June 9,1977
Page 18157
Mr. MUSKIE. There are a great many other values in clean air areas to be protected, Mr. President — and let me put it on economic grounds, not air quality grounds. If we want maximum growth in those areas — maximum growth — we have to make sure that the air resource is protected as we grow so that there can be additional growth. And if you let the first polluters who come in take it all, there goes your growth.
If they want a 3,000 megawatt power plant to swallow up one corner of the air resource of the State of Utah, that is their prerogative, if we do not have that bill. But is it a wise route to take? That 3,000 megawatt plant can be built under the committee bill if they are sited to take into account the air quality impact of it; if they will use best available technology. All the committee bill asks those who want growth in this country to do is to consider the consequences of the decisions as they know them, to operate within some reasonable restraints. I submit, the list I read into the RECORD a moment ago is pretty illustrative of the great potential for growth. Take into account the impact on people and other air quality values; then you can do it.
This is not an anti-growth bill. It is a pro-growth, pro-air quality, pro-balanced economic considerations bill. That is what it is.
I heard these Senators coming on the floor, and I understand they have not been involved in development of the bill as we have been. But I say to them, "Gentlemen, you pick up a piece of propaganda from this source, you pick up a distorted piece of information from another; you swallow the strangest things to bring this here as a premise for arguments that have no relation to the bill that I have ever heard."
I find it incredible. But let us take the conservative end of the committee — Senators McCLURE, DOMENICI, STAFFORD.
Does anyone think those fellows would bring a bill to this floor which is designed to repeal growth and civilization? I wish they would read the transcript of our markups. They might learn something about what we were trying to do, and maybe get a little perspective on the result we produced.
I do not expect the Senate, at any time, to rubberstamp what I bring out of a committee. But I expect them to pay some attention to what the bill does. There has been little of that consideration on the floor of the Senate this afternoon.
If I have any time left, I yield it back.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?
Mr. BENTSEN. There is no time left on the amendment.
The Senator from Alaska has 3 minutes.
Mr. STEVENS. I wish to yield 11/2 of those to my good friend from Louisiana to talk about the fairy tale.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, my good friend from Maine just characterized the Stevens amendment and my description of it in such a way that I totally did not recognize it. Let us make one thing very clear: The Stevens amendment does not permit pollution without limit. Do you know what it permits, Mr. President? It permits people, in class 1 pristine areas, to go to 25 percent of the health standard. In other words, you are only one-fourth of the way that you would have to go to get to a dangerous area. That is what it permits. That is not pollution without limit.
In a class 2 area, it permits 50 percent of that health standard. Not 50 percent all the time or not 25 percent all the time, but those percentages on only 18 days a year. Any pollution within a day counts as a whole day.
Mr. President, my good friend from Maine says that they should not let that 3,000 megawatt plant out in Utah take up all the air quality. Do you know what the alternative to that is? To build 10 30,000 megawatt plants or 100 3,000 megawatt plants, or else not to have the electricity.
That is where the real rub comes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I have only a minute and a half.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's minute and a half has expired.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order in the galleries and may we have order among the aides of the Senators who are on the floor, and who are here to help and be seen, not to be heard?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's point is well taken. Let there be order.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Louisiana has—
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is not recognized. The Senators on the floor will not converse.
The Senator may proceed.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, as my gocd friend from Louisiana stated, this is a very slight modification of some very rigid standards to permit some legal way to bring about the utilization of land such as exists in my State. My good friend from Maine characterizes those outlines on that map of Alaska as fairy tales. Those areas, some of them, may become wilderness areas pursuant to later acts of Congress. That will be a battle we shall have later on this year and early next year.
But the point I made is right. That is that if these areas are classified as class II the Native people of Alaska and the State of Alaska, will be precluded from any utilization of their lands unless there is some modest give in this bill in the areas where there is, in fact, pristine air.
Now, we want to keep the air as pure as possible. But, at the same time, I think it would be really the worst and the crassest case of flagrant action by the Congress to have given Alaskan Native people 40 million acres, and they have selected primarily land with high potential for resource development, and turn around and say, "No, as soon as we make these other areas wilderness, you can't do anything because you will be liable to impact the pristine air over them under the Clean Air Act."
I think this kind of leeway of shifting from class 1 to class 2, from 2 to 25 percent of the health standard, and then from 25 to 50 percent in terms of class 2 areas, is a very modest thing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
All time has expired. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. CRANSTON. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield time to the Senator from California to bring up some questions which he had asked to do on the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mr. CRANSTON. I thank the Senator very much.
Mr. President, the amendment under discussion, as I understand it, is similar to the Breaux amendment approved by the House of Representatives. It would allow violation of class I standards for 5 percent of the year — 18 days.
This amendment has been promoted, in part, as the solution to the problems of a particular power plant, the Intermountain power project in the State of Utah. I am interested in this plan, because it would provide a significant new source of electricity for the municipal utilities in southern California.
The amendment would solve the problems of the IPP, but unfortunately it would also do much more — according to the Administrator of EPA, Douglas Costle, the pending amendment would have the effect of increasing the maximum allowable emissions of sulfur oxides and particulates by as much as a factor of 10 and would allow the construction of large industrial and energy facilities close to class I areas — our national parks and wilderness areas.
It would, in short, gut the provision in the committee bill for the prevention of significant deterioration.
I am therefore, opposed to the amendment.
However, I am concerned about the situation as it impacts on the Intermountain power project specifically and generally on those other proposed new coal-fired electrical generating facilities
which we will need to build if we are to increase our reliance on coal and reduce our reliance on oil and gas.
I would, therefore, like to ask the distinguished floor manager a few questions about the relative flexibility of the committee's provisions for the prevention of significant deterioration.
First, it is my understanding that there is flexibility in the committee bill — that the class I standards are not absolute prohibitions. I wonder if the subcommittee chairman could expand on that point?
Mr. MUSKIE. The bill provides for consideration at the request of those who seek to build a facility, consideration of approval notwithstanding the failure to meet class 1 increments on the basis that, nevertheless, air quality values will not be damaged.
If I may quote from the committee report more specifically, it reads as follows:
If, on the other hand, the permit applicant demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the Federal land manager, that there would be no unacceptable, adverse impact on the air quality related values of the class I Federal lands, notwithstanding the fact that the class I increments would be exceeded, the State may issue the permit.
In other words, there is a process provided for the consideration of permits notwithstanding the fact that class 1 increments may be violated.
Mr. CRANSTON. I thank the Senator.
That is very responsive and helpful. I would also like to ask this.
I understand that studies have shown that very large coal-fired electrical generating facilities can be built without violating the class II standards. If this is the case, am I correct in saying that the true issue for future power plants is the siting issue? In other words, it is simply a matter of finding a suitable site which does not impact on the class I areas?
Mr. MUSKIE That is correct. The EPA studied, as I understand it, 74 such plants and found all of them could be properly sited in a clean air area.
Because of siting, the fears that are raised here are beside the point.
What we are trying to do here is direct the placement of economic activity, the siting of it, in such a way as to take into account and avoid damage to air quality values.
It is for that reason we provided that flexible procedure to which the Senator and I have just referred, as well as taking into account the size of the facilities that can be installed.
In my State, there is not a powerplant existing today that could not be duplicated in clean air areas.
There is not a paper plant, and we have some of the biggest in the country, that could not be duplicated, subject only to the question of examination of site in terms of air quality values.
So we can permit a great deal.
Mr. CRANSTON. I thank the Senator very much for that clarification. Let me just finally cover another point.
The committee bill allows even for those instances in which the class I increments are exceeded.
If the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Federal land manager that there would be no adverse impact on the air quality related values of the class I area, the State may still issue the permit.
In this connection. I would like to share with the Senate a letter I received from the Secretary of the Interior on this point.
In this letter he points out, just to summarize, that in addition to his responsibilities for protecting our national parks and other public lands, he also has equal responsibility for promoting the efficient development of federally owned coal.
He also promises his cooperation with the IPP project and others to expedite the location of environmentally suitable sites for new industrial and energy facilities.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, D.C.,
June 7, 1977.
Hon. ALAN CRANSTON,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR CRANSTON: I am deeply concerned about Congressional action to revise the Clean Air Act and how this action will affect my responsibilities for management of lands and resources held by the Federal Government for the benefit of all our people. In formulating my views on S. 252's provisions, I am guided by the principle that we should develop and use our energy resources where needed, but in a manner that will provide the full level of environmental protection that our citizens have a right to expect.
Of immediate concern are provisions for Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality (PSD). I am charged to preserve and protect the natural, scenic and primitive values of national parks and wilderness areas. In my opinion it is essential that the PSD provision to protect air quality in these areas be as effective as that voted out of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Many of the national parks and other pristine wilderness lands, especially those in the spectacularly scenic southwest, continue to be threatened by the development of large stationary sources of air pollution that may virtually destroy the natural and scenic values these areas presently possess. The President and I strongly support clean air legislation that will adequately protect these, the most important of this nation's land resources, from this kind of ruinous damage.
As the manager of our public lands, I am also charged by the Congress with the conservation and development of our economic natural resources and with providing for the use of public lands such that the national public interest is served. An important portion of my responsibilities concerns the efficient developmnt of federally-owned coal and its effective use to serve the nation's energy needs.
I am convinced that we can strike a course that will satisfy both objectives — preservation of pristine Federal lands and intelligent development of energy potential. Studies done by the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) and the Federal Energy Administration (FEA) offer strong argument for such a conclusion. One existing situation which presents a problem in this regard is the location of the Intermountain Power Project (IPP) 3,000 M.W. plant just nine miles from Capitol Reef National Park. I think we must recognize that this site, so close to a national park, presents very serious difficulties. In view of these, every effort must be made to find alternative locations that will assure protection of the environment. Project proponents did evaluate other sites slightly more distant from national parklands prior to identification of the present preferred alternative, the Salt Wash site. No consideration was given to impacts on air quality or upon parklands in the evaluation of any of the alternatives. The sole environmental constraint was the avoidance of visual impact of the plant on traffic on Utah Route 24. In order to find a suitable location for IPP our Bureau of Land Management is presently working with Utah and IPP proponents toward the expeditous development of a coordinated plan, taking into consideration the availability of coal and water resources and clean air areas, to enable timely plant development, while protecting air quality within pristine Federal lands. The planning promises to facilitate, on a regional scale, the efficient development of the energy resources in central Utah thus accommodating the IPP project and possibly others with acceptable environmental impacts.
Again, let me assure you that I am committed to finding environmentally acceptable alternatives for energy development. A general weakening of S. 252's PSD provisions is not, however, the right way to do this. The present Senate Committee PSD provision for strongest limitation on new or modified sources in or adjacent to areas designated as pristine provides the proper framework for protection of air quality in these areas and also lays the foundation for proper, environmentally sound, location of large point sources of air pollution. All indications at present show this to hold true for the 3,000 M.W. IPP plant if the Senate Committee version of PSD is enacted into law.
If the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 are weakened with a PSD provision similar to the Breaux Amendment included in the House bill, the way would be cleared for the systematic deterioration in air quality within important pristine Federal lands and resultant destruction of the values that presently make these areas important to this nation. Air quality throughout the country would also be permitted to deteriorate.
This deterioration should not be underestimated. Pollutants directly regulated by the PSD provision could increase from four to about 10 times the amounts that would otherwise be permitted. Such an increase would be accompanied by a comparable increase in other emissions such as the oxides of nitrogen which adversely affect scenic and esthetic values. These impacts would be especially felt in the southwest where long distance vistas are critically important to appreciating this region's spectacular natural features and enjoying its recreation values.
I urge that you support passage of a strong PSD provision to protect national parks and wilderness areas and oppose modifications such as the Breaux Amendment if offered on the Senate floor.
Sincerely,
CECIL D. ANDRUS, Secretary.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator.
I would like to read a paragraph from that letter:
If the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 are weakened with a PSD provision similar to the Breaux Amendment included in the House bill, the way would be cleared for the systematic deterioration in air quality within important pristine Federal lands and resultant destruction of the values that presently make these areas important to this nation. Air quality throughout the country would also be permitted to deteriorate.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that another letter from the Secretary of the Interior be printed in the RECORD, in which he endorses the committee version of nondegradation provisions.
There being no objections, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, D.C.,
June 8,1977.
Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
Dear SENATOR MUSKIE: I wish to reemphasize the Administration's support for a strong Prevention of Significant Deterioration in Air Quality (PSD) provision in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977.
I recommend that the Senate preserve the type of strong PSD provision as was voted out of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works for strongest limitations on new or modified sources in or adjacent to areas designated as pristine and reject the weakening of the PSD provision as was done in the House of Representatives on May 25. This weakened provision would permit relaxation of Class I and Class II protection by allowing maximum pollution increments to be exceeded 5 percent of the time. In effect, this would result in higher levels of air pollution in and around parks all of the time. In my view, if the present House of Representatives version of PSD in this area becomes law, the unique scenic and natural values of nationally significant parklands and wilderness areas will be put in unacceptable jeopardy.
The premier values of our national parks and wilderness areas are held in high regard by the Nation, and high standards for protecting these values have been set down in numerous Acts of Congress. I recommend that the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 likewise contain high air quality standards for these most important of our Nation's natural areas.
I understand that one of the principal reasons behind the recent amendment to the House PSD provision was to permit flexibility in the siting of large fossil-fueled power plants and enable their development in the immediate vicinity of national parks. It is obvious that the exercise of this flexibility would virtually destroy the purpose of Class I status and would result in the imposition of degraded air quality on supposedly protected areas.
This Department has now before it a number of proposals for the location of fossil-fueled power plants or for ancillary development directly related to plant development. An example is the Intermountain Power Project in southern Utah. The primary site, proposed by the project proponents, is on public land in the immediate vicinity of Capitol Reef National Park. From the results of preliminary air pollution studies done for the project, we have an indication of the plant's potential impacts on the park. This project would depend for its operation on millions of tons of federally owned coal and would require permits and rights-of-way from the Department of the Interior for mine sites, the power plant site, transmission systems, and water delivery systems.
The President has instructed me to review all existing and potential Federal coal leases, to assure that any development of federally owned coal takes place only under circumstances that provide adequate environmental protection. In carrying out the President's instructions and in the exercise of my responsibilities as Secretary of the Interior, I will take into consideration the impacts that the Intermountain Power Project and that other plants in similar circumstances would have on the air quality within pristine Federal lands. I will take appropriate actions to ensure that the unique natural values of these lands are properly protected.
We believe that the PDS provision adopted by the Senate committee for the protection of certain national parks and wilderness areas will not only provide protection from deteriorating air quality for the identified Class I areas, but it also lays the foundation for the orderly planning and development of coal-burning power plants. This Department will cooperate with the States, the utility companies, and all other parties in expediting the exercise of those Federal responsibilities involved in the development of plants sited where plant operations do not meet appropriate environmental standards.
I vigorously recommend that the Senate and the Conference Committee preserve a strong PSD provision to ensure that our national parks and wilderness areas receive the highest possible protection for deteriorated air quality.
Sincerely,
CECIL D. ANDRUS, Secretary.
Mr. McCLURE Will the Senator yield?
Mr. CRANSTON. Surely.
Mr. McCLURE: I thank the Senator.
In all candor, I think we should understand what the floor bill means and does not mean, what we can say about it and what we cannot say about it. There is no definition in the bill about air quality related values for which the area is created, there is no such definition of that language.
I will leave it to speculation, as we had to leave it, as to the air quality related values for which the area is created, what that may mean.
Let me also say that in regard to an analogy which was used by the Senator from Maine earlier in regard to a 3,000 megawatt plant in Utah, it would be the opinion of the Senator from Idaho that the air quality related values for which national park areas were created would make it impossible to build a 3,000 megawatt plant in southern Utah.
The question is then with respect to the comments and the questions of the Senator from California in regard to plant siting.
We might be, able to mine the coal in southern Utah — and I think that is a question on which I do not have enough competence to answer — and transport it to some other point at which it would be located in order that the electricity could then be transported to California, but I do not think it would be possible to mine and to burn the southern Utah coal in southern Utah under the provisions of this bill.
Certainly, the Federal land manager does not have a veto over the decision of the plant siting, but he certainly has a very, very large influence.
As I read the letter from Secretary Andrus on this subject, he is saying, "There ain't going to be no such plant in southern Utah." The Senator can read the language in whatever way he wishes, but I have read that language, and I think that is the very clear implication.
Let us at least understand what the bill says and what it does not say, as we vote on it. As the Senator from Maine has indicated, the Senator from Idaho has supported this bill, and I wish to continue to support the bill; but I can do so only upon my perception of what the bill does.
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me follow through on that.
It is not the intent of the Senator from Maine to distort what the bill says. The bill does not say that IPP can be built; neither does it say that it cannot be built. What the bill says is that when you consider such a proposal — and I have personal ideas about whether or not a 3,000 megawatt bill is a good thing, but that is aside from the point. The point is that you take into account siting, which involves terrain, which, if you are near a national park, involves air quality values.
It is a little difficult for a committee writing a bill in 1977 to try to go back in history and establish for the first time the air quality values that resulted in the creation of Glacier National Park or the Arcadia National Park in Maine, and so forth. But I think there are some rather obvious values, and the case would be made on an ad hoc basis, I would think.
So, of course, the act needs to be implemented. The act does not contain the decisions we are talking about. Most of the debate this afternoon suggested that it did, that it vetoed any possibility of some major industrial activities, which it does not do.
In so many terms, it says that before you site such activities you have to take air quality values into account. If you consider maximum advantage of economies of scale, you have to assume that you have to spread out and that you cannot concentrate. That, I think, is implicit in the nondegradation provisions.
Mr. McCLURE. I think the Senator also will agree with me that, although the law does not specifically say that you cannot do certain things in certain areas with regard to certain plants, a fair interpretation of the bill indicates that its effects are reasonably projectable. Some are not. Some are conjectural. But some can reasonably be inferred from the language of the bill.
I know that the Federal land manager of the Grand Canyon National Park has gone on record as saying that the Kapairowitz plant may impinge upon the air quality related values for which that park was created. Whether he is right or wrong is perhaps subject to some question, but I do not think it can be denied that he already has stated it, because he has stated it
Whether or not that would control what might happen is another matter, and there I have to look to Secretary Andrus' letter on this subject to determine what he would say, and he would say that, in that event, the plant would not be built.
Yes, I am conjecturing, and I am going outside the language of the bill in order to draw these conclusions; but the Senator from Idaho has to say, in all candor, that those are conclusions I would draw from that set of circumstances.
The second thing which I think the Senator from Maine will agree with is that modeling becomes the name of the game; that how you construct the air shed models becomes the determining factor, and that we do not even know as yet.
So we are taking something on faith. We are making the best judgment we can, without knowing what those models are going to show, without knowing what the science of modeling will do, without knowing what effects it may have on specific questions. I am not suggesting that because we do not know, we should not legislate. I am just saying that I do not think people who are for the bill or people who are against the bill can state with certainty that we know what its effects will be, because we do not know with respect to specific site situations, on specific plants, and under specific conditions. I suspect that it will take us a little while to find out.
Mr. MUSKIE. Of course. A piece of legislation that has this serious and broadbased impact, because it tries to deal with that big a problem, cannot be anticipated fully. I have seen some very simple pieces of legislation with which I have been involved twisted around so that their legislative intent was 180 degrees away from what I thought it was when I was involved in the writing of the bill.
I think the best we can do is to try to define the broad parameters of what it is.
Of course, if we are to deal at all with the regulation of economic activity in clean air areas and are to avoid the mistakes that plague the dirty areas of this country, there are going to be some restrictions. I am not going to suggest that there are not. I would not want the Senator to believe that there are not. But to conclude that they are goingto be as horrendous as some of the claims made on the floor in the course of this debate is something that I challenge.
I live in a State that needs growth, too. I cannot go back to my State and say that I am against growth in Maine. So I have examined this matter very carefully, and I have been put under examination by important Maine industries and important Maine unions, to insure that I shall not lock the door on growth.
So if the Senator from Alaska thinks I did not examine that question carefully in terms of my own political skirts, he is wrong. I looked at this carefully.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I will yield as soon as I finish unwinding.
Mr. STEVENS. I agreed to a time limit of 20 minutes to a side.
Mr. MUSKIE. We have not been talking on the bill; we have been philosophizing.
Mr. STEVENS. I believe that the sponsors of the amendment are accused of being crazy and of being on a fairy tale trail, and other things.
I am sure that the Senator from Maine would want me to respond to that last comment.
Mr. MUSKIE. How much time does the Senator desire?
Mr. STEVENS. A few minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Be my guest.
Mr. STEVENS. In all sincerity, we tried to study the committee bill. We have tried to understand the bill and what motivates the concept that there cannot be any relaxation in terms of these national standards in areas where there is no development.
The Senator is right: If we want to go to the dirty air areas, this bill does not do a lot for them.
But if you want to go to the areas that are still trying to come into the 20th century, such as the Alaska Native villages or to the rural areas — I was just in Haines, in Skagway, where they are trying to develop the iron ore potential of Alaska.
The trouble with my friend is that he refuses to accept the concept that those of us who seek merely a slight deviation from a very rigid standard somehow or other put on a different pattern. I hope that is not what he really means, and I hope he understands that we are seeking a very small deviation from the standard his bill has set, not more than 5 percent per year.
Mr. MUSKIE. I say to the Senator that for me to agree that it is slight, in the light of what I know to the contrary, would be an abdication of my responsibility to the Senate. It is not slight. The Senator has used that word over and over again in connection with this amendment. It undercuts the bill.
Mr. STEVENS. How does it undercut it?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator can continue to argue it.
Mr. STEVENS. We are not going to go 2 percent to 25 percent of the health limitations. We are still within 25 percent of what is a national health standard.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator keeps going back to the primary standards that are applicable to dirty areas, as though that is all we need to do by way of protecting air quality related values. It maybe that that is all he wants to do, but that is not all I want to do. There are other public interest values that are threatened, in addition to health. If there were not, I would move to repeal—
Mr. STEVENS. Name some. We are talking about health standards.
Mr. MUSKIE. We are not talking about health standards. We are talking about health and welfare.
When the Senator talks about applying his amendment to the nondegradation areas of this country, he is talking about standards above those set on a health basis for the nonattainment areas of the dirty air areas of this country — for reasons that the committee has found very good and that I have repeated many times during the last few days; not too many times, because they have appeared to escape the Senator's attention. There are air qualities in addition to health that need attention.
Forget the Senator's State, if he does not care about them. But in my State there are other air quality values. What the Senator is doing with his amendment is eliminating protection for those values, in my considered judgment.
Mr. STEVENS. I hope the Senate does not confirm the Senator's judgment, because it means that for not more than 18 days a year or any part of a day, you could have a slippage from class 1 to class 2 in the areas affected by things just like that, by the manager of a Federal area telling the State of Alaska or telling the Natives of Alaska or telling people in Utah, outside of a national park, what they can and cannot do. This would say that the Governor can hold a hearing and allow up to 18 days, or a part thereof, to have a slippage from class 1 to class 2 or down to 50 percent of the national standard.
I do not see that that is such a substantial thing that ought to be so viewed that the Senator has lost his mind. That is what the Senator is implying, and I really do not think I have. I think I know what I am doing, and I think the House knew what it was doing when the House adopted this amendment.
I do not understand why it was that the committee refused to allow any leeway despite the statement, incidentally, of both parties in the Senate which they have put out in the form of statements saying there should be some modest changes in the clean air standards in order to achieve the energy goals, as the Senator from Louisiana said.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? If I have to choose between a judgment that I lost my mind or the Senator has lost his mind, I have no difficulty, you know, in making the choice really.
I do not accuse, and I do not think either one of us has lost his mind, but we are not communicating very well.
This is a very technical business we are involved in, picking out the 5 percent in a year, monitoring all these sources of pollution. In monitoring these areas, we have inadequate monitoring data now to really give us adequate information on ambient air quality. We are going to use some complicated monitoring system that is not available to any degree in my understanding.
But the primary impact of the 18-day variance, that 5 percent variance, would be to greatly increase the maximum pollutant concentration allowed within each significant deterioration classification. It increases the maximum allowed because if the power plant or the industry can choose the time, that would be the measure of its performance. If it chooses that 5 percent period, whatever it is, if you can identify it and monitor it, then that would increase the maximum pollutant concentration allowed within each significant deterioration classification.
In areas of flat or moderate terrain the variance amendment would allow maximum emissions of sulfur oxides and total suspended particulates to be 2 to 4 times higher than the PSD provision without the variance, 2 to 4 times higher.
In areas of elevated terrain, maximum emissions could increase by as much as a factor of 10. Therefore—
Mr. STEVENS. I admit that.
Mr. MUSKIE. Therefore—
Mr. STEVENS. Not to exceed 18 days.
Mr. MUSKIE. Therefore, maximum allowable plant sizes, which will not exist for only 18 days, could increase from 4 to 10 times because the fact is that you measure what is going on by way of air pollution problems in terms of the peak times, and you would flatten them out with non-problem times. If you let the plant go up to a higher level but ignore it then you have eliminated the problem which should be the restraint on the plant. That is the problem.
Mr. STEVENS. Again would the Senator address the question. I admit we are going from 2 percent to 25 percent. But the standard of 100 percent was established in the existing community of the United States. Of course, that is more than 10 times an increase to go from 2 percent to 25 percent.
Mr. MUSKIE. Sure.
Mr. STEVENS. But it is only 18 days maximum a year, and really it comes about because of prevailing winds in terms of the class1 and class 2 areas, in terms of activities outside of class 1 and class 2 areas where the prevailing winds always in Utah or my State are going to carry those days across into these pristine areas.
There is no problem about the area outside of the class 1, class 2.
Mr. MUSKIE.If the Senator took the 18 worst days out of Washington's year, he would conclude that Washington has no air pollution problem.
Does that satisfy the Senator? And with no air pollution problem then there should be no constraints on what you build here or how many automobiles travel here. If you are going to measure the degree of the problem by the best days, exclude from your count the 18 days when the problem is at its worst—
Mr. STEVENS. I am not excluding them. I am giving the Governor the power to hold a hearing and to determine if it is in the interests of that State that he have a waiver of up to a portion or all of 18 days out of the year in order to protect the economy and, at the same time the health, safety, and life of the people of his State.
This is not an automatic waiver, and everything the Senator from Maine says presumes that every Governor is going to give the full, maximum 18 days on every occasion.
This is merely an authorization to waive up to 18 days, and the Senator knows it. That is the unfair thing to state that it is automatically going to wipe the board clean, and we are going to have this thing happen all the time because of the power of the Governor to hold a hearing and issue this kind of a waiver in his particular circumstances.
Mr. MUSKIE. So the Senator—
Mr. STEVENS. This is a different amendment, and I do not think the Senator has read my amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, I did.
Mr. STEVENS. He said that I have not read the bill. Believe me, we are talking about another amendment. I am talking about the Stevens amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, I read the amendment, I read about the 18 days.
The interesting thing is now maybe I have impressed the Senator that there may be some basis for my fears — can he point out the basis of escaping my fears?
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator's fears are unfounded.
Mr. MUSKIE. Then you do not need the Governor?
An exemption for 18 days of the year — approximately 5 percent of the year — virtually eliminates any of the air quality protection provided by the nondegradation increments scheme. The opponents of the nondegradation provision last year attempted to eliminate or suspend the entire provision. That failed by an overwhelming vote — 31 to 63. It appears that this year the opponents of this provision will propose amendments that appear less damaging but in actuality cut the heart out of the nondegradation provision and leave no protection for air quality.
Where air quality values would not be adversely affected by emissions greater than the class I increments allow, the Senate bill already provides a flexible mechanism to allow approval of such projects. The owner of the proposed source may apply for approval to construct in such a case, and if the Governor and the Federal Land Manager agree that air quality would not be adversely affected, then the plant can receive approval. This is a flexible system based on the analysis of the specific land area and project. To put in place a more rigid, destructive, and difficult to implement exemption system is unnecessary and unwise.
Exempting 18 days — 5 percent of the year — would allow an increase in total emissions of up to 400 in flat areas and 1,000 percent in rugged terrain. If average daily visibility were 70 miles, then on the exempted 18 days, visibility could decline to 19 miles. It would also decline substantially for the entire year. The allowable plant size would be increased by 4 to 10 times by this seemingly small exemption.
How could what appears to be a small exemption have such a large effect on air quality, total emissions, and expanded plant size? An 18-day, 5-percent exemption has the effect of allowing a huge increase in pollution. This occurs because all air quality control programs rest on the approach of catching the peak periods of emissions and thereby controlling total emissions to a more moderate level. If the ability to capture these peak periods is eliminated by such an exemption, then the principal technique for controlling total emissions is lost.
This would also be true for the national ambient air quality standards which protect public health. For example, if the 18 worst days of pollution in Washington, D.C., were eliminated from consideration each year, Washington, D.C., would be declared a virtually "pollution-free" city. That would be absurd, as anyone who has lived in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area for any length of time knows.
A further complication arises under such a proposal. Though technical, it is extremely important and is the kind of factor that can destroy protection provided under the nondegradation scheme. Air pollution modeling of the dispersion of a plume from a stack can estimate the highest concentrations that will occur.
This is single, worst case, analysis and is commonly calculated by EPA, State agencies, and consulting firms.
But calculation of the percentage of violation is a very different proposition. it is extremely complicated, and probably impossible in areas of rugged terrain. Such calculations are beyond the present capability of most State agencies and consulting firms. An exemption that is extremely expensive to attempt, and impossible to calculate in many cases, is not an appropriate system to place in the bill as legislative requirement.
President Carter and Secretary-designate Schlesinger have both indicated that fulfillment of the President's energy plan does not rest on providing an exemption from the requirements of the Senate bill. The energy plan does not require the destruction of visibility in pristine areas such as parks and wilderness areas; it does not require reducing air quality substantially where air is already clean. There are ample sites available for locating new power plants without such exemptions.
Companies that continue to cling to the siting of huge power plants within 5 to 10 miles of national parks are blindly ignoring the clearly stated opinion of the American public. In a public opinion poll conducted for the Federal Energy Administration in 1975, 94 percent of the public said they wanted clean air areas protected from further pollution.
The President, the energy officials of the administration, and the Senate committee agree with that assessment and have found that a system of exemptions is entirely unnecessary.
At this point I would like to place in the RECORD letters from the administration dealing with objections to this amendment, and material addressing coal conversion questions raised earlier by the Senator from Utah:
THE WHITE HOUSE,
Washington, D.C.,
June 7, 1977.
Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE
Committee on the Environment and Public Works,
Washington, D.C.
To SENATOR ED MUSKIE: The amendments to the Clean Air Act of 1970 which the Senate will soon consider are of critical importance to the success of our public health and environmental programs.
My EPA Administrator Doug Costle, my Energy Advisor Jim Schlesinger and I studied the issues associated with these amendments very carefully before submitting the Administration's recommendations to the Congress last April. We examined the auto emission schedule proposed by Senators Griffin and Riegle and found it unnecessarily lax from the technology and fuel economy standpoints and inadequate in view of the need to protect the health of our citizens in urban areas.
More than 96 million people in at least 48 of our cities breathe air which exceeds the federal health-based air quality standards. Asthma, chronic lung disease, respiratory illness, and cardiovascular attacks are among the health impacts which auto pollution can cause. These effects are particularly severe in children and in the elderly. We cannot hope to have a successful public health program in this country without a major effort to reduce pollutant levels in our air.
Fortunately, however, auto emissions are controllable without jeopardizing our ability to meet fuel economy standards, adding substantially to the cost of automobiles, or costing our economy the jobs we so vitally need. While we have made some progress in reducing auto pollution, the technology is available to do better.
The proposal which I submitted to the Congress, like the Committee bill, will require use of emissions cleanup technology which is inherently more efficient than that being used today. The Griffin-Riegle proposal would encourage continued use of this less efficient technology, thereby compromising our ability to protect public health and achieve our fuel economy goals.
Control of auto pollution also has direct bearing on economic growth and our ability to provide jobs in our cities. Each additional increment of unnecessary pollution — pollution which could be controlled — is wasting those air quality margins which would otherwise be available for development in our urban areas. The unnecessary relaxation of auto emissions standards and cleanup schedule proposed in the Griffin-Riegle amendment would exacerbate the already difficult choices which our cities now face in providing for both economic growth and protection of public health. It would also hinder our program to make increased use of coal.
For these reasons, I remain firmly opposed to the proposal made by Senators Griffin and Riegle.
On another matter, I want to reiterate my support for the Committee's provisions for protection of air quality in areas which are now cleaner than required by the primary ambient air quality standards, particularly our national parks and wilderness areas. As I stated in my Energy and Environmental Messages, we can achieve our energy goals without sacrificing environmental quality. We can build those power plants which are needed without ruining the sir quality of our national parks. Amendments such as those offered by Messrs. Breaux and Emery in the House of Representatives defeat the very purpose for which these spectacular natural areas have been set aside. I urge that you and your colleagues oppose any amendments which would weaken our ability to protect these irreplaceable resources.
An identical letter is being sent to Chairman Randolph and Senator Stafford. Sincerely,
JIMMY CARTER.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Washington,
June 7, 1977.
Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution.
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR Mr. CHAIRMAN: This letter is in response to your request of May 27 for analysis of the implications of the five percent variance provision for prevention of significant deterioration (PSD). As you know, I am deeply concerned about Congressional action on the 18 day (5%) variance provision and its implications for national parks and other highly valued Federal lands. I am convinced that without this variance we can strike a balance that will satisfy both environmental values and our nation's need for energy and economic growth. The President has announced, and I wish to reemphasize, that the Administration strongly supports clean air legislation that will provide adequate environmental safeguards for our pristine Federal lands.
I believe the 18 day (5% ) variance amendment contained in the House version of the Clean Air Act Amendment of 1977 will not provide adequate pollution control of major stationary sources and will seriously weaken the effectiveness of the Class I increments for preventing significant deterioration. In summary, the variance provision will increase the maximum allowable emissions of sulfur oxides and particulates by as much as a factorof ten and allow the construction of large industrial and energy facilities in close proximity to Class I areas. This increase in emissions will significantly impair visibility and detract from the scenic and recreational values of national parks and wilderness areas. Furthermore, the current PSD provisions in the Senate will allow sufficient energy growth to maintain a healthy economy. The basis for these conclusions are contained in the attachment.
I should also point out that, regardless of the air quality changes this variance provision would allow, it would require State agencies and industry to perform extensive and costly studies on a routine basis. Such studies would require detailed collection and analysis of upper and lower atmospheric data by knowledgeable specialists. In addition, the extensive data acquisition requirements could delay the new source review process for years.
Regarding the current PSD provisions, studies by EPA and the Federal Energy Administration show that construction of new economically sized facilities would not be prevented. Rather, some very large new plants may have to use greater pollution controls, move to nearby alternative sites, or construct smaller plants. For example, a site specific analysis of the Four Corners area indicated that the present and projected capacity through 1986 of the Four Corners and San Juan power plants plus the four gasification plants planned by El Paso and WESCO could be built without violating the current PSD Class II increments nor the increments in nearby Class I areas. Moreover, an EPA analysis of 74 planned power plant sites found that none of the plants would have difficulty with the Senate Class I increments when best available controls are applied. Thus, there is no need for a variance provision, provided adequate environmental controls are employed.
The primary impact of the 18 day (5%) variance would be to greatly increase the maximum pollutant concentration allowed within each significant deterioration classification. In areas of flat or moderate terrain the variance amendment would allow maximum emissions of sulfur oxides and total suspended particulates to be 2 to 4 times higher than the PSD provisions without the variance. In areas of elevated terrain maximum emissions could increase by as much as a factor of ten. Therefore, maximum allowable plant sizes could increase from four to 10 times.
The effect of these increased emissions could significantly reduce visibility and detract from the scenic and primitive values of national parks and wilderness areas. In pristine areas where visibility is at its maximum, small increases in secondarily formed pollutants such as sulfates or nitrates can reduce visibility in these areas by 30 percent or more.Thus, the impact of the variance provision will increase the frequency of the days with poor visibility in Class I areas and also reduce the average visibility in areas surrounding the source.
With respect to the proposed 3000 megawatt Intermountain Power Project (IPP), we believe that the Class I increments would be exceeded in several locations with the present plant site proposal. This is because the plume would impact elevated terrain in the area. If the IPP project were to remain at the present site it would have to reduce its capacity to approximately 500 MW to meet the current PSD provision.
Our analysis of the IPP plants' effect on visibility shows that the placement of the plant so close to the boundary of the Capitol Reef Park will significantly impair the scenic vistas from the park. We estimate that the plant can reduce the one-hour average visibility when the observer is looking through the plume by as much as 80 percent, that is, visibility of 100 miles can be reduced to 20 miles. The more extreme end of the range will occur during morning hours when meteorological conditions are typically stable. The corresponding one hour visibility impact for a 500 MW plant meeting the current PSD requirements at the proposed IPP site would only be as large as an 11 percent reduction. Furthermore, when the plume is not directly impacting the park, the presence of the plume in adjacent areas can also impair the primitive and recreational values of the park.
I hope the attached analysis responds to your request and will assist the Senate in its consideration of the potential effects of the variance provision. If you have further questions my staff will be glad to assist you or your staff.
Sincerely yours,
DOUGLAS M. COSTLE
ATTACHMENT A: EPA ANALYSIS OF THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE 18-DAY (5%) PSD VARIANCE PROVISION
I. BACKGROUND
The prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) provisions contained in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 (S. 252) currently before the Senate establish maximum allowable increases (over baseline) in concentrations and are, therefore, overly restrictive. Representatives of industry groups have argued that maximum allowable concentrations are the result of infrequent atmospheric conditions and are, therefore, overly restrictive. Instead, industry has recommended that a new facility be required to meet PSD limitations on 95 percent of the days of the year. In the absence of a general variance provision affecting all facilities, industry has argued that at least a variance procedure should be established to permit more than one violation per year, particularly in Class I and Class II areas when mountainous terrain is involved.
The review of a new facility under PSD is based on maximum predicted concentrations at each of a number of locations in the vicinity of the plant. The 18-day (5% ) variance recommended by industry would allow some days to exceed the increment at each location.
II. IMPACT OF THE 18 DAY (5%) VARIANCE ON PLANT SIZE AND EMISSIONS
Permitting the PSD increments to be exceeded by as many as 18 days a year would greatly increase the maximum pollutant concentration allowed under each significant deterioration classification and greatly increase the size of facilities which could be constructed near Class I and in Class II areas. The specific implications of the variance provision depends on the frequency of adverse meteorological conditions, location ofelevated terrain, and wind patterns; they should be examined on a case by case basis to get actual estimates of the impact.
In areas of flat or moderate terrain, the data for three Ohio power plants indicate that a 18 day (5%) variance approach would allow maximum emissions in sulfur oxides and total suspended particulates to be 2 to 4 times higher than the PSD provision without the variance. Hence, the maximum allowable plant size under the variance approach would be 2 to 4 times the size permitted under the current EPA PSD regulations. For plants in elevated terrain the situation can be quite different. For example, an isolated terrain feature, such as a butte, would be expected to experience only a few days a yearof high concentrations because the meteorological conditions causing plume impaction are infrequent. Hence, the 95 percent concentration (i.e., 95% of the days the values would be lower) could be about one tenth of the maximum at that location. Under the Senate PSD proposal the maximum yearly value could not exceed the Class I increment; however, under the 18 day (5%) variance approach only the 95 percent concentration would have to meet the Class I increment. Therefore, in areas of elevated terrain the 18 day variance could allow maximum emissions to increase by as much as a factor of ten and still meet the Class I increment. Thus, maximum allowable plant size could also increase by a factor of ten under these conditions.
In general, where facilities are unlikely to cause high concentrations in Class I areas for more than 18 days, then the emission increases due to the 5 percent variance provision can be quite dramatic. These conditions are likely to be encountered: (1) in areas of complex terrain as often occurs in the Southwest and (2) in cases where prevailing winds carry pollutants away from Class I areas. Under such circumstances coal-fired power plants, perhaps as large as 4000 MW, could be built within 10 miles of a Class I area. Because of the large emission increases allowed by the variance provision, the effect of the Class I increments for preventing significant deterioration and protecting scenic vistas is severely minimized.
III VISIBILITY EFFECTS OF INCREASED EMISSIONS FROM THE FIVE PERCENT VARIANCE PROVISION
Visibility in the atmosphere is reduced by the absorption of light primarily by gaseous molecules and the scattering of light principally by aerosol particles. Attenuation by scatter and absorption of light reduces the brightness and contrast between objects with the result that the eye's ability to distinguish objects from their background is diminished. In addition to degrading visibility by attenuation, aerosols also scatter light from the sun and sky into the line of sight of the observer and this also reduces the contrast and visibility between the object and its background.
The principal air pollutants associated with absorption of light are nitrogen oxides (NOx), specifically nitrogen dioxide (NO2). Fine particulates in the size range 0.11.0 micrometers are most effective in scattering light and are responsible for most of the impairment of visibility in polluted air. Chemical composition studies have indicated that the sulfate and nitrate (which are formed by reactions with nitrogen oxides) fraction of the particulate complex are the major fine particulate constituents contributing to visibility impairment.
In pristine areas where the air is clean and visibility is at its maximum, about 140-150 miles, small increases in fine particulates, such as two micrograms per cubic meter, can significantly reduce visibility in these areas by 30 percent or more. Thus, the impact of increased emissions on visibility from the 5 percent variance provision will be to increase the frequency of days with poor visibility in Class I areas and also to reduce the average visibility in areas surrounding the source.
Visibility degradation by large point sources involves two separate cases: (1) the local plume problem and (2) the degradation of visibility on a regional scale. The local plume problem occurs within 20-25 miles of the source and visibility impairment is dominated by nitrogen dioxide (NO2), TSP and possibly nitrates. The regionwide problem involves haze generated principally by sulfates and nitrates.
For well-controlled sources of sulfur oxides and particulates where the particulate plume is not visible, such as the Navajo plant, absorption by NO2 is probably the major contributor to visibility degradation near the source. While the PSD provisions do not establish specific increments for NOx, nevertheless, the 18 day (5%) variance provision will result in substantial increases in NOx emissions above the current PSD requirements because of significant increases in plant size allowed in close proximity to Class I areas. This situation is particularly serious for large coal fired power plants using BACT and low sulfur coal, since resulting SO2 and TSP concentrations are relatively low near the source in comparison to NOx concentrations and hence can site very near the boundary of a Class I area. The 18 day (5%) variance provision will allow construction of substantially larger sources even closer to Class I areas, and the increased nitrogen dioxide concentrations will significantly impair the visibility in and around Class I areas. The current Senate PSD proposal would substantially reduce this problem by preventing the construction of large sources near the boundary of Class I areas.
Site specific analysis — Intermountain Power Project
The Intermountain Power Project (IPP) is a 3000 MW coalfired power plant which is currently proposed to be located at Cainvine, Utah about 7.5 miles east of the Capitol Reef National Park.
The control techniques proposed for IPP consist of 99.5% efficient electrostatic precipitators and horizontal cross flow flue gas scrubbers for sulfur dioxide removal. The scrubber is projected by the company to be 90% efficient for SO2 removal and also to remove 50% of the remaining particulates. Thus, the plant is projected to have 99.75% particulate removal and 90% SO2 removal. No control of the nitrogen oxides is planned.
The proposed IPP project will burn coal with a heat content of 11,500 Btu/lb and a sulfur content of 0.55 percent. With this coal and the controls described above, the emissions from the plant, assuming normal operation and an 85% load, will be as shown in the following table.
[Table omitted]
EPA modelers have not performed any indepth modeling evaluations of the IPP project, however they have reviewed the Westinghouse Research evaluation. Also, the Department of Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is currently preparing the environmental impact statement (EIS) for the project. A draft of the EIS is due to be available October 2, 1977, and this will be reviewed by EPA.
Based on the preliminary draft air quality analysis prepared by representatives of the proposed IPP project, it appears that the proposed plant would be in compliance with the Senate Class II or EPA Class II and Class III increments, provided that the two concentric 750-foot stacks are used.
In addition, with the proposed stack configuration, there would be no violation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. It should be noted, however, that the IPP air quality predictions appear to be based upon full operating capacity of the plant and a unique stack configuration which has two 30 foot diameter liners in each stack. While maximum operating rates ordinarily result in the highest concentrations, the ground level concentrations from the Intermountain plant may be higher at less than maximum operating rate because the exit velocity and flow rate from the stack is reduced, resulting in lower plume rise. Particularly in the case ofthe IPP plant, the two-liner stack configuration may produce significant differences in plume height with partial operating rates or generating unit outages. Due to the high terrain features near the plant, reduced plume rise could cause the plume to intersect the terrain at different locations and result in higher ground level concentrations than predicted by IPP.
It should also be noted that the Clean Air Act Amendments under consideration in the House have provided for a limitation of allowable stack height, which may preclude the proposed 750 foot stack configuration. Therefore, the IPP air quality analysis would have to be reestimated, taking the lower stack height and resulting higher ground level concentrations into account.
Regarding the effects of the proposed plant on Capitol Reef National Park, the Senate Class I increments would be exceeded in several locations with the present plant site proposal, and the present never to be exceeded standard. This is because of the elevated terrain in the area intersecting the plume. If the IPP plant were to remain at the present site, it would have to reduce its capacity to approximately 500 MW to meet the current PSD provision. It should be noted that the EIS on this project is evaluating six alternative sites, three of which are 18 to 25 miles east of the proposed site and the others are to the northeast. The 18 day (5 percent) variance provision would allow construction of the IPP plant and possibly even a slightly larger plant at the proposed site, while the current Senate PSD provision would require the plant to find a more suitable site.
To estimate the effect the IPP plant would have on visibility we used, as a starting point, model calculations performed by Dr. Mike Williams of the John Muir Institute. Williams' calculations were presented in his testimony before the House Subcommittee on Health and the Environment on March 8, 1977.
Basically we used a range of concentrations corresponding to applications of two different air quality models, the EPA VALLEY model and the Williams and Cudney air quality model. The extinction coefficients per unit mass for sulfates, nitrates and TSP were taken from preliminary results developed by the Technology Service Corporation. Before discussing the calculations it is important to note that because of the state of the art of visibility prediction any results should be interpreted with caution.
Our analysis indicates that the IPP plant will reduce the one-hour average visibility, when the observer is looking through the plume, by up to 80%. The more extreme end of the range will occur during morning hours when meteorological conditions are typically stable. The corresponding one hour reductionfor a 500 NW plant at the IPP site meeting EPA PSD regulations is only 11%. The 24 hour average visibility reduction for the IPP plant can be as large as 36% while the comparable figure for a plant meeting the EPA PSD provision is only 5%.
Thus, the placement of the IPP plant so close to the boundary of the park will increase the frequency of days with poor visibility and significantly impair the scenic vistas from the Capitol Reef Park. In addition to when the plume is directly impacting the park, the presence of the plume in adjacent areas can impair the beauty and primitive values of the park.
IV. ENERGY GROWTH UNDER CURRENT SENATE PSD PROVISIONS
EPA analyses have shown that the aggregate impact of the PSD provisions would not prevent the construction of new economically sized major facilities. For example, under the Senate PSD proposals the present and projected capacity through 1986 of the Four Corners and San Juan power plants plus the four gasification plants planned by El Paso and WESCO could be built without violating the PSD Class II increments nor increments in nearby Class I areas. Thus, major energy complexes can be constructed under the Senate PSD provision without the need fora variance, provided adequate environmental controls are employed. Furthermore, the impact on coal fired power plants was examined using a 74 plant sample of planned capacity additions representing 82% of planned additions through 1988. It was found that when best available controls are applied all but about 5% of the plants could be built under the Senate Class II increments. These impacted plants could also be constructed but would have to reduce their capacity or move to nearby alternative sites. The analysis also found that none of the plants would have difficulty with the Senate Class I requirements.
Analysis of the Senate proposal including the application of BACT indicated that 1250 MW to greater than 5000 MW could be built in flat or moderate terrain. The analysis also showed that terrain has an important impact on the size of the plant that can be built. Specifically, in areas of hilly terrain (where surrounding terrain is considerably above the top of the stack) an 1100 MW plant could be built in the East and greater than a 4000 MW plant in the West using locally available coal. The EPA analyses also estimated the required separation distance between new power plants and Class I areas. Under the Senate proposal a 1000 MW plant using BACT and located in areas of flat or moderate terrain could be located as close as 5 to 20 miles from a Class I area. In hilly terrain 25 to 42 miles would be required.
It should be emphasized that the results above are estimates based on assumptions concerning terrain, control technology and meteorological conditions; a case-by-case review of each site would be required in order to obtain site-specific estimates. However, the results clearly show that new power plants can be built under the proposed PSD provisions. The impact of PSD provisions is on the controls required, the plant location, or the plant size. The EPA assessment also indicates that there are a sufficient number of acceptable sites available for construction of new coal fired power plants even with the imposition of PSD provisions. The PSD provisions would require some new plants to use greater pollution controls, to move to alternative sites or to construct smaller plants, but would not prevent the construction of major industrial facilities.
V. TECHNICAL MODELING DIFFICULTIES
The difficulty in analyzing the size of a facility permitted in a Class II area and at a location near a Class I area (or, similarly, the distance a certain size facility must be from Class I area) depends upon the specific terrain characteristics and the distances involved. In areas of flat or moderate terrain, it is possible to estimate concentration levels which would occur for different percentages of the days with reasonable accuracy with present dispersion modeling techniques for distances up to 30 miles. For example, models such as EPA's Single Source Model (CRSTER) generate cumulative frequency distribution of the concentrations which can be used to find the 95 (or any other) percent concentration which would occur in the vicinity of the plant.
"Summary of the EPA Analysis of the Impact of the Senate Significant Deterioration Proposal" April 1976, and additional studies on the Kraft Pulp and Paper Industry, the Petroleum Refinery Industry and Synthetic Fuel Plants.
In areas of complex or rugged terrain (where plume impaction is anticipated) or in the case of greater distances, the difficulty of air quality analysis increases considerably. While present analytic tools (such as the VALLEY model) are capable of estimating concentrations which would result during critical meteorological conditions, they are not well suited for estimating the frequency of occurrence of concentrations. Such calculations require detailed analysis of upper and lower atmospheric data, often with hand adjustments to account for meteorological persistence and plume travel time. Consequently, a percentage provision would require a significant commitment of time and resources by atmospheric specialists with a broad range of experience and knowledge. It would also require detailed administrative guidance to assure the adequacy of data and the proper use of technical assumptions. Even then, such prediction would involve a high degree of uncertainty.
Computerized models to better handle terrain situations and long distance transport are under development, but significant improvements beyond existing models are not expected for some time. Even with model improvements extensive, costly, long duration meteorological data acquisition and analysis studies will be required. The data acquisition could delay the new source review process foryears. The reviewing agencies as well as industries are not equipped for such extensive and costly studies on a routine basis.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Washington, D.C.,
June 7, 1977.
Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: We would like to take this opportunity to summarize several of the key findings of the Administration's study of the impacts of various automobile emission standards now under consideration by the Congress. There has been some misunderstanding of the effects of the Administration's recommendation, the proposal contained in S. 252, and the Griffin/Riegle amendment. Since this issue is of such importance to our ability to meet our air quality, public health and energy objectives, we felt this clarification would be helpful.
As you are aware, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Transportation, and the Federal Energy Administration, recently prepared "An Analysis of Alternative Motor Vehicle Emission Standards",dated May 19, 1977. That study assesses air quality, health, cost, fuel economy, and economic consequences of specific automobile emission control alternatives currently before Congress. In brief, the study concludes that:
1. Both the Administration's and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's proposed emission standards can be met with little or no fuel economy penalty compared with 1977 technology and emission standards if the industry employs the optimal fuel economy technology. The three agency study also shows that there is essentially no fuel economy difference between the Griffin/Riegle proposal on the one hand, and the Administration's or the Committee's proposal on the other.
2. The Griffin/Riegle proposal contains a waiver up to a 2.0 gpm NOx level. At this level there is a greater likelihood that automobile manufacturers will continue with existing cost optimal technologies, than of switching to the fuel optimized technology which is expected to result from the 1.0 gpm NOx level as proposed in S. 252 and the Administration's recommendation. If 2.0 gpm NOx remains the ultimate standard, as is possible under the Griffin/Riegle amendment, 1978-1985 model year vehicles could be consuming in calender year 1985 as much as 94,300 barrels per day more gasoline.
3. There are sizeable air quality gains from S. 252 or the Administration's proposal compared to the Griffin/Riegle amendment. For example, the Griffin/Riegle proposal's carbon monoxide standard is estimated to result in a 65 to 130 per cent greater number of violations of the CO air quality standard between 1980 and the year 2000 than is expected with the carbon monoxide emission standards in the Administration's proposal.
In summary, the three agency study indicates that there is no cost, fuel economy, or technological justification for the extent of the relaxation and delay in auto emissions standards as proposed by the Griffin/Riegle amendment. The Administration opposes adoption of this proposal.
BROCK ADAMS,
Secretary, Department of Transportation.
DOUGLAS M. COSTLE,
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency.
JOHN F. O'LEARY,
Administrator, Federal Energy Administration.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OP THE INTERIOR,
Washington, D.C.,
June 5,1977.
Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE I wish to reemphasize the Administration's support for a strong Prevention of Significant Deterioration in Air Quality (PSD) provision in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977.
I recommend that the Senate preserve the type of strong PSD provision as was voted out of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works for strongest limitations on new or modified sources in or adjacent to areas designated as pristine and reject the weakening of the PSD provision as was done in the House of Representatives on May 25. This weakened provision would permit relaxation of Class I and Class II protection by allowing maximum pollution increments to be exceeded 5 percent of the time. In effect, this would result in higher levels of air pollution in and around parks all of the time. In my view, if the present House of Representatives version of PSD in this area becomes law, the unique scenic and natural values of nationally significant parklands and wilderness areas will be put in unacceptable jeopardy.
The premier values of our national parks and wilderness areas are held in high regard by the Nation, and high standards for protecting these values have been set down in numerous Acts of Congress. I recommend that the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 likewise contain high air quality standards for these most important of our Nation's natural areas.
I understand that one of the principal reasons behind the recent amendment to the House PSD provision was to permit flexibility in the siting of large fossil fueled power plants and enable their development in the immediate vicinity of national parks. It is obvious that the exercise of this flexibility would virtually destroy the purpose of Class I status and would result in the imposition of degraded air quality on supposedly protected areas.
This Department has now before it a number of proposals for the location of fossil fueled power plants or for ancillary development directly related to plant development. An example is the Intermountain Power Project in southern Utah. The primary site, proposed by the project proponents, is on public land in the immediate vicinity of Capitol Reef National Park. From the results of preliminary air pollution studies done for the project, we have an indication of the
plant's potential impacts on the park. This project would depend for its operation on millions of tons of federally owned coal and would require permits and rights-of-way from the Department of the Interior for mine sites, the power plant site, transmission systems, and water delivery systems.
The President has instructed me to review an existing and potential Federal coal leases, to assure that any development of federally owned coal takes place only under circumstances that provide adequate environmental protection. In carrying out the President's instructions and in the exercise of my responsibilities as Secretary of the Interior, I will take into consideration the impacts that the Intermountain Power Project and that other plants in similar circumstances would have on the air quality within pristine Federal lands. I will take appropriate actions to ensure that the unique natural values of these lands are properly protected.
We believe that the PSD provision adopted by the Senate committee for the protection of certain national parks and wilderness areas will not only provide protection from deteriorating air quality for the identified Class I areas, but it also lays the foundation for the orderly planning and development of coal burning power plants. This Department will cooperate with the States, the utility companies, and all other parties in expediting the exercise of those Federal responsibilities involved in the development of plants sited where plant operations do not meet appropriate environmental standards.
I vigorously recommend that the Senate and the Conference Committee preserve a strong PSD provision to ensure that our national parks and wilderness areas receive the highest possible protection for deteriorated air quality.
Secretary.
REBUTTAL TO SENATOR GARN'S STATEMENT "CLEAN AIR ACT — NO GOOD FOR ENERGY",
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD MAY 19, 1977
Statement: It is impossible to reconcile the stated goal of coal conversion with the stated position of the Administration on clean air.
Fact: Even when new sources are required to use the best available control technology, coal use is projected to increase from the present 600 million tons per year to about 1.2 billion tons per year by 1985. Ninety percent of the sources required to use coal will be new sources, and most will be located in clean air areas, where new power plants typically locate. The EPA/FEA analysis of nondegradation policy of the Senate bill conducted in 1975 and 1976 shows there is more than ample opportunity for siting all the power plants needed.
In the case where the use of coal in an urban area would worsen air quality that is already dirtier than public health standards allow, the President has agreed that exemptions allowing the use of oil would be granted. Even if a number of such waivers are granted, the impact on coal use will be very small, since the growth in the use of coal is projected to occur outside such areas. These positions are contained in the President's National Energy Plan, and in information presented at the hearing held by the Environmental Pollution Subcommittee May 25, 1977, to discuss coal conversion and clean air.
Statement: Owners of plants ordered to convert to coal will have to find "offsets" from reduced emissions at existing facilities before they will be allowed to convert.
Fact: Sources located outside dirty air areas, where most expansion is proposed, are not required under any regulations or any proposed legislation to find such offsets. Only sources that convert or construct new coal facilities in dirty areas are required to consider such offsets, and not all of those will be required to gain offsets. Only if the portion of the area impacted by the converting plant would be dirtier than the public health standards would such facilities be required to find offsets. If this requirement were relaxed, then there would not be any way to protect the public health of citizens. Offsets are a useful way of assuring that cleanup progress continues. Offsets have already been found in many cases for locating new plants.
Statement: Where background pollution is above the standards, no offsets would be available.
Fact: This is untrue; offsets have already been found in areas where levels exceed standards and sources have been allowed to go forward with construction. Under present EPA policy (which would be continued under the Senate bill), sources in rural areas where the pollution results from long distant transport from urban areas are not required to find offsets. In this case, the clean up effort must be targeted in the urban area causing the problem.
Statement: In nondeterioration areas, conversions would be virtually impossible:
Fact: This is absolutely false. There is no information presented to justify this statement. In fact, the overwhelming evidence presented in the last two years regarding nondegradation policy indicates ample room for development of industrial facilities fired by coal fired burners. Large power plants, large paper mills, refineries, coal cleaning plants, asphalt batching operations, and hundreds of other sources have already been approved for construction under the present EPA Class II increments. Those same increments are contained in the Senate bill. Any statement to the contrary ignores the extensive studies which show such growth is available and ignores the actual record of the past two and one-half years, which shows that hundreds of facilities have been given permits under the nondegradation requirements.
Statement: Either the push to coal conversion will have to be eased, or some relaxation will be needed in the nonattainment provisions of the Clean Air Act.
Fact: Such relaxation is not needed, and to propose it is to propose eliminating the public health protection of the Clean Air Act. To argue that pollution should be allowed to increase in areas that exceed public health standards is to argue that this nation cannot protect the public's health regarding air quality.
Such a policy is unnecessary and unwarranted. Such a relaxation is not required in order to meet the President's energy plan goals. As mentioned earlier, the majority of increased coal use will occur outside nonattainment areas. When coal conversion does occur inside nonattainment areas, offsets can be found contrary to the assertions made. To say that offsets cannot be found is to give up before an effort is even made to find such offsets.
The President's projections on increased use of fuel already contain the assumption that in the dirtiest areas conversions would not occur if air quality would deteriorate. The projections set forth by the President in his plan already assumed that coal could not be used in such areas; therefore, a reduction in the projected increase in coal use is not necessary since the President's calculations already contain a discount for this policy.
Statement: Even the best scrubbers for power plants will not yield 100% elimination of pollutants. Current emission standards will therefore eliminate many converted plants, even if it could find the offsets to use.
Fact: This statement demonstrates a basic lack of understanding of how the Clean Air Act requirements presently work. This statement is erroneous, probably as a result of this lack of understanding.
Most State Implementation Plans contain different emission limitations for different kinds of fuel burned in boilers. In most States, when a source switches from one fuel to another, the emission limitation becomes whatever level is allowed for the new kind of fuel used. If a switch from oil to coal occurs, the old limitation based on oil does not transfer to the use of coal.
Misunderstanding of this fact may be the reason for the erroneous statement.
In many State plans, emission limitations for coal plants do not contain stringent requirements because most of the sources in the area use natural gas or oil. In such cases, emission limitations for coal fired facilities will have to be tightened, but this will not preclude the use of coal, but merely require that the best pollution control equipment be installed. This is a feasible and workable policy.
Statement: The requirement for the use of best available control technology is highly energy consumptive. Consumption for the average industrial plan may increase by as much as 10%.
Fact: The EPA/FEA study entitled "A Preliminary Analysis of the Economic Impact on the Electric Utility Industry of Alternative Approaches to Significant Deterioration",February, 1976 states on page V2 that the increased energy use as a result of the beat available control technology under the Senate nondegradation provision would increase coal consumption by 0.6% by 1990. This is not an excessive amount to pay for keeping clean air areas clean. Any additional energy use for new coal facilities in dirty air areas would even be less than this amount, since many fewer facilities are projected to use coal in such areas under the President's plan.
While there are some individual plant cases where energy use at older and poorly designed facilities may increase by 10%, the average use is considerably below this figure.
Statement: The cost of coal conversion for the consumer will be enormous. The cost of scrubbers for the electric utility industry alone will be about $12 billion.
Fact: The $12 billion cost to the electric utility industry for scrubbers represents an increase of 2.6% in the industry's projected capital requirements. The utility industry is expecting to spend $435 billion for capital expansion between now and 1990. $12 billion for pollution control sounds large when it is stated alone, but when compared to total capital investment for the industry as a whole, it is a modest and reasonable investment.
Statement: Industry has abandoned oil shale development in Utah and Colorado because hydrocarbons produced by natural vegetation already exceed the standards.
Fact: These projects have been delayed and abandoned principally because of the economic difficulties and technological problems associated with the processes. Background levels of hydrocarbons, if they do exceed the standards, appear to come from the long distant transport of pollution from urban areas to the west of the oil shale sites, particularly from Salt Lake City and the Wasatch Front in Utah. Under EPA regulations, these rural oil shale facilities would not be precluded as a result of this long term transport.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the yeas and nays on my substitute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.