August 5, 1976
Page 25870
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and was read the third time.
Mr. ALLEN. Will the manager of the bill yield for a colloquy?
Mr. MUSKIE Yes, I will yield.
Mr. ALLEN. In what areas does the bill give the States new flexibility they do not now enjoy under current regulations?
Mr. MUSKIE The States would issue permits to new sources. At present permits are issued totally at the discretion of EPA and by EPA.
The States gain a veto over action by the Federal Government to reclassify Federal lands as class I areas. Presently other Federal agencies are to consult States but can with EPA approval unilaterally make the reclassification.
The bill allows the State to decide to issue a permit to a source even if it fails to pass the stringent class I increments. This occurs after the Federal Land Manager presents the case for such issuance based on air quality values. The decision is then left to the State.
Presently under EPA regulations no source, under any conditions, may receive a permit if it fails to pass the test of the class I increment.
States, now under EPA regulations, must devise some way of controlling small sources, non-major emitters, or else they may use up the increments and leave no room for further growth. The committee bill does not count such sources against the increments, thereby leaving more room for major emitters. The States thereby have greater flexibility in reviewing and authorizing various mixes of major and non-major emitters.
Present law requires that if States ever take over the program, EPA can still second guess all actions. Under the bill, EPA may only go to court to stop a permit and then EPA has the burden to show that the State permit violates the requirements of the statute as to best available technology, increments, et cetera.
Mr. ALLEN. Is it the intent of the committee that EPA have veto power over actions the States may take in granting permits or classifying areas?
Mr. MUSKIE. EPA goes to court if it finds a State permit to be invalid under the committee bill.
EPA has no approval power in States reclassifying land. The Federal Land Manager has veto power if Federal lands are involved. Any State decision on State lands is solely a State decision.
Mr. ALLEN. Is it not true the committee intends the State to have maximum flexibility in determining what constitutes "best available control technology"?
Mr. MUSKIE. States have full flexibility to weigh factors. This includes insuring long term growth by leaving room for future sources by requiring improved technology on the first sources who apply. The State cannot require less than the Federal new source performance standards.
Beyond that, the State has full flexibility, with guidance that it should maximize emission reductions that are achievable.
Mr. ALLEN. Is it not the intent of the committee that the Land Manager should only attempt to intervene in the granting of a permit by the State where it is clear that the siting of a proposed facility will have a definite adverse impact on the air quality of the class I area?
Mr. MUSKIE. In response to this question the Federal Land manager is to intervene whenever he has a reasonable concern. Intervention merely begins the process. It is the trigger. It does not decide the outcome. This intervention creates the analysis. His judgment must then be based on that analysis. He has a positive mandate to protect the air quality values of the Federal areas affected.
Mr. ALLEN. If it should be determined that the allowable increments in classified areas are in fact too small and will restrict necessary and desirable development, is it not the intent of the committee that the increments will be reviewed and possibly adjusted for class II areas so long as the national health and welfare standards are not violated?
Mr. MUSKIE. The committee intends for the increments to be studied. The results could go either way. Class II may be too lenient, or too strict. Any possible adjustment at a later date will take into account the Commission's report. The increments have already been subjected to 3 – 4 years of analysis, but we expect to learn more through further studies during implementation.
Mr. BUCKLEY. I concur in the interpretation offered by the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE).
Mr. ALLEN. I would like to ask the distinguished Senator from New York (Mr. BUCKLEY) and the distinguished committee chairman (Mr. RANDOLPH) and the distinguished Senator from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER) if they agree with the distinguished Senator from Maine in his responses to my inquiries as being the intent of the Senate in the enactment of S. 3219.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I agree that Mr. MUSKIE's responses correctly respond to Mr. ALLEN's questions and reflect the committees views on the Senate's intent.
Mr. BUCKLEY. I agree.
Mr. BAKER. The Senator's answers reflect my view of congressional intent of the legislation.