The National Petrochemical and Refiners Association sent a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency on Nov. 18 that discusses several issues the association has with EPA's proposed Greenhouse Gas Tailoring rule.

In the letter, the association states that the proposed rule violates the statutory authority of the Clean Air Act, is not a relief rule, and that it conflicts with state programs.

The NPRA believes there is a straightforward way to avoid the “fundamentally flawed” position that EPA puts forward while obtaining 95 percent of the greenhouse gas reduction benefits, states the letter, which was written by David Friedman, director of Environmental Affairs for the NPRA.

“EPA should delay promulgation on the light duty rule while the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration finalizes its portion of the rule early next year,” the letter states. “This result would avoid reliance on EPA’s erroneous conclusion that PSD [prevention of significant deterioration] is automatically triggered for all sources upon the effective date of the section 202 light duty vehicle rule.”

As the Clean Air Act stipulates that the threshold to permit major stationary sources is 250 tons, the EPA lacks the authority to exempt sources that exceed that, Friedman adds.

If the proposed rule was accepted, it would increase PSD applications “nearly fortyfold” to more than 13,000 facilities, the letter states, expanding the program without a proper assessment of the costs and benefits.

Friedman said that since a PSD permit costs $125,000 and 866 hours to complete, the cost to the industry for more than 13,000 facilities to file permits would be more than $1.6 billion.

“The program does not save the $54 billion as calculated in the cost/benefit analysis, at most it simply delays the $54 billion that the U.S. economy will have to pay to comply with a PSD program,” he said.

The proposal could also generate uncertainty as state GHG permitting thresholds in some cases are below the 25,000 ton limit, the letter states. States that have fully approved PSD permit programs already could have some issues with delays and transitioning as a result of the proposed rule, he added.

We strongly believe that it is more important that these rules be done right and not that they fit into an artificial deadline,” Friedman said. “These rules are too important to be rushed only to find flaws and unintended consequences.”