| Clean
Air
I was very disappointed
in your article concerning enforcement of the Clean Air Act
and the new New Source Review (NSR) provisions (ENR 11/17
p. 12). It is clear that the authors did not read the new
provisions but relied upon claims of those who oppose them.
The truth is that the new provisions are not a reversal of
the Clean Air Act. Rather, the new rule simply defines routine
maintenance, repair and replacement (RMRR).
It is important to note that the
original objective of the NSR in the 1977 Clean Air Act was
to be a preconstruction permitting program with two primary
purposes: ensuring maintenance of air-quality standards when
factories, industrial boilers and powerplants are modified
or added; and assuring that state-of-the- art control technology
is installed in new plants or in existing plants when undergoing
major modifications.
The new rule still states that
pollution-control devices are required if a plant undertakes
anything more than RMRR on their plants. The exemption from
installing pollution controls occurs for routine maintenance
if:
- It involves replacement of any existing component(s)
of a process unit with an identical or functionally equivalent
component(s).
- The fixed capital cost of the replaced component, plus
costs of any repair and maintenance activities that are part
of the replacement activity (such as labor, contract services,
or major equipment rental, does not exceed 20% of the replacement
value of the entire process unit.
- Replacement(s) does not change basic design parameters
of the process unit.
- The replacement(s) does not cause the unit to exceed
any emissions limits.
Many of the states challenging
this new rule are also fearful that the 20% replacement value
will allow incremental upgrades over a period of years and
allow old plants to increase emissions and upgrade without
installing pollution control devices. This simply is not a
well- founded fear. As soon as one of the above criteria are
violated, the plant is required to upgrade its pollution control
devices!
It is difficult to understand how
this new rule will result in harm to the environment or loss
in construction and engineering jobs. One could argue that
allowing RMRR according to the new rule might actually reduce
emissions through increased efficiencies in the existing plants.
Allowing RMRR to proceed unimpeded by unnecessary bureaucracy
keeps trades people and engineers employed as well.
|
