June 8, 1976
Page 16998
CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, in the May 26 RECORD, Senator MUSKIE listed various allegations concerning the Clean Air Act Amendments and then gave his version of the facts involved. I believe his listing of the facts to be inadequate. For this purpose I will list each allegation he mentioned, then quote his version of the facts, and then give my own reactions to his analysis. I hope that this exercise will further clarify some of the important issues involved with the decision of whether the Senate should opt for the Public Works Committees' version of nondegradation.
ALLEGATION NO. 1
Legislative hearings have not been held on this provision.
FACTS AS SEEN BY SENATOR MUSKIE
Since enactment of the 1970 clean air amendments, the Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution has held 56 days of hearings to review implications of that act. Specific hearings on nondegradation were held in 1973, 1974, and 1975. In 1976, 14 days of hearings were held and 48 markup sessions were conducted. One entire day of hearings was focused completely on nondegradation in 1975, and the subject was discussed in numerous other hearings that year.
Legislative proposals submitted to and considered by the committee included President Ford's proposal, the Environmental Protection Agency's existing regulations, and legislative proposals from the following organizations: The American Paper Institute, the American Mining Congress, Dupont, the National Association of Manufacturers, Shell Oil, Utah Power Light, Cast Metals Federation, Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Counties, the Electric Utility Industry, Continental Oil Co., the Sierra Club, and the State of New Mexico. The hearings were a combination of oversight and legislative hearings.
REACTION BY SENATOR MOSS
Legislative hearings, however, have not been held on the language in Section 6 of S. 3219. The nondeterioration provision was drafted and revised during Subcommittee and Committee markups, after the hearings were completed and the final version bears little resemblance to any proposal on which testimony was received.
ALLEGATION NO. 2
States have not been involved adequately in developing these amendments.
FACTS AS SEEN BY SENATOR MUSKIE
Twenty States joined the Sierra Club or submitted independent suits requesting the courts to require a nondegradation policy. These States joined the initial Sierra Club suit: Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Vermont, Texas. These States filed independent suits requesting the courts to require a nondegradation policy: Illinois, New York, Texas, California, Michigan, and Minnesota — Minnesota adopted the Michigan brief. Only three States opposed the suits requesting the courts to require a nondegradation policy: Utah, Arizona, and Virginia.
In addition to joining suits, the following States have expressed support over the past several years for a policy of prevention of significant deterioration: Alaska, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Montana. Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
Eight States testified in 1975, during the clean air hearings: New Mexico, Nebraska, Texas, Colorado, New York, California, Montana, and West Virginia. All submitted comments on nondegradation. Three meetings were held between the committee staff and State air pollution control officials representing the Members of the Governor's Conference. In addition, 12 meetings were held between individual State officials and committee staff members.
It was on the basis of the suggestions made in such meetings and statements from these witnesses that caused the Committee to make substantial changes in the legislative proposals regarding nondegradation.
On May 12, the Chairman of the National Governor's Conference, Gov. Robert D. Ray of Iowa, sent a telegram opposing the delay of congressional action on this issue and said this :
"I would like to advise that the policy of the National Governor's Conference (NGC) call for a decision for Congress to allow each State maximum flexibility to incorporate local guidance in its decisionmaking. An amendment to be offered by Senator Moss to S. 3219 would put off Congressional action on this action.
"Many States are concerned that the passage of such an amendment would result in continuing litigation over present court-ordered Federal regulations and bring about uncertainties among the States and other interested parties in planning for overall development in clean air areas. Therefore, I urge you and your colleagues to insure that the vital issue of prevention of significant deterioration is settled now by Congress."
REACTION BY SENATOR MOSS
The "facts" given in no way refute the "allegation" that States have not been involved adequately in developing the amendments. Knowledge that certain States joined in a lawsuit, that certain States in the past expressed support for a nondeterioration policy, that a few States testified at oversight hearings, and that some State representatives met with committee staff does not in any respect indicate that a majority of States favor Section 6 of S. 3219. Even the quotation from the Chairman of the National Governors Conference does not appear to support the idea of Federal constraints on State and local decisionmaking. The Southern Governor's Conference, by resolution, urged Congress to "clarify the rights and responsibilities of the States to administer air quality programs within the States in whatever manner they choose to meet the national (ambient air quality) standards." Also, it is noteworthy that the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators — the very people most knowledgeable about, and most directly involved in, state air quality programs — adopted a resolution against Federal involvement in State determinations of the significance of deterioration.
At least 17 Governors have recently written letters expressing opposition to Congressional enactment of nondegradation as national policy.
ALLEGATION NO. 3
No studies have been done. A further 1-year study is necessary to have adequate information upon which to base a decision.
FACTS AS SEEN BY SENATOR MUSKIE
This is totally untrue. Ongoing studies of implementation should be conducted, but extensive studies already exist analyzing nondegradation policy and options.
The Environmental Protection Agency has spent approximately $1 million in studies on nondegradation policies. This is one of the most extensive and expensive series of studies which has been conducted on environmental regulations. Prior to promulgation of the final EPA regulations on December 5, 1975, EPA compiled the following studies:
First. Technical Support Document — EPA Regulations for Preventing the Significant Deterioration of Air Quality, Environmental Protection Agency, January 1975.
Second. "Sierra Club et al. Litigation — Significant Deterioration," B. J. Steigerwald, September 27, 1972.
Third. "Summary of Responses Received Regarding the Prevention of Significant Deterioration."
Fourth. "Summary of Responses Received Regarding the August 27, 1974, Proposal To Prevent Significant Deterioration of Air Quality."
Fifth. "Summary of State Responses on 'Significant Deterioration' Proposal."
Sixth. "The Impact of Proposed Nondegradation Regulations on Economic Growth,"volumes 1 and 2, Harbridge House, Inc., November 1973.
Seventh. "Implications of Nondegradation Policies on Clean Air Regions: A Case Study of the Dallas-Ft. Worth AQCR (215)," US Department of Commerce, May 1974.
Eighth. "Analysis of the U.S. EPA's Proposals to Prevent Significant Deterioration Relative to the Development Outlook for New York State," New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, October 1973.
Ninth. "Impact of the Proposed Nondegradation Alternatives on New Power Plants,"TRW, Inc., September 28, 1973.
Tenth. "Economic Growth and Development Impacts of Proposals to Prevent Significant Deterioration of Air Quality."
Eleventh. "Scientific Factors Bearing on Regulatory Policies to Assure Nondegradation of Air Quality."
Twelfth. "Availability of Air Quality Data in Areas Generally Below the NAAQS."
Thirteenth. "Technical Data in Support of Significant Deterioration Issue."
Fourteenth. "Nondegradation and Power Plant Size," J. A. Tikvart, August 12, 1974.
Fifteenth. "Significant Deterioration in Zone I Areas and the Relative Location of Power Plants," J. S. Tikvart, October 15, 1974.
Sixteenth. "Discussion Paper on the Magnitude of the Class II Increment in the Significant Deterioration Regulations."
Seventeenth. "Emissions of Sources Subject to Significant Deterioration Issue."
Eighteenth. "Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning and Analysis, Volume 10: Reviewing New Stationary Sources," EPA, September 1974.
Nineteenth. "Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning and Analysis, Volume 12: Applying Atmospheric Simulation Modelsto Air Quality Maintenance Areas,"EPA, September 1974.
Twentieth. "Findings of Task Force on significant Deterioration," R.G. Rhoads, December 20, 1973.
Twenty-first: "The Largest Annual Average, Maximum 24-Hour and Minimum 3-Hour Concentrations of Sulfur Dioxide Produced Per Year by a Modern 1000MW Electric Power Plant Meeting the New Source Performance Standards for Sulphur Dioxide Emissions," Enviroplan, Inc., 1974.
In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency received over 3,000 pages of testimony at the hearings held on its proposed regulations. Ninety-one comments were received from industry.
The following studies have been conducted on various Senate committee proposals:
First. "An Analysis of the Impact on the Electric Utility Industry of the Alternative Approaches to Significant Deterioration", EPA/FEA, October 1975;
Second. Chamber of Commerce Analysis and Discussion Papers;
Third. Analysis of the Impact of the Senate Proposals on the State of Alaska;
Fourth. "A Preliminary Analysis of the Economic Impact on the Electric Utility Industry of Alternative Approaches to Significant Deterioration", EPA, February 5, 1976;
Fifth. "Impact of Significant Deterioration Proposals on the Siting of Power Plants" by Environmental Research and Technology, Inc., February 18, 1976;
Sixth. "Impact Analysis of the Effective Proposed Clean Air Act Amendments and Existing EPA Significant Deterioration Regulations on Electric Utilities in Minnesota and Wisconsin" by David Hoffman, James Bechthol, November 14, 1975;
Seventh. "Technical Studies for Assessing the Impact of Significant Deterioration Regulations" EPA, May, 1976;
Eighth. "Summary of EPA Analysis of the Regional Consumer Impact of the Clean Air Act on Significant Deterioration" EPA, May 3, 1976;
Ninth. "A Preliminary Critique of FEA's Analysis of the Impact of Significant Deterioration on Oil Consumption", May 3, 1976;
Tenth. "Estimated Cost for the Electric Utility Industry of Nonsignificant Deterioration Amendments Currently Considered by the United States"NERA, April 16, 1976;
Eleventh. American Petroleum Institute Report by John J. Anderson, April 19, 1975;
Twelfth. "Summary of EPA Analysis of the Impact of the Senate Significant Deterioration Proposal", April 28, 1976;
Thirteenth. "Proposed Clear Air Amendments: Implications of Proposed Rules for Nondeterioration of Air Quality on the Construction of Kraft, Pulp and Paper Mills", Environmental Research and Technology, Inc., for the American Paper Institute, September 9, 1975;
Fourteenth. "Proposed Clean Air Amendments: Implications of Nondeterioration Rules on Maine", Environmental Research and Technology, Inc., for the American Paper Institute, August 28, 1975;
Fifteenth. "The Effect of Proposed Nondeterioration Rules on the State of Maine," Environmental Research and Technology, Inc., for the American Paper Institute, October 30, 1975;
Sixteenth. "A Summary of the Background Levels of Air Quality Parameters for the Oil Shale Tracks in Colorado and Utah from September, 1974 through February, 1975", American Petroleum Institute, July 14, 1975;
Seventeenth. "Power Plant Impacts on National Recreation Resources", Department of the Interior, March, 1976;
Eighteenth. "An Air Quality Evaluation for the Inter-mountain Power Project," Westinghouse Electric Cooperation Environmental Systems, October 16, 1975;
Nineteenth. "Health Basis for Preventing Significant Deterioration: An Ounce of Prevention," December 3, 19'75;
Twentieth. "Benefits From Preventing Significant Deterioration of Air Quality", April 14, 1976;
Twenty-First. "Impact of Proposed Nonsignificant Deterioration Provisions", Draft Interim Report, Inter-City Fund, Inc., April 14, 1976;
Twenty-second. "Impact of Significant Deterioration Proposals Upon Western Surface Coal Mining Operations," Environmental Research and Technology Inc., for the Federal Energy Administration, May 5, 1976;
Twenty-third. "An Evaluation of Additional Production Costs for Significant Deterioration and Best Available Control Technology Proposals", General Electric Company, April 26, 1976.
All of these studies have highlighted the fact that the conclusions reached depend very heavily on the assumption used in conducting the study. Many studies by industry contained untrue allegations that large portions of the country would be blocked from further development. These studies were inaccurate because their initial assumptions were flawed.
Proposals to delay any nondegradation policy while further studies are conducted are merely a smokescreen for the desire to have no such policy at all.
REACTION BY SENATOR MOSS
It is questionable to identify some of the listed internal EPA documents as "studies", and it is misleading to suggest that all or a majority of the cited documents were in any way related to Section 6 of S. 3219 and that they substantiate its adoption as sound national policy. Although many of the listed reports are not generally available, it is known that results of some point out serious potential adverse impacts. The latest study on this issue, a study of the effect of nondegradation on the nonferrous metal industries published in May by the Department of Commerce concluded, "The proposal to establish mandatory Class I areas may result in dislocations for copper and lead smelters and new smelters may shift to foreign locations. If nondegradation proposals are enacted, construction of new copper and lead smelters on domestic sites would probably be substantially constrained."
The allegation of flawed assumptions also has been made about EPA reports. Opposition to comprehensive study before adoption of a nondeterioration requirement, particularly a study to weigh costs and benefits, might be based on fear of the conclusions that would be reached.
ALLEGATION NO. 4
EPA's basis for requiring pollution clean up has been challenged and EPA staff has been charged with deliberately distorting data regarding the effects of pollution.
FACTS AS SEEN BY SENATOR MUSKIE
These charges have effectively been laid to rest. Hearings held Friday, April 9 by the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce and the House Science and Technology Committee established the following:
First. Current national ambient air quality standards were established prior to the initiation of the study in controversy — the Community Health and Environment Surveillance System Study — CHESS. Even if the CHESS studies were discarded, this would not affect any of the national standards or EPA's implementation policies, all of which are based on a number of studies, of which CHESS is only one.
Second. The CHESS studies, however, should not be discarded; though no study is perfect — and epidemiological studies are particularly difficult to conduct — the CHESS studies have been characterized as the best of their kind in the world and the most reliable epidemiological studies ever carried out.
On April 13, on page S. 5656 the Congressional Record, the statement of Russell Train, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, is printed. This statement explains the Agency's analysis of the controversy surrounding the allegation of distortion. I recommend that statement to those who would like to gain some perspective on this whole controversy.
Disagreement among scientists always occurs; to equate this with deliberate fabrication and distortion is to misunderstand the nature of such comments from scientists.
REACTION BY SENATOR MOSS
Anyone who thinks the charges have been "laid to rest" should review pages H. 388– 488 of the May 4, 1976, Congressional Record; investigation of the allegations is continuing. There is ample evidence that certain of EPA's control strategies and policies rest heavily on the challenged CHESS conclusions.
ALLEGATION NO. 5
Costs of construction delays as a result of the Senate nondegradation policy may be extensive; therefore, no such policy should be adopted.
FACTS AS SEEN BY SENATOR MUSKIE
Greater uncertainty will occur by eliminating the Senate provision than by accepting it and establishing congressional policy in this area. If Congress remains silent on this subject now, that will only aggravate uncertainty, not erase it.
The policy contained in the Senate Committee bill will clarify policy and reduce uncertainty. Sources may then apply for the right to construct new facilities knowing the ground rules. At present no such certainty can occur.
Moreover, present EPA regulations are subject to court challenge. If the Sierra Club wins, then EPA will be required to tighten its requirements. Even if EPA is sustained, it still could revise its regulations to make them more stringent. On the other hand, by prescribing the requirements in the bill, EPA's authority to promulgate more restrictive rules is curtailed.
REACTION BY SENATOR MOSS
Court challenges to the EPA regulations, in part, raise constitutional issues, which would not be rendered moot by Congressional action. No stay of enforcement of EPA's rules was requested or granted and, until they are upheld or overturned, there is no reason why they cannot and should not be applicable to sources applying for construction permits. Any regulations are, of course, subject to court challenge. Rather poor logic is followed in stating only that EPA rules could be made more stringent unless the bill is passed; they also could be made less stringent, if experience with their administration so indicates, but such action would be precluded if requirements are written into law.
ALLEGATION NO. 6
A no-growth buffer zone of 60– 100 miles will be required to prevent pollution of the Federal parks.
FACTS AS SEEN BY SENATOR MUSKIE
This is totally false. Under the Senate bill (but not the EPA regulations), the Class I increment which protects such areas is used as an initial, not a final, test. An appeal is allowed which would permit construction of a major facility regardless of the test for a Class I area if the applicant can demonstrate no adverse impact on the air quality values of the Class I area.
In addition, according to joint EPA/FEA calculations, a well-controlled 1,000 megawatt coalfired powerplant could locate as close as 6 miles from a Class I area without causing that area's increment to he exceeded.
REACTION BY SENATOR MOSS
These "facts"are oversimplified and misleading. First of all, it was EPA that pointed out (39 F.R. 42510) the necessity for large buffer zones (60– 400 miles) to prevent degradation of class I areas. A plant locating as close as 6 miles to a class I area would have to be in flat terrain, have a tall stack (although EPA's policy limits stack heights), probably burn low-sulfur coal, and be equipped with a scrubber (with assumed 100% reliability). An applicant must demonstrate "to the satisfaction of the Federal Land Manager" that emissions will have no adverse impact on the "air quality related values" (whatever that term may be interpreted to mean) of Federal lands in class I areas. It can be presumed that certification to that effect by a Federal Land Manager will be virtually impossible to obtain, since under the bill he has an "affirmative responsibility" to protect the air quality related values of lands under his jurisdiction, and the Committee Report (page 27) admonishes him to "assume an aggressive role" and to "err on the side of protecting the air quality-related values". Even if concurrence is given, with that legislative history, it is certain that delay, uncertainty and litigation will be encountered.
ALLEGATION NO. 7
At least 80 percent of many States would be off-limits to new development.
FACTS AS SEEN BY SENATOR MUSKIE
One percent of the Nation's land would be directly placed in a Class I category, which is designed to protect these important national resources: all international parks, and each national park, memorial park, and wilderness area over 5,000 acres.
REACTION BY SENATOR MOSS
The "facts" do not refute the "allegation", since the former relate to the minimum class I designations nationwide and the latter refers to the Federal lands in individual States.
ALLEGATION NO. 8
Amendments not only ban new manufacturing plants, but even new housing, farming operations, and recreation.
FACTS AS SEEN BY SENATOR MUSKIE
This is false. The provisions only apply to "major emitting facilities" which emit over 100 tons of the pollutant per year and which are listed as a major emitting source category in the bill.
REACTION BY SENATOR MOSS
This is not the total "fact", since other facilities "as the Administrator determines" could be added to those listed in the bill.
ALLEGATION NO. 9
The increments (of allowable degradation of air) are often found to be violated by natural emissions which occur in rural and scenic areas. Therefore, further development already is taken up by nature in many areas.
FACTS AS SEEN BY SENATOR MUSKIE
The increments are in addition to any existing baseline air quality. Such a baseline includes natural emissions and existing manmade sources. The increment is an allowable quota which is added to the existing air quality. Nature cannot use it up. The secondary standards, including natural pollution, establish the limits on growth.
No one supports violating secondary standards.
REACTION BY SENATOR MOSS
While nature cannot use up the allowable increment, as defined, natural emissions well may prevent use of the full increment and preclude construction in many areas.
ALLEGATION NO. 10
Most Federal lands would be Class I, effectively ruling out most land in some States.
FACTS AS SEEN BY SENATOR MUSKIE
This is false. Under the Senate bill, only existing national parks and national wilderness areas over 5,000 acres could be Class I. All other Federal lands, including national forests, Indian lands and monuments could only be redesignated as Class I with State concurrence.
REACTION BY SENATOR MOSS
This "fact" is only partly accurate. New national parks and national wilderness areas, regardless of size, initially would be class I and could be redesignated class II only with agreement of the Federal Land Manager (who is charged with assuming an "aggressive role in protecting the air quality values of lands under his jurisdiction"). Wilderness areas in 1975 amounted to 12.7 million acres, pending Administration proposals would raise this to 40 million acres, and 35.5 million more acres is slated for review; at a generous estimate, over 200 million acres of land is still suitable for wilderness designation. (CEQ's 6th Annual Report, December, 1975, page 2515). The potential impactof class I Federal lands is enormous!
ALLEGATION NO. 11
The number of mandatory Class I areas will increase as new national parks and national wilderness areas are created.
FACTS AS SEEN BY SENATOR MUSKIE
This is not true. The mandatory Class I designation only applies to national parks and national wilderness areas over 5,000 acres which are in existence on date of enactment.
REACTION BY SENATOR MOSS
This "fact" is false. New national parks and national wilderness areas, regardless of size, are mandated class I initially, and the State can change the designation to class II only with the Federal Land Manager's agreement (Section 110(g) (1) (A) (ii) of the Act, as it would be amended).
ALLEGATION NO. 12
The prevention of significant deterioration provisions is a Federal land use policy based solely on one criterion — air quality.
FACTS AS SEEN BY SENATOR MUSKIE
The Senate bill does not require any land classification scheme to be undertaken by the State. The bill in question only regulates air quality and emissions, not land use. The States are free to use the land as they see fit.
Of course, air quality is not the only, let alone the decisive, factor in influencing a State's growth decision. It is merely one factor to be considered.
REACTION BY SENATOR MOSS
Regardless of the attempt at semantic obfuscation, there is no denying that the bill would regulate certain land use decisions (location of new major sources) on the basis of the air quality criterion alone, and States are not free to use land as they may see fit. If a State makes growth and development decisions which conflict with the air quality policy in the bill, new sources simply would not be permitted — no matter how socially and economically desirable, nor how much they are favored by citizens of the area.
ALLEGATION NO. 13
The nondegradation policy would have a much more severe impact in some States than in others.
FACTS AS SEEN BY SENATOR MUSKIE
This allegation comes from a misunderstanding of the use of air quality increments proposed in the committee bill.
Even without a nondegradation policy, an air quality increment already exists in clean air areas. The increment is the amount of pollution which could be added to the area until the ambient air quality standards are reached. In areas of flat terrain, that increment is large. In areas of severe terrain, that increment — up to the national ambient air quality standards — is smaller because pollution concentrations build up rapidly against mountainsides. Therefore, States with flat terrain have a greater competitive advantage if no nondegradation policy exists.
Under nondegradation policy, this uneven competitive disadvantage would he diminished. The amount of additional pollution allowed in all areas will be the same. Areas of uneven terrain are frequently constrained by the national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards. The terrain effects would provide constraints with or without a nondegradation policy. In such cases, the nondegradation requirement for the use of best available control technology will enable such areas to control pollution and allow further growth.
REACTION BY SENATOR MOSS
This "fact" contains convoluted reasoning designated to justify the nondeterioration policy. Certainly, under present law, there is an allowable increment between existing air quality and the national ambient standards; but reducing the allowable increment in all areas by an arbitrary number would in no measure diminish competitive advantages that exist in certain areas because of natural terrain features. It merely makes it more difficult and costly to locate new sources anywhere, because the allowable increment would be subjectively reduced.
ALLEGATION NO. 14
Western States will be held at their present levels of development and not be allowed to develop their energy resources. The Nation will be asked to curtail its industrial output.
FACTS AS SEEN BY SENATOR MUSKIE
These allegations are false. They echo the erroneous position of the Chamber of Commerce since the summer of 1976 — a line which has not been altered even though it has been fully discredited. In responding to the Chamber's allegation, Roger Strelow, Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency said:
"I have just read your article in September's Washington Report. ... The article claims that the Environmental Protection Agency's regulations for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality would endanger States' development and ban development in areas 60 to 100 miles adjacent to select Federally owned lands such as national parks and forests. This is simply not true.
"First, the regulations do not apply to all development, but only a select number of the major stationary industrial sources. Thus, contrary to what the article concludes, activities such as construction, farming, light manufacturing, and residential development are not affected by the regulations.
"I would like to comment on the article's contention that Congress in amending the Clean Air Act, is considering a 'no growth federal land use policy' based solely on air quality. That is nonsense. In response to the Administration's request to consider all alternatives and to give explicit guidance on a prevention of significant deterioration policy that allows a balancing of environmental, economic and energy objectives, the Congressional Subcommittees have provided proposals that give the States the authority to make their own determinations of what
constitutes significant deterioration within a framework of allowable air quality levels. Like EPA's regulations, these proposals require the States to consider and balance their various objectives, with full public participation. The proposals apply only to major industrial sources.
"The public wants to preserve clean air. According to an August 1975 poll commissioned by the Federal Energy Administration 94 percent of the American people favor preserving our clean air regions."
The EPA analysis of energy facilities indicates that coal gasification, oil shale, coal-fired powerplants and other such energy facilities can meet the nondegradation requirements.
In the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD on April 29, 1976, on page S6175, a new EPA study is printed showing that all major industries could build under the Senate committee's nondegradation proposal. These include powerplants, paper mills, smelters, refineries, and so forth.
In sum, Western States will not be precluded from development, and the Nation will not be asked to curtail its output. It will be asked to insure that its growth is clean and that analysis of future development occurs in a rational policy rather than on the basis of piecemeal, private decision making.
REACTION BY SENATOR MOSS
Opinions of an EPA Assistant Administrator are not necessarily "fact", and many of the EPA's reports and statements have been subject to serious challenges. A copy of the Chamber of Commerce reply to Mr. Strelow's quoted letter is attached. The EPA study which appeared in the April 29, 1976, Congressional Record clearly does not support the Senate nondeterioration proposal; it shows (1) large buffer zones will be necessary in many areas, (2) class III areas will be required if growth and development are not to be impaired, (3) only small, inefficient, uneconomical, and widely separated facilities can be built in hilly terrain, and (4) EPA questions the value of requiring use of best available control technology rather than the present new source performance standards.
ALLEGATION NO. 15
There will be a loss of employment due to the nondegradation provisions.
FACTS AS SEEN BY SENATOR MUSKIE
This is incorrect. In addition to the fact that this provision only applies to new facilities — to employment not yet developed — the pollution control requirements imposed in the committee bill will increase employment, not reduce it. In an immediate sense, more jobs will be needed in order to construct the pollution control facilities associated with compliance — facilities which might not have been installed without these amendments. In an economy with high unemployment, this is a plus.
Studies of the Council on Environmental Quality and Chase Econometrics shows the economic effects of pollution control. These requirements have led us to the creation of one million new jobs, according to CEQ.
REACTION BY SENATOR MOSS
This "fact" is a glib assumption. The real fact is that nobody knows the potential impact on employment, but the Department of Labor has expressed concern (Congressional Record, April 1, 1976, page S. 4805) as have some labor union officials.
ALLEGATION NO. 16
We do not know which areas of the Nation are clean enough to qualify for coverage under the nondegradation provision and, therefore, must wait for further information before determining that such areas should be protected from significant deterioration.
FACTS AS SEEN BY SENATOR MUSKIE
This criticism misses an important difference between nondegradation areas and dirty areas; it implies that expansion in nondegradation areas will somehow be more restricted than expansion in areas which have exceeded national ambient air standards.
This is untrue. In fact, expansion in dirty areas is more difficult. The health and welfare standards have already been exceeded in such areas, and a substantial burden rests on any applicant for a new source to demonstrate that he will not worsen that situation or interfere with cleaning up to the national standards; such a source must make the case that any pollution should be allowed.
Absolute knowledge does not exist. There are many gaps in data on monitoring of existing air quality. But this does not provide a reason for delaying a policy to protecting existing air quality. Most States will be able to make intelligent judgments of air quality in areas where little monitoring data exists. As new applications are submitted, information will be gathered as part of the permit approval process.
REACTION BY SENATOR MOSS
This "allegation"is not particularly pertinent, and the "facts" do not speak to the allegation in an enlightening manner. It is well known that expansion will be difficult or impossible in urban areas where ambient standards are exceeded and most citizens are exposed; that is exactly why any policy that would restrict development in other areas, where few people would be exposed, should be carefully evaluated beforehand.
ALLEGATION NO. 17
Technology does not exist to model the projected emissions from new sources or for monitoring the emissions from these sources. Therefore, Congress, should not act until precise tools exist.
FACTS AS SEEN BY SENATOR MUSKIE
This criticism has a "Catch-22" approach. It says that sources should be allowed to pollute because science has not developed precise techniques for telling exactly how much pollution is created; by the time such techniques are developed, they could very well be useless in protecting air quality, since deterioration would have made the question moot.
For years State air pollution control agencies and Federal agencies have used modeling projections to analyze applications for new sources that would continue under the nondegradation proposal. There is no other way of determining the impact of a source that has yet to be constructed.
In most cases, the errors identified show that more pollution is occurring, not less. This indicates a need to control such pollution now.
REACTION BY SENATOR MOSS
Although limitations and imprecision of monitoring and diffusion modeling are well documented, this "allegation" never has beenadvanced by those proposing further study of the nondeterioration provision.
ALLEGATION NO. 18
High quality air in clean areas is a luxury — a luxury that must be sacrificed in order to allow industry to grow.
FACTS AS SEEN BY SENATOR MUSKIE
Clean air is not a luxury and growth need not be sacrificed to keep it. If we attempt to sacrifice air quality now for short term gains we will find our water becoming more acid, our crop production deteriorating, our esthetic experience in wilderness areas declining and our health being damaged by long term low level exposure.
In addition, we will find that we have lost one of the most useful, growth-preserving options available — the option of determining how air resources will be used prior to their use. Without a nondegradation policy, new sources may well adopt lesser control technologies and thereby use up the available air quality without providing room for the growth of industries that follow in subsequent years.
REACTION BY SENATOR MOSS
Both the "allegation" and "fact" are specious. Nobody is advocating sacrifice of clean air. Speculation about unknown adverse effects is not in accord with scientific facts. Recent scientific reviews have substantiated the ambient air quality standards which protect health and welfare with adequate margins of safety.
ALLEGATION NO. 19
A nondegradation policy will harm the poor and those on fixed incomes.
FACTS AS SEEN BY SENATOR MUSKIE
This is erroneous. Those who use this argument cite competing and mutually exclusive arguments. On the one hand, nondegradation allegedly hurts the city dweller because growth in the clean portion of the metropolitan areas will not be allowed and plants will therefore be forced to flee to outlying areas. On the other hand, cities argue that growth will be restricted in rural clean air areas because of the nondegradation provision and sources will be required to remain in urban areas.
Neither allegation is correct. Dirty air areas usually have some portions that continues to be clean and new sources, if carefully controlled and properly sited, can be located in such urban areas. Growth will continue and the metropolitan area will attract jobs and industry. In addition, the 1976 amendments contain new provisions to allow expansion in such areas. In rural areas, development of new facilities is clearly allowed and nondegradation requirements only insure that the growth be as clean as possible.
REACTION BY SENATOR MOSS
Those who have studied the matter and are in the best position to know would resent the flip assertion that this allegation is "erroneous". For example, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare has stated: "We conclude that the nondeterioration regulations could well impose substantial social and economic costs which in turn would likely be borne disproportionately by the poor, the aged, and the disadvantaged." (See also "No Growth Has to Mean Less is Less," by Bayard Rustin, President of the A. Philip Randolph Institute and National Chairman of Social Democrats, USA, New York Times Magazine, May 2, 1976.)
ALLEGATION NO. 20
The 24 hour or 3 hour increments are unnecessary and should be dropped. The annual average increment levels are sufficient.
FACTS AS SEEN BY SENATOR MUSKIE
Eliminating the short term — 3 hour and 24 hour — increments from the bill would completely undermine the protection provided by the nondegradation policy.
An annual average is the sum of a year's daily pollution readings. Since they are only averages, they can mask high air pollution concentrations. In response to a letter I wrote on this subject, Russell Train, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, has said:
"The short term increments are generally controlling for sources with elevated emission points (e.g., power plants) ... For example, it is entirely possible that a new power plant could meet the annual Class I increment for both sulfur dioxide (SO2) and particulate matter (TSP) yet cause short term concentrations that would approach the short term national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).
"Thirty-three existing plants were analyzed. ... Clearly, sole application of the annual increment would not, in many cases, provided a significant margin of nondeterioration protection beyond the primary and secondary NAAQS if a source could create short term concentrations up to the 24-hour or 3-hour national standards.
"In addition, ... allowing degradation up to the three-hour secondary NAAQS, could possibly result in damage to certain commercial crops.
"... the 24-hour concentration of particulates has a considerable impact on visibility. For example, degradation up to the 24-hour NAAQS would reduce visibility from more than 70 miles to about 5 miles. Sole use of the annual increment for nondeterioration would in many cases, allow such a reduction in visibility to occur."
REACTION BY SENATOR MOSS
That chronic low levels of pollution or short term peaks below the Federal standards may harm health or welfare is speculative and unfounded. If and when supporting evidence becomes available, the law mandates that ambient standards be changed. An annual average is not the sum of a year's readings, but is the mean (geometric or arithmetic, as specified in the standards).
While an annual average may (and probably will) contain some relatively high concentrations, nothing in the present Act permits levels above the three and 24-hour standards more than once a year. "Deterioration" is a long term reduction in air quality and is not determined by transitory short term excursions; the annual average, then, is the best and truest measure of "deterioration" and the three and 24-hour standards are relevant only to health and welfare protection.
ALLEGATION NO. 21
EPA will have the final control over which sources may get permits to construct.
FACTS AS SEEN BY SENATOR MUSKIE
This is true under present EPA regulations but not true under the Senate bill. The States are responsible for deciding whether to issue permits to new sources under the Senate bill. No State permit may be disapproved if the procedures are followed and if the ceilings and increments set in the bill are observed.
REACTION BY SENATOR MOSS
It is wrong to imply that the Federal presence will not pervade the nondeterioration policy. EPA and Federal Land Managers are provided ample clout to influence or block the issuance of permits.