Books > Social sciences > Politics & government > Central government > Central government policies
|
Buy Now
Controlling Air Emissions from Outer Continental Shelf Sources - A Comparison of Two Programs - EPA and DOI (Paperback)
Loot Price: R371
Discovery Miles 3 710
|
|
Controlling Air Emissions from Outer Continental Shelf Sources - A Comparison of Two Programs - EPA and DOI (Paperback)
(sign in to rate)
Loot Price R371
Discovery Miles 3 710
Expected to ship within 10 - 15 working days
|
Air emissions from outer continental shelf (OCS) operations are
subject to different regulatory programs, depending on the location
of the operation. The Department of the Interior (DOI) has
jurisdiction over OCS sources in federal waters in the western Gulf
of Mexico and most of the central Gulf. In addition, the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L. 112-74), transferred
air emission authority in the OCS off Alaska's north coast from the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to DOI. EPA has jurisdiction
over sources in all other federal waters. The primary difference
between the EPA and DOI programs is rooted in the different
statutory authorities: the 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA) and the 1978
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). The primary objectives
of these statutes are different-air quality versus offshore energy
development. The two regulatory programs reflect these underlying
differences. For much of the past 30 years, these differences
received little attention, primarily because most of the federal
oil and gas resources in EPA's jurisdiction have been subject to
moratoria. In 2008, moratoria provisions expired, potentially
opening many of the areas in EPA's jurisdiction to oil and gas
leasing activity. If more OCS areas in EPA's jurisdiction are open
for oil and gas leasing, policymakers interest in these differences
will likely increase. For OCS sources in EPA's jurisdiction,
requirements depend on whether the source is located within 25
miles of a state's seaward boundary ("inner OCS sources") or beyond
("outer OCS sources"). Inner OCS sources are subject to the same
requirements as comparable onshore emission sources, which vary by
state and depend on the area's air quality status; outer sources
are subject to various CAA provisions, including the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. In contrast, OCS sources
in DOI's jurisdiction are subject to air emission requirements only
if emissions would "significantly affect" onshore air quality. A
key difference between the EPA and DOI programs is the federal
emission threshold that would subject a source to substantive
requirements. For sources in EPA's jurisdiction, this is the PSD
threshold of 250 tons per year (tpy) of regulated emissions.
Sources that exceed this level would likely be subject to Best
Achievable Control Technology (BACT) and other provisions. States'
analogous thresholds that apply to inner OCS sources may be more
stringent. By comparison, a DOI OCS source applies an exemption
formula, based on distance from shore (e.g., a source 30 miles from
shore would have an emission threshold of 990 tpy). If a source
remains subject after this step, it must conduct air modeling to
assess whether its emissions would have a significant effect on
onshore air quality. In effect, this two-step process constitutes a
much less stringent threshold than EPA's 250 tpy threshold. Another
substantial difference is the time frame allotted to the agencies
for reviewing a potential source's permit (EPA) or
activity-specific plan (DOI). In addition, the EPA permit process
allows greater opportunity for input from the public. In
particular, EPA's Environmental Appeals Board offers parties a
powerful tool to compel agency review. Therefore, two identical
operations, located in separate jurisdictions, could face
considerably different requirements and procedural time frames.
Some stakeholders would likely argue that the additional
opportunities for public involvement in EPA's permit process help
create a balance between resource development and environmental
concerns. Others would likely contend these steps present
unnecessary burdens and timing uncertainty in the process.
General
Is the information for this product incomplete, wrong or inappropriate?
Let us know about it.
Does this product have an incorrect or missing image?
Send us a new image.
Is this product missing categories?
Add more categories.
Review This Product
No reviews yet - be the first to create one!
|
You might also like..
|