Clean Air and Energy: Reform of the PSD Provisions of the Clean Air Act

Air pollution regulation in the United States has come under repeated attack over the years for a number of reasons. Early in the past decade, prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) legislation, which protects currently clean areas, came into conflict with domestic energy production goals. This paper presents an applied analysis of present and alternative regulations for achievement of PSD air quality goals. A model of the Four Corners region of the Southwest is developed, and several policy alternatives tested in terms of economic efficiency and ability to achieve air quality goals. Alternatives examined include emission fees, marketable emission permits, and technological standards.     

Growth and Clean Air

The keynote address to the 72nd annual meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association was presented by R.W. Baldwin. His remarks follow:     

The Clean Air Act: New Enforcement and Liability Provisions

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 establish new criminal and civil liability provisions that can potentially impose substantial fines and penalties. This article reviews the Act's new enforcement and liability provisions. The authors recommend that because of the new enforcement tools available to the federal government, the regulated community should implement effective self-auditing and compliance programs at facilities to help reduce the risk of criminal liability.     

The Fifth International Clean Air Congress

ABSTRACT

The main objective of this study was to investigate the capabilities of the receptor-oriented inverse mode Lagrangian Stochastic Particle Dispersion Model (LSPDM) with the 12-km resolution Mesoscale Model 5 (MM5) wind field input for the assessment of source identification from seven regions impacting two receptors located in the eastern United States. The LSPDM analysis was compared with a standard version of the Hybrid Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory (HYSPLIT) single-particle backward-trajectory analysis using inputs from MM5 and the Eta Data Assimilation System (EDAS) with horizontal grid resolutions of 12 and 80 km, respectively. The analysis included four 7-day summertime events in 2002; residence times in the modeling domain were computed from the inverse LSPDM runs and HYPSLIT-simulated backward trajectories started from receptor-source heights of 100, 500, 1000, 1500, and 3000 m. Statistics were derived using normalized values of LSPDM- and HYSPLIT-predicted residence times versus Community Multiscale Air Quality model-predicted sulfate concentrations used as baseline information. From 40 cases considered, the LSPDM identified first- and second-ranked emission region influences in 37 cases, whereas HYSPLIT-MM5 (HYSPLIT-EDAS) identified the sources in 21 (16) cases. The LSPDM produced a higher overall correlation coefficient (0.89) compared with HYSPLIT (0.55–0.62). The improvement of using the LSPDM is also seen in the overall normalized root mean square error values of 0.17 for LSPDM compared with 0.30–0.32 for HYSPLIT. The HYSPLIT backward trajectories generally tend to underestimate near-receptor sources because of a lack of stochastic dispersion of the backward trajectories and to overestimate distant sources because of a lack of treatment of dispersion. Additionally, the HYSPLIT backward trajectories showed a lack of consistency in the results obtained from different single vertical levels for starting the backward trajectories. To alleviate problems due to selection of a backward-trajectory starting level within a large complex set of 3-dimensional winds, turbulence, and dispersion, results were averaged from all heights, which yielded uniform improvement against all individual cases.

IMPLICATIONS Backward-trajectory analysis is one of the standard procedures for determining the spatial locations of possible emission sources affecting given receptors, and it is frequently used to enhance receptor modeling results. This analysis simplifies some of the relevant processes such as pollutant dispersion, and additional methods have been used to improve receptor-source relationships. A methodology of inverse Lagrangian stochastic particle dispersion modeling was used in this study to complement and improve standard backward-trajectory analysis. The results show that inverse dispersion modeling can identify regional sources of haze in national parks and other regions of interest.     

Pursuing the Goals of the Clean Air Act

I am delighted to have this opportunity to address the members attending this 67th annual meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association. Before I came here this morning, I glanced through the pamphlet describing the scheduled technical programs. I was struck by the range and sophistication of the technical sessions that are scheduled for the next three days. Your program makes it very clear that a national program of air quality management requires a large dose of scientific inquiry and engineering know-how. You are the experts who have the training, experience and commitment necessary to provide strong professional leadership in the battle to achieve and maintain clean air for the American people.     

Propane as an Engine Fuel for Clean Air Requirements

Air pollutants in exhaust gas produced from LP-gas (propane) were studied using both laboratory engines and vehicles. The objective of the study was both to evaluate propane as a low-pollution fuel and to provide information on adjustment of engine parameters for advantageous use of propane as a low-pollution fuel. Variables in the study were air-fuel ratio (A/F), ignition timing schedule, and ambient temperature. Data comparable to that for propane relating A/F and ambient temperature to emissions are shown for natural gas and for gasoline.     

EPA’s Clean Air Act Operating Permit Rules

Title V of the Clean Air Act requires tens of thousands of air pollution sources to obtain an operating permit incorporating all applicable requirements under the Act. EPA recently promulgated its controversial Title V regulations, which establish the minimum elements for state permit programs.

The new permit system is among the most important changes made by the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, and will significantly alter the way companies comply with air pollution requirements. Previously, the Act only required certain sources to obtain a new source review permit before constructing or modifying the facility (although many states established operating permit systems on their own). Now, all states must adopt operating permit programs consistent with the minimum federal requirements, and submit them to EPA by November 1993. Even though EPA has established minimum requirements, these programs are likely to vary widely from state to state.     

The Clean Air Act and its Implications for Training Requisite Personnel

The Clean Air Act, Public Law 88-206, was signed into law on December 17, 1963. Among the new provisions was the authorization given to the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to award grants for the support of State and local air pollution control programs. The Chief, Division of Air Pollution, then requested the Surgeon General’s Air Pollution Training Committee to make recommendations for the most effective way to train the required numbers of people. The Committee called a special three-day meeting at Airlie House with about 30 consultants. Recommendations for training stemming from the meeting included: (1) University-based programs combined with practical experience in control program. (2) Criteria for the selection of trainees. (3) The outline of a model program. These recommendations were submitted to the Chief, Division of Air Pollution and are currently reflected in the activation of one program and a request to the Congress for funds to initiate two more such programs during Fiscal Year 1966.