P.1 

OAR Box 1781 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

91) IV-C-5 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/29/2008 10:46:22 AM Sheet 91 of 142 
P.2 

V* 

.«*D ST*. 

i UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK. NC 27711 

MAR 3 I I999 OFFICE OF 

AIR QUALITY PLANNING 

AND STANDARDS 

Ms. Leslie Ritts 

Hogan and Hartson, L.L.P. 

Columbia House Square 

555 Thirteenth Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20004-1109 

Dear Ms. Ritts: 

Thank you for your February 26,1999 letter that outlines a process for developing an 

alternative approach to new source review (NSR) applicability for sources to make changes at an 

existing facility. Your letter indicates that several meetings of industry with State agencies, 

environmental groups, and Federal Land Managers will take place in March and April with status 

reports submitted to EPA. You suggest that EPA meet with stakeholders around April 19 so that 

stakeholders would have the opportunity to present to EPA a summary of views regarding areas 

of agreement and other issues, and to receive feedback from EPA on the concepts to be 

presented. The goal would be to have a final work product for EPA consideration by May 28. 

As you know, in the February 2-3 meeting, we asked that by February 28 stakeholders 

provide written proposals that addressed some of the key issues identified on February 2-3. To 

date, we have received only one written product. The EPA is willing to meet with your group 

once you have developed a work product that reflects a way of dealing with applicability issues 

that will help us as we finalize our NSR Reform rulemaking effort. It appears that from your 

proposed schedule, this would not occur until the end of May. 

Because of EPA's interest in moving forward on NSR Reform, we have resumed work to 

produce a final rulemaking, based largely on the 1996 proposal, the 1998 notice of availability 

and the ensuing comments on each. We plan to promulgate the rule around the end of 

December 1999 which would have us completing a draft of the Federal Register package around 

June 1999. If a work product on the applicability issues can be produced in a timely manner 

relative to our schedule, we will take due consideration of it in promulgating the final rule. This 

means that you should provide such information to us by May 21,1999 so that we can stay on 

track with our schedule. 
P.3 

*> 

1 i 

I want to thank you again for your and your colleagues' work on this issue. I look 

forward to reviewing your alternative approach to NSR applicability that would help us to bring 

the NSR Reform effort to.el©sure. Please Contact Bill Harnett (919) 541-4979 or Karen 

Blanchard (919) 541-5503 regarding whether and when any meeting to discuss your completed 

work product might fee scheduled. 

Sincerely, 

S. Seitz 

Director 

Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards 

z 
— — . PA_ 

Fib-1S-9B *05:11PB fror-HMAN I HARTSON 0,C, 21 • T-B85 P.02/04 F-375 

February 26,1999 

Jobs Seiu. Director 

U S Environmental Protection Agency 

Office ofAur Quality Planning 

and Standards (MD-10) 

Research Triangle Park. NC 27711 

Be: Process for Proaorinf an Alternative K3R Approach 

Dear Mr. Seine 

This letter ia submitted on behalf of a number of diverse industry sectors. As indicated la our 

February 17,1999 letter to Assistant Administrator Perciasepe. we are committed to a dialogue with 

other stakeholders regarding an alternative NSR approach. This letter sets out our proposed 

approach and a compressed schedule with a deadline by which we would hope to be able to offer the 

Agency a firm proposal We would also like to explore with you the possibility of having the 

facilitators used dunng the February 2-3 NSR public meeting available lor some of our future 

meetings. We thought they did a good job. and we expect that they could continue to help the 

process 

Milestones and Action Plan 

We recognize the position expressed by Assistant Administrator Perciasepe at tha recent 

Clean Air Advisory Committee meeting that NSR reform decisions must be made in the near term. 

We also were pleased to aee an approach that allowed additional tune for these discussions embraced 

in a recent Status Report submitted by the Government in the NSRAVEPCO consolidated litigations 

(Chem teal Manufacturers Association v. SPA. No. 79-1112 and consolidated cases CO C. Cur)) 

Accordingly, wc are committed to advancing development of a proposal in an expeditious 

manner. It would be our intention for this process to be completed no later than May 28, 1999 la 

order to attain this goal, we propose to use the following process to assure that progress is being 

made toward identification and resolution of issues affecting NSR applicability reform. 

Initial M^tings With STAPPA/ALAPCO' S Chairmen 

We have tentatively scheduled initial meetings with the Chairmen of STAPPA/ALAPCO'S 

NSR Committee. William O'Sullivan (NJDEP) and John Paul (Dayton. OH RAPCA) during the week 

of March 1 to outline issues and alternative NSR proposals. John Paul will be in Washington. DC on 

March 2-3. 1999. and we are waiting to see if Bill O'Sullivan can join us or alternatively, if a joint 

meeting can be scheduled in Trenton. NJ. At this meeting, we will set an "Agenda" for broader state* 

industry group meetings. (William Becker and David Wallenberg of STAPPA/ALAPCO have been 

advised of possible meeting dates and also will be able to participate ) 

3 

NtNOC • MMVl • V»0*WJ H 
P.5 

fsb-Ztfe' 05:11pa Froi-HOGAN I HARTSON B.C. 21 T-8B5 P.03/04 f-375 

John Seitz, Director 

U S. Envirunmental Protection Agency 

Page 2 

Meptfos With Broader State • Industry Groupi 

Patterned on joint industry-state meetings held on Title V Permimas;. we plaa to have at 

least two March meetings outside of Washington for state NSR permitting authorities and industry 

representatives to have frank discussions on" NSR issues. The purpose of these meetings will be to 

define alternative NSR applicability criteria that would be acceptable to both regulators and 

regulated entities. 

During late March and early April, conference calls will be scheduled to discuss draft 

approaches and to seo if agreement can be reached on pivotal issues. If earlier discussions prove 

fruitful, it would be beneficial for the overalhprocess for the larger groups to meet an late April and/or 

early May to further refine options and/or alternative approaches. 

Meeting With Other Non-EPA Interested Parties 

It u anticipated that informal meetings between industry and environmental groups will be 

occurring in parallel with die state discussions. Industry representatives also plan to schedule more 

formal meetings with David rtawkins and other environmental representatives on NSR-ossuea 

during late March and' April. We feel that it also is pivotal that FLMs be included in our duuussiuzu, 

and we have tentatively discussed with die National Park Service a meeting m Denver or in 

Washington, DC ta late March or early ApnL 

The "spring" meetings are intended to provide formal feedback from other stakeholders. 

Additional input from environmental groups at this juncture will allow us to obtain, from this second 

round of meetings, a greater understanding of areas of agreement and open issues. It can then be 

assessed whether these differences can be (surmounted, and a viable proposal can be presented to 

EPA with general support of a majority of the stakeholdersInterim Reoortfs) to EPA Regarding Issuea 

During the week of April 19, 1999; industry plans to provide EPA with a summary of its 

views regarding areas of agreement and other issues. At that time, industry representatives would 

be prepared to meet with EPA again to obtain the Agency's reaction to the concepts developed 

Report to EPA 

At the conclusion of the foregoing meetings. Industry would prepare a paper by no later than 

May 28.19££r recommending an alternative regulatory approach fur reforming NSR applicability. 

\v\DC.e«CSx/i 0UD4U01 4-
P.6 

Jssb-2H8 U5:12PS froa-HOGAN I HARTSOH D.C. 21 •T-M5 P.04/D4 f-375 

John Seit*. Director 

VS Environmental Protection Agency 

PageS 

Conclusion *$&* 

We very much appreciate the Agency's commitment to exploring alternative NSR reform 

approaches. We look forward to being able to work with you and your staff in this regard If you 

have questions, please feel free to contact any of the signatories of the groups Lsted below 

Sincerely, 

Air Perm itting Forum 

Ch or/ec E. Knauss 

(2$2) 424-764' 

4MurT' 

American Forest & Paper 

M*C 

ie industries Allia 

Stephen F, Harper 

(SOI) 626-4899 

- —• — — 

xatxon 

_£2 

Robert C. Kaufmann 

$02) 463-2588 

L££2i 

r/fytroltum Instituy . 

'kfabeth Cox 

America 

(202) 682-8250 

Notional m^pl^Onuumtal Development 

Association's Clean Air Regulatory 

' Project 

Leslie Sue Ritts 

(202)687-6573 

# ' 

t^^^cLUJjyy^ 

Association of International 

Automotive Manufacturers 

42 ^Vr^/> 

* 

/HmyLilht 

VtCf^U^ 

California Council for Environmental 

und Economic Balance 

Vic Weisser, President 

(contajx~-Mic,havl R. Burr(4l5p883-1151) 

ational Association of 

Manufacturers 

MarkBurtschl 

(202)637-3276 

Utility Air I 

Y. ATIU&L/^ 

/tility Ayr Reeulatory Qroup 

Henry V. Nickel 

(202)955-1561 • -

* 

Chemical Manufacturers Aasj 

Raema Zvaners 

741-5 

CouncUof Indus 

. Robert D. Bessette 

Clean Air Implementation . 

William H. Lewis 

(202) 457-7146 

Broject 

CK ToaiCurran 

Lydia Wegman 

Karen Blanchard 

Christine Shaver 

William O'Sullivan 

John Paul 

William Becker/David Wallenberg 

•*r.s* 

V.«0T MIC*I W/ftftSOi b