Update item information
Title Let's Clear the Air
Subject Air--Pollution
Description The Thirty-Sixth Annual Frederick William Reynolds Lecture.
Creator De Nevers, Noel, 1932-
Publisher The Frederick William Reynolds Association
Date 1973-02-20
Date Digital 2008-05-29
Type Text
Format image/jpeg
Digitization Specifications Original scanned on Epson Expression 10000XL flatbed scanner and saved as 400 ppi uncompressed tiff. Display images generated in PhotoshopCS and uploaded into CONTENTdm Aquisition Station.
Resource Identifier,1266
Source TD883 .D45 1973
Language eng
Relation Digital reproduction of "Let's clear the air," J. Willard Marriott Library Special Collections
Rights Digital Image Copyright University of Utah
Metadata Cataloger Seungkeol Choe; Ken Rockwell
ARK ark:/87278/s6ht2m87
Setname uu_fwrl
Date Created 2008-07-29
Date Modified 2008-07-29
ID 320531
Reference URL

Page Metadata

Title Page19
Description "LET'S CLEAR THE AIR" 19 New Source Performance Standards While all this argument over smelters was taking up much of the time of the group in EPA responsible for approving or disapproving the state air pollution plans, another group, which had the responsibility of writing the minimum standards of performance for new plants was finding out how difficult that was. In issuing such regulations, the EPA was directed to select categories of industries and prescribe allowable emission rates. For the first group of industries, EPA selected fuel-burning electric-power plants, sulfuric acid plants, nitric acid plants, cement plants and municipal incinerators. When the regulations were issued they were promptly attacked by industry associations representing three of the five industries. The challenge by the electric power industry hinges on the words in the Clean Air Act which requires the EPA to base the standards on the ". . . best system of emission reduction . . . [which] . . . has been adequately demonstrated." What does "adequately demonstrated" mean? The bone of contention was emission of sulfur dioxide from coal- and oil-burning power plants. EPA contends that the technology for such control has been adequately demonstrated. Thirty years ago, in England, several power plants were built which had sulfur dioxide control built into their exhaust systems, using technology of the type which is currently most actively being studied in the U.S.A. for the same purpose. Various suppliers in the U.S.A. will install and guarantee such plants today, and sign contracts which apply penalties if the plants do not work. The power industry contends that the plants in England were not successful, which is in some sense true. Those plants are not running now; the English prefer to use tall stacks and the prevailing westerly winds to remove the problem from their shores; (Sweden claims that constitutes dumping the problem on them). The power industry also contends, rightly I believe, that the plants which have been built in this country to do this job have been expensive and troublesome to operate. For them "adequately demonstrated" means what a housewife assumes when she buys an appliance; you pay for it and it works without a lot of trouble. For EPA "adequately demonstrated" means that if the will is really there you can do the job, although it may cost you money and grey hairs. Ultimately, the courts will decide what "adequately demonstrated" means. A second suit which the New Source Performance Standards group faces is from the cement industry. In trying to find what had been "adequately demonstrated," EPA tested various cement plants, and found some cement plants which were clearly doing a better job of removing particulates from their exhaust gas than any of the electric power plants were doing. The problem the two industries faced was very similar,
Format image/jpeg
Identifier 021-RNLT-DeNeversN_Page19.jpg
Source Original Manuscript: Let's Clear the Air by Noel de Nevers.
Setname uu_fwrl
Date Created 2008-07-29
Date Modified 2008-07-29
ID 320521
Reference URL