Interim Report of the Committee on Changes in New Source Review Programs for Stationary Sources of Air Pollutants (2005) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
2 Regulatory Overview
2 Regulatory Overview
Pages 17-48
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 17... ...
, applies to construction or modification of "major stationary sources" (not the same as a major emitting facility) in "nonat 1If a source is in one of 28 named categories, it is a major emitting facility if its "potential to emit" any regulated air pollutant is 100 tons per year or more.
|
From page 18... ...
The six criteria pollutants are carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. Pollutants for which there are NAAQS are known as criteria pollutants because EPA prepares "criteria documents" describing the sources and effect of these pollutants.
|
From page 19... ...
This method is now required only for new units of existing facilities. If a source's postchange potential to emit significantly exceeds its prechange actual emissions, then the source could escape NSR only by making a binding commitment to never significantly increase actual emissions over prechange levels.5 · Sources may seek permission to establish plant-wide applicability limitations (PALs)
|
From page 20... ...
is expanded. This exemption applies when a permitting authority deems the project to be environmentally beneficial, even though it would significantly increase emissions of an air pollutant other than the pollutant(s)
|
From page 21... ...
a Regenerative thermal oxidizers Volatile organic Catalytic oxidizers compounds and Thermal incinerators hazardous air pollutants Hydrocarbon combustion flares [FN36] Condensers Absorbers and adsorbers Biofiltration Floating roofs (for storage vessels)
|
From page 22... ...
. This rule change -- known as the equipment replacement rule -- defines certain kinds of equipment replacements as "routine maintenance, repair and replacement" and therefore not constituting "physical changes or changes in the method of operation." Hence these replacements do not need NSR permits even if a significant emissions increase (as calculated under the actual-to-projected-actual technique)
|
From page 23... ...
FRAMEWORK OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT The CAA requires EPA to set NAAQS for pollutants that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare and that come from numerous or diverse sources (CAA § 108(a)
|
From page 24... ...
requires EPA to establish category-wide standards to limit the emission of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs)
|
From page 25... ...
EPA ordered that the states cut back NOx emissions by 28%, or more than a million tons a year, during the April-October period when O3 concentrations are at their highest. This target represents the reduction that EPA found could be made through costeffective measures (those costing less than $2,000 per ton of emissions eliminated)
|
From page 26... ...
In January 2004, EPA proposed (but, at this writing, has not promulgated) the Interstate Air Quality Rule also known as the Clean Air Interstate Rule (69 Fed.
|
From page 27... ...
EPA, though, has not projected such an effect of the Clean Air Interstate Rule. It should also be kept in mind that NSR programs require special protection for local areas (e.g., the increment system and the offset requirement)
|
From page 28... ...
. NSR PROGRAMS The NSR programs consist of the PSD program for areas that attain the NAAQS and the Part D NSR program for areas that do not.
|
From page 29... ...
An applicant for a PSD permit must show that the new or modified facility will, for each regulated pollutant emitted in significant amounts, limit emissions to the level achievable through use of the best available control technology (BACT)
|
From page 30... ...
to preserve, protect, and enhance the air quality in national parks, national wilderness areas, national monuments, national seashores, and other areas of special national or regional natu ral, recreational, scenic, or historic value; (3) to insure that economic growth will occur in a manner consis tent with the preservation of existing clean air resources; (4)
|
From page 31... ...
As of June 2003, 39 states have obtained EPA approval for their SIP submissions incorporating the PSD program. In some of the remainder (e.g., New York)
|
From page 32... ...
32 CHANGES IN NEW SOURCE REVIEW PROGRAMS BOX 2-5 PSD Incrementsa Class I SO2 Annual arithmetic mean 2 24-hour maximum 5 3-hour maximum 25 NO2 Annual arithmetic mean 2.5 PM10 Annual arithmetic mean 4 24-hour maximum 8 Class II SO2 Annual arithmetic mean 20 24-hour maximum 91 3-hour maximum 512 NO2 Annual arithmetic mean 25 PM10 Annual arithmetic mean 17 24-hour maximum 30 Class III PSD increments SO2 Annual arithmetic mean 40 24-hour maximum 182 3-hour maximum 700 NO2 Annual arithmetic mean 50 PM10 Annual arithmetic mean 34 24-hour maximum 60 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - a Increments are in concentration units of micrograms per cubic meter. Source: 40 CFR §51.166 (c)
|
From page 33... ...
It became clear that this timetable would not be met. In late 1976, EPA published an interpretive ruling that outlined conditions under which new and modified major sources would be allowed in areas that failed to attain the air-quality standards on schedule (41 Fed.
|
From page 34... ...
Concerns About Modifications The controversy about modifications stems from the CAA's differentiation between new and existing stationary sources. As mentioned previously, new sources must meet technology-based standards in addition to showing that they will not damage air qual BOX 2-6 Part D NSR Permit Requirements · The applicant must obtain emissions offsets (or, in ar eas located in an economic development zone, fit within a mar gin for growth specified in the SIP)
|
From page 35... ...
Emissions trading advocates urge that it would be preferable to allow trading between sources, whether new or existing, to achieve the needed emission reductions. This approach is reflected in the Bush Administration's proposal, so far unsuccessful in Congress, that the emissions from electric utility plants be capped and that NSR requirements be relaxed for new and modified utility plants.
|
From page 36... ...
· Congress intended a broad definition of modification as a way of ensuring that older sources eventually would have to install the best available control technology. · A narrow definition of the term "modification" would cover renovations that allow existing sources, particularly electricity-generating units, to remain in operation indefinitely through renovation.
|
From page 37... ...
The 1980 regulations subjected postchange emissions to a special meaning of the term "actual emissions." If a unit had not yet entered normal operations, then the term actual emissions was defined as equal to the unit's potential to emit. Thus, for units that had not entered normal operations, the 1980 rules covered a physical change as a modification if the source's postchange potential to emit exceeded the source's prechange actual emissions by a significant (or, in the case of Part D NSR, a major)
|
From page 38... ...
EPA held that a PSD permit was required on the grounds that the project did not constitute routine maintenance, repair, and replacement, and that the project would increase emissions using the actual/potential test of EPA's NSR regulations. Hence, the dispute involved the physical change as well as the emissions increase aspect of modification.
|
From page 39... ...
The court distinguished between the NSPS program and the NSR programs. In the NSPS program, EPA's regulations call for a comparison of prechange and postchange emission rates, as expressed in kilograms per hour, at maximum physical capacity (40 CFR § 60.14 (b)
|
From page 40... ...
EPA formed a subcommittee of its existing Clean Air Act Advisory Committee, composed of representatives of states, environmental groups, and industries. For several years, the task force members discussed possible changes in the rules.
|
From page 41... ...
, although the 2002 rule differs in important respects. The proposed changes also included elements sought by environmental groups, such as greater protection for national parks and codification of the long-standing top-down method of determining what constitutes the best available control technology.
|
From page 42... ...
In addition, EPA brought administrative enforcement actions against the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
|
From page 43... ...
and State of Nov. Ohio Edison Co.
|
From page 44... ...
The number of allowances surrendered might well be reduced if Congress or EPA lowers the SO2 allowance cap of 8.95 million tons (e.g., through the CAIR or Clear Skies initiatives)
|
From page 45... ...
. EPA enforcement officials have asserted that the cases they are currently pursuing could reduce annual SO2 and NOx emissions in 10 years by 1,750,000 tons and 629,000 tons, respectively (EPA 2004b)
|
From page 46... ...
Ohio Edison allows the use of the actual-to-projected-actual method for determining whether a utility unit has increased emissions, while Duke Energy holds that an increase in the hourly emission rate also must have occurred. · The test for deciding whether a particular change constitutes routine maintenance, repair, and replacement.
|
From page 47... ...
The proposed Clean Air Interstate Rule, summarized above, attempts to implement part of the proposal administratively.
|
From page 48... ...
. Following the regulatory overview of the NSR programs presented in this chapter, Chapter 3 examines contributions that emission sources subject to NSR may make to ambient air quality and relationships between specific air pollutants and health effects.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.