BILL ANALYSIS



C.S.H.B. 2877
By: Holzheauser
4-4-95
Committee Report (Substituted)



BACKGROUND

Under current law, facilities which are required to obtain an air
permit must go through an extensive process to obtain an initial
permit.  This process includes among other things extensive health
effects modelling, review to determine whether the facility will
contain best available control technology ("BACT"), as well as
notice requirements and opportunity for a contested case hearing
offered to affected persons.  Facilities obtaining preconstruction
permits also are required to renew that permit every ten years. 
This procedure normally involves a review by the Texas natural
Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC) staff and the Commission. 
In addition, however, permittees are subject to the costly
opportunity for a contested case hearing required for
preconstruction permits.  This requirement applies regardless of
whether or not an increase in emissions is anticipated to result
from the renewal.  There also has been some confusion as to whether
an applicant must undergo technology review as part of the renewals
process.


PURPOSE

HB 2877 will provide that a contested case hearing is not required
absent substantial compliance problems or an increase in emissions. 
The bill also clarifies that technology review is only required to
avoid a condition of air pollution or to ensure compliance with
other applicable state or federal statutes.


RULEMAKING AUTHORITY

It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly
grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer,
department, agency or institution.


SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS

SECTION 1.  Amends Section 382.055 (e), Health and Safety Code by
prohibiting the TNRCC from imposing requirements for a renewal of
a preconstruction permit more stringent than the existing permit,
unless additional requirements are necessary to comply with state
or federal air quality requirements.

SECTION 2.  Amends Section 382.056 (d), Health and Safety Code, by
changing duties of the TNRCC from holding a hearing on "review"
applications upon request to only permit "renewal" applications;
changes an option to a prohibition regarding whether the TNRCC may
hold a hearing on a preconstruction permit if the hearing request
is unreasonable; a request is considered unreasonable if an
amendment, modification, or renewal does not result in an increase
in emissions or an air pollutant not previously emitted.

SECTION 3.  Effective date on September 1, 1995.

SECTION 4.  Emergency clause.



COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL TO SUBSTITUTE

The substitute makes minor language changes to the original; the
substitute changes duties of the TNRCC from holding a hearing on
"review" applications upon request to only permit "renewal"
applications; the substitute broadens language so that a hearing
request is unreasonable for reasons "including but not limited to"
those enumerated.


SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE ACTION

HB 2877 was considered by the House Committee on Environmental
Regulation in a public hearing on April 4, 1995.  The chair
recognized Rep. Holzheauser to explain the bill.  The committee
considered a substitute to the bill.  Jim Kennedy, representing
Texas Chemical Council testified in favor of the bill.  Jeffrey
Anthony Saitas with the Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission testified neutrally on the bill.
The substitute was adopted without objection.
HB 2877 was reported favorably as substitute with the
recommendation that it do pass and be printed by a record vote of
eight (8) ayes, no (0) nays, no (0) pnv, and one (1) absent.