November 1, 1977
Page 36252
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, normally the technical amendments to the Clean Air Act would be presented by the chairman of the Senate Environmental Pollution Subcommittee, the senior Senator from Maine. However, Senator MUSKIE is presently being treated for a pinched nerve and is unable to be on the Senate floor. He has prepared a statement which explains these amendments, and I ask unanimous consent that it, with attachments, be printed at this point in the RECORD.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR MUSKIE
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 were passed by Congress August 4 immediately prior to the August recess. Because of the rush to produce this legislation prior to the date the automobile companies would begin to produce model 1978 cars, there was little time for the detailed proofreading that usually accompanies the production of a conference report. As a result, there are a number of punctuation errors, incorrect cross references, grammatical errors, and other technical problems that exist in Public Law 95-95, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977. And there is some ambiguous language that should be clarified.
As a result of these inadvertent errors, we have brought before the Senate today a package of technical amendments to correct these errors.
It is not the purpose of these amendments to reopen substantive issues in the Clean Air Act. Those issues that were settled remain settled and the technical amendments do not reverse that. Those issues that were not settled by the 1977 amendments remain unsettled. These technical amendments are not designed to resolve issues that were not resolved in the legislative struggle that occurred over the last three years..
A brief explanation of each of the technical amendments will be placed in the record at the end of my statement. Because of the brevity of most of these amendments, it is difficult to read an amendment standing alone and understand the changes it makes. This brief explanation will provide a simple explanation for each amendment.
Most of the amendments originated as a result of discussions between House and Senate Committee staff and the Environmental Protection Agency as the Agency began attempting to implement the new amendments. Unsolicited comments have been received from the private sector. All of the comments of the Environmental Protection Agency and private citizens have been reviewed by the Committee staff. Many have been rejected because they attempt to raise policy issues. Only those amendments that are necessary to correct technical errors or unclear phrases have been retained in the package of amendments that is now before the Senate.
Members of the Environment and Public Works Committee have examined these amendments. If there were any questions about the legitimacy of an amendment, it was dropped from the list.
I urge the Senate to agree to these amendments.
An example of the kind of substantive amendments that have been rejected and have not been included in this package of amendments might be useful. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 require that all new or modified major emitting facilities constructed in clean air areas must comply with the preconstruction review requirement of section 165 immediately upon enactment of the legislation. That is obvious on the face of the language of 165. It also flows from the language of 167, which requires EPA to take action to stop construction if it is not consistent with these new requirements. It is also clear from the last sentence in section 168 that sources constructed after enactment would have to be reviewed under the new amendments because they do not fall within the category covered by that last sentence.
To view this issue in any other way than the one I have described would be to negate the Congressional actions of the last two years on this subject. The Moss amendment of 1976 was an attempt to delay the implementation of Congressional policy and to leave in place the regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency. That proposal was soundly defeated in the Senate as well as in the House.
In spite of the clear Congressional intent on this issue, there have been suggestions that these technical amendments ought include a substantive amendment. which would make the provisions of section 165 not be applicable for at least a year or two. No such amendment is contained in this package. Congress has consistently rejected this notion, but the proponents of it have made one last attempt. It would be improper for these technical amendments to be used to reverse the policy established in the 1977 amendments, and it would be improper to characterize such a substantive change "technical" amendment.
The interpretation taken by the Environmental Protection Agency in the October 6 1977 memorandum from David G. Hawkins and Marvin Durning to the Regional Administrators makes this clear. A copy of that memorandum is attached, along with other items of legal analysis which demonstrate that the correct interpretation of the 1977 amendments is that section 165 is to be applicable to sources immediately upon enactment. Unfortunately, as a result of strong pressure from the electric utility industry, EPA has announced that it is reversing the position taken in the October 6 memorandum. This issue appears to be headed to the courts for final resolution. I believe the October 6th Hawkins memo is the correct interpretation, but these technical amendments will not contain any language the addresses that issue.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CLEAN AIR ACT
(1) Corrects punctuation error.
(2) Corrects punctuation error.
(3) More clearly implements conference agreement to prohibit EPA review of indirect sources both before construction and after they have come into existence.
(4) Implements conference agreements to require cities with severe oxidant or CO problems to use transit funds available to them to help alleviate air pollution problems.
(5) Corrects subsection designation errors
(6) Implements conference agreement that compliance with new source performance standards may be achieved by treatment of fuels before the fuel is consumed by source.
(7) Corrects a paragraph designation error.
(8) Eliminates a subsection which is duplicated elsewhere in the statute.
(9) Corrects a subparagraph designation error.
(10) Adds punctuation and corrects an erroneous section reference.
(11) Corrects a grammatical error.
(12) Corrects a grammatical error.
(13) Corrects punctuation errors.
(14) Corrects erroneous omission in paragraph (1)of the requirement that delayed compliance orders may be issued only to sources unable to comply with requirements of an implementation plan.
(15) Corrects apparent inconsistency between section 113 and section 120 to make clear that sources meeting certain criteria will not be required to pay noncompliance penalties.
(16) Corrects omission of deadline for EPA to review certain delayed compliance orders, to conform to other time limits in the law.
(l7) Corrects punctuation error.
(18) Corrects an error in syntax.
(19) Corrects a paragraph reference error.
(20) Clarifies that States may impose requirements under State law on sources which have received Federal delayed compliance orders.
(21) Corrects erroneous parenthetical description.
(22) Corrects language which inadvertently removed auto manufacturing facilities from monitoring and other requirements appropriate to other stationary sources.
(23) Corrects language which inadvertently removed unregulated stationary emission sources from monitoring and other requirements authorized under the law prior to 1977 to determine whether such sources should be regulated and, if so, at what levels.
(24) Corrects reference to old coal conversion extension section (sec. 119) .
(25) Conforms issuance of smelter orders with delay orders for other sources by incorporating smelter orders into the SIP.
(26) Corrects section reference error.
(27) Corrects an unclear reference.
(28) Clarifies that a noncompliance penalty applies to any noncomplying source (which is not exempted) including a source which has received a Federal or State consent decree extending a final compliance date.
(29) Same effect as No. 28.
(30) Corrects erroneous omission of references to new coal conversion extension section (113) (d)(5) and clarifies reference to old coal conversion extension (sec. 119) prior to 1977 amendments.
(31) Clarifies reference to Section 119 to mean the coal conversion extension provision of the Clean Air Act prior to the 1977 Amendments.
(32) Corrects erroneous paragraph reference.
(33) Corrects erroneous subsection reference.
(34} Makes clear an implied requirement for a State to notify the Administrator of imposition of a noncompliance penalty.
(35) Changes inconsistent language — "delayed compliance" to "noncompliance" — to conform to usage elsewhere in this section.
(36) Same effect as No. 35; also changes inconsistent language — "facility" to "source" — to conform to usage elsewhere in this section.
(37) More clearly implements conference agreement on method of calculation of noncompliance penalty.
(38) Corrects punctuation error.
(39) Corrects punctuation error.
(40) Corrects punctuation error.
(41) Adds the word "section" to section reference.
(42) Clarifies apparent inconsistency so that the Administrator may disapprove PSD redesignations if they do not comply with specified provisions of the law as well as on procedural grounds.
(43) Corrects grammatical error.
(44) Corrects punctuation error.
(45) Clarifies that an applicant for a construction permit need make only one demonstration that
the proposed new source will comply with all requirements of the Act.
(46) Add words "cause or" before the word "contribute" in order to conform to usage throughout the Act; eliminates an apparent inconsistency by striking "actual" from the phrase "actual allowable emissions."
(47) Corrects printing error in spelling.
(48) Corrects punctuation error.
(49) Conforms terminology with respect to pollution "sources"to that used elsewhere in this subsection and employs the phrase "cause or contribute" to pollution levels, to conform to terminology throughout the Act.
(50) More clearly implements conference agreement on the limitations imposed by the Breaux amendment.
(51) Implements conference agreement to define "high terrain" areas.
(52) Clarifies unclear reference.
(53) Corrects placement of subpart 2 of part C.
(54) Implements conference agreement to cover "modification" as well as "construction" by defining "construction" in part C to conform to usage in other parts of the Act.
(55) Corrects an erroneous reference.
(56) Corrects erroneous date to conform to the date elsewhere provided.
(57) Substitutes the term "facility" for "source" to conform to usage elsewhere in this section; also same effect as No. 54.
(58) Implements conference agreement that as a condition for granting a permit to construct in a nonattainment area, the State must be carrying out the requirements of its SIP in that area.
(59) Implements conference agreement to add the word "national" before "primary standard".
(60) Corrects printing misalignment and deletes duplicated phrase.
(61) Corrects erroneous date for start of period during which Administrator may revise an emission standard for heavy duty vehicles, so as to conform to the conference agreement for four year lead time.
(62) Eliminates an erroneous extra word.
(63) Requires study dates to conform to the dates as in No. 61 above.
(64) Implements conference agreement by changing "model year 1976" to "calendar year 1976", thus assure that American Motors would be eligible for extension of date for compliance with NOx standard.
(65) Changes requirement that auto companies eligible for extension in No. 64, No. 66 buy pollution controls from U.S. manufacturers to permit purchase from non-U.S. companies. This is to avoid GATT problems.
(66) Corrects punctuation error.
(67) Corrects grammatical error.
(68) Corrects punctuation error.
(69) Restores an erroneously omitted word.
(70) Corrects misalignment.
(71) Corrects subsection designation.
(72) Corrects grammatical error.
(73) Implements conference agreement by clarifying that no manufacturer may sell gasoline with MMT greater than 1/16 gram/gallon concentration after November 30, 1977,unless a waiver is granted. Also applies the waiver provision to this 1/16 gram/gallon concentration limitation.
(74) Making the waiver discussed in No. 73 applicable to this 1/l6 gram/gallon concentration limitation.
(75) Implements conference agreement by correcting error in a date.
(76) Corrects punctuation error.
(77) Implements conference agreement by clarifying that modified as well as new facilities may be the subject of citizen suits. This conforms to provisions throughout the Act.
(78) Implements conference agreement by putting "smelter orders" on same basis as other stationary source delay orders for purpose of citizen suits. Also makes punctuation correction.
(79) and (80) Implements conference agreement to make clear that judicial review is available for new provisions, as well as old, dealing with hazardous emissions standards and new sources and other requirements and for delayed compliance orders and penalties and smelter orders. Also implements conference agreement providing for review of grantor denial of locality applicable orders in the appropriate circuit court, and review of nationally applicable regulations in the D.C. Circuit Court.
(81) Eliminates the requirement for advice and consent of the Senate for appointment of National Air Quality Commission members; implements conference agreement by changing number of public members from seven to nine.
(82) Gives the Commission authority to hire staff.
(83) Eliminates identical section numbering of two different provisions.
(84) Clarifies lack of legal effect of parenthetical cross references.
AMENDMENTS TO THE 1977 AMENDMENTS
The previous list amended the Clean Air Act rather than the 1977 amendments.
(1) Corrects typographical error in paragraph numbering.
(2) Corrects an erroneous date.
(3) Corrects grammatical error.
(4) Corrects erroneous cross references.
(5) Corrects erroneous reference to the word "engines".
(6) Corrects improper reference to the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments.
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS,
Washington, D.C.,
October 17, 1977.
Hon. DOUGLAS COSTLE,
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR DOUG: It appears there are some who wish to confuse the intent of the Congress with regard to implementation of the new nondegradation policy under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977. Some have suggested the Congress did not expect the provisions of the new amendments to be immediately effective. That is not true.
The Conference Committee recognized that there may be certain aspects of the new amendments which would require promulgation of regulations. In recognition of that possibility, we provided that the existing regulations should continue in effect (to the extent not inconsistent with the specific provisions of the new law) until new regulations could be promulgated.
Implicit in the effort of the Congress to deal with nondegradation was the intention to clearly specify the parameters of a nondegradation policy. Thus, we examined EPA's policy with respect to best available control technology, rejected it, and established a new requirement. We established more precise permitting and other preconstruction review requirements. We examined EPA's definition of the term "construction" and made the requirements more specific. We examined EPA's regulations with respect to incremental changes in air quality and established more specific and, in some cases, more stringent increments. All of these changes are to be immediately effective insofar as these provisions do not specifically require regulatory action to become effective.
It is true that the law requires continuity in regulation to avoid unnecessary delay and disruption. It is for that reason that the preconstruction review requirements of current regulation were specifically retained for facilities on which construction was commenced prior to enactment. This also makes clear that facilities which commence construction now must comply with the Act's immediately effective new provisions.
It is unnecessary to complicate a clear Congressional statement by a complex regulatory framework. It should be sufficient to simply notify each State and EPA regional office of the specific requirements of the statute and identify any areas in which regulations are specifically required. Beyond the areas so identified, the statute should be immediately effective, and existing regulations null and void.
The Congress spent nearly three years rewriting the Clean Air Act. The new amendments are quite specific because we intended to avoid having legislation by regulation. It was our intent to set specific national air quality policy in law. We expect this intent of Congress to guide the Agency. And, we expect that expansive new regulations would be held to an absolute minimum in order that the new law would be made immediately effective.
We would think that a simple guidance document which cites the legislative history and the intent of Congress could be distributed to the States and EPA regional offices with an annotated version of the new statute and any existing regulations which it references (to the extent not inconsistent with the new amendments). This should be sufficient to begin moving this program without triggering unnecessary litigation which would further delay implementation of the program.
Best personal regards.
Sincerely,
ROBERT T. STAFFORD,
Ranking Minority Member.
EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution, U.S. Senate.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Washington, D.C.,
October 6, 1977.
Subject: Changes to PSD and Emission Offset Requirements.
From: David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator for Air and Waste Management; Marvin Durning, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement.
To: Regional Administrators, Regions IX.
The Clean Air Act Amendments signed by President Carter on August 7, 1977 make certain changes to EPA's regulations for preventing significant deterioration (PSD) of air quality (40 CFR 52.21) and the emission offset ruling (41 FR 55524). We will be proceeding with amendments to these regulations as soon as possible. This memo outlines the changes that will be made, most of which became effective upon enactment of the 1977 Amendments. A forthcoming FEDERAL REGISTER notice notifying sources and the public of these changes is enclosed for your information.
The effect of the Act Amendments is to immediately expand the scope of the PSD reviews performed by EPA, both in terms of the number of sources affected and the requirements that must be met (in particular, the requirement for best available control technology for all pollutants regulated under the Act). Sources which commenced construction (as defined by the Act) on or after August 7, 1977 are subject to the immediately effective PSD provisions of the Act. Sources which have not yet received PSD permits must be reviewed in accordance with the immediately effective provisions described below. Sources which have already received PSD permits (either before or after August 7, 1977) must have their construction status as of August 7, 1977 determined. The PSD permit for any source which had not commenced construction prior to August 7, 1977 must be suspended and a review of the source must be conducted in accordance with the provisions described below.
The additional requirements imposed by these immediately effective changes to our PSD procedures may result in delays in processing permits which may disrupt the schedules for sources whose permits are pending or have recently been granted. We urge you to contact the sources in your Region which may be affected by these changes as soon as possible to inform them of the new requirements.
PSD (Part C, Sections 160169) :
General— Section 168 indicates that until a State submits an acceptable State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for PSD, EPA's regulations remain in effect, except as they are inconsistent with Sections 162(a) (mandatory Class I areas), 163(b) (revised increments) and 164(a) (reclassification procedures). Section 168 also refers to the new statutory definition of "commenced" (as applied to construction) which should be considered immediately effective.
Sources which commenced construction after June 1, 1975, and before August 7, 1977, should have been reviewed in accordance with 40 CFR 52.21, as it existed on August 7, 1977. Sources commencing construction on or after August 7, 1977, must be reviewed in accordance with the new Act Amendments. Thus, permits for sources which have not commenced construction as of August 7, 1977, must take into account the mandatory Class I areas (See Attachment 1); the new increments in Section 163(b), and should include a review against the national ambient air quality standards (163(b)(4)) as well as the specified increments. As stated in Section 163(a), the revised increments of Section 163(b) may be exceeded once per year (except for the annual increments) at any given receptor site.
Applicability of Section 165 (other source types, BACT for other pollutants, public hearings, etc.)— Section 165 by its terms establishes new requirements applicable to all major emitting facilities "on which construction is commenced after the date of enactment of this part." In apparent conflict with this clear statement is Section 168, which states that present EPA regulations are deemed amended to the extent they are inconsistent with specified portions of Sections 162, 163 and 164 but which does not mention Section 165. We have determined that the failure to reference Section 165 is not controlling and that Section 165 (up to subsection (e)) was intended to be effective upon enactment. Therefore, EPA's PSD regulations will be amended to immediately include preconstruction review of additional source types (as defined in Section 169(1)); public hearing, or opportunity for hearing, on each application; best available control technology for all pollutants regulated under the Act; and provisions for exemptions to the Class I increments. These provisions are applicable to affected sources that did not commence construction (as defined in Section 169(2)) before August 7, 1977.
Requirements for major sources of pollutants other than sulfur dioxide and particulate matter— Since Section 165 and the definition of major source in Section 169 are effective immediately, a PSD review for other pollutants regulated under the Act is now required. The other requirements of Section 165 are also applicable for such sources, i.e., public hearings analysis of associated growth. For pollutants other than SO2 and particulate matter, the principal requirement will be the use of best available control technology (BACT).
It will be necessary to establish as part bf the PSD rulemaking procedures some de minimus emission level for activating the BACT requirement. In the interim, a de minimus level of 100 tons per year potential emissions should be used for all pollutants. For example, if a source is subject to PSD review either because it is one of the named sources or because it has potential emissions of 250 tons per year of a given pollutant, BACT is required only for those other pollutants whose potential emissions exceed 100 ton per year.
Although further guidance on determining potential emission rate will be necessary, a general definition is as follows:
"Potential emissions"means the emissions calculated using the appropriate uncontrolled emission factor in "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors" (AP-42) or based on actual source tests of similar equipment. That is, those emissions expected to occur without control equipment unless such control equipment is necessary for the normal operation of the source. Annual potential emissions shall be based on the maximum annual rated capacity of the source, unless the source is subject to enforceable permit conditions which limit the operating rate and/or hours of operation. Other enforceable permit conditions on the type of amount of materials combusted or processed should also be used in determining the potential emissions of a source.
Starting date for applying increments— EPA's present regulations limit deterioration of air quality starting from January 1, 1975. The definition of "baseline concentration (Section 169(4)) relies on measured air quality data which must be submitted with all permit applications after August 7, 1978. However, all major emitting facilities commencing construction after January 6, 1975, count against the applicable increments. With respect to whether area sources (non-major emitting facilities) count against the increments, we believe it is most appropriate to continue using the approach in EPA's PSD regulations as to what counts against the increments, with the exception of a January 6, 1975 (instead of January 1, 1975) starting date.
Since monitoring data will be required as part of a PSD application after August 7, 1978, sources applying shortly after this data will need to begin monitoring immediately. Therefore, you should be advising your States and prospective sources of this requirement. At this time, it appears that monitoring for all criteria pollutants at the proposed site will be necessary, unless other monitoring data in the immediate vicinity are available. Additional guidance on the monitoring requirements will be published in the Part 51 PSD regulations.
Geographic applicability of PSD— EPA’s present PSD regulations apply to 19 specific source types even in nonattainment areas, since long range transport could violate applicable PSD increments (especially Class I) in adjacent clean air areas. PSD permits (including BACT requirements) should continue to be required in all areas of the country.
Precondition to reclassification— EPA’s PSD regulations require that before a State may reclassify any area, it must first have accepted delegation of the administrative and technical portions of EPA's PSD regulations The Act Amendments do not contain such a provision and EPA's regulations will be amended to remove this condition. All the procedural and review requirements of section 164(b), (c), and (e) are immediately effective.
Classification of new national parks, international parks, and wilderness areas — It appears that unless Congress specifically makes a new national or international park or wilderness area Class I, the automatic designation will be Class II. However, we suspect that Congress would assign Class I status to most new areas of this type, especially if they exceed the size criteria in section 162. Thus, for long range planning by sources and States, you should advise them that such areas are likely to be classified Class I.
Stack height— Section 121, which adds a new Section 123 to the Act, limits credit for stack height to good engineering practice (GEP), which is defined as that height necessary to avoid atmospheric downwash, wakes and eddies. It indicates that GEP should generally not exceed two and one-half times the height of the source (subject to exemption based on appropriate showing by the source). EPA is required to issue regulations within six months to implement Section 121.
Until these regulations are issued, we believe it is acceptable to allow credit for stack height according to the "two and one-half times" rule, unless the source can justify a higher stack.
Retroactive application of new stack height limitations— Any previous approval which was
based on a stack height which exceeded GEP (two and one-half times height of source) must now be
reexamined based on a GEP stack height if the source did not commence construction before August 7,
1977. Any subsequent PSD reviews will have to be based on a GEP stack height for the applicant as
well as for any sources which have received previous PSD approval. That is, if any increment would
have been violated had all sources been limited to GEP stack heights, no additional sources would be
allowed to locate in that area. As noted above, until there is further guidance on GEP, this "two and
one-half times" rule should be used for defining GEP unless the owner or operator of the source
demonstrates to the Administrator, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, that a greater height
is necessary.
EMISSION OFFSETS
Baseline— Section 129 indicates that until July, 1979, EPA's emission offset ruling (as it may be amended) remains in effect. However, the baseline for determining offset credit, effective immediately, is to be the existing SIP regulations at the time a permit application is submitted.
Source applicability— For purposes of the emission offset ruling, the Act contains a new definition of major source which covers sources with potential emissions of 100 tons per year. We will be amending the emission offset ruling as soon as possible to make this change. For those additional sources which would be subject to the offset requirements, this change would be applicable to such sources commencing construction after publication of the Federal Register notice (approximately January 1, 1978). Until this change is made, some smaller sources will be subject to PSD, but are not subject to the emission offset ruling. If these smaller PSD sources
would cause or exacerbate a violation of an NAAQS, they must meet condition 3 and 4 of the offset ruling, even though they are not explicitly covered by the offset ruling.
We realize that several of the above changes may be disruptive and will increase resource demands on your staff. Additional budget requests are being made for both the Regions as well as State program grants.
If our staffs can be of any help or if you have any questions on the issues discussed above, please contact Walt Barber (629-5315) or Ed Reich (755-2550) .
Enclosure.
MANDATORY CLASS I AREAS UNDER 1977 CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS
National Parks Over 6,000 Acres
Alaska— Mount McKinley 1,939,493.
Arizona— Grand Canyon 1,176,913; Petrified Forest 93,493.
California— Kings Canyon 459,994; Lassen Volcanic 105,800; Redwood 27,792; Sequoia 842; Yosemite 759,172.
Colorado— Mesa Verde 51;488; Rocky Mountain 263,138.
Florida— Everglades 1,397,429.
Hawaii— Haleakala 27,208; Hawaii Volcanoes 217,029.
Idaho— Yellowstone (Wyoming).
Kentucky— Mammoth Cave 51,303.
Maine— Acadia 37,503.
Michigan— Isle Royale 542,428.
Minnesota— Voyageurs 114,964.
Montana— Glacier 1,012,599; Yellowstone (Wyoming).
New Mexico— Carlsbad Caverns 46,435.
North Carolina— Great Smoky Mountains (Tennessee).
Oregon— Crater Lake 160,290.
South Dakota— Wind Cave 28,060.
Tennessee— Great Smoky Mountains 514,757.
Texas— Big Bend 708,118; Guadalupe Mountains 78,292.
Utah— Arches 65,098; Bryce Canyon 35,832; Canyonlands 337,570; Capitol Reef 221,896; Zion 142,462.
Virgin Islands— Virgin Islands 12,295.
Virginia— Shenandoah 190,535.
Washington— Mount Rainier 235,239; North Cascades 503,277; Olympic 892,578.
Wyoming— Grand Teton 305,504; Yellowstone 2,219,737.
National wilderness areas over 6,000 acres
Alabama— Sipsey 12,646.
Alaska— Bering Sea 41,113; Simeonof 25,141; Tuxedni 6,402.
Arizona— Chiricahua National Monument 9,440; Chiricahua 18,000; Galiuro 52,717; Mazatzal 205,137; Mt. Baldy 8,975; Pine Mountain 20,061; Saguaro 71,400; Sierra Ancha 20,850; Superstition 124,117; Sycamore Canyon 47,757.
Arkansas— Caney Creek 14,344; Upper Buffalo 9,912.
California— Agua Tibia 15,934; Caribou 19,080; Cucamonga 9,022; Desolation 63,469; Dome Land 62,206; Emigrant 104,311; Hoover 47,916; Joshua Tree 429,690; John Muir 484,673; Kaiser 22,500; Lava Beds 28,640; Marble Mountain 213,743; Minarets 109,484; Monkelumne 50,400; Pinnacles 12,952; Point Reyes 25,370; San Gabriel 36,137; San Gorgonio 34,644; San Jacinto 20,564; San Refael 142,722; South Warner 68,507; Thousand Lakes 15,695; Ventana 95,152; Yolla Bolly Middle Eel 109,091.
Colorado— Black Canyon of the Gunnison 11,180; Eagles Nest 133,910; Flat Tops 235,230; Great Sand Dunes 33,450; La Garita 48,486; Maroon Bells Snowmass 71,060; Mt. Zirkel 72,472; Rawah 26,674; Weminuche 400,907; West Elk 61,412.
Florida— Bradwell Bay 23,432; Chassahowitzka 23,360; Saint Marks 17,746.
Georgia— Cohutta 33,776; Okefenokee 343,850; Wolf Island 5,126.
Idaho— Craters of the Moon 43,243; Hells Canyon (Oregon) 193,840; Sawtooth 216,383;
Selway-Bitterroot (Montana) 1,240,618.
Louisiana— Breton 5,000+.
Maine— Moosehorn 7,501.
Michigan— Seney 25,150.
Minnesota— Boundary Waters Canoe Area 747,840.
Missouri— Hercules Glades 12,316; Mingo 8,000.
Montana— Anaconda Pintlar 157,803; Bob Marshall 950,000; Cabinet Mountains 94,272; Gates of the Mountain 28,562; Medicine Lake 11,366; Mission Mountains 73,877; Red Rock Lakes 32,350; Scapegoat 239,295; Selway-Bitterroot-U.L. Bend 20,890.
Nevada— Jarbridge 64,667.
New Hampshire— Great Gulf 5,552; Presidential Range Dry River 20,000.
New Jersey— Brigantine 6,603.
New Mexico— Bandolier 23,267; Bosque del Apache 30,850; Gila 433,690; Pecos 167,416; Salt Creek 8,500; San Pedro Parks 41,132; Wheeler Peak 6,027; White Mountain 31,171.
North Carolina— Joyce Kilmer Slickrock 14,033; Linville Gorge 7,575; Shining Rock 13,350; Swanquarter 9,000.
North Dakota— Lostwood 5,577.
Oklahoma— Wichita Mountain 8,900.
Oregon— Diamond Peak 36,637; Eagle Cap 293,476; Gearhart Mountain 18,709; Kalmioposis 76,900; Mountain Lakes 23,071; Mount Hood 14,160; Mount Jefferson 100,208; Mount Washington 46,116; Strawberry Mountain 33,003; Three Sisters 199,902.
South Carolina— Cape Romain 28,000.
South Dakota— Badlands 64,250.
Tennessee— Joyce Kilmer Slickrock (North Carolina).
Vermont— Lye Brook 12,430.
Virginia— James River Face 8,703.
Washington— Alpine Lakes 303,508; Glacier Peak 464,258; Goat Rocks 82,680; Mount Adams 32,356; Pasayten 505,524.
West Virginia— Dolly Sods 10,215; Otter Creek 20,000.
Wisconsin— Rainbow Lake 8,388.
Wyoming— Bridger 392,160; Fitzpatrick 191,103; North Absaroka 351,104; Teton 557,311; Washakie 686,584.
International Parks
New Brunswick, Canada— Roosevelt-Campobello 2,721.
National Memorial Parks
North Dakota— Theodore Roosevelt National Memorial Park 69,671.
1977 CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS IMMEDIATE REGULATORY CHANGES
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency.
Action: Notice.
Summary: This notice informs the public that the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 (Public Law 95-95) made certain immediate changes to the Environmental Protection Agency's procedures concerning the prevention of significant deterioration, the Agency's emission offset Interpretative Ruling and the Agency's tall stack policy. These changes were effective as of August 7, 1977, the date of the enactment of Public Law 95-95.
Effective date: August 7, 1977.
For further information contact: Darryl D. Tyler, Chief, Standards Implementation Branch, Control Programs Development Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency (MD15), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 (919-541-5425).
Supplementary information: The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 added several immediately effective sections to the Clean Air Act dealing with three major topics — significant deterioration, emission offsets and tall stacks. These immediately effective provisions are summarized as follows:
PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD)
(1) The Federal lands described in Section 162(a) are automatically classified as Class I areas.
(2) The new increments found in Section 163(b), for allowable increases in the pollutant concentrations for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide, are now effective. Also, the national ambient air quality standards act as a ceiling for all criteria pollutants. Additionally, the Administrator has determined that since Section 163(a) is integral to the implementation of 163(b), it is effective as of August 7. Section 163(a) provides an allowance that for any period, other than an annual period, the applicable increment may be exceeded during one such period per year at a given site. This allowance does not apply to the variance provisions of Section 165 (d) (2) (C) (iv) or Section 165(d) (2) (D) (iii).
(3) Section 164 is immediately effective. This includes the criteria of Section 164(a) which restrict the reclassification of Class II areas to Class III areas. Also, the provisions of Section 164(b), (c) and (e), which establish redesignation procedures and EPA review criteria are now effective.
(4) The major emitting facilities subject to PSD review under the new requirements are those defined in Section 169 which had not commenced construction (as defined also in Section 169) prior to August 7, 1977.
(5) Until States develop plans to implement the significant deterioration amendments, the Administrator will review preconstruction permit applications according to the preconstruction requirements of Section 165, paragraphs (a) through (d). These paragraphs add new and important review provisions which require public hearings on each permit and expand the pollutants subject to review through the application of best available control technology (BACT). Since Section 165 and the definition of major source in Section 169 are effective immediately, a PSD review for all pollutants regulated under the Act is now required. BACT must be required for any pollutant regulated under the Act if the source has potential emissions of 100 tons per year. The full requirements of Section 165 are applicable for such sources, including public hearings and analysis of associated growth, but not including an increments review for pollutants other than particulate matter and sulfur dioxide.
(6) The Administrator will continue to view PSD sources (now, as newly defined) in nonattainment areas so as to prevent the transport of any emissions which would cause significant deterioration in an affected clean area. Also, until States develop plans to implement the PSD and the nonattainment provisions of the Act, the Administrator will require BACT for all pollutants regulated under the Act for PSD sources in nonattainment areas. Furthermore, if any source in a nonattainment area subject to review under either the PSD or offset procedures would cause or contribute to concentrations exceeding a national ambient air quality standard, it must obtain emission offsets sufficient for a net air quality benefit (i.e., conditions 3 and 4 of the Agency's offset Interpretative Ruling, cited below).
(7) Section 165(d) adds new immediately effective criteria applicable to sources affecting Federal Class I areas. These include criteria for review by Federal Land Managers and variances from the Class I increments.
(8) Effective August 7, 1978, under Section 165(e), one year's continuous air quality monitoring data will be required for PSD permit approval unless the Administrator determines that a shorter monitoring period will suffice to determine whether a facility's emissions will exceed either an allowable increment or concentration.
NONATTAINMENT
Section 129 (a) (1) of the 1977 Amendments changes the baseline for determining offset credit under the Agency's Interpretative Ruling as published in 41 FR 5552430, December 21, 1976: This change establishes the applicable implementation plan of the State, in effect at the time of application for a permit by a proposed major stationary source or facility, as the offset baseline to be used for determination of appropriate emission offsets under the Interpretative Ruling.
STACK HEIGHTS
Section 121 of the 1977 Amendments adds a new section 123 to the Clean Air Act which establishes that the degree of emission limitation required for control of any air pollutant under an applicable implementation plan shall not be affected in any manner by so much of the stack height of any source as exceeds good engineering practice or any other dispersion technique.
These restrictions with certain exceptions are applicable to source stack heights constructed after December 30, 1970. The restriction limits the extent to which stack heights or other dispersion dependent techniques may be considered as a credit against the degree of emission reduction required under Section 110 (including PSD and nonattainment programs) of the Act.
The Administrator will apply the restrictions of this section to all significant deterioration and nonattainment permit reviews for sources which commenced construction after August 6, 1977. Also, the effects of any stack allowed since 1970 beyond the good engineering practice standard must be considered in implementing the PSD and nonattainment programs. This will include consideration of the effects on PSD increment usage and the effects on control strategy requirements of implementation plans for nonattainment areas.
RATIONALE
Since the recent amendments require the implementation of several sections prior to the development of State plans, the Administrator will be required to make immediate decisions regarding the preconstruction review of major emitting facilities. The Administrator considers that the implementation of the above criteria, as of August 7, 1977, is required by the direct language and the intent of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977. To the extent practicable, the Administrator will base the preconstruction review decisions according to the same criteria as will be required once State Implementation Plans are approved to implement the 1977 Amendments.
Section 129 (nonattainment) of the amendments is specific as to its immediate effect. Section 168 (PSD) of the amended Clean Air Act specifically enumerates Sections 162(a), 163(b) and 164(a) as superseding any inconsistent regulations currently in effect. The legislative history identifies a Congressional intent to immediately restrict EPA review of redesignations to a review of the procedures used. Therefore, the Administrator considers that both the review criteria and procedures of 164 (b), (c) and (e) are immediately effective. Also, Section 165 specifically states that the PSD permit requirements of that section apply to any "major emitting facility which is commenced after the date of enactment of this part." The Administrator considers that the intent of Congress in this regard is to insure consistency with the goals of the new increments and classifications to the greatest degree possible. Therefore, paragraph (a) of Section 163 and paragraphs (a) through (d) of Section 165 can and should be immediately implemented. Similarly, the stack height requirements in Section 123 are also immediately effective. To not make the criteria listed in this notice immediately effective would be counter to the intent of the Congress and the obligation of the Administrator to implement the PSD program until such time as the States can develop and implement their own program to prevent significant deterioration.
COMMENTS
EPA encourages all interested parties and the general public to comment on the implementation of these newly effective criteria. As soon as possible, the Agency will promulgate changes to the Federally promulgated regulations of 40 CFR 52 concerning PSD. In addition, EPA will propose regulations, in 40 CFR 51, to guide States in the preparation of appropriate State Implementation Plans. Comments should be addressed to Darryl D. Tyler at the address given in the "Further Information" section.
Authority: (Sections 110(a) (2) (B), 110 (c), 123, 160169, 172, and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410, 7423, 74707479, 7502, and 7601).
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND,
Denver, Colo.,
September 22, 1977.
ALAN MERSON,
Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Denver, Colo.
DEAR MR. MERSON: On September 20, 1977 we contacted Mr. Gary Parish, of your staff,
concerning whether the Homestake Mining Company's Pitch Project, a proposed open mine and mill for producing yellowcake uranium concentrate located in the Gunnison National Forest, Colorado, would be reviewed by EPA pursuant to the new statutory program designed to prevent significant deterioration of air quality (PSD). While the existing PSD regulatory program does not require mining and milling operations such as the proposed Pitch Project, to obtain a PSD preconstruction permit, the Clean Act Amendments of 1977 require all sources, including mining and milling operations "with the potential to emit two hundred and fifty tons per year or more of any pollutant" to obtain a PSD permit.
Mr. Parish indicated that EPA is currently considering whether the preconstruction review requirements of the 1977 Amendments for new major emitting facilities are currently in effect, or whether the more limited existing regulatory program, which, pursuant to section 168 of the Clean Air Act remains temporarily in force, precludes operation of the new PSD preconstruction requirements pending the adoption of state implementation plans (SIP). If the new preconstruction requirements for major emitting facilities do not become operative until a SIP has been approved, major sources regulated under the 1977 Amendments but not under PSD regulations, such as the proposed Pitch Project, would escape PSD review during the interim period. The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) believes that the intent of Congress and the express language of the Amendments clearly require all major emitting facilities on which construction had not commenced prior to the date of enactment of the 1977 Amendments to obtain a PSD preconstruction review permit in accordance with the requirements of the 1977 Amendments.
On August 7, 1977, President Carter signed into law the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977. The Amendments contain a systematic and comprehensive PSD program.
Section 165(a) provides that: No major emitting facility on which construction commenced after the date of enactment of this part may be constructed in any area to which this part applies unless— (1) a permit. has been issued for such proposed facility in accordance with this part. . . .
The term "major emitting facility" includes, inter alia any sources "with the potential to emit two hundred and fifty tons per year or more of any air pollutant." The term "commenced" as applied to the construction of a major emitting facility means that: . . . [T]he owner or operator has obtained all necessary preconstruction approvals or permits required by Federal, State, or local air pollution emissions and air quality laws or regulations and either has (i) begun, or caused to begin, a continuous program of physical onsite construction of the facility or (ii) entered into binding agreements or contractual obligations which cannot be canceled or modified without substantial loss to the owner or operator, to undertake a program of construction of the facility to be completed within a reasonable time.
Under section 168, the existing EPA PSD regulations on preconstruction review remain in effect until such time as an applicable SIP is approved. While this section could be interpreted, if read in isolation from other sections of the 1977 Amendments, to mean that the requirements of section165 do not become effective until a SIP is approved, when the Amendments are read fully and in context the legislative intent to require all new major emitting facilities as defined by the
1977 Amendments to obtain a preconstruction PSD permit is clear. First, section 165(a) flatly states that no major emitting facility on which construction is commenced after the date of enactment of the 1977 Amendments may be constructed without a PSD preconstruction permit. Restricting PSD Review to the more limited list of facilities found in the regulations would clearly violate this section.
Moreover, section 167 provides that: The Administrator shall . . . prevent the construction of a major emitting facility which does not conform to the requirements of this part . . . and which is not subject to an implementation plan which meets the requirements of this part.
Thus, Congress expressly provided for enforcement actions by EPA against new major sources which violate the applicable PSD requirements of the 1977 Amendments prior to the approval of a SIP. In order to ensure that EPA could take the actions required by section 167 against all new major sources required by the 1977 Amendments, Congress must have intended section 165 to be effective at the date of enactment or it would be impossible to determine the impact on air quality of those new major emitting facilities which are not regulated under the existing PSD program.
As will be evident from the following discussion, the proposed Pitch Project is a major emitting. facility on which construction had not commenced prior to the date of enactment of the 1977 Amendments and should be required to obtain a PSD permit.
As we indicated earlier, the proposed Pitch Project is an open pit mine and mill for producing yellowcake uranium concentrate. The project is located approximately five miles south of Monarch Pass, at an elevation between 8,800 and 11,400 feet.
The proposed pit, when completed, will be one of the largest open pits for uranium mining in the western United States, approximately one mile long and 1800 feet wide its widest point. Pit walls will range approximately 100 feet to 700 feet in height. While the current proposal would disturb approximately 535 acres for mining and milling operations, Homestake holds "under claim and lease" approximately 26,300 additional acres in the area of the proposed project, and the currently proposed pit will not be able to supply sufficient uranium ore for the proposed milling operation.
The proposed project will degrade air quality by increasing ambient concentrations of particulates, sulfur oxides, ammonia, and radioactive materials. Fugitive dust loading (particulates) from the proposed project alone will exceed 250 tons per year. The Colorado Air Pollution Control Division issued two fugitive dust and six emission permits for the proposed Pitch Project in August 26, 1977, approximately three weeks after the date of enactment of the 1977 Amendments.
Moreover, Homestake has not yet applied for or received a permit for the suspended particulates which will be released from the proposed uranium mill tailings piles.
Homestake also has not obtained the required reclamation permit from the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board, and the United States Forest Service. United states Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the State of Colorado are currently preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) on the proposed Pitch Project pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 prior to the issuance of the license for radioactive materials which is required for the milling operation.
There are several practical reasons for EPA to review the proposed Pitch Project pursuant to the PSD provisions of the 1977 Amendments. First, the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division (Division) appears to be technically incapable of analyzing and developing abatement measures to mitigate the air quality impacts associated with uranium mining and milling operations. For example, the Division has not required Homestake to obtain a fugitive dust permit for any component of the milling operation. As a partial justification for this position, the Division's Director, William Auberle, has stated that: . . . Homestake has indicated to the Division that the first phase of the operation of the tailings pond would be entirely under water. . . . In the event the tailings pond should become a source of fugitive dust, as determined by our enforcement section, then a permit would be required.
The Division's lack of understanding of the fugitive dust loading associated with uranium mill tailings is self-evident. Their position is the equivalent of not requiring an emission permit for a fossil fuel steam electric generating station until the facility goes on line, since the boiler is not an air contamination source until fired.
As EPA has correctly recognized: [R]eleases from uranium milling operations include air borne particulates and vapor. Dusts containing uranium and uranium daughter products (thorium230 and radium226) are released from ore piles, the tailing retention system, and ore crushing and grinding ventilation system (emphasis added.)
And as the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently stated:
The principal impact on air quality resulting from [uranium] mill operations will be an increase in suspended particulates originating from the tailings piles. The fugitive dust from the piles will be raised and carried by the prevailing winds. Although this dust will consist of particulates larger than those in road dust, the conservative assumption is made that it will be dispersed in a similar manner (emphasis added).
A more complete analysis of the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division's apparent inability to regulate adequately uranium mining and milling operations is found in EDF's "Comments on Homestake Mining Company's Applications to the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division for Emission Permits for the Pitch Project" (August 4, 1977).
A second reason EPA should review the proposed Pitch Project is the expected proliferation of uranium mining and milling operations in areas adjacent to the proposed Pitch Project. An EPA determination that section 165 of the Clean Air Act is not currently effective would allow these operations to escape PSD review if they "commence construction" prior to the approval of Colorado's SIP revisions. This could result in the significant deterioration of air quality in the scenic area adjacent to Monarch Pass resulting in adverse economic impacts associated with a reduction in tourism.
We appreciate your prompt consideration of this matter. If you should have any questions regarding our position, do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
MOHAMED ELASHRY, Ph.D.
DAVID MASTBAUM, Esq.
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
Denver, Colo.,
September 15, 1977.
Mr. DAVID MASTBAUM,
Environmental Defense Fund,
Denver, Colo.
DEAR MR. MASTBAUM: The Air Pollution Control Division has completed its review of your letter of August 4, 1977 regarding the Homestake Mining Company's Pitch Project. As you may recall from the Air Pollution Control Commission meeting of August 25, 1977, the Division indicated that your concerns regard the Pitch Project were answered in the body of the complete Homestake application package. This information is available for public inspection upon receipt of a proper request. The applicant's submission contained, in part, the following data:
(1) Type of material being processed is uranium ore.
(2) The mill may process up to 600 tons per day of uranium ore.
(3) Maximum annual operating schedule, 260 days per year.
(4) Control equipment to be installed includes a scrubber and baghouse.
The project was also reviewed for fugitive dust emissions. Two reports prepared under EPA contract by PEDCo are used by the Division to assess fugitive dust. These reports are "Investigation of Fugitive Dust Sources, Emissions and Control", May 1973, EPA Contract 68020044, Task Order 9; and "Investigation of Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards Colorado", September 1973, EPA Contract 68020044, Task Order 16. These documents may be obtained through EPA, Region VIII. The PEDCo reports provided the emission factors and control efficiencies used by the Division in their analysis. The applicant's analysis is substantially in agreement with the analysis prepared by the Division.
Through consultation and in writing, Homestake has indicated to the Division that the first phase of the operation of the tailings pond would be entirely underwater.
Homestake's letter to the Division of August 18, 1977 outlined an operating procedure that is acceptable to the Division. In the event the tailings pond should become a source of fugitive dust, as determined by our enforcement section, then a permit would be required.
It is not the privilege or responsibility of the Division to address concerns beyond the statutory limits as set forth in the Colorado Air Pollution Control Commission's regulations. Therefore, further review involving radiological health impact of the tailings pond is not within our purview. The Radiological Health Division will address this concern within their permit review process, and expanded coordination of our processes has been instituted.
We sincerely appreciate the concern shown by the Environmental Defense Fund on this protect and urge you to continue monitoring the activities of the responsible regulatory agencies. If we can be of further assistance in providing information on the Pitch Project, please contact us.
Sincerely,
WILLIAM M. AUBERLE,
Director, Air Pollution Control Division.
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
Denver, Colo.,
August 3, 1977.
Mr. MARCUS ROWDEN,
Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR COMMISSIONER ROWDEN: The State of Colorado, over the years, has been impacted by several AEC sponsored nuclear projects including the Rulison and Rio Blanco underground gas stimulation projects, the Rocky Flats plutonium facility, the Fort St. Vrain Reactor, and, probably the one that has had the greatest impact of all, the uranium milling industry. There is widespread feeling here in Colorado that because of the drain on State resources resulting from these projects, Federal assistance has been minimal and this subject should be seriously addressed regarding exiting facilities and most surely new proposed facilities.
The purpose of this letter is to request NRC assistance in the preparation, review, and analysis of the impact of the expanding uranium development in Colorado, both from the regional and Statewide aspect. As you know, one such proposed development is the Homestake Pitch Project. It is our feeling that this project will have long term implications in uranium mining and milling activities in a region that is one of almost pristine quality. In addition, other inquiries have been received for locating milling operations in other locations in Colorado. Of primary concern are those projects related to in situ leaching methods.
Because of the magnitude of the effort to review and analyze the necessary information on each of these protects, it is the State of Colorado's position that a broad, almost generic, study and analysis be made of uranium industry development in Colorado.
This Federal-State problem is one of great concern. As an Agreement State who entered into agreement with the US AEC in 1968, before the NEPA was promulgated, no provision was made to staff such a capability within the program. For NRC to require an EIS in a non-agreement state, but to ignore this requirement in Agreement States, questions the basic need for the EIS process as a tool for careful, meaningful, and informed decision making. Certainly it appears that Agreement State programs become incompatible with NRC's program as a result.
Additionally, the Negative Declaration was based on an Environmental Assessment Report of limited scope. The EAR did not cover problems of the Pitch Project relating to radioactivity. Also, the EAR was based on an early conceptual plan put forward by Homestake and does not assess Homestake's plans as they stand at the present. The Negative Declaration also cited a lack of public controversy surrounding the Project. This lack of controversy may be explained by the fact that the Negative Declaration came more than six months before the Environmental Report assembled by Dames and Moore for Homestake. The absence of public knowledge or understanding about the Project resulted in the lack of controversy. In recent months, significant public controversy has been generated as more information became available to the public. My office, the Department of Natural Resources, and the Governor's office have received a number of letters from environmental groups and private citizens expressing concern over the possible impacts of the Project. Also, there are indications that there may be a number of additional uranium mines and/or mills within 50–100 miles of the Pitch Project. The proliferation of these operations is likely to have a profound impact on both Federal and private lands in the area. Therefore, it is essential that the U.S. Forest Service, NRC, the State, and local governments work together to assess the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of these operations and to devise the necessary mitigating measures.
It is interesting to note the joint effort accomplished by the NRC, the Forest Service and the Department of Interior in preparing the Bear Creek Project uranium mill EIS in our neighboring state of Wyoming, a non-agreement state. In the interest of a uniform regulatory approach to uranium milling and other Agreement State-related programs in the Nation, it is necessary that the NRC assist the State in its license application and review of projects that are clearly considered a major Federal action or for other reasons require preparation of an EIS under the NEPA.
The Forest Service has indicated that they would be willing to work with Colorado and NRC in preparing an Environmental Impact Statement on this project.
We would appreciate meeting with you at an early date to discuss the situation and attempt to cooperatively set out a program that is responsible to both of our agencies' needs.
Sincerely,
(For Anthony Robbins, MD., MPA., Executive Director) .