ADDITIONAL REFORMS DOCUMENTS
Note: The identifying letters for these documents apply only to the March 1, 2005
meeting of the Review Committee. All previous and future documents relating to the
Review Committee task, the EPA NSR reforms, and revision of Regulation 25 to reflect
the intent of the EPA NSR reforms, will be shown on our website and be numbered
A 58 page, April, 2003 report, “A Breath of Fresh Air: Reviving the New Source
Review Program”, prepared by the National Academy of Public Administration
(NAPA) at the request of Congress, to review certain concerns with the new source
The study group concluded the NSR program is effective for newly constructed sources
of pollution, but, performs poorly in reducing pollution from the nation’s oldest and
dirtiest factories and power plants. The report also finds the NSR’s unpredictable and
lengthy permitting process is detrimental to facilities that want to change operations
quickly and compete effectively.
NAPA urges Congress to retain NSR , but, to end grandfathering, vigorously enforce
NSR’s permitting requirement for existing facilities and to improve state information
systems and public accountability.
A publication of the Natural Resources Defense Council discussing the NAPA report
“A Breath of Fresh Air: Reviving the New Source Review Program” at length. Each of
the five main EPSA NSR reforms are discussed. Presents a strong review of the cons of
Press release from NAPA for the report “A Breath of Fresh Air: Reviving the new
Source Review Program”.
or http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/pubs and follow prompts to the report
“Reform or Rollback”
“Reform or Rollback”, a report of a joint study by the Environmental Integrity Project
(EIP) and the Council of State Governments/Eastern Regional Conference published
October 2003. The EIP is a part of the Rockerfeller Family Funds and both organizations
are non-profit and non-partisan.
The impact on emissions of using the EPA NSR reforms 10-year lookback for baseline
determination was measured for major permitted sources in twelve states using existing
permit data. EIP concluded the revised NSR rule “could allow significant increases in
emissions “ and that ‘emissions growth from industrial facilities will often not be limited
by other federal programs, absent NSR”. Delaware was one of the 12 states studied.
A 20 page summary, including data tables, of the EIP full report in the above
document. A must read to get a quick understanding of the emissions increases projected
by some from the Reforms baseline 10-year lookback. Shorter and more concise than the
above full report. If one wishes to review the complete detail and methodology of the
study, the full report must be read.
A letter from the National Academy of Public Administration to the Rockerfeller
Family Fund reporting the results of a through evaluation by the NAPA of the EIP
“Reform or Rollback” report methodology and conclusions concerning the EPA Reforms
10-year lookback in baseline determination. The NAPA fully supported the EIP study
conclusions that the new rule “would allow significant increases in emissions” that often
will not be limited by other federal programs.
A General Accounting Office (GAO) report to Congressional requestors entitled “Clean
Air Act: EPA Should Use Available Data to Monitor the Effects of its Revisions to
the New Source Review Program (GAO-03-947)”, published August 2003, concerning
the 12/31/02 EPA NSR reforms rule.
GAO said, “Because it lacked comprehensive data, the EPA relied on anecdotal
information from the four industries it believes are most affected by NSR to conclude that
the NSR program (prior to the rule) discouraged some energy efficiency projects such as
upgrades to industrial boilers including some that would have decreased emissions.
Because the information is anecdotal, EPA’s findings do not necessarily represent the
program effects across the industries subject to the program”. They also said, “the rule’s
effects are uncertain”.
“Interim Report of the Committee on Changes in New Source Review Programs for
Stationary Sources of Air Pollutants” by the National Research Council (NRC) of The
National Academies, January, 2005.
The Congress directed the EPA to have an independent study by the NRC to evaluate
potential air quality, public health and other impacts of EPA’s final rules of 12/31/02 and
10/27/03 relating to the NSR programs that are part of the Clean Air Act. This interim
report states the scope of work and the methodology to be used. A final report will likely
issue by year-end.
The NRC did, however, conclude in the interim report that “In general NSR provides
more stringent emission limits for new and modified major sources than EPA provides in
other programs”, and, “It is therefore unlikely that Clear Skies would result in emission
limits at individual sources that are tighter than those achieved when NSR is triggered at
the same source”.
The Interim Report contains a very well written and complete, though quite long,
dissertation on the history of NSR and earlier EPA rule changes as well as six pages
devoted to the reforms project and legal actions.
Chapter 3 covers the health effects of criteria pollutants regulated under NSR.
Anyone wishing a tutorial on NSR should read the initial chapters of this report.
“Children at Risk – How Air Pollution from Power Plants Threatens the Health of
America’s Children” by the Clean Air Task Force, April 2002. The report states
“Numerous risk analyses have linked power plants to pollutants that can harm children.
Considering these potential health risks, Congress should take action now to provide
relief to our children by closing the clean Air Act loopholes that still allows hundreds of
power plants to avoid modern pollution standards some 30 years after the Act was made
The report discusses some of the following information;
Over 25 million children live in counties violating national air quality
standards for criteria pollutants.
Thirty-five million of our children live within 30 miles of a power plant
and 72,000 of our schools are that close to a power plant.
Power plants emit 67% of the sulfur dioxide (SO2), and 23% of the nitrogen
oxides (NOx) from energy related sources.
Power plants are responsible for about half of the fine particulate matter in
many parts of the country.
Charts from a January, 28, 2003 meeting of the New England section of the American
Waste Management Association “NSR Reform: Overview of Final Rules”.
Charts from a May 6, 2003 meeting of the American waste Management Association in
Boston “New Source Review Reform Update”.
Charts from the American Waste Management Association May 6, 2003 Boston meeting
“Visualizing NSR Reforms”. Very comprehensive charts, devotes 11pages to “Baseline
Methods” with examples and 7 pages, with examples, to “Applicability Tests”, the
“EPA Administrator Approves Final and Proposed Rules to Reform New Source
Review Program” by Beveridge & Diamond.
A law firms pro-view of the Reforms.
“Clean Air Act’s New Source Review Provisions Give Greater Flexibility” by Robert
Iwanchuk of ENSR International. A five page review of the 5 important NSR rule
changes in the reforms.
A pro-view of the reforms with some examples and legal advice on how to maximize
the advantages of the rules. The original 2003 ENSR article may be viewed at the second
website listed above. The ENSR website may have other NSR articles of interest. We did
not search this website.
A pro-view of the Reforms in a letter to the U.S. senate from most of the organizations
represented by the National Association of Manufacturers, November, 2003
A National Association of Manufacturers pro-view of the Reforms with examples of
actions sources would take under the old rules and under the Reforms for situations under
each of the five reform areas.
List 47 documents from the NAM, both pro and con on the EPS NSR reforms, that are
directly available on links. Interesting list to explore for documents one may be
interested that may not appear on this Review Committee list.
The web page devoted to Wisconsin’s efforts to adopt the Reforms. They ran a total of
18 meetings in 2003 and 2004 of a group somewhat similar to the Delaware Review
Committee which they called the “New Source Review Retooling Advisory Group”. It
appears they concluded to adopt the EPA reforms essentially as is. They have a “New
Source Review Rule Revision package” link on this website so one can see what they
Florida started meetings similar to our Review Committee meetings in January, 2005.
This web site is the entry to all of Florida’s work on the reforms. They completed a
draft report of a study to determine the impacts of New Source Review Reform on Actual
Emissions in Florida. Florida is one of three states east of the Mississippi with no non-
Charts “Impacts of NSR Reform on Actual Emissions in Florida” presented at a
January 28, 2005 NSR Reforms meeting focusing on the completed Florida study
discussed in the document listed below.
A draft report “Impacts of New Source Review Reform on Actual Emissions in
Florida concluded that there will be an increase in future emissions as a result of
implementing the reforms. However, the increase, they believe, will be small and will
not impact their attainment status.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency “New Source Review (NSR) We b
Clearinghouse”. Links take you to many interesting sites and parts of the MPCA web
sites. Be sure to check out the ‘Baseline Actual Emissions”; Actual to Projected Actual
applicability Test; and “Major Source Modification and New Source Review Reform
Training Manual” all of which have a fund of information. One must be careful however
as these sheets were not written for Delaware.
Reading the information leads one to believe Minnesota will fully adopt the EPA
reforms as is.
South Carolina regulatory comments, including for applicability tests (actual-to-
projected-actual), referring to a 5/11/04 draft revision of the South Carolina regulation
voiced at a NSR stakeholder meeting. Apparently, South Carolina is willing to amend the
reforms where they see fit, although they are adopting the actual-to-projected –actual
A Colorado environmental society report summary “Stop the Rollbacks; Cleaner,
Healthier Air for Colorado”, that attacks the decision by the Colorado Air Quality
Commission to accept the EPA NSR reforms. Many local Colorado governments oppose
the reforms as they will increase emissions. The report shows the new baseline emissions
determination methodology could increase allowable state-wide emissions of sulfur
dioxide by 78%, particulates by 34% and nitrogen oxides by 22%. Colorado, says the
report, should be strengthening – not weakening – air quality protections. For example, if
coal-fired power plants in Colorado were required to install present day air pollution
controls, harmful sulfur dioxide emissions from these sources could be reduced by 67%
and oxides of nitrogen could be reduced by 78%. See the full report as shown below for
methodology and supporting calculations.
The full report “Stop the Rollbacks; Cleaner, Healthier Air for Colorado” described
in the summary listed in the preceding entry to this list. This organization, studying the
situation in Colorado, determined, as other states have, that the EPA reforms will likely
increase pollutant emissions and that the baseline emissions determination provision
(allowing a 10-year lookback) would be the principal cause of the increase.
An article “New Source Review Update: Enforcement Dropped & Criticism
Rejected” by Thomas R. Wood of Stoel Rives LLP, a leading Western law firm with
offices in Oregon.
Although the article focuses on the EPA announcement to drop most of its NSR
investigations in the wake of the Reforms, the article also discusses the reconsideration
results and EPA’s apparent disregard of opposing comments.
The article points out that all this will likely have little impact on Oregon’s NSR rules as
they are quite different from the original federal NSR rules and have not suffered the
same difficulties put forth as the need for reforms. Most Oregonians agree the federal
reforms are not what is best for Oregon. So long as the EPA does not require any
significant changes to the Oregon program, the December 31st, 2002 rule changes should
not directly affect sources in Oregon. However, by March 2006 Oregon must
demonstrate to EPA that its program is no less strict than the federal program.
Article “Clean air Reforms to Take Effect This Month”, March 2003, by Seth
Shortlidge of Gallagher, Callahan & Gartrell, a leading multidisciplinary law firm
headquartered in New England. A comprehensive six page summarization of the salient
points of the reforms.
EPA Reconsideration Docket OAR-2001-0004; comments by the Edison Electric
Institute re the EPA reconsideration of certain facets of the 12/31/02 final rule, dated
August 29, 2003. EEI fully supports the EPA reforms as written.
“EPA Finalizes NSR Revisions” by Omni Environmental Associates of North Carolina,
an article reviewing (and apparently supporting) the EPA reforms.
“Nine States Challenge Clean Air Changes in Court”, a six page, January 2, 2003
article from the Environmental News Service (ENS) detailing the legal challenge of the
12/31/02 EPA NSR Reforms because this “major weakening” of the Clean Air Act will
further degrade air quality in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states, “regions already
struggling with dirty air caused in significant part by industrial pollution carried into the
region by prevailing winds.” Quotes by attorneys general of New York, Maine, and