DEB
760727
BUMPERS
US SENATOR
--
CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1977, AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED FOR PRINTING
CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1976 -- S. 3219 (PP 5190 TO 5192)
--
--
95-95
--
CA110844 CA110846
00818
(())
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
Proceedings and Debates of the 94th Congress
LD-4a (Rev. Jan. 71)
SENATE
BILL: S. 3219 DATE: 760727 PAGE(S): S12525-12526
ACTION: Amendment No. 2088 submitted by Mr. Inouye and Mr. Fong.
Amendments Nos. 2091, 2092, 2100, and 2101 submitted by Mr. Allen.
Amendment No. 2089 submitted by Mr. Bumpers.(())
(Ordered to be printed and to lie on the table.)
Mr. INOUYE (for himself and Mr. FONG) submitted an amendment intended
to be proposed by them jointly to the bill (S. 3219) to amend the Clean
Air Act, as amended.
(Ordered to be printed and to lie on the table.)
Mr. ALLEN submitted four amendments intended to be proposed by him to
amendment No. 1798 to the bill (S. 3219), supra.
(Ordered to be printed and to lie on table.)
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I submit an amendment to section 6 of
this act. This section defines class I areas by adding a new subsection
to section 110 of the Clean Air Act. Part (g)(1)(A)(i) states that
areas to be designated class I shall include all international parks,
and all national and national memorial parks, and wilderness areas
larger than 5,000 acres. I strongly support this provision, and feel
that maintaining the pristine air quality of these areas should have the
highest priority. My amendment would make only one minor change
affecting a single national park.
Hot Springs National Park in Arkansas was established as its name
implies, to protect the warm water springs of that area. The original
area covered only a little over a thousand acres. To protect the water
recharge area of the springs, additional land has been purchased
bringing the park up to around 4,500 acres at the present time.
Additional purchases are authorized up to a total(()) of approximately
5,800 acres. The problem that arises is that some 1,500 acres of the
park are actually within the city limits of Hot Springs, Ark., and the
rest is either immediately adjacent to or surrounded by the city. This
is clearly not the type of national park which the drafters of this
legislation intended to protect as a class I area. In fact, Hot Springs
is the only national park having this particular situation.
Technically, however, the Hot Springs area which has a population of
approximately 40,000 would be restricted to the same small increments in
sulfur oxides and particulates as our most remote national parks.
The people of Hot Springs want clean air and will continue to have it
as a city in a class II region. As a class II region they would also
have the option of becoming a class I region if they so choose.
My amendment would raise the acreage limitation for Class I
designation from 5,000 to 6,000 acres for national parks only. It would
not affect any other national park than Hot Springs, nor any other type
of area including the two fine wilderness areas of which we are so proud
in Arkansas.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my amendment
be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the amendment was ordered to be printed in
the RECORD, as follows:
Delete lines 18, 19, and 20 on page 11 and insert the following:
"all international parks, and each national wilderness area, and
national memorial park which exceeds five thousand acres in size, and
each national park which exceeds six thousand acres in size".
SBI OTH
760727
ALLEN
US SENATOR
--
CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1977, S. 3219 AMENDMENT INTENDED TO BE
PROPOSED BY MR. ALLEN (TO THE AMENDMENT NUMBERED 1798) TO S. 3219, A
BILL TO AMEND THE CLEAN AIR ACT, AS AMENDED (PP 5193 TO 5194)
S 5193
--
95-95
--
CA110847 CA110848
00819
(())
Calendar No. 685
94TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
Intended to be proposed by Mr. ALLEN (to the amendment numbered 1798)
to S. 3219, a bill to amend the Clean Air Act, as amended, viz:
On page 2, line 11, strike the period and insert a semicolon and add
the following: "none of which provisions shall be implemented or
enforced until a period of one year shall have elapsed from the date on
which the Commission submits the report required of it on the results of
its study and investigation, and none of the provisions of subsection
(g) of section 110 of the Act in contravention of the recommendations of
said Commission as contained in said report shall be enforced or
implemented.".
Amdt. No. 2101(())
Amdt. No. 2101
Calendar No. 685
94TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
Intended to be proposed by Mr. ALLEN (to the amendment numbered 1798)
to S. 3219, a bill to amend the Clean Air Act, as amended.
SBI OTH
760727
ALLEN
US SENATOR
--
CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1977, S. 3219 AMENDMENT INTENDED TO BE
PROPOSED BY MR. ALLEN (TO THE AMENDMENT NUMBER 1798) TO S. 3219, A BILL
TO AMEND THE CLEAN AIR ACT, AS AMENDED (PP 5195 TO 5196)
S 3219
--
95-95
--
CA110849 CA110850
00820
(())
Calendar No. 685
94TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
Intended to be proposed by Mr. ALLEN (to the amendment numbered 1798)
to S. 3219, a bill to amend the Clean Air Act, as amended, viz:
At the end of line 11, page 2, add the following sentence: "None of
the provisions of subsection (g) of section 110 of the Act in
contravention of the recommendations of said Commission as contained in
said report shall be enforced or implemented.".
Amdt. No. 2100(())
Amdt. No. 2100
Calendar No. 685
94TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
Intended to be proposed by Mr. ALLEN (to the amendment numbered 1798)
to S. 3219, a bill to amend the Clean Air Act, as amended.
SBI OTH
760727
ALLEN
US SENATOR
--
CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1977, S. 3219 AMENDMENT INTENDED TO BE
PROPOSED BY MR. ALLEN (TO THE AMENDMENT NUMBERED 1798) TO S. 3219, A
BILL TO AMEND THE CLEAN AIR ACT, AS AMENDED (PP 5197 TO 5198)
S 3219
--
95-95
--
CA110851 CA110852
00821
(())
Calendar No. 685
94TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
Intended to be proposed by Mr. ALLEN (to the amendment numbered 1798)
to S. 3219, a bill to amend the Clean Air Act, as amended, viz:
On page 2, line 11, strike the period and insert a semicolon and add
the following: "none of which provisions shall be implemented or
enforced until a period of one year shall have elapsed from the date on
which the Commission submits the report required of it on the results of
its study and investigation.".
Amdt. No. 2092(())
Amdt. No. 2092
Calendar No. 685
94TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
Intended to be proposed by Mr. ALLEN (to the amendment numbered 1798)
to S. 3219, a bill to amend the Clean Air Act, as amended.
SBI OTH
760727
ALLEN
US SENATOR
--
CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1977, S. 3219 AMENDMENT INTENDED TO BE
PROPOSED BY MR. ALLEN (TO THE AMENDMENT NUMBERED 1798) TO S. 3219, A
BILL TO AMEND THE CLEAN AIR ACT, AS AMENDED (PP 5199 TO 5200)
S 3219
--
95-95
--
CA110853 CA110854
00822
(())
Calendar No. 685
94TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
Intended to be proposed by Mr. ALLEN (to the amendment numbered 1798)
to S. 3219, a bill to amend the Clean Air Act, as amended, viz:
On page 2, line 4, insert the words "not earlier than one year and"
between the words "be submitted" and the words "not later than".
Amdt No. 2091(())
Amdt. No. 2091
Calendar No. 685
94TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
Intended to be proposed by Mr. ALLEN (to the amendment numbered 1798)
to S. 3219, a bill to amend the Clean Air Act, as amended.
SBI OTH
760727
BUMPERS
US SENATOR
--
CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1977, S. 3219 AMENDMENT INTENDED TO BE
PROPOSED BY MR. BUMPERS TO S. 3219, A BILL TO AMEND THE CLEAN AIR ACT,
AS AMENDED (PP 5201 TO 5202)
S 3219
--
95-95
--
CA110855 CA110856
00823
(())
Calendar No. 685
94TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
Intended to be proposed by Mr. BUMPERS to S. 3219, a bill to amend
the Clean Air Act, as amended, viz:
Delete lines 18, 19, and 20 on page 11 and insert the following:
"all international parks, and each national wilderness area, and
national memorial park which exceeds five thousand acres in size, and
each national park which exceeds six thousand acres in size".
Amdt. No. 2089(())
Amdt. No. 2089
Calendar No. 685
94TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
Intended to be proposed by Mr. BUMPERS to S. 3219, a bill to amend
the Clean Air Act, as amended.
SBI OTH
760727
INOUYE FONG
US SENATOR US SENATOR
--
CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1977, S. 3219 AMENDMENTS INTENDED TO BE
PROPOSED BY MR. INOUYE (FOR HIMSELF AND MR. FONG) TO S. 3219, A BILL TO
AMEND THE CLEAN AIR ACT, AS AMENDED (PP 5203 TO 5204)
S 3219
--
95-95
--
CA110857 CA110858
00824
(())
Calendar No. 685
94TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
Intended to be proposed by Mr. INOUYE (for himself and Mr. FONG) to
S. 3219, a bill to amend the Clean Air Act, as amended, viz:
On page 77, line 6, insert "(a)" immediately following "SEC. 33.".
On page 79, after line 13, insert the following new subsection:
"(b) Section 302(d) of the Clean Air Act is amended --
"(1) by striking out the word 'and' immediately preceding
'American Samoa';
"(2) by striking the period immediately following 'American
Samoa' and inserting in lieu thereof ', and the Trust Territory of
the Pacific Islands.'".
Amdt. No. 2088(())
Amdt. No. 2088
Calendar No. 685
94TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
Intended to be proposed by Mr. INOUYE (for himself and Mr. FONG) to
S. 3219, a bill to amend the Clean Air Act, as amended.
DEB GRA
760727
MANSFIELD EDMUND S. MUSKIE BUCKLEY LEAHY DOMENICI MCCLURE STAFFORD
RANDOLPH BENTSEN BAKER GRAVEL WILLIAM L. SCOTT MOSS GARY HART STONE
STEVENSON FANNIN CULVER
US SENATOR US SENATOR US SENATOR US SENATOR US SENATOR US SENATOR US
SENATOR US SENATOR US SENATOR US SENATOR US SENATOR US SENATOR US
SENATOR US SENATOR US SENATOR US SENATOR US SENATOR US SENATOR
--
CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1977, CLEAN AIR AMENDMENTS OF 1976 (PP 5205
TO 5247)
--
--
95-95
--
CA110859 CA110901
00825
(())
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
SENATE
Proceedings and Debates of the 94th Congress
LD-4a (Rev. Jan. 71)
BILL: S. 3219 DATE: 760727 PAGE(S): S12542-12583
ACTION: Clean Air: Senate continued consideration of S. 3219,
proposed Clean Air Act Amendments of 1976, agreeing to two amendments
proposed thereto, as follows:
(1) Domenici amendment No. 1623, to insure that States provide a
satisfactory consultation with local governments in carrying out various
programs authorized by the bill; Page S12545
(2) Modified Domenici amendment No. 1624, making it explicit that
local elected officials have first option in the conduct of
transportation planning; Page S12546
Pending when this bill was laid aside until tomorrow was Randolph
amendment No. 1798, to require a new National Commission on Air Quality
to conduct a study on non-deterioration policy and report thereon to the
Congress within 2 years after enactment. Page S12555, Pages
S12542-S12583(())
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will now resume consideration of S. 3219, which the clerk will
state by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 3219) to amend the Clean Air Act, as amended.
The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, yesterday I had printed in the RECORD my
full opening statement which would have consumed the rest of this
morning if I were to read it. I hope Members find it useful. In any
case, I thought I would begin today's debate with a brief summary of
that statement.
Mr. President, in 1970 we enacted the landmark clean air amendments,
which had three basic objectives: first, to achieve air quality which
would protect public health; second, to establish specific regulatory
requirements and precise timetables for achievement of those long-term
public policy goals for air quality programs.
The Clean Air Act of 1970 was a new departure.
We knew our goals. They had been established in 1967 when Congress
asserted a national interest in achieving health-related air quality
standards in our Nation's urban-industrial areas and in maintaining
clean air in regions in which air was still pristine.
We proposed and saw enacted two basic tools -- controls on emissions
and establishment of deadlines. Emission controls replaced air quality
standards as the enforcement mechanism; and deadlines provided the
public with a basis against which to judge progress. For autos, this
translated into statutory emission standards and fixed deadlines.
The 1970 amendments have brought(()) considerable progress in
controlling air pollution. Total emissions of some pollutants have been
reduced. We should take pride in these accomplishments. But in most
cases, these improvements will be temporary. By mid-1975, the national
ambient air quality standards for all pollutants have been fully
achieved in only 91 of the Nation's 247 air quality control regions.
Emissions from new growth will reverse this progress unless further
efforts are made to control pollution.
The real test of pollution control comes now -- years later. Whether
or not the legitimate gains made can be held is uncertain. Those
victories and those precedents are now under attack.
In order to assure the Congress that the requirements of the 1970 act
were justified, the Senate Public Works Committee contracted with the
National Academy of Sciences for a $500,000 study of air quality
standards.
The Academy reached these conclusions:
First. Evidence accumulated since the enactment of the 1970
amendments supports the ambient air quality standards which were
promulgated as a result of that act;
Second. Safety margins associated with those standards are only
marginally adequate;
Third. Susceptible groups in the population which may be adversely
affected by unhealthy air constitute about 40 million people;
Fourth. Best estimates indicate that air pollution causes 15,000
excess deaths per year, 15 million days of restricted activity per year,
and 7 million days spent in bed; and
Fifth. Health effects of automobile pollution alone cause 4,000
deaths per year and 4 million illness restricted days per year.
The Nation still experiences the problems which led Congress to adopt
the firm approach of the 1970 amendments:
In the summer of 1975, the State of Iowa experienced its first air
pollution alert.
In the summer of 1975, the Washington, D.C., area suffered its
highest recorded single-day level of photochemical smog in history. The
8-day alert was the area's second longest ever.
The New York Times reported on November 20, 1975, that as many as 30
industrial plants in the Pittsburgh area cut back operations to
alleviate emergency levels of air pollution which were the highest
concentrations ever recorded in Alleghany County since the establishment
of its monitoring system in 1971. An alert is called when the air
quality index reaches 100; the readings from November 17 through 20
reached 249.
The challenges to the premises of the act have been limited, but
there has been a campaign to eliminate the regulatory and enforcement
tools necessary to achieve those public policy objectives.
The bill before the Senate reflects these conflicting pressures. We
voted to give cities more time to utilize new transportation modes --
and to provide transportation alternatives.
We voted to give the auto industry 2 more years to achieve statutory
standards.
We revised the enforcement sections of the act -- revisions which are
encouraging.
This year the committee voted to make specific the requirement that
clean air areas be protected. We determined that each new major plant
should be required to use the best pollution control technology
available and that the impact of each new plant's emissions should be
evaluated against a national nondegradation standard.
This decision was a victory for environmental quality. It comes at a
time when Congress is being asked to sacrifice environmental initiative
for economic recovery even though there is little demonstrable
relationship between the two.
I would like to turn, if I may, to the subject of nondegradation
which appears to be the most controversial aspect of these amendments.
The committee unanimously agreed that the prevention of deterioration
of clean air areas should be resolved by the Congress and not by the
courts. Having reached these conclusions, the committee worked for many
months to develop a consensus regarding the most useful method for
prevention of deterioration.
Let me emphasize again the twin objectives of the Clean Air Act from
the first one, which was written in 1963 but specifically from the 1967
amendments. The twin objectives were these: To clean up the areas
which were already dirty and thus hazardous to the public health and
public welfare of the Nation.
The second was to protect those areas of the Nation in which the air
was still relatively clean so that it would not deteriorate to the
condition of the dirty air areas of the country. It is that latter
objective which is the subject of controversy in the nondegradation
issue.
The nondegradation provisions in the bill do these things:
First. Place primary responsibility and authority with the States,
backed by the Federal Government;
Second. Apply only to new major emitting facilities, not affecting
existing facilities;
Third. Require that large, new sources use the best available
technology to minimize emissions, determined by each State on a
case-by-case basis;
Fourth. Provide a margin of safety to protect national ambient air
quality standards, assuring prudent consideration of any major emitting
facility that may threaten that air quality;
Fifth. Require the Federal Government, as a property owner, to
protect the values related to air quality on certain Federal lands under
the stewardship of various Federal agencies;
Sixth. Eliminate the so-called buffer zones that were hypothesized
around various land classifications;
Seventh. Affect only those areas where air quality is cleaner than
the present primary or secondary standards;
Eighth. Establish a permit process, managed by the State, which is
included in an analysis of the air quality impact of new, major emitting
facilities;
Ninth. Require that the permit application should include data on
background air quality and potential associated growth in order to
better understand the overall air quality implications of the new
facility; and
Tenth. Establish that there should be a nationally applicable
maximum level of change in the air quality of clean air regions -- the
so-called class II increments -- which would be a measure in the change
in air quality permitted in any given area as a result of the operation
of one or more new, major emitting facilities.
The bill's procedures to prevent significant deterioration apply only
to new, major emitting facilities and do not affect existing facilities
or new facilities which are not specified as major by this bill or by
subsequent EPA regulations.
Major emitting facilities are only those 28 industrial sources
identified by category in the statute -- or later identified by EPA --
and which have the potential to emit more than 100 tons of a pollutant
per year. These do not include houses, dairies, farms, highways,
hospitals, schools, grocery stores, and other such sources.
Once the State adopts a permit process in compliance with this
provision, the Environmental Protection Agency role is to seek
injunctive or other judicial relief to assure compliance with the law.
The 1970 Clean Air Act established a deadline for achieving public
health-related air quality standards. While substantial progress has
been made in bringing many sources into final compliance, an improved
mechanism must be established to handle sources presently not in
compliance.
The committee recognizes that some of the facilities are in
compliance and that other facilities are on compliance schedules. These
sources deserve praise. They have made or committed investments. They
have cleaned up their emissions or are in the process of cleaning up
their emissions.
The committee bill provides for delayed compliance orders and delayed
compliance penalties as a new strategy to enforce applicable emission
limitations and to address the problem of those existing sources which
are out of compliance. This provision allows a State or EPA to issue
enforcement orders to sources not in compliance with applicable emission
limitations. Such orders will require compliance as expeditiously as
practicable but in no event later than January 1, 1979.
The committee bill also authorizes the Administrator to seek civil
penalties for violation of emission limitations or schedules and
timetables of compliance. This authority is independent of the deadline
extension and the delayed compliance penalty. If a State has not issued
a delayed compliance order with a new time schedule, the Administrator
is required to seek an injunction against the noncomplying source and is
authorized to seek civil penalties for noncompliance. In addition, the
Administrator is authorized to seek additional penalties(()) against
sources which are subject to the delayed compliance penalty.
AREAS
Under present law, facilities that want to expand at their present
locations face a very stringent review test if they are located in areas
where ambient standards are presently exceeded. In many cases, this
means that under the law, expansion at that site is precluded until the
ambient standard is attained.
The reported bill provides some new flexibility in this area, but it
is carefully contained and strictly limited. The new amendment would
allow expansion at an existing site if a new facility uses the best
available control technology, if existing sources meet all applicable
emission limitations, and if total cumulative emissions will be
sufficiently less to represent reasonable progress toward attainment of
the standards.
Transportation and land use controls were authorized as air pollution
control mechanisms by the 1970 act. When carried out properly, such
controls are a positive tool. The requirements of the 1970 act could
have been the stimulus for beneficial uses of land and transportation in
environmentally compatible ways. This opportunity was not seized. In
order to adjust the transportation control requirements to the
difficulties of implementing such policies, the committee has adopted an
amendment which provides more flexibility, more local involvement, more
time, and more State discretion in fashioning these strategies. The
bill requires the adoption as rapidly as practicable of all reasonable
transportation control measures in areas where such measures are
necessary.
If an area is implementing transportation control measures and all
requirements for stationary sources that emit mobile source-related
pollutants, but still cannot meet the deadline, it may receive a 5-year
extension to achieve primary standards for the applicable mobile
source-related pollutant. A second 5-year extension is available for
the few most difficult problem areas. This means that deadlines for
those areas could extend to May 31, 1987.
The key tests are that all reasonable requirements are contained in
the plan and are implemented as expeditiously as practicable.
The reported bill revises the basis on which land use controls are to
be used to assure that land use decisions be made at the local level.
The 1976 amendments place EPA's authority to promulgate land use
regulations in a new perspective. Land use questions are to be resolved
at the State and local level. Federal action is to occur only when the
State fails to act or there is a demonstrated inadequacy in the State
program to achieve or maintain a health-related level of clean air.
The 1970 clean air amendments included a requirement that State
implementation plans impose "emission limitations." This term has been
the subject of controversy, litigation, and dispute. These 1976
amendments provide a statutory definition of the phrase "emission
limitation." Intermittent controls or dispersion techniques are
unacceptable as a substitute for continuous control of pollutants under
this act.
As the courts have held, the act prescribes how air quality standards
must be met -- neither EPA nor the States may permit a proposed plan to
meet the requirements by using tall stacks or other dispersion devices
or systems. A policy of encouraging "tall stacks" will increase the
burden of pollution. Long-range transport of pollutants will be
exacerbated. There is no support in the Clean Air Act for such a
policy. Certainly such a policy would be wholly inconsistent with the
policy to prevent significant deterioration.
In 1970, the Clean Air Act established statutory standards for
automobiles because it was recognized that the automobile presented the
single most difficult national pollution problem. This legislation
continues that policy.
The committee has made two modifications of the statutory standards
adopted in 1970. First, a new standard for oxides of nitrogen emissions
is proposed which increased by 2 1/2 times the level of emissions of
that pollutant which will be permitted. Second, except for a minimum
number of vehicles, the achievement of that new statutory standard for
oxides of nitrogen has been delayed until 1980.
The committee bill requires compliance with the statutory standards
of .41 HC, 3.4 CO, 1.0 NOx in 1980.
Also, the committee bill requires manufacturers to produce 10 percent
of their 1979 fleet at the statutory levels required for all cars in
1980. This phasein is intended to provide a period during which new
emission control systems meeting the statutory requirements can be
introduced and modified if necessary before 1980.
The requests for a 5-year freeze in auto emission standards were
rejected by the committee after careful analysis.
Such a delay would merely give the automobile industry further time
to continue to lobby Congress for further extensions.
Such a delay would remove the kind of pressure that has been
absolutely essential in forcing the adoption of improved auto emission
pollution control technology.
Such a delay would demoralize many local communities which have made
efforts to develop control strategies to reduce auto emission pollution
in their area.
Such a delay is not needed for energy or economic reasons.
The auto industry is well on the road to recovery. Industry sales as
of December 1975 were up 30 percent over those of a year earlier.
According to the Journal of Commerce, retail sales are expected to
exceed the 1973 record of over 11 million units by 1977 or 1978, and
should rise to over 13 million units before the end of this decade.
Since the energy crisis, there has been a great deal of discussion of
the need for fuel economy in automobiles.
The fact is that the actual fuel economy depends on the choice of
technology. The tightening of the emission standards in 1975 had a
favorable impact on fuel economy, which improved 14 percent over 1974.
Now the 1976 model cars obtain 26 percent better gas mileage than the
1974 models, while continuing to meet more stringent emission standards.
The committee believes that this bill sets standards that will
require a new level of technology. Hopefully, this will result in a
significant reduction in emissions from cars on the road -- not just in
the certification stage.
The performance warranty provides the ultimate test of whether the
manufacturer is carrying out its responsibility to build cars that will
meet the emission standards for their useful life. The manufacturer
under this bill is exposed to financial responsibility if a vehicle
fails to do so. Without a performance warranty, the natural tendency
will be to cut corners.
If there is an anticompetitive aspect associated with this
requirement in present law, then the committee amendments should be more
than adequate to correct it.
The committee clearly wanted to take every reasonable step to protect
the aftermarket industry and the consumer against monopolistic practices
by the automobile manufacturers. As a result, this bill includes three
new provisions to enhance competition in aftermarket parts and services.
These actions include:
First, requiring all owners' manuals to contain instructions that
maintenance does not have to be performed by the dealer or with the
manufacturer's own parts;
Second, making illegal any warranty provision that attempts to tie
coverage to the use of the dealer's service and parts;
Third, establishment of a program which will enable aftermarket parts
manufacturers to certify that their parts perform as well as the auto
manufacturer's -- the auto manufacturers have no role in approving such
certification; and
Fourth, a Federal Trade Commission study of any possible
anticompetitive effect.
Congress asserted in 1967 a Federal interest in protecting the
public's health from the adverse impact of air pollution and a national
policy to protect air quality in clean air areas. Congress recognized
that a national regulatory framework with basic minimum standards and an
aggressive Federal agency would be necessary.
We must not disband that effort.
I support much of this bill. There are improvements. There are
causes of concern. There are provisions which, if enlarged in later
actions, will lead to delay, reductions of efforts, and the inevitable
conclusion that environmental goals and public health protection will
not be accomplished. That possibility we must not forget.
It is in that spirit, Mr. President, that the committee virtually
unanimously reported out and supported this bill, the details of which,
I must say, were subject to much controversy among committee(()) members
until we were finally able to resolve our differences and present a
package to the Senate which we thought made sense and which was viable.
Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield to my good friend from New York.
Mr. BUCKLEY. I with simply to echo the sentiments expressed here
this morning by the chairman of the subcommittee.
I spoke at much greater length on yesterday, than I intend to do this
morning, detailing the philosophy behind this bill. I do reemphasize,
as has the Senator from Maine, that this is the product of a tremendous
amount of work over a period of many months, that there are features in
it that are compromises, frankly compromises with which people may not
be entirely happy, but I believe we have achieved a fair compromise. I
believe it is workable. I believe, whereas it may put back certain
specific goals, it will not really slow the momentum to achieve the
goals of clean air throughout this country.
I believe, too, that although there is the possibility the Senator
speaks of -- that people might say, "Aha] They pushed back certain
guidelines; let's try to mobilize pressure for more" -- it is quite
clear that the deadlines that we are establishing in this bill are
reasonable and attainable. There should be no excuse for anyone to
start dragging their heels in anticipation of further delays. I will
work with the Senator to see that there are no further delays.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator from New York, who has been a strong
supporter of the objectives of the Clean Air Act since he has been a
member of the committee and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Environmental Pollution. We appear to take the same point of view this
morning which I think we have taken throughout the consideration of this
bill.
Mr. President, there are approximately 24 amendments at the desk, and
I hope they will be offered by the sponsors as rapidly as possible. I
know that the leadership would like to proceed with this measure as
rapidly as possible.
In that connection, I am happy at this point to yield the floor, so
that the Senator from New Mexico may bring up the first of his
amendments.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a
unanimous-consent request?
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the
consideration of and votes on the present matter, the Clean Air Act,
Mrs. Judy Hefner, of my staff, have the privilege of the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection it is so
ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Lee Rawls
and Janice Cohen, of my staff, have the privilege of the floor during
the entire deliberation of this bill.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Charles
Gentry, of my staff, have the privilege of the floor for that portion of
the debate that concerns the ozone depletion and the regulations under
that section.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I call up my printed amendment No.
1623.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk proceeded to read the amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. LEAHY). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 20, line 22, insert "(a)" after "SEC. 7.".
On page 28, after line 7, insert the following:
"(b) Section 110 of the Clean Air Act is amended by adding a new
subsection as follows:
"'(1) In carrying out the requirements of subsections (a)(2)(B)(i)
and (ii), (g), and (h) of this section and subsections (d) and (g) of
section 113, the State shall provide a satisfactory process of
consultation with general purpose local governments and designated
organizations of elected officials of local governments,in accordance
with regulations promulgated by the Administrator to assure adequate
consultation. Such regulations shall be promulgated after notice and
opportunity for public hearing and not later than four months after the
date of enactment of the Clean Air Amendments of 1976. The
Administrator may disapprove any portion of a plan relating to any
measure described in the first sentence of this subsection or to the
consultation process required under this subsection if he determines
that such plan does not meet the requirements of this subsection. Only
a general purpose unit of local government, regional agency, or council
of governments adversely affected by action of the Administrator
approving any portion of a plan referred to in this subsection may
petition for review of such action on the basis of a violation of the
requirements of this subsection.'"
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I believe that the distinguished floor
managers -- for both the majority and the minority -- are aware of this
amendment.
It is my honest belief that the subcommittee and the committee
touched on the purposes and intent and requirements of this amendment at
various times in the many months of deliberation. I believe that when
we have a chance to discuss it, they will agree with me that it is
consistent with the theory and intentions of this bill, that perhaps it
was an oversight or perhaps, in the business of so many issues, we
thought we had covered this matter either with report language or with
the substantive amendments that are before us.
Basically, amendment 1623 establishes a consultive framework between
State and local government for other portions of the law, including
nondegradation and stationary sources, as with transportation control
plans. I see such local involvement as an absolute prerequisite to
establishing the kind of grassroots support that will insure the success
of the Clean Air Act. Without local support, I feel that we may be
conducting a noble but futile effort, and I urge that the amendment be
adopted.
Basically, Mr. President, I am saying here that, along with the other
requirements in this bill, the States shall provide a satisfactory
process of consultation with general purpose local government and
designated organizations of elected officials of local government in
accordance with regulations promulgated by the administrator to assure
adequate consultation.
Mr. President, as this committee proceeded through deliberations in
connection with the Clean Air Act Amendments for this year, it was
obvious that in many areas, local government is expected to lead the
way; local government is expected to be up front in terms of leading
their populace in the very difficult and sometimes almost impossible
implementation of the Clean Air Act.
What I have done here, on behalf of the mayors of our country, on
behalf of the Association of County Officials, is merely to build into
the process of evaluation the process of contact with local government,
the processes whereby the Governor and the State do certain things with
reference to SIPS, with reference to nondegradation, with reference to
planning or control under that section for transportation control
planning -- that we require that the process has an acceptable
consultive process for local government.
This amendment, I say to the distinguished Senator from Maine, is not
the one that sets up the mechanism to do the planning, but merely
requires that a consultation mechanism with general purpose local
government be established. The floor managers of the bill, both for the
majority side and the minority side, have heard of the need for this,
and I hope they will support it. It is my effort to put into language
what we, as a committee, really believe should be part of the process.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. DOMENICI. I am delighted to yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. As I read the amendment, its purpose is to insure that
States provide for satisfactory consultation with local governments in
carrying out land use, transportation controls, nondegradation, in
issuing delayed compliance orders, and in implementing the steel
amendment. That is to be done, I gather, under regulations to be
published by EPA to insure adequate consultation.
I understand, also, that the amendment provides that the
Administrator may disapprove plans that have not complied with
regulations; finally, that such disapproval can be petitioned only by
local government.
It is a very carefully worded amendment. I believe it is consistent
with the philosophy of the bill. It is the kind of consultation which
is consistent with the intent of the transportation control and land use
provisions of the bill. Further, I think it is a useful expansion of
that(()) approach to apply it to delayed compliance orders and the
amendment.
Finally, I gather that the amendment is supported by the National
Association of Counties, the League of Cities, and the U.S. Conference
of Mayors, without whose support the objectives of the Clean Air Act
could not be advanced effectively.
I do not know whether the Senator from New York has any questions
about the amendment. However, on all those counts I think it is a
consistent amendment, and I am prepared to accept it.
Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. DOMENICI. I am delighted to yield.
Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, I shall not oppose this amendment, but I
do want to express perhaps a reaction.
I believe that the Senator from New Mexico is totally correct when he
states that transportation plans, for example, simply will not work
without public support and that public support is best elicited by
having locally elected officials totally involved from the beginning to
the end. However, I have seen many examples of where we create
unnecessary problems when the Federal Government dictates to a State
that it will work with its local officials. I prefer that we leave it
entirely to the States to work things out with their local officials, in
accordance with their own constitutional systems. I hate to see us
expanding the areas in which we have dictation from Washington to a
State, even though I totally agree with the objective of the specific
amendment as a practical matter.
Mr. DOMENICI. Did the Senator indicate that he would oppose the
amendment?
Mr. BUCKLEY. I will not oppose it.
Mr. DOMENICI. I think the Senator's question and concern are very
relevant.
In this amendment, I do not intend to give the Administrator of EPA
any more authority with reference to what goes into the plan or plans or
process. I envision that EPA merely would have a kind of checklist and
say, "Is there a consultive process?" I know of no other way, having
heard the testimony that not only is the Federal Government the usurper
of local involvement but the States are as well, in many instances.
They have a State umbrella, and they come down all of a sudden and tell
the city, "This is your plan. This is what you are going to do."
I am trying here to say that everyone knows that without local
consultation, local knowledge on the part of elected, local,
general-purpose government leaders, these kinds of impositions, these
kinds of changes in the way we are going to do business, our
constituents or our institutions will not work. I do not envision a
mammoth, detailed involvement by the national Government, but, rather
that they will be sure there is a consultation process with local
government.
I thank the Senator for raising the issue.
Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, I understand the point that is being
raised by the Senator from New Mexico, but this amendment would,
nevertheless, dictate to the State that it must consult.
Mr. DOMENICI. That is true.
Mr. BUCKLEY. This, to my mind, is an infringement on what ought to
be within the independence and sovereignty of the State, the right to
make mistakes.
But I am not going to press this point, and I offer no objection to
the amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator from New York.
Mr. MCCLURE. Will the Senator from New Mexico yield?
Mr. DOMENICI. I am pleased to yield.
Mr. MCCLURE. I think it is possible that some future administrator
of EPA might decide he does not like what is in the State plan or some
plan for a locality and use the authority that is required under this
proposed amendment to say, "Unless you change some details of the plan,
I shall certify that there has not been sufficient compliance with this
consultative procedure." Certainly it is not the intention of the
Senator from New Mexico that the authority of the administrator under
this amendment to require consultation could be used in that manner.
Mr. DOMENICI. I concur wholeheartedly with that interpretation and
unequivocally indicate that it is not the intention of this amendment to
expand upon the authority of the Administrator of EPA with reference to
what is or is not in a plan or process or approach other than to find
that there is a consulting mechanism.
Mr. MCCLURE. If, indeed, an administrator at some time in the future
should attempt to use the authority granted under this provision in
order to force a change in the detailed plan, that would be a clear
abuse of the authority of that office under the conditions of this
amendment?
Mr. DOMENICI. Absolutely.
Mr. MCCLURE. I thank the Senator for that clarification.
Mr. DOMENICI. I repeat, I thank the Senator from New York and the
Senator from Idaho for raising these issues. If there is anything that
we found in the days of hearings with reference to the various changes
that have to occur at the local level in order to get our ambient air
ultimately to the state that we want it, aside from cleaning up the
cars, and aside from cleaning up stationary sources, and the other
things that are going to have to occur, it is obvious that they are not
going to occur by any kind of mandate from an Administrator of EPA on
high.
He has tried that. His activities in transportation planning,
control planning, have been described as draconian. He has been
described in Los Angeles as being some kind of dictator on high, saying
we are going to have to take our cars off the street, ration gasoline,
retrofit our cars. What we are talking about here is if you want
anything to work, including the SIPs as they develop them, be they
amendments or the ongoing process of developing SIP's, you just have to
consult with the mayors, councilmen, or county commissioners. That is
all I intend here, that we have a process whereby they will obtain
knowledge because they have been consulted with. They do not even have
any authority under this amendment, but they must be consulted with as
this law is implemented.
Mr. MCCLURE. I thank the Senator for that explanation. I share some
of the philosophical concern that the Senator from New York, very
justifiably and understandably, raised.
I share with the Senator from New Mexico the feeling that any of
these plans, to be successful, must have local acceptance and local
support. It is far too easy for local officials to condemn a plan as
being foisted off on them by some national administration if they have
not been involved, and it is much more likely to succeed if, as a matter
of fact, they are involved in its development and will be involved in
its implementation. Then they are a part of it, they are partly
responsible for it, they have helped to shape it, they have a stake in
seeing that it works. They will attempt to make it work instead of
trying to subvert it.
I think the consultative process is a very valuable and very
necessary one. I shall support the amendment, but I do have the
recognition that an administrator who would desire to use this authority
in some other way might attempt to do so. That is the reason that I
asked the question: To make it very, very clear that an administrator
who tried to dictate content in the plan by withholding the
certification that consultation had taken place would be very clearly
abusing the authority granted to him under this amendment.
I think the amendment is a good amendment and I support it.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I think the amendment has been thoroughly
discussed. I am prepared to accept it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. MUSKIE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. I call up my printed amendment No. 1624 and ask that
it be considered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk proceeded to read the amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 25 strike lines 3 through 7 and through "purpose" on line 8,
and insert in lieu thereof the following:
"(7)(A) The implementation plan required by paragraph (3) of this
subsection shall be prepared by an organization of elected officials of
local governments designated by agreement of the local governments in an
affected area and recognized by the State for this purpose. Where such
an organization has not been designated by agreement within nine months
after the enactment of the Clean Air Amendments of 1976, the
Governor(()) (or, in the case of an interstate area, Governors), after
consultation with elected officials of local governments, shall
designate an organization of elected officials of local governments in
the affected area to prepare such plan."
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, before I discuss this amendment, I
wonder if I may have the attention of the floor manager of the bill for
just a moment.
I say to the distinguished chairman of the committee, I believe that
Senators HUMPHREY and MONDALE have an amendment that specifically
relates to this amendment No. 1624. I believe that I can accommodate
their amendment by inserting a phrase in mine. I wonder if the manager
of the bill has any indication from Senator HUMPHREY or Senator MONDALE
as to their desire with reference to their amendment?
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not.
Mr. DOMENICI. It is amendment No. 2084.
Mr. MUSKIE. I agree with the Senator from New Mexico that it would
clearly fit in with his amendment and we could dispose of both at once.
Perhaps we had better consult with them first.
Mr. DOMENICI. I think what I shall do, Mr. President, is send a
modification of my amendment to the desk. We shall discuss it. I
assume that the discussion will satisfy the distinguished Senators
HUMPHREY and MONDALE. If it does not, they can discuss it with us.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I say to the distinguished Senator, I have to leave
the floor briefly. I should like to leave one suggestion: that is that
the time frame in this amendment was changed from 9 to 6 months. On
page 21 of the bill, on line 9, there is a deadline of June 1, 1978, for
the completion of a detailed planning study that evidences public and
local governmental involvement. That deadline will be a little tight, I
think, with the 9 months of the Senator's amendment. He might consider,
while he is discussing it in my absence, changing the 9 to 6 months.
Mr. DOMENICI. I say to our distinguished chairman that I have no
objection to 6 months. I offer this thought: Many of the dates and
months in this bill are out of focus now that we consider the timeframe
when we originally contemplated it versus when it will finally become
law. I assume some of these will be adjusted in conference, in any
event, so they will become more realistic.
Mr. President, I shall include in the modification that I have at the
desk changing the 9 months to 6. That has been done on the
modification. As I understand it, I have the right to modify it without
unanimous consent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. For those who do not have the modification, it is as
follows: Change the "nine" on line 9 to "six" and add some language to
change the Humphrey-Mondale amendment.
In the fifth line of my amendment, after the word "governments," I
would insert "or by an area-wide agency designated under State law to
perform comprehensive planning for the affected area."
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
On page 25, strike lines 3 through 7 and through "purpose" on line 8,
and insert in lieu thereof the following:
"(7)(A) The implementation plan required by paragraph (3) of this
subsection shall be prepared by an organization of elected officials of
local governments or by an area-wide agency designated under State law
to perform comprehensive planning for the affected area designated by
agreement of the local governments in an affected area, and recognized
by the State for this purpose. Where such an organization has not been
designated by agreement within six months after the enactment of the
Clean Air Amendments of 1976, the Governor (or, in the case of an
interstate area, Governors), after consultation with elected officials
of local governments, shall designate an organization of elected
officials of local governments in the affected area to prepare such
plan.".
Mr. STAFFORD. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am delighted to yield to the Senator
from Vermont.
Mr. STAFFORD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding to me.
I ask unanimous consent that Victor Maerki, of my staff, may have the
privileges of the floor during the consideration and votes on the
pending business before the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. LEAHY). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Senate has just adopted my
amendment 1623 and, when coupled with amendment No. 1624, these
amendments are more or less a single legislative package designed to
give local government a voice in the implementation of the Clean Air
Act.
The absence of a statutory role for local governments in the present
Clean Air Act came in for heavy criticism during the committee's 1975
legislative hearings. One local official referred to the
intergovernmental provisions of the laws as a "nightmare." Others
detailed a growing grassroots rebellion against the act traceable to the
lack of local involvement.
During its deliberations on the present amendments, the committee was
well aware of the need for upgrading the role of local governments. The
committee report explicitly addresses this issue on page 29, where it
states:
To date a major problem has been a deficiency in local involvement in
transportation control planning. To correct this, the bill requires
that locally elected officials participate in the development of
transportation control plans to obtain the post-1977 extension. This
recognizes that transportation control planning is a local political
process affecting the daily lives and transportation patterns of local
voters.
I would like to stress that involving locals in transportation
control planning and other aspects of the bill is not simply a matter of
intergovernmental comity. It is essential for the protection of the
health of the American people. Statutorily, transportation control
plans represent the last line of defense in achieving the health goals
of the act. They are used when all else has failed. As the report
notes, 31 metropolitan areas have already been identified by the
Environmental Protection Agency as in need of transportation control
plans. EPA projects that 63 will need them to meet the national
standards by 1985.
Several additional points are in order to highlight the gravity of
the situation. A large portion of the debate on the automobile
standards has highlighted the improvement being made in the emissions of
new cars. Counterbalancing these gains, however, is the continued
growth in the automobile population and the poor emission performance of
in-use automobiles. The Nation is faced with the prospect that after
1985, the gains made by statutory controls on new cars will be
overwhelmed by growth in automobile usage and poor in-use performance.
In short, we have less than a decade to amend our errant ways or face
the prospect that the present struggle over automobile emissions will
have been for naught.
It is because I consider it so critical to engage local government in
both the transportation control process and the overall implementation
of the act that I offered the two amendments, one of which has been
accepted.
The amendments themselves I consider to be of a technical nature,
however. As the committee report indicates, we clearly recognized the
importance of local participation in the transportation control process.
The language of the bill, drawn in large part from an administration
proposal, does not fully implement the intent expressed by the report.
My amendments remedy the situation in two respects. First, amendment
1624 would clear up the ambiguous designation section of the
transportation control section by making it explicit that local elected
officials have the first option on doing the planning. The present
amendments provide a procedural no-man's land that exhort locals to do
the planning but leave all authority with the States.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, will my able colleague from New Mexico
yield?
Mr. DOMENICI. I would be delighted to yield to the chairman of the
committee, Mr. RANDOLPH.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I believe it is important that the Senator, in
discussing his amendment and the possibility of incorporating it in the
so-called Humphrey-Mondale amendment, give emphasis to the agency being
composed of local officials.
I am not sure whether the Senator is saying local officials, if
possible. It certainly will be possible to have those local officials,
and I caught there a degree in which the Senator felt local officials
should serve; am I correct in that?
Mr. DOMENICI. Let me say to my good friend from West Virginia my
amendment, without the addition of the Humphrey-Mondale amendment,
clearly would have required that elected officials of local governments
designated by agreement of local governments in an affected area are the
ones to be recognized.
I have tried to accommodate what I understand to be a very specific
problem in their State. They have a council of governments-type
institution in their(()) twin cities which is not operated by elected
officials but which has the full blessings of local officials and is
recognized by their State.
So I have said it will be, as I just stated to my good friend from
West Virginia, "or by an areawide agency designated under State law to
perform comprehensive planning for the affected area."
Mr. President, so far as I am concerned, I have done that because I
believe they have a very specific problem. I want to accommodate them.
On the other hand, if the managers of the bill on the floor would
accept mine without that amendment, I will delete it and they, of
course, can speak for themselves.
I personally do not see a big problem with it because obviously that
local planning group has to be acceptable to the local elected officials
from the designated area.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, will my able colleague yield again?
Mr. DOMENICI. I will be delighted to yield.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Ordinarly I would want, consistent with the purpose of
the bill, to accommodate a Senator who has a certain problem he is
attempting to meet.
I suggest, however, in this instance that the Senator from New Mexico
not incorporate the language of the Humphrey-Mondale amendment. I will
tell the Senate why.
I see here an element of the decisionmaking process by those of the
bureaucracy. I want the determination to be by those who are elected
officials, elected by the people of the area or the city. Those who are
involved have a responsibility, having been elected, which I do not
believe is shared by those who would be appointive officials in a
determination of this problem.
I can well understand, and my colleague perhaps does not feel this is
a matter that is too important in the presentation of his amendment.
But I would ask that he not incorporate the amendment by the Senators
from Minnesota because I believe that is a different situation and I
would oppose the language of the amendment to which I have made
reference.
Mr. DOMENICI. Might I ask the minority floor manager, Mr. President,
for his feelings with reference to the discussion we are having at this
time.
Mr. BUCKLEY. I share the sentiments expressed by the chairman. I
believe that, in effect, the adoption of the Humphrey-Mondale language
would make an exception, in the case of two important cities, in the
principle of local determination that it is the purpose of the Senator
from New Mexico to achieve. I think we are better off without it.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator from New York.
Mr. MCCLURE. Mr. President, will the Senator from New Mexico yield?
Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.
Mr. MCCLURE. Mr. President, I understand the concerns expressed by
both the Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from New York, and I
would certainly have no objection if the Senator from New Mexico wishes
to delete the Humphrey-Mondale amendment from his amendment, which he
can do simply as a matter of right, by simply requesting the Chair that
that be done.
I would point out, however, the Humphrey-Mondale amendment simply
says "a unit of government approved by State law," and I cannot help but
note at this time that all of these units of government --
Mr. BUCKLEY. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MCCLURE. Yes.
Mr. BUCKLEY. I believe the language is areawide agency. We are
speaking, I take it, of tailoring this to an existing structure.
Mr. MCCLURE. That is correct.
If we want to say an agency designated by a State government is not a
unit of government designated by State law, I will accept that as
correct.
The point I was seeking to make is simply this: whether it is an
agency or an administrative unit of the government, they are both
creatures of State law.
I think we sometimes forget that what we are dealing with here are
the State agencies, whether they be an agency or a unit of the local
government, both of which can be created or abolished or modified or
changed or combined by State law.
I think we sometimes make the error of trying to go beyond the right
of the State to designate its own administrative hierarchy in trying to
designate to the States what that hierarchy should be.
But I am concerned with the Mondale-Humphrey amendment in one other
slight detail. That is, it refuses the language, comprehensive
planning.
I think that gets us beyond the issue to which the Senator from New
Mexico has directed himself and into another area that might lead to
some trouble with the administration of this particular provision of the
bill.
So I would support the Senator from New Mexico in deleting that, if
that is his desire.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I modify my amendment so as to delete
the inserted language following the word "governments" on line 5, and I
send the modified amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk proceeded to read the amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
On page 25, strike lines 3 through 7 and through "purpose," on line
8, and insert in lieu thereof the following:
"(7)(A) The implementation plan required by paragraph (3) of this
subsection shall be prepared by an organization of elected officials of
local governments designated by agreement of the local governments in an
affected area, and recognized by the State for this purpose. Where such
an organization has not been designated by agreement within six months
after the enactment of the Clean Air Amendments of 1976, the Governor
(or, in the case of an interstate area, Governors), after consultation
with elected officials of local governments, shall designate an
organization of elected officials of local governments in the affected
area to prepare such plan.".
Mr. BUCKLEY. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DOMENICI. I am delighted to yield.
Mr. BUCKLEY. First of all, I commend the Senator for offering this
amendment. I believe it fills a gap that was overlooked by the
committee.
I think that it will focus the direct responsibility of the State
where it should be, and give local officials the time they need.
I view this, really, in the nature of a technical amendment, one that
is necessary. I emphasize that because I propose during the course of
this debate to oppose all nontechnical amendments that were not
discussed in committee and that had not, in effect, been reserved by the
committee for later action.
I shall make that opposition because we have spent so much time
reaching difficult compromises that I fear for the consequences if we
open this package up for tinkering at this stage.
But again, I gladly support the amendment offered by the Senator from
New Mexico, No. 1624. As I understand it, the chairman does.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes, I appreciate the opportunity to join in the
colloquy for this reason. In our solid waste legislation, the amendment
now being offered was contained in that measure. Am I correct? I ask
the Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct. We put that in that bill, also.
Mr. RANDOLPH. That is right, and it is very important it be done
here.
I join in the commendation of the Senator offering the amendment. It
is very clarifying because that was the intention in the committee and
in the subcommittee.
I do not want to belabor the point of the 9 months or the 6 months,
but I was absent from the Chamber at the time the Senator from Maine,
the chairman of our subcommittee (Mr. MUSKIE) was discussing the change
from the 9 months to the 6-month period.
I had hoped it could be 6 months. Would the Senator comment further?
Mr. DOMENICI. In the modification, it is 6 months.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I thank the Senator.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, in conclusion, I thank my colleagues
for their willingness to support this amendment.
Let me say that I tend to agree with the Senator from New York when
we consider the amendments and the report language that this is in the
nature of a technical amendment. But I hope we all understand that the
committee and certainly the Senate by accepting this amendment is saying
that in the area of transportation control planning, without the
wholehearted support of local government, that is, general purpose local
government, and their elected(()) leaders, that which is required to
accomplish transportation control planning will fail.
It is for that reason I support the position of the Conference of
Mayors, the National Municipal League, the National Association of
County Officials, who are in support of my technical amendment.
I urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment,
as modified, of the Senator from New Mexico.
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. BUCKLEY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, I have an unprinted amendment which I
send to the desk and ask that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Texas (Mr. BENTSEN) proposes an unprinted amendment
numbered 247.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
SEC. 42. The Clean Air Act is amended by inserting a new Section 319
as follows:
"SEC. 319(a). There is established a joint Federal-State Committee
on Photochemical Oxidants which shall be composed of the Chairman of the
Council on Environmental Quality, who shall be the chairman of the
Committee; the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration; the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency; and any Governors of those States having air quality control
regions in which primary ambient air quality standards for photochemical
oxidants are exceeded at the time of enactment or are projected to be
exceeded within the period of the study, or their representatives.
"(b) Within two years after the date of enactment of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1976, the Committee shall report to the Congress, the
States, and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency on
the extent to which the reduction of hydrocarbon emissions is an
adequate or appropriate method to achieve primary standards for
photochemical oxidants. Such study shall include, but not be limited
to:
"(1) a description and analysis of the various pollutants which are
commonly referred to as 'photochemical oxidants', or chemical precursors
to photochemical oxidants;
"(2) an analysis of any pollutants or combination of pollutants which
need to be reduced to achieve any photochemical oxidant standard, and
the amount of such reduction;
"(3) the relationship between the reductions of hydrocarbons, oxides
of nitrogen, and any other pollutants and the achievement of applicable
standards for photochemical oxidants;
"(4) the degree to which background or natural sources and long-range
transportation of pollutants contribute to measured ambient levels of
photochemical oxidants;
"(5) any other oxidant-related issues which the Committee determines
to be appropriate.
"(c) The Committee shall undertake to contract with the National
Academy of Sciences and such other non-profit technical and scientific
organizations for the purpose of developing necessary technical
information.
"(d) The heads of the departments, agencies, and instrumentalities of
the Executive Branch of the Federal Government shall cooperate with the
Committee in carrying out the requirements of this section, and shall
furnish to the Committee such information as the Committee deems
necessary to carry out this section.
"(e) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall
make available to the Committee to carry out this section not to exceed
$1,000,000 of the sums appropriated to the Agency for fiscal year 1977."
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, the amendment I propose is to establish
a State and National committee, a coordinated committee, to try to study
the effect of photochemical oxidants and the procedures that are being
used.
I believe this study will be a valuable addition to the act.
As a result of the strategies now being enforced, requirements are
being made that are going to affect millions of lives across this
Nation. Tens of millions of dollars are going to be spent for pollution
control equipment the possibility of stringent transportation controls,
and severe limitations on new plant expansion or construction may well
be required to meet the requirements of the plans proposed for the
achievement of the current photochemical oxidant standard.
I am confident that the American people will make those sacrifices if
their need can be demonstrated. Right now, however, there is serious
reason to believe that such need cannot be demonstrated.
To resolve those doubts, to clarify the problem and the possible
means for its solution, and to give credence to whatever effort may be
required, I am proposing a special committee which shall be charged with
the sole responsibility of examining the photochemical oxidant problem.
I am asking that it --
Analyze and describe the various pollutants commonly referred to as
"photochemical oxidants"; enumerate those which should be regulated and
from which the American people should be protected; recommend
strategies for their attainment; determine what effect the control of
hydrocarbons will have on oxidant formation and concentrations; and
clarify the degree to which background levels of oxidants contribute to
those concentrations.
Mr. President, I represent a couple of cities that will have some
very serious problems on the control of photochemical oxidants and we
are willing to pay the price that has to be paid to have the clean air
that we want for this country of ours.
What we want to be sure of, as we do it, is that the strategies that
we are employing are really accomplishing that objective, that that is
done.
We are not sure of that at the present time. The committee could, of
course, examine any other oxidant-related issue it determined needed
addressing. I would hope it would do so. My intent in proposing this
study is to acquire at least a clear understanding of what needs to be
done in controlling photochemical oxidants, why, and with what hopes of
success. I believe its findings and recommendations are of critical
importance to every large metropolitan city in America, and the millions
of people who choose to live in them.
Sometimes people look at Texas and think it is a State of cows and
cowboys. But it is more than that. I represent 3 of the 10 largest
cities in the United States. These problems we are talking about of
photochemical oxidants are serious ones for us. We are willing to make
the commitment, but we want to be sure of our ground as we do it.
Mr. President, I know this bill as reported by the Public Works
Committee includes special authority for a new national Commission on
Air Quality. I am for that. It is given a variety of important tasks,
and I believe the Congress would benefit from its findings. I have not,
however, decided to give it responsibility for the oxidant control
study, primarily because I believe it is a highly technical undertaking.
My hope is that it will utilize those members of the scientific
community who are already examining this important issue.
I might emphasize, too, that the States, through their Governors and
their State air control administrators, are to play a major role in this
undertaking. Under the act, State governments are given primary
responsibility for having their air control regions attain the national
standards. As a result of their efforts during the past 5 years, many
State authorities have been among the first to express doubts about the
attainability of the current oxidant standard and the suitability and
effectiveness of the control strategies proposed to achieve it. In some
instances, as in my home State of Texas, they have already initiated
major research efforts to examine this problem.
I believe on the basis of their experience and ongoing work, the
States can contribute greatly to this effort and I would therefore
expect them to play an important part in this study.
I believe the distinguished chairman of the committee has seen copies
of this amendment, and I would hope that the committee and the Senate
would choose to adopt it.
I believe this study will be a valuable addition to the act. In
1971, national primary and secondary standards were set for oxidants, as
for the other five pollutants which are currently regulated. Since
then, the appropriateness of those oxidant standards has been the
subject of an on-going debate. The Environmental Protection Agency
already has authority to reevaluate and, if needed, to revise those or
any other national standard, and I would strongly urge that it be
responsive to data which might establish a solid basis for altering
them.
Great controversy has, however, also been aroused by the strategies
proposed for the attainment of the current oxidant(()) standards. An
essential element of all proposed oxidant control plans has been the
reduction of hydrocarbon emissions, with the extent and degree of
control directly related to the frequency with which the oxidant
standards are violated. The underlying premise of these control
strategies is that a reduction of manmade hydrocarbon emissions will
result in a reduction of photochemical oxidant formation and
concentrations. That was the belief when control strategies were first
proposed in early 1971, and that apparently remains the Agency's
official position today.
Many persons intimately involved in what is admittedly a highly
technical subject charge that far too little is known about the precise
relationship between hydrocarbons and oxidants. They ask whether a
major reduction of hydrocarbons actually will result in a significant,
or even appreciable, decrease in photochemical oxidant readings. I am
not convinced that we now have a truly accurate answer to that question.
And yet, that answer vitally affects what will happen in much of
urban America. Extremely stringent transportation controls have already
been proposed to reduce hydrocarbon emissions in a number of our largest
cities. For instance, in 1973, EPA proposed sweeping plans for a number
of Texas cities, including requirements that vehicle miles traveled in
Houston be reduced by 75 percent; and in Dallas, by 66 percent.
Such reductions were to be accomplished by a number of means, one of
which was the rationing of gasoline. The impact of such controls and
the reaction of the people to them can easily be imagined.
Through section 7 of this bill, we have extended the time frame
during which the need for transportation control may be considered and
their actual use be initiated. The major reason for their adoption,
however, would be as an additional means for controlling hydrocarbon
emissions, again premised on the assumption that the control of HC will
result in the attainment of the oxidant standards. Before these
controls are required, I do not think unreasonable the need to prove
that they will achieve the desired results.
Major enforcement efforts to control hydrocarbon emissions from
stationary sources are already underway. The State of Texas has perhaps
one of the most stringent control programs in the Nation. During the
past 3 years, for instance, it has reduced hydrocarbon emissions from
stationary sources -- refineries, petrochemical plants, and the like --
in Houston by no less than 85 percent. The Air Control Board states
that those stationary sources are responsible for 75 percent of all of
the HC emissions in Houston, but in the words of Mr. Charles Barden, the
Board's most capable Administrator:
We have seen no effect whatsoever of oxidant reductions and we have
seen very little effect on reducing visibility problems + + +
In fact, oxidant readings have actually risen.
In noting that, I am not suggesting that no benefit has been derived
from the hydrocarbon reductions achieved thus far. But the real
motivation for further reductions is EPA's insistence that they are
needed for Houston to attain the current national oxidant standards.
I cannot overemphasize the concern of Mr. Barden and his staff that
further HC reductions may well not result in reductions of the recorded
oxidant concentrations, or reductions commensurate with the cost of the
controls. In testifying before the Senate Environmental Pollution
Subcommittee last year, Mr. Barden stressed repeatedly that, in his
words:
It is not now possible scientifically to determine the degree of
control needed to attain the photochemical oxidant standard or even to
state with certainty that the standard is attainable.
The real crunch for the Air Control Board and the State is yet to be
felt, however. Because Houston exceeds the current primary oxidant
standard of 0.08 parts per million for more frequently than once a year,
it is classified as a nonattainment area for photochemical oxidants.
Under the plans required by section 110 of the 1970 act, no new major
hydrocarbon emitting sources which would prevent the attainment or
maintenance of that standard should be permitted to build, and EPA has
indicated that it intends to have that provision enforced. Again, its
reasoning apparently is that new HC emitting facilities would only delay
eventual attainment of the oxidant standards.
The practical consequences, of course, will be that no refinery, no
petrochemical complex, no on-shore or off-shore petroleum transfer
point, or any other major hydrocarbon-emitting facility could be
constructed. Continued economic growth in Houston would thus be all but
precluded.
Again, the people of Houston and our other metropolitan areas might
well forego that development if they thought such limitations were
required to achieve a standard which is proven to be needed to protect
their health, but the most knowledgeable officials in the State -- and
because of their ceaseless efforts to understand oxidant formation and
control, I regard them as among the most knowledgeable officials in the
Nation -- cannot assure them that the limitation of plant sitings will
have any effect whatsoever.
I believe that requiring State authorities to enforce regulations in
which they have no confidence -- not because they simply do not like
them, but because they find no scientific justification for them -- is
simply unacceptable. We have a responsibility to clear the air, so to
speak, on this controversy before we impose requirements which the
Agency cannot now demonstrate will actually help to clean it.
I have to this point directed my remarks almost exclusively to the
experience of my home State. Texas, indeed, has perhaps had the most
experience with this problem, and both public and private groups there
are now striving to expand our understanding of it.
But the problem is by no means confined to Texas. As of late 1973,
162 of the Nation's 247 air quality control regions were in violation of
the oxidant standard, and that number actually represented 87 percent of
all regions performing oxone monitoring. Of this group, 54 percent more
than doubled the standard. Because of the remarkable growth which
Houston and the Texas gulf coast are experiencing, complying with the
requirements of current control strategies may cause the most immediate
problems there, but they do portend what air control authorities
elsewhere will experience in dealing with future development in the many
other regions which violate the oxidant standard.
One of the major problems with trying to attain that standard appears
to be the relatively high levels of oxidant which are generated not by
man but from natural sources. These background levels are generated by
a variety of foliage and cause the current standards to be violated in
areas far removed from our urban centers.
For example, Drs. Peter Coffey and William Stasiuk of the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation reported after conducting
a year-long monitoring study, that oxidant readings on Whiteface
Mountain -- a 4,900-foot peak in the Adirondacks near the Canadian
border -- frequently were above the national standard. In fact, the
annual average reading there in a recent year was 0.04 parts per
million, far higher than in our cities and twice the 0.02 parts per
million which is Houston's annual average. I might note here, too, that
Texas exceeds the oxidant standard about 2 percent of each year.
Houston exceeds it about 3 percent of the time.
We may still not know what accounts for these high rural readings and
what part urban, or manmade, emissions contribute to them, but I believe
that the extent of background or naturally generated hydrocarbons and
oxidants must be more thoroughly understood before we can expect any
proposed controls to have an appreciable impact on the problem. Before
we ask State authorities to enforce a standard and the strategies
allegedly needed to achieve it, we must know if that standard is
attainable, if it is needed, and whether the control of manmade
hydrocarbons will actually result in any oxidant reduction. Again, I am
not satisfied that we know the answers to those three questions.
This discussion may appear to be somewhat ironic. In section 16 of
this bill, we express concern over the possible depletion of ozone in
the stratosphere -- and quite rightly so. At the same time, the air
control problems of so many of our cities and rural areas are related to
what is regarded as far too much of the same chemical substance --
ozone.
Recent scientific work seems to suggest that a connection between
ozone readings in the upper atmosphere and on the surface might, indeed,
exist. In what are called tropopause gaps, stratospheric ozone is
injected into the troposphere in a rather nonuniform manner. As weather
fronts more across the map, the roll of the jet stream apparently
results in the descent of air from the stratosphere downward into the
air(()) masses beneath. These gaps often have dimensions measured in
the hundreds of miles. Concentrations as high as 1 part per million
have been recorded, with readings of 0.5 part per million often
observed. Air masses can thus come charged with ozone, a phenomenon
over which man, to the best of my knowledge, has no control.
Two other points should be made. The current oxidant standard and
control strategies are based on data collected solely in Los Angeles.
We have no assurance that oxidants are formed in the same way in
different air control regions of this Nation. For instance, we do know
that the hydrocarbons emitted in Los Angeles tend to differ from those
which predominate in Houston. The petroleum and chemical feedstocks,
for instance, tend to be quite different; therefore, the types of
hydrocarbons emitted would also vary significantly. We may well have
different chemical reactions occurring in the air above different
cities, yet we have only one control strategy which is to be applied in
every case. We must ask if that single control strategy will work in
every instance.
In addition and perhaps to stress the obvious, oxidants are not
emitted by themselves. They are formed in the atmosphere by the
interaction of hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen in the presence of
sunlight.
Currently, however, our oxidant control strategy concentrates
exclusively on the reduction of hydrocarbons. Nothing is being done to
limit nitrogen oxide emissions from stationary sources, and yet that NOx
control might well be a key to oxidant reduction. I must ask what the
reason is for overlooking this major constituent agent and for the
seemingly blind rush to reduce only hydrocarbon emissions.
In noting these recent findings, I am not suggesting that man stand
idlely by and do nothing. I am only suggesting that man-made
hydrocarbon emissions may contribute far less to oxidant formation and
the high oxidant readings than was originally thought. Before we
proceed to implement control strategies which will alter the growth
patterns of this Nation, I believe we must have assurance that they will
achieve the desired result.
I am informed that officials of the Environmental Protection Agency
have on more than one occasion acknowledged the imprecision of our
knowledge. I am told that on January 21 and 22 of this year in St.
Louis, Agency personnel conceded that: the ozone standard is
unattainable; high ozone episodes exist which may not be related to air
stagnation; and we do not know, at this time, how to deal with high
levels of oxidants in rural areas.
Most importantly, those officials were not able to claim that the
Agency had the ability to predict what changes in ozone readings might
be expected from a known tonnage of hydrocarbon abatement.
I must simply ask what then is the basis for denying permission to
construct new hydrocarbon emitting plants, even when those plants will
utilize technology which will abate the emissions to the greatest degree
now possible.
The time has come, I believe, to get to the heart of this
controversy. Let us marshal our scientific resources to improve our
understanding of this problem, to decide what needs to be done in
dealing with photochemical oxidants, and to determine how we might
accomplish it.
I believe the study proposed by my amendment will help to provide
some of the answers, and I urge its adoption.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I am sure that the able Senator from
New York (Mr. BUCKLEY), managing the measure for the minority, would be
in agreement with what I shall now say.
During the consideration of this legislation for more than a year we
were determined, insofar as possible, to have local units of government,
the people living close to the development of these problems, understand
exactly what we are doing.
I think the Federal-State study is a proper balance. I refer to my
opening statement of yesterday when I indicated that it is the desire in
this bill to have the States participate as fully as possible, certainly
more fully than in the past, in the determination of the answers to many
of the problems which are local in nature.
Here we would have the expertise coming from the knowledge of local
conditions that could come to bear in the determinations of what this
joint study responsibility would bring forth.
I accept the amendment and I do it feeling it is a refining, a
further declaration, of what the committee itself, under the leadership
of the Senator from Texas (Mr. BENTSEN) has sought in the past and is
now reducing to the amendment the Senator from Texas has just offered.
Mr. BENTSEN. I thank the committee chairman and committee manager of
the bill.
Mr. BUCKLEY. First of all, before commenting on the Senator's
amendment, I would like to ask whether there is implicit in such a study
the suggestion that further controls on hydrocarbon and oxides of
nitrogen emissions be suspended during the period. Is it the intention
of this amendment or would it have the effect of causing a delay in the
schedule for tightening the emissions?
Mr. BENTSEN. It does not call for a delay; it calls for a study to
determine whether the mechanics we are proceeding under are correct or
not. It is hoped that during the time this study is taking place they
will come up with some new evidence that will be better in accomplishing
the objectives.
Mr. BUCKLEY. In the meantime would we proceed with the statutory
schedules as contemplated?
Mr. BENTSEN. That is correct.
Mr. BUCKLEY. I totally agree as to the need for getting on top of
all of this. It is very important that we know what we are doing, know
what the cost will be to achieve our objectives, and know whether we
are, in fact, achieving those objectives. I think, too, that the kind
of study of which the Senator speaks is important in the achievement of
the support of the American public for all of these measures. The only
question I would raise is whether or not the study that is contemplated
should be a part of the study to be conducted by the Air Quality
Commission that is established by this bill.
Mr. BENTSEN. I did give consideration to that and that was a
question to be resolved. It is just that with the technicalities of
this particular problem, in talking about reducing vehicle miles
traveled by 75 percent and given 10 years to accomplish that, that is a
dramatic and very massive impact on the economics of that area.
I really want to highlight and high profile this kind of a study. I
want to see the cooperative efforts with the State. We see our State
board with a substantial degree of competence and a great concern in
trying to zero in on this subject and work with the National Government
on it.
Mr. BAKER. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. BENTSEN. I yield.
Mr. BAKER. I do not wish to diminish the importance of this issue to
the Senator's home State. I understand his problem and I am sympathetic
to it. I wonder, however, if the same thing might be accomplished
without creating this agency if, in fact, the jurisdiction of the
proposed Air Quality Commission were amended in order to make this one
of the stated statutory obligations of the Commission and to provide for
a procedure including, even, the attempt to contract with the National
Academy of Science.
I must say to the Senator that while I am sympathetic to his
objective, I hate to see a proliferation of studies on this same issue.
I am entirely willing to see that the essence of this proposal is
mandated to the proposed air quality commission. I wonder if we could
work out something along that line.
Mr. BENTSEN. I certainly do not want to see a proliferation of
agencies either, I will say to the Senator. I very much want the input,
the strong input, and the high role of the State agencies in Government.
The chairman of the council and the Governors of those States would be
involved here, with the administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency. I really wanted to emphasize the role of the States in this and
the higher profile by them. We have a lot locked into the States, and I
want to be sure that we give them a full opportunity. That is the
reason I stated it this way.
Mr. BAKER. If the Senator will yield again. Mr. President, I would
hope that we could reach some sort of an accord on this point because I
do want to see the air quality commission which I proposed in the
committee be the prime forum for the effort to hear and understand these
problems.
I, of course, do not know who the members of the Air Quality
Commission would be, but I would be hopeful that the appointive
authorities would take account of the State interests, and possibly
appoint State officials for that purpose. I certainly cannot assure the
Senator in that respect, but I would hope that would happen.
There are public members provided for and there are nonpublic
members(()) provided for, and there is a sufficient range of flexibility
required under the proposal to put Governors or other State
representatives on there.
There is one difference that I note. The Air Quality Commission is
supposed to report, I believe, in 3 years. The Senator's proposal is
for 2 years.
Mr. BENTSEN. Yes.
Mr. BAKER. I would be perfectly willing to require an interim report
on this subject by the Air Quality Commission in 2 years' time. We
already have an interim report for 1977, for instance, on the oxides of
nitrogen, which also are photochemical oxidants. So we could combine
that requirement with the Senator's requirement for a 2-year report.
I would strongly urge the Senator from Texas to see if we could find
a way to combine our objectives, because I think they are the same, and
there is enough flexibility in both so that we could make them identical
and not divide our effort.
Mr. BENTSEN. I would be willing to seek such a compromise. I will
state to the Senator from Tennessee, if I can be assured that I have the
really strong input of the State agency in this matter, where they are
participating in a major way. I just want to be certain of that.
Mr. BAKER. I am more than willing to assure the Senator in that
regard.
Mr. BENTSEN. Otherwise, with the filling in they get on the problem
up here, their solution sometimes gets a little fuzzy.
Mr. BAKER. I entirely agree. I would be more than happy to ask our
respective staffs to try to work up language that would be mutually
satisfactory in that respect, if we could lay this proposal aside for a
few minutes.
Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, I would agree. I think it would be
worthwhile if we could modify the amendment to meet the objectives the
Senator from Texas seeks, avoiding considerable cost and time.
Mr. BENTSEN. I agree. I just want to be certain we have a high
profile effort on the part of the State agencies involved in this
situation, and not have them sloughed off by the national agencies.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, regarding the request of the Senator
from New York (Mr. BUCKLEY) in respect to the Senator's amendment, I
would be agreeable to the study. I feel that it moves at a specific
problem, as the Senator has set forth. Does the Senator from Texas feel
that by stepping aside from the amendment for the time being, there
could be discussions which would be fruitful with the Senator from New
York (Mr. BUCKLEY) and the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER) in which
perhaps I would participate? Would that be in accord with his
understanding?
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, I would be happy to set aside
temporarily the amendment, with the consent of the Senate, and see if we
could work out an area of compromise to accomplish the dual objectives
of the Senators on the minority side and the Senator from Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield to the Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1629, and
ask that it be reported.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Mexico (Mr. DOMENICI) proposes an amendment
numbered 1629.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI's amendment (No. 1629) is as follows:
On page 28, after line 17, insert:
(i)(1) The Administrator, within ninety days after the date of
enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1976 and from time to time
thereafter as may be appropriate, shall publish proposed regulations for
use by the Environmental Protection Agency and State and local agencies,
in (A) determining the portion of ambient concentrations of particulate
matter attributable to natural causes; and (B) discounting such
particulate matter, when deemed appropriate, in administering sections
107(d), 110, and 113(g); and after a reasonable time for interested
persons to submit written comments thereon (but no later than ninety
days after the initial publication of the proposed regulations) shall
promulgate such proposed regulations.
(2) For the purposes of this section "natural causes" shall include
wind erosion of natural soils from farms, cleared land, and unpaved
roads; dust storms; forest fires; sea salt and such other causes as
may be specified by the Administrator.
Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1970, is
further amended to add the phrase "any regulations under section
110(i)," after the phrase "A petition for review of action of the
Administrator in promulgating any national primary or secondary ambient
air quality standard".
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I believe that after the distinguished
chairman of the full committee and I finish discussing the problem that
this amendment attempts to raise, I will withdraw it, but I do think it
raises a rather significant area. It is rather new.
The amendment addresses what I believe to be one of the most
troubling conceptual problems embedded within the Clean Air Act -- the
issue of background particulates.
Basically, the issue is what happens when natural causes such as
windblown dust, particularly in the arid west, cause violations of the
national ambient standards for particulates. The answer is unclear.
Under both the present Clean Air Act, and the committee's amendments,
all future sources of particulate in areas which have not achieved the
ambient standards for particulate could be prohibited. For rural,
lightly populated regions of the Nation, such a result could prove
unacceptable.
The difficulties of implementing existing law were outlined by the
Environmental Protection Agency during litigation over the West Virginia
State implementation plan. One of the issues was whether high
background levels of particulates had caused overly stringent emission
limitations on stationary sources. EPA rejected the argument that
background particulates could be discounted the same as pollution in a
facility's intake water is discounted under the water act.
EPA stated in the March 4, 1976, Federal Register:
Thus, while the argument can be made that technology-based water
requirements should be structured so that no one source is penalized
because of naturally-occurring pollutants in its intake water, the same
argument cannot be made where the target in question (i.e. an ambient
air quality standard) will, by its very nature, impose obligations that
will vary in relation to the pollutant content of the air. That such
target may be influenced by background concentrations and may thereby
require substantial and perhaps burdensome, point source controls is
admittedly one of the more onerous aspects of the national ambient air
quality standard approach. Nevertheless, when health and welfare is at
stake and air quality must be improved to a given level, there logically
is no choice but to impose pollution limits on controllable man-made
sources rather than attempt to limit naturally occurring (and, usually,
uncontrollable) background sources.
I have quoted at some length to stress that this is a conceptual
problem with the act. The law and the amendments provide no relief in
the case where nature, rather than man, violates the particulate
standard.
The origins of this problem lie in the assumption that man is the
principal polluter. The 1970 act was based on the reasonable premise
that air pollution was the result of the careless practices of an
industrialized society. As Senator MUSKIE noted during the September
21, 1970 floor debate, the 1970 act was:
A moment of truth: a time to decide whether or not we are willing to
take the difficult but necessary steps to breathe new life into our
fight for a better quality of life. This legislation will be a test of
our commitment and a test of our faith.
In short, the 1970 act saw air pollution as a manmade phenomena
subject to human solutions. Nature was the victim, not a transgressor.
During the committee's 1975 legislative hearings on the present
amendments, the committee received little edification on the issue.
Although the scientific basis of the particulate standard was
challenged, there was virtually no discussion on the legal and economic
implications of natural violations of the national standards. In fact,
the only mention I was able to discover was on Dr. John Finklea's
statement that background levels of photochemical oxidants come close to
the standard in several regions(()) of the country, although scientists
believe that since much of this is due to the long distance transport of
manmade pollutants from urban areas, these background levels may not be
caused by nature at all.
I believe the distinguished Senator from Maine had a question at this
point which I am delighted to try to answer.
Mr. MUSKIE. Since neither the 1970 act, nor our recent hearings
surfaced this issue, I ask the Senator what is the basis for his concern
now?
Mr. DOMENICI. I might say to the distinguished Senator that
obviously that particular question is well taken, and I have indicated
that recent hearings have not surfaced the issue but the data base is
very slight.
However, it is not totally lacking, and what I have seen greatly
disturbs me. First, EPA has released some sketchy monitoring data which
shows major portions of the country west of the Mississippi as exceeding
the particulate standards. Second, EPA did a study in 1974 entitled
"Investigation of Fugitive Dust" which studies the causes of particulate
levels above the national standards in New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and
California. Third, recent oil industry data from undeveloped Federal
leases shows levels of particulates, hydrocarbon, and oxidant above the
ambient standards. Fugitive particulate emissions from natural sources
do appear to contribute to these high levels of particulate; but the
extent of the contribution is unknown.
I certainly think that in light of our particular interest and our
mutual interest that this is a matter that should be discussed. We are
not going to resolve it here today, but it should be of grave concern.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I say to the Senator that the committee addressed
this problem on page 81 of the committee report, which notes that:
The States and EPA have recognized this problem of rural background
particulates and discounted its effects where it is due to transitory,
natural causes such as wind, and involves particulates generally of the
substances and respirable sizes thought to affect public health.
The committee report goes on to note that we expect this policy of
"administrative good sense" to continue. The limited extent of our
knowledge did not permit us to address the problem in any other way.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say I am aware of that language, and
he has exactly pinpointed the purpose for my amendment, that it was to
legalize what I felt was in fact sound; perhaps I could call it, ad hoc
administrative practice.
Mr. MUSKIE. I think it would be premature in light of the record to
address this issue statutorily. At this time, preliminary EPA data from
the Phoenix area indicates that fully two-thirds of the total 1975
particulate emissions were generated from fugitive emissions from motor
vehicles on unpaved roads. Yet under the Senator's amendment, this
source would be classified as a natural source, even though such
emissions are man made. In fact, EPA's ongoing review of the ambient
particulate standards includes an effort to distinguish the relative
toxicity of various sizes of particles. If particles in the size range
of such manmade fugitive emissions are harmful to health, their control
should not be foreclosed, as I think the Senator will agree. The same
may be true in agricultural areas.
My second concern is that the practical effect of his amendment
could, be to open up all of the State implementation plans to
litigation. Any amendment involving background level of particulates
would have this result.
My feeling is that we should allow the ongoing EPA investigations of
this issue to continue, and that we should monitor their progress. As
more emissions data and health effects knowledge becomes available, we
will be in a better position to assess the magnitude of the contribution
of truly natural emissions to the background particulate problem.
Mr. DOMENICI. I say to our good chairman that I agree with much of
what he said. I still offer several comments, however. First, his
critique of my amendment's definition of "natural causes" is well taken.
EPA in their 1974 report distinguished between "natural" background
from windblown dust and "fugitive" emissions from unpaved roads and
agriculture; manmade emissions were the overwhelming contributor.
In addition to the considerable amount of work which remains to
segregate these two categories of fugitive emissions in specific regions
through what certainly will be more refined techniques, the ambient
particulate standard should also be refined. EPA is currently assessing
various strategies to supplement the existing standard.
Second, I believe our chairman's concern about opening up existing
State implementation plans is well founded. Such an action on this
particular count would be unjustified until we had reliable information
upon which to act.
Mr. MUSKIE. I say to the Senator that I share his concern. I do
feel uneasy about taking such a major step with such little data.
It strikes me that the charge of the National Commission under
section 315(a)(1) clearly encompasses the subject. I believe that the
combination of the discretion authorized under the present report
language and the charge of the Commission offers us a better alternative
than enacting this amendment into law.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the distinguished chairman for the thoughtful
dialog he has engaged in with me.
Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment. I do believe that the
arguments with reference to continuing it here today and voting on it
are on the side of withdrawal. I believe we have made some legislative
history here.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD
a Federal Register notice dealing with New Mexico, which demonstrates
clearly that background particulates represent a serious potential
problem for my State. I believe I have mentioned the others -- I do not
have the registry as to them -- but it is a series of States with a
similar problem.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the RECORD as follows:
Required Revision to Implementation Plan for the Pecos-Permian Basin
Air Quality Control Region.
In this notice, the EPA Regional Administrator for Region VI finds
that the implementation plan for the State of New Mexico is inadequate
in its consideration of the air quality impact of particulate matter
emissions from existing and projected potash plants in the Pecos-Permian
Basin Air Quality Control Region (AQCR 155) for the attainment and
maintenance of the primary national ambient air quality standards. He
is, therefore, requesting that the State submit a revision to the plan
to correct those deficiencies. The Regional Administrator has formally
notified the Governor of this matter in a letter dated July 1, 1976.
On May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10842), under section 110 of the Clean Air Act
and 40 CFR Part 51, the Administrator approved the control strategy for
the attainment and maintenance of the national primary and secondary
standards for total suspended particulate in the Pecos-Permian Basin
Region. The implementation plan was originally designed to attain these
national standards by July 1, 1975. Furthermore, on March 8, 1973 (38
FR 6279), EPA disapproved all implementation plans with respect to
maintenance of the national standards.
The Regional Administrator of the EPA, Region VI finds that the
presently approved control strategy portion of the implementation plan
for particulate matter does not include control of potash plans for the
Pecos-Permian Basin Region. As a result, it has been determined that
the implementation plan is inadequate to attain and maintain the
national primary ambient air quality standards for total suspended
particulate from potash plants.
This finding is based on the October 1975 preliminary regional
environmental analysis record on "Potash Leasing in Southeastern New
Mexico" which indicated that the primary national ambient air quality
standard for total suspended particulate are currently being exceeded.
The analysis was done by the Bureau of Land Management, and involved the
estimation of annual concentrations from existing potash plants. The
State of New Mexico has also completed a preliminary analysis which
involved the estimation of short-term particulate matter concentrations
by applying the emission rates reported by the Bureau of Land
Management. This analysis suggested that a majority of the existing
potash plants are capable of exceeding the primary 24-hour maximum
national standard for total suspended particulate. Furthermore, it is
anticipated that this problem will be compounded by fugitive dust
emissions and by the expected growth of the potash industry in this
region, which will lead to increased emissions and increased particulate
matter concentrations. The combination of these factors indicates that
the plan is inadequate to attain and maintain the national ambient air
quality standards for total suspended particulate.
The State of New Mexico is presently conducting a more detailed
analysis which will consider point source particulate matter emissions
from existing potash plants and projected emissions from proposed new
leases. The purpose of this analysis is to define control(())
requirements. It is scheduled for completion by June 30, 1967, and will
be made publicly available. Rather than wait for the completion of the
analysis however, the Regional Administrator is calling for a plan
revision now so that the appropriate agencies in the State may begin at
once the process of developing their plan revision.
The Regional Administrator finds that a revision to parts of the
control strategy for particulate matter in the applicable plan is needed
and thereby requests the State to submit a revision.
Because the extent and nature of the attainment problem due to
particulate matter emissions from potash plants will not be fully known
until completion of the analysis, the Regional Administrator does not
intend at this time to establish either a date for submission of a
control strategy that will provide for the attainment and maintenance of
that standard or the period over which the plan would have to ensure
maintenance.
The Regional Administrator will reevaluate the matter and
subsequently decide what the submission dates shall be.
The Governor shall submit, within 60 days of this notice, a letter of
intent to the Regional Administrator, EPA, Region VI, which identifies
the various action steps, along with target dates for completion, which
the State will take to develop the plan revision in accordance with the
requirements set forth in this notice. The State must also identify in
the letter the agencies that have been given responsibility to prepare
the plan revision.
All the applicable plan remains in effect until the plan revision is
submitted by the State to EPA and is approved by EPA or until EPA
promulgates substitute regulations.
This notice is not subject to rulemaking procedures. The need for a
plan revision is based upon a technical finding of the Regional
Administrator which shows that the control strategy for particulate
matter in the Pecos-Permian Basin Region is inadequate and needs to be
revised. Authority for such action is provided in sections 110(a)(2)(H)
and 110(c) of the Clean Air Act, 1970. Ample opportunity for public
comment on the Regional Administrator's determination of plan inadequacy
will be provided during the public hearing that the State is required to
hold on the plan revision before submission to EPA. If EPA must propose
and promulgate its own regulations, EPA will provide opportunity for
written comments and, if the State held no hearing on the revisions,
will provide opportunity for a public hearing.
(Sec. 110(a)(2)(H), Clean Air Act, as amended, (42 USC
1857c-5(a)(2)(H)); sec. 110(c), Clean Air Act, as amended, (42 USC
1875c-5(c))
Dated: July 1, 1976.
JOHN C. WHITE,
Regional Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency.
(FR Doc. 76-20587 Filed 7-15-76; 8:45 am)
Mr. GRAVEL. Mr. President, I share the concerns expressed by the
distinguished Senator from New Mexico (Mr. DOMENICI). The standards
established in the committee's bill for particulate matter leave many
questions unanswered. Many regions of the country face high
concentrations of natural particulate matter which would be included in
background levels for this pollutant in both the ambient level and the
significant deterioration increment.
The inclusion of natural particulate in such background levels raises
potential problems with respect to development in impacted regions.
Many areas of Alaska have riverbeds and glacier areas which during
certain times of the year produce high levels of dust. During this
period the 24-hour standard for particulate matter will be violated, I
am told by my State air quality people. This makes for a potential for
limitations on development.
Mr. President, we have no conclusive evidence that natural
particulate presents any serious adverse health effects. I believe that
it is essential that the issue of background level of natural
particulates be resolved. I, therefore, support the efforts of Senator
DOMENICI to provide the Environmental Protection Agency with some
guidance on this important question.
Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield.
Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, I want to echo the sentiments of the
chairman of the subcommittee.
I believe that the Senator from New Mexico has performed a great
service in highlighting this very important problem that has to be
faced. But it has to be faced, in my judgment, when we have more
precise knowledge on which to act. The assembling of that kind of
information, of course, is the reason this air quality commission will
be put into effect.
I believe that the modus vivendi that has been in existence, in
taking advantage of the flexibility in administration on the part of
EPA, really assures us of some commonsense approaches, pending a more
definitive attack on that problem.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.
I think that what they are now doing, as I indicated, is almost an ad
hoc legalization of the concept we are discussing here; and I hope they
will continue it while we gather information in the manner that the
Senator has described.
I thank the Senator for his comments.
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT obtained the floor.
Mr. MCCLURE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. I yield.
Mr. MCCLURE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding.
I wish to make some remarks with regard to the subject matter that
has been discussed.
I am a little sorry that the Senator from New Mexico withdrew the
amendment, because I think the amendment could operate which was perhaps
better than the existing statute.
I recognize the factors which led him to withdraw the amendment, but
I also recognize the very great need for the statutory enactment which
he sought to make which would better define what the committee was
seeking to do in the first place.
I am sure the Senator from New Mexico remembers the long discussions
we had in several committee sessions, both in the subcommittee and in
the full committee, dealing with the question of background levels of
pollutants, particularly those of particulates. The only conclusion we
could come up with, as I recall, was that we do not know enough about it
to say anything about it, so we will require each applicant to establish
the baseline data himself, because no one else has any. So we
transferred the burden for an unknown from a statute to the EPA and to
the applicant, who must establish baseline data.
It seems to me that at the same time we are doing that, we will leave
involved a very serious question regarding the background pollutants
that the Senator identified in his amendment and such background
pollutants in particulates such as the pollens, which sometimes are a
very heavy burden in background particulates.
In his State and in mine -- in any of the Western States that have
large evergreen forests -- the pollen that comes from those forests will
be the particulates that during some portion of the year are the
dominant factor in background levels of pollution.
The question that seems to me to be left by the language in the bill
and the approach we have taken is this: "How does an applicant measure
the background level of pollutants?" I pose this question because it
says that it is up to the applicant to determine the level at the time
of the application.
Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator is speaking now of the nondegradation
system?
Mr. MCCLURE. That is correct.
At what point in the calendar year is he going to file his
application to determine the level of background pollutants at any time?
That is what the statute says. I assume that he will measure
background levels over a period of time, but will it be an average day
and will it be the amount of the background level at the time the
applicant files his application, or will it be the average of the
3-month period preceding? Will it be the highest level at any
particular time?
That is the kind of question the committee was unable to resolve, and
it seemed to me that the amendment by the Senator from New Mexico would
have solved that by saying that you exclude those natural pollutants,
you exclude those that are there always, so that you do not penalize
anyone for the fluctuations in natural particulates and impose a burden
upon industry to try to clean up something that naturally occurs, that
is not theirs. At the same time, I recognize that that uncertainty may
best yield itself to the flexibility of a regulatory system rather than
a statutory approach.
So while I do think that the Senator from New Mexico has made a
significant contribution by the colloquy and by highlighting the
question, I believe his amendment would have aided us in the
applications which certainly will be troublesome.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MCCLURE. The Senator from Virginia has the floor.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me 1 minute?
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. I will be glad to yield.
Mr. President, before yielding, I ask unanimous consent that Jim
Roberts, of my staff, have the privilege of the floor during the
consideration of this matter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.(())
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Mr. President, the distinguished chairman of
the full committee has an amendment he proposes to offer. After that, I
would like to be recognized to discuss this bill and particularly an
amendment that I propose to offer tomorrow or as soon as I can get the
floor. So I will not attempt to continue recognition until after the
Senator from West Virginia has offered his amendment.
I am glad to yield the floor at this time.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for 1 moment, so
that I may comment on what the Senator from Idaho has said?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I am happy to yield.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator from Idaho for raising the issue.
I wish to make two comments.
On a regionalized basis, the EPA is doing what my amendment would
have made the national law. I trust that they will be prudent with the
regions -- that is, to go to the regions where the problems are obvious.
I have described some of them, and the Senator is aware of them. There
is a lack of knowledge on our part as to what all this means, and there
is a vacuum in terms of particulate mobility, which is not just natural
but the manmade mobility which is now under some very excellent scrutiny
and study. Perhaps the Senator is aware that there is a tremendous
cooperative program in which manned balloons are being used. They are
floating around in the particulate areas and are making measurements.
That is a superb program, and it will give us information.
As to the question of baseline data, the Senator raised a good issue.
He referred to applicants under the nondegradation permit system. The
bill as drawn is going to be difficult, but it does require that there
be some annualized evaluation, so that you would not pick the best or
the worst of the 12-month year when you develop your baseline data, but,
rather, some average based upon the best information that we can gather
for a 12-month cycle.
Mr. MCCLURE. I say to the Senator that certainly, I recognize that
there is no way of pinning down something as difficult to pin down as
the ambient air itself. But even an annualized basis does not answer
all the questions, because the emissions vary from year to year, as any
hay fever sufferer can tell you. It is not just from season to season,
it may be from year to year. That is just one of the particulates.
Perhaps you can say we will not have hay fever any more, we will have
pollutant fever. But that is the kind of problem we are dealing with.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia
for yielding.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New Mexico withdraw his
amendment?
Mr. DOMENICI. I did withdraw it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment has been withdrawn.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of my
colleague from Virginia (Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT). Since he is going to
lay the premise in remarks for later amendments to be offered, which
will certainly receive careful attention, we will, recalling our
colloquy of yesterday, be conscious of his continuing interest in what
we do here.
I think earlier today, we had a discussion by Senator BUCKLEY which
pointed up the necessity for this to be, in a sense, the people's bill,
for the people to understand the bill, the people to know the
responsibilities they share with a bureaucracy in carrying forth the
provisions of this bill.
Mr. President, with that in mind I call up amendment 1798.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to read the amendment.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 85, line 13, insert the following between the words "and" and
"prevention" the words "in accordance with subsection (i) of this
section the".
On page 86, line 8, insert between the words "Commission" and "shall"
the words "shall be appointed within sixty days after enactment of this
section and".
On page 87, line 4, insert after the word "(e)" the following phrase:
"(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection,".
On page 87, between lines 7 and 8 insert the following new paragraph:
"(2) A report on the results of the study and investigation of the
Commission authorized under subsection (i) of this section, together
with any appropriate recommendations, shall be submitted not later than
two years after the date of enactment of this section.".
On page 88, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following new
subsection:
"(i)(1) The Commission shall, in carrying out the study authorized
under this section, give priority to a study of the implementation of
the provisions of subsection (g) of section 110 of this Act.
"(2) In carrying out the authority of this subsection the Commission
shall study, among others, the following:
"(A) whether the provisions relating to the designation of, and
protection of air quality in class I regions under this Act are
appropriate to protect the air quality over lands of special national
significance, including recommendations for, and methods to (i) add to
or delete lands from such designation, and (ii) provide appropriate
protection of the air quality over such lands;
"(B) whether the provisions of subsection (g) of section 110 of this
Act, including the three-hour and twenty-four-hour increments, (i)
affect the location and size of major emitting facilities, and (ii)
whether such effects are in conflict or consonance with our national
policies regarding the development of such facilities;
"(C) whether the technology is available to control emissions from
the major emitting facilities which are subject to regulation under
subsection (g) of section 110 of this Act, including an analysis of the
costs associated with that technology;
"(D) whether the exclusion of nonmajor emitting sources from the
regulatory framework under this Act will affect the protection of air
quality in class I and class II regions designated under this Act;
"(E) whether the increments of change of air quality under this Act
are appropriate to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in
class I and class II regions designated under this Act; and
"(F) whether the choice of predictive air quality models and the
assumptions of those models are appropriate to protect air quality in
the class I and class II regions designated under this Act for the
pollutants subject to regulation under subsection (g) of section 110 of
this Act.
"(3) For the study authorized under this subsection there shall be
made available by contract to the Commission from the appropriation to
the Environmental Protection Agency, for fiscal year 1977, the sum of
$1,000,000.".
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, the issue of significant deterioration
in the quality of air has drawn more public attention than any other one
feature of the Clean Air Amendments of 1976. The concern that has been
expressed is an understandable concern. Certainly, the procedures
established in this area by the bill are intended to implement the
policy which states, very clearly, that clean air areas should be
protected.
It should be obvious to all Members of the Senate that the
implications of such a policy, as it is carried forward, will be
substantial. There are, however, some legitimate questions about the
long-term impact of a nondeterioration policy. So, in developing this
legislation, the members of the committee gave much time to this
problem, I think perhaps more time than to any other portion of the
bill. I believe that the approach adopted and reflected in Senate 3219
is a correct and a well-reasoned approach.
Mr. President, the nondeterioration provisions of the bill were
agreed to after the most careful consideration. We received all
available information and consulted with many, many individuals and
many, many organizations. These individuals and organizations
represented a diversity of viewpoints. The provisions in the bill
represent, I think, a positive improvement over the current
Environmental Protection Agency regulations on the prevention of
significant deterioration.
The members of our committee believe we know what will take place if
this legislation is implemented. We are convinced that it would be
unwise to delay the establishment of a procedure to prevent the
deterioration of air quality in areas that are relatively free of
pollutants or to leave the flawed Environmental Protection Agency
approach in place. I do not believe that we should postpone action,
because it is important to protect these areas. The pressure of our
growing -- we hope it is a growth society of which we are a part -- and
highly industrialized society threaten those areas which, so far, have
been only slightly affected by pollution.
Our experience has indicated how difficult, expensive, and time
consuming it is to correct the environmental abuses that have taken
place in past years. It is far more prudent to avoid severe pollution
conditions than it is to permit their development and then to attempt to
correct them. This is not a criticism; it is an observation that, too
often in our country, we act after the fact, not before the fact. We
need, whenever possible, to have people understand what the problems(())
are that can develop so that they, in the process of consideration and
action, can be a party to whatever is done.
Mr. President, the comprehensive nature of the nondeterioration
policy requires that it be carefully monitored, especially as to its
long-term effects. I have introduced, accordingly, an amendment
requiring that our Commission on Air Quality -- which is to be a part of
this bill, through the leadership, in substantial degree, of the Senator
from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER) -- give priority to a study of the
implementation of the nondeteriorating provisions.
The Commission, which is established by this bill, was chosen in this
instance to avoid the creation of another body or the placing of
responsibility for studying air pollution matters and thus the impact of
the nondeterioration program is well within its mandate.
I think it was proper that the amendment offered by Senator BENTSEN
earlier today, for the study of a particular problem that he has in
Texas and perhaps in other areas, might be incorporated in the work of
the Commission, keeping in mind the 3-year limitation on the Commission
report. There is concern, Mr. President, that the value of such a study
would be diluted if a long period of time were required for the
Commission to be organized and then to get down to work. For that
reason, the amendment that I offer provides that the members of the
Commission shall be appointed within 60 days of the enactment of this
legislation. A report on nondeterioration would be submitted to
Congress within a period of 2 years. This would provide a sufficient
time for the nondeterioration section to be implemented and for the
various components of the problem to be properly assessed. The
amendment calls particular attention to several features which, I think,
we must give attention to during the study.
These include the adequacy of the provisions for the designation of
class 1 regions and protection of air quality in those regions.
The 3-hour and 24-hour increments allowed under the nondeterioration
provisions are certainly critical to the control of emissions in the
affected areas.
Mr. President, these limitations on additions to existing emission
levels will certainly influence the extent to which development can take
place in the protected areas.
The study must include the impact of statutory increments and their
effect on the location and size of major emitting facilities, whether
these effects are consistent with other national policy regarding the
development of these facilities.
Mr. President, the study will examine what technology is available to
properly control emissions subject to regulation under the program.
Only major emission sources are covered by the legislation, so the
study that is proposed would bring an examination of the effect to
nonmajor sources on air quality.
The purpose of the program of nondeterioration is to protect air
quality, let me repeat, to protect air quality. The Members of this
Congress and the American people mean to do that, keeping in mind, of
course, the energy problems, the economic problems, the social problems,
all the problems that are inherent in the complex problem in the overall
that we are considering. But we do believe the people of the United
States are committed to a high quality of air, commensurate with the
other matters I have discussed.
So, Mr. President, this is a program in which we want to achieve
certain goals, but whatever these achievements may be they will not be
complete without our realizing that air quality for the American people
is a matter of priority.
Mr. President, I suggest this is not the last time Congress will be
called on to legislate in air pollution control matters. We have
addressed this subject before, and I am sure we will do it again as we
make progress under the programs and as conditions change. Sometimes,
perhaps, it is even necessary to have a pause, and I have used that word
because I want as one member, not just as the chairman of the committee,
to try to be very reasoned about my position in these matters.
The National Commission on Water Quality was established as a part of
a major revision of our Federal Water Pollution Control Act which became
law in 1972. That commission was charged specifically with providing
information to assist Congress in determining the future program.
The National Commission on Air Quality as it is envisaged in this
bill would be authorized to carry out the same functions, as I have
earlier said, with respect to the air pollution program.
So the study I have in this amendment is consistent with philosophy
underlying the establishment of both the prior Water Commission and now,
the Air Commission.
The prevention of any significant deterioration of air quality is
highly desirable and is an essential part of our total pollution effort.
It is equally important that we closely watch the results of our
efforts. We must not forget to do this. We must monitor the program.
We must have the oversight hearings. We must be very careful to see
that the intent of Congress is carried out, as well as the actual
language of the law.
As we move forward during this debate I hope we will have an
understanding by the Members of Congress, regardless of where they stand
exactly on this or that provision, that we do want us to watch very
carefully the results of our efforts.
So I trust the managers of the measure will believe that it is a
wholesome amendment I have offered.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes, I yield.
Mr. MOSS. Do I understand the Senator's amendment to be that this
study would be conducted after enactment of this bill and within the
time limits the Senator was talking about?
Mr. RANDOLPH. That is correct.
Mr. MOSS. It would, therefore, presuppose the passage of all the
terms of the bill, which would make it different from the one I proposed
where section 6 would not go into effect until after the study was
completed; is that the difference?
Mr. RANDOLPH. That is correct. As the Senator has indicated, it
applies to the bill as brought from the committee.
Mr. MOSS. Yes.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I am offering the amendment to that measure.
Mr. MOSS. I see.
Mr. RANDOLPH. As we listen to the presentation of the able Senator
from Utah (Mr. MOSS) I will, of course, be very interested, intensely
interested, in what he is going to say. At the moment it is not
necessary for me to say I will or will not support his amendment.
Mr. MOSS. I understand.
Mr. RANDOLPH. But I have, perhaps, given as much attention to the
amendment and the implications of the amendment, the challenges of the
amendment, as any member of our committee. But I believe what we are
doing here is apart, it is set in a different frame, from what the
Senator refers to in his own amendment.
Mr. MOSS. I thank the Senator. I was just trying to clarify that
point, and I think I understand it fully. I support the study I did.
Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes.
Mr. BUCKLEY. If I may pursue the point raised by the Senator from
Utah, the Senator's record is totally clear, but am I correct in my
understanding that the proposed study would in no way delay the
implementation of the statutory program contemplated in this bill
dealing with the problem of nondeterioration?
Mr. RANDOLPH. It would not delay it.
Mr. BUCKLEY. Section (C) on page 3, the section dealing with the
examination of technology, would not in any way interfere or delay the
action by the States and determining the best available technology?
Mr. RANDOLPH. The Senator is correct.
I appreciate both questions.
Mr. BUCKLEY. I thank the Senator.
Mr. GARY HART. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maine yield for
a unanimous-consent request?
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not have the floor.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield.
Mr. GARY HART. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Peter Gold and Mr.
Kevin Cornell of my staff have the privilege of the floor during the
debate on this pending legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GARY HART. I thank the Senator.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I am not certain, Mr. President, that this is an
amendment on which the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) or the Senator
from New York (Mr. BUCKLEY) might wish a rollcall. I think it is highly
important, but I would(()) rest the matter with the judgment of the
Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. I think it might be useful to respond for this reason:
I have read in the public press and elsewhere more misinformation and
more distortion of what the committee bill does on the question of
nondegradation than on almost any other legislative issue I have ever
been exposed to. It might be a useful way to begin to focus the
attention of the Senate on the fact that we are about to begin debate on
that issue, hopefully to clarify the issue, hopefully to lay a basis of
understanding upon which the Senate can act.
May I say at this point, if the Senator will permit me --
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. In the first place, after glancing over an editorial in
today's Wall Street Journal, I am just amazed that that presumably
enlightened publication would express such an unenlightened view as to
how we arrived at the conclusions that resulted in the committee bill.
I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that there be printed in the
RECORD a memorandum dated June 26, 1975, prepared by the subcommittee
staff for the members of the Environmental Pollution Subcommittee, which
undertakes to analyze the question of how much growth is allowed by the
Environmental Protection Agency's nondegradation scheme. The Wall
Street Journal entitles this article "Senator Muskie's No-Growth Bill."
I invite those who wrote that editorial to read this memorandum, and
for their convenience, if no one else's, I ask unanimous consent that
this memorandum be printed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the RECORD, as follows:
To Members of the Environment Pollution Subcommittee.
From Subcommittee Staff.
Subject Growth Allowed Within EPA's Nondegradation Scheme.
EPA defined the Class II area specifically to allow development of
"average sized" facilities within the Class II region. Class II was not
developed by relating it to any specific ambient air quality, such as
visibility. Class II does not establish a new kind of national ambient
air quality standard, but instead states how much additional pollution
could be added to any area which presently has air cleaner than national
ambient air quality standards. Areas designated as Class II, whether
moderately clean or extremely clean, would be allowed to add the exact
same increment of pollution to whatever existing background levels are
present.
EPA examined the average plant being constructed in the industrial
categories most likely to have pollution problems and then projected the
probable air quality impact of construction of such sources using the
best available control technology. The Agency concluded that " + + +
typical coal gasification plants, oil shale processing facilities, and
petroleum refineries would not be expected individually to exceed the
Class II increments in most areas. However, the Class II increments
would prevent the aggregation of such sources within close proximity of
each other." (Technical Support Document -- EPA Regulations for
Preventing Significant Deterioration of Air Quality, EPA, January 1975,
p. 20)
The same statement holds true for the average sized plants in the
following categories: fossil fuel-fired steam electric power units,
municipal incinerators, kraft pulp mills, iron and steel mills, coal
cleaning plants, sulfur recovery plants, lime plants, Portland Cement
plants, phosphate rock processing plants, petroleum refineries,
byproduct coke oven batteries, sulfuric acid plants, carbon black
plants, primary aluminum plants, primary zinc smelters, primary copper
smelters, fuel conversion plants and primary lead smelters. For many of
these sources, the average sized plant would be substantially lower than
the increment allowed.
The size of the facility or the number of identical facilities
located within a Class II area is limited only by the existing
technology for controlling emissions. As that technology increases in
sophistication, larger facilities and facilities spaced in closer
proximity would be allowed within the Class II increment.
Much of the discussion has revolved around plants, since the size of
the average new power plant has grown much more than other sources and
presents the greatest difficulty in fitting within a Class II area. EPA
concluded that a 1000 megawatt power plant could fit within a Class II
area, and "assuming that such a source used up 90 percent of the
allowable increment in a Class II area, a similar source could not be
located within 25 miles of the first plant." (Technical Support
Document, p. 20)
The location chosen for a site within the Class II area is of
critical concern. When EPA examined existing coal burning power plants
and projected the impact of such plants in a Class II area, they
discovered one 1300 megawatt power plant which used only half of the
increment allowed under the Class II designation; this occurred
principally because of the design of the power plant and surrounding
terrain and meteorological conditions.
Industries interested in establishing oil shale facilities in western
States have raised objections to the entire EPA nondegradation scheme.
One of the objections raised was that such controls would not allow 8 to
10 oil shale plants to be located in close proximity to each other. If
the industry assumptions of the technology to be used are correct, this
may be true, but these points should be considered:
(1) The industry has not established the technology which would be
used to process oil shale and has not done modelling as to the probable
air quality impact of such technology; such modelling would be
difficult since the choice of technology has not been made.
(2) Even if the projected "guess" of the Federal Energy
Administration regarding the most probable "typical" oil shale facility
is used, approximately two such facilities could be located at the same
site in a Class II area, with similar clusters located 20 to 30 miles
apart. (Task Force Report -- Oil Shale, Project Independence, FEA,
November 1974, p. 446)
(3) Air quality considerations seem to be less important in
constraining oil shale development than factors such as uncertainty
regarding technology, costs of processing, availability of water for
processing, and the international price of oil and related fuels.
Administrator Train, in a letter to Senator Muskie dated June 5,
1975, indicated that the Agency's projections of the air quality impact
of an integrated steel mill presently being planned for Northern Indiana
with a capacity of 2.3 million tons per year would increase the 24-hour
particulate matter concentration by about 2 micrograms per cubic meter
(under conditions which would result in the highest concentration for
that plant).
Since the Class II increment allows 30 micrograms per cubic meter of
particulate matter over a 24-hour period, this would allow considerable
room for further development within the Class II increment if such a
facility were built.
The Class II increment was designed to allow a petroleum refinery
with the capacity of 150,000 barrels per day to be constructed without
consuming the entire air pollution increment available. Industry data
indicates that the average refinery is 100,000 barrels per day with the
largest planned facility being 200,000 barrels per day.
The Class II increment raises considerable difficulty for the planned
development of extremely large power plants (3000 megawatts and more in
some cases) clustered closely around the energy resource to be used
(principally mine-mouth power plants). The Class II area would not
prohibit such plants completely, but would require either (1) a
scale-down in the size of plants planned, (2) a reduction in the total
number of such plants, (3) the development of substantial improvements
in pollution control technology, (4) cleaning and preparation of the
fuel or improved combustion, or (5) a combination of all of these.
Such limitations would restrict some growth. They could also lead to
smaller plants. This would mean less of a "boom and bust" cycle for the
region since the resource would be used at a slower rate and would
sustain the production activity for a longer period of time. If
pollution control technology were advanced as a result of the
restrictions, then the total emissions from the facility over its
lifetime could be substantially reduced in total. And recreation
resources close to such facilities would remain viable tourist
attractions.
For reference, the increments allowed under the EPA regulations are
included below. The second Table includes increments which would be
suggested for other regulated pollutants should the Members decide to
cover all regulated pollutants in such a classification scheme.
.................................... Class I ...... Class II
Mr. MUSKIE: Second, the question that arises is whether or not the
public(()) interest requires something by way of protection beyond the
primary and secondary standards.
The primary and secondary standards were devised as a way of cleaning
up dirty air areas. They are minimal standards which recognize the
practical limitations of restoring to their pristine condition the areas
in which the health and public welfare requirements of the American
people are not being met.
There is the attempt being made to use those standards which were
designed as minimal standards for the dirty air areas of the country as
adequate standards for the clean air areas of the country.
I can understand that that kind of rationalization could take place
among people who do not understand the difference between the national
primary and secondary standards and for those required in the national
interest in the many clean areas of the country.
But, for those puzzled about that question, I ask unanimous consent
that there be printed in the RECORD a letter dated October 10, 1975,
from Russell Train, the Administrator of the EPA, in which he undertakes
to outline the inadequacies of the national primary and secondary
standards in terms of public interest.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY,
Washington, D.C., October 10,
1975.
Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution, Committee on
Public Works, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of June 6, 1975, requested comments
on the adequacy of the Federal secondary ambient air quality standards.
As you know, secondary standards have been set for carbon monoxide,
hydrocarbons, photochemical oxidants, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide,
and suspended particulate matter. The numeric values of these Standards
are summarized in the enclosed table.
For particulate matter, an annual mean concentration of 60 ug/m3 and
a mean 24 hour concentration of 150 ug/m3 have been set as the secondary
standard. Suspended particulates are known to have effects on
vegetation, visibility, and manmade materials. At concentrations of 150
ug/m3, visibility may be reduced to as low as five miles. The 24-hour
standard was designed to prevent such deterioration. When annual
concentrations exceed 60 ug/m3, accelerated rates of corrosion of steel
and zinc panels have been noted. The annual standard was set to avoid
this type of damage.
There has been no new evidence to indicate that total suspended
particulates, as a conglomerate, have any pronounced effect on public
welfare below the levels of the existing secondary standards. However,
recent advances in instrumentation and monitoring methodology permit
more definitive effects investigations of fine particulates, trace
elements, and heavy metal components of the total suspended particulate
mix in the atmosphere. For example, specific work is in progress on the
fate and effects of cadmium and lead on plant and soil systems. When
evidence on components of total suspended particulate matter indicates
the need for control action, appropriate controls will be instituted for
specific substances.
The primary and secondary carbon monoxide standards are identical,
based on health effects. This standard is designed to limit the level
of carboxyhemoglobin in the blood of non-smokers to 1.5%. Increased
cardiovascular difficulties among individuals suffering from
atherosclerotic heart disease have been identified in relation to these
levels of COHb. Plants are relatively insensitive to CO at the lower
levels that have been found to be toxic to animals. Concentrations
above 115 mg/m3 are required to produce detrimental effects on certain
higher plants. Evidence does not demonstrate an association between
existing ambient levels of CO and adverse effects on other aspects of
human welfare. It is therefore felt that this secondary standard is
well established as protective of welfare and will not foreseeably need
revision.
The standard for hydrocarbons was established for use as a guide in
devising implementation plans to achieve oxidant standards. At the time
the standards were set there was no known direct adverse effect on human
health and only minor probability for plant damage to sensitive plants
at the ambient levels. The standard was set as a guide for controlling
photochemical oxidants, which do have an effect on health and welfare.
The primary and secondary standards for photochemical oxidants are
also identical. Damage by the principal photochemical oxidant, ozone,
has been noted on vegetation and manmade materials. Plant species vary
in their sensitivity to ozone and other oxidants. Toxicity also varies
with the composition of the oxidants. Injury has occurred
experimentally in the most sensitive species after exposure to 60 ug/m3
of ozone for 8 hours. Crop losses could occur as the result of planting
genetically uniform, susceptible varieties. Therefore, the current
standard, 160 ug/m3 for one hour, may not protect all vegetation.
Little is known regarding the tolerance of plants under field
conditions. The presence of other pollutants and changes in
environmental conditions may affect the tolerance of plants for
photochemical oxidants.
Photochemical oxidants' effects on manmade materials center on the
effects of ozone on elastomers and textile dyes. Many elastomers,
including natural rubber, are chemically prone to oxidation and
therefore, to ozone attack. Cracking of rubber has been noted at 40
ug/m3. Background levels of naturally occurring ozone range up to 100
ug/m3. Industry has developed antiozonant additives to protect rubber
products against damage. Some important textile dyes, particularly
certain blue dyes, used on acetate and polyester cotton fabrics, and
nylon carpets, are susceptible to fading during exposure to ozone. This
effect may also occur at background level exposure. To prevent or
mitigate fading by ozone, the textile industry must use more resistant
dyes and/or inhibitors; these increase the cost of the item. The
current secondary standard for photochemical oxidants appears to
represent a level sufficient to prevent significant deleterious effects
on welfare resulting from anthropogenic sources.
The primary and secondary standards for nitrogen dioxide are
identical, being an annual concentration not exceeding 100 ug/m3. NO(x)
has been shown capable of producing acute damage to plants; however,
the levels required are substantially above that of the standard. For
example, reduced yields of navel oranges were encountered when exposed
470 ug/m3 for eight months. The current standard appears protective of
welfare against damage from direct exposure to atmospheric NO(x). NO(x)
may also cause indirect damage to the extent that it contributes to the
formation of the nitric acid in acid precipitation. Nitric acid
constituted 24% of the acid in precipitation during 1972-1973 in the
Eastern U.S.
The secondary standard for sulfur dioxide is set at 1300 ug/m3,
maximum three hour concentration, not to be exceeded more than once a
year. This standard was set at the level necessary to protect sensitive
species of plants such as maple trees, spinach, and sweet potatoes.
Damage to those species has been noted at concentration levels of 2620
to 10.480 ug/m3 over periods of 1/2 hour. No other welfare effects have
been noted at concentrations lower than those causing damage to
sensitive plants. Conclusive data are lacking on synergistic effects of
sulfur oxides and other pollutants, but preliminary results of work
being conducted at EPA's Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory
indicate that a sound basis for standards based on long term growth and
processes effects caused by low concentration of sulfur oxides and ozone
may be developed in the future.
The phenomenon of acid rainfall is of concern to this agency. A
growing body of evidence suggests that acid rain may be responsible for
substantial adverse effects on the public welfare. Such effects may
include acidification of lakes, rivers, and groundwaters, with resultant
damage to fish and other components of aquatic ecosystems, acidification
and demineralization of soils, reduction of forest productivity, and
damage to crops. These effects may be subject to cumulative build-up as
a result of years of exposure to acidic precipitation, but some may also
result from "peak" acidity episodes.
Unfortunately research into the acid rainfall problem is in its
infancy. A brief evaluation of the research presented at the First
International Symposium on Acid Precipitation is attached. The
mechanism by which air pollution contributes to acid precipitation is
poorly understood. At this time, we are unable to definitively link
emissions in one area with more acidic precipitation in another.
Further research is necessary to determine what pollutants and levels of
those pollutants significantly contribute to acid rainfall, and to draw
pollution emission relationships to environmental damage.
Considerable work, with good progress, has been underway for the past
several years to establish a more meaningful basis for setting a
comprehensive sulfur oxide, sulfate, and acid rain complex of standards
which addresses the total problem of sulfur mass balance. It is
anticipated that plant growth data closely approximating the effect of
exposure to ambient levels will result from research efforts which apply
probability models based on existing air quality data and which simulate
the effects of acid precipitation on the soil and growth processes.
These data will provide a sound basis for meaningful economic trade-off
analyses.
It has been noted that a 24-state area of the Northeast (which has
been identified as having suspended sulfate levels significantly higher
than the rest of the nation) is almost identical with the area impacted
by precipitation of pH5 or less, i.e., precipitation which is highly
acidic. Assuming that SO2 is one of the more important agents in
forming the regional acid precipitation, a dramatic increase in sulfuric
acid-related precipitation over the next few years is not expected as
trends in acid sulfate aerosol levels in this area are not expected to
increase substantially.
In summary, as more data concerning long-term accumulations becomes
available, the secondary standards may need to be reevaluated to
determine that they truly are protective of the public welfare. Future
regulatory strategies will need to consider the synergistic effect of
pollutant mixes, long term low level exposures, and the acid
precipitation problem. Prior to modification of the current standards,
a sound technical understanding is necessary of processes by which
specific pollutants emitted are transported, converted in the
atmosphere, interact with other pollutant, and inflict damage to
welfare.
Sincerely yours,
RUSSELL E. TRAIN,
Administrator.(())
................. Averaging ... Primary ....... Secondary
((/a/ All standards are specified as not to be exceeded more than
once per year. The measurement methods are also specified as Federal
reference methods. The air quality standards and a description of the
reference methods were published on Apr. 30, 1971 in 42 CFR 410,
recodified to 40 CFR 50 on Nov. 25, 1972.))
((/b/ Set for protection of health.))
((/c/ Set for the protection of welfare, which, in the words of the
act "include but is not limited to, effects on soils, water, crops,
vegetation, manmade materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility,
and climate, damage to and deterioration of property, and hazards to
transportation, as well as effects on economic values and on personal
comfort and well being. (sec. 302(b)).))
((/d/ The secondary annual standard (60 ug/m(3)) is a guide to be
used in assessing implementation plans to achieve the 24-hr secondary
standard.))
((/e/ Expressed as ozone by the Federal reference method.))
((/f/ This NAAQS is for use as a guide in devising implementation
plans to achieve oxidant standards.))
((/g/ No Federal reference method currently in effect. 3 SUMMARY OF
THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ACID
PRECIPITATION AND THE FOREST ECOSYSTEM, OHIO STATE
UNIVERSITY, MAY 12-15, 1975
1. The phenomenon of acid precipitation was well documented. The
large majority of participants agreed that increases in sulfuric and
nitric acid stemming from anthropogenic sources, are generally
responsible for lowering the pH of rainwater, although other substances
may also contribute.
2. Acidic precipitation is a pervasive local, regional and
international problem. In this country, the entire northeastern quarter
is affected including seemingly remote areas such as Hubbard Brook, New
Hampshire. In addition, sub-regional areas throughout the United States
are affected by local sources. The extent of the areas impacted by
acidic precipitation is increasing.
3. The mechanisms by which sulfur is oxidized to sulfate are not
well understood, and there are many competing theories. It is thus
impossible, given the present state of the art, to relate emissions from
one area to lower rainwater pH in another.
4. Ecological effects are very poorly understood. Many papers were
speculating and most experiments, either used unrealistic application of
acid rain, or lacked adequate controls. It is thus currently impossible
to evaluate the impact of acid precipitation on forests in any
defensible manner.
5. Increased soil acidity resulting from continual exposures to acid
rainfall could have serious consequences in terms of increased leaching
of plants nutrients and changes in the basic chemical properties of the
soil systems. Concisely, many soil systems have tremendous differing
capabilities. A good deal is known concerning the basic chemistry of
these systems, but it appears that the potential application of
available knowledge and expertise for predicting the magnitude of these
effects has not been adequately utilized.
Mr. MUSKIE. It is on the basis of those kinds of analyses that the
Committee arrived at the conclusions which are reflected in the
Committee bill, and I have included them in the RECORD so Members can
read them and understand, at the very least, that the Committee did not
casually and arbitrarily pick some numbers out of the air to impose on
the country.
Third, as I understand the amendment of the distinguished chairman of
the Public Works Committee, what he undertakes to make clear is what I
think the committee intended, that is, that the Commission established
by the committee bill include in its studies the questions raised in
connection with this nondegradation issue.
I think it is an appropriate clarification; it is an appropriate
study. I think for the purpose of focusing the Senate's attention on
the fact that the discussion of that very controversial issue has begun
and that we are putting these matters in the RECORD for their
information, that a rollcall vote at this point might be in order.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I want to have Senator Buckley, if I might, because I
want to have it completely in accord, if possible. I am rather
impressed, perhaps, that a rollcall would be in order.
Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, I think it would very definitely be in
order, in fact, a signal that we are coming into the area that has
stirred up the greatest amount of controversy.
I believe the study recommended by the Senator from West Virginia
(Mr. RANDOLPH) is one that has to be made, and it is, I think, entirely
appropriate it be highlighted in the legislation authorizing the
establishment of the commission.
SO OI would certainly join in asking for the yeas and nays.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. MCINTYRE). Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, is debate still in order on this amendment?
Mr. MUSKIE. Of course.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Do some Senators seek recognition before we
proceed to vote?
Mr. MOSS. Yes, I do.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, a few minutes ago I engaged the Senator
from West Virginia in colloquy about his amendment, at which time he was
talking about it being an amendment to make a study of the effects of
nondegradation or nondeterioration. The reason I engaged him in
colloquy was to determine whether or not this study would go into effect
after the bill became law and based on the terms of the bill.
He confirmed the fact that it would and that this would include, of
course, section 6 which deals with this problem.
The thing that I want to bring to the attention of the Senate and the
thing that we need to be concerned with is that if this amendment of the
Senator is adopted and the Members of the Senate then say, "Well, we
voted for a study," we have still not accomplished what we needed to do.
That is, have the study before we had the nondegradation section in
place.
I think the Senator from West Virginia himself discussed the fact
that he recognized the futility of studying after the fact and then
trying to undo something, as against withholding action until the study
is completed and then taking the positive action to put in place
whatever the study would indicate is acceptable.
Mr. President, the most controversial issue, as the Senator from
Maine indicated, in this year's Clear Air Act amendments is the policy
of nondeterioration proposed by section 6. If successfully enacted,
this section would establish Federal law preventing the deterioration of
air quality in those areas of the country with air quality better than
that required under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards -- NAAQS.
I have introduced amendments which would delete section 6 from the bill
and which would require a comprehensive study to be made over a period
of 1 year. This study is for the purpose of thoroughly evaluating the
economic impacts of the proposed nondeterioration policy. In order that
my amendments might be seen in their true perspective, I wish to make
several important points relative to their thrust and impact.
I again state that the nondeterioration issue only involves areas of
the Nation which have air quality better than that required by the
national ambient primary standards -- set to protect human health with
an adequate margin of safety -- and national ambient secondary standards
-- set to protect welfare, including damage to crops, and so forth.
Proponents of the nondeterioration provision of the bill claim that
the ambient standards are not adequate to protect human health and
welfare. If this is true, let them come forward with facts. If there
are known risks we are needlessly taking, EPA is required under section
109 of the existing Clean Air Act to take steps to tighten these ambient
standards. EPA has not taken such steps.
The health issue must therefore be viewed as relatively unimportant
to those responsible for enforcing these standards. Why should
additional standards be enacted if those already in effect are not being
enforced? Proper administrative procedure surely requires that existing
law be enforced before new law on the same subject increases the burden
of enforcement.
The questionability of the health issue suggests that the overriding
economic issue deserves greater attention than the environmental one.
What will be the increased cost for utilities and goods and(())
services? What will be the effect on the employment situation? What
domestic natural resources will go undeveloped? What effect on social
mobility? What effect on the relationship between Federal and State
governments? What total price are we willing to pay for that last
increment of clean air? I have no doubt that as our technology develops
over the next several years, it will be possible to have pristine air
without severe economic and social dislocations. This will come about
with development of cleaner sources of energy. However, legislating
"nondeterioration," now under the scheme provided in section 6 of this
bill, is likely to cause much more severe damage to the total quality of
life of our citizens, than any shortrun incremental air quality benefits
it may provide.
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MOSS. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Virginia for a
question.
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. I spoke briefly with the author of the
amendment now before us. From my own analysis I take it that the
amendment he has offered would not later preclude an amendment that I
have, amendment 1617, which would strike the entire portion of the bill
that deals with nondegradation.
Also, I have a separate amendment that is not printed which would
provide that during the period of a study, whether it is the period
provided in the original bill, the period provided by the distinguished
Senator from West Virginia, or the period that is to be proposed by the
distinguised Senator from Utah, the Sierra Club against Buckelshaus
holding would not be in effect; that we would not have the
nondegradation policy during that period of time.
With that understanding I have no objection to the amendment of the
distinguished Senator from West Virginia. Studying the matter,
gathering more knowledge, is a good thing, but it is like referring
something to a committee. I do not think we ought to be killing the
amendment that I am going to propose and that the distinguished Senator
from Utah is going to propose. I do not believe that is the intention
of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia in making this proposal.
I intend to vote for the amendment of the distinguished Senator.
Mr. MOSS. I am happy to respond to the question of the Senator from
Virginia as to why I feel this matter must be put in perspective now.
When my amendment was offered and circulated and began to get some
attention, immediately thereafter the amendment of the Senator from West
Virginia appeared. It took up the study part but did not suspend
section 6. Immediately, I began to detect some feeling among Senators
who said, "Well, there is an easy way out, then. We just vote for the
study part and we can say we voted to make the study, but section 6
would go into place." That is what I am concerned about.
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Let me ask the distinguished Senator, is it
his intention, or the intention of his amendment, to eliminate section
6? I have not read his amendment that way. Is it during the period of
the study section 6 would be suspended?
Mr. MOSS. That is correct. Section 6 would not go into effect until
after the study was completed. A decision is then made on what the
effect of section 6 would be.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I am sorry. I do not believe the Senator from Utah
means to say that.
Mr. MOSS. I am talking about my amendment.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I doubt he is really explaining exactly what his
amendment does in that regard. I want to be very careful. I am not
critical.
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield
further, while hie amendment would suspend section 6, it would not do
anything to change the decision of the courts in Sierra Club against
Ruckelshaus under which the EPA is making regulations. My amendment to
the amendment that the distinguished Senator intends to offer would also
hold that decision in abeyance during the time the study is under way.
Mr. MOSS. The amendment of the Senator goes a step beyond mine. My
amendment does not have anything to do with the current law as it exists
and and as it has been interpreted by the court. So Sierra Club against
Ruckelshaus is still the law. My amendment simply says that section 6
of the bill which is before us will not be enacted and that there will
be a study made of the nondeterioration issue. At that time we can then
address that particular point.
The Senator would go even further than that, as I understand it, and
say even the Ruckelshaus case is suspended, or the application of it.
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. I believe we are in agreement on this.
Perhaps our discussion might well be postponed, or further discussion,
until the distinguished Senator offers his amendment and I offer my
substitute. Then I know we will want to go into depth on the matter.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Will the Senator yield.
Mr. MOSS. I am happy to yield to the Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Briefly, I think the reason for the offering of my
amendment was not that I was trying to have a catch-up amendment in any
sense. I believe that the proposal I presented is the best way to make
the study. Others may feel that the Senator from Utah (Mr. MOSS) or the
Senator from Virginia (Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT) has a better methodology to
do this.
I believe the amendment which is proposed by the Senator from Utah
certainly does not affect the regulations that have been set forth by
the Environmental Protection Agency on nondeterioration. I believe we
have to think of the effect without a congressional statement of policy.
That is what I am attempting to do here.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. MOSS. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. The easiest course for the committee to follow would
have been to let the matter proceed through the courts; to let each of
these cases be dealt with individually by the courts, and let case
history build up the public policy.
We were pressured by industrial sources and by environmental groups
to do something about setting a policy for clean air areas that would
balance the requirements for economic growth against the need for
environmental protection.
We did not greedily assume the authority to write new law. It was a
9-month process of balancing out these conflicting interests and trying
to arrive at a balance. Now it is said that we have reached too far,
that we have demanded too much, that we were unreasonable, and that a
separate policy from that of national primary and secondary standards is
not needed. Well, we spent 9 months of study on it and arrived at our
conclusions, which the Senate will judge in due course.
What the Senator from West Virginia is advocating is to make clear
what I think was clear anyway, that the learning process should be an
ongoing one, and that it should be done through the structure of the
commission which Senator RANDOLPH and Senator BAKER together proposed
before the committee, and which we adopted.
Obviously its effect is not to bypass the Moss amendment.
Mr. RANDOLPH. That is right.
Mr. MUSKIE. We have agreed we would try to get to the Moss amendment
tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock. This is not an attempt to bypass it or
diminish the distinguished Senator's parliamentary prerogatives in that
respect whatsoever.
I want to emphasize that it was simply for the purpose of rounding
out what the committee had already done within the confines of the bill.
I just want to make that clear. It is not a sneak attack.
Mr. MOSS. As I have indicated before, I certainly agree with the
study feature. In fact, that is a part of my amendment, to mandate that
the study go forward and give us the data.
As I listened to the Senator from West Virginia, that was the reason
why I questioned him on the floor. I asked, "Do we suspend the new law
in section 6 while the study goes forward?"
Of course, he answered no, that it made no change in that.
That is the thrust of my amendment, that if we do not study it first,
we get locked into the statute, and it may be extremely difficult to
change or get out of the statute if the study shows some contrary or
unacceptable results that would come from that policy of
nondeterioration.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MOSS. I agree with the Senator that the courts want Congress to
speak, and if we say, "Yes, we are going to have this study and then we
are going to speak," I think we have taken the initiative.
I would also like to say to the Senator and the chairman of the
committee and all those who have worked on it that(()) I think most of
that bill is excellent and I think it is needed. I am not going to vote
against the bill in toto. What I am concerned about is section 6, and
that is what I want to zero in on, and see if I cannot persuade my
colleagues that that should not be enacted until the study is made.
The reason why I feel I have to speak at this time on the Randolph
amendment is that this sort of offers an out for some who would want to
say, "Well, surely, I was for the study. I was for studying it,"
without realizing they have not done the other thing which is to suspend
the section until the study is completed.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am sure the Senator will make clear that they have not
done that.
Mr. MOSS. Well, if they were all here I would be happy to let it go
at that.
Mr. MUSKIE. But with respect to the philosophical question the
Senator has posed on nondegradation. If we had waited to write a
regulation until all the uncertainties involved in this field of
nondegradation were settled, we would not have written the 1967 law, and
we would not have written the 1970 law. For example, when we wrote the
automobile emission provisions of the 1970 act, it was said by the
distinguished minority whip, the Senator from Michigan (Mr. GRIFFIN)
that we were asking the automobile industry to do something that we
conceded they did not know how to do at that point. That was the
absolute truth. At that point they did not know how to do what we were
requiring them to do in the 1970 law.
But let me ask the Members of the Senate two questions: If we had
not imposed that requirement, would the automobile industry have done as
much as it has done? And if it had not, then what condition would we
face with respect to cleaning up auto emissions and auto pollutants? We
would face an automobile population which has grown, an automobile
population which would have contributed even more pollution to the
environment.
But we reached the conclusion that the only way we would resolve the
uncertainty with respect to public health was, in 1970, to ask the
automobile industry to do something that at that point they did not know
how to do.
They did not do all we asked them to do in 1970, so we have given
them some delays, and this bill gives them some more delays. But
whatever we have achieved, we have achieved because we have insisted
upon a public standard that would move them in the right direction.
With respect to nondegradation, if there is anyone in this body who
believes that national primary and secondary standards were ever
advanced as a complete protection for the public health, let him stand
up and say so. They were never advocated as the complete definition of
what the public health required.
If there is anyone in this body who believes that the national
primary and secondary standards are a complete definition of what the
public interest requires, given all the uncertainties that have been
stated over and over again in testimony before the committee and about
when EPA has warned us, let him stand up and say so, and document it.
No such case can be made that the national primary and secondary
standards are a complete, final, and ultimate definition of what the
protection of the public health and welfare requires. If there is
anyone who can prove otherwise, then it is his duty and responsibility
to say so and to document it and prove it on the Senate floor.
The committee has not taken either position, and the two documents I
put in the RECORD this morning, I think, are good explanations of the
basis upon which the committee acted. We believe that the public
interest requires some protection in addition to primary and secondary
standards. We believe there is good reason for that conclusion, and we
believe there is good documentation in the testimony before our
committee to support that conclusion.
If you believe otherwise, if you are ready to discard all of the
experts who point to the uncertainties and the need for further
protection, particularly in clean air areas, then stand up and say so
now.
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. If I may finish this thought.
The Senator from Utah says that if we put this policy in place and
the studies indicate that the policy goes too far, that we cannot recoup
the ground that we have lost -- presumably ground that we have lost in
terms of unrestrained economic growth.
Does anyone really believe that? Let me put it the other way: If we
do not do something like this to protect cleaner air, and we put in
place economic growth that runs counter to the public interest
requirements of the country, then that cleanup becomes enormously
expensive.
The Senators from Nevada are advocating an amendment to grandfather
in one smelting plant. Why is that smelting plant a problem? Because
it is in there, with jobs, hardware -- a plant representing an enormous
investment, that cannot be retrofitted with pollution control equipment
from any economic standpoint.
So now the advocates, or those who want to wait, are saying, "Let us
not worry about what it costs to retrofit whatever we put in place, but
we will all replenish our equipment between now and sometime in the
future. Let us go ahead, and not worry about that.
All of our problems in the dirty air area of this country stem from
the fact that we have not given a damn as we went along. We have put
these facilities, communities, plants, and transportation modes into
place without ever considering what they were doing to the air blankets
that surround this globe. Now we are finding it almost a Herculean task
to clean them up.
Those who oppose the nondegradation provisions of this bill are
saying:
Let's do it the same way in the clean air areas of the country.
Let's build new Augean stables in the clean air areas of the country and
worry about cleaning them up only if some more studies tell us that in
some way we did not mean what we did not intend. You know, we violated
the public interest that we were not able to perceive in the midsummer
of 1976.
Now, those are the choices. I mean, obviously a policy we make is
going to be in place until we change it. But which course creates the
greatest potential for irrevocability? One choice imposes a very mild
kind of restraint, as we will document when we get in full discussion of
the nondegradation issue, a very mild kind of restraint on economic
growth in clean air areas. Or we can choose a policy which says:
Go into these areas, wherever you want to, build plants, invest
hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars, and we will worry
about whether or not you are defiling the atmosphere in unacceptable
ways after we have studied it some more.
Those are the two choices.
The committee has made its choice. We have taken counts. It is a
close issue in this Senate. In a time of recession and economic
adversity all you have to do is put the label of jobs or energy on an
environmental policy, and the votes flock to your banner.
But I am telling Senators that the committee was as concerned with
the economic arguments that are being raised, the uncertainties of the
future, and the difficulty of fashioning a policy that works without
stepping on anyone's toes, as any Member of the Senate.
I think the product that was finally produced, even though I did not
approve every block that was put in it -- I mean I did not vote for
everything that went into this nondegradation policy -- was the product
of discussion and deliberation by nearly a unanimous attendance of
committee members over a 9-month period. I felt it was about as
representative a view of what the Senate, as a whole, would do if it
were exposed to the same facts, arguments, and analyses, that could be
devised.
And it was for that reason, and that reason only, that I agreed to
floor manage this bill. There has not been an environmental bill out of
the Committee on Public Works in 13 years that I came as close to
opposing as this one. But I agreed to floor manage it because I had
confidence in the good sense, intentions, motivations, and the capacity
to make judgments of my colleagues on the committee. This is, after
all, a representative body, and I do not know of any issue in all the
years that I have worked on committees in the Senate which has been
given more intelligent, comprehensive and time-consuming attention by
the members of a committee as this nondegradation policy.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I did not intend to say that at this time, and I shall
be happy to engage in full debate on nondegradation at this time, but
because of some of the points that the Senator from Utah made, it seemed
to me important to make some kind of response.
Mr. MOSS. I appreciate the response of the Senator from Maine, and I
may(()) say he has brought to the Chamber his full talents in managing
this bill which he said he came very close to not supporting. I do not
know. If he threw his heart into one he really believed in, I think he
could sweep the floor entirely and not lose a vote.
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not know. I have been losing recently on the
floor.
Mr. MOSS. But as the Senator pointed out himself, the law is now in
place anyway, and Sierra Club against Ruckelshaus is the law of the land
now on degradation and much is in place. I believe the Senator know we
have to move ahead, but I am not one that likes to run and jump over the
cliff and then look back up and say:
I really should not have jumped over that. I should have looked down
first to see where those rocks were.
That is what I am trying to get through here.
I do not deny that the subcommittee held hearings on the Clean Air
Act. But the official four-volume record of the subcommittee hearings
does not support the allegation that the nondeterioration policy was
aired fully during these hearings. Those witnesses who did address the
issue of nondeterioration did so only in the broadest philosophical
terms and in complete ignorance of the specific proposal for amending
that policy.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MOSS. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. If the Senator will look at the transcript of the
committee markups, I think he will find a much more extensive discussion
of nondegradation supplementing that in the form of hearings.
Mr. MOSS. I agree.
Mr. MUSKIE. All of the markups were held in open session. We had 48
of them. All of those who are interested in the act, the
environmentalists, the industrial groups, the Chamber of Commerce, were
well represented, I assure the Senator. I cannot remember one of those
sessions that was not fully represented in attendance. We discussed
these issues openly. We sought additional information from EPA and,
when we received it, we disclosed it in open session. So the learning
process both for the committee and for those affected by the committee's
conclusions, went on beyond the formal hearings. The transcript is
there. I assure the Senator that there is a considerable amount of
information. May I say this, second, that we produced several committee
prints.
Mr. RANDOLPH. And widely distributed them.
Mr. MUSKIE. They were widely distributed.
Before we recessed in August last year we deliberately approved a
committee print on nondegradation which we ourselves had not yet finally
digested so that it might be distributed broadly around the country for
the purpose of indicating to interested groups the directions we were
exploring for decisionmaking.
I must say that I have misgivings about doing that sort of thing
again because industrial groups all over this country distorted what we
had done, advertised the committee print as the final product of
committee deliberation, distorted its implications and in every way
possible built the propaganda barrage that has never ceased since, to
try to undermine the committee work. As a matter of fact, analyses that
I read today of what is in this bill for nondegradation are addressed to
that committee print of last July which the committee itself rejected
months ago. So I am not sure that kind of information and educational
process necessarily serves the interest of those who become subsequent
critics.
Mr. MOSS. Is it not a fact that several members of the subcommittee
expressed serious reservations about the wisdom of adopting sweeping
nondeterioration legislation without the benefits of hearings on its
specific provisions in the markup sessions? The Senator held I know
months of them.
Mr. MUSKIE. There were so many disagreements voiced on various
aspects of the bill during the 48 markup sessions over 9 months that I
do not know that I can characterize any one of them in those terms. I
disagreed with some propositions here. But we have to write a bill, and
now we are being told by the administration that we ought to ditch all
of the bill except that part of it dealing with auto emissions because
of the time involved. So we have certainly used the time. I think we
have used it in a way that has been informational and educational. We
had a virtually unanimous vote from the committee to report this bill,
but I am not sure about Senator HART. Senator HART dissented. Senator
HART was the only one to dissent. But the remainder of the committee
voted unanimously to report the bill in the form which is before the
Senate.
Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. BUCKLEY. I point out that what we have agreed upon represents,
in substance, a codification of the regulations now in place.
Yes, there were questions about the effect of doing this. But we
felt that we would be far better off, that the environment was better
off, that business was better off, by stabilizing the ground rules,
rather than relying on court decisions, with the delays that result from
litigation, and on regulations, in the absence of specific congressional
direction. The results of this Air Quality Commission study we have
mandated will examine the kind of issues that are raised by the Senator
from Utah, but they will not be solved or resolved by his amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. I say, in all fairness to Senator HART, who wanted me to
do so, that he did not vote against the bill because it was too tough.
He voted against it because it was too lenient, in his view, in some
respects.
Second, his objections were not raised to this particular issue but
another one. I just want the record to reflect accurately his position.
Mr. STONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a
unanimous-consent request?
Mr. MOSS. I yield.
Mr. STONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Bruce Rowan,
of my staff, have the privilege of the floor during the debate and votes
on this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MOSS. I yield.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I think this has been clarifying and
helpful.
I do not anticipate that I will have the agreement of the Senator
from Utah, but there is nothing in this amendment that does violence to
the approach that he will take. He will bring up his amendment, and it
will be discussed further. Members will make that decision. The same
will be addressed by the Senator from Virginia (Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT) in
a different way.
Let us have those matters stand by themselves, because what we are
doing here, I feel, is proper. If the Senator cannot support the
amendment, I will understand. We have asked for the yeas and nays, and
I hope we can have a vote on the amendment as I have presented it. I
trust that we will be given an opportunity then to work the will of the
Senate on matters that are brought to our attention.
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Mr. President, I agree completely with what
the distinguished Senator has said. I have the foundation for my
amendment, which I have been trying to offer for some time. I believe
the time for discussion of a number of these amendments is at a later
date, when we can formulate them.
Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a
unanimous-consent request?
Mr. MOSS. I yield.
Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Miss
Jacqueline Schaeffer, of the staff of the Committee on Public Works, be
granted the privilege of the floor during the discussion of this bill
and during votes on any amendments offered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MCCLURE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a
unanimous-consent request?
Mr. MOSS. I yield.
Mr. MCCLURE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Bob Sindt,
of Senator HRUSKA's staff, have the privilege of the floor during the
discussion of this bill and during votes on any amendments offered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, I appreciate the contribution of my
colleagues and especially the discussion of the chairman of the
subcommittee.
My position is that I think we are proceeding in the wrong sequence
on the amendments we are talking about. The amendment of the Senator
from Virginia is perhaps the most extreme, to use a designation; next,
perhaps, is mine; and finally comes the amendment of the Senator from
West Virginia.(())
The normal way to proceed is to decide whether we want to go the
whole way and even suspend the Ruckelshaus law, or whether we want to go
halfway and just take out section 6 until this study is made, or whether
to leave section 6 in and go with the Senator from West Virginia and
simply put the bill in place and then do the study.
What I am concerned about is that we are in the reverse order.
Everybody probably should vote for the study. Hardly anybody could
object to a study, if it is done with alacrity and efficiency. But,
having done that, they are less likely to consider suspending
application of part of the bill until the study is over, and even less
likely to suspend the law of Sierra Club against Ruckelshaus.
If I could get that worked out so that our voting could come in that
kind of sequence, I would be perfectly happy to do it. If we could
agree to have this presented and have the voting in that sequence, it
would suit me.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I will insist on having the yeas and
nays on the amendment I have offered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, I therefore offer my amendment as a
substitute for the Randolph amendment, amendment No. 1599.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Utah (Mr. MOSS) proposes an amendment numbered 1599.
The amendment is as follows:
Section 37 is amended as follows:
"SEC. 37. Section 315(d) (redesignated as 315(f) by the foregoing
amendment) is further amended by changing the reference to 'section
(a)(3)' to 'section (a)(4)', by striking everything after 'March 1,
1977,' and by inserting in lieu thereof 'and the results of the
investigation and study concerning section (a)(1) of this section no
later than one year after the date of enactment of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1976'.".
As amended section 315(f) would provide as follows:
"(f) A report, together with any appropriate recommendations, shall b
e submitted to the Congress on the results of the investigation and
study concerning section (a)(4) of this section no later than March 1,
1977, and the results of the investigation and study concerning section
(a)(1) of this section no later than one year after the date of
enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1976.".
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is not drafted as a substitute
and therefore is not in order.
Mr. MOSS. Therefore, I will discuss the Randolph amendment for the
next couple of hours.
Mr. President, I am at a loss to explain why some of my colleagues
find my amendments to be so controversial. What do the amendments
entail that is so hard to accept? Their basic thrust is very simple.
They provide an opportunity to examine comprehensively and objectively,
before we act, a major Federal policy which may or may not be necessary
or desirable. Closing our eyes to the lack of hard information will not
make the controversy go away. Enacting a rather arbitrary set of air
quality standards for each section of the country without demonstrated
health and welfare benefits, does not relieve us of our obligation to
represent the total welfare of our cities and our economy. We cannot
pursue a policy just because it is touted as an important environmental
issue. More is required.
Proponents of the nondeterioration policy argue that the time for
study is over and that the time for implementation has arrived. This
argument might have merit if it were not for the fact that the results
of studies thus far completed vary so significantly in their
prescriptions for future action. Undoubtedly, this variance results
from the piecemeal approach which has hallmarked past efforts. Not a
single study completed to date has taken into account all the relevant
factors -- economic, social, environmental -- that will provide the
necessary information for a final decision on this important subject.
Every Federal agency I have contacted, with the exception of EPA, has
replied that more information must be made available before any
meaningful decision can be made. The President has also expressed grave
concern about the negative economic effects which the policy of
nondeterioration could have. Even EPA has inadvertently supported my
position by their recent suggestion that perhaps a class III with
guaranteed potential for industrial expansion is necessary after all.
Even my opponents will admit that some issues relative to
nondeterioration have received insufficient attention. My concern is
that the list of these issues is so very long. The list of unknowns
includes at least the following:
First. Where are the "clear air areas?"
Second. What are the "baseline" concentrations of pollutants in such
areas?
Third. How many facilities can be sited in a particular given area
taking into account other sources not requiring permits which will be
attracted by the major industrial emitting facilities?
Fourth. What are the "air quality related values" mentioned in
section 6 which the Federal land manager has an "affirmative
responsibility to protect?"
Fifth. Where are the areas most likely to be designated as national
parks and national wilderness areas in the future?
Six. What natural resources are located in areas which would be
severely restricted from development because of their locations in, or
proximity to, Class I areas?
Seven. What will be the cost in terms of lost tax revenues, payroll,
and jobs as a result of implementation of this policy for each State?
Eight. If development under this policy is virtually unlimited, as
EPA suggests, why do we need to implement it at all?
Nine. What are the current population trends in the country; are
more people moving toward the areas which would be most severely
impacted?
Ten. If we are protecting more than aesthetic values by
implementation of this policy, and in fact, we are protecting health and
welfare, why have not the national ambient air standards been adjusted?
Eleven. If nondeterioration cannot be related to the protection of
health and welfare, does Congress have jurisdiction to implement this
policy at all?
The supporters of nondeterioration give as one of the primary reasons
for their support the provision in S. 3219 for a greater degree of
discretionary decisionmaking by the States. They argue that the bill's
rendering of the State's administrative role is more flexible than
current EPA regulations, which incidentally would remain in effect if my
amendments are adopted. I believe that these current regulations,
imperfect though they may be, do provide for significantly greater
industrial growth than the new provisions called for by S. 3219.
Comparing administrative regulations with specific statutes is like
comparing apples to oranges. Administrative rules are always more
flexible than statutes because of the comparative ease with which they
can be changed. EPA regulations can be promulgated, modified or revoked
without congressional action, assuming, of course, that they comport
with legislative intent. However, once Congress has enacted the
specifics of a nondeterioration policy, neither a State nor EPA has the
authority to modify such specifics -- for example, mandatory area
classifications and incremental ceilings on pollutants. It can only be
done by another act of Congress.
Much has been said about the authority of the Federal Government
under the EPA regulations to classify virtually any lands as Class I.
However, only the State can initiate procedures to reclassify
non-Federal lands as Class I -- or Class III -- and then only after a
hearing procedure which takes into account, first, growth anticipated in
the area; second, the social, environmental, and economic effects of
redesignation; and, third, any impacts of redesignation upon regional
or national interests. If a Federal land manager proposes to reclassify
Federal lands to a more restrictive classification, he must follow the
same procedure.
Under the bill, States may reclassify lands as class I without
following any specified procedures. This certainly gives the States
flexibility, but only to implement a restrictive Federal policy without
procedural protections for those adversely affected.
The ultimate flexibility under the EPA regulations is that they
permit classification of areas as class III which would allow industrial
development up to the national ambient standards. The bill only allows
class I and class II designations, both of which permit much less
development.
Under existing EPA regulations, the States may assume all of the
responsibility for determining where a proposed facility may be sited;
that is, placed. Hence, the Federal Government need not become involved
except where the State proposes to reclassify an area. Under the bill,
the Federal land manager has an "affirmative responsibility" to
protect(()) "the air quality related values" -- whatever they are -- of
class I areas, and can, in effect, veto the granting of a permit for a
facility which may be miles from a class I area, until the operator
proves that there will be no adverse impact on these undefined values.
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield some
time to me, with the understanding that there will be no interruption in
his remarks, so that I might make a statement with regard to
nondegradation?
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to
the Senator from Virginia without losing my right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from
Utah's yielding. I regret that I need to make my statement while an
amendment by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia is pending,
but it is my understanding that we have only until 2 o'clock on the
Clean Air Act and then we go back to other legislation. I did want to
lay the foundation for an amendment that I shall offer tomorrow or the
next day, amendment No. 1617.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be
added as cosponsors of this amendment: Mr. CURTIS, Mr. FANNIN, Mr.
EASTLAND, Mr. HELMS, Mr. THURMOND, Mr. GOLDWATER, and Mr. GARN.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Mr. President, the Clean Air Act amendments
that are now before us are a very comprehensive measure. The bill
itself contains 91 pages. The Senate committee report contains 231
pages, and the subject matter is very complex, representing not only an
extension of the 1970 act, but a number of revisions and extensions,
expansions of Federal control over transportation, auto emission
standards, and air quality generally.
I was privileged at one time to serve on the Committee on Public
Works, but this is no longer true. I do not intend to discuss the bill
generally, but to limit my remarks primarily to the nondegradation
portion that is, for the most part, on pages 11 through 20 of the
committee bill.
As Senators in the Nation's highest legislative or policymaking body,
we should not take a myopic or tunnel vision of legislative proposals.
In my opinion we have an obligation to consider the overall welfare of
the country and its citizens. Will this bill add inflationary pressures
to our economy? Will it require additional paperwork for both the
Government and the businessman? Will it delay or prevent the
construction of new plants, new industries, new jobs? Will it magnify
our energy shortages or further restrict the use of coal, our most
abundant fossil fuel? Will it handicap the Nation in expanding the
economy and result in no growth or stagnation in many parts of the
country? I know that the Senate Public Works Committee has worked long
and hard to report out a bill and that the House Interstate and Foreign
Commerce Committee spent a year considering a similar measure. But we
should still consider whether passage of this bill in its present form
is in the national interest.
The phrase "clean air" has a good ring to it. Everyone wants a clean
and wholesome environment. Polluted air can have a detrimental effect
upon our health and welfare. My concern is that we be reasonable in our
approach to the problem.
I would like to share an editorial from the Richmond Times-Dispatch
which was written several months ago when this bill was originally
reported from the committee. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President,
that it be printed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in
the RECORD, as follows:
Seemingly acting on the assumption that man can live by clean air
alone, the Senate Public Works Committee has reported a package of
environmental proposals that could result in the economic paralysis of
vast areas of this nation. These measures could impede economic
development almost everywhere and halt industrial growth altogether in
some sections, inevitably increasing unemployment and eroding the
standard of living of countless Americans. Moreover, the proposals
would thrust the power and authority of the federal government into some
areas of concer that historically have been the provinces of state and
local governments -- and should remain so.
Called the "Clean Air Amendments of 1976," the committee's
recommendations constitute a frightening monument to the destructive
capabilities of unbridled zealotry. The objective -- to protect the
public from polluted air -- is noble but the suggested means of
attaining it are fanatically extreme and dangerous. Consider these
prominent features:
(1) There could be in the future "no significant deterioration" in
the quality of the air of any region whose air is now better than the
national standards maintained by the federal Environmental Protection
Agency. Such clean air areas would be officially identified, and the
federal government could restrict -- or prevent -- economic or
industrial growth within them, no matter how essential growth might be
to the area's economic health. Obviously this would constitute a
usurpation of the land use control powers traditionally exercised by
state and local governments.
(2) Since shopping centers, apartment buildings and office complexes
tend to generate automobile traffic, which is a source of pollution, the
federal government apparently could control the location and
construction of such facilities. More federal land use regulation.
(3) National parks and wilderness areas would be protected from air
pollution not only from sources within their boundaries but also from
outside sources close enough to affect their air. This would permit the
federal government to designate buffer zones in which economic and
industrial development could be restricted or prohibited. Still more
federal land use control.
(4) Localities would be required to develop transportation plans
designed to curtail the use of the automobile. Communities that failed
to develop plans satisfactory to the EPA might lose all federal aid
funds for their pollution control programs, including that money used
for the construction of sewage treatment plants.
There is more to the committee's horrendous clean air plan, but these
illustrations will suffice to show how irrational and dangerous it is.
Clean air is desirable, of course, but man does not live by clean air
alone. He needs bread, shelter and transportation, which means there
will be a continuing need for new industries, new power plants, new
apartment buildings, new shopping and office complexes and automobiles.
To make the development and regulation of such facilities contingent
upon a central federal bureaucracy's concept of what constitutes
acceptable air quality, regardless of peculiar local needs and desires,
would be incredibly impractical as well as philosophically repugnant.
Virginia Sen. William L. Scott has vowed to take a "leading role" in
fighting the amendments. Gov. Mills E. Godwin Jr. opposes them and says
that Virginia may challenge their constitutionality if they become law.
Other governors reportedly are also unhappy. The Senate, we hope, will
heed these objections and reject the committee's proposals.
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. You will note, Mr. President, the editorial
begins by indicating the committee apparently assumes that man can live
by clean air alone but this proposal will paralyze vast areas of the
Nation, that it could impede economic development almost everywhere and
halt economic growth altogether in some sections, inevitably increasing
unemployment and eroding our standard of living. Moreover, the
editorial continues, the bill would thrust the power and authority of
the Federal Government into areas that have been historically the
province of State and local governments and should remain so.
The editorial suggests that the bill constitutes a frightening
monument to the destructive capabilities of unbridled zealotry and that
in its efforts to protect the public, the committee bill is fanatically
extreme and dangerous. As examples it cites the "no significant
deterioration" portion for which I have an amendment to propose. It
also refers to the Federal Government controlling the location and ,
construction of shopping centers, apartment buildings, and office
complexes by its right to control automobile traffic; its right to
control buffer zones near national parks and wilderness areas, and to
require localities to develop transportation plans designed to curtail
the use of automobiles.
The editor states that in addition to clean air man needs bread,
shelter, and transportation -- that there will be a continuing need for
new industry, new powerplants, office complexes, shopping centers,
apartment buildings, and automobiles.
Mr. President, I am sure everyone in this Chamber is proud of our
country and deeply appreciative of God's grace in permitting us to be
born in a land with such abundant resources providing the high standard
of living we all enjoy. Businessmen, however, in recent years have been
complaining, as has the general public, of Government excesses, too much
paperwork, OSHA regulations.
Somewhere we have to stop this concept of Government regulations
which could lead to the destruction of the American free enterprise
system as we have known it over the years. One of our great chief
justices once referred to the taxing power by saying the power to tax is
the power to destroy and I believe this could(()) very well be
paraphrased to indicate the power to regulate is the power to destroy.
Many of these proposals that come before us are well intentioned. Who
could be against clean air? That is what we breathe but we also wear
clothes which have to be manufactured. We eat food that has to be grown
and processed. We live in houses that must be constructed out of
material manufactured by commercial enterprise and, yes, we drive
automobiles that enable us to get to our place of employment, as well as
to take us on vacations and to help us enjoy our leisure time.
Yesterday the Wall Street Journal had an interesting editorial
entitled, "Senator MUSKIE's No-Growth Bill," in which it reviewed a
number of provisions of the measure before us and made this statement:
What Congress should really do, though, is simply accept the
amendment of Sen. William Scott of Virginia, who would strike the "no
significant deterioration" approach and return to the actual intent of
the 1970 act, which was to set national air quality standards that apply
uniformly. President Ford more or less has endorsed the Scott amendment
"in view of the potentially disastrous effects on unemployment and on
energy development . . . until sufficient information concerning final
impact can be gathered."
I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that this editorial be
printed in its entirety at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in
the RECORD, as follows:
Imagine that Congress passes a law, and an appropriate agency issues
a regulation, that prohibits adult male Americans from weighing more
than 200 lbs., on the grounds that excessive weight is both unhealthy
and unattractive.
Then imagine the little people's lobby wins a federal court ruling
that even skinny teenagers weighing 120 lbs. aren't allowed to add any
significant weight, on the grounds that this is what Congress seemed to
have intended when it passed the law.
Imagine further the outrage of those who think the court ruling to be
nonsense -- because it bears no relation to either health or
attractiveness and in error -- because Congress didn't intend to starve
skinny teenagers when it passed the legislation.
The original author of the legislation then steps forward and says,
"Yes, indeed, I did have in the back of my mind freezing all Americans
at their present weight, except for a pound or two for special cases
that will be considered by federal bureaucrats. And to clear up any
doubt, we're going to write the federal court ruling into the law."
All of the above is a rough approximation of what has happened since
the Clean Air Act was passed in 1970. The legislation established
national air quality standards, formulated by the Environmental
Protection Agency based on health and ambient findings. The federal
courts ruled that "no significant deterioration" of air quality could be
permitted, even in those areas well within the standards. And now
Senator Muskie, author of the 1970 Act, spurred by the no-growth lobby,
wants to write into the law what the federal courts have already said is
in the law.
The Senate is scheduled to debate the issue this week, and if common
sense is to prevail, the very least it will do is accept the approach of
Sen. Frank Moss of Utah, who wants to postpone for a year the engraving
into stone of Mr. Muskie's "no significant deterioration" provision.
Mr. Moss, whose state is the economic equivalent of our skinny teenager,
proposes that a special commission evaluate the economic impact of the
Muskie approach during this waiting period.
What Congress should really do, though, is simply accept the
amendment of Sen. William Scott of Virginia, who would strike the "no
significant deterioration" approach and return to the actual intent of
the 1970 Act, which was to set national air quality standards that apply
uniformly. President Ford more or less has endorsed the Scott amendment
"in view of the potentially disastrous effects on unemployment and on
energy development . . . until sufficient information concerning , ,
final impact can be gathered."
There is no national air quality standard, after all, when Congress
gives the EPA bureaucrats the power to decide what the standard should
be in northeastern Utah and what it should be in southwestern Tennessee.
There would be varying classes of land, a "pristine" class where no
deterioration would be permitted and others where some incremental
deterioration would be allowed to accommodate economic expansion. There
also will be gray areas, the buffer zones around the pristine areas, the
sizes of which haven't been determined. If the buffer stripe turn out
to be 50 or 100 miles wide, there would be only nooks and crannies left
in the country for major economic expansion.
To the browbeaten American businessman and industrialist, criticized
for not creating jobs fast enough because they're too much concerned
with profit, Senator Muskie's bill is an unnecessary nontariff barrier
to trade. It legislates confusion as the chief means of cleaning up the
air.
Whatever happened to the original idea, setting a tough federal
standard that would provide for the nation's health to a reasonable
degree, leaving to the states the option of enacting tighter standards
if their citizens so desire? No doubt it was too simple and
straightforward an approach for Washington to adhere to. Not enough red
tape. Not enough confusion. Not enough bureaucracy.
The way things are going on the Clean Air Act there will be plenty of
all those things. And whatever happens to the air, the Muskie proposal
can certainly bring about "a significant deterioration" in local
economies. That too, over time, can bring about a situation that is
"unhealthy and unattractive."
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. I believe the parenthetical question raised
toward the end of the editorial is worthy of note. It asks:
Whatever happened to the original idea, setting a tough federal
standard that would provide for the nation's health to a reasonable
degree, leaving to the states the option of enacting tighter standards
if their citizens so desire? No doubt it was too simple and
straightforward an approach for Washington to adhere to. Not enough red
tape. Not enough confusion. Not enough bureaucracy.
A few minutes ago, Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from
Maine inserted in the RECORD some correspondence from Russell Train, the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and he indicated
that this said the primary and secondary standards were not enough.
Well, Mr. Train or the Environmental Protection Agency are the ones who
set the standards under the broad guidelines that were set up by
Congress, and Mr. Train can change them if he does not think they are
strong enough.
Mr. President, I have before me an editorial of today's date in the
Lynchburg, Va., The News, and it refers to this measure as being "a
clear disaster." I ask unanimous consent that this editorial be printed
at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in
the RECORD, as follows:
The U.S. Senate is about ready to vote on several amendments to the
Clean Air Act of 1970 which will give the Environmental Protection
Agency the ultimate authority to determine whether Lynchburg -- or any
other locality in the country -- can build any more shopping centers or
industries. The amendments constitute a "no-growth" policy in that they
will prohibit construction of any project which threatens to increase
air pollution, period.
Senator William L. Scott of Virginia has taken a leading role in
opposing the economically destructive consequences of the amendments by
striking from them the requirements that "no significant deterioration"
of air standards can be permitted. If this requirement stands, it is
difficult to see how Lynchburg would be permitted to authorize any new
industries, or businesses, or even expand significantly any existing
ones. This is because, aside from whatever pollution the EPA considered
the new projects to produce, they also attract large numbers of workers
who use automobiles to travel to and from work -- and automobiles are a
leading cause of air pollution.
The 1970 Clean Air Act prohibited the construction of major
industrial sources that might significantly pollute the air in so-called
"nonattainment" areas -- areas where the standards are already being
violated. This includes most industrialized regions in the country.
The amendments now before the Senate go further; they provide that
there shall be "no significant deterioration" in the quality of air of
any region whose air is better than the national standards set by the
EPA. These clean air areas will be officially identified and the
Federal Government given the authority to restrict economic or
industrial growth within them.
The Hampton Roads Energy Company has been trying for two years now to
construct a $350 million oil refinery and marine terminal in Portsmouth.
The EPA has declared the refinery environmentally unacceptable because
the photochemical oxidant (ozone) standards in Virginia are in violation
of the national standards established by the 1970 Act. The EPA
decision, in effect, constitutes a no-growth policy on the entire East
coast because the coast constantly registers ozone concentrations higher
than the national standard.
The Hampton Roads company has spent two years and over $6 million on
the refinery plans. The EPA decision imperils 3,000 construction jobs,
500 permanent employees and 2,500 related jobs, not to mention the tax
benefits to state and local governments. The decision also blocks the
nation's attempts to provide more energy at a time when it is
increasingly dependent upon foreign sources.
A no-growth policy is nonsense on its face because the population of
the country continues to expand at an alarming rate. More people
require more jobs, more housing, more of the necessities and luxuries of
life. All of these require construction, manufacturing, transporting,
retailing. We must improve the quality of the air we breathe, and we
can while accommodating the millions of new Americans being added to the
nation each year. We cannot accommodate them, however, by restricting
industrial, manufacturing, and energy growth which their increasing
numbers demand.
Senator Scott's attempt to delete the "no(()) significant
deterioration" provision has been endorsed by President Ford who has
urged the Senate to "preclude application of all significant
deterioration provisions until sufficient information concerning final
impact can be gathered." Lined up against them, in support of the
no-growth policy at a time when the nation is beginning to recover from
the recession brought about by inflation caused by government spending
and the Vietnam war, are the liberal Democrats who control the Senate.
The odds are against the Senator and the President, but they haven't
backed off, and Scott intends to press the issue to a vote -- which
would put the liberals on record in favor of no-growth if they prevail.
While the economic consequences would be disastrous, the political
damage would be even more so. This is because the amendments will give
the Federal Government ultimate control over all major construction in
the country. Nothing could be built without Federal approval anywhere,
any time, and the Feds would also be given final approval power over how
anything could be built if it involves large numbers of people using
automobiles. Moreover, localities will be required to develop
transportation plans designed to curtail use of automobiles. If they
fail to come up with plans satisfactory to the EPA, they may lose all
Federal aid for their pollution control programs, including the
construction of sewage treatment plants.
These "amendments" in effect constitute a Federal land use control
act and control over the economic and industrial development of the
nation. The "no significant deterioration" amendment may improve the
quality of the air we breathe, but it surely will limit the amount of
food we eat, the number of jobs available, the amount of housing that
can be built. It will, by deciding what can be built and where,
determine where we work and live, and how we travel. As such, it is one
of the most destructive bills ever to come before the Congress -- and
the liberals think it is just great.
(At this point, Mr. BUMPERS assumed the chair.)
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. The closing paragraph of the editorial states:
These "amendments" in effect constitute a Federal land use control
act and control over the economic and industrial development of the
nation. The "no significant deterioration" amendment may improve the
quality of the air we breathe, but it surely will limit the amount of
food we eat, the number of jobs available, the amount of housing that
can be built. It will, by deciding what can be built and where,
determine where we work and live, and how we travel. As such, it is one
of the most destructive bills ever to come before the Congress -- and
the liberals think it is just great.
The way things are going on the Clean Air Act there will be plenty of
all of these things, and whatever happens to the air, the Muskie
proposal can certainly bring about a significant deterioriation in local
economies.
That too, over time, can bring about a situation that is "unhealthy
and unattractive."
I hope each of us will think carefully about the desirability of
maintaining the health of our economy that must continue to grow and
develop to remain prosperous, of an economy created by the initiative of
free Americans attempting to provide for themselves and their families
through their own efforts. I know that some may say that I am overly
concerned about the nondegradation provision of this bill but, Mr.
President, we have a valley in Virginia paralleling the Skyline Drive
and the Blue Ridge Parkway adjacent to the Shenandoah National Park,
George Washington National Forest, Jefferson National Forest, and
smaller parks and forest land areas. These parkways, parks, and forests
add materially to the enjoyment of life of not only Virginians but
people from numerous parts of the country. I have enjoyed the
opportunity offered to relax in these areas, as many of us have at one
time or another, but we have gotten there in our automobiles and we have
been able to afford to drive there because of business and industry. We
want the parks and forests but we also want to retain a healthy economy
and a high standard of living that will permit us to enjoy our leisure
hours in facilities such as these.
The concern of the people in the valley is illustrated by an
editorial in the July 20 edition of the Staunton Leader. I ask
unanimous consent, Mr. President, that this editorial entitled
"Restricts Land Use," be printed at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in
the RECORD, as follows:
Large areas in the Shenandoah Valley are embraced in the National
Parks and National Forests, as much as 32 per cent of the area of
Augusta County. These federal lands are not taxable by the state or
localities.
Should the Environmental Protection Agency have the power to control
land use in areas adjacent to these federal lands? Use would be
controlled to protect the "clean air area" from nonsignificant
deterioration which might result from location of a plant or other
emission facility in the vicinity.
This does not involve more serious air pollution, which might affect
health. Nor does it involve welfare, rather loosely defined by the
courts to include (but not limited to) effects on soil, water, crops,
vegetation, wildlife, climate, economic values, and personal comfort and
well-being.
These already are protected by primary and secondary standards of the
Clean Air Act of 1970.
Under new proposals, land use around the forest and parks would be
controlled to maintain them above the standards required to protect
health and welfare in other parts of the state.
No one wants to be against clean air, but this is a federal intrusion
into land use, formerly the province of the states. It is an
unnecessary enlargement of federal power.
Restriction of land use near the "clean air areas" will impede
economic development of whole areas of our state and nation.
Surrounding these federal lands with buffer areas of low-tax land,
restricted as to industrial development, will have an effect on the
standard of living, and on the tax rates for remaining property.
Both houses of the Congress have reported amendments to the Clean Air
Act of 1970. Action on the Senate version is expected by the end of
July.
Virginia Senator William L. Scott has announced that he plans to
offer an amendment to the Senate version during floor debate. His
amendment would eliminate the "non-significant deterioration" policy
just discussed unless there is compelling evidence that a stricter
policy in certain areas would be in the national interest.
Gov. Mills E. Godwin, Jr. also opposes an extension of federal
controls in this area and Virginia may challenge their constitutionality
if they are enacted. He and other governors feel that they are an
intrusion on powers reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment.
The federal government already exerts control over our schools,
businesses (particularly through OSHA and EEOC) and elections. Should
states be required to give up control of land use also?
We hope that reason will prevail. The "non-significant
deterioration" policy is not needed to protect health or welfare. It
should be rejected.
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. We will note the concern of the editor because
large areas of the Shenandoah Valley are embraced within national parks
and national forests with as much as 32 percent of the area of Augusta
County which surrounds the independent city of Staunton Being in Federal
ownership and not taxable by States or localities. He is concerned
because land use around the Federal land would be controlled to maintain
the pristine character of the land within the parks and forests and
might have the effect of preventing new industry on privately held land
adjacent to the Federal land. We will note the concluding paragraph,
and I quote:
We hope that reason will prevail. The "nonsignificant deterioration"
policy is not needed to protect health or welfare. It should be
rejected.
Mr. President, on page 3 of the committee report it appears that the
function of the EPA is being downgraded, that enforcement is to be left
to the States. Yet, as we read further, this is merely a velvet glove
and iron fist approach, because on the same page it states:
The Administrator thus could go to court to stop a permit for
activities which would exceed the increments of pollution or which
otherwise did not comply with the requirements of this section,
including use of best available control technology.
Further down on the same page it states:
The committee has also asserted a Federal interest in protecting air
quality over certain areas of Federal ownership, by a separate test.
The potential activity outside those Federal lands -- such as national
parks and wilderness areas and international parks -- could be
prohibited if it would impair the air quality values associated with
those Federal lands.
I have some reservations about the validity of laws of this nature.
It may well be there is a taking for which just compensation must be
paid under the fifth amendment to the Constitution because it does seem
to me we take a man's property when we can take away his right to use
it.
Mr. President, the provisions of this bill could mean "no growth" in
the valley of Virginia paralleling Federal property for several hundred
miles. I suggest that each Senator check the possible adverse effect
within his own State, as well as that on the Nation as a whole, with the
knowledge that under the bill as reported, new industry cannot damage
the pristine quality of the air of Federal parks and various other types
of Federal(()) property. A little research regarding Federal property
in one's own State will indicate why a large number of the State
Governors are concerned about this legislation. I ask unanimous
consent, Mr. President, to have printed in the RECORD at this point
copies of an assortment of letters from Governors expressing their
concern to various Members of Congress and business organizations.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the RECORD, as follows:
STATE OF FLORIDA,
February 11, 1976.
Hon. JENNINGS RANDOLPH,
Chairman, Committee on Public Works,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR RANDOLPH: The Senate and the House will consider
legislation to change certain provisions of the federal Clean Air Act
dealing with transportation controls and nondeterioration of air
quality. I strongly urge you to carefully consider the consequences of
adopting these provisions and empowering the federal Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to preempt the states' prerogatives in these
areas. It is our position that the states are more capable of
evaluating -- the economic and social implications of desired air
quality within their boundaries than EPA.
EPA most certainly has the expertise to carry out these activities
but my concern is that it will promulgate guidelines and regulations
based on the average national air quality rather than standards for
areas with relatively clean air.
One resource which is vital to Florida is the quality of air and the
tourism which depends on it. Florida's air quality is for the most part
better than secondary air quality standards. For this reason, our State
should retain as much flexibility as possible in the regulation of air
quality within its confines.
Florida has enacted a rule to prevent significant deterioration and
the Florida Environmental Regulation Commission has resolved to continue
the protection of areas with air quality better than the primary and
secondary standards.
Florida also believes that transportation control plans, if
necessary, must be developed and administered at the local level in
order to be effective. State and county governments should determine
the necessity of a transportation control plan and the alternatives
available to correct problem areas. These local governments are more
capable of assessing their problems and devising solutions which would
be more appropriate than federally dictated programs.
The proposed amendments, if enacted, would place too much land use
planning authority under the administration of EPA. Although it is
necessary for EPA to establish minimum requirements, basic controls for
more stringent standards should be left with the states.
With kind regards,
Sincerely,
REUBIN O'D. ASKEW, Governor.
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
March 19, 1976.
Mr. RICHARD L. LESHER,
President, Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. LESHER: Thank you for your letter of March 10, 1976, and
your comments concerning the proposed amendments to the Clean Air Act.
We are asking the members of the South Carolina delegation in
Washington to oppose the proposed amendments to the Clean Air Act of
1970.
With kind regards,
JAMES B. EDWARDS
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
March 31, 1976.
Mr. RICHARD L. LESHER,
President, Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. LESHER: This letter will acknowledge and thank you for your
letter of March 10 in which you expressed the concerns of the Chamber of
Commerce on the impact of amendments to the Clean Air Act currently
being considered in the Congress.
North Carolina is well aware of the provisions of both the House and
Senate versions of amendments, and we have actively opposed and intend
to continue to oppose the enactment of either of these amendments in the
Law.
Your interest and concern in this matter is appreciated.
Sincerely,
JAMES E. HOLSHOUSER, JR.
STATE OF ALABAMA,
February 12, 1976.
Hon. W. JACK EDWARDS,
2439 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN EDWARDS: Congress is currently considering
amendments to the Clean Air Act and there is one segment of this
legislation that gives us particular concern -- the definition of
"non-degradation." We need your help in this matter because the way
non-degradation is defined can have a significant effect on growth plans
and employment in our State.
Alabama Air Pollution Control Commission established air pollution
control regulations committing the State of Alabama to attaining USEPA
secondary air quality standards by May 31, 1975. Alabama has met this
commitment. Some individual emission sources have been necessarily
delayed in meeting requirements because of availability of technology
and/or equipment. These individual sources have not delayed attaining
the secondary air quality standards.
USEPA has proposed three classes of air quality control regions as
follows:
1. No deterioration from current air quality;
2. Expansion of industry until the air quality reaches the secondary
standards;
3. Expansion of industry with air quality less than the secondary
standards but above the primary standards.
Alabama is preparing regulations consistent with the USEPA proposal
and will hold public hearings this spring.
Designation of air quality control regions is in the province of the
several states. The Congress should allow the several states to develop
air quality control regions compatible with growth plans of each state
and based on the opinions of the citizens of the state. I urge you to
oppose any specific definition of non-degradation. Some of the
proposals contained in Staff draft will concentrate development more
heavily in already impacted areas and completely shut off further
development in the relatively underdeveloped areas. The several states
are in a better position than Congress to define areas needing specific
controls.
Sincerely yours,
GEORGE C. WALLACE, Governor.
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR,
Phoenix, Ariz., February 19, 1976.
Hon. PAUL FANNIN,
1313 Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR FANNIN: I wish to call your attention to the impact
which the proposed Clean Air Act Amendments of 1975 have upon the State
of Arizona. Of major concern is the fact that adequate consideration
has not been given to the effects of land ownership patterns and the
potential diversities in land management philosophies in the
implementation of the amendments. Federally controlled lands in Arizona
account for 43.52 percent of the land area; and Indian reservations
account for 26.73 percent. The distribution of these lands are such
that only a small portion, if any of the nonfederal, non-Indian lands of
the state would not be influenced by decisions made by Federal Land
Managers. Consequently, the economic development of this state could be
unduly determined at the Federal level.
It is essential that State rights are preserved and that
opportunities to participate in the decision making process are provided
to local governments particularly when standards to protect human health
and welfare are not exceeded.
I urge Congress to establish a study commission to investigate and
analyze the implications and consequences of the non-deterioration
provisions as promulgated and proposed and to consider the alternative
approach outlined by my staff in the enclosed report.
Please feel free to contact me to discuss this matter of extreme
concern to the State.
Sincerely,
RAUL H. CASTRO.
STATE OF MAINE,
February 25, 1976.
J. NEAL MILLES, Jr.,
Director, Gulf Oil Corp.,
Houston, Tex.
DEAR MR. MILLER: Thank you for your recent correspondence. I
appreciate your bringing to our attention amendments to the Clean Air
Act presently pending before Congress.
Please know, I share your concern over the possibility of further
encroachment by the Federal Government on the rights and destinies of
Maine citizens and I concur with you that decisions affecting the local
communities of Maine and other states should, whenever possible, be made
at the local level.
The State of Maine through our State Legislature and our Department
of Environmental Protection has enacted some of the most sound and
comprehensive environmental laws and regulations to be found anywhere in
the entire Nation. However, these laws and regulations are not so
stringent as to preclude economic development.
The people of Maine are justifiably proud of their State and its
environment, but they are also very concerned about the present economic
picture in which there are not enough jobs for the people who want to
work.
Economic growth should be orderly and with proper environmental
impact assessment, but most certainly not zero-growth oriented.
Thank you for alerting us to this situation.
Very truly yours,
JAMES B. LONGLEY, Governor.
THE CAPITOL,
Jackson, Miss., March 17, 1976.
Representative THAD COCHRAN,
Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR THAD: On behalf of the people of Mississippi, I am quite
concerned over the implication of pending amendments to the Clean Air
Act both in the Senate and the House.
As I understand the situation, the proponents of both the Senate and
House versions of pending amendments are seeking to write into law the
provisions of a highly controversial Court decision several years ago
(Sierra Club vs. Ruckelshaus) which the Supreme Court, as it was
constituted at that time, affirmed by a 4-4 split decision.
The proponents seem to be anxious to get these provisions set in
concrete in the law before the present court rules on this matter
again.(())
I am sure you are aware that the small but highly vocal group of
people pushing this concept will denounce any attempt to breathe reality
into the Clean Air Act.
However, the best information available to me indicates that the
Congress needs to reverse rather than to confirm many of the
unreasonable interpretations that have been placed by the courts on the
Clean Air Act, particularly Sierra Club vs. Ruckelshaus.
I am a firm advocate of the stated objectives of the Clean Air Act;
that is, that the State takes action to protect the health and welfare
of its citizens through the adoption and enforcement of the National
Ambient Primary and Secondary Standards as determined by the
Administration.
Court rulings and EPA regulations that go beyond the attainment of
National Ambient Primary and Secondary Standards should be overturned.
If pending amendments to the Clean Air Act are passed, it will
virtually halt economic development in our state.
I need not remind you that the Natchez Trace Parkway and other
national monuments in Mississippi would require, under the pending
amendments, the zoning of most of mid-Mississippi in "Class I", in which
virtually no residential, commercial or industrial development could
take place and where no new highways or other public works or
recreational areas could be built.
The limitations that would be imposed by the pending amendments in
the remaining area of Mississippi are so stringent that development
would be severely impacted.
I urge you to help protect the well-being of Mississippians by
opposing the adoption of these pending amendments.
Sincerely,
CLIFF FINCH, Governor.
FEBRUARY 18, 1976.
HARLEY STAGGERS,
Chairman, Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, House of
Representatives, Washington, D.C.
I strongly urge that your committee defeat the Rogers
Anti-Degradation amendment.
Resulting zero growth and adoption of a National Land Use law by this
indirection would ruin the economy of small states such as New Hampshire
as well as create an economic vacuum in enormous areas of the larger
states.
The punitive results of this amendment will fall upon our most needy
citizens first and most heavily.
Is there no end to these attempts by the Congress to hoist this
country on its own petard?
MELDRIM THOMPSON,
Governor, State of New Hampshire.
STATE OF OKLAHOMA,
March 19, 1976.
Mr. RICHARD LESHER,
President, U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. LESHER: Thank you for your letter concerning the Clean Air
Act. I have already expressed my opposition to various Congressmen. I
feel that environmental protection should be left at the state level,
and I will continue to oppose federal regulation in this area.
Thank you again for your letter.
Sincerely yours,
DAVID L. BOREN.
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR,
Austin, Tex.
Hon. BOB ECKHARDT,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR BOB: The amendments to the Federal Clean Air Act under
consideration by the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce
are of primary importance to Texas.
The State of Texas, of course, recognizes the need to protect the
health and welfare of its citizens from the occurrence of known and
anticipated effects of manmade air pollution and feels that aggressive
efforts should be continued to achieve that goal. At the same time, we
also recognize the need to achieve a full economic recovery and
increased employment. We do not believe that the actions required to
meet these needs are incompatible one with another.
Any proposed provision that would prohibit the construction of any
major new facility in areas of the State which have not yet attained the
national standards would not be in the best interest of Texas or the
nation. Such a provision would severely disrupt the economic well-being
of those areas and would impede our efforts to improve economic
conditions. In addition, as we seek to protect and improve air quality,
the State and its local governments should be provided adequate
authority and flexibility to develop effective and workable air quality
strategies designed specifically for Texas.
Proposals to prevent the deterioration of air quality in areas
cleaner than the national standards should be founded on a requirement
of best available control technology for any new source. Since 1971,
the Texas Air Control Board has been implementing such an approach with
impressive results by employing a stringent preconstruction review
procedure. The requirement of best available control technology should,
we believe, be included in any new legislation adopted by Congress.
Any proposals using increments and ceilings on pollution
concentrations as part of a classification system should include
adequate authority for the State to develop an implementation plan that
will not unnecessarily constrain growth in cleaner areas.
Enclosed is a resolution adopted January 23, 1976, by the Interagency
Council on Natural Resources and the Environment, and a position brief
which provides supporting details. I urge your support for any
provisions offered that will accomplish the principles stated in the
resolution or those articulated above.
Sincerely,
DOLPH BRISCOE, Governor of Texas.
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR,
Salt Lake City, Utah, March 11,
1976.
Hon. ALLAN T. HOWE,
U.S. Congressman,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR ALLAN: Last fall I expressed my concern to you over certain
sections of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1975 relating to the
prevention of significant deterioration. The bill as it was then being
marked up in the House Subcommittee on Health and the Environment was
totally unacceptable insofar as Utah's interests were concerned.
However, I was encouraged, as I know you were, when I was informed that
the full House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee planned
modifications that would make the bill more acceptable to the states
that wanted a balanced growth policy. I have just finished my review of
the full committee version and my concerns have not lessened. I want
you to be aware of my specific objections to the bill in its present
form in the hope that they may become the basis of floor amendments that
will be offered when the bill is reported out in two weeks.
Subsection (6) requires that each state establish within one year of
the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments an implementation plan to
classify areas where the national primary and secondary ambient air
quality standards are not being exceeded. The state plan must be
approved by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
before the states can issue permits to any major stationary source which
is defined in the bill as being "any stationary sources of air
pollutants which directly emits, or has the design capacity to emit, one
hundred tons a year or more of any air pollutant for which a national
ambient air quality standard is promulgated under this Act." All of the
coal-fired electrical generators now proposed for development in Utah
emit more than one hundred tons a year of sulphur dioxide and
particulate matter which are the only two pollutants controlled by
national ambient air quality standards.
Although the House bill contains three classes for sulphur dioxide
and particulate matter as compared with the two classes that are
provided in the Senate bill, the House bill includes far more land in
the more restrictive classes than the Senate bill. All national parks
over 25,000 acres are included in the mandatory Class I areas as well as
any unit of the national wilderness preservation system. We have no
designated wilderness areas at the present time, but all of our national
parks are in excess of 25,000 acres and therefore under Class I
standards. In addition, the House version provides that any national
monument, national primitive area, or national recreation area over
10,000 acres shall be initially designated Class I which may be later
redesignated Class II if certain conditions are met. While this exempts
all of our national monuments, the 1,061,738 acres in the Glen Canyon
National Recreation Area, the BLM primitive areas in Grand Gulch and
Dark Canyon and approximately 250,000 acres of foreign service primitive
area in the high Uintahs are included in an original Class I
designation. Furthermore, all national forest and wildlife refuges in
the state are restricted to no less than a Class I or Class II
designation. Because the classification of the land limits the use of
the land, the significant deterioration section of the Clean Air Act
Amendments has the same effect as a federal zoning law.
The close proximity of our energy resource lands to the national
parks makes it almost certain that Class I air quality standards will be
exceeded over some parks. The bill specifies that the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency shall not require any automatic or
uniform buffer zones around Class I areas, but the Administrator is also
empowered under the law to promulgate regulations establishing buffer
zones that take into consideration terrain, meteorological conditions
and the size of the emitting facility. Based upon diffusion formulas
that have been run by the Utah Bureau of Environmental Health, the
Kaiparowits power plant exceeds the Class I standards for sulphur
dioxide at Bryce Canyon even assuming 90 percent sulphur removal at the
proposed plant site using the best available control technology. Even
with the best available control technology, I am informed that we fail
Class II and Class III standards for sulphur dioxide with the
Kaiparowits plant because of the requirement in the bill that it not
exceed 25 percent or 50 percent, respectively, of the national ambient
air standards.
While there is much to be regretted in the bill from a technical and
practical standpoint, I find that the legislation is even more offensive
administratively. The state is the ostensible administrator of the
program, but in reality the states' role is purely ministerial. The air
quality standards to be enforced are federally imposed, the land area to
be included in each class are specified, and the limited discretion left
to the state to redesignate can only occur after certain conditions are
met. The EPA Administrator under paragraph(()) (D) of Subsection (3)
can disapprove any designation or redesignation when he finds that they
do not meet the federal standards. The Administrator also promulgates
the regulations by which the state reviews the application of an
emitting facility for a permit, establishes the perimeter of the buffer
zones around Class I areas, decides which air quality model will be used
in order to determine if a state is in compliance, and in the absence of
a state implementation plan, or in the face of one that does not meet
the federal standards, is ordered to promulgate a plan that does meet
the requirements of the act.
This bill is an example of good intentions run riot and what results
from the lack of a coherent national energy policy. In the interest of
environmental protection it imposes a no-growth policy on Utah without
any regard for the long-term national interest. At approximately the
time this bill is being debated on the House floor, Secretary of the
Interior Kleppe will announce his decision on the Kaiparowits
Environmental Impact Statement. On June 8th, California will vote on
Proposition 15 which proposes to prohibit the construction and operation
of nuclear power plants in that state. If that proposition passes, as
it likely will, and if Secretary Kleppe fails to approve the Kaiparowits
project, or if this bill is adopted in its present form, how will the
electrical power be generated to meet the needs of the American West?
I appreciate the support you have shown in the past on this
overriding issue and hope that we can prevail with your colleagues in
the House of Representatives.
Sincerely,
CALVIN L. RAMPTON, Governor.
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR,
Lansing, Mich., April 29, 1976.
Mr. J. NEAL MILLER, Jr.
Director, Gulf Oil Corp., Houston, Tex.
DEAR MR. MILLER: In view of your recent letter to me regarding
proposed Clean Air Act amendments now being considered by the Congress,
I thought you might be interested in the enclosed statement which I
recently made.
Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention.
Kind personal regards.
Sincerely,
WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, Governor.
Gov. William G. Milliken urged Congress Friday to provide greater
flexibility in air pollution control requirements for stationary sources
under amendments now being proposed for the federal Clean Air Act.
Milliken said in letters to members of the Michigan Congressional
delegation that:
"Of special concern to me is the fact that the current Clean Air Act
has little flexibility for providing necessary time to control emissions
from certain stationary services. Relief in this area is absolutely
essential so that necessary abatement programs can be developed and
carried out.
"Also of concern is the fact that the current Clean Air Act prohibits
growth in areas where difficulty is being encountered achieving the
federally mandated air quality standards. It would appear essential
that some system be worked out whereby reasonable economic growth is not
denied in an area that is making reasonable economic progress toward
achievement of the standards."
Milliken said he was concerned that the amendments pending in
Congress "could lead to federally mandated land-use programs based on
air quality.
"I have consistently maintained that land-use planning should be
performed at the local level and the legislation I have supported in
Lansing (HB 4234) requires that planning be done at the local level."
Milliken added that he believes "that it is inappropriate to base a
land-use program on air quality. The quality of the earth -- not the
quality of the air -- is the only appropriate and sound basis for land
use decisions."
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT,
Baton Rouge, La., April 20, 1976.
Hon. J. BENNETT JOHNSTON,
245 Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR JOHNSTON: Members of the Louisiana Air Control
Commission have expressed their concern that proposed amendments to the
Clean Air Act in regard to "Significant Deterioration" fail to protect
the prerogatives of each state to allow community growth and industrial
expansion where desired for the economic and social welfare of the
populace, and the Federal Ambient Air Standards are not exceeded.
Language in either the Senate or House versions of the proposed bill is
objectionable to the Commission because:
1. The EPA Administrator would obtain approval authority over a
mandatory "Significant Deterioration" amendment of each State's
Implementation Plan, and the Administrator may impose his own amendment
in the absence of a submittal meeting his wishes.
2. The EPA Administrator would have the authority to require that
each State's Implementation Plan include land use controls.
3. It establishes such small increments of growth allowable in
relatively unpolluted areas so as to stifle further economic development
and would preclude effective response to fuel conversions mandated by
curtailed natural gas supplies, possibly leading to wholesale power
failures in Louisiana.
4. It gives "Federal Land Managers" veto power over state permit
procedures with no means for prompt relief from a Land Manager's
arbitrary rulings included in the proposed amendments.
The Air Control Commission has requested that every effort be made to
remove the offensive "Significant Deterioration" provision from the bill
since each state already has the right to choose small increments of
deterioration in favor of economic and social gain for its populace and
the proposed law effectively curtails that prerogative. New source
performance standards require that each new emission source have
effective emission control facilities and the Federal Ambient Air
Standards limit the total extent of deterioration in every state;
therefore, no such amendments are necessary.
I am very much concerned about the issues raised by the Commission
and therefore urge your consideration of measures to remove the
objectionable features from the proposed Clean Air Act amendments.
Defeat of the entire bill may be in the best interest of the state if
the offensive "Significant Deterioration" provisions cannot be
satisfactorily resolved.
Your consideration of this request is very much appreciated.
Kindest regards and best wishes.
Cordially,
EDWIN EDWARDS.
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR,
Columbus, Ohio, March 12, 1976.
Mr. J. NEAL MILLER, Jr.,
Director, Gulf Oil Corp., Governmental Relations Department, Houston,
Tex.
DEAR MR. MILLER: Governor Rhodes received your letter requesting his
assistance in opposing a nondegradation amendment to House Bill 10498.
The Governor has asked me to inform you that Mr. Ned Williams,
Director of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, has strongly
opposed the nondegradation aspects of the U.S. Environmental Protection
program.
It is our opinion that such standards as are proposed by the subject
amendment represent overreaching by EPA and would have a serious effect
upon land use in our State.
The Governor appreciates receiving your comments regarding this very
important matter.
Sincerely,
THOMAS J. MOYER,
Executive Assistant to the
Governor.
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR,
Richmond, Va., January 15, 1976.
Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
Committee on Public Works, Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: I am enclosing a staff report which outlines my
reasons for opposing certain provisions of the Clean Air Act.
If this legislation is enacted in its present form, Virginia would
feel impelled to ask the courts to set it aside as unconstitutional.
Once the full impact for disruption of orderly comprehensive land use
planning of these sweeping proposals is comprehended by other States, I
believe a substantial number of them would join in that effort. The
National Governor's Conference adopted a resolution in September, 1975,
which recommended that each State retain the flexibility to determine
for itself what is "significant deterioration" consistent with local
values. The Southern Governor's Conference also in September, 1975,
expressed serious concern that "significant deterioration" provisions
might arbitrarily prohibit economic development of many areas, even
though the air quality would be much better than the level required for
good health. This Conference resolved that the States should be allowed
to administer their air quality programs in whatever manner they choose
to meet the national standards. The organization of State and
Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators also recommended,
through a resolution, that the Clean Air Act be amended to expressly
provide that there shall be no requirement to establish air quality
standards more stringent than the primary and secondary standards.
I urge the members of the Senate Public Works Committee not to adopt
the presently proposed nondeterioration provisions, but instead to
support language which would affirm the right of the States to choose
for themselves whether to adopt emission limitations which are more
stringent than those necessary for the protection of ambient air quality
standards. At the very least, the Committee should refer the
nondeterioration provisions to a study commission for a thorough
analysis of their implications, to be followed by public hearings where
the full impact of any resulting recommendations may be focused on by
State and local government representatives and concerned citizens.
Sincerely,
MILLS E. GODWIN, Jr.
Among the proposed amendments to the Clean Air Act, which are now
being considered by the Senate Public Works Committee, are provisions
which would require "nondeterioration plans" in all of the States.
These plans would apply in all regions of a State which have air quality
better than that reflected by the secondary ambient air quality
standards for sulfur dioxide and particulate matter. Under the
proposed, these regions would be classified as either "Class I" or
"Class II" regions. No new major stationary source could be built in
either of these regions unless the owner could prove in advance that he
would not cause ambient concentrations for either sulfur dioxide or(())
particulates to exceed the statutory increments. It is unclear whether
these statutory requirements would limit or prevent construction of a
new major stationary source outside a Class I or II region if it could
cause these stationary increments to be exceeded in an adjoining Class I
or II region. In addition, the State plan would also require all new
major stationary sources in the nondeterioration regions, to utilize
so-called Best Available Control Technology, which is to be determined
on a case-by-case basis, without consideration of economic costs and
social and environmental implications. Thus, this Best Available
Control Technology would effectively replace the presently promulgated
New Source Performance Standards (which take costs into accounts), and
would also, in essence, establish, through a somewhat indefinite
process, national emissions limitations for all major stationary sources
located in the designated regions.
Under the present Clean Air Act, the States may choose to adopt
emission limitations which are more stringent than the New Source
Performance Standards, and may also adopt emission limitations
applicable to new sources not covered by the NSPS, on any basis, as long
as the primary and secondary standards, which protect the public health
and welfare, are attained and maintained. In setting these emission
limitations States may consider the implications which such limitations
have for the environmental, economic, tax, and land use policies of
State and local governments. The proposed amendment to the Act would
preempt the States from making these considerations, and instead would
impose nebulous federally mandated emission limitations in all
nondeterioration regions. It may be difficult to assess, with existing
evidence, what the full social costs will be as a result of these more
stringent limitations. It is clear, however, that the economic costs
will be relatively higher than they are now and thus will influence
decisions for the siting of new facilities, both within and outside of
the nondeterioration regions. This, in turn, will seriously impact
state and local land use planning.
It is important that State and local governments retain their current
freedom to make land use and facility siting decisions on the broad
basis of all considerations involved -- not only clean air, but also
clean water, historic and open space conservation, contiguous land uses,
mineral utilization, employment, housing, etc. As long as ambient air
quality standards are being maintained, any decision to impose emission
limitations which are more stringent than those necessary for the
protection of the public health and welfare should remain with the State
and local governments. Any statutory requirement beyond the primary and
secondary standards would be purely and simply land use legislation.
If there is to be federal preemption of current state authority in
the use of our land beyond the requirements to maintain primary and
secondary air quality standards, then that would involve matters clearly
beyond the scope of regulation of air emissions as such -- the important
but limited purpose of the Clean Air Act. These are areas more
appropriately within the scope of other committees of the Congress,
committees which already have comprehensive land planning legislation
pending before them. But those committees to date have hesitated to
recommend that Congress impose federal preemption on so vast and complex
a subject, which is much more appropriately regulated by State, regional
or local authorities. It is true that any restriction on proposed
activities involves an incidental limitation on land use, but the vital
distinction is the degree of the impingement. Here the proposed
restriction is more than incidental, it becomes virtually determinative
of whether or not a plant may be built in a region, and if so, its size,
its technology and its cost. These factors are at the heart rather than
the periphery of land use planning decisions.
Finally, even if the Congress should be held to have constitutional
power to push federal preemption beyond the barrier of the secondary
standards in the Clean Air Act, the way in which the present proposals
would do that is unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment. Recent
court decisions make it clear that when the Federal Government preempts,
it cannot force the states to administer the federally dictated program.
Accordingly, if Congress in fact intends to have the EPA Administrator
take over land use planning throughout the United States, it must
provide that he do so directly and not impose the administrative burdens
of carrying out his orders on state governments
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Mr. President, among the letters is one from
the Governor of the State of Florida. He concludes his two-page letter
by saying:
The proposed amendments, if enacted, would place too much land-use
planning authority under the administration of EPA. Although it is
necessary for EPA to establish minimum requirements, basic controls for
more stringent standards should be left with the States.
Then the Governor of the State of South Carolina, among other things
says:
We are asking the members of the South Carolina delegation in
Washington to oppose the proposed amendments to the Clean Air Act of
1970.
The Governor of North Carolina states:
North Carolina is well aware of the provisions of both the House and
Senate versions of amendments, and we have actively opposed and intend
to continue to oppose the enactment of either of these amendments in the
law.
A similar letter from the Governor of the State of Alabama.
A letter from the Governor of the State of Arizona, also urging
defeat of this bill as it was reported by the committee.
And, yes, a letter from the Governor from the State of Maine. Let me
read a portion of that:
The State of Maine through our State Legislature and our Department
of Environmental Protection has enacted some of the most sound and
comprehensive environmental laws and regulations to be found anywhere in
the entire Nation. However, these laws and regulations are not so
stringent as to preclude economic development.
The people of Maine are justifiably proud of their State and its
environment, but they are also very concerned about the present economic
picture in which there are not enough jobs for the people who want to
work.
Economic growth should be orderly and with proper environmental
impact assessment, but most certainly not zero-growth oriented.
A similar letter from the Governor of the State of Mississippi.
A letter from the Governor of the State of New Hampshire.
A letter from the Governor of the State of Oklahoma, and he says:
I will continue to oppose Federal regulation in this area.
A letter from the Governor of the State of Texas in opposition.
One from the Governor of the State of Utah in opposition to the
amendment.
One from the Governor of the State of Michigan.
One from the Governor of the State of Louisiana.
One from the Governor of the State of Ohio, and he says:
It is our opinion that such standards as are proposed by the subject
amendment represent overreaching by EPA and would have a serious effect
upon land use in our State.
Then, a letter from the Governor of Virginia, and among other things,
he says:
If this legislation is enacted in its present form, Virginia would
feel impelled to ask the courts to set it aside as unconstitutional.
Mr. President, I have read portions and have had printed in the
RECORD those various letters to indicate there is wide opposition from
people throughout the country to this measure.
Perhaps we should review the background of nondegradation. It is my
understanding that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency was of the opinion that he had no authority under the Clean Air
Act of 1970 to promulgate any regulations requiring State implementation
plans to provide against significant deterioration of existing clear air
areas; that is, areas where the level of pollution was lower than the
national standards established for health and welfare.
His refusal led to an action in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia against then Administrator Ruckelshaus by the
Sierra Club to enjoin him from approving plans to allow clean air areas
to be degraded so long as the plans were adequate to prevent ambient
pollution levels from exceeding national standards. The court took the
view that the language of the Clean Air Act included a congressional
intent to prevent deterioration of air quality no matter how pure that
quality might be in a given section of the country. The trial court's
decision was approved by the circuit court without a written opinion and
permitted to stand by a 4-to-4 decision of the Supreme Court in Sierra
Club v. Ruckelshaus, 412 U.S. 541 (1973). The Court's decision is
supported by the statement of purpose of the act which, among other
things, indicates that it is "to protect and enhance the quality of the
Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare
and the productive capacity of its population."
However, the court did not define the phrase "significant
deterioration" and the business community is concerned that a factory
cannot be built in an area where there is no manmade pollution of any
kind if the construction and operation of the plant would result in
pollution at any level, even though the air quality of the area would
still be considerably above the national ambient air standards. I
cannot believe Congress intended a "no growth" policy, nor do I believe
laws should be made by courts or bureaucrats, nor is it commonsense to
give legislative sanction to a no growth policy. My amendment would
clarify(()) present law. It would prevent the Federal Government from
requiring air quality standards in any State or locality to be higher
than the national standards for the protection of the health and welfare
of citizens, while at the same time permitting States and localities to
require a higher standard, if they considered it desirable, to meet a
local situation. In other words, new businesses and industries could be
permitted in localities with no major pollution problems provided the
air quality remained above the national standards.
While we want to maintain air quality at levels better than necessary
to protect human health and welfare, it would not generally appear
desirable to go beyond that goal at the expense of jobs, development or
dependence on other nations for basic materials. States and localities
can develop their own land use programs. Under our system of dual
sovereignty, States and localities are charged with the responsibility
of planning and zoning. They should retain the right and responsibility
to determine whether a given facility is a community asset and should be
permitted to determine whether they desire air quality to be higher than
that established at the national level. As our Nation continues to
grow, we will need additional facilities to provide jobs and other basic
necessities for an expanding population, and it seems unnecessary to
have the development of a local area subject to the will of the Federal
Government so long as air pollution is below the national standards.
A new plant in a given community may mean jobs and economic progress
in lieu of economic stagnation. I mentioned a few minutes ago that man
does not live by clean air alone. He needs bread, shelter and
transportation. There is a continuing need for new industry, new
powerplants, new apartment houses, and new shopping and office
complexes.
On page 493 of the House report on this bill, a study by the
Environmental Protection Agency, dated February 5, 1976, is cited, which
concludes that a nondegradation policy together with new source
standards of performance requirements would result in approximately $28
billion in additional costs to the electric utility industry alone
between now and 1990. This is the lowest estimate. According to the
report, if a high growth rate during that period is assumed, the cost
might well exceed $50 billion. This is for electric power alone.
Mr. President, a healthy economy is an expanding economy. The
explosion in material output around the turn of the century has led to
the high standard of living we enjoy today and I believe the continued
success of our free enterprise system is inconsistent with additional
Government regulations. Is it not reasonable to believe that the
quality of air high enough to protect the health and welfare of the
citizens of one area is high enough to protect the health and welfare of
the citizens of another area unless there is contrary evidence in a
specific situation in a given locality? This can best be determined by
the people who live in that locality rather than additional Federal
requirements.
In a letter dated May 28 to the chairman of the full Senate Committee
on Public Works (Mr. RANDOLPH) the President indicated his concern about
the significant deterioration problem. He states that the adoption of
the committee bill in this regard would result in greater economic
uncertainties concerning job creation and capital formation, that the
impact on future energy resource development might well be negative and
that the uncertainties of the suggested legislation was disturbing. Let
me review for you one paragraph of this letter.
In view of the potentially disastrous effects on unemployment and on
energy development, I cannot endorse the changes recommended by the
respective House and Senate committees. Accordingly, I believe the most
appropriate course of action would be to amend the act to preclude
application of all significant deterioration provisions until sufficient
information concerning final impact can be gathered.
Mr. STEVENSON assumed the Chair at this point.
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Mr. President, this is exactly what my
amendment is intended to do. But let me reiterate that in the event the
amendment is adopted, it would not in any way restrict the Environmental
Protection Agency in maintaining both primary and secondary national air
quality standards, the standards necessary to protect the public health
and welfare.
I might say, Mr. President, that the head of the Environmental
Protection Agency can change and upgrade these requirements under
present law. He is authorized to do that.
My amendment would permit the States and localities to adopt more
stringent requirements as they can do under the present law. I believe
it would help combine a wholesome and healthy environment with
opportunity for the economy of our communities and our Nation to grow
and prosper.
Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of the distinguished Senator
from Utah in permitting me to make my statement at this time, and I am
sorry if I imposed unduly upon his time.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, the Senator has not imposed at all. I
commend him for his excellent presentation.
I listened with considerable care to what the Senator had to say, and
I find I am in agreement with the position as he presented it.
I especially liked the quotation the Senator used, that "Man does not
live by clean air alone."
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Let me say I stole that from the editorial in
the Richmond Times-Dispatch. But it appealed to me, too, and I
appreciate the Senator's kindness.
Mr. MOSS. The Senator was the author here on the floor. I think
that by taking a familiar old saying like that, one can sum up quite a
bit of what we are trying to achieve here.
We want to show what can happen to our other means of livelihood by
following a philosophical concept of pristine air. I have always felt
that I could be classified with the environmental protection groups. My
State has vast scenic beauty, and I have had the opportunity to help get
in place three national parks there, which are superb and vast
recreation areas, comparable to the areas the Senator from Virginia
pointed out with reference to the great national park out here in the
Blue Ridge Mountains above the Valley of Virginia. We have vast areas
like that, and I would not degrade them for anything. As a matter of
fact, they are economic assets, too, because many tourists come to see
them.
But there are many other things you have to have in order to live,
and just keeping all industry and growth out causes us to have our young
people move away and our small towns stagnate, and ultimately we just
come to a halt, unless we have some kind of opportunity to grow -- for
balanced growth, admittedly -- keeping the air clean, keeping the water
clean, and doing all we can in that way, but not just closing it down.
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Would not the Senator agree that where there
is private land adjacent to the public land, if a standard for lands
nationally, which would include all of the land surrounding the
federally held land, if the air quality standards as established
nationally are high enough to protect the health and welfare of the
citizens, then the air coming from that private land going onto the
public land, that generally has not installation of any kind on it,
could not pollute unduly the public land? Would the Senator care to
comment on that?
Mr. MOSS. Yes, I would like to comment on that. I agree with the
Senator. As I have pointed out, under the EPA regulations now we have
standards to protect the health and welfare of our people. If we are
going beyond health and welfare, we are getting into an area of
considerable question anyway as to what powers the Federal Government
has; and certainly if the standards are being observed on the private
lands, as the Senator points out, that same air, crossing over onto
public lands, should not be offensive; and yet it might be if we have a
nondegradation standard which says you cannot change the quality of that
air at all from what existed before.
So I agree with the Senator. I think that section 6 should be
deleted until the study has been completed.
Section 6 provides for the mandatory classification of class I areas
-- national parks, wilderness areas, and so forth -- whereas, EPA
regulations initially classify all areas as class II, and permit
reclassification of class I, but each reclassification would be
considered on a case-by-case basis.
Mr. FANNIN. Mr. President, I am a cosponsor and supporter of the
Moss amendments to require a comprehensive study of the "significant
deterioration" issue before implementation of section 6.
The statement I will submit on that issue explains my reasons for
that position and indicates the strong concern in my State of Arizona
about cementing this concept into law.
At this time I would like to indicate my additional support for the
approach of my distinguished friend from Virginia -- that being to leave
this decision(()) on significant deterioration -- or "nondegradation" --
to the individual States. With the tremendous difference in the
populations, industry and geographies of our 50 States, it would be most
desirable to have each State make its own determination about
maintaining air quality at higher than the primary and secondary
standards.
It is certainly desirable in certain instances to maintain a very
pure atmosphere -- in the Grand Canyon National Park for instance -- but
I think the very stringent and intricate language of the committee bill
would lead to very undesirable consequences.
Pollution from far distant forest fires and unpaved roads could
easily be credited to industry which has already expended millions in
emission control, thus precluding further development of rural areas
which may be greatly in need of jobs through industrial growth.
In conclusion, Mr. President, I feel this is not the time to
impatiently enact further Federal regulatory programs. The States have
made great strides in achieving clean air goals and will continue to do
so, unless a ground swell of local opposition to unreasonable Washington
dictates prevents further progress. The Scott amendment would eliminate
the Washington puppet approach and allow States to tailor their programs
to meet their specific needs.
Mr. FANNIN. Mr. President, the Senate is considering amendments to
the Clean Air Act, S. 3219. Included therein is a Federal zoning scheme
for regions of the country where the air quality is presently cleaner
than that required by national ambient standards. This scheme,
contained in the section 6 significant deterioration requirements,
designates certain Federal and surrounding areas into two categories:
Class I areas, where virtually all development would be prohibited
through the enforcement of extremely low increments for particulate and
sulfur oxide concentrations -- which defy accurate measurement; and,
class II areas, where only limited development could occur under
increments prescribed in this legislation.
The nondeterioration requirements represent an effort to wring the
last drop of reason out of some very twisted logic.
While poor air quality is by no means restricted to any special
region of the country, national ambient standards are being exceeded in
a great many of the Nation's 247 air quality control regions.
Specifically, the highest levels of particulates and sulfur oxides occur
in the Northeastern and North Central States. Yet, section 6 would
establish new or tertiary air quality standard for Western States, while
others would be exempt, including those where national ambient standards
are being exceeded.
My colleagues will recall that the Clean Air Act of 1970 which became
Public Law 91-604 December 31, 1970, required the Environmental
Protection Agency to develop and adopt national primary ambient air
quality standards to protect the public health with an adequate margin
of safety. The act further required the development and adoption of
national secondary ambient standards to protect the public welfare from
any known or anticipated adverse effects. Such standards were proposed
27 days after the date of enactment and promulgated in April of 1971.
The act also required the establishment of Federal emission
limitations, that is, that amount or levels of control determined by the
EPA to be necessary to meet the national ambient standards. In December
of 1971, the EPA established the following emission limitations for
particulate and sulfur dioxide concentrations:
((/a/ Micrograms per cubic meter.))
((/b/ Pounds per million British thermal units.))
((/c/ Visibility measurement.))
In addition, the act required EPA to issue regulations by which
States were to develop procedures to implement, maintain, and enforce
the national standards. Collectively, these procedures are known as
State implementation plans -- SIP's. These plans, subject to EPA
approval, prescribe timetables for meeting the national standards and
Federal emission limitations. The SIP's further require compliance with
Federal monitoring and reporting procedures. Such regulations were
published in August of 1971, and States had had until January of 1972 to
adopt and submit SIP's to EPA. Thus the EPA was empowered to control
emissions from existing and new sources through the approval of SIP's.
On May 24, 1972, 6 days before EPA had to approve or disapprove the
SIP's, the Sierra Club petitioned the District Court for the District of
Columbia for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
The Sierra Club alleged that the action EPA was about to take would be
illegal; that is, EPA approval of SIP's would not prevent significant
deterioration of air quality better than national standards.
On June 2, 1972, the district court issued the injunction, concluding
in a brief written opinion, "the Clean Air Act of 1970 is based in
important part on a policy of nondegradation of existing clean air." EPA
was then required to disapprove those SIP's that did not prevent
significant deterioration of air quality and to establish procedures to
do so.
In November of 1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the lower
court ruling without written opinion, and EPA disapproved the SIP's
insofar as they failed to prevent significant deterioration.
On June 11, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court permitted the appellate
court decision to stand by a vote of 4 to 4, again without written
opinion.
In July of 1973, EPA proposed four alternative plans for preventing
significant deterioration. Public hearings were subsequently held in
Washington, D.C., Atlanta, Dallas, Denver, and San Francisco.
On August 27, 1974, EPA reproposed regulations for preventing
significant deterioration which:
A. Created three classifications based on incremental increases for
particulates and sulfur dioxide concentrations:
Class I -- Areas where practically any air quality deterioration
would be considered significant.
Class II -- Areas where deterioration that would normally accompany
moderate growth would be considered significant.
Class III -- Areas where deterioration would be permitted up to
ambient secondary standards.
Under the EPA regulations all areas were initially designated class
II. Redesignation could be proposed subject to public hearings and EPA
approval by States, Federal land managers, or tribal governing bodies.
B. Established a preconstruction review process to insure compliance
with the allowable incrementation increases;
C. Required the use of best available control technology; and
D. Provided procedures for public comment on each application to
construct a new source and on delegating preconstruction -- new source
-- review procedures to States and/or local governments.
On December 5, 1974, the EPA promulgated the regulations proposed on
August 27, 1974. These regulations became effective January 6, 1975,
and apply to sources commencing construction after June 1, 1975.
The regulations established the following numerical levels -- in
micrograms per cubic meter:
((/1/ These values are the national ambient standards and except for
the annual standard, may not be exceeded more than once per year.))
Mr. President, these regulations are being challenged in the courts
and in professional circles for being arbitrary and without foundation.
Numerous petitions for review are pending before the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia, which ask if EPA does in fact have
the authority under the Clean Air Act to promulgate regulations for
preventing significant deterioration of air already cleaner than the
national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards?(())
Others charge that the EPA regulations are arbitrary and the
increments are more stringent than necessary to protect the public
health and welfare. And, that the concept of precise national
increments prohibits States from determining their own regulations based
on local needs and conditions.
Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times reported on February 29, 1976, in an
article entitled "EPA Study -- The Finding Got Distorted," that an EPA
scientist arbitrarily changed recommendations submitted by CHESS --
Community Health and Environmental Surveillance System -- following an
expensive -- EPA does nothing cheap -- and comprehensive study.
Distortion of the CHESS recommendations ignited a mounting
controversy over the need to spend billions in controlling sulfur
pollution and more significantly, raised questions about the credibility
of EPA research.
Scientists generally agree that sulfur pollution at higher levels is
a health hazard, but severe criticism of the distorted EPA research has
resulted in serious questions over just how low the harmful levels
really are. EPA's CHESS reports were published in 1974. Surprisingly,
more than a year has passed before the data distortions came to light.
The questionable scientist rewrote the work of CHESS scientists,
often deleting important qualifiers on results involving sulfur-bearing
fuels; deleted material that did not show a connection between sulfur
pollution and adverse health effects; screened statistical analysis to
down-play evidence that weakened the case against sulfur pollution; and
overrode agency scientists objections to publishing estimates of the
health impact of pollution that were either dubious or unsupportable.
In keeping with our reasons to suspect EPA's seemingly arbitrary
rules and regulations, the Clean Air Act currently before the Senate
goes far beyond the existing significance deterioration regulations of
the agency, and even further beyond the Federal Energy Administration
position of eliminating significant deterioration as a regulatory
strategy altogether.
Now the Senate is about to codify into law, this dubious bill of
goods known as the significant deterioration requirements. Beneath the
fanfare and flimflam about protecting air quality in the west reside a
number of critical issues.
Section 6(g)(1)(A) requires each State to adopt and enforce as part
of its SIP, a land use planning program by which certain Federal and
adjacent lands are to be designated into two categories:
Class I, to include all international parks, and each national park,
national wilderness area and national memorial in excess of 5,000 acres,
and such other areas as the State, adjacent States, or Federal Land
Manager may designate.
In these Class I areas no new major facility may be constructed or
operated that emits particulate or sulfur dioxide concentrations in
excess of certain numerical increments.
This provision presents at least five problems which escape reason or
solution.
First, the class I designation impacts most in those Western States
with a high percentage of public lands -- States which incidentally
already enjoy air quality better than that prescribed by the national
primary and secondary air ambient standards established under the Clean
Air Act. In Arizona, for example, some 44 percent of the State is
federally controlled and could very well be designated class I. Indian
lands account for 27 percent of the State and could also be declared
class I areas.
Second, to insure that the proposed increments are not violated by
the plume drift from a facility located beyond the boundaries of a class
I area, any new major facility constructed or operated in adjacent areas
of up to 100 miles distant may be precluded. Because of the
checkerboard pattern of landownership in Arizona, future economic
development would be precluded in all but three small areas of the State
-- areas which, because of topographical, geological, and other physical
conditions, are not conducive to development.
Third, the nondeterioration requirements single out but two potential
pollutants -- particulates and sulfur oxides. Though EPA is required to
eventually recommend increments for hydrocarbons, and nitrous oxides,
this bill fails to take into account the adverse effects, if any, of
such other elements as carbon dioxide and photochemical oxidants, any of
which separately or collectively; may very well eventually be found to
be primary pollutants in need of control.
Fourth, the projected increments is upon which the Class I
designation is constructed are at levels well below those that can be
measured, even using EPA's measurement methods.
Because particulates are measured with a "high volume sampler" which,
like a vacuum cleaner, draws air through a filter or collector, their
accuracy may be off by as much as 50 percent under some conditions.
And, since particles are generally of surface material blown into the
air by the wind, two-thirds of the particles in Arizona are from natural
sources such as dirt, forest fires, and pollen. Moreover, seasonal
variations in particulate concentrations from natural causes will exceed
the increments allowed.
The lower limit for detecting sulfur oxides, using the EPA method, is
25 micrograms per cubic meter. Yet, the annual mean proposed in section
21 for delineating a class I area is 15. Why the burning of sulfur in
material used to fuel a barbeque or fireplace could easily exceed this
increment.
Finally, what is the basis in law or in fact for establishing new and
arbitrary numerical increments, particularly when EPA has stated
publicly that "there are no quantitative data to support the choice of
any specific increment below the national standards?" The significance
of this question is demonstrated by the fact that the national standards
are, in micrograms per cubic meter:
Section 6(g)(1)(B) provides that all remaining areas not designated
class I, shall be designated class II areas.
Here again, the excessive demands made upon Western States amount to
Federal management of State, local, and private property. For example,
this provision could affect virtually every manufacturing plant, or
chemical processing or mining facility, every conventional generating
station and anything else the EPA Administrator "determines to be
significant potential sources of air pollutants."
This requirement gives the EPA power over virtually every new major
construction activity. But there is no provision, for any facility that
is not stationary. So cars, trucks, buses, and trains would all be
exempt. And yet, responsible testing results show that the internal
combustion engine is the leading source of air pollutants in the United
States, particularly in areas where the air is the cleanest. This
single, major source of air pollution is completely ignored in every
aspect of the nondegradation requirements.
Section 6(g)(2) compounds the land issue even more. It requires,
prior to the construction of any facility in class II areas, the
"analysis of the ambient air quality, climate and meteorology, soils and
vegetation and visibility" both at the site of the proposed facility and
in the area "potentially affected by the emissions from the proposed
facility for each pollutant which will be emitted." This applies to both
construction and operation of the facility. And, this exhaustive data
must be included in every permit application.
But is there a real need to analyze soil, vegetation and visibility
as long as they represent no known adverse effects on health or any
known or anticipated negative effects on welfare?
In the desert Southwest, an analysis of visibility can tell you when
the wind is blowing hard enough to kick up the dust. That alone can
easily exceed the proposed increments for particular matter. Under
section 6, controlling the dust could be demanded.
Why was this provision proposed? As noted previously, the prescribed
increments cannot be measured, even by EPA reference methods. Anyone
familiar with the Southwest will agree that the variations in climate,
topography, and vegetation will be so great that corresponding changes
in air quality simply cannot be correlated.
Section (g)(4)(B) requires, among other things, that no major
emitting(()) facility may be constructed unless subject to best
available control technology -- BACT.
Heretofore BACT has been applied as a standard for technological
equipment and not as a constraint on the sulfur content of fuel used to
produce electricity. Now, as proposed in section 6(g) BACT would mean
"an emission limitation based on the maximum degree of reduction of each
pollutant subject to regulation -- which the permitting authority, on a
case-by-case base, taking into account energy, environmental, and
economic impacts and other costs, determines is achievable.
This test for BACT is not a requirement for a true cost-benefit
evaluation. Absent such a test, what assurance is there that these
factors will be given meaningful, or for that matter, any review?
Finally, while some state-of-the-art equipment is available,
requiring its use on new facilities could make the facilities so
expensive that they would not be built, even if the prescribed
increments could be measured and met, and the new layers of government
review and procedures could be penetrated. Combining these demands for
exotic equipment with the intensive capital requirements of electric
power companies, could easily mean the end of almost every planned
conventional power generating station.
Since passage of the Clean Air Act, much has been learned about the
sulfur found in coal that was not clear in 1970. This new understanding
of the facts must be considered.
Specifically, in 1970 many references were made to "low-sulfur coal"
or "high sulfur coal." At that time, a coal source was identified by the
average sulfur found after sampling an entire field. If the average
value was below about 1 percent, it was called "low-sulfur."
Calculations using this average value indicated that many such
low-sulfur coal fields existed, especially in the Western United States,
use of this coal would allow the new source performance standards --
NSPS -- to be met without additional desulfurizing requirements. And,
it was deduced that a large amount of naturally acceptable coal was
available to meet the NSPS.
But as these fuels have been evaluated for use in new generating
stations, the natural variations in sulfur throughout a field makes it
difficult, if not impossible for the operator to guarantee NSPA
requirements will be met all the time, even when they can guarantee to
meet those requirements on the average, and indeed, for every large
fraction of the lifetime of the plant.
Those responsible for interpreting the law as written are forced to
conclude that if, using the natural coal, NSPA requirements may be
violated over some period of time no matter how small, flue-gas
scrubbing devices are required. In point, is the fact that studies
reviewed and accepted by the EPA on an operating plant have shown that
infrequent exceedance of certain emission limitation values produce no
threat to the ambient air quality standards. Furthermore, the situation
results in requirements for heavy capital expenditures for cases that
were not anticipated in 1970, and which are not necessary to meet
ambient standards for clean air.
Accordingly, a definition of low-sulfur coal should be developed to
permit deviations from the average, and to incorporate a procedure for
defining and identifying "low-sulfur coal sources." Techniques exist for
doing this in a manner in keeping with all the aims and goals of the
act. Subsequent to identification, the use of such sources would
qualify an operator as meeting any "low-sulfur coal provisions" of NSPS
requirements.
The Clean Air Act of 1970 is complex and demanding enough. But when
the usurpation of State prerogatives is endorsed by the courts, and then
amendments requiring nonexistent technologies and endless proceedings
are added, a maze is created into which only the foolhardy attempt to
enter and from which only the exhausted, depleted, and defeated emerge.
The way out of this maze is to scrap section 6 in its entirety.
Support for this recommendation increases steadily. The Governor of
Arizona, the Honorable Raul H. Castro, joins other State and Federal
officials in requesting that a study Commission be established to
investigate and analyze the far-reaching consequences and the dangerous
implications of the proposed nondeterioration requirements.
This Commission could be similar to the one established by section
315 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. It was directed to make
a full and complete investigation and study of the economic,
environmental, social, and technological aspects of specific legislative
intent.
The Central Arizona Labor Council, an affiliate of the AFL-CIO, has
informed me that at a time when unemployment in the building and
construction trades is approaching 30 percent in Arizona, that the
proposed nondeterioration requirements make about as much sense as
filling a fire extinguisher with gasoline.
The council notes that if the nondeterioration requirements become
law, some of the four coal-fired electrical generating stations planned
in Arizona could not be built. And, those plants that survive the
extensive Federal and federally mandated State approval processes, will
be required to meet emission limitations far more stringent than the new
source performance standards established under the Clean Air Act in its
present form.
More important however, is the fact that if the proposed
nondeterioration requirements become law, Arizona's utilities will
either have to build smaller powerplants creating fewer jobs and
forfeiting known economies of scale or relocate to sites out of State.
In addition, groups that cut across all levels of Arizona --
newspapers, concerned citizens, and business associations are demanding
the Federal Government stop adding more and more controls, expenses, and
intrusions into their lives.
Yet the demand for new air quality controls is by a few vocal
litigants. No substantive need for this concept has ever been
established.
The nondegradation requirements are a farce.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MOSS. I am glad to yield for a question.
Mr. MUSKIE. I know the Senator has indicated a desire to continue
the discussion until the Senate turns to another subject. If it would
be helpful to the Senator, it would be helpful to me if I could have
some of the remaining time before 2 o'clock to touch upon some of the
issues which the Senator has raised; but if the Senator would prefer to
use the time himself, I would certainly understand.
Mr. MOSS. I would like to complete some material I have here, but I
would be glad to yield time to the Senator from Maine so that he could
make such statements as he wished to make prior to the hour of 2
o'clock. I would like, of course, to reserve the floor so I could be
assured we would not be pressed to a vote before that time.
Mr. MUSKIE. All right. Then will the Senator yield me 10 minutes?
Mr. MOSS. I am glad to yield 15 minutes, if the Senator would like
it, and I am glad to yield at this time, asking unanimous consent that I
may reserve my right to the floor, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, my intervention at this point is
triggered by two observations which the distinguished Senator from Utah
and the distinguished Senator from Virginia appear to share: One is
that this bill with respect to nondegradation is related to someone's
philosophical notion of what pristine air ought to be.
I have already put in the RECORD a memorandum from the subcommittee
staff to the members of the Environmental Pollution Subcommittee dated
June 26, 1975, which suggests that our approach is almost the direct
opposite of that. For example, under the subject of the concept of
class II, let me read the following:
EPA defined the Class II area specifically to allow development of
"average sized" facilities within the class II region. Class II was not
developed by relating it to any specific ambient air quality, such as
visibility. Class II does not establish a new kind of national ambient
air quality standard, but instead states how much additional pollution
could be added to any area which presently has air cleaner than national
ambient air quality standards. Areas designated as Class II, whether
moderately clean or extremely clean, would be allowed to add the exact
same increment of pollution to whatever existing background levels are
present.
Departing from the memorandum, I would like to emphasize that surely
that is no definition of someone's philosophical view of what the
pristine quality of the air ought to be in the clean air areas of the
country.
Continuing the quotation from the memorandum:(())
EPA examined the average plant being constructed in the industrial
categories most likely to have pollution problems and then projected the
probable air quality impact of construction of such sources using the
best available control technology. The Agency concluded that " . . .
typical coal gasification plants, oil shale processing facilities, and
petroleum refineries would not be expected individually to exceed the
Class II increments in most areas. However, the Class II increments
would prevent the aggregation of such sources within close proximity of
each other.
Well, surely, Mr. President, again departing from the memorandum, a
policy which permits the construction of coal gasification plants, oil
shale processing facilities, and petroleum refineries can hardly be
defined as a policy insisting upon pristine air purity.
Returning to the memorandum:
The same statement holds true for the average sized plants in the
following categories: fossil fuel fired steam electric power units,
municipal incinerators, kraft pulp mills, iron and steel mills, coal
cleaning plants, sulfur recovery plants, lime plants, Portland Cement
plants, phosphate rock processing plants, petroleum refineries, by
product coke oven batteries, sulfuric acid plants, carbon black plants,
primary aluminum plants, primary zinc smelters, primary copper smelters,
fuel conversion plants and primary lead smelters. For many of these
sources, the average sized plant would be substantially lower than the
increment allowed.
Again departing from the memorandum, Mr. President, that is hardly a
definition of a policy that insists upon pristine air purity.
Returning to the memorandum:
The size of the facility or the number of identical facilities
located within a Class II area is limited only by the existing
technology for controlling emissions.
That pinpoints a requirement of the committee bill that new plants
shall be required to use the best available technology that is available
to them for the purpose of controlling their emissions. The Moss
amendment would eliminate that requirement, at the same time that he
urges that we buy some time with his amendment for the purpose of
developing technology. If we are not prepared to use the technology
that is now available, what assurance can we have that any new
technology will be developed, let alone that it will be used, or that
public policy then can be converted to mandate its use when the Moss
study is completed?
Returning to the memorandum.
As that technology increases in sophistication, larger facilities and
facilities spaced in closer proximity would be allowed within the Class
II increment.
Mr. President, I put the rest of that memorandum in the RECORD this
morning. I emphasize the first page in order to respond to the
impression that is being left in the debate this morning that the
nondegradation provisions of the bill are designed to prevent economic
growth. From that portion of the memorandum, which is the philosophical
base of the committee bill, it is clear that that description is a
distortion.
The second point that is being raised is that there are no values
beyond primary and secondary standards that it is in the public interest
to protect.
Let us look at the question of visibility. I know there is a
tendency in some portions of the East where visibility has long since
disappeared as an esthetic value of any consequence to sneer at
visibility as a public interest value that ought to be protected. But I
should think that, if I were a Senator from a State like Utah, New
Mexico, or some other States out there where visibility not only is an
esthetic value, but is an economic value when it is translated to the
numbers of people who move to that area or travel through that area for
the purpose of enjoying its beauty. I would wish to protect that
visibility.
Let us look at visibility.
If the existing particulate background is 10 micrograms per cubic
meter, the existing visibility is 120 kilometers, call it 120 miles. We
can enjoy that kind of visibility in most parts of New Mexico. Having
the Senator from New Mexico on the committee we focused on that. But
with respect to class I, under the Senate bill, the national parks, like
the Glacier National Park out in the Senator's area and some others,
that 120-mile visibility would be reduced to 80 miles.
With respect to class II areas, the increments which the Senator's
amendment is directed against, visibility would be reduced to 60 miles,
and with respect to the House bill, which some people hold up as the
standard, it would be reduced to 25 miles.
I have traveled through some of those great natural parks out there
and, as I recall them, protecting their scenic values, protecting
visibility, is critical to the protection of the area. I mean, if we
want to eliminate natural parks, fine. But if we are going to permit
their air quality to deteriorate to the standard advocated by the
Senator from Utah, a standard which is the minimum value to which we
seek to raise New York City and Los Angeles and Boston, then we are
talking about visibility of 12 miles. I tell Senators I would not visit
Glacier Park and spend a half day there if the visibility in that park
were permitted to be reduced to 12 miles. So there are values.
There is the question of acid rain. Acid rain is one of the great
looming pollution problems of this country, and we have nothing in
public policy at this point to protect us against acid rain. There is
nothing in primary or secondary standards to protect us against acid
rain. And it is clear that some of the devices and some of the
technology that is being advocated by critics of this bill to lower the
economic costs of dealing with pollution would exacerbate acid rain
levels, and what acid rain does to the clean air areas of this country.
Acid rain is transported from public utility crowded cities, and
industry crowded cities -- the areas that are dirty -- to the areas that
are clean. There is nothing in this bill that protects against that
unless it is the margin of safety built into the class II increment. If
we were to substitute for the class II increment the national primary
and secondary standard there would be nothing in this bill to protect
against the risk of acid rain and what it would do to the rural areas of
the country, including my own State of Maine, and I assume some of the
sparsely settled areas of the West.
Mr. President, if I may, at this point, I shall put to the Senate
some questions that I would hope every Senator would consider as he
considers the issue raised by this nondegradation issue.
One, should Congress address the issue of protection of air quality
in clean air areas -- is that any of our business -- either by voiding
EPA's regulations, substituting congressional policy for protection for
clean air areas, or striking the Clean Air Act requirement that air
quality be protected and enhanced?
If we really want to buy time, if we really are uncertain about
whether or not we need to protect clean air areas beyond the primary and
secondary standards, why do we not simply amend the Clean Air Act, by
striking out all provisions for protecting the clean air areas of the
country? That is the first question.
Mr. MCCLURE. The Scott amendment does that.
Mr. MUSKIE. And I gather, if I understand correctly, the Scott
amendment would do that. Why not just strike it out? Let us wait until
the clean air areas are filthy, let us wait until they need the
application of national primary and secondary standards before we worry
about them. Why should we worry about them in advance? Let us strike
all provisions and make the Clean Air Act really comfortable and just
deal with the dirty air areas of the country.
Second, if the decision is that we should write congressional policy,
what should be the basis for that policy? The same policy as for dirty
air areas, that is, allow pollution up to secondary standards, or an
added level of air quality protection designed to maximize options in
clean air areas and to protect values that are not protected by primary
and secondary standards.
Third, if we are to have a congressionally set policy -- should an
individual facility, should one facility, be permitted to use all the
available capacity between background air quality and secondary
standards, or should that capacity be divided among polluters? Should
the maintenance of the secondary standard be an enforceable requirement?
Should this require retrofit of new facilities prior to continuous
operation if the plant causes or contributes to secondary standards
being exceeded? What level of control should a new facility be required
to achieve, or are we going to allow new facilities to proliferate
without limit, without regulation, without standard, until the study is
completed and Congress is able to develop a new policy based upon this
study?
Four, if one facility, as is the case in many parts of the country,
can utilize the entire remaining air resource, should the statute
include a prohibition on any further development which might add to
existing particulate and sulfur dioxide levels? If the committee
decides that growth and air quality require protection beyond the level
provided by secondary standards, what should be required?(()) Should
there be a margin of safety between background air quality and secondary
standards to: First, permit reasonable growth of satellite development
associated with large industrial facilities; and, second, future
demands for new and expanded plant capacity?
Mr. President, those two areas, it seems to me, are emerging from
this debate, the question of: First, whether or not the committee bill
does indeed require the maintenance of pristine air quality in the clean
air areas of the country; and second, whether or not the public
interest requires protection of clean air beyond national primary and
secondary standards. Those are two legitimate issues, and I hope the
Senate will focus on them as the debate progresses.
I thank the Senator from Utah for yielding.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, I am happy to have the Senator from Maine
express his view on the bill that is before us, and I find that I agree
very much with what he has to say.
I certainly do not want to be one who advocates dirty air or who is
opposed to making all progress possible as rapidly as possible for
improvement in cleaning the air.
I am sure that with the impetus there has been behind the Clean Air
Act and its enforcement, the air quality in this country has improved
immensely in the last 4 to 5 years, and I hope it will continue to do
so.
However, my concern is with forcing a situation that goes too rapidly
and where we do not have in hand all the facts. I am convinced, as I am
sure every person in this body must be, that if you put into statutory
language and make it law that certain things must be done and then find
out that the standards have gone too far or they did not take into
account certain conditions, then you have a very difficult situation
with respect to changing it and getting out of there.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a moment?
Mr. MOSS. I yield.
I have seen that chart and I was in effect referring to that.
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me explain what it is.
This chart is written on a 1975 base that tells us where we are. It
deals with two pollutants, one of which is sulfur oxide, which is one of
the two pollutants covered by the nondegradation provisions. There are
sulfur oxides and particulates.
At the present time, we are emitting 34.3 million tons of sulfur
oxide into the air of this country. If we were to project high growth
at 6.1 percent and apply nothing more than the inadequate new source
performance standards to new plants and equipment, which are below the
requirements of nondegradation, by 1990 we would add 7 million tons of
sulfur oxides per year to the atmosphere, on top of the 34.3 million
emitted in 1975.
If we were to project moderate 4.8 percent annual growth, we would
add 5 million tons more of sulfur oxides by 1990 than we do now, using
new source performance standards.
If we are to use best available control technology, as the committee
nondegradation provisions require, and project the same high 6.1 percent
annual growth, by 1990 we would add 3.8 million tons per year of sulfur
oxides to the atmosphere. We would add that much using stringent
enforcement of what the Senate bill requires. In other words, this is
not rolling back pollution. This is rolling back the increase in
pollution.
If we were to project moderate 4.8 percent annual growth -- and we
would hope to do better if we are dealing with the requirements of this
country, and rigidly enforce the provisions of the committee's bill --
we would still add, by 1990, 2.8 million tons of sulfur oxides per year.
With respect to nitrogen oxides, which is not related to
nondegradation -- but inasmuch as I have the chart out, I might as well
complete the description of it -- this also is a 1975 base. At the
present time, we are emitting 24 million tons of nitrogen oxides into
the atmosphere.
If we were to require the 2 grams per mile NO(x) standard of the auto
industry as proposed by the administration, by 1990 we would add 22
million tons of nitrogen oxide per year. The base is 24 million tons,
as the Senator can see.
If we were to use the accelerated new source performance standards,
for industrial facilities, and the committee's 1 gram per mile NO(x)
standard, that would still add about 9 million tons of nitrogen oxides
per year by 1990.
What we are saying with both charts is that this committee bill does
not roll back pollution with respect to either of these, which are two
of the serious pollutants. All it does is slow down the increase in our
discharge of these pollutants into the atmosphere, and the Senate should
understand that. We are not talking about rolling it back.
Mr. MCCLURE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MOSS. I yield.
Mr. MCCLURE. I want to add to what the Senator from Maine is saying.
With respect to nitrogen oxides, that is a combination on the chart, a
combination of stationary sources and autos.
Mr. MUSKIE. Exactly.
Mr. MCCLURE. There are varying strategies on both.
Mr. MUSKIE. But the sulfur oxide is the most important.
I will get to the other chart because I think the Senator from Utah
would like to see it.
There has been a lot of talk about the cost of dealing with air
pollution. Here is the projected cost for electric utilities. All of
us have seen the television advertisements, we have heard the radio
advertisements and seen the newspaper advertisements of the electric
utilities and their complaint about the cost. This is the projected
cost, $4.8 million over the next 10 years for utilities. That is the
additional cost to capital investment that they are already planning.
This is the capital planning they are already planning, which is about
$180 million. This takes them up to $212 million which is about 4.8
percent. They say that is too much.
The steel mills are a little higher. They have a more complicated
problem. This is their projected capital investments pollution
requirements would add 12.5 percent; with respect to petroleum
refineries, an additional 5.7 percent; with respect to pump mills, 9.3
percent.
There are some who say that even 5.7 percent is too much. They will
have to make their own case, but this put the additional cost in
perspective. The source of these figures is EPA's Office of Planning
and Evaluation.
There are some other charts we shall put up here tomorrow that will,
we hope, put this all in perspective. I thought these might help.
Mr. MOSS. I thank the Senator from Maine. The last chart that we
looked at does have some of the features that we shall want to get from
the study; that is, how much more is it going to cost to meet certain
standards and will that make certain industries unavailable to certain
areas? We want to know what the health factor will be, whether that
amount of pollution will have any impact on the health and welfare of
people. We even want to know visibility, which the Senator was talking
about earlier.
I also observe that the first chart that was up there indicates to me
one of the fallacies of the provisions of the bill. It tells us that we
are getting 34 million tons in the air now and that might to up to 8 or
7 or some other number of tons. That sounds awfully bad just to talk
about it in the abstract. We think about, my goodness, 34 millions tons
over this country. We are talking about SO(2). Well, we have to pin it
down into what that does and where it is concentrated.
Mr. MUSKIE. I say to the Senator, if this does not do anything, let
us repeal the Clean Air Act. It is this kind of thing that we have been
writing environmental legislation for: because people have been dying;
because buildings have been damaged; because plant life has been
destroyed; because agricultural crops are being destroyed. That is
what it is doing. This represents a growth in that damage.
Mr. MOSS. That is exactly what we want to know. We want it down to
specifics so we can look at it and say, this is going to be the effect.
When we know that, then we can make a decision as to whether or not we
want to legislate in that particular area.
I point out that, under the bill, EPA is also authorized to intervene
in State decisions regarding permit issuance. Although the States are
to determine what constitutes "best available control technology" on a
case-by-case basis, taking into account energy, environmental, and
economic impacts and other costs, the Administrator can contest such
State determination in court. Every State action on area
classifications and permits would be part of the State implementation
plan and subject to EPA review and approval. I fail to see how the
committee bill is less restrictive of State prerogatives than existing
EPA regulations.(())
Mr. STONE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MOSS. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Florida.
Mr. STONE. Will the Senator from Utah say whether the section 6
implementation has been reduced to map form? In other words, is there a
map which would show the specific air shed areas to which the
nondeterioration would apply and to what extent?
Mr. MOSS. Yes, there has been a map with overlays pointing out the
various impacted areas. I intend to use that when my amendment comes up
tomorrow. It is rather unexpected that we are here now, so I have not
reached that. I do hope that we will have a good attendance in the
Senate, because I think it will be very shocking to the Senators to see
what is left in white after we take out the areas which, by EPA
standards, existing standards and those that will be provided in section
6, will, for one reason or another, not be available for any additional
nondeterioration.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MOSS. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Is that the so-called buffer zone map?
Mr. MOSS. No, it is not the buffer zone map. Buffer zones are on
one of the overlays.
Mr. MUSKIE. Anything that presumes to portray this bill as a buffer
zone bill is a complete distortion.
Mr. MOSS. I shall deal with that.
Mr. MUSKIE. I say that in advance, because I have looked at those
buffer zone maps since last July. They are complete distortions. They
can only be described as a lie as applied to this bill. If that is the
display that is to be prepared tomorrow, we are indeed going to have an
interesting debate.
Mr. MOSS. Well, the Senator will see and he will like it.
Mr. STONE. Will the Senator from Utah allow the Senator from Florida
to inquire briefly, along the same line of the Senator from Maine,
without losing his right to the floor?
Mr. MOSS. Surely; I yield for that purpose.
Mr. STONE. Is there a map that the committee or its staff certifies
as being accurate or correct which does show the breakdown of the
airshed implementation of section 6?
Mr. MUSKIE. There is no way of writing such a map for a very simple
reason. I say to the Senator, I am glad to have the opportunity to give
the answer.
First, only mandatory Class I areas can be mapped. They are less
than 1 percent of the land area of this country.
With respect to the intrusion problem, which has only to do with the
extent to which industrial or other similar facilities outside the class
I areas may intrude upon the clean air values of class I areas -- which
are national parks and wilderness areas -- the extent to which that
intrusion will be permitted or monitored is done on an ad hoc
case-by-case basis by the States, with the States having the veto power.
In other words, the Federal land manager has the responsibility to
protect his area's clean air values. If he feels that requires that he
intervene in a State decision or State proceeding to set air pollution
standards for adjoining land over which the State has jurisdiction, then
he has the obligation under the bill to intervene and to make the case
that his area's clean air values are in jeopardy if the pollutant
permitted by the State decision goes forward. But the State makes the
decision as to whether or not he is right. The State has the option
under this bill to decide that he is wrong and to proceed with its
decision. There is no way of anticipating, by any kind of map, what
kinds of pollution issues will be raised around these Federal areas or
what decision States will make with respect to them. So there is
absolutely no way of mapping, any more than it is possible to map the
Supreme Court's decisions for the next year.
Mr. STONE. Will the Senator from Maine further yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Of course.
Mr. MCCLURE. Will the Senator yield so I may add one thing to the
statement the Senator has made?
Mr. STONE. With the same agreement with the Senator from Utah, yes.
Mr. MOSS. I yield.
Mr. MCCLURE. I want to mention one additional element: When the
Federal land manager makes the decision to intervene in the state
decisionmaking process, it is with regard to only one thing; that is
the air quality-related values for which the Class I area was created as
a Federal area.
Mr. MUSKIE. Exactly.
Mr. MOSS. That is without further definition than just those words,
"air quality-related values."
Mr. STONE. The Senator from Florida is a little troubled by the lack
of predictability of mapping, as it were, of the airshed areas to be
affected by section 6 nondeterioration restrictions.
The Senator from Florida wants some additional protection over and
above what the current statutes provide. He wants, in the words of the
Senator from Maine, further protection.
Mr. MUSKIE. This bill provides less protection than current law.
This bill provides less protection, let me repeat, than current law.
Mr. STONE. Then the Senator from Florida is reinforced in his
cosponsorship of the Moss amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. Which provides even less protection.
Mr. STONE. Which would require a study for a year to find out what
is the appropriate further protection to additionally protect the
airshed areas impacting on these class I areas. But the Senator from
Maine says at this stage of the proceeding there are no maps that could
be advanced as the impact maps, as it were; is that not correct?
Mr. MUSKIE. May I say to the Senator, we have tried, and I am sure
the Senator will try before his terms in the Senate have expired, to
find a way to apply national solutions across the vast diverse regions
of this country so that they impact exactly equally upon conditions that
are exactly the same. I mean, we have tried it.
Mr. STONE. That is our goal, is it not?
Mr. MUSKIE. We tried it with transportation goals in the 1970 law,
and we had a virtual revolution across this country from those areas
which were asked to do more than they felt they reasonably could as a
result of the application of national standards.
The same thing is true in a lesser degree with respect to automobile
standards.
Now you have more and more States coming in and saying, "Well, we
need a special law." So all of the pressure is the reverse of what the
Senator is talking about. They want to fractionalize and fragment this
business. The Senator from Virginia wants each State to set its own
standards. Well, why did we get into national standards in the first
place? Because of competitive disadvantage.
Mr. STONE. If the Senator will yield, Mr. President --
Mr. MUSKIE. So there is no way, may I say to the Senator, and I say
it with all sense of realism, there is no sense of writing a map of the
kind of things the Senator is talking about. Does the Senator think he
is going to get a map out of the Moss study? The only kind of map you
can conceivably get out of that is a map that imposes no air quality
standards upon clean air. If you want something that adjusts to the
requirements of individual areas this committee bill does because it
gives you an increment that adds to whatever the air quality presently
is in an area.
It does not impose a uniform ceiling at all. That is what you want.
I can hear myself listening to the Senator from Florida in a year or two
saying, "Senator, don't you know better than to tie that kind of a
handcuff on every area of the country, whatever its differing
circumstances?"
I mean, you have to choose a course somewhere in between.
Mr. STONE. The Senator is quite correct, and that is why the Senator
from Florida does not intend to support the amendment of the Senator
from Virginia (Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT). But the Senator from Florida
would like to have some kind of a forecast of the impact, and the
Senator from Florida did not ask for an absolutely equal impact all
across the board, all across the country, as the Senator from Maine was
talking about in his transportation studies and other studies.
MR. McCLURE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield, because I think
he addressed himself to the very crux of the argument on the Moss
amendment.
If the Senator from Florida believes we are going to get more
predictability under the Moss amendment than under the committee bill, I
think he is sadly mistaken. If the Senator thinks he is more apt to get
a map under the EPA regulations than under the committee amendment, I
think the Senator is sadly mistaken. The uncertainty of the incremental
additions and the uncertainty of the kind of map the Senator is talking
about is at least as great and, in my judgment, greater under existing
law and existing(()) regulations that it is under the committee measure.
If you adopt the Moss amendment you are back to the existing law and
existing regulations which will impose a greater uncertainty than the
committee measure with which we are dealing, and you would have gone in
exactly the opposite direction that you say you wish to progress.
Mr. STONE. The Senator from Florida fails to accept and understand
that you will get less certainty and less knowledge out of a study than
without a study.
Mr. MCCLURE. That is not the question. The question is do you
progress under the existing law and the EPA regulations that are
implementing that law, with all of those uncertainties, which I agree
are great, or do you progress under the uncertainties of the committee
bill which, I believe, are less onerous than those of the existing law.
The study only kind of tries to set after a year's time how bad is
the situation under the existing law. The amendment of the Senator from
Utah only gives us that information after the fact, tells us how bad it
has been for the year which we have been studying and living under the
current uncertainty.
Mr. MOSS. I think quite to the contrary. What the Senator from
Utah's amendment attempts to do is to say, "Hold where we are now on air
standards, study it for a year, come back with all the data we need to
tell us what it is going to be and then decide whether we want to take
on this second uncertainty," which the Senator from Idaho referred to.
Mr. President, I only have a very few moments.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield 30 seconds?
Mr. MOSS. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I say to the Senator from Florida I have found
around here that when we are dealing with formulas of distribution to
several States you had better have a formula which benefits the majority
of the States or you are not going to get a favorable vote. I can see
the map that the Senator from Florida envisages, and I can see a map
that imposes more stringent requirements on a majority of the States
than the law in force, whatever it is, and I can see the Senate amending
the map to insure that a majority of the areas represented by the
Members of this body have lesser and not tougher requirements to meet.
Mr. STONE. The Senator from Florida would not be voting for less, he
would be voting for more.
Mr. MUSKIE. But a majority of your colleagues would not.
Mr. STONE. That may be, but the Senator from Florida can only cast
his own vote. The Senator from Florida is seeking the kind of knowledge
of impact on the environment that will allow a wise move, something that
will balance the loss of production, the loss of investment, the loss of
jobs, with an enhancement of the air quality on an acceptable balanced
basis, and the amendment of the Senator from Utah requires just such a
study that will allow an intelligent vote 1 year hence rather than an
assuming vote at this stage.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I say to the Senator I have been reading this
material, studying it --
Mr. MOSS. I have now yielded about 30 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. For 13 years.
I would say to the Senator from Florida I doubt that he will have the
kind of certainty at the end of 1 year that he is asking for.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, do I have the floor? I would like to claim
the floor. I have been cut off for about 30 minutes. I was just trying
to wind up my statement.
I appreciate the help of the Senator from Florida and the Senator
from Maine.
Proponents of nondeterioration cite studies showing that growth would
not be impeded under a policy of nondeterioration. They say that by
applying modern pollution technology, virtually every size and type of
industrial source may be constructed, under the provisions of S. 3219.
I disagree. First of all, there are at least as many studies concluding
that growth would be restricted. It should be obvious to those of us
familiar with the clean air issue, that growth will be limited even if
the policy of nondeterioration were not enacted or implemented. In many
areas of the United States -- in fact, in areas where most of our
industry is located and where most of our citizens live -- the ambient
primary and secondary standards have already been exceeded. The
pollution levels set by these standards are the absolute limit in areas
with superior air quality, and are the defined goals in areas where
pollution exceeds the standards. If ambient standards are already
exceeded in many areas, a strict tightening of these standards in clean
air areas can only further impede the construction of new facilities.
It is time we stopped trying to fool each other about issues
involving the catch words "clean" and "environment." I am not prepared
to tell you that the existing national ambient standards are adequate to
protect every living person or thing in the United States. It is
obvious that breathing anything short of air "pure as the driven snow"
will not, under normal circumstances, enhance human health. We all
recognize that any air pollutants could have adverse health effects over
some period of time, on some individuals. This is no startling
revelation.
Having recognized this fact, our job in setting national policy is to
determine at what level, under existing technology and economic
circumstances, we will accept less than pure air in order to balance
this important objective against the equally important objectives of
fostering a healthy economy, a healthy domestic energy industry, and a
healthy job market.
Air, after all, is a natural resource and must be conserved as such.
On the other hand, it must also be utilized for man's ultimate benefit.
This includes the use of air to produce energy necessary for our
domestic well-being.
Now, I am not philosophically opposed to the idea of
nondeterioration. Neither am I prepared to say that what is good for
industry is good for America. However, anti-industry measures are not
necessarily pro-environment either. Until we know the facts,
precipitous action is foolish and unwarranted.
Let us insure that in our enthusiasm to make our environment as
acceptable as possible that we do not start a chain reaction of two
steps forward for air, and three steps backward for our total
environment. We must remember that it has been man's ability to alter
this environment through industrial development that enables this planet
to support upwards of 4 billion people. For too many of these people,
change in the environment which expedites the exploitation of Earth's
resources, including air, could not come soon enough. I think we have
learned the hard lessons of the past that we cannot act irresponsibly in
using our environment. But we cannot stop using our environment,
either.
Proponents of nondeterioration continually cite language contained in
previous enactments of the Congress as the original basis for the
concept of nondeterioration. Even if we accepted this history as
accurate, let us not forget that our responsibility is to examine,
define, and where appropriate, enact public policy for the benefit of
our citizens in 1976 and hereafter; not to let ancient history, whether
legislative or otherwise, dictate our course. I doubt that there is a
Member of this body in office in 1970, who realized that the policy of
nondeterioration was embodied in the Clean Air Act that we then voted
on.
We must recognize that air is a renewable resource. It does cleanse
itself when pollution levels decrease. Pollution levels have been
decreasing in many areas in recent years largely because of the existing
act. Contrary to the impression advanced by proponents of
nondeterioration, the skies over the national parks and wilderness areas
are not going to turn black, with helpless animals choking from
pollution, if we implement a comprehensive and necessary 1-year study by
deleting nondeterioration from this bill. We should consider it again
with facts in hand.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, at this point in the debate I want to
comment briefly on the budgetary impact of S. 3219, the clean air
amendments.
The bill is an authorization bill and, as such, does not provide
budget authority. Actual funding is done through the appropriations
process. In the past the Committee on Appropriations has not provided
funds for the clean air program at the levels authorized by the bills we
have enacted over the past few years. While I understand the need for
restraint exercised by the Appropriations Committee, I believe that as a
nation we cannot afford to underfund our environmental programs. Clean
air, clean water and a healthy environment in general cannot be achieved
without committing an adequate level of funds.
The clean air amendments, as reported by the Committee on Public
Works authorizes $867 million for clean air programs(()) over a period
of 3 fiscal years plus the transition quarter. For fiscal 1977 the bill
authorizes $292 million. Were the bill to be fully funded, outlays in
fiscal year 1977 are estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to be
$256 million.
Actual budget authority and outlays in 1977 for clean air are likely
to be considerably less than this amount as the Senate has already acted
upon the HUD-independent agencies appropriation bill that funds the
clean air program. This bill provided $147 million in budget authority
for the program, about one-half of the amount authorized in S. 3219 for
clean air in fiscal 1977. At this level, outlays would be approximately
$156 million.
How that funding for the clean air programs measures up to the budget
resolution can best be determined by looking at the Appropriations
Committee's allocation to the HUD-Independent Agencies Subcommittee.
The subcommittee's allocation, when adjusted for the subcommittee's
action on the FHA fund, to $52.8 billion on budget authority and $36.8
billion in outlays. The HUD-independent agencies appropriation bill, as
passed by the Senate, provided $43.3 billion in budget authority with
resulting outlays estimated to be $34.6 billion, thus there is $9.5
billion in budget authority and $2.2 billion in outlays remaining for
possible supplementals. These amounts would be available -- if Congress
saw fit -- for additional expenditures in veterans' benefits, housing
programs, science and space programs, and environmental programs such as
clean air, which are under the jurisdiction of the HUD-Independent
Agencies Subcommittee.
Given the amount of these remaining funds, it is fair to conclude
that S. 3219, as it is being funded in the regular appropriation bill
and even if it were fully funded, would be consistent with the budget
resolution.
Lest anyone think, however, that this remaining $9.5 billion in
budget authority and $2.2 billion in outlays constitutes an open fund
from which many new expensive projects can be paid for, let me point out
to the Members -- as I did when the Senate passed the HUD appropriations
bill -- that several possible supplementals may use up much of the
remaining funds.
Our latest calculations indicate that several supplementals for
veterans programs plus funds for EPA construction grants may use up $6.9
billion in budget authority and $1.9 billion in outlays of these
remaining funds. I would also point out that we are not yet even into
fiscal year 1977 and further unexpected demands could easily arise, so
by no means do we have a windfall.
In the coming months ahead we must be sure to watch closely how any
remaining funds are utilized. In cooperation with the Committee on
Appropriations, the Budget Committee intends to review carefully the
many supplemental requests for appropriations to make that the Senate's
spending decisions are consistent with the budget resolution.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, in yesterday's RECORD, page S12492,
tables D1 and D2, on total annual auto emission -- exhibit 4 of my
statement -- were printed incorrectly. I ask unanimous consent that the
correct version be printed in the RECORD today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
References: Adapted from "Air Quality and Automobile Emission
Control", vol. 4, "The Costs and Benefits of Automobile Emission
Control", pp. 82-83. A report by the National Academy of Sciences for
the Senate Public Works Committee, committee print, 1974.
Mr. MCCLURE. Mr. President, the definition of a major emitter is an
important aspect of the no significant deterioration policy contained in
the bill before us. The bill language states that the source must meet
two criteria; the source must be among the 28 identified categories of
facilities, and must also have the potential to emit over 100 tons per
year. The bill language also gives the Administrator of EPA the
authority to add categories to the 28 listed. It is important that we
establish guidance for the use of this authority.
It is my understanding that this authority should be used cautiously
and only after careful analysis indicates that a category of sources
clearly presents a significant problem requiring the application of the
requirements and procedures that are a part of the conditions major
emitters must meet prior to approval for construction of the source. Is
that the same understanding reached by the floor manager of the bill?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes. This authority is neither a permissive license to
add extensively to the committee's list nor an ironclad definition of
sources forever frozen in print. The committee selected 28 categories
from a list of 190 compiled by the stationary source program within the
Environmental Protection Agency. The fact that the committee selected
less than one-sixth of the sources on that list indicates that the
committee was selective about the types of facilities that it feels are
necessary to be reviewed in order to prevent the significant
deterioration of air quality in clean air areas. The 28 categories also
indicates that the committee felt that some categories should be added
to the rather narrow list which EPA presently uses under its present
nondegradation regulations.
EPA's present regulations require review of only 19 categories of
major emitters. The Committee made substantial additions to this list,
feeling that many sources had been ignored by EPA which had the
potential of having significant impact on air quality. The EPA will
need
The EPA will need to chart a middle course in this area. Any
additions to the list of 28 must be based on careful analysis. Yet the
agency has a direct responsibility to protect air quality in clean air
areas, and can only fulfill that responsibility if sources that create
pollution problems are adequately reviewed and controlled prior to their
construction.
Mr. MCCLURE. I have some concern that EPA might not exercise
adequate restraint in selecting new categories to be added to this list
of 28.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is a legitimate concern, and one that I believe has
received instruction in the committee report but could benefit from
further guidance at this time. The EPA has obviously shown restraint in
this area already -- in fact more restraint than the committee felt was
proper to protect air quality in clean air areas. The Agency made its
own review and determination when it published its regulations December
5, 1974, and in those regulations only covered 19 sources. That was
clearly an act of restraint rather than an act of agressive
over-control. We would expect and instruct the Agency to continue to
exercise care in any additions made to this list.
To be more specific, the Agency should apply this authority to two
particular cases: First. In the first case, new processes may be
developed which are unknown to us at this date but which will create new
activities that bring potential for significant adverse effect on air
quality. We can only assume the development of such technologies or
such activities, and it is essential that the Agency have the authority
to place such activities on the list as they are developed and as
control is justified, Second. In the second case, there may be existing
processes or activities that are found, through subsequent analysis or
through existing information that was not known to the committee at the
time of its decision, that do in fact create significant problems for
the prevention of significant deterioration. It may be that such
sources are existing processes that for some reason have an accelerating
rate of growth that is more substantial than other kinds of sources. Or
it may be that their emissions are more troublesome than early analyses
had indicated.
In any event, we would expect the Environmental Protection Agency to
examine all of these factors carefully, prior to any additions to the
list.
Mr. MCCLURE. It is certainly not my intent to indicate that sources
that clearly need to be added to the list be somehow kept from that
list. But I did feel it was necessary to also insure that the
discretionary authority provided to EPA in this language is used
carefully and selectively by the Agency.
Mr. MUSKIE. I appreciate the Senator's intentions and I believe his
discussion(()) here has helped to provide a useful guideline for the
Agency in implementing this authority. I thank the Senator from Idaho
for raising this issue.
Mr. CULVER. Mr. President, this week the Senate begins its
consideration of S. 3219, a bill to amend the Clean Air Act of 1970.
The amendments by the Senate Public Works Committee are the product of
very extensive and serious analysis of our Nation's efforts to enhance
and maintain air quality. We have learned much during the last 6 years
about the need for clean air and what must be done to achieve that
objective, and that experience has demonstrated that certain mid-course
corrections are in order. Though there are sections of the present bill
which I opposed in the committee, I believe we have developed, under the
leadership of the chairman of the full Public Works Committee and the
chairman of the Environmental Pollution Subcommittee, an extension of
the Clean Air Act which makes the program more flexible as well as more
responsive to both long-term environmental and economic considerations.
These changes to the 1970 Clean Air Act must not be misread as a
relaxation of our commitment to improving air quality. Although the
committee recognized the need to balance our environmental goals with
the requirements of orderly social and economic growth, it has not
altered its conviction that the basic assumptions of the Clean Air Act
-- the protection of public health and welfare from adverse effects of
dirty air -- are as worthwhile and important today as they were when we
first embarked on an effective program to reduce air pollution. From an
examination of the progress and problems of the last six years, it is
apparent that dirty air remains a major problem.
One of the noteworthy developments over the last few years is a
greater understanding of the economic impact of our environmental
controls. Contrary to the early claims that clean air and clean water
legislation would force rampant plant closings and unemployment, the
Council on Environmental Quality -- CEQ -- recently indicated that plant
closings and job losses resulting from environmental laws have not been
significant. As a matter of fact, these laws have generated economic
activity and employment. Earlier this year CEQ released a report
stating that 1975 expenditures by both the public and private sectors
for pollution control would amount to $15.7 billion, and that each
billion dollars would generate 66,900 jobs. Since 1971, there have been
only 75 plant closings partly attributable to environmental regulations,
resulting in a loss of only 15,700 jobs; and many of these plants were
being phased out anyway. The Iowa Department of Environmental Quality
has estimated that 30,000 jobs have been generated in Iowa alone by our
environmental standards. These figures show that we do not necessarily
have to sacrifice decent environmental protection at the expense of
economic well-being.
Last fall Russell Train, Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency -- EPA -- reported that smog from our Nation's
downtowns and urban areas is sweeping into rural areas many miles away;
and the National Academy of Sciences -- NAS -- has reported to the
committee that emissions are being transported 300 miles downwind. I
believe events in Iowa last summer clearly demonstrate the widespread
problem of air pollution and substantiate that air pollution is no
longer a uniquely urban affliction. During the months of July and
August, the Iowa Department of Environmental Quality issued Iowa's first
statewide pollution alert. As a result of the high pollution levels
last summer, people with heart conditions and respiratory problems were
encouraged to stay indoors; and many people in Iowa experienced
coughing and eye irritations. Consequently, several manufacturing
plants reduced emissions, and utilities began cutting back on the use of
pollution-producing fuels.
Testimony before the Environmental Pollution Subcommittee last year
repeatedly suggested that the effect of air pollution on public health
is very dangerous, and that there is no scientific basis to justify the
relaxation of the present national standards. Most recently, the
National Cancer Institute has estimated that 60 to 90 percent of all
human cancers in this country are caused by environmental impurities.
Several studies have reported that the margins of safety for the
standards are quite modest; and, as a matter of fact, the National
Academy of Sciences has recommended the adoption of a short-term
standard for nitrogen dioxide to supplement the present standard during
peak periods. There is growing evidence that low-level concentrations
-- those below the national secondary and primary standards -- have
serious adverse health and welfare effects.
Of particular interest to many individuals is the nondegradation
provision which protects air cleaner than the national standards. In
addition to the adverse health and welfare effects of low-level
concentrations of emissions, which I have briefly mentioned, there are
several other important reasons for supporting a sound policy of
non-degradation. There is a need for the Federal Government to protect
the pristine air quality in such areas of national environmental
importance as national parks and wilderness areas; and, moreover, since
the present regulations were formulated by EPA as a result of judicial
interpretation, it is essential for Congress to determine a flexible and
reasonable plan for preventing significant deterioration. These factors
have been clarified in a recent telegram from Governor Robert D. Ray of
Iowa, acting as Chairman of the National Governors' Conference, to the
Chairman of the Public Works Committee, and in a recent editorial from
the Des Moines Register. I believe this material is worthwhile, and I
ask unanimous consent to include it in the RECORD.
Mr. President, considerable thought and analysis have been devoted by
the members of the Public Works Committee to achieving an effective
extension of the Clean Air Act of 1970. The bill before us today
enhances in many instances our efforts to improve air quality, and I
believe it deserves our full support.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the RECORD, as follows:
Should clean air be allowed to deteriorate, or should it be
preserved?
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wants to insure that
regions with unpolluted air stay that way by making utilities in such
areas use the most advanced pollution control technology. However, the
Senate Public Works Committee has voted to require the EPA to consider
the economic impact of anti-pollution controls in deciding whether a new
power plant must install equipment to clean up the smoke from its
stacks. Under the proposal, if stack scrubbers prove too expensive,
they would not be required.
Environmentalists fear the amendment may ease the way for
construction of the giant Kaiparowits powerplant in scenic southern
Utah. The site is fewer than 100 miles from some of America's most
beautiful natural areas, including the Grand Canyon. Plans are afoot to
build six more coal-powered generating plants in the same region if
Kaiparowits is approved.
The Senate committee's vote is symptomatic of an inclination to
weaken the Clean Air Act. A House committee also is considering changes
in the act. "Clean air had sounded like a great idea (in 1970)," wrote
Karen Elliott House in a recent Wall Street Journal, "but the
inconveniences required to achieve it sounded horrible."
More horrible is the prospect of huge power plants pouring dirty
smoke into one of the most nearly pristine regions of the country.
It makes sense to insist on stringent standards in clean-air areas to
maintain purity instead of having to restore air quality later. The
Environmental Protection (not Correction) Agency should not be hamstrung
in keeping air-quality levels high.
With regard to the non-significant deterioration of air quality as
related to the Clean Air Act amendments, I would like to advise that the
policy of the National Governors' Conference (NGC) calls for a decision
by Congress to allow each state maximum flexibility to incorporate local
values in its decision making. An amendment to be offered by Senator
Moss to S. 3219 would put off Congressional action on this issue. 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 orderly 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.
No action by the Senate should allow the state decision making authority
to be abrogated. Such action would represent a severe setback to our
efforts to formulate a reasonable national policy on prevention of
significant deterioration of air quality. We are concerned that the
Moss Amendment will provide an obstacle to this goal.
Mr. BUCKLEY. Some of the comments this afternoon have indicated that
the committee's version of the provision to prevent significant
protection would(()) regulate cars or the construction of homes or
agricultural production. This, I fear, is based on some of the
misstatements that have been made about the committee bill. Earlier
this year I made a brief analysis of some of the statements and
misstatements on significant deterioration.
I ask unanimous consent that the analysis be printed at this point in
the RECORD.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the RECORD, as follows:
The Senate will soon consider S. 3219, the Clean Air Amendments of
1976. During that debate, the major issue will probably involve the
provisions of Section 6, the language that defines the existing
requirement that clean air areas be protected against deterioration.
In preparation for that debate, I have read some of the analyses of
the bill that have been sent to the Congress. If one is to rely on
these assessments, our bill sounds exceeding ominous; a source of
economic stagnation and paralysis to growth. Such an assessment is
wrong. It is wrong because the analyses of our bill are based on
misconceptions and misstatements.
There is value in examining some of these statements, to compare them
with the realities of S. 3219. One of the most startling publications
is a broadsheet that carries no identification, but which has been
circulated by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. This statement appears
among its specific declarations:
"Consulting geologists at Kent State University studied the impact of
significant deterioration regulations on the 11 States where major
portions of the nation's coal, oil shale and uranium are found.
"They concluded that:
"(1) New processing of approximately 90 percent of Kentucky's coal
reserves could be prohibited;
"(2) West Virginia could suffer inhibitions affecting more than 86
percent of its coal areas. +++ "
This is a startling assertion, one deserving careful attention. Such
attention shows that assertion bears no relation to the requirements of
S. 3219.
This quoted statement is based on a study by Dr. John Anderson, made
under contract for the American Petroleum Institute. Dr. Anderson, a
geologist who holds the title of full professor at Kent State
University, conducted his study based on 1974 regulations issued by the
EPA. It was not based on the bill as reported by the Committee on
Public Works. Its assumptions vary sharply from the requirements that
are contained in S. 3219.
The Anderson approach was clear cut; it drew arbitrary, 50-mile
buffer zones around nearly all Federal property: national parks,
national monuments, national forests, and so on. It concluded that no
energy development could take place inside any such zone. Because
Kentucky and West Virginia and adjoining states contain extensive
national forest areas, the Chamber's document concluded that these coal
reserves are untouchable.
But as I indicated, this conclusion bears no relationship whatsoever
to the provisions of the bill that is before the Senate. Mining is not
even one of the specific industrial categories listed in the bill for
coverage by state significant deterioration permit review.
In addition, only national parks and national wilderness areas are
included in the Senate bill in the category relating to the Anderson
study. Third, the Senate bill establishes no arbitrary buffer zones,
but creates a mechanism for case-by-case review by the State of a
proposed source's effect on the air quality values of the national park
or the national wilderness areas.
Thus, S. 3219 will have no adverse impact on coal extraction in West
Virginia, Kentucky, or elsewhere.
Mr. President, the critics of this bill have taken research that may
-- I repeat, may -- be valid in interpreting present EPA regulations,
and used it for a specious attack on the Senate bill. That is wrong,
and I believe it should be so recognized.
In a quick check, I have found numerous statements and erroneous
assertions that are being circulated by industry in an effort to
undermine the Committee's bill. I have put together a number of these
points that I hope will help to clarify this issue for my colleague.
Assertion: The Committee's bill goes considerably beyond existing
law.
Fact: The requirement to "protect" existing levels of clean air has
been law since 1967. This bill refines that requirement more precisely,
replacing existing EPA regulations with a defined Congressional policy.
Assertion: Class I areas will be off-limits to construction of
major, new polluting sources.
Fact: That is correct. But since Class I areas are national park
and national wilderness areas, logic and existing national park and
wilderness legislation preclude development inside those areas of steel
mills or refineries, the types of industry covered by the significant
deterioration provision.
Assertion: The significant deterioration provision will have a more
severe impact on some States than on others.
Fact: Just the opposite is true. By setting a single standard for
determining significant deterioration, the bill equalizes the impacts as
much as possible. Certainly this is true in comparison to the more
rigid, three-tiered scheme in the EPA regulations, which industry now
appears to favor.
Assertion: "The mandatory establishment of Class I zones will
drastically limit, if not prohibit, the siting of large fossil-fuel
electrical generating facilities in California." (Pacific Gas and
Electric Co.). That company has circulated maps showing "how little of
the State (of California) remains for development," based on 50-mile
buffer zones around "California's national forests and national
monuments." "These buffer zones, within which major sources will also be
prohibited, can extend 150 miles." (Pacific Gas and Electric).
Fact: National forests and monuments do not receive Class I review
unless the State and the Federal Land Manager agree to provide Class I
designation for specified areas. Each plant-location decision will be
made under the Senate bill after a case-by-case analysis on the air
quality values for which a particular national park or wilderness is
operated.
Assertion: Assateague Island National Seashore would be established
as a Class I area and there would be a 55-mile buffer zone around the
seashore "within which any industrial, commercial or residential
development would be strictly limited." (Delmarva Power).
Fact: Any designation of a national seashore as a Class I area would
be made jointly by the State and the Federal Land Manager; it is not
mandated by the Senate bill. Each major facility proposal would be
reviewed separately on the basis of air quality values; there would be
no reference to a buffer zone. The provisions for analyzing significant
deterioration involve only "specified types of major new industrial
sources; they have no impact whatsoever on commercial or residential
development.
Assertion: "No new construction of a major facility may be begun in
an area with air better than the Federal Standards without an EPA
permit." (Deere and Company). The provisions on significant
deterioration give "a single appointed official in Washington, D.C., the
final say-so on how states and their citizens can use public and private
lands." (Chamber of Commerce).
Fact: The Senate bill augments reliance on state authority. The
bill requires a state permit, not an EPA permit. It is the present EPA
regulations that could be construed as increasing reliance in
Washington.
Assertion: In discussion expansion, a hypothetic plant might take up
"65 percent of the allowable pollutant increment established by the
Senate bill. But if, several years after our construction program is
underway, significant construction is begun by several other employers
or by a municipality in the same or nearby cities which uses up the
remainder of our allowable increment (and this appears quite likely), we
would simply have to stop building." (Deere and Company).
Fact: This is false. The Senate bill creates a pre-construction
review process. Once the state agrees to permit construction of a
facility, this legislation imposes no restrictions that could halt
construction, unless the source violates the terms of the permit itself.
Assertion: "The technology necessary to determine with reasonable
precision whether the proposed allowable non-deterioration increments
are met is not presently available." (Deere and Company).
Fact: Prevention of significant deterioration involves a
permit-review process, based upon fully available measurement and
modeling techniques to determine the dispersion of anticipated levels of
pollutants.
Assertion: This bill requires industry to study the air-pollution
effects of a proposed plant.
Fact: That is correct. Existing law requires such examination in
relation to the EPA regulations and through State implementation plans
relating to ambient standards. It is prudent policy that the owner of
any proposed major new industrial source -- a steel plant or a power
plant or a chemical complex -- be required to tell the State what impact
can be expected from that proposed facility so that State can judge
whether it will adversely effect the State.
Assertion: Even in Class II areas, "smaller facilities with package
boilers, such as small industrial, commercial, and public buildings, and
large apartment houses, would also be restricted." (Chamber of
Commerce).
Fact: This bill establishes a single national norm, allowing
extensive growth up to that norm. According to Delmarva Power, "A plant
as large as 2,000 megawatts could be built without violating the Class
II increments for SO(2) or total suspended particulates (TSP) proposed
by the Senate."
Assertion: "Any new or modified plant would have to use the best and
most expensive air pollution control equipment, plus use the lowest
sulfur coal." (Chamber of Commerce).
Fact: The significant deterioration analysis affect only a few,
specified industries, not "any new or modified plant." Thus, it will not
affect the vast majority of construction. The Senate bill does not
require use of the "best and most expensive" pollution control
equipment; it requires use of the "best available control technology,"
which is defined in the bill as a level to be determined on a
"case-by-case" basis by each State, "taking into account energy,
environmental, and economic impacts and other costs." Rather than
forcing the use of "the lowest sulfur coal, the Senate bill seeks to
promote the use of reasonable technology, thus encouraging industry to
abandon its present posture favoring the burning of low-sulfur coal in
preference to the installation of control devices.
Conclusion: This analysis is not meant to encompass every statement
and misstatement concerning the Senate bill. Rather, I am offering it
in a brief attempt to encourage the Senate and the public to study the
Senate(()) provision in greater detail. I believe the Committee bill
represents a reasonable guideline, one that will provide both for
environmental protection and industrial growth. The Senate bill,
ironically, is responsive to the requests of industry clarification of
the significant deterioration language. Now the object seems to be to
sweep our efforts under the rug in hopes the whole thing goes away.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Senate will shortly consider
section 16 of the Clean Air Act Amendments which deals with the current
controversy relating to ozone and halocarbons. I would like today to
speak particularly to the wisdom of the timetable which is embodied in
section 16 as adopted by the Public Works Committee.
After considering the testimony of distinguished scientists in
hearings before the subcommittees of the House and Senate, as well as
the opinions of distinterested governmental agencies, the committee
adopted a responsible timetable for dealing with the halocarbon-ozone
depletion controversy. Under this timetable, the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration and other Government agencies will continue and
intensify their research efforts to obtain more data on the ozone layer
and the effects thereon, if any, of halocarbons. These agencies are
obligated to make a preliminary report of their findings on October 1,
1976, and a further report on October 1, 1977. If the data obtained
from this research justifies regulatory action, section 16 provides that
the Environmental Protection Agency must propose regulations controlling
the use of halocarbons in aerosol containers by January 1, 1978, with
final action not later than April 1, 1978. Also, if necessary,
regulations governing other uses of halocarbons, such as in
refrigeration and air conditioning, are to be proposed not later than
April 1, 1978. Finally, as an important safeguard to insure the
protection of the public, section 16 gives the Environmental Protection
Agency authority to promulgate regulations to control aerosols at any
time prior to these dates -- whenever the scientific data warrants such
action. In short, section 16 establishes a timely research program as
well as comprehensive yet flexible regulatory authority to deal fully
with this controversy.
In recent remarks to this body,the acceptability of this time frame
was challenged by our distinguished colleague from New Hampshire, Mr.
MCINTYRE, urging the adoption of the amendment to be proposed by Senator
PACKWOOD. This amendment, for all practical purposes, would impose a
negative burden up-front ban on the use of halocarbons in aerosol
containers after January 1, 1978. In support of this amendment, Senator
MCINTYRE suggests that today's fluorocarbon emissions will subsequently
cause a substantial destruction of the ozone layer, resulting in serious
harm to the public. However, this alleged destruction is based on a
hypothesis whose validity has not been established. It is precisely for
this reason that section 16 provides for extensive technical research to
resolve the matter.
Moreover, contrary to Senator MCINTYRE's position, there is no
reliable basis for assuming that any significant reduction would occur
over the 3 months between the January 1, 1978, date called for by the
Packwood amendment and the April 1, 1978, date for regulation, if any,
issued under the Public Works Committee's version of section 16 to
control halocarbon-containing aerosols. My distinguished colleague
asserts that there is a "1-percent average depletion of ozone" without
indicating the time period of this alleged depletion. Senator
MCINTYRE's calculation, moreover, apparently covers the release of
fluorocarbons throughout the World from all sources, including aerosol
containers, refrigeration and air conditioning. The amount of
fluorocarbons emitted by aerosol containers in the United States
represents one-fourth of the total worldwide fluorocarbon emission.
Hence, at the outset, his figure must be substantially reduced.
In any event, as calculated by Dr. Paul J. Crutzen of the National
Center for Atmospheric Research, the amount of ozone depletion which
could occur -- even if we assume that the unproven hypothesis of
halocarbon-ozone depletion is correct -- is about 0.5 percent over a
3-year period. This figure is regarded as a reasonable calculation by
other scientists. To provide a perspective on what this figure means, I
would note that the change of 1 percent in the ozone layer over a given
geographical location is equivalent to moving 70 miles to the south,
inasmuch as ozone levels decrease as one moves toward the Equator.
Thus, the ozone depletion which allegedly can occur from the
continued production of fluorocarbons pending the research provided by
section 16 is comparatively insignificant. This is true even if we
assume that Senator MCINTYRE is anticipating a 1 percent per annum
reduction from the fluorocarbons emitted from aerosols marketed in the
United States alone. As I have noted, there is only a 3-month
difference in time between the effective date for regulation embraced by
the Packwood amendment and that contained in the Public Works
Committee's version of section 16. That means that at worst, the
additional ozone depletion theoretically possible from the additional
halocarbon-aerosol production would be less than three-tenths percent.
Under Dr. Crutzen's calculations this would amount to four-hundredths
percent.
Senator MCINTYRE also relies on the unproven theory of ozone
destruction to defend the imposition of a negative burden of proof in
the Packwood amendment under which industry must disprove the validity
of the theory. I believe that this procedural provision has no place in
legislation designed to deal with a scientific controversy, particularly
when the worst case assumptions indicate an inconsequential effect in
the interim period.
As a basic scientific matter, it is an extremely difficult, if not
impossible, task to disprove an unproved hypothesis. I wish to remind
my colleagues that this hypothesis is based on computer modeling and
certain scientific assumptions. There are no known acceptable
techniques, as there are in other areas, for example, drug testing,
which would permit affirmative establishment of the safety of
halocarbons. Senator PACKWOOD's amendment provides insufficient time in
which such procedures to establish conclusively the safety of
halocarbons might be developed. There is no justification for adoption
of the approach contemplated in the Packwood amendment. The Public
Works Committee's version of section 16 gives the Environmental
Protection Agency fair and reasonable authority to move swiftly and
directly to deal with halocarbons, if the facts warrant such action.
I submit that section 16 of the Clean Air Act Amendments represents a
responsible and orderly approach to effective resolution of this
controversy. This approach, moreover, avoids the grave and unnecessary
economic repercussions which might very well occur under the proposed
Packwood amendment. Contrary to the suggestion of my distinguished
colleague from New Hampshire, Mr. MCINTYRE, one cannot view the impact
of the amendment as limited to the manufacture of the chemical
propellant alone. This is only a small segment of an industry which has
developed from the use of this ingredient, and includes the manufacture,
filling, and packaging of containers and the distribution of
halocarbon-containing products. There is no question that the
fluorocarbon industry contributes thousands of jobs and millions of
dollars to the national economy. As I have previously noted, major
industries cannot be stopped and started at the whim of Federal
legislation. Section 16, as adopted by the Public Works Committee, I
submit, is clearly a preferable way to deal with this matter and I urge
the Senate to adopt it without amendment.
Mr. President, I urge the defeat of the amendment to section 16 of
the Clean Air Act Amendments which may be proposed by the distinguished
Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. NELSON. Mr. NELSON's amendment is similar
to the amendment offered by the esteemed Senator from Oregon, Mr.
PACKWOOD. I have repeatedly expressed my strong opposition to the
Packwood amendment. In essence, Senator NELSON's amendment differs only
in that it would lead to a ban on aerosols containing halocarbons as of
January 1, 1977 -- less than 6 months from today.
As the testimony before the subcommittees of the Senate and House and
the weight of expert opinion indicates, there is insufficient evidence
to justify a ban of halocarbon-containing aerosols at this time. This
conclusion is further supported by various disinterested Government
agencies, and, I might add, has also been adopted in the United Kingdom
by the chief environmental agency of Great Britain, as I have also
stated before the Senate.
There is little risk and much to be gained by accepting the time
frames established by the Public Works Committee in section 16. The
section continues and intensifies the research effort to(()) obtain data
on the stratospheric phenomena involved. It also provides that the
Environmental Protection Agency shall issue final regulations
controlling halocarbon-containing aerosols by April 1, 1978, if the
evidence warrants such action.
It is clear that the additional production of halocarbons during this
15-month interval beyond the January 1, 1977 date provided in Senator
Nelson's amendment will not have a significant impact on the ozone layer
even if the halocarbon-ozone depletion hypothesis is proven correct. As
I have previously explained to this body, there is responsible
scientific opinion that the amount of ozone depletion reasonably
possible under the halocarbon-ozone depletion hypothesis is at most 5
percent over a 3-year period. To put the matter in perspective, a
reduction of 1 percent in ozone is the same as moving 70 miles to the
south because the amount of ozone in the atmosphere decreases as one
approaches the Equator. In any event, section 16 appropriately permits
the Environmental Protection Agency to take action against the
halocarbon-containing aerosols, at any time the facts warrant such
action. Thus, the public is safeguarded at all times.
In this context, the amendment proposed by Senator NELSON contradicts
the fundamental purpose of section 16. As noted, by virtue of its
negative burden approach, the amendment would ban aerosol containers by
January 1, 1977, before the intensive research program provided by
section 16 is likely to produce data required to either prove or
disprove the ozone-depletion theory. The amendment therefore undercuts
the basic objectives of section 16, which are first, to provide an
intensive research program by NASA and other specialized Government
agencies; and second, at the same time put in place a broad and
comprehensive authority to deal in an orderly fashion with any facts
developed in this research, without economic dislocations and loss of
jobs.
As I have stated, I believe that the Public Works Committee approach
under section 16, is clearly the most appropriate means of dealing with
this issue. I urge, therefore, the defeat of the amendment offered by
the Senator from Wisconsin if the matter comes before the Senate for
vote.
DEB
760726
DINGELL
US REPRESENTATIVE
--
CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1977, AUTO EMISSION TEST CORRECTED (PP 4294
TO 4297)
--
--
95-95
--
CA110902 CA110905
00826
(())
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
Proceedings and Debates of the 94th Congress
HOUSE
LD-4 (Rev. Jan. 71)
BILL: H.R. 10498 DATE: 760726 PAGE(S): H7755-7757
ACTION: Remarks by Mr. Dingell(())
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to extend his remarks at
this point in the RECORD and to include extraneous matter.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, California Governor Brown has contacted
Members of the House with a paper that is both misleading and erroneous
regarding automobile emission tests recently conducted in his State on a
prototype car.
At this point in the RECORD, I submit my response on the matter which
I have shared with my colleagues. It is important the record on those
emission tests be set straight prior to action on the pending Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1976, H.R. 10498.
The Dingell response follows:
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D.C., July 23, 1976.
DEAR COLLEAGUE: I am sure that each of you has received a letter
from Governor Jerry Brown of California touting the 1977 four-cylinder
test Volvo which allegedly met Federal statutory standards with its
three-way catalyst emission control system. Based on some very
erroneous conclusions from one set of vehicle tests, Governor Brown
would have us vote into law even more stringent standards than are
currently in the House bill.
As you know, Representative Jim Broyhill and myself will be offering
an amendment to the Clean Air Act Amendment, H.R. 10498, which balances
the needs of fuel economy and cost to the consumer with the continued
improvement in air quality resulting from replacement of older, dirtier
cars. There is nothing in the Volvo test development which compels any
change in our Dingell-Broyhill (Train) auto emission control amendment.
The arguments advanced by Governor Brown in his July 6th letter are
contradicted by the data itself. For example:
1. The four-cylinder Volvo could not have passed the EPA's Federal
test requirements for the 1978 statutory standards. The final numbers
levels of NOx on the durability car, for instance, did not fall within
the limits of 0.4 gpm, grams per mile). The car went 0.4 NOx gpm on
five of the 5,000 mile tests required of a durability car. The NOx
number reported in Governor Brown's letter is a calculation extrapolated
from cars measured at only 4,000 miles. In addition, the durability car
went above 3.4 gpm CO on the Federal statutory level on at least five
occasions, according to Volvo test lab data.
2. The fuel economy gain of 10 percent that the Governor claims was
achieved by Volvo, is exaggerated in its inference. Actually, such gain
was in comparison to a 1976 Volvo without a catalyst of any kind. The
addition of an oxygen catalyst in 1975 and 1976 brought even more
dramatic fuel economies to domestic cars. Volvo's 22 miles per gallon
noted by the Governor (actually, according to the California Air
Resources Board "fact sheet," only 21.6 mpg) in 1977 is exceeded by a
number of comparable domestic 1976 automobiles. Volvo's gain was simply
a catchup to where they could have been a year earlier.
3. The CARB conclusion that rhodium supplies are adequate is based
on using catalyst compositions quite different from that in the Volvo
catalyst. CARB is banking on meeting the durability requirements with
much lighter loadings of rhodium. The basic fact in the case is that
three-way catalyst durability at this time seems to be a function of the
loading of rhodium, i.e., heavier loadings give adequate durability.
Rhodium supplies are very limited. One of the two principal rhodium
suppliers had told CARB that it would be capable of supplying rhodium
for heavier loadings during the initial stages of its use, "but
thereafter the ratio will have to revert to the mine ration." Mine ratio
of rhodium to platinum is approximately 1 to 18; the Volvo catalyst
loading is in the range of 1 to 5, or almost four times heavier.
4. While development work in the industry, both foreign and
domestic, goes forward on carburetors, the test Volvo which meets the
1977 California standards uses fuel injection, an admitted expensive and
highly sophisticated system. It is in fact a system that many
automakers have not added to their engine fleets due to the extremely
high cost which would have to be borne by the consumers. It also is a
system upon which there has been only limited field testing and is not
technically ready or practicable for mass production at this time.
Also, contrary to the CARB "fact sheet," it flies in the face of reason
to assume at this time that expensive hardware will not be required to
make three-way catalyst systems work. The Volvo's base price alone is
$6,500.
I am concerned at the misleading information contained in the CARB
"fact sheet." The comparison of a four-cylinder Volvo with an "average"
car in Governor Brown's CARB "fact sheet," is obviously intended only to
be misleading. A comparison with four-cylinder cars would have shown
how specious is the fuel economy comparison.
The "fact sheet" assumes a number of engineering developments which,
while being actively pursued by both foreign and domestic manufacturers,
have yet to be proven. Legislation based on engineering-by-hypothesis
involves great risk of unemployment and economic dislocation whenever
the hypothesis fails.
In sum, Governor Brown's arguments are not persuasive. I am
attaching a July, 1976 article from Ward's Auto World, "Volvo California
Coup Put Into Context" by Douglas Williams, which does much to
illuminate the issue. I think you will find it interesting reading.
Once again, in closing, let me urge your support for the balanced
environmental, energy conservation and consumer oriented
Dingell-Broyhill (Train) amendment which will be offered on the House
Floor probably within the next week or so.
Sincerely yours,
JOHN D. DINGELL,
Member of Congress.
Enclosures.
(Quinn wanted to use us as a political tool to pressure Congress on
Federal standards.)
For four days in June, the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
grabbed the world's attention by announcing that a 1977 Volvo had come
through California's rigid emission testing practically free of air
pollution.
The thrust of the message, timed for delivery on the Saturday that
began Memorial Day weekend and on the eve of new Congressional hearings
in Washington covering the controversial 1978 federal emission
standards, was this: A foreign automaker apparently had snatched the
lead and accomplished what U.S. automakers had said was impossible.
The implication was that if Volvo, a strangely reluctant participant
in the California affair, could do it, why not everyone else?
The official word, broadcast and published widely over the weekend,
was that Volvo had made a "startling new breakthrough" in reducing
emissions to meet California's 1977 standards. Simultaneously the
Swedish automaker had cut emissions to below the '78 federal levels --
those coming under full-dress review in Washington the following week --
and for good measure the system raised fuel economy by 10%.
In a flaming blaze of rhetoric, CARB Chairman A. Thomas Quinn termed
the Volvo advance(()) "the most significant breakthrough ever achieved"
in cleaning up automotive emissions.
Was his timing a bold attempt to influence Washington? Volvo thinks
so. "Quinn wanted to use us as a political tool to pressure Congress
from easing off on the federal standards," says a Volvo spokesman. "We
don't align ourselves with Mr. Quinn at all." Indeed, Volvo continues to
side with the rest of the industry in seeking less stringent 1978
federal standards "until adequate scientific data has been compiled."
That's because Volvo, while obviously delighted with its California
gold-strike, fully knows that its accomplishment loses some of its
luster when it's put into logical perspective -- an exercise Mr. Quinn
chose to ignore.
In a style reminiscent of Ralph Nader's weekend broadsides of the
late 1960s, Mr. Quinn nevertheless got his publicity mileage. By the
following +++ a veteran backer of stringent emissions standards, was
saying that "if Volvo can do it now (for California's 1977 standards),
Detroit should be able to do it by then (1978 federal standards)."
When the dust settled later in the week, Volvo's breakthrough began
to look less and less startling, and the implications of its technology
less and less immediately meaningful to U.S. automakers. Her's why:
Only one engine -- a 4-cylinder powerplant in the Volvo 240 series --
met California's '77 standards. In contrast, "we have dozens of engine
and transmission combinations to worry about," says Howard P. Freers,
chief powertrain and chassis engineer at Ford Motor Co.
The Volvo engine that scored the breakthrough is equipped with
"constant fuel injection," an expensive apparatus that can be blended
into higher priced, low-income (10,000-a-year sales) cars such as the
$6,300-$7,500 range of Volvo 240 cars in question, but would add dearly
to, say, a $3,000 Ford Pinto -- from $300 to $400.
Key to the Volvo system is a three-way catalytic converter designed
by Engelhard Industries Inc. in which the platinum and paladium used to
speed chemical change in carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrocarbons (HC) are
supplemented with rhodium to do the same things for oxides of nitrogen
(NOx). Combined with a "black box" and an oxygen sensor at the manifold
to regulate the air/fuel mixture in the fuel injection system, the
device in 50,000 miles of testing kept the 4-cylinder Volvo emissions
down to .2 grams per mile (gpm) HC, 2.8 gpm CO and .17 gpm NOx -- all
well within the '77 California and '78 federal standards. But here's
the catch: rhodium, a by-product of platinum, is rare. Ford's Mr.
Freers estimates the platinum/rhodium ration "in nature" is 19-to-1; in
extracting rhodium for refining, that ratio drops to 3-to-1 or 5-to-1,
he calculates. General Motors Corp. says there are not enough known
rhodium reserves to produce one year's supply for GM cars if GM were to
switch to rhodium catalysts. And another Detroit source emphasizes that
even if all automakers adopted fual injection systems, it would take
several years to meet the demand.
The California 50,000-mile test uses average emissions over the full
run. Thus, at times the engine can spew out pollutants above the
average levels and that's exactly what happened in several instances
during the California tests, Volvo confirms. Federal law doesn't permit
averaging, allowable emissions aren't to exceed the standards at any
time over 50,000 miles.
Finally, the Volvo system requires changing the oxygen sensor in the
exhaust system every 15,000 miles at a cost approximating $20.
Detroit's automakers are reluctant to put that burden on car owners,
just as they've so cautiously -- and rather responsibly -- avoided
asking for an owner maintenance change of the converter at 25,000 miles.
The reasoning is that few motorists are likely to be happy about laying
out dollars for maintenance that demonstrably does nothing to make the
car run better.
Thus, Volvo's achievement -- and Detroit admits it is indeed
significant -- loses something when all of the qualifiers are put into
context.
The three-way converters have been talked about in the auto industry
for at least five years. Added to the low level of production Volvo is
planning, the hardware -- while producing admittedly striking emissions
numbers -- looks more like a logical next step than a "startling
breakthrough."
The Quinn announcement even took the EPA by surprise, not the least
of which was a statement by the Californian that the federal agency was
suppressing its testing data.
Eric O. Stork, EPA deputy administrator and top auto regulator, says
Mr. Quinn's charge that the EPA was holding back information about the
Volvo engine is "unadulterated garbage . . . unadulterated hogwash.
"I respond with some degree of outrage. I never have and never will
suppress data," he says.
"Prior to public announcement of (the new model) such information is
a trade secret," Mr. Stork says. "We are not free to reveal Volvo's
plans. In this case it was a pretty open secret," he adds.
Further, there are some questions about possible hydrogen cyanide
emissions from the three-way catalyst. The EPA wanted to be sure there
were not any health problems connected with such unregulated pollutants
before accepting the engine.
Mr. Stork says EPA has "argued all along the (three-way catalytic)
converter has significant potential. Volvo's achievement is not
unexpected. We are delighted. Nevertheless, industry-wide adoption
cannot be accomplished in the next couple of years."
Asked about the relationship between the EPA and CARB, Mr. Stork
observes: "I think basically we have a good collegial relationship with
the CARB insofar as technical matters go. But it's quite clear that the
EPA operates in a different political and sociological atmosphere." CARB
is "not constrained" by the federal administrative procedures act -- a
very formal and deliberate rule-making process, he says. While Mr.
Stork is "not intimately familiar" with the laws concerning the CARB,
it's clear the California agency has "far greater legal freedom than the
EPA has."
As the facts behind the CARB pronouncement became increasingly
visible, the original announcement looked substantially overblown
indeed.
Perhaps the best way to consider the affair is this: a shining
example of government/automotive/air pollution decisionmaking as drama.
Central actor in the play is Tom Quinn, the 32-year-old son of a
former Los Angeles deputy mayor, one time news reporter, and campaign
manager for Jerry Brown in his successful runs for secretary of the
state and governor of California.
Named to head CARB in January 1975, Mr. Quinn is almost an exact
opposite of the man he replaced: Dr. A. J. Haagen-Smit. While Mr.
Quinn is abrasive, hard-charging and willing to bend facts for political
hay -- consider the case in point -- Dr. Haagen-Smit, in his middle 70s,
is witty, polite, and takes a self-effacing stance.
Dr. Haagen-Smit was, and remains, a technical expert -- he was the
man who first tagged the auto for its role in photochemical smog more
than two decades back -- while Mr. Quinn has a minimal technical
background.
But in the words of one auto executive: "Our engineers don't try to
kid him."
Apparently Mr. Quinn has no qualms about kidding the public, however.
We are winning the battle against automotive-caused air pollution but
the trend is not in the right direction with respect to stationary
sources, according to Tom Quinn, California's Air Resources Board
chairman.
Speaking to new car dealers at the recent spring business conference
of the Motor Car Dealers Association of Southern California (MCDASC) in
Palm Desert, Quinn called it an outrage that the Southern California Air
Pollution Control District has failed to enforce certain air pollution
regulations against oil companies, adding, "while San Diego enforces its
air pollution laws, the air pollution control district in Los Angeles
doesn't bother.
"The total pollution load in the Los Angeles Basin in 1980 will be
close to what it is now," he said, "with cars contributing to about
half. We expect that by 1985, autos will be about 30-40 per cent of the
problem."
Cars now cause only 32 per cent of the smog in the San Diego area,
according to a report from the San Diego Air Quality Planning Team.
Last year, Quinn was a great concern to car dealers who worried about
how his decisions would affect car sales. This year, the MCDASC
endorsed him. Their president, Theodore Robins, Jr., told his fellow
dealers, "We are now able to take a more positive approach. We have a
product that not only are we selling today, but in this coming year +++
a much better car in the area of fuel economy and a much cleaner car
air-wise."
John Cooper, recent past president, said that the ARB did not back
off its avowed intent to maintain higher standards than the rest of the
country for 1977, but "what was achieved was a successful compromise by
a change in testing procedures and by working harmoniously with the
manufacturers to assist them in meeting the standards on an average car
basis.
"It took a lot of know-how on Tom Quinn's -- and the ARB staff's --
part, to satisfy their own charter for clean air in California and at
the same time, meet the economic realities as the situation dictated."
The United Auto Workers also endorsed Quinn. Virgil Collins, UAW
representative for eight western states, said, "We'd like to state
categorically that Mr. Quinn and the ARB have been able to arrive at a
satisfactory solution that all of us can live with."
Quinn, soft-spoken and quick to smile, announced a goal that the
state and its ARB share with the dealers, manufacturers, and United Auto
Workers, "and that is to have more cars sold. There's no doubt that if
people go out and buy new cars, we are going to go a long way towards
cleaning up the air in California and get those old clunkers off the
road. I think we have all learned that retrofitting programs are not
effective."
He added that the 1977 cars will be substantially cleaner than the
1976 models, saying, "We're going to be achieving cleaner cars and
they'll also be the best cars sold in California, with drivability and
fuel economy. Fuel economy on a weight-to-weight basis, will be better
than precontrolled cars, so it indicates the manufacturers are
substantially improving their systems and are coming out with first-rate
vehicles."
Quinn acknowledged that the cost of emission control equipment for
the '77 California models will mean, for some auto manufacturers, price
increases averaging around $50. However, General Motors says their cost
will only increase approximately $5.
Regarding the fuel economy disparity between California cars and
those in the other(()) 49 states, Quinn admitted that there is close to
a 10 per cent penalty in this state, but added that next year, that
penalty will be less than half of what it is now.
"Our tests from all manufacturers indicate a fuel economy disparity
of about 3 per cent (for 1977 cars) so the gap is narrowing," said
Quinn. "The 1977 California cars will have fuel economy better than the
1976 federal cars despite substantially tougher standards in
California."
General Motors has disputed that statement. Gary Dickinson, GM's
assistant director of automotive emission control, told us that their
'77 models will average a 12 per cent penalty in fuel economy over their
1977 cars sold in the other 49 states.
"We have achieved about a two to three miles per gallon gain in our
'77 models because they are 'down-sized' cars," Dickinson said. "We
would have had a 10 per cent gain, federally, in fuel economy due to
weight reductions, but 5 per cent of that was lost due to tighter
federal controls on oxides of nitrogen (NOX)."
Asked if it was in California car owners' best interest to go from a
94 to a 97 percent control of emissions, with the attendant increase in
the use of fuel in this state compared to the 49 states, Quinn replied,
"There is no single step you can pick in the air-pollution field that's
going to clean up air pollution in the L.A. Basin and parts of the Bay
area."
"If you want to get rid of smog, there are several things you have to
do: (1) You have to take all cars off the road, (2) Shut down all of
your power generation, (3) Shut down all the oil refiners. But nobody
in sound mind is going to advocate any of these steps. So what you're
looking at is a lot of small individual steps and we have to compare one
step against the other to decide which to take.
"We use the standard measure of cost effectiveness, based on the
cost-per-pound-control. We compare, for example, action we might take
in regard to a stationary source and determine how much it will cost to
control one pound of hydrocarbons, one pound of NOX, compared to vehicle
strategy. On that basis, the 1977 standards will cost us between 70 to
77 cents-a-pound-control (hydrocarbons plus NOX)."
"Most of the other control strategies we've had in the past cost
substantially more than that. 1974 standards cost well over $1.80
per-pound-control, and the '75 standards about $1.75 per-pound-control.
1977 standards are more cost effective than any we've had for a long
time . . . more so than any major program we have left.
"The fact is, we're going to have half as many hydrocarbons from '77
cars as from '76 cars. That's certainly going to make a major
difference in terms of L.A. smog.
"Could we have waited to 1978? That's always a question of judgment.
It was our judgment that technology was available to make the cars
cleaner in 1977 at very minimal cost with a minor fuel penalty, if any,
and with better drivability and fuel efficiency than 1976 cars. Test
results now are showing that judgment to be correct."
DEB
760726
HUMPHREY
US SENATOR
--
CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1977, CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1976 -- S
3219 AMENDMENT NO 2084 (PP 5248 TO 5249)
--
--
95-95
--
CA110906 CA110907
00827
(())
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
SENATE
Proceedings and Debates of the 94th Congress
LD-4a (Rev. Jan. 71)
BILL: S. 3219 DATE: 760726 PAGE(S): S12390
Action: Amendment No. 2084 submitted by Mr. Humphrey on behalf of
Mr. Mondale(())
(Ordered to be printed and to lie on the table.)
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator MONDALE, I submit
an amendment to S. 3219, the Clean Air Act amendments. I ask unanimous
consent that a statement on this amendment by Senator MONDALE be printed
at this point in the RECORD, together with the text of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Metropolitan Council in Minnesota is a unique organization which
has gained nationwide fame as an example of effective planning in a
number of areas.
When the Metro Council was set-up in the 7-county area of the Twin
Cities, the State legislature was concerned that such an organization
not build parochial interests of local governments, but give a regional
viewpoint in coordinating activities of the metropolitan area. Thus,
the legislature decided that the members would be appointed by the
Governor of the State, and approved by the Senate, rather than elected
by local residents.
The Council's role as defined by State statute is to achieve orderly
growth and development in the 7-county metropolitan area. The Council
is responsible for coordinating all proposals, projects, expenditures,
and plans that directly and substantially affect development in the Twin
Cities area.
The Council is responsible for preparing policy plans for all levels
of government for waste control, transportation, solid waste, airports,
and parks and open space. These plans must be followed by local
governmental units and other regional operating commissions.
Under this authority, the Council reviews the capital budgets and
development programs of the other regional commissions in the areas of
waste control, transportation, airports, and parks and open space.
These programs must be in conformance with metropolitan systems
statements prepared by the Metro Council for each local plan.
The major components in the Clean Air Act for implementation plans to
improve ambient air quality and to regulate stationary sources of
pollution are transportation planning and land use planning. The Metro
Council has strong authority in both these areas. An important part of
their transportation planning program is studying the relationship
between transportation and air quality to ensure that regional
transportation plans will meet federal standards.
In the past, the Metro Council has had to go to great lengths to
obtain administrative authority under the Water Pollution Control Act.
Locally elected officials from the major jurisdictions in the planning
area had to provide formally adopted resolutions, naming members of the
Council from their jurisdiction as their designees, and the EPA had to
approve this designation. This took a good deal of time and effort.
I urge that this same situation be avoided as we determine the
provisions of the Clean Air Act. I would hope that states such as
Minnesota which set up an effective planning organization will not be
penalized by limiting the administrative authority to locally elected
governing bodies.
I can understand the concern that those with the authority to
administer these important programs be responsive to local citizens, and
there is a good deal to be said for granting elected officials this
responsibility. In fact, for the past few years, attempts have been
made in the Minnesota State legislature to change the composition of the
Metro Council to locally elected officials. However, these attempts so
far have not been successful.
Given the proven effectiveness of the Metropolitan Council, I hope
that the Senate will agree to grant them the authority to administer the
provisions of the Clean Air Act.
On page 25, line 3, after the word "purpose" insert the following:
"Or by an area-wide agency designated under State law to perform
comprehensive planning for the affected area".
SBI OTH
760726
HUMPHREY MONDALE
US SENATOR US SENATOR
--
CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1977, S 3219 AMENDMENT INTENDED TO BE
PROPOSED BY MR. HUMPHREY (FOR HIMSELF AND MR. MONDALE) TO S 3219, A BILL
TO AMEND THE CLEAN AIR ACT AS AMENDED (PP 5250 TO 5251)
1 3219
--
95-95
--
CA110908 CA110909
00828
(())
Calendar No. 685
94TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
Intended to be proposed by Mr. HUMPHREY (for himself and Mr. MONDALE)
to S. 3219, a bill to amend the Clean Air Act as amended, viz:
On page 25, line 8, after the word "purpose" insert the following:
"or by an area-wide agency designated under State law to perform
comprehensive planning for the affected area".
Amdt. No. 2084(())
Amdt. No. 2084
Calendar No. 685
94TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
Intended to be proposed by Mr. HUMPHREY (for himself and Mr. MONDALE)
to S. 3219, a bill to amend the Clean Air Act as amended.
DEB
760726
MANSFIELD RANDOLPH WILLIAM L. SCOTT MCCLURE BAKER BUCKLEY STAFFORD
DOMENICI BAYH TOWER GRAVEL LONG GOLDWATER EDMUND S. MUSKIE
US SENATOR US SENATOR US SENATOR US SENATOR US SENATOR US SENATOR US
SENATOR US SENATOR US SENATOR US SENATOR US SENATOR US SENATOR US
SENATOR US SENATOR
--
CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1977, CLEAN AIR AMENDMENTS OF 1976 (PP 5252
TO 5287)
--
--
95-95
--
CA110910 CA110945
00829
(())
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE
Proceedings and Debates of the 94th Congress
LD-4a (Rev. Jan. 71)
BILL S. 3219
DATE 7/27/76
PAGE(S) S12455-12471 S12477-12494
ACTION Clean Air: Senate began consideration of S. 3219, proposed
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1976.
Pages S12455-S12471, S12477-S12494(())
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 685, S. 3219,
that it be laid before the Senate and made the pending business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be stated by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 3219) to amend the Clean Air Act, as amended.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the present
consideration of the bill?
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, it has been more than 10 years since
passage by Congress of the first major National Air Pollution Control
Act. During that period, substantial progress has been made in reducing
the emissions from our highly industrialized and growing society that
were threatening the general health and welfare of the American people.
Improving the natural environment has been difficult because of our
long history of paying little attention to the undesirable consequenced
of expansion. We were, in effect, starting from a very low base.
Since we were entering a virtually new field, environmental
protection has required a substantial rethinking of attitudes and
approaches on the part of many Americans.
I have often thought of comments made by President Abraham Lincon.
He said a long time ago, when there was a crisis in this country, that
the dogmas of the quite past are inadequate to the stormy present. We
must, he continued, think anew and act anew and disenthrall ourselves.
He was indicating that there are problems which we must attempt to
solve, and that we do not always have the(()) knowledge to solve them
except by new thinking and new acting.
We were also in an era in which new technologies needed to be
developed and applied if we were to achieve the goals of environmental
protection.
I think that largely the benefits have been on the positive side. I
believe that Members of Congress and the people generally throughout the
Nation think we have done well. Mistakes, of course, are being
committed, and errors of judgment are a part of the process. But I feel
that the people generally think that we must provide a type of
environment in which America can continue as a nation to thrive and to
prosper. I believe in a prosperous America; but we also have the
problems which sometimes must be considered and should be considered.
Is the thriving and the prospering carried out without detriment to the
well-being of the citizens of our country? Is there a health hazard?
Is there a safety hazard? Are there hazards of other types?
I have been particularly gratified to read in the recent report of
the Council on Environmental Quality that the reduction of air pollution
was the environmental area in which the most substantial progress was
made during 1975.
We bring to the Senate today proposed legislation, to Clean Air
Amendments of 1976 (S. 3219), which we feel are appropriate and timely.
As our able majority leader has indicated, that is the measure that
is now before the Senate. This is, in effect, the third generation
action in this field. It follows on the 1967 and the 1970 acts, and I
think that it is correct to say that this bill reflects the coming of
age of the air pollution program.
We have now had several years of experience with existing law and, as
with any Government program, there is a need to periodically review and
refine the requirements of law. Conditions change and so we must modify
programs, accordingly. So that is what has been taking place in the
subcommittee, chaired by the able Senator who is particularly expert in
this field, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) and all of us who
share the joint and mutual responsibility as members of the parent
committee.
We have a comprehensive measure before us. It attempts to cope with
all aspects of air pollution control and it does address itself to the
changes that have been taking place in technology. We also are giving
attention, as we should give attention, to the economic situation in the
United States of America at the present time. Also, we must look very
carefully into the energy requirements of our society, not only now but
which it may have in the years ahead.
What we have done, I believe, Mr. President, is have this bill
drafted and brought to the Senate Chamber on the basis of realism. That
does not mean that all of the members of the committee have like views.
It requires a substantial effort in our country to further reduce
pollution, but it does not make demands that are beyond the capacity of
our scientific capability or of our industry in general. I might modify
my thinking if a certain amendment were offered on a part of this bill,
but that generally is my thinking.
We have had, Mr. President, more than a year in the actual
preparation of the measure before us. In the spring of 1975, the
Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution, under the leadership of the
able Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE), had extensive hearings. We
attempted to find what were the achievements since the legislation
became lax. The Members of that subcommittee examined the structure and
the requirements of the existing law and they called upon witnesses who
had expertise and knowledge to think in terms of what we should do in
the years ahead. The subcommittee members were not hurried in the
consideration of this measure and they advanced it slowly but surely
through the hearing process and the markup process, and they brought it
to the parent, the Committee on Public Works.
Did we take a cursory look at it? No, we did not. We had many, many
markup sessions. As my colleague from Vermong (Mr. STAFFORD), who is in
the Chamber today, well knows, the Members were diligent in their
attendance at these meetings. We wanted an involvement in the
legislative process that could only come through the work of the members
of the committee.
I also think now of a new member of our committee, the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. GARY HART), who addresses himself, as did others, to going
back over the years to see what we had done, to study the goals that we
had set, and to work in the development of this legislation. The
Presiding Officer of the Senate at this time the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. MORGAN) one of the Members more lately coming into our
committee membership, gave considerable study to this bill.
I believe that it is very important for the Senate to know that the
members of the committee and of the subcommittee have given detailed
study of this subject matter. Many valuable contributions were made to
our understanding of the problems and to the solutions we reached by in
addition to those I have mentioned, Senators BAKER, BUCKLEY, MONTOYA,
GRAVEL, BENSTEN, BURDICK, CULVER, McCLURE, and DOMENICI.
The purposes of this bill are easy to define. It has at its basic
goal nothing more complicated than the continuation of progress in
eliminating the causes of air pollution with its substantial social and
economic costs. Our country has made a conscious and permanent
commitment to environmental quality. We must, therefore, periodically
reassess our progress and take the next step toward achievement of our
goal. The Clean Air Amendments of 1976 is such a step.
So 1976 brings us to Clean Air Act amendments.
There are 23 printed amendments that have been introduced to the
measure as it comes from the committee. Even within the committee, I
have made it a policy always, Mr. President, of when we vote in the
committee to advance the bill to the Senate itself, we do it with the
understanding that the members individually reserve the right to offer
amendments.
Pollution is not a state problem. Pollution is not something that
attaches itself to one portion of the body politic or to one segment of
the industrial or economic or social life within our country.
This, I think is a national problem, but it does not mean that the
problem is the same in all parts of our country and that the solutions
therefor must necessarily be the same if the problems are to be solved.
I hope we shall always in this country realize the importance of the
individual. We had those persons who were drafting our Declaration of
Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution
itself. They were individuals of diverse views, and they expressed
them.
Within this body ofttimes, there is a point on which we can agree,
and out of the welter of discussion and differences we can realize that
sometimes we have been creating strengths because viewpoints have been
expressed and then we can make the decisions.
I think we must work our way, and that is what we have to do
especially when we are moving into new fields caused by the
concentration of populations and by the industrial growth which have
taken place in our country.
The bill reflects the strongly held belief that air pollution control
problems are and should be, insofar as possible, the responsibilities of
the States. Coming to this session today I was talking with the
Presiding Officer, the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. MORGAN), about
the 50 States and how it is increasingly difficult for Members of the
Senate and the Congress generally to really give the time under the type
of scheduling we now have. It would seem to me, and I believe that it
is appealing to others, that there be, insofar as possible, the
responsibility within the States to copy with many of these problems.
We have given to the States a very secondary position, and that should
not be in connection with this type of legislation or other bills that
deal with pollution control.
I think the States are best suited generally, the people within those
States, to assess the local needs and conditions and to more effectively
enforce the controls necessary.
This bill then, Mr. President, provides increased authority to the
States to develop the implementation plans and to carry out these plans.
I do stress that there is a substantial flexibility, and the States
are given latitude in devising their own approaches to air pollution
control within the framework of broad goals.
I do not hesitate to say to the majority leader and to others that at
the present time we are faced with a very considerable problem in the
central part of West Virginia. The State of West Virginia has
established more stringent requirements than those which, through the
Environmental Protection Agency, are considered as adequate and will
permit the consumption of certain types of West Virginia coal in one of
our electric generating plants.(())
Here are jobs involved that will be lost if the State regulations
continue to be tighter than the Federal regulations. But no matter what
the situation is in one area or one State, I go back to the feeling that
we must, as a Federal Government, give the responsibility where possible
to the States in connection with the framework of the broad and national
goals which have been set for us.
The committee members, I believe, think the most effective air
pollution control programs we have are actually the State's
responsibility. Now this is not to say, and I say it with vigor, that
there is no Federal role in this activity, but the Federal involvement
must be supportive rather than separate, should be supportive, with the
authority to help States resolve their problems and mediate their
disputes.
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Mr. President, I wonder if the distinguished
Senator is at a point where he could yield briefly?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes, I would be delighted to yield to my friend from
Virginia.
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Mr. President, I have looked at page 3 of the
report of the committee and, reading toward the bottom portion of the
page, it indicates:
The Administrator's role is one of monitoring State actions. States
have authority to issue construction permits to new major emitting
facilities in clean air areas.
This is exactly what the distinguished chairman of the committee has
been saying. But if you read further it says:
The Administrator thus could go to court to stop a permit for
activities which would exceed the increments of pollution or which
otherwise did not comply with the requirements of this section,
including of best available control technology. But the Administrator
could not and should not attempt to burden this section with unnecessary
regulations and guidelines.
The phrase comes to mind, a velvet glove and an iron fist.
That still will have the Environmental Protection Agency compelling
the States to do what the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency wants them to do.
If we skip a paragraph and read down, it says:
The Committee has also asserted a Federal interest in protecting air
quality over certain areas of Federal ownership, by a separate test.
The potential activity outside those Federal lands -- such as national
parks and wilderness areas and international parks -- could be
prohibited if it would impair the air quality values associated with
those Federal lands.
I believe in my own State and the distinguished Senator is very
familiar with it; the valley of Virginia is adjacent to parkland, the
Shenandoah Park, and the forest lands in the hills. Under the bill, as
reported, the air in the Shenandoah National Park must be kept as pure
as nature made it, the bill uses the phrase, pristine air quality.
But are we going to be able to build any factories there in the
valley of Virginia because smoke or other pollution might pass over the
parkland or other pollution might come over there, to interfere with
this pristine air condition?
That would mean no growth in the valley of Virginia. I do not
believe the distinguished Senator, the chairman of the committee, would
want that to happen. Yet I am afraid under this bill that this is
exactly what would happen.
Frankly, when we talk about wilderness areas or national parks, this
is something we all enjoy visiting, but we cannot even visit them unless
we get in our automobile to go to visit them.
I have an amendment to offer at the proper time, but it does not
appear that today is the time.
I just cannot see that the impact of this bill is turning decisions
over to the States.
I realize the distinguished chairman of the full committee is, at
least in part, dependent on the chairman of the subcommittee for
carrying the burden of this bill. I understand the Senator from Maine
will be here later. Perhaps I should reserve my question.
But when the Senator was talking about the States taking this action,
I thouhgt I should raise this.
If we cannot use the land in the valley of Virginia for industrial
purposes, is that a taking for which compensation must be paid under the
Constitution?
Shakespeare said, you take my property when you take my right to use
it. I wonder if it is a taking of property when we limit the right to
use and say that we cannot build in the valley of Virginia.
I urge that each Senator look at his own State and see if it is no
growth.
I have an editorial from the Richmond Times Dispatch that says, "Man
shall not live by clean air alone."
He needs bread. He needs clothing. We need a healthy economy. I
wonder if this is not going to severely damage our economy.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I understand the concern of my
colleague. He has expressed this to me personally on many occasions.
I, of course, am understanding of his directing his questions to
Senator MUSKIE, the chairman of our subcommittee. I would not take away
from Senator MUSKIE in any degree the leadership and the knowledge he
has in this field.
But I will say that the Senator from West Virginia now speaking
understands this subject matter.
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. I did not mean to impute anything differently.
Mr. RANDOLPH. The Senator from West Virginia is here saying what he
believes. The Senator from West Virginia must reinforce what he said
earlier today -- and I am not sure if the Senator was in the Chamber at
the time -- that this is a bill brought to the Senate by the action of
the committee. I look upon each and every member of that committee as
well able to do exactly what he wants to do in reference to this
legislation.
I did indicate that there had been exhaustive hearings. We worked
for more than a year on this bill. The markups within the subcommittee
and the continuing markups within the full committee were not routine.
There was a very spirited discussion of the point that the Senator
brings to our attention.
We do not say they cannot build something on a plot of ground.
I do not find in any part of this bill, I say to the Senator, where
that was implied, or we felt it was implied. It is not here. I am
certain that it is not.
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. There is an editorial in today's Wall Street
Journal that is pretty much parallel to the thinking I have just
expressed.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I think that editorial could well go into the RECORD
at this point, if the Senator desires to have it.
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. I would like to do it at a later time.
Mr. RANDOLPH. As the Senator indicated with certain quotations on
page 3 of the report, these are matters on which there are different
interpretations.
But I say, basically, that what we are doing is to give to the States
their responsibilities in a greater degree than they have had them in
the past.
I am not sure that the Senator was in the Chamber when I was calling
to our attention a specific problem in the State of West Virginia. Was
the Senator here?
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. I was here for about 5 minutes before I spoke
and interrupted the chairman.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes. Then the Senator did not have the opportunity of
hearing me say that in West Virginia now we have stricter air pollution
control that at the Federal level. I use the word "apparently." It is
going to mean the loss of employment for certain numbers of coal miners.
It apparently is going to call for certain types of coal --
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Is that a statewide law?
Mr. RANDOLPH. It is State. Our air pollution control board has put
in stricter regulations as to the use of certain types of coal to be
burned in electric generating plants in the State of West Virginia.
At the present time, there is no difficulty with the Federal law in
reference to this matter. The coal was being burned. But under the
State program now, the coal, as of a certain date, will not be able to
be burned.
So we must always realize, as I am sure the Senator realizes, that
what may be a weakening of a Federal law in some State, may call for a
strengthening, or a stronger law in another State.
So we have always got that give and take which I think we have to
consider.
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. I would be in agreement with the Senator, even
though I have a nondegradation proposal to offer, and it would preserve
the right of the State to a higher air quality standard.
The Senator mentioned the give and take in the committee. I was
privileged to serve under the distinguished chairman and I know this has
been the practice in the Public Works Committee. Certainly it was when
I was with him as a member of the committee.
If I interrupted the distinguished Senator's train of thought here,
perhaps it was untimely, but I do have a very keen interest. I think
this is an extremely important matter because we are deciding about
matters that may transcend clean air(())
Mr. RANDOLPH. That is right.
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. We are talking about the economy and a number
of other matters, I am sure the Senator would agree.
Mr. RANDOLPH. And so I said in my statement today, there were
problems that had arisen. Frankly, an energy problem that was not
apparent at an earlier period in connection with the development of the
controls. Certainly, the economic problems.
We have a problem in transportation that we never had before in the
volume of the transportation that moves over our highways and the type
of vehicles that may be moving those products from farm and factory to
the ultimate consumer. There are many facets, as the Senator properly
has indicated, to this matter. The interruption was entirely timely and
proper in asking these questions and making the comment.
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Let me pose one other question, a question of
procedure. If it is contemplated that we will only be on this matter
now for the next hour and a half or so, and we will just have statements
rather than amendments, can our amendments perhaps be reserved until
tomorrow or for Wednesday?
Mr. RANDOLPH. The chairman, although he can discuss that situation,
would rather have an announcement from the Chair as to the exact posture
in which the Senate now finds itself.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would advise that at 1:30 we vote
on the Byrd amendment to the LEAA bill, which is a rollcall vote. We
then vote on the LEAA bill itself which is a rollcall vote. We will
then return to this bill until 2 p.m., at which time we will return to
the tax reform bill.
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. I appreciate the responses of the
distinguished chairman and the clarification by the Chair.
Mr. RANDOLPH. That would seem to indicate that this measure is going
to consume several days.
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Mr. President, I will reserve my statement
until tomorrow and then offer my amendments tomorrow or the next day.
Mr. RANDOLPH. That will certainly be appropriate.
Mr. McCLURE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield.
Mr. McCLURE. I think there is one thing that might be added to put
into context the colloquy which has just taken place between the
distinguished Senator from West Virginia and the distinguished Senator
from Virginia. That is with regard to what has become comparative
standards, what has become more strict than something else, or less so.
I think we have a tendency to look at State standards or these
proposed amendments in the context of somebody's understanding of the
original legislation, rather than the understanding of the legislation
as interpreted by the court decision on the nondegradation decision.
Once we set the court decision and the EPA regulation pursuant to the
nondegradation decision alongside this bill, or some varying State
standard we get quite a different comparison.
The able Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) referred to the
action taken by his State in setting standards more strict than the
Federal law. I suspect they are not more strict than the nondegradation
standard as interpreted by the court. That is one of the reasons we are
here with this legislation, to further define what the Congress thinks
the law should be rather than leaving it to the Federal court and the
regulatory agencies to determine what that strictness shall be.
I think both the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from West
Virginia would agree with me that that is the comparison that ought to
be made rather than against the original legislation and what may have
been the intention of Congress, or at least in the minds of some in
Congress, at the time the original bill was passed.
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. If the Senator will yield, I do not believe
there is anything in the 1970 act that refers to nondegradation. It is
the decisions of the Sierra Club against Ruckelshaus that concerns us.
Mr. McCLURE. The legislation referred to the original finding that
it was our intention to protect. The court in construing that language
came up with the interpretation of that language to mean nondegradation.
It is against that standard by which we must now judge our act.
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. The amendment I propose to offer recites the
very phrase that the distinguished Senator has just mentioned, but then
adds, but in no case shall the Federal Government require it be higher
than the primary and secondary standards established by the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. The States have
the right, however, to require higher standards, and they should have
under the police powers.
Mr. McCLURE. When the Senator is referring to the Federal standards,
he is referring not to what is being established pursuant to the court
decisions but the primary and secondary decisions established in the
legislation passed by Congress.
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. The Senator is correct.
Mr. McCLURE. I think that is important. I think there is a great
deal of confusion abroad in the land about just what does this
legislation that we are considering do, and how it compares to the
alternative of doing nothing. That is one of the criticisms I have to
the amendment to be offered by the Senator from Utah, which will strike
the language that we have in this bill and which would leave us under
existing law as interpreted by the court and as applied by the EPA under
that court decision.
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. If the Senator will yield briefly, if and when
the distinguished Senator from Utah offers his amendment, I have an
amendment to that amendment which, in effect, says during the period of
existence of the commission, we shall not have this nondegradation
provision as established by the courts during that period of time. I
think it is worthy of consideration by the Senate.
Mr. McCLURE. I understand the Senator has that amendment as well as
the other one which he has been discussing. It is a matter we have
discussed intermittently over the last several weeks.
I thank the Senator from West Virginia for yielding.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I appreciate very much the opportunity for Members
other than myself, committee members and Members of the Senate, to
discuss these matters. We must be very careful within the Senate not to
in any way attempt to move this bill beyond the opportunity for Members
to check it out very carefully, to offer amendments, and particpate in
the debate when they desire.
I have said before, and I repeat, that pollution control is extremely
complex. The implications of the program are such that I say to the
Senator from Virginia (Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT) and all in the Chamber that
we must carefully examine each step that we take so far as possible. We
want to be certain that we are moving in a purposeful direction. I will
call it the right direction, not only to achieve clean air, but to do it
in a manner that does not disrupt the many, many necessary aspects of
our personal national life.
The bill also recognizes the responsibility of local governments for
many of the programs with direct impact on improving air quality. In
particular, transportation systems are a concern of local governments,
and the bill provides that transportation control plans will be prepared
by organizations of local elected officials, and the provisions of such
plans must be implemented by local governments.
This bill will redress a major flaw in the way transportation
controls were developed under the 1970 act. Local governments were not
accorded their proper role in that process, and the plans developed
often were unrealistic, and suffered from a lack of local support. The
amendments require that plans be developed in the first instance by
local officials.
Mr. President, for many years I have been concerned with the
long-range energy needs of our country and how they might be met. The
energy crisis that erupted in the winter of 1973-74 was one
manifestation of the problems we must resolve. It was a painful
reminder that we need to be making more progress toward determining how
our energy will be supplied in the future without disrupting the
economy.
As a Senator representing one of our country's largest coal-producing
States, I also am aware that coal must play an increasingly central role
in providing energy to run our country, particularly in the years
immediately ahead. The exotic potential sources of energy are by
general agreement many years from widespread application. We know that
we should not depend on foreign sources of fuels, particularly
petroleum, but we have made little headway in reducing that reliance.
At the present time, the United States(()) imports more than 7 million
barrels of oil from other countries every day. In some weeks imports
are one-half our national supply and it results in the outflow of
billions of dollars to other countries.
Our country has vast reserves of coal and we have the technology and
the ability to produce this coal and move it to markets. We also know
how to use it in environmentally safe ways. Two years ago the Energy
Supply and Environmental Coordination Act was passed with provisions for
electric utilities and other industrial facilities to switch to coal
from oil and natural gas. The Clean Air Amendments of 1976 also address
this subject and adjusts the program to facilitate the conversion to
coal.
There are two basic coal conversion issues dealt with in this
legislation. The first extends the date for sources which convert to
coal to comply with pollution abatement requirements. The second
transfers to the States some of the responsibilities in this area
presently held by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency. While I believe strongly that coal is essential to meeting our
country's energy needs, it must be utilized in environmentally sound
ways. We can do this through the provisions of the bill which will
enable industrial sources, particularly electric utilities, to continue
converting their boilers to coal.
Mr. President, there was perhaps no more difficult issue for the
committee members to resolve than how to implement the policy for
protecting existing clean areas from contamination by air pollution.
Throughout this country there are large areas that have clean air. We
know how difficult it can be to remove pollution from dirty areas, so it
is essential that we do not permit deterioration of air quality in those
areas which are relatively pollution free. Any costs that might be
associated with such an effort should be more than offset by avoiding
costly corrections in the future.
Prior to the past year, the question of exactly what constitutes
significant deterioration had not been directly addressed by the
Congress. This issue arose because of judicial interpretations and
administrative actions based on earlier legislation. The committee
felt, however, that once the questions had been raised they should be
answered by the Congress. We were, in fact, urged by many industry
representatives to act in this area.
The members of the committee deliberated for many weeks on this
issue. Input was received from many outside sources, including
governmental, industry, and organizations. We considered a number of
approaches to the problem and I believe that our final decision is one
that is both balanced and effective. Section 6 of the clean air
amendments establishes procedures under which no significant
deterioration of air quality will be permitted in areas which are clean
at the present time.
Once again, the States are asked to assume substantial responsibility
for the implementation of this section. The provisions of section 6 are
basically simple; the development of pollution sources will be
carefully controlled or in or near areas that are adjudged to be clean.
The same controls will apply to certain federally owned lands where
there is a special need for clean air.
There is considerable misunderstanding about the provisions relating
to nondeterioration and about their potential impact on industrial and
commercial activities in our country. This situation is apparent in the
mail received by the committee and I believe that we should take time to
separate some of the facts from the fiction.
First, this is not a Federal land use measure in disguise.
Obviously, if pollution sources are to be restricted, there are some
land use implications of section 6, but they are not objectives of the
legislation. Since the States have the basic responsibility for
developing and implementing nondeterioration plans, there is little
Federal involvement.
Another complaint is that nondeterioration provisions would virtually
halt industrial development in this country. Any rational examination
of the bill shows that this is clearly not the case. The members of the
committee, in fact, were careful to include in this section a mechanism
for permitting industrial development in clean air areas. Such
development cannot take place without stringent controls if the
integrity of the air quality is to be maintained, but the bill does
establish guides under which there can be industrial and commercial
activity. As a practical matter, there is really no limit on what can
be done in class II areas under the bill. A given facility may have to
install better controls, or be resited, but it almost certainly can be
built in compliance with the increments. The use of the best available
control technology is required so that emissions are kept to an absolute
minimum thus providing more capacity for industrial activity.
Furthermore, the nondeterioration provisions of the bill require that
consideration be given to the energy, environmental, and economic
consequences of any proposed level of control and technology
requirements.
Finally, the nondeterioration section of this bill applies only to
new major sources of emissions. It does not relate to sources already
in existence. They are covered by other sections of the act.
Mr. President, this area was not an easy one to resolve. The time
and concern devoted to it by the members indicates how seriously they
viewed this matter. The nondeterioration section has benefited from
such intensity of examination. Its requirements are not excessive nor
are they overly restrictive. They will be extremely helpful, if not
essential, in achieving the goals of clean air that we have established
for our country.
Another difficult issue in this bill, Mr. President, is that relating
to emissions standards for automobiles. Under the provisions of the
Clean Air Amendments of 1970, the 1975 model year was set as the
deadline for making cars that were essentially free of pollution. The
Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency subsequently extended
the deadlines. This bill further modifies the schedule for achieving
the ultimate statutory emission standards. It also revises one of those
standards. On the basis of new scientific information, the committee
recommends that the final standard for oxides of nitrogen be placed at 1
gram per mile rather than four-tenths of a gram per mile as in existing
law.
The control of pollutants from automobile exhausts is central to the
general reduction of air pollution. Motor vehicles produce a
significant portion of the total emissions in the air and particularly
in urban areas. In some cities, such as Washington, D.C., automobiles
are the largest source of pollution.
This is one area in which a national view has been taken.
Automobiles are manufactured and sold on a national basis and they move
readily from point to point within the country. It would therefore be
difficult, if not impossible, to adopt a State-by-State approach to
control automobile emissions. In developing this section of the Clean
Air Amendments of 1976, the committee was cognizant of the level of
technology development both with respect to emission control and to
engine efficiency. The extension of compliance deadlines in the bill
will provide opportunities for the industry to make further progress
developing technologies that will both enhance fuel efficiency and
further reduce emissions. The members continue to believe, however,
that strict timetables and adherence to them will be a stimulus to
industry to further its efforts in both of these fields.
The emission control systems presently used on cars will not be
effective for a long period of time unless maintained properly. Just as
engines will not run without periodic attention, neither will these
pollution control systems last forever without care.
The law requires that warranties for emission control systems be
provided by manufacturers be valid for 5 years or 50,000 miles,
whichever occurs first. Considerable concern has been raised that such
a lengthy warranty period for performance would have severe economic
consequences on the independent parts and service industries. It is
believed that the long-term warranty may limit service and parts to
those provided by manufacturers of automobiles.
The committee was sensitive to this problem and, as a result,
included several provisions in this bill intended to protect the
economic integrity of these independent businesses. Under this bill,
automobile manufacturers, for instance, cannot require the use of their
own parts or service provided by their agents as a condition of
maintaining the warranty in force. Further, independently manufactured
parts can be certified as usable without affecting the validity of the
warranty. Finally, and as further protection and guidance for future
action, the Federal Trade Commission is directed to conduct a study of
any anticompetitive effects that may still exist with respect to
warranty requirements for emission control systems.
There are many thousands of independent businesses throughout our
country that depend on servicing of automobiles. It is apparent that
they would be endangered by any requirement of(()) Federal law which
limited their ability to perform regular maintenance work on
automobiles. The committee has properly addressed this subject and I
believe that the result will be protective of independent industry while
maintaining the integrity of the pollution control program.
When the committee was debating this subject, I supported a proposal
to reduce the warranty period to 18 months or 18,000 miles. That
amendment was not adopted and the provisions that I have just discussed
were subsequently included in the bill. This modification, together
with the amendment being proposed by Senators BAKER, BUCKLEY, and
STAFFORD, will be sufficient to avoid discrimination against the
after-market industry.
Closely related to the reduction of emissions from automobiles are
transportation control plans as a technique for reducing pollutants in
communities. Existing law requires the use of transportation control
plans as part of an overall strategy in urban areas. This bill modifies
the transportation control plan requirements somewhat by authorizing an
extension of time for their implementation.
States may apply for and receive an extension for up to 5 years for
the attainment of primary ambient air quality standards in areas
requiring transportation controls. These States must show that the
earlier imposition of such controls would have serious adverse social
and economic effects. The Environmental Protection Agency can grant the
extensions if the State shows that it is working toward the attainment
of primary air quality standards. The bill also provides for a second
extension up to May 31, 1987, if primary standards are incapable of
attainment through the use of all reasonable and available control
measures. This extension would be limited to a few of the very worst
pollution-affected metropolitan areas.
Mr. President, I must observe at this point that the basic objective
of the act is to be attained by reaching specified air quality standards
in designated control regions. The use of transportation control plans
and automobile emission standards are among the various techniques for
the attainment of overall air quality standards. I can understand many
communities feel that transportation control plans are unnecessarily
severe and would impose severe hardships on normal life. We must
remember, however, that lengthy delays in meeting automobile emissions
standards increases the possibility that transportation controls will
have to be imposed if air quality standards are to be met.
Stringent transportation controls, therefore, can perhaps best be
avoided by concentrating on the technologies for reducing the pollutants
from the automobiles themselves.
The committee also gave careful consideration to the problems of
industrial development in urban areas where air quality standards have
not been reached and are not likely to be attained for some time. These
are often the areas where industrial expansion is likely to take place
and under existing law it is severely restricted and sometimes
impossible.
To cope with this situation and thus avoid imposing a strain on our
economic system, the bill contains provisions allowing under certain
conditions expansion and modification of facilities in substandard air
quality areas. We were careful, however, to avoid permitting indefinite
failure to meet air quality standards. It is for this reason that
expansion will be permitted only under very carefully drawn conditions
which assure first, that air quality will not further deteriorate and,
second, that continued progress will be made toward removing pollutants
from the air. The bill recognizes that concentrated urban areas are the
most likely candidates for industrial growth and also that some heavy
industries simply are not suited to operation in rural or lightly
populated areas.
The committee also recognized the particular problems of the smelting
industry in complying with pollution reduction requirements. The basic
approach of the air pollution control program has been that continuous
controls were the most effective technique. It appears, however, that
in the smelting industry there are instances when supplemental controls
are acceptable or a temporary solution to avoid massive expenditures in
an industry having difficulty competing with foreign suppliers. The
bill provides, therefore, that enforceable supplemental controls can be
included in an implementation plan for existing nonferrous smelters for
such metals as copper, zinc, gold, silver, and lead.
Mr. President, there is no question that air pollution control is an
extremely complex undertaking. It is also a new venture in this country
on the scale on which we have embarked in the past decade. The
implications of such a program are such that we should carefully examine
each step that we take and be sure that we are moving in the right
direction, not only to achieve clean air but to do so in a manner that
does not disrupt other aspects of our national life.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 authorized the
establishment of a Commission to review that program and to suggest
future courses of action.
Now, we take the same approach, and I will say to the Senator from
Tennessee (Mr. BAKER) that what we did in connection with the National
Commission on Water Quality we are now doing in this bill, under his
direct sponsorship of an amendment in the full committee calling for a
National Commission on Air Quality. It is necessary to have this
continuing study, this careful review and assessment of all of the
problems, not only of pollution control but of the social and economic
considerations or aspects which are involved.
Mr. BAKER: Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield.
Mr. BAKER. I am grateful that our distinguished chairman has
referred to that provision of the bill covering the National Commission
on Air Quality. I am hopeful that it will add an element of strength in
a difficult and uncertain field.
He and I were both privileged to serve on the National Water Quality
Commission. By the way, it was not an easy task to serve as a
legislator and at the same time to serve as a commissioner on this body
whose task it was to review the water legislation. The commissioners,
however, completed this difficult task under the able leadership of the
Vice President of the United States, who was on the Commission before he
became Vice President and stayed on as its Chairman at the urging of the
Senator from West Virginia and myself. The legislative commission is a
good approach to congressional oversight and I hope our colleagues in
the future will think of it as a technique which does what we have not
always done readily; that is, admit that we do not have final
definitive answers to every problem, but also as a technique for giving
a freshness of viewpoint for legislation from outside the executive and
legislative branches.
So I am glad that the Senator from West Virginia has identified that
portion of the bill which was accepted on my motion by the committee,
and which I feel may be a form of legislative action which will be
useful in the future.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I thank the Senator from Tennessee.
The Board would be composed of 15 members, public and congressional,
and that body would be charged, as we were in the study under the
National Commission on Water Quality, with reviewing the adequacy, the
fairness, and the effectiveness of the clean air program, to protect the
public health and welfare, and, of course, the implications of the
program.
A report would be required to come to Congress within 3 years. It is
likely that we will be called on to address the clean air program in
that period, and the detailed examinations of the Commission, as has
been indicated by the Senator from Tennessee, would be a valuable guide
in charting the future course of the program.
Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, the chairman of the Public Works
Committee, the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH), has, I
believe, given us an excellent survey of the problems that have been
confronted by the committee and the objectives that it has sought to
achieve during the tremendously long process of examining various
proposals and specific amendments that have been offered to bring the
legislation, first enacted in 1970 up to date. We have met problems
that could not have been anticipated at that time. This bill adjusts
the timetables. And the bill does many other things that are necessary
to update such fundamental legislation.
I am in full support of S. 3219, the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1976.
Our committee has spent many long hours -- hours that stretched into
months -- in the development of this bill. I am convinced that it is
sound legislation. I am convinced that it is necessary legislation.
And I am convinced that it is legislation that is both fair and
equitable.
I shall not seek at this moment to duplicate in detail the excellent
statement(()) made by the chairman of the full committee (Mr. RANDOLPH)
and a statement that will be made later today by the distinguished
chairman of the Environmental Pollution Subcommittee (Mr. MUSKIE). Nor
shall I attempt to conduct a tour of the committee report, on which the
members spent many hours of work, and which Senators have had available
to them for several months.
I might state that the Senator from Idaho (Mr. McCLURE) made an
extraordinary contribution to the quality of that report by insisting
that the members consider it sentence by sentence, to make sure that its
language fully reflected the committee's intention as to the effects of
the various provisions. I believe this report is particularly
authoritative insofar as it reflects the thinking of the committee.
Rather than go into great detail, I would like rather at this time to
offer some thoughts and observations on the philosophy of this
legislation, noting some particular points that may be of interest to
our colleagues.
Many persons have argued that we need no bill at all, except for one
that extends the deadline for attainment of the auto emission standards.
But the committee chose, wisely, I believe, when it decided to resolve
such thorny issues as that of significant deterioration in clean air
areas.
Despite its length and scope, the 1970 clean air amendments failed to
delineate many aspects of a national clean-air strategy. The law failed
to detail such directives as the requirements carried over from the 1967
act to "protect and enhance" the Nation's air quality. The courts have
been called on to interpret this directive, as well as the one for
"transportation controls," which, while upholding the thrust in the 1970
act, nevertheless did so in a manner that has allowed less latitude for
judgments in individual cases than the Congress may have intended. The
environmental Protection Agency has followed these decisions with
administrative rules that have implemented the courts' decisions.
Failure to adopt language in this bill involving significant
deterioration will leave those regulations in place for the foreseeable
future, substituting the substantive judgments of the courts and EPA for
explicit directions from the Congress.
The Constitution vests the Congress with the responsibility to define
national policy. It would be an act of irresponsibility for the
Congress now to leave the resolution of these issues to the agencies and
the courts. And it would be an act of folly, for it would assure that
corporate decisions on growth would remain tied to litigation for months
and years to come.
In the committee's language defining "significant deterioration," we
have established a flexible and reasonable standard against which to
measure the deterioration of air quality in clean air areas.
Significant deterioration is defined in terms of concentrations of
additional ambient pollution. It is not a new approach or a new
philosophy. This bill achieves this goal by relying on the judgment of
the States, and not the Federal bureaucrats, as is now the case. This
is a wise and practical change.
"No significant deterioration" is a policy that has no effect on
existing sources, unless a source undertakes a major expansion program.
It requires the States to study the impact on air quality resulting from
the siting of new major sources of pollution, and it creates a mechanism
allowing a State to decide if it wants the next major source to consume
all the clean air resources of an area, or whether that clean-air
resource should be shared among various new plants. It lessens the
danger that an upwind State will impose its pollution on a neighbor.
Fundamental to this approach is the requirement for the use of "best
available technology," to be determined by each State on a case-by-case
basis. What would be the effect of requiring less than best-available
technology? The main danger would be that the initial applicant in the
clean-air area would use up the entire allowable increment of pollution,
whether that increment is the one specified in the bill, or is the
difference between the present level of air quality and the secondary
standards. The more lax the initial emission standard, the more likely
it is that the plant will some day be forced into costly retrofitting in
order to shoehorn new facilities into the area. With a requirement for
best available control technology, there is less need to worry about
modeling errors. And there is less likelihood that development plans
will be tied up in court over questions of whose modeling is right.
Inherent in the word available is a judgment on the costs and the
energy use, plus other implications of that technology. Specifically,
the Senate bill requires that "energy, environmental, and economic
impacts and other costs" be taken into account by each State in this
test. This is a decision that should and will be made by the local
officials, the people best able to make that balancing judgment.
This bill does not impose land-use designations or giant clean-air
buffer zones, as present EPA regulations do. When Congress in the
1960's established ambient air quality standards as the criteria for
measuring air pollution, Congress required than that States and the
Federal Government work together to analyze the impact of a new plant on
the air quality in the area of the plant. Section 6 of this bill
defines that directive with greater precision.
Another issue that carries vast significance relates to the
automobile standards. Public interest centers on this provision as much
as any other in the bill. We have reached a decision that I consider to
be fair. It is one that will impose no undue costs -- in terms of
dollars or fuel economy -- on the motoring public. The standards in the
bill are reasonable and offer the industry the time it needs to meet the
statutory standards.
Not only does this bill establish a staged approach toward more
stringent standards, but it also sets the nitrogen oxide standard at a
more realistic, permanent level; a level of control that will assure
essentially healthy air when matched by controls of similar stringency
on stationary sources. Probably most important of all, the bill creates
a mechanism that allows the industry to phase-in its cleaner cars,
without pushing the industry into full compliance in the leap of a
single model year.
The date for full compliance in the act -- 1980 -- represents a
5-year moratorium from the initial compliance date on hydrocarbons and
carbon monoxide set in the 1970 act. EPA has determined that those
statutory numbers could have been met in the 1976 model year. The
hydrocarbon number will be met this fall in the cars that are sold in
California.
I must note that some cars in 1976 were certified at levels that
matched or came close to the numbers for 1980 in this Bill. The 1977
Volvo line easily met the statutory standards with innovative catalyst
technology. This does not mean that everyone can do it with ease, but I
do believe that it indicates that the new standards established in this
bill are not unreasonable.
The date on nitrogen oxides represents a 4-year extension from the
1970 act, as well as a relaxation allowing pollution at 2 1/2 times the
level set in 1970. This standard was selected in part because of the
need to assure the broadest possible options in the industry, including
use of diesels, stratified charge engines, and the so-called lean-burn
system.
One of the more difficult problems was developing a rational step
toward ultimate automotive controls. The industry told us that it has
historically developed on a pattern that involved the gradual phasing in
of new technologies from automatic transmissions to radio serials
embedded in the windshields. They were available initially on a few
models, then expanding to the full time.
Such a phase-in approach was the basis for the original
Muskie-Buckley proposal of more than 1 year ago that sought to relate
the phase-in to auto mileage. When the industry attacked that proposal,
the committee evaluated a variety of alternatives: a phase-in based on
weight, one based on styling changes, one based on an emissions change.
All had drawbacks of one kind or another. The committee then reached
its present proposal, tied to a relatively small percentage that can be
achieved in the insulated California market or based on one or two
models. With the exception of the smallest companies, the manufacturers
are required to sell 10 percent of their 1979 cars at the 1980 numbers.
This can be done in any way the company chooses.
This phase-in scheme is designed to encourage innovation. I am
convinced that the industry is capable of achieving the standards in
this bill, in the time alloted. The time is not just in the future.
The industry has known since 1970 what was ultimately required. It has
known since last fall what numbers would be contained in this bill. I
would anticipate that the industry has been -- or at least should have
been -- working toward the achievement of these goals. The numbers in
the bill are reasonable ones. Frank Zarb, Administrator of the(())
Federal Energy Administration, wrote to the subcommittee a year ago as
follows:
Theoretically it is possible to meet the lower standards of 41 HC/3.4
CO 1.0 NO(z) without fuel economy loss using three-way catalysts or
advanced oxidation catalyst systems with cold-start HC storage or with
start catalysts. In practical terms, however, relatively few cars could
be equipped with such advanced systems by the 1978 model year, and thus
there would be fuel economy losses that will vary directly with vehicle
weight.
This bill meets that criticism. It does not bring in the lower
standard until 1979, and provides until 1980 for full compliance. Mr.
Zarb also said:
The 1.0 NO(z) standard would be achievable with lean burn and with
stratified charge engines without fuel economy loss in the lighter
vehicles, but would entail fuel economy loss in larger automobiles.
None of these alternate engines, however, could reasonably be developed
for production by the industry unless the industry had assurance that
the ultimate emissions standards would not be lower than 1.0 NO(z); at
lower NO(z) levels a reduction catalyst or three-way catalyst would be
needed, and such catalysts cannot be used with lean burn or stratified
charge engines.
Mr. President, a number of other provisions have been included in the
bill as a result of amendment that I offered in committee. I would like
to discuss several of these at this time.
Much of the impetus for this bill involves a recognition that control
technology needs to be improved. This fact is noted in the general
statement of the report, which demonstrates the importance our committee
places on improvement of technology for pollution control, encouraging
better, cheaper controls now and lessening the need for retrofitting in
the future.
Most isgnificant, at least initially, is the provision involving the
technology waiver. This language appears in the section that extends
compliance deadlines for stationary sources. My provision would allow 2
additional years for compliance by any company that can demonstrate that
it plans to use that time to develop and install a new and innovative
technology that would either sharply reduce costs or provide greater
pollution control, and offer techniques that could be adopted widely.
In acting upon a request for additional time under this innovative
technology provision, the State authority may grant an extension under
either the provision requiring a bond or the one involving a delayed
compliance penalty. A bond would be required for a source intending to
replace its entire production process and which could not comply by
gradually phasing in on a timetable for compliance. The delayed
compliance penalty mechanism would be applicable when the source would
meet the emission limitation by modifying or replacing pollution
abatement equipment or which could meet the phase-in requirements on a
schedule for compliance.
Another provision designed to stimulate technology is section 40,
which requires that the Administrator of EPA study ways an emissions tax
could encourage the control of emissions of oxides of nitrogen from
stationary sources. One of the difficulties of current law is the lack
of incentive to new technology. An emissions tax, if implemented
fairly, would create a marketplace incentive toward improved emissions
controls. If successful, it could also suggest a new approach to the
control of pollution that could prove more effective and efficient that
what we have thus far adopted.
Earlier in my statement, I discussed the need to prevent the
significant deterioration of air quality in clean air areas. This
requirement, too, should serve to stimulate technology over the longer
run. Inherent in any such control program, pegged to ambient pollutant
levels, is the realization that there is a maximum level of pollution
that can be emitted in any one site. Since there is a natural trend
toward economies of scale, such an incremental lid will lead to the need
for increased percentages of control as the potential sources of
pollution grow larger. The development of such technologies should lead
to the use of less costly and more effective controls on existing plants
in our cities.
This same philosophy of growth under an umbrella applies to that
section of the bill that allows expansion of plants in areas where
standards are presently being violated. By granting greater flexibility
to local authorities -- allowing expansion of a steel mill or a chemical
plant or petroleum refinery -- the bill will encourage industry to
develop new approaches and improved technologies.
In considering technology, the State must consider economic and other
social factors. But the weight given to those economic factors by any
State is wholly discretionary with that State, as is the issuance of any
permit under this act. The word "may" is implicit throughout this bill
when it details procedures of how the State evaluates best available
control technology and the impacts affecting that technology. Each
State, of course, retains full flexibility to set as restrictive a
standard as it may wish in the interest of preserving air quality and/or
encouraging as much industrial expansion as would be practicable within
the limitations set by the allowable increments of specified pollutants.
This language is not intended to encourage a least common denominator
approach. It should, over the longer run, encourage technological
flexibility and improvements in technology that are effective from an
environmental and economic viewpoint.
There are a number of other provisions that I believe are sound and
merit the support of my colleagues. The provisions allowing for
reasonable extensions in the deadlines for full implementation of
transportation controls is one such example. While it is recognized
that some areas may need years and years to reach the ambient standard,
our bill requires that a community impose reasonable controls as quickly
as practicable, making staged improvements toward the ambient standards.
Several points need to be made relating to transportation controls.
The bill contains a list of a number of strategies that are to be
studied. It is my expectation that those strategies will be considered
reasonable in nearly every case. As part of that strategy, a community
must institute the various reasonable transportation controls when they
become available. It is unacceptable for a community to wait until the
end of the extension period to throw on all of the reasonable strategies
at one time. Good sense and the intent of this bill calls for
implementing each reasonable control as soon as it is practicable to do
so. This is particularly important in those areas that may require a
second extension. Before the extension is granted, the community must
show that it is doing all that is reasonable up to that point. And then
the extension may be granted only on implementing one or a few
strategies, with all others requiring during the initial extension.
The bill also provides funds for community planning for
transportation controls. These funds are available for public education
in transportation controls, as well as for the actual planning itself.
Another provision of interest in section 35. This section is
intended to lessen the danger that a private party may be harassed by
Federal litigators. This provision will assure that any part in a suit
with the United States under this act will receive reimbursement of all
costs of litigation should that party prevail. While such a provision
cannot prevent harassment, it will certainly encourage private parties
and municipalities to push for their full rights, as they have every
right to do.
Mr. President, I have sought to touch a few of the highlights of this
important legislation in these opening remarks. I urge that the Senate
support this legislation. I believe it serves as a balanced and
reasonable basis for continuing progress toward clean air.
In closing, I would like to express a particular word of appreciation
to my colleagues on the Committee on Public Works. Our former ranking
minority member, Mr. BAKER, now the ranking member on the Subcommittee
on Environmental Pollution, served as a strong and effective leader in
the development of the bill. That is a role he assumes in each of the
difficult challenges we confront in committee. his guidance was most
helpful in assuring that this was a reasonable bill. The chairman, Mr.
RANDOLPH, during the long development of this bill, demonstrated his
unfailing courtesy and fairness. In many ways, this bill reflects both
his many innovative ideas and his strong belief in a balanced approach
toward environmental protection. And the chairman of the Subcommittee
on Environmental Pollution, Mr. MUSKIE, deserves our great thanks for
his strong leadership and attention to this bill.
I would also want to say a note about my three other Republican
colleagues on the committee, each of whom devoted long hours and great
thought to this bill. The Senator from Vermont (Mr. STAFFORD)
consistently backed effective environmental controls. His contribution
will be long remembered by those of us who support an effective
pollution control effort. The Senators from Idaho and New Mexico
(Messrs. McCLURE and(()) DOMENICI) each contributed a positive and
effective thrust to this bill, as they do to any legislation in which
they become involved. The fact that Senators of their caliber and
dedication fully endorse this legislation ought, in itself, to commend
the support of Members of the minority in this body.
Mr. STAFFORD. Mr. President, I would like to add my support for
passage of S. 3219, the Clean Air Amendments of 1976.
The Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution and the full Committee on
Pubic Works produced this legislation after lengthy sessions that
covered many months. The participation of members of the subcommittee
and of the full committee was gratifying in terms of both the time spent
and the quality of the deliberations. This legislation is worthy of the
support of the full Senate. It is good legislation and it is necessary
legislation. The proposals that will soon be debated on this floor are
reasonable ones.
My senior committee colleagues from both sides of the aisle have
already presented excellent and comprehensive statements and analyses of
the bill, and I shall make no effort here to duplicate those statements.
This legislation was produced under the legitimate pressure of
conflicting tides. There were some who argued that no bill was needed,
except for a simple extension of the deadlines regarding auto emission
standards. Others argued that our committee should produce legislation
that would let down the safeguards protecting our environment, because
of the economic difficulties facing our Nation.
The committee decided wisely to reject those suggestions.
The committee has produced a bill that continues our effort to
preserve and to enhance the quality of our Nation's air and, in so
doing, to preserve and enhance the quality of our national life.
It is a bill that reflects the least possible changes required to
improve certain features of the Clean Air Act in response to changing
national conditions.
One of the major achievements of this bill, if not the major
achievement, is the establishment of a flexible and reasonable standard
against which to measure significant deterioration of our air.
The standard does not involve land-use designations or massive clean
air buffer zones, as many have claimed. The argument that this
legislation imposes a new philosophy of Federal land use planning is an
inaccurate reading of both this bill and of existing law.
The achievement of this difficult standard is in the highest
tradition of this body. Under the Constitution, the Congress has the
responsibility to define national policy. We meet that responsibility
in this legislation. For the Congress to duck that responsibility and
to leave that issue to the courts and to Federal agencies would be an
abdication of our constitutional duty.
It would also be unwise for the Congress to fail to define this
national policy, for it would surely guarantee that corporate growth
decisions would be snarled in litigation for years to come.
In addition to dealing with the issue of significant deterioration,
this bill addresses three other basic aspects of our national effort to
keep our air clean: reasonable modification of auto emission standards;
a plan for coordinating stationary source compliance schedules, and a
system to move more effectively into transportation control plans in
major cities.
Members of the committee are all well aware of the competing
interests that will be affected by this legislation.
The committee reached the conclusion that it would be dangerous to
encourage an economic growth policy that abandons environmental
safeguards. Our Nation must continue to grow without destroying the
very environment that sustains our lives.
This legislation provides for clean growth in the United States. It
is a sound bill, and I commend it to all of my colleagues.
I also wish to express my appreciation of and admiration for the
efforts of my colleagues on the Public Works Committee.
Our new ranking minotiry member, the Senator from New York (Mr.
BUCKLEY), who has spoken just ahead of me, who had been the ranking
member of the Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution, was a powerful
leader in the development of this bill, and in defense of the
environmental quality of our Nation. The Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
BAKER), who has switched places with the Senator from New York (Mr.
BUCKLEY) because of a new committee leadership responsibility, provided,
as always, erudite guidance in our effort to assure that this would be a
reasonable bill. The chairman of the full committee, the Senator from
West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH), once again demonstrated his patience,
courtesy, and fairness as we worked our way through this difficult
assignment. And, of course, the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Environmental Pollution, the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE), deserves
major thanks for his leadership and determination over a long and
difficult period of time. He is a true champion of environmental
quality.
My other Republican colleagues, the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.
DOMENICI) and the Senator from Idaho (Mr. McCLURE), each contributed
significantly to this legislation. The contributions were necessary
ingredients in the achievement of the balance that is reflected in the
final product.
The fact that this legislation has the full endorsement of such a
politically and philosophically diverse team of Senators as those
represented on the Publi Works Committee argues well for support of this
bill by all Members of the Senate.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the present
committee amendments found in S. 3219. The year of sustained effort by
the Senate Public Works Committee has produced a bill which I believe
properly balances the Nation's environmental and economic needs. I feel
this bill represents a tribute to the committee process. As one who
attended virtually every hearing and every markup, I believe the bill
bears witness to the value of rational dialog. I believe the 45 markups
on the bill have produced a set of amendments that will keep the
principal goals and purposes of the law intact while accommodating the
requirements of a complex national economy.
At this point, I feel no compulsion to launch into an exhaustive
restatement of the provisions of the committee bill. My distinguished
colleague from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) will make an extensive submittal and
statement on this matter. Here, this morning, the distinguished
chairman, the ranking member, and other members have done likewise. I
have also made my views on the present amendments known at some length
in a law review article reprinted in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, March 22,
1976.
Rather than dwell on the well-trod ground of what is contained in the
present amendments, and detail for my colleagues my contributions to the
bill, I would like instead to offer some prospective comments on several
challenges the committee bill faces on the floor of the Senate. The
most prominent of these challenges centers on the bill's nondegradation
provisions. Enactment of these provisions is essential to both the
long-range environmental integrity and economy the State of New Mexico.
Let me elaborate on the apparent paradox contained in this statement.
New Mexico has long prided itself on the splendor of its natural
setting. Maintaining such splendor remains a high priority for all New
Mexicans. Counterbalanced against this desire for preserving
environmental quality is the desire of New Mexicans for economic growth.
New Mexico ranks 48th in per capita income. Improving the economic
well-being of our citizens also ranks as a high priority.
The committee's nondegradation amendment offers a mechanism for
reconciling these apparently conflicting priorities. Without a
nondegradation policy, New Mexico would be forced to sacrifice its
environmental quality when competing with neighboring States for new
industry. Alternatively, a decision not to allow environmental quality
to be a bargaining chip in its siting negotiations with new industry
could come at the expense of an improved standard of living for those
mired in poverty, or those lower on the economic scale.
Enactment of the committee's nondegradation policy would eliminate
States desiring both growth and environmental quality from having to
make such a stark choice. A Federal nondegradation policy puts all
States on equal footing in competing for new industry. States are not
forced to sacrifice environmental quality for economic growth, but
rather can require that new industries employ best available control
technologies without fear that a sister State will undercut them by
sacrificing environmental restraints.
Nevertheless, despite the importance of nondegradation for States
such as New Mexico, several lines of attack have(()) surfaced against
the committee provisions that deserve comment.
This is an alluring proposition. It is difficult to be against
additional studies. There comes a time, however, when the Nation has a
right to expect congressional action. The argument for more study
ignores the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency already has
regulations on this issue in effect that are the subject of continued
litigation and confusion and that industry, environmentalists, and the
executive branch have made repeated entreaties for Congress to resolve
this issue. The call for more study is little more than a call for
continued chaos.
The argument for additional study also deserves several technical
comments. First, I remain skeptical that an effort of the magnitude
contemplated by the study proponents could be completed in a year. The
analogous National Commission on Water Quality took 3 years to complete
its work, and was 6 months late in making its final report. Second,
study proponents point to difficulties in the art of air quality
diffusion modeling as an argument for the study. I view the matter
differently. One of the weaknesses of many of the present studies on
the nondegradation issue is that they are based on hypotheticals that
employ a wide variety of air quality diffusions modeling assumptions.
The chance for both sides to embed hidden biases beneath mounds of data
has led me to the conclusion that we have reached the point of
diminishing returns with respect to the probative value of additional
studies based on hypotheticals. What we need is real world experience
that can serve as feedback for future amendments. The committee
amendments provide for a National Air Quality Commission to provide such
feedback. Diverting the commission from its job of providing the
Congress with hard data on the real world consequences of nondegradation
for a 1-year study based on fictional hypotheticals appears to me to be
ill-advised.
This argument has been repeatedly demolished. Senator MUSKIE's
submittal in the April 29, 1976, RECORD starting at page S6175, contains
an insert of a recent EPA study that goes into great detail on the issue
of the size of new industrial facilities allowed under the committee's
nondegradation provisions. The study's principal conclusion is that --
The Senate significant deterioration proposal will not prevent the
construction of major, economically sized industrial facilities (April
29, 1976 Cong. Rec., p. S6177).
There is, however, one point made in the EPA study concerning future
constraints on growth that merits additional discussion. EPA cites the
possible need for a class III in the post-1980 period to allow
industrial concentrations in urban areas. This is precisely the type of
issue the National Air Quality Commission should be focusing its
attention on after we get some experience with the committee's
nondegration amendments. One personal observation on the class III
issue is that principal methodological technique of doomsayers on both
sides is to keep our technological capabilities constant while charting
increases in other variables such as energy, population, or pollution.
Obviously, keeping technology constant while allowing growth in other
variables can always allow one to forecast disaster. Certainly one of
the hopes of those of us who support nondegradation is that it will
serve to force technology so that the Nation will not have to resort to
options such as class III. Nevertheless, one cannot afford to be such a
technological optimist as to ignore reality. If the National Air
Quality Commission should recommend an option similar to a class III, I,
for one, would seriously consider it.
Informed opponents of nondegradation, recognizing that
well-controlled major facilities will not be precluded, have argued that
the policy will cost too much. Again, I believe the EPA data found in
the April 29, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD refutes this contention. In fact,
EPA's general conclusions receive support from a recent study
commissioned by the utility industry. Generally, both efforts find that
the individual consumer's electrical bill will not be increased through
1990 by more than 2 percent by the Senate's nondegradation amendments.
Moreover, capital costs to the industry are in the 3-percent range.
Personally, I believe these investments well spent.
For those of us from the West, this issue of costs has an extra
dimension. Much of the existing and proposed construction of
fossil-fueled electrical energy-producing facilities in the West is for
export to California, which has no coal-fired plants of its own.
Accordingly, California consumers will be reaping the benefits in terms
of electrical energy, while residents of New Mexico and other energy
supplier States will be left with the costs imposed by environmental
degradation. In light of this discrepancy between those reaping the
benefits and those bearing the costs, it appears to me entirely proper
that California consumers pay a premium for their electrical energy to
protect the environment of New Mexico.
For all the above reasons, I hope that my colleagues will see fit to
support the committee's nondegradation proposal.
The second challenge to the bill concerns section 16 of the Public
Works Committee bill that deals with "Ozone Protection." An amendment
(No. 1577) proposed by the Senator from Oregon would have us implement
at this time an outright ban on aerosol products to take effect January
1, 1978. Such a position defies the overwhelming weight of testimony
and opinion that there is time to gain answers to the complex scientific
questions which are bound up in this matter.
The committee bill is a serious attempt responsibly to grapple with
the issue of whether fluorocarbon compounds released from aerosol
containers -- and from refrigeration and air conditioning systems as
well -- are depleting the ozone layer above the Earth's surface. The
committee's bill views the matter as one of grave concern. It gives the
Environmental Protection Agency power to take whatever action is needed,
when it is needed, if the growing body of scientific knowledge shows
that there is a risk to man or the environment.
The approach submitted to us by the distinguished Senator from Oregon
is, I respectfully submit, unrealistic, unnecessary, and impractical.
It is a poor precedent in environmental regulation and I urge its
rejection. It is unrealistic, because it assumes we have answers to
questions which we do not have. It is unnecessary because responsible
opinion acknowledges that there is time to obtain the needed answers.
And it is impractical if viewed as anything other than an outright ban
of aerosols, because it imposes an impossible burden on industry.
My colleague from Oregon has purported to offer a bill which would
not be an outright ban on aerosols using flurocarbons. His remarks of
April 7, 1976, however, reflect his recognition of the fact that his
bill would be just that. He has spoken of giving industry a period of
time to develop alternatives to use of halocarbons in aerosol spray
products and of other matters, all pointing to the intent of banning
halocarbons from use in aerosols.
The reason the Senator's bill leads to this result is that the ban
would take effect unless EPA found that "no significant risk" to the
public health was present. Yet, as a basic scientific matter, it is
extremely difficult, if not impossible, to prove the negative of the
unproven hypothesis that flurocarbons may rise through the atmosphere,
react with the ozone layer, and diminish it, thus increasing the amount
of ultraviolet radiation at the Earth's surface.
The approach of requiring that the scientific hypothesis be proved
incorrect would constitute a basic deviation from the established mode
upon which regulations have traditionally been made in this country and
the way in which our system of jurisprudence operates. It should be
emphasized that this matter is completely distinguishable from other
contexts in which legislation has required an industry to establish that
its products are safe or not harmful, such as pesticides and food or
color additives. In these other contexts, there are established testing
procedures by which an appropriate judgment can be made regarding the
safety of the products. These include tests on animals, such as
long-term feeding tests with rats and mice, and rabbit skin tests. In
contrast here, because the ozone depletion controversy involves a
hypothesis based on computer modeling and a variety of untested
scientific assumptions, there are no known acceptable techniques or
protocols which would permit industry members affirmatively to establish
that their products do not deplete ozone within the time frame
contemplated by Senator PACKWOOD'S proposal. In the final analysis,
this is just another way of noting the difficulty, if not the
impossibility, of proving the negative of unproven hypothesis.
Given the state of scientific knowledge(()) of the matter, the
committee's approach, as now set forth in section 16, is particularly
appropriate. It protects the public interest and meets accepted
standards of administrative due process. Section 16 now provides that,
if research undertaken under the bill shows that the continued use of
fluorocarbons "may reasonably be anticipated" to contribute the public
health risks, EPA has full authority to take action to eliminate such
risks. Another provision of the section permits EPA to act even prior
to the completion of the research, if developments warrant such action.
For these reasons, I urge defeat of the amendment offered by my
colleague from Oregon. His approach is one which has already been
rejected as inappropriate by the full committee and one which should
likewise be rejected by us here.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Jeff
Grodner of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor during the
debate and votes on the Clean Air Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, the amendments to the Clean Air Act
reported from the Senate Public Works Committee cover many important
aspects of our air pollution control effort. I will address a few of
these briefly.
But, first, let me say that I feel the Senate Public Works Committee
in its work on this legislation has abided by its tradition of thorough
and incisive debate. The vote to report this bill was 13 to 1. It is
difficult to assess the significance of the near unanimity with which
the committee acted without understanding the complexity of the issues
dealt with and the concern of each committee member for the broad
impacts of this legislation.
Mr. President, some of the provisions of the bill before us have come
under intense criticism which has often unfairly characterized the
committee's work. I think that it is a tribute to the committee's
careful effort that committee support for the bill has not waivered. I
hope that my colleagues in the Senate will take note of this and
carefully consider the views of the committee members, who represent a
wide spectrum of political thought, in assessing the merits of this bill
and the criticism directed at some of its provisions.
It has been the main tenor of these amendments to adjust the goals
set by the 1970 act to reflect economic and technology limitations. In
the extension and modification of mobile source emission standards, the
committee has accomplished its purpose in three ways: First, by
changing the statutory standard for oxides of nitrogen to 1.0 gram per
mile, the committee has broadened the range of potential technologies
which will respond to the requirements of the statutory standards;
second, the committee has granted the industry another year to meet
statutory standards for HC and CO. This brings to 4 years the total
extensions granted industry and reflects the willingness of the
committee to track technological progress in the implementation of its
goals; and third, the modified statutory standards incorporated in the
bill provide a clear goal to industry assuring the orderliness and
certainty necessary to an effective technological research effort.
We have made great strides toward reducing the pollution burdens in
our cities under the 1975 act. While the committee's action will delay
further progress slightly the bill contains provisions to insure that
these standards are effectively enforced and that ultimate emission
standards are consistent with technological progress to date.
One of the most important issues addressed by the committee in these
amendments to the Clean Air Act is the "no significant deterioration."
Simply stated the question addressed in those provisions of S. 3219 is
the protection of the clean air resources of the Nation.
Most of the Nation enjoys air quality better than the threshold
levels identified in the primary and secondary standards of the Clean
Air Act. Without protection industrial development would push many of
these areas toward the thresholds for dangerous air.
It clearly was not the intention of the drafters of the Clean Air Act
in identifying levels of pollution harmful to man and his environment to
make those levels the target or goal for clean air areas of the Nation.
While adequate provision for protection of clean air areas was not
drafted into the Clean Air Act, the concept has derived from the
statement of purposes contained in that act. Section 6 of S. 3219
contains our attempt to provide a precise legislative framework for this
fundamental concept.
The concept of no significant deterioration as a part of clean air
strategy derives from the case of Sierra Club v. Ruckelshaus, 344 F Supp
253 (D.D.C. 1972) on May 30, 1972. The district court in this case
declared that the phrase "protect and enhance the quality of the
Nation's air resources" contained in section 101(b) of the Clear Air Act
intended that all States must include as part of their State
implementation plans provisions to prevent degradation of air quality in
areas where the air was cleaner than the national primary and secondary
standards. This district court decision was affirmed per curium by the
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and was subsequently
upheld by the Supreme Court.
While the courts mandated incorporation of this concept into the
clean air programs of the States, the decisions did not define
significant deterioration or otherwise specify an implementation
strategy for dealing with the concept.
This task fell to the Environmental Protection Agency. After a
series of hearings and the publication of proposed regulations, final
regulations were published on December 5, 1974 (39 F.R. 42510).
The no significant deterioration provisions of EPA's regulations and
the provisions of S. 3219 differ significantly. Both proposals apply
only to a limited population of emitters. Under EPA's regulations all
facilities in 17 designated categories of heavy emitters would be
subject to control. Under S. 3219 there are 28 categories controlled,
but only those facilities within these categories which emit 100 tons
per year of pollutants would be controlled. Only major emitters would
be subject to both the technology and incremental pollution requirements
of the no significant deterioration provisions of S. 3219.
While both proposals are implemented through permit programs to give
builders certainty regarding the specific application of the program to
a proposed plant in time to plan construction commitments. EPA's
program is based upon Federal permits. S. 3219 delegates this important
permit program to State control in order to enhance responsiveness and
flexibility.
Under EPA's program the Nation's clean air areas are divided into
three classes. Class II, which includes all areas until redesignated,
is essentially the same as class II under S. 3219. In these class II
areas an additional burden of pollution is permitted as specified by a
list of increments for sulfur dioxide and particulate matter. These
increments are identical in both programs and are consistent with
environmentally controlled industrial growth.
Both EPA's program and S. 3219 provide for class I areas where
maximum protection of clean air resources is required. Under EPA's
program class I areas would be created through a redesignation process
upon application of the State or a Federal land manager. Once an area
is designated under EPA's program a set of increments substantially
restricting pollution goes into effect. There is no flexibility.
Under S. 3219 class I areas include national parks, international
parks, national memorial parks, and wilderness areas over 5,000 acres in
size. The States may in their discretion add areas to the class I
category, requiring only one concurrence of the Federal land manager in
the case of Federal lands. The mandatory class I areas provided for in
S. 3219 comprise slightly more than 1 percent of the land area of the
United States.
There is substantial difference in the impact of class I increments
under S. 3219. The ultimate test applicable under S. 3219 is whether a
proposed facility will have an adverse impact upon the air quality
related values for which the class I area was created. The increments
are employed as prima facie evidence of harm shifting the burden of
proof in a determination of impact to the State or land manager where
increments are met and leaving the developer an opportunity to establish
the safety of a facility even though the increments are exceeded.
This flexibility not only recognizes that the ultimate purpose of
class I designation is to protect critical land resources, but provides
a mechanism which will be invaluable in reevaluation of proper levels of
control for environmentally sensitive areas in the future.
Class III areas may be established under(()) EPA's no significant
deterioration program. In these areas pollution would be permitted to
increase up to secondary standards.
The committee rejected this concept.
The ambient standards of the Clean Air Act were intended to identify
threshold levels of pollution above which pollution endangers public
welfare and safety. To permit the deterioration of a clean air area up
to these thresholds intentionally flirts with the dangers identified by
the standard.
These standards were not intended as targets in clean air areas but
rather as goals where the air is already dangerous to public health and
welfare.
Both EPA's regulations and S. 3219 undertake to maximize the utility
of clean air resources by requiring new facilities to install technology
to conserve these resources.
Under the EPA program the technology standard is the same as new
source performance standards established pursuant to section 111 of the
Clean Air Act.
Under S. 3219 the States are given control of this technology
standard and may devise specific requirements in response to clean air
needs taking into consideration also the economic and energy
implications of their requirements. EPA's new source performance and
hazardous emission standards are imposed as a floor for State best
available control technology standards, but the State retains
flexibility to require technologies even more stringent than these EPA
standards.
Such a flexible approach will spur technological innovation on a much
broader basis than uniform national standards, which have tended to
restrict the scope of technological experimentation.
The EPA no significant deterioration regulations have come under
considerable criticism from industry and environmentalists. Several
industrial organizations joined in a judicial challenge to the
regulations -- American Petroleum Institute, et al. against EPA --
alleging that EPA has exceeded its authority under the Clean Air Act in
the promulgation of its program. The case is presently pending in the
Supreme Court.
The Senate Public Works Committee received requests both from
industries and public agencies to examine the EPA program and to develop
a clean legislative policy on the issue. This we have done in section 6
of S. 3219.
I believe that the committee's provision provides for a program with
considerable flexibility. And the committee has provided the mechanism
for further study of the concept of no significant deterioration in the
National Air Quality Commission. The Commission's investigative review
will furnish a basis for fine tuning the increments and standards of our
program.
Arguments against no-significant deterioration have stated that
primary and secondary standards are sufficient protection for the
Nation's air. But these arguments misconstrue these standards. It was
not the intent of the drafters of the Clean Air Act in specifying
standards for identifying dangerous air quality conditions to make those
levels the targets or goals for the Nation's clean air areas.
To follow the course of using existing ambient standards as no
significant deterioration standards would invite pollution up to a level
that endangers the safety and welfare that these standards are intended
to protect.
And to abolish the concept of no significant deterioration would
leave EPA with no enforcement mechanism to protect against pollution in
clean air areas.
There can and should be continuing debate over the definition of safe
incremental levels of pollution and how those levels are applied against
or derived from existing background air quality conditions. The
increments in S. 3219, although a reasonable first-cut, are not carved
in stone. The work of the National Air Quality Commission should
provide valuable assistance for fine tuning these numbers.
The committee, after a tremendous effort to assess the implications
of this legislation on the automobile, has arrived at what I feel is a
well-conceived strategy to make this last step toward achieving the
cleanest vehicles possible. This decision required a balancing judgment
which assessed the technologies available for emission control, the
different types of costs of each technology, and the benefits to be
derived from clean air when certain levels of emission are reached.
Industry has responded to the congressional mandate of the 1970 Clean
Air Act in an inventive fashion by progressively cleaning up the
automobile. There have been differences of opinion along the way but
this is only to be expected when the work required was at the brink of
our technological knowledge and expertise. Working together, we have
reduced pollution from the automobile an average of 85 percent for some
pollutants. This is indeed a great stride. But we now know that in
most of our metropolitan areas, pollutants from vehicles still pose a
major health problem. Pollutants must be further controlled to
eliminate these problems and to protect the health and welfare of the
American people.
In many of the markup sessions, and in private meetings with auto
manufacturers, I have heard four general criticisms about the emission
standards contained in the Clean Air Act. The first of these was that
the technology did not exist for this type of control and would not
exist in the time frames allowed by the act. However, the committee has
found that the technology needed will be available in the allowed time
period. The Administrator of EPA has even indicated that these levels
could have been met on 1976-77 models for the pollutants HC and CO.
The specific technology is described in the joint EPA and FEA
analyses on the impact of alternative vehicle emission standards.
Control would include start catalysts or cannister storage of cold start
HC, improve chokes, fully proportional EGR, electronic spark control,
and possibly, catalytic control of NO(x).
Some 1976 certification vehicles calibrated for .9/9/2 were able to
come within 20 percent of meeting the 1980 California standards of
.4/3.4/1.0 with deterioration accounted for. These vehicles are meeting
standards with existing technology. Although some vehicles meet the
standards in certification tests, only one car, Volvo, meets the
standards on the road. This does not imply that full production could
meet these standards with existing technology. It does, however, mean
that certain models could be produced and that the technology is within
the range of availability.
The second common criticism was that present and near future
technologies for auto emission control would result in significant fuel
economy penalties. This problem may in fact exist in the first few
years. However, as optimal technology is developed and adopted, this
side effect can be eliminated. Further fuel economy benefits can be
obtained by incorporating nonengine changes such as weight and power
reductions.
These types of benefits are discussed thoroughly in technical papers
prepared by people in the automotive field and in the EPA/FEA summary
report.
Another complaint frequently heard from manufacturers was that
standards for mobile source emissions are not equal to the standards for
other types of emissions, especially stationary sources. This is a good
idea philosophically but it may not be possible. The types of
technologies available for different types of sources differ in their
capabilities to meet the standards. The Clean Air Act should be
interpreted to mean that each particular group should move forward as
quickly as possible toward the ultimate goal of clean air. The standard
on all sources should be geared to achieve this forward progression.
This, in effect, is the equity allowed for in the Clean Air Act. Some
previous analyses, especially for the pollutant NO(x) are being exceeded
in many siderable progress has been made in controlling autos there is
more benefit to be gained by placing additional controls on stationary
sources. Stationary sources, however, can not be grouped together any
more than can all mobile sources. The costs and technology available to
reduce auto emissions by a certain percentage differ significantly from
the costs and technology available to control powerplants. One
important consideration is that mobile source control is cost-effective.
Once the technology is developed, vehicles can be adapted as they roll
down the assembly line. Equipment can be centralized. With stationary
sources, improvements must be made, of necessity, on a plant by plant
basis.
A final argument is that the costs of achieving these final
reductions in mobile source emissions far outweighs any health and
welfare benefits. I have already discussed the fuel economy problems
above so I will not dwell on that here. I would, however, like to focus
our attention on the benefits to be derived from these controls in major
metropolitan areas. We know now that the ambient air quality standards
for oxidants, CO and NO(x) are being exceeded in many of these
metropolitan areas. The levels(()) of these three pollutants are
severely influenced by the automobile. In some cases as high as 75
percent of these pollutants are vehicle related. In fact, mobile
sources can often be responsible for 90 percent of CO, depending on the
region. It would therefore seem logical that the changes in vehicle
standards in the proposed Senate amendments could be expected to result
in significant ambient air quality improvements. The National Academy
of Engineers, in their September 1974 report to the Senate Committee on
Public Works, "Air Quality and Automobile Emission Control" -- volume 4,
page 12 -- states:
If major reductions in automotive emission rates can be achieved they
should make a major contribution to urban air quality. Indeed this
conclusion follows almost tautologically since automobiles account for
very significant percentages of the NO(x), HC, and CO emissions in urban
areas.
Mr. BUCKLEY. One of the issues that will be discussed at some length
during the debate on this bill involves the emission control warranty
that is now required on new cars for 5 years or 50,000 miles. I
recently wrote to EPA Administrator Train to ask for his evaluation of
the effects of proposals to shorten the warranty. I believe his answer
will be very helpful to the Senate in understanding of ill effects of
shortening the term of the performance warranty. I ask unanimous
consent that Mr. Train's letter be printed at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
Hon. JAMES A. BUCKLEY
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR BUCKLEY: Thank you for your June 21, 1976, letter
concerning the section 207(b) performance warranty provision of the
Clean Air Act Amendments. Before addressing the questions posed in your
letter, I would like to present a brief summary of our present position
regarding the existing Section 207(b) performance warranty. As your
know Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act requires manufacturers to build
vehicles which will meet applicable emission standards for five years or
50,000 miles whichever occurs first. One means of ensuring the
achievement of this obligation is the Section 207(b) warranty. Under
the terms of such warranty, a manufacturer will be required to bear the
cost of repairing any vehicle if it: (1) has failed a Section 207(b)
short test, (2) has had proper maintenance and use by the owner, and (3)
has subjected the owner to a fine or other penalty due to its
nonconformity. The term of the present Section 207(b) warranty is
statutorily set for five years or 50,000 miles.
The proper maintenance condition of the warranty has given rise to a
perception by aftermarket part manufacturers that vehicle owners will
avoid the use of aftermarket service and parts once the warranty is
implemented in order to protect the warranty coverage. EPA has
cooperated with the aftermarket parts manufacturers in the development
of a voluntary self-certification program for certain automotive
aftermarket parts. This program is designed to substantially reduce any
anticompetitive effect of the warranty. It is, of course, speculation
as to whether the warranty would produce an anticompetitive effect since
it is not now implemented and will not be for at least several months.
With this discussion in mind, I will address each of your questions
separately.
(1) Does present law, together with the amendments now included in S.
3219, pose any anticompetitive danger to the independent aftermarket
companies?
In order to answer this question it is important to understand the
arguments which have been made with regard to the anticompetitive
potential of the Section 207(b) warranty. Aftermarket interests have
stated that their primary market is for vehicles at least two years old.
Their concern is that in order to maintain Section 207(b) coverage,
owners will return exclusively to dealers for maintenance during the
later years of the vehicle's life.
There are two approaches to reduce this potential anticompetitiveness
of Section 207(b). The term of the warranty could be reduced or
assurances could be provided that the use of aftermarket service and
parts will not, in and of itself, void the Section 207(b) warranty.
It is my opinion that the present five year, 50,000 warranty,
together with implementation of the aftermarket program presently being
developed, is not necessarily anticompetitive and should not be
dismissed without trial. With regard to S. 3219, it is clear that the
amendment to reduce the Section 207(b) warranty term to 18 months or
18,000 miles, whichever comes first, would alone obviate the
anticompetitive potential of Section 207(b). But in so doing, it would
eliminate what could be a substantial aid to the achievement of the
emission standards by in-use vehicles. The aftermarket provision of the
bill, requiring that a part certification program be implemented in
conjunction with the 18 months/18,000 miles warranty, is of little
benefit and, as a mandatory program, would result in the misallocation
of resources.
(2) Does the Section 207(b) warranty restrict the ability of the car
owner to obtain normal service and maintenance wherever he chooses,
without infringing the warranty?
The question raises the issue of the effect of the use of aftermarket
service on the coverage of the Section 207(b) warranty. Section 102(c)
of the Magnuson-Moss Act provides that:
"No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or
implied warranty of such product on the consumer's using, in connection
with such product, any article or service (other than article or service
provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is
identified by brand trade or corporate name. +++"
It is my view that even without an express prohibition in the Clean
Air Act regarding discrimination against use of aftermarket service by
vehicle owners, the Magnuson-Moss Act would make such actions by
manufacturers or their dealers unlawful. Thus, the Section 207(b)
warranty, when read in conjunction with Section 102(c) of the
Magnuson-Moss Act, does not restrict the ability of the consumer to
obtain maintenance services where he chooses.
Under S. 3219, vehicle manufacturers are prohibited from
"distinguishing between service performed by franchised dealers of such
manufacturer +++ and service performed by independent automotive repair
facilities. +++ (S. 3219, Section 207(c)(3). Of course, to the extent
that S. 3219 would provide the Agency with jurisdiction to enforce the
prohibition against non-dealer service (the Magnuson-Moss Act is
administered by the Federal Trade Commission), the prohibition -- and
the consumer's position -- would be strengthened.
(3) Would a reduction in the warranty, transferring responsibility to
the consumer from the manufacturer, tend to discourage development of
effective inspection and maintenance programs at the local level.
Data collected in 1972 identified 20 areas which would require
significant reductions of carbon monoxide and photochemical oxidants in
order to meet air quality standards. Control of mobile sources is one
of the primary mechanisms by which the air quality standards will
ultimately be met in these areas. Inspection and maintenance programs
are an extremely important means of achieving mobile source emission
reductions.
Reduction in the term of the Section 207(b) warranty to 18 months or
18,000 miles may reduce the desirability of an inspection and
maintenance program because the warranty will, in all likelihood, be in
effect for only one annual inspection. When consumers return for later
inspections, the costs of any mandated repairs will be paid by them
despite their having properly maintained and used their vehicles. It is
clear that in the later years of the useful life of a vehicle the
performance warranty is most needed because it is at this time that the
durability of the vehicle is actually tested. The application of the
warranty coverage to vehicles approaching 50,000 miles is expected to
increase public support and thereby provide States and localities with
an incentive to implement an inspection and maintenance program. In
addition, vehicle owners will be motivated to properly maintain their
vehicles.
These potential adverse effects of shortened warranty coverage on the
inspection and maintenance program are anticipated by EPA but are not
based on any formal survey of localities which may need inspection and
maintenance. However, a number of jurisdictions considering mandatory
inspection and maintenance -- most notably, the City of Chicago -- have
indicated that implementation of such programs would be substantially
enhanced by the implementation of the Section 207(b) warranty. It is my
belief that a reduction in the term of the Section 207(b) warranty will
deter initiation of inspection and maintenance programs of many areas.
Should reduction in the term of the present five years/50,000 miles
warranty be inevitable, some mechanism to encourage implementation of
inspection and maintenance programs should be substituted.
(4) Would a reduction in the term of the Section 207(b) warranty be
likely to lead to a lowering of quality control by the automakers?
The enforcement provisions of Section 207(as well as the assembly
line testing authority of Section 206) were intended to ensure that
production vehicles would conform to applicable emission standards both
when new and also at the end of their useful life. The Section 207(b)
warranty provision was viewed by the Senate as one means of assuring
that "margins of safety will be built into each vehicle to insure better
than required performance (and) systems will be designed to minimize
deterioration. +++" (A Legislative History of the Clean Air Act
Amendments, Ser. No. 93-18, 93rd Cong., 2d Sess. 135 (1974).)
Consequently, the Section 207(b) performance warranty is uniquely
structured to promote better production practices and improved designs
by manufacturers. However, a limitation on the term of the warranty
could inhibit this beneficial effect.
In a situation where a Section 207(b) claim will arise, the duty to
repair the properly maintained and used vehicle which has failed to meet
emission standards falls upon the owner. This is mandated by the
existing Clean Air Act. When a vehicle fails an inspection and
maintenance (Section 207(b)) test, its owner must obtain repair or cease
driving his vehicle. Thus, in contrast to recall provision of the Act
which creates a voluntary responsibility upon the owner, an inspection
and maintenance triggered duty of repair is mandatory. We believe that
virtually all vehicle(()) owners will return to their dealers for
Section 207(b) warranty repairs required by the State inspection. As a
result, the reduction of the term of the Section 207(b) warranty could
serve to minimize the manufacturer's risk of having to remedy improper
design of emission control elements and also decrease the incentive for
improving the quality control of emission components. The function of
ensuring that durability is incorporated into vehicle design and
production would then be shifted to the Section 207(c) recall provision
and the Section 207(a) production warranty. The Section 207(a) warranty
applies only to defects in material and workmanship and not to the
deterioration of a component or system which occurs due to the use of
the vehicle. Recall, on the other hand, does have significant potential
to affect durability. However, a recall investigation is a protracted
and resource-intensive process. The nature of this process will
inherently limit the number of recalls that will actually be achieved.
It is also worth noting that one source of automobile emission data
needed for recall is the inspection and maintenance program which, as
suggested above, might be curtailed as a result of the shortened
warranty proposed by the Senate Committee. Further, the owner response
rate to recall notices declines with the age of the vehicles so that
there is some question as to the effectiveness of recall as a deterrent
in the waning years of a vehicle's useful life.
On this basis, I must conclude that our ability to elicit the
much-needed improvement in durability of emission controls will be
impaired if the term of the warranty is reduced.
(5) Would reduction in the warranty term be likely to result in the
production of cars that emit more pollution over their actual life?
The question is clearly related to question four discussed above. To
the extent that the deterrent effect of the enforcement provisions of
the Act is diminished by a reduction in the term of performance
warranty, it is unlikely that vehicles will be designed and manufactured
so as to continue to perform within applicable emission standards for
their "actual" life.
(6) What is the cost to the consumer of the section 207(b)
performance warranty?
At our current stage of development of the Section 207(b) warranty
program we cannot quantify its probable cost to the consumer.
It is our intent to acquire from vehicle manufacturers economic data
bearing on this question through publications in the Federal Register of
notices regarding the Section 207(b) warranty. Such data will be
obtained and an economic analysis performed before regulations
implementing Section 207(b) are finally promulgated.
If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Sincerely yours,
RUSSELL E. TRAIN,
Administrator.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, the proponents of land use control in this
body have today returned to the floor with an attempt to obtain through
the back door what they could not obtain through the front in the past.
There is no question in my mind that the no-significant deterioration
provisions of the "Clean Air Act Amendments", S. 3219, are in fact a
structure through which the Federal Government will in the future
dictate the use of land for a single-purpose -- maintenance of standards
above those necessary to protect the health and welfare of the American
people.
Proponents of nondegradation have attempted to calculate the
sentiments of the American people, and to appeal to those millions of
Americans who are rightfully concerned about our environment. Their
arguments flow smoothly with reassurances that with these amendments,
all will be well in this land of ours; that mankind will truly be
protected from himself.
This is all very touching, Mr. President, and those of my colleagues
who propose the imposition of land-use controls through the
no-significant deterioration sections of S. 3219 no doubt are very
concerned with the health and welfare of all Americans.
However, I do resent the implications in such arguments that those of
us who oppose plunging this country into a deeper morass of Federal
regulation are not equally concerned.
On June 4, 1976, the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD carried a speech entitled
"President Ford Chooses Dirty Air," referring to the President's
position that Congress ought to refrain from enacting a statutory policy
on no-significant deterioation.
In that statement on June 4, the comment was made that --
The President would prefer uniformly dirty air across the country
rather than the protection of public health and protection of the other
values of our finite air resource.
Now, one would think, from reading that statement, that the
President, and those of us who agree with the President, are ready to
abandon our commitment to high standards of public health; that
insinuation is clearly made.
What was not stated is that laws protecting public health from the
dangers of air pollution are already on the books, and I might add that
they are being vigorously enforced by the Environmental Protection
Agency.
What was not stated in this June 4 speech is that the primary and
secondary ambient air standards are already in place, and are judged to
be fully sufficient to insure that Americans' health and welfare are
protected.
Mr. President, such are the tactics of those who would infringe upon
the individual's right to property through the imposition of Federal
land use controls.
There is, however, a second part of the statement I referred to and
that is the protection of the other values of our finite air resource.
What exactly is meant by that? Does it mean that the air should be
free of particulate matter which may cause a haze, such as that which
occurs in our major agricultural areas during plowing?
If that is the case, Mr. President, I think we would be wise to
consider that value alongside another value -- like food production, or
farm jobs.
Mr. President, we all are aware that almost any activity that man
undertakes disturbs the condition of the air around us. This Congress
has established standards of safety through which a great number of
emissions have been and will be controlled in order to reduce this
disturbance below the levels required for health and welfare.
But it is quite another thing to speak of the other values of our
finite air resource.
Because if we are talking about aesthetic qualities instead of health
qualities, we intrude on a realm which is clearly, it seems to me,
beyond the responsibility and authority of the Federal Government.
I do not believe this body should impose aesthetic standards, and
certainly not those which are gained at the expense of maintaining
economic growth, energy development, and food production.
I enjoy clean air just as much as everyone else, and I enjoy it quite
often when I am in Texas, because we have quite a lot of clean air.
We also have a healthy State economy, and a lot of jobs, and we have
them because Texans have made responsible tradeoffs between aesthetic
and industrial needs. As a matter of fact, a lot of us believe that the
future growth and prosperity represented in the construction of new
refinery facilities, bank buildings, and manufacturing plants is a most
beautiful sight to behold.
A lot of us, Mr. President, do not believe that beauty is limited to
a forest, lake, or prairie. Many of us throughout this country, for
instance, regard our first home as a beautiful sight, no matter how
humble or proud that dwelling may in fact be.
I do not consider a hospital that daily saves lives as a scar upon
the landscape, nor do I feel that a factory which produces the arms that
keep this country safe from foreign aggression is a blot on our
environmental record.
Mr. President, the point I want to make here is that while some of my
colleagues certainly may have their own ideas about aesthetics, and
about which cultural values should be predominant, they do not have the
right to impose those on me, through the Federal Government.
If a local community decides to exclude major manufacturing
facilities from its jurisdiction because of a felt need for preserving a
particular landscape or horizon, fine. The citizens who have direct
input into the decisionmaking process of that community can make that
choice.
But let us not get carried away with these no-significant
deterioration provisions to the extent that Washington begins making
those choices for the people in that community.
This Congress has done enough to protect the health and welfare of
the American people. Why cannot we be satisfied with thus being the
servant of the people, instead of attempting to be their master through
the arbitrary imposition of these requirements?
There has been, as I pointed out, an attempt to play on the concern
of all Americans for a safe environment. But safety and health, Mr.
President, are not issues here.
What I would hope, is that the American people can be left to decide
for themselves the issue which is truly at the heart of these
nondegradation provisions, and that is the issue of whether aesthetic or
economic concerns are more compelling,(()) given the individual
circumstances of a State, county, or city.
I do not believe the American people are incapable of making those
decisions for themselves, through their local and State governments.
I would urge my colleagues to consider what the American people truly
want, and that is to be left alone by the Federal Government. They are
fed up, Mr. President. They are sick and tired of being dictated to by
Washington.
These nondegradation provisions, intended to preserve some aesthetic
standard, are just one more attempt to ram Government down the throats
of the people in the United States, and I know, for my State at least,
that the people do not want them.
Mr. GRAVEL. Mr. President, clean air is a valuable resource which we
must strive to protect. The Committee on Public Works spent many hours
considering proposed amendments to the Clean Air Act and has recommended
amendments which represent constructive changes in our air pollution
program. The amendments, I believe, will continue our efforts to
provide a clean air environment for all of our citizens.
The committee held many days of hearings during 1973, 1974, and 1975
to review the implementation of the Clean Air Act. Testimony was
received which presented many diverse views on the successes and
failures of the program over the 5 years of its implementation. Some of
the major problems raised included auto pollution deadlines, stationary
source compliances and extensions, transportation control planning and
nondegradation. The committee labored for 9 months attempting to
provide meaningful solutions to these problems.
The bill which is before the Senate addresses all of these problems
and has attempted to provide workable solutions. The bill provides new
deadlines for achievement of auto pollution standards, a stationary
source compliance date extension procedure, a provision allowing
expansion of facilities in air quality management regions, procedure for
delay in achieving primary ambient air standards including necessary
transportation control, and a provision which implements a
nondegradation policy.
The nondegradation amendment is perhaps the most controversial
provision in the bill and has become the subject of inceasing
congressional concern. This aspect of the bill also gives me some
difficulty. The nondegradation provision injects a completely new
scheme in our regulation of air quality by providing that levels of two
pollutants, sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, must be strictly
controlled in so-called clean air areas. The amendments provide that
the State implementation plan shall be the mechanism for implementation
of the nondegradation policy.
While I support the need for a nondegradation provision to protect
air which is currently better than secondary standards, the method used
to protect air quality disturbs me. The increment for sulfur dioxide
and particulate matter established in the amendments for determining air
quality impact provide the basis for determining whether a major
emitting facility can be established in an area designated as class I or
class II under the State plan. These increments are those which were
provided in the Environment Protection Agency regulations on
nondegradation issued in December of 1974. I am not convinced that
these increments bear any relationship to the maintenance of clean air
and were not adequately studied as they affect all regions of the
country.
Natural conditions in some areas could mean that little, if any,
development could be undertaken even though the values that
nondegradation are designed to protect would not be affected.
Particulate matter is troublesome because of high background levels from
natural sources such as river beds, agricultural lands, and glacial
areas of Alaska during some portion of the year. The 24-hour standard
for particulate matter could thus be violated and no development would
be permissible. Further, particulate matter is an imprecise term and
thus could present problems greater than those which we are attempting
to prevent. Areas soubject to temperature inversions could also have
difficulty meeting the 24-hour and annual increments established for
sulfur dioxide and particulate matter.
I voted in the Public Works Committee for the inclusion of the
nondegradation amendment and will continue to support it as part of the
bill. This is an important provision if we are to obtain the ultimate
goal of a clean and healthy environment for all of our citizens. Even
though this is an important provision, I feel that a careful study of
the effect of the increments is necessary. We must have information
which demonstrates the rationality of the increments to the desired
result -- protection of clean air.
The committee worked long and diligently to produce this important
legislation. The leadership of our chairman (Senator RANDOLPH) and the
ranking minority member (Senator BAKER) was invaluable. Senator MUSKIE
and Senator BUCKLEY worked hard in the Environmental Pollution
Subcommittee and in full committee to produce a bill which could be
supported by a majority of the committee members. Without this able
leadership, this important legislation could not have been brought to
the Senate.
Clean air is a beneficial resource and its protection is of national
importance. I have supported legislation to protect and enhance the
environment in which we live while a Member of the Senate and I will
continue to do so. The amendments to the Clean Air Act reported by the
Public Works Committee represented constructive changes to the program
resulting from a careful review of the 5 years of implementation of the
act. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
Mr. GARY HART. Mr. President, in my home State of Colorado, there is
substantial support for maintaining a strong Clean Air Act.
The following letter from Colorado's Governor Lamm succinctly
expresses the rational for a strong nondegradation provision as well as
for maintaining tight auto emission regulations:
I recommend my colleagues read this letter before deciding how they
will vote on amendments to S. 3219.
I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
Hon. GARY HART,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR GARY: I am writing to reiterate my support for maintaining a
strong Clean Air Act.
When the House and Senate amendments to the Clean Air Act are
considered on the floor, there may be attempted to weaken the
Committee's bills. I strongly feel that any effort to further weaken
the Clean Air Act should be resisted. The bills which are coming to the
floor represent very weak proposals. I encourage Congress to strengthen
the prevention of significant deterioration and automobile emission
provisions.
The National Governors' Conference has adopted the position that the
issue of significant deterioration should be resolved by Congress. For
six years, the issue has been studied, litigated and debated. Now is
the time for Congress to act.
The prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) of air quality in
Colorado is of extreme importance to the quality of life enjoyed by its
citizens and to the economic well being of tourism, the State's second
largest industry. The development of energy resources in the midst of
an internationally recognized recreation area presents critical
conflicts between competitive resource uses. I am confident that
Colorado will be able to address this dilemma while maintaining the
quality of an important scenic and recreational area. Many areas of
Colorado desperately need economic development, but in the process of
development, we must not destroy the natural beauty that the citizens of
Colorado so cherish.
I concur with many of Senator Gary Hart's concerns with the PSD
provisions. The Senate bill should be amended to provide that Federal
Lands set aside to preserve their natural state (national monuments,
national recreation areas, wild and scenic rivers and national wildlife
refuges) will be initially designated Class I. It would be wholly
inconsistent to preserve the natural condition of these areas, while
allowing the air over them to be degraded to the levels of polluted
metropolitan areas. The Congress has the solemn responsibility to
maintain the pristine quality of the air over these lands.
In the spirit of Section 116 of the Clean Air Act, states should be
permitted to enact more stringent PSD standards. The Senate bill should
be amended to permit states to REDESIGNATE any Class II land within
their boundaries as Class I.
The definition of the Best Available Control Technology needs to be
strengthened to minimize emissions from each source, thus permitting
more sources to fit within the allowable increments.
A date not later than July 1, 1976 should be specified as the
BASELINE AIR QUALITY. If such a date is not specified, areas with clean
air now could be degraded more rapidly. Further, new sources which
commence construction between 1972 and 1976 should be subject to the
Best Available Control Technology. These sources have been on notice
since 1972 that the Clean Air Act of 1970 required(()) the prevention of
significant deterioration.
I am also concerned that allowable INCREMENTS may be used up by a
number of small sources. Congress needs to establish a review program
to prevent small sources and ancillary development from expending the
PSD increments.
It should be noted that a recent survey (by the Opinion Research
Corporation of Princeton, N.J.) reported in the National Journal
(11-22-75, p. 1590) found that "+++ 94 percent of those polled said air
that currently is clean should not be allowed to get dirtier."
I would like to stress that, contrary to a number of reports, the PSD
provisions will not impose a "no growth" policy on Colorado or prevent
the rational development of our State's resources.
Congress has failed to provide the states with the financial
resources necessary to implement a PSD program. The Committee's
provisions will require a capital expenditure of $1.2 million and an
annual recurring cost of $500,000 from Colorado. Without federal
assistance, it will be very difficult for Colorado to implement this
important program.
Congress should hold the line on automobile emission standards. I
question whether a further relaxation of the Committee's standards can
be justified by technological or economic unfeasibility. Colorado is
presently modifying its transportation control plan in order to provide
realistic and implementable clean air strategies. Such a complex effort
becomes nearly ineffective if we cannot rely upon the expeditious
attainment of the new car standards. Such standards must be achieved at
Denver's ALTITUDE AND MAINTAINED throughout the useful life of vehicles.
In closing, I urge you to resist any weakening amendments to the
Committee's bill. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this
important matter.
Sincerely,
RICHARD D. LAMM,
Governor.
Mr. GARY HART. Mr. President, the Congress first explicitly
recognized the need to "protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's
air resources" in the 1967 Air Quality Act. This helped lay the
groundwork originally for the Clean Air Act of 1970, and now for the
no-significant deterioration provision of S. 3219, the Clean Air
Amendments of 1976.
The reasons for preventing significant deterioration of air quality
are most compelling. Without a sound policy for maintaining clean air
in pristine areas, air quality in cherished places like the Grand
Canyon, the Rockies, the Smokies, and the Everglades could eventually
deteriorate to the levels which are today found in downtown Boston,
Akron, Detroit, and Pittsburgh. Visibility would be reduced from 80 to
100 miles down to 12 miles or less.
Mr. President, at first this might appear to be a superficial
argument, but the concern about visibility is not isolated from other
issues. For example, the same pollutants that reduce visibility can
have a significant impact on crop production. The Administrator of the
Agricultural Research Service has testified repeatedly that present
levels of air pollution are responsible for significant reductions in
both the quality and yield of numerous crops, with yield reductions in
some locations ranging as high as 75 percent. In addition, a study by
the National Academy of Sciences suggests that a doubling of pollution
levels on the east coast could, under otherwise favorable conditions,
produce a 25 to 100 percent loss of many crops and also cause severe
injury to many natural species. These are risks that, as a society, we
cannot afford to take.
Mr. President, the majority of the land mass of the United States
today still has air quality which is better than the national ambient
standards. The no-significant deterioration section of S. 3219 will
protect these areas and hence the public health and welfare while
permitting the kind of economic development necessary to imporve our
standard of living.
More specifically, the no-significant deterioration section of the
committee bill:
Assures prudent consideration of any major emitting facility that may
threaten air quality where the air is cleaner than the present national
standards;
Applies only to new major emitting facilities, not affecting existing
facilities;
Requires that large new sources use the best available technology to
minimize emissions, determined by each State on a case-by-case basis;
Places primary responsibilities and authority with the States, backed
by the Federal Government;
Requires the Federal Government, as a property owner, to protect the
values related to air quality on certain Federal lands under the
stewardship of various Federal agencies; and
Eliminates the so-called "buffer zones" that were hypothesized around
various land classifications.
To define what significant deterioration is, with respect to specific
pollutants, the Committee has incorporated in the bill a set of numbers
-- the so-called "increments" -- that specify the allowable change in
ambient air quality. These "increments" are technical measures of the
amount of total additional pollution that may be added to the ambient
air by a single new major facility or series of facilities. These
increments are the same for all nondeterioration areas, thus providing
equity for all areas. The increment, of course, is measured from the
baseline ambient air quality. The increment would thus be in addition
to whatever levels of pollution exist from present sources. The only
exception occurs when pollution up to the increment would produce
ambient air exceeding any primary or secondary standard. If that
occurs, the full increment normally may not be used, and the national
ambient standards set the ceiling for additional ambient pollution.
The chief tool to be used in implementing the no significant
deterioration requirements is the permit that must be issued by the
State for any major emitting facility to be located in any clean-air
areas. The bill defines major emitting facility for this purpose as any
source that falls into one of 28 industrial categories listed in the
bill, if the source would also have the potential to emit more than 100
tons of any pollutant per year. If a source falls in a category listed
but would be smaller than the 100 tons per year figure, it is not
subject to the procedures in this act.
As I understand it, the intent of the committee in exempting
non-major sources from the act was to simplify implementation by
limiting regulation to the largest potential polluters. Superficially,
at least, this appears to make good sense. Regulations and permits
which would cover all emission sources would pose an intolerable
regulatory burden, undoubtedly causing more problems than they would
solve.
However, the carte-blanche exemption of non-major sources provided in
the committee bill similarly would create a bureaucratic nightmare, for
this exemption dictates that the growth "increments" would apply only to
new major sources. Pollutants contributed by new non-major sources
would not be included. This means that permit applications for all but
the first new major facility in any area would have to include
technologically complex "pollutant origin assessments" in order to
determine how much of each pollutant growth increment remained available
for use.
Mr. President, in addition the the totally unnecessary administrative
burden added by this procedure, eliminating consideration of pollutants
contributed by non-major facilities constructed after enactment is
entirely contrary to the intent and purpose of the Clean Air Act itself.
Sulfur dioxide is sulfur dioxide -- and it doesn't matter whether it
comes from 1 large major source or from 1,000 small non-major sources.
The effects are still the same.
For these reasons, I have introduced an amendment (No. 1610) which
provides that pollutants from non-major as well as major sources be
considered in determining the amount of an "increment" which remains
available for use. For the benefit of my colleagues, I ask unanimous
consent that the text of this amendment be printed at this point in the
RECORD.
There being no objection, the amendment was ordered to be printed in
the RECORD as follows:
On page 79, line 6, after the phrase "major emitting facility" insert
"or other source".
Mr. GARY HART. Mr. President, I would first like to emphasize that
this amendment will not extend the permit application procedure, the
best available technology requirement, or any other regulations to
non-major facilities. It simply streamlines what would otherwise be a
cumbersome evaluation procedure to assess the remaining pollutant
"increment" balance.
Perhaps an example would best illustrate both the problem associated
with the proposed evaluation procedure as well as the solution afforded
by this amendment. Let us assume that, after enactment, a new primary
lead smelter is constructed by the Rolling Stone Manufacturing Corp.
near the Mossy National Park, a class I increment area. In addition,
let us assume that numerous other small industrial facilities
subsequently are attracted to this same area as well as the normal
complement of(()) support services including both commercial and
residential development.
According to the committee bill, only the large smelter would have
been subject to the best available technology and emissions permit
requirements. The smaller industrial, commercial, and residential
facilities which were subsequently added and which individually would
emit less than 100 tons of sulfur dioxide per year, would have been
exempt from the permit-granting procedure. My amendment would not
affect this in any way.
Now let us assume that 10 years later, Rolling Stone Manufacturing
decides to construct a large sulfuric acid plant, and considers among
other locations, a second site near Mossy National Park. According to
the committee bill, evaluation of the sulfuric acid plant's emissions
permit application would require not only measurement of the sulfur
dioxide concentration in Mossy National Park, but furthermore,
determination of how much of this sulfur dioxide is contributed by the
smelter versus new ancillary development and "old" (previously existing)
facilities. This complicated pollution origin analysis would be
required because the committee bill provides that the growth
"increments" apply only to pollutants from new major sources.
Aside from the technological difficulties inherent in pollution
origin assessment, it is irrelevant whether the sulfur dioxide in Mossy
National Park comes from the Rolling Stone smelter or from other
sources. All the sulfur dioxide in the Park's air should be taken into
account in determining if the proposed sulfuric acid plant should be
located in the same area. My amendment would require that pollutants,
regardless of source, be considered under these circumstances.
Mr. President, this amendment will simplify implementation of the
no-significant deterioration provision of S. 3219. As I have explained,
it will facilitate the permit-granting procedure and help alleviate the
committee's concern that this process might possibly become a vehicle
for inaction and delay. It will also reinforce the committee's concern
regarding ancillary development as summarized on page 23 of the majority
report:
In studying the permit application, the State must examine the growth
associated with any proposed facility in terms of other industries that
might be attracted to the area and associated with the facility, and its
effect on support services, and the residential, commercial, and
transportation needs accompanying the facility.
Mr. President, this is not a question that should be left solely to
one sentence of legislative intent in a committee report. This is a
crucial issue which should be addressed in the language of the bill
itself.
It is not enough to say that States must examine the potential
Effects of future nonmajor growth during review of an application to
allow further major growth. The review process must also include a
continuing mandate to consider actual levels of existing pollutants --
regardless of their original sources.
Mr. President, this is not a theoretical problem of little
significance. A report recently prepared for me by the Office of
Transportation and Land Use Policy of the Environmental Protection
Agency, begins with the following statement:
Residential, commercial and institutional facilities resulting from
general area-wide growth play a significant role in determining overall
air quality. Their accompanying fuel needs for space heating and solid
waste disposal facilities represent substantial contributions to an
area's air pollution.
The report goes on to document this statement. It cites, for
example, a location in Ocean County, N.J., where in 1972, ancillary
areawide growth already accounted for 45 percent of the total air
pollution -- particulate matter. According to the report, it is
estimated that by 1990, areawide growth in this region will account for
72 percent of the particulate air pollution. In addition, the report
indicates that areawide sources now contribute over 69 percent of the
particulate air pollution in Denver, Colo. The Environmental Protection
Agency concludes that --
Area wide growth accounts for a substantial percentage of total
emissions. Projected increases or decreases, of course, depend to a
large extent on the air quality maintenance program within a specific
region. It is important to realize, however, that facilities resulting
from general area wide growth play a major role in determining overall
air quality.
Mr. President, it is obvious from these figures that non-major
sources make a substantial contribution to air pollution in many areas.
I acknowledge that it would be next to impossible to extend rigid
emission control measures to all sources. We must focus our attention
on the biggest problems first -- and with respect to emission
limitations, that means concentrating on major sources.
However, in conjunction with this, we must acknowledge the potential
for substantial emissions from new nonmajor sources. This can be done
simply and effectively by requiring that the increments apply to
pollutants regardless of source, as provided by amendment No. 1610.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to give this amendment their
most careful consideration and support.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Utah (Mr.
Moss) I ask unanimous consent that Mary Jane Due of his staff, and Joe
Platt of the Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences have the
privilege of the floor during the Senate's consideration of the Clean
Air Act Amendments, S. 3219.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, the Clean Air Act of 1970 is complex
and demanding enough to keep lawyers, engineers, and environmentalists
busy for all of their life times. It seems to me that we have created a
maze into which only the foolhardy attempt to enter and from which only
the exhausted, depleted, and defeated emerge.
Let us look at this issue in a sensible, practical way, which means
that Congress should stop making political hay out of the whole clean
air business. What impact will these well intended and sweeping
regulations have on our citizens, the economy, and our Nation's
progress? Do they not contribute to the already escalating bureaucracy
and the overwhelming entry of the Federal Government into the business
of States, private companies, and the lives of the people?
No one wants pollution or the destruction of the beauty of our land
-- that is not the issue at hand. What we must do is protect the public
health and welfare and set standards that will be fair to all segments
of our population and not just benefit a few special interest groups.
The opposition to the Clean Air Act amendments has increased steadily
throughout the country. For example, in my own State of Arizona groups
which cut across all levels are demanding that the Federal Government
stop adding more and more controls, expenses, and intrusions into their
lives. One area that my constituents keep coming back to, is the no
significant deterioration provision. To put it simply, they are worried
about the effect this proposal will have on them and their communities,
and rightly so.
Until we are completely sure of the implications of this section, it
might be prudent to have a thorough study of the nondeterioration
policy, to decide if it should be implemented. Such a study is called
for in Senator Moss' amendments to the Clean Air Act of 1970 and it is
legislation that we should support.
Although the many bureaus and agencies might consider themselves
acting in the public interest, the people of my own State feel they are
capable of acting in their own behalf probably better than any
bureaucrat. These regulations and agencies tend to create more problems
than they solve. Citizens recognize that they must bear the economic
and social costs of these actions and consequently, want workable,
reasonable standards they can live with.
It is beyond me that some individual sitting behind a desk in
Washington, D.C., can dictate what often seems to be self-made and
self-serving standards to a State they have never set foot in, yet this
happens quite frequently. It is high time that we, the Congress fulfill
our responsibility to provide for a fair interaction on environmental
matters between the State and the Federal Government. In this way only,
will we achieve the goal of a clean and safe environment. We must
resist the rush to legislative and then administrative fiasco.(())
............................... (micrograms per .. (micrograms per
Pollutant ...................... cubic meter) ..... cubic meter)
Particulate matter:
. Annual geometric mean .................... 5 ............. 10
. 24-hr maximum ........................... 10 ............. 30
Sulfur dioxide:
. Annual arithmetic mean ................... 2 ............. 15
. 24-hr maximum ............................ 5 ............ 100
. 3-hr maximum ............................ 25 ............ 700
........... TABLE II -- INCREMENTS FOR OTHER REGULATED POLLUTANTS
Pollutant ................ Class I . Class II
Nitrogen dioxide (ug/m3):
. Annual geometric mean ....... 1 ........ 9
. 24-hr maximum ............... 3 ....... 60
. 3-hr maximum ............... 15 ...... 400
Carbon monoxide (p.p.m.):
. 8-hr maximum .............. 0.2 ...... 2.5
. 1-hr maximum .............. 1.0 ..... 19.0
Hydrocarbons: 3-hr
. maximum (ug/m3) .......... 16 ....... 50
Pollutant ........ time ........ standards /b/ standards /c/
Particulate ...... Annual ...... 75 ug/m(3) .... 60 ug/m(3)
matter /d/ ........ (geometric
................. mean).
................. 24-hr ....... 260 ug/m(3) .. 150 ug/m(3)
Sulfur dioxide ... Annual ..... 80 ug/m(3)
................. (arithmetic mean).
...................... (0.03 p.p.m.)
................. 24-hr ....... 365 ug/m(3)
...................... (0.14 p.p.m.)
................. 3-hr ........................ 1.300 ug/m(3)
............................................... (0.5 p.p.m.)
Carbon ........... 8-hr ....... 10 mg/m(3)
monoxide ....................... (9 p.p.m.) .... Same as primary
................. 1-hr ........ 40 mg/m(3)
...................... (35 p.p.m.)
Photochemical .... 1-hr ....... 160 ug/m(3) ...... Do
oxidants /e/
...................... (0.08 p.p.m.)
Hydrocarbons ..... 3-hr ....... 160 ug/m(3) ...... Do
(non-methane) /f/
.... (6 to 9 a.m.) ... (0.24 p.p.m.)
Nitrogen ......... Annual ...... 100 ug/m(3) ...... Do
dioxide /g/ ..... (arithmetic . (0.05 p.p.m.)
................. mean).
Particulates . Existing sources ............ New sources
................. (ambient) ................ (emissions)
Annual ........... 60 ug/m(3) /a/ ...... 0.1 lb/M(3) Btu /b/
24-hr maximum ... 150 ug/m(3) .......... 20 percent opacity /c/
Sulfur dioxide
. Annual ......... 80 ug/m(3) ........... 0.8 lb/M(3) Btu (oil)
. 24-hr maximum . 365 ug/m(3) ........... 1.2 lb/M(3) Btu (coal)
. 3-hr maximum 1,300 ug/m(3)
................. Class I .. Class II .. Class III /1/
Particulates:
. Annual .......... 5 ........ 10 ......... 60
. 24-hr maximum .. 10 ........ 30 ........ 150
Sulfur dioxide:
. Annual .......... 2 ........ 15 ......... 80
. 24-hr maximum ... 5 ....... 100 ........ 365
. 3-hr maximum ... 25 ....... 700 ...... 1,300
............. National Proposed Proposed
Pollutant ... standards . class I . class II
Particulates:
. Annual ............ 60 ....... 5 ....... 10
. 24-hr maximum .... 150 ...... 10 ....... 30
Sulfur dioxide:
. Annual ............ 80 ....... 2 ....... 15
. 24-hr maximum ..... 365 ....... 5 ...... 100
. 3-hr maximum ...... 300 ...... 25 ...... 700