Politics and Pollution

August 28, 2003
 

President Bush's critics have watched with mounting frustration as his administration has compiled one of the worst environmental records in recent history without paying any real political price. One reason may be that the issues at stake are too regional, like forest fires or salmon recovery, or too remote, like global warming. But the administration itself may now have witlessly altered this dynamic with its reckless and insupportable decision to eviscerate a central provision of the Clean Air Act and allow power plants, refineries and other industrial sites to spew millions of tons of unhealthy pollutants into the air.

The proposed changes in the act, formally announced yesterday, are so transparently a giveaway to Mr. Bush's corporate allies and so widely unpopular among the officials responsible for air quality in the individual states that they have already assumed a place in the nascent presidential race. Democratic candidates are competing to see who can express more outrage — John Kerry, for instance, calls the changes a " `get out of jail free' card" for polluters. Moderate Republicans are dismayed and embarrassed. The issue will acquire even greater momentum when the new rules are published as a fait accompli in the Federal Register, and a dozen or more states sue in federal court to have them stayed and then overturned.

These suits could easily succeed. The new rules are a clear violation of Congress's intent in 1977, when it required utilities and other polluters to install modern pollution-control technology whenever they modified their plants in ways that increased emissions. The Justice Department identified 51 plants that were in violation of the 1977 rule because they had been upgraded without the required pollution controls. Several of these cases have been resolved in the government's favor, but the administration's action clearly jeopardizes the remaining lawsuits.

As the administration's defense takes shape, the public should beware of half-truths and artful demagogy. One specious line of argument is that the old rule inhibited companies from doing routine maintenance and making plants more efficient. The administration has offered no compelling evidence to support that beyond the anecdotal say-so of a few utilities. A companion argument, made by apologists for the White House, is that the old rule contributed to the blackout. This, too, is nonsense. The blackout was caused by deficiencies in the transmission grid or its management and had nothing to do with environmental regulations or a shortage of power.

This line of reasoning is eerily reminiscent of the efforts to blame environmentalists for the California energy crisis, and is equally as hollow.

E.P.A. Exempts Old Plants From Using Anti-Pollution Devices

By Katharine Q. Seelye

August 27, 2003

In one of its most far-reaching environmental actions, the Bush administration today adopted a final rule that will allow thousands of older power plants, oil refineries and industrial units to make extensive upgrades without having to install costly new anti-pollution devices.

The measure covers 17,000 power plants, refineries, pulp and paper mills, chemical plants and other industrial facilities. The new rule, for which industries have lobbied the Bush administration for two years, could save them billions of dollars in costs.

Explaining their rationale for the rule, administration officials said it would clarify an otherwise subjective standard and allow plants to modernize more easily, thus leading to greater efficiencies.

But critics said that it rolled back an important section of the landmark Clean Air Act and would lead to significantly more pollution. Several environmental organizations and states attorney generals vowed to take the Environmental Protection Agency to court to try to stop it from taking effect.

The rule allows industrial facilities to avoid installing pollution-control devices when they replace equipment — even if the upgrade increases pollution — as long as the cost of the replacement is less than 20 percent of the cost of essential production equipment. That is, if a plant wanted to replace a boiler, as long as that boiler cost less than 20 percent of the cost of the entire production unit - the boiler, turbine, generator and other parts that convert coal into electricity - it would not have to install pollution controls.

The rule could undermine several lawsuits that the Justice Department began under the Clinton administration and is continuing under the Bush administration. The Justice Department contends that 51 power plants are in violation of the Clean Air Act because they made significant upgrades and increased their pollution without installing pollution controls. Under the new rule, those plants would not be in violation of the Clean Air Act and could make their upgrades without triggering the pollution-control requirement.

The Justice Department has obtained settlements from five of the 12 companies that operate the 51 plants. Earlier this month, it won a major case against FirstEnergy's Ohio Edison, with a federal judge ruling that the plant upgraded seven coal-fired power plants illegally because it did not install pollution equipment.

The E.P.A. has estimated that if it won all of the cases involving the 51 plants, it would cut nearly 7 million tons of pollutants every year. That would amount to a 50-percent reduction of air pollution generated by all electric utilities in the United States.

Abt Associates, a technical consulting firm sometimes contracted by the E.P.A., estimated that the failure to install pollution controls on the 51 plants being sued is responsible for 5,000 to 9,000 premature deaths and 80,000 to 120,000 asthma attacks every year.

EPA exempts older plants from clean-air rule

August 27, 2003

The Bush administration today exempted thousands of older power plants, refineries and factories from having to install costly clean air controls when they modernize with new equipment that improves efficiency but increases pollution.

In a major new revision to its air pollution rules, the Environmental Protection Agency will allow up to 20% of the costs of replacing each plant's production system to be considered "routine maintenance" that doesn't require costly anti-pollution controls, according to agency documents obtained by The Associated Press.

A typical power plant has more than one "process unit" containing a boiler, generator, turbine and other equipment. In the case of a 1,500-megawatt plant with two 750-megawatt units that cost $1 billion to replace, each could be upgraded $200 million at a time, agency officials and outside experts say.

The new rule signed Wednesday by EPA's acting administrator, Marianne L. Horinko, represents a fundamental shift away from a long-problematic 1971 maintenance standard.

"We're going to really, I think, create certainty going forward for industrial facilities, by spelling out what specific replacement is exempt," Horinko said.

Until now, operators have been required to add more pollution-cutting devices if they do anything more than "routine maintenance" on a plant that causes emissions to increase significantly. The electric utility and oil industries have been lobbying the administration for the changes, saying the costs prohibit them from making energy-efficiency improvements.

The White House-led reworking of the maintenance standard essentially allows industries including manufacturers, chemical plants and pulp and paper mills to modernize a fifth at a time each of a facility's essential production systems.

They can do so even if the upgrades increase pollution, with no apparent restrictions on time intervals between modernization, though Horinko and other top EPA officials insist the plants still must comply with overall permit limits and other state and federal programs for pollutants.

Congress put the Clean Air Act's "new source review" program into law in 1977. Since then the agency has had mixed success in enforcing the maintenance provision.

"We can say categorically that pollution will not increase as a result of this rule," said Jeff Holmstead, EPA's assistant administrator in charge of air quality.

Environmentalists said that was untrue, however, since emissions can increase within a plant's permitted limits, and most plants are not now operating near those limits. They described the new changes as disastrous for people's health, especially those living near or downwind of some 17,000 industrial plants affected. And they said EPA ignored concerns expressed by hundreds of thousands of Americans opposed to the new regulations.

"It's an accounting gimmick that eliminates any possibility of pollution controls," said John Walke, director of Natural Resources Defense Council's clean air program. "It's a total disaster. It's the effective repeal of this clean air program, through illegal administrative means."