p.1. 

OAR Box 1781 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

104) IV-C-18 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/29/2008 10:46:23 AM Sheet 104 of 142 
P.2 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

c 

A-^o-57 

iff-c-18 

Honorable Rick Boucher 

House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515-4809 

Dear Congressman Boucher: 

JUL 2 9 

FUO I 5 2C00 

EPA AIR DOCKET 

This is in response to your July 7,1999 letter, in which you raised several issues 

regarding my June 14,1999 letter to you. 

You expressed concern that companies in Virginia have lost production ability due to the 

way the Clean Air Act's New Source Review (NSR) program is being implemented. You stated 

that the production loss occurs when a source applies for pre-construction permits to modify its 

facility, at which time a calculation is made comparing potential production following the 

modification to actual production during a previous window in time. If the source had not 

produced at its permitted potential during this window in time, it would lose the difference 

between that potential permitted level and the actual production level during that period. In order 

to avoid this "use it or lose it" situation, you asked that the NSR regulations be revised to provide 

for the us^ of potential production rather than actual production for purposes of completing the 

emission increase calculation. In addition, you asked that the regulations be revised to allow a 

company to recoup potential production lost during the previous 15-year period. 

As I indicated in my June 14,1999 letter, EPA has proposed regulatory changes and is 

considering suggested revisions to its NSR program. These suggestions include an alternative 

approach for calculating the emission increase associated with a physical change or change in the 

method of operation at an existing facility. One option being considered is to change the 

emission increase calculation by using potential emissions, instead of actual, as the pre-change 

baseline. We are also considering expanding the "baseline" period for determining a source's 

normal level of operation to as much as 10 years preceding a particular change. [See 61 FR 

38250, 38258-60, 38268-70 (July 23,1996).] We have reviewed the public comments associated . 

with these and other proposed rulemaking changes and are now deliberating on the approach to 

be included in the final rulemaking. Your comments have been included in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

EPA:OAQPS:ITPID:nG:DdeROECK:ythorpe:919-541-5593:NCMU:MD-12:7/19/99 

CONTROL NOS. AL-9901577 and AL-9901589 

Coordinated with Region III (Kathleen Henry), OGC (Jone Devine, Greg Foote) 
P.3 

>* 

You also expressed concern that the NSR program, as presently administered, adversely 

affects industry competitiveness. One of tlie statutory purposes of the NSR program is to "insure 

that economic growth will occur in a manner consistent with the preservation of existing clean 

air resources." To that end, we have entered into direct dialogue with various industry 

stakeholders, as well as State/local officials and environmental stakeholders, as part of the NSR 

Reform process to better understand their concerns and ideas regarding improvements to the 

existing NSR regulations. Industry, for example, has indicated the need to be able to make 

timely changes and expansions to its existing production ability in order to compete in a global 

market. We plan to address this and other relevant concerns in the upcoming NSR Reform 

rulemaking. 

I appreciate this opportunity to be of service and trust that this additional information will 

be helpful to you. I believe the NSR Reform process will address many of the concerns you have 

raised. In the meantime, if you have additional questions regarding implementation of the 

current NSR program at any specific companies in the Commonwealth of Virginia, I urge you to 

contact Judith Katz, Director of the Air Protection Division in our Region UJ office, directly. I 

know that she and her staff would welcorrte the opportunity to be of assistance. 

» Sincerely, 

Robert Perciasepe 

Assistant Administrator 

cc: J. Katz 

2-
P.4 

Controlled Correspondence For 

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION 

CONTROL NO: AL-9901589 ORIG. DUE DATE: 07/23/99 

STATUS: PENDING CORRES. DATE: 07/07/99 

RECEIVED DATE: 07/09/99 

ASSIGNED DATE: 07/12/99 

CLOSED DATE: 

FROM: 

ORG: 

SALUTATION: 

CONSTITUENT: 

BOUCHER FREDERICK-D/VA 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DEAR CONGRESSMAN BOUCHER 

TO: 

TO ORG: 

SUBJECT: 

ASSIGNED: 

NEW SOURCE REVIEW REFORM REGULATIONS/URGE THE EPA TO 

INCORPORATE INTO THE REGULATION LANGUAGE REQUIRING THE USE OF 

POTENTIAL PRODUCTION RATHER THAN ACTUAL PRODUCTION FOR 

PURPOSES OF EMISSIONS INCREASE CALCULATION 

Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards - RTP 

COPIES OF INCOMING PROVIDED TO: OCIR/ELIZABETH CUMMTNGS 

\ 

SIGNATURE: ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR 

OAR COMMENTS: 

AL INSTRUCTIONS: MUST BE RETURNED TO OCIR (1304) 3RD FLOOR WT, FOR REVIEW AND 

DISPATCHING. INCLUDE "HARD" COPY OF SIGNED REPLY FOR 

CONGRESSIONAL FILES (AL). DO NOT DATE LETTER. 

OAR INSTRUCTIONS: PREPARE REPLY FOR THE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR'S SIGNATURE. 

|Lead 

Assigned 

OAQPS 

Date Assigned 

07/12/99 

Code/Status 

ACTION 

Date Completed by 

Assignee 

-

Date Returned to 

OAR: 

-

(Untitled) 

3 
P.5 

RICK BOUCHER 

9TH DISTRICT, VIRGINIA 

COMMERCE 

SUBCOMMITTEES: 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS. TRADE AND 

CONSUMER PROTECTION 

ENERGY AND POWER 

JUDICIARY 

SUBCOMMITTEE: 

COURTS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 

ASSISTANT WHIP 

Congress of tfje ZHniteb States 

$ou£fe ol ftepreaentattoefii 

July 7, 1999 

WASHINGTON OFFICE: 

2329 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING 

WASHINGTON. OC 20515-4609 

I202I225-3861 . 

e-mail: NINTHNET@MAIL.HOUSE.GOV 

WWW: http-y/www.house.gov/bout'ier/ 

CONSTITUENT SERVICE OFFICES: 

188 EAST MAIN STREET 

ABINGDON. VIRGINIA 24210 

(5401628-1145 

311 SHAWNEE AVENUE EAST 

BIG STONE GAP. VIRGINIA 24219 

15401523-5450 

106 NORTH WASHINGTON AVENUE 

P.O. BOX 1268 

PULASKI. VIRGINIA 24301 

(5401980-4310 

Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

Dear Mr. Perciasepe: 

I am writing to thank you for your June 14, 1999, response to my May 12, 1999 letter to 

Carol M. Browner, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and to address 

several issues raised in your letter. 

Although I am in agreement with many of your comments with respect to the new source 

review program (NSR), I believe that your response does not adequately address the key issues 

raised in my letter. I am concerned with the loss of potential production for companies in the 

United States due to the application of the "use it or lose it" exercise implemented by the new 

source review program. 

Your letter states that "The current NSR regulation in no way limits the production of 

coke by any source." We have, however, lost production ability in Virginia as a result of the 

application of this regulation. The loss ©ccurs when sources apply for pre-construction permits, 

at which time a calculation is made comparing potential production to actual production during a 

previous window in time. Should it be determined that the source had not produced at its 

permitted potential during this window in time, the source would lose the difference between the 

potential permitted level and the actual production level during that period. Accordingly, the 

source faces a "use it or lose it" situation. 

You also state that "...sources that simply increase operations without a physical or 

operational change ~ for instance, to take advantage of normal market fluctuations ~ are exempt 

from major NSR." This information is indeed encouraging. In need your assistance in the effort 

to assure that the rule will be applied in the manner you suggest in Virginia. The Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality, in attempting to comply with federal regulation, has 

applied the NSR emission increase calculation to sources applying to exceed their permitted level 

to take advantage of normal market fluctuations. It would indeed be helpful for you to confirm 

that sources with federal enforceable permit levels can exceed these limits in order to meet market 

demand. 

4-
P.6 

Page 2 

July 7, 1999 

Finally, you state that "It is not the intent of the new source review program to adversely 

affect the competitiveness of any industry." I am advised by a number of companies in my 

Congressional District that, as presently administered, this program does adversely affect 

competitiveness, regardless of its intent. 

Once again, I urge the EPA to incorporate into the regulation language requiring the use 

of potential production rather than actual production for purposes of emissions increase 

calculation. Second, and of equal importance, I am requesting that the EPA incorporate into the 

"New Source Review Reform Regulations" changes that will allow a company to recoup potential 

production lost during the previous fifteen-year period. 

Thank you for your attention to these comments. I look forward to receiving your 

response. With kind regards, I am 

Sin\erely, 

Rick Boucher 

Member of Congress 

RB/bc 

5 
P.7 

Controlled Correspondence For 

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION 

CONTROL NO: AL-9901577 

STATUS: PENDING 

ORIG. DUE DATE: 07/22/99 

GORRES. DATE: 07/07/99 

RECEIVED DATE: 07/08/99 

ASSIGNED DATE: 07/08/99 

CLOSED DATE: 

FROM: 

ORG: 

SALUTATION: 

CONSTITUENT: 

TO: 

TO ORG: 

SUBJECT: 

BOUCHER FREDERICK-D/VA 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DEAR CONGRESSMV\N BOUCHER 

NEW SOURCE REVIEW PROGRAM (NSR)/CONCERNED WITH THE LOSS OF 

POTENTIAL PRODUCTION FOR COMPANIES DUE TO THE APPLICATION OF 

THE "USE IT OR LOSE IT" EXERCISE IMPLEMENTED BY THE NEW 

PROGRAM/FOLLOW UP TO AL9901213 

ASSIGNED: Office of Air Quality Manning & Standards - RTP 

COPIES OF INCOMING PROVIDED TO: OCIR/ELIZ.ABETH CUMMINGS 

SIGNATURE: ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR 

OAR COMMENTS: 

AL INSTRUCTIONS: MUST BE RETURNED TO OCIR (1304) 3RD FLOOR WT, FOR REVIEW AND 

DISPATCHING. INCLUDE "HARD" COPY OF SIGNED REPLY FOR 

CONGRESSIONAL BILES (AL). DO NOT DATE LETTER. 

OAR INSTRUCTIONS: PREPARE REPLY FOR THE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR'S SIGNATURE. 

Lead 

Assigned 

OAQPS 

Date Assigned 

07/08/99 

Code/Status 

ACTION 

Date Completed by 

Assignee 

-

Date Returned to 

OAR: 

-

(Untitled) \o 
P.8 

07/07/99 13:31 ©7036282203 BOUCHER. ABN. 

14)002 

• RICK30UCHER 

9TH DISTRICT. VIRGINIA 

COMMITTEES: 

COMMERCE 

SUBCOMMITTEES: 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS. MADE AND 

CONSUMER PROTECTION 

ENEPGV AND POWER 

JUDICIARY 

SUBCOMMITTEE: 

COURTS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 

ASSISTANT WHIP 

Congress of tfjeUmteb States* 

J^ou£>e of 3foprc£tentattoetf 

July 7, 1999 

WASHINGTON OFFICE: 

} ) » KAVBURN MOUSE OFFICE SUILOINQ 

WASHINGTON, DC MilS-ilM 

IJ0JIJIS-M81 

•-null: NINTHNET0MAIL.HOUSf.GOV 

WWW: hnp^/www.hou«».oov/oouchtr/ 

CONSTITUENT SERVICE OFFICES: 

tH EAST MAIN STP.KT 

ABINGDON. VIRGINIA J4II0 

(S40IMS-.11S 

111 SHAWNEE AVENUE EAST 

BIG STONE GAP. VIRGINIA Jam 

IM0I m.uto 

105 NORTH WASHINGTON AVENUE 

P.O. BOX IJM 

'ULASKI. VIRGINIA JO0I 

IStOIMO-illO 

Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

Dear Mr. Perciasepe: 

I am writing to thank you for your June 14,1999,'response to my May 12, 1999 letter to 

Carol M. Browner, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and to address 

several issues raised in your letter. 

Although I am in agreement with many of your comments with respect to the new source 

review program (NSR), I believe that your response does not adequately address the key issues 

raised in my letter. I am concerned with the loss of potential production for companies in the 

United States due to the application of the "use it or lose it" exercise implemented by the new 

source review program. 

Your letter states that "The current NSR regulation in no way limits the production of 

coke by any source." We have, however, lost production ability in Virginia as a result of the 

application of this regulation. The loss occurs when sources apply for pre-construction permits, 

at which time a calculation is made comparing potential production to actual production during a 

previous window in time. Should it be determined that the source had not produced at its 

permitted potential during this window in time, the source would lose the difference between the 

potential permitted level and the actual production level during that period. Accordingly, the 

source faces a "use it or lose it" situation. 

You also state that "...sources that simply increase operations without a physical or 

operational change — for instance, to take advantage of normal market fluctuations — are exempt 

from major NSR." This information is indeed encouraging. In need your.assistance in the effort 

to assure that the rule will be applied in the manner j^ou suggest in Virginia. The Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality, in attempting to comply with federal regulation, has 

applied the NSR emission increase calculation to sources applying to exceed their permitted level 

to take advantage of normal market fluctuations. It would indeed be helpful for you to confirm 

that sources with federal enforceable permit levels can exceed these limits in order to meet market 

demand. 

1 
P.9 

• T 

07/07/99 13:32 ©7036282203 BOUCHER ABN. - ltS9Q3.__._a,." 

Page 2 

July 7, 1999 

Finally, you state that "It is not the intent of the new source review program to adversely 

affect the competitiveness of any industry." I am advised by a number of companies in my 

Congressional District that, as presently administered, this program does adversely affect 

competitiveness, regardless of its intent. 

Once again, I urge the EPA to incorporate into the regulation language requiring the use 

of potential production rather than actual production for purposes of emissions increase 

calculation. Second, and of equal importance, I am requesting that the EPA incorporate into the 

"New Source Review Reform Regulations" changes that will allow a company to recoup potential 

production lost during the previous fifteen-year period. 

Thank you for your attention to these comments. I look forward to receiving your 

response. With kind regards, I am 

SiiWely, 

Rick Boucher 

Member of Congress 

RB/bc