Renewal Update Summary for Multi-Sector General Permit TXR050000

The current Texas Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) was issued on August 14, 2006 and will expire on August 14, 2011. The TCEQ is proposing to issue the new permit in July with the effective date of August 14, 2011.

Permittees who want to renew permit coverage have until November 21, 2011 to submit the required application form and those who do not desire to renew coverage must submit a Notice of Termination before September 1, 2011 to avoid the $200 annual water quality fee. Renewal application forms will not be accepted before the permit effective date of August 14, 2011. EPA approved the draft permit on December 13, 2010. The draft permit includes requirements for determining when a discharge is to a water body that is impaired, when the discharge contains a pollutant at a level of concern and additional requirements to insure that the discharger will not contribute to the impairment.

The draft permit would designate operators of regulated facilities that occur within a residential home, shopping mall, or office building that have no exposure of any regulated activity to storm water and operators of publishing and designing companies that do not perform printing activities and that do not have exposure of any regulated activity to storm water as covered under the general permit without submitting an NOI, nor having to implement a SWP3, as long as there is no exposure of industrial activity. Storm water runoff from material handling and storage areas from transportation facilities is proposed to be included in the MSGP. Active landfill cells with contaminated storm water discharges described by industrial activity codes HZ and LF that are subject to effluent limitation guidelines under 40 CFR Part 445, Subparts A and B have also been added.

The draft permit extends the period of time required to await provisional coverage after submitting a paper NOI or NEC form from two days to seven days. Several changes have been made to benchmark levels and benchmark sampling requirements were added to Sector AD. A waiver option was added for years 3 and 4 if sampling results during years 1 and 2 are below the benchmark levels. Benchmark pollutant levels have been revised across the board and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) levels are now 50 mg/l for all industrial sectors that reported a median concentration consistently below 50 mg/l and 100 mg/l for all other SIC codes.
The draft permit includes revised conditions and requirements within several specific industries in Part V of the draft MSGP to provide additional clarity and to be consistent with provisions in the 2008 EPA MSGP. The proposed permit retains the $200 annual fee and the $100 fee for electronic NOIs or NECs but raises the application fee for paper NOIs and NECs to $200.

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule Update Monitoring period begins January 1, 2010

This rule establishes mandatory greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting requirements for owners and operators of certain facilities that directly emit GHG as well as for certain fossil fuel suppliers and industrial GHG suppliers. Owners and operators of facilities and suppliers that are subject to this part must follow the requirements of subpart A and all applicable subparts. The rule requires reporters to begin monitoring on January 1, 2010 and first reports are due on March 31, 2011. The rule requires reporting of anthropogenic GHG emissions covered under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC); carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorochemicals (PFC), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), as well as other fluorinated gases. These gases are often expressed in terms of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). If you are required to estimate your emissions to determine if your facility is subject to the rule, the applicability determination is based on actual emissions. EPA is not including any facility that has an aggregate maximum rated heat input capacity of stationary fuel combustion units of less than 30 mmBtu/hr and no other emission sources within their boundary. For sources subject to GHG reporting, the EPA requires that a monitoring plan be developed no later than April 1, 2010 and the plan be updated as the facility gains experience with monitoring equipment and develops more effective procedures for data management. The purpose of the plan is to document the process and procedures for collecting and reviewing the data needed to estimate annual GHG emissions. The plan does not have to be complex and can rely on existing corporate documents like SOPs and monitoring plans developed for compliance with other air programs. For a list of answers to commonly asked questions about the GHG reporting rule, go to http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghg_faq.html If you are uncertain whether or not your facility is subject to the GHG reporting rule, go to http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/GHG-calculator/index.html On May 13, 2010, the EPA issued the GHG Tailoring Rule that sets thresholds for GHG emissions to define when permits under the New Source Review Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and title V Operating Permit programs are required for new and existing industrial facilities. The Tailoring Rule includes 3 steps: Tailoring Rule – Step 1 (January 2, 2011 to June 30, 2011) No new permitting actions due solely to GHG emissions during this time period; only sources undertaking permitting actions anyway for other pollutants will need to address GHG: -PSD permitting applicability: ·”Anyway” sources will be subject to the PSD requirements only if they increase GHG emissions by 75,000 tpy CO2e or more -Title V permitting applicability: ·Only those sources currently with title V permits will address GHGs, and only when applying for, renewing or revising their permits ·No sources will be subject to CAA permitting requirements based solely on GHG emissions Tailoring Rule – Step 2 (July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2013) Sources subject to GHG permitting requirements under step 1 will continue to be subject to GHG permitting requirements. In addition, sources that emit or have the potential to emit GHGs at or above 100,000 tpy CO2e will also be subject to GHG permitting requirements as follows: -PSD permitting applicability: ·A newly constructed source (which is not major for another pollutant) will not be subject to PSD unless it emits 100,000 tpy or more on a CO2e basis ·A modification project at a major stationary source will not be subject to PSD unless it results in a net GHG emissions increase of 75,000 tpy or more on a CO2e basis -Title V permitting applicability ·A GHG emission source (which is not already subject to title V) will not be subject to title V unless it emits 100,000 tpy or more on a CO2e basis ·These newly subject sources must apply for a title V permit on or before July 1, 2012 unless the permitting authority sets an earlier deadline Tailoring Rule – Step 3 The rule establishes an enforceable commitment to complete another rulemaking no later than July 1, 2012. For more information regarding the Tailoring Rule, go to http://www.epa.gov/apti/video/pdfs/tailoring.pdf If you need any assistance with your GHG requirements, we would be glad to assist you.

EPA SPCC Deadline Looms – Penalties Intensify Plan update due November 10, 2010. There’s still time to get yours updated!

Due to the recent BP spill the EPA has placed SPCC Plans as a top priority. Avoid costly fines by ensuring you have a quality plan in place that meets the requirements. Inspectors are looking for sheens on water, the ground, or pavement, oil storage containers without secondary containment or with improperly sized secondary containment, lack of alarm systems to notify personnel of spills, missing records and failure to train personnel. SPCC Plans must describe equipment, workforce, procedures, and training to prevent, control, and provide adequate countermeasures to a discharge of oil. Before a facility is subject to the SPCC Rule, it must meet three criteria: 1) it must be non-transportation-related; 2) it must have an aggregate aboveground storage capacity greater than 1,320 gallons or a completely buried storage capacity greater than 42,000 gallons; and 3) there must be a reasonable expectation of a discharge into or upon navigable waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines (advice – review this term in the rule prior to assuming there is no reasonable expectation). The term oil means oil of any kind or in any form, including, but not limited to: petroleum; fuel oil; sludge; oil refuse; oil mixed with wastes other than dredged spoil; fats, oils or greases of animal, fish, or marine mammal origin; vegetable oils, including oil from seeds, nuts, fruits, or kernels; and other oils and greases, including synthetic oils and mineral oils. SPCC Plans generally require certification by a Professional Engineer unless they are “qualified facilities”. Tier I qualified facilities may complete and implement a streamlined, self-certified SPCC Plan template (Appendix G to the rule); all other qualified facilities are designated Tier II qualified facilities and can be self-certified but cannot use the plan template. Once you have an SPCC Plan in place it is critical to conduct site inspections, personnel training and periodic review and renewal of the plan. Severe penalties have been assessed against companies who had SPCC Plans in place but had not conducted proper training and implementation of the plan. If an inspector determines that site personnel do not know how to respond to a spill, you are likely to face severe penalties, regardless of whether there has been an incident. If you have not conducted SPCC or storm water training, call us for a FREE PowerPoint presentation that you can present and read to your personnel to immediately satisfy this training requirement. If you have questions or need any assistance with any aspect of the SPCC program you may first wish to review a PowerPoint overview which is available on the EPA website at: http://www.epa.gov/osweroe1/docs/oil/spcc/spcc_rule_amendments_nov09.ppt If you have additional questions or need assistance with any aspect of the rule, feel free to call us at 800-634-3947 or visit us at www.argentenv.com. The call and the PowerPoint slides are free. Failure to comply is not.

From: Andy Soos, ENN
Published October 1, 2010 01:44 PM
BP Texas City Aftermath

Accidents happen. Unfortunately, for BP, they have been in the news often for some major incidents. Besides the Gulf of Mexico spill this year, there was the March 23, 2005 incident. This was a fire and explosion that occurred at BP’s Texas City Refinery in Texas City, Texas, killing 15 workers and injuring more than 170 others. BP was charged with criminal violations of federal environmental laws and has been subject to lawsuits from the victim’s families. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration slapped BP with a then-record fine for hundreds of safety violations, and subsequently imposed an even larger fine after claiming that BP had failed to implement safety improvements following the disaster. BP has now been agreed to pay a $15 million penalty that resolves federal civil claims stemming from the two fires, leak, and reporting violations at the refinery that occurred in the same time frame.

The Texas City Refinery is a large oil refinery in the state and is the third largest in the United States. BP acquired the Texas City refinery as part of its merger with Amoco in 1998.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Justice Department announced recently that BP Products North America Inc. has agreed to pay a $15 million penalty to resolve federal Clean Air Act violations at its Texas City, Texas petroleum refinery. The penalty is both the largest ever assessed for civil violations of the Clean Air Act’s chemical accident prevention regulations, also known as the risk management program regulations, and the largest civil penalty recovered for Clean Air Act violations at an individual facility.

The settlement, which is subject to court approval, addresses violations stemming from two fires that occurred at the refinery on March 30, 2004 and July 28, 2005, and a leak that occurred on August 10, 2005. During the three incidents, each of which resulted in the surrounding Texas City community to shelter-in-place, thousands of pounds of flammable and toxic air pollutants were released.

EPA identified the Clean Air Act violations addressed in today’s settlement during a series of inspections of the Texas City refinery initiated after a catastrophic explosion and fire on March 23, 2005. In addition to the Clean Air Act General Duty Clause and risk management program violations resolved by today’s settlement
, EPA also identified violations of other Clean Air Act requirements at the refinery relating to the control of benzene, ozone-depleting substances, and asbestos. These other violations were resolved in a February 2009 settlement that required BP to spend more than $161 million on pollution controls, enhanced maintenance and monitoring, and improved internal management practices at the refinery, as well as pay a $12 million civil penalty and spend another $6 million on a supplemental project to reduce air pollution in Texas City and the surrounding area.

With today’s settlement, the federal government will have recovered approximately $137 million in criminal, civil, and administrative fines related to process safety violations at the Texas City refinery. In addition, BP Products has performed approximately $1.4 billion in corrective actions and the company will spend an estimated additional $500 million, to improve safety at the refinery as required by settlements entered into with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the criminal Clean Air Act plea agreement following the fatal March 23, 2005 explosion.

That explosion killed 15 workers and injured more than 170 others. BP was charged with criminal violations of federal environmental laws and has been subject to lawsuits from the victim’s families. OSHA slapped BP with a then-record fine for hundreds of safety violations, and subsequently imposed an even larger fine after claiming that BP had failed to implement safety improvements following the disaster.

BP has been quoted as saying that they had paid out $1.6 billion in compensation claims as of early 2008.

Money is not everything but is one way to assess blame and incur punishment. It can only be hoped that this was enough.

For further information: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/564D19D4596F72F4852577AE005249B9 or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_City_Refinery_%28BP%29

From: Keith Schneider, Yale Environment 360
Published October 11, 2010 12:19 PM
A High-Risk Energy Boom Sweeps Across North America

Energy companies are rushing to develop unconventional sources of oil and gas trapped in carbon-rich shales and sands throughout the western United States and Canada. So far, government officials have shown little concern for the environmental consequences of this new fossil-fuel development boom.

The most direct path to America’s newest big oil and gas fields is U.S. Highway 12, two lanes of blacktop that unfold from Grays Harbor in Washington State and head east across the top of the country to Detroit.

The 2,500-mile route has quickly become an essential supply line for the energy industry. With astonishing speed, U.S. oil companies, Canadian pipeline builders, and investors from all over the globe are spending huge sums in an economically promising and ecologically risky race to open the next era of hydrocarbon development. As domestic U.S. pools of conventional oil and gas dwindle, energy companies are increasingly turning to “unconventional” fossil fuel reserves contained in the carbon rich-sands and deep shales of Canada, the Great Plains, and the Rocky Mountain West.

Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming hold oil shale reserves estimated to contain 1.2 trillion to 1.8 trillion barrels of oil, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, half of which the department says is recoverable. Eastern Utah alone holds tar sands oil reserves estimated at 12 billion to 19 billion barrels. The tar sands region of northern Alberta
, Canada contains recoverable oil reserves conservatively estimated at 175 billion barrels, and with new technology could reach 400 billion barrels. Deep gas-bearing shales of the Great Plains, Rocky Mountain West, Great Lakes, Northeast, and Gulf Coast contain countless trillions of feet of natural gas. If current projections turn out to be accurate, there would be enough oil and gas to power the United States for at least another century.

Photo credit: http://www.centerwest.org/publications/oilshale/0home/index.php

Article continues: http://e360.yale.edu/feature/a_high-risk_energy_boom_sweeps_across_north_america/2324/

Proposed National Rulemaking to Strengthen the Stormwater Program

EPA is announcing plans to initiate national rulemaking to establish a program to reduce stormwater discharges from new development and redevelopment and make other regulatory improvements to strengthen its stormwater program. This website provides information on two activities related to this proposed rulemaking:

* Stakeholder Input on Proposed Rulemaking
* Information Collection Request (ICR) for Proposed Rulemaking

Stakeholder Input on Proposed Rulemaking

EPA has issued a Federal Register Notice (PDF) (6 pp, 76K) seeking stakeholder input to help EPA shape a program to reduce stormwater impacts. Input will be provided through both written comments and during a series of public listening sessions. As described in the FR Notice, EPA seeks input on the following preliminary regulatory considerations:

* Expand the area subject to federal stormwater regulations
* Establish specific requirements to control stormwater discharges from new development and redevelopment
* Develop a single set of consistent stormwater requirements for all MS4s
* Require MS4s to address stormwater discharges in areas of existing development through retrofitting the sewer system or drainage area with improved stormwater control measures
* Explore specific stormwater provisions to protect sensitive areas

Written comments must be submitted on or before February 26, 2010 to the address specified in the Federal Register notice.

Boston, MA Listening Session – March 11, 2010, 10:00 am to 3:00 pm at EPA Region 1 Office

A new stormwater listening session has been scheduled for March 2010. EPA invites members of the public to give brief (3 minute) statements regarding stormwater rulemaking considerations including the five areas of preliminary consideration. Written comments may also be submitted in person at the listening session.

In order to provide adequate seating for those wishing to attend EPA’s public listening sessions, interested individuals must register to attend by March 8, 2010. For individuals who cannot attend the listening session, EPA will make a conference call line available. The conference line will be “listen only,” and sound quality cannot be guaranteed. Please contact Amber Marriott (amber.marriott@tetratech.com) for the conference call information.

Please Note: EPA will not be accepting comments (oral or written) on the Draft General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems in Massachusetts North Coastal Watersheds. EPA-Region 1 will hold a separate public hearing for the permit on March 18, 2010. For further information, please contact Thelma Murphy (murphy.thelma@epa.gov).

EPA has made available a copy of EPA’s presentation from the listening sessions (PDF) (30 pp, 2.7MB).

In January 2010, EPA held five public listening sessions to allow the public to provide input on regulatory actions that EPA is considering. Brief oral comments (three minutes or less) were accepted at the sessions.

EPA held a “virtual” listening session as a Webcast on February 3, 2010 from 12:00 pm to 4:00 pm Eastern time. After a presentation from EPA, the Webcast allowed members of the public to call in and give brief (3 minute) statements. Audience members were able to listen to the webcast and all public statements using their computer speakers.

New! The archive of this Webcast is now available.
Supporting Information and Related Documents

* Stakeholder Input Federal Register Notice (PDF) (6 pp, 76K)
* Listening Sessions and Stakeholder Input Fact Sheet (PDF) (2 pp, 45K)
* National Research Council Report on Urban Stormwater (PDF) (529 pp, 10.5MB)

You can view or download the complete text of the Federal Register notice on the Internet at www.regulations.gov Exit EPA Site, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0817.
Information Collection Request (ICR) for Proposed Rulemaking

EPA is proposing to disseminate a survey to owners, operators, developers, and contractors of developed sites, owners and operators of municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s), and states and U.S. territories, which is designed to inform a rulemaking to strengthen stormwater regulations and to establish a comprehensive program to reduce stormwater from newly developed and redeveloped sites. Stormwater discharges from developed sites can harm water quality through increases in stormwater volume and pollutant loadings into nearby waterways. Generally, as sites are developed there is an increase in areas where water cannot infiltrate, so stormwater volume increases. The resulting stormwater flows across roads, rooftops, and other surfaces, transporting pollutants that are then discharged into waterways.

EPA intends to propose a rule to control stormwater from, at minimum, newly developed and redeveloped sites, and to take final action no later than November 2012. In order to support the rulemaking EPA is proposing to require three separate questionnaires focusing on gathering data about current stormwater management practices, including those used at newly developed and redeveloped sites. EPA’s proposed survey would gather data from three groups: 1) the owners, operators, developers, and contractors of newly and redeveloped sites; 2) the owners and operators of municipal separate storm sewer systems; and 3) states and territories. The draft survey would require detailed information about stormwater management and control practices, local regulations, and baseline financial information.

On October 26, 2009, EPA signed a Federal Register notice announcing its intent to submit a Information Collection Request (ICR) for the three questionnaires to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

EPA is requesting comments on the proposed Information Collection Request, including the associated burden estimate, but is NOT requesting completion of questionnaires at this time. The proposed ICR will be open for public comment for 60 days following publication in the Federal Register.
Supporting Information and Related Documents

* ICR Factsheet (PDF) (2 pp, 39K)
* ICR Federal Register Notice (PDF) (3 pp, 53K)
* Survey Supporting Statement (PDF) (37 pp, 550K)
* Industry Questionnaire (PDF) (61 pp, 965K)
* Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) Questionnaire (PDF) (32 pp, 476K)
* State Questionnaire (PDF) (21 pp, 334K)

You can view or download the complete text of the Federal Register notice on the Internet at www.regulations.gov Exit EPA Site, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0817.

In step with the dramatic rise in C02 emissions and other pollutants in recent years, a variety of new financial markets have emerged, offering businesses key incentives — aside from taxes and other punitive measures — to slow down overall emissions growth and, ideally, global warming itself.

A key feature of these markets is emissions trading, or cap-and-trade schemes, which allow companies to buy or sell “credits” that collectively bind all participating companies to an overall emissions limit. While markets operate for specific pollutants such as greenhouse gases and acid rain, by far the biggest emissions market is for carbon. In 2007, the trade market for C02 credits hit $60 billion worldwide — almost double the amount from 2006.
Key Stats

* Size of global carbon credit market: Approximately $60 billion
* Amount of C02 the United States traded in 2007: Nearly 23 million metric tons
* Amount of C02 the EU traded in 2007: More than 1.6 billion metric tons

How It Works

Emissions limits and trading rules vary country by country, so each emissions-trading market operates differently. For nations that have signed the Kyoto Protocol, which holds each country to its own C02 limit, greenhouse gas-emissions trading is mandatory. In the United States, which did not sign the environmental agreement, corporate participation is voluntary for emissions schemes such as the Chicago Climate Exchange. Yet a few general principles apply to each type of market.

Under a basic cap-and-trade scheme, if a company’s carbon emissions fall below a set allowance, that company can sell the difference — in the form of credits — to other companies that exceed their limits. Another fast-growing voluntary model is carbon offsets. In this global market, a set of middlemen companies, called offset firms, estimate a company’s emissions and then act as brokers by offering opportunities to invest in carbon-reducing projects around the world. Unlike carbon trading, offsetting isn’t yet government regulated in most countries; it’s up to buyers to verify a project’s environmental worth. In theory, for every ton of C02 emitted, a company can buy certificates attesting that the same amount of greenhouse gas was removed from the atmosphere through renewable energy projects such as tree planting.
Why It Matters Now

Industry watchers say carbon markets will continue to grow at a fast clip — especially in the United States, where Fortune 500 powerhouses such as DuPont, Ford, and IBM are voluntarily capping and trading their emissions. Even though a national cap on carbon emissions doesn’t yet exist in the United States, most consider it inevitable, and legislators are already pushing the issue in Congress.

It’s not just governments who are demanding emissions compliance — consumers want it, too. The commitment a company makes to curb its pollutant output is an increasingly public aspect of strategy. More and more employees are taking these factors into account when deciding where to work. A recent study from MonsterTRAK found that 80 percent of young professionals want their work to impact the environment in a positive way, and 92 percent prefer to work for an environmentally friendly company.
Why It Matters to You

Let’s say a company can’t afford to modify its operations to reduce C02. Purchasing carbon credits or offsets buys it time to figure out how to operate within C02 limits. For others, it can be a cost-effective tool to help lower emissions while earning public praise for the effort. Each credit a company buys on the Chicago Climate Exchange — usually for about $2 — means another company will remove the equivalent of one metric ton of carbon.
The Advantages

Companies in different industries face dramatically different costs to lower their emissions. A market-based approach allows companies to take carbon-reducing measures that everyone can afford. “The private sector is better at developing diversified approaches to manage the costs and risks [of reducing emissions],” says Jesse Fahnestock, spokesman at Swedish power company Vattenfall, which is a member of a global Combat Climate Change coalition.

Reducing emissions and lowering energy consumption is usually good for the core business. For example, in 1997 British energy company BP committed to bring its emissions down to 10 percent below 1990 levels. After taking simple steps like tightening valves, changing light bulbs, and improving operations efficiency, BP implemented an internal cap-and-trade scheme and met its emissions goal by the end of 2001 — nine years ahead of schedule. Using the combined C02 reduction strategy, BP reported saving about $650 million.

Then there’s the long-term investment angle: Buying into the carbon market boom now suggests significant dividends later on. Carbon credits are relatively cheap now, but their value will likely rise, giving companies another reason to participate.
The Disadvantages

As with any financial market, emissions traders are vulnerable to significant risk and volatility. The EU’s trading scheme (EU-ETS), for instance, issued so many permits between 2005 and 2007 that it flooded the market. Supply soared and carbon prices bottomed out, removing incentives for companies to trade. Enforcement of trading rules can be just as unpredictable, though Fahnestock says the EU is working to correct the problems.

Carbon offsets have their own drawbacks, which reflect a fast-growing and unregulated market. Some offset firms in the United States and abroad have been caught selling offsets for normal operations that do not actually take any additional C02 out of the atmosphere, such as pumping C02 into oil wells to force out the remaining crude. In 2008 the Climate Group, the International Emissions Trading Association, and the World Economic Forum will work to develop a Voluntary Carbon Standard to verify that offsetting projects are beyond business-as-usual and have lasting environmental value.

The lack of offset regulations has also made marketing problematic. Recently, companies have taken to declaring themselves “carbon neutral.” But until the Federal Trade Commission determines the guidelines for such terms, it’s unclear which companies actually merit the distinction. Already Vail Resorts, the organizers of the Academy Awards, and other organizations have taken heat for touting their investments in carbon offset projects that were not entirely environmentally sound.
Key Players

Bank of America is a leader in carbon-reduction strategies. The bank recently launched a $20 billion, 10-year initiative to finance emission-reduction projects, invest in green technology, and facilitate carbon-credit trading.

BP is among the most well-known companies to implement an internal cap-and-trade system. The company assigned its 150 units an emissions quota and allowed them to buy and sell carbon credits among themselves.

The European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS) is the mandatory cap-and-trade program for the EU.

The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) is a U.S. carbon-trading scheme in which companies make a voluntary but legally binding commitment to meet emissions targets.
How to Talk About It

Cap-and-trade scheme: A market approach to reducing greenhouse gases that works by setting emissions targets. Governments or businesses that reduce their carbon outputs in excess of the target can sell the difference to those who produce more than the limit. This is the favored solution of many business groups.

MACs: Marginal abatement costs refer to the cost of cutting C02 emission, which varies from country to country and industry to industry.

Free-market environmentalism: This theory holds that the free market, which offers economic incentives, is the best tool to address global warming. This view goes against the traditional approach to environmentalism, which looks to government regulation to prevent environmental destruction.

www.bnet.com

EPA Strengthens Transboundary Hazardous Waste Shipment Regulations

Release date: 12/28/2009

Contact Information: Skip Anderson, anderson.skip@epa.gov, 202-564-9551, 202-564-4355

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is strengthening the regulations that govern the shipping of hazardous waste for recycling between the United States and other countries. The new measures are meant to increase the level of regulatory oversight, provide stricter controls, and greater transparency. The final rule announced today aligns EPA’s hazardous waste import/export/transit shipment regulations with the procedures of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), an international consortium that comprises 30 countries including the United States.

EPA’s new measures bolster regulations regarding hazardous waste shipments into or out of the United States and strengthen the extensive set of regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) governing the shipment of hazardous waste within the United States.

Specifically, this rule revises:

· Existing RCRA regulation regarding the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes for recovery among countries belonging to the OECD to conform to legally required revisions made by the OECD, such as:

- requiring U.S. recovery facilities to submit a certificate after recovery of the waste has been completed,
- adding provisions to ensure that hazardous wastes are returned to the country of export in a more timely and documented manner when it is necessary to do so, and
- adding new procedures for imported hazardous wastes that are initially managed at U.S. accumulation and transfer facilities to better track and document that subsequent recovery by a separate recycling facility is completed in an environmentally sound manner.

· RCRA regulations for spent lead-acid batteries (SLAB) to add export notification and consent requirements to provide stricter controls and greater transparency for exports of SLABs to any country, and should ensure that the batteries are sent to countries and reclamation facilities in those countries that can manage the SLABs in an environmentally sound manner.

· Hazardous waste import-related requirements for U.S. hazardous waste management facilities to confirm individual import shipments comply with the terms of EPA’s consent.

· The address to which export exception reports are to be sent.

The United States participates in a number of bilateral waste agreements between countries and in the multilateral waste agreement controlling the shipment of hazardous waste for recovery between OECD member countries.

More information on the final rule: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/international/oecd-slab-rule.htm

Fact Sheet — Proposed Rule: Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule

ACTION

• On September 30, 2009, EPA announced a proposal that is focused on large facilities emitting over 25,000 tons of greenhouse gases a year. These facilities would be required to obtain permits that would demonstrate they are using the best practices and technologies to minimize GHG emissions.

• The rule proposes new thresholds for greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) that define when Clean Air Act (CAA) permits under the New Source Review (NSR) and title V operating permits programs would be required for new or existing industrial facilities.

• The proposed thresholds would “tailor” the permit programs to limit which facilities would be required to obtain NSR and title V permits and would cover nearly 70 percent of the national GHG emissions that come from stationary sources, including those from the nation’s largest emitters—including power plants, refineries, and cement production facilities.

• Small farms, restaurants and many other types of small facilities would not be subject to these permitting programs.

• This proposal addresses the emissions of the group of six greenhouse gases (GHGs) that may be covered by an EPA rule controlling or limiting their emissions:
  1. Carbon dioxide (CO2)
  2. Methane (CH4)
  3. Nitrous oxide (N2O)
  4. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
  5. Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
  6. Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)

• EPA is proposing carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) as the preferred metric for determining GHG emissions rates for any combination of these six GHGs, but we are requesting comment in this proposal on alternatives. Emissions of greenhouse gases are typically expressed in a common metric, so that their impacts can be directly compared, as some gases are more potent (have a higher global warming potential or GWP) than others.  The international standard practice is to express GHGs in CO2e. Emissions of gases other than CO2 are translated into CO2 equivalents by using the gases’ global warming potentials.

• Under the Title V operating permits program, EPA is proposing a major source emissions applicability threshold of 25,000 tons per year (tpy) of carbon dioxide CO2e for existing industrial facilities.  Facilities with GHG emissions below this threshold would not be required to obtain an operating permit.

• Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) portion of NSR—which is a permit program designed to minimize emissions from new sources and existing sources making major modifications—EPA is proposing a:
  1. Major stationary source threshold of 25,000 tpy CO2e. This threshold level would be used to determine if a new facility or a major modification at an existing facility would trigger PSD permitting requirements.
  2. Significance level between 10,000 and 25,000 tpy CO2e. Existing major sources making modifications that result in an increase of emissions above the significance level would be required to obtain a PSD permit. EPA is requesting comment on a range of values in this proposal, with the intent of selecting a single value for the GHG significance level.

• Operating permits contain air emissions control requirements that apply to a facility, such as national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants, new source performance standards, or best available control technologies required by a PSD permit.   In general, since there are currently no such air emission control requirements, existing facilities with GHG emissions greater than 25,000 tons per year that already have operating permits would not need to immediately revise them.  At the end of a 5-year period when the operating permit must be renewed, these facilities would be required to include estimates of their GHG emissions in their permit applications.  Facilities may use the same data reported to EPA under the Mandatory Reporting Rule to fulfill this requirement.

• New or modified facilities with GHG emissions that trigger PSD permitting requirements would need to apply for a revision to their operating permits to incorporate the best available control technologies and energy efficiency measures to minimize GHG emissions. These controls are determined on a case-by-case basis during the PSD process.

• Under the proposed emissions thresholds, EPA estimates that 400 new sources and modifications would be subject to PSD review each year for GHG emissions. Less than 100 of these would be newly subject to PSD.  In total, approximately 14,000 large sources would need to obtain operating permits for GHG emissions under the operating permits program. About 3,000 of these sources would be newly subject to CAA operating permit requirements as a result of this action. The majority of these sources are expected to be municipal solid waste landfills.

• Municipal solid waste landfills are the second largest source of human-related methane emissions in the United States, accounting for approximately 23 percent of these emissions in 2007. Landfill methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, can be captured, converted, and used as an energy source, reducing emissions and providing an important renewable energy source.

• The current thresholds for criteria pollutants such as lead, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide, are 100 and 250 tons per year (tpy). These thresholds are in effect now, and are appropriate for criteria pollutants.  However, they are not feasible for GHGs.  Without the tailoring rule, these lower thresholds would take effect automatically for GHGs with the adoption of any EPA rule that controls or limits GHG emissions.

• The proposed thresholds would continue to preserve the ability of the NSR and title V operating permit programs to achieve and maintain public health and environmental protection goals while avoiding an administrative burden that would prevent state and local permitting authorities from processing CAA permits efficiently.

• EPA will accept comment on this proposal for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.

NEXT STEPS

• The final emissions thresholds for GHG emissions under the federal PSD and operating permits programs will take effect immediately upon promulgation of the final rule.  At that time, EPA will put the new thresholds into effect in state, local and tribal agency programs that run PSD and Title V operating programs under EPA approval.  Those agencies will continue to have the option to seek EPA approval for lower thresholds if they demonstrate that they can adequately implement the PSD program at the lower thresholds.

• EPA intends to evaluate ways to streamline the process for identifying GHG emissions control requirements and issuing permits.  This will reduce costs and increase efficiency for both sources and for state permitting agencies, which in most cases are responsible for issuing the permits.

• Under the proposal, EPA must also re-evaluate the final GHG emissions thresholds after an initial phase, during which PSD and Title V permitting authorities will gain experience in issuing permits to GHG sources.  By the end of the first phase, which is proposed to last five years, the Agency is proposing to complete a study to evaluate whether it is administratively feasible for PSD and Title V permitting authorities to adequately administer their programs at lower GHG thresholds.

• After reviewing the study results, EPA will complete a follow-on regulatory action, within one year (six years following promulgation of this rule).  The follow-on rule will establish thresholds during the second phase, by either:
  1. Confirming the need to retain the GHG permitting thresholds for PSD and/or Title V at the levels promulgated with this rulemaking; or
  2. Establishing different GHG threshold levels that more accurately reflect the administrative capabilities of permitting authorities to address GHGs.

• EPA believes that a five-year duration for the first phase is appropriate but the Agency requests comment on alternative time periods.

• EPA also plans to develop supporting information to assist permitting authorities as they begin to address permitting actions for GHG emissions for the first time. The guidance would first cover source categories that typically emit GHGs at levels exceeding the thresholds established through this rulemaking.

• Although EPA has not yet identified specific source categories, the Agency plans to develop sector- and source-specific guidance that would help permitting authorities and affected sources better understand GHG emissions for the selected source categories, methods for estimating those emissions, control strategies for GHG emissions, and available GHG measurement and monitoring techniques.

• This guidance also will include approaches for making Best Available Control Technology determinations as required for a PSD permit.

BACKGROUND

• On April 2, 2007, the Supreme Court found that GHGs, including carbon dioxide, are air pollutants covered by the CAA.  Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007).

• The Supreme Court found that EPA was required to determine whether or not emissions of GHGs from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision. In April 2009, EPA responded to the Court by proposing a finding that greenhouse gases contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare.

• EPA expects soon to take final action on the finding.  The agency also expects to issue regulations under the Clean Air Act to control GHG emissions from light duty vehicles (proposal signed 9/15/09).  Such an action will trigger Clean Air Act permitting requirements under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Operating Permit (title V) programs for GHG emissions.  This will be the first time GHGs would be subject to either of these Clean Air Act permitting programs.

• Congress established the NSR program as part of the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments and modified it in the 1990 Amendments.  NSR is a preconstruction permitting program that serves two important purposes:
  1. Ensures the maintenance of air quality standards or, where there are not air quality standards, it ensures that air quality does not significantly worsen when factories, industrial boilers, and power plants are modified or added.  In areas that do not meet the national ambient air quality standards, NSR assures that new emissions do not slow progress toward cleaner air.  In areas that meet the standards, especially pristine areas like national parks, NSR assures that new emissions fall within air quality standards.
  2. Ensures that state-of-the-art control technology is installed at new plants or at existing plants that are undergoing a major modification.

• New major stationary sources and major modifications at existing major stationary sources that meet emissions applicability thresholds outlined in the Clean Air Act and in existing PSD regulations must obtain a PSD permit outlining how they will control emissions.  The permit requires facilities to apply best available control technology (BACT), which is determined on a case-by-case basis taking into account, among other factors, the cost and effectiveness of the control.

• The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 required that all states develop operating permit programs.  Under these programs, known as Title V operating permits programs, every major industrial source of air pollution (and some other sources) must obtain an operating permit.  The permits, which are reviewed every five years, contain all air emission control requirements that apply to the facility, including the requirements established as part of the preconsturction permitting process.

Texas Attainment Status by Region

Information about the areas of Texas that violate national ambient air quality standards.

This page contains information on the areas of Texas that are deemed in “nonattainment” or “near nonattainment” of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

What are Texas’ nonattainment areas?

Nonattainment areas are areas that have failed to meet federal standards for ambient air quality. Near nonattainment areas currently meet federal standards but are at risk of violating standards.

Texas meets federal air quality standards with the following exceptions: (1) carbon monoxide and particulate matter in El Paso; and (2) eight-hour ground-level ozone in Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, Dallas–Fort Worth and Beaumont–Port Arthur. Maintenance areas are areas that were once designated in nonattainment of federal standards, but which have since been redesignated in attainment of those standards.

Texas also has three Early Action Compact Areas: Austin, San Antonio, and Northeast Texas. These are areas that have submitted EAC plans which on November 17, 2004 were utilized to develop SIP strategies to reduce emission standards to meet the eight-hour ozone standard by 2007. Please visit the Early Action Compact (EAC) Plans Web page for more information on EACs.

Click on the links below for additional information on each area:

Nonattainment Area	Counties	Classification	Attainment Date Required by EPA
Eight-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB)	Brazoria Chambers Fort Bend Galveston Harris Liberty Montgomery Waller	Severe	June 15, 2019
Dallas–Fort Worth (DFW)	Collin Dallas Denton Tarrant Ellis Johnson Kaufman Parker Rockwall	Moderate	June 15, 2010
Beaumont–Port Arthur (BPA)	Hardin Jefferson Orange	Moderate	June 15, 2010
Ozone Early Action Compact (EAC) Areas
Austin–San Marcos (AUS)	Travis Williamson Bastrop Hays Caldwell	Attainment	December 31, 2007
San Antonio (SA)	Bexar Comal Guadalupe Wilson	Attainment	December 31, 2007
Northeast Texas (NET)	Rusk Smith Upshur Gregg Harrison	Attainment	December 31, 2007
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas
El Paso (ELP)	El Paso	Maintenance	N/A
Particulate Matter 10 (PM10) Nonattainment Areas
El Paso (ELP)	El Paso	Moderate	December 31, 1994

Return to top

---

Map of Texas’ Nonattainment and Near Nonattainment Areas

Click on the map for more information about each area.

Return to top

---

What about the PM_2.5 standard?

In 2007, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revised the NAAQS for PM_2.5. Based on monitoring data from 2004 to 2006, all areas in Texas showed attainment for this standard. On December 18, 2007, the Governor of Texas sent a letter to the EPA recommending that all areas of Texas be designated attainment for the PM_2.5 standard of less than or equal to 35 micrograms per cubic meter. The Governors letter, the commissions resolution, and the supporting data are provided. For more information regarding PM in Texas, see TCEQs web page on Particulate Matter.

The EPA established annual and 24-hour NAAQS for PM_2.5 for the first time in 1997 to address data indicating that these small particles, which can penetrate more deeply into the lung, may pose greater health risks than larger particles. Based on monitoring data from 2000 to 2002, all areas in Texas showed attainment for this standard. On February 13, 2004, the Governor of Texas sent a letter to the EPA recommending that all areas of Texas be designated attainment for the PM_2.5 standard. The EPA did not designate any region of Texas in nonattainment for this standard. For more information on this standard, see the EPA’s Web page on PM2.5 NAAQS Implementation