Environmental Groups Ask EPA to Disapprove SIP
By Lily Auliff

In comment letters to the US Environmental Protection (EPA), five environmental groups recommended disapproval of the Houston-Galveston Area State Implementation Plan (SIP) to reach attainment of the 1-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone smog, prepared by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC).

The EPA is required to accept or reject the plan by October 15, 2001. If EPA accepts the SIP, it becomes enforceable as federal law. If EPA rejects the SIP, it must replace it with an enforceable Federal Implementation Plan (FIP).

On August 13, Environmental Defense (ED) submitted to the EPA a detailed, 42-page letter, documenting legal, scientific, and policy reasons why the SIP should not be approved. The Galveston-Houston Association for Smog Prevention (GHASP), Sierra Club, and Texas Public Citizen signed onto ED’s letter. GHASP, Sierra Club, and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) also sent similar comments of their own.

“We think that the EPA has already decided to approve the SIP without requiring changes that would be significant to us,” explains John Wilson, executive director of GHASP. “But we hope that the EPA will realize that our arguments are based on sound scientific policy and legal analysis, and either issue a FIP or find a way to require TNRCC to immediately repair the SIP.” The organizations cited many flaws in the current SIP.

Delays
The Clean Air Act of 1990 required that TNRCC submit a SIP that provides for attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS for ground-level ozone no later than November 15, 1994. When EPA failed to enforce this deadline, ED and NRDC filed suit, resulting in a consent decree that says EPA must approve a SIP or promulgate a FIP by October 15, 2001. The latest version of the SIP, submitted in December 2000 and subsequently revised, still falls short of emission reductions needed to meet the standard, the groups say.

“TNRCC has submitted a plan that says they have met the 2001 deadline, but our opinion is that the plan is inadequate,” explains Wilson.

Incomplete Modeling
TNRCC used computer modeling to determine if implementing the controls outlined in the SIP would lead to attainment. The models predicted that the controls were not enough. Rather than adding controls and rerunning the models, TNRCC opted to calculate how much pollution had to be eliminated in order to meet the standard using a method that they say was justified under a guidance released by the EPA. They then added measures into the plan based on that follow-up analysis.

“It is our opinion that there is no legal or scientific justification for the method they used to make their educated guess,” asserts Wilson.

The Gap
TNRCC admits that even the most recent version of the SIP does not contain enough control measures to reach attainment. To make up for the 56 tons of nitrogen oxides (NOx) per day “gap” between the emission reductions in the SIP and the emission reductions needed to attain the NAAQS, as measured by TNRCC, the SIP proposes further air quality analyses and development of additional controls by 2004.

“Given Texas’ long history of broken promises and delays to date, there is no assurance that even this late date for the adoption of a final plan will be met,” reads ED’s letter.

Inappropriate / Ineffective Controls
The SIP relies on a Voluntary Mobile Emission Reduction Program (VMEP) for 3 percent of its reductions. VMEP measures listed in the SIP include things like TNRCC’s Smoking Vehicle program, Houston-Galveston Area Council’s Commute Solutions program, and smart growth initiatives. TNRCC says that inclusion of VMEP measures in the SIP is justifiable under guidance from the EPA. The opposing groups counter that allowing voluntary measures in the SIP is not consistent with the CAA, which requires enforceable commitments.

“Our concerns over the inclusion of VMEP measures in the SIP are not about the measures themselves, but about the certainty that the reductions claimed will be achieved in practice,” ED states.

To read the comments prepared by ED, GHASP, and NRDC visit http://www.ghasp.org/publications/SIPproblems.pdf.