Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League
Clean Air Campaign
 


BLUE RIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE LEAGUE
www.BREDL.org ~ PO Box 88 Glendale Springs, North Carolina 28629 ~ Phone (336) 982-2691 ~ Fax (336) 982-2954 ~ Email: BREDL@skybest.com

March 31, 2003

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC
Attention Docket ID No. A-2002-04

Comments of Louis A. Zeller, BREDL Clean Air Campaign Coordinator

On behalf of the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, I wish to address the proposals for changing New Source Review under the Clean Air Act.

The Bush Administration has mounted a new offensive, an attack upon the Clean Air Act which has been a cornerstone of national environmental policy for three decades. Today, we charge the Bush Administration with putting the financial interest of the oil, gas and coal companies above our vital interest of public health and clean air.

The Bush Administration’s proposal, prompted by the Vice President's National Energy Policy Development Group, would exempt thousands of industrial air pollution sources, including paper mills, oil refineries, and some coal-fired power plants, from the New Source Review, a critical component of the Clean Air Act. New Source Review requires that industrial plants add modern air pollution controls when they are upgraded or modified and substantially increase air pollution.

Moreover, the US Environmental Protection Agency would exceed its authority if it enacts today’s proposals. Congress adopted the Clean Air Act in 1970 to improve the environment and protect public health by reducing dangerous levels of air pollution. The Bush Administration's new rules and regulations are opposed to the letter and the spirit of the law enacted by Congress; if approved, the changes would allow higher levels of air pollution.

Some recent history is instructive here. In 1999 the Environmental Protection Agency sued numerous coal-burning power plants for violations of the existing New Source Review provisions of the Clean Air Act. Some of these companies operate in the southeast. For example, the EPA called for the shut down of Duke coal-fired power plants because they were modified without approval. Major modifications of pollution sources requires the owner-operator to submit to a review of the modernization under New Source Review. Duke Energy is currently out of compliance. 40 CFR Part 70 requires a schedule to be included in a Title V permit if a source is operating outside of the law. Duke’s permits are now in process. Barring an end run around New Source Review, Duke faces fines of $27,500 per day per facility.

In 2002 nine states petitioned EPA to disclose contacts the Vice President Cheney's Energy Task Force had had with outside parties regarding changes to New Source Review. To date, Vice President Cheney has stubbornly refused to turn over records relating to Energy Task Force. A federal court agreed with the states, ruling that the task force materials and meetings with industry lobbyists had to be made public. But the Bush Administration is now appealing that ruling.

The Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League supports the ruling of the courts and calls upon the Administration and the EPA to disclose the behind-closed-doors dealings of the Vice Presidents Energy Task Force. What do you have to hide?

Furthermore, we oppose the gutting of the Clean Air Act. Specifically:

We oppose EPA’s adoption of a so-called clean unit exclusion. An exemption would allow facilities that installed pollution controls in the past ten years a blanket exemption for emissions increases well into the future.

We oppose EPA’s new approach for calculating baseline emissions. Baseline emission levels set at the highest polluting level of any two consecutive years in the last ten years would allow plants to increase pollution significantly.

We oppose EPA’s plant-wide applicability limits. Polluters would be exempt from New Source Review if they agree to a cap on their air pollution. The cap could be set far higher than the plant’s current emissions, allowing pollution to increase.

We oppose EPA’s changes to the routine maintenance, repair and replacement exception. Enlarging this exemption by creating an annual allowance would exempt projects based on cost and result in increases in air pollution. Facilities could replace major components and avoid installing modern air pollution controls.


More Information: Public Comment Period has been extended to May 02, 2003 - Check out this EPA webpage for details on submitting comments