GLIN==> Court Rejects Bush Administration Plan to Gut Key Clean Air Act Safeguard

["Alex J. Sagady & Associates" <ajs@sagady.com>]

AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION * EARTHJUSTICE * ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL * SIERRA CLUB * U.S. PIRG

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
 
CONTACTS: American Lung Association: Diane Maple, 202/785-3355 
Earthjustice: Howard Fox, 202/841-6656, or Brian Smith, 510/550-6714
Environmental Defense: Janea Scott, 212/616-1267 
NRDC: John Walke, 202/289-2406 or Elliott Negin, 202/289-2405 
Sierra Club: David Willett, 202/675-6279 
U.S. PIRG: Emily Figdor, 202/546-9707
 
Court Rejects Bush
Administration Plan to Gut Key Clean Air Act Safeguard
 
Ruling Blocks Thousands of
Facilities from Increasing Pollution
 
WASHINGTON (March 17, 2006)
? A federal court today killed a Bush administration rule that
would have sabotaged a key provision of the Clean Air Act. Agreeing with
a coalition of public health and environmental groups, the U.S. Court of
Appeals ruled that a loophole the Bush administration adopted for the
law?s new source review program would have allowed thousands of aging
power plants and other industrial facilities to emit more air pollution,
threatening the health of millions of Americans. 
 
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that
the administration?s loophole contradicted the purposes of the Clean Air
Act. ?Indeed,? the court stated, ?EPA?s interpretation would produce a
?strange,? if not an ?indeterminate,? result: a law intended to limit
increases in air pollution would allow sources operating below applicable
emission limits to increase significantly the pollution they emit without
government review.? The court refused to adopt what it called the
Environmental Protection Agency?s ?Humpty Dumpty? upside-down world view.
(For a copy of the ruling, go to


www.earthjustice.org/news/documents/3-06/ERP-ruling-3-17-06.pdf
.)
 
?This is a victory for public health,? said Howard Fox, an attorney at
Earthjustice, which represented six groups in the case. ?It makes no
sense to allow huge multi-multi-million-dollar projects that drastically
increase air pollution without installing up-to-date pollution controls
or even notifying nearby residents.? 
 
The organizations in the lawsuit included Alabama Environmental Council,
American Lung Association, Clean Air Council, Communities for a Better
Environment, Delaware Nature Society, Environmental Defense, Group
against Smog and Pollution, Michigan Environmental Council, Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Ohio Environmental Council, Scenic
Hudson, Sierra Club, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, and U.S.
PIRG.
 
?Irish eyes are surely smiling ? and we all will be breathing easier ?
with this green court ruling on St. Patrick?s Day,? said John Walke,
director of NRDC?s Clean Air Program. ?The court recognized the blarney
in the administration?s plan to gut a key part of the Clean Air Act and
rejected it. Now thousands of dirty facilities will not be able to
pollute more.?
 
The Court of Appeals initially issued a stay in December 2003 blocking
the loophole from taking effect. If the court had not issued the stay,
the new rules would have gone into effect on December 26, 2003, in at
least 17 states and territories, including California, Illinois,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Nevada and
Pennsylvania. Industrial facilities in those states would have been able
to take advantage of the new air pollution loophole immediately. The
remaining states across the country would have been forced to adopt the
loophole shortly thereafter.
 
Many of the nation?s older power plants have operated long beyond their
expected lifespans, polluting at excessively high levels, largely because
utilities have rebuilt these grandfathered plants over time. Often they
modified these facilities in ways that increased air pollution without
complying with Clean Air Act requirements to install modern emissions
controls. 
 
The Clean Air Act?s new source review program was designed to curb air
pollution from these and other industrial facilities by requiring them to
install up-to-date pollution controls whenever they made physical or
operational changes that increased air pollution. The Environmental
Protection Agency launched enforcement lawsuits against utility and
refinery violators during the latter part of the Clinton administration
for pollution increases that had resulted in millions of tons of air
pollution.
 
The Bush administration wanted to derail these enforcement suits and
eliminate future actions by changing the rules to allow companies to
virtually rebuild their facilities and boost pollution levels without
having to meet new source review program requirements. 
 
The loophole created by the administration?s new rule would have allowed
more than 20,000 power plants, refineries and other industrial facilities
to replace existing equipment with ?functionally equivalent? equipment
without undergoing the clean air reviews required by the new source
review program if the cost of the replacement did not exceed 20 percent
of that of the entire ?process unit.? This exemption would have applied
even if a facility?s air pollution increased by thousands or tens of
thousands of tons as a result of the replacement.
 
?Today?s victory means that thousands of Americans will not have their
lives cut short because of the pollution that would have blown through
this huge loophole,? said Janice Nolen at the American Lung Association.
?The court could not have told the EPA more clearly that they must follow
the Clean Air Act as it is written, not as they wish it were
written.?
 
Emily Figdor, U.S. PIRG?s clean air advocate, agreed. ?Today?s ruling is
a tremendous victory for public health and the environment,? she said.
?The court slammed the door on the Bush administration?s attempt to
create a gaping loophole in the Clean Air Act for some of the nation?s
worst polluters.?

###

==========================================
Alex J. Sagady & Associates        http://www.sagady.com

Environmental Enforcement, Permit/Technical Review, Public Policy,
Evidence Review and Litigation Investigation on Air, Water and
Waste/Community Environmental and Resource Protection
Prospectus at:  http://www.sagady.com/sagady.pdf

657 Spartan Ave,  East Lansing, MI  48823 
(517) 332-6971; (517) 332-8987 (fax); ajs@sagady.com
==========================================