Many local environmentalists and academics support a lawsuit filed by 12 states, including Pennsylvania, last week against the Environmental Protection Agency.
Penn State Environmental Society President John Yerger (junior-wildlife and fisheries science) said he thought that the EPA action targeting the New Source Review (NSR) of the federal Clean Air Act was well-intentioned.
"I think that the EPA means well. It's just another way to look environmentally friendly while covering for businesses," he said.
The New Source Review became part of the Clean Air Act in 1977, establishing environmental standards for companies that upgrade or modify their facilities. The NSR originally required these companies to either prevent additional pollution by offsetting it with reductions in other areas or to obtain a clean air permit confirming that the best available pollution control technology has been installed.
On Dec. 31, 2002, the EPA revised the NSR to state that companies could make improvements to their facilities at up to 20 percent of the cost of the plant's essential production equipment without installing new pollution controls.
The new rules were filed in the federal register on Oct. 27 and will go into effect in two months. States will then have three years to comply with those standards, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) spokesman Kurt Knaus said.
"The change could lead to an increase in pollution from upwind states. It is a matter of public health as much as economic health," Knaus said. He added that the change in environmental policy could also lead to challenges for businesses.
"There will be steeper environmental hurdles to operate here," Knaus said.
Kevin Stewart, director of environmental relations for the American Lung Association of Pennsylvania, said his group supports the provisions of the New Source Review in the Clean Air Act that existed prior to Dec. 31, 2002.
"Air pollution from coal-running plants contribute to fine matter that gets caught in the lung," Stewart said.
Stewart added that high pollution levels could greatly exacerbate asthma and lead to premature death in some cases. "It's not good for public health," Stewart said.
Penn State biology professor James Minesky also cautioned against the changes in the Clean Air Act.
"Any changes in the Clean Air Act should be done with close scrutiny with the scientific data," Minesky said. He also said the types of pollutants being emitted from the plants would determine the effects on the environment.
Andre Boehman, professor of fuel science, echoed Minesky's thoughts.
"The Clean Air Act should only be tightened, not loosened. If those sources are not tightened, the problem will only worsen," Boehman said. However, Boehman also said that people should pay attention to all sides of the issue and note the current conditions of the environment and improvements while considering the anticipated effects of EPA regulation revisions.
The Environmental Integrity Project and the Council of State Governments/Eastern Region Conference said the new rules would result in about 238,560 tons of pollution falling on the state of Pennsylvania.
The suit was filed Oct. 27 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. There is no timeline as to when the case will be heard, but DEP officials expect it to be early next year.
Other states filing the suit are New York, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin. New York City, San Francisco and several cities in Connecticut also joined the suit.
