HEALTH:: Draft of Air Rule Is Said to Exempt Thousands of Old Plants from Clean Air Act

[Guest guest]

We will just all have to learn to hold our breath and not breath any more

....seems logical ...

*************************

 

> Draft of Air Rule Is Said to Exempt Many Old Plants

>

> By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE

>

> WASHINGTON, Aug. 21 After more than two years of internal deliberation and

> intense pressure from industry, the Bush administration has settled on a

> regulation that would allow thousands of older power plants, oil

refineries

> and industrial units to make extensive upgrades without having to install

> new anti-pollution devices, according to those involved in the

deliberations.

>

> The new rule, a draft of which was made available to The New York Times by

> the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, would

> constitute a sweeping and cost-saving victory for industries, exempting

> thousands of indus trial plants and refineries from part of the Clean Air

> Act. The acting administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency could

> sign the new rule as soon as next week, administration officials have told

> utility representatives.

>

> The exemption would let industrial plants continue to emit hundreds of

> thousands of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere and could save the

> companies millions, if not billions, of dollars in pollution equipment

> costs, even if they increase the amounts of pollutants they emit.

>

> The action could also spare Gov. Michael O. Leavitt of Utah, if he is

> confirmed as the new E.P.A. administrator, from having to make a decision

> on a highly contentious issue.

>

> The current rule requires plant owners to install pollution-control

devices

> if they undertake anything more than " routine maintenance " on their

plants.

> Industries have long argued that the standard is too vague and hinders

> substantial investment in cleaner, more efficient equipment.

>

> The new rule says that as much as 20 percent of the cost of replacing a

> plant's essential production equipment a boiler, generator or turbine

could

> be spent and the owner would still be exempt from installing any pollution

> controls, according to people involved in the deliberations.

>

> Together, such equipment can cost hundreds of millions of dollars,

> sometimes more than $1 billion, to replace. A utility or factory could

thus

> make tens of millions of dollars worth of improvements without being

> required to install pollution controls.

>

> At the end of last year, the administration proposed that the current

> standards be eased, saying that the threshhold for requiring pollution

> control devices could be anywhere from nothing to 50 percent of the cost

of

> replacing major equipment. Members of Congress protested that the public

> could not meaningfully comment on such a range, and 225,000 people

objected

> to the rule before the comment period ended on May 31, according to John

> Walke of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

>

> Only in the last few weeks have officials settled on the 20 percent

figure,

> which had been a closely held secret within the administration. The draft

> of the new rule, in fact, describes the point at which pollution-control

> devices must be installed only as " X percent, " but officials and several

> others in contact with those who wrote the rule said that the level was 20

> percent, though they warned that the percentage could change before being

> made final.

>

> Officials said that Marianne Horinko, the acting administrator of the

> Environmental Protection Agency, would probably sign the rule before Labor

> Day. It would go into effect shortly thereafter, without further review or

> public comment.

>

> The only way to stop it would be through court action, which critics of

the

> new rule are threatening.

>

> Eliot Spitzer, the attorney general of New York, said he would file a

> challenge to the new rule as soon as it was signed.

>

> " A rule that creates a 20 percent threshold eviscerates the statute, " he

> said of the Clean Air Act. " This makes it patently clear that the Bush

> administration has meant all along to repeal the Clean Air Act by

> administrative fiat. "

>

> Administration officials, including Ms. Horinko, declined to comment.

> Jarrod Agen, a spokesman for the E.P.A., said that officials could not

> comment because the matter was still under review. " But I can say that we

> are working on this final rule, " he said, adding that it would " encourage

> facilities to improve their efficiency, reliability and safety. "

>

> Spokesmen for industry groups reacted positively to the new rule. Scott

> Segal, executive director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating

Council,

> representing utilities, said that industries would appreciate having a

> " bright line. " He said that the 20 percent, though he did not know

> precisely how it would be calculated, " is not an unreasonable number. "

>

> Mr. Walke of the Natural Resources Defense Council called the 20 percent

> standard " a grotesque accounting gimmick " that would " let companies

> completely overhaul their plants over time and spew even more pollution

> than now. "

>

> Clarifying the rule and making it more lenient has been a central goal of

> industry for more than a decade, and the administration has been reviewing

> it since President Bush came into office more than two years ago.

>

> While industry and many of Mr. Bush's political and financial backers have

> supported a broad exemption like 20 percent, many state and local

> officials, including Governor Leavitt's director of air quality in Utah,

> have strongly opposed the concept.

>

> Governor Leavitt is still likely to encounter harsh criticism on the

matter

> during his confirmation hearings, which are expected to begin shortly

after

> Congress returns from its summer recess on Sept. 2. Democrats have

> indicated they plan to challenge him to defend the rule, which would put

> him in opposition to his own state's air experts.

>

> Determining when a plant must install pollution-control devices has been

> one of the thorniest and most controversial environmental decisions facing

> the Bush administration.

>

> The new rule also appears to run counter to the stance the administration

> has taken in several lawsuits against polluters across the country, trying

> to enforce more rigorous standards under the Clean Air Act.

>

> The Justice Department during the Clinton administration initiated

lawsuits

> against dozens of oil refineries and about 50 coal-fired power plants for

> their failures to install pollution controls under the requirement of

> routine maintenance.

>

> The Justice Department during the Bush administration has continued to

> prosecute those cases, but only after an internal dispute.

>

> Oil, coal and electric companies had lobbied the administration to drop

the

> suits; Christie Whitman, the former E.P.A. administrator, resisted. As a

> result, Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force directed the

Justice

> Department to analyze whether to continue the suits. In January 2002, the

> department decided to do so.

>

> And in a striking counterpoint to the administration's new rule, the

> department won a landmark victory two weeks ago in federal court against

an

> Ohio Edison plant in Jefferson County, Ohio.

>

> That decision, which found that Ohio Edison violated the Clean Air Act

when

> it failed to install pollution controls, could set a precedent for the

> other cases and puts the administration on a collision course with itself

> because of its new rule.

>

> Senator James M. Jeffords, the Vermont independent who is the ranking

> minority member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, called the

> new rule " just one more flagrant violation of the Clean Air Act and every

> court's opinion on this matter. " He added: " Its publication will amount to

> malfeasance. "

>

> Mr. Cheney's energy task force also directed the E.P.A. to review the

> regulations regarding routine maintenance and report to Mr. Bush within 90

> days. That deadline slipped repeatedly as the administration mulled how to

> respond.

>

> The current trigger point of " routine maintenance " was set by Congress in

a

> 1977 amendment to the Clean Air Act. The idea was to avoid shutting at

once

> all plants that might be in violation of the Clean Air Act.

>

> Instead, Congress said, when old plants were refurbished, they had to add

> the best available air-pollution control equipment. The amendment became

> known as " new source review " because it required review when a plant added

> new power sources that could raise emissions.

>

> During the preparation of its report on energy policy, Mr. Cheney's task

> force was visited often by officials from several industry groups and

> companies seeking to alter the new source provisions.

>

> According to documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act by

> the Natural Resources Defense Council, those visitors included officials

> from the Edison Electric Institute, the North American Electric

Reliability

> Council, the National Mining Association, the American Petroleum Institute

> and the Southern Company.

>

>

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/22/national/22AIR.html?th= & pagewanted=all & pos

ition=

>