defer these sections. 

CHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION 

1300 WILSON BLVD • ARLINGTON, VA • 22209 

PHONE: 703.741.S240 • FAX: 703.741.6240 

5 
06/22/99 TUE 05:39 FAI 

. . . • .1 • 

P.7 

©006 ' 

- 2 - June 18,1999 

Top Down BACT 

Reference: 40CFRpart 52.21 section n2(iii)-n2(iy) and part 51.165 section n2(iii)-n2(iv) 

Recommendations: Maintain original language and defer additions. 

BACT 

Reference: 40CFRpart 52.21 sections v4-v9 and part 51.166 sections s4-t. 

Recommendation: Defer EPA additions and maintain the original language. 

LAER 

Reference: 40CFRpart 51.165 sections a6(ii)(B)-a6(iii)(F) anda8(v)-a8(x) 

Recommendation: Defer EPA's suggested additions. 

Air Quality 

Reference: 40CFR part 51.166 section q4[ii-iii] 

Recommendation: Defer additions. 

Note: Air Quality also mentioned in 40CFR part 5221 sections pl-p7 and part 51.166 

sections p2-p7 along with language regarding Federal Land Managers and Class I. 

Recommend maintaining these sections. 

Innovative Control Technology 

Reference: 40CRFRpart 52.21 sections v and vl-v2 and part 51.166 sections sl-s2 ands3. 

Recommendation: Change "Undemonstrated Technology" to Undemonstrated Technology 

or Innovative Control Teehnology. Defer EPA's suggested additions and maintain 

the original language. 

Editorial Changes 

Reference: 4&CFRpart 51.165 sections al(vi)(C)(l). al(vi)(C)(2), al(vi)(E)(3). al(xii)(E), 

al(xxi), a3W(B), a3Cii)(G).a5Ciii) 

40CFRpart 51.166sections b2(ii)(L)(i). b21ftii), b32,j6,p3,p9(iii),plO0ii). q6 

Change reviewing authority to permitting authority 

Reference: 40CFR part 52.21 sections b21(v), b33, j6, p4, p(7), p(10) 

Change Administrator to permitting authority 

Reference: 40CFRpart 51.165 section al(x)(D) 

Recommendation: Add paragraph b3(iv) from 40CFR part 52.21 and part 51.166 for 

consistency. 

Reference: 4QCFRpart 51.166section b2(iii)(F) 

Recommendation: Delete the words "shall not include" to keep this paragraph consistent 

whh40CFRpart 51.165 sectional(vXCX6). 

\o 
P.8 

•'» 06/22/99 TUEA05:40 FAI ©007 

- 3 - June 18,1999 

• Reference: 40CFRpart 51.165 section al(v)(C)(8) 

Recommendation: Change the words "Tbe Act" to this section, to be consistent with 40CFR 

part 51.166 and 52.21 section b2(iii)(H). 

• Reference: 40CFR part 51.165 section al(xxvii) 

Recommendation: Add "Designating an application complete for puipose of permit 

processing does not preclude the reviewing authority from requesting or accepting 

any additional infoimation", from 40CRF part 51.166. 

• Reference: 40CFRpart 51.165 section al(v)[D-G], A3(ii)C[5-6] 

Recommendation: Delete Alternative I and maintain Altemative 2. 

7