Myth
vs. Fact
Myth - The planned changes
to the NSR program will increase emissions, jeopardize our
health and harm the environment.
Fact
- Reforming NSR will not change a single air quality standard,
nor will it change the permitted emissions levels for any
industrial facility.
- In fact, the planned reforms would actually decrease emissions
by making it easier for plants to update outdated equipment
and undertake efficiency improvements.
- The time, expense and uncertainty of the current program
encourages manufacturers to rely on older equipment that
emits more pollution, rather than upgrading to more energy
and environmentally efficient equipment.
Myth - The final rule has not
been through full public notice and comment.
Fact
- EPA has been soliciting public input and studying changes
to the NSR program for nearly a decade. All aspects of the
rule have been reviewed extensively.
- The components of the final rule were originally developed
during the Clinton Administration and deal with clean units,
plantwide applicability limits and emissions accounting.
These provisions have been through full notice and comment
and are ready for implementation.
- The proposed rule solicits comment on what activities
qualify as "routine maintenance." EPA won't decide
what routine maintenance policy to adopt until it has considered
everyone's input.
Myth - The NSR changes will
only impact coal-fired utilities.
Fact
- The NSR program affects more than 22,000 industrial facilities
around the country that form the backbone of our nation's
economy -- from utilities to paper mills to high-tech manufacturing
facilities.
- In the current economic climate, we need sensible reforms
that streamline regulatory programs that allow companies
to concentrate on improving energy efficiency, environmental
performance and economic competitiveness.
Myth - The final rule will
increase emissions since it allows industry to calculate its
own higher baseline for past emissions.
Fact
- EPA's accounting changes do not overlook emissions
increases. EPA is simply selecting a more representative
period of operations that takes into account normal 10-year
business cycles.
- Basing "past emissions" on a period of unusually
low production like the recent recession would mean the
return of production to more normal levels would become
an "emissions increase" that could trigger NSR.
Rules should encourage economic growth and not lock business
into recession-level production rates.
- The Bush Administration's approach to calculate past emissions
is actually more restrictive than that considered in the
1996 Clinton proposal. The 1996 approach would have allowed
sources to base their "past actual" emissions
on any one year (rather than two) out of the past 10 years.
Myth - The planned changes
to the NSR program will stop all pending NSR enforcement actions
and cases.
Fact
- The final and proposed rules will only affect future permitting
decisions under NSR and will not affect past enforcement
actions.
- If a facility has violated the NSR requirements (or for
that matter, any Clean Air Act requirement), the government
has a legitimate right to vigorously enforce the law.
Myth - The proposed routine
maintenance changes exclude essentially all plant improvements
from NSR review and the requirement for pollution control
upgrades.
Fact
- The Clean Air Act specifically excludes "routine
maintenance" from NSR. However, over the last twenty
years what constitutes maintenance has become the subject
of great uncertainty and debate.
- EPA in its proposed rule has now indicated that it should
not be in the business of reviewing routine maintenance
projects like replacing outdated pumps or installing energy
efficient turbine blades. The forest products industry supports
a common sense definition of routine maintenance.
- The proposed rule lays out several alternative definitions
for routine maintenance.
Information from American Forest &
Paper Association (AF&PA)
|
