August 5, 1976
Page 25888
INNOVATIVE CONTROL TECHNIQUES
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I wish to address the provision of the amendments concerned with delayed compliance orders for innovative control techniques. I refer to paragraph (4) of subsection 113(d) which allows a source to request an additional 2-year period beyond January 1, 1979, until January 1, 1981, where such source intends to comply with requirements of the Clean Air Act through the use of innovative technologies.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an extract from the committee report on this provision be reprinted in the RECORD at this point in my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
EXTRACT
As used here, "change in production process" contemplates only a fundamentally different method of production rather than a modification to a process which essentially remains the same. If such a fundamental change may involve different changes in different parts of the process or in identifiable segments, the bond or surety shall be reduced as those various parts of that process are converted to the new production process.
The other alternative involves a request by a source that it be allowed to comply through the use of an innovative production process or a control technique that has the potential for emission reduction significantly greater than those required by the applicable emission limitation, or at a cost for control that is significantly less and would also offer the potential for industry wide application. In these cases, the source is given until January 1, 1981, to achieve compliance.
This provision is intended to serve as an incentive to industry to adopt innovations that will have wide application. The States and the Administrator are expected to extend this two-year grace period only in cases that offer this broad potential for national benefits.
Any such allowable delay in compliance relating to the use of innovative technologies has the effect of delaying until 1981 the dates when the bonding requirement or the delayed compliance penalty will be imposed. It does not remove the applicable requirement.
If the recipient of the technological waiver plans to replace its production capacity with an entirely new process or facility, the Administrator is expected to require that the applicant post a bond or other surety to assure that the existing equipment or capacity will be taken out of service by January 1, 1981, as promised. If the waiver is based on use of a new technique on existing equipment or process, the State and the Administrator are expected to set a 1981 delayed compliance penalty for that source, just as they will for any normal source that must meet the 1979 deadlines. The penalty will be based on capital costs, interest cost, operating costs, and the economic value gained by delay, and it will be determined like any similar penalty or a facility that did not receive a technology extension.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I repeat the language of the committee report that states that:
This provision is intended to serve as an incentive to industry to adopt innovatives that will have wide application. The States and the Administrator are expected to extend this two-year grace period only in cases that offer this broad potential for national benefits.
The potential spoken of is, and I quote, "the potential for emission reduction significantly greater than those required by the applicable emission limitation, or at a cost for control that is significantly less and would also offer the potential for industry wide application," end quote.
Mr. President, this provision is intended to stimulate the implementation of more cost effective solutions to air pollution control.
For example, we are all familiar with the large volumes of sludge that are generated by presently available sulfur oxide scrubbers. Besides the cost of the control systems, there are substantial costs associated with the environmentally sound disposal of the resultant sludge. In considering any alternative control systems this sludge disposal cost also must be considered.
More innovative techniques presently under development include fuel cleaning technologies and coal gasification and liquefaction as well as advanced designs for sulfur oxide scrubbers that produce usable byproducts such as elemental sulfur or sulfuric acid.
I ask the distinguished Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE), am I correct in my interpretation of the committee's action on innovative control technologies? Was it not the intention of the committee that technologies under development on coal cleaning and for coal gasification and liquefaction would be considered innovative control technologies for the purposes of this section? Likewise, would not second and third generation sulfur oxide scrubbers be considered innovative control techniques, provided that applicable emission limitations are met on a more cost effective basis.
Mr. MUSKIE. This provision will be the most productive if it is used on a limited basis by existing sources to achieve compliance. It should be used to encourage commercial demonstration of new techniques. Therefore, enough such sample cases should be allowed in order to test the systems under various conditions. If, on the other hand, it is used broadly to apply to large numbers of sources who adopt these technologies, then either: First, it will encourage the adoption of those techniques before they are proven and enhance the likelihood that a great number of sources may adopt a technique that ends up not working; or second, the technique is ready now for adoption industry wide and does not need to be proven or encouraged by the use of this incentive. In this case, the incentive merely becomes a large loophole to give a lot of sources an additional 2 years to do things that have been proven: The demonstration is no longer a demonstration if it is adopted on a massive basis.
The new subsection 113(d) (3) would be greatly misconstrued if it were made available to attempts to commercialize new energy technologies and production processes. If this were allowed, then it is possible that these new technologies could come on line and sources would be allowed to avoid meeting emission standards for 2 years. This would be an unacceptable erosion of the concept of new source performance standards. New sources are to meet the performance standards at the time of startup, not after a 2-year compliance date extension. If a plant needs to pollute for 2 years, that indicates that something is basically wrong with its design, and it should not be allowed to operate until corrections are made.
The new subsection 113(d) (4) is available on a limited basis for existing sources employing new production processes, but only when those new processes are replacing existing sources at the site of the old facilities.
Let me mention briefly the specific technologies you have discussed.
COAL CLEANING TECHNIQUES
While truly innovative coal cleaning techniques would be eligible, this would only be for a limited number of cases in order to encourage the development of the technology. Once that technology is proven, then it must be adopted routinely. Otherwise, the development of the new technology, after its development is proven, would provide an automatic 2-year extension for the entire industry, if that technology is adopted throughout the industry.
COAL GASIFICATION AND LIQUEFACTION
These are not relevant to the provision. These are new sources. This provision is not applicable to new sources. These are not new control techniques as much as they are entire new production processes. They are not applied at existing plants, and therefore a cleanup schedule is not even relevant.
The only relevant standard here is the new source performance standard. New sources do not get "compliance orders," but rather do not gain approval for their permit unless they have complied with the new source performance standard. Since compliance orders are not given the concept of a delay compliance order makes no sense.
There is only one condition where a new process, such as coal gasification for industrial processes, could be considered an innovative control technique. That would be where an existing source determined that in order to comply with the applicable State implementation plans, it would construct such a plant as an integrated part of its facility for the purpose of supplying clean fuel in order to meet the emission limitation established for the source. The source would have chosen this approach in preference to adopting retrofit cleanup technology that cleans stack gases after combustion. The new process, of course, would have to be innovative and either have the potential of industry wide application at significantly lower costs or be likely to reduce emissions significantly below the level required by the State implementation plan. It could not be a fuel supplied by a third party.
SECOND AND THIRD GENERATION SULFUR SCRUBBERS
A limited number of these should be eligible as innovative control techniques, just the same as coal cleaning.