June6, 1977
Page 17590
NONDEGRADATION FACT SHEET
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, when the Senate considered the Clean Air Amendments of 1976 last year, the most controversial issue was the nondegradation provision. This is an important policy first contained in the 1967 Air Quality Act. It is a policy I helped develop and one I continue to support.
Last year the Senate voted 31 to 63 to embrace the committee's nondegradation proposal. New opposition on this issue is likely to occur when the Senate considers the Clean Air Amendments of 1977 later this week. In order to provide further information on this subject, I have developed comments on the newest proposals to weaken the nondegradation provision which have been circulating. In addition I have had last year's nondegradation fact sheet updated for inclusion with this statement because it provides the basic information which is relevant to consideration of nondegradation policy.
A. EXEMPTION FOR 18 DAYS (5 PERCENT) OF THE YEAR
ALLEGATION
An exception should be made to the class I and class II increments which would allow them to be exceeded 18 days of the year. This would allow siting of large plants that are needed for energy production but would not have significant impact on air quality.
FACT
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 percent 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 a 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.
B. ELIMINATION OF SHORT TERM INCREMENTS
ALLEGATION
The 24-hour or 3-hour increments are unnecessary and should be dropped. The annual average increment levels are sufficient.
FACT
Eliminating the short term 3-hour and 24-hour increments from the bill would completely undermine the protection provided by the nondegradation policy.
An annual average is the sum of a year's daily pollution readings. Since they are only averages, they can mask high air pollution concentrations. The annual average has never been found to be the protective factor in any of the studies on nondegradation. Projected emissions always exceed the 3-hour and 24-hour increments before they exceed the annual increment. The Environmental Protection Agency studied 33 existing plants to provide the data used in Russell Train's March 10, 1975, letter on this subject. Mr. Train concluded that in two-thirds of the plants studied, if nondegradation requirements had been applicable for those plants, the amount of pollution allowed would have more than doubled compared to nondegradation requirements with the short term increments kept in place. In response to a letter I wrote on this subject. Russell Train, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency at that time, has said:
"The short term increments are generally controlling for sources with elevated emission points (e.g., power plants). For example, it is entirely possible that a new power plant could meet the annual Class II increments for both sulfur dioxide (SO2) and particulate matter (TSP) yet cause short term concentrations that would approach the short term national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Thirty-three existing plants were analyzed.
Clearly, sole application of the annual increment would not, in many cases, provide a significant margin of nondeterioration protection beyond the primary and secondary NAAQS if a source could create short term concentrations up to the 24-hour or 3-hour national standards.
In addition, . . . allowing degradation up to the three-hour secondary NAAQS, could possibly result in damage to certain commercial crops.
... the 24-hour concentration of particulates has a considerable impact on visibility. For example, degradation up to the 24-hour NAAQS would reduce visibility from more than 70 miles to about 5 miles. Sole use of the annual increment for nondeterioration would, in many cases, allow such a reduction in visibility to occur."
If the proposal were to remove only the three-hour and 24-hour class I increments, it would still allow substantial damage to occur in visibility over parks and wilderness areas. Mr. Train stated the following: "In fact, even under the Senate 24-hour Class II increment, visibility would be reduced under the same circumstances (i.e. existing air quality of 10 micrograms per cubic meter) from 70 miles to about 19 miles."
C. ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Contents :
1. Urban and Southern Growth.
2. Intermountain Power Project.
3. Hearings.
4. State Involvement.
5. Studies Conducted.
8. CHESS Study.
7. Construction Delays.
8. Buffer Zones.
9. No Growth Areas.
10. New Housing, Farming, Manufacturing.
11. Natural Emissions.
12. Federal Class I Areas.
13. New Parks and Wilderness Areas.
14. Land Use.
15. Inequity Among .States.
18. Western States and Energy.
17. Job Losses.
18. Lack of Information.
19. Modeling and Monitoring Technology.
20. Clean Air is a Luxury.
21. Poor People and Fixed Incomes.
22. Control of Permits.
1. ALLEGATION
An exemption from nondegradation requirements is necessary to allow growth in urban areas and in the southern areas of the United States.
FACT
This allegation shows a great confusion between the problems of urban and rural areas. The problem in urban areas is that many have already exceeded national health standards, and therefore are not affected by the nondegradation provision. This problem in no way relates to the provision under discussion. Instead it raises a question related to the "nonattainment" section of the bill. This is addressed in a totally separate section of the bill, where the committee has modified EPA policy to allow greater flexibility for growth in such areas, under carefully controlled conditions.
With regard to southern rural areas, the exemptions mentioned here are principally for western States with large parks and wilderness areas. The effect of the exemptions proposed would be to allow huge facilities to locate close to national parks such as the Grand Canyon, Bryce Canyon, Yellowstone, and other scenic areas. The exemptions would have no negative impact on the ability of western states to supply coal to midwestern and southern States.
2. ALLEGATION
An exemption from the nondegradation increments — such as an 18day exemption — is necessary in order to allow the siting of the intermountain power project which would supply electricity to the State of California for 3 million people.
FACT
The intermountain power project could be redesigned, relocated, and be able to supply power to the State of California. The companies promising the project have indicated that it would be possible to relocate the plant further from the Capital Reef National Park, but have indicated that they have no desire to do so, and have rejected suggestions to separate the plant into two large facilities which could be sited apart from each other and thereby reduce air quality impact.
Instead, the owners insist on one mammoth power plant larger than any now in existence.
The intermountain power project — IPP is a 3,000 megawatt power plant — proposed for location approximately 71/2 miles outside Capital Reef National Park in Utah. The emissions from the proposed plant would have a substantial negative impact on the scenic area of the park and the surrounding parks, monuments, and wilderness areas in the Southwest. Scientific projections have been calculated regarding the impact of the IPP project on visibility in the area if an 18 day exemption were allowed. These studies show that visibility from some of the most beautiful viewpoints in the park would decline from an existing visibility range of 100 miles down to 15 miles. The esthetic impact would be severe; the particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide from the emission of such a plant creates a brownish-orange plume which is highly identifiable. The refusal of the owners to relocate this facility away from the park, where sites are available and coal supplies plentiful, is an example of arrogant flaunting of the public interest. Such a facility should not be allowed to dictate Federal policy regarding the protection of highly valued recreation and scenic areas.
3. ALLEGATION
Legislative hearings have not been held on this provision.
FACT
Since enactment of the 1970 Clean Air Amendments, the Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution has held 56 days of hearings to review implications of that act. Specific hearings on nondegradation were held in 1973, 1974, 1975, and 1977. In 1975, 14 days of hearings were held and 48 markup sessions were conducted. One entire day of hearings was focused completely on nondegradation in 1975, and the subject was discussed in numerous other hearings that year. In 1976 4 days of hearings on specific legislation were held. Nondegradation was specifically discussed. Legislative proposals submitted to and considered by the committee included President Ford's proposal, the Environmental Protection Agency's existing regulations, and legislative proposals from the following organizations: The American Paper Institute, the American Mining Congress, Dupont, the National Association of Manufacturers, Shell Oil, Utah Power & Light, Cast Metals Federation, Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Counties, the Electric Utility Industry, Continental Oil Co., the Sierra Club, and the State of New Mexico and many other groups. The hearings were a combination of oversight and legislative hearings.
4. ALLEGATION
States have not been involved adequately in developing these amendments.
FACT
Twenty States joined the Sierra Club or submitted independent suits requesting the courts to require a nondegradation policy. These States joined the initial Sierra Club suit: Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Vermont, Texas. These States filed independent suits requesting the courts to require a nondegradation policy: Illinois, New York, Texas, California, Michigan, and Minnesota — Minnesota adopted the Michigan brief. Only three States opposed the suits requesting the courts to require a nondegradation policy: Utah, Arizona, and Virginia.
In addition to joining suits, the following States have expressed support over the past several years for a policy of prevention of significant deterioration: Alaska, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
Eight States testified in 1975 during the clean air hearings: New Mexico, Nebraska, Texas, Colorado, New York, California, Montana, and West Virginia. All submitted comments on nondegradation. Three meetings were held between the committee staff and State air pollution control officials representing the members of the Governors' conference. In addition, 12 meetings were held between individual State officials and committee staff members. Additional meetings were held in 1976 and 1977.
It was on the basis of the suggestions made in such meetings and statements from these witnesses that caused the committee to make substantial changes in the legislative proposals regarding nondegradation.
On May 12, 1976, the chairman of the national Governors' conference, Gov. Robert D. Ray of Iowa, sent a telegram opposing the delay of congressional action on this issue and said this:
I would like to advise that the policy of the National Governor's Conference (NGC) call for a decision for Congress to allow each State maximum flexibility to incorporate local guidance in its decision making. An amendment to be offered by Senator Moss to S. 3219 would put off Congressional action on this action.
Many States are concerned that the passage of such an amendment would result in continuing litigation over present court ordered Federal regulations and bring about uncertainties among the States and other interested parties in planning for overall development in clean air areas. Therefore, I urge you and your colleagues to insure that the vital issue of prevention of significant deterioration is settled now by Congress.
5. ALLEGATION
No studies have been done. A further 1-year study is necessary to have adequate information upon which to base a decision.
FACT
This is totally untrue. Ongoing studies of implementation should be conducted, but extensive studies already exist analyzing nondegradation policy and options.
The Environmental Protection Agency has spent approximately $1 million in studies on nondegradation policies. This is one of the most extensive and expensive series of studies which has been conducted on environmental regulations. Prior to promulgation of the final EPA regulations on December 5, 1975, EPA compiled the following studies:
First. Technical Support Document — EPA Regulations for Preventing the Significant Deterioration of Air Quality, Environmental Protection Agency, January 1975.
Second. "Sierra Club et al. Litigation — Significant Deterioration," B. J. Steigerweld, September 27, 1972.
Third. "Summary of Responses Received Regarding the Prevention of Significant Deterioration."
Fourth. "Summary of Responses Received Regarding the August 27, 1974, Proposal To Prevent Significant Deterioration of Air Quality."
Fifth. "Summary of State Responses on `Significant Deterioration' Proposal."
Sixth. "The Impact of Proposed Nondegradation Regulations on Economic Growth," volumes 1 and 2, Harbridge House, Inc., November 1973.
Seventh. "Implications of Nondegradation Policies on Clean Air Regions: A Case Study of the Dallas-Ft. Worth AQCR (215)," U.S. Department of Commerce, May 1974.
Eighth. "Analysis of the U.S. EPA's Proposals to Prevent Significant Deterioration Relative to the Development Outlook for New York State," New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, October 1973..
Ninth "Impact of the Proposed Nondegradation Alternatives on New Power Plants," TRW, Inc., September 28, 1973;
Tenth. "Economic Growth and Development Impacts of Proposals to Prevent Significant Deterioration of Air Quality."
Eleventh "Scientific Factors Bearing on Regulatory Policies to Assure Nondegradation of Air Quality."
Twelfth.. "Availability of Air Quality Data in Areas Generally Below the NAAQS"
Thirteenth. "Technical Data in Support of Significant Deterioration Issue."
Fourteenth. "Nondegradation and Power Plant Size," J. A. Tikvart, August 12, 1974.
Fifteenth. "Significant Deterioration in Zone I Areas and the Relative Location of Powerplants," J. S. Tikvart October 15, 1974.
Sixteenth. "Discussion Paper on the Magnitude of the Class II Increment in the Significant Deterioration Regulations:"
Seventeenth. "Emissions of Sources Subject to Significant Deterioration Issue."
Eighteenth. "Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning and Analysis, volume 10: Reviewing New Stationary Sources," EPA, September 1974.
Nineteenth, "Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning and Analysis, volume 12: Applying Atmospheric Simulation Models to Air Quality Maintenance Areas," EPA, September 1974.
Twentieth. "Findings of Task Force on Significant Deterioration," R. G. Rhoads. December 20, 1973.
Twenty-first: "The Largest Annual Average, Maximum 24-Hour and Minimum3-Hour Concentrations of Sulfur Dioxide Produced Per Year by a Modern 1,000 MW Electric Power Plant Meeting the New Source Performance Standards for Sulfur Dioxide Emissions," Enviroplan, Inc., 1974.
In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency received aver 3,000 pages of testimony at the hearings held on its proposed regulations. Ninety-one comments were received from industry.
The following studies have been conducted on various Senate committee proposals:
First. "An Analysis of the Impact on the Electric Utility Industry of the Alternative Approaches to Significant Deterioration", EPA/FEA, October 1975;
Second. Chamber of Commerce Analysis and Discussion Papers;
Third. Analysis of the Impact of the Senate Proposals on the State of Alaska;
Fourth. "A Preliminary Analysis of the Economic Impact on the Electric Utility Industry of Alternative Approaches to Significant Deterioration", EPA, February 5, 1976;
Fifth. "Impact of Significant Deterioration Proposals on the Siting of Power Plants" by Environmental Research and Technology, Inc., February 18, 1976;
Sixth. "Impact Analysis of the Effective Proposed Clean Air Act Amendments and Existing EPA Significant Deterioration Regulations on Electric Utilities in Minnesota and Wisconsin" by David Hoffman, James Bechthol; November 14, 1975;
Seventh. "Technical Studies for Assessing the Impact of Significant Deterioration Regulations," EPA, May1976;
Eighth. "Summary of EPA Analysis of the Regional Consumer Impact of the Clean Air Act on Significant Deterioration," EPA, May 3. 1976;
Ninth. "A Preliminary Critique of FEA's Analysis at the Impact of Significant Deterioration an Oil", May 3, 1976;
Tenth. "Estimated Cost for the Electric Utility Industry of Nondeterioration Amendments Currently Considered by the United States,." NERA, April 16, 1976;
Eleventh. American Petroleum Institute Report by John J. Anderson, April 19.1975;
Twelfth. "Summary of EPA Analysis of the Impact of the Senate Significant Deterioration Proposal". April 28, 1976;
Thirteenth. Proposed Clean Air Amendments: Impact of Proposed Rules for Nondeterioration of Air Quality on the Construction of Kraft, Pulp and Paper Mills, Environmental Research and Technology, Inc., for the American Paper Institute, September 9, 1975;
Fourteenth. "Proposed Clean Air Amendments: Implications of Nondeterioration Rules on Maine", Environmental Research and Technology, Inc., for the American Paper Institute, August 28, 1975;
Fifteenth. "The Effect of Proposed Nondeterioration Rules on the State of Maine," Environmental Research and Technology, Inc., for the American Paper Institute, October 30, 1975;
Sixteenth. "A Summary of the Background Levels of Air Quality Parameters for the Oil Shale Tracks in Colorado and Utah from September 1974 through February 1975," American Petroleum Institute, July 14, 1975;
Seventeenth. "Power Plant Impacts on National Recreation Resources," Department of the Interior, March 1976:
Eighteenth. "An Air Quality Evaluation for the Intermountain Power Project," Westinghouse Electric Cooperation Environmental Systems, October 16 1975;
Nineteenth. "Health Basis for Preventing Significant Deterioration: An Ounce of Prevention," December 3, 1975;
Twentieth. "Benefits From Preventing Significant Deterioration of Air Quality", April 14, 1976;
Twenty-first. "Impact of Proposed Nonsignificant Deterioration Provisions", Draft Interim Report, InterCity Fund, Inc., April 14,1976
Twenty-second. "Impact of Significant Deterioration Proposals Upon Western Surface Coal Mining Operations," Environmental Research and Technology, Inc., for the Federal Energy Administration, May 5, 1976;
Twenty-third. "An Evaluation of AdditionaI Production Costs for Significant Deterioration and Best Available Control Technology Proposals", General Electric Company, April 26,. 1976;
Twenty-fourth, "Technical Evaluation of the Nondeterioration Portions of Proposed Clean Air Act Amendment;" Environmental Research and Technology, Inc., February 1977;
Twenty-fifth. "The Impact of Significant Deterioration Proposals en the Siting of Electric Generating Facilities Documentation of Analyses Undertaken between July 1975 and September 1976;" Environmental Research and Technology, Inc., prepared for the Electric Utility Clean Air Coordinating Committee, February 1977;
Twenty-sixth. "The Northern Cheyenne Air Quality Redesignatlon Report and Request," Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Inc., March 3, 1977;
Twenty-seventh. "Cost and Economic Impacts of Proposed Nonsignificant Deterioration Amendments to the Clean Air Act,," prepared far Clean. Air Coordinating Committee, March 8, 1977;
Twenty-eighth. "A Survey of Power Plant Siting Potential Considering Significant Deterioration and Effects Due to Elevated Terrain and Stagnation," prepared for Utah Power and Light Co. by North American Weather Consultants, Santa Barbara, Calif., January 1977;
Twenty-ninth. "The Cost of Clean Air Legislation," National Economic Research Associates, February 1977.
All of these studies have highlighted the fact that the conclusions reached depend very heavily on the assumption used in conducting the study. Many studies by industry contained untrue allegations that large portions of the country would be blocked from further development. These studies were inaccurate because their initial assumptions were flawed.
Proposals to delay any nondegradation policy while further studies are conducted are merely a smokescreen for the desire to have no such policy at all.
6. ALLEGATION
EPA's basis for requiring pollution cleanup has been challenged and EPA staff has been charged with deliberately distorting data regarding the effects of pollution.
FACT
These charges have effectively been laid to rest. Hearings held Friday, April 9,1976, by the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce and the House Science and Technology Committees established the following:
First. Current national ambient air quality standards were established prior to the initiation of the study in controversy — the Community Health and Environment Surveillance System Study — CHESS. Even if the CHESS studies were discarded, this would not affect any of the national standards or EPA's implementation policies, all of which are based on a number of studies, of which CHESS is only one.
Second. The CHESS studies, however, should not be discarded; though no study is perfect — and epidemiological studies are particularly difficult to conduct — the CHESS studies have been characterized as the best of their kind in the world and the most reliable epidemiological studies ever carried out.
7. ALLEGATION
Costs of construction delays as a result of the Senate nondegradation policy may be extensive; therefore, no such policy should be adopted.
FACT
Greater uncertainty will occur by eliminating the Senate provision than by accepting it and establishing congressional policy in this area. If Congress remains silent on this subject now, that will only aggravate uncertainty, not erase it.
The policy contained in the Senate committee bill will clarify policy and reduce uncertainty. Sources may then apply for the right to construct new facilities knowing the ground rules. At present no such certainty can occur.
Moreover, present EPA regulations are subject to court challenge. If the Sierra Club wins, then EPA will be required to tighten its requirements. Even if EPA is sustained, it still could revise its regulations to make them more stringent. On the other hand, by prescribing the requirements in the bill, EPA's authority to promulgate more restrictive rules is curtailed.
8. ALLEGATION
A no-growth buffer zone of 60-100 miles will be required to prevent pollution of the Federal parks.
FACT
This is totally false. Under the Senate bill — but not the EPA regulations — the class I increment which protects such areas is used as an initial, not a final, test. An appeal is allowed which would permit construction of a major facility regardless of the test for a class I area if the applicant can demonstrate no adverse impact on the air quality values of the class I area.
In addition, according to joint EPA/FEA calculations, a well-controlled 1,000 megawatt coal fired power plant could locate as close as 6 miles from a class I area without causing that area's increment to be exceeded.
9. ALLEGATION
At least 80 percent of many States would be off limits to new development.
FACT
One percent of the Nation's land would be directly placed in a class I category, which is designed to protect these important national resources: all international parks, and each national park, memorial park, and wilderness area over 5,000 acres.
10. ALLEGATION
Amendments not only ban new manufacturing plants, but even new housing, farming operations, and recreation.
FACT
This is false. The provisions only apply to "major emitting facilities" which emit over 100 tons of the pollutant per year and which are listed as a major emitting source category in the bill.
11. ALLEGATION
The increments (of allowable degradation of air) are often found to be violated by natural emissions which occur in rural and scenic areas. Therefore, further development already is taken up by nature in many areas.
FACT
The increments are in addition to any existing baseline air quality. Such a baseline includes natural emissions and existing manmade sources. The increment is an allowable quota which is added to the existing air quality. Nature cannot use it up: The secondary standards, including natural pollution, establish the limits on growth. No one supports violating secondary standards.
12. ALLEGATION
Most Federal lands would be class I, effectively ruling out most land in some States.
FACT
This is false. Under the Senate bill, only existing national parks over 6,000 acres and national wilderness areas over 5,000 acres would be class I. All other Federal lands, including national forests, Indian lands and monuments could only be redesignated as class I with State concurrence.
13. ALLEGATION
The number of mandatory class I areas will increase as new national parks and national wilderness areas are created.
FACT
This is not true: The mandatory class I designation only applies to national parks and national wilderness areas over 5,000 acres which are in existence on date of enactment.
14. ALLEGATION
The prevention of significant deterioration provisions is a Federal land use policy based solely on one criterion: air quality.
FACT
The Senate bill does not require any land classification scheme to be undertaken by the State. The bill in question only regulates air quality and emissions, not land use. The States are free to use the land as they see fit.
Of course, air quality is not the only, let alone the decisive, factor in influencing, a State's growth decision. It is merely one factor to be considered.
15. ALLEGATION
The nondegradation policy would have a much more severe impact in some States than in others.
FACT
This allegation comes from a misunderstanding of the use of air quality increments proposed in the committee bill.
Even without a nondegradation policy, an air quality increment already exists in clean air areas. The increment is the amount of pollution which could be added to the area until the ambient air quality standards are reached. In areas of flat terrain, that increment is large. In areas of severe terrain, that increment — up to the national ambient air quality standards — is smaller because pollution concentrations build up rapidly against mountainsides. Therefore, States with flat terrain have a greater competitive advantage if no nondegradation policy exists.
Under nondegradation policy, this uneven competitive disadvantage would bediminished. The amount of additional pollution allowed in all areas will be the same. Areas of uneven terrain are frequently constrained by the national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards. The terrain effects would provide constraints with or without a nondegradation policy. In such cases, the nondegradation requirement for the use of best available control technology will enable such areas to control pollution and allow further growth.
16. ALLEGATION
Western States will be held at their present levels of development and not be allowed to develop their energy resources. The Nation will be asked to curtail its industrial output.
FACT
These allegations are false. They echo the erroneous position of the chamber of commerce since the summer of 1975 — a line which has not been altered even though it has been fully discredited. In responding to the Chamber's allegation, Roger Strelow, Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, said:
I have just read your article in September's Washington Report ... The article claims that the Environmental Protection Agency's regulations for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality would endanger States' development and "ban development in areas 60 to 100 miles adjacent to select Federally owned lands such as national parks and forests." This is simply not true.
First, the regulations do not apply to all development, but only a select number of the major stationary industrial sources. Thus, contrary to what the article concludes, activities such as construction, farming, light manufacturing, and residential development are not affected by the regulations.
I would like to comment on the article's contention that Congress in amending the Clean Air Act, is considering a "no growth federal land use policy" based solely on air quality. That is nonsense.
In response to the Administration's request to consider all alternatives and to give explicit guidance on a prevention of significant deterioration policy that allows a balancing of environmental, economic and energy objectives, the Congressional Subcommittees have provided proposals that give the States the authority to make their own determinations of what constitutes significant deterioration within a framework of allowable air quality levels. Like EPA's regulations, these proposals require the States to consider and balance their various objectives, with full public participation. The proposals apply only to major industrial sources.
The public wants to preserve clean air. According to an August 1975 poll commissioned by the Federal Energy Administration 94 percent of the American. people favor preserving our clean air regions.
The EPA analysis of energy facilities indicates that coal gasification, oil shale, coal fired power plants and other such energy facilities can meet the nondegradation requirements.
In the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD on April 29, 1976, on page 11761, a new EPA study is printed showing that all major industries could build under the Senate committee’s nondegradation proposal. These include power plants, paper mills, smelters, refineries, and so forth.
In sum, Western States will not be precluded from development, and the Nation will not be asked to curtail its output. It will be asked to insure that its growth is clean and that analysis of future development occurs in a rational policy rather than on the basis of piecemeal, private decision making.
17. ALLEGATION
There will be a loss of employment due to the nondegradation provisions.
FACT
This is incorrect. In addition to the fact that this provision only applies to new facilities — to employment not yet developed — the pollution. control requirements imposed in the committee bill will increase employment, not reduce it. In an immediate sense, more jobs will be needed in order to construct the pollution control facilities associated with compliance — facilities which might not have been installed without these amendments. In an economy with high unemployment, this is a plus.
Studies of the Council on Environmental Quality and Chase Econometrics show the economic effects of pollution control. These requirements have led us to the creation of 1 million new jobs, according to the CEQ.
18. ALLEGATION
We do not know which areas of the Nation are clean enough to qualify for coverage under the nondegradation provision and, therefore, must wait for further information before determining that such areas should be protected from significant deterioration.
FACT
This criticism misses an important difference between nondegradation areas and dirty areas; it implies that expansion in nondegradation areas will somehow be more restricted than expansion in areas which have exceeded national ambient air standards.
This is untrue. In fact, expansion in dirty areas is more difficult:. The health and welfare standards have already been exceeded in such areas, and a substantial burden rests on any applicant for a new source to demonstrate that he will not worsen that situation or interfere with cleaning up to the national standards; such a source must make the case that any pollution should be allowed.
Absolute knowledge does not exist. There are many gaps in data on monitoring of existing air quality. But this does not provide a reason for delaying a policy to protecting existing air quality.
Most States will be able to make intelligent judgments of air quality in areas where little monitoring data exists. As new applications are submitted, information will be gathered as part of the permit approval process.
19. ALLEGATION
Technology does not exist to model the projected emissions from new sources or for monitoring the emissions from these sources. Therefore, Congress should not act until precise tools exist.
FACT
This criticism has a "Catch-22" approach. It says that sources should be allowed to pollute because science has not developed precise techniques for telling exactly how much pollution is created; by the time such techniques are developed. they could very well be useless in protecting air quality, since deterioration would have made the question moot.
For years State air pollution control agencies and Federal agencies have used modeling projections to analyze applications for new sources that would continue under the nondegradation proposal. There is no other way of determining the impact of a source that has yet to be constructed.
In most cases, the errors identified show that more pollution is occurring, not less. This indicates a need to control such pollution now.
20. ALLEGATION
High quality air in clean areas is a luxury — a luxury that must be sacrificed in order to allow industry to grow.
FACT
Clean air is not a luxury and growth need not be sacrificed to keep it. If we attempt to sacrifice air quality now for short term gains, we will find our water becoming more acid, our crop production deteriorating, our esthetic experience in wilderness areas declining, and our health being damaged by long term low level exposure.
In addition, we will find that we have lost one of the most useful, growth-preserving options available — the option of determining how air resources will be used prior to their use. Without a nondegradation policy, new sources may well adopt lesser control technologies and thereby use up the available air quality without providing room for the growth of industries that follow in subsequent years.
21. ALLEGATION
A nondegradation policy will harm the poor and those on fixed incomes.
FACT
This is erroneous. Those who use this argument cite competing and mutually exclusive arguments. On the one hand, nondegradation allegedly hurts the city dweller because growth in the clean portion of the metropolitan areas will not be allowed and plants will therefore be forced to flee to outlying areas. On the other hand, cities argue that growth will be restricted in rural clean air areas because of the nondegradation provision and sources will be required to remain in urban areas.
Neither allegation is correct. Dirty air areas usually have some portions that continue to be clean and new sources, if carefully controlled and properly sited, can be located in such urban areas.
Growth will continue and the metropolitan area will attract jobs and industry. In addition, the amendments contain new provisions to allow expansion in such areas. In rural areas, development of new facilities is clearly allowed and nondegradation requirements only insure that the growth be as clean as possible.
22.ALLEGATION
EPA will have the final control over which sources may get permits to construct.
FACT
This is true under present EPA regulations but not true under the Senate bill The States are responsible for deciding whether to issue permits to new sources under the Senate bill. No State permit may be disapproved if the procedures are followed and if the ceilings and increments set in the bill are observed.