The Company has reviewed further its problem in great depth with the Environmental Portection Agency, both at the Region VI Headquarters located in Dallas, Texas, and with the Administrator and his staff in Washington, D.C. The Administrator has indicated his sympathy with the Company's problem. However, he does not believe that in spite of his extensive efforts to provide the Company with assistance for Unit 3, that Section III of the Clean Air Act does permit the EPA the flexibility to authorize a facility a delay from compliance with New Source Performance Standards; notwithstanding the fact that the ultimate benefit to the environment and to the advance of technology will far exceed the actual requirements of the Act. On January 18, 1977, Mr. Russell Train testified before this Committee and indicated that he is familiar with and has considered the Company's dilemma, but believes further legislative action would be required to grant him the flexibility to delay compliance with the New Source Performance Standards so as to encourage the use of an innovative technological system which, based upon his determination, has not been adequately demonstrated. We are, therefore, requesting that this Subcommittee consider the solution to this problem, approved previously by the Conference Committee Report No. 94-1742 which proposed -9 as Section 109 (a) an amendment to Section III of the Clean Air Act by adopting a new Section 111(f) (1). The Conference Report adopted the House Proposal which avoids the existing problem on Section III of locking in existing technology and stifling development of improved technologies as it relates to new sources. In fact, the House Committee specifically found that the Administrator's concern was as follows: "If a new source sought to use new improved technology which had not yet been commercially demonstrated, it risked violating the applicable new source performance standards. In light of the possible failure of the new system, new sources would be reluctant to invest in potentially improved technology. This reluctance in many cases was thought to out-weigh potential long-term benefits to the economy and the environment if the new, improved technology were proved successful." In order to overcome this problem, the Administrator proposed Section 504 of HR 2633 which was adopted as Section 109 (a) of the Conference Committee Report No. 94-1742. This new section would enable the owner or operator of a stationary source to obtain a waiver from the standards of performance, so as to have the opportunity to install innovative and advanced technology (as so determined by the Administrator), which provides for greater continuous emission -10 reductions than that required under the Act for such sources or achieves equivalent reduction at lower cost in terms of energy, economic or non-air quality environmental impact. Section 109 would also require a determination by the Administrator that the proposed technological system will not cause or contribute to an unreasonable risk to public health, welfare or safety in its operation, function or malfunction. The Administrator must also determine that during the period of delay emissions will not interfere with attainment and maintenance of any national ambient air quality standards. In Public Service Company of New Mexico's case, during the period of its requested delay and based upon the sulphur content of the coal used at San Juan Station, neither the Federal Primary nor Second Ambient Standards for SO2 would be violated while Unit 3 is operating uncontrolled. The difference in ambient concentrations with Unit 3 being uncontrolled versus meeting the new source performance standards is four parts per billion. Additionally, during this period of the requested delay from compliance, the Company will have installed the electrostatic precipitators on Unit 3 so that in fact, in addition to the particulate removal of a high degree, there will be no visible plume from San Juan Unit 3. 84-239 - 77-51 -11 The alternative, if in fact no legislative flexibi lity is granted to the Administrator in circumstances similar to that of Public Service Company of New Mexico, is to, under Section III of the Clean Air, discourage development of new and improved technology for pollution control and will have the effect of locking in and stifling development of new and improved technologies. Such a result not only inhibits the advancement of technology, but fails to provide the long-term benefits to the environment which could be substantial based upon, in the Company's circumstances, the expected 30-year life of a generating station. We, therefore, respectfully request that this Subcommittee carefully evaluate and adopt Section 109 (a) of the Conference Committee Report No. 94-1742 so as to grant the flexibility under Section III of the Clean Air Act so urgently required and requested by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Senate Subcommittee, once again we want to take this opportunity to thank you for allowing us to submit this testimony for the Record. PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO wom: Kevin Quinn Philadelphia STATEMENT BY KEVIN QUINN, DELAWARE VALLEY ∙CITZENS COUNCIL FOR CLEAN DAR - TO THE SENATE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE - (SUB COMMITTEE ON CLEAN ACT AMENDMENTS) AIR THE CLEAN AIR COUNCIL IS A NON-PROFIT CITIZENS ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATION SUPPORTED BY AREA LUNG ASSOCIATIONS. OUR GOAL IS TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH THROUGH THE ABATEMENT OF A POLLUTION. WE REPRESENT THOUSANDS OF INDIVIDUALS GROUPS AND BUSINESSES IN THE DEL. VALLEY. AR OFFICES ARE LOCATED NT 3/1 S. JUNIPER ST. IN PHILA. (19107) (215.545.1832) THE CLEAN AIR COUNCIL HAS OFTEN USED -TOOL IN VINDICATING THE ENVIRONMENT AND OR MAJOR CONCERN TODAY AR IS THAT THE CLEAN ACT REMAIN A CLEAN AIR ACT. WE ARE WELL AWARE THAT, AFTER FIGHTING FOR TWO TO MAINTAIN THIS LEGSLATION, PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WOULD YEARS SOME OF THE CRIPPLE THE DCT TO THE POINT OF INEFFECT VINES NOT WHAT CONGRESS HAD IN MIND WHEN PROTECTION OF THIS کا MANOATING WELFARE. OUR HEALTH AND |