June 9, 1977
Page 18153
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I find it hard to understand that Senators have been talking about the bill that I had something to do with reporting to the floor. It does not fit my understanding of the legislation, and I have lived with it for 2 years.
I listened to the Senator from Alaska and I ask, what bill is he talking about? I listen to the Senator from Alabama and I ask, "What bill is he talking about?"
I listen to the Senator from Louisiana and I ask, "What bill is he talking about?"
I listen to the Senator from California (Mr. HAYAKAWA) and I have the same question. The Senators and I are not talking about the same piece of legislation.
Let us look at that map of Alaska. The Senator from Alaska discussed that map as though all of those portions which he has indicated are subject to class 1 when such is far from the fact, as I understand it.
The only class 1 area on that map is Mount McKinley which is 1.9 million acres.
What are the rest? Wildlife refuges in yellow, which are not in class 1 areas; national monuments, which are not in class 1 areas; wild rivers, which are not in class 1 areas; proposed areas which are striped — they are proposed — are not in class 1 areas; national forests are not included in class 1 areas.
Yet the Senator from Alaska offers this amendment as something essential to protect all of these areas, only a minimal amount of which are covered by class 1 areas for economic growth.
Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Wait. I want to finish my statement.
Mr. STEVENS. I would love to talk to the Senator about that.
Mr. MUSKIE We will get to it. We will find time. Am I right?
Mr. STEVENS. No.
Mr. MUSKIE. Does the Senator mean all of these areas are under class 1?
Mr. STEVENS. Those areas in blue will be wilderness areas. If the Senator from Maine will tell me he will support an amendment so those areas will not be included when they become wilderness areas he will be right. But once they become wilderness areas he knows and I know that Congress will make them class 1.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I say to the Senator that under our bill, and he wants me now to amend bills which have not even appeared on the floor, the areas he is talking about will be class 2. That comes as a surprise to the Senator as I watch the expression on his face. Yet he comes to this floor and tells the Senate that all these areas are covered by class 1 and need the protection of his amendment.
Really, why can we not get down to the bill as it is? I cannot deal with legislation which he fears may be coming down the road. I have not seen it yet. I do not know whether it is going to happen that way, and I am not going to make any commitments to the Senate — I have not yielded.
Mr. STEVENS. But the Senator is wrong.
Mr. MUSKIE. Are wildlife refuges covered under class 1?
Mr. STEVENS. If it is a wilderness area it is class 2 automatically under the Senator's bill.
Mr. MUSKIE. We are talking about class 1.
Mr. STEVENS. Classes 1 and 2.
Mr. MUSKIE. I said there is only one class 1 area on that map. That is Mount McKinley. Is that right?
Mr. STEVENS. As of the present moment the Senator is right.
Mr. MUSKIE. I cannot deal with what the Senator's committee may report out some time later.
Mr. STEVENS. I said they are proposed areas.
Mr. MUSKIE. They are proposed areas.
I could fear anything down the road. The Senator is not going to use up any more of my time talking about fairy tales. I will get to the rest of the Senator's amendment.
Then the second question. I listened to the Senator from Louisiana, who has left the floor. I wonder for what reason. He would have us believe we cannot do anything in these clean air areas. Let me refer Senators to a letter sent to my good friend from Vermont (Mr. STAFFORD) by the Environmental Protection Agency in January of this year.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in full in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.
Washington, D.C.,
January 22,1977.
Hon. ROBERT T. STAFFORD,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR STAFFORD: The Administrator has asked me to respond to your January 12, 1976, request for technical information describing the kinds and size of facilities that could fit within the Senate Subcommittee Class II increments. As you know, the Senate Class II increments for sulfur dioxide and particulate matter are the same as those promulgated by EPA in its December 5, 1974, regulation for the Prevention of Significant Air Quality Deterioration.
Extensive economic and industrial analyses were conducted prior to the promulgation of the regulations, including analyses of the sizes and types of facilities that could meet the Class II increment. Because the Senate Class II increment is identical to EPA's, the results of our analyses are directly applicable to the size and types of sources the Senate Class II can accommodate. In addition, more recent studies have been conducted on coal fired power plants and pulp and paper mills. Table 1 indicates the industrial source categories analyzed.
In conducting any analysis which evaluates the impact of the Class II increment on industrial location, a variety of site specific factors including the size of the source, the local terrain, and meteorological conditions must be taken into account. Obviously, whether any particular source may locate at a specified site must be determined on a case-by-case review basis. Estimates made for the purpose of this response necessarily involve simplifying assumptions that must be carefully used with full understanding of the extent to which the findings are applicable.
Typically, any one of the 19 major source categories regulated by the EPA regulation can build within a Class II area, with the exception of a new grass roots steel complex — none of which are planned.
From the recent EPA/FEA study entitled, "An Analysis of the Impact on the Electric Utility Industry of Alternative Approaches to Significant Deterioration," October 1975, it becomes evident that terrain is an important factor in determining the ability of a polluting source to construct within the Class II increment at a chosen site. In flat terrain, power plants meeting EPA new source performance standards could probably range from 1000-4000 megawatts without violating the Class II increments, depending on local meteorology and stack height. (See Table 2). Similarly, other large industrial sources including petroleum refineries, Kraft pulp mills, cement plants, and copper smelters should have virtually no restraints under similar conditions.
In hilly terrain, large new sources may face difficulties in compliance depending upon whether the terrain features lead to plume impaction, i.e., the terrain exceeds or is equal to both the plant's stack height and plume rise. For example, power plant development in hilly terrain may be significantly restricted in size unless taller stacks and additional control technology are used. (See Table 8). The joint EPA/FEA study has shown, however, that with additional controls in some cases, the vast majority of large, new coal fired power plants should be able to comply with the Senate Class II increment.
In our sample survey of 74 planned new plants only 11 percent of the sample capacity would potentially have difficulty meeting the Senate Class II increment at selected sites after additional controls, beyond New SourcePerformance Standards, were utilized. Relocation to nearby sites could alleviate most of these problems.
My staff has analyzed the feasibility of relocation in order to comply with the Senate Class II increment. The results indicate that the impacted plants could comply with the Class II increment by incurring an average relocation cost of about three dollars per kilowatt. Thus, these impacted facilities would not be required to reduce the planned size of the plant in order to comply with the Senate Class II increment.
It is important to recognize that the plants considered in the sample were planned in terms of size and location without the framework of a nondeterioration policy. Therefore, as the EPA/FEA study mentioned, in the future utility companies could be expected to exercise more judgment in selecting appropriate sites so that they could build plants without violating nondeterioration limits. This conclusion also is likely for the other industrial sources which should have even greater flexibility because their emissions are much lower than those of large coal fired power plants.
As with the size of sources able to locate in a Class II, the extent to which any major new source could be located in close proximity to another major new source in a Class II area is highly dependent on such factors as the design specifications of the source, meteorology, and topography. An example can be given to indicate the type of distance that may be required between major sources in a Class II area. This is a hypothetical case for illustrative purposes only.
It is assumed that a 1000 MW power plant A, meeting EPA New Source Performance Standards, causes a maximum 24 hour SO2 concentration of 90 ug/m3 at a distance of 8 km from the plant and that this concentration counts against the allowable Class II increment for 24 hours of 100 ug/m3 (i.e., 10 ug/m3is "unused"). If a 1000 MW power plant B wishes to locate in the vicinity of Plant A, the following approximate separation distances between two plants will be required:
[Table omitted]
If the "unused" portion of the increment were only 5 ug/m3 the separation distances would be 60, 24, and 4 miles respectively. Similarly, typical coal gasification plants, oil shale processing facilities and petroleum refineries would not be expected individually to exceed the Class II in most areas at comparable distances. As you know, the Senate proposal's definition of best available control technology would require control more stringent than EPA's new source performance standards. Therefore, with the Senate definition, the use of additional controls would allow the source to be larger and/or allow the distance required between plants to be smaller and more in line with the lower estimates cited.
Controls beyond those currently required by the Clean Air Act will cost somewhat more, of course. EPA cost estimates of the Senate proposal indicate that the cumulative additional capital requirements over the next fifteen years of the electric utility industry would be $7.0 billion to $11.5 billion — a 2.8 percent to 2.6 percent increase over the current capital cost requirements of the Clean Air Act. This would mean an increase in household expenditures in 1990 of $18 to $28 per year.
In conclusion, I might mention that EPA's Class II has been in effect nationwide since January 6, 1975, and to date no state has requested redesignation to the less restrictive Class III under our regulations. Where states have not yet requested delegation of new source reviews, under our regulations, EPA regional offices have been reviewing the new sources. Recently, a petroleum refinery in California and an aluminum plant in Oregon have received permits to build under the existing Class II.
As these results indicate, careful siting and use of available air pollution control technology for new industrial sources are already important factors in meeting requirements under the Clean Air Act. The Senate Prevention of Significant Deterioration Class II would make these factors even more important. I hope that this information and analysis has adequately addressed your question. If I may be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely yours,
Roger Stretlow,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Waste Management.
Table 1.— 16 industries analyzed by EPA
Power Plants.
Coal Cleaning Plants (Thermal Dryers).
Kraft Pulp Mill Recovery Furnaces.
Portland Cement Plants.
Primary Zinc Smelters.
Iron and Steel Metallurgical Furnaces.
Primary Aluminum Ore Reduction Plants.
Primary Copper Smelters.
Municipal Incinerators.
Sulfuric Acid Plants.
Petroleum Refineries.
Lime Plants.
By-Product Coke Oven Batteries.
Phosphate Rock Processing Plants.
Sulfur Recovery Plants.
Carbon Black Plants.
Plus:
New Towns.
Light Industrial Parks.
The Department of the Interior analysis examined:
Fossil fuel fired power plants.
Geothermal power plants.
Oil shale processing.
Coal gasification.
Coal liquefaction.
Petroleum refining.
Superport storage facilities.
Metal processing (copper, lead, zinc, aluminum and steel) .
Mining.
Industrial source categories included in EPA prevention of significant air quality deterioration regulations:
1. Fossil Fuel Fired Steam Electric Plants of more than 1000 million B.T.U. per hour input.
2. Coal cleaning plants.
3. Kraft pulp mill recovery furnaces.
4. Portland cement plants.
5. Primary zinc smelters.
6. Iron and Steel Mill Metallurgical Furnaces.
7. Primary Aluminum Ore Reduction Plants.
8. Primary Copper Smelters.
9. Municipal Incinerators capable of charging more than 250 tons of refuse per day.
10. Sulfuric Acid plants.
11. Petroleum Refineries.
12. Lime Plants.
13. Phosphate Rock Processing Plants.
14. By-Product Coke Oven Batteries.
15. Sulfur Recovery plants.
16. Carbon Black Plants.
17. Primary Lead Smelters.
18. Fuel Conversion Plants.
19. Ferroalloy production facilities.
[Tables omitted]
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me read from that letter the kinds of things which would be permitted under the committee bill, which codifies the present regulations of EPA, which have been in effect for 2½ years and which have already permitted some of the things on the list which I am going to read.
Partial fuel fired steam electric plants of more than 1,000 million Btu's per hour input would be permitted.
Coal cleaning plants would be permitted.
Kraft pulp mill recovery furnaces would be permitted.
Portland cement plants would be permitted.
Primary zinc smelters would be permitted.
Iron and steel mill metallurgical furnaces would be permitted.
I could go through a list, may I say, Mr. President, of similar major facilities, 19 in all, which would be permitted, provided there was proper siting, taking into account not only energy needs and economic needs of a region, but also air quality needs.
As I understand the Senator from Louisiana, he wants no restraints that originate in air quality values — none whatsoever. He does not want to have to spend an extra day in a procedure. He does not want another document to clog up the red tape. He does not want to have to think about the air quality priorities at all. That seems to be the attitude of everyone else who has spoken.
Then, when I say that about them, they say, "I am for clean air, Senator. Don't accuse me of being against clean air." But then they turn around
Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. No, I do not yield. I yielded a lot of time to the Senator earlier and he got 4 minutes out of me and 4 minutes out of the Senator from Alaska for his 4 minutes of yielding.
Then they turn around and say to me, "Senator, you are against growth. You are against growth."
Is that any more irresponsible than to suggest that, because, as I understand it, after 2½ years of studying this thing, 14 years in all, the effect of the Stevens amendment is to completely destroy the effort to protect clean air areas?
Because that is what it is doing. That is what this Stevens amendment would do. It would completely destroy whatever air quality values there may be in clean air areas that need protection.
All right, say it is not health. Is there anything else? Is there absolutely nothing else except health that we need to protect by way of air quality values? Nothing?
I think there is a great deal more.
I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that there be printed in the RECORD at this point part of my opening statement of yesterday, from pages 18 to 30 at this point, part of my opening statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
STATEMENT OF SENATOR MUSKIE
The nondegradation provision is intended to provide protection against harmful environmental effects not anticipated by secondary standards and to assure that a single, new major emitting facility will not consume the entire regional air resource thus barring any future growth.
For example, If the secondary standards were the only restraint on new sources in clean air regions, visibility which is now 100 miles or more in some areas could deteriorate to 12 miles. If humidity is high, visibility would be reduced even further. While visibility may not be important in dirty air areas, it has high public value in many clean air regions and should have been protected by secondary standards.
Another example of the inadequacy of secondary standards is the increasing number of studies indicating that pollutants are transported for much greater distances than previously thought. This means that emissions from sources in rural areas contribute to urban pollution problems and vice versa. In its report to the Senate Public Works Committee of March, 1975, the National Academy of Sciences expressed concern that emissions as far away as 300 miles could contribute to unhealthy air in major cities.
Sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides increasingly are returning to the ground in the form of acid rain which damages valuable water and soil resources. A conference was held in the summer of 1975 in Columbus, Ohio where many scientists expressed concern over this impact.
Norway has experienced a substantial decline in its fishery resources which has been attributed to acid rain. A twenty-year study in Scandinavia indicates that acid rain has killed fish and caused an ecological change. Forest growth and yield have declined. Fish populations have been adversely affected by acid rain in 75% of the high elevation lakes of the Adirondack Mountains.
Pollution at less than the concentrations accepted by the national secondary standards has been proved to damage vegetation. Acute injury to spruce trees has been reported when average concentrations of sulfur dioxide were only two-thirds the level allowed by the ambient secondary standards. Studies indicate that other crops are also damaged at concentrations less than the secondary standards, including wheat, potatoes, spinach, apples, and white pine.
Exposure to low level concentrations of pollutants has health effects. Studies done in Japan since the establishment of the primary standards in the United States indicate that air pollution concentrations lower than the national standards cause increases in reported illnesses. The National Cancer Institute estimates that 60% to 90% of cancer is environmentally caused. The ambient standards as presently established do not include consideration of these facts.
The nondegradation amendment is intended to help reduce overall emissions and thus provide protection against these kinds of adverse impacts.
TECHNOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS
One of the cornerstones of a policy to keep clean air areas clean is to require that new sources use the best technology available to clean up pollution. It is important to assure that new, improved technology is applied as it is developed. And it is important to provide incentives to improve pollution control systems.
To encourage this result, the bill requires the use of pollution control systems which achieve the maximum degree of continuous emission reduction, determined by the States on a case-by-case basis. The States are authorized to take into account energy, environmental, and economic impacts and other costs in reaching their determination. Such an approach should provide greater emission reductions and allow more rapid application of improved technology than would otherwise occur through uniform application of the new source performance standards periodically promulgated — and seldom changed — by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The record to date under the new source performance standards approach has been disappointing.
The most glaring example occurs in the control of coal fired power plants — the largest and fastest growing stationary source of sulfur oxides and particulates. The inadequacy of these standards is exemplified by the fact that pollution control for particulates achieved at the Four Corners power plant in New Mexico is already 14 times cleaner than required by the new source performance standards promulgated by EPA. In addition, the new San Juan plant in New Mexico, scheduled to begin operation in 1977, is expected to achieve cleanup of particulates which is 30 times better than required under EPA's new source performance standards. These facts were presented in our hearings last April. For sulfur oxides, the San Juan plant is expected to be almost ten times cleaner than required by EPA's new source performance standards.
Because of the gap that exists between actual "best available technology" and what has been required under new source performance standards, individual States have established emission limits which exceed the new source performance standards of sulfur dioxide which are more restrictive by an order of magnitude.
At present there are only 18 source categories for which new source performance standards have been promulgated — less than half of the biggest sources that should be covered. Though some of these were promulgated as long ago as 1971, none have been revised to take into account improved technology which has been developed, and only one is under active consideration for such a revision.
Much of the advancement of pollution control technology has occurred at new plants located in clean air regions. This has been due to the efforts of States interested in preserving clean air. The Federal standards, on the other hand, were based upon burning poor quality coal with stack gas cleaning. While this may be necessary in areas where dirty coal will be used, it is certainly not an adequate basis for national policy. In addition, although cleaner coal is burned in many areas, the impacts of resulting emissions are still substantial.
A typical new 1,000 megawatt coal fired power plant using clean coal and no control technology for sulfur oxides emits 144 tons per day when operating at full load. When controlled with technology currently being used today, these emissions can be reduced to 14 tons per day.
In some cases the new source standards mean that requiring the "best technology" will result in no improvement in emission control at all — a disappointing result from a requirement which was designed to maximize the protection of air resources and minimize the need to retrofit facilities in the future.
One objection which has been raised to requiring the use of the best available pollution control technology is that a technology demonstrated to be applicable in one area of the country is not applicable at a new facility in another area because of difference in feedstock material, plant configuration or other reasons. For this and other reasons, the Committee voted to permit emission limits based on best available technology on a case-by-case judgment at the State level. This flexibility should allow such differences to be accommodated and still maximize the use of improved technology.
Reliability of new pollution control technologies has also been challenged, particularly against sulfur oxides emission control systems.
An EPA study on scrubber development issued in May of 1977, it was reported that 122 flue gas desulfurization systems with a rating of 50,000 megawatts are either operational, under construction, or planned in the United States. The efficiency of these systems in removing sulfur dioxide was reportedly to be in the range of 80% to 90%. Although the older systems did have problems, developments have reached the stage where these systems are clearly a viable means of pollution control. And evidence available to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Committee indicates that sulfur oxide control systems are, in fact, more reliable than electric generating equipment.
ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS
The economic objections raised against the nondegradation provisions are not new. They are restatements of old arguments used by industry against other attempts to improve the lives of Americans.
When we fought for improved wages for workers, industry said that they could not afford it.
Now when we are fighting for an improved environment, industry says that it cannot afford it.
The chart on Projected Capital Investment for Selected Major Industries Through 1985 shows that the added capital investment required for pollution control is modest. (Attachment B)
And if an expenditure of an additional 2.3% to 2.6% — the maximum estimated by an FEA/EPA study of the various significant deterioration policies being considered by the Congress — is required, it is not an unreasonable price to assure that air quality in clean air areas remains clean.
Not only would such an investment protect the public against the long term ecological impacts of increasing levels of overall pollution, but also such a policy would reduce public exposure to low levels of pollutants which may lead to chronic health effects.
The FEA study found that total operating costs for power plants, including air pollution controls through 1990, would be $1.335 trillion. The Senate nondegradation provision could add a maximum $16.5 billion or 1.1% to operating costs if the States insisted on the use of the best and most expensive pollution control systems. The maximum increase would be zero, using new source performance standards, if States could justify such modest efforts. The actual cost would obviously be somewhere in between.
The impact on the consumer, in both direct costs and indirect costs attributable to the increased prices of goods manufactured through the use of electricity, would be modest. Again, if the States require the most stringent levels of control and expensive techniques, the maximum consumer cost would be $2.33 or 2.3% additional costs per month during the year showing the greatest cost.
The direct impact on consumers in electric bills would, under the most rigorous scenario, be $1.17 per month additional cost in the year 1990. This is approximately a 1.1% increase.
Some opposition to meeting stringent environmental goals is based on a desire to balance these goals against the cost of installing pollution control equipment. This is a distorted view of economics. It places the cost of pollution on those who receive the damage: the asthmatic who has more attacks, the child who has bronchitis or a more serious respiratory disease, and the farmer whose crops yield less. These people are now bearing the costs of air pollution.
According to the National Academy of Sciences, a single large source such as a power plant may cause $20 million to $50 million in pollution related costs per year.
Another important economic question relating to nondegradation policy is the impact on national coal development — and the goal of energy independence.
There is a great deal of justifiable concern about potential decline in the use of eastern and midwestern high sulfur coal. The EPA/FEA analysis indicates that the nondegradation requirements would have a beneficial effect for the marketing of eastern and midwestern coal.
The report concludes that many plants, especially those in the Midwest which formerly were planning to import oil or rely on western low sulfur coal in order to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act, will find it more economical to blend local medium sulfur coal with high sulfur and install a scrubber. As a result of the Senate control technology requirements, the demand for Western coal (or MidEast oil) would be reduced by 35 million tons or by 5 percent — a demand which would be filled by eastern high sulfur coal and stack gas cleaning equipment or new clean fuels techniques.
Some additional tests may result from the disposal of captured pollutants. These captured by-products — sludge — which would otherwise be dispersed in the air, can be treated to reduce volume substantially. And there are regenerable sulfur oxide control processes which yield no added sludge, other than would normally result from reduced dispersal of pollutants to the atmosphere. In any case, the amount of sludge — captured pollutants — need be little more than the amount of ash which has been disposed of by power plants for many years.
Some low sulfur coals presently being burned actually result in three times the amount of ash produced compared to eastern high sulfur high BTU coal. Treated sludge, on the other hand, can reduce the volume of ash and sludge combined by approximately 50 percent and can be used as landfill and building materials.
ENERGY IMPLICATIONS
In many cases, the use of the best available new processes will yield significant pollution reduction and also conserve energy. The adoption of hydro-metallurgical processes to replace smelting techniques in the copper industry is yielding pollution reduction approaching 100%. New paper mill processes for burning pulping liquors will provide half the steam to run the mill. A new paper mill evaporator recently developed eliminates odors and saves 200,000 barrels of oil per year.
Coating processes using volatile solvents that contribute to smog are being replaced by water based, ultraviolet, or dry processes which are solvent-free.
The use of best available control technology as add-on devices may increase energy consumption. But these increases are expected to be modest. Flue gas desulfurization systems for power plants use approximately 8% of the capacity of the plant. For example, according to available data, the energy demand of a scrubber system for an 800 megawatt power plant is roughly equivalent to the energy demand to mine the coal for that plant. And the energy used is not foreign energy — it is domestic coal.
An EPA study of costs of nondegradation policies indicates that the maximum energy penalty associated with the operation of pollution control equipment at new power plants would be modest: only 0.8% in 1990.
If all new power plants between now and 1990 were equipped with stack gas cleaning devices, the energy needed to operate these cleaning devices could be generated without the addition of any new capacity if existing plants were to increase their actual generation by 1% of capacity over their present performance.
The present performance of coal fired power plants is approximately 65% of capacity; for nuclear plants the performance is 59% capacity. Clearly, priority should be given to increasing the reliability of existing power plants so that energy is available for public consumption and for the operation of pollution control equipment.
FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONSHIP
The States are assigned the lead role in implementing nondegradation policy. As I pointed out earlier, EPA is given a carefully defined role.
As important to the national controversy on significant deterioration is the role of the Federal Land Manager. These Federal officials are given a positive responsibility to assure protection of air quality values associated with the national parks and wildernesses and other Federal lands which may become designated as Class I areas. The Federal Land Manager will play an important role relative to emissions which have potential impact on these valuable areas.
Many national parks and wilderness areas have been set aside because of their extensive vistas, expansive scenic views, unique natural formations or primitive value. If pollution would impair such values, or if the existence of the plume or the discoloration which would be caused by a major emitting facility would detract from the values of a park or wilderness area, then the Federal Land Manager must act to try to prevent this damage.
The Federal Land Manager has a mandate to protect the air quality values of these areas. This bill requires the Federal Land Manager to be diligent in carrying out this new responsibility.
In most cases, the added pollution allowed by this Act will still leave a cushion in clean air areas before the national health and welfare standards are exceeded. The States are expected to avoid using up this safety margin with pollution from non-major emitters.
This is an important admonition. If efforts are not made to control these sources before they begin to threaten health and welfare standards, there is great likelihood and those standards will, in fact, be exceeded. The patterns that create such pollution — such as sprawl requiring excessive transportation — will already be established. Reversal will be difficult if not impossible. Even if reversal is possible, unnecessary and undesirable deterioration of air quality would have occurred.
It would be of little value to have carefully reserved the option of States to make balancing judgments in relation to the degree of emission reduction beyond that required by the increments if, in the absence of careful consideration of non-major emitters, the growth capacity were frittered away.
Last year, during Senate consideration of the nondegradation provision, the Senate was asked to adopt a provision allowing for a one year study of the nondegradation policy prior to passage of the legislation in the Senate. That amendment was rejected by a vote of 31 to 63. The Senate determined that adequate studies already existed to make decisions regarding nondegradation.
The judgment that adequate studies had been conducted has proven to be correct. There has been a one year lapse since the Senate reported its bill in 1976. The reports available at that time have held up well over the last year. The studies conducted in the 1975-1976 period still serve as the basis for judging this policy. Studies done since the Senate debate last year have only been supplemental. Extensive new studies have not been required. The basic choices are available, and the Senate made the correct choice last year.
A nondegradation policy has been governing the country for the past two and one-half years. The EPA regulations were issued in December, 1974. All of the clean air portions of the country have been designated as Class II areas, just as in the Senate bill.
Growth did not stop. Industry did not come to a standstill. The nation did not come to its knees. In fact, business has gone forward, and new facilities were constructed.
Let me give some examples. A pulp and paper mill in western Montana, in mountain country near Missoula, has had a large expansion approved. A coal cleaning facility in Western Colorado has received a permit. A 350 megawatt power plant at Brush, Colorado was approved. A sewage sludge incinerator was approved in Westchester County, New Jersey. Petroleum storage tanks along the East Coast have been approved. Dozens of industrial, commercial and residential combustion units have been approved. A 750 megawatt power plant has been approved at the Iatan station of Kansas City Power and Light. A refinery in Kansas City has been approved.
These examples are merely a sampling of the hundreds of facilities that have been approved throughout the country. These are industrial facilities. They have been able to comply with the increments that are contained in the Senate bill. Any fears that a nondegradation policy is unreasonable are unfounded.