Principles of Air Quality Management - Chapter 9 pot

243

9

Air Quality Laws
and Regulations

Whereas the Columns and Clowds of Smoake, which are belched forth from the sooty
Throates of those Works, are so thick and plentiful. … I propose therefore, that by an
Act of this present Parliament, this infernal Nuisance be reformed; enjoyning, that all
those Works be removed five or six miles distant from London below the River of
Thames.

Fumifugium

, Part II (1661)

Historically, a general law approach to air quality concerns has been taken. Outright
prohibitions against certain activities generating air contaminants have been adopted
for centuries, beginning as early as the 13th century (see Chapter 1). These prohi-
bitions were for those actions that harmed, or that potentially harmed, the health or
safety of the citizenry. At present, many international efforts are being attempted to
control criteria emissions, as well as hazardous air pollutants, utilizing treaties among
nations.

GENERAL LAW APPROACHES

The legal framework for air quality management in the United States consists of
dual federal and state

statutes

;

case law

, including common law; and

regulations

.
These laws and regulations are at the heart of our air quality management strategies,
even as health and environmental effects are the justification for those laws and
regulations.

P

UBLIC

N

UISANCE

One approach has been to allow for lawsuits as a result of public nuisance complaints.
In general, public nuisance complaints, originally based on the principle of “dis-
comfort to the sovereign,” have been among the oldest legal approaches used to
abate air pollution emissions. Today, these complaints are still used when odors or
emissions occur that may affect more than one person. Nuisance is defined in the
common law as anything injurious, indecent, or offensive to the senses and that
obstructs or otherwise interferes with the free use or enjoyment of life or property.

The legal concept of a public nuisance, as developed in the common law, refers
to a nuisance that affects the entire community, or any considerable number of
persons, at the same time, even though the extent of the annoyance or damage

7099_book.fm Page 243 Friday, July 14, 2006 3:13 PM
© 2007 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

244

Principles of Air Quality Management, Second Edition

inflicted may not be equal. Because a public nuisance is one that affects the com-
munity at large, the attorney general of the state or other authorized government
legal representative must bring the action on behalf of the community.
In certain states, a private individual who has been specially injured by a public
nuisance may bring an action for recovery of damages or for the abatement of
the nuisance. Therefore, these provisions have been used in some jurisdictions as a
legal approach to combating excess cancer risks from noncriteria pollutants, with
actions brought by both private individuals and government entities.

P

RIVATE

N

UISANCE

The private nuisance complaint, brought by a private individual who has been
specially injured, stands in contrast to the public nuisance complaint. A private
nuisance lawsuit is brought against the person causing it by a property owner and
covers anything that is indecent or offensive that interferes with the free usage of
property. There is no requirement of particular or special injury, as in public nuisance
complaints, but merely a showing that the defendant’s actions are causing the
interference with the free enjoyment of the owner’s property.
Thus, a real property owner may bring an action for nuisance against the owners
of a neighboring industrial facility, factory, or any other business that emits fumes
or smoke. The fumes, smoke, or particulate matter that waft onto the plaintiff’s
property interferes with their use and enjoyment of the property.
In public and private nuisance complaints, the available remedies for these types
of airborne nuisances would typically include injunctive relief.

R

ECENT

A

PPROACHES

Other approaches that are used to lower air emissions, and thus enhance the general
air quality, include taxation, land-use controls, source-specific emission standards,
and standards based on health risk.

Taxes

do not abate or reduce emissions in and of themselves. Instead, they form
an indirect (economic) approach in which, if the tax is too high, source owners will

voluntarily reduce emissions to avoid paying them.
The

control of land use

, or zoning, is typically administered at the local county
or municipal level and attempts to separate sources of air contaminants from recep-
tors (people) by a distance sufficient for natural air dispersion and dilution to lower
contaminant concentrations to levels that will not generate a public nuisance. This
was the solution advocated in

Fumifugium

in 1661.

Fumifugium

also suggests
controlling growth, and thereby limiting emissions creation.
The backbone of current air quality management strategies has been the so-
called

command and control

approach. In this approach, specific mass emission rate
limitations are placed on sources. Receptors experience lowered concentrations of
contaminants and, therefore, better air quality.

Indirect source controls

attempt to change societal patterns or personal behavior
(driving gasoline automobiles with only one occupant) that indirectly contribute to air
emissions. This change is generally accomplished by requiring employers to institute

7099_book.fm Page 244 Friday, July 14, 2006 3:13 PM
© 2007 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

Air Quality Laws and Regulations

245

incentives for employees to use alternate transportation, to use ride-sharing, to shift
work hours, to telecommute, or to stagger work days. These incentives are assumed
to work by limiting the vehicle miles traveled in an area and thus to reduce mobile
source emissions.
The most recent approach to individual source controls has been to evaluate
health risks and to set, by regulation,

acceptable levels of health risk

for the receptors.
Area or point sources are required to implement whatever controls or limitations on
emissions are necessary to avoid exceeding established excess health risks. These
health risk–based approaches are primarily directed toward the noncriteria hazardous
air pollutants.

T

HE

P

ROCESS



OF

R

EGULATION

Within the U.S. federal system of laws and regulations, with respect to air quality,
there are specific procedures that must be followed.
The initial step, of course, is the establishment of the laws governing air quality.
In this system, elected officials adopt legislation, and, on signature by the chief
executive, the law takes effect. The laws set direction and goals and identify those
branches of government responsible for implementation. The agencies involved are
mandated to formulate specific regulations that implement the goals, outlines, and
intent of the law.
The process of implementing regulations is one in which the public has an
opportunity to review, comment on, and influence such regulations. In general,
regulations identify the specific mandates of law and the particular problems and
sources of those problems, such as air pollution. The problem could be nonattainment
of a health-based air quality standard.

R

OLE

OF



THE

P

UBLIC



IN

R

ULE

M

AKING

Draft regulations proposed by U.S. government agencies are published in the

Federal
Register.

This is the federal government’s daily newspaper of all actions and activities

of a regulatory nature, along with relevant background information, sources, and so
on. Draft regulations set time frames and dates for public hearings and provide
written comment on such regulations.
Within the federal government, this is a process in which the proposed regula-
tions undergo public review in three stages. These are the

prerule

,

proposed



rule

,
and

final rule

stages. At each stage, the proposed regulation outlines its significance
and legal authority, mandated deadlines, abstracts of the regulations, entities affected,
and responsible agency. At each stage, the public is invited to comment on the draft
or redrafted regulations. Once a final rule has been published, a deadline for a final
public hearing is set, at which time the last public comments are received. Following
the close of public comment, the agency promulgates the new regulation in the

Federal Register.

At that point, the regulation is final and takes effect.
The most recent emerging concept in rule making is that of the

stakeholder

. In
this vision, all potentially affected members of society are invited to participate at
the earliest possible time in any proposed regulation. This concept is further advanced

7099_book.fm Page 245 Friday, July 14, 2006 3:13 PM
© 2007 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

246

Principles of Air Quality Management, Second Edition

through the stated goals of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regard-
ing the implementation of

environmental justice

in its decision-making process.

E

NVIRONMENTAL

J

USTICE

According to the EPA, the emerging concept of environmental justice refers to the
fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. The EPA states that
it has this goal for all communities and persons across the United States. The goal
will be achieved, according to the EPA, when everyone enjoys the same degree of
protection from environmental and health hazards and equal access to the decision-
making process needed to have a healthy environment.

L

EVELS



OF

A

UTHORITY

Historically, the levels at which air quality regulatory authority existed has varied. In
some municipalities, attempts at air pollution control under local health departments
were in effect before World War II. The immediate post–World War II era saw a rapid
increase in the number of regional and statewide air pollution authorities, with varying
degrees of responsibility. With the establishment of the EPA in 1970 and the passage
of the first comprehensive federal Clean Air Act, and its successive amendments,
the focus of air quality control authorities has been increasingly federalized.
The EPA has nationwide authority in all areas of air quality management.

In
addition to setting air quality standards and maximum levels of emissions, the federal
government has been extensively involved in monitoring, research, and funding local
programs.
Historically, states have possessed the widest possible latitude in regulating their
own environment. However, constitutional interpretation requires states to defer to
the federal government when Congress makes a clear decision to preempt state laws
and set up a nationwide regulatory system. Therefore, under federal environmental
laws, states have been given specific authority to implement their own air quality
management programs.
Enabling legislation at the state level is required to set up a statewide program.
To enforce federal laws, state legislation must be adopted and approved by the EPA
to give federal enforcement authority to the state. Otherwise, the federal government
is the enforcing authority.

F

EDERAL

P

REEMPTION

With respect to specific provisions, states must be at least as stringent, or in cases
of a waiver may be more stringent, in their regulations than the equivalent federal
regulations and laws. Because Congress has specifically provided for a nationwide
scheme of regulating air quality, the federal preemption doctrine of the U.S. Consti-

tution mandates that any inconsistent state laws or regulations must be struck down.
However, states may also adopt their own ambient air quality standards and
provide for their own implementation plans. They possess independent legal authority

7099_book.fm Page 246 Friday, July 14, 2006 3:13 PM
© 2007 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

Air Quality Laws and Regulations

247

to manage air quality within their jurisdiction. For example, California has its own
Clean Air Act in the state’s Health and Safety Code. In certain jurisdictions, there
is no permitting authority at the state level. This may be delegated to local authorities.
In addition to the

State Implementation Plan

(SIP), local authorities in areas not
in attainment of air quality standards are required to establish

air quality management
plans

, which detail those activities and regulations that will demonstrate reasonable
further progress toward attaining the ambient air quality goals. Reasonable further
progress regulations are a part of the state implementation plan and are legally
enforceable as a part of the SIP at the federal level once they have been approved
by the EPA.
In some areas, the regional or local air pollution control or management author-

ities were the first government agencies regulating air pollution in their areas. As a
consequence, many of these departments have a long history of air monitoring,
regulations, emission standards, local enforcement, and permitting. In general, the
regional or local air pollution authorities carry the burden of day-to-day activities
with respect to implementation of air quality legislative mandates and regulatory
requirements of both federal and state agencies.
Municipalities may also implement their own ordinances governing emissions
of air contaminants within their jurisdiction, provided they are not preempted by or
in conflict with other levels of government. For example, before the 1990 Clean Air
Act Amendments, some cities adopted local ordinances that banned emissions, or
even the use, of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Frequently, the local governments that
have demonstrated the most environmental involvement are located in air pollution–
affected areas. However, the fact remains that every level of government may be
involved in air quality management to a greater or lesser degree.

FEDERAL LAWS AFFECTING AIR
QUALITY MANAGEMENT

There are a number of laws that affect our approaches to air quality management.
They include those that are media specific (water, solid waste) or that have an air
quality component (toxic substances, nuclear materials). The former deal with some
other aspects of environmental contamination that may have an effect on some aspect
of air quality. The Clean Air Act and its predecessors are the most direct federal
laws affecting air quality management.

P

RE

-1990 A

IR

Q

UALITY

A

CTS



AND

E

FFECTS

Before the formation of the EPA in 1970, a number of federal laws dealt with air
quality. These laws primarily dealt with the criteria pollutants but did make attempts
to address noncriteria air contaminant issues. A number of these major concepts were
modified and incorporated into the most recent amendments to the Clean Air Act.
The primary national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for the six criteria
pollutants are the driving force for federal regulatory action because of their known
health effects. The NAAQSs are periodically reviewed and subject to change as more
information becomes available.

7099_book.fm Page 247 Friday, July 14, 2006 3:13 PM
© 2007 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

248

Principles of Air Quality Management, Second Edition

Implementation Plans

The concept of a SIP with federal oversight is the basic approach to air quality
management. SIPs are ongoing documents that provide a regulatory framework for
each state to demonstrate to the federal government that they are on a path to attaining
and maintaining the national ambient air quality standards. Plans for the states that
are not in attainment with those standards form a significant portion of each SIP.
Federal law does provide for the preparation of a

federal implementation plan

by
the EPA if state implementation plans are not approved or are deficient.
Clean Air Act §176(c)(1) requires that federal actions conform to applicable
state implementation plans for achieving and maintaining the NAAQS for the criteria
air pollutants. To ensure conformity among the states, the EPA maintains the require-
ment that all federal actions not have the effect of contributing to new violations of
air quality standards, increase the frequency or severity of existing violations, or
delay timely attainment of standards in the area of concern.

Monitoring and Limiting Emissions

Monitoring ambient air quality and limiting emissions of criteria pollutants within
each air quality region are key requirements under all federal air quality legislation
passed since 1970. In general, these requirements are delegated to the respective

states, as local agencies have a better understanding of the sources of contaminants
and are responsible for providing monitoring, inspection, and enforcement of air
pollution laws.
The federal government has in effect

new source performance standards

(NSPS)
for new sources of criteria pollutants in specified industries. These new sources are
required to meet national emission standards. The focus of the NSPS requirements
is criteria pollutant emissions from the largest stationary source categories in the
country. These include fossil fuel–fired electric utility generating plants, Portland
cement plants, nitric and sulfuric acid plants, petroleum refineries, asphalt concrete
plants, secondary metal smelters, iron and steel plants, fertilizer plants, and so on.
One of the dominant areas of federal authority in terms of performance standards
is the setting of “tailpipe” emission standards for motor vehicle emissions, as well
as overseeing fuels and additives for those sources. This is in recognition of the fact
that mobile sources emit the criteria pollutants NO

x

, carbon monoxide, and ozone
precursor hydrocarbons.

Prevention of Significant Deterioration

Federal regulations also require that the air quality does not deteriorate further in
those areas in which the air is already cleaner than the NAAQS. Under the

prevention

of significant deterioration

(PSD) regulations, all the nation’s air quality control
regions with a NAAQS were divided into three classes of ambient air quality. Class
I areas receive the highest degree of protection, with only a small amount of certain
kinds of additional air pollution allowed. In class I areas — primarily national parks
and wilderness areas — few effects are allowed, and some types of nearby industrial
development are severely restricted.

7099_book.fm Page 248 Friday, July 14, 2006 3:13 PM
© 2007 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

Air Quality Laws and Regulations

249

Mandatory federal class I sites are areas that may not be reclassified to class II
or class III. These include international parks (such as Waterton Glacier International
Peace Park and Roosevelt-Campobello International Park), national wilderness areas,
and national memorial parks larger than 5,000 acres or national parks larger than
6,000 acres that were in existence (or authorized) on August 7, 1977. The 1990
amendments to the Clean Air Act specified that acreage added to these areas after
1977 must also receive class I designation. Therefore, in class I areas, only very
small incremental increases of air contaminant concentrations are permitted.
Class II areas are those in which the air pollution is in excess of national
standards and in which different levels of incremental addition to existing air con-
taminant levels are allowed. In class II areas, limited amounts of new emissions are
allowed, and in class III areas, greater amounts of new emissions are permitted. No
class III areas have been designated to date.
The PSD program initiated the concept of

new source review

. This concept is
one in which limited degrees of incremental additional air pollutants are allowed in
the air quality regions. Stationary sources are the focus. For a major source to be
built, the new source in a PSD-regulated area was not allowed to increase the existing
total emissions in that area. Thus, the concept of

offsetting emissions

was established.
In this approach, other emissions are required to be reduced at a ratio equal to or
greater than the anticipated new emissions before the construction of the new source
of air contaminants. The allowable amounts were established using dispersion mod-
eling as a planning tool.
The concept of

lowest achievable emission rate

(LAER) was established for
emission units in stationary sources. LAER is the degree of emissions control that
is considered to be most stringent for a source in a nonattainment area and that
applies to new or modified major sources. The definition of major source or major
modification depends on the contaminant. LAER is based on the most stringent rate
contained in any state implementation plan or the level of control achieved in practice
by similar sources.
For those sources, in areas attaining the ambient air quality standard another
level of control technology is established. This is

best available control technology

(BACT). BACT is determined on a case-by-case basis for new sources in PSD areas
and takes into account energy and economic, as well as environmental, effects.
Although it is more flexible than LAER, BACT always has to be sufficient to meet
new source performance standards.

Emergency Episodes

In addition to those regulations at the federal level dealing with ambient air quality,
the federal government was given the authority to deal with air quality episodes
similar to those seen in London, United Kingdom, following the winter of 1952.
These include stringent limitations on operations, emissions, fuel use, and so on in
the event of federal air quality emergency levels (Chapter 3) being exceeded. Area-
wide shut-downs of industrial and commercial operations are also allowed under
federal emergencies.

7099_book.fm Page 249 Friday, July 14, 2006 3:13 PM
© 2007 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

250

Principles of Air Quality Management, Second Edition

Hazardous Air Pollutants

In addition to concerns for criteria pollutants, the federal government established

national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants

(NESHAPs). The NESHAP
regulations established nationwide standards for existing, modified, or new sources
that emit listed hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). These air contaminant emissions
were limited to certain specific industries that emitted those NESHAPs. The
NESHAP concept was expanded on in the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA).

Global Concerns

The EPA was given the authority to regulate stratospheric ozone-depleting chemicals
in earlier versions of the Clean Air Act. This was the first attempt at dealing with
emissions of a global nature. The focus was protection of the stratospheric ozone
layer, based on early research indicating a link between potential ozone destruction
and the emissions of certain CFCs. The power to regulate these emissions was
significantly expanded on in the latest Clean Air Act Amendments.

Federal Environmental Statutes

The federal government has the authority to regulate air emissions under a variety
of different federal laws in addition to the CAA. These include other laws dealing
with operations or activities that may generate air emissions. These are typically
fugitive emissions such as volatile organic compounds or hazardous air pollutants,
as well as criteria contaminants such as particulates and NO

x

.

Toxic Substances Control Act

The Toxic Substances Control Act was the first statute (1976) to deal with air

contaminant emissions of a hazardous nature, by its regulation of emissions of
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Incinerators discharging air contaminants while
burning PCB and PCB-containing waste materials were required to meet a strict
level of control efficiency. The destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) for PCBs
in the exhaust gases had to be equal to or greater than 99.9999%. This was based
on the total PCB mass input to the incinerator.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) deals with ongoing waste
management facilities that have an air emissions component or that deal with waste
fuels. The emissions from facilities handling waste materials may be fugitive as well
as direct or combustion-oriented for their air component.
RCRA established specific standards for incinerators disposing of hazardous
waste by requiring, under the provisions of a trial burn (for the operating permit),
that the DRE be equal to or greater than 99.99% for the

principle organic hazardous
compounds

(POHC) identified in the waste materials. In addition, a limitation on
the emissions of hydrochloric acid, particulates, and CO were established for the
operating permits for those RCRA incinerators.

7099_book.fm Page 250 Friday, July 14, 2006 3:13 PM
© 2007 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

Air Quality Laws and Regulations

251

Whenever any “corrective action” is required at a RCRA facility, the owner or
operator of that facility must deal with all air emissions occurring as a result of that
corrective action. Such corrective action may include the decontamination of soil or
groundwater during a clean-up activity at the ongoing waste facility. RCRA also
provides for injunctive relief in court to force former owners and operators to
remediate or take measures to reduce pollution.
RCRA regulations also deal with air emissions from hazardous waste burned in

boilers and industrial furnaces

(BIFs). For these rules, the facility must obtain a
permit under RCRA to burn such waste fuels. With respect to organic emissions,
the boilers and industrial furnaces must meet the DRE standards of 99.99% for all
listed waste materials and their fuels, and a 99.9999% DRE for those wastes that
contain dioxin. These boilers and industrial furnaces are also subject to emission
limits for certain heavy metals, HCl and chlorine gas, particulates (0.08 grains per
standard dry cubic foot at 7% oxygen), and carbon monoxide. Although the majority
of the focus is on the air quality side, these are regulations under RCRA.
There is the potential for multiple federal laws to be applicable in certain
situations, such as with regard to waste oils from refrigeration compressors in old
household appliances. Because the compressor oil may contain CFCs or halogens,
it may be subject to both RCRA and the Clean Air Act.

Comprehensive Emergency Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

Hazardous waste site clean-ups (where no current operator or owner exists) are
regulated under the Comprehensive Emergency Response, Compensation, and Lia-
bility Act (CERCLA), commonly known as

Superfund

. The Amendments of 1986,
termed the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), further clar-
ified the requirements for such clean-up activity.
Under CERCLA/SARA, all existing federal regulations for either NSPS or
NESHAPs must be met for any clean-up activity. In addition, concerns for fugitive
emissions, monitoring of the air at the perimeter of the facility during clean-up
activities, emissions testing of sources during remediation, and public input must
be provided for during the implementation of site restoration.
For a CERCLA/SARA clean-up action, federal authority preempts all local and
state regulations for air quality management; however, remedial actions must take
into account all local applicable, relevant, and appropriate regulations during clean-
up activities. No permit is required for clean up of a federal “superfund” site, as the
remediation is carried out under the authority of the federal government. The ratio-
nale is that because of the immediate health risk of hazardous waste, specific
regulations requiring long periods of time (such as permitting) are preempted by
federal authority.
Considerable CERCLA litigation has been generated among the many Superfund
sites, for which many current and former owners and operators are being sued for
reimbursement by the EPA and by others for contribution. CERCLA litigation
includes insurance coverage actions, due diligence actions, and prior owner, lessee,
and successors-in-interest liability lawsuits, all of which are intended to bring about
the cleanup of contaminated sites.

7099_book.fm Page 251 Friday, July 14, 2006 3:13 PM
© 2007 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

252

Principles of Air Quality Management, Second Edition

THE CLEAN AIR ACT

The Clean Air Act and its amendments introduced sweeping changes in the federal
approach to air quality management. These amendments redirected the entire scope
of federal regulations with respect to criteria pollutants, hazardous air pollutants,
and global issues.
There are 11 major titles to the CAAA. The significant provisions are seen in
Table 9.1. These provisions deal with ambient air quality standards, changes in
mobile source regulations, hazardous air pollutants, acid deposition, federal permits,
stratospheric ozone protection, enforcement, and a number of miscellaneous provi-
sions. In addition, the CAAA outlined a 20-year time frame for regulations to be
adopted to implement the act’s specifics. These regulations are reviewed in the
following sections. Key among these is the emphasis on attainment of ambient air
quality standards and the protection of public health and welfare.
For each of the relevant titles, a synopsis of the significant major provisions is
provided below. These synopses follow the specific titles of the amendments and
the major focus of each.

TABLE 9.1
Significant Provisions of the Clean Air Act

Title Provisions/Focus

I Attainment and Maintenance of the NAAQS
Classification and attainment dates
SIP revision
NO

x

requirements
Multistate areas and sanctions
II Mobile Source Provisions
Vehicle emission standards
Emissions control and compliance
Fuel requirements
Nonroad engines
Reformulated and oxygenated gasoline
Clean fuels
III Hazardous Air Pollutants
Pollutant lists and source categories
Emission standards and compliance schedules
State programs
Shoreline deposition
Special studies
Prevention of accidental releases
Risk assessment and management commission
Solid waste combustion

7099_book.fm Page 252 Friday, July 14, 2006 3:13 PM
© 2007 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

Air Quality Laws and Regulations

253

T

ITLE

I — A

TTAINMENT



AND

M

AINTENANCE



OF



THE

NAAQS

The EPA in 1997 reviewed the NAAQS to account for new technology and standards.
This review resulted in the EPA issuing two new standards, the Eight-Hour Ozone
Standard, which will replace the One-Hour Ozone Standard when areas demonstrate
compliance with the One-Hour standard, and a new standard, on fine particulate
matter, known as PM2.5. The final designation of attainment and nonattainment
areas was announced by the EPA on December 14, 2004. Seen earlier in Figure 3.3

are the ozone nonattainment areas as of that date.
A recognition that the ambient air quality standards were not being met in a
timely fashion led to the major provisions of Title I. In particular, these provisions
concerned ozone air quality, ozone formation, oxides of nitrogen and hydrocarbon
emissions, and the relationship of fuels and combustion to CO emissions.

TABLE 9.1 (continued)
Significant Provisions of the Clean Air Act

Title Provisions/Focus

IV Acid Deposition Program
SO

2

provisions
NO

x

provisions
Emissions documentation
Clean coal technologies
V Permits
EPA/state program interface
Program requirements
Permitting process
Special provisions
VI Stratospheric Ozone Protection

Chemical lists and ozone-depletion potentials
Reporting
Reduction and schedules
Use, recycling, and disposal of chemicals
Products made with ozone-depleting chemicals
VII Enforcement Provisions
Administrative, civil, and criminal provisions
Judicial review
Citizen suits
VIII Miscellaneous
Outer continental shelf emissions sources
Contaminated oil-ship fuel
Visibility and source/receptor concepts
Interstate commission
Fuel cell research

7099_book.fm Page 253 Friday, July 14, 2006 3:13 PM
© 2007 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

254

Principles of Air Quality Management, Second Edition

Title I classifies and assigns attainment dates for ozone, carbon monoxide, and
PM10 for different areas of the country. For each classification, specific measures
for implementation and sanctions are outlined.
Using the statistical metropolitan area Census Bureau tabulations, as well as the
air quality control regions, the EPA organized five classifications for those areas in
the United States that were not attaining the ozone standard, and two classifications
of nonattainment for both carbon monoxide and for PM10.

The designations of classes range from “marginal” through “extreme” nonat-
tainment areas. These classifications are based on the

design value

, which is the
fourth-highest contaminant concentration (usually ozone hourly average) monitored
anywhere within any one of those regions in a period of three consecutive years.
On the basis of the design value, areas were classified and specific requirements
were listed in Title I for each of those areas.
For each area, there are periods from 3 to 20 years from the date of enactment
by which the implementation of specific air quality management strategies and
regulations must be implemented and by which date the ambient air quality standard
must be obtained.
Marginal areas for ozone included metropolitan areas that were to have achieved
attainment within 3 years of the applicable regulation. As seen earlier, these marginal
areas are only slightly above the ambient air quality standard. Moderate through
extreme classification areas were far enough above the ambient air quality standard
that significant air quality management strategies had to be implemented.

Ozone Nonattainment Requirements

SIPs must be submitted to the EPA to demonstrate how each state will attain the
ozone standard by the deadline. Nonattainment areas must achieve compliance with
the NAAQS by dates ranging from 2007 to 2021, depending on the severity of the
nonattainment air quality designation. States will be adopting new regulations to
control ozone precursors and to extend controls into areas not previously designated
as ozone nonattainment.
Deadlines for attainment of the 8-hour standard would be based on the amount
of time specified in the Clean Air Act. Therefore, marginal areas would have 3 years

for attainment, moderate areas would have 6 years, serious areas would have 9 years,
severe-15 areas would have 15 years, severe-17 areas would have 17 years, and
extreme areas would have 20 years. However, the Eight-Hour Ozone Standard will
come into effect only following compliance with the One-Hour Ozone Standard.
For the moderate, serious, and severe areas of nonattainment for ozone, there
will be an increasing gradation of severity of measures required to meet the ambient
air quality standard. The Los Angeles basin, as the single “extreme” area, is in a
class by itself. For each of these areas, a series of mandatory changes to the State
Implementation Plans is required, depending on the degree of nonattainment. In
each case, in moving from the moderate to the extreme cases, additional measures
are required.

7099_book.fm Page 254 Friday, July 14, 2006 3:13 PM
© 2007 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

Air Quality Laws and Regulations

255
Marginal Areas
For the marginal areas, accurate emissions inventories must be completed, new
source review requirements will be required on major NO
x
sources, and automotive
inspection and maintenance of mobile source control systems will be required. Major
stationary sources of VOCs and NO
x
must submit inventories of emissions every year.
An offset ratio for new stationary source emissions of at least 1.1 is required
(110% reduction). For each increase in VOC emissions, there must be an equivalent
115% decrease of emissions elsewhere under new source review regulations.

Moderate Areas
In addition to the requirements for marginal areas, the moderate areas of nonattain-
ment must revise the state implementation plans to include, for mobile sources,
requirements for additional air pollution control, inspection and maintenance pro-
grams, and stage II vapor recovery systems during refueling (vacuum-assisted vapor
recovery at the nozzle). Contingency measures are to be included in the event that
these requirements fail to attain the required ambient air quality within the 6-year
time frame. Reasonable further progress requirements for the moderate ozone areas
will include up to a 15% total VOC reduction in the entire area affected.
For stationary sources of VOCs and NO
x
, the emission threshold for inclusion in
SIP revisions is defined as 100 tons per year for new and existing plants; 40 tons per
year is the emission threshold for increases during a modification of an existing facility.
For control systems on the major sources, the reasonably available control
technology (RACT) is required for the existing major sources of VOCs and NO
x
.
For new major sources or modifications of an existing major source, the LAER level
of control will be required. For new source reviews, internal offset ratios of at least
1.0 are required. External offsets (those found outside the plant boundaries) are
115% of the VOC increases at the new facility.
Serious Areas
For the serious ozone nonattainment areas, mobile sources receive much greater
scrutiny. These requirements include clean fuel programs for fleet vehicle owners,
transportation and congestion management plans or control measures for all mobile
sources, vapor recovery requirements for fleet owners during vehicle refueling, and
significantly enhanced inspection and maintenance procedures. The latter procedures
require annual auto emissions testing, repair, and maintenance; provisions for denial
of registration for vehicles failing the test; and decentralized testing and certification of

onboard emissions control diagnostics systems and computerized emission analyzers.
Reasonable further progress requirements include NO
x
and VOC reductions.
The threshold levels (existing emissions) for VOC and NO
x
stationary sources are 50
tons per year for new or existing facilities and 25 tons per year for existing sources.
Control levels required for those major new or modified stationary sources are
at the LAER, whereas for existing sources either RACT or BACT may be used.
BACT applies in those cases in which a modified facility has no offsets for its
emission increases and when the total emission is less than 100 tons per year of
7099_book.fm Page 255 Friday, July 14, 2006 3:13 PM
© 2007 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
256 Principles of Air Quality Management, Second Edition
VOCs. The VOC offset ratios under new source review will be 120% for those
sources outside plant boundaries, but they will be 130% (or 1.3 to 1) for internal
sources of VOCs.
Severe Areas
In addition to all of the preceding requirements on mobile and stationary sources,
those areas classified as severe nonattainment areas will see requirements for mobile
sources to include total vehicle miles traveled reductions by the imposition of
transportation control measures. As an additional measure of reducing mobile source
emissions, Section 182(d)(1)(B) of the CAA allows the implementation of employer-
based trip reduction programs that are aimed at improving the average vehicle
occupancy rates. As an alternative to trip reduction programs, Section 182(d)(1)(B)
also allows the substitution of these programs with alternative programs that achieve
equivalent emission reductions.
The VOC or NO
x

new source review threshold for all facilities becomes 25 tons
per year, and the control level becomes LAER for major new or modified sources.
The VOC offset ratios under new source review are 1.3 to 1 for both internal and
external reductions of emissions.
Extreme Areas
Los Angeles, including the entire South Coast Air Basin in California, continues to
be the only extreme ozone nonattainment area. As such, it is required to implement
further controls on all sources. For mobile sources, in addition to all of the preceding
requirements, there will be demands for new technologies, additional traffic control
measures during heavy traffic hours, and enhancement of all of the lower-level
requirements. Further contingency measures are required in the event that those
actions fail. These measures are to be included in the state implementation plan as
mandatory requirements.
The VOC and NO
x
threshold for the definition of a major source is 10 tons per
year for a new or existing facility, or any increase during modification of an existing
source.
Additional controls are imposed on all combustion systems for boilers, and
“clean fuel” combustion or new and additional NO
x
emission controls are specifically
required. The VOC offset ratios for new source review are 1.5 for external sources
or 1.3 for internal sources controlled at a given facility.
Additional Ozone Strategies
Title I provides for a number of additional strategies to be implemented in all ozone
nonattainment areas. The first of these is the requirement that all of the plan provi-
sions for stationary VOC sources also apply to major stationary sources of NO
x
,

unless the EPA determines that additional NO
x
controls would not create a net
benefit, or for areas that are not a part of an ozone transport region.
Milestones
Milestones are required under Title I for serious, severe, and extreme nonattainment
areas to demonstrate that the applicable emission reductions have been met within
stated time periods. In addition, for the areas that fail to demonstrate compliance
7099_book.fm Page 256 Friday, July 14, 2006 3:13 PM
© 2007 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Air Quality Laws and Regulations 257
with those milestones, there are additional requirements that the EPA adopt, or force
the adoption, of an “economic incentive program” for those areas that fail to meet
those compliance demonstration requirements. In addition, those areas may be
reclassified up to the next higher classification or be required to implement control
measures adequate to meet the next milestone in emission reductions.
Interstate Transport
Recognizing that certain geographic areas are specific sources of precursor contam-
inants leading to ozone nonattainment and that other areas may be merely the
receptor, Title I allows for the inclusion of a multistate area to be set up in which
the included states must coordinate SIP revisions.
A specific ozone transport region and a commission for one region has been
specifically required in the law. Originally, 11 states and the District of Columbia
(the number has since expanded) had to assess the degree of interstate transport and
recommend measures to the EPA necessary to ensure that the relevant SIPs meet
the plan requirements.
Additional requirements for these states include enhanced vehicle inspection in
metropolitan areas of greater than 100,000 population, RACT levels of control in
all sources of VOCs, and stage II vapor recovery controls during vehicle refueling.
Stationary sources emitting at least 50 tons per year of VOCs are considered major

by this provision of Title I and are subject to all plan requirements applicable to at
least a moderate nonattainment area. The EPA retains the right to oversee all activities
of the interstate transport region.
Clean Air Interstate Transport
In 2005, the EPA announced a final rule to states in the area from North Carolina
northward along the eastern Atlantic seaboard to Maine. These 28 states and the
District of Columbia were found to contribute significantly to nonattainment of the
NAAQS for fine particles or 8-hour ozone in downwind states. The EPA is now
requiring these upwind states to revise their SIPs to include control measures to
reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO
2
) and nitrogen oxides (NO
x
). The states have
2 years to revise their SIPs to include the required measures.
Control Guidelines
The EPA has established Control Technique Guidelines (CTGs) for additional cat-
egories of stationary-source VOC emissions. CTGs are used by state and local
governments to identify requirements for VOC reductions. These guidelines give
priority to those categories that make the most significant contributions to ozone
nonattainment. Best available control measures are required in these CTGs.
Specific source categories addressed in the EPA’s CTGs pertaining to VOCs
include surface coating of fabrics, cans, large appliances, metal coils, metal furniture,
flat wood paneling, paper, and magnet wire; solvent metal cleaning; and surface
coating of automobiles and light-duty trucks.
Consumer Products
Consumer or commercial products are required to be addressed by the EPA. The
EPA must list categories of consumer or commercial products that account for at
7099_book.fm Page 257 Friday, July 14, 2006 3:13 PM
© 2007 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

258 Principles of Air Quality Management, Second Edition
least 80% of the VOC emissions from such products in ozone nonattainment areas
and must require best available controls.
The EPA may control or prohibit by regulation the manufacture, sale, or intro-
duction to commerce of any product that is a source of VOC emissions. In addition,
the EPA may impose fees or charges or collect funds associated with the regulations
of these products in addition to requiring labeling, self-monitoring and reporting,
prohibitions, and limitations on these materials.
Marine and Harbor Emissions
VOC emissions and any other pollutants from the loading and unloading of marine
tank vessels in harbors in ozone nonattainment areas are the focus of additional
standards that will require RACT for such emissions.
Stationary Source Fees
In addition to all of the above, stationary sources in those areas classified as severe
or extreme that fail to achieve attainment by their respective deadlines will be
required to pay an annual fee to the state, beginning the year after the attainment date.
The baseline amount (“federal penalty”) begins at $5000 per ton of VOCs emitted
during a calendar year. If the state fee provisions are not adequate in the SIP, the
EPA may collect the unpaid fees. Some states have enacted additional “emission
fees” to be imposed by local districts for each ton of VOC emitted in addition to
the federal penalty. These fee provisions do not apply if the population is less than
200,000 persons and the nonattainment area is a receptor of ozone transport.
Additional sanctions against ozone nonattainment areas include prohibitions on
highway funding, withholding of air pollution planning or control grants, and a
requirement that all emissions be offset by at least 2 to 1 for any increases under
new source review.
Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Provisions
The mandatory Title I provisions for CO nonattainment areas closely parallel many
of the provisions for ozone nonattainment. The focus is combustion sources of
emissions, primarily from vehicular sources. These provisions include restrictions

on vehicle miles traveled, submissions of accurate current inventories of CO emis-
sions, inspection and maintenance programs of mobile source control systems, clean
fuel fleet programs, and transportation control measures as required in the severe
ozone nonattainment areas, except that the program applies to CO.
Enhancements of each of the mandatory mobile source control requirements are
required for the serious nonattainment areas. For both the moderate and serious areas
of nonattainment, oxygenated fuels (reformulated gasoline) are required in all motor
vehicle fuels during those times of the year that are considered to have high CO
conditions.
The Reformulated Gasoline Regulations program took effect in 1997. The 2.7%
oxygen weight minimum for oxygenated fuels’ control periods was not affected by
the rule, and it did not change the applicable oxygen standards under state oxygen-
ated fuels programs.
7099_book.fm Page 258 Friday, July 14, 2006 3:13 PM
© 2007 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Air Quality Laws and Regulations 259
If it is determined that stationary sources in serious areas contribute significantly
to CO levels, a major stationary source is defined as one that has the potential to
emit 50 tons per year. This source will be subject to major source requirements for
CO similar to those for ozone.
In addition, an economic incentive and transportation control program will be
required for each state it fails to meet its milestone demonstration on time. The
economic incentive program, when combined with other revisions in the SIP, must
reduce total CO emissions in the area by 5% each year until attainment. Within the
three serious CO nonattainment areas, the oxygenated fuel requirement is a minimum
of 3.1% by weight, as required under this provision.
Oxygenated Fuels — The Rise and Fall of Methyl-Tertiary-Butyl-Ether
The 1990 Clean Air Act required that those metropolitan areas with high CO
concentrations use oxygenated fuels during the winter months. Oil companies had
known since at least the early 1980s that methyl-tertiary-butyl-ether (MTBE) was

the best available additive for oxygenating fuels. However, following MTBE’s wide-
spread use as a fuel additive, in addition to its positive use in oxygenating fuels, the
compound was found to have several undesirable characteristics, which have since
led to its replacement. The additive, if spilled or leaked, tends to travel through soil
and groundwater much more quickly than water. It is also known to possess a foul
odor and taste when small amounts are present in groundwater.
Because of the widespread problem of leaking underground storage tanks,
MTBE was released into groundwater in the areas where it was used as a gasoline
additive. This is an example of how an additive used to help solve air pollution
problems is now considered a groundwater pollutant. This contamination has gen-
erated litigation across the United States. Plaintiffs allege that MTBE-mixed gasoline
is a defective product and that the oil companies failed to warn their customers of
the negative aspects of MTBE. This situation placed oil companies in the difficult
position of complying with the federal Clean Air Act in using oxygenates, and yet
potentially violating state laws.
California, which is required to use oxygenated gasoline in all of its motor
vehicles, banned the use of MTBE as an additive in gasoline in 2004. To fulfill legal
requirements, therefore, gasoline producers switched to ethanol, which satisfies the
oxygenated fuel requirement, as the only remaining approved additive for its gaso-
line. There is a move, however, to lobby Congress to amend the CAA to eliminate
the oxygenated fuel requirement and replace it with a flexible national renewable
fuels program. It should be noted that because ethanol is a byproduct of corn, certain
states and their political representation that are heavily dependent on agricultural
concerns would likely oppose any change in the oxygenated fuel requirements.
PM10 Nonattainment Areas
Airborne particles less than 10 µm in diameter (PM10) are known to pose a health
risk because they can be inhaled into and can accumulate in the respiratory system.
Initially, all areas considered nonattainment for PM10 were classified as moderate.
Upgrades to serious areas of nonattainment are provided for in Title I.
7099_book.fm Page 259 Friday, July 14, 2006 3:13 PM

© 2007 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
260 Principles of Air Quality Management, Second Edition
For those stationary area sources in the moderate areas, states must implement
a construction and operating permit program (if it does not already exist) for new
and modified major stationary PM10 sources. Remaining moderate areas for sta-
tionary PM10 standards have been granted extensions to remain in compliance with
the CAA, and many have since been determined by the EPA to have attained the
PM10 NAAQS in 2001.
If a serious area does not reach PM10 attainment by the deadline, SIP revisions
must be submitted that allow for an additional annual 5% emission reduction of
PM10 or PM10 precursor emissions in the area, as reported in the most recent
inventory. In addition, PM10 control measures for stationary sources also apply to
major stationary sources of PM10 precursors.
The EPA has issued technical guidance on what constitutes RACM and best
available control measures for urban fugitive dust sources, residential wood com-
bustion, and prescribed agriculture and forestry-clearing burning operations.
PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas
In 1997, the EPA established annual and 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5 for the first
time. Particles less than 2.5 µm in diameter (PM2.5) are referred to as fine particles
and are believed to pose a large health risk because of their small size. These fine
particles can lodge deeply into the lungs.
The EPA issued official designations for the PM2.5 standard in 2004 and made
modifications in 2005. States must submit their SIPs to EPA within 3 years after the
agency makes final designations in 2007.
TITLE II — MOBILE SOURCE PROVISIONS
As seen in Chapter 4, transportation emissions by light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles
and trucks are among the most significant contributors to air pollutants. In Title II,
the CAAA details requirements for all aspects of new regulation over mobile source
emissions. These requirements relate to emission standards as well as to the fuels
used in those programs and vehicles. The first of these requirements takes the form

of tailpipe emission standards, whereas the latter standards take the form of require-
ments for fuel and fuel compositions.
Light-Duty Vehicle Standards
Increasing percentages of light-duty vehicles must meet the standards as a function
of model year. A significant new addition to the EPA requirement is that these
standards be met for the initial 50,000 miles of travel and then, additionally, only a
slightly higher level of emissions is permitted at the 100,000-mile mark. Heavier
weight trucks have different requirements. Taken together, these new tailpipe stan-
dards are estimated to reduce hydrocarbons about 40% and NO
x
by about 60% from
transportation sources.
Nonroad vehicle fuels and engines will be the focus of additional standards to
achieve the greatest degree of emission reductions achievable. Separate standards
for new locomotives and the engines powering them have been in effect since 1995.
7099_book.fm Page 260 Friday, July 14, 2006 3:13 PM
© 2007 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Air Quality Laws and Regulations 261
Again, the greatest degree of emissions reduction achievable, using available tech-
nology, is required.
California is expressly authorized to regulate nonroad engines and vehicles that
are at least as protective as federal standards, whereas other states are not allowed
that waiver of federal preemption. However, any state with an approved SIP may
adopt the California approach as long as it is equivalent.
The Urban Buses Standard (Title II, §219) originally required a 50% reduction
in particulate matter. However, the section was revised to allow the administrator of
the EPA to increase the level of emissions of particulate matter allowed if it is
determined that the 50% reduction is not technologically achievable, taking into
account durability, costs, lead time, safety, and other relevant factors.
In addition to tailpipe emissions, evaporative emissions controls are required

from gasoline vehicles operating in summer high-ozone conditions during operation
and following 2 or more days of no usage. These regulations must include the greatest
degree of emission reduction achievable considering volatility, cost, energy, and
safety factors.
Tailpipe Toxics
With respect to mobile source air toxics control, the EPA requires that refiners
maintain their average 1998–2000 toxic emission performance levels. These toxic
air pollutant performance levels pertain to benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde,
1,3-butadiene, and POM. As a result, the EPA reports that benzene levels in urban
areas have decreased nationwide by almost 40% in the last 10 years.
Emissions Control
Two key issues regarding nontailpipe standards revolve around emissions during
refueling and computerized diagnostic systems. These latter standards evaluate the
ability of existing air pollution control systems on vehicles to function properly. The
first requirement is that new light-duty vehicles will require onboard vapor recovery
systems with a minimum capture efficiency of 95%.
One hundred percent of all vehicles must have onboard vapor recovery systems.
For serious, severe, or extreme ozone nonattainment areas, the EPA may require
these in addition to current stage II vapor-recovery requirements during vehicle
refueling.
In addition to standards on sale, vehicles are required to have their own onboard
computerized diagnostic systems, which will evaluate and alert drivers as to whether
these onboard control systems are still effective. All light-duty vehicles and trucks
now have these onboard emission control diagnostics.
States must include in their SIPs that their inspection and maintenance programs
include evaluation and testing of such onboard systems. These requirements will
ensure that control systems will remain effective on each individual vehicle, rather
than a general average being computed for all vehicles in the system.
Automobile warranties must cover these diagnostic systems as well as catalytic
convertors and emission control systems for at least 8 years or 80,000 miles. Penalties

7099_book.fm Page 261 Friday, July 14, 2006 3:13 PM
© 2007 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
262 Principles of Air Quality Management, Second Edition
at the federal level for tampering with emission-control devices vary from $2500 to
$25,000 for tampering with, defeating, or rendering inoperative such control systems.
Reformulated Gasoline Fuel Requirements
Specific fuel compositions have direct effects on air emissions resulting from the
combustion of such fuels. Therefore, Title II specifically looks at fuels and fuel
composition to help attain ambient air quality standards. Specific items that come
under the heading of fuel requirements relate to prohibitions for misfueling of leaded
gasoline in vehicles intended only for unleaded gas. Another requirement is that the
Reid vapor pressure not exceed 9.0 pounds per square inch (psi) unless the fuel
blend is for gasoline with 10% ethanol, in which case the Reid vapor pressure
requirement is 10.0 psi.
With respect to diesel fuels, the federal sulfur content may not exceed 0.05%
(500 ppm). In addition, all motor vehicle gasolines containing lead or lead-based
additives are totally prohibited nationwide.
Additional fuel requirements are in place for the nine worst ozone nonattainment
areas. These requirements include reformulated and oxygenated fuels. A reformu-
lated fuel must meet certain general requirements for NO
x
, oxygen, benzene, and
heavy metal content and must also achieve reductions in ozone-forming VOCs and
toxic air pollutants.
Phase II Reformulated Gasoline Performance Standards
Phase II reformulated gasoline standards are now required to be sold in states
participating in the Reformulated Gasoline Regulations program. This reformulated
gasoline reduces VOCs by 25%, NO
x
by 6%, and toxic emissions by 32%.

The minimum composition requirements of reformulated fuels have undergone
some transition since the implementing regulations were established. However, the
requirements of the CAA include a minimum 2.0% by weight oxygen content, a
benzene level of 1.0% or less by volume, and a prohibition on any heavy metals,
including lead or manganese. The aggregate limit of aromatic hydrocarbons is 25%
by volume, and a use of additives is required as needed to meet VOC and toxic
emission standards. In addition, the emission of ground-level ozone-forming com-
pounds (ozone VOCs) and toxic air pollutants must be reduced by 25% and 20%,
respectively, from the aggregated baseline levels.
The CO nonattainment areas must use oxygenated fuels that have a minimum
content of 2.7% oxygen by weight. These are required to be sold during the high-
CO portion of the year (typically wintertime conditions). Since the combustion of
these reformulated gasolines can cause increased emissions of NO
x
, the law also
prohibits vehicles that are using reformulated gasoline from increasing NO
x
emis-
sions beyond the levels associated with vehicles burning conventional fuels.
In addition to varying the percentages of standard gasolines, Title II lays out a
requirement for fleet vehicles (10 or more) to use “clean fuels” in the serious, severe,
or extreme ozone nonattainment areas. These clean fuels include methyl alcohol,
ethanol, blends of other alcohols of 85% with gasoline, reformulated gasolines or
7099_book.fm Page 262 Friday, July 14, 2006 3:13 PM
© 2007 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Air Quality Laws and Regulations 263
diesels, natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, hydrogen, or other power sources.
Thirty percent of all new fleet vehicle purchases must use “clean fuels.”
California enjoys the only exemption from federal law for mobile sources.
Because of the extreme severity of the air pollution problem, California is allowed

to have mobile source emissions standards more stringent than the federal standards;
that is, fuel sulfur content cannot exceed 30 ppm, as opposed to the higher 500 ppm
federal standard.
California Low-Emission Vehicle II Regulations
The California Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) standards refer to clean fuel-emission
vehicles that are sold in California. By using the clean fuel vehicle approach,
including ultralow-emission vehicles (ULEVs) and zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs),
fleet operators can obtain credits for those fleet vehicles that do not meet the clean
fuel requirements.
LEV II regulations, which run through 2010, are intended to represent the
continuing progress in emission reductions. Because California’s passenger vehicle
fleet continues to grow as its population swells, new, more stringent LEV II standards
are used for California to meet federally mandated clean air goals outlined in the SIP.
The new LEV II regulations provide for the super-ultra-low emission vehicle
(SULEV) category for light-duty vehicles. The SULEV’s are designed to emit
1 pound of hydrocarbons over driving 100,000 miles. These regulations also provide
for partial zero-emission vehicle credits for vehicles that achieve near-zero emis-
sions. The credits include 0.2 for a gasoline-fueled SULEV, 0.4 for a compressed
natural gas SULEV, 0.7 for methanol reformer fuel cell vehicles, and full zero-
emission vehicle credit for a stored hydrogen fuel cell vehicle.
TITLE III — HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT PROGRAM
A major expansion of the Clean Air Act Amendments was in dealing with HAPs.
Among the major provisions of Title III were
• The listing of 189 original hazardous air pollutants with source categories
•New levels of control technology (MACT) for HAPs
• Provisions for area sources calculations of residual health risks after
implementation of controls, and
• Provisions for accidental releases of hazardous air pollutants.
The definition of a major source of hazardous air pollutants is “a stationary
source or group of stationary sources under common control which emit or have the

potential to emit a total of 10 tons or more per year of any single hazardous air
pollutants or 25 tons or more per year of any combination of HAPs.” For a single
listed contaminant such as perchlorethylene, this might amount to as little as six and
a half gallons per day being lost through fugitive emissions.
Some of the substances listed by the EPA in Title III are seen in Table 9.2.
Substances may be deleted from or added to this list by the EPA on the basis of
7099_book.fm Page 263 Friday, July 14, 2006 3:13 PM
© 2007 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
264 Principles of Air Quality Management, Second Edition
additional scientific evidence regarding adverse human health effects. Specifically
excluded from this list are the six criteria pollutants, including elemental lead. Lead
compounds, however, are included on the list of hazardous air pollutants.
Toxic Release Inventory Program
The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) was enacted
in 1986 to inform communities and citizens of chemical hazards in their areas.
According to the EPCRA §311, §312, businesses are required to report the locations
and quantities of chemicals stored on site to state and local governments.
In addition, §313 of the EPCRA requires the EPA and states to collect data on
releases and transfers of certain toxic chemicals from industrial facilities, and to
make the data available through the Toxic Release Inventory Program (TRI). Other
requirements include waste management and source reduction activities to be
reported under the TRI. The TRI is a source of HAP data, and has been very effective
as a pollution reduction measure, due largely to the potential public outcry following
any toxic releases.
HAP Sources
The source categories are those industry groups that emit HAP substances. Industrial
source categories include cooling towers, electroplating operations, synthetic organic
chemical manufacturing operations, decreasing operations, commercial sterilization
facilities, dry cleaners, pulp and paper mills, petroleum refineries, polymer and resin
TABLE 9.2

Selected Title III Hazardous Air Pollutants
Metal Compounds
Antimony Chromium Mercury
Arsenic Cobalt Nickel
Beryllium Lead Selenium
Cadmium Manganese
Organics
+
Benzene Formaldehyde Phenol
Biphenyl Hexane PCBs
Carbon disulfide Methanol Toluene
Dioxins Nitrobenzene Xylenes
Halogenated organics (TCA, TCE, etc.)
Pesticides (2,4 D; DDE; Parathion, etc.)
Acids, Oxidizers, and Physical Agents
Asbestos HCl Phosphorus
Chlorine Phosgene HF
Fine mineral fibers
Radionuclides (includes Radon)
+
Some common representative substances.
7099_book.fm Page 264 Friday, July 14, 2006 3:13 PM
© 2007 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Air Quality Laws and Regulations 265
operations, surface coatings, magnetic tape manufacturing, secondary metal opera-
tions, waste treatment storage and disposal facilities, and coke ovens. Area sources
such as gasoline stations, dry cleaners, manufacturers of furniture, printing presses,
and small boilers are also included.
STANDARDS
Emission standards for HAPs are classified into two categories: technology based

and health based. Emission standards must achieve the maximum degree of emissions
reduction deemed achievable by the EPA for new or existing sources in the applicable
category, considering cost, health, environmental effect, and energy requirements.
Technology-Based Standards
The maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards may include process
changes, material substitutions, collection, capture and treatment of emissions, con-
trol technology, design equipment and work practice operational changes, and so on.
MACT is defined according to the amount of emissions from the HAP source.
For new major sources, MACT is at least as stringent as the emissions level achieved
in practice at a best-controlled similar source. For existing major sources, MACT
may be less stringent than that for new sources but must be at least as stringent as
either the average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12% of
similar sources, (excluding those that have recently achieved the LAER for that
category) or the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing five
sources, if the specific category has fewer than 30 units.
From smaller-area sources, the EPA may require either MACT or a less stringent
generally available control technology.
Each source category has a deadline for attainment of the technology-based
emission standards. However, the new law does create an incentive for facilities to
achieve early reductions. In this case, if all listed toxics are reduced at a facility (by
90% or more for organics and 95% or more for particulates), the facility may receive
a 6-year extension in the deadline to comply with MACT standards. This is to provide
an incentive for early HAP reductions by whatever means.
Health-Based Standards
Title III requires investigation of the health-based emission standards as applied to
major sources. Area sources may also be included in the industry-related source
category. These health-based standards must provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health and to prevent adverse environmental effects after implemen-
tation of MACT for major sources.
These health-based standards must also include the calculations of potential

residual risk from carcinogenic air pollutants if the applicable technology-based
standards are not reduced to a lifetime excess cancer risk to less than 1 in a million
(individual risk) for the “maximum exposed individual.”
If any single source shows a residual health risk greater than 1 × 10
6
(one chance
in a million), the EPA must promulgate additional standards.
7099_book.fm Page 265 Friday, July 14, 2006 3:13 PM
© 2007 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
266 Principles of Air Quality Management, Second Edition
Area Sources: Urban Air Toxics Strategy
The EPA has developed a specific strategy for air toxics in urban areas. The three
goals for their Air Toxics Strategy include attaining a 75% reduction in incidence
of cancer attributable to exposure to HAPs emitted by large and small stationary
sources nationwide; attaining a substantial reduction in public health risks (such as
birth defects and reproductive effects) posed by HAP emissions from small industrial
sources; and addressing disproportionate effects of air toxics hazards across urban
areas, including predominantly minority and low-income communities.
The EPA has issued 79 air toxic standards for many of the major industrial and
commercial sources, including chemical plants, steel mills, and smaller sources such
as dry cleaners. The Air Toxics Strategy is the EPA’s framework for addressing air
toxics in urban areas by looking at stationary-, mobile-, and indoor-source emissions.
When fully implemented, the regulations are intended to reduce air toxic emissions
by almost one million tons per year.
SIP Revisions
Again, under EPA authority, states must revise their implementation plans to set up
HAP standards that are no less stringent than the federal requirements. In addition,
states must review their statutes for regulation of potential high-risk point sources
or toxic hot spots. Such programs also evaluate those facilities that produce, process,
handle, or store substances listed under the accidental release provisions of Title III

in quantities greater than threshold amounts. These revised state implementation
plans are subject to review by the EPA.
HAP Permits
In addition to those permits required for major new or modified sources within a
nonattainment area, permits are also required for air toxics sources. Title III hazard-
ous air pollutant permits must specify emission limits based on control technologies,
require monitoring of emissions, and require compliance with baseline health-based
emission limits. All major HAP sources must have permits.
Special Studies
A number of special studies are required by Title III. These include a study of the
emissions of hazardous air pollutants from electric utility steam-generating units.
Alternative control strategies and potential regulations necessary to control emissions
of HAPs from those sources are also studied.
Clean Air Mercury Rule
In March 2005, the EPA issued the Clean Air Mercury Rule to permanently cap and
reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants for the first time. This rule,
combined with the EPA’s Clean Air Interstate Rule, will significantly reduce emissions
from the nation’s largest remaining source of human-caused mercury emissions.
7099_book.fm Page 266 Friday, July 14, 2006 3:13 PM
© 2007 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Air Quality Laws and Regulations 267
The Clean Air Mercury Rule establishes “standards of performance” limiting
mercury emissions from new and existing utilities and creates a market-based cap-
and-trade program that will reduce nationwide utility emissions of mercury in two
distinct phases. In the first phase, due by 2010, emissions will be reduced by taking
advantage of “cobenefit” reductions; that is, mercury reductions achieved while
reducing sulfur dioxide (SO
2
)and nitrogen oxides (NO
x

) under the Clean Air Inter-
state Rule. In the second phase, due in 2018, utilities will be subject to a second
cap, which will reduce emissions to 15 tons per year of total mercury on full
implementation.
Prevention of Accidental Releases
Title III set up an accident prevention program similar to those in other federal
statutes such as EPCRA.
The provisions of Title III for accidental releases apply to the 100 extremely
hazardous substances originally listed under EPCRA. The following common sub-
stances are included on the list that triggers the provisions of this section of Title III:
• Chlorine
• Hydrogen sulfide
• Anhydrous ammonia
•Toluene diisocyanate
• Methyl chloride
• Phosgene
• Ethylene oxide
• Bromine
•Vinyl chloride
• Hydrous hydrogen fluoride
• Methyl-isocyanate
• Anhydrous sulfur dioxide
• Hydrogen cyanide
• Sulfur trioxide
The EPA has established threshold release quantities of those HAPs eligible for
regulation at affected facilities.
For those facilities handling more than the threshold quantities of the initial 100
chemicals, risk-management plans were required for dealing with accidental
releases. These plans included mitigation of the potential adverse human health or
environmental effects from the release of more than the threshold amounts of HAPs.

These plans included a hazardous assessment, a program for preventing accidental
releases, and a response program in the event of an accidental release. The risk
management plan had to be in accordance with guidelines issued by the EPA for
those stationary sources and to be registered with the EPA.
Regulations for the prevention and detection of accidental releases from these
stationary sources had to include use, operation, repair, replacement, and mainte-
nance of the equipment used to monitor, detect, inspect, and control releases of
7099_book.fm Page 267 Friday, July 14, 2006 3:13 PM
© 2007 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC