P.1 

OAR Box 1781 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

120) IV-C-34 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/29/2008 10:46:23 AM Sheet 120 of 142 
P.2 

JA!' 200' 

Honorable Ted Strickland 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515-3506 

Dear Congressman Strickland: 

This is in response to your letter of September 28,1999 to President Clinton. I 

appreciate the input from you and your colleagues regarding the Environmental Protection 

Agency's (EPA's) activities to reform the air pollution program known as new source review 

(NSR). Your letter described your concerns about die NSR program such as its possible 

economic impacts on community redevelopment projects (e.g., brownfields redevelopment) and 

EPA's plans for bringing to conclusion die effort under way to improve the NSR program. A 

major part of this effort is the public stakeholder process for exploring which projects or facilities 

are subject to new source review. I want to assure you that the issues you raise are being 

considered fully as we move forward to a successful conclusion of tiiis project. In fact, as a 

result of your letter and other letters and requests, we extended the stakeholder process by several 

months into January 2000. 

Your letter expressed concern over the complexity of the NSR program and the 

difficulties that facilities may face in complying with these rules. It is important to remember 

that the program has been very successful over the past 20 years, reducing or preventing 

hundreds of thousands of tons of pollution from being emitted into the air each year. The most 

cost-effective time to put on pollution control equipment is when construction projects are 

planned and initiated, as opposed to retrofitting later. However, despite the successes of the NSR 

program, we believe it can be streamlined and strengthened. One of our guiding principles in 

reforming the NSR program is to retain the environmental protection afforded by these 

regulations while giving industry more flexibility and clarifying and streamlining the permitting 

process. 

The EPA's efforts to reform the NSR regulations were initiated in 1992 when we held 

two initial public workshops in response to concems about the complexity of die program. In 

1993, we formed an NSR Reform Subcommittee of tiie Clean Air Act Advisory Committee — a 

national advisory panel of experts in the field of air pollution — to allow the stakeholder 

discussions to move toward consensus. The role of this subcommittee of experts from industry, 

States, and environmental groups was specifically to develop options for revising the NSR 

program. Eight public meetings of the NSR Reform Subcommittee were convened between 

1992 and 1994. During this period, EPA sought public comment on die package on several 

occasions, including a preliminary draft in the summer of 1994. 
P.3 

Numerous meetings with separate industry groups followed between the fall of 1994 and 

EPA's proposed revisions to die NSR rule mat we issued in die summer of 1996. The EPA also 

provided for a public hearing and a 6-month public comment period on the reform proposal. 

After that time, we conducted further discussions under die auspices of the Title V, Toxics, and 

NSR Subcommittee of die Clean Air Act Advisory Committee. In July 1998, EPA published a 

notice of availability in the Federal Register, allowing additional public comment on two key 

issues addressed by the NSR reform rulemaking. This notice also triggered another round of 

meetings requested by various stakeholder groups over several months. 

In late 1998, as a result of meeting with industry representatives, EPA offered once again 

to explore new ways of reforming the NSR rules. Again, the goal was to provide more flexibility 

for industry, streamline the permitting process where possible, but preserve the environmental 

protection called for by the Clean Air Act. Industry groups expressed interest in such an effort. 

Accordingly, EPA convened a large stakeholder meeting on February 2-3,1999, and has held 

multiple rounds of follow-on meetings since that time. We have scheduled additional meetings 

with stakeholders in January 2000. 

In summary, EPA has been working extensively with industry and other outside 

stakeholders to address many of the concems voiced by industry for the past 7 years. We have 

met repeatedly with interested parties concerned with reforming NSR. The meetings and 

dialogue have been constructive; however, consensus on a simple test for determining whether 

and/or when NSR rules apply to new construction projects or major changes to existing units is 

elusive, even among industry groups. 

After years of talking and little action, I believe that we have reached the point of 

diminishing returns for public discussion. To delay promulgation further only serves to 

perpetuate any existing problems without moving us toward a workable solution. I believe that it 

is in the best interests of affected sources and the public to implement the best of those ideas 

already fully examined, discussed, and articulated. Using the input we have received, we 

believe we can promulgate an NSR reform package that provides a reasonable resolution of the 

central issues by spring of 2000. We need to begin working on that regulatory package. 

In addition, we are also investigating alternative approaches, i.e., allowing NSR to be met 

across an entire industry sector, rather than plant-by-plant. This will be a separate effort that will 

require further discussion with stakeholders, but may yield important dividends if the legal and 

policy issues can be resolved. 

We have heard concems about the possible effects of permitting programs, such as the 

NSR program on redevelopment, including brownfields areas. As a result of these concerns, we 

have been working with the cities of Chicago, Dallas, and Baltimore in a pilot program to try to 

better understand what the difficulties are and to identify steps that might be taken to make it 

easier for redevelopment to occur in these areas. 

2_ 
17

 ! 

I appreciate this opportumty to be of service and trust that this information will be helpful 

to you. 

SuK-erely, Original Signed By 

*rt n, Brenner 

frerciasepe 

Assistant Administrator 

OAQPS/ITPro/nG:DCrumpler:pfinch:RTP(MD-12):919-541-5281:l/3/00 

Control number AL-9902677 Due: 12/30/99 

Reviewed/concurred by Jon Devine, OGC 

Identical letters sent to: 

RonKlink 

James Barcia 

Rick Boucher 

Bud Cramer 

Bart Gordon 

Jerry Costello 

Solomon P. Ortiz 

Martin Frost 

John Spratt 

Virgil Goode, Jr. 

David Phelps 

Chris John 

Bennie Thompson 

Sanford Bishop, Jr. 

Ken Lucas 

Marion Berry 

Mike Doyle 

Allen Boyd 

Jim Turner 

James E. Clyburn 

Max Sandlin 

Frank Mascara i 

Paul E. Kanjorski 

Gene Green 

3 
P.5 

TED STRICKLAND 

6TH DISTRICT, OHIO 

Congress ot tte Unite* States 

%)ou$t of ftepretfentattoe* 

flfchington, BC 20515-3506 

September 28, 1999 

The Honorable William Jefferson Clinton */in/i A zioa. 

D ., . M04448* 

President 

United States of America 

The White House 

Washington, DC 20500 

Dear Mr. President: 

We are writing to urge you to ensure that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

continues the dialogue it has begun with stakeholders on its proposed New Source Review (NSR) 

rule under the Clean Air Act. The NSR regulations are complicated and any revisions require an 

open review of stakeholder proposals. We are concerned about the economic impact of the NSR 

program on community development projects including brownfields redevelopment. NSR can be 

a bottleneck to many positive community programs. We believe that an extension of the ongoing 

dialogue'would provide an opportunity for the EPA to guarantee meaningful improvements to the 

NSR program. 

As you know, the NSR is a Clean Air Act permitting review process that is required 

before certain projects or facility modifications can be undertaken. In 1991, EPA announced that 

it would "simplify and reform" the 1980 NSR regulations. As of today, however, there are over 

seven volumes of interpretive guidance from the agency and no relief from the confusion. 

Operators and regulators in our districts are mystified by the complex rules and they are 

understandably alarmed by EPA's recent claim that ninety percent of the country is in violation of 

the NSR rules. 

NSR at a large plant can take fourteen months or longer, and determining whether NSR is 

even "applicable" to a project depends on twenty years of EPA interpretation of complicated NSR 

rules. For example, according to interpretations contained in a recent EPA Federal Register 

notice, facility modifications to increase reliability might trigger NSR even though the 

modifications would result in no increase in emissions. It would be unfortunate if the revisions 

under consideration by the Agency would only add to the confusion and overall complexity of the 

program. 

In February of this year, EPA convened industry, environmental leaders and state 

regulators and requested that they develop proposed alternative approaches to improve the NSR 

program. In June, state regulators asked EPA to continue discussions concerning these new 

proposals before finalizing the NSR rule. We understand that EPA is now considering finalization 

of the rule, but have been told that the Agency plans to hold only a single round of meetings with 

major stakeholders before making a decision whether to finalize the proposal. 

4-

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 
P.6 

We are concerned that one more round of stakeholder discussions will be insufficient to 

fully review the alternative approaches to NSR reform and to determine whether an equitable 

proposal can be crafted. We believe that the recent efforts by the stakeholders to forge consensus 

on NSR reform offer the best hope for a workable solution. We respectfully request your help to 

ensure that the EPA does not rush to finalize the NSR proposed rule. Instead, we hope that the 

agency will pursue its dialogue with stakeholders to create an efficient NSR rule that avoids 

unnecessary pitfalls. 

Sincerely, 

J&JrfZ<J4Jh*d' 

TW^fi 

/ 

JD 
P.7 

h^ihiL 

V> 
P.8 

Signatories to September 28,1999 NSR letter to the President 

1. Ted Strickland 

2. RonKlink 

3. James Barcia 

4. Rick Boucher 

5. Bud Cramer 

6. Bart Gordon 

7. Jerry Costello 

8. Solomon P. Ortiz 

9. Martin Frost 

10. John Spratt 

11. Virgil Goode, Jr. 

12. David Phelps 

13. Chris John 

14. Bennie Thompson 

15. Sanford Bishop, Jr. 

16. Ken Lucas 

17. Marion Berry 

18. Mike Doyle 

19. Allen Boyd 

20. Jim Turner 

21. James E. Clybum 

22. Max Sandlin 

23. Frank Mascara 

24. Paul E. Kanjdrski 

25. Gene Green 

7 
P.9 

" * T wy -*w? 

THE WHITE HOUSE OFFICE 

REFERRAL 

TO: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

ACTION REQUESTED: APPROPRIATE ACTION 

December 15,1999 

DESCRIPTION OF INCOMING: 

ID: 404448 

MEDIA: LETTER, DATED SEP 28,1999 

TO: PRESIDENT CLINTON 

FROM: THE HONORABLE TED STRICKLAND 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515 

SUBJECT: EXPRESSES CONCERN REGARDING THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE NEW SOURCE 

- REVIEW PROGRAM ORI COMMUNItTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS INCLUDING 

BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT 

PROMPT ACTION IS ESSENTIAL - IF REQUIRED ACTION HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN WITHIN 9 WORKING DAYS 

OF RECEIPT, PLEASE TELEPHONE THE UNDERSIGNED AT 456-2590. 

RETURN CORRESPONDENCE, WORKSHEET AND COPY OF RESPONSE (OR DRAFT) TO: 

RECORDS MANAGEMENT, ROOM 72, THE WHITE HOUSE, 20500 

OFFICE OF RECORDS MANAGEMENT - THE WHITE HOUSE 
P.10 

THE WHITE HOUSE 

CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET 

ID# 

PAGE 

404448 

1 

DATE RECEIVED: 

NAME OF CORRESPONDENT: THE HONORABLE TED STRICKLAND 

SUBJECT: EXPRESSES CONCERN REGARDING THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW 

PROGRAM ON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS INCLUDING BROWNFIELD 

REDEVELOPMENT 

ROUTE TO: 

OFFICE/AGENCY (STAFF NAME) 

LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS LARRY STEIN 

ACTION COMMENTS 

^ENVIRONMENTAL 

t/ PROTECTION AGENCY 

ACTION COMMENTS 

* 

ACTION COMMENTS: 

ACTION COMMENTS: 

ACTION 

ACTION DATE 

CODE YY/MM/DD 

ORG 1999/12/07 

RAA 1999/12/15 

/ J 

/ / 

TYPE 

RESP 

DISPOSITION 

C 

D 

C 

• 

. 

COMPLETED 

YY/MM/DD 

1999/12/07 

/ / 

/ / 

COMMENTS 

ADDITIONAL CORRESPONDENTS: 24 

REPORT CODES: 

MEDIA: LETTER 

USER CODES: 

INDIVIDUAL CODES: 

DISPOSITION CODES: 

A-ANSWERED 

B - NON-SEPOREFERRAL 

C-COMPLETED 

S-SUSPENDED 

OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE: 

TYPE RESP = INmALS OF SIGNER 

CODE=A 

COMPLETED = DATE OF OUTGOING 

ACTION CODES: 

A - APPROPRIATE ACTION 

C - COMMENT/RECOMMENDETION 

D- DRAFT RESPONSE 

F-FURNISH FACT SHEET 

I - INFO COPY/NO ACT NECCESSARY 

R - DIRECT REPLY W/ COPY 

S - FOR SIGNATURE 

REFER QUESTIONS AND ROUTING UPDATES TO RECORDS MANAGEMENT (ROOM 72, OEOB) EXT-62590 

KEEP THIS WORKSHEET ATTACHED TO THE ORIGINAL INCOMING LETTER AT ALL TIMES AND SEND COMPLETED RECORD TO 

RECORDS MANAGEMENT. 1 
P.11 

-jfr-yy ,. .„y. y ... . .. 

THE WHITE HOUSE 

WAS HI N GTO N 

December 7, 1999 

MEMORANDUM FOR DIANE E. THOMPSON 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

FROM: CHARLES M. BRAIN 

LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS 

SUBJECT: PRESIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE 

Enclosed please find a copy of a letter that was sent to the 

President from Rep. Ted Strickland (D-OH) and twenty-four other 

Members of Congress. 

I do not believe this letter requires a Presidential response at 

this time. Please review the attached letter and respond 

directly to the Member(s) of Congress. Please forward a copy of 

the response to the Office of Records Management, Room 72 Old 

Executive Office Building. 

Thank you very much for your assistance in this matter. If you 

have any questions, please feel free to call Courtney Crouch, 

Office of Legislative Affairs, at 456-7500. 

Enclosure 

D