BILL ANALYSIS



C.S.H.B. 2878
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 extensive health effects modelling,
review to determine whether the facility will utilize best
available control technology ("BACT"), as well as notice
requirements and opportunity for a contested case hearing offered
to affected persons.  In addition, a facility which has already
been authorized to release certain air emissions also is required
to apply for a permit amendment whenever the facility intends to
change its processes or equipment.  This procedure requires the
applicant to submit to the same requirements of technical review,
including health effects modelling, and contested case hearing as
are necessary to obtain the initial preconstruction permit.  This
is the case even where the change will result in the same or lower
emissions.  As plants have become increasingly complex, and the
permitting process has become longer and more time consuming, this
process has resulted in substantial expenditures of TNRCC and
applicant staff time and money, with no demonstrable benefit to the
environment.

PURPOSE

HB 2878 will allow certain facilities to be modified without
obtaining a permit amendment if the modification would not result
in an increase in emissions previously authorized, or in any new
emissions.  In addition, the bill would clarify that, consistent
with current practice, an amendment, rather than a new permit, is
required for modification of an existing facility rather than a new
permit.

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 382.003(9), Health and Safety Code by
changing the definition of "Modification of existing facility" to
include a change in a facility (rather than a physical change, or
change in operation of a stationary source) that results in a net
increase in permitted allowable emissions of an air contaminant
which is a defined term (rather than an increase in any  air
pollutant emitted by the source into the atmosphere).  It also adds
language that the term does not include a change if there is no net
increase in allowable emissions or an emission of an air
contaminant not previously emitted if the facility has received a
preconstruction permit or exempted from such a permit 120 months
before the change or uses an air pollution device that is at least
effective as the best available control technology regardless of
whether the facility has received a permit.  Also adds language
that the term does not include a change within the scope of a
flexible permit.

SECTION 2.  Amends Section 382.0512, Health and Safety Code, by
requiring the TNRCC to consider the following in deciding whether
a change results in a net increase in allowable emissions:  any air
pollution control method applied to the facility, any decreases in
allowable emissions from other facilities.  Nothing shall be
construed to the application of other state or federal
requirements.

SECTION 3.  Amends Section 382.0518, Health and Safety Code, by
adding Subsection (h) that states that a reference to a permit in
this section includes an amendment to a permit.

SECTION 4.  Effective date, September 1, 1995.

SECTION 5.  Emergency clause.


COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL TO SUBSTITUTE

The substitute for HB 2878 leaves the definition of "modification
of existing facility" as it reads in current law, with the
exception of the substitution of the words "facility" instead of
"stationary source" and "containment" for "pollution".  The
substitute creates a new Subsection (E) in the definition of
"modification of existing facility" which excludes from the
definition facilities having a preconstruction permit received in
the last 120 months, or facilities with best achievable control
technology equivalent to such facilities.  The substitute also
renumbers the subsection (E) added in the original bill, and
clarifies that the exclusion applies to physical or operational
changes.  The substitute deletes the language requiring the
consideration of decreases in emissions due to pollution control or
from other sources within the facility at all facilities.  The
substitute provides instead that for facilities described in new
subsection 382.003(9)(E) the consideration of decreases in
emissions due to pollution control, decreases in allowable
emissions from other facilities with a preconstruction permit
issued no later than 120 months previously, or decreases in actual
emissions from non-permitted facilities described in Section
382.003(9)(E)(ii).  Finally, the substitute clarifies that the
section does not limit the TNRCC's authority to implement any other
applicable federal or state requirements, nor does the section
limit the agency's enforcement powers.


SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE ACTION

HB 2878 was heard 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 for the bill.  The following persons
testified in favor of the bill:
     Jim Kennedy, representing Texas Chemical Council.
     Michael White, representing Texas Mid-Continent Oil & Gas
Association.
     Billie G. Meador, Manager, State and Community Affairs for
Texas Instruments,  representing herself and Texas Instruments.
Ken Kramer, representing the Sierra Club, testified against the
bill.
Jeffrey Anthony Saitas with the Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission testified neutrally on the bill.
The substitute for HB 2878 was adopted without objection.  HB 2878
was reported favorably as substituted 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.