In the existing requirements for New Source Review (NSR) the rules
on determining routine maintenance, repair or replacement are arcane and
difficult to follow. "Currently there is difficulty in determining which
document to follow since there are over 4000 pages worth of material that is
often contradictory, not easily obtainable, and written with little oversight."
As a matter of public policy, we believe that "all changes must go through
the rule-making process. This will ensure that all interested parties have the
opportunity for input... (for example) the definitions of physical changes or
changes in operation that are specifically not modifications, including
routine repair and replacement." (White Paper)
We favor a simplification process which gives industry timeliness and
certainty, but retains a strong technology requirement for all ... modified
sources. Simply put, there should be a coherent set of guidelines that
clearly spell out what thresholds are used to determine when the routine
maintenance, repair or replacement exclusion is applicable. This would
serve two goals, it would allow industry to plan better its ongoing
engineering capitol work plans to improve emissions and it would remove
The costs of pollution control are NOT too burdensome at this time,
As noted by Tom Gibson, an Associate Administrator with the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in the Austin Chronicle "To draw
the conclusion that environmental requirements are a primary cause of this
trend (referring to US oil supply constraints at refineries) is, to our
knowledge, not supported by any study." And "pollution operating costs
have been and continue to be a small part of the overall operating costs."
As noted in a letter from STAPPA/ALPACO to the Secretary we at
DHEC are concerned that major revisions to the NSR process will be made
...