I would like to welcome Congressman Ted Strickland who is testifying today. Ted and I have worked together in a bipartisan manner on a range of issues such as the ozone and particulate matter NAAQS standards and protecting the health and safety of workers at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant. I'm happy that he is here today as we explore the New Source Review program.
I'd also like to extend a warm welcome to Bill Tyndall, Vice President of Environmental Services and Federal Affairs at Cinergy Corporation in Cincinnati. Cinergy is a responsible corporate citizen in the environmental arena, and I am pleased that Mr. Tyndall could join us today. I think it is very appropriate that Cincinnati was chosen as the location for a Clean Air hearing. Just last month, US EPA issued a proposed rule to redesignate Cincinnati as in attainment of the one-hour ozone rule. The Greater Cincinnati community has worked together, through a variety of coordinated programs, to improve the quality of Ohio's air. And we are hopeful that Administrator Browner will act quickly to finalize the rule following the close of the public comment period.
Incidently, when I first entered office as Governor in 1991, most of Ohio's urban areas were not attaining the 1-hour ozone standard. By the time I left office in 1998, all but Cincinnati were in attainment. And now they are all in compliance.
I was particularly concerned about EPA's new ozone and particulate matter NAAQS standards. In fact, I spent over 100 hours trying to convince this Administration and members of Congress that the costs of the new standards to this country far outweighed the benefits to public health and the environment. In fact, a U.S. appeals court remanded EPA's ozone and PM-2.5 standards, ruling that EPA did not justify its decision with sound scientific evidence. The court didn't say that EPA couldn't regulate at these levels, but that EPA did not give justification for doing so.
We're here today to talk about the New Source Review program and the proposed changes to that program. I think we can all agree that this is a very complex program and that there is confusion about when it should be applied.
We have a Clean Air statute. And while I have some concerns with that law, we do have a law to protect and promote public health and clean air. And that law needs to be followed. What we need is clear guidelines on how EPA will enforce provisions of that law and we need clear rules for industry to play by.
I think it is important to look into the problems created by the New Source Review program and look for the solutions needed to clarify the rules. I commend US EPA for taking on that task.
Whether we're talking about the electric utility, pulp and paper or refining industries, one thing is clear: it is important for them to know the rules of the game. It should be clear to them what kinds of repairs can be made before triggering New Source Review because repairs need to be made in a timely manner to ensure worker safety and reliability of service particularly electricity. So I urge EPA to take into consideration the unintended consequences that are associated with this issue. We need to ensure that this rule will help maintain air quality standards, but we also need to ensure that needed maintenance repairs can be made so as not to jeopardize worker safety or the reliability of needed services.
I also want to raise a concern about the length of time it takes to receive a New Source Review permit either to build a new facility or to make changes to an existing facility. I have been told that the standard timeframe is between 1 and 2 years. I also understand that even getting a determination on whether a New Source Review permit is needed is also a timely process. I'm not sure that most industries can withstand that kind of timeframe without suffering severe consequences. A plant operator needs to make a decision much earlier than that to ensure worker safety and reliability of service.
In addition, competitiveness is called into question. For instance, if a computer chip manufacturer wants to build a new plant, it's likely that technology will have changed during the time it takes to get an NSR permit and build the facility. I just think there needs to be some balance here. So again, I commend the agency for moving forward to reform the program and I hope that it will keep these issues in mind as it proceeds forward. I am pleased that EPA has worked with various stakeholders during the rulemaking process. And I strongly encourage them to do the same with the electric utilities. You learn more through open communication and that's what I hope will be achieved today through this hearing and will be achieved as EPA continues the stakeholder discussions.
And finally, I would like to raise a concern. Like I said before, I think we can agree that New Source Review is a complex program that needs reformed. And EPA has proceeded down that path knowing that adjustments must be made. What bothers me is that before EPA has finished its mission to reform the program it has proceeded forward with enforcement actions against the pulp and paper industry and the utility industry.
It does not make sense to me that the agency would proceed forward with enforcement of a program that they believe is badly in need of change.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to today's testimony.