Environment Health & Safety	Ours to Protect

Texaco

From the Desk of Arthur Lee	TXN 341-7173

Tel: (914) 838-7173

Fax: (914) 838-7115

VIA FAX	(512) 239-4808

DATE:

TO:	Herb Williams

Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission

Austin, TX

SUBJECT:	Comments on Issue Paper "Attainment Dates for New National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): What dates or time frames should be established for attaining new NAAQS? -- August 20 draft with August 27 revisions on Option 5a"

I appreciate the time you put into writing and rewriting this issue paper. I wish to offer some comments for the record.

1.	REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS DEMONSTRATIONS WITH MID-COURSE CORRECTIONS OFFER THE MOST FLEXIBILITY TO THE STATES.

As revised at the August 27 meeting of the Base Programs Analyses and Policies Work Group, Option 5a of the subject issue paper offers the most flexibility to States. A ten-year planning cycle with a mid-course review and potential correction(s) is a prudent approach because continuing sound scientific analyses, including the greater use of ambient air monitoring, can improve air quality planning and continuing cost/benefit analyses can improve prioritization in mitigating the most stressing public health impact due to air pollutants. Further, past failures in setting uniform attainment dates demonstrate the need for a new, flexible approach. All of these considerations lead to the conclusion that public health would still be well protected at a cost both reasonable to the public and to the regulated community.

2.	ACHIEVABILITY OF THE STANDARD MUST BE A PRIME CONSIDERATION IN ANY MID-COURSE REVIEW.

In the text of Option 5a, it is stated: "There should also be consideration given impacts from natural events in selection of achievable levels, increments of progress or attainment demonstrations." This "natural events" consideration is indeed a prudent factor to be incorporated into any mid-course review. However, it should be further emphasized that "natural events" may be more than any single incident or any single factor over a short period of time. It is conceivable that the achievability of a standard may be in question for a given area with a confluence of geographical factors and long term meteorological conditions that prevents an area from ever achieving a standard, either the current standard or the potential new standard.

3.	"SAFE HARBOR" FOR EARLY REDUCTION BY SOURCES IS A GOOD IDEA BUT SOURCES NOT ELECTING SUCH EARLY REDUCTION SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT NEW CONTROLS WITHOUT ADEQUATE TIME FOR IMPLEMENTATION.

As discussed during the August 27 meeting, a "safe harbor" concept could be applied where a source electing to reduce emissions early may be given a period of time when it would be exempt from new, more stringent controls established at a mid-course review during the planning cycle. Texaco is supportive of a framework for establishing a "safe harbor" for sources electing to reduce emissions early in a planning cycle. However, sources not electing to reduce emissions early should not be compelled to implement new, more stringent controls at each mid-course review during such a cycle without an adequate amount of time to install these new controls. An adequate amount of time to reconstruct a process or install new capital equipment to comply with control requirements can take between three to ten years under many of the current Clean Air Act requirements. Such consideration must be given to sources not electing such a "safe harbor."

cc:	Joe Paise, EPA ; via email

Sharon Reinders, EPA; via email

Jerry Golden, TVA; via email

Filename:	attndate.ioc