April 29, 1976
Page 11761
CLEAN AIR AMENDMENTS — NONDEGRADATION IS NECESSARY
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, nondegradation policy was first articulated in Federal water pollution control law in 1967 and incorporated in the 1967 Air Quality Act, which stated that a basic purpose of the act was to "protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources."
That policy was not altered in the 1970 amendments. Requirements to implement this policy were deleted from EPA's guidelines in 1971. The courts subsequently required EPA to promulgate such requirements, and EPA complied by issuing regulations on December 5, 1974. During hearings in 1973, 1974, and 1975, the committee was urged to resolve this issue through legislation.
As early as July 1973, Carl Bagge, representing the National Coal Association, said:
This is far too significant an issue to be determined by the judiciary. Its economic and social implications are so broad that it cannot and should not be determined by an independent regulatory agency in a rule making proceeding as has been proposed. This is an issue which can only be resolved ... by the Congress of the United States.
Mr. Bagge also went on to say that "The next move is clearly up to Congress."
The administration also asked Congress to address this issue when it submitted the Clean Air Act Amendments in 1974.
Numerous studies have been conducted on the implications of various nondegradation policies.
The committee considered these and fashioned a proposal which encourages the economic growth needed for this Nation while providing environmental protection of air resources needed by the Nation. Only the most valuable Federal assets — national parks and national wilderness areas — have been given a special protected status — called class I.
The concept used to protect clean air while allowing adequate growth is a concept of air quality increments. The increments are amounts of new pollution which may be added by new facilities to existing air quality — they provide a uniform national measure of change in air quality which can be allowed in clean air areas, thus eliminating inequities among States while providing some degree of control over the pace of utilization of limited air resources.
The committee received numerous studies of the nondegradation policies. Those studies were an important element in the committee's decision to make substantial alterations in the subcommittee bill. Those changes include:
First, reduction of the number of areas given pristine air quality protection — class I — from 360 to 131;
Second, expansion of the State role in all aspects of nondeterioration policy and implementation with concurrent restriction of the Federal Government's role;
Third, provision of flexibility in determining whether or not proximity to a class I area would affect construction of a new facility, thus eliminating arbitrary buffer zones.
Much of the criticism of the nondegradation do not take into account these and other significant changes which the full committee made in the bill.
IMPLICATION OF REJECTING THE COMMITTEE PROPOSAL
One of the amendments proposed to the reported bill would strike the committee proposal.
Another amendment would add a study of the implications of the amendment. I have no objection to this study. It is a logical mandate to the National Commission on Air Quality.
But the companion amendment to strike the committee proposal is both unwise and ill-conceived. Not only would a reasonable resolution to the nondegradation controversy be discharged, but, more importantly, the existing policy and regulation would be left in place. EPA's current regulations are simply not an adequate response to this problem.
The key question is this: What policy will the Nation have for the next 2 years — a bureaucratic judicial policy or a congressional policy?
If a motion to strike the committee's proposal and substitute another study — 3 years of studies and thousands of pages of testimony have already been accumulated — the result will be a policy developed and implemented at the Federal level and in the courts with no congressional guidance and no meaningful State participation.
The result will be: Continuation of the requirement that new facilities in clean air regions obtain Federal permits; continuation of the authority of Federal land managers to unilaterally designate any Federal lands as class I without concurrence by States; continuation of 60 to 100-mile buffer zones around any such class I areas; continuation of Federal authority to reject any State efforts to gain control of this program; and continuation of uncertainty caused by lack of congressional policy on this issue.
On the other hand, if the committee proposal is adopted, the result would be:
State rather than Federal permits for new major facilities and State authority to issue or deny permits for facilities even when such facilities are located on Federal land;
No designation except by statute of any areas as class I without the concurrence of the State;
Elimination of Federal authority to second guess State efforts to control this program except through judicial proceedings with a Federal burden of proof;
Resolution of the uncertainty of this policy issue by giving clear guidance to all parties, including the courts, as to the basis of nondegradation policy ; and
A chance to test policy in actual implementation rather than continuation of hypothetical studies on paper.
THE NEED FOR AIR CLEANER THAN THE NATIONAL STANDARDS
In addition to resolving current confusion, the nondegradation provision provides needed protection which the ambient air quality standards do not provide. If the national secondary ambient air quality standards were revised to protect against these damages, achievement of the secondary standards in dirty air areas would be extremely difficult.
If the secondary standards were the only restraint, visibility which is now 100 miles or more in some areas could deteriorate to 12 miles. If humidity is high, visibility would be reduced even more.
Pollutants increasingly are returning to the ground in the form of acid rain which damages valuable water and soil resources. A conference was held in the summer of 1975 in Columbus, Ohio, where numerous scientists expressed substantial concern over this impact.
Norway has experienced a substantial decline in its fishery resources which have been attributed to acid rain. A 20-year study in Scandinavia indicates that acid rain has killed fish and caused the ecology of the area to change. Forest growth and yield have declined. Fish population have been adversely affected by acid rain in 75 percent of the high elevation lakes of the Adirondack Mountains.
Pollution at less than the concentration allowed by the national standards has been shown to damage vegetation. Acute injury to spruce trees have been reported when average concentrations of sulfur dioxide were only two-thirds the level allowed by the ambient secondary standards.
Studies indicate that other important crops are also damaged at concentrations cleaner than the secondary standards, including wheat, potatoes, spinach, apples, and white pine.
Exposure to low level concentrations of pollutants have health effects. Studies done in Japan since the establishment of the primary standards in the United States indicate that air pollution concentrations lower than the national standards cause increase in reported illnesses. The National Cancer Institute estimates that 60 to 90 percent of cancer is environmentally caused.
The secondary standards as presently established make no consideration of this fact.
An increasing number of studies indicate that pollutants are transported for much greater distances than previously thought. This means that emissions from rural areas contribute to urban pollution problems and vice versa. In its report to the Senate Public Works Committee of March 1975, the National Academy of Sciences expressed concern that emissions 300 miles upwind could still contribute to problems in major cities.
Last year, I asked many scientists for comments on the adequacy of existing air standards. The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Russell Train, provided useful documentation of the limitations of existing standards in his letter of October 10, 1975:
For particulate matter, an annual mean concentration of 60 ug/ m3 and a mean 24 hour concentration of 150 ug/m3 have been set as the secondary standard. Suspended particulates are known to have effects on vegetation, visibility, and manmade materials. At concentrations of 150 ug/m3 visibility may be reduced to as low as five miles.
Plant species vary in their sensitivity to ozone and other oxidants. Toxicity also varies with the composition of the oxidants. Injury has occurred experimentally in the most sensitive species after exposure to 60 ug/m3 of ozone for 8 hours. Crop losses could occur as the result of planting genetically uniform susceptible varieties. Therefore, the current standard, 160 ug/m3 for one hour may not protect all vegetation. Little is known regarding the tolerance of plants under field conditions. The presence of other pollutants and changes in environmental conditions may affect the tolerance of plants for photochemical oxidants.
Photochemical oxidants' effects on manmade materials center on the effects of ozone on elastomers and textile dyes. Many elastomers, including natural rubber, are chemically prone to oxidation and therefore, to ozone attack. Cracking of rubber has been noted at 40 ug/m3. Background levels of naturally occurring ozone range up to 100 ug/m3.
The primary and secondary standards for nitrogen dioxide are identical being an annual concentration not exceeding 100 ug/m3
The current standard appears protective of welfare against damage from direct exposure to atmospheric NOx. NOx may also cause indirect damage to the extent that it contributes to the formation of the nitric acid in acid precipitation. Nitric acid constituted 24% of the acid in precipitation during 1972-1973 in the Eastern U.S.
Conclusive data are lacking on synergistic effects of sulfur oxides and other pollutants, but preliminary results of work being conducted at EPA's Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory indicate that a sound basis for standards based on long term growth and processes effects caused by low concentration mixes of sulfur oxides and ozone may be developed in the future.
The phenomenon of acid rainfall is of concern to this agency. A growing body of evidence suggests that acid rain may be responsible for substantial adverse effects on the public welfare. Such effects may include acidification of lakes, rivers, and groundwaters, with resultant damage to fish and other components of aquatic ecosystems, acidification and demineralization of soils, reduction of forest productivity, and damage to crops. These effects may be subject to cumulative buildup as a result of years of exposure to acidic precipitation, but some may also result from "peak" acidity episodes.
INCREMENTS AS THE NATIONAL MEASURE OF CLEAN AIR PROTECTION
The Environmental Protection Agency examined numerous methods to define "significant" deterioration. The examination encompased methods which would have allowed no change in air quality to methods which would result in deterioration beyond current ambient air quality standards.
The approach selected is referred to as air quality "increments" — a concept which sets forth a precise measure of the change in air quality which any single new facility or combination of new facilities could contribute to the atmosphere in a clear air region.
EPA selected three levels of change or increments. The first, applicable to areas in which preservation of pristine air quality was determined appropriate are related to limits on the capability of air quality monitoring and modeling. The third would permit pollution up to the levels in dirty air regions.
The second level — class II — were intended to reflect a balance between air quality protection and reasonable economic growth. To establish these numbers, EPA examined the plants being constructed in the industrial categories most likely to have pollution problems and then projected the probable air quality impact of construction of such sources. The Agency concluded in its documents accompanying its regulations in 1974 that—
Typical coal gasification plants, oil shale processing facilities, and petroleum refineries would not be expected individually to exceed the Class II increments in most areas.
The same statement holds true for the average sized plants in the following categories: fossil fuel-fired steam electric power units, municipal incinerators, kraft pulp mills, iron and steel mills, coal cleaning plants, sulfur recovery plants, lime plants, portland cement plants, phosphate rock procesing plants, petroleum refineries, byproduct coke oven batteries, sulfuric acid plants, carbon black plants, primary aluminum plants, primary zinc smelters, primary copper smelters, fuel conversion plants, and primary lead smelters. For many of these sources, the average sized plant would be substantially lower than the increment allowed.
Studies since that time indicate that the increments allow even more room for facilities than the first EPA studies indicated. Initially, EPA thought that with regard to a 1,000 megawatt plant — much larger than the average plant now in existence — "In a class II area, a similar source could not be located within 25 miles of the first plant."
Analysis in January 1976 showed that the separation distance had shrunk to 14 miles for high sulfur coal and even less for low sulfur coal — in some cases down to only 1 mile.
Ongoing studies of the Agency indicate that if good pollution control technology is used, "the Senate class II increments will not prevent construction of major, economically sized industrial facilities." In fact, these studies indicate that with such controls, "more than one plant can be constructed at the same site for pulp and paper mills, oil shale plants, refineries and gasification plants."
These same studies indicate that the cost to the electric utility industry will be a 3-percent increase in capital expenditures. "The Senate proposal is not expected to have a significant economic impact on other major industrial facilities."
This confirms my earlier statement that each time new studies are completed, they show that more room exists within the class II increments at less cost than previously estimated.
THE NEED FOR CONGRESSIONAL POLICY
The basic policy issues facing the Congress are not ones that will be eased by further study. They are questions that can and should be answered now:
We can and must clarify the role of States;
We can and must define an appropriate relationship between Federal and State governments relative to these new major facilities;
We can establish now the land areas we value the most and want to protect. We have the knowledge to establish a test to protect those values so long as we maintain a degree of flexibility.
Further study is an important part of the review of any policy as it is implemented. Such study should be, and will be, a companion to the adoption of this legislation. The preferable route will be for Congress to establish the policy, provide the tests contained in the committee bill, and provide the flexibility of State case-by-case judgment in applying the more stringent of these tests. The alternative is to continue a policy that relies heavily on a Federal presence; a clouded policy and a bewildering judicial debate to resolve the issue.
In order to provide further information for Members of Congress and the public on this matter, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD : First, a study from the Environmental Protection Agency compiled April 28, 1976, which describes the extensive industrial growth that can occur under the Senate nondegradation amendment; and second, a letter from Jay Hammond, the Governor of Alaska, expressing strong support for enactment of the Senate and House nondegradation amendments. The letter from Governor Hammond, while addressed to Governor Wallace of Alabama, was sent to the Governors of each of the 50 States.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
SUMMARY OF EPA ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF THE SENATE SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION PROPOSAL
INTRODUCTION AND CONCLUSIONS (NOTES.—Tables 1 thru 4 are omitted.)
A. Introduction
A major purpose of the Clean Air Act of 1970 is "to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population." The Act is administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and has been interpreted by the courts as barring the degradation of air in areas that are cleaner than the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
The purpose of this paper is to summarize over 8 months of analyses that EPA and its consultants have conducted on the specific impacts of the Senate Bill on selected major industries, including electric utilities, kraft pulp and paper, refineries, synthetic fuel plants, and copper smelters.
B. Conclusions
The principal conclusions of EPA's analyses are:
The Senate significant deterioration proposal will not prevent the construction of major, economically sized industrial facilities. Rather, some sources may have to employ different air pollution control strategies such as further control of sulfur dioxide emissions, relocation at an alternative site, construction of taller stacks or smaller plants, etc.
The Senate significant deterioration proposal allows for the allocation of major industrial sources. Specifically, the minimum required separation distance for economically sized facilities meeting Federal New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) or an equivalently defined control level is 0 to 40 miles for power plants, 0 to 12 miles for kraft pulp and paper mills, 0 to 3 miles for oil shale plants, 0 to 30 miles for gasification plants, 0 to 18 miles for refineries, and 5 to 16 miles for copper smelters. If control beyond NSPS is assumed, the separation distances are reduced to 0 to 31 miles for power plants, 0 to 8 miles for paper mills, 0 to 8 miles for gasification plants, and 0 to 10 miles for refineries.
The Senate proposal gives the States maximum flexibility in determining how close major sources should be located to Federal land such as National Parks and Wilderness areas. If the location of the source would have an adverse impact on the air quality values of the Federal land areas, major industrial sources would have to comply with the Class I increments and locate the following distances away from Federal lands that have been classified as Class I: 5 to 60 miles for power plants, 3 to 28 miles for kraft pulp and paper mills, 3 to 8 miles for oil shale plants, 7 to 40 miles for gasification plants, 12 to 43 miles for refineries, and 13 to 31 miles for copper smelters. However, if the location of the source would not adversely affect the air quality values of the federal land area, the source would not have to comply with the Class I increments and could locate closer than indicated by the previous estimates.
It is expected that the major economic impact of the Senate proposal will be on the electric utility industry. Specifically, the Senate proposal will increase the utility industry's capital requirements over the next fifteen years by a maximum of $11.5 billion which represents about a 3% increase in the industry's projected capital exepnditure in the absence of significant deterioration. The Senate proposal will also increase average residential customers yearly expenditures in 1990 by a maximum of $28 per year. This is equivalent to an increase of slightly more than 2%.
The Senate proposal will probably require some other industrial facilities to employ different air pollution control strategies such as further control of sulfur dioxide emissions, relocation at an alternate site, construction of a taller stack or a smaller plant, etc. However, most of these sources would be able to comply with the Senate proposal by meeting Federal New Source Performance Standards and locating in areas of flat or moderate terrain.
In the post1980 period, a Class III designation or a variance from the Class II increment is probably required in some urbanizing areas in order to prevent significant restrictions and/or altered development patterns by 1990. A similar designation would probably be required for large scale energy and industrial development at one location (i.e., energy or industrial parks) and for copper smelters and gasification plants located in very hilly terrain.
ESTIMATED SIZE OF MAJOR INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES THAT CAN BE CONSTRUCTED UNDER SENATE PROPOSAL
EPA and its consultants have conducted extensive modeling analyses in order to estimate the size and type of facilities that could be constructed at one site under the Senate proposal. The results of these analyses, which are summarized in Table 2 and briefly discussed below, indicate that the size of facility which can be constructed is very dependent on assumptions concerning
grounding terrain, stack height, pollution control technology and worst case meteorological conditions. The results presented in Table 2 represent EPA's best estimate of the maximum size facilities which could be built at one site under the Senate proposal. However, in order to obtain site specific estimates for actual facilities, a case-by-case analysis would be required. Such a review may give results slightly higher or lower than indicated in Table 2.
1. Coal-Fired Power Plants
Between an 1100 to greater than 4000 mw coal-fired power plant meeting New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) could be built in areas of flat or moderate terrain (i.e., where the surrounding terrain is below the top of the stack). If the source controlled beyond NSPS, a 1250 to greater than 5000 mw plant could be built in flat or moderate terrain. EPA's analyses also show that terrain has an important impact on the size power plant that can be built. Specifically, in areas of hilly terrain (i.e., where the surrounding terrain is considerably above the top of the stack — 3.5 to 5% slope) only a 450 mw plant meeting NSPS could be built. However, if the plant controlled beyond NSPS, a 1100 mw plant could be built in the East and greater than a 4000 mw plant in the West.
2. Petroleum Refineries
EPA's analyses show that refineries in flat or moderate terrain will not be constrained by the Senate Class II increment. Assuming compliance with NSPS, one 300,000 bbl/d fuel oil refinery and two 300,000 bbl/d gasoline refineries could be built at one site. If control beyond NSPS is assumed (i.e., .3% oil), two 300,000 bbl/d fuel oil refineries and three 300,000 bbl/d gasoline refineries could be built at one site. In areas of hilly terrain, fuel oil refineries meeting NSPS may have to reduce capacity to 100,000 bbl/d (a typical refinery expansion). Gasoline refineries may have to reduce capacity to 200,000 bbl/d (slightly smaller than a typical new refinery). However, if control beyond NSPS is assumed, even in areas of hilly terrain, typical size new gasoline and fuel oil refineries could be built.
3. Synthetic Fuel Plants
EPA's analyses show that in areas of flat or moderate terrain typical size oil shale (50,000 bbl/d) and gasification plants (250 mmscf/ d) would not be constrained by the Senate Class H increment. In fact, it would be possible to put several oil shale and gasification plants at one site without violating the Senate Class II increments for sulfur dioxide! However, in areas of hilly terrain only an oil shale plant of 68,000 bbl/d can be built. This is slightly larger than the proposed typical size plant. The comparable limitation for a gasification plant meeting NSPS (where applicable) in areas of hilly terrain is 100 mmscf/d. However, if control beyond NSPS is assumed, a 330 mmscf/d gasification plant could be built in hilly terrain. If the constraining terrain feature is closer than 6 miles, a Class III designation may be required to site a 250 mmscf/d gasification plant. However, use of taller stacks or the selection of a nearby site with less hilly terrain could be feasible alternatives.
4. Kraft Pulp and Paper Mills
EPA's analyses show that at least two 1000 ton per day kraft pulp and paper mills meeting NSPS with onsite coal-fired generation could be constructed in areas of fiat or moderate terrain. Since most kraft mills burn fuels with much lower sulfur content than coal, this analysis is extremely conservative. In areas of hilly terrain a kraft mill capacity of about a 600 tons per day mill could be built if the plant just met NSPS. However, if control beyond NSPS is assumed, hilly terrain could increase to 1000 tons per day in the East and to over 3000 tons per day in the West.
Unbleached mills have much lower emissions and would be significantly less restricted. In view of the fact that the typical size for new paper mills is about 1000 tons per day and 400 tons per day for expansions at existing sites, it can be concluded that the Senate proposal will not prevent the construction of economically efficient kraft pulp and paper mills.
5. Copper Smelters
EPA's analyses show that at least a 1500 ton per day copper smelter meeting NSPS could be constructed in areas of flat or moderate terrain. In areas of hilly terrain about a 1000 ton per day facility could be built. If the constraining terrain feature is closer than 4 miles, a Class III designation may be required. However, use of a taller stack or selection of a nearby site with less hilly terrain could also be feasible alternatives.
MINIMUM REQUIRED SEPARATION DISTANCE BETWEEN MAJOR INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES UNDER THE SENATE PROPOSAL
EPA’s analyses of the feasibility of co-locating major industrial sources under the Senate proposal is summarized in Table 3 and discussed below. As discussed in the previous section, the results in Table 3 are estimates based on assumptions concerning terrain, control technology, stack height and meteorological conditions. A case-by-case review of each side would be required in order to obtain site specific estimates.
1. Coal-Fired Power Plants
More than two 1000 plants meeting NSPS could be constructed at one location in areas of flat terrain. In moderate terrain, two 1000 mw new plants would have to locate up to 28 miles apart in order not to violate the Senate Class II increments. If the plants are located in hilly terrain, the separation distance assuming NSPS could range as high as 40 miles. However, if control beyond NSPS is assumed, more than three 1000 mw plants could be constructed at one location with flat or moderate terrain. For hilly terrain and control beyond NSPS, two 1000 mw plants would have to locate 12 to 31 miles apart.
2. Petroleum Refineries
At least two 300,000 bbl/d gasoline refineries meeting NSPS could be built at the same location without exceeding the Senate Class II increments. The analysis above shows that two 300,000 bbl/d fuel oil refineries meeting NSPS would have to be located two miles apart in order to comply with the Senate proposal. In areas of hilly terrain, refineries meeting NSPS would have to locate 3 miles apart in the case of a gasoline refinery and 18 miles apart in the case of a fuel oil refinery. However, if control beyond NSPS is assumed, two gasoline refineries would be built as close as two miles apart and two fuel oil refineries as close as 10 miles apart. In view of the fact that most new refineries could probably be built along the coast, the results for flat or moderate terrain are more indicative of the probable impact of the Senate proposal. Therefore, it can be concluded that the Senate proposal probably will not constrain the location of new refineries.
3. Synthetic Fuel Plants
In areas of flat or moderate terrain, several oil shale or gasification plants could be built at one site without violating the Senate Class II increments. In areas of hilly terrain, two gasification plants meeting NSPS would have to be located 30 miles apart. If control beyond NSPS is assumed, the gasification plants could be located as close as 6 miles apart. The comparative separation distance for two oil shale plants in hilly terrain is 3 miles.
4. Pulp and Paper Mills
EPA's modeling studies indicate that at least two 1000 ton per day kraft pulp and paper plants meeting NSPS could be located at one site in areas of flat or moderate terrain. In areas of hilly terrain, two 1000 ton per day mills meeting NSPS would have to be located about 12 miles apart. If control beyond NSPS is assumed, then two 1000 ton per day mills would have to be located only 8 miles apart in the East and 3 miles apart in the West. Since most new paper mills are projected to be located in remote areas, it can be concluded that the co-location of new mills will not be affected by the Senate proposal.
5. Copper Smelters
Although copper smelters are normally located in isolation and in the vicinity of the copper mine, EPA's analysis indicates that the Senate Class II increment would allow some co-location. The minimum required separation distance between two 1500 ton per day copper smelters could range from 513 miles in flat or moderate terrain and up to 16 miles in hilly terrain, assuming that the first facility used 90 percent of the allowable increment.
REQUIRED DISTANCE BETWEEN TYPICAL MAJOR INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES AND CLASS I AREAS
EPA's analyses of the required separation distance between typical major industrial sources and Class I areas is summarized in Table 4. It should be emphasized, however, that in view of the flexibility in the Senate Bill these estimates should only be interpreted as guidelines. For example, a source may be required to locate further away than estimated in Table 4 if the State or Federal Land Manager determine that a larger separation distance is required in order to preserve the "air quality related values" of Class I areas. Similarly, a source may be allowed to locate closer to a Class I area if such location would not have an adverse impact on the area's "air quality related values".
1. Coal-Fired Power Plants
A 1000 mw plant meeting NSPS and located in areas of flat or moderate terrain may have to locate 60 miles away from a Class I area. In areas of hilly terrain, the plant would also have to be 60 miles away. If control beyond NSPS is assumed, a 1000 mw plant in flat or moderate terrain could be located as close as 5 to 20 miles. The comparative figures for hilly terrain are 25 to 42 miles.
2. Refineries
A 300,000 bbl/d gasoline refinery meeting NSPS and located in flat or moderate terrain would have to locate 20 miles away from a Class I area. The comparative distance for a 300,000 bbl/d fuel oil refinery is 23 miles. If control beyond NSPS is assumed, a gasoline refinery could be built within 14 miles of a Class I area and a fuel oil refinery within 12 miles. For areas of hilly terrain, the corresponding distance assuming NSPS are 37 miles for a gasoline refinery and 43 miles for a fuel oil refinery. If the refineries control beyond NSPS, the distances are reduced to 26 miles for the gasoline refinery and 22 miles for the fuel oil refinery.
3. Synthetic Fuel Plants
The analysis shows that a 50,000 bbl/d oil shale plant would have to be located 3 miles away from a Class I area in flat or moderate terrain and 8 miles away in hilly terrain. A 250 mmscf/d gasification plant meeting NSPS and located in flat or moderate terrain must be located 19 miles away from a Class I area. In hilly terrain, the gasification plant must be 40 miles away. If control beyond NSPS is assumed, the separation distance for a gasification plant could be reduced to 7 miles in flat or moderate terrain and to 33 miles in hilly terrain.
4. Pulp and Paper Mills
EPA's modeling results indicate that a 1000 ton per day kraft pulp and papermill meeting NSPS and generating its power by onsite coalfired boilers, would have to be located from 10 to 20 miles from a Class I area under flat or moderate terrain assumptions. In areas of hilly terrain, the source would have to be 28 miles away. However, if control beyond NSPS is assumed, the mill could be located as close as 3 miles to a Class I area under flat or moderate terrain conditions and as close as 7 miles under hilly terrain assumptions.
5. Copper Smelters
A 1500 ton per day copper smelter meeting NSPS and located in areas of flat or moderate terrain would have to locate from 13 to 28 miles from a Class I area. In areas of hilly terrain, the smelter would have to be 31 miles from a Class I area.
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF SENATE PROPOSAL
The data presented in Tables 2, 3 and 4 show that the Senate significant deterioration proposal will not prevent the construction of major industrial facilities. However, the Senate proposal may require some facilities to employ different air pollution control measures, such as further control of sulphur dioxide emissions, construction of taller stacks or smaller plants, relocation at alternative sites with more favorable terrain conditions, etc.
While the use of such control strategies will impose additional costs on consumers, these additional expenditures must be balanced against the benefit that would result from preventing the degradation of air quality up to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
It is expected that the major economic impact of the Senate proposal will be on the electric utility industry. The results of EPA’s study are summarized in Table 5.
As indicated in the above table, the Senate proposed would increase the industry's capital requirements over the next ten years by a maximum of $11.5 billion. This represents a maximum increase of 2.6% in the industry's projected capital expenditures of $435 billion in the absence of significant deterioration. In order to finance the required expenditures, average expenditures per household in 1990 would increase by a maximum of $28 per year. This is equivalent to an increase of about 2.3%.
With regard to other major industrial facilities, Tables 2, 3, and 4 support the conclusion that most facilities will not have to employ different air pollution control strategies. Rather, most of these facilities would be able to comply with the Senate significant deterioration requirements simply by complying with the current requirements of the Clean Air Act (i.e., New Source Performance Standards). However, a few of these facilities may have to relocate to areas of flat or moderate terrain, control beyond NSPS, build a taller stack or smaller plants, etc.
[Footnotes omitted]
STATE OF ALASKA,
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR,
Juneau,
March 11, 1976.
Hon. GEORGE C. WALLACE,
Governor, State of Alabama,
State Capitol,
Montgomery, Ala.
DEAR GOVERNOR WALLACE: As you know, the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives are currently considering amendments to the Clean Air Act. There is an excellent chance that the bills will be considered on the floor of the Senate and House within the next month. When the bills reach the floor, it is predicted by many experts that there will be vigorous attempts to amend or delete the provisions which form the very heart of the Clean Air Act. We, as leaders of our states, will undoubtedly be called upon to take a stance on the bills as they were reported to the floor, and on any proposed floor amendments. I am writing to encourage you to oppose amendments which weaken the provisions of H.R. 10498, and the Senate bill as it was reported out of the Public Works Committee.
Of the many difficult and controversial issues contained in the 1976 Amendments to the Clean Air Act, the concept of prevention of significant deterioration of air cleaner than secondary standards is perhaps the most complex, and the most misunderstood issue in the proposed legislation. The prevention of significant deterioration issue contained in the 1970 Act is currently being litigated in the courts, as well as being debated in the halls of Congress. The policy position of the National Governors' Conference is that this issue must be addressed by Congress; not by the courts.
Unfortunately, some opponents of the prevention of significant deterioration concept have muddied the quality of public debate on this issue by circulating information which indicates that the Senate and House bills would stop all growth. Such information is totally inaccurate. Neither bill would stop growth; they simply require that new point sources of air pollution must install efficient pollution control equipment. In addition, both bills provide for an extra tier of air quality protection for national parks, international parks and wilderness areas. I think you would agree that protection of air quality in these areas of national interest is warranted. If the opponents of prevention of significant deterioration are successful in their attempts to eliminate the concept from the Act, we will effectively have abandoned a national policy of protecting existing high quality air, and instead will have adopted a national policy of allowing clean air to become uniformly dirty. To adopt such a policy would not be in the public interest.
The overall policy thrust of the House and Senate bills is to place authority for implementation of the Clean Air Act in the hands of state and local governments. The bills also provide workable mechanisms to continue our efforts to solve existing pollution problems, and to protect areas which have pristine air. In short, the bills continue to place clean air as a national goal, and they grant maximum flexibility to the states to achieve and maintain this goal.
Therefore, I strongly urge you to communicate your support of HR 10498 to Congressman Paul G. Rogers, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Public Health and Environment. I also encourage you to inform Senator Jennings Randolph, Chairman of the Senate Public Works Committee, of your support for the Clean Air Act Amendments which recently were approved by that body. In addition, I suggest that you oppose any floor amendments which would eliminate the concept of prevention of significant deterioration from the Clean Air Act.
Best wishes and warm regards.
Sincerely,
JAY S. HAMMOND,
Governor.