TITLE

Clean Air Act: Key Stakeholders' Views on Revisions to the New Source Review Program: GAO-04-274

PUB. DATE
February 2004
SOURCE
GAO Reports;2/2/2004, p1
SOURCE TYPE
Government Document
DOC. TYPE
Report
ABSTRACT
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) program to control industrial emissions have drawn attention from state and local agencies that implement the program, as well as industry and environmental and health groups. Under the revisions, companies may not have to install pollution controls when making some facility changes. GAO was asked to obtain the opinions of state air quality officials and other stakeholders on the impact of both the final and proposed revisions EPA issued in December 2002. GAO obtained survey responses from NSR program managers in 44 states and certain localities and contacted six environmental and health groups, and eight industry groups active in the NSR debate. Survey details are available in GAO-04-337SP. A majority (29 of 44) of the state officials responding to GAO's survey expected the rule EPA finalized in December 2002 to provide industry with greater flexibility to make some facility changes without having to obtain NSR permits or, in some cases, install pollution controls. However, in their opinion, 27 officials expected the rule to increase emissions of harmful air pollutants, thereby hindering areas' efforts to meet air quality standards and potentially creating or exacerbating public health risks. This concern contrasts with EPA's assessment that the rule will decrease emissions and maintain the current level of environmental protection. Furthermore, 30 of the officials expected their agency's workload would increase as they adopt and implement the rule into their own programs. Almost all of the 44 officials would like EPA assistance with implementation. Similarly, 28 of the 42 officials responding expected the two NSR revisions as proposed in December 2002--intended to provide more certainty about when facility changes are considered routine maintenance, repair, and replacement activities and can be excluded from NSR requirements--to decrease the number of permits companies would have to obtain, thereby giving them the flexibility to make some changes without installing controls. However, 21 and 26 officials, respectively, thought that the two exclusions would increase emissions; only relatively few thought the exclusions would decrease emissions as EPA's analysis had predicted. About a third of the officials thought the exclusions would exacerbate air quality problems in areas that do not meet standards, but fewer officials thought the exclusions would cause problems in areas that currently meet standards. Finally, 27 thought that implementing the two exclusions would increase states' administrative burden. The other stakeholder groups GAO contacted agreed that the final rule and two exclusions would decrease the regulatory burden on companies that modify their facilities, but disagreed about the impact on emissions and air quality agencies' workload. The six environmental and public health officials expected that because companies would not have to obtain as many NSR permits or install as many controls when modifying facilities, emissions would rise and state and local agencies' workloads increase as agencies sought alternative ways to meet standards. In contrast, the eight industry officials expected the revisions to encourage companies to invest in energy-efficient projects they had avoided under the prior program, which the officials believed would lower fuel use and emissions. The officials also expected that fewer permits would lead to decreases in agencies' workloads. Determining the revisions' likely impacts is difficult because, as discussed in GAO's August 2003 report on EPA's analytical basis for the final rule (GAO-03-947), little data exist to confirm stakeholders' opinions. In that report, GAO recommended that EPA work with state and local agencies to obtain data to assess the rule's emissions impact and correct any adverse effects.
ACCESSION #
18173860

 

Related Articles

  • Environmental Protection: EPA's and States' Efforts to Focus State Enforcement Programs on Results: RCED-98-113.  // GAO Reports;5/27/1998, p1 

    Most major environmental statutes allow the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to delegate the responsibility for key programs to qualified states. In order for states to obtain such responsibility, they generally are required to have adequate authority to inspect, monitor, and enforce the...

  • Environmental Protection: Allegations by EPA Employees: RCED-99-61R.  // GAO Reports;1/29/1999, p1 

    Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on a letter published in the Washington Times by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) employees and others having business with the agency alleging mismanagement by EPA and retaliation against whistleblowers, focusing on: (1)...

  • Report: EPA lacked data to reform air rules. Geiselman, Bruce // Waste News;9/1/2003, Vol. 9 Issue 9, p23 

    A report from the U.S. General Accounting Office concludes that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lacked comprehensive data and relied on anecdotal evidence from industries in reaching its decision to reform the 'New Source Review' (NSR) program. At least two senators responded to the...

  • EPA's air program: Still hazy after all these years. Neville, Angela // Power;Sep2008, Vol. 152 Issue 9, p70 

    The article discusses the controversy on air pollution provisions in the U.S. The decision of the federal court on the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) resulted to dissatisfaction. Stephen Johnson, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), commented on the decisions of the...

  • WHAT THE FINAL RULE SAYS.  // Health Facilities Management;Nov2006, Vol. 19 Issue 11, p42 

    The article presents the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's rule on emission standards for stationary engines. The rule stipulates the conditions under which a physical or operational change of the engine system will be considered as modification. Facilities subject to modification will be...

  • EPA proposes truck emission control system.  // Trailer / Body Builders;Jan2007, Vol. 48 Issue 3, p20 

    The article reports on the proposal of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to require the emissions control systems of large diesel and gasoline highway trucks and buses to be monitored similarly to passenger cars. EPA said its proposed regulation would help ensure that emissions...

  • Air Pollution: EPA's Actions to Resolve Concerns with the Fine Particulate Monitoring Program: RCED-99-215.  // GAO Reports;8/12/1999, p1 

    In 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established new ambient air quality standards for particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns. These fine particles, which are about 1/30th of the thickness of a human hair, are a complex mixture of acids, metals, carbon, and other potentially...

  • Technology Options for Boiler MACT Should Undergo Thorough Evaluation. Borrel, René // Pulp & Paper;Sep2004, Vol. 78 Issue 9, p51 

    Reports on the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) rule to regulate hazardous air pollutants emissions from boilers and process heaters expected to be promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the second quarter of 2004. List of hazardous air pollutants included...

  • EPA To Regulate IC Engines Under 500 Hp. Barlas, Stephen // Pipeline & Gas Journal;Jul2006, Vol. 233 Issue 7, p8 

    The article reports on the initiatives undertaken by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to control emissions of carbon monoxide, non-methane hydrocarbons and other air pollutants from smaller internal combustion engines operating at pipeline compressor stations in the U.S. One the agency...

Share

Read the Article

Other Topics