Chapter 3: Air pollution control laws and regulations, Air pollution control philosophies

1. Chapter 3: Air pollution control laws and regulations, Air pollution control philosophies

2. Background • Most air pollution control activities in the United States take place in response to or in anticipation of air pollution laws and regulations. • These laws and regulations change with time. • This chapter discusses the basic structure and underlying philosophies of U.S. air pollution law and regulations, which have not changed substantially in the past 30 years. • Understanding that structure and philosophy will help the reader understand the current laws and the changes that will occur in the future.

3. 3.1 US Air pollution laws and regulations • Most air pollution control engineers works with permits. Major facilities (such as steel mills, copper smelters, and chemical plants) must have a permit in order to operate in the US. • These permits are authorized by local, state, or federal authorities. • Such permits are normally expressed as: The emissions of pollutant X from the main stack factory Y shall not exceed Zpound per hours,together with information about monitoring, reporting emissions to the regulatory agency, test procedures, and so forth.

4. Federal regulations direct the states to require a permit for each facility that has the potential to emit 100 tons/yr of criteria pollutants or 25 tons/yr of hazardous pollutants. • Here "has the potential to emit" means that if the facility were to operate with all its pollution control devices turned off, it would emit that amount. Thus, a facility with a potential to emit 100 tons/yr, but which has 99% efficient control and actually emits 1 ton/yr, would still be required to obtain such a permit. • In addition, if the facility is located in a region with severe pollution problems, the above values at which permits are required can be smaller.

5. The legal authority for these permits is derived as shown in Fig. 3.1.

6. Nationwide Products vs. Individuals (Fig 3.1) • Some nationwide products, such as automobiles and gasoline, are regulated directly by the EPA. An automobile manufacturing plant must have a state operating permit for the local air pollutant emissions it creates and an EPA certification that its autos meet the federal emission standards. • Individuals generally do not need such permits. They are directly affected by local regulations (such as no open burning of garbage) and state traffic regulations and auto emission inspections, and are indirectly affected by the federal regulations on automobiles and gasoline.

7. 3.2 Air pollution control philosophies • The wish: is to have a completely unpolluted environment at no cost to any one. • Impossible! • The logic: is to have the following: • appropriately clean environment, • obtained at an appropriate cost , • this cost appropriately distributed among industry, car owners, homeowners, and other sources of pollutants.

8. 3.3 The four philosophies Actual regulations are often based on mixtures of the following philosophies 1- Emission standards 2- Air quality standards 3- Emission taxes 4- Cost- benefit standards Most of the air pollution regulations are based directly or indirectly on these philosophies.

9. 3.3.1 The emission standard philosophy • The basic idea of the emission standard philosophy is that there is some maximum possible (or practical) degree of emission control. This degree varies between various classes of emitters (e.g., autos, cement plants) but presumably can be determined for each class. • If this degree of control is determined for each class, and every member of that class is required to limit emissions to this maximum degree possible, then the pollutant emission rate will be the lowest possible.

10. … 3.3.1 The emission standard philosophy In other words, making laws about the maximum emissions for different classes. Each class is required to limit emissions below the maximum for that class. If this philosophy is carried out rigorously we will have the cleanest possible air. Thus this might be called a cleanest possible air philosophy.

11. Best technology Approach • A type of emission standard philosophy. • All members of a class are required to employ the best technology currently available for controlling emissions and to keep the control equipment in good operating condition. • In this type of regulation there is generally no specified emission rate or emission test; the operator who installs and operates properly the "best technology" is deemed to be complying with the regulation. • The British equivalent phrase for best technology is best practical means .

12. …Best technology Approach • The best technology approach is still widely used in cases where determining the emission rate in pounds per hour would be difficult.

13. Examples of the Best technology Approach • For example, federal regulations for large gasoline storage tanks require that such tanks have floating roofs with well-designed and well-maintained seals (see Chapter 10). Similarly, most states require gasoline stations to use "Stage I Vapor Recovery" (see Chapter 10), which requires the station's underground tanks and the trucks that fill them to be connected in a way that minimizes emissions due to fuel transfer. The regulation consists of the technical description of the equipment and its operation and maintenance.

14. Other Examples within the Emission Philosophy Category The prohibition against open burning of garbage and agricultural wastes is a kind of emission standard, because open burning generates more air pollutants per unit of waste than landfill, closed incineration, recycling, or composting.

15. Visible emissions from stacks and vents, particularly from the chimneys of coal-burning furnaces, are indicative of emissions of air pollutant particles. Regulations limiting these visible emissions are a form of emission standard. The common test for visible emissions, introduced by Ringleman [4], is a cheap, rapid, widely applied tool for emission regulation and enforcement.

16. Fuel sulfur content and gasoline olefin content maxima and gasoline oxygen content minima are also emission standards because most of the sulfur in fuels enters the atmosphere as sulfur dioxide, because olefins are more effective in causing photochemical smog than equivalent amounts of other hydrocarbons, and because autos using oxygen-containing gasolines emit less CO than those using other gasolines.

17. Under current EPA regulations, a coal-fired electric power plant whose construction commenced after September 1978 may not emit to the atmosphere more than 0.03 pound of particulates per 106 Btu of fuel burned, as determined by stack test, nor more than 1 percent of the ash in the fuel, whichever is less. Similarly, automobiles made in 1993 and later may not emit more than 0.25 gram/mile of hydrocarbons in a well-defined test procedure [4] (see Chapter 13). Note that example 4 is an example of numerical values.

18. All of these kinds of emission standards have the same general idea: there is some degree of emission control that it is practical to impose upon all members of a well-defined class of emitters, and that degree of control is required of all members of that class. This philosophy was the basis of most of the air pollution control activities in the industrial world from 1863 to 1970.

19. In current U.S. air pollution law, two sections are "pure" emission standards. These are the Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources (commonly called new source performance tandards [NSPS]) and the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP).

20. 3.3.11: Advantages and disadvantages of emissions standard The cost effectiveness of the emission standard philosophy is bad. i.e. if the same emission standard were applied for a specific class of emitters , for both remote location and in those in industrial densely populated areas, then for a stringent standard, the remote plants will make large expenditure to produce a small reduction in damage to receivers and hence a small benefit.

21. The simplicity of the emission standard philosophy is excellent, the entire set of regulations consist s of the permitted emission rates and the description of the test method to be used to determine whether the emission standards are being met The enforceability of the emission standard philosophy is excellent, once the standards are set and tests methods defined, one knows whom to monitor and for what.

22. The flexibility of this philosophy is poor, if a plant orders pollution control equipment, and the equipment fails to meet the manufacturers predicted performance criteria ( and hence the emission standards) it may take years to replace it. Q. how should the air pollution control authorities deal with this plant. Under this philosophy, they can ……..

23. Under this philosophy, they can …….. • close the plant, • fine its operators • give it a variance to operate until the equipment is fixed. • Experience shows that plant closing is politically impossible, serious fines are politically very difficult, and the variance is an invitation to infinite delays; but under this philosophy there are no other obvious alternatives.

24. The evolutionary ability of this philosophy is fair, if a new technology makes it possible to set a lower standard, it can be implemented for all sources built after a certain date.

28. 3.3.2 The Air Quality standard philosophy -Emission standard philosophy is a ”cleanest possible air” -The Air Quality Standard Philosophy is a “zero-damage” -What is the relation between threshold values and the philosophy of The Air Quality Standard Philosophy?

29. In chapter 2 we discussed the idea of threshold values below which no air pollution damage would occur. • The air quality standard philosophy is based on the assumption that the true situation for most major air pollutant is the threshold value situation. • Therefore, if we can determine the pollutant concentration values (including time of exposure) that correspond to such threshold values, and if we can regulation the time, place and amount of pollution emissions …

30. …to guarantee that these threshold values are never exceeded, then there can be no air pollution damage, ever, anywhere. • The U.S. air pollution community is trying to do precisely that, by carrying out the basic air quality standard philosophy of the Clean Air Act. • The values not to be exceeded are called National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Pollutants on this list are called criteria pollutants. • The states need to ensure that those standards will not be exceeded, ever, anywhere (fig. 3.2)

32. Fig. 3.2: The process for a specific pollutant at a specific locality begins with a measurement of the ambient air quality. If the measured pollutant concentration is acceptable (i.e., less than the NAAQS), then the air quality at some time in the future is predicted. • If this is acceptable, no action is needed. • If the future concentrations (taking into account population and industrial growth) exceed the standards, then emission regulations must be devised to prevent this predicted violation.

33. If the current pollutant concentrations are greater than the permitted values, then emissions must be reduced to bring the current values into compliance with the standards. Determining which emissions to reduce and how much to reduce them requires some way of estimating the relation between emissions and ambient air quality, normally an air quality model (Chapter 6).

34. Once these measures of emission reductions have been enforced and applied, one again measures the ambient air. If the standards are not met, then the modeling exercise has • produced incorrect results and the entire cycle must be repeated until the standards • are met. This process was initiated in the United States in April 1971. • For the most part, standards have not been met. Why? • Three reasons are listed in your textbook:

35. For the most part, standards have not been met. Why? • Three reasons are listed in your textbook: • Underestimation of total emissions. • Overestimation of control measures efficacy. • Using optimistic models to predict future air quality standards

36. 3.3.2.1: Advantages and disadvantages of the air quality standard philosophy • The cost effectiveness of the air quality standard philosophy is good but not excellent. • It has the virtues of concentrating pollution control expenditures in the areas with the worst pollution problems and allowing higher emission rates (and lower pollution control expenditures) in areas with less serious problems • However, once a set of NAAQS is in place, they must be met everywhere, even in areas people seldom or never visit; i.e. expenditures for which the damage reduction benefits are small.

37. … Advantages and disadvantages of the air quality standard philosophy The simplicity of the air quality standards is poor. The reason for this complexity is that we are attempting to control the concentration of pollutants in the ambient air. Those concentrations are influenced by a wide variety of emitters, some nearby, some far away. The connection between the emissions and air quality at a given location depends on the meteorological transport and dispersion of the pollutants and on atmospheric reactions of the pollutants. None of these subjects is well enough understood.

38. … Advantages and disadvantages of the air quality standard philosophy • The enforcement of the air quality standards is fair. • If the pollutant has only one major source in the region, then assigning responsibility is easy. • If the pollutant is a secondary pollutant like ozone, formed in the atmosphere by the interaction of several other pollutants (volatile organic compounds-VOCs-and nitrogen oxides-Nox) emitted by a variety of sources, then assigning responsibility is much more difficult.

39. … Advantages and disadvantages of the air quality standard philosophy The flexibility of the air quality standards is fair. Because of the multiple ways by which air quality standards can be met, those managing the air quality have some flexibility, and each state or local agency can write those detailed regulations it considers best, within limits. Special cases and emergencies can be handled locally.

40. … Advantages and disadvantages of the air quality standard philosophy The evolutionary ability of the air quality standard philosophy is fair. As new data appear, standards can be changed; but such changes require completely new emission regulations, which are expensive and time-consuming. For example: When the EPA added the PM2.5 standard to the existing PM10 standard (1997, see Table 2.3), each of the states had to write a new SIP section and the appropriate regulations for PM2.5. The state air quality management plans (SIPs) are regularly updated, taking new data and information on control technology improvements into account.

41. … Advantages and disadvantages of the air quality standard philosophy One clear difficulty with the air quality standard philosophy, which led to court action in the United States, concerns nondegradation or nondeterioration. If it were absolutely true that there was no damage at all, of any kind at concentrations below the threshold values, then there could be no logical objections to polluting up to those concentrations. What are the logical bases for opposing this view?

42. ..the logical bases for opposing this view are: • The setting of threshold values is bound to be based on limited data, so that we cannot be absolutely certain that we will not cause harm in pure-air areas by polluting them up to the levels of the standards. • Visibility (see Section 2.3) is not a threshold-value property. • Hence, if we were to pollute up to the NAAQS, most of the scenic areas of the Southwest and Rocky Mountain states would experience a marked and significant degradation of their traditionally high visibility and clear skies.

43. 3.3.3 and 3.3.4 …Other philosophies? • Most of the current U.S. air pollution laws and regulations are based on the two preceding philosophies. We know a great deal about their advantages and drawbacks. • The two philosophies discussed next (emission tax and cost & benefit analysis) are not in use to any significant extent anywhere • They are ideas that have had theoretical discussion in academic journals. They represent possible future alternatives.

44. 3.3.3 Emission Tax Philosophy • Each emitter would be taxed of major pollutants according to its emission rate; • e.g., X cents per pound of pollutant Y for • This tax rate would be set so that most major polluters would find it more economical to install pollution control equipment than pay the taxes.

45. …3.3.3 Emission Tax Philosophy (Pure vs. combined) • In its pure form: these laws would exert no legal or moral sanction against an emitter who elected to pay the tax and not control emissions at all. • Combined with the air quality std. philosophy: emission taxes would act as an added incentive to reduce emissions to lower levels than those required to meet air quality standards. i.e. both philosophies working in parallel.

46. …3.3.3 Emission Tax Philosophy • Emission taxes can be considered as one member of a larger class of philosophies called economic incentives. The other members of this class are: • tax rebates, • low-interest-rate loans from the government for the installation of air pollution control equipment, • direct public subsidies for pollution control.

47. Emission Tax Philosophy The emission tax philosophy assumes that the environment has natural removal mechanisms for pollutants and at any particular contaminant level the environment has a finite , renewable absorptive or dispersive capability.

48. Emission Tax Philosophy If we take that view and apply the pure form of emission taxes , then we accomplish two desirable results: First: The degree of pollution control by individual firm becomes an internal economic decision. Each firm chooses the degree of control efficiency that will minimize the sum of control costs and taxes for it. Second: Minimize the misallocation of pollution control resources. Small emitters will presumably find it economical to pay the taxes rather than put economically wasteful control devices. Large emitters will choose installing high-quality control equipment. i.e. better allocation of pollution control resources.

49. Emission Tax Philosophy The cost effectiveness should be fair because an emission tax philosophy would allow each emitter the choice of controlling emissions or paying the taxes (or controlling to some economic degree and paying for the rest). • Making the decisions – whether or not to control the pollution and what the degree of control should be – a matter of the internal economics of major emitters would probably result in a better overall cost effectiveness than is possible with uniform emission standards. However, uniform national emission taxes may result in some remote plants installing control equipment at large cost to minimize taxes without a corresponding reduction in damages.

50. Emission Tax Philosophy If tax schemes are limited to large sources, then enforceability should be excellent. The emission-testing values would be readily accepted as the basis for tax payments. Recording emission meters in exhaust stacks would also be most useful. (For emission testing, the emission-testing industry would have to be expanded, and certification of emission test firms instituted)