THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Statutes and Legislative History
Executive Orders
Regulations
Guidelines and Reports
\
w
01
Supplement II
Volume I
Air
-------
-------
THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Statutes and Legislative History
Executive Orders
Regulations
Guidelines and Reports
Supplement II
Volume I
Air
JANUARY 1974
RUSSELL E. TRAIN
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V, Library
230 South Dearborn Street X"
Chicago, Illinois '
-------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $2.15
Stock Number 5500-00124
-------
FOREWORD
America's journey to environmental awareness has been a rela-
tively recent one. Not so many years ago Americans were still
living under the illusion that a land as vast as ours was blessed
with indestructible natural resources and beauty.
We continued the exploitation of those resources and scattered
unplanned communities across huge areas of open space. Large
amounts of fuel were needed for the autos that took us to work
from distant suburbs, and the air became laden with their dense
emissions. Pesticides were used indiscriminantly by persons un-
aware of their effects on the food chain of plants and animals. Our
rivers became contaminated with waste from homes and indus-
tries. Our landscape was marred by litter.
As the environmentalist movement gained impetus, attention
was focused on these matters. Rachael Carson's book, Silent
Spring, in 1962 awakened Americans to the hazards of pesticides.
The oil spills of the Torrey Canyon in 1967 and at Santa Barbara,
California in 1969 dramatized another environmental hazard. The
first Earth Day on April 20, 1970, a coordinated program of
teach-ins across the nation, helped to focus Congressional attention
on the strength of the environmental movement.
Congress responded by approving the President's Reorganization
Plan No. 3 which expanded the federal commitment to environ-
mental concerns and consolidated 15 Federal organizations under
the Environmental Protection Agency.
At the same time, Congress began enacting far-reaching legis-
lation to provide EPA with specific authority for controlling
pollution. These measures included the Clean Air Amendments in
1970, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments,
Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act, the Noise Control
Act, and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act,
all in 1972. Congress also passed the Resource Recovery Act in
1970 and extended the Solid Waste Disposal Act in 1973.
As the Agency began taking action under these laws, Americans
gradually realized that very real changes were required in our
accustomed ways of doing business. We realized that our effort
frequently conflicted with powerful and legitimate interests in
both the public and private sectors. Our administrative, judicial
and political processes now have the task of resolving these con-
flicts. They must do so by weighing all the interests which are
iii
-------
iv FOREWORD
affected in a sensitive and informed manner. Quick access to the
legal dimensions of these problems is essential if conflicts are to be
efficiently and fairly resolved.
The work of the present day environmentalist is less glamorous
than that of four or five years ago, but it is essential if we are to
face the continuing challenge of protecting our fragile and perish-
able natural resources—and ultimately ourselves—from destruc-
tion. I hope you will find this manual helpful as we strive to
create a society where we can live and work in harmony with the
natural world surrounding us,
RUSSELL E. TRAIN
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
PREFACE
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 transferred 15 governmental
units with their functions and legal authority to create the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Since only the major laws were
cited in the Plan, it was decided that a compilation of EPA legal
authority be researched and published.
The publication has the primary function of providing a work-
ing document for the Agency itself. Secondarily, it will serve as a
research tool for the public.
It is the hope of EPA that this set will assist in the awesome
task of developing a better environment.
LANE R. WARD, J.D.
Office of Executive Secretariat
Office of Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
The goal of this text is to create a useful compilation of the
legal authority under which the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency operates. These documents are for the general use of per-
sonnel of the EPA in assisting them in attaining the purposes set
out by the President in creating the Agency. This work is not
intended and should not be used for legal citations or any use
other than as reference of a general nature. The author disclaims
all responsibility for liabilities growing out of the use of these
materials contrary to their intended purpose. Moreover, it should
be noted that portions of the Congressional Record from the 93rd
Congress were extracted from the "unofficial" daily version and
are subject to subsequent modification.
EPA Legal Compilation consists of the Statutes with their legis-
lative history, Executive Orders, Regulations, Guidelines and Re-
ports. To facilitate the usefulness of this composite, the Legal
Compilation is divided into the seven following chapters:
A. General E. Pesticides
B. Air F. Radiation
C. Water G. Noise
D. Solid Waste
SUPPLEMENT II
This edition, labelled "Supplement II," contains the additions
to and alterations of EPA legal authority not included in the
original set or Supplement I of the EPA Legal Compilation.
Therefore, this edition updates the Compilation through the 93rd
Congress, First Session.
SUBCHAPTERS
Statutes and Legislative History
For convenience, the Statutes are listed throughout the Compi-
lation by a one-point system, i.e., 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc., and Legislative
History begins wherever a letter follows the one-point system.
Thusly, any l.la, l.lb, 1.2a, etc., denotes the public laws compris-
ing the 1.1, 1.2 statute. Each public law is followed by its legisla-
tive history. The legislative history in each case consists of the
vn
-------
viii INSTRUCTIONS
House Report, Senate Report, Conference Report (where applica-
ble), the Congressional Record beginning with the time the bill
was reported from committee.
Example:
1.4 Amortization of Pollution Control Facilities, as amended,
26 U.S.C. §169 (1969).
1.4a Amortization of Pollution Control Facilities, Decem-
ber 30, 1969, P.L. 91-172, §704, 83 Stat. 667.
(1) House Committee on Ways and Means, H.R.
REP. No. 91-413 (Part I), 91st Cong., 1st Sess.
(1969).
(2) House Committee on Ways and Means, H.R.
REP. No. 91-413 (Part II), 91st Cong., 1st
Sess. (1969).
(3) Senate Committee on Finance, S. REP. No.
91-552, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969).
(4) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 91-
782, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969).
(5) Congressional Record, Vol. 115 (1969):
(a) Aug. 7: Debated and passed House, pp.
22746, 22774-22775;
(b) Nov. 24, Dec. 5, 8, 9: Debated and passed
Senate, pp. 35486, 37321-37322, 37631-
37633, 37884-37888;
(c) Dec. 22: Senate agrees to conference re-
port, p. 40718;*
(d) Dec. 22: House debates and agrees to con-
ference report, pp. 40820, 40900.
This example not only demonstrates the pattern followed for legis-
lative history, but indicates the procedure where only one section
of a Public Law appears. You will note that the Congressional
Record cited pages are only those pages dealing with the discus-
sion and/or action taken pertinent to the section of law applicable
to EPA. In the event there is no discussion of the pertinent sec-
tion, only action or passage, then the asterisk (*) is used to so
indicate, and no text is reprinted in the Compilation. In regard to
the situation where only one section of a public law is applicable,
then only the parts of the report dealing with that section are
printed in the Compilation.
-------
INSTRUCTIONS ix
Secondary Statutes
Many statutes make reference to other laws and rather than
have this manual serve only for major statutes, these secondary
statutes have been included where practical. These secondary stat-
utes are indicated in the table of contents to each chapter by a
bracketed cite to the particular section of the major Act which
made the reference.
Citations
The United States Code, being the official citation, is used
throughout the Statute section of the Compilation. In four Stat-
utes, a parallel table to the Statutes at Large is provided for your
convenience.
EXECUTIVE ORDERS
The Executive Orders are listed by a two-point system (2.1, 2.2,
etc.).
REGULATIONS
The Regulations are noted by a three-point system (3.1, 3.2,
etc.). Included in the Regulations are those not only promulgated
by the Environmental Protection Agency, but those under which
the Agency has direct contact.
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
This subchapter is noted by a four-point system (4.1, 4.2, etc.).
In this subchapter is found the statutorily required reports of
EPA, published guidelines of EPA, selected reports other than
EPA's and inter-departmental agreements of note.
UPDATING
Periodically, a supplement will be sent to the interagency distri-
bution and made available through the U.S. Government Printing
Office in order to provide a current and accurate working set of
EPA Legal Compilation.
-------
-------
CONTENTS
Volume I
Page
AIR
1. Statutes and Legislative History 1
1.1 Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1857 et seq. (1973). 3
l.lm Clean Air Act Extension, April 9, 1973, P.L. 93-15, 87 Stat. 11. 3
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
H.R. REP. No. 93-77, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973). 4
(2) Congressional Record, Vol. 119 (1973) : 7
(a) March 22: Considered and passed House, pp. H2081-
H2091; 7
(b) March 27: Considered and passed Senate, p..S5703. 32
1.8 Highway Safety Act of 1966, as amended, 23 U.S.C. § 402
(1973). [Referred to in 42 U.S.C. § 1857f-6b(2)] 33
1.8d Highway Safety Act of 1973, August 13, 1973, P.L. 93-87, &
202, 87 Stat. 282. 38
(1) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No. 93-61,
93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973). 39
(2) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP. No. 93-
118, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973). 39
(3) Committee on Conference, H.R. REP. No. 93-410, 93rd
Cong., 1st Sess. (1973). 39
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 119 (1973) : 39
(a) March 14, 15: Considered and passed Senate; 39
(b) April 17-19: Considered and passed House, amended; 39
(c) August 1: Senate agreed to conference report; 39
(d) August 3: House agreed to conference report. 39
1.9 Federal Salary Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. §§ 5305, 5332 (1973).
[Referred to in 42 U.S.C. § 1857f-6e(b) (3) (A)]
1.9i E.G. 11637, Adjustment of Pay Rates Effective Jan. 1, 1972,
1971, 36 Fed. Reg. 24911. 39
1.9j E.G. 11691, Adjustment of Pay Rates Effective Jan. 1, 1973,
Dec. 15, 1972, 37 Fed. Reg. 27607. 43
1.9k E.G. 11739, Adjustment of Pay Rates Effective Oct. 1, 1973,
Oct. 3, 1973, 38 Fed. Reg. 27581. 46
xi
-------
xii CONTENTS
Page
2. Executive Orders 51
2.4 E.O. 11738, Providing for Administration of the Clean Air Act
With Respect to Federal Contracts, Grants, or Loans, Sept. 12,
1973, 38 Fed. Reg. 25161 (1973). 53
3. Regulations 57
3.1 Administration of the Clean Air Act with Respect to Federal
Contracts, Grants, or Loans, Environmental Protection Agency,
40 C.F.R. §§ 15.1-15.42 (1973). 59
3.2 State and Local Assistance, Environmental Protection Agency,
40 C.F.R. §§ 35.400-35.535 (1973). 59
3.3 Research and Demonstration Grants, Environmental Protection
Agency, 40 C.F.R. § 40 (1972). 60
3.4 Training Grants and Manpower Forecasting, Environmental
Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§ 45.100-45.155 (1973). 60
3.5 Fellowships, Environmental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§
46.100-46.165 (1973). 60
3.6 National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Stan-
dards, Environmental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. § 50.1-50.11
(1973). 60
3.7 Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Im-
plementation Plans, Environmental Protection Agency, 40
C.F.R. §§ 51.1-51.22 (1973). 61
3.8 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans, Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§ 52.01-52.2850 (1973). 62
3.9 Prior Notice of Citizen Suits, Environmental Protection Agency,
40 C.F.R. §§ 54.1-54.3 (1971). 79
3.10 Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, En-
vironmental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§ 60.1-60.85 (1973). 79
3.11 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants,
Environmental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§ 61.01-61.53 80
3.12 Prevention, Control and Abatement of Air Pollution From Fed-
eral Government Activities: Performance Standards and Tech-
niques of Measurements, Environmental Protection Agency,
40 C.F.R. §§ 76.1-76.9 (1971). 82
3.13 Registration of Fuel Additives, Environmental Protection
Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§ 79.1-79.31 (1971). 82
3.14 Registration of Fuels and Fuel Additives, Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, 40 U.S.C. §§ 80.1-80.24 (1973). 82
3.15 Air Quality Control Regions, Criteria, and Control Techniques,
Environmental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§ 81.1-81.267
(1973). 83
-------
CONTENTS xiii
3.16 Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles and New
Motor Vehicle Engines, Environmental Protection Agency, 40
C.F.R. §§ 85.001-85.1608 (1973). 91
3.17 Control of Air Pollution From Aircraft and Aircraft Engines,
Environmental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§ 87.1-87.100
(1973). 100
3.18 Procedures for Certification of Low-Emission Vehicles, En-
vironmental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§ 400.1-400.7
(1971). 101
3.19 Federal Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control, Bureau of Cus-
toms, 19 C.F.R. § 12.73 (1972). 102
4. Guidelines and Reports 103
4.1 Environmental Protection Agency, Reports to Congress as Re-
quired by the Clean Air Act. 105
4.1e "Progress in Prevention and Control of Air Pollution in 1973,"
Report to Congress by the Administrator of the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, January 1974. 105
4.If "The Cost of Clean Air," Report to Congress by the Adminis-
trator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, October
1973. 159
-------
-------
Statutes
and
Legislative
History
-------
-------
1.1 THE CLEAN AIR ACT, AS AMENDED
42 U.S.C. §1857 et seq. (1973)
§ 1857b — 1. Research relating to fuels and vehicles
**********
Authorization of appropriations
(c) For the purposes of this section there are authorized to be appropriated
$75,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, $125,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1972, $150,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1973, and $150,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974. Amounts ap-
propriated pursuant to this subsection shall remain available until expended.
As amended Apr. 9, 1973, Pub.L. 93-15, § l(a), 87 Stat. 11.
§ 1857f — 6e. Low-emission vehicles
**********
Authorization of appropriations
(i) There are authorized to be appropriated for paying additional amounts
for motor vehicles pursuant to, and for carrying out the provisions of, this
section, $5,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, and $25,000,000
for each of the three succeeding fiscal years.
**********
As amended Apr. 9, 1973, Pub.L. 93-15, § l(a), 87 Stat. 11.
§ 18571. Appropriations
There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this chapter, other
than sections 1857b(f) (3) and (d), 1857b— 1, 1857f— 6e, and 1858a of this
title, $125,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, $225,000,000 for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, $300,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1973, and $300,000,000 for the fiscal year end June 30, 1974.
As amended Apr. 9 1973, Pub.L. 93-15, § l(c), 87 Stat. 11.
1.1m CLEAN AIR ACT EXTENSION, APRIL 9, 1973,
P.L. 93-15, 87 STAT. II.
JVl
lt
To extend the Clean Air Act, as amended, for one year.
«*
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) subsection (c) of section
104 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (84 Stat. 1709), is amended by strik-
ing "and $150,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973." and inserting
in lieu thereof",$150,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, and
$150,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974.".
(b) Subsection (i) of section 212 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (84
Stat. 1703), is amended by striking "two succeeding fiscal years." and in-
serting in lieu thereof "three succeeding fiscal years.".
(c) Section 316 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (84 Stat. 1709), is
amended by striking "and $300,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1973." and inserting in lieu thereof ", $300,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1973, and $300,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974.".
-------
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
l.lm(l) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE, H.R. REP. NO. 93-77, 93rd Cong.,
1st SESS. (1973)
CLEAN AIR ACT EXTENSION
MARCH 15, 1973.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. STAGGERS, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 5445]
The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 5445) to extend the Clean Air Act, as
amended, for 1 year, having considered the same, report favorably
thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
SUMMARY OF LEGISLATION
H.R. 5445 provides a 1-year extension of the Clean Air Act of
1970 by extending for 1 year at constant dollar amounts the au-
thorizations of appropriations in the act which would otherwise
expire June 30, 1973.
BACKGROUND
Hearings were held on the proposed legislation on February 27,
1973, at which time all testimony heard was favorable to the
measure. The bill was reported by the Committee on Interstate and
Foreign Commerce without amendment by unanimous voice vote.
COST OF LEGISLATION
The authorizations of appropriations adopted by the committee
for fiscal year 1974 are identical to those in the present law for
fiscal year 1973 as follows:
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 5
Authorizations of appropriations
Sec. 104. Research on fuels and vehicles $150,000,000
Sec. 212. Payments for low-emission vehicles 25,000,000
Sec. 316. General authority — 300,000,000
Total 475,000,000
NEED FOR LEGISLATION
The funding authorizations for the Clean Air Act expire on
June 30, 1973. The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce plans extensive oversight and legislative hearings on this
act to examine the many policy issues which have arisen since pas-
sage of the act in 1970. Adequate time for responsible hearings
is not available before June 30, 1973. Therefore, the committee
feels that a 1-year extension of the programs provided for in the
act is necessary to allow their careful and responsible considera-
tion.
The committee also feels that clarity as to the fiscal year 1974
funding authorizations is necessary, as early in the 93d Congress
as possible, to provide guidance to the administration and the
Congress in budgeting and appropriating funds for these very im-
portant programs.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
The legislation reported extends at constant authorizations each
of the three funding authorizations in the Clean Air Act by adding
an authorization for fiscal year 1974 after each authorization for
1973 which in each case is identical to the 1973 authorization.
AGENCY REPORTS
Agency reports are not yet available on H.R. 5445. However,
the following report concerning H.R. 4306 also applies to H.R.
5445 in that the provisions for extension of the Clean Air Act
contained in H.R. 4306 are identical to those in the reported legis-
lation.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Washington, B.C., March 9, 1973.
Hon. HARLEY 0. STAGGERS,
Chairman, Committee of Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House
of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : This is in reply to your request for the
-------
6 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
comments of the Environmental Protection Agency on H.R. 4306,
to extend the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, and the Clean
Air Act, as amended, for 1 year.
We recommend that the bill be enacted.
On Monday, February 26, 1973, David D. Dominick, Assistant
Administrator for Categorical Programs, Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, testified before your Subcommittee on Public Health
and the Environment on the matter of extending the Solid Waste
Disposal Act and on February 28, I testified before the same sub-
committee on the Clean Air Act extension. The statements Mr.
Dominick and I made articulated our position on the extension
proposed by H.E. 4306. Copies of these statements are enclosed.
Sincerely yours,
WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS,
A dministrator.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the
bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to
be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed
in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown
in roman):
THE CLEAN AIR ACT
TITLE I—AIR POLLUTION PREVENTION AND
CONTROL
FINDINGS AND PURPOSES
SEC. 101. (a) * * *
*******
RESEARCH RELATING TO FUELS AND VEHICLES
SEC. 104. (a) * * *
*******
(c) For the purposes of this section there are authorized to be
appropriated $75,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971,
$125,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972 [and]
$150,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, [1973.] 1973, and
$150,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974. Accounts
appropriated pursuant to this subsection shall remain available
until expanded.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
*******
TITLE II— EMISSION STANDARDS FOR MOVING
SOURCES
*******
PART A — MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION AND FUEL STANDARDS
*******
DEVELOPMENT OF LOW-EMISSION VEHICLES
SEC. 212 (a) * * *
(i) There are authorized to be appropriated for paying additional
amounts for motor vehicles pursuant to, and for carrying out the
provisions of, this section, $5,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1971, and $25,000,000 for each of the [two] three succeed-
ing fiscal years.
*******
PART B — AIRCRAFT EMISSION STANDARDS
*******
APPROPRIATIONS
SEC. 316. There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out
this Act, other than sections 103 (f ) (3) and (d) , 104, 212, and 403,
$125,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, $225,000,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, [and] $300,000,000 for
the fiscal year ending June 30, [1973.] 1973, and $300,000,000 for
the fiscal year ending June 30,
l.lm(2) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 119 (1973):
l.lm(2)(a) MARCH 22: CONSIDERED AND PASSED HOUSE,
pp. H2081-H2091;
CLEAN AIR ACT EXTENSION
Mr. MURPHY of Illinois. Mr.
Speaker, by direction of the Commit-
tee on Rules, I call up House Resolu-
tion 316 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as
follows:
H. RES. 316
Retiolved. That upon the adaption of this
resolution it shall be in order to move that the
House resolve itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the
consideration of the bill (H.R. S445) to ex-
tend the Clean Air Act, as amended, for one
year. After general debate, which shall be
confined to the bill and shall continue not to
exceed one hour, to be equally divided and con-
trolled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Interstate and
Foreign Commerce, the bill shall be read for
amendment under the five-minute rule. At the
conclusion of the consideration of the bill for
amendment, the Committee shall rise and re-
port the bill to the House with such amend-
ments as may have been adopted, and the
previous question shall be considered as ordered
-------
8
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
on the bill and amendments thereto to final
passage without intervening motion except one
motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman
from Illinois is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. MURPHY of Illinois. Mr.
Speaker, I yield the usual 30 min-
utes to the distinguished gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. QUILLEN),
pending which I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 316
provides for an open rule with 1 hour
of general debate on H.R. 5445 which
is a bill to extend the Clean Air Act
by authorizing appropriations for
fiscal year 1974 at the same funding
level authorized for fiscal year 1973.
The appropriations under the current
act expire on June 30, 1973.
The cost of H.R. 5445 is broken
down as follows: Research on fuels
and vehicles, $150,000,000; payments
for low-emission vehicles, $25,000,000;
general authority, $300,000,000. The
total authorization for this program
is $475,000,000.
The Committee on Interstate and
Foreign Commerce plans hearings on
H.R. 5445 to examine many of the
policy issues, but the committee does
not feel that there is adequate time
available for the hearings before the
program's funding expires on June
30, 1973. Therefore the committee
feels that a 1-year extension of the
programs provided for in the act is
necessary to allow their careful and
responsible consideration.
The Committee on Interstate and
Foreign Commerce reported the bill
by a unanimous voice vote.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of
House Resolution 316 in order that we
may discuss and debate H.R. 5445.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I
yield myself such time as I may use.
(Mr. QUILLEN asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, House
Resolution 316 provides an open rule
with 1 hour of general debate on
H.R. 5445.
The purpose of H.R. 5445 is to pro-
vide a 1-year extension of the Clean
Air Act of 1970. Unless Congress
acts, the present law will expire on
June 30, 1973.
This bill provides funding for fiscal
year 1974 at exactly the same rate
authorized for fiscal year 1973. The
total amount authorized in this bill
for fiscal year 1974 is $475 million.
The 1-year extension will allow the
Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce sufficient time to hold in-
depth hearings on the Clean Air Act
of 1970 before trying to alter present
programs.
The administration supports this 1-
year extension of the present pro-
gram.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of
this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I have no requests
for time but I reserve the remainder
of my time.
Mr. MURPHY of Illinois. Mr.
Speaker, I have no further requests
for time, and I move the previous
question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Speaker, I
move that the House resolve itself
into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for
the consideration of the bill (H.R.
5445) to extend the Clean Air Act, as
amended, for 1 year.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the motion offered by the gentleman
from West Virginia.
The motion was agreed to.
IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Accordingly the House resolved it-
self into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for
the consideration of the bill, H.R.
5445, with Mr. DORN in the chair.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
By unanimous consent, the first
reading of the bill was dispensed with.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule,
the gentleman from West Virginia
(Mr. STAGGERS) will be recognized
for 30 minutes, and the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. DEVINE) will be
recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the distin-
guished gentleman from West Vir-
ginia.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
yield myself such time as I may con-
sume.
I hope consideration of the bill will
not take very long, because it is a
similar bill to the one we considered
yesterday. It is simply a 1-year ex-
tension of the Clean Air Act.
This legislation was first passed in
1967, because we recognized at that
time our air had become polluted to
the extent that it was dangerous to
our health in America. It was re-
newed in 1970 for the same reason.
We made a great many comprehen-
sive changes in the bill at that time.
Some of them have not been put into
operation, because we gave the auto-
mobile manufacturers and others time
to come forth with the implementa-
tion.
I might say that when the bill was
passed in 1970, the vote was 374 to 1.
[H 2081]
We explained the bill fully at that
time. At this time I would just like to
say that we have had some concrete
results from many of the things that
have happened as a result of the bill.
Most of the Members know, if they
have kept up with the current articles
in the media, about the automobile
pollution and pollution from our sta-
tionary plants across the country.
Mr. Chairman, in some of our cities,
like Detroit, since 1968 there has been
an 80-percent reduction in SO2, which
is sulphur dioxide, and a 45-percent
reduction in total suspended particu-
lates. We have had reductions in St. I
Louis and in several of our other
cities, in Philadelphia and the District
of Columbia, here where we live.
So it is doing a job. We are talking-
about health now. We know in several
situations that the health of our citi-
zens has been endangered. In fact,
one time it got so bad in Birmingham,
Ala., as a result of the smoke and
the smog in the air, that several
deaths resulted. Some Members of our
committee went down to take a look
at what was going on. They suspended
the operation of some of the steel
plants for about 3 or 4 days, and
after that the air cleared up and
everything went on as before.
Certainly we need to continue to do
what we are doing now, cleaning up
the air of America, so that we will
have cleaner air to breathe.
Mr. Chairman, as 1 say, we are
talking about the health of our citi-
zens and not money. The whole prin-
ciple is based on the health of people.
Air pollution causes an increased in-
cidence of bronchitis, emphysema,
asthma, eye irritation, and possibly
lung cancer.
So we are asking that the bill be
extended for 1 year so that we can go
in again and study the things that
need to be changed. There are many
things, we realize, at the present time
that need to be changed, and we will
have to take the time to study it.
Mr. WYMAN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. STAGGERS. I would be happy
to yield to the gentleman from New
Hampshire (Mr. WYMAN).
Mr. WYMAN. The gentleman from
West Virginia does realize this pro-
posal today is before us on a special
rule?
Mr. STAGGERS. Yes, sir
Mr. WYMAN. This is not however,
the decision of the committee: that
it does regard with favor or will not
regard with favor today any amend-
ments going to the substance of the
Clean Air Act standards?
-------
10
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
Mr. STAGGERS. Let me say this,
Mr. Chairman, in answer to the
gentleman's question:
The other body has passed this bill
identically for an extension, and they
are going to have hearings too, and
we are going to have hearings on the
question. It has to be passed by June
of next year, with all of the different
ramifications taken care of and the
things which we know need to be done.
That is the reason we are going to
try to prevent amendments from be-
ing attached to it today.
We would be glad to have any col-
loquy from the Members on anything
that needs to be done and to define
anything or answer any questions
for any Member of Congress who has
a problem in his individual district.
They can come before the committee
and explain their problems to the
committee, and they may give them
the benefit of their thinking as to
what should be done as to the bill.
Mr. WYMAN. Will the gentleman
from West Virginia (Mr. STAGGERS),
yield further?
Mr. STAGGERS. I am happy to
yield to the gentleman from New
Hampshire (Mr. WYMAN).
Mr. WYMAN. Mr. Chairman, I will
state to the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. STAGGERS), that further
on in the proceedings I would like to
ask the gentleman one or two ques-
tions.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
would be very happy to answer them.
Mr. NELSEN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. STAGGERS. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Minnesota (Mr. NELSEN) .
Mr. NELSEN. Mr. Chairman, I
want to join with my good friend,
the gentleman from West Virginia
(Mr. STAGGERS), the chairman of the
committee, in supporting this exten-
sion as indicated here in the legisla-
tion. I do want to point out, however,
that there are a few problems that
will be brought to the attention of the
Members in the colloquy, for exam-
ple, as to the great State of Colorado,
where there is a different altitude.
In that situation, you deal with dif-
ferent problems, and this has created
a problem in that area.
Likewise, I think there is some
problem with the mechanical devices
we hoped for in our automobiles. They
are finding it difficult to get the de-
sign that will do the job and at the
same time give us some reasonable
mileage per gallon. This is a problem,
and we do intend to go into it with
extensive hearings and review all of it.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the chair-
man of the committee for yielding. I
hope the bill passes under the 1-year
extension.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. NELSEN). The gentleman is a
very valuable citizen of this country;
he certainly is a very valuable mem-
ber of the committee. He has been
very helpful and has always been very
cooperative. I think the items he men-
tioned are very pertinent to the
Nation, and I think we need to answer
those questions.
Mr. WYLIE. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield for a couple of
questions?
Mr. STAGGERS. I will be happy to
yield to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. WYLIE).
Mr. WYLIE. May I ask the gentle-
man, did anyone from the adminis-
tration testify on this bill?
Mr. STAGGERS. Yes, Mr. Ruckels-
haus appeared and gave his approval
and said that he approved the exten-
sion of the bill.
Mr. WYLIE. Did he approve the
authorization recommended in this
bill?
Mr. STAGGERS. As an extension.
That is correct.
Mr. WYLIE. $75 million?
Mr. STAGGERS. That is correct.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
11
That is all we are asking for, is an
extension of the bill, just as we did
yesterday on the solid wastes.
Mr. WYLIE. There is one addi-
tional question I have, although I do
not want to prolong this. There is
some technical language on line 5 of
page 1 of H.R. 5445 which says the
act "is amended by striking 'and $150
million for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1973,' and inserting in lieu thereof,
'$150 million for the fiscal year end-
ing June 30, 1973,'" those seem to
be the same to me.
Mr. STAGGERS. They are the
same, but it is a technical matter of
writing the bill to make it conform
to what we need to do for the exten-
sion and what the Senate has done.
Mr. WYLIE. It is not intended that
this bill will have any retroactive
effect?
Mr. STAGGERS. No, indeed.
Mr. Chairman, at this time I would
like very much to compliment not only
the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
ROGERS), but the ranking minority
member (Mr. NELSEN), the gentle-
man from Kentucky (Mr. CARTER),
the gentleman from Kansas (Mr.
ROY), and all of the other members
of the committee for a fine job in
handling this bill.
I now yield 5 minutes to the gen-
tleman from Florida (Mr. ROGERS).
Mr. ROGERS. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of H.R. 5445, which
will provide a simple, 1 year exten-
sion of the Clean Air Act. The fund-
ing provisions of the act expire on
June 30, 1973, and it simply will be
impossible for the Subcommittee on
Public Health and Environment to
afford ample consideration to the vari-
ous substantive changes which have
been proposed for this legislation prior
to that time.
As I stated yesterday during con-
sideration of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act extension, there are 12 health bills
under the jurisdiction of the sub-
committee that also expire at the end
of this fiscal year. Many of these pro-
grams are the subject of rather per-
cipitous action from the executive
branch. In order to protect the pre-
rogatives of the Congress, our sub-
committee must commit the next 3
months to these health programs.
There is another reason, Mr. Chair-
man, why a delay in consideration of
the substantive provision of the Clean
Air Act is desirable. As you know,
the Environmental Protection Agency
is presently involved in two complex
and controversial proceedings under
the act. One involves implementation
of a State plan for California which
includes a proposal for gasoline ra-
tioning. A second proceeding involves
consideration of the petitions of the
automobile manufacturers for a 1-
year delay in implementation of the
1975 emissions standards. The latter
proceeding is due to a remand from
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Dis-
trict of Columbia Circuit. Neither
proceeding is likely to be resolved by
June of this year, and intervention
by the Congress before these proceed-
ings reach finality would be prema-
ture. I believe it is in the best inter-
ests of all concerned that we limit
ourselves at the present time to a
[H 2082]
simple extension of the act until these
administrative and judicial proceed-
ings are exhausted.
I assure my colleagues that the
.Subcommittee on Public Health and
Environment will conduct extensive
hearings on substantive provisions of
the Clean Air Act later this year.
I think the chairman has fully ex-
plained the purpose of this bill. The
administration has endorsed it, and it
will afford the subcommittee flexibility
because the deadline is so close on us.
(Mr. ROGERS and Mr. ROUSSE-
LOT asked and were given permission
'to revise and extend their remarks.)
-------
12
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I urge
passage of the legislation.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Will the gentle-
man yield?
Mr. ROGERS. Yes. I am glad to
yield.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Mr. Chairman, I
have supported this legislation in the
past. Does the gentleman happen to
know whether the EPA, in some of its
contracting work for research on
fueled vehicles, is planning to utilize
the recently established facility at El
Monte, Calif., set up by the State of
California to test the 1975 refitted
vehicles as to the effect of the air
emission standards?
Mr. ROGERS. For 1975?
Mr. ROUSSELOT. For 1975; yes.
Mr. ROGERS. I would hope they
would and I would think they would
make use of all the existing facilities
wherever possible to do the testing.
We can make an inquiry of the EPA
on this specific item for the gentle-
man and let him know the result of
that, but I certainly hope that the
EPA will use these facilities if the
facility at Ypsilanti, Mich., is not
sufficient.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. I hope so, too,
and I hope they do not duplicate exist-
ing facilities which have been set up.
The State of California has already
taken the lead in this research, be-
cause the Los Angeles basin is an area
where this work is particularly neces-
sary.
Mr. ROGERS. Yes. They have been
leaders in the field.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. They did this
early. Dr. A. J. Haagen-Smit of Cal
Tech, chairman of the California Air
Resources Board, is the one who first
analyzed the process to find out what
smog really is. The El Monte facility
is designed for testing vehicles on an
ongoing basis and also those refitted
for 1975 use. I hope the gentleman
from Florida will urge the EPA to
make use of this facility.
Mr. ROGERS. I am sure the com-
mittee will join in urging the EPA
to use all existing facilities where
necessary. I appreciate the gentle-
man bringing this matter to our at-
tention.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. I would like to
compliment the gentleman on his ef-
forts. I know it has been a difficult
subject to deal with and to determine
what is a fair standard. I hope the
gentleman will continue to press to
see that this new vehicle testing and
laboratory facility at El Monte is
used, because a tremendous amount of
thought has been given there to the
development of proper testing proce-
dures.
Mr. ROGERS. I thank the gentle-
man, and we will certainly do that.
(Mr. CARTER asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I
wish at this time to state that I am
in full support of the bill H.R. 5445,
to extend for 1 year the Clean Air
Act of 1970.
During the hearings held before the
Public Health and Environment Sub-
committee, all testimony—including
that of the administration—was in
favor of such an extension. In fact,
there really seems to be no controversy
over the matter of this simple exten-
sion.
It is my belief that the Congress
must fully examine the Clean Air Act,
and make necessary changes as soon
as possible. It is clear, however, that
an appropriate review of this measure
cannot be made before existing legis-
lation expires on June 30 of this year.
I, therefore, urge my distinguished
colleagues to view the complexity of
the problem of air pollution, and sup-
port this important measure.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, I
yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. HASTINGS asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
13
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, as
everyone here knows the Clean Air
Act of 1970 is a very complicated act
which has been the subject of con-
troversy on several fronts. Some of
the issues require thorough considera-
tion at the subcommittee and full
committee level. No hurried or casual
treatment would be in the best inter-
ests of Congress, the executive branch,
or the public.
The authority for the appropria-
tions necessary for the ongoing activi-
ties of the Environmental Protection
Agency as to clean air expires in a
little over 3 months. It is for this
reason, and this reason only, that your
committee brings to the floor a simple
2-year extension of all authorities
including appropriations. It is not
the intention hereby to delay or side-
track consideration of the Clean Air
Act. On the contrary, it is the inten-
tion to give it prompt and intensive
attention.
In view of the purpose of H.R.
5445 it is hoped that Members will
refrain from opening the matter by
amendment proposals. It is impossible
here and now to give any kind of
proper consideration to them. We
know there are these issues, and it
certainly is expected that all parties
will have opportunity to suggest
changes at such time as the commit-
tee takes up the overall renewal of
the Clean Air Act of 1970.
Probably the most evident issue has
to do with the request of automobile
companies to obtain favorable action
by EPA to delay the deadline for
auto emission levels to 1976. Whatever
EPA finally decides I am sure that
those who disagree with the decision
will be coming forth to get a legisla-
tive reversal. There is nothing wrong
with that but it would, in my opinion,
be improper to try and work it out
here and now.
H.R. 5445 provides authorizations
for appropriations up to $475 million
for fiscal year 1974. This is the same
level in each part of the act as found
in the act for fiscal year 1973. The
administration agrees with the de-
sirability of extension on these terms.
I recommend passage of H.R. 5445.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
BROTZMAN).
(Mr. BROTZMAN asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. BROTZMAN. Mr. Chairman,
the 1970 Clean Air Act will undoubt-
edly go down in history as the turn-
ing point in the war to conquer air
pollution in this country. In one bold,
comprehensive stroke, the Congress
set our Nation on the path to cleaner
air for our beleaguered cities. I was
proud to serve with the Interstate
and Foreign Commerce Committee
which drafted that legislation and I
gave it my firm support.
However, today I am just as thank-
ful that the Commerce Committee has
unanimously recognized the important
need for extensive review of the 1970
act as is set out on page 2 of the
report. The experiences of the last 3
years have given us more scientific
information and insight into how we
may improve on this act even more.
Specifically, one area to which I
feel the committee should address it-
self at the earliest possible date in-
volves the peculiar problems with air
pollution that metropolitan areas at
higher altitudes are suffering.
Through congressional oversight, the
1970 Clean Air Act is actually pre-
venting Colorado and other high alti-
tude States from enjoying the cleaner
air they are capable of achieving.
The reason for the dirtier air is this
simple: The largest component of
smog for cities in the Rocky Mountain
area comes from auto emissions. Since
the enactment of this legislation in
1970, it has been determined that a
well-tuned car in Denver, Salt Lake
City, or Albuquerque emits almost
twice the pollutants that a well-tuned
-------
14
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
car at sea level emits, because auto-
mobiles tend to run fuel rich at higher
altitudes. Yet Federal emission level
standards do not reflect this fact.
Low-cost adjustments by the manu-
facturer in the curburetion and tim-
ing of a car can easily eliminate
excessive high altitude emissions, yet
such adjustments are specifically pro-
hibited by the 1970 act.
What is the net result of this?
These areas have dirtier air not be-
cause the technology does not exist to
clean it up, but because the law pro-
hibits us from making corrections.
Also, less efficient automobile engines
mean millions of gallons of gasoline
wasted every year at a time when
rumors are rampant that gasoline
rationing is just around the corner.
Dirtier auto emissions also mean
that more people will suffer and die
from respiratory diseases in these
areas than should be the case.
In special environmental hearings
conducted last year by former Con-
gressman McKevitt and myself in
Denver, witness after witness came
forward to ask that this law be
amended. They felt that the Admin-
istrator of the Environmental Pro-
tion Agency should be directed to
take altitude variances into account in
establishing allowable auto emission
levels. Thus, a car at 6,000 feet could
[H 2083]
inexpensively be made to emit no
more pollutants than a car at sea
level. In the interest of equity for all
citizens of the United States, I feel
the Congress can grant no less.
It was also pointed out in these
hearings that the 1970 act should be
amended to allow the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection
Agency to waive the restrictions on
adjustment of Federal auto emissions
control equipment (in those areas
where State and local governments
can demonstrate that such adjust-
ments would lower emission levels.
Finally, I want to stress that the
Rocky Mountain States will have a
severe problem meeting the ambient
air standards for 1975 set by the
Clean Air Act, because of this situa-
tion. EPA should have the power to
extend this deadline if it determines
that noncompliance has been caused
by dirty automobile engines which Col-
orado and the other high-altitude
States were prevented by Federal law
from correcting.
We have tried to work this out ad-
ministratively with the Environmental
Protection Agency to no avail, their
contention being that they are banned
by the law from doing anything.
I, therefore, urge the members of
the Commerce Committee to take up
the matter of higher altitude urban
areas and their specific problems with
air pollution at the earliest possible
date.
Colorado's State Department of
Health has estimated that nearly 50
percent of that area's automobile
traffic would have to be curtailed in
1975 unless the measures I am sug-
gesting today are considered and
passed soon.
Of course, I completely support
thorough hearings to study these
problems as carefully as possible and
to work out the best practicable solu-
tions. But I must stress again that
such hearings must be started at the
earliest possible date if they are to
help prevent severe problems for the
high-altitude States later.
Mr. Chairman, I realize that time is
short here today, but it has been
mentioned in prior colloquy that we
might look forward to some hearings
on this particular subject—and I have
had private conversations with the
chairman of the committee—and at
this time I might yield to the chair-
man of the committee, the gentleman
from West Virginia (Mr. STAGGERS)
to ascertain if it is in fact the inten-
tion of the committee to hold hearings
,so that those of us who may have
problems such as I have mentioned
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
15
might present testimony for the com-
mittee to consider?
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, if
the gentleman will yield, the gentle-
man is correct, and I might add that
all of the things that have been
brought up in the colloquy today will,
of course, be in the RECORD,'and will
be thus made known to the committee,
and I can assure you that they will
be given consideration by the commit-
tee when the time comes.
I also have instructed our commit-
tee counsel of our concern as to all
of these problems, and have made
plans so that all Members of the
Congress who have any problems such
as those the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. BEOTZMAN) has just mentioned
in his district, and in the Rocky
Mountain areas, that they will be
certainly most welcome to come be-
fore our committee and present their
views.
I might also add that I know that
the gentleman from Colorado served
on the Committee on Interstate and
Foreign Commerce. The gentleman
stated that he was there when this
bill came out, and I know that the
gentleman was there, because the
gentleman gave many valuable con-
tributions, not only to this bill, but to
all the other bills that were eventually
enacted into statutes, and we appreci-
ate the gentleman's help.
I further wish to congratulate the
people in the district the gentleman
represents for returning the gentle-
man to the House of Representatives,
because the gentleman has certainly
been an excellent Member of the Con-
gress. And I know that in the Rocky
Mountain area that there is an ex-
ceptional problem, and I agree that
this should be given consideration.
I also know that as you get higher
into the air that the atmosphere be-
comes dirtier, and that you do have to
make adjustments. And I intend when
the time comes to ask those represent-
atives from the automobile manufac-
turers and also the EPA to see what
improvements are needed to control
this problem.
I again assure the gentleman that
it will be brought up at the proper
time.
Mr. BROTZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman from West Vir-
ginia very much for his response on
this particular matter.
Mr. BROTZMAN. I yield to the gen-
tleman from New Jersey.
Mr. HUNT. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
I heard the remarks by the gentle-
man from Colorado about elevation,
and where the gentleman comes from,
the very lovely State of Colorado, the
air is rarer the higher one gets. I
come from a place where the air is
not very rare. We are sort of in the
lowlands in New Jersey, not very far
above sea level.
I want to compliment the gentleman
from Colorado for bringing this air
pollution matter up, because of the
internal combustion engine.
I read an article in the paper the
other day regarding this matter. I do
not know how true it is. I hope the
committee will see fit when they have
their hearings to bring in the Honda
people who claim that there is a part
in the chamber of the emission system
that can be totally obliterated and
this burned off. I hope we do have
that matter taken up when it comes
before the committee.
Mr. BROTZMAN. I thank the gen-
tleman from New Jersey for his very
fine comments and concern.
I yield to the gentleman from Colo-
rado (Mr. ARMSTRONG).
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Chairman,
I thank my colleague for yielding to
me. I rise to associate myself with
his remarks and join him in thanking
the Chairman for his assurance that
some consideration will be given to
our State and other States in the
mountain West.
I am for clean air for all Ameri-
-------
16
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
cans, not just those who happen to
live at sea-level.
And it is cruelly misleading to call
the legislation being considered today
the Clean Air Act. As it affects the
people of my State, and other high
altitude areas of the country, it might
as well be called the Dirty Air Act.
This legislation does not solve the
air pollution problem at mountain
elevations. And what is worse, it ac-
tually precludes responsible action by
State and local officials to solve prob-
lems in their own jurisdiction. Many
Members of Congress may be surprised
to learn just how critical air pollu-
tion has become in the mountain West.
The purity of Colorado mountain air
is legendary; and the sinister pall of
smog that hangs over our mountains
and cities would have been unthink-
able even a few years ago.
But far more is at stake than
esthetic considerations. There is also
a serious and well-documented health
concern:
Metro Denver has the worst carbon
monoxide problem in the Nation to-
day. And EPA—Environmental Pro-
tection Agency—has ranked Denver
as one of the top six priority areas
of the country in need of air pollution
control.
Coloradoans have acted decisively to
deal with this critical problem. Colo-
rado was among the leaders of State
government in early air pollution re-
search and legislation.
Today our State continues to lead
in affecting air quality. Two note-
worthy examples are the progressive
land use planning and transportation
planning programs underway in our
State.
And I am proud that by State and
local action we have controlled air
pollution or obtained compliance
schedules from 95 percent of the sta-
tionary sources of air pollution.
Yes, the people of Colorado have
made a strong and responsible effort.
But any air pollution control worthy
of the name must come to grips with
automobile exhaust emissions, the
cause of an estimated 90 percent of
total air pollution in metro Denver.
It is in this respect that the so-called
Clean Air Act discriminates most un-
fairly against Colorado and other
mountain States.
The need is underscored by Federal
pre-emption which precludes State
legislatures from acting to solve the
problem.
And since Federal law prohibits
car leaders from adjusting automo-
bile engines for high altitude driving
conditions, the only hope for restoring
air purity in Colorado and other af-
fected States is to amend the Clean
Air Act.
In closing, may I call your atten-
tion to the dilemma which will arise
if automobile manufacturers are given
an extension of time to comply with
Federal air quality standards. I take
no position on this at the present
time. But if EPA extends the deadline
for manufacturer compliance, many
communities, particularly Denver, Col-
orado Springs, and others in the
mountain West, will be unable to
comply with Federal air standards.
Yet the existing law does not provide
for an extension for compliance by
local jurisdictions beyond 1977—an
impossible deadline in Colorado un-
less the Federal act is amended.
Mr. Chairman, it is not my purpose
to criticize the sponsors of this ex-
tension nor of the original legislation.
I know that their effort is motivated
[H 2084]
by the highest and most sincere pur-
pose and I am therefore going to sup-
port extension of this act for an addi-
tional year.
But I did not wish to vote to do so
without taking this opportunity to call
attention of my colleagues to the ur-
gent need for amendments so that
this legislation will truly be a Clean
Air Act for all Americans.
The bill we are extending today
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
17
requires that 1975-76 automobiles
meet Federal vehicle emission control
standards at sea level. But in atmo-
spheric conditions of mountain driving
a car adjusted to sea level standards
will discharge up to twice as much
hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide as
at lower elevations.
The Clean Air Act must be amended
to require new cars to meet standards
at all altitudes. Automobile manufac-
turers are moving in this direction:
The development of barometric car-
buretor controls will compensate for
changing atmospheric conditions as
well as altitude changes. It is essential
this be required by law.
(Mr. ARMSTRONG asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, I
yield to the gentleman from Pennsyl-
vania for a unanimous-consent re-
quest.
Mr. HEINZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of this legislation.
H.R. 5445: CLEAN AIR ACT
AMENDMENTS EXTENSION
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of
H.R. 5445, legislation extending the
Clean Air Act of 1970 for one year,
until June 30, 1974. The House Sub-
committee on Public Health and En-
vironment, of which I am a member,
and the full House Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
have both unanimously approved the
proposed legislation. I urge my col-
leagues in the House to follow that
leadership today by adopting this
important bill.
The current law will expire June 30,
1973; the committee bill simply ex-
tends authorization for appropriations
at current dollar amounts until June
30, 1974.
H.R. 5445—Authorizations for fiscal
year 1974
(identical to fiscal year 1973)
[In millions of dollars]
Authorization category:
Research on fuels and vehicles_$150
Payments for low-emission
vehicles 25
General authority 300
Total
475
Mr. Chairman, the major sources of
air pollution in our country today are
automobiles, powerplants, and indus-
trial facilities. In some parts of the
United States automobiles contribute
up to 80 percent of total air pollution.
In my own county of Allegheny, in
southwest Pennsylvania, because of
the large industrial presence there,
automobiles are responsible for a
smaller proportion of total air pol-
lution.
Air pollution contributes greatly to
environmental deterioration. Oppres-
sive and seemingly ever-present haze,
smoke, and, in some areas, smog
blankets our cities and even our coun-
trysides. But more importantly, air
pollution constitutes a serious health
hazard, endangering the lives of peo-
ple who suffer respiratory and heart
diseases. In a 1966 temperature in-
version that locked much of the
Northeastern United States in its grip
for 4 days, the death rate in New
York City shot up by nearly 10 per-
cent. Currently, in Los Angeles,
schoolchildren are prevented from en-
gaging in strenuous exercise during
heavy smog periods.
Air pollution also imposes a financial
burden on the Nation in the form of
higher medical costs, cleaning bills,
and deterioration of buildings, paint,
clothing, and other material posses-
sions. While damage to plant life is
still to be fully assessed, we do know
that sensitive corps and some types
of forests are adversely affected by
air pollution. For instance, in areas
south of Pittsburgh, Christmas trees
have been stunted and malformed
apparently because of high concen-
trations of sulfur dioxide.
Of course, it is most difficult to
ascribe precise monetary values to
-------
18
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
the economic costs of failing to control
air pollution. Estimates have been
made, however, and they do serve as
rough measures which are helpful in
analyzing the various pollution abate-
ment strategies. In 1971, for instance,
the President's Council on Environ-
mental Quality estimated the loss due
to uncontrolled pollution was nearly
$11 billion each year. The Office of
Science and Technology, in a 1972
report, set the total annual cost as
somewhere in the range of $11 to $16
billion.
Such estimates do not include the
loss of esthetic values, nor the losses
suffered by those who are forced by
pollution to change life patterns. We
can never measure the loss of a deep
blue sky or of a crystal clear lake.
Nor can we measure the loss of rec-
reation values or changes brought
about in land utilization because of
environmental pollution.
It was in response to this appalling
toll on our environment, our health,
and our pocketbooks that Congress in
1967 enacted the Air Quality Act, and
3 years later broadened and bolstered
that legislation by adopting the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1970. Under
the 1970 law, procedures were estab-
lished for setting and enforcing pri-
mary national ambient air standards
to protect health, and secondary na-
tional air quality standards to protect
the public welfare. Moreover, this
legislation provided tough enforce-
ment mechanisms through the estab-
lishment of criminal penalties for of-
fenders and court authority to issue
abatement orders.
But only now is the full impact of
the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1970 starting to be felt across Amer-
ica. State governments and cities are,
in conjunction with EPA, attempting
to devise air pollution abatement plans
that will assure that 1975 standards
are met. Simultaneously, the Ameri-
can automobile industry is struggling
to devise equipment which will guar-
antee that new automobiles meet
congressionally enacted standards for
1975 and 1976. These standards dic-
tate a 96-percent reduction in levels of
automobile emissions from 1970 model
levels.
Not unexpectedly, controversy has
ensued. Surely we can expect that
conflict over these strict air quality
standards, particularly the auto emis-
sion standards, will continue to grow.
The 1-year extension of the Clean Air
Act provided in H.R. 5445 will pro-
vide the House Public Health and
Environment Subcommitte with the
opportunity to come to grips with a
series of key questions facing the
Congress and, indeed facing the
American people.
Here are some of the issues that
we in Congress must delve into an
effort to arrive at reasonable and
appropriate policy decisions:
First. Are the American people
ready and willing to change exten-
sively many urban transportation
habits in order to meet strict air
standards? For example, will the
American people ever accept—
Gasoline rationing to restrict auto
emissions in urban areas?
Parking taxes set at prohibitive
levels to discourage commuting by
individual auto?
Increased public expenditures to
build and subsidize operating costs
of urban-suburban mass rapid transit
systems.
Second. Are Federal standards on
air pollution tougher than standards
set on other forms of pollutions?
Third. Are present air quality
standards fully justified for health
reasons? Are they too weak? Are
they too strict?
Fourth. What is the basis for the
current conflict between American
auto manufacturers and the EPA
over the requested 1-year extension
of the 1975 deadline for compliance
with auto emission standards?
In adopting the catalytic converter,
has Detroit taken the wrong approach
to meeting the 1975 standards; that
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
19
is, have they adopted equipment which
is the least efficient, the most expen-
sive, and the most likely to break
down, thereby requiring frequent and
expensive maintenance?
Why do Japanese manufacturers
seem to be having little difficulty de-
signing equipment which complies
with the 1975 standards, and does
so inexpensively and with no gasoline
consumption penalty?
Fifth. Have we in Congress assessed
fully the cost/benefit calculations in-
volved in these strict auto emission
standards? This question is particu-
larly pertinent in light of projected
additional costs to automobile owners
for—
New emission control equipment;
Unleaded gasoline required by cata-
lytic converters;
Required maintenance of emission
control equipment; and
Apparent increased gasoline con-
sumption resulting from present and
future pollution control mechanisms.
These are just a few of the many
tough questions which must be an-
swered. I believe that a 1-year exten-
sion of the Clean Air Act is a most
responsible and appropriate step for
the Congress to now take. With major
changes being proposed in the cur-
rent law, but with the act expiring
soon, this extension will allow the
committee sufficient time to consider
any necessary revisions.
It must be made clear to all, how-
ever, that in limiting the extension to
only 1 year it is our intention to
affect neither the current 1975 dead-
[H 2085]
line for automobile emission stan-
dards, nor the authority of the Admin-
istrator to, if necessary, extend that
deadline, nor the present hearings on
the automobile industry's request for
an extension of that deadline.
While all testimony, including that
of EPA Administrator William Ruck-
elshaus, was favorable to the passage
of H.R. 5445, substantial debate and
controversy will continue over the
Clean Air Act as it currently stands.
I want to assure my colleagues that I
am sure my fellow members of the
Subcommittee on Public Health and
Environment will carefully weigh and
analyze the positions on all sides of
the controversy when the committee
once again takes up this legislation.
I urge Members to vote "yes" on
H.R. 5445.
(Mr. HEINZ asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana.
(Mr. LANDGREBE asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LANDGREBE. Mr. Chairman,
in 1970, Congress passed the Clean
Air Act amendments, setting ex-
tremely strict air pollution control
standards. I felt at the time that Con-
gress was reacting emotionally to dire,
but unsubstantiated, predictions of
environmental enthusiasts, with little
or no actual knowledge of the levels
of and the dangers of air pollution,
and with little consideration of the
economic and social consequences of
such strict regulations.
Since we are now considering the
extension of the Clean Air Act, I rise
to protest the lack of responsible con-
sideration and discussion of: First,
the necessity for the excessively strict
pollution control standards, and sec-
ond, the disastrous consequences that
may result from these standards.
The question of the necessity of the
strict pollution control standards is a
scientific one. What level of contami-
nants in the air actually constitutes a
danger to our health? It would seem
that we need only turn to scientific
research to find the answer. But even
a superficial glance at the literature
in this field yields much emotionalism,
much myth, many contradictory
claims, but little fact or valid proof.
The Government has the responsi-
bility of protecting the American
-------
20
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
people from pollution that will in fact
endanger their health. However, it also
has the responsibility of going no
further than this. There is no justi-
fication for the Government control-
ling or restricting the actions of
American citizens when there is no
imminent danger.
This leads to the question of
whether it is proper or necessary to
approach this whole problem by set-
ting Federal standards that blanket
the country, when we are dealing with
a problem that is highly localized.
Many densely populated areas obvi-
ously need to control their pollution
more than they have in the past.
Rural and less populated areas, on
the other hand, may have no air pol-
lution problem. Why should the peo-
ple in the areas where pollution is no
problem be made to suffer the adverse
economic effects of the Federal stan-
dards? Could the air pollution problem
be more efficiently and effectively
dealth with on a more localized level?
Surely, this is a question that at the
very least deserves honest considera-
tion.
As for the economic and social con-
sequences of these standards, we are
already experiencing them. Our cur-
rent energy crisis has been made
worse by the approximately 30 per-
cent increase in fuel consumption of
motor vehicles equipped with air pol-
lution control devices. How much
more will fuel consumption increase
when the 1975 automobile emission
control standards go into effect? What
effect will this have on the energy
crisis?
This past winter many farmers
suffered great loss, literally dump-
ing their corn in the streets, because
there was a shortage of fuel for grain
dryers. How many others will be
made to suffer in the future?
Well, one inkling of how many has
been given to us by Mr. William Ruck-
elshaus, Administrator of the Envir-
onmental Protection Agency, who
indicates that to meet the 1977 air
pollution standards, Los Angeles,
Calif., will have to reduce its auto-
mobile traffic by 80 percent. I trust
that I need not explain what a dis-
aster this would be to the people of
that city. The proposal is so incred-
ible that, I suspect, no one really
believes it. And yet Mr. Ruckelshaus
says there is no other known way for
Los Angeles to meet the requirements
of the Clean Air Act.
I have, of course, not even scratched
the surface in regard to the economic
effects of this act. Estimates of the
added cost to the price tag of a new
car for compliance with the stan-
dards range up to $1,000 per vehicle.
Add to this the increased cost of fuel
and the result is greatly increased
cost of transportation. This means
greatly increased costs for everything
and everyone requiring transporta-
tion, from food to junketing Congress-
men.
I will vote against H.R. 5445, not
because I believe that we should not
'control air pollution, not because I
believe that we are already doing
enough to combat air pollution, but
rather to draw attention to the ab-
sence of responsible consideration of
the implications of and the conse-
quences of the Clean Air Act.
If my vote results in a more ra-
tional study of the problem of air
pollution, and thus helps to achieve
relatively clean air without causing
unnecessary harm to the citizens of
our country due to excessively strict
regulations, then whatever the politi-
cal consequences, they will be worth
it.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
New Hampshire (Mr. WYMAN).
(Mr. WYMAN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WYMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am
going to take these 5 minutes, because
this subject is so important. I have
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
21
an amendment which I wanted to offer
today, but I am not going to offer it,
because of the position toward amend-
ments at this time indicated by the
chairman of the committee. My
amendment deals with the subject the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. LAND-
GREBE) was just talking about;
namely, the emissions requirements of
the Clean Air Act of 1970. The pres-
ent requirements of the Clean Air
Act of 1970 are about 6 or 7 percent
unnecessarily too high. It is that last
6 or 7 percent which is going to mean
in this country consumption of 3 mil-
lion barrels of oil additional per day
in this country in 1976. It is going to
mean cars that will cost upward of
$500 more apiece for gadgetry under
the hood. It is going to mean upward
of $225 more a year per car for gas
consumption for the cars that will get
8 miles to the gallon.
When the public fully understands
this people will be really cross unless
the Congress can honestly tell the
public that this standard is required
for the public health, which it is not.
The fact is that not one person in
America is going to get emphysema or
be poisoned by the air pollution if we
take the standard to 90 percent in-
stead of the 96 percent required by
present law in 1976.
I have a bill pending, H.R. 5376,
that would change this act to take the
air pollution level down to 90 per-
cent. This bill is now before the com-
mittee chaired by the gentleman from
West Virginia. I would like to ask the
gentleman at this time: Will this mat-
ter be heard fairly soon? I ask this,
if I might say, because of the fact
that the automobile industry has to
tool up and they need something like
15 to 18 months advance notice if
they have to comply with a standard
that exceeds the reasonable require-
ments of the public health of this
Nation. I do not believe Congress
should persist in this unreasonably
high requirement.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, if
the gentleman will yield, is he talking
about H.R. 4313?
Mr. WYMAN. Yes. There have
been additional cosponsors so the bill
was reintroduced under another num-
ber, but it is the same bill. I referred
to H.R. 5376. That was a subsequent
reintroduction.
Mr. STAGGERS. If the gentleman
will yield, as soon as we get through
with our important health bills—
there are many that have to be re-
newed this year—which are pressing,
we will get into this as a part of the
Clean Air Act.
Mr. WYMAN. How long is that go-
ing to be?
Mr. STAGGERS. I cannot say now.
I would hope sometime in midsum-
mer.
Mr. WYMAN. The trouble with this
is, if I might observe to the gentle-
man, if that happens we might get
into a situation where we will have
to have a layoff of a great many
workers in Detroit and across the
Nation in places where automobiles
and their components are manufac-
tured. There is no sense in requiring
a 96-percent pollution-free level and
all the gadgets for that on cars if
reasonable and rational public health
needs only a 90-percent level. Does
not the gentleman think this prob-
lem, with the backup problem of
labor behind it, ought to be heard
sooner than midsummer?
Mr. STAGGERS. Let me say to
the gentleman that the agency itself
[H 2086]
is right now holding hearings on this
very problem, and I do not think we
would want to go into it until after
the agency goes into it. They will go
into it in a more complete form than
we ever would.
Mr. WYMAN. I understand that,
but part of the problem is that the
courts say the standard the Congress
has imposed in the Clean Air Act of
1970 is not susceptible to being
-------
22
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
changed by EPA by regulation. It is
a standard that seems crystal clear
and, therefore, the courts must re-
quire that it be enforced.
Mr. STAGGERS. I believe it could
be released in 1 year if the courts
made up their minds. They could do
it. The courts have not definitely
made up their minds as yet.
Mr. WYMAN. Has the gentleman
from West Virginia come to any opin-
ion as to whether or not it is neces-
sary to go to 96 percent? Has the
gentleman from West Virginia looked
into this question?
Mr. STAGGERS. Yes, we have had
hearings and we believe that until we
have further hearings and have heard
from the manufacturers and EPA,
we ought to wait until after the EPA
has come up with its judgment first
and then the Congress can go for-
ward.
Mr. WYMAN. It is one of the
problems. Even in California, with
the air inversion problem in Los
Angeles, California law does not re-
quire anywhere near 96 percent emis-
sion controls. I cannot understand
why we should impose on the entire
Nation a greater standard than that
which is applied by the California as-
sembly for that particular area that
suffers such a tremendous air inver-
sion problem.
Mr. STAGGERS. I would say that
if the gentleman would look at the
California statute and what it re-
quires, the difference between the
Federal and the California require-
ments is so small that I feel in my
judgment, and I believe the commit-
tee would also, that we ought to wait
until EPA has come up with its de-
cision.
Mr. WYMAN. The difference may
be small in percentage points, but it
is the taking of the automobiles to
that last few percentage points that
is creating all the trouble with these
catalytic converters and the other
gadgetry.
The CHAIRMAN, The time of the
gentleman from New Hampshire has
expired.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 3 additional minutes to the gen-
tleman from New Hampshire (Mr.
WYMAN).
Mr. WYMAN. I say, simply, that
if the country does not need to do
this, we ought not to do it, to say
nothing of 3 million barrels of oil per
day. It is arguable whether it is 3 or
4 million. It is arguable whether a
car is going to need 33 percent more
gasoline or 25 percent more gasoline.
However, there is no argument that
is going to use more gasoline and this
means millions of barrels more oil on
which we are in acute deficit. Any-
thing like 3 million barrels per day
is the equivalent of the entire pro-
posed Alaskan pipeline, from the
North Slope. Yet, if the unreasonably
high emissions requirements of this
act continue in effect, we are going
to require it and for something our
public health does not really need.
It seems to me this is the height of
foolishness. I do not think we ought
to impose on all the motorists of this
•entire country, in some of the areas
of which there is no air pollution
problem whatsoever, a standard that
applies to only a few locations in this
country.
Up in my own State, in the State
of New Hampshire, for example, I
do not believe there is a place in the
State which would have a true air pol-
lution problem from auto emissions if
we did not put a filter on any auto-
mobile. Yet, New Hampshire motor-
ists will be required to put on a 96-
percent control which is going to cost
them dearly.
The Nation ought not to endure
this tremendous demand on our re-
sources and on our pocketbooks if we
do not actually need such a high
standard across the Nation for the
health or our people.
I submit that in this country we
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
23
do not need to go beyond 90 percent
pollution-free emissions.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. WYMAN. I yield to the gentle-
man from Kentucky (Mr. CARTER).
Mr. CARTER. I would like to an-
swer concerning one point. In the
first place, gasoline consumption is
not going to increase that much. Mr.
Ruckelshaus testified before our com-
mittee that there would be only a 7-
percent increase in the amount of
gasoline used.
Not only that, the cost per car
would not be more than $259. Every
company in this country has been
working on this problem for many
years. It is not going to take a new
effort on their part, but increased
dedication.
Not only that, we have three makes
of cars today, the Mazda, the Honda,
and the Mercedes diesel, all of which
are reaching the projected standards
of 1975.
Why is it that our manufacturers
are not doing this? They are a little
bit delinquent in this. They can reach
the standards certainly, if the Japan-
ese and German cars can do so at an
equally low level of gasoline con-
sumption.
Mr. WYMAN. May I say that I do
not know where the gentleman got his
figures. He may have gotten them
from Mr. Ruckelshaus.
Mr. CARTER. From Mr. Ruckels-
haus—the 7-percent increase in gaso-
line consumption.
Mr. WYMAN. This statement runs
directly counter to expert testimony.
The automobiles to which my friend
makes reference are all foreign im-
ports.
But the point is this, and the point
of my observation is that I am not
trying to protect any particular in-
dustry.
I am saying to the gentleman, who
is a doctor, that there is no need in
this country to require 96 percent
effluent-free emissions from automo-
biles. Ninety percent is all we possibly
need. If that is the case, those re-
sponsible in the matter—and it is
the responsibility of Congress—
should take us down to 90 percent,
and do it in time to keep American
industry running and American peo-
ple working.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. CARTER).
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, in
answer to the distinguished gentle-
man from New Hampshire I say that
air pollution today is a grave danger
to the country everywhere, and I say
that air pollution has not been sig-
nificantly diminished throughout the
United States despite the efforts that
we have made.
I want to point out that our indus-
tries can reach these standards, and
they should reach them. I am glad to
see we have many friends of industry
around here, who want to lengthen the
time during which they may reach
these standards. That is fine, but if
foreign countries can reach these
standards, we can do it here in the
United States as well, and we should
call upon industry to do that today.
Mr. MYERS. Mr. Chairman, would
my colleague from Kentucky yield?
Mr. CARTER. I am happy to yield
to my distinguished friend from In-
diana.
Mr. MYERS. There have been a
number of speakers this afternoon
who have referred to the fact that
the new automobiles will consume
from 30 to 100 percent additional
fuel, to push the automobiles, because
of these devices.
Does the gentleman know of any
studies which have been made look-
ing into the fact that perhaps some
of these mechanisms to control emis-
sions may be creating greater prob-
lems, or is there any study at all?
Mr. CARTER: No, sir; but in all
fairness I can say that these mechan-
-------
24
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
isms which we put on the cars do
cause some problems. In order to
accomplish our goal, to get purer air,
we must be willing to face and solve
the problems that confront us.
Mr. MYERS. This is fine, if the
gentleman will yield further, and
there is no question as to the goal, but
I certainly do support the argument
of our friend from New Hampshire,
•who is concerned about seeing all of
the automobiles produced in 1976 and
subsequent thereto, if we cannot build
them in this country.
I do not know what the extension
of this time is for, if we are not
getting the additional time to build
the necessary engines and devices.
Mr. CARTER. I thank the gentle-
man for his comments.
I want to tell the gentleman right
now, if Japan can reach these stan-
dards, if Germany can reach these
standards, if this country of ours has
the mechanical and electronic ability
to put people on the moon, we can also
develop an automobile which will not
pollute above the 1975 standards. We
should make every effort to do it.
Furthermore, we should build auto-
mobiles that do not use more gasoline
than foreign-made automobiles.
Mr. PRICE of Illinois. Mr. Chair-
man, I support H.R. 5445 extending
the Clean Air Act for 1 year.
The need for this legislation is all
too evident. Reports of increasing air
pollution problems, health problems
stemming from pollution and eco-
nomic dislocation require strength-
ened research and regulatory efforts.
This country faces severe energy
shortages. We cannot simply shut-
down or look upon the energy crisis
as an inevitable concomitant of an
advanced society. We must continue
to explore ways in which to utilize
[H 2087]
existing energy sources more effec-
tively and to create new power
sources.
Ultimately, the individual citizen is
involved. If efforts are not continued
to clean up the environment, serious
health problems arise. If our indus-
trial base shuts down because of pol-
lution, severe economic problems
develop. Clearly, the importance of
this pending bill cannot be over-
stated. We must provide the where-
withal to continue working on these
inter-related problems.
There must be commitment with
this effort. I am concerned that the
administration has budgeted only
$150 million to fund clean air pro-
grams in fiscal year 1974. The pending
measure authorizes $475 million which
is the same funding level authorized
for the current fiscal year.
This bill authorizes $300 million to
fund regulatory programs for motor
vehicle emissions, to implement air
quality standards and to assist State
and local air pollution control agen-
cies. The Environmental Protection
iAgency is allocated $150 million to
develop technology and to award re-
search and development grants for
controlling auto and plant pollution.
Also, $25 million is authorized for the
certification and purchase of low-
emission vehicles by the Federal Gov-
ernment.
If these authorization levels were
too high, I would commend the ad-
ministration for being concerned with
excessive and wasteful spending. In
this instance, however, such a case
cannot be made. The stakes are too
important. The protection of human
life, cleaning up the environment, and
promoting economic well-being are
not peripheral issues. They are im-
portant national priorities that de-
mand full commitment.
Mr. PODELL. Mr. Chairman, ap-
propriations for the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1970 expire on June
30, 1973, The Congress is now con-
fronted with the choice of either
extending the provisions in the pres-
ent law by providing new funding for
the next few fiscal years to carry on
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
25
work which is now in progress, or
writing a new law which would in-
corporate possible changes.
I believe it is imperative that we
continue the Clean Air Act Amend-
ments of 1970. The requirements of
this law promise to go far toward
greatly improving our ambient air
and restoring a healthy environment,
especially in our large cities. I am
aware that the Council on Environ-
mental Quality reported last year that
the level of air pollution in several
major cities across the United States
is declining. This list of cities did not
include New York, where an increase,
not a decrease in air pollution by
particulates was reported in the same
year. A significant abatement of air
pollution there, as in other large met-
ropolitan areas will take several years,
as States and municipalities follow the
timetables of the EPA-approved im-
plementation plans. They will need
the professional and technical assist-
ance of the Federal Government to
carry out their control measures, and
continued funding will be required
to provide this help. What is not re-
quired, I am convinced, is a watering
down of the present law, which would
inhibit the adoption of measures to
cut air contamination drastically, es-
pecially in heavily polluted regions.
For many months all large metro-
politan areas have worked to design
feasible plans for a significant and
lasting reduction of air pollution
which would result in measurable
benefits by safeguarding and improv-
ing public health and welfare, and
preventing deterioration of materials
and property. While admittedly the
remedies prescribed to meet the Clean
Air Act requirements are drastic in
many instances, necessitating alter-
nate strategies or extended time-
tables, the cities recognize the need
for ultimately meeting them, and have
set the necessary machinery in mo-
tion to do so.
I think we should give our country
and its citizens a fighting chance to
rid themselves of excessive, destruc-
tive air pollution. We can do so by
extending the present law. To weaken
or alter it at this time would only
serve to delay, at great future ex-
pense, an effort which ultimately can-
not be avoided.
Mr. HARRINGTON. Mr. Chair-
man, my reasons for supporting the
extension of the Clean Air Act for 1
year are twofold. First, I would like
to see the continuation of a compre-
hensive law that will effectively curb
air pollution. Second, continuation of
this program for another year will
enable the appropriate committee to
hold intensive hearings on necessary
changes or modifications required as
a result of information brought to
light since the law was first enacted.
I am particularly interested in the
effects on small businesses of compli-
ance with this act.
In 1971, the Council on Environ-
mental Quality, along with the En-
vironmental Protection Agency and
the Department of Commerce under-
took a series of studies of pollution
control costs and their impact on the
economy. The study found that these
controls had their greatest impact on
individual industries.
The studies indicate that some
firms will earn lower profits, some
will curtail protection, and other firms
will be forced to close. Most of the
plants that will be forced to close
are marginal operations that are al-
ready in economic jeopardy due to
other competitive factors. In these
instances, the impact of the environ-
mental standards is to accelerate such
closings.
There are approximately 12,000
plants currently operating in the in-
dustrial activities studied. Of these,
it is expected that approximately 800
would close in the normal course of
business between 1972 and 1976. It
would appear from the contractors'
evaluations that an additional 200 to
-------
26
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
300 will be forced to close because of
pollution abatement requirements.
I do not believe that any of us in-
tended to legislate small business out
of existence. However, I do not mean
that our pollution control require-
ments be less stringent. We definitely
need strict controls with costly fines
for all violations, but we also must be
sensitive to the economic needs of
small businesses when they find them-
selves forced to comply with these
requirements.
The Clean Air Act must be ex-
tended for 1 year. But equally im-
portant are the in-depth hearings
which the committee has promised
next fall. At that time, I intend to
testify on the problem that is facing
small business. Assistance to these
small firms to enable them to meet
the pollution control requirements is
essential, and this assistance should
be in the form of low-interest loans.
The exact details of this proposal will
be given in my statement when I in-
troduce the Small Business Pollution
Abatement Loan Assistance and
Worker Readjustment Act (H.R.
5135) next week. However, I wish to
emphasize here the need for these
hearings and for the extensive in-
vestigation of the impact of these
requirements on small business.
Therefore, I urge you to pass H.R.
5445 and extend the Clean Air Act for
1 year to make these hearings pos-
sible.
Mr. ANNUNZIO. Mr. Chairman,
the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1970, Public Law 91-604, the basis
for the Nation's program to combat
air pollution, are due to expire at the
end of the current fiscal year. I firmly
believe that the implementation of this
comprehensive and complex legisla-
tion is in the best interests of all
Americans, and must be continued.
I, therefore, urge my colleagues to-
day to join me in supporting H.R.
5445, a bill introduced by the dis-
tinguished Chairman of the Interstate
and Foreign Commerce Committee,
Hon. HARLEY O. STAGGERS of West
Virginia, which would extend the
Clean Air Act for 1 additional year
at existing funding levels.
The task of cleaning the air is diffi-
cult and expensive. Some progress has
been made since Congress enacted the
Clean Air Act in December 1970;
much more remains to be done. The
1970 Clean Air Act is providing us
with direction as we deal with the air
pollution problem, and is beginning
to help us find some of the answers.
Primary and secondary ambient
air quality standards for the Nation
have now been established to protect
public health, reduce property dam-
age, and insure esthetic quality
against the insidious effects of the
most common classes of air pollutants.
State plans have been drawn up, de-
signed to make sure that the national
standards are upheld in the years to
come. As a result of the Clean Air
Act, new technologies to reduce air
pollution from stationary and mobile
sources are being developed. Gaso-
lines with low-lead content are more
prevalent; more lead-free fuels will
be introduced soon. More sophisticated
monitoring techniques are being
utilized.
Strong, new Federal enforcement
power, authorized under the 1970
act, has resulted in the installation
of pollution abatement equipment
across the country. A potential health
crisis was averted in Birmingham,
Ala., when the Federal Government,
armed with the Clean Air Act's emer-
gency injunction powers, took decisive
action reducing air contamination
after local officials were unsuccessful.
Continued Federal help in meeting
the high cost of clean air is needed.
Though it is very difficult to make
accurate cost estimates, the Environ-
mental Protection Agency forecasts
expenditures of $42 billion between
1973 and 1977 to control air pollution.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
27
The benefits, not as clearly defined as
[H 2088]
the costs perhaps, are substantial as
well. The health, social and aesthetic
effects cannot be neatly reduced to
formulas expressed in dollars and
cents. One attempt to define the eco-
nomic benefits of clean air, a 1970
Public Health Service study, placed
the direct costs of air pollution at $25
billion annually.
Mr. Chairman, I am under no illu-
sion that the 1970 Clean Air Act,
which I rise to support today, is the
optimum legislative program to deal
with air pollution. Undoubtedly, there
are imperfections, blemishes, and per-
haps omissions in the act and in its
administration which will need to be
rectified. Much is still to be learned
about the nature and effects of air
pollution. Some say we are playing
havoc with our economy by acting too
hastily and emotionally in response
to our pollution problem; others argue
that we are jeopardizing our citizens'
health by not acting more vigorously.
I do not pretend to have the an-
swers to these questions, nor do I
think the Congress is equipped at this
time to legislate a better air pollution
program in the short time between
now and June 30. We will have to
wait until more of the facts are in,
sorted, and analyzed. I, for one, will
closely follow the Federal and State
air pollution programs in the months
to come, and I am certain the appro-
priate congressional committee will
hold extensive oversight hearings.
Time does not allow us to adequately
examine the effectiveness of the 1970
Clean Air Act Amendments before
their June 30 expiration date. I feel
we have no reasonable choice but to
continue the present program so that
our efforts to have clean, healthy air
will not be interrupted, a course of
action which H.E. 5446 provides.
Mr. DONOHUE. Mr. Chairman, I
most earnestly urge and hope that
the important legislative proposal
presently before us, H.R. 5445, the
Clean Air Act Extension, will be
promptly adopted by the House.
This measure, which extends the
1970 Clean Air Act for 1 year, and
thus affords the Interstate and For-
eign Commerce Committee the oppor-
tunity to conduct comprehensive and
extensive oversig-ht and legislative
hearings on the act, represents, in my
considered opinion, a necessary and
prudent legislative action to achieve
our national objective, a clean and
healthy environment. Quite simply,
this bill provides for continued fund-
ing of regulatory programs for motor
vehicle emissions, State implementa-
tion of air quality standards and
Federal assistance to State and local
air pollution control agencies. In ad-
dition, the bill provides continued
funding for the Environmental Pro-
tion Agency to develop urgently
needed technology to control automo-
bile and power plant pollution.
Mr. Chairman, it is my very earnest
belief that the crisis of air pollution
is one of the most significant and
critical domestic problems facing our
Nation today. In many areas, includ-
ing my own home State of Massa-
chusetts, the heavy concentration of
air pollution clearly endangers the
public health and welfare. Since our
national recognition of the substan-
tial danger posed by air pollution re-
quires the continuation of proven
effective and substantive programs
which will assist in improving the
quality of the air we breathe, and
since this bill clearly addresses itself
to this wholesome objective, I urge
the House to resoundingly approve it
without further delay.
Mr. MATSUNAGA, Mr. Chairman,
I rise in support of H.R. 5445, which
would extend through June 30, 1974,
the Clean Air Act of 1970, and
authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 1974 at the fiscal year 1973
funding level. The current law, unless
-------
28
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
extended, will expire on June 30,
1973.
Under present law, authorization
for appropriations to carry on the
clean air programs are divided into
three categories:
First, $150 million for the Environ-
mental Protection Agency to develop
technology to control auto and power-
plant pollution and to award research
and demonstration grants for that
purpose;
Second, $300 million, primarily to
support regulatory programs for
motor vehicle emissions, State imple-
mentation of quality air standards,
and to assist State and local air pol-
lution control agencies; and
Third, $25 million for certification
of low-emission vehicles and purchase
of same for use by the Federal Gov-
ernment.
Mr. Chairman, the continued life
of these programs under the Clean
Air Act is as important as ever to
our national health and well-being. It
is understood, however, that the com-
mittee considers it necessary to ex-
amine by means of extensive hear-
ings certain policy questions which
have arisen since the passage of the
act in 1970. Today's legislation would
enable the committee to hold such
hearings; the committee ought to be
given the opportunity it seeks to dis-
charge its duties in a responsible and
thorough manner.
Passage of H.R. 5445 would be an-
other link forged in the chain of vital
environmental legislation. Overwhelm-
ing support for the legislation on
the floor today would reassure the
American people that, despite White
House propensity to curtain or aban-
don important national programs,
Congress will continue to meet its
responsibilities in providing for the
Nation's needs.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a unanimous
vote in favor of extending the Clean
Air Act for 1 year.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I
join my colleagues of the Public
Health and Environment Subcommit-
tee in urging passage of the bill H.R.
5446.
Recognizing the immense complex-
ity of solid waste disposal and re-
source recovery, we seek to extend
the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended, for 1 year at present fund-
ing authorization levels in order to
provide adequate time for responsible
and extensive hearings on proposals
to restructure the entire solid waste
program.
The existing act expires on June
30 of this year, and I share the con-
cern of many of my colleagues that
much work remains to be done in this
area. We simply cannot afford to
thoughtlessly toss away this program
just as some people would toss bottles
and cans out of their windows.
It is my firm belief that if we are
going to effectively coordinate our
efforts to halt environmental injustice,
we cannot delay in our close examina-
tion of the efficiency of this and
similar programs. On the other hand,
an even greater delay would prevail
if we were were to permit existing
machinery to grind to a halt.
The burden of helping to give guid-
ance to "take the garbage out" has
clearly fallen upon the Congress.
While we are in the process of carry-
ing it out, however, we must decide
what to do with it. By seeking this
simple 1-year extension of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act, as amended, we
are reasserting our determination to
find a reasonable answer to the ques-
tion of what to do with our garbage,
paper, packages, plastic, and pop
bottles. I feel that we have made
much progress through focusing our
attention upon the need to reconvert
to fuel, and recycle and reuse solid
waste rather than merely considering
it to be a nuisance.
As the focus of our attention and
the direction of our efforts change,
we must have the necessary time to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
29
fully review the existing act and to
give careful consideration to pending
reform proposals.
I urge my distinguished colleagues
to view the complexity of this press-
ing problem and support this im-
portant measure.
Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN. Mr.
Chairman, I believe very strongly that
we must continue an effective air pol-
lution control program and I fully
support the bill before us to extend
the Clean Air Act.
My home State of California has
been the leader in this field. It was
the first to recognize the seriousness
of the air pollution threat and the
first to respond with effective action.
We have made great strides in the
last decade toward controlling and
reducing the sources of air pollution.
In addition, intensive research and
development programs have added to
our pollution-fighting technology.
Of course, there is a great deal of
work left to do. With this in mind, I
would like to comment on two aspects
of this future program.
First, we must make certain that
each State is permitted to promulgate
pollution control regulations beyond
those of the Federal Government, if
it so desires, because of its own par-
ticular pollution problems.
This will properly reflect the Fed-
eral relationship between States and
the National Government and it will
permit each State to respond to its
own needs—which may differ sub-
stantially from the average national
problem.
And, second, we must insure that
the economic and social costs of pol-
lution control standards and devices
are very carefully considered before
regulations are made final.
I have heard from a growing num-
ber of constituents who express con-
cern about the items they must buy
whose costs are being forced up by
pollution control regulations. I am
fully aware that we are going to have
[H 2089]
to pay the costs of pollution control
but there has been very little debate
as yet on the effects of proposed reg-
ulations on costs. In my judgment,
there should be more and on a wider
scale.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, I
have no further requests for time.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
have no further requests for time.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will
read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That (a)
subsection (c) of section 104 of the Clean Air
Act, as amended (84 Stat. 1709), is amended
by striking "and $150,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1973.'* and inserting in lieu
thereof", $150,000,000 for the fiscal year end-
ing June 30, 1973, and $150,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1974.".
(b) Subsection (1) of section 212 of the
Clean Air Act, as amended (84 Stat. 1703),
is amended by striking "two succeeding fiscal
years." and inserting in lieu thereof "three
succeeding fiscal years.".
(c) Section 316 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (84 Stat. 1709), is amended by strik-
ing "and $300,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1973." and inserting in lieu thereof",
$300,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1973, and $300,000,000 for the fisea! year
ending June 30, 1974.".
Mr. STAGGERS (during the read-
ing) . Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the bill be considered
as read, printed in the RECORD, and
open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objec-
tion to the request of the gentleman
from West Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the last word.
(Mr. GROSS asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, let me
ask the gentleman from West Virginia
if I am correct in my understanding
that this authorization bill calls for
$475 million?
Mr. STAGGERS. That is correct.
-------
30
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
Mr. GROSS. And the committee is
saying that there will be a require-
ment for approximately $150 million
in the next fiscal year; is that correct?
Mr. STAGGERS. I believe that is
correct.
Mr. GROSS. I hope the members
of the Appropriations Committee, es-
pecially those who are on the House
floor, will take due note of the fact
that there is a requirement for $150
million and not be influenced in the
least by the authorization which the
House will approve this afternoon
for $475 million.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule,
the Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose;
and the Speaker having resumed the
Chair, Mr. DOBN, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union, reported that that
Committee having had under consid-
eration the bill (H.R. 5445) to extend
the Clean Air Act, as amended, for 1
year, pursuant to House Resolution
316, he reported the bill back to the
House.
The SPEAKER. Under the rule,
the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment
and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be en-
grossed and read a third time, and
was read the third time.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the
Speaker announced that the ayes ap-
peared to have it.
Mr. WYDLER. Mr. Speaker, I ob-
ject to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the
point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a quo-
rum is not present.
The Sergeant at arms will notify
absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic
device, and there were—yeas 387, nays
1, not voting 44, as follows:
[RoH No. 57]
YEAS—387
Abdnor
Abzug
Adams
Addabbo
Alexander
Anderson, Calif.
Anderson, 111.
Andrews, N.C.
Andrews, N. Dak.
Annunzio
Archer
Arends
Armstrong
Ashbrook
Ashley
Bafalls
Baker
Barrett
Beard
Bennett
Bevill
Biester
Bingham
Blackburn
Blatnik
Boland
Boiling
Bowen
Brademas
Brasco
Bray
Breckinridge
Brinkley
Brooks
Broomfield
Brotzman
Brown, Calif.
Brown, Mich.
Brown, Ohio
Broyhill, N.C.
Broyhill, Va.
Buchanan
Burgener
Burke, Calif.
Burke, Fla.
Burke, Mass.
Burleson, Tex.
Burlison, Mo.
Burton
Butler
Byron
Camp
Carey, N.Y.
Carter
Casey, Tex.
Cederberg
Chamberlain
Clancy
Clark
Clausen, Don H.
Clawson, Del
Clay
Cleveland
Cochran
Cohen
Collier
Collins
Conable
Conte
Gorman
Cotter
Coughlin
Crane
Cronin
Culver
Daniel, Dan
Daniel, Robert W., Jr.
Daniels, Dominick V.
Danielson
Davis, Ga.
Davis, S.C.
Davis, Wis.
Ae la Garza
Delaney
Dellenback
Dellums
Denholm
Dennis
Dent
Derwinski
Devine
Dickinson
Dingell
Donohue
Dorn
Downing
Drinan
Dulski
Duncan
du Pont
Eckhardt
Edwards, Ala.
Edwards, Calif.
Eilberg
Erlenborn
Esch
Eshleman
Evans, Colo.
Evins, Tenn.
Fascell
Findley
Fish
Fisher
Flood
Flowers
Ford, Gerald R.
Forsythe
Fountain
Fraser
Frelinghuysen
Frenzel
Froehlich
Fulton
Fuqua
Gaydos
Gettys
Giaimo
Gibbons
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
31
Oilman
Ginn
Goldwater
Gonzalez
Goodling
Grasso
Green, Oreg.
Green, Pa.
Griffiths
Gross
Grover
Gubser
Gude
Gunter
Haley
Hamilton
Hammerschmidt
Hanley
Hanna
Hanrahan
Hansen, Idaho
Hansen. Wash.
Harrington
Harvey
Hastings
Hawkins
Hays
Hechler, W. Va.
Heckler, Mass.
Heinz
Helstoski
Henderson
Hicks
Hillis
Hinshaw
Hogan
Holifleld
Holt
Holtzman
Horton
Howard
Huber
Hudnut
Hungate
Hunt
Hutchinson
Ichord
Jarrnan
Johnson, Calif.
Johnson, Colo.
Johnson, Pa.
Jones, Okla.
Jones, Tenn.
Jordan
Kastenmeier
Kazen
Keating
Kluczynski
Koch
Kuykendall
Kyros
Landrum
Latta
Leggett
Lehman
Lent
Long, La.
Long, Md.
Lott
Lujan
McClory
McCloskey
McCollister
McCormack
McDade
McEwen
McFall
McKay
McKinney
Macdonald
Madden
Madigan
Mahon
Mailliard
Mallary
Mann
Maraziti
Martin, Nebr.
Martin, N.C.
Mathias, Calif.
Mathis, Ga.
Matsunaga
Mayne
Mazzoli
Meeds
Melcher
Metcalfe
Mezvinsky
Michel
Miller
Mills, Ark.
Mills, Md.
Minish
Mink
Mitchell, Md.
Mitchell, N.Y.
Mizell
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead, Calif.
Moorhead, Pa.
Morgan
Mosher
Moss
Murphy, 111.
Murphy, N.Y.
Myers
Natcher
Nedzi
Nelsen
Nix
Obey
O'Brien
O'Hara
O'Neill
Parris
Passman
Patman
Patten
Pepper
Perkins
Pettis
Peyser
Pickle
Pike
Podell
Powell, Ohio
Preyer
Price, 111.
Pritchard
Quillen
Railsback
Randall
Rangel
Rarick
Rees
Regula
Reid
Reuss
Rhodes
Riegle
Rinaldo
Roberts
Robinson, Va.
Robison, N.Y.
Rodino
Roe
Rogers
Roncalio, Wyo.
Rose
Rosenthal
Rostenkowski
Roush
Rousselot
Roy
Roybal
Runnels
Ruppe
Ruth
Ryan
St Germain
Sandman
Sarasin
Sarbanes
Satterfleld
Saylor
Scherle
Schneebeli
Schroeder
Sebelius
Seiberling
Shipley
Shoup
Shriver
Shuster
Sikes
Sisk
Skubitz
Slack
Smith, Iowa
Smith, N.Y.
Snyder
Spence
Staggers
Stanton, J. William
Stanton, Jamea V.
Steed
Steele
Steelman
Steiger, Ariz.
Steiger, Wis.
Stephens
Stokes
Stratton
Stubblefleld
Stuckey
Studds
Sullivan
Symington
Symms
Taylor, N.C.
Teague, Calif.
Teague, Tex.
Thomson, Wis.
Thone
Thornton
Tiernan
Towell, Nev.
Treen
Udall
Ullman
Van Deerlin
Vander Jagt
Vanik
Veysey
Vigorito
Waggonner
Waldie
Walsh
Wampler
Ware
Whalen
White
Whitehurst
Whitten
Widnall
Wiggins
Williams
Wilson, Bob
Wilson, Charles H.,
Calif.
Wilson.Charles, Tex.
Winn
Wolff
Wright
Wyatt
Wydler
Wylie
Wyman
Yates
Yatron
Young, Alaska
Young, Fla.
Young, Ga.
Young, S.C.
Young, Tex.
Zablocki
Zion
Zwaeh
-------
32
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
Landgrebe
Aspin
Badillo
Bell
Bergland
Biaggi
Breaux
Carney, Ohio
Chappell
Chisholm
Conlan
Conyers
Diggs
Flynt
Foley
Ford, William D.
Frey
Gray
Guyer
Harsha
Hebert
Hosmer
Jones, Ala.
NAYS—1
NOT VOTING—44
Jones, N.C.
Karth
Kemp
Ketchum
King
Litton
McSpadden
Milford
Minshall, Ohio
Nichols
Owens
Poage
Price, Tex.
Quie
Boncallo, N.Y.
Rooney, N.Y.
Eooney, Pa.
Stark
Talcott
Taylor, Mo.
Thompson, N.J.
Young, 111.
So the bill was passed.
The Clerk announced the follow-
ing pairs:
Mr. Thompson of New Jersey with Mr.
Flynt.
Mr. Hebert with Mr. Talcott.
Mr. Rooney of New York with Mr. Bell.
Mr. Breaux with Mr. King.
Mrs. Chisholm with Mr. Litton.
Mr. Rooney of Pennsylvania with Mr. Min-
shall of Ohio.
Mr. Biaggi with Mr. Kemp.
Mr. Bergland with Mr. Conlan.
Mr. Carney of Ohio with Mr. Ketchum.
Mr. McSpadden with Mr. Quie.
Mr. Owens with Mr. Price of Texas.
Mr. Nichols with Mr. Guyer.
Mr. Gray with Mr. Roncallo of New York.
Mr. Chappell with Mr. Frey.
Mr. Diggs with Mr. Foley.
Mr. Conyers with Mr. William D. Ford.
Mr. Karth with Mr. Jones of Alabama.
Mr. Jones of North Carolina with Mr. Tay-
lor of Missouri.
Mr. Aspin with Mr. Young of Illinois.
Mr. Badillo with Mr. Hosmer.
Mr. Stark with Mr. Milford.
[H 2090]
The result of the vote was an-
nounced as above recorded. A motion
to reconsider was laid on the table.
[H 2091]
l.lm (2)(b) MARCH 27: CONSIDERED AND PASSED
SENATE, p. S 5703
EXTENSION OF CLEAN AIR ACT
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President,
I ask the Chair to lay before the
Senate a message from the House of
Representatives on H.R. 5445.
The PRESIDING OFFICER laid
before the Senate H.R. 5445, an act
to extend the Clean Air Act, as
amended, for 1 year, which was read
twice by title.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that the
Senate proceed to the immediate con-
sideration of H.R. 5445.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there objection to the request of the
Senator from Montana?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill is open to amendment.
If there be no amendment to be of-
fered, the question is on the third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to a third read-
ing, read the third time, and passed.
[S 5703]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 33
1.8 HIGHWAY SAFETY ACT OF 1966, AS AMENDED,
23 U.S.C. §402 (1973).
[Referred to in 42 U. S. C. § 1857f-6b(2)]
§402. Highway safety programs
(a) Each State shall have a highway safety program approved
by the Secretary, designed to reduce traffic accidents and deaths,
injuries, and property damage resulting therefrom. Such pro-
grams shall be in accordance with uniform standards promulgated
by the Secretary. Such uniform standards shall be expressed in
terms of performance criteria. Such uniform standards shall be
promulgated by the Secretary so as to improve driver perform-
ance (including, but not limited to, driver education, driver testing
to determine proficiency to operate motor vehicles, driver examina-
tions (both physical and mental) and driver licensing) and to
improve pedestrian performance and bicycle safety. In addition
such uniform standards shall include, but not be limited to, pro-
visions for an effective record system of accidents (including in-
juries and deaths resulting therefrom), accident investigations to
determine the probable causes of accidents, injuries, and deaths,
vehicle registration, operation, and inspection, highway design
and maintenance (including lighting, markings, and surface treat-
ment), traffic control, vehicle codes and laws, surveillance of
traffic for detection and correction of high or potentially high
accident locations, and emergency services. Such standards as are
applicable to State highway safety programs shall, to the extent
determined appropriate by the Secretary, be applicable to federally
administered areas where a Federal department or agency controls
the highways or supervises traffic operations. The Secretary shall
be authorized to amend or waive standards on a temporary basis
for the purpose of evaluating new or different highway safety
programs instituted on an experimental, pilot, or demonstration
basis by one or more States, where the Secretary finds that the
public interest would be served by such amendment or waiver.
(b) (1) The Secretary shall not approve any State highway
safety program under this section which does not—
(A) provide that the Governor of the State shall be re-
sponsible for the administration of the program through a
State agency which shall have adequate powers, and be suit-
ably equipped and organized to carry out, to the satisfaction
of the Secretary, such program.
(B) authorize political subdivisions of such State to carry
out local highway safety programs within their jurisdictions
-------
34 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
as a part of the State highway safety program if such local
highway safety programs are approved by the Governor and
are in accordance with the uniform standards of the Secretary
promulgated under this section.
(C) provide that at least 40 per centum of all Federal funds
apportioned under this section to such State for any fiscal year
will be expended by the political subdivisions of such State in
carrying out local highway safety programs authorized in
accordance with subparagraph (B) of this paragraph.
(D) provide that the aggregate expenditure of funds of the
State and political subdivisions thereof, exclusive of Federal
funds, for highway safety programs will be maintained at a
level which does not fall below the average level of such ex-
penditures for its last two full fiscal years preceding the date
of enactment of this section.
(E) provide for comprehensive driver training programs,
including (1) the initiation of a State program for driver
education in the school systems or for a significant expansion
and improvement of such a program already in existence, to
be administered by appropriate school officials under the super-
vision of the Governor as set forth in subparagraph (A) of
this paragraph; (2) the training of qualified school instructors
and their certification; (3) appropriate regulation of other
driver training schools, including licensing of the schools and
certification of their instructors; (4) adult driver training
programs, and programs for the retraining of selected drivers;
(5) adequate research, development and procurement of prac-
tice driving facilities, simulators, and other similar teaching
aids for both school and other driver training use, and (6)
driver education programs, including research, that will as-
sure greater safety for bicyclists using public roads in such
State.
(F) provide adequate and reasonable access for the safe
and convenient movement of physically handicapped persons,
including those in wheelchairs, across curbs constructed or
replaced on or after July 1, 1976, at all pedestrian crosswalks
throughout the State.
(2) The Secretary is authorized to waive the requirement of
subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of this subsection, in whole
or in part, for a fiscal year for any State whenever he determines
that there is an insufficient number of local highway safety pro-
grams to justify the expenditure in such State of such percentage
of Federal funds during such fiscal year.
(c) Funds authorized to be appropriated to carry out this sec-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 35
tion shall be used to aid the States to conduct the highway safety
programs approved in accordance with subsection (a) including
development and implementation of manpower training programs,
and of demonstration programs that the Secretary determines will
contribute directly to the reduction of accidents, and deaths and
injuries resulting therefrom. Such funds shall be subject to a
deduction not to exceed 5 per centum for the necessary costs of
administering1 the provisions of this section, and the remainder
shall be apportioned among the several States. For the fiscal years
ending June 30, 1967, June 30, 1968, and June 30, 1969, such funds
shall be apportioned 75 per centum on the basis of population and
25 per centum as the Secretary in his administrative discretion
may deem appropriate and thereafter such funds shall be appor-
tioned 75 per centum in the ratio which the population of each
State bears to the total population of all the States, as shown by
the latest available Federal census, and 25 per centum in the ratio
which the public road mileage in each State bears to the total
public road mileage in all States. For the purposes of this subsec-
tion, a "public road" means any road under the jurisdiction of and
maintained by a public authority and open to public travel. Public
road mileage as used in this subsection shall be determined as of
the end of the calendar year preceding the year in which the funds
are apportioned and shall be certified to by the Governor of the
State and subject to approval by the Secretary. The annual appor-
tionment to each State shall not be less than one-half of 1 per
centum of the total apportionment. After December 31, 1969, the
Secretary shall not apportion any funds under this subsection to
any State which is not implementing a highway safety program
approved by the Secretary in accordance with this section. Federal
aid highway funds apportioned on or after January 1, 1970, to any
State which is not implementing a highway safety program ap-
proved by the Secretary in accordance with this section shall be
reduced by amounts equal to 10 per centum of the amounts which
would otherwise be apportioned to such State under section 104
of this title, until such time as such State is implementing an
approved highway safety program. Whenever he determines it to
be in the public interest, the Secretary may suspend, for such
periods as he deems necessary, the application of the preceding
sentence to a State. Any amount which is withheld from appor-
tionment to any State under this section shall be reapportioned to
the other States in accordance with the applicable provisions of
law.
(d) All provisions of chapter 1 of this title that are applicable
to Federal-aid primary highway funds other than provisions re-
-------
36 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
lating to the apportionment formula and provisions limiting the
expenditure of such funds to the Federal-aid systems, shall apply
to the highway safety funds authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this section, except as determined by the Secretary to be
inconsistent with this section, and except that the aggregate of
all expenditures made during any fiscal year by a State and its
political subdivisions (exclusive of Federal funds) for carrying
out the State highway safety program shall be available for the
purpose of crediting such State during such fiscal year for the
non-Federal share of the cost of any project under this section
without regard to whether such expenditures were actually made
in connection with such project and except that, in the case of a
local highway safety program carried out by an Indian tribe, if the
Secretary is satisfied that an Indian tribe does not have sufficient
funds available to meet the non-Federal share of the cost of such
program, he may increase the Federal share of the cost thereof
payable under this Act to the extent necessary. In applying such
provisions of chapter 1 in carrying out this section the term "State
highway department" as used in such provisions shall mean the
Governor of a State for the purposes of this section.
(e) Uniform standards promulgated by the Secretary to carry
out this section shall be developed in cooperation with the States,
their political subdivisions, appropriate Federal departments and
agencies, and such other public and private organizations as the
Secretary deems appropriate.
(f) The Secretary may make arrangements with other Federal
departments and agencies for assistance in the preparation of uni-
form standards for the highway safety programs contemplated
by subsection (a) and in the administration of such programs.
Such departments and agencies are directed to cooperate in such
preparation and administration, on a reimbursable basis.
(g) Nothing in this section authorizes the appropriation or ex-
penditure of funds for (1) highway construction, maintenance,
or design (other than design of safety features of highways to be
incorporated into standards) or (2) any purpose for which funds
are authorized by section 403 of this title.
(h) Each uniform safety standard promulgated under this sec-
tion on or before July 1, 1973, shall continue in effect unless
otherwise specifically provided by law enacted after the date of
enactment of the Federal-aid Highway Act of 1973. The Secretary
shall not promulgate any other uniform safety standard under this
section (including by revision of a standard continued in effect by
the preceding sentence) unless otherwise specifically provided by
law enacted after the date of enactment of the Federal-aid High-
way Act of 1973.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 37
(i) For the purpose of the application of this section on Indian
reservations, "State" and "Governor of a State" includes the Sec-
retary of the Interior and "political subdivision of a State" includes
an Indian tribe: Provided, That, notwithstanding the provisions
of subparagraph (C) of subsection (b) (1) hereof, 95 per centum
of the funds apportioned to the Secretary of the Interior after date
of enactment, shall be expended by Indian tribes to carry out high-
way safety programs within their jurisdictions: And provided
further, That the provisions of subparagraph (E) of subsection
(b) (1) hereof shall be applicable except in those tribal jurisdic-
tions in which the Secretary determines such programs would not
be practicable.
(j) (1) In addition to other grants authorized by this section,
the Secretary may make incentive grants in each fiscal year to
those States which have adopted legislation requiring the use of
seatbelts in accordance with criteria which the Secretary shall
establish and publish. Such grants may only be used by recipient
States to further the purposes of this chapter. Such grants shall
be in addition to other funds authorized by this section. There is
hereby authorized to be appropriated to carry out this paragraph,
out of the Highway Trust Fund, not to exceed $25,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, not to exceed $32,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1975, and not to exceed $37,500,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1976.
(2) In addition to other grants authorized by this section, the
Secretary may make additional incentive grants to those States
which have made the most significant progress in reducing traffic
fatalities based on the reduction in the rate of such fatalities per
one hundred million-vehicle miles during the calendar year im-
mediately preceding the fiscal year for which such incentive funds
are authorized compared with the average annual rate of such
fatalities for the four calendar year period preceding such calen-
dar year. Such incentive grants shall be made in accordance with
criteria which the Secretary shall establish and publish. Such
grants may only be used by recipient States to further the pur-
poses of this chapter. Such grants shall be in addition to other
funds authorized by this section. There is hereby authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this paragraph, out of the Highway
Trust Fund, not to exceed $12,500,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1974, not to exceed $16,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1975, and not to exceed $19,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1976.
(3) Incentive awards authorized by this section shall not ex-
ceed 25 per centum of each State's apportionment as authorized
by this chapter.
-------
38 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
Added Pub.L. 89-564, Title I, § 101, Sept. 9, 1966, 80 Stat. 731,
amended Pub.L. 90-495, § 13, Aug. 23, 1968, 82 Stat. 822; Pub.L.
91-605, Title II, §§ 202(c)-(e), 203(a), Dec. 31, 1970, 84 Stat.
1740, 1741; Pub.L. 93-87, Title II, §§ 207, 215-217, 219, 228, 229,
231, Aug. 13, 1973, 87 Stat. 285, 290, 293, 294.
1.8d HIGHWAY SAFETY ACT OF 1973, AUGUST 13, 1973,
P.L. 93-87, §202, 81 Stat. 282.
To authorize appropriations for the construction of certain
highways in accordance with title 23 of the United States
Code, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
[p.l]
HIGHWAY SAFETY
SEC. 202. The following sums are hereby authorized to be ap-
propriated :
(1) For carrying out section 402 of title 23, United States
Code (relating to highway safety programs), by the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, out of the Highway Trust
Fund, $100,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, $125,-
000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975, and $150,000,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1976.
[P. 32]
(2) For carrying out section 403 of title 23, United States
Code (relating to highway safety research and development), by
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, out of the
Highway Trust Fund, $42,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1974, $55,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975,
and $65,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1976.
(3) For carrying out section 402 of title 23, United States
Code (relating to highway safety programs), by the Federal
Highway Administration, out of the Highway Trust Fund, $25,-
000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, $30,000,000 for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975, and $35,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1976.
(4) For carrying out sections 307 (a) and 403 of title 23,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 39
United States Code (relating to highway safety research and
development), by the Federal Highway Administration, out of
the Highway Trust Fund, for each of the fiscal years ending June
30, 1974, June 30, 1975, and June 30, 1976, not to exceed $10,-
000,000 per fiscal year.
[p. 33]
1.8d(l) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No. 93-61,
93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973).
[No relevant discussion of pertinent section]
1.8d(2) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP No. 93-118,
93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973)
[No relevant discussion of pertinent section]
1.8d(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 93-410, 93rd
Cong., 1st Sess. (1973)
[No relevant discussion of pertinent section]
1.8d(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 119 (1973): 1.8d(4)(a) March
14, 15: Considered and passed Senate;
[No relevant discussion of pertinent section]
1.8d(4)(b) April 17-19: Considered and passed House, amended;
[No relevant discussion of pertinent section]
1.8d(4)(c) August 1: Senate agreed to conference report;
[No relevant discussion of pertinent section]
1.8d(4)(d) August 3: House agreed to conference report.
[No relevant discussion of pertinent section]
1.9 Federal Salary Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. §§ 5305, 5332 (1973).
[Referred to in 42 U.S.C. § 1857f-6e(b)(3)(A)]
1.9i E.G. 11637, Adjustment of Pay Rates Effective Jan. 1, 1972,
Dec. 22, 1971, 36 Fed. Reg. 24911.
-------
40
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 11637
Dec. 22, 1971, 36 F.R. 24911
ADJUSTMENT OF PAY RATES EFFECTIVE JAN. 1, 1972
By virtue of the authority vested in me by subchapter I of chap-
ter 53 of title 5 of the United States Code [sections 5301 et seq. of
this title], and section 3 of the Economic Stabilization Act Amend-
ments of 1971 [set out as a note under section 5305 of this title],
it is hereby ordered as follows:
General Schedule
Section 1. The rates of basic pay in the General Schedule con-
tained in section 5332(a) of title 5 of the United States Code
[subsec. (a) of this section] are adjusted as follows:
"GENERAL SCHEDULE
"Annual rates and steps
GT3Q6
GS-l
GS-2
GS-3
GS-4
GS-5-
GS-6
GS-7
GS-8
GS-9
GS-10
GS-11
GS-12
GS-13
GS-14
GS-15
GS-16
GS-17
GS-18
1
$4,564
5,166
5,828
6,544
7,319
8,153
9,053
10,013
11,046
12,151
13,309
15,866
18,737
21,960
25,583
29,678
34,335
39,693*
2
$4,716
5,338
6,022
6,762
7,563
8,425
9,355
10,347
11,414
12,556
13,753
16,395
19,362
22,692
26,436
30,667
35,480
3
$4,868
5,510
6,216
6,980
7,807
8,697
9,657
10,681
11,782
12,961
14,197
16,924
19,987
23,424
27,289
31,656
36,625*
4
$5,020
5,682
6,410
7,198
8,051
8,969
9,959
11,015
12,150
13,366
14,641
17,453
20,612
24,156
28,142
32,645
37,770*
5
$5,172
5,854
6,604
7,416
8,295
9,241
10,261
11,349
12,518
13,771
15,085
17,982
21,237
24,888
28,995
33,634
38,915*
6
$5,324
6,026
6,798
7,634
8,539
9,513
10,563
11,683
12,886
14,176
15,529
18,511
21,862
25,620
29,848
34,623
7
$5,476
6,198
6,992
7,852
8,783
9,785
10,865
12,017
13,254
14,581
15,973
19,040
22,487
26,352
30,701
35,612
8
$5,628
6,370
7,186
8,070
9,027
10,057
11,167
12,351
13,622
14,986
16,417
19,569
23,112
27,084
31,554
36,601*
9
$5,780
6,542
7,380
8,288
9,271
10,329
11,469
12,685
13,990
15,391
16,861
20,098
23,737
27,816
32,407
37,590*
10
$5,932
6,714
7,574
8,506
9,515
10,601
11,771
13,019
14,358
15,796
17,305
20,627
24,362
28,548
33,260
" 'The rate of basic pay for employees at these rates is limited by section 5308 of title 5 of the United
States Code [section 5308 of this title] to the rate for level V of the Executive Schedule (as of the effective
date of this salary adjustment, $36,000)."
Schedules for the Department of Medicine and Surgery of the
Veterans' Administration
Sec. 2. The schedules contained in section 4107 of title 38 of
the United States Code [section 4107 of Title 38, Veterans' Bene-
fits] , for certain positions within the Department of Medicine and
Surgery of the Veterans' Administration, are adjusted as follows:
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 41
"Section 4103 Schedule
"Associate Deputy Chief Medical Director, $36,000.
"Assistant Chief Medical Director, $39,693*.
"Medical Director, $34,335 minimum to $38,915 maximum*.
"Director of Nursing Service, $25,583 minimum to $33,260 maxi-
mum.
"Director of Chaplain Service, $25,583 minimum to $33,260 maxi-
mum.
"Chief Pharmacist, $25,583 minimum to $33,260 maximum.
"Chief Dietitian, $25,583 minimum to $33,260 maximum.
"Physician and Dentist Schedule
"Director grade, $29,678 minimum to $37,590 maximum*.
"Executive grade $27,581 minimum to $35,852 maximum.
"Chief grade, $25,583 minimum to $33,260 maximum.
"Senior grade, $21,960 minimum to $28,548 maximum.
"Intermediate grade, $18,737 minimum to $24,362 maximum.
"Full grade, $15,866 minimum to $20,627 maximum.
"Associate grade, $13,309 minimum to $17,305 maximum.
"* The salary for employees at these rates is limited by section
5308 of title 5 of the United States Code [section 5308 of this
title] to the rate for level V of the Executive Schedule (as of the
effective date of this salary adjustment, $36,000)."
"Nurse Schedule
"Assistant Director grade, $21,960 minimum to $28,548 maxi-
mum.
"Chief grade, $18,737 minimum to $24,362 maximum.
"Senior grade, $15,866 minimum to $20,627 maximum.
"Intermediate grade, $13,309 minimum to $17,305 maximum.
"Full grade, $11,046 minimum to $14,358 maximum.
"Associate grade, $9,524 minimum to $12,377 maximum.
"Junior grade, $8,153 minimum to $10,601 maximum."
Foreign Service Schedules
Sec. 3. (a) The per annum salaries of Foreign Service officers
in the schedule contained in section 412 of the Foreign Service
Act of 1946, as amended (22 U.S.C. 867) [section 867 of Title 22,
Foreign Relations and Intercourse], are adjusted as follows:
-------
42
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
"Class 1
Class 2
Class 3 .
Class 4
Class 5
Class 6
Class 7
Class 8
$37 574*
29.472
23,354
18.737
15,224
12,573
10,566
9,053
$38 827*
30,454
24,132
19,362
15,732
12,992
10,918
9,355
$39 693*
31,436
24,910
19,987
16,240
13,411
11,270
9,657
$32,418
25,688
20,612
16,748
13,830
11,622
9,959
$33,400
26,466
21,237
17,256
14,249
11,974
10,261
$34,382
27,244
21,862
17,764
14,668
12,326
10,563
$35,364
28,022
22,487
18,272
15,087
12,678
10,865
* "The salary for employees at these rates is limited by section 5308 of title 5 of the United States Code
[section 5308 of this title] to the rate for level V of the Executive Schedule (as of the effective date of this
salary adjustment, $36,000)."
(b) The per annum salaries of staff officers and employees in
the schedule contained in section 415 of the Foreign Service Act
of 1946, as amended (22 U.S.C. 870(a)) [section 870(a) of Title
22, Foreign Relations and intercourse], are adjusted as follows:
"Class 1- $23,354 $24,132 $24,910 $25,688 $26,466 $27,244 $28,022 $28,800 $29,578$30,356
Class 2 18,737 19,362 19,987 20,612 21,237 21,862 22,487 23,112 23,737 24,362
Class 3_ 15,224 15,732 16,240 16,748 17,256 17,764 18,272 18,780 19,288 19,796
Class 4 - 12,573 12,992 13,411 13,830 14,249 14,668 15,087 15,506 15,925 16,344
Class 5 11,279 11,655 12,031 12,407 12,783 13,159 13,535 13,911 14,287 14,663
Class 6 10,116 10,453 10,790 11,127 11,464 11,801 12,138 12,475 12,812 13,149
Class 7 9,073 9,375 9,677 9,979 10,281 10,583 10,885 11,187 11,489 11,791
Class 8 8,137 8,408 8,679 8,950 9,221 9,492 9,763 10,034 10,305 10,576
Class 9 7,297 7.540 7,783 8,026 8,269 8,512 8,755 8,998 9,241 9,484
Class 10 6,544 6,762 6,980 7,198 7,416 7,634 7,852 8,070 8,288 8,506"
Conversion Rules
Sec. 4. The agencies hereinafter designated shall prescribe
such rules as may be necessary to convert the rates of basic pay
or salaries of officers and employees to the rates prescribed in this
order:
(1) General Schedule, the Civil Service Commission;
(2) Schedules for the Department of Medicine and Surgery of
the Veterans' Administration, the Veterans' Administration;
(3) Foreign Service schedules, the Department of State.
Effective Date
Sec. 5. This order shall take effective as of the first day of the
first applicable pay period beginning on or after January 1, 1972.
RICHARD NIXON
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
43
1.9j E.G. 11691, Adjustment of Pay Rates Effective Jan. 1, 1973,
Dec. 15, 1972, 37 Fed. Reg. 27607.
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 11691
Dec. 15, 1972, 37 F.R. 27607
ADJUSTMENT OF PAY RATES EFFECTIVE JAN. 1, 1973
By virtue of the authority vested in me by subchapter I of chap-
ter 53 of title 5 of the United States Code [this subchapter], it is
hereby ordered as follows:
General Schedule
Section 1. The rates of basic pay in the General Schedule con-
tained in section 5332 (a) of title 5 of the United States Code [sub-
sec, (a) of this section] are adjusted as follows:
"GENERAL SCHEDULE
"Annual rates and steps
GS-1
GS-2
GS-3
GS-4
GS-5
GS-6
GS-7
GS-8
GS-9
GS-10
GS-11
GS-12
GS-J3
GS-14
GS-15
GS-16
GS-17
GS-18
1
$4,798
5,432
6,128
6,882
7,694
8,572
9,520
10,528
11,614
12,775
13,996
16,682
19,700
23,088
26,898
31,203
36,103*
41,734*
2
$4,958
5,613
6,332
7,111
7,951
8,858
9,837
10,879
12,001
13,201
14,462
17,238
20,357
23,858
27,795
32,243
37,306'
3
$5,118
5,794
6,536
7,340
8,208
9,144
10,154
11,230
12,388
13,627
14,928
17,794
21,014
24,628
28,692
33,283
38,509'
4
$5,278
5,975
6,740
7,569
8,465
9,430
10,471
11,581
12,775
14,053
15,394
18,350
21,671
25,398
29,589
34,323
39,712*
5
$5,438
6,156
6,944
7,798
8,722
9,716
10,788
11,932
13,162
14,479
15,860
18,906
22,328
26,168
30,486
35,363
40,915'
6
$5,598
6,337
7,148
8,027
8,979
10,002
11,105
12,283
13,549
14,905
16,326
19,462
22,985
26,938
31,383
36,403*
7
$5,758
6,518
7,352
8,256
9,236
10,288
11,422
12,634
13,936
15,331
16,792
20,018
23,642
27,708
32,280
37,443'
8
$5,918
6,699
7,556
8,485
9,493
10,574
11,739
12,985
14,323
15,757
17,258
20,574
24,299
28,478
33,177
38,483*
9
$6,078
6,880
7,760
8,714
9,750
10,860
12,056
13,336
14,710
16,183
17,724
21,130
24,956
29,248
34,074
39,523'
10
$6,238
7,061
7,964
8,943
10,007
11,146
12,373
13,687
15,097
16,609
18,190
21,686
25,613
30,018
34,971
" * The rate of basic pay for employees at these rates is limited by section 5308 of title 5 of the United
States Coda to the rate for level V of the Executive Schedule (as of the effective date of this salary adjustment,
$36,000)."
Schedules for the Department of Medicine and Surgery of the
Veterans' Administration
Sec. 2. The schedules contained in section 4107 of title 38 of
the United States Code [section 4107 of Title 38, Veterans' Bene-
fits] , for certain positions within the Department of Medicine and
Surgery of the Veterans' Administration, are adjusted as follows:
-------
44 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
"Section 4103 Schedule
"Associate Deputy Chief Medical Director, the annual rate pro-
vided for positions in level V of the Executive Schedule.
"Assistant Chief Medical Director, $41,734 *.
"Medical Director, $36,103 minimum* to $40,915 maximum*.
"Director of Nursing Service, $26,898 minimum to $34,197 maxi-
mum.
"Director of Chaplain Service, $26,898 minimum to $34,971 maxi-
mum.
"Chief Pharmacist, $26,898 minimum to $34,971 maximum.
"Chief Dietitian, $26,898 minimum to $34,971 maximum.
"Physician and Dentist Schedule
"Director grade, $31,203 minimum to $39,523 maximum *.
"Executive grade, $28,996 minimum to $37,699 maximum *.
"Chief grade, $26,898 minimum to $34,971 maximum.
"Senior grade, $23,088 minimum to $30,018 maximum.
"Intermediate grade, $19,700 minimum to $25,613 maximum.
"Full grade, $16,682 minimum to $21,686 maximum.
"Associate grade, $13,996 minimum to $18,190 maximum.
"Nurse Schedule
"Assistant Director grade, $23,088 minimum to $30,018 maxi-
mum.
"Chief grade, $19,700 minimum to $25,613 maximum.
"Senior grade, $16,682 minimum to $21,686 maximum.
"Intermediate grade, $13,996 minimum to $18,190 maximum.
"Full grade, $11,614 minimum to $15,097 maximum.
"Associate grade, $10,012 minimum to $13,018 maximum.
"Junior grade, $8,572 minimum to $11,146 maximum."
"* The salary for employees at these rates is limited by section
5308 of title 5 of the United States Code to the rate for level V of
the Executive Schedule (as of the effective date of this salary ad-
justment, $36,000).
Foreign Service Schedules
Sec. 3. (a) The per annum salaries of Foreign Service Officers
in the schedule contained in section 412 of the Foreign Service
Act of 1946, as amended (22 U.S.C. 867) [section 867 of Title 22,
Foreign Relations and Intercourse], are adjusted as follows:
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
45
"Class 1
Class 2
Class 3
Class 4
Class 5
Class 6
Class 7
Class 8
$39 506*
30,985
24,544
19 700
16 007
13,218
11,109
9,520
$40 823*
32,018
25,372
20 357
16 541
13,659
11,479
9,837
$41 734"
33,051
26,190
21,014
17,075
14,100
11,849
10,154
$34,084
27,008
21,671
17,609
14,541
12,219
10,471
$35,117
27,826
22,328
18,143
14,982
12,589
10,788
$36,150«
28,644
22,985
18,677
15,423
12,959
11,105
$37,183*
29,462
23,642
19,211
15,864
13,329
11,422
" * The salary for employees at these rates is limited by section 5308 of title 5 of the United States Code
to the rate for level V of the Executive Schedule (as of the effective date of this salary adjustment, $36,000)."
(b) The per annum salaries of staff officers and employees in
the schedule contained in section 415 of the Foreign Service Act
of 1946, as amended (22 U.S.C. 870(a)) [section 870(a) of Title
22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse], are adjusted as follows:
"Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
1_ .
2
3.
4_
5
6
7
8
9.
10
$24,554
19,700
16,007
13,218
11,860
10 634
9 538
8 555
7 671
6,882
$25,372
20,357
16,541
13,659
12,255
10 989
9 856
8 840
7 927
7,111
$26,190
21,014
17,075
14,100
12,650
11 344
10 174
9 125
8 183
7,340
$27,008
21,671
17,609
14,541
13,045
11 699
10 492
9 410
8 439
7,569
$27,826
22,328
18,143
14,982
13,440
12 054
10 810
9 695
8 695
7,798
$28,644
22,985
18,677
15,423
13,835
12 409
11 128
9 980
8 951
8,027
$29,462
23,642
19,211
15,864
14,230
12 764
11 446
10 265
9 207
8,256
$30,280
24,299
19,745
16,305
14,625
13 119
11 764
10 550
9 463
8,485
$31,098
24,956
20,279
16,746
15,020
13 474
12 082
10 835
9 719
8,714
$31,916
25,613
20,813
17,187
15,415
13 829
12 400
11 120
9 975
8,943."
Salary Limitations
Section. 4. Notwithstanding the rates of basic pay or salaries
established by sections 1, 2, and 3 of this order, under section
5308 of title 5 of the United States Code [section 5308 of this
title] no rate of basic pay or salary may be paid which is in ex-
cess of the rate now or hereafter provided for level V of the
Executive Schedule.
Conversion Rules
Sec. 5. The agencies hereinafter designated shall prescribe
such rules as may be necessary to convert the rates of basic pay
or salaries of officers and employees to the rates prescribed in this
order:
(1) General Schedule, the Civil Service Commission;
(2) Schedules for the Department of Medicine and Surgery of
the Veterans' Administration, the Veterans' Administration;
(3) Foreign Service Schedules, the Department of State.
-------
46
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
Effective Date
Sec. 6. Consistent with the provisions of section 3 of the Eco-
nomic Stabilization Act Amendments of 1971, this order shall take
effect as of the first day of the first applicable pay period begin-
ning on or after January 1, 1973.
RICHARD NIXON
1.9k E.G. 11739, Adjustment of Pay Rates Effective Oct. 1, 1973,
Oct. 3, 1973, 38 Fed. Reg. 27581.
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 11739
Oct. 3, 1973, 38 F.R. 27581
ADJUSTMENT OF PAY RATES EFFECTIVE OCT. 1, 1973
By virtue of the authority vested in me by subchapter I of chap-
ter 53 of title 5 of the United States Code [this subchapter], it is
hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. The rates of basic pay in the General Schedule con-
tained in section 5332 (a) of title 5 of the United States Code
[subsec. (a) of this section] are adjusted as follows:
"GENERAL SCHEDULE
"Annual rates and steps
"Grade
GS-1
GS-2
GS-3
GS-4
GS-5
GS-6
GS-7
GS-8
GS-9
GS-10....
GS-ll-__
GS-12-_._
GS-13
GS-14_.._
GS-15- —
GS-16— _
GS-17-—
GS-18— .
1
$ 5,017
5,682
6,408
7,198
8,055
8,977
9,969
11,029
12,167
13,379
14,671
17,497
20,677
24,247
28,263
32,806
•37,976
•43,926
2
$ 5,184
5,871
6,622
7,438
8,323
9,276
10,301
11,397
12,573
13,825
15,160
18,080
21,366
25,055
29,205
33,899
•39,242
3
$ 5,351
6,060
6,836
7,678
8,591
9,575
10,633
11,765
12,979
14,271
15,649
18,663
22,055
25,863
30,147
34,992
•40,508
4
$ 5,518
6,249
7,050
7,918
8,859
9,874
10,965
12,133
13,385
14,717
16,138
19,246
22,744
26,671
31,089
*'36,085
"41,774
5
$ 5,685
6,438
7,264
8,158
9,127
10,173
11,297
12,501
13,791
15,163
16,627
19,829
23,433
27,479
32,031
'37,178
•43,040
6
$ 5,852
6,627
7,478
8,398
9,395
10,472
11,629
12,869
14,197
15,609
17,116
20,412
24,122
28,287
32,973
•38,271
7
$ 6,019
6,816
7,692
8,638
9,663
10,771
11,961
13,237
14,603
16,055
17,605
20,995
24,811
29,095
33,915
"39,364
8
$ 6,186
7,005
7,906
8,878
9,931
11,070
12,293
13,605
15,009
16,501
18,094
21,578
25,500
29,903
34,857
"'40,457
9
$ 6,353
7,194
8,120
9,118
10,199
11,369
12,625
13,973
15,415
16,947
18,583
22,161
26,189
30,711
35,799
•41,550
10
$ 6,520
7,383
8,334
9,358
10,467
11,668
12,957
14,341
15,821
17,393
19,072
22,744
26,878
31,519
•36,741
[A8724]
"* The rate of basic pay for employees at these rates is limited
by section 5308 of title 5 of the United States Code [section 5308
of this title] to the rate for level V of the Executive Schedule (as
of the effective date of this salary adjustment, $36,000)."
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 47
Schedule for the Department of Medicine and Surgery of the Vet-
erans' Administration
Sec. 2. The schedules contained in section 4107 of title 38 of
the United States Code [section 4107 of Title 38, Veterans' Bene-
fits], for certain positions within the Department of Medicine and
Surgery of the Veterans' Administration, are adjusted as follows:
"Section 4103 Schedule
"Associate Deputy Chief Medical Director, the annual rate pro-
vided for positions in level V of the Executive Schedule.
"Assistant Chief Medical Director, $43,926.*
"Medical Director, $37,976 minimum * to $43,040 maximum.*
"Director of Nursing Service, $37,976 minimum * to $43,040 max-
imum.*
"Director of Chaplain Service, $32,806 minimum to $41,550 maxi-
mum.*
"Director of Pharmacy Service, $32,806 minimum to $41,550
maximum.*
"Director of Dietetic Service, $32,806 minimum to $41,550 maxi-
mum.*
"Director of Optometry, $32,806 minimum to $41,550 maximum.*
"Physician and Dentist Schedule
"Director grade, $32,806 minimum to $41,550 maximum.*
"Executive grade, $30,455 minimum to $39,590 maximum.*
"Chief grade, $28,263 minimum to $36,741 maximum.*
"Senior grade, $24,247 minimum to $31,519 maximum.
"Intermediate grade, $20,677 minimum to $26,878 maximum.
"Full grade, $17,497 minimum to $22,744 maximum.
"Associate grade, $14,671 minimum to $19,072 maximum.
"Nurse Schedule
"Director grade, $28,263 minimum to $36,741 maximum *.
"Assistant Director grade, $24,247 minimum to $31,519 maxi-
mum.
"Chief grade, $20,677 minimum to $26,878 maximum.
"Senior grade, $17,497 minimum to $22,744 maximum.
"Intermediate grade, $14,671 minimum to $19,072 maximum.
"Full grade, $12,167 minimum to $15,821 maximum.
"Associate grade, $10,489 minimum to $13,639 maximum.
"Junior grade, $8,977 minimum to $11,668 maximum.
*The salary for employees at these rates is limited by section
-------
48
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
5308 of title 5 of the United States Code [section 5308 of this
title] to the rate for level V of the Executive Schedule (as of the
effective date of this salary adjustment, $36,000).
Foreign Service Schedules
Sec. 3. (a). The per annum salaries of Foreign Service officers
in the schedule contained in section 412 of the Foreign Service Act
of 1946, as amended (22 U.S.C. 867) [section 867 of Title 22, For-
eign Relations and Intercourse], are adjusted as follows:
"Class 1
Class 2
Class 3 -
Class 4 ..
Class 5 .
Class 6
Class 7
Class 8
*$41 566
32 581
25.800
20.677
16,799
13,863
11,641
9,969
*$42 952
33 667
26 660
21 366
17,359
14 325
12 029
10,301
*$43 926
34 753
27 520
22 055
17,919
14 787
12 417
10,633
$35 839
28 380
22 744
18,479
15 249
12 805
10,965
*$36 925
29 240
23 433
19 039
15 711
13 193
11 297
*'$38 Oil
30 100
24 122
19 599
16 173
13 581
11,629
'$39 097
30,960
24,811
20,159
16 635
13 969
11,961
[A8725]
" *The salary for employees at these rates is limited by section
5308 of title 5 of the United States Code [section 5308 of this
title] to the rate for level V of the Executive Schedule (as of the
effective date of this salary adjustment, $36,000)."
(b) The per annum salaries of staff officers and employees in
the schedule contained in section 415 of the Foreign Service Act
of 1946, as amended (22 U.S.C. 870(a)) [section 870(a) of Title
22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse], are adjusted as follows:
"Class 1—-
Class 2—_
Class 3.___
Class 4-__
Class 5_-__
Class 6—_
Class 7—.
Class 8_-_-
Class 9—_
Class 10—
$25,800
20,677
16,799
13,863
12,429
11,144
9.9S9
8,954
8,028
7,198
$26,660
21,366
17,359
14,325
12,843
11,515
10,322
9,253
8,296
7,438
$27,520
22,055
17,919
14,787
13,257
11,886
10,655
9,552
8,564
7,678
$28,380
22,744
18,479
15,249
13,671
12,257
10,988
9,851
8,832
7,918
$29,240
23,433
19,039
15,711
14,085
12,628
11,321
10,150
9,100
8,158
$30,100
24,122
19,599
16,173
14,499
12,999
11,654
10,449
9,368
8,398
$30,960
24,811
20,159
16,635
14,913
13,370
11,987
10,748
9,636
8,638
$31,820
25,500
20,719
17,097
15,327
13,741
12,320
11,047
9,904
8,878
$32,680
26,189
21,279
17,559
15,741
14,112
12,653
11,346
10,172
9,118
$33,540
26,878
21,839
18,021
16,155
14,483
12,986
11,645
10,440
9,358.'
[A8726]
Salary Limitation
Sec. 4. Notwithstanding the rates of basic pay or salaries
-------
49
established by sections 1, 2, and 3 of this order, under section
5308 of title 5 of the United States Code [section 5308 of this
title] no rate of basic pay or salary may be paid which is in excess
of the rate now or hereafter provided for level V of the Executive
Schedule.
Effective Date
Sec. 5. This order shall take effect as of the first day of the
first applicable pay period beginning on or after October 1, 1973.
RICHARD NIXON
-------
-------
Executive
Orders
-------
-------
EXECUTIVE ORDEKS 53
2.4 E.G. 11738, Providing for Administration of the Clean Air
Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act with Re-
spect to Federal Contracts, Grants, or Loans, September 12,
1973, 38 F.R. 25161
By virtue of the authority vested in me by the provisions of the
Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq.), particularly
section 306 of that Act as added by the Clean Air Amendments of
1970 (Public Law 91-604), and the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), particularly section 508 of that
Act as added by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments of 1972 (Public Law 92-500), it is hereby ordered as fol-
lows:
SECTION 1. Policy. It is the policy of the Federal Government to
improve and enhance environmental quality. In furtherance of
that policy, the program prescribed in this Order is instituted to
assure that each Federal agency empowered to enter into con-
tracts for the procurement of goods, materials, or services and
each Federal agency empowered to extend Federal assistance by
way of grant, loan, or contract shall undertake such procurement
and assistance activities in a manner that will result in effective
enforcement of the Clean Air Act (hereinafter referred to as "the
Air Act") and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (herein-
after referred to as "the Water Act").
SEC. 2. Designation of Facilities, (a) The Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency (hereinafter referred to as
"the Administrator") shall be responsible for the attainment of
the purposes and objectives of this Order.
(b) In carrying out his responsibilities under this Order, the
Administrator shall, in conformity with all applicable require-
ments of law, designate facilities which have given rise to a con-
viction for an offense under section 113 (c) (1) of the Air Act or
section 309 (c) of the Water Act. The Administrator shall, from
time to time, publish and circulate to all Federal agencies lists of
those facilities, together with the names and addresses of the per-
sons who have been convicted of such offenses. Whenever the Ad-
ministrator determines that the condition which gave rise to a
conviction has been corrected, he shall promptly remove the fa-
cility and the name and address of the person concerned from the
list.
SEC. 3. Contracts, Grants, or Loans, (a) Except as provided in
section 8 of this Order, no Federal agency shall enter into any
contract for the procurement of goods, materials, or services
which is to be performed in whole or in part in a facility then
designated by the Administrator pursuant to section 2.
-------
54 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
(b) Except as provided in section 8 of this Order, no Federal
agency authorized to extend Federal assistance by way of grant,
loan, or contract shall extend such assistance in any case in which
it is to be used to support any activity or program involving the
use of a facility then designated by the Administrator pursuant
to section 2.
SEC. 4. Procurement, Grant, and Loan Regulations. The Federal
Procurement Regulations, the Armed Services Procurement Regu-
lations, and, to the extent necessary, any supplemental or com-
parable regulations issued by any agency of the Executive Branch
shall, following consultation with the Administrator, be amended
to require, as a condition of entering into, renewing, or extending
any contract for the procurement of goods, materials, or services
or extending any assistance by way of grant, loan, or contract,
inclusion of a provision requiring compliance with the Air Act,
the Water Act, and standards issued pursuant thereto in the fa-
cilities in which the contract is to be performed, or which are in-
volved in the activity or program to receive assistance.
SEC. 5. Rules and Regulations. The Administrator shall issue
such rules, regulations, standards, and guidelines as he may deem
necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this Order.
SEC. 6. Cooperation and Assistance. The head of each Federal
agency shall take such steps as may be necessary to insure that all
officers and employees of his agency whose duties entail compli-
ance or comparable functions with respect to contracts, grants,
and loans are familiar with the provisions of this Order. In addi-
tion to any other appropriate action, such officers and employees
shall report promptly any condition in a facility which may in-
volve noncompliance with the Air Act or the Water Act or any
rules, regulations, standards, or guidelines issued pursuant to this
Order to the head of the agency, who shall transmit such reports
to the Administrator.
SEC. 7. Enforcement. The Administrator may recommend to the
Department of Justice or other appropriate agency that legal pro-
ceedings be brought or other appropriate action be taken when-
ever he becomes aware of a breach of my provision required,
under the amendments issued pursuant to section 4 of this Order,
to be included in a contract or other agreement.
SEC. 8. Exemptions—Reports to Congress, (a) Upon a deter-
mination that the paramount interest of the United States so re-
quires—
(1) The head of a Federal agency may exempt any contract,
grant, or loan, and, following consultation with the Administrator,
any class of contracts, grants or loans from the provisions of this
-------
EXECUTIVE ORDERS 55
Order. In any such case, the head of the Federal agency granting
such exemption shall (A) promptly notify the Administrator of
such exemption and the justification therefor; (B) review the
necessity for each such exemption annually; and (C) report to
the Administrator annually all such exemptions in effect. Exemp-
tions granted pursuant to this section shall be for a period not to
exceed one year. Additional exemptions may be granted for periods
not to exceed one year upon the making of a new determination
by the Federal agency concerned.
(2) The Administrator may, by rule or regulation, exempt any
or all Federal agencies from any or all of the provisions of this
Order with respect to any class or classes of contracts, grants,
or loans, which (A) involve less than specified dollar amounts, or
(B) have a minimal potential impact upon the environment, or
(C) involve persons who are not prime contractors or direct re-
cipients of Federal assistance by way of contracts, grants, or
loans.
(b) Federal agencies shall reconsider any exemption granted
under subsection (a) whenever requested to do so by the Ad-
ministrator.
(c) The Administrator shall annually notify the President and
the Congress of all exemptions granted, or in effect, under this
Order during the preceding year.
SEC. 9. Related Actions. The imposition of any sanction or pen-
alty under or pursuant to this Order shall not relieve any person
of any legal duty to comply with any provisions of the Air Act or
the Water Act.
SEC. 10. Applicability. This Order shall not apply to contracts,
grants, or loans involving the use of facilities located outside the
United States.
SEC. 11. Uniformity. Rules, regulations, standards, and guide-
lines issued pursuant to this order and section 508 of the Water
Act shall, to the maximum extent feasible, be uniform with regu-
lations issued pursuant to this order, Executive Order No. 11602
of June 29, 1971, and section 306 of the Air Act.
SEC. 12. Order Superseded. Executive Order No. 11602 of June
29, 1971, is hereby superseded.
RICHARD NIXON.
THE WHITE HOUSE,
September 10, 1973.
-------
-------
Regulations
-------
-------
REGULATIONS 59
B. AIR
3. Regulations
3.1 Administration of the Clean Air Act with Respect to Federal Con-
tracts, Grants, or Loans, Environmental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R.
§§ 15.1-15.42 (1973).
3.1a Administrative Requirements—Subpart A
§ 15.1 Purpose
§ 15.2 Administrative Responsibility
§ 15.3 Definitions
§ 15.4 Agency Responsibilities
§ 15.5 Exemptions
3.1b Remedies—Subpart B
§ 15.20 List of Violating Facilities
§ 15.21 Hearings
§ 15.22 Public Participation
§ 15.23 Agency Participation
§ 15.24 Investigation
§ 15.25 Referral to the Justice Department
3.1c Ancillary Matters—Subpart C
§ 15.40 Interpretations
§ 15.41 Reports
§ 15.42 Delegation of Authority by the Director
3.2 State and Local Assistance, Environmental Protection Agency, 40
C.F.R. §§ 35.400-35.535 (1973).
3.2a Program Grants—Subpart B
§ 35.400 Purpose
§ 35.400—1 Grants May Be Awarded to Air Pollution Con-
trol Agencies and Interstate Planning Agencies
§ 35.400—2 Water Pollution Control Program Grant Awards
§ 35.401 Authority
§ 35.405 Criteria for Evaluation of Program Objectives
§ 35.410 Evaluation of Program Performance
§ 35.415 Report of Project Expenditures
§ 35.420 Payment
§ 35.501 Definitions
§ 35.501—1 Air Pollution
§ 35.501—2 Air Pollution Control Agency
§ 35.501—3 Air Pollution Control Program
§ 35.501—4 Air Quality Control Regions
§ 35.501—5 Implementation Plans
§ 35.501-—6 Interstate Air Quality Control Regions
§ 35.501—-7 Interstate Planning Agency
§ 35.501—8 Maintenance Programs
§ 35.501—9 Municipality
§ 35.501—10 Non-Recurrent Expenditures
§ 35.501—11 Pre-Maintenance Program
§ 35.501—12 Program Description
§ 35.501—13 State
-------
60 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
§ 35.505 Allocation of Funds
§ 35.507 Federal Assistance for Agency Programs
§ 35.507—2 Limitations on Duration
§ 35.507—3 Schedule of Federal Support
§ 35.510 Grant Amount
§ 35.510—1 Determination
§ 35.510—2 Limitations
§ 35.515 Eligibility
§ 35.515—1 Control Programs
§ 35.515—2 Interstate Planning
§ 35.520 Criteria for Award
§ 35.520—1 Control Programs
§ 35.520—2 Interstate Planning
§ 35.525 Program Eequirements
§ 35.525—1 Pre-Maintenance Programs
§ 35.525—2 Maintenance Programs
§ 35.525—3 Interstate Planning
§ 35.530 Supplemental Conditions
§ 35.535 Assignment of Personnel
3.3 Research and Demonstration Grants, Environmental Protection
Agency, 40 C.F.R. § 40 (1972).
[See General 3.13 for Sections Itemized]
3.4 Training Grants and Manpower Forecasting, Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§ 45.100-45.155 (1973).
[See General 1.14 for sections list]
3.5 Fellowships, Environmental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§ 46.100-
46.165 (1973).
[See General 1.15 for sections list]
3.6 National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards,
Environmental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. § 50.1-50.11 (1973).
§ 50.1 Definitions
§ 50.2 Scope
§ 50.3 Reference Conditions
§ 50.4 National Primary Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Sulfur Oxides (Sulfur Dioxide)
§ 50.5 National Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Sulfur Oxides (Sulfur Dioxide)
§ 50.6 National Primary Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Particulate Matter
§ 50.7 National Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Particulate Matter
§ 50.8 National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Carbon Monoxide
§ 50.9 National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Photochemical Oxidents
§ 50.10 National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Hydrocarbons
§ 50.11 National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Nitrogen Dioxide
-------
REGULATIONS 61
3.7 Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implemen-
tation Plans, Environmental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§ 51.1-
51.22 (1973).
3.7a General Provisions—Subpart A
§ 51.1 Definitions
§ 51.2 Stipulations
§ 51.3 Classification of Regions
§ 51.4 Public Hearings
§ 51.5 Submittal of Plans; Preliminary Review of Plans
§ 51.6 Revisions
§ 51.7 Reports
§ 51.8 Approval of Plans
3.7b Plan Content and Requirements—Subpart B
§ 51.10 General Requirements
§ 51.11 Legal Authority
§ 51.12 Control Strategy: General
§ 51.13 Control Strategy: Sulfur Oxides and Particulate Mat-
ter
§ 51.14 Control Strategy: Carbon Monoxide, Hydrocarbons,
Photochemical Oxidents and Nitrogen Dioxides
§ 51.15 Compliance Schedules
§ 51.16 Prevention of Air Pollution Emergency Episodes
§ 51.17 Air Quality Surveillance
§ 51.18 Review of New Sources and Modifications
§ 51.19 Source Surveillance
§ 51.20 Resources
§ 51.21 Intergovernmental Cooperation
§ 51.22 Rules and Regulations
3.7c Extensions—Subpart C
§ 51.30 Request for Two-Year Extension
§ 51.31 Request for Eighteen Month Extension
§ 51.32 Request for One-Year Postponement
§ 51.33 Hearings and Appeals Relating to Request for One-
Year Postponement
Appendix A—Air Quality Estimation
Appendix B—Examples of Emission Limitations Attainable
With Reasonable Available Technology
Appendix C—Major Pollution Sources
Appendix D—Emission Inventory Summary
Appendix E—Point Source Data
Appendix F—Area Source Data
Appendix G—Emissions Inventory Summary
Appendix H—-Air Quality Data Summary
Appendix I—Projected Motor Vehicle Emissions
-------
62 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
Appendix J—Required Hydro-carbon Emission Control as a
Function of Photochemical Dioxant Concentrates
Appendix K—Control Agency Functions
Appendix L—Example Regulations for Prevention of Air Pol-
lution Emergency Episodes
3.8 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans, Environmental
Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§ 52.01-52.2850 (1973).
3.8a General Provisions—Subpart A
§ 52.01 Definitions
§ 52.02 Introduction
§ 52.03 Extensions
§ 62.04 Classification of Regions
§ 52.05 Public Availability of Emission Data
§ 52.06 Legal Authority
§ 52.07 Control Strategy
§ 52.08 Rules and Regulations
§ 52.09 Compliance Schedules
§ 52.10 Review of New Source and Modification
§ 52.11 Prevention of Air Pollution Emergency Episodes
§ 52.12 Source Surveillance
§ 52.13 Air Quality Surveillance; Resources; Intergovern-
mental Cooperation
§ 52.14 State Ambient Air Quality Standards
§ 52.15 Public Availability of Plans
§ 52.16 Submission to Administrator
§ 52.17 Severability of Provisions
§ 52.18 Abbreviations
§ 52.19 Revision of Plans for Administrator
§ 52.20 Attainment Date for National Standards
§ 52.21 Significant Deterioration of Air Quality
§ 52.22 Maintenance of National Standards
§ 52.23 Violation and Enforcement
3.8b Alabama—Subpart B
§ 52.50 Identification of Plans
§ 52.51 Classification of Regions
§ 52.52 RESERVED
§ 52.53 Approval Status
§ 52.54 Attainment Dates for National Standards
§ 52.55 RESERVED
3.8c Alaska—Subpart C
§ 52.70 Identification of Plan
§ 52.71 Classification of Regions
§ 52.72 Approval Status
§ 52.73 RESERVED
§ 52.74 Legal Authority
§ 52.75 RESERVED
§ 52.76 Control Strategy—Carbon Monoxide
§ 52.77 RESERVED
-------
REGULATIONS
63
§ 62.78 RESERVED
§ 52.79 RESERVED
§ 62.80 Intergovernmental Cooperation
§ 52.81 Attainment Dates for National Standards
§ 52.82 Extensions
§ 52.83 RESERVED
§ 52.84 Compliance Schedules
§ 52.85 Traffic Flow Improvements
§ 52.86 Management of Parking Supply
§ 52.87 Idling Limitations
§ 52.88 Inspection/Maintenance Program
§ 52.89 Air Bleed to Intake Manifold Retrofit
§ 52.90 Oxidizing Catalyst Retrofit
§ 52.91 Exhaust Gas Recirculation—Air Bleed Retrofit
§ 52.92 Central Business District Access Limitations
§ 52.93 Monitoring Transportation Trends
3.8d Arizona—Subpart D
§ 52.120 Identification of Plan
§ 52.121 Classification of Regions
§ 52.122 Extensions
§ 52.123 Approval Status
§ 52.124 RESERVED
§ 52.125 Control Strategy and Regulations; Sulfur Oxides
§ 52.126 Control Strategy and Regulations; Particulate Matter
§ 52.127 Control Strategy and Regulations; Nitrogen Oxide
§ 52.128 RESERVED
§ 52.129 Review of New Sources and Modifications
§ 52.130 Source Surveillance
§ 52.131 Attainment Dates for National Standards
§ 52.132 Transportation Control Compliance Schedule
§ 52.133 Rules and Regulations
§ 52.134 Compliance Schedules
§ 52.135 Resources
§ 52.136 Control Strategy; Carbon Monoxide
§ 52.137 Employer Carpool Incentive Program
§ 52.138 Bus/Carpool Matching Program
§ 52.139 Management of Parking Supply
§ 52.140 Monitoring Transportation Trends
3.8e Arkansas—Subpart E
§ 52.170 Identification of Plan
§ 52.171 Classification of Regions
§ 52.172 Approval Status
§ 52.173 Compliance Schedules
§ 52.174 RESERVED
§ 52.175 Resources
§ 52.176 Attainment Dates for National Standards
3.8f California—Subpart F
§ 52.220 Identification of Plan
§ 52.221 Classification of Regions
§ 52.222 Extensions
§ 52.223 Approval Status
-------
64
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
§ 52.224 General Requirements
§ 52.225 Legal Authority
§ 52.226 Control Strategy and Regulations; Particulate Mat-
ter, San Joaquin Valley Intrastate Region
§ 52.227 Control Strategy and Regulations; Particulate Mat-
ter, Metropolitan Los Angeles Intrastate Region
§ 52.228 Regulations; Particulate Matter, Southeast Desert
Intrastate Region
§ 52.229 Control Strategy and Regulations; Photochemical
Dioxants (Hydrocarbon) Metropolitan Los Angeles
Intrastate Region
§ 52.230 Control Strategy; Nitrogen Dioxide, Metropolitan
Los Angeles Intrastate Region
§ 52.231 Prevention of Air Pollution Emergency Episodes
§ 52.232 RESERVED
§ 52.233 Review of New Sources and Modifications
§ 52.234 Source Surveillance
§ 52.235 Resources
§ 52.236 RESERVED
§ 52.237 Request for Two-Year Extensions
§ 52.238 Attainment Dates for National Standards
§ 52.239 RESERVED
§ 52.240 Compliance Schedules
§ 52.241 Control Strategy; Photochemical Oxidants (Hydro-
carbons) and Carbon Monoxide
§ 52.241 Gasoline Limitations
§ 52.242 Inspection and Maintenance Program
§ 52.243 Motorcycle Limitations
§ 52.244 Oxidizing catalyst retrofit
§ 52.245 Control of Oxides of Nitrogen, Hydrocarbon, and
Carbon Monoxide Emissions From In-Use Vehicles
§ 52.246 Control of Dry Cleaning Solvent Vapor Losses
§ 52.247 Definitions for Parking Management Regulations
§ 52.248 Surcharge on Commercial Parking
§ 52.249 Surcharge on Free Parking Spaces
§ 52.250 Employers Provision for Mass Transit Priority In-
centives
§ 52.251 Management of Parking Supply
§ 52.252 Control of Degreasing Operations
§ 52.253 Metal Surfact Coating Thinner and Reducer
§ 52.254 Organic Solvent Usage
§ 52.255 Gasoline Transfer Vapor Control
§ 52.256 Control of Evaporative Losses From the Filling of
Vehicular Tanks
§ 52.257 Computer Carpool Matching "
§ 52.258 Mass Transit Priority-Exclusive Bus Use
§ 52.259 Ramp Metering and Preference—Bus/Carpool Lanes
§ 52.260 Organic Solvent Usage (Federal Regulation Adding
to and Replacing Parts of Rule 66 of San Diego
County)
§ 52.261 Preferential Bus/Carpool Lanes, San Francisco Bay
Area
§ 52.262 Submittal of Studies—San Francisco Bay Area
-------
REGULATIONS
65
§ 52.263 Priority Treatment for Buses and Carpools—Los
Angeles Eegion
§ 52.264 Mass Transit Priority Strategy and Planning
§ 52.265 Mass Transit and Transit Priority Planning
§ 52.266 Monitoring Transportation Mode Trends
3.8g Colorado—Subpart G
§ 52.320 Identification of Plan
§ 52.321 Classification of Regions
§ 52.322 Extensions
§ 52.323 Approval Status
§ 52.324 Legal Authority
§ 52.325 Attainment Dates for National Standards
§ 52.326 Transportation and Land Use Controls
§ 52.327 Compliance Schedules
§ 52.328 Control Strategy; Photochemical Oxidants (Hydro-
carbons) and Carbon Monoxide
§ 52.329 Rules and Regulations
§ 52.330 Gasoline Limitations
§ 52.331 Control of Dry Cleaning Solvent Evaporation
§ 52.332 Degreasing Operations
§ 52.333 Organic Solvent Usage
§ 52.334 Storage of Petroleum Products
§ 52.335 Organic Liquid Loading
§ 52.336 Gasoline Transfer Vapor Control
§ 52.337 Control of Evaporative Losses From the Filling of
Vehicular Tanks
§ 52.338 Federal Compliance Schedules
§ 52.339 Monitoring Transportation Controls
3.8h Connecticut—Subpart H
§ 52.370 Identification of Plans
§ 52.371 Classification of Regions
§ 52.372 Extensions
§ 52.373 Approval Status
§ 52.374 Attainment Dates for National Standards
3.8i Delaware—Subpart I
§ 52.420 Identification of Plan
§ 52.421 Classification of Regions
§ 52.422 Approval Status
§ 52.423 RESERVED
§ 52.424 RESERVED
§ 52.425 RESERVED
§ 52.426 RESERVED
§ 52.427 RESERVED
§ 52.428 Attainment Dates for National Standards
§ 52.429 Compliance Schedules
3.8j District of Columbia—Subpart J
§ 52.470 Identification of Plan
§ 52.471 Classification of Regions
§ 52.472 Approval Status
§ 52.473 RESERVED
-------
66 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
§ B2.474 Legal Authority
§ 52.475 RESERVED
§ 52.476 Compliance Schedules
§ 52.477 RESERVED
§ 52.478 RESERVED
§ 52.479 Resource Surveillance
§ 52.480 RESERVED
§ 52.481 Attainment Date for National Standards
§ 52.482 Transportation and Land Use Controls
§ 52.483 Control Strategy; Carbon Monoxide and Photo-
chemical Oxidants (Hydrocarbon)
§ 52.484 RESERVED
§ 52.485 RESERVED
§ 52.486 Rules and Regulations
§ 52.487 Federal Parking Facilities
§ 52.488 Gasoline Transfer Vapor Control
§ 52.489 Control of Evaporative Losses From the Filling of
Vehicular Tanks
§ 52.490 Control of Dry Cleaning Solvent Evaporation
§ 52.491 Inspection and Maintenance Program
§ 52.492 Bicycle Lanes and Bicycle Storage Facilities
§ 52.493 Medium Duty Air/Fuel Control Retrofit
§ 52.494 Management of Parking Supply
§ 52.495 Heavy Duty Air/Fuel Control Retrofit
§ 52.496 Oxidizing Catalyst Retrofit
§ 52.497 Vacuum Spark Advance Disconnect Retrofit
3.8k Florida—Subpart K
§ 52.520 Identification Plan
§ 52.521 Classification of Regions
§ 52.522 Approval Status
§ 52.523 Attainment Date for National Standards
§ 52.524 Compliance Schedules
3.81 Georgia—Subpart L
§ 52.570 Identification of Plan
§ 52.571 Classification of Regions
§ 52.572 Approval Status
§ 52.573 RESERVED
§ 52.574 RESERVED
§ 52.575 Attainment Date for National Standards
3.8m Hawaii—Subpart M
§ 52.620 Identification of Plan
§ 52.621 Classification of Regions
§ 52.622 Extensions
§ 52.623 Approval Status
§ 52.624 RESERVED
§ 52.625 RESERVED
§ 52.626 RESERVED
§ 52.627 RESERVED
§ 52.628 Attainment Date for National Standards
3.8n Idaho—Subpart N
-------
REGULATIONS
67
§ 52.670 Identification of Plans
§ 52.671 Classification of Regions
§ 52.672 Extensions
§ 52.673 Approval Status
§ 52.674 Legal Authority
§ 52.675 RESERVED
§ 52.676 Control Strategies: Sulfur Oxide—Eastern Wash-
ington—Northern Idaho Interstate Regions
§ 52.677 Compliance Schedules
§ 52.678 RESERVED
§ 52.679 RESERVED
§ 52.680 Attainment Dates for National Standards
3.8o Illinois—Subpart 0
§ 52.720 Identification of Plans
§ 52.721 Classification of Regions
§ 52.722 Approval Status
§ 52.723 RESERVED
§ 52.724 RESERVED
§ 52.725 Rules and Regulations
§ 52.726 Attainment Dates for National Standards
§ 52.727 RESERVED
§ 52.728 Control Strategy: Carbon Monoxide
§ 52.729 Compliance Schedules
§ 52.730 Inspection and Maintenance of Vehicles
§ 52.731 Traffic Flow Improvements
§ 52.732 Restriction of On-Street Parking
§ 52.733 Monitoring Transportation Mode Trends
3.8p Indiana—Subpart P
§ 52.770 Identification of Plan
§ 52.771 Classification of Regions
§ 52.772 Extensions
§ 52.773 Approval Status
§ 52.774 RESERVED
§ 52.775 Legal Authority
§ 52.776 Control Strategy
§ 52.777 Control Strategy
carbons)
§ 52.778 Compliance Schedules
§ 52.779 Air Quality Surveillance
§ 52.780 Review of New Sources and Modifications
§ 52.781 Rules and Regulations
§ 52.782 Request for 18-month extensions
§ 52.783 Attainment Dates for National Standards
§ 52.784 Transportation and Land Use Controls
§ 52.785 Control Strategy: Carbon Monoxide
3.8q Iowa—Subpart Q
§ 52.820 Identification of Plans
§ 52.821 Classification of Regions
§ 52.822 Approval Status
§ 52.823 General Requirements
§ 52.824 Legal Authority
Particulate Matter
Photochemical Oxidants (Hydro-
-------
68 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
§ 52.825 Compliance Schedules
§ 52.826 Source Surveillance
§ 52.827 Attainment Dates for National Standards
§ 52.828 Enforcement
§ 52.829 Variances
3.8r Kansas—Subpart R
§ 52.870 Identification of Plans
§• 52.871 Classification of Regions
§ 52.872 RESERVED
§ 52.873 Approval Status
§ 52.874 Legal Authority
§ 52.875 Compliance Schedules
§ 52.876 Attainment Dates for National Standards
3.8s Kentucky—Subpart S
§ 52.920 Identification of Plans
§ 52.921 Classification of Regions
§ 52.922 Extensions
§ 52.923 Approval Status
§ 52.924 Legal Authority
§ 52.925 RESERVED
§ 52.926 Attainment Dates for National Standards
§ 52.927 Compliance Schedules
3.8t Louisiana—Subpart T
§ 52.970 Identification of Plans
§ 52.971 Classification of Regions
§ 52.972 Approval Status
§ 52.973 RESERVED
§ 52.974 RESERVED
§ 52.975 RESERVED,
§ 52.976 Resources
§ 52.977 Attainment Dates for National Standards
§ 52.978 RESERVED
§ 52.979 RESERVED
3.8u Maine—Subpart U
§ 52.1020 Identification of Plans
§ 52.1021 Classification of Regions
§ 52.1022 Approval Status
§ 52.1023 Compliance Schedules
§ 52.1024 Attainment Dates for National Standards
3.8v Maryland—Subpart V
§ 52.1070 Identification of Plans
§ 52.1071 Classification of Regions
§ 52.1072 Extensions
§ 52.1073 Approval Status
§ 52.1074 Legal Authority
§ 52.1075 Control Strategy
§ 52.1076 RESERVED
§ 52.1077 Source Survaillance
§ 52.1078 Attainment Dates for National Standards
8 52.1079 RESERVED
-------
REGULATIONS 69
§ 52.1080 Compliance Schedule
§ 52.1081 Control Strategy: Carbon Monoxide and Photo-
chemical Oxidants (Hydrocarbons)
§ 52.1082 Eules and Regulations
§ 52.1083 Resources
§ 52.1084 Intergovernmental Cooperation
§ 52.1085 Federal Parking Facilities
§ 52.1086 Gasoline Transfer Vapor Control
§ 52.1087 Control of Evaporative Losses From the Filling of
Vehicular Tanks
§ 52.1088 Control of Dry Cleaning Solvent Evaporation
§ 52.1089 Inspection and Maintenance Program
§ 52.1090 Bicycle Lanes and Bicycle Storage Facilities
§ 52.1091 Medium-Duty Air/Fuel Control Retrofit
§ 52.1092 Heavy-Duty Air/Fuel Control Retrofit
§ 52.1093 Oxidizing Catalyst Retrofit
§ 52.1094 Vacuum Spark Advance Disconnect Retrofit
§ 52.1095 Inspection and Maintenance Program
§ 52.1096 Vacuum Spark Advance Disconnect Retrofit
§ 52.1097 Oxidizing Catalyst Retrofit—Baltimore
§ 52.1098 Light-Duty Air/Fuel Control Retrofit
§ 52.1099 Medium-Duty Air/Fuel Control Retrofit
§ 52.1100 Heavy-Duty Air/Fuel Control Retrofit
§ 52.1101 Gasoline Transfer Vapor Control
§ 52.1102 Control of Evaporative Losses From the Filling of
Vehicular Tanks
§ 52.1103 Management of Parking Supply
§ 52.1104 Carpool Commuter Matching System
§ 52.1105 Employer's Provision for Mass Transit Priority
Incentives
§ 52.1106 Study and Establishment of Bikeways in the Balti-
more Area
§ 52.1107 Control of Dry Cleaning Solvent Evaporation
§ 52.1108 Exclusive Bus Lanes for Baltimore Suburbs and
Outlying Areas
§ 52.1109 Regulation for Limitation of Public Parking
§ 52.1110 Gasoline Limitations
§ 52.1111 Management of Parking Supply
§ 52.1112 Control and Prohibition of Sources of Photochemi-
cally Reactive Organic Materials
3.8w Massachusetts—Subpart W
§ 52.1120 Identification of Plans
§ 52.1121 Classification of Regions
§ 52.1122 Extensions
§ 52.1123 Approval Status
§ 52.1124 Control Strategy: Nitrogen Oxides
§ 52.1125 Compliance Schedule
§ 52.1126 Control Strategy: Sulfur Oxide
§ 52.1127 Attainment Dates for National Standards
§ 52.1128 Transportation and Land Use Controls
§ 52.1129 Legal Authority
§ 52.1130 Source Surveillance
-------
70 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
§ 52.1131 Variances
§ 52.1132 Public Availability of Emission Data
§ 52.1133 Control Strategy: Photochemical Oxidants (Hydro-
carbons) and Carbon Monoxide
§ 52.1134 Regulation Limiting On-Street Parking
§ 52.1135 Regulation for Management of Parking Supply
§ 52.1136 Regulation for Off-Street Parking Facilities
§ 52.1137 Regulation for Logan Airport Egress Toll
§ 52.1138 Regulation for Computer Carpool Matching
§ 52.1139 Preferential Bus/Carpool Treatment
§ 52.1140 Regulation for Semiannual Inspection and Main-
tenance
§ 52.1141 Regulation for Vacuum Spark Advance Disconnect
§ 52.1142 Regulation for Air Bleed Emission Control Device
§ 52.1143 Regulation for Oxidizing Catalyst
§ 52.1144 Regulation on Evaporative Emissions From Retail
Gasoline Outlets
§ 52.1145 Regulation on Organic Solvent Use
§ 52.1146 Regulation on Architectural Coating
§ 52.1147 Federal Compliance Schedules
§ 52.1148 Definitions for the Purpose of §§ 52.1149 through
§ 52.1155
§ 52.1149 Regulation Limiting On-Street Parking
§ 52.1150 Regulation for Parking Surcharge
§ 52.1151 Regulation for Computer Carpool Matching
§ 52.1152 Regulation for Traffic Flow Improvement
§ 52.1153 Regulation for Street Closing
§ 52.1154 Regulation for Semiannual Inspection and Mainte-
nance
§ 52.1155 Semiannual and Quarterly Reports
§ 52.1160 Semiannual and Quarterly Reports
3.8x Michigan—Subpart X
§ 52.1170 Identification of Plans
§ 52.1171 Classification of Regions
§ 52.1172 Approval Status
§ 52.1173 RESERVED
§ 52.1174 Control Strategy: Nitrogen Oxide
§ 52.1175 Compliance Schedules
§ 52.1176 Review of New Sources and Modifications
§ 52.1177 Attainment Dates for National Standards
3.8y Minnesota—Subpart Y
§ 52.1220 Identification of Plans
§ 52.1221 Classification of Regions
§ 52.1222 RESERVED
§ 52.1223 Approval Status
§ 52.1224 General Requirements
§ 52.1225 RESERVED
§ 52.1226 Attainment Dates for National Standards
§ 52.1227 Transportation and Land Use Controls
§ 52.1228 RESERVED
3.8z Mississippi—Subpart Z
-------
REGULATIONS 71
§ 52.1270 Identification of Plans
§ 52.1271 Classification of Regions
§ 52.1272 Approval Status
§ 52.1273 Attainment Dates for National Standards
3.8aa Missouri—Subpart AA
§ 52.1320 Identification of Plans
§ 52.1321 Classification of Regions
§ 52.1322 RESERVED
§ 52.1323 Approval Status
§ 52.1324 General Requirements
§ 52.1325 Legal Authority
§ 52.1326 Control Strategy: Nitrogen Dioxide
§ 52.1327 Prevention of Air Pollution Emergency Episodes
§ 52.1328 RESERVED
§ 52.1329 RESERVED
§ 52.1330 RESERVED
§ 52.1331 Request for Two-Year Extensions
§ 52.1332 Attainment Dates for National Standards
3.8bb Montana—Subpart BB
§ 52.1370 Identification of Plans
§ 52.1371 Classification of Regions
§ 52.1372 Approval Status
§ 52.1373 Control Strategy: Sulfur Oxides
§ 52.1374 RESERVED
§ 52,1375 Attainment Dates for National Standards
§ 52.1376 Extensions
3.8cc Nebraska—Subpart CC
§ 52.1420 Identification of Plans
§ 52.1421 Classification of Regions
§ 52.1422 Approval Status
§ 52.1423 General Requirements
§ 52.1424 Legal Authority
§ 52.1425 Compliance Schedules
§ 52.1426 RESERVED
§ 52.1427 RESERVED
§ 52.1428 Review of New Sources and Modifications: Rules
and Regulations
§ 52.1429 Source Surveillance: Rules and Regulations
§ 52.1430 RESERVED
§ 52.1431 Attainment Dates for National Standards
§ 52.1432 Control Strategy: Particulate Matter
§ 52.1433 Control Strategy: Nitrogen Oxide
3.8dd Nevada—Subpart DD
§ 52.1470 Identification of Plans
§ 52.1471 Classification of Regions
§ 52.1472 Approval Status
§ 52.1473 General Requirements
§ 52.1474 RESERVED
§ 52.1475 Control Strategy and Regulations: Sulfur Oxide
§ 52.1476 Control Strategy: Particulate Matter
-------
72 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
§ 52.1477 Prevention of Air Pollution Emergency Episodes
§ 52.1478 Review of New Sources and Modifications
§ 52.1479 Source Surveillance
§ 52.1480 Attainment Dates for National Standards
§ 52.1481 Extensions
3.8ee New Hampshire—Subpart EE
§ 52.1520 Identification of Plans
§ 52.1521 Classification of Regions
§ 52.1522 Approval Status
§ 52.1523 Attainment Dates for National Standards
§ 52.1524 Compliance Schedules
3.8ff New Jersey—Subpart FF
§ 52.1570 Identification of Plans
§ 52.1571 Classification of Regions
§ 52.1572 Extensions
§ 52.1573 Approval Status
§ 52.1574 RESERVED
§ 52.1575 RESERVED
§ 52.1576 Control Strategy: Nitrogen Oxide
§ 52.1577 Compliance Schedules
§ 52.1578 RESERVED
§ 52.1579 Intergovernmental Cooperation
§ 52.1580 Attainment Dates for National Standards
§ 52.1581 RESERVED
§ 52.1582 Control Strategy and Regulations: Photochemical
Oxidents (Hydrocarbons) and Carbon Monoxide,
New Jersey Portion of the New Jersey-New York-
Connecticut and Metropolitan Philadelphia Inter-
state Regions
§ 52.1583 Regulation for Annual Inspection and Maintenance
§ 52.1584 Exhaust Gas Recirculation Retrofit
§ 52.1585 Oxidizing Catalyst Retrofit
§ 52.1586 Prohibition of Delivery Program
§ 52.1587 Regulation Limiting On-Street Parking
§ 52.1588 Management of Parking Supply
§ 52.1589 Preferential Bus/Carpool Treatment
§ 52.1590 Employer's Provision for Mass Transit Priority In-
centives
§ 52.1591 Regulation for a Vehicle Free Zone
§ 52.1592 Regulation for Gasoline Limitation
§ 52.1593 Monitoring Transportation Mode Trends
§ 52.1594 Storage of Volatile Organic Liquids
§ 52.1595 Organic Liquid Loading
§ 52.1596 Volatile Organic Substances
§ 52.1597 Federal Compliance Schedules
§ 52.1598 Gasoline Transfer Vapor Control
§ 52.1599 Control of Evaporative Losses From the Filling of
Vehicular Tanks
§ 52.1600 Carpool Matching and Promotion System
3.8gg New Mexico—Subpart GG
§ 52.1620 Identification of Plans
-------
REGULATIONS 73
§ 52.1621 Classification of Regions
§ 52.1622 Approval Status
§ 52.1623 RESEEVED
§ 52.1624 Control Strategy and Regulations: Sulfur Oxides
§ 52.1625 Control Strategy: Particulate Matter
§ 52.1626 Compliance Schedules
§ 52.1627 RESERVED
§ 52.1628 RESERVED
§ 52.1629 RESERVED
§ 52.1630 Attainment Dates for National Standards
§ 52.1631 Extensions
3.8hh New York—Subpart HH
§ 52.1670 Identification of Plans
§ 52.1671 Classification of Regions
§ 52.1672 Extensions
§ 52.1673 Approval Status
§ 52.1674 RESERVED
§ 52.1675 Control Strategy and Regulations: Sulfur Oxide
§ 52.1676 Control Strategy: Nitrogen Dioxide
§ 52.1677 Compliance Schedules
§ 52.1678 RESERVED
§ 52.1679 RESERVED
§ 52.1680 RESERVED
§ 52.1681 RESERVED
§ 52.1682 Attainment Dates for National Standards
§ 52.1683 Transportation and Land Use Controls
3.8ii North Carolina—Subpart II
§ 52.1770 Identification of Plans
§ 52.1771 Classification of Regions
§ 52.1772 Approval Status
§ 52.1773 Attainment Dates for National Standards
§ 52.1774 Compliance Schedules
3.8jj North Dakota—Subpart JJ
§ 52.1820 Identification of Plans
§ 52.1821 Classification of Regions
§ 52.1822 Approval Status
§ 52.1823 Attainment Dates for National Standards
S.Skk Ohio—Subpart KK
§ 52.1870 Identification of Plans
§ 52.1871 Classification of Regions
§ 52.1872 Extensions
§ 52.1873 Approval Status
§ 52.1874 RESERVED
§ 52.1875 Attainment Dates for National Standards
§ 52.1876 RESERVED
§ 52.1877 Control Strategy: Photochemical Oxidents (Hydro-
carbons)
§ 52.1878 Inspection and Maintenance Program
3.811 Oklahoma—Subpart LL
§ 52.1920 Identification of Plans
-------
74 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
§ 52.1921 Classification of Regions
§ 52.1922 Approval Status
§ 52.1923 RESERVED
§ 52.1924 RESERVED
§ 52.1925 Attainment Dates for National Standards
3.8mm Oregon—Subpart MM
§ 52.1970 Identification of Plans
§ 52.1971 Classification of Regions
§ 52.1972 Approval Status
§ 52.1973 Attainment Dates for National Standards
§ 52.1974 Transportation and Land Use Controls
§ 52.1975 Compliance Schedules
§ 52.1976 RESERVED
§ 52.1977 RESERVED
§ 52.1978 RESERVED
§ 52.1981 Extension
3.8nn Pennsylvania—Subpart NN
§ 52.2020 Identification of Plans
§ 52.2021 Classification of Regions
§ 52.2022 Extensions
§ 52.2023 Approval Status
§ 52.2024 RESERVED
§ 52.2025 RESERVED
§ 52.2026 RESERVED
§ 52.2027 Control Strategy: Nitrogen Dioxides
§ 52.2028 RESERVED
§ 52.2029 Air Quality Surveillance
§ 52.2030 Source Surveillance
§ 52.2031 Resources
§ 52.2032 Intergovernmental Cooperation
§ 52.2033 Control Strategy: Sulfur Oxides
§ 52.2034 Attainment Dates for National Standards
§ 52.2035 RESERVED
§ 52.2036 Control Strategy: Carbon Monoxide and Photo-
chemical Oxidents (Hydrocarbons)
§ 52.2038 Inspection and Maintenance
§ 52.2039 Air Bleed to Intake Manifold Retrofit
§ 52.2040 Management of Parking Supply
§ 52.2041 Study and Establishment of Bikeways
§ 52.2042 Gasoline Transfer Vapor Control
§ 52.2043 Computer Carpool Matching System
§ 52.2044 Pennsylvania-New Jersey Busways
§ 52.2045 Roosevelt Boulevard Busway Between Grant Ave-
nue and Hunting Park
§ 52,2046 Central Business District Bus and Trolley Ways
and Parking Restrictions
§ 52.2047 Exclusive Busways in Philadelphia Outside the Cen-
tral Business District
§ 52.2048 Exclusive Bus Lanes for Philadelphia Suburbs and
Outlying Areas
§ 52.2049 Specific Express Busways in Allegheny County
-------
REGULATIONS
75
§ 52.2050 Exclusive Bus Lanes for Pittsburgh Suburbs and
Outlying Areas
§ 52.2051 Regulation for Limitation of Public Parking
§ 52.2052 Employer's Provision for Mass Transit Priority
Incentives
§ 52.2053 Monitoring Transportation Mode Trends
3.8oo Rhode Island—Subpart 00
§ 52.2070 Identification of Plans
§ 52.2071 Classification of Regions
§ 52.2072 Approval Status
§ 52.2073 General Requirements
§ 52.2074 Legal Authority
§ 52.2075 Source Surveillance
§ 52.2076 Attainment Dates for National Standards
§ 52.2077 Revisions
§ 52.2078 Enforcement
§ 52.2079 Variances
§ 52.2080 Compliance Schedules
3.8qq South Dakota—Subpart QQ
§ 52.2170 Identification of Plans
§ 52.2171 Classification of Regions
§ 52.2172 Approval Status
§ 52.2173 Legal Authority
§ 52.2174 Attainment Dates for National Standards
3.8rr Tennessee—Subpart RR
§ 52.2220 Identification of Plan
§ 52.2221 Classification of Regions
§ 52.2222 Approval Status
§ 52.2223 Compliance Schedules
§ 52.2224 Legal Authority
§ 52.2227 Prevention of Air Pollution Emergency Episodes
§ 52.2228 RESERVED
§ 52.2229 RESERVED
§ 52.2230 Attainment Dates for National Standards
3.8ss Texas—Subpart SS
§ 52.2270 Identification of Plan
§ 52.2271 Classification of Regions
§ 52.2272 Extensions
§ 52.2275 Control Strategy: Photochemical Oxidants (Hydro-
carbons)
§ 52.2276 Control Strategy and Regulations: Nitrogen Oxide
§ 52.2277 RESERVED
§ 52.2278 RESERVED
§ 52.2279 Attainment Dates for National Standards
§ 52.2280 RESERVED
§ 52.2281 RESERVED
§ 52.2282 Public Hearings
§ 52.2283 Control of Volatile Carbon Compounds
§ 52.2284 Control of Degreasing Operations
§ 52.2285 Control of Evaporative Losses from the Filling of
Storage Vessels by 1976
-------
76 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
§ 52.2286 Control of Evaporative Losses from the Filling of
Storage Vessels by 1975
§ 52.2287 Ship and Barge Loading and Unloading Facilities
§ 52.2288 Control of Evaporative Losses from the Filling of
Vehicular Tanks; Houston, San Antonio, and El
Paso Regions
§ 52.2289 Control of Evaporative Losses from the Filling of
Vehicular Tanks; Dallas-Fort Worth Region
§ 52.2290 Regulation for a Motor Vehicle Inspection and
Maintenance Program
§ 52.2291 Regulation for Vacuum Spark Advance Disconnect
Retrofit
§ 52.2292 Regulation for Limitation of New Reactive Carbon
Compound Emission Sources
§ 52.2293 Gasoline Limitations
§ 52.2294 Preferential Bus/Carpool Treatment
§ 52.2295 Management of Parking Supply
§ 52.2296 Bus/Carpool Matching and Promotion System
§ 52.2297 Employers Provision for Mass Transit Priority
Incentives
§ 52.2298 Monitoring Transportation Mode Trends
3.8tt Utah—Subpart TT
§ 52.2320 Identification of Plans
§ 52.2321 Classification of Regions
§ 52.2322 Extensions
§ 52.2323 Approval Status
§ 52.2324 General Requirements
§ 52.2325 Control Strategy: Sulfur Oxide
§ 52.2326 Control Strategy: Nitrogen Dioxide
§ 52.2327 Compliance Schedules
§ 52.2328 RESERVED
§ 52.2329 Resources
§ 52.2330 Rules and Regulations: Particulate Matter
§ 52.2331 Attainment Dates for National Standards
§ 52.2332 RESERVED
§ 52.2334 Review of New Sources and Modifications
§ 52.2335 Control Strategy: Carbon Monoxide
§ 52.2336 Source Surveillance
§ 52.2337 Inspection and Maintenance Program
§ 52.2338 Air Bleed to Intake Manifold Retrofit
§ 52.2339 Regulation for High-Altitude Efficiency Modification
§ 52.2340 Regulation for Provision of a Bike-Way System
in Provo
§ 52.2341 Regulation for the Limitation of On-Street Parking
in Salt Lake City
§ 52.2342 Regulation for the Provision of a Pedestrian-Ori-
ented Mall in Salt Lake City
§ 52.2343 Monitoring Transportation Controls
3.8uu Vermont—Subpart UU
§ 52.2370 Identification of Plans
§ 52.2371 Classification of Regions
§ 52.2372 Approval Status
-------
REGULATIONS 77
§ 52.2373 Legal Authority
§ 52.2374 General Requirements
§ 52.2375 Attainment Dates for National Standards
3.8w Virginia—Subpart VV
§ 52.2420 Identification of Plans
§ 52.2421 Classification of Regions
§ 52.2422 Extensions
§ 52.2423 Approval Status
§ 52.2424 General Requirements
§ 52.2425 RESERVED
§ 52.2426 Control Strategy and Regulations: Nitrogen Dioxide
§ 52.2427 Source Surveillance
§ 52.2428 Requests for a Two-Year Extension
§ 52.2429 Attainment Dates for National Standards
§ 52.2430 Legal Authority
§ 52.2431 Control Strategy: Carbon Monoxide and Photochem-
ical Oxidants (Hydrocarbons)
§ 52.2432 RESERVED
§ 52.2433 Intergovernmental Cooperation
§ 52.2434 RESERVED
§ 52.2435 Compliance Schedules
§ 52.2436 Rules and Regulations
§ 52.2437 Federal Parking Facilities
§ 52.2438 Gasoline Transfer Vapor Control
§ 52.2439 Control of Evaporative Losses from the Filling of
Vehicular Tanks
§ 52.2440 Control of Dry Cleaning Solvent Evaporation
§ 52.2441 Inspection and Maintenance Program
§ 52.2442 Bicycle Lanes and Bicycle Storage Facilities
§ 52.2443 Management of Parking Supply
§ 52.2444 Medium Duty Air/Fuel Control Retrofit
§ 52.2445 Heavy Duty Air/Fuel Control Retrofit
§ 52.2446 Oxidizing Catalyst Retrofit
§ 52.2447 Vacuum Spark Advance Disconnect Retrofit
3.8ww Washington—Subpart WW
§ 52.2470 Identification of Plans
§ 52.2471 Classification of Regions
§ 52.2472 Extensions
§ 52.2473 Approval Status
§ 52.2474 RESERVED
§ 52.2475 Legal Authority
§ 52.2476 RESERVED
§ 52.2477 Source Surveillance
§ 52.2478 Attainment Dates for National Standards
§ 52.2479 RESERVED
§ 52.2480 RESERVED
§ 52.2481 Compliance Schedules
§ 52.2482 Air Quality Surveillance
§ 52.2483 Resources
§ 52.2484 Control Strategy: Carbon Monoxide and Photo-
chemical Oxidants (Hydrocarbons)
§ 52.2485 Inspection and Maintenance Program
-------
78 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
§ 52.2486 Management of Parking Supply
§ 52.2487 RESERVED
§ 52.2488 Surcharge for Off-Street Parking Facilities
§ 52.2489 Reduction in Parking Spaces
§ 52.2490 Air Bleed to Intake Manifold Retrofit
§ 52.2491 Exhaust Gas Recirculation—Air Bleed
§ 52.2492 Computer Carpool Matching System
§ 52.2493 Transit Improvement Measures
§ 52.2494 Bike Lanes and Bike Racks
3.8xx West Virginia—Subpart XX
§ 52.2520 Identification of Plans
§ 52.2521 Classification of Regions
§ 52.2522 Approval Status
§ 52.2523 Attainment Dates for National Standards
§ 52.2524 Compliance Schedules
3.8yy Wisconsin—Subpart YY
§ 52.2570 Identification of Plans
§ 52.2571 Classification of Regions
§ 52.2572 Approval Status
§ 52.2573 General Requirements
§ 52.2574 Legal Authority
§ 52.2575 RESERVED
§ 52.2576 RESERVED
§ 52.2577 Attainment Dates for National Standards
§ 52.2578 Compliance Schedules
3.8zz Wyoming—Subpart ZZ
§ 52.2620 Identification of Plans
§ 52.2621 Classification of Regions
§ 52.2622 Approval Status
§ 52.2623 Legal Authority
§ 52.2624 General Requirements
§ 52.2625 Review of New Sources and Modification
§ 52.2626 Source Surveillance
§ 52.2627 Attainment Dates for National Standards
3.8aaa Guam—Subpart AAA
§ 52.2670 Identification of Plans
§ 52.2671 Classification of Regions
§ 52.2672 Approval Status
§ 52.2673 Attainment Dates for National Standards
3.8bbb Puerto Rico—Subpart BBB
§ 52.2720 Identification of Plans
§ 52.2721 Classification of Regions
§ 52.2722 Approval Status
§ 52.2723 Attainment Dates for National Standards
3.8ccc Virgin Islands—Subpart CCC
§ 52.2770 Identification of Plans
§ 52.2771 Classification of Regions
§ 52.2772 Approval Status
§ 52.2773 RESERVED
-------
REGULATIONS 79
§ 52.2774 RESERVED
§ 52.2775 Review of New Sources and Modifications
§ 52.2776 Attainment Dates for National Standards
3.8ddd American Samoa—Subpart DDD
§ 52.2820 Identification of Plans
§ 52.2821 Classification of Reg-ions
§ 52.2822 Approval Status
§ 52.2823 Attainment Dates for National Standards
3.8eee Approval and Promulgation of Plans—Subpart EEE
§ 52.2850 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans
3.9 Prior Notice of Citizen Suits, Environmental Protection Agency, 40
C.F.R. §§ 54.1-54.3 (1971)
§ 54.1 Purpose
§ 54.2 Service of Notice
§ 54.3 Contents of Notice
3.10 Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§ 60.1-60.85 (1973)
3.10a General Provisions—Subpart A
§ 60.1 Applicability
§ 60.2 Definitions
§ 60.3 Abbreviations
§ 60.4 Address
§ 60.5 Determination of Construction or Modification
§ 60.6 Review of Plans
§ 60.7 Notification and Record Keeping
§ 60.8 Performance Tests
§ 60.9 Availability of Information
§ 60.10 State Authority
§ 60.11 Compliance With Standards and Maintenance Re-
quirements
3.10b Standards of Performance for Fossil Fuel—Fired Steam Gen-
erators—Subpart D
§ 60.40 Applicability and Designation of Affected Facilities
§ 60.41 Definitions
§ 60.42 Standard for Particulate Matter
§ 60.43 Standard for Sulfur Dioxide
§ 60.44 Standards for Nitrogen Oxides
§ 60.45 Emission and Fuel Monitoring
§ 60.46 Test Methods and Procedures
3,10c Standards of Performance for Incinerators—Subpart C
§ 60.50 Applicability and Designation of Affected Facilities
§ 60.51 Definitions
§ 60.52 Standards for Particulate Matter
§ 60.53 Monitoring of Operations
§ 60.54 Test Methods and Procedures
-------
80 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
3.10d Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plant—Sub-
part D
§ 60.60 Applicability and Designation of Affected Facilities
§ 60.61 Definitions
§ 60.62 Standards for Particulate Matter
§ 60.63 Monitoring of Operations
§ 60.64 Test Methods and Procedures
3.10e Standards of Performance for Nitric Acid Plants—Subpart E
§ 60.70 Applicability and Designation of Affected Facilities
§ 60.71 Definitions
§ 60.72 Standards for Nitrogen Oxide
§ 60.73 Emission Monitoring
§ 60.74 Test Method and Procedure
3.10f Standards of Performance for Sulfuric Acid Plants—Subpart
H
§ 60.80 Applicability and Designation of Affected Facilities
§ 60.81 Definitions
§ 60.82 Standards for Sulfur Dioxide
§ 60.83 Standards for Acid Mist
§ 60.84 Emission Monitoring
§ 60.85 Test Methods and Procedures
3.10g Test Methods—Appendix
Method Number One—Sample and Velocity Transverses for
stationary sources
Method Number Two—Determination of Statgas, Velocity
and Volumetric Flow Rate (Type F Pitot Tube)
Method Number Three—Gas Analysis for Carbon Dioxide, Ex-
cess, Air, and Dry Molecule Weight
Method Number Four—Determination of Moisture in Statgases
Method Number Five-—Determination of Particulate Emission
from Stationary Sources
Method Number Six—Determination of Sulfur Dioxide Emis-
sions from Stationary Sources
Method Number Seven—Determination of Nitrogen Oxide
Emissions from Stationary Sources
Method Number Eight—Determination of Sulfuric Acid Mist
and Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from Stationary Sources
Method Number Nine—Visual Determination of the Opacity
Emissions from Stationary Sources
3.11 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§ 61.01-61.53
3.11a General Provisions—Subpart A
§ 61.01 Applicability
§ 61.02 Definitions
§ 61.03 Abbreviations
§ 61.04 Address
§ 61.05 Prohibited Activities
§ 61.06 Determination of Construction or Modification
-------
REGULATIONS 81
§ 61.07 Application of Approval of Construction or Modi-
fication
§ 61.08 Approval by Administrator
§ 61.09 Notification of Startup
§ 61.10 Source Reporting and Waiver Request
§ 61.11 Waiver of Compliance
§ 61.12 Emission Test and Monitoring
§ 61.13 Waiver of Emission Test
§ 61.14 Source Test Analytical Method
§ 61.15 Availability of Information
§ 61.16 State Authority
3.lib National Emission Standards for Asbestos—Subpart B
§ 61.20 Applicability
§ 61.21 Definitions
§ 61.22 Emission Standards
§ 61.23 Air Cleaning
§ 61.24 Reporting
3.11c National Emission Standards for Beryllium—Subpart C
§ 61.30 Applicability
§ 61.31 Definitions
§ 61.32 Emission Standards
§ 61.33 Stack Sampling
§ 61.34 Air Sampling
3.lid National Emission Standards for Beryllium Rocket Motor Fir-
ing—Subpart D
§ 61.40 Applicability
§ 61.41 Definitions
§ 61.42 Emission Standards
§ 61.43 Emission Testing—Rocket Firing or Propellant Dis-
posal
§ 61.44 Stack Sampling
3.lie National Emission Standards for Mercury—Subpart E
§ 61.50 Applicability
§ 61.51 Definitions
§ 61.52 Emission Standards
§ 61.53 Stack Sampling
Appendix A—Compliance Status Information
Appendix B—Test Methods
Metliod 101—Reference Method for Determination of Particu-
late and Gaseous Mercury Emissions from Stationary Source
(Air Strains)
Method 102'—Reference Method for Determination of Particu-
late and Gaseous Mercury Emissions from Stationary Sources
(Hydrogen Streams)
Method 103—Beryllium Screening Method
Method 104—Reference Method for Determination of Beryllium
Emissions from Stationary Sources
-------
82 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
3.12 Prevention, Control and Abatement of Air Pollution From Federal
Government Activities: Performance Standards and Techniques of
Measurements, Environmental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§ 76.1-
76.9 (1971)
§ 76.1 Definitions
§ 76.2 Intent
§ 76.3 Applicability
§ 76.4 Combustion of Fuel
§ 76.5 Sulfur Oxide
§ 76.6 Stacks
§ 76.7 Storage and Handling of Fuels and Ash
§ 76.8 Disposal of Waste
§ 76.9 Other Pollution Producing Processes
3.13 Registration of Fuel Additives, Environmental Protection Agency,
40 C.F.R. §§ 79.1-79.31 (1971)
3.13a General Provisions—Subpart A
§ 79.1 Applicability
§ 79.2 Definitions
§ 79.3 Confidentiality of Information
§ 79.4 Requirement of Registration
§ 79.5 Reports of Additive Usage
3.13b Registration Procedures—Subpart B
§ 79.10 Notification by Fuel Manufacturer or Processor
§ 79.11 Information and Assurance to be Provided by the
Fuel Manufacturer or Processor
§ 79.12 Action by the Administrator
§ 79.13 Notification by the Additive Manufacturer
§ 79.14 Information and Assurance to be Provided by the
Additive Manufacturer
§ 79.15 Determination of Non-Compliance
§ 79.16 Registration
3.13c Withdrawal of Registration—Subpart C
§ 79.20 Withdrawal of Registration: Fuel Manufacturer or
Processor
§ 79.21 Withdrawal of Registration: Additive Manufacturer
3.13d Designation of Fuels—Subpart D
§ 79.30 Scope
§ 79.31 Motor Gasolines
3.14 Registration of Fuels and Fuel Additives, Environmental Protection
Agency, 40 U.S.C. §§ 80.1-80.24 (1973)
3.14a General Provisions—Subpart A
§ 80.1 Scope
§ 80.2 Definitions
§ 80.3 Test Methods
§ 80.4 Right of Entry: Tests and Inspections
§ 80.5 Penalties
3.14b Controls and Prohibitions—Subpart B
-------
REGULATIONS 83
§ 80.20 Controls Applicable to Gasoline Eefiners
§ 80.21 Controls Applicable to Gasoline Distributors
§ 80.22 Controls Applicable to Gasoline Retailers
§ 80.23 Liability for Violations
§ 80.24 Controls Applicable to Motor Vehicle Manufacturers
§ 80.25 Controls Applicable to Lead Additive Manufacturers
§ 80.26 Confidentiality of Information
3.15 Air Quality Control Regions, Criteria, and Control Techniques
3.15a Meaning of Terms—Subpart A
§ 81.1 Definitions
3.15b Designation of Air Quality Control Regions—Subpart B
§ 81.11 Scope
§ 81.12 National Capital Interstate Air Quality Control Re-
gion (District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia)
§ 81.13 New Jersey-New York-Connecticut Interstate Air
Quality Control Region
§ 81.14 Metropolitan Chicago Interstate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.15 Metropolitan Philadelphia Interstate Air Quality
Control Region (Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Dela-
ware)
§ 81.16 Metropolitan Denver, Colo., Intrastate Air Quality
Control Region
§ 81.17 Metropolitan Los Angeles Air Quality Control Re-
gion
§ 81.18 Metropolitan St. Louis Interstate Air Quality Con-
trol Region (Missouri-Illinois)
§ 81.19 Metropolitan Boston Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.20 Metropolitan Cincinnati Interstate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.21 The San Francisco Bay Area Intrastate Air Quality
Control Region
§ 81.22 Greater Metropolitan Cleveland Intrastate Air Qual-
ity Control Region
§ 81.23 Southwest Pennsylvania Intrastate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.24 Niagara Frontier Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.25 Metropolitan Kansas City Intrastate Air Quality
Control Region
§ 81.26 Hartford - New Haven - Springfield Interstate Air
Quality Control Region
§ 81.27 Minneapolis-St. Paul Intrastate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.28 Metropolitan Baltimore Intrastate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.29 Metropolitan Indianapolis Intrastate Air Quality
Control Region
§ 81.30 Southeastern Wisconsin Intrastate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
-------
84 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
§ 81.31 Metropolitan Providence Interstate Air Quality
Control Region
§ 81.32 Puget Sound Intrastate Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.33 Stuebenville-Weirton-Wheeling Interstate Air Qual-
ity Control Region
§ 81.34 Metropolitan Dayton Intrastate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.35 Louisville Interstate Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.36 Phoenix-Tucson Intrastate Air Quality Control Re-
gion
§ 81.37 Metropolitan Detroit-Fort Huron Intrastate Air
Quality Control Region
§ 81.38 Metropolitan Houston-Galveston Intrastate Air
Quality Control Region
§ 81.39 Metropolitan Dallas-Port Worth Intrastate Air
Quality Control Region
§ 81.40 Metropolitan San Antonio Intrastate Air Quality
§ 81.41 Metropolitan Birmingham Intrastate Air Quality
Control Region
§ 81.42 Chattanooga Interstate Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.43 Metropolitan Toledo Interstate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.44 Metropolitan Memphis Interstate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.45 Metropolitan Atlanta Intrastate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.46 U.S. Virgin Islands Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.47 Metropolitan Oklahoma City Intrastate Air Quality
Control Region
§ 81.48 Champlain Valley Interstate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.49 Southeast Florida Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.50 Metropolitan Omaha-Council Bluffs Interstate Air
Quality Control Region
§ 81.51 Portland Interstate Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.52 Wasatch Front Intrastate Air Quality Control Re-
gion
§ 81.53 Southern Louisiana-Southeastern Texas Interstate
Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.54 Cook Inlet Intrastate Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.55 Northeast Pennsylvania-Upper Delaware Valley In-
terstate Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.57 Eastern Tennessee-South western Virginia Interstate
Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.58 Columbus (Georgia)—Phenix City (Alabama) In-
terstate Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.59 Cumberland-Keyser Interstate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.60 Duluth (Minnesota)-Superior (Wisconsin) Inter-
state Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.61 Evansville (Indiana)-Owensboro-Henderson (Ken-
tucky) Interstate Air Quality Control Region
-------
REGULATIONS 85
§ 81.62 Northeastern Mississippi Intrastate Air Quality
Control Region
§ 81.63 Metropolitan Fort Smith Interstate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.64 Huntington (West Virginia)-Ashland (Kentucky)-
Portsmouth-Ironton (Ohio) Interstate Air Quality
Control Region
§ 81.65 Joplin (Missouri)-Northeast Oklahoma Interstate
Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.66 Southeastern Minnesota-La Crosse (Wisconsin) In-
terstate Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.67 Lake Michigan Intrastate Air Quality Control Re-
gion
§ 81.68 Mobile (Alabama)-Pensacola (Panama City, Flor-
ida) Southern Missouri Interstate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.69 Paducah (Kentucky)—Cairo (Illinois) Interstate
Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.70 Parkersburg (West Virginia)-Marietta (Ohio) In-
terstate Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.71 Rockford (Illinois)-Janesville-Beloit (Wisconsin)
Interstate Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.72 Tennessee River Valley (Alabama)-Cumberland
Mountains (Tennessee) Interstate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.73 South Bend-Elkhart (Indiana)-Bennington Har-
bor (Michigan) Interstate Air Quality Control Re-
gion
§ 81.74 Northwest Pennsylvania-Youngstown Interstate Air
Quality Control Region
§ 81.75 Metropolitan Charlotte Interstate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.76 State of Hawaii Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.77 Puerto Rico Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.78 Metropolitan Portland Intrastate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.79 Northeastern Oklahoma Intrastate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.80 Clark-Mohave Interstate Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.81 Merrimack Valley-Southern New Hampshire Inter-
state Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.82 El Paso-Las Cruces-Alamogordo Interstate Air
Quality Control Region
§ 81.83 Albuquerque Mid-Rio Grande Intrastate Air Qual-
ity Control Region
§ 81.84 Metropolitan Fargo-Moorhead Interstate Air Qual-
ity Control Region
§ 81.85 Metropolitan Sioux Falls Interstate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.86 Metropolitan Sioux City Interstate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.87 Metropolitan Boise Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
-------
86 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
§ 81.88 Metropolitan Billings Intrastate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.89 Metropolitan Cheyenne Intrastate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.90 Androscoggin Valley Interstate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.91 Jacksonville (Florida)-Brunswick (Georgia) Inter-
state Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.92 Monroe (Louisiana)-El Dorado (Arkansas) Inter-
state Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.93 Metropolitan Norfolk Intrastate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.94 Shreveport-Texarkana-Tyler Interstate Air Quality
Control Region
§ 81.95 Central Florida Intrastate Air Quality Control Re-
gion
§ 81.96 West Central Florida Intrastate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.97 Southwest Florida Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.98 Burlington-Keokuk Interstate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.99 Arizona-New Mexico Southern Border Interstate
Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.100 Eastern Washington-Northern Idaho Interstate Air
Quality Control Region
§ 81.101 Metropolitan Dubuque Interstate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.102 Metropolitan Quad Cities Interstate Air Quality
Control Board
§ 81.104 Central Pennsylvania Intrastate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.105 Southern Central Pennsylvania Intrastate Air Qual-
ity Control Region
§ 81.106 Greenville-Spartansburg Intrastate Air Quality
Control Region
§ 81.107 Greenwood Interstate Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.108 Columbia Intrastate Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.109 Florence Intrastate Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.110 Camden-Sumter Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.111 Georgetown Intrastate Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.112 Charleston Interstate Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.113 Savannah (Georgia)-Buford (South Carolina) In-
terstate Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.114 Augusta (Georgia)-Aiken (South Carolina) Inter-
state Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.115 Northwest Nevada Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.116 Northern Missouri Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.117 Southeast Missouri Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
-------
REGULATIONS 87
§ 81.118 Southwest Missouri Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.119 Western Tennessee Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81,120 Middle Tennessee Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.121 Four Corners Interstate Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.122 Mississippi Delta Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.123 Southeastern Oklahoma Interstate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.124 North Carolina-Oklahoma Intrastate Air Quality
Control Region
§ 81.125 Southwestern Oklahoma Intrastate Air Quality
Control Region
§ 81.126 Northwestern Oklahoma Intrastate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.127 Central New York Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.128 Genesee-Finger Lakes Intrastate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.129 Hudson Valley Intrastate Air Quality Control Re-
gion
§ 81.130 Southern Tier East Intrastate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.131 Southern Tier West Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.132 Abilene-Wichita Falls Intrastate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.133 Amarillo-Lubbock Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.134 Austin-Waco Intrastate Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.135 Brownsville-Laredo Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.136 Corpus Christi-Victoria Intrastate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.137 Midland-Odessa-San Angelo Intrastate Air Quality
Control Region
§ 81.138 Central Arkansas Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.139 Northeast Arkansas Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.140 Northwest Arkansas Intrastate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.141 Berkshire Intrastate Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.142 Central Massachusetts Intrastate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.143 Central Virginia Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.144 Northeastern Virginia Intrastate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.145 State Capitol Intrastate Air Quality Control Region
-------
88 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
§ 81.146 Valley of Virginia Interstate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.147 Eastern Mountain Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.148 Eastern Piedmont Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.149 Northern Coastal Plain Intrastate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.150 Northern Piedmont Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.151 Sand Hills Intrastate Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.152 Southern Coastal Plain Intrastate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.153 Western Mountain Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.154 Eastern Shore Intrastate Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.155 Central Maryland Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.156 Southern Maryland Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.157 North Central Wisconsin Intrastate Air Quality
Control Region
§ 81.158 Southern Wisconsin Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.159 Great Basin Valley Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.160 North Central Coast Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.161 North Coast Intrastate Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.162 Northeast Plateau Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.163 Sacramento Valley Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.164 San Diego Intrastate Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.165 San Joaquin Valley Intrastate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.166 South Central Coast Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.167 Southeast Desert Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.168 Great Falls Intrastate Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.169 Helena Intrastate Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.170 Miles City Intrastate Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.171 Missoula Intrastate Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.172 Comanche Intrastate Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.173 Grand Mesa Intrastate Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.174 Pawnee Intrastate Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.175 San Isabella Intrastate Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.176 San Luis Intrastate Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.177 Yampa Intrastate Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.178 Southern Delaware Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.179 Aroostock Intrastate Air Quality Control Region
-------
REGULATIONS 89
§ 81.181 Down East Intrastate Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.182 Northwest Maine Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.183 Eastern Connecticut Intrastate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.184 Northwestern Connecticut Intrastate Air Quality
Control Region
§ 81.185 Northern Washington Intrastate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.187 Olympic-Northwest Washington Intrastate Air
Quality Control Region
§ 81.189 South Central Washington Intrastate Air Quality
Control Region
§ 81.190 Eastern Idaho Intrastate Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.191 Appalachian Intrastate Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.192 Bluegrass Intrastate Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.193 North Central Kentucky Intrastate Air Quality
Control Region
§ 81.194 South Central Kentucky Intrastate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.195 Central Michigan Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.196 South Central Michigan Intrastate Air Quality
Control Region
§ 81.197 Upper Michigan Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.199 East Alabama Intrastate Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.200 Metropolitan Columbus Intrastate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.201 Mansfield-Marion Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.202 Northwest Ohio Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.203 Sandusky Intrastate Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.204 Wilmington-Chillicothe-Logan Intrastate Air Qual-
ity Control Region
§ 81.205 Zanesville-Cambridge Intrastate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.213 Casper Intrastate Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.214 Black Hills-Rapid City Intrastate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.215 East Central Indiana Intrastate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.216 Northeast Indiana Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.217 Southern Indiana Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.218 Wabash Valley Intrastate Air Quality Control Re-
gion
§ 81.219 Central Oregon Intrastate Air Quality Control Re-
gion
§ 81.220 Eastern Oregon Intrastate Air Quality Control Re-
gion
-------
90 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
§ 81.221 Southwest Oregon Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.226 Lincoln-Beatrice-Fairbury Intrastate Air Quality
Control Region
§ 81.230 Allegheny Intrastate Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.231 Central West Virginia Intrastate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.232 Eastern Panhandle Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.233 Kanawha Valley Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.234 North Central West Virginia Intrastate Air Quality
Control Region
§ 81.235 Southern West Virginia Intrastate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.236 Central Georgia Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.237 Northeast Georgia Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.238 Southwest Georgia Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.239 Upper Rio Grande Valley Intrastate Air Quality
Control Region
§ 81.240 Northeastern Plains Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.241 Southwestern Mountains-Augustine Plains Intra-
state Air Quality Control Region
§ 81.242 Pecos-Permian Basin Intrastate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.243 Central Minnesota Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.244 Northwest Minnesota Intrastate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.245 Southwest Minnesota Intrastate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.246 Northern Alaska Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.247 South Central Alaska Intrastate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.248 Southeastern Alaska Intrastate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.249 Northwest Oregon Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.250 North Central Kansas Intrastate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.251 Northeast Kansas Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.252 Northwest Kansas Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.253 South Central Kansas Intrastate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.254 Southeast Kansas Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
-------
REGULATIONS 91
§ 81.255 Sonthwest Kansas Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.256 Northeast Iowa Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.257 North Central Iowa Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.258 Northwest Iowa Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.259 Southwest Iowa Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.260 South Central Iowa Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.261 Southeast Iowa Intrastate Air Quality Control Re-
gion
§ 81.262 North Central Illinois Intrastate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.263 East Central Illinois Intrastate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.264 West Central Illinois Intrastate Air Quality Con-
trol Region
§ 81.265 Southeast Illinois Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
§ 81.266 Alabama and Tombigbee Rivers Intrastate Air Qual-
ity Control Region
§ 81.267 Southeast Alabama Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region
3.16 Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles and New Motor
Vehicle Engines, Environmental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§
85.001-85.1608 (1973)
3.16a Emission Regulations for New Gasoline-Fuel Light Duty Ve-
hicles—Subpart A
§ 85.001 General Applicability
§ 85.002 Definitions
§ 85.003 Abbreviations
§ 85.004 General Standards: Increase in Emissions; Un-
safe Conditions
§ 85.005 Hearings on Certification
§ 85.006 Maintenance of Records; Submittal of Informa-
tion; Right of Entry
§ 85.074—1 Emission Standards for 1974 Model Year Ve-
hicles
§ 85.074—2 Application of Certification
§ 85.074—3 Approval of Procedure and Equipment; Test
Fleet Selections
§ 85.074—4 Required Data
§ 85.074—5 Test Vehicles
§ 85.074—6 Maintenance
§ 85.074—7 Mileage Accumulation and Emission Measure-
ments
§ 85.074—8 Special Test Procedures
§ 85.074—9 Test Procedures
-------
92
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
§ 85.074-10 Gasoline Fuel Specifications
§ 85.074-11 Vehicle and Engine Preparation (Fuel Evapora-
tive Emissions)
§ 85.074-12 Vehicle Preconditioning (Fuel Evaporative Emis-
sions)
§ 85.074-13 Evaporative Emissions Collection Procedures
§ 85.074-14 Dynamometer Driving Schedule
§ 85.074-15 Dynamometer Procedure
§ 85.074-16 Three-speed Manual Transmission
§ 85.074-17 Four-speed and Five-speed Manual Transmission
§ 85.074-18 Automatic Transmission
§ 85.074-19 Engine Starting and Restarting
§ 85.074-20 Sampling and Analytical System (Exhaust Emis-
sions)
§ 85.074-21 Sampling and Analytical System (Fuel Evapora-
tive Emission)
§ 85.074-22 Information to be Recorded
§ 85.074-23 Analytical System Calibration and Sample
Handling
§ 85.074-24 Dynamometer Test Runs
§ 85.074-25 Chart Reading
§ 85.074-26 Calculations (Exhaust Emissions)
§ 85.074-27 Calculations (Evaporative Emissions)
§ 85.074-28 Compliance with Emission Standards
§ 85.074-29 Testing by the Administrator
§ 85.074-30 Certification
§ 85.074-31 Separate Certification
§ 85.074-32 Addition of a Vehicle After Certification
§ 85.074-33 Changes to a Vehicle Covered by Certification
§ 85.074-34 Alternative Procedure for Notification of Addi-
tion and Changes
§ 85.074-35 Labeling
§ 85.074-36 Emission of Vehicle Identification Numbers
§ 85.074-37 Production Vehicles
§ 85.074-38 Maintenance Instructions
§ 85.074-39 Submission of Maintenance Instructions
§ 85.075—1 Standards for Exhaust Emissions
§ 85.075—2 Application for Certification
§ 85.075—3 Approval of Procedure and Equipment: Test
Fleet Selections
§ 85.075—4 Required Data
§ 85.075—5 Test Vehicles
§ 85.075—6 Maintenance
§ 85.075—7 Mileage Accumulation and Emission Measure-
ments
§ 85.075—8 Special Test Procedures
§ 85.075—9 Test Procedures
§ 85.075-10 Gasoline Specifications
§ 85.075-11 Vehicle and Engine Preparation (Fuel Evapora-
tive Emissions)
§ 85.075-12 Vehicle Pre-conditioning (Fuel Evaporative
Emissions)
§ 85.075-13 Evaporative Emission Collection Procedures
-------
REGULATIONS
93
§ 85.075-14 Dynamometer Driving Schedule
§ 85.075-15 Dynamometer Procedure
§ 85.075-16 Three-speed Manual Transmissions
§ 85.075-17 Four-speed and Five-speed Manual Transmis-
sions
§ 85.075-18 Automatic Transmissions
§ 85.075-19 Engine Starting and Restarting
§ 85.075-20 Sampling and Analytical System (Exhaust
Emissions)
§ 85.075-21 Sampling and Analytical System (Fuel Evapora-
tive Emissions)
§ 85.075-22 Information to be Recorded
§ 85.075-23 Analytical System Calibration and Sample Han-
ling
§ 85.075-24 Dynamometer Test Runs
§ 85.075-25 Chart Reading
§ 85.075-26 Calculations (Exhaust Emissions)
§ 85.075-27 Calculations (Fuel Evaporative Emissions)
§ 85.075-28 Compliance with Emission Standards
§ 85.075-29 Testing by the Administrator
§ 85.075-30 Certification
§ 85.075-31 Separate Certification
§ 85.075-32 Addition of a Vehicle After Certification
§ 85.075-33 Changes to a Vehicle Covered by Certification
§ 85.075-34 Alternative Procedures for Notification of Addi-
tions and Changes
§ 85.075-35 Labeling
§ 85.075-36 Emission of Vehicle Identification Numbers
§ 85.075-37 Production Vehicles
§ 85.075-38 Maintenance Instructions
§ 85.075-39 Submission of Maintenance Instructions
§ 85.076—1 Emission Standards for 1976 Model Year Ve-
hicles
3.16b Emission Regulations for New Diesel Light Duty Vehicles—
Subpart B
§ 85.101 General Applicability
§ 85.102 Definitions
§ 85.103 Abbreviations
§ 85.104 General Standards; Increase in Emissions; Un-
safe Conditions
§ 85.105 Hearings on Certification
§ 85.106 Maintenance of Records; Submittal of Informa-
tion; Right of Entry
§ 85.175—1 Emission Standards for 1975 Model Year Vehicles
§ 85.175—2 Application for Certification
§ 85.175—3 Approval of Procedure and Equipment; Test
Fleet Selections
§ 85.175—4 Required Data
§ 85.175—5 Test Vehicles
§ 85.175—6 Maintenance
§ 85.175—7 Mileage Accumulation and Emission Measure-
ments
-------
94 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
§ 85.175—8 Special Test Procedures
§ 85.175—9 Test Procedures
§ 85.175-10 Diesel Fuel Specifications
§ 85.175-11 Vehicle Preconditioning
§ 85.175-12 Dynamometer Driving Schedule
§ 85.175-13 Dynamometer Procedure
§ 85.175-14 Three-Speed Manual Transmissions
§ 85.175-15 Four-Speed and Five-Speed Manual Transmis-
sions
§ 85.175-16 Automatic Transmissions
§ 85.175-17 Engine Starting and Re-Starting
§ 85.175-18 Sampling and Analytical System
§ 85.175-19 Information to be Recorded
§ 85.175-20 Analytical System Calibration and Sample Han-
dling
§ 85.175-21 Dynamometer Test Runs
§ 85.175-22 Chart Reading
§ 85.175-23 Calculations (Exhaust Emissions)
§ 85.175-24 RESERVED
§ 85.175-25 RESERVED
§ 85.175-26 RESERVED
§ 85.175-27 RESERVED
§ 85.175-28 Compliance With Emission Standards
§ 85.175-29 Testing by the Administrator
§ 85.175-30 Certification
§ 85.175-31 Separate Certification
§ 85.175-32 Addition of a Vehicle After Certification
§ 85.175-33 Changes to a Vehicle Covered by Certification
§ 85.175-34 Alternative Procedure for Notification of Addi-
tions and Changes
§ 85.175-35 Labeling
§ 85.175-36 Submission of Vehicle Identification Numbers
§ 85.175-37 Production Vehicles
§ 85.175-38 Maintenance Instructions
§ 85.175-39 Submission of Maintenance Instructions
§ 85.176—1 Emission Standards for 1976 Model Year Vehicles
3.16c RESERVED—Subpart C—G
3.16h Emission Regulations for New Gasoline Fueled Heavy-Duty
Engines—Subpart H
§ 85.701 General Applicability
§ 85.702 Definitions
§ 85.703 Abbreviations
§ 85.704 General Standards; Increase in Emissions; Un-
safe Conditions
§ 85.705 Hearings on Certification
§ 85.706 Maintenance of Records; Submittal of Informa-
tion; Right of Entry
§ 85.773—1 Emission Standards for 1973 Model Year En-
gines
§ 85.773—2 Application for Certification
§ 85.773—3 Approval of Procedure and Equipment; Test
Fleet Selections
-------
REGULATIONS
95
§ 85.773—4 Required Data
§ 85.773—5 Test Engines
§ 85.773—6 Maintenance
§ 85.773—7 Service Accumulation and Emission Measure-
ment
§ 85.773—8 Special Test Procedures
§ 85.773—9 Test Procedures
§ 85.773-10 Gasoline Fuel Specifications
§ 85.733-11 Dynamometer Operations Cycle and Equipment
§ 85.773-12 Dynamometer Procedures
§ 85.773-13 Sampling and Analytical Systems for Measuring
Exhaust Emissions
§ 85.773-14 Information to be Recorded and Charts
§ 85.773-15 Calibration and Instrument Checks
§ 85.773-16 Dynamometer Test Run
§ 85.773-17 Chart Reading
§ 85.773-18 Calculations
§ 85.773-19 RESERVED
§ 85.773-20 RESERVED
§ 85.773-21 RESERVED
§ 85.773-22 RESERVED
§ 85.773-23 RESERVED
§ 85.773-24 RESERVED
§ 85.773-25 RESERVED
§ 85.773-26 RESERVED
§ 85.773-27 RESERVED
§ 85.773-28 Compliance With Emission Standards
§ 85.773-29 Testing by the Administrator
§ 85.773-30 Certification
§ 85.773-31 Separate Certification
§ 85.773-32 Addition of an Engine After Certification
§ 85.773-33 Changes to an Engine Covered by Certification
§ 85.773-34 Alternative Procedures for Notification of Addi-
tions and Changes
§ 85.773-35 Labeling
§ 85.773-36 RESERVED
§ 85.773-37 Production Engines
§ 85.773-38 Maintenance Instructions
§ 85.773-39 Submission of Maintenance Instructions
§ 85.774—1 Emission Standards for 1974 Model-Year Engines
§ 85.774—2 Application for Certification
§ 85.774—3 Approval of Procedure and Equipment; Test
Fleet Selections
§ 85.774—4 Required Data
§ 85.774—5 Test Engines
§ 85.774—6 Maintenance
§ 85.774—7 Service Accumulation and Emission Measure-
ments
§ 85.774—8 Special Test Procedures
§ 85.774—9 Test Procedures
§ 85.774-10 Gasoline Fuel Specifications
§ 85.774-11 Hydrometer Operations Cycle and Equipment
-------
96 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
§ 85.774-12 Hydrometer Procedures
§ 85.775-13 Sampling and Analytical System Measuring Ex-
haust Emissions
§ 85.774-14 Information to be Recorded
§ 85.774-15 Calibration and Instrument Checks
§ 85.774-16 Dynamometer Test Runs
§ 85.774-17 Chart Reading
§ 85.774-18 Calculations
§ 85.774-19 RESERVED
§ 85.774-20 RESERVED
§ 85.774-21 RESERVED
§ 85.774-22 RESERVED
§ 85.774-23 RESERVED
§ 85.774-24 RSERVED
§ 85.774-25 RESERVED
§ 85.774-26 RESERVED
§ 85.774-27 RESERVED
§ 85.774-28 Compliance With Emission Standards
§ 85.774-29 Testing by the Administrator
§ 85.774-30 Certification
§ 85.774-31 Separate Certification
§ 85.774-32 Addition of Engine After Certification
§ 85.774-33 Changes to an Engine Covered by Certification
§ 85.774-34 Alternative Procedures for Notification of Addi-
tions and Changes
§ 85.774-35 Labeling
§ 85.774-36 RESERVED
§ 85.774-37 Production Engines
§ 85.774-38 Maintenance Instructions
§ 85.774-39 Submission of Maintenance Instructions
3.16i Engine Smoke Exhaust Emission Regulations for New Diesel
Heavy-Duty Engines—Subpart I
§ 85.801 General Applicability
§ 85.803 Abbreviations
§ 85.802 Definitions
§ 85.804 General Standards: Increase in Emissions; Un-
safe Conditions
§ 85.805 Hearing on Certifications
§ 85.806 Maintenance of Records; Submittal of Informa-
tion; Right of Entry
§ 85.873—1 Smoke Exhaust Emission Standards for 1973
Model Year Engines
§ 85.873—2 Application for Certification
§ 85.873—3 Approval of Procedure and Equipment; Test
Fleet Selections
§ 85.873—4 Required Data
§ 85.873—5 Test Engines
§ 85.873—6 Maintenance
§ 85.873—7 Service Accumulation in Emission Measurement
§ 85.873—8 Special Test Procedures
§ 85.873—9 Test Procedures
-------
REGULATIONS
97
§ 85.873-10 Diesel Fuel Specifications
§ 85.873-11 Dynamometer Operation Cycle for Smoke Emis-
sion Test
§ 85.874-12 Dynamometer and Engine Equipment
§ 85.873-13 Smoke Measurement Systems
§ 85.873-14 Information to be Recorded
§ 85.873-15 Instrument Checks
§ 85.873-16 Test Run
§ 85.873-17 Chart Reading
§ 85.873-18 Calculations
§ 85.873-19 RESERVED
§ 85.873-20 RESERVED ,
§ 85.873-21 RESERVED
§ 85.873-22 RESERVED
§ 85.873-23 RESERVED
§ 85.873-24 RESERVED
§ 85.873-25 RESERVED
§ 85.873-26 RESERVED
§ 85.873-27 RESERVED
§ 85.873-28 Compliance with Emission Standards
§ 85.873-29 Testing by the Administrator
§ 85.873-30 Certification
§ 85.873-31 Separate Certification
§ 85.873-32 Addition of an Engine After Certification
§ 85.873-33 Changes to an Engine Covered by Certification
§ 85.873-34 Alternative Procedures for Notification of Addi-
tives and Changes
§ 85.873-35 Labeling
§ 85.873-36 RESERVED
§ 85.873-37 Production Engines
§ 85.873-38 Maintenance Instructions
§ 85.873-39 Submission of Maintenance Instructions
§ 85.874—1 Smoke Exhaust Emission Standards for 1974
Model-Year Engines
§ 85.874—2 Application for Certification
§ 85.874—3 Approval of Procedure and Equipment; Test
Fleet Selections
§ 85.874—4 Required Data
§ 85.874—5 Test Engines
§ 85.874—6 Maintenance
§ 85.874—7 Service Accumulation and Emission Measure-
ments
§ 85.874—8 Special Test Procedures
§ 85.874—9 Test Procedures
§ 85.874-10 Diesel Fuel Specifications
§ 85.974-11 Dynamometer Procedure
Levels
§ 85.974-12 Dynamometer and Engine Equipment
§ 85.874-13 Smoke Measurement System
§ 85.874-14 Information to be Recorded
§ 85.874-15 Instrument Checks
§ 85.874-16 Test Run
-------
98
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
§ 85.874-17 Chart Reading
§ 85.874-18 Calculations
§ 85.874-19 RESERVED
§ 85.874-20 RESERVED
§ 85.874-21 RESERVED
§ 85.874-22 RESERVED
§ 85.874-23 RESERVED
§ 85.874-24 RESERVED
§ 85.874-25 RESERVED
§ 85.874-26 RESERVED
§ 85.874-27 RESERVED
§ 85.874-28 Compliance With Emission Standards
§ 85.874-29 Testing by the Administrator
§ 85.874-30 Certification
§ 85.874-31 Separate Certification
§ 85.874-32 Addition of an Engine After Certification
§ 85.874-33 Changes to an Engine Covered by Certification
§ 85.874-34 Alternative Procedures for Notification of Addi-
tives and Changes
§ 85.874-35 Labeling
§ 85.874-36 RESERVED
§ 85.874-37 Production Engines
§ 85.874-38 Maintenance Instructions
§ 85.874-39 Submission of Maintenance Instructions
3.16J Engine Exhaust Gaseous Emission Regulations for New Diesel
Heavy-Duty Engines—Subpart J
§ 85.901 General Applicability
§ 85.902 Definitions
§ 85.903 Abbreviations
§ 85.904 General Standards: Increase in Emissions; Un-
safe Conditions
§ 85.905 Hearings of Certification
§ 85.906 Maintenance of Records; Submittal of Informa-
tion; Right of Entry
§ 85.974—1 Exhaust Gaseous Emission Standards for 1974
Model-Year Engines
§ 85.974—2 Application for Certification
§ 85.974—3 Approval of Procedure and Equipment; Test
Fleet Selection
§ 85.974—4 Required Data
§ 85.874—5 Test Engines
§ 85.974—6 Maintenance
§ 85.974—7 Service Accumulation and Emission Measure-
ments
§ 85.974—8 Special Test Procedures
§ 85.974—9 Test Procedures
§ 85.974-10 Diesel Fuel Specifications
§ 85.974-11 Dynamometer Procedure
§ 85.974-12 Dynamometer and Engine Equipment
§ 85.974-13 Sampling and Analytical Methods
§ 85.974-14 Information to be Recorded
§ 85.974-15 Calibration and Instrument Check
-------
REGULATIONS
99
§ 85.974-16 Test Run
§ 85.974-17 Chart Reading
§ 85.974-18 Calculations
§ 85.974-19 RESERVED
§ 85.974-20 RESERVED
§ 85.974-21 RESERVED
§ 85.974-22 RESERVED
§ 85.974-23 RESERVED
§ 85.974-24 RESERVED
§ 85.974-25 RESERVED
§ 85.974-26 RESERVED
§ 85.874-27 RESERVED
§ 85.874-28 Compliance With Emission Standards
§ 85.974-29 Testing by the Administrator
§ 85.974-30 Certification
§ 85.974-31 Separate Certification
§ 85.974-32 Addition of an Engine After Certification
§ 85.974-33 Changes to an Engine Covered by Certification
§ 85.974-34 Alternative Procedures for Notification of Addi-
tives and Changes
§ 85.974-35 Labeling
§ 85.974-36 RESERVED
§ 85.974-37 Production Engines
§ 85.974-38 Maintenance Instructions
§ 85.974-39 Submission of Maintenance Instructions
3.16k RESERVED—Subpart K through 0
3.16p Importation of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Engines—
Subpart P
§ 85.1501 Applicability
§ 85.1502 Admissions for Testing
§ 85.1503 Admission Pending Certification
§ 85.1504 Admission Pending Modification
§ 85.1505 Admission Pending Receipt of Information
§ 85.1506 Waiver of Condition of Emission
§ 85.1507 Storage and Prohibited Operation or Sale of Ve-
hicles or Engines Conditionally Admitted
§ 85.1508 Prohibited Importation; Penalties
3.16q Low Emission Vehicles—Subpart Q
§ 85.1601 Definitions
§ 85.1602 Low-Emission Vehicles
§ 85.1603 Application for Certification
§ 85.1604 Test Vehicle Section
§ 85.1605 Date of Reporting
§ 85.1606 Testing by the Administrator
§ 85.1607 Administrator's Determination
§ 85.1608 Post Certification Testing
APPENDIX /—EPA Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule
APPENDIX II—Procedure for Dynamometer Road Horse
Power Calibration
-------
100 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
APPENDIX HI—Constant Volume Sampler Flow Calibration
APPENDIX IV—Durability Driving Schedule
APPENDIX V— Oxides of Nitrogen and Analytical System
APPENDIX VI—Vehicle and Engine Components
3.17 Control of Air Pollution From Aircraft and Aircraft Engines, En-
vironmental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§ 87.1-87.100 (1973)
3.17a General Provisions—Subpart A
§ 87.1 Definitions
§ 87.2 Abbreviations
§ 87.3 General Requirements
§ 87.4 Test Conditions
§ 87.5 Special Test Procedures
§ 87.6 Aircraft Safety
3.17b Engine Fuel Venting Emissions (New and In-Use Aircraft
Gas Turbine Engines)—Subpart B
§ 87.10 Applicability
§ 87.11 Standard for Fuel Venting Emissions
3.17c Exhaust Emissions (New Aircraft Gas Turbine Engines)
Subpart C
§ 87.20 Applicability
§ 87.21 Standards for Exhaust Emissions
3.17d Exhaust Emissions (In-Use Aircraft Gas Turbine Engines)
Subpart D
§ 87.30 Applicability
§ 87.31 Standards for Exhaust Emissions
3.17e Exhaust Emissions (New and In-Use Aircraft Piston En-
gines) Subpart E
§ 87.40 Applicability
§ 87.41 Standards for Exhaust Emissions (New Aircraft
Piston Engines)
§ 87.42 Standards for Exhaust Emissions (In-Use Aircraft
Piston Engines)
3.17f Exhaust Emissions (New and In-Use Aircraft)—Subpart F
§ 87.50 Applicability
§ 87.51 Standards for Exhaust Emissions (New Aircraft)
§ 87.52 Standards for Exhaust Emissions (In-Use Aircraft)
3.17g Test Procedures for Engine Exhaust Gaseous Emissions (Air-
craft and Aircraft Gas Turbine Engines)—Subpart G
§ 87.60 Introduction
§ 87.61 Turbine Fuel Specifications
§ 87.62 Test Procedure (Propulsion Engines)
§ 87.63 Test Procedure (Auxiliary Power Units)
§ 87.64 Sampling and Analytical System for Measuring Ex-
haust Emissions
-------
REGULATIONS 101
§ 87.65 Information to be Recorded
§ 87.66 Calibration and Instrument Checks
§ 87.67 Sampling Procedures
§ 87.68 Test Run
§ 87.69 Chart Reading
§ 87.70 Calculations
§ 87.71 Compliance With Emission Standards
3.17h Test Procedures for Engine Smoke Emissions (Aircraft Gas
Turbine Engines)—Subpart H
§ 87.80 Introduction
§ 87.81 Fuel Specifications
§ 87.82 Sampling and Analytical System for Measuring
Smoke Exhaust Emissions
§ 87.83 Information to be Recorded
§ 87.84 Calibration and Instrument Checks
§ 87.85 Test Procedures
§ 87.86 Test Run
§ 87.87 Determination of SN
§ 87.88 Calculations
§ 87.89 Compliance with Emission Standards
3.17i Test Procedures for Engine Exhaust Gaseous Emissions (Air-
craft Piston Engines)—Subpart I
§ 87.90 Introduction
§ 87.91 Gasoline Fuel Specifications
§ 87.92 Test Procedure
§ 87.93 Sampling and Analytical System for Measuring
Exhaust Emissions
§ 87.94 Information to be Recorded
§ 87.95 Calibration and Instrument Checks
§ 87.96 Sampling Procedures
§ 87.97 Test Run
§ 87.98 Chart Reading
§ 87.99 Calculations
§ 87.100 Compliance with Emission Standards
3.17J Temporary Exemption from Aircraft Emission Standards
(Fuel Venting and Smoke)
§ 87.101 Application for Temporary Exemption
§ 87.102 Thirty-Day Suspension of Fuel Venting and Smoke
Standards
APPENDIX A—Instrumentation (Aircraft Gas Turbine En-
gine Measurements)
APPENDIX B—Instrumentation (Aircraft Piston Engine
Measurements)
3.18 Procedures for Certification of Low-Emission Vehicles, Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§ 400.1-400.7 (1971)
§ 400.1 Definitions
§ 400.2 Application for Certification
§ 400.3 Requirements for Certification
-------
102 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
§ 400.4 Submission of Required Data
§ 400.5 Additional Data: Submission of Test Vehicles
§ 400.6 Certification: Publication of Decision
§ 400.7 Post-Certification Testing
3.19 Federal Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control, Bureau of Customs,
19 C.F.R. § 12.73 (1972)
-------
Guidelines
and
Reports
-------
-------
4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REPORTS TO
CONGRESS AS REQUIRED BY THE CLEAN AIR ACT.
4.1e PROGRESS IN THE PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF
AIR POLLUTION IN 1973, REPORT TO CONGRESS BY
THE ADMINISTRATOR OF U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PRO-
TECTION AGENCY, JANUARY 1974.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
PREFACE 107
I. Introduction and Summary 109
II. The Progress and Problems Associated with Control of Mobile
Source Emissions and the Research Efforts Related Thereto-. Ill
Measures Taken to Implement Mandated Title II
Emission Standards 111
Transportation Control Plans 114
Additional Activities in the Mobile Source Area 116
Mobile Source Research and Development 119
III. The Development of Air Quality Criteria and Recommended
Emission Control Requirements 121
National Ambient Air Quality Standards 121
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 121
New Source Performance Standards 122
Health Effects Research 123
IV. The Status of Enforcement Actions Taken Pursuant to This Act 124
Stationary Source Enforcement Actions 124
Mobile Source Enforcement Actions 125
Enforcement of Section 306—Federal Procurement 128
V. The Status of State Standards Setting, Including Such Plans
for Implementation as Have Been Developed 128
Issues Affecting Development and Implementation of State
Implementation Plans 129
Status of State Implementation Plan Approvals, Disapprovals,
and Promulgations 133
VI. The Extent of Development and Expansion of Air Pollution
Monitoring Systems 134
Progress in the Development of Monitoring Systems 135
Trends in National Ambient Air Quality Levels 137
VII. The Development of New and Improved Air Pollution
Control Techniques 140
VIII. The Development of Instrumentation to Monitor Emissions
and Air Quality 143
Emissions Monitoring Developments 143
Ambient Monitoring Developments 144
105
-------
106
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
CHAPTER PAGE
Quality Control Efforts 145
IX. Standards Set or Under Consideration Pursuant to Title
II of This Act 145
X. The Status of State, Interstate, and Local Pollution Control
Programs Established Pursuant to and Assisted by This Act _ 147
Federal Financial Assistance to Air Pollution Control Agencies- 147
Progress of State and Local Air Pollution Control Programs 147
XI. Reports and Recommendations Made by the President's
Air Quality Advisory Board 150
APPENDIX—Summary of EPA's Stationary Source Air
Enforcement Actions 151
TABLES
Page
Table 1. Major Air Pollution Control Regulations and Standards
Issued During 1973 109
Table 2. 1975 Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Emission Standards,- 112
Table 3. Status of the Transportation Control Plans 115
Table 4. Control Measures Used in Transportation Control Plans 116
Table 5. Emission Levels of In-Use Vehicles 117
Table 6. Sources Regulated by National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants 122
Table 7. New Source Performance Standards Proposed in 1973 123
Table 8. Summary of Mobile Source Enforcement Actions 126
Table 9. Priority Classifications of Air Quality Control Regions 129
Table 10. Status of State Implementation Plans 134
Table 11. Status of Air Quality Control Regions with Respect to
State Implementation Plan Monitoring Requirements
(Sept. 1973) 136
Table 12. Comparison of Numbers of Existing and Proposed Monitors
with Number Required by State Implementation Plans 136
Table 13. Status of Air Quality, Total Suspended Particulates 138
Table 14. Status of Air Quality, Sulfur Dioxide 1972 139
Table 15. Status of Air Quality, Oxidants 1972 139
Table 16. Status of Air Quality, Carbon Monoxide 139
Table 17. Mobile Source Emission Standards Acted Upon by
EPA in 1973 145
Table 18. Mobile Source Regulations Acted Upon by EPA in 1973 ___ 146
Table 19. Summary of Grant Awards to State and Local Air
Pollution Control Agencies 148
Table 20. Personnel Employed by State and Local Air Pollution
Control Agencies 149
FIGURES Pace
Figure 1. Illustrative Label for 1974 Vehicles—Special Information 118
Figure 2. Composite Levels of Total Suspended Particulates at
Urban and Non-urban NASN Stations 137a
Figure 3. Composite Levels of Sulfur Dioxide at 32 NASN Stations-- 137b
-------
PREFACE
The Clean Air Act, as amended, authorizes a national program
of air pollution research, regulation, and enforcement activities.
This program is directed at the Federal level by the U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA). However, primary responsi-
bility for the prevention and control of air pollution at its source
rests with State and local governments. EPA's role is to conduct
research and development programs, set national goals (via
standards and regulations), provide technical and financial as-
sistance to the States, and, where necessary, supplement State
implementation and enforcement programs.
Section 313 of the Clean Air Act requires the Administrator to
report yearly on measures taken toward implementing the pur-
pose and intent of the Act. Section 313 reads as follows:
"Not later than six months after the effective date of this
section and not later than January 10 of each calendar year
beginning after such date, the Administrator shall report to
the Congress on measures taken toward implementing the
purpose and intent of this Act including, but not limited to,
(1) the progress and problems associated with control of
automotive exhaust emissions and the research efforts re-
lated thereto; (2) the development of air quality criteria
and recommended emission control requirements; (3) the
status of enforcement actions taken pursuant to this Act;
(4) the status of State ambient air standards setting, includ-
ing such plans for implementation and enforcement as have
been developed; (5) the extent of development and expansion
of air pollution monitoring systems; (6) progress and prob-
lems related to development of new and improved control
techniques; (7) the development of quantitative and quali-
tative instrumentation to monitor emissions and air quality;
(8) standards set or under consideration pursuant to title II
of this Act; (9) the status of State, interstate, and local pol-
lution control programs established pursuant to and assisted
by this Act; and (10) the reports and recommendations
made by the President's Air Quality Advisory Board."
This report covers the period January 1 to Ocoober 15, 1973 and
107
-------
108 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
describes the major elements of progress toward the prevention
and control of air pollution that have been made by EPA since
the last report.
-------
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
The year 1973 was significant for air pollution control. This
report reviews the progress that the U. S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) has made during the first 10 months of
1973 in the control and prevention of air pollution. It follows
the order of topics listed in Section 313 of the Clean Air Act.
Additional measures of progress have been incorporated where
appropriate.
EPA acted on a number of air pollution control regulations
and standards in 1973. The major ones are summarized in Table
1.
A number of major events occurred in 1973:
• A 1-year suspension of the statutory 1975 hydrocarbon (HC)
and carbon monoxide (CO) emission standards for light-duty
motor vehicles was granted; interim standards were set.
• A 1-year suspension of the statutory 1976 nitrogen oxides
(NOX) emission standard for light-duty motor vehicles was
granted; an interim standard was set.
TABLE i
MAJOR AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS ISSUED DURING 1973 •
Subject
Reduction of lead In gasolines
Availability of lead-free gasolines
Inspections of motor vehicle certification activities
National emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants
Stationary source upset provisions
Servicing of auto emission controls
New source performance standards (Group II)
Indirect sources/maintenance of standards
Denial of grants, loans, and contracts to polluters
Emission standards for 1975 model year autos
Significant deterioration of air quality
Aircraft emissions
Aircraft engine retrofit
Emissions from light-duty trucks
Emission standard for 1976 model year autos
Revocation of annual secondary ambient air
quality standard for sulfur dioxides
Supplementary control systems
Regulations for high-altitude motor vehicles
Transportation control plans
Date
Published
in Federal
Register
Jan. 10
Jan. 10
Feb. 26
March 30
May 2
June 4
June 5
June 18
June 21
July 2
July 16
July 17
July 17
Aug. 7
Aug. 21
Sept. 14
Sept. 14
Oct. 12
b
Status
Proposed
Final
Proposed
Final
Proposed
Final
Proposed
Final
Proposed
Final
Proposed
Final
Proposed
Final
Final
Final
Proposed
Proposed
Final
Discussed
in Chapter
IX
IX
IX
111
III
IX
III
V
IV
II
V
IX
IX
IX
II
III
V
IX
II
• First 10 months only
'' Promulgated on several different dates
109
-------
110 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
• Transportation control plans were developed or approved for
those Air Quality Control Regions requiring them.
• The Annual Secondary Sulfur Oxides Ambient Air Quality
Standard was revoked.
• New Source Performance Standards were proposed for 7
additional sources.
• National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Pollutants were
promulgated for asbestos, beryllium, and mercury.
• Approximately 65 enforcement actions were taken against
stationary sources of air pollution and about 600 investiga-
tions are underway.
• Approximately 80 investigations were conducted by the Mo-
bile Source Enforcement Program; 214 administrative orders
and seven referrals to the Department of Justice have re-
sulted.
• Effective July 1, 1974, air polluters will be ineligible for cer-
tain Federal contracts, grants, and loans.
• EPA promulgated compliance schedules, where necessary,
for some stationary sources.
• In the center of selected cities, the average concentrations
of total suspended particulates dropped 20 percent over the
past 12 years, and average sulfur dioxide concentrations
dropped 50 percent.
• New monitoring data indicated that the air quality in some
Air Quality Control Regions originally believed to be meet-
ing standards may actually be violating the standards.
• The SOX control technology development program is demon-
strating adequate control technology for utility boilers to
support the Agency's immediate (through 1980) regulatory
and enforcement needs.
• Non-utility sources of SOX, which are major contributors to
ambient concentrations, are becoming the focal point of con-
trol system development activity.
• Control technology for fine particulates, potentially a major
health hazard, is seriously deficient. A major effort to de-
velop detection measurement and control technology is un-
derway.
• The Community Health Effects Surveillance Studies
(CHESS) program continued to demonstrate the benefits of
improved air quality; adverse health effects of suspended
sulfates were highlighted.
• Numerous monitoring instruments were developed—for ex-
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS ill
ample, instruments for 1) methane, carbon monoxide, and
carbon dioxide from cars and 2) ambient nitrogen oxides.
The number of State and local control agency personnel
climbed to 6,195 in Fiscal Year 1973, up from 4,165 in 1971
and 2,837 in 1969.
EPA support of State and local control agencies increased
to $50.5 million in Fiscal Year 1973, as compared to $42.1
million in 1972.
II. THE PROGRESS AND PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH
CONTROL OF MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS AND THE
RESEARCH EFFORTS RELATED THERETO
Title II of the Clean Air Act mandated at least 90 percent re-
ductions in carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (HC), and oxides
of nitrogen (NOX) emissions from light-duty vehicles and en-
gines, and gave the Administrator authority to prescribe certain
other emission standards for automobiles, trucks, and planes.
MEASURES TAKEN TO IMPLEMENT MANDATED
TITLE II, EMISSION STANDARDS
Suspension of HC and CO Emission Standards
for 1975 Model Year Autos
In 1972, EPA denied the requests of five manufacturers for a
1-year suspension of the nationwide statutory 1975 automobile
emission standards for HC and CO. As a result of a decision by
the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit,
EPA in 1973 was required to reconsider its earlier decision. Fol-
lowing extensive public hearings, EPA on April 11, 1973, sus-
pended the statutory 1975 HC and CO emission standards until
1976 and established a set of interim standards for 1975. A some-
what more restrictive set of interim standards was established
for vehicles sold in California than for vehicles sold in the rest
of the country. The California standards were designed to require
the use of catalyst systems on automobiles sold in that State.
Suspension of the nation-wide standards avoids economic difficul-
ties involved in forcing catalyst technology on all 1975 domestic
vehicles, while the interim California standards provide for a
gradual phasing-in of catalyst technology prior to 1976. Table 2
summarizes the 1975 interim emission standards.
-------
112 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
TABLE 2
1975 MODEL YEAR LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE EMISSION STANDARDS
Emission Limit (Grams per Mile)
Hydro- Carbon- Nitrogen
carbons monoxide Oxides
National Interim Standards 1.5 15.00 3.1
California Interim Standards 0.9 9.0 2.0
National Statutory Standards .41 3.4
After the initial suspension decision granting the request of five
domestic motor vehicle manufacturers, 27 other domestic and
foreign automobile manufacturers also applied for a suspension.
Having previously considered three of the Section 202 (b) (5) (D)
criteria which were applicable to the industry in general (i.e.,
public interest, availability of technology, and corroborating in-
formation, including the National Academy of Science's study on
available technology) and concluding that they did favor suspen-
sion, EPA held a public hearing limited to the fourth criterion
(i.e., good faith of individual applicant). EPA granted the suspen-
sion to these 27 applicants in July.
In August, two more manufacturers applied for suspension. A
notice of EPA's intent to grant the suspension was published in
the Federal Register; for lack pf comments no public hearing was
held and the suspension requests were granted. In September
1973, one additional manufacturer requested suspension; disposi-
tion of that request is pending.
Suspension of NOX Emission Standard for 1976
Model Year Light-Duty Vehicles
On July 30, 1973, after 9 days of public hearings, the Ad-
ministrator granted Ford Motor Co., General Motors Corp., and
Chrysler Corp. a suspension of the effective date of the statutory
1976 NOX emission standard for light-duty vehicles for 1 year as
allowed by Section 202 (b) (5) (D) of the Clean Air Act.
The Administrator established an interim standard of 2.0
grams per mile. The suspended standard was 0.4 grams per mile.
There are several manufacturers who have not yet applied for
a suspension, but they are expected to do so by the end of this
year. The only criterion that will have to be evaluated with re-
spect to these manufacturers is the good faith of their efforts.
Certification Testing
Certification of new passenger cars for compliance with Fed-
eral emission standards began with 1968 model year vehicles. The
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 113
program includes testing prototype vehicles which represent all
new motor vehicles sold in the United States. The manufacturer
is required to submit data showing that prototypes conform to
Federal standards for exhaust, crankcase, and fuel evaporative
emissions. EPA carries out a review of the manufacturers data
and performs confirmatory tests on selected prototypes.
During the past year, certification of 1974 model year light-
duty vehicles and heavy-duty engines was completed. Test pro-
grams of approximately 50 manufacturers were monitored and
data from over 600 fleet vehicles and engines were reviewed. This
year's certification program represented a major increase in ve-
hicles of each type over the previous model year and required
that EPA conduct over 1,200 planned emission tests.
Limited Certificates of Conformity
Ford Motor Co., International Harvester Co., and General Mo-
tors Corp. encountered scheduling problems which made it im-
possible to complete their certification programs prior to produc-
tion start-up dates. To avoid the severe economic repercussions
associated with plant shutdowns, EPA issued limited certificates
to permit shipping vehicles. Limited certificates included elaborate
safeguards to assure that no uncertified vehicles would be sold
to an ultimate purchaser. The first limited certificates were issued
in August. By the end of September, all such limited certificates
had been replaced with full certificates,
California Request for Waiver of Pre-emption
for 1975 Model Year Light-Duty Trucks
The 1975 model year suspension decision granted, in part, Cali-
fornia's request for waiver with respect to 1975 model year light-
duty passenger vehicles. On Aug. 17, California requested a
waiver with respect to 1975 model year light-duty trucks. A pub-
lic hearing was held in San Francisco on Oct. 2, 1973. On Nov. 1,
1973, the Administrator denied California's waiver request on
the grounds that insufficient lead time existed before the 1975
model year to permit the widespread use of catalysts on 1975
model light-duty trucks. However, in denying the waiver requests
the Administrator did permit California to enforce the NOX
standards of 2 gpm which is more stringent than the 3.1 gpm
Federal standard for 1975 model light-duty trucks because the
1974 model light-duty trucks sold in California were required to
meet the 2 gpm NOX standards. The Administrator's decision will
-------
114 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
permit California to enforce its requested standards of .9 gpm
HC and 17 gpm CO for 1976 model year light-trucks.
Assessment of Mobile Source Technology
In 1972, EPA formed a task force to assess mobile source emis-
sion control technology. In February 1973, the task force issued
a report (based on information obtained from vehicle manufac-
turers, component suppliers, and in-house testing) indicating that
only three of 20 manufacturers studied—Honda, Toyo Kogyo
(Mazda) and Daimler-Benz—intended to rely on noncatalyst sys-
tems to meet 1975 emission standards.1 In EPA tests, all three
were able to meet the original statutory 1975 standards. Of the
manufacturers intending to use catalyst systems, only General
Motors, Ford, and Chrysler seemed to have good probabilities of
meeting the statutory 1975 standards.
TRANSPORTATION CONTROL PLANS
The United States is divided into 247 Air Quality Control Re-
gions (AQCRs). Thirty-eight AQCRs in 23 States (including the
District of Columbia) require transportation control measures, in
addition to stationary source emissions controls and the Federal
new car emission controls, to attain ambient air quality standards
for CO or photochemical oxidants. In addition, the latest air
quality data are being examined to identify other AQCRs in
which air quality standards for CO or photochemical oxidants
might be exceeded. Initial review of these data indicates that
standards may be being violated in 20 additional AQCRs. (See
Chapter VI.)
A number of States submitted transportation control plans for
EPA's approval. When review of the State plan did not demon-
strate that air quality standards would be attained, EPA 1)
published notice to that effect in the Federal Register and 2) pro-
posed a transportation control plan. EPA's proposed plans were
presented at hearings to permit public participation in the pro-
posed rule making. For those States that did not prepare and
submit transportation control measures, EPA published in the
Federal Register proposed strategies to reduce CO or HC emis-
sions from motor vehicles. Public hearings were also held to
consider these proposed transportation control plans. The promul-
gation of EPA-proposed rule making in the Federal Register was
1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Automobile emission control—the state-of-the-art as
of December, 1972. February 1973.
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 115
to be completed by late Nov. 1973. Table 3 summarizes the actions
EPA has taken, to date, on transportation control plans. It is
EPA policy to withdraw its proposed or promulgated plans as
soon as an approvable State plan is submitted.
The transportation control plans have been worked out through
close cooperation between Federal, State, and local officials. In
the California cities where auto-related air pollution is generally
considered to be among- the worst in the Nation, the transporta-
tion controls include parking restrictions, exclusive use of lanes
or streets by buses, vehicle inspection-maintenance programs, mass
transit incentive plans by employers, controls on gas handling
operations, special treatment for buses and car pools on military
installations, metered ramps on some highway entrances with
bypass lanes for buses and car pools, retrofit of air pollution con-
trols devices on autos, and a contingency strategy of gasoline
limitations.
Most of the other urban plans contain some combination of
these controls, depending on the severity of the local air pollution
problem. The types of control techniques employed are sum-
marized in Table 4.
EPA intends to ask Congress for flexibility in working out
achievable schedules for those cities requiring drastic control
measures. However, EPA believes that all the control techniques
are reasonable and feasible except for severe gasoline limitations.
TABLE 3
STATUS OF THE TRANSPORTATION CONTROL PLANS «
Still to be
Approved State Plans Promulgated EPA Plans Approved/Promulgated
1. New York City, N. Y. 1 Boston, Mass. l. Pittsburgh, Pa.
2. Rochester, N. Y. 2 Springfield, Mass. 2 Philadelphia, Pa.
3. Syracuse, N. Y. 3. New Jersey Suburbs of 3 Baltimore, Md.
4. Dayton, Ohio New York City A. Washington, 0. C.
5. Toledo, Ohio 4 New Jersey Suburbs of 5 Maryland Suburbs of
6 Minneapolis, Minn. Philadelphia, Pa. Washington, D. C.
7. Birmingham, Ala. 5. Cincinnati, Ohio 6 Virginia Suburbs of
8. Mobile, Ala. 6. Houston-Galveston, Tex. Washington, D. C.
9. Kansas City, Mo 7 Dallas-Ft. Worth, Tex 7 Indianapolis, Ind.
10. Kansas City, Kan 8. San Antonio, Tex. 8. Chicago, III.
11. Baton Rouge, La. 9. Austin-Waco, Tex. 9. Beaumont, Tex.
12 Portland, Oreg. 10. El Paso, Tex. 10. Salt Lake City, Utah
11. Corpus Christ'-Victoria, Tex. 11. Phoenix-Tucson, Ariz.
12. Denver, Colo. 12. Seattle, Wash.
13. Los Angeles, Calif. 13. Spokane, Wash.
14. San Francisco, Calif. 14 Portland, Oreg.
15. San Diego, Calif.
16. Fresno, Calif.
17. Sacramento, Calif.
' As of Nov. 6, 1973. Some interstate AQCRs are listed more than once, therefore the total is not 38.
-------
116
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES IN THE MOBILE SOURCE AREA
a, Emission Standard
The previous reference method for nitrogen dioxide (the so-
called Jacobs-Hochheiser method) was recently found to be in-
adequate. Because of problems in collection efficiency and NOX
interference, it cannot be used for accurate measurement of am-
bient atmosphere. As a result of measurements made with other
monitoring instrumentation, 43 Air Quality Control Regions
(AQCRs) throughout the country previously classified as being in
violation of health-protective primary standards were found not
to be in violation. Two AQCRs definitely remain in violation. In
one, Chicago, the statutory NOX emission reduction for automo-
biles will not be necessary to meet primary standards. In the
other instance, Los Angeles, achievement of the statutory NOX
emission reduction would fail to result in air quality that would
meet established goals until 1990. Consequently, EPA recom-
mended that Congress consider the revision of the statutory 1977
model year, 90 percent NOX emission reduction standard con-
tained in the Clean Air Act of 1970.
Automotive Exhaust Emission Survey
Several studies have been commissioned by EPA to determine
exhaust emissions from in-use motor vehicles. The most recent
study, a survey of 1957 to 1971 model year vehicles based on the
improved test procedures applicable to 1975 model year vehicles,
shows a significant downward trend in HC and CO emissions
Additional Stationary Source Controls
Filling storage tanks at service stations
Filling auto tanks
Loading and unloading barges
Solvent and degreasing operations
Architectural coating operations
Dry cleaning establishments
Inspection and Maintenance
Light-Duty Vehicle
Heavy-Duty Vehicle
Traffic Flow/Transit
Improved mass transit
Improved traffic flow
Bus-car pool lanes
Car pool matching system
Transportation by-pass
Table 4
Control Measures Used in
Transportation Control Plans
Tracffic Disincentives
Parking restrictions
Bridge tolls
Vehicle-free zones
Delivery bans
Idling restrictions
Taxi cruise restrictions
Motorcycle limits
Mechanical Retrofit
Vacuum spark advance disconnect
Air bleed
Catalyst
High-altitude modifications
Truck retrofit
Gasoline Limitations
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
117
TABLE S
EMISSION LEVELS OF IN-USE VEHICLES »
HC
CO
NO,
Grams/
mile
change
Grams/
mile
%
change
Grams/
mile
%
change
8.74
5.54
5.19
3.90
3.06
4.42
-37%
-41%
-55%
-65%
-49%
865
67.8
61.7
48.2
40.1
54.4
-23%
-29%
-44%
-54%
-37%
3.54«
4.34
5.45
5.05
4.81
4.91
+ 22%
+ 52%
+ 43%
+ 35%
+ 39%
Model Year
Pro-Controlled
(1957-67)
1968
1969
1970
1971
1968-71
(Average)
* NOZ regulated starting with 1973 model year.
since the advent of Federal emissions standards.2 However, dur-
ing the same time period, NOX emissions have increased. The data
are summarized in Table b.
The data also showed that most cars exceeded either the CO
or the HC standards applicable to their model year. This can
probably be attributed to a combination of factors including: 1)
problems with quality control of production vehicles; 2) the fact
that the cars were tested in the condition in which they were
found and may not have been maintained properly; and 3) be-
cause emissions averaging was allowed in the certification of
prototypes through 1971 to determine compliance with the stan-
dards.
Auto Fuel Economy Labeling Program
In the President's Energy Message to Congress of April 16,
1973, EPA was assigned (in cooperation with the Department of
Commerce and the Council on Environmental Quality) the re-
sponsibility of developing a program to inform the public on fuel
economy characteristics of automobiles. EPA published proposed
procedures in an Aug. 27, 1973 Federal Register notice.
The implementation of the program depends on auto manufac-
turers voluntarily displaying one of two approved labels beside
the car price sticker. One label would provide general information
regarding average fuel consumption for cars tested in the same
weight class. The alternative label would offer the same informa-
tion plus the specific test results for the model of car offered for
sale. (See Figure 1.) The miles-per-gallon information was de-
2 Automobile Exhaust Emission Surveillance; A Summary. Calspan Corp., Buffalo, New York,
March 1973. Under contract to EPA, this organization analyzed data obtained by EPA-funded
surveillance programs.
-------
118 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
veloped at the EPA testing facility in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The
test procedure is the same as used for the emission certification
program and is based on an urban/suburban driving cycle. To
date, auto manufacturers representing approximately 90 percent
of the U.S. new car market have agreed to participate in the
voluntary program. EPA is providing participating auto dealers
with a pamphlet which describes the concept of fuel economy and
its importance as a criterion for new car buyers.
Clean Car Incentive Program
The Federal Clean Car Incentive Program is designed to foster
development of new types of low-emission vehicles capable of
meeting 1976 standards. EPA leases a candidate prototype which
is subjected to stringent emission and performance tests. If the
prototype passes the initial tests, EPA may purchase additional
prototype cars for testing. Up to 500 vehicles may be purchased
for further evaluation and limited fleet use.
The program began in January 1971. Approximately 20 pro-
posals were received, of which seven were accepted for further
study. Three remain in the program, and only one prototype has
been tested. This vehicle (powered by an internal combustion
engine with catalytic exhaust treatment and exhaust gas recircu-
FIGURE 1
ILLUSTRATIVE LABEL FOR 1974 VEHICLES—SPECIFIC INFORMATION
Based on the results of tests conducted or certified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the fuel
consumption of this vehicle is estimated to be.
17 Miles Per Gallon
on an EPA test cycle which simulates commuter-type driving.
The table below shows miles per gallon (MPG) performance and fuel costs for vehicles in different weight
categories. The test weight and the measured fuel economy of this vehicle are circled These figures are not
indicative of performance during highway driving.
Vehicle Test Range of Average Fuel Costs
Weight (Ibs.) MPG MPG (10,000 mi. & 40^/gal.)
2,000 22-29 24 $165
2,250 19-25 21.5 $185
2,500 17-22.5 18.5 $215
2,950 10.5-24.5 17.5 $230 ^_^
3,000 [3100) 9-20 15.5 [nl $265 p35|
3,500 10.5-20 13.5 $295
4,000 6.5-19 10.5 $380
4,500 7.5-14 9.5 $420
5,000 7-11 9 $445
5,500 7-10.5 8 5 $500
The actual fuel economy of this vehicle will depend on factors such as individual driving habits, the
maintenance condition of the vehicle, and the optional equipment chosen. Additional fuel economy informa-
tion is available from your dealer and from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 119
lation) has often met the 1976 emission standards during testing
but its durability has not been acceptable.
Low-Emission Vehicle Purchase Program
Section 212 of the Clean Air Act provides for the creation of
a Low-Emission Vehicle Certification Board. If EPA determines
a vehicle has emissions substantially lower than existing stan-
dards, the Board has the responsibility of certifying whether the
vehicle meets specification for purchase by the Federal Govern-
ment/ Certified vehicles may be purchased for use in Government
fleets at premiums of up to 50 percent over prices normally paid
for equivalent vehicles (100 percent if the vehicle is inherently
low-polluting). To date, one group of battery-powered heavy-duty
vehicles covered by a single application have been determined
to be low-emission vehicles, but in September 1973 the Board re-
jected vehicles covered by the application as unsuitable for use
by the Federal Government, because their maximum cruising
speed was too slow. In addition, one application for an electric
bus has been completed, and two other notices of intent to apply
have been filed, both for electric-powered vehicles.
MOBILE SOURCE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Alternative Automotive Power Systems Program
EPA's pi'ogram to develop alternative automotive power sys-
tems has concentrated on the three most promising systems: the
gas turbine, the Rankine cycle, and the stratified charge engines.
Gas turbine designs under development have met the statutory
1975 standards, and demonstration of an improved gas turbine
engine for passenger cars meeting statutory 1976 emission stan-
dards is projected for 1975.
Major problems with the Rankine cycle (high-emission levels,
bulky components, valving complexity) have now been solved, and
plans call for developing and demonstrating a prototype in 1974.
The stratified charge engine has shown the most promising re-
sults to date. Stratified charge engines with oxidation catalysts
and exhaust gas recirculation have demonstrated emission levels
well below statutory 1976 standards at favorable fuel costs. Sig-
nificant problems with the durability of engine and vehicle systems
remain.
* EPA has proposed that advanced technology or production techniques be required for a
vehicle to qualify as a "Low-Emission Vehicle."
-------
120 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
Research and Development on Aircraft Emissions
EPA has promulgated regulations to control emissions of CO,
HC, NOX, and smoke from both commercial and general aviation
aircraft. In the development of these regulations, extensive pro-
grams were conducted to determine the impact of aircraft emis-
sions on air quality, the level of emissions from present aircraft,
and the technological feasibility of controlling aircraft emissions.
Present aircraft emission research efforts are concentrated in
three areas:
• analysis of the feasibility of modification of aircraft ground
operation procedures for emission reduction
• refinement of emission measurement procedures
• assessment of progress in development of low-emission air-
craft engines.
Efforts will continue in these areas. In addition, projects may
be initiated to develop emission control technology for particular
aircraft types.
Other Government agencies have programs involving various
aspects of the aircraft emissions problem. Major programs include
the Department of Transportation's Climatic Impact Assessment
Program designed to determine the potential impact of high-
altitude supersonic flight, NASA's Clean Combustor Program
designed to develop low-emission combustion systems for jumbo
jet engines, and the Air Force's program to develop low-emission
engines and afterburning measurement procedures. These and
other projects form the nucleus of the Government's aircraft
emission control program.
III. THE DEVELOPMENT OF AIR QUALITY CRITERIA AND
RECOMMENDED EMISSION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS
NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
(NAAQS)
As a result of EPA's continuing review of the criteria used in
setting ambient air quality standards, the annual secondary am-
bient air quality standard for sulfur dioxides (S02) was revoked.
Secondary standards are set at a level intended to protect against
welfare effects. The annual secondary standard was revoked be-
cause new scientific data suggest that vegetation is damaged from
high, short-term concentrations of S02 during the growing season,
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 121
rather than continuous exposures to lower levels. The other sec-
ondary S02 standard, which specified a maximum 3-hour concen-
tration, remains in effect.
In June, EPA published Effects of Sulfur Oxide in the Atmo-
sphere on Vegetation? This document revised Chapter 5 and por-
tions of Chapter 10, of the Air Quality Criteria, for Sulfur Oxides
document. EPA is continuously working on improving the basis
for existing standards, developing the basis for new ones, and
reviewing the criteria and control techniques documents.
NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS
AIR POLLUTANTS (NESHAPs)
On April 6, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants were promulgated for asbestos, beryllium, and mercury
(see Table 6). These are the first three substances to be controlled
under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.
As required by Section 112 (b) (2) of the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator has issued information on pollution control tech-
niques for asbestos, beryllium, and mercury.
EPA is currently determining the optimum statutory and
regulatory procedures for controlling several other pollutants. The
Act provides several control mechanisms: National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (Sec. 109) ; the non-criteria pollutant clause
(Sec. Ill (d)) of New Source Performance Standards (Sec. Ill);
the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(Sec. 112); and the regulation of fuels and fuel additives (Sec.
210).
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)
On June 5, 1973, EPA proposed New Source Performance Stan-
dards for asphalt concrete plants, petroleum refineries, petroleum
storage tanks, secondary lead smelters, secondary brass and bronze
ingot production plants, iron and steel plants (basic oxygen
furnaces), and municipal sewage treatment plan incinerators.
While the seven proposed standards are primarily for new plants,
they also apply to an existing plant which is modified in such a
manner as to increase its emissions. Final standards are expected
late in 1973. Table 7 summarizes these standards.
On October 15,1973, EPA promulgated final regulations relating
3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Effects of Sulfur Oxide in the Atmosphere on
Vegetation; Revised Chapter 5 for Air Quality Criteria for Sulfur Oxides, National Environ-
mental Research Center, Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
-------
122 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
to periods of start up, shutdown, and malfunction of sources sub-
ject to NSPS. These regulations clarify the compliance status of
sources during the specified periods. The regulations make it clear
that compliance with existing new source standards, other than
for opacity of emissions, is determined through performance tests
conducted under representative operating conditions. These tests
are conducted within 60 days after a new plant achieves its maxi-
mum production rate, but not later than 180 days after start up.
Subsequent tests may be made at any time. Existing opacity
standards, pertaining to visual observations of emissions, would
not be applied during periods of start up, shutdown, or malfunc-
tion. However, the owner or operator would have to show that
any violations of the opacity standard occurred only during start
up, shutdown, or malfunction.
Under the regulations, plant operators would be required to use
maintenance and operating procedures designed to minimize any
excess emissions during start-up, shutdown or malfunction. Own-
ers and operators would also have to file a written report for each
calendar quarter covering those time periods when emissions are
known or estimated to have exceeded the standards.
HEALTH EFFECTS RESEARCH
The Community Health Effects Surveillance Studies (CHESS)
program was initiated to provide data relating human health ef-
fects to long and short-term exposure of population subgroups
TABLE 6
SOURCES REGULATED BY NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
POLLUTANT HEALTH EFFECT SOURCES REGULATED
Asbestos Bronchial cancer Roadway surfacing when
asbestos tailings are used,
Cancers of membranes, building demolition,
lining of chest, and asbestos mills, selected
abdomen manufacturing operations,
and spray-on asbestos
materials
Beryllium Acute and chronic lethal Extraction plants, foundries,
inhalation effects ceramic manufacturing plants,
machine shops, rocket
Skin and eye effects testing facilities and dis-
posal of beryllium
containing wastes
Mercury Central nervous system Ore processing for mercury
injury recovery, plants using
mercury chlor-alkali cells
Kidney damage to produce chlorine gas
and alkali metal hydroxide
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 123
TABLE 7
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS PROPOSED IN 1973 •
Percentage Reduction of Uncontrolled Emissions
Carbon Hydro- Sulfur
Industry Participates Monoxide Carbons Dioxide
Asphalt concrete plants 99.7
Petroleum refineries 93 99,5 *
Petroleum storage tanks 80
Secondary lead smelters 80
Secondary brass and bronze
ingot production plants 97
Iron and steel plants
(basic oxygen furnace) 99
Sewage treatment plant
incinerators 96.6-99.6
* First 10 months only
b The input quantity of hydrogen sulfide is regulated in order to control sulfur dioxide emissions.
to SOX, respirable particulates, NOX, CO, and photochemical oxi-
dants. The CHESS Studies have demonstrated the benefits from
improved air quality with respect to the chronic respiratory
disease experience of subjects who have moved to communities
having cleaner air. Also, the studies have shown that children
living for 3 or more years in communities having high levels of
air pollution have more acute respiratory disease episodes than
recent immigrants to the community.
Data obtained from the CHESS program indicate that adverse
health effects are consistently associated with exposure to sus-
pended sulfates, indeed, more so than to S02 or total suspended
particulates. This information has initiated further study in the
transport processes and control techniques for suspended sulfates.
Studies were initiated to evaluate potential health effects of fuel
and fuel additive emissions from internal combustion engines. As
a result of this work it has been determined that the physiological
availability of lead compounds from street dust is similar to that
of other lead compounds.
IV. THE STATUS OF ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT
To THIS ACT
Significant enforcement actions were taken by EPA under
several sections of the Clean Air Act during the past year. These
included: Section 113 notices of violation and orders under Title
I. Inspections, investigations and referrals for prosecution under
Title II with respect to certification, warranties, recalls, tamper-
ing with emission control systems, and importation of vehicles
that do not meet emission standards.
-------
124 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
STATIONARY SOURCE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
EPA air enforcement activities concerning stationary sources
were initiated following the May 31, 1972, approval of most
portions of State plans to meet the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. Since then, enforcement activities have concentrated
on:
• Establishing reasonable compliance schedules for all major
sources
• Developing a source surveillance program to determine the
status of compliance
• Keeping major sources in compliance or on compliance
schedules.
Enforcement of State Implementation Plan Regulations
During the first ten months of 1973, enforcement actions have
been initiated against approximately 66 facilities. This is a sig-
nificant increase from the six actions taken during 1972. These
actions represent a supplement to State enforcement activities.
In some cases these actions were taken to establish reasonable
compliance schedules. In other cases, the actions were designed
to achieve compliance with previously established schedules. These
actions include notices of violation, abatement orders, and civil/
criminal proceedings and are summarized in the Appendix. Some
600 EPA investigations were in progress in the last quarter of
1973. Most actions taken were against flagrant violators and were
initiated because of State failure or inability to act; these actions
were prompted by citizen complaint, or through routine EPA
investigations.
As various requirements of State Implementation Plans become
effective through July 1975, enforcement activity related to sta-
tionary sources is expected to increase substantially.
State Implementation Plan Compliance Schedules
The key to enforcement of stationary source regulations is the
establishment of meaningful compliance schedules. A compliance
schedule sets forth increments of progress which a source must
take toward final compliance. The objective is to ensure that
action is not postponed until it is too late to meet the compliance
date. All sources subject to regulations with final compliance dates
after January 31, 1974, are required to be covered by an enforce-
able compliance schedule involving increments of progress. De-
velopment of the schedules is primarily a State responsibility.
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 125
However, many States did not fully satisfy these compliance
schedule requirements and EPA has had to promulgate schedules
affecting approximately 3500 facilities. In most cases where EPA
has had to promulgate compliance schedules, it has promulgated
categorical schedules applying to all sources in a given source
category subject to a given regulation. An additional 10,000 fa-
cilities need to be placed on schedules. Schedules for about 2,540
facilities have been submitted by the States and an additional
3,000 facilities are expected to be handled by the States. The
remainder of the problem will need to be resolved by EPA by
July 1974.
Enforcement of National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants
National emission standards for mercury, beryllium, and as-
bestos were promulgated by EPA on April 6, 1973. As mandated
by the Clean Air Act, EPA completed issuance of waivers of
compliance for affected sources making request. Some 600 facilities
are subject to the regulations. About 413 of them are presently
in compliance; the remainder are scheduled to be in compliance
by April 6, 1975. In addition to these facilities, all operations
which involve spraying asbestos materials (containing greater
than 1 percent asbestos) and demolition operations are subject to
the regulations. EPA has initiated two enforcement actions to date
against demolition contractors.
MOBILE SOURCE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
EPA's enforcement activity in the mobile source area has in-
creased greatly this year. Table 8 summarizes the mobile source
enforcement actions taken by EPA this year.
Certification-Related Inspections/Investigations
In the light-duty vehicle manufacturing- area, EPA completed
24 inspections and initiated 18 investigations in the first 10 months
of 1973.
In the area of manufacturers compliance inspections, EPA
visited domestic, European, and Japanese manufacturing facilities.
These inspection trips have resulted in several follow-up investi-
gations of apparent irregularities and hence have served to en-
sure greater compliance with the purposes and intent of the Clean
Air Act.
The investigations all concerned possible violations by automo-
bile manufacturers of the Act and regulations promulgated there-
-------
126
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
under. Three of the investigations have thus far been referred to
the Department of Justice and are awaiting final disposition.
On Feb. 2, EPA referred to the Department of Justice a case
involving the Chevrolet Division of General Motors. The case
involved production vehicle weights which differed materially from
the weights reported for certification test vehicles. General Motors
was required by a Feb. 15, 1973, letter from EPA to recall 2,290
Chevrolets.
A second investigation involved the conflict in testimony
between Chrysler Corp. and Engelhard Industries Division repre-
sentatives during the public hearings on applications for suspen-
sion of the 1975 motor vehicle emission standards. The case was
referred to the Department of Justice on June 12, 1973. The
final outcome is still pending.
The third investigation referred to the Department of Justice
during the first 10 months of 1973 concerned the failure to report
the existence of and the use of possible defeat devices by Volks-
wagen on a substantial number of 1973 model year vehicles. The
case was referred on July 17 to the Department of Justice for
appropriate legal action.
In addition, the Department of Justice finalized on February
13, 1973, the Ford case which EPA had referred to them in
September 1972. Ford Motor was fined $7 million for illegal ac-
tivity with respect to its 1973 certification vehicles.
Affirmative enforcement action was also taken with regard to
devices which manufacturers were installing on new vehicles
which would, in their operation, defeat the effectiveness of emis-
sion control systems under conditions not experienced during
EPA's certification testing. In December 1972, EPA notified six
manufacturers that certain devices had to be removed by Feb.
TABLE 8
SUMMARY OF MOBILE SOURCE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
Adminis-
trative
Orders
Referrals
to the
Dept. of Justice
Inspections/
Type of Source Investigations *
New Sourcts
Automotive 24 Inspections 1 4
Manufacturers 18 Investigations
In-Use Sources
Recall 23 Investigations 1 0
Tampering 28 Investigations 0 2
Imports 12 Investigations 212 1
Warranties 1 Investigation 0 0
• Inspections are scheduled, detailed inspections of vehicle manufacturers (or importers) records, documents,
and procedures supporting application for certification. Investigations are searches of records and documents
and interrogation of individuals to determine whether violations of the Clean Air Act and applicable regula-
tions have occurred.
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 127
15 or March 15, 1973, depending upon the complexity of the re-
quired change. A hearing was held in January to discuss the
classification of the devices and the deadline dates for removal.
On Feb. 19, EPA ruled that one specific device, a spark delay
valve, had been improperly classified in the December ruling and
therefore did not have to be removed. All remaining devices, how-
ever, were required to be removed by March 15.
Warranty Related Enforcement Actions
The written warranties of all 1972 and 1973 vehicle and engine
manufacturers have been reviewed to see if they comply with the
law. Where appropriate, vehicle manufacturers have been required
to modify language in the warranties. One investigation was un-
dertaken when a dealer refused to honor the emission warranty.
The dealer relented before any formal action was necessary.
Recall/Surveillance and Related Enforcement Actions
Since January 1973, 23 investigations of potential recall situa-
tions have been initiated by EPA. As of this time, EPA has or-
dered one recall; this involved the 2,290 vehicles manufactured
by General Motor's Chevrolet Division.
In addition, several other important projects are currently
underway. The 1972 In-Use Compliance Testing Program is al-
most complete. Under this program 3,000 1972 model year vehicles
from 24 vehicle classes were tested to determine whether all
classes comply with emission standards. A surveillance program is
being developed to augment the In-Use Compliance Testing Pro-
gram. The surveillance program will obtain data from fleet own-
ers, automobile clubs, private diagnostic centers and State
inspection/emission programs which will indicate emission per-
formance of vehicles in use and serve to identify potential recall
candidates. As more States undertake emissions testing programs,
they will be incorporated into this surveillance program.
Tampering-Related Enforcement Actions
EPA initiated investigations of 28 reported instances of tamper-
ing by dealers or manufacturers during the first 10 months of
1973. Thirteen of these investigations have been concluded. Two
cases have been referred to the Department of Justice for appro-
priate legal action. One has already resulted in a suit being filed
against the Haney Chevrolet Corporation of Orlando, Florida.
-------
128 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
Import-Related Enforcement Actions
Appropriate steps have been taken to advise the general public
of the import restrictions concerning non-conforming vehicles,
and working relations have been established with U.S. Customs
at all major ports. A centralized EPA-Customs import monitoring
system has resulted in 212 administrative orders directing: the
modification of 180 vehicles, exportation of 26 vehicles, and the
forfeiture of Customs bonds for 6 vehicles which did not conform
to emission standards when imported. In addition, twelve investi-
gations of apparent violations of regulations have been conducted
and the first referral of a case of illegal importation to the De-
partment of Justice occurred in July 1973.
ENFORCEMENT OF SECTION 306—FEDERAL
PROCUREMENT
On June 21, EPA proposed regulations that would make air
polluters ineligible for certain contracts, grants, or loans from
the Federal Government. The regulation is to be effective July
1, 1974. It covers prime as well as sublevels of contractors,
grantees, and borrowers. With assistance from the States, EPA
will compile a list of violating facilities for circulation among
other Federal agencies. No facility would be listed until EPA
found adequate evidence of a violation and until the facility's
representatives and legal counsel had the opportunity to consult
with EPA.
V. THE STATUS OF STATE STANDARDS-SETTING, INCLUDING SUCH
PLANS FOR IMPLEMENTATION AS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED
States were required to submit to EPA by Jan. 31, 1972, a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for attainment of National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for five criteria pollutants—sulfur dioxide,
particulate matter, carbon monoxide, photochemical oxidants, and
nitrogen dioxide.
A priority classification system was established to categorize
the Nation's 247 Air Quality Control Regions (AQCRs) according
to the severity of their air pollution problem. The classifications
were based on measured ambient air concentrations (when they
were known) or on estimated air quality in the area of maximum
pollutant concentration. The SIP requirements vary according
to the priority classification so that the time and resources to be
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 129
expended in both developing and carrying out the plan are com-
mensurate with the air pollution problem.
AQCRs are classified for each of the six criteria pollutants as
follows :
Priority I: ambient concentrations significantly above primary
standards.
Priority la: ambient concentrations significantly above primary
standards due to emissions from a single point source.
Priority II: ambient concentrations significantly above sec-
ondary standards.
Priority III: ambient concentrations below secondary stan-
dards.
Table 9 summarizes the AQCR priority classifications for the
various pollutants.
ISSUES AFFECTING DEVELOPMENT AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
Revocation of Annual Secondary Sulfur Dioxide (SOJ Standards
On Sept. 14, 1973, EPA revoked the annual secondary S02
standard of 60 micrograms per cubic meter of air. New scientific
data suggested that vegetation damage arises from high short-
term concentrations of S02 rather than from continuous exposure
to lower levels. EPA concluded that the existing S02 criteria docu-
ment could not support the secondary annual standard. The pri-
mary S02 standards and the short-term secondary S02 standard
remain in effect.
SIPs with approved SOa control regulations remain in effect.
Reclassification of AQCRs with respect to NO,,
On June 5, 1973, EPA, based on new ambient air quality data,
proposed in the Federal Register to reclassify 43 of the 47 Priority
Priority
III
57
146
218
243 «
193
Pollutant
Particular* Matter
Sulfur dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Nitrogen dioxide •
Oxidant/hydrocarbon
PRIORITY CLASSIFICATIONS
Priority
1
108
39
29
4
54
TABLE 9
OF AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGIONS
Priority Priority
l« II
11 71
21 41
--
—
> Assuming rectification is promulgated as proposed. See Chapter V.
-------
130 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
I AQCRs with respect to N02 Priority III. Two of the four re-
maining Priority I AQCRs need further evaluation.
EPA also indicated that Denver, a Priority III AQCR, may have
to be reclassified Priority I. These reclassifications affect the con-
trol strategies that will be required in the reclassified AQCRs.
Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality
On May 30, 1972, as the result of a suit filed by the Sierra Club,
EPA was ordered by the District Court of the District of Co-
lumbia to disapprove all SIPs which do "not prevent significant
deterioration of air quality" in currently clean areas and to
promulgate new regulations which would prevent significant
deterioration. The District Court order was appealed to the Court
of Appeals where it was affirmed, and subsequently to the Supreme
Court, where it was affirmed by a tie vote. (June, 1973.) As a
result of the initial court action, all SIPs were disapproved on
Nov. 9, 1972, to the extent that they did not explicitly "prevent
significant deterioration."
Four alternative sets of regulations to prevent significant de-
terioration of air quality were proposed in the Federal Register of
July 16, 1973. EPA is soliciting widespread public participation
in the rulemaking activity because, despite the extensive litiga-
tion, there is no guidance available regarding what level of de-
terioration is significant, nor what procedures should be im-
plemented to prevent that level of deterioration from occurring.
To this end, public hearings on the significant deterioration issue
were held and a 90-day period for public comment was established,
Indirect Sources/ Maintenance of Standards
In response to a court order, EPA developed and promulgated
regulations designed to ensure continuing maintenance of the Na-
tional Ambient Air Quality Standards. These regulations establish
two new requirements related to implementation of the Clean
Air Act:
1. Indirect Sources—State or local agencies must set up proce-
dures to assess the air quality impact of new facilities, such as
shopping centers and sports arenas, which could generate sig-
nificant auto traffic, i.e., indirect sources. This requirement supple-
ments the existing requirement to assess the air quality impact
of pollutants emitted directly from new facilities.
2. Maintenance of Standards—States must identify areas where
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 131
projected growth and development could result in violation of the
national standards during the next ten years, and they must
submit an analysis of such potential problems and plans for dealing
with them. The analysis must deal with all significant air quality
implications of growth and development, including additional air
pollution from new commercial, industrial, and residential de-
velopment, and from increased demand for electricity and heat,
from motor vehicle traffic, and from production of solid waste.
States were required to identify potential problem areas within
nine months and to submit their problem analyses and SIP revi-
sions for maintenance of standards within 24 months.
However, by court order they were only given until August 15,
1973, to submit their SIP revisions for indirect sources.
To date, only eight States have submitted their SIP revisions
for indirect sources to EPA. As required by the Clean Air Act,
EPA will promulgate regulations for those States that do not
submit their own regulations, or whose submittals are disapproved.
EPA's regulation will be withdrawn as acceptable State regula-
tions are received.
Clean Fuels Shortage
Because of possible shortages of clean fuels (low-sulfur fuels)
and flue gas desulfurization equipment, EPA has developed a clean
fuels policy to encourage the States to:
• set attainment of the secondary S02 standards at a reason-
able date but later than the attainment of primary stan-
dards; and
• revise their control regulations to the degree necessary to
meet standards without excessive control requirements.
The shortage of low-sulfur coal is most severe in coalburning
utilities in EPA Regions III, IV, and V, where most of the Nation's
coal is burned. Progress is being made in the implementation of
this policy. In order to overcome any shortages of clean fuels dur-
ing the winter of 1973-74, EPA has established expedited proce-
dures for the processing of requests for variances (for the use
of high-sulfur content fuels) from the States. The variances are
considered SIP revisions, therefore requiring approval by the
Administrator of EPA. The expedited procedures are designed
to assure realistic action on the requests, while protecting the
public health and welfare.
-------
132 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
Extensions for Developing and Implementing SIPs
The Clean Air Act provides for extensions of up to 2 years be-
yond the 1975 goal for attainment of primary National Ambient
Air Quality Standards in those AQCRs where needed technology
or other alternatives either are not available or will not be avail-
able soon enough to attain the primary standards. At present, nine
AQCRs in seven States have been granted extensions for attain-
ment of primary standards, primarily for S02 emissions from
copper smelters. In six of these AQCRs, EPA is required to
promulgate regulations, and an extension was provided as part
of EPA's control strategy. It is likely that additional extensions
will be provided as a part of the transportation control plans.
These plans were discussed in detail in Chapter II.
The Clean Air Act also provides for 18-month extensions for
submitting plans for attaining secondary standards. On May 31,
1972, EPA granted 18-month extensions to 19 States involving
31 AQCRs to prepare control strategies for the criteria pollutants
for which secondary standards have been set, i.e., particulate
matter and S02. Thirteen States were required to submit particu-
late matter control plans by July 31, 1973. Because of the an-
nouncement on May 12, 1973, that S02 secondary standards might
be revised, States now have until Jan. 30, 1974, to submit their
S02 control strategies.
The Clean Air Act requires that secondary ambient air quality
standards be met within a "reasonable time." EPA has defined
reasonable time as the time required to design, fabricate and
install reasonably available control technology. Thus, in develop-
ing their control strategies for meeting secondary standards,
States can postpone the application of control technology only in
those cases where the control strategy would have a severe adverse
economic or social impact.
Supplementary Control Systems
EPA proposed regulations on Sept. 14, 1973, for the use of
Supplementary Control Systems (SCS) and requested public
comment. SCS is a temporary measure applicable only to isolated
smelters and coal-fired power plants, where the sole alternatives
are permanent curtailment of production, closing of the plants,
or delays in attainment of the standards. The essence of SCS is
to allow the pollution source, subject to certain restraints, to cut
back or modify its operations as necessary to permit adequate
dispersion of air pollutants.
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 133
Uncertainty as to whether EPA would allow the use of SCS
has affected promulgation of final regulations for copper smelters.
Promulgation of the SCS proposal will allow EPA to complete
the development of control strategies to achieve the secondary
standards.
Public Comments on Plan Revisions
As a result of a decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals,
EPA will provide an opportunity for public comments prior to its
approval of implementation plans or revisions thereof. Public
hearings continue to be required during the State's development
of the plan or revision.
Fugitive Dust
Fugitive dust—particulate matter from unpaved roads, agri-
cultural lands, construction sites, and other similar sources—
caused several western States to fail to demonstrate attainment
of standards for particulate matter. Additional data have been col-
lected and initial results indicate that extreme control measures
may be required in the affected areas to attain particulate matter
standards. However, alternative solutions are expected.
STATUS OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
APPROVALS, DISAPPROVALS, AND PROMULGATIONS
Plans were submitted by all 55 jurisdictions—50 States plus
the District of Columbia, Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico,
and the Virgin Islands. On May 31, 1972, EPA fully approved
only 14 of the 55 plans. The 41 remaining plans were disapproved
in part because of the lack of, or deficiency in, one or more regu-
latory portions of the plan (e.g., public access to emission data,
or faulty emission regulations). In these cases, EPA was required
to propose and promulgate substitute regulations. It is and has
been EPA's policy to rescind its regulations when States enact
adequate legislation or regulations.
As shown in Table 10, there are currently 20 State plans with
all regulatory portions approved. This summary includes EPA
approval/disapproval proposals which have not yet been promul-
gated. It is anticipated that additional action may be necessary
in some of these 20 States at a later date, depending on how these
States respond to requirements involving 18-month extensions,
maintenance of the national standards, and significant deteriora-
tion of air quality.
-------
134 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
TABLE 10
STATUS OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (SIPs) «
Status Number of States
SIPs fully approved by EPA 15
SIPs with only non-regulatory sections disapproved
by EPA (no EPA action required) 5
SIPs with sections proposed by EPA 19
EPA proposals finalized 11
EPA proposals incomplete (action pending
on some sections) 8
SIPs with sections awaiting final internal EPA action
before being proposed 16
Total Plans 55
•Does not reflect plan disapprovals with respect to "significant deterioration", extensions, or indirect
sources/maintenance of standards.
VI. THE EXTENT OF DEVELOPMENT AND EXPANSION OP AIR
POLLUTION MONITORING SYSTEMS
EPA is responsible for conducting an ambient air monitoring
program to:
• Assess compliance with or progress made toward meeting
ambient air quality standards.
• Activate emergency control procedures intended to pre-
vent acute episodes of air pollution.
• Determine pollution trends.
• Develop a data base for assessment of pollutant effects;
land use and transportation planning; study of pollutant
interactions, patterns, and trends; evaluation of abatement
strategies and enforcement of control regulations; and
improving the reliability of diffusion models.
EPA also has the responsibility for source monitoring to:
• Develop and assess compliance with New Source Perfor-
mance Standards and National Emission Standards for Haz-
ardous Air Pollutants.
• Measure emission trends to assure attainment and main-
tenance of State Implementation Plan (SIP) emission
limitations.
Under the requirements of the SIP development process, the
States were given the responsibility for establishing monitoring
networks for accomplishing these objectives. EPA has given the
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 135
States both technical and financial assistance in establishing the
networks. A summary of the States' progress toward achieving
the minimum required monitoring network size is shown in Table
11. The total number of required, proposed, and existing stations
are summarized in Table 12. As this table shows, the total number
of existing stations in a given category, in some instances, exceeds
the 1974 legal requirements. This is in spite of the fact that many
individual AQCRs do not meet the minimum requirements.
EPA has developed a data bank for storage and retrieval of
both air quality and emission data. The air quality data bank
contains information from over 4,000 monitors. The emission
bank has information on nearly 70,000 point sources and 3,300
area sources throughout the country. Access to the data are
through terminals located at Research Triangle Park, N. C. and
in the 10 EPA Regional Offices. Changes to these data banks are
made through quarterly and semi-annual reports.
PROGRESS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF MONITORING
SYSTEMS
Decentralization of Monitoring
In 1972, EPA decided to decentralize the Federal National Air
Surveillance Network (NASN) from Headquarters to the 10
EPA Regional Offices." This involves the transfer of nearly 200
S02 and N02 stations and 260 total suspended particulate (TSP)
stations, with their related laboratory functions. Since many
laboratories in the future will be doing sample analysis, instead of
only one as in the past, a comprehensive quality control program
is being established to ensure that results from the different
laboratories will be comparable. This program is being run by
the National Environmental Research Center at Research Triangle
Park, N. C. Technical assistance was given on proper laboratory
procedures and operation of instruments to provide a smooth and
orderly transfer of functions.
Revised Monitoring Requirements and Guidelines
Since last year, five issues emerged which affect the SIP control
regulations and could have a significant impact on monitoring
requirements:
• Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality
• Indirect sources/maintenance of air quality standards
' Some stations have been transferred to State control.
-------
136 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
• Supplementary Control Systems
• Revocation of secondary annual S02 standard
• Transportation control plans
These issues were denned in Chapter V. All of them may either
imply or require additional monitoring over that required when
the original SIPs were submitted in 1972.
A study is underway to develop the most cost-effective strategy
for implementing a monitoring network; the monitoring impli-
cations of the five issues enumerated above have been incorporated
in the study. It is expected that this analysis will have two results.
First, new monitoring requirements may be promulgated to en-
sure that all SIP goals are met. Second, guidelines for the estab-
lishment and implementation of these networks will be developed
and distributed to the appropriate agencies.
Revised regulations, if any, should be promulgated during 1974.
The probable changes in monitoring are difficult to predict since
several of the issues (prevention of significant deterioration of
air quality, for example) have not been resolved.
TABLE 11
STATUS OF AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGIONS (AQCRs) WITH RESPECT TO STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP)
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (SEPTEMBER 1973) •
Pollutant
Total suspended participates -
SOa
CO
Oxidants . _ _ _-
NOa"
Number of AQCRs
requiring
monitoring
by SIPs
247
247
29
... — 54
45
Number of AQCRs
meeting
minimum require-
ments of SIPs
152
no
6
5
0
Number of AQCRs
not meeting
minimum require-
ments of SIPs
95
137
23
49
45
• Based on 1972 data.
'> The standards reference measurement method is being re-evaluated. A new method and monitoring frequency
will be named. Does not account for proposed rectification.
TABLE 12
COMPARISON OF NUMBERS OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED MONITORS WITH NUMBER REQUIRED BY SIPSs "
Number of monitors
Required Proposed
by SIP in
Pollutant Existing regulations SIPs
Total suspended particulate-tape 397 497 901
Total suspended particulate-Hi-Vol 2,538 1,372 3,511
SOa Bubbler — 541 666 1,431
SOs-Continuous 329 213 698
CO—Continuous 197 133 457
Oxidants-Continuous 183 208 458
« More monitors may exist than are required in some categories but the minimum requirements of the SIPs
may not be met on an AQCR by AQCR basis because of the actual geographic distribution of the stations.
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 137
Status of New Monitoring Methods
Several candidate methods are now being evaluated in order
that the reference method for N02 can be replaced. A new method
will be promulgated as soon as possible. The N02 air quality
standard has not been affected by the change.
On October 12, 1973, EPA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rule making for determining equivalence of
ambient air monitoring methods. When finalized, the proposal
will establish requirements and procedures applicable to determina-
tions as to whether methods for sampling and analyzing the
ambient air may be designated "equivalent" to the established
"reference methods."
In the area of source measurements, a number of test proce-
dures were promulgated along with the New Source Performance
Standards and the National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants.
Quality Control
An EPA-wide quality control strategy was adopted in early
1973. The purpose of the program is to ensure that all data col-
lected by EPA, contractors, or State and local agencies are valid.
By using standardized procedures and following rigorous quality
control practices, it will also be possible to better compare data
collected by various agencies and make decisions regarding
achievement of standards, trends, and adequacy of control plans,
with a greater degree of confidence than has been the case to
date.
TRENDS IN NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY LEVELS
Long-Term Trends in TSP, and SOn Levels
NASN data collected for the past 12 years have been examined
for trends in ambient levels of TSP and S02.4 The analysis shows
that both TSP and S02 concentrations at most center-city NASN
sites have declined significantly over the 12-year period. In gen-
eral, stations with the highest concentrations in the early 1960's
have shown the greatest improvement. The average center-city
TSP concentration has decreased by approximately 20 percent,
while S02 concentrations have shown a much greater improve-
* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Air Quality Levels And Trends In Total
Suspended Particulates And Sulfur Dioxide Determined By Data In The National Air Sur-
veillance Network, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
April, 1973.
-------
137a
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
FIGURE 2
COMPOSITE LEVELS OF TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATES
AT URBAN AND NONURBAN NASN STATIONS
200
150
E
00
100
PRIMARY STANDARD
SECONDARY
STANDARD 5Q:
10
-j
-
•
_
' — ..
—
--
«-
.
•^.
-r-
•
^
--
. .
--
V.
' .
—
N
. •
— '
-X
•^^
•— J
— -
. . .
COMPOSITE AVERAGE
95 URBAN LOCATIONS
- PRIMARY STANDARD
H SECONDARY STANDARD
COMPOSITE AVERAGE
18 NONURBAN LOCATION
60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72
YEARS
J RANGE OF URBAN GEOMETRIC MEANS
T RANGE OF NONURBAN GEOMETRIC MEANS
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
137b
FIGURE 3
COMPOSITE LEVELS Of SULFUR DIOXIDE AT 32 NASN STATIONS
200
150
TO^
\
HO
3
100
PRIMARY STANDARD
50
AVERAGE
1=
64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72
YEARS
RANGE OF ARITHMETIC MEANS
-------
138 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
ment, decreasing by approximately 50 percent. Figures 2 and 3
graphically illustrate this decline. These results are preliminary
and will be further refined as State air quality information is
included.
These improvements in air quality have primarily resulted from
the increased use of cleaner-burning fuels in the residential, com-
mercial, and industrial sectors of most urban areas. Local and
State air pollution regulations limiting the use of coal and high-
sulfur fuels have resulted in increased use of low-sulfur oil and
natural gas as the primary sources of energy.
Nationwide long-term trends in atmospheric levels of oxidants,
CO, and N02 are not yet identifiable.
Air Quality in AQCRs
In spite of the improvement in air quality at selected locations,
air quality levels in many AQCRs still do not satisfy the require-
ments of the primary ambient air quality standards. In fact, as
additional air quality data have been collected, EPA has found
that some AQCRs originally assumed to be meeting standards may
actually be violating them. The data are still under review. How-
ever, if this preliminary finding holds true, then these AQCRs
will have to adopt control strategies that will result in ambient
air quality standards being met. In those States where the example
region concept was used in SIP development, i.e., application of a
plan designed for the AQCR with the worst air quality in all
AQCRs, no new plan may be necessary. It is expected that existing
regulations, and any new ones that will be required, will result in
attainment of primary ambient air quality standards in almost
all AQCRs by 1975.
Tables 13 through 16 present the status of AQCRs with respect
to TSP, S02, oxidants, and CO levels. As explained in Chapter V,
TABLE 13
STATUS OF AIR QUALITY, TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATES •
1972
Number AQCRs reporting
Priority" of One quarter's data Complete
classification AQCRs from one station annual average
1 or IA
II
III
TOTAL
... 120
70
57
247
118
63
37
218
110
53
28
191
AQCRs violating
either primary
standard c
102
22
14
138
« As of Oct. 1973.
b Fee/era/ Register, Vol. 36, #158, p. 15488, Aug. 14, 1971.
c There is both an annual and a 24-hour primary standard.
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
139
TABLE 14
STATUS OF AIR QUALITY, SULFUR DIOXIDE"
1972
Number AQCRs Reporting
Priority" of One Quarter's Data Complete
Classification AQCRs From One Station Annual Average
1 or la
||
III
TOTAL
60
41
- 146
. __ 247
52
31
79
162
41
27
55
123
AQCRs Violating
Either Primary
Standard '
13
4
2
19
1 As of Oct. 1973.
'Federal Register, Vol. 36, #158, p. 1'5488, Aug. 14, 1971.
• There is both an annual and a 24-hour primary standard.
TABLE 15
STATUS OF AIR QUALITY, OXIDANTS •
1972
Priority"
Classification
1 . .
Ill .. ..
TOTAL
Number
of
AQCRs
55
.__ 192
247
AQCRs Reporting
One Quarter's Data
From One Station
31
7
38
AQCRs Violating
The Primary
Standard
25
3
28
• As of Oct. 1973.
"Federal Register, Vol 36, #158, p. 1'5488, Aug. 14/1971.
TABLE 16
STATUS OF AIR QUALITY, CARBON MONOXIDE •
1972
Number AQCRs Reporting AQCRs Violating
Priority1" of One Quarter's Data The Primary
Classification AQCRs From One Station Standard
I _ 30
III 217
TOTAL 247
22
26
48
21
21
42
• As of Oct. 1973.
b Federal Register, Vol. 36, #158, p. 1'5488, Aug 14, 1971.
AQCRs were classified according to estimated air quality when
measurements were not available. This fact, in combination with
changes in actual air quality over time explains why, for each of
the criteria pollutants, some priority I AQCRs are not in violation
of the primary standards while some Priority II or III AQCRs
are in violation.
-------
140 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
VII. THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW AND IMPROVED AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL TECHNIQUES
The development and demonstration of stationary source air
pollution control technology is one of EPA's largest tasks. Ap-
proximately $27.2 million were spent on this activity in FY 73,
primarily for on-going programs to demonstrate control methods
for sulfur and nitrogen oxides, particulates, and other pollutants
such as mercury, beryllium and asbestos. The purposes of these
activities are threefold:
• To describe at least one method of control for each major
source of pollution.
• To provide a technical base for EPA enforcement activities.
• To establish technical and economic data to support New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS).
Achieving these goals hinges on development and demonstration
of flue gas cleaning systems, production of clean fuels, and modi-
fication of industrial processes.
Stationary Source Air Pollution Control
Technology-Sulfur Oxides
The emphasis of the SOX control program has been on demon-
strating four methods of flue gas cleaning which are applicable to
new and existing coal- and oil-fired utility and industrial combus-
tion sources. The four control systems are:
• A wet lime/limestone scrubber at the TVA Shawnee Steam
Plant, Paducah, Ky.
• A magnesium-oxide scrubber at Boston Edison's oil-fired
Mystic Station, Everett, Mass.
• A catalytic-oxidation scrubber at Illinois Power System's
Wood River Station, 111.
• A sodium-ion scrubber (Wellman-Power Gas), at Northern
Indiana Public Service Co., Gary, Ind.
On the basis of this and other work EPA has concluded that
demonstratable control technology for utility SOX emissions exists.
A second technique used to reduce the emissions of SOX is to
actually remove sulfur from the fuel prior to combustion. EPA
is supporting research in this field, particularly in coal-cleaning
methods and fuel oil desulfurization. Feasibility studies have been
completed for several fuel-cleaning processes, and large scale dem-
onstrations are being planned.
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 141
A third technique in the SOX control strategy is combustion
process modification, that is the modification or control of the
actual combustion process to reduce not only the production of
SO* but also NOX and particulates. Several processes are under
consideration including fluidized-bed combustion and submerged
combustion.
These technologies are primarily for the control of emissions
from combustion sources. Industrial sources such as iron foun-
dries, coking plants, nonferrous smelters, and petroleum refineries
are also major sources of SOX emissions; control technology for
these sources is under development and will be the focus of EPA
efforts in the future.
Particulates
The control technology for large particulates is well developed.
EPA efforts have been directed primarily toward obtaining operat-
ing and economic data to evaluate electrostatic precipitators, filter
systems, and scrubbers.
Of great concern is the control of fine particulate, that fraction
of the particulate emission smaller than 3 micrometers. These
small particles remain suspended in the atmosphere and are easily
respirable and absorbable into the body. Fine particulates may
contain toxic trace metals and sulfates, each of which has con-
siderable impact on health. Control technology for fine particulates
is seriously deficient. Current EPA efforts center on developing
adequate devices and on field testing as well as development of
control methods. EPA is working both to improve available col-
lection devices and to identify and ultimately demonstrate novel
devices.
Nitrogen Oxides
Combustion modification is the only demonstrated method for
control of NOX emissions from fossil fuel burning. Tests of flue
gas treatment techniques have shown little promise to date. Pres-
ently, the application of combustion technology will allow NOX
emissions from gas- and oil-fired utility boilers to be controlled
to the NSPS that have been set for these fuel categories.
EPA programs for combustion modification to control NOX
include:
• Air/fuel mixture control (low excess air combustion)
• Staged combustion
• Recirculation of flue gas
• Boiler component design
-------
142 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
Other Pollutants
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPs) have been set for mercury, asbestos, and beryllium.
Other materials which are considered pollutants but for which
standards have not been set include trace metals, polycyclic or-
ganic matter (POM) and miscellaneous hydrocarbons, fluorides,
odors, etc. In general, control technology research efforts are
necessary for these materials.
One current goal of the Air Technology Program is to char-
acterize the major sources and the specific chemical and physical
properties of trace metal emissions. This is a necessary first phase
in the development of control systems.
Several tasks are being funded for field testing coal-fired utility
and industrial boilers, and for limited source characterization of
gas- and oil-fired units. A field testing program is also planned
for residential and commercial heating units.
In addition, control technology development is planned for cer-
tain chemical processing sources. These include the zinc com-
pounds industry, a significant source of metallic particulates, and
the glass industry, which emits large quantities of arsenic, fluo-
rides and fine particulates.
Efforts are underway to establish control techniques both for
open sources and for selected closed sources of asbestos. The key
sources include mining, milling, and manufacturing sites; the
latter source tends to be located predominately in urban areas
and contributes substantially to human exposure to asbestos. The
objective of the efforts is to develop and demonstrate control
technology for handling, unloading, and disposal operations, in
addition to demonstrating the operation of a specific methodology
for controlling closed sources of asbestos in manufacturing opera-
tions. This work is undertaken to supplement control via
NESHAPs, since their effectiveness is still unknown.
In control of mercury, an effort is being undertaken to remove
mercury from waste gases containing SOX (such as those gases
derived from combustion and nonferrous metallurgical sources)
via a combined SOX and mercury control system. Because both of
these substances come from combustion sources, it would be
highly useful to have a single system that could effectively control
both.
Current methods of POM detection and analysis are generally
complex, costly, and time-consuming. Also, it is unknown to what
extent POM may actually be emitted as a gas which condenses
to a particulate substance, rather than emitted as a particulate.
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 143
There is, in addition, a problem in obtaining quantitative data on
POM emissions, whether in participate or gaseous form. In situ
methods for measuring POM and determining its characteristics
are required, as well as techniques for upgrading combustion
processes to avoid POM formation. The air program will focus
attention on these problems.
EPA has begun to develop control systems through the pilot
plant stage of development for the following sources—acryloni-
trile plants, refinery crackers, asphalt roofing plants, and ethylene
dichloride plants.
VIII. THE DEVELOPMENT OF INSTRUMENTATION TO MONITOR
EMISSIONS AND AIR QUALITY
Methods for the quantitative detection of pollutants in air are
essential to EPA's abatement and control program. Initially,
methods are needed to determine the extent and causes of a pol-
lution problem and in investigations of the health and welfare
effects of the pollutants. When standards are promulgated, refer-
ence or compliance methods must also be promulgated, for de-
termining achievement and maintenance of the standards.
Furthermore, implementation plans call for determining ambient
air quality levels and stationary and mobile source emmission levels.
For these applications, the methods and associated devices em-
ployed must be low-cost, reliable, and capable of unattended
operation or use by relatively untrained personnel.
In the area of air quality measurements technology, the major
problems relate to the reduction in cost to allow more economical
deployment in monitoring networks and to improve sensitivity
for use in background locations. For source emissions, the major
problem is that of the proper interfacing of instruments with the
source so as to allow representative samples to reach the instru-
ment. There is also the time-consuming and expensive problem
of evaluation on all relevant sources, since interfering substances
and conditions vary from source to source. Source emissions
measurements technology is still in a developmental stage.
EMISSIONS MONITORING DEVELOPMENTS
Mobile Sources
Under the Clean Air Act, standards have been established for
emissions from automobiles. Specifically, measurements must be
made to show that CO, NOX, and HC meet the standards estab-
lished for the emissions from engines. As of the end of fiscal
-------
144 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
1973, the methods for NOX, and HC have been shown to be ade-
quate, although the procedures for applying these methods have
not been completely worked out. In the case of CO, there is still
a question concerning the adequacy of sensitivity of present in-
strumentation for the very low-emitting post-1976 vehicles. Work
is continuing on improvement of this instrumentation.
Fiscal 1973 also saw the completion of other developments re-
lated to mobile sources. The development of an instrument for
methane, CO, and C02 was completed. This instrument will be of
value in investigating advanced-design automotive engines. A
prototype instrument for measuring odors from diesel engines
and a device for the measurement of over 100 hydrocarbons were
completed. The hydrocarbon device will allow EPA to determine
which hydrocarbons are active in smog formation and thus
require control.
Stationary Sources
In the area of stationary source measurements, validation of
compliance methods for the first group of New Source Perfor-
mance Standards was completed. Performance specifications for
monitoring systems for S02, NOX, CO, HC, and visual opacity
were established and will be promulgated in the near future.
Evaluation of commercially available instruments for hydrogen
sulfide and total sulfur revealed several shortcomings and the
need for further research and development. Finally, the designs
were completed for interfacing measurement devices with sources.
Evaluation of these designs are underway to determine whether
modifications arc needed.
AMBIENT MONITORING DEVELOPMENTS
An X-ray fluorescence instrument for determination of ele-
ments in particulate matter was developed. Once a representative
sample is obtained, this instrument will determine a large number
of elements in a short period of time, i.e., phosphorous, sulfur,
copper, lead, and other heavy metals.
A study of the mechanism of particulate formation has resulted
in a "working concept" that assumes two basic categories of
particulate matter, i.e., fine and coarse. A candidate method has
been selected for use in evaluating this concept and instruments
are now being constructed for testing this idea.
An additional improvement in the measurement technology for
particulate emissions from stationary sources has been develop-
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
145
ment of a particle size classifier and a device for continuously
monitoring particulate emissions (beta gauge). These devices are
currently being field tested.
QUALITY CONTROL EFFORTS
The quality control effort required to provide valid data is now
well underway. In fiscal 1973, guidelines for developing quality
assurance programs were completed and a first seminar for quality
control program managers was conducted. Reference samples or
calibration procedures were established and are available for
S02, CO, N02, ozone and particulate matter. Commercial sources
are being identified as suppliers of the reference materials and
calibration devices. In addition, EPA proposed guidelines for
establishing the equivalency of other methods to an EPA promul-
gated reference method for ambient air measurements.
IX. STANDARDS SET OR UNDER CONSIDERATION PURSUANT TO
TITLE II OF THIS ACT
A number of emission standards have been set, and many regu-
lations have been issued to support EPA's control program in the
mobile source area. Table 17 lists the major emission standards
TABLE 17
MOBILE SOURCE EMISSION STANDARDS
ACTED UPON BY EPA IN 1973 •
Emission Source
Light-duty vehicles (except California)
California -
Light-duty vehicles (all states)
Light-duty trucks -- - -
Turboprop and turbofan or turbojet
«8,000-lb. thrust)
Jets newly manufactured of >8,000-!b. thrust'
Retrofit of pre-1979 jets >29,000-lb thrust
Turbine engines certified after 1980 f
(>8,000-lb. thrust)
Piston engines (except radial engines b)
Auxiliary power units d _ _
Effective
Date
1975 e
. 1975 e
1976 •
1975 '
1/1/79
1/1/79
1/1/83
1/1/81
12/31/79
1/1/79
Percentage emission
reduction e
Hydro- Carbon Nitrogen
carbons Monoxide Oxides
83
90
95
77
80
70
70
85
30
83
90
96
77
60
60
60
.72
50
30
11
43
43
11
20
50
50
50
c
50
• First 10 months only.
b These are no longer being produced in significant quantities.
c Maintenance at existing levels required.
'' Units used to operate on-board power systems when propulsion engines are not operating.
• Model year.
' Excluding supersonic transports.
* Compared to uncontrolled levels.
-------
146 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
TABLE 18
MOBILE SOURCE REGULATIONS ACTED UPON BY EPA IN 1973 •
Reduction of Lead in Fuels (proposed)
All grades of leaded gasoline will be limited to:
2 grams of lead per gallon by 1975
1.7 grams of lead per gallon by 1976
1.5 grams of lead per gallon by 1977
1.25 grams of lead per gallon by 1978
Availability of Lead-free Fuel (final)
Large gasoline retailers (over 200,000 gallons per year) will be required to offer lead-
free gasoline after July 1, 1974; lead-free gasoline is needed by catalyst-equipped
cars.
Nozzle restrictions will make it impossible to mistakenly use leaded fuel in a car
requiring lead-free gasoline.
Motor Vehicle Certification Inspections (Proposed)
EPA is authorized access to:
Facilities where processes related to certification are carried on.
Production lines of foreign and domestic manufacturers to ensure essential similarities
of production and test vehicles.
" First 10 months only.
and Table 18 briefly summarizes the major regulations acted upon
during 1973 in the mobile source area.
Servicing of Auto Emission Controls (Final)
Warning systems (such as dashboard lights or buzzers) on
1975 and later model cars are required to alert drivers to
malfunctions or to the need for maintenance if the vehicle's
emission control systems are expected to require maintenance
during the vehicle's useful life, denned as 50,000 miles.
Low-Emission Vehicle Standards (Proposed)
Advanced technology or production techniques are expected
to be needed for a vehicle to qualify as a "low-emission ve-
hicle."
Regulations on High-Altitude Vehicles (Proposed)
New cars sold in substantial numbers in high-altitude areas
will be required to pass special high-altitude certification
tests.
New car owner manuals will be required to contain informa-
tion on engine adjustments necessary for proper functioning
of emission control systems at high and low altitudes.
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 147
X. THE STATUS OF STATE, INTERSTATE, AND LOCAL POLLUTION
CONTROL PROGRAMS ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO AND
ASSISTED BY THIS ACT
A single agency is designated to administer Air Quality Control
Programs in each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia,
Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and American Samoa.
In addition, approximately 265 local agencies, concerned with air
pollution control at the municipal level, work in coordination with
the 55 State agencies. The State agencies are organized as
follows:
• 29 environmental agencies combining air, water and pos-
sibly other environmental protection programs, and in some
cases exercising significant natural resources management.
• 20 health agencies combining air pollution control func-
tions (and possibly other environmental protection pro-
grams) with traditional medical health protection functions.
• 6 air agencies specializing predominantly in the control
of air pollution.
FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL AGENCIES
EPA provides financial assistance to 54 State agencies (the
single exception being American Samoa) and 176 local agencies.
These 230 agencies represented approximately 95% of the total
expenditures by all State and local air pollution control agencies
in FY 1973. This assistance takes the form of grants for
planning, developing, establishing, improving or maintaining
programs for the prevention and control of air pollution, supple-
mented by special contractual assistance for the conduct of specific
Federally-required planning activities. Grants awarded in Fiscal
Years 1972 and 1973 are summarized in Table 19.
PROGRESS OF STATE AND LOCAL AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL PROGRAMS
Total expenditures for the support of air pollution control pro-
grams have grown at an average annual rate of approximately
30 percent, from $13 million in Fiscal Year 1965 to an estimated
$113 million in Fiscal Year 1973. The percentage of these ex-
penditures provided by Federal financial assistance has increased
from approximately 31 percent in Fiscal Year 1965 to approxi-
mately 44 percent in Fiscal Year 1973. However, the portion of
-------
148
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
TABLE 19
SUMMARY OF GRANT AWARDS TO STATE AND LOCAL AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCIES
State or Territory
FY 1972
Actual
FY 1973 «
Alabama - - - $ 527,324 $ 714,400
Alaska - —- 69,775 139,600
Arizona — - 207,049 377,000
Arkansas - 208,527 201,800
California _ 3,690,260 3,761,300
Colorado 796,270 817,300
Connecticut 1,335,796 1,355,800
Delaware _ 180 ' 193,300
District of Columbia 225,000 334,100
Florida —- 957,742 1,045,600
Georgia 630,218 626,500
Hawaii _ - - 96,445 175,400
Idaho _ —_ 81,687 108,200
Illinois —.- 2,423,520 2,987,800
Indiana - - 826,034 778,900
Iowa _ - —- - 559,243 645,300
Kansas ._._ — — _ 335,761 596,300
Kentucky - 187,981 656,600
Louisiana 175,000 350,000
Maine —_ b 192,000
Maryland 987,000 1,365,800
Massachusetts - 794,385 1,312,900
Michigan _ ___ _ 1,613,520 1,999,700
Minnesota _ __._ .._ __ 366,641 661,200
Mississippi — -- 459,499 419,500
Missouri 717,574 1,145,900
Montana — 184,681 266,600
Nebraska 231,929 247,100
Nevada 245,702 247,100
New Hampshire ._ — _ 185,409 185,400
New Jersey 2,135,581 2,262,700
New Mexico — 706,440 482,500
New York _ 3,967,790 4,273,000
North Carolina 1,489,039 1,188,600
North Dakota - —- 40,525 45,000
Ohio 1,841,153 2,414,900
Oklahoma 484,906 416,000
Oregon 486,828 553,700
Pennsylvania ... 2,080,700 2,545,500
Rhode Island — — 133,899 133,900
South Carolina 111,783 430,300
South Dakota 32,025 32,000
Tennessee 703,614 927,200
Texas 2,603,299 2,923,300
Utah >> 160,000
Vermont 224,426 154,400
Virginia 1,062,000 991,800
Washington 1,129,910 1,084,500
West Virginia .— 317,620 507,000
Wisconsin 965,448 840,400
Wyoming 1 64,439 68,100
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
TABLE 19—Continued
149
State or Territory
FY 1972
Actual
FY 1973 '
American Samoa — —
Guam - 54,744 54,800
Puerto Rico 464.417 419,300
Virgin Islands 100,043 100,000
Total Grants $40,320,781 $46,827,300
Other Federal Financial Assistance = 1,808,000 3,636,800
$42,089,000 $50,463,100
• The amounts shown for FY 1973 grant awards are preliminary.
b Actual funding also included carry-over from the previous fiscal years.
c Other Federal financial assistance includes special contract support for the continuing development and
revision of SIPs and the equivalent value of temporary Federal employees assigned to control agencies as a
supplement to their program grants.
these expenditures provided by State and local revenue sources
has grown almost seven-fold during the same period, from $9
million in Fiscal Year 1965 to an estimated $63 million in Fiscal
Year 1973.
The increase in the number of employees of State and local
control agencies is an indicator of the Nation's growing capability
to control air pollution. Table 20 shows that the number of on-
board personnel has more than doubled in the last 4 years.
Original manpower estimates contained in the SIPs indicated
that a manpower level by FY 75 of about 8,500 would be necessary
to accomplish clean air objectives. The trend indicated in Table
20 is encouraging; it is hoped that the original manpower esti-
mates will be met. However, it should be noted that since this
estimate was made additional requirements have been put on
the States because of additional actions required on transportation
controls implementation, prevention of significant degradation of
air quality, and indirect sources/maintenance of standards.
Accomplishments of the State programs have been reflected
throughout this report in the sense of their activities in develop-
ing, implementing, and enforcing SIPs.
TABLE 20
PERSONNEL EMPLOYED BY STATE AND LOCAL AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCIES
Agency level
State
Local
Total.
2969
997
1,840
2,837
1971
1,537
2,628
4,165
1973
2,929
3,266
6,195
-------
150 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
XL REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE PRESIDENT'S
AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD
The President's Air Quality Advisory Board met in St. Louis,
Mo., on March 27-30, 1973, to explore urban air pollution prob-
lems and to consider the tradeoffs involved in achieving environ-
mental goals. The Board received comprehensive briefings from
Federal and State officials, representatives of industry and en-
vironmental groups, and other knowledgeable and concerned in-
dividuals. In addition,'the Board conducted an on-site review of
various aspects of urban air problems during a tour of St. Louis'
industrial and central city areas.
Individual conclusions and recommendations were formulated
by members of the Board and submitted to the Administrator as
part of the Board's report on its meeting.
-------
APPENDIX
Summary of EPA's Stationary Source Air
Enforcement Actions
May 1972—October 1973
-------
152
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
V)
z
TACTIO
Z ro
uj r—
gS
o ce.
D- UJ
Sg
5S
E?
|S
ss
0 E
£
|
3
CO
m
3
CO
0
"5
tc
c
o
'I
•s
V
3
E
™ S E S
•S S B °"
1 - S f
z o
£ g
S .2
•il
Ql 8
£ S «
18 =
S<3'§
c w ,«
.2 u E
•5. = *
c '-^ «
111
£ o. -o
1 *" •
v>
£
to
1 s
O
"c "S*
E
ra
O
.1
'g
O (Q
"5.
s i
Js
o
•a —
™ CO
jjiijl
1 1 1 1 § t
ll:% jl
:l!!l|
§ "sis'!
i s 1 1 1 1
I = "^ „ « •">
f i%i = 1
•5 "s
tf> M
| pi iN
s. S sS
•S S £ 5
z o
£ "5 'S
S 5
u £
1 I =
5 ~ c =
8 |l "
§i^>
en
CO
£
i
_«
0)
Q _
.$ ~
" g
0) QO
1
«
0
c
m
Q.
B
5
•B
3
08 S
S 2
o c
^* an
n £
1 s
§
£ I ei S
» ° i s
= « £ S |
<" "O — "S
2 3 « a S
« » s | f-
£ 0) M '~ Q.
S £ J2 ys *°
E 5 ••-• S '"
i*|!,g
" 'o „,'=''§
*)»'_= g 75
2 * •= =• 2
1 | .1 g 'E
M JIl
o
| iC
i
N]
•§ £ •§ rf
z o
S 0
t municipal reft
ity in violation
regulations.
" =5 •»
I?i
111
» -oat
o
c
_«
a»
o
I 1
O 80
i s.
§
i g
i i
5 -°
"5 1
•£" ®
o
sfs
M8
S St
3 &«
- S
l-s*
si*
„ •=. »
- .0
» m B
_ _ >
Ills
•5 "> £ .2
g 0 .; |
1 •E'S S
w .N e
IUi
z •= „ £
. S fe£
-
1 1
2 K
2 pj •* m
*J h> & r-
5 01 E 01
2 rt S "
55as
PH
z o
i E a .2 .
ce with Rhode
ibiting open bui
c refuse dispo:
hibiting the em
ul contaminants
Ill^l
l'n?5
8 W to " 0
£•§«!§
| « .5 -5 »
CO
•o
f~
Q, g
n. ^
1
z
1 1
; I
CJ
i
•e
i
i
^
i
«
•g
o
^
5
X
i s
S p
* s
0) O
11
I '*
8 s
c
^ 1 i s
S ^ M S
i . *! co-
Bs10 i •
IS^I
^Isf
8* »SE
.5 O c ul o
Z 0
**» = *g .2J
«- |i|
S S'5 s
« & . £ I
£ M S g>2
«Il|i
0) A = _
II1&1
|ta-ga
8 « U * 'S
§-g||
CO
1
1
i °
o 'oa
i £
•o
i
Middletown — .
burning
* I
^ O
o
-------
APPENDIX
153
3
o
"5
£
Type of Action
E
_o>
D_
c
"3
£
C
O
'*-
0
-J
8
C
Ii
•*
i'^ •
i*ij
«• 1 "° J2
^ 6 -o o
~ *s »
|l|-«
« — 15 w
w * S. Jo
M C 'm g
£ § « «
** 3
| gfi 1
^fl M
K s - 1
01 'i s S
i E
alg|
• g "JJ ^
^111
o
1
&
Notice of violation i
Feb. 1, 1973.
c in
"5 •§
Selling fuel with higher
tent than permitted u
regulations.
s -
| |
I "
n
£
J
„
g
I
•g = "s
g 6 g
Notice of violation i:
Mar. 15, 1973, ai
istrative order i
Sept. 18, 1973.
i g » j,
IP?
"S g1 QO '<5
Operation of drum reclai
nace violating Mass.
regarding open burni
emissions and genera
tion.
f~
o
-e 'I1
M
i
i
!
,!
I a
1 ll
£ i =
1 !«
c £ 2
S E =
1 1 5
<
«
«
•5.
8
—
1
i
Notice of violation i
Mar. 16, 1973.
3 »
M s
I"S
bo ±i
Burning fuel with a hi:
content than permit
State regulations.
J2 —
% c
M O
^ -a
I £
n
E
8
i
CO
I 1
1 1
«- °°
n E
j£ S
Z
|i§fijlif
01 c >. * *• ** **
£*-CMnoo£E»
?e> e""0^^00'?
•c^_°-g^^Sco'E
o>O « Q -Q S S .£ c
|fJS^SI||
sllS-ssllI
m-"'°=S'°»0^
f^>i3< S-")!2£e'?'e
2-*- .l~«j>'S = i=
i°gl-SSS|^-||
^•j'o0'3 «oi2«E
fl^ilisll
o
a
S ^
S » -5
•s2 1 „•
slsB;
•s * •s "
Z 0
i o t rf-
0 > .2 g 8
* -s | i f g
ffi K> E •* .2
Operation of a steel mi
ment production facili
lation of Indiana's
regarding visible
combustions for indu:
ing and process open
>
o
e 'S>
~ £
I
11
< Q-
11
.£ x
Jt I
"(OS V
Jlj |
.£ qi ^
w <3 o 55
3
£
1
V
*s
i
£
i
0>
u
c
H
E
S
c
i
1
£
1
§ ' *"
III
° ^ -2 m
.11 sR
•S S -2 "
Z 0
c y
.2 S
||
Violation of Indiana
for visible emissions <
operations.
>
c
o
'So
c a:
ra
•5
"c
"5.
& E
8 i
so E
J }
« 8
5 "
5
8
(9
"o.
g
c
i
c
i
a.
1
i
Notice of violation i
March 16, 1973.
s o>
1 1
* "S
Selling fuel with a hif
content than permit
Mass, regulations.
J3 —
in O
J -a
U K
ra
j
c"
o
CO
i
m
X
Z?
X
0)
^
S
"S.
E
o
u
c
i1
c
V
ol
"S
8
Notice of violation i
March 16, 1973.
= S
11
f tt>
f g
J! s g
if J
«£ a
•2 „ £
"I «
ill
CO
f —
g
5 '5
o ,£
S *
I
d
cS
i
Q.
3
D
O
1
1
C
'§
•o
n
0
f
c
|
1
Jl
E 2
1 1
.Q
Is
<
«
•
Administrative orde
sued May 2, 197
~ =
U
£ .£
n Power company refused
information requested
114 letter.
ii _
i >
0 g
I *
»
i
i
£
_
0
£
2
*2
o
-------
154
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
3
S
CO
0
£
i
a:
Type of Action
w
I
a.
1
s
~5
Location
S
= 1
»w
3 |
8 m"
Notice of violation
May 16, 1973.
Order issued Oct.
1973.
% £
c S
•3 &
|o ta
_ c
. o
•£ - 1
*ii
e 3 «*
1 i 1
1* »
O
Louisiana
Missouri
Region VII
(0
u
'i
0)
.c
u
a
8
ii
i
u
3 o
Is
1 a
1 |
c °
O M
s :
i i
3 5
** CL
I 8
i . ~
. I s
c S? o
£ ft: »
jj{
s 1 1
8 fi | g;
I~I"
Notice of violation.
i
"a
M
V
O
CO
i
i
•a
ll
"Q '-5
5
.. Boss, Missouri
Region VII
£
"S
i
5 I
n
1 .i
8 _
Notice of violation
July 2, 1973.
Administrative ord<
sued.
eg
*3
M
£
<3
to
i
s
•s
1 i
"3 -^
5
.. Glover, Missouri
Region VII
&
*v
i
o 1
s E
00
c
"e
5
I
e
n
S
J5
e
1
i
Notice of violation
June 2, 1973.
_n
"5
00
S
O
to
•c
1
ii
•5
ll
5 -
__ Herculaneum
Missouri
Region VII
B S
o ^
M 1
2 "°
g S
ii &
S i
3 E
1
I
i
-
1
u
c
T)
E
1
§
i
D
|
5
UD
0)
C
g
1
-R
o
S
c >_'
.2 £
£ 2
a|
% 8
S ~
ll
**j) O*
GC
'C
3
Q
.. Kansas City, Miss
Region VII
5
iJ"
1
o
Centropolis
2
S
V
1
1
Notice of violation
June 6, 1973.
c
E
S
c
£
o
a
._ Lawrence, Massac!
Region 1
i .1
I 1
* I
£• o
<5
Tt
-1
1
!
i
0)
0>
I
ll
Notice of violation
July 25, 1973;
issued.
e c
o o
88
l'E
V 0)
s «
1°
.{2 «
CO
H- C
0 0
111
o *~ —
^
c
o
1
I
g
to
E
i
s
• CL
o
V)
M
C
1
2
5
1
•s
|
§
*
1
S
I
1
1
Notice of violation
April 26, 1973.
g'S
'S =
*~ ;p
u '>
1 ~ A
* 1 1
E • |
3 tfl tZ.
"° a.
w -o OS
O
•o
1 |
m
M
c
S c
I \
u
1 •* ™
2 S S
Notice of violation
July 24, 1973.
Administrative ord
sued Sept. 26, 1
2
i
1
L
51
^a
Is
"o ***
*
I —
I
c
c
1
1 1
.0 "§
1 *
1
Notice of violation
July 24, 1973.
at
i
91
5
•>
ii |
*|
Ii
0 »
*
tf
._ Snowflake, Arizoni
Region IX
e
Q»
1 ^
at S
Western P'n
Woodwa
-------
APPENDIX
155
^
(/>
O
"5
1
of Action
I
Pollution Problem
g
S
3
e
££
? o
.
c
w
6
1
!2
Is
1"
"S Si
||
z
Violation of Arizona visible emis-
sion regulation.
!0
* .°
|
c
00
i
!
0
~~
d i
estern Moulding
Wood waste burr
i
1
8
g
SR
IS
•SCNT
If
Z
Violation of Mass, regulations on
incinerators.
j
i
I ~c
O
1 1
M 0=
C
<
i
!
3
5
ilfret Brothers Re
Incinerator
£
1
1
g
Sc
,e ej>
> *-'
•Snn Central Trans
Passenger and fr
a.
» °ti St5
« o ° . O
-^ -o -S «
lilcSlc
•s „• || a g s
•|f Us I a
z w
Violation of Missouri particufate
matter regulation.
a ___
§ >
£ o
S
^J
1
y ,Q
- nj
s" *
j S
s § .
W y S
E « S
i £'1
f S~
a>
c
.S
|
C v
£ 0
c o
s s
Z."
1 1
1.1
« a
c °
" g
p
fl
i:
0 C
ff
o
z
1
I
Is
Is
•s -
II
z
Violation of Indiana visible emis-
sion and particulate emissions
(process wt.) regulations.
n
c
CD
1 —
s Harbor 1
esterfield.
Region V
IS
3
1
)
;
! 1
i
tM
C
I
0)
I
S
a"
•K
3
<
•O
»
8
1
"c
o
o
1
.2
C
o
*j rn
|S
•s "-"
S If
i*
z
Violation of Calif, visible emission
and SOz regulations (HzS stan-
dard).
a
'E
fi X
c3 g
S I
S
o
i
y>
i
e
M
C
•5
c
5
5
o
1
.£2
c
0 CO
^ N.
•5 --•
"B •""
a) bi
O 3
••§<
z
Violation of Calif, visible emission
regulations.
S3
IS
loci no and
noma Coui
Region IX
^ 0
§ *"
£
e
V
c
5
V
/)
i
3
X}
W
c
•o
c
5
o>
O
1
.!?
c
o
+3 n
1 g
>
•s "
il
z
Violation of R.I. visible emissions
and particulate emissions (pro-
cess wt.) regulations.
•a
c
01
i =
I |
C
o
1
1 1
a ~
i i
V
/)
DO
C
•5
c
w
•o
0
1
1
Is
— O)
•82
If
z
Violation of Ind. visible emissions,
combustion for industrial heat-
ing and process operations.
n
)
- >
-------
156
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
tfl
3
V)
^
o
&
i
K
c
0
1
o
1
Pollution Problem
c
I
„
tl
E o
'I
A
,z
1_ ^
I "
S"
|I
|1
S "
ing and process operations.
Refused to submit information re-
quired in Section 114 letter.
1
i _
> a >
|» |
tr « £
Jjj
^J
a
Integrated steel mill
issouri Power & Light
Power plant
£
•g
3 00
a ~
2 M S"
!s ""* "g
il'sS
z o
Violation of ambient air standard
for total suspended particulates
as provided in Wyoming SIP.
w
1 =
j !
c
a
V)
no
c
1
c
oberts Const. Co.
Limestone quarrying ai
X
u
c
i
o
•o
c
10
OJ
c
ff
1
•g
a
e
0 CO
•P !*••
n O)
O 1~l
"S *"*
o a
I
Violation of Vt. particulate matter
and visible emissions regula-
tions.
c
I I
.5
•^
CO
Edward Moran
enerating Station
ity of Burlington
lectric Light Dept.
Boilers
— , O O UJ
I
c
1 &
i s.
1 e
o 8
^ E
» S
1|
i I
11
s —
c £
o o
IE
•8
a
ic
|2
•s rt
8S
2 CO
Violation of Ind. SO: regulation.
(APC-13)
i
1
Chicago, 1
Region V
•a
a
tIantic-Richfield Corp.
Power & steel mills
*c
•8
a
.1
2 R
i ~
'> G
•s rt
||
z
Violation of Ind. S02 (APC-13)
and visible emission (APC-3)
regulations.
e
jn
c
Chicago, 1
Region V
•y,
0 S
6 'S
1 5
£
"S
3
S
1 R
i2
> o"
•s "
ll
z
Violation of Ind. SOa (APC-13)
and visible emission (APC-3)
regulations.
n
(0 ^
S _
£ §
g |
~
S
merican Oil Co -
Oil refinery
<
VI
-1 °>
g "1
g"
if
i!
3
Refused to submit information re-
quired in Section 113 letter.
(NSPS development)
•g |
1 1
•o
O 9
i I
M
s.
orden, Inc. ,___
Phosphate plant
m
1
.?
C
0 •
Is
•s»;
.§ &
z
Violation of Mass. General Regula-
tion to Prevent Air Pollution and
Visible Emission Regulations.
j
n
a "^
o
1 ^
E
«
ew Eng. Power Co. ;
Brayton Point
Power stations
z
•g
3
8
•S r^
• s
.9 -
"o .
ll
1
Violation Mo. particulate matter
(process wt.) regulation.
_
;n, Missoul
Region VI
£
5
Ipha Portland Cement
Clinker cooler
<
"8
3
C
O
S S
•&•«•
8 K
•s o
o
z
Violation of Ind. particulate matter
(process emission APC-5) and
visible emission (APC-3) regs.
c
n
c
i I
u ^
to
w
UJ
.S. Gypsum Co.
Mill rock process
Shingle finish pro.
packing process
=3
-------
APPENDIX
157
s
(O
Q
1
!
•s
£
Problem
c
.2
1
Location
!J
3 |
"8
1
Is
O iH
*>
"5 "
|i
iff
5 - a
'ill
i "|
ill
|*i
•s
u
1
c
c
t .2
1 1
m
Castings, Inc. .
la furnaces
f 1
CO
"S
K
c
o
SR
O Ol
> *~*
*S in
S -G
r
t!
£ "?
m o
li
1.1
M
If
V
•S u,
C S
••§ e
Is
Jl
"S IK
^
8 c-
||
U hrt
fpsum Co,
ral wool process
chambers, curing
lit frame control
co lit
3
•g
1
c
o
IK
o o>
5 -
•S ">"
r
I i
jj "?
I|
1 i
•S g
n Q.
0 ^"
S
£ g
3 •£.
x I
I
!
.1
a.
I E
1 -i «
f- !l
u
««
,_ .
o 2
*"« ti
•§ °
1 "
i
—
s
E -D
ll
V
*l
!i
w
•C
rnibal, Missou
Region VII
z
i
il Atlas Cement
i
c
1
i
Is
.2
•5 ™
8 I
1
C
1
(0 'J
». 1
*o £
w
c c
•11
o •=
me
Region X
CO
If
ll
l||
III
3
ro
en
00*
1-1
S
c
o
•Q
•s
-g
s
w
•g
1
|g
> m
o
4= CO
O
Z
t
M
£
S
•o
c
•s
I
ry vicinity, Ini
Region V
3
Bailly
• plant boilers
3 o>
r-»
o*
00
"*
u
O
c
o
^
^
8
V
1
•o
s
li
'> CO
o
8 S
r
M
flj
el-
's
|
«
o
g
urtney (Wash.
Pennsylvania
Region III
8
nn Power Co.
State
i.g
8 *
£ S
CO
r*.
2
DO"
l~t
S
c
Q
2
8
I
I
1
1
!!
•s "
li
i
*
V
p
•
c
•s
o ""
I
1
i i
£
r^
1
E -g-
ll
a.
1
i
ii
'>
•s-
p
A U?
^
(0 ^
!i
•o «
- jjj
E S
0 a.
i r s
i » s
s
a
c
_£
"53
C
c
; Ind., Inc.
;hale grinding
ge
e o 3?
0
1
1 m
|g
'>
"B ^
r
1
(A
Is
^s
S3 «
* 1
II
ta 3
I*
o
O
ll"
|ji
-j
a.
1 s
Co., Washington
sula disposal sen
1 1
L
-------
158
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
3
S
CO
0
&
i
c
o
*o
s.
£
Problem
e
o
s
£
C
e
*.£
u
o
§
= j
K
5 •
i^1
i
i
!
i
5R
> O»
•s *
P
:
; io
lei
n
particulate
emission, Al
3 "
~~ $ W
3 O °
c S'"S
3 "a
| s g
2 ** "~
«
« >
1 g
rf I
vt cc
V)
c
I
1
5
•a
sl
|11
ac c
„! 1
» a a
488
=3
)
I
}
>
= m
: r*-
) O)
"B w
|S
:
~ 6 -g
ir •
0)
ssf
3 "S O
i|!f
ifil
> 8 £^
illt
l»lg
g
2 >
•g c
^ _o
'M
.e «
Id K
5
•1
i
•5
a
a
s e
c _j>
3 '5
& m
•s
3
3
I ^
js
... c\f
s >-<
o ^
J O
5°
i£
2
"3
particulate
ustion of fu
g (APC-4C).
it =
; s -
III
1*1
W
C
5
.£ >
c
§0
'5
"W 5
£ or
i
03
=
S
fc
1?
0
1 i
SC
"S
a
5
5 •
- fO
3%
3 rH
H- ^
3 "^
Sti
>°
«5
*w
particulate
ustion of fu
g (APO-4R)
ill
Z °2
0 g ^
1*1
>
«
c
n
^
c
~"t >
<* c
1 1
C K
TO
"•5
3
i
w i2
1 1
0)
u
"8
a
?
5 „{
|s
H_ V
a csj
P
» *£ £
^j T
ass
a «£
§ "* ^^
-CM
sl£
= bo
ill
= !l
| si
n
«
c
~". >
i °
i 1
E °=
g
m
"c
CO
^
s
'R „
£ S
* &
•- 1_
c 5
3 X
I £
-------
4.1f THE COST OF CLEAN AIR REPORT TO CONGRESS BY
THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY, OCTOBER 1973
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1-1
I. Purpose and Scope 1-1
II. Summary of Clean Air Standards 1-2
III. Costs of Implementing the Act 1-5
IV. Benefits of Implementing the Act 1-9
CHAPTER 2: EFFECTS OF AIR POLLUTION 2-1
I. Introduction 2-1
II. Health and Welfare Effects 2-1
A. Particulates 2-1
B. Sulfur Oxides 2-3
C. Carbon Monoxide 2-4
D. Photochemical Oxidants 2-5
E. Hydrocarbons 2-6
F. Nitrogen Oxides 2-6
CHAPTER 3: GOVERNMENTAL PROGRAMS 3-1
I. Introduction 3-1
II. Federal Programs 3-1
III. State & Local Programs 3-1
CHAPTER 4: MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL COSTS 4-1
I. Introduction 4-1
II. Fuel Modifications 4-2
A. Regulations 4-2
B, Cost Estimate of Fuel Modifications 4-2
III. Emission Control Apparatus 4-3
A. Configuration 4-3
B. Cost Estimate of Emission Controls 4-5
IV. Operating and Maintenance Costs 4-7
V. Benefits from Meeting the 1975-76 Standards 4-7
CHAPTER 5: INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CONTROL COSTS 5-1
I. Introduction and Summary 5-1
A. Selection of Industrial Sources 5-1
B. Emission Estimates 5-1
C. Control Analysis and Costing 5-3
D. Pollution Level with Control 5-5
II. Burning and Incineration 5-7
A. Group Description 5-7
B. Solid Waste 5-13
C. Sewage Sludge Incineration 5-14
159
-------
160 TABLE OF CONTENTS
III. Metals Industries 5-14
A. Overview 5-14
B. Iron and Steel 5-18
C. Aluminum 5-22
D. Copper, Brass and Bronze 5-24
E. Lead and Zinc 5-26
F. Mercury 5-28
G. Beryllium 5-29
IV. Fuels Industries 5-29
A. Overview 5-29
B. Petroleum Refineries and Product Storage 5-30
C. Catalyst Regeneration 5-32
D. Storage Vessels 5-33
E. Coal Cleaning 5-33
F. Natural Gas Production 5-35
G. Burning Fuel Gas 5-36
V. Biochemicals Industries 5-36
A. Grain Handling and Milling 5-36
B. Forest Products 5-37
C. Carbon Black 5-38
D. Kraft Pulp 5-39
VI. Quarrying and Construction 5-40
A. Overview 5-40
B. Quarrying 5-40
C. Cement 5-40
D. Asbestos Industries 5-41
E. Asphalt Concrete 5-43
VII. Chemicals 5-45
A. Overview 5-45
B. Lime 5-45
C. Sulfuric Acid 5-47
D. Nitric Acid 5-48
E. Phosphatic Fertilizers 5-49
CHAPTER 6: FOSSIL FUELS 6-1
I. Introduction 6-1
A.Outline of Chapter 6-1
B. Scope of the Problem 6-2
II. Emmission Control 6-4
A. Control of Particulates 6-4
B. Control of NOr Emissions 6-4
C. Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions 6-4
III. Fuel Switching 6-6
IV. Other Options 6-7
V. Household, Commercial, Industrial Heating 6-8
A. Household and Commercial 6-8
B. Industrial Heating 6-8
C. Costs 6-8
VI. Steam-Electric Plants 6-9
A. Strategy Selection 6-9
B. Costs to Meet Regulations 6-9
VII. Emissions 6-12
-------
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
I. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This report to Congress, submitted in accordance with the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1970, presents projections of the costs
and the results of governmental and private efforts to carry but
provisions of the Act. The projections cover fiscal years 1974
through 1978, i.e., from July 1, 1973 to July 1, 1978.
The sources of air pollution may be broadly divided into three
groups: transportation sources, power sources, and production
or industrial sources. Projections for each of these groups are
presented in separate chapters of this report.
As in previous reports, national cost estimates are presented
for governmental programs and for control of sources of air pol-
lution. Coverage has been expanded to include not only those
pollutants for which national ambient air quality standards have
been promulgated, but also pollutants covered by proposed haz-
ardous air pollutant emission standards and by new source per-
formance standards.
Apparent similarities notwithstanding, this report also differs
from its predecessors in several important respects. Estimates of
costs, benefits, and impacts reported herein are based, insofar as
possible, upon actual regulations adopted by the States in imple-
mentation plans submitted to EPA. In previous reports, these
estimates have been based on an assumed nationally applicable
set of regulations.
All costs are presented in this report in 1970 dollars. The year
1970 was judged as the appropriate baseline for this work, al-
though previous reports were submitted with 1967 as the baseline.
This change is in keeping with the passage of the clearer and more
specific Clean Air Amendments of 1970, and with the wording of
Section 312 (a) of that legislation, as may be seen from the preface
to this report. Coincidentally, 1970 was a census year, permitting
more precise baseline data than hitherto possible,
By no means should it be presumed that all costs of abating air
pollution are included in this report. Even before the Clean Air
Act of 1963, costs were incurred in response to obvious pollution
problems and to local legislation. Therefore, the costs presented
herein are incremental costs, over the cost of control as legislated
prior to 1970.
[p. 1-1]
With these ground rules, the direct costs and benefits of air
pollution control of 31 industries and activities are presented in
detail. Actual and projected investments thru fiscal year 1978
161
-------
162 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
(July 1977-June 1978) are presented, with the anticipated annual
costs in that year. A number of assumptions were necessary.
Industry and motor vehicle growth and technology trends were
forecast and are presented in their appropriate places in the text.
Legislation which is pending under the Clean Air Act and can
reasonably be expected to become law was included in the calcu-
lations. Should any of these assumptions prove incorrect, the
associated costs and emission control would, of course, be expected
to be different from what is forecast.
II. SUMMARY OP CLEAN AIR STANDARDS
As a result of the Clean Air Act, a number of standards have
been developed in order to abate air pollution. The process of
developing and reviewing standards is a continuing one, as more
is learned of the nature of the air pollution problems and as more
effective pollution control equipment is developed.
Under the law, EPA sets two types of air quality standards.
Primary standards protect the public health. Secondary standards
protect against effects on soil, water, vegetation, materials, ani-
mals, weather, visibility, and personal comfort and well being.
Within nine months after a National air quality standard is set,
the States must submit plans to meet it. If a State fails to submit
a plan, or if a plan is inadequate, the Administrator issues a
Federal plan for the State.
Ambient air quality standards have been set to limit the con-
centration in the atmosphere of six of the most ubiquitous air
pollutants. These are carbon monoxide (CO), particulates, sulfur
oxides (SOX), hydrocarbons, photochemical oxidants, and nitrogen
dioxide (N02). These standards were promulgated on April 30,
1971 and the States were required to develop plans to implement
primary standard enforcement by January 31, 1972. On May 30,
1972, the Environmental Protection Agency approved or disap-
proved each portion of each plan. Substitute regulations were
proposed by EPA for all the regulatory portions of the State
Implementation Plans that were disapproved. Most of these regu-
lations have been promulgated.
The concentration limits for ambient air quality are enforce-
able in two steps: a primary standard gauged to protect against
health effects of and a secondary standard for protection against
corrosion, plant injury, and welfare factors. These secondary
standards must be attained in a reasonable time, determined by
most States to be 1975 to 1977. Table 1-1 lists the concentration
limits set by these ambient air quality standards.
New source performance standards are intended to require se-
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 163
lected industries to build into new plants, or plants being exten-
sively modified, the best adequately-demonstrated control
equipment and procedures available. To date, standards have
been promulgated for five classes of major stationary sources of
air pollution. These are fossil-fired steam generators, incinerators,
cement plants, and sulfuric acid and nitric acid operations. It is
[p. 1-2]
anticipated that seven other classes of stationary sources will soon
be added to this list. These are asphalt concrete plants, petroleum
refineries, petroleum refineries storage vessels, brass and bronze
refineries, iron and steel mills, sewage sludge incinerators and
secondary smelters of lead. Table 1-2 lists the new source per-
formance standards existing and proposed, for these stationary
sources.
Hazardous air pollutants are singled out for specific treatment.
Currently, emission limits have been proposed for three such
pollutants. These are asbestos, beryllium and mercury. For opera-
tions using asbestos, various processes would be prohibited, visible
emissions of particulate matter would be prohibited and fabric
filter control, or equivalent, would be required. For operations
involving beryllium or beryllium containing materials, the pro-
posed limits provide that beryllium emissions to the atmosphere
shall not exceed 10 gms/24 hrs or, alternatively, the maximum
concentration of beryllium in the air shall not exceed 0.01 micro-
grams per cubic meter, averaged over a 30 day period. (Exceptions
to these limits would be provided for firing of beryllium propel-
TABLE 1-1. Ambient Air Quality Standards*
Pollutant
Participates:
Sulfur oxides:
Maximum 3-hr, concentration
Carbon monoxide:
Maximum 8-hr, concentration _ -_ „ _
Photochemical oxidants:
Hydrocarbons:
Maximum 3-hr, concentration,
6 to 9 a.m. _
Nitrogen dioxide:
Primary (Health)
have 3 years to
reach
75
260
80
365
10
40
160
160
100
Secondary
(Welfare);
no deadline
60
150
260
1300
10
40
160
160
100
•From Federal Register, April 30, 1971, Concentrations for pollutants in micrograms per cubic meter except
for carbon monoxide, in milligrams per cubic meter
-------
164
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
lants at rocket motor sites.) For operations involving elemental
mercury, emissions would not be permitted to exceed 2300 grams
of mercury over 24 hours.
[p. 1-3]
TABLE 1-2. New Source Performance Standards
Source
Emission Standard
Fossil Fuel-Fired Steam Generators
Participates
Sulfur dioxide
liquid fuel
Solid Fuel
Nitrogen oxides
Gaseous fuel
liquid fuel
Solid fuel
Visible emissions
Incinerators
Particulates
Portland Cement
Particulates
Kilns
Clinker coolers
Visible emissions
Kilns
Others
Nitric Acid
Nitrogen oxides
Visible emissions
Sulfunc Acid
Sulfur dioxide
Acid mist
Visible emissions
Asphalt Concrete
Particulates
Visible emissions
Petroleum Refineries
Particulates fronTfluid
catalytic cracking
Hydrogen sulfide content
of fuel gas
Storage Vessels
Require floating roof
Require vapor recovery
Brass and Bronze Refineries
Particulates
Iron and Steel Mills
Particulates
Particulates, basic oxygen
furnace
Sewage Sludge Incinerators
Particulates
Secondary Lead Smelters
Particulates
0.1 lb/10«Btu
0.8
1.2
0.2
0.3
0.7
#1 Ringel. or 20% Opacity
0.08 gr/SCF
0.3 Ib/ton feed
0.1
#1/2 or 10% Opacity
10% Opacity
3.0 Ib/ton acid
10% Opacity
4.0 Ib/ton acid
0.15
10% Opacity
0.03 gr/SCF
10% Opacity
0.02 gr/SCF
lOgr/lOOSCF
1.5 psia vapor pressure
11 psia vapor pressure
0.02 gr/SCF
0.02 gr/SCF
0.1 Ib/ton of steel
0.03 gr/SCF
10% Opacity
0.02 gr/SCF
The first five categories of source standards apply to installations constructed or modified after August 17, 1971.
The remaining categories have not been formalized.
[p. 1-4]
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 165
Motor vehicle emissions have been the subject of specific stan-
dards of emission control since the 1968 model year. New limits
have been set for automobiles, which were to have been applied
to the 1975 models and later. These standards will bring about a
90% reduction from allowed levels for 1970 models in hydrocar-
bons and carbon monoxide emissions for 1975 models, and a 90%
reduction from levels for 1971 models in nitrogen oxides emissions
beginning with 1976 models.
The standards to accomplish these reductions call for an emis-
sion limit of 3,4 grams of carbon monoxide and 0.41 grams of
hydrocarbons per vehicle mile beginning with 1975 models. Nitro-
gen oxide emissions are limited to 3.0 grams/mile beginning with
1973 models, and 0.4 grams/mile beginning with 1976 models.
However, the 1975 hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide standards
were postponed for a year with interim standards set for 1975
as described on p. 4-1; Hearings are currently underway on
whether the 1976 oxides of nitrogen standards should be suspended
for one year. Somewhat different standards are applicable to heavy
duty vehicles.
III. COSTS OP IMPLEMENTING THE ACT
Estimates of the investments for implementing the Act over the
period FY 1970-1978, and the annualized cost in FY 1978 are
summarized in Table 1-3. Each number in the table is repeated
in the appropriate chapter of this report, where the assumptions
and data on which the estimate is based are presented. Concomi-
tant projected decreases in emissions from those which would have
[p.1-5]
obtained in 1978 were no further progress made in implementing
the Act are also presented in Table 1-3.
It is not possible to estimate actual cash outlays over the re-
porting period with any precision since the compliance schedules
for implementation of state plans are not yet determined. The
earlier implementation is commenced, the larger will be the cash
outlay over the period because operation and maintenance ex-
penses will be incurred for more years.
The current report includes cost estimates for more sources of
pollution and more pollutants than did the previous report. This
is evident in Table 1-3, and in the tables of chapter 5 in particular.
As well, the costs are on a more definite basis than was possible
in earlier studies. Cost estimates in the current report are based
-------
166
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
CO
a
cc
g
1
£
»J
o
g
a
in
CO
in
r^ ' '
to r^
^» i
«t CO
i-l CO 1
o I
°s?s
Q
t 1 1
10
O c*)
8S3 ,
a1"
O 0
O CXI
CO C0_ j
c7i in
tf>
rn
S
™- i i
1s-
1 1
• I!
a „ =
g w fe
S*.
S "E S
° "5 i
2 CO C/*
CM O
*3- to
co oo
1^ 1—1
oo Cn
Csj"
o in
1 i
1 I
CT> i-t
as
cn ro
ss
CVJ ID
1—1
1 i
1 1
Sg
P*." OO
CM
r^ co
to co
00 O
CO ^
g
ll
I'l I
o r- a.
tationary Fuel Ci
Small & Intern
Steam -electric i
(O
^
cn
o>
CM
CM
CO*
CO
5
C«4
S
CO
s
S"
o
CM
CM
1
CM"
CM
CO
CO
CO
in
ro
to
to
B
r**
fO
3
00
I
ro 0 ro CO t-s «
r- r- u
o co CM rx «
CO -H C
Q
1 t 1
O
[ [
in
! 1 1 1 »
! 1 i
^ CM «-* ^ o c
oo r^ tr> 0) co t
CM
t|||
CO
1 i 1
in
r-
1 1 1 1 ^
l 1 1 l l
r-. «- CM .-i «J-
O CO CO f-v CO
r*x i~t ^
*
«
M Ij
1|I1G^
mill
• —
3 ro *
3 ^
f CO C"
g if)
1
1
I
10 CO C
7> Oi
'
1 |
1 1
nH CO
i-H O
DO
5
C
ra
31
ll
S c
II
r co en to
tO (V. ^-
J CO CM °
in « •-•
1 i
l i l
0 0
0* 1
1 1 1
D o ro CM
1 i t
1 1 1
tO CM
i S5 i
i i i i
CO «-• O O
ro to O) to
rsj to en
i| !
LL, =
£II
i^i
iif
CD — ^
co CM in
*f * rH
o
1 1 01
! 1 1
1 1 1
<0
en ]
1
IT
1 I"H
1 I
1 1 1
0
r-.
CO
1
M
ill
Jj Z Z
O ID
if) ro
i-t ro
1 |
O in
to en
, s
00
01
; S
|
co cn
S2
CM"
o
cn
'S
s
ir
o>
CM
W
ll
Petroleum Prodi
CO
CM
5
1
1
1
1
Cft
|
I
1
oc
t
*
e
j
O.
1
1
i
£
c
o
z
t
1
[p. 1-6]
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
167
oo CM to en co ^ CM I-H CM en
eoin^-to i* to oo oo N en
tH *? • C7> r-H i-< tD
oo r* -«
1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1
0
1 1 1 1 II
1 1 l 1 11 1
rn 0 CD
oo in .
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1
to
1 t 1 1 1 1 1
1 I 1 1 1 till
,-• 0 0
f" 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 °°
o»"-Hinm CM to r— «-•
r^ in r-i r*. — » .-•
l
a
1
E
M SW
1 IS 1
« E g g 3.0
s « t j z £ I j1 <
GO CO M
o-
t£
c\
e
pr
If
S
oc
CC
Cf
CT
CT
o-
r*
t£
cr
cs
O
f
a
i^
r-
r-
OC
R
CS
Of
«;
«
^
S
C
IT
IT
0-
OC
—
1
'
I 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1
I |
1 1 t 1 1
1 1
CM CO
O
"ill
CO CO
00 CM
^ *°- 1 1 1
CO
in o
in in
U ' '
CM
r>- <•
32 ! 1 1
ro r- in o [--
in p- co en co
"~^ 00 Oft CO CM
*r CM"
10
"S
Sources Not Control!
Coking
Fires
Stone, Sand
Limestone
Carbon Black - —
i
i
o
0
o
o
o
en
in
ro
CM
(£
ro
8.
s
f-H
CO
IP
en
in
oo"
I
1
Cf
IT
f
S
Cs
if
Ps
c\
(£
ir
a-
i
ts
N
r>
o-
0
cr
c\
oc
C
tc
1C
0
c
«:
OC
s
s
cs
&
3
«
I
o-
to
1
1
i
" "^ fe
I g »
i |.l
— eg
I 1 ^
*J ~ 0 ™
« C U M
s i "1
s~s £ S
C ° T) O
5 S S & 9
S I - I »
«) ^ QJ £ O
20 £. E £
""^ S > =
s§ if 1
w * 5 *•* 't-»
|1 |5 §
^ £ E ^ c
p bo a o ui *-
» S '5 o S «•
i ^ ° s s s
w ~ Si S |
a; c o p
°*^ ° ~ f —
If If 1 1
|i |i 1?
•- ffl ^ * "
as „ i 11
if 0 c » o M
S ^ J "S 5 g
E 'S S c |j '§
J2 c a 'c o
|l j| S £
|J Si 11
Is o 1 1 'i
' "H " M S "
•So P = _. "=
IK S i ° 5
SI l! 11
'" = § -n « "c
i 1 ..I s -I
^ t 5 S -S ^ -
c °- o " * « -
ft = o •
S 3 g | £ it £
„; t ft .S ^ gg
- * I I ' '= rf
g S jg c g „- £
•S ™ » ~ C —ic
" 1 1 f 1 1 1 1
gf£»i'g'|'^§
I §-lf!ili
Ilifipfi
(/) LU c O_ *j" i- — >*• K
"Tir"
[p. 1-7] [p. 1-8]
-------
168 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
largely on actual state regulations, whereas those in previous re-
ports have been based on assumed regulations.
Estimates of the cost per vehicle of attaining Federal automo-
tive emission standards becoming effective in 1975 and 1976
have been revised downward. A more complete discussion of the
factors entering into this cost may be found in chapter IV.
IV. BENEFITS OF IMPLEMENTING THE ACT
In gathering the costs of air pollution control for this report,
we have become very conscious of the uncertainties involved in
forecasting even five years into the future. Our evaluations are
based on present technology, with no allowance for innovation.
Each cost is simply an extrapolation of current practice, and
rarely in this century would such a five-year extrapolation have
held true.
To estimate dollar values for the benefits accrued as a result of
these costs would be even more difficult. Air pollution has clearly
observable effects; these are discussed in Chapter 2. The measures
of these effects appear in terms of increased morbidity and mor-
tality, a deterioration of aesthetic qualities, and damage to arti-
facts. How does one establish the value of one's health or a work
of art imperiled by air pollution? Attempts have been made to
answer these questions, but at present the estimates have wide
ranges and little reliability.
Even if benefits accrued could be estimated, a future benefit
beyond 1978 can be credited to many of the investments reported
herein. The time to suppress air pollution is in its early stages,
not when it becomes so dense that current benefits clearly outweigh
current costs. With population growth and increased industrializa-
tion, future pollution control will rely on the technology and
practices being initiated today. This redirection, bringing atten-
tion to the need for clean air, may turn out to be the greatest
benefit of implementing the Act.
[p. 1-9]
-------
CHAPTER 2: EFFECTS OF AIR POLLUTION
I. INTRODUCTION
The cost outlays projected in other chapters of this report are
associated with large reductions in emissions from air pollution
sources. These emission reductions are expected to result in sub-
stantial improvement in ambient air quality. It is well known that
differences in ambient air quality are associated with differences
in incidences of mortality and morbidity, decreases of soiling and
corrosion, yields of agricultural products, and residential property
values. It was on the basis of the latest available scientific infor-
mation on the health and welfare effects of air pollutants* that
EPA promulgated the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
given in Table 1-1 (Chapter I).
This chapter reviews the health and welfare effects of air pol-
lutants now being regulated by EPA. Achievement of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards will eliminate damaging effects
on human health and welfare and return substantial benefits to
society.
II. HEALTH AND WELFARE
A. Particulates
1. Effects on Health
Analyses of numerous epidemiological studies clearly indicate
the association between air pollution, as measured by particulate
matter accompanied by sulfur dioxide, and health effects of vary-
ing severity. This association is most firm for the short-term air
pollution episodes.
For the most part, the effects of particulate air pollution on
health are related to injury to the surfaces of the respiratory
system. Such injury may be permanent or temporary.
[p. 2-1]
Increase in daily death rates and a considerable increase in ill-
ness have been observed at smoke levels above 750 micrograms
per cubic meter (ug/m3). (Sulfur oxides pollution levels were
also high in most cases studied.) These unusual short-term, mas-
sive exposures result in immediately apparent pathologic effects,
and they represent the upper limits of the observed dose-response
relationship between particulates and adverse effects on health.
* Reported in National Air Pollution Control Administration Publication Nos. AP-49 (Par-
ticulate Matter), AP-50 (Sulfur Oxides), AP-62 (Carbon Monoxide). AP-fiS (Photochemical
Oxidants), AP-64 (Hydrocarbons), and AP-84 (Nitropren Oxides).
169
-------
170 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
Daily averages of smoke above 300 ug/m3 to 400 ug/m3 have
been associated with acute worsening of chronic bronchitis pa-
tients. Studies have found that increased absences due to illness
occurred when smoke levels exceeded 200 ug/m3.
The lowest particulate levels at which health effects appear to
have occurred in this country are reported in studies conducted in
Buffalo and Nashville. The Buffalo study clearly shows increased
death rates from selected causes in males and females 50 to 69
years old at annual geometric means of 100 ug/m3 and over. The
Nashville study suggests increased death rates for selected causes
at a coefficient of haze above 1.1. Sulfur oxides pollution was also
present during the periods studied.
2. Effects on Climate and Visibility
Particles suspended in the air scatter and absorb sunlight, re-
ducing the amount of solar energy reaching the earth, producing
hazes and reducing visibility. Suspended particulate matter plays
a significant role in bringing about precipitation, and there is
some evidence that rainfall in cities has increased as the cities
have developed industrially.
At concentrations ranging from 100 ug/m3 to 150 ug/m3 for
particulates, where large smoke turbidity factors persist in middle
and high latitudes, direct sunlight is reduced up to one-third in
summer and two-thirds in winter. At concentrations of about 150
ug/m3 visibility is reduced to as low as 5 miles.
3. Effects on Materials
Particulate air pollution causes a wide range of damage to
materials. Particulate matter may chemically attack materials
through its own instrinsic properties, or through the properties of
substances adsorbed or adsorbed on it. Merely by soiling materials,
and thereby causing more frequent cleaning, particulates can
accelerate deterioration.
Particulates play a role in the corrosion of meals. At particulate
concentrations ranging from 60 ug/m3 to 180 ug/m3 (annual
geometric means), corrosion of steel and zinc panels occurs at an
accelerated rate in the presence of sulfur dioxide and moisture.
4. Effects on Vegetation
Relatively little research has been carried out on the effects of
particulate air pollution on vegetation, and much of the work that
[p. 2-2]
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 171
has been performed has dealt with specific dusts, rather than
with the conglomerate mixture normally encountered in the at-
mosphere. Some specific studies have shown that cement-kiln dusts
damage plants and change soil alkalinity. Dust deposits may inter-
fere with pollen germination and be harmful to the health of
animals that feed on such species.
B. Sulfur Oxides
1. Effects on Health
The current scientific literature indicates that, for the most
part, the effects of sulfur oxides on health are related to irritation
of the respiratory system. Such injury may be temporary or
permanent.
Laboratory studies show that sulfur dioxide can produce bron-
choconstriction in experimental animals.
Laboratory observations of respiratory irritations suggest that
most individuals will show a response to sulfur dioxide when ex-
posed for 30 minutes to concentrations of about 14 milligrams per
cubic meter (mg/m3) and above. Exposure of certain sensitive
individuals to about 3 mg/m3 can produce detectable changes in
pulmonary function. Similar exposure of these same individuals
has, in some instance, produced severe bronchospasm.
Studies of episodes suggest that a rise in the daily death rate
occurred when the concentrations of sulfur dioxide rose abruptly to
levels at or about 715 ug/m3. Daily concentrations of sulfur dioxide
in excess of 1500 ug/m3 for one day in conjunction with levels of
suspended particles exceeding 2000 ug/m8 appear to have been
associated with an increase in the death rate of 20 percent or
more over base line levels. This same effect has been observed at
lower sulfur dioxide levels when the maximum pollution levels
lasted for a longer period.
At concentrations ranging from 300 ug/m3 to 500 ug/m3 of
sulfur dioxide (24-hour mean), with low particulate levels, in-
creased hospital admissions of older persons for respiratory disease
have been noted; absenteeism from work, particularly with older
persons, also has been noted. At lower levels, i.e. at concentrations
as low as 105 ug/m3 to 120 ug/m3, there have been observations
of increased frequency and severity of respiratory symptoms and
lung disease.
-------
172 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
2. Effects on Materials
Sulfur oxides air pollution causes a wide range of damage to
materials. Most field studies have obtained data on the combina-
tion of particulate and sufur oxides pollution. On the basis of
present knowledge, it is difficult to evaluate precisely the relative
contribution of each of the two classes of pollution; however some
general conclusions may be drawn.
Sulfur oxides pollution has been specifically associated with
damages to metals, cotton, finishes, coatings, building stone, paints,
paper and leather. At a S02 level of 345 ug/m3, accompanied by
high particulate levels, the corrosion rate for steel panels may be
[p. 2-3]
increased by 50 percent. Damage to electrical equipment has been
reported, and effects on a wide variety of building materials as
well as statuary and other works of art have been observed.
3. Effects on Vegetation
Sulfur dioxide may cause acute or chronic leaf injury to plants.
After exposure to about 860 ug/m3 of sulfur dioxide for 8 hours,
some species of trees and shrubs show injury. At concentrations
of about 145 ug/m3 to 715 ug/m3, sulfur dioxide may react syner-
gistically with either ozone or nitrogen dioxide in short-term
exposures (e.g., 4 hours) to produce moderate to severe injury to
sensitive plants. At still lower concentrations, i.e. about 85 ug/m3
of sulfur dioxide (annual mean), chronic plant injury and exces-
sive leaf drop may occur.
C. Carbon Monoxide
I. Effects on Health
People most susceptible to the adverse effects of atmospheric
CO are those most sensitive to decreased oxygen supply. These
susceptible groups include individuals with anemia, cardiovascular
disease, anormal metabolic states such as thyrotoxicosis or fever,
and chronic pulmonary disease, and the developing fetus. Current
studies are probing the effect of CO on the cardiovascular system.
Results indicate that CO exposure restricts maximum heart beat
rate, and therefore maximum physical performance, and that
it aggravates angina pectoris.
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 173
Carbon monoxide levels in high traffic streams often rise to 50
ppm or more. These levels possibly deteriorate the visual and
motor responses of drivers and hence contribute to accidents. Un-
der Coordinating Research Council (CRC) contracts, two groups
are studying how human response suffers under exposure to CO.
A Harvard University group is studying human visual adaptive
responses to doses of CO. Evidence indicates that peripheral
vision and glare recovery suffer after exposure to CO. An Ohio
State University group has found that human attention to driving
conditions also suffers.
2. Other Effects
There have not been any studies associating carbon monoxide
with damages to materials.
Carbon monoxide has not been shown to produce detrimental
effects on the higher-type plant life at concentrations below 115
mg/m3 during exposures for 1 to 3 weeks. Nitrogen fixation by
efficient nitrogen-fixing bacteria in clover roots was inhibited
by 115 mg/m3 CO when exposed for 1 month.
[p. 2-4]
Ambient CO levels rarely reach 115 mg/m3 even for very short
period of time. In view of this and other information concerning
CO effects, a significant impact on vegetation and associated
microorganisms seems improbable.
D. Photochemical Oxidants
1. Effects on Health,
Sunlight induces photochemical reactions in the atmosphere
between the hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen emitted by
pollution sources. These reactions generate, among other products,
the two major pollutants ozone and peroxyacetyl nitrate. It is
difficult to separate the effects of these chemicals from the effects
of their parent pollutants. In this chapter, they are lumped to-
gether as photochemical oxidants (symbol Ox).
Epidemiological studies have identified adverse health effects as
a result of increased atmospheric levels of photochemical oxidants.
Under conditions prevailing where studies were conducted, im-
pairment of performance of student athletes occurred over a range
of hourly average oxidant concentrations from 60 to 590 ug/m3.
A small number of asthmatics suffered an increased frequency of
attacks when peak oxidant concentrations exceed 250 ug/m3, a
-------
174 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
level equivalent to an hourly average concentration ranging from
100 to 120 ug/m3. Eye irritation was reported by subjects in
several studies when photochemical oxidant concentrations reached
instantaneous levels of about 200 ug/m3, a level associated with
an hourly average concentration ranging from 60 to 100 ug/m3.
2. Effects on Materials
The effects of oxidants on materials is discussed below. Fre-
quently, damage occurs when two or more pollutants are present
and it is difficult to estimate the relative effects of each. Estimated
damage costs are included for some of the material effects dis-
cussed below.
(1) Elastomers. Perhaps the primary materials damage attrib-
utable to ozone is that on elastomers, primarily rubber. The cost
attributed to the aging and premature failure of rubber products
due to ozone is $500 million annually.1
(2) Textiles. Photochemical oxidants (primarily ozone) and
NOX cause fading of textile dyes. To combat this, dye manufac-
turers have to go to the extra expense of adding anti-oxidant
compounds to their dyes.
[p.2-5]
(3) Paints. Ozone and NOX cause damage to painted surfaces.
The total annual air pollution damages to paints is estimated at
$0.7 billion,1 but the fraction of this damage attributable to ozone
is not known. Not included are the damaging effects of pollution
on painted and glazed surfaces of highly valued works of art.
(4) Corrosion of Metals. A Battelle Memorial Institute study2
of air pollution effects on metals stated that total damage due to
pollution-related corrosion was $1.45 billion per year. Again the
fractions attributable to ozone and other photochemical oxidants
are not known. Indications are that ozone has a role in the degra-
dation of steel, aluminum, and copper, but not zinc.
3. Effects on Vegetation
Adverse effects on sensitive vegetation were observed from
exposure to photochemical oxidant concentrations of about 100
ug/m3 for 4 hours. Injury to vegetation is one of the earliest
1 Mueller, J. W. and Stickney, P. B. "A Survey and Economic Assessment of the Effects of
Air Pollution on Elastomers," Contract OPA-22-69-146, Battelle Memorial Institute, June 25,
1970.
"Fink, F. W., Buttner, F. H., and Boyd, W. K. "Technical-Economic Evaluation of Air
Pollution Corrosion Costs on Metals in the U.S." Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio,
February 19, 197 .
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 175
manifestations of photochemical air pollution, and sensitive plants
are useful biological indicators of this type of pollution.
E. Hydrocarbons
1. Effects on Health
Studies conducted so far do not demonstrate any direct health
effects of gaseous hydrocarbons (in the air).
However, ambient levels of photochemical oxidants, which do
have adverse effects on health, are directly related to concentra-
tions of gaseous hydrocarbons. Therefore, the contribution of
hydrocarbons to the formation of oxidants should be taken into
account when considering health effects.
2. Effects on Materials and Vegetation
As in effects of health, the contribution of hydrocarbons to the
formation of photochemical oxidants and resultant health effects
must be considered. In the absence of ozone, only ethylene has
had adverse effects at known ambient concentrations. Injury to
sensitive plants has been reported in association with ethylene con-
centrations of from 1.15 to 575 ug/m3 over a time period of 8 to
24 hours.
F. Nitrogen Oxides
1. Effects on Health
Both of the prominent oxides of nitrogen present in ambient
air are potential health hazards. At ambient concentrations, NO
presents no direct threat to general health; the greatest toxic
potential for NO at ambient concentrations is related to its
[p. 2-6]
tendency to undergo oxidation to N02. Nitrogen dioxide, N02,
can be significantly correlated with increased respiratory disease
at mean 24-hour concentrations between 117 and 205 ug/m3.
The frequency of acute bronchitis increased among infants and
school children when the range of mean 24-hour N02 concentra-
tions, measured over a 6-month period, was between 119 and 157
ug/ms, and the mean suspended nitrate level was 2.6 ug/m3 or
greater.
-------
176 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
2. Effects on Materials
Damage to materials has been attributed to the oxides of nitro-
gen in ambient atmospheres. Effects on dyes and paints specifically,
have been attributed to NO*; however, the precise air concentra-
tions producing these effects have not been determined. Nitrate
compounds have also been identified with corrosion and failure
of electrical components.
3. Effects on Vegetation
Adverse effects on vegetation such as leaf abscission and de-
creased yield of navel oranges have been observed when the N02
concentration was 470 ug/m3 during an 8-month period. Exposure
to higher concentrations, e.g. 1 ppm, can cause overt leaf injury
to sensitive plants.
[p. 2-7]
-------
CHAPTER 3: GOVERNMENTAL PROGRAMS
I. INTRODUCTION
This chapter reports projected costs of governmental programs
directed toward implementation of the purposes of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1970,
II. FEDERAL PROGRAMS
Fiscal 1973 Agency funding for Air Programs is given in Table
3-1. Since most programs are organized along functional rather
than along pollutant lines, it is not in general possible to allocate
costs among the various pollutants.
In addition to expenditures for administration of governmental
programs, the Federal government also incurs expenditures to
abate emissions from Federally owned and/or operated facilities.
Estimated hardware expenditures required to abate such emis-
sions from existing facilities in the period beginning with FY
1974 and beyond are presented in Table 3-2.
III. STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS
The Act reaffirms the original jurisdiction of state and local
governments over matters pertaining to protection of the quality
of the air resource. To aid these units of government in effective
prosecution of their responsibilities, EPA maintains ten regional
offices covering the ten census regions and devotes by far the
largest portion of the budget for air programs to control non-
federal agency development and maintenance. Table 3-3 sum-
marizes actual and projected financial support for air pollution
control by state and local governments.
[p- 3-1]
177
-------
178
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
TABLE 3-1: Federal Air Pollution Control Estimates
FY 1973-1974 (In Millions of Dollars)
1973
1974*
Research and development
Process and effects
Control technology
Abatement and control
Mobile sources
Stationary sources
Ambient trend monitoring
Technical assistance
Academic training
Air control agcy
Enforcement
69.1
30.9
38.2
85.0
9.2
5.9
2.6
13.1
3.6
50.6
4.2
57.1
29.8
27.3
79.8
9.8
6.3
1.0
9.1
2.1
51.5
8.7
Total
158.3
145.6
' Requested
TABLE 3-2: Projected Hardware Costs-Federal Facilities
(Millions of current dollars)
$141.8
.2
3.0
38.1
.8
All Agencies -— — J183.9
Source: Office of Federal Liaison, Office of Air and Water Programs.
TABLE 3--3: EPA Grants For State And Local Control Agency Programs
1972
Actual
State or Territory
Air
1973
Estimated'
Air
1974
Estimated '
Air
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas -
California
Colorado
Connecticut ---
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii -
Idaho _ —
Illinois
Indiana
527,324
69,775
207,049
208,527
3,690,260
900,784
1,335,796
189
225,000
885,741
630,218
96,445
81,687
2,423,520
826,034
709,427
152,518
512,614
280,295
3,893,615
576,524
1,014,406
260,054
173,088
1,363,097
684,100
157,395
141,074
2,830,000
1,109,927
861,100
142,090
563,400
407,000
3,769,990
501,200
839,400
212,200
214,600
1,186,600
1,085,400
101,200
271,200
2,640,000
1,738,480
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
179
TABLE 3-3: Continued
State or Territory
1972
Actual
1973
Estimated>
Air
Air
1974
Estimated'
|0wa . _ 559,243 498,841 687,600
Kansas .". - - - - 335,761 470,228 562,324
Kentucky —_ 159,028 1,016,034 766,660
Louisiana _ - 175,000 349,959 807,200
Maine - - -— 245,349 315,000
Maryland 987,000 852,115 850,800
Massachusetts 794,385 1,247,799 1,375.400
Michigan 1,613,520 2,010,073 1,853,600
Minnesota 365,669 700,097 873,600
Mississippi — 421,724 477,699 590,430
Missouri - 717,574 1,123,344 956,670
Montana 231,460 237,022 222,800
Nebraska - 231,929 304,422 274,960
Nevada 245,702 248,532 248,200
New Hampshire 185,409 227,609 238,500
New Jersey 2,118,844 2,583,130 1,734,000
New Mexico 706,440 302,543 328,800
New York 3,967,790 4,232,424 3,755,800
North Carolina 1,489,069 1,050,998 1,154,400
North Dakota 45,000 62,207 89,600
Ohio 1,798,153 2,450,000 2,644,390
Oklahoma _. .. 484,906 481,408 471,600
Oregon 486,828 667,492 532,300
Pennsylvania _ 2,080,700 3,645,052 3,259,890
Rhode Island 133,899 197,117 269,000
South Carolina 111,783 708,247 719,600
South Dakota - 32,025 86,943 137,870
Tennessee ___. 703,614 1,157,469 910,800
Texas 2,603,299 2,789,526 2,398,800
Utah 216,945 319,600
Vermont 224,426 173,669 98,800
Virginia __ 1,062,000 618,516 1,007,400
Washington ____ 1,129,910 1,194,024 1,003,050
West Virginia 317,620 322,693 500,700
Wisconsin 965,448 900,000 1,039,200
Wyoming 68,133 102,667 59,900
American Samoa 33,210 13,800
Guam 54,774 54,990 51,470
Puerto Rico 464,417 512,261 489,800
Virgin Islands 100,043 89,212 71,200
Total - $40,280,874 $48,500,000 14^219^374
1 Dollar amounts are estimates of the actual amounts that may be awarded States during FY 1973. Esti-
mates include funds to support the program that provides Federal employees to the States on a temporary basis.
-------
CHAPTER 4. MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL COSTS *
I. INTRODUCTION
Transportation sources, a majority of which are motor vehicles
for highway use, contribute heavily to air pollution. Regulations
to control vehicular emissions distinguish two principal types of
vehicles: 1) light duty, which are those vehicles designed pri-
marily to carry 12 or fewer persons, and 2) heavy-duty vehicles,
over 6000 pounds gross weight and designed primarily to trans-
port property or carry more than 12 persons. EPA has established
emission limitations for all new motor vehicles and engines, both
light and heavy duty (Federal Register, Vol. 37, No. 221, Novem-
ber 15, 1972. Light duty trucks and multi-purpose vehicles were
included with light duty vehicles, until excluded by the Court of
Appeals decision on February 10, 1973 and the Administrator's
decision on April 11, 1973). Table 4-1 summarizes the require-
ments for light-duty vehicles.
TABLE 4-1. Federal Emission-Control Requirements for Light-Duty Vehicles
Model Year
Test Procedure
Emissions,
grams/mile
Hydrocarbons
Carbon
Monoxide
Nitrogen
Oxides
Evaporative
losses
grams/test
Pre
FTP
10
77
4-6
40
1968 t
CVS-C
17
125
6
40
1968
FTP
3.4
35.0
NR
NR
1970
FTP
2.2
23.0
NR
NR
1971
FTP
2.2
23.0
NR
6.0
1972
CVS-C
3.4
39.0
NR
2.0
1973
CVS-C
3.4
39.0
3.0
2.0
1975
CVS-CH
0.41'
3.4 •
3.1
2.0
1976
CVS-CH
0.41
3.4
0.4"
2.0
NR—No Requirement
t Uncontrolled vehicle except for crankcase blowby control.
* On April 11, 1973, 1975 standards for hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions by light-duty ve-
hicles were suspended. Interim requirements were set at 0.9 grams per mile of HC emissions and 9 grams per
mile of CO emissions for the state of California and at 1.5 grams per mile and 15 grams per mile, respectively,
for the rest of the nation. 1976 standards remained unchanged at .41 and 3.5 grams per mile. The intent was
to insure use of an oxidation catalyst on all 1975 vehicles sold in California, thus gradually phasing into gen-
eral usage such devices as would be required on all cars to meet the 1976 standards. These recent develop-
ments can be expected to reduce materially the costs presented in this report.
"At this time hearings are underway concerning manufacturer requests for a one year suspension of the
1976 NOX standards.
[p. 4-1]
Test Procedures Used to Measure Emissions
FTP Federal Test Procedure—The driving cycle is the
California seven-mode cycle repeated nine times. Pol-
lutant concentrations in the exhaust are analyzed
continuously throughout the 16-minute test. Concen-
180
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 181
trations in each mode are multiplied by weighing
factors to give grams/mile. This is not a true mass
emissions measurement.
CVS-C Constant Volume Sampling Procedure—This is a cold
start mass emissions test. The vehicle stands at con-
stant temperature for 12 hours at 70 degrees F before
engine startup. The driving cycle is a 23-minute, 7.5-
mile non-repetitive pattern. A constant fraction of
the exhaust flow is collected in a bag, and concentra-
tion measurements at the end of the test give true
mass emissions in grams/mile.
CVS-CH Constant Volume Sampling Procedure—This is a cold-
hot start weighted mass emissions test. The vehicle
stands at constant temperature for 12 hours at 70
degrees F before engine startup. The driving cycle is
the 23-minute pattern used in CVS-C. After a ten-
minute shutdown, the engine is restarted and the
first 505 seconds of the driving cycle repeated. A
constant fraction of the exhaust flow is collected: the
first 505 seconds in a "cold transient bag"; the next
864 seconds in a "stabilized bag"; and the repeat 505
seconds in a "hot transient bag." Emissions in cold
and hot transient bags are weighted 0.43 to 0.57,
respectively, and added to emissions in stabilized bag
to give true mass emissions.
II. FUEL MODIFICATIONS
A. Regulations
Regulations have been promulgated to guarantee the general
availability of one grade of lead-free fuel to protect potential post
1974 emission control systems. "Lead-free" grade gasoline, defined
by the regulations as containing a maximum of 0.05 grams of lead
per gallon, should be generally available by the summer of 1974.
The use of phosphorus additives in lead-free gasoline is also re-
stricted. EPA has proposed other regulations to diminish the lead
content of leaded "regular" and "premium" grades of gasoline.
B. Cost Estimate of Fuel Modifications
By 1980, refineries will have to process an additional 1.2 million
barrels of crude oil per day to compensate for lead removal and
-------
182 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
fuel penalties of pollution devices. With construction costs of
$1700 per barrel refined per day, the investment will be over $2
billion.
If the petroleum industry passes all costs of the lead regula-
tions to the consumer, net cost will be the sum of the increased
cost of raw stocks, the operating and capital costs at the refinery,
and the cost of changes in the distribution system, less the de-
creased maintenance costs for a car using lead-free fuels.
[p. 4-2]
Increased fuel consumption due to emission controls will present
a significant cost. Highway statistics through 1970 indicate a
steady rise in the amount of gasoline used by a motor vehicle,
as can be expected with increased use of optional equipment,
increased safety equipment, and increased per-vehicle mileage.
This trend indicates that in 1978, the estimated 40 million pas-
senger cars in operation will use about 860 gallons per year for a
total consumption of 95 billion gallons. Superimposed on this trend,
in the current decade, will be an additional usage due to the fuel
penalty of pollution control devices. The 1978 gasoline consumption
of the estimated 11.0 million 1975 vehicle in operation may be 1 to
2 percent over that of 1973 vehicles. The estimated 33 million
1976-1978 cars in operation are expected to use 10 percent more
fuel than 1973 vehicles. The increase of three billion gallons will
cost about $1.19 billion.
In 1978, about half the gasoline sold will be lead-free and cost
an additional one cent per gallon for a total increase of $0.49
billion.
The combined operating cost increase for these motor vehicles
in 1978 is thus $1.68 billion, or about 4% of the total amount spent
on gasoline.
III. EMISSION CONTROL APPARATUS
A. Configuration
The most likely 1975 emission control configuration for conven-
tional engines will consist of improved carburetion, a fast-closing
choke, a more durable ignition system, a noble metal oxidizing
catalyst, a quick-heat manifold, proportional exhaust gas recircu-
lation (PEGR), and a manifold air injection pump.
In addition, there are three alternative power systems con-
sidered capable of meeting the 1975 standards on a limited mass
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 183
production basis: 1) the light-duty diesels produced by Daimler
Benz of West Germany, and Opel of General Motors, 2) the
Wankel (rotary) engine produced by Toyo Kogyo of Japan, and
3) a pre-chamber stratified charge engine manufactured by
Honda of Japan. The Wankel powered vehicle which successfully
completed the durability test phase has a thermal reactor and no
catalyst. The vehicle passed several 50,000-mile tests with emission
levels below the 1975 standards. The company believes that be-
tween 50,000 and 70,000 vehicles per month could be produced;
over 200,000 have been produced to date. The Honda Compound
Vortex Controlled Combustion (CVCC) engine has successfully
completed 50,000-mile durability tests with emission levels below
the 1975 standards. Honda does not require a catalytic device nor
thermal reactor to meet 1975 standards, and intends to sell 250,000
cars in the U.S. in that year. Although each manufacturer is
expected to produce vehicles using these technologies, adoption on
a large scale appears unlikely.
Other manufacturers are relying almost completely on the
present type of gasoline fueled spark-ignition engine equipped
with various combinations of emission control components to
meet the 1975-1976 standards.
One approach is improvement of carburetors, chokes, and in-
take manifold designs. Some foreign manufacturers are seriously
considering electronic fuel injection, though at this time it ap-
parently offers no advantage over improved carburetor designs.
[p. 4-3]
Manufacturers are also working on improved ignition systems
which are more accurate, reliable, and controllable, allowing
maximum use of ignition spark timing modifications for hydro-
carbon and nitrogen oxides emissions control.
Some companies appear to be interested in further application
of electronic ignition systems, which offer improved reliability
with less maintenance than conventional systems and may be
inherently less prone to tampering.
Most manufacturers expect to use exhaust gas recirculation as
the primary nitrogen oxide control technique in 1975. However,
it appears that the 1976 nitrogen oxide level can be achieved with
the conventional internal combustion gasoline engine only by de-
velopment of a satisfactory nitrogen oxide reducing catalyst.
Air injection into the exhaust manifolds will be required on
most of the systems that the industry seems to be considering
for controlling carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons. These systems
-------
184 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
may be somewhat more complicated than those used in the past,
and may require more sophisticated controls.
Thermal reactors (employing no catalysts) which can help con-
trol carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions are not likely to
be used with piston engines as the sole emission control technique
by any manufacturer, although elementary thermal reactors may
well be employed in conjunction with catalysts to accelerate cata-
lyst bed warm-up.
Oxidation catalysts for control of carbon monoxide and hydro-
carbons are almost universally planned by industry; however,
achieving adequate catalyst life is still a major problem. At this
writing, all auto manufacturers in the United States are favoring
the noble metal type catalyst.
In summary, most of the manufacturers will be using integrated
combinations of some or all of the above systems, which might
include the following:
1. Engine modifications based on carburetion, intake manifold,
and ignition system improvements (to control HC, CO, NOX).
2. Proportional exhaust gas recirculation (NOX).
3. Air injection (CO, HC).
4. Oxidation catalysts and integrated over temperature protec-
tion device (CO, HC).
A typical 1976 system, though less definite, may incorporate
the above components, plus:
1. A reduction catalyst (as yet undeveloped).
2. More sophisticated air injection system.
3. More sophisticated carburetion.
[p. 4-4]
B. Cost Estimates of Emissions Controls
Based on several recent reports and the monitoring of industry
progress, the additional list price of emission control configura-
tions for 1975 model light duty vehicles could range from about
$150 upward over the 1974 model list prices.
The National Academy of Sciences estimates the additional list
price to be about $175 for a 1975 configuration consisting of the
components given in Table 4-2.
Recent improvements in auto emission controls may make some
of these components unnecessary and lower the price of others.
Normal dealer reductions in new-car list prices may effectively
lower these additional costs as well. It is likely therefore, that
the additional list price of a typical 1975 emission-control config-
uration for a six-cylinder engine light-duty vehicle will be less
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 185
than $175 and may not exceed $150. For a V-8 model with two
catalysts, the additional price may be as much as $200.
Present information also suggests that a 1976 emission control
configuration may differ from a 1975 system only in that the EGR
is replaced by a NOX reduction catalyst. This catalyst will prob-
ably be comparable to the oxidation catalyst in cost. However,
it is possible that additional body revisions and other changes
may also be required. On this basis, a typical 1976 emission con-
trol configuration may have a net additional list price of $240
over 1973-1974 model prices.
The use of an emission control averaging $185 in model year
1975 motor vehicles and an emission control averaging $240 in
later model years represents an investment of $12.5 billion in
1978. This is the bulk of the emission control investment for
mobile sources listed in Table 1-3; the remainder is the additional
investment by refineries in the production of unleaded fuel, as
discussed in Section II-B of this chapter.
IV. OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
Model year 1975 and 1976 vehicles will probably need more
maintenance than uncontrolled cars to perform with low emissions.
For example, EGR valves will need to be cleaned or changed, and
catalysts may need to be replaced. In addition, they may require
more fuel because of the pollution control devices. For a 1975
model car, the annual cost of operation and maintenance, includ-
ing EGR maintenance, above that for a pre-1968 (uncontrolled)
model vehicle, is estimated at $51.00 with catalyst changes and
at $43.00 without changes. The annual cost of operation and
maintenance for 1976-1978 model cars is estimated at $98.00 with
change of oxidation and reduction catalyst, and $84.00 without
changes.
Included in these figures is an expected reduction of main-
tenance costs due to the use of non-leaded fuel. Increased life of
muffler systems and spark plugs will result in savings of 0.095
cents per mile; however, this will be partly offset by costs of
[p. 4-5]
hardened valve seats. The calculated net savings is $9.50 per year
for 1975 model cars and 1976 cars, both using non-leaded gaso-
line. There is an annual increase in the cost of gasoline of $10 per
motor vehicle due to the use of unleaded gasoline for catalyst-
equipped vehicles.
-------
186
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
TABLE 4-2. Estimated List Prices of 1975 Emission Control Components
Model Yr. Configuration
1975 "'Proportional
EGR (accel-decal)
New Design Car-
buretor with
Altitude Com-
pensation
Hot Spot Intake
Manifold
Electric Choke
(element)
Electronic
Distributor
(pointless)
New Timing
Control
Catalytic-
Oxidizing-
Converter
Pellet Charge
6# at $2.00/lb
Cooling System
Changes
Underhood Temp.
Materials
Body Revisions
Welding Presses
Assembly Line
Changes
End of Line
Test Go- No Go
Quality
Emission Test
Air Injection
System
"EGR = Exhaust
Value Added Tooling Amort. Dealer Margin
20.07 „ 6.95
7.52 2.00 3.30
2.87 .30 1.10
2.67 .50 1.10
4.35 2 00 2 20
1.40 .50 .66
18.86 4.00 7.92
12.00 1.72 4.75
1.17 .10 .44
.63 - .22
.67 .60 .44
.13 .50 .22
1.85 .05 .66
1.22 .05 .44
27.16 1.80 10.03
Gas Recirculation
Profit
3.00
1.43
.48
.48
.95
.29
3.42
2.05
.19
.10
.19
.10
.29
.19
4.33
Total 1975
List Price
30.02
14.25
4.75
4.75
9.50
2.85
34.20
20.52
1.90
.95
1.90
.95
2.85
1.90
43.32
$174.61
[p. 4-6]
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 187
Table 4-3 summarizes the total additional list prices, operation
and maintenance costs of 1975 and 1976 model light-duty vehicles
due to air pollution controls. Total costs are given both with and
without catalyst replacement.
V. BENEFITS FROM MEETING THE 1975-1976 STANDARDS
The national CO, HC, and NOX emissions from light-duty ve-
hicles in 1978 both with and without the 1975-1976 standards
mandated under Section 202 (b) of the Act are
COr 52 million tons with control or 74 million tons without;
HC: 6 million tons with control or 8 million tons without;
NOX: 3.1 million tons with control or 4.6 million tons without
the 1975-76 standards for emission control.
As older cars with less or no emission control are retired from
use, the reduction in pollution due to emission controls can be
expected to become more significant.
[p. 4-7]
-------
188
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
s
8
^~
-------
CHAPTER 5. INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CONTROL COSTS
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
A. Selection of Industrial Sources
The sources of airborne emissions may be grouped into three
major divisions: mobile sources used for transportation, large
stationary sources where fossil fuel is consumed in the generation
of electricity, and a miscellany of stationary industrial and agri-
cultural sources. Each of these three major divisions is currently
responsible for a roughly equal portion of current airborne emis-
sions.
Costs of control were presented in chapter 1, with investments
accumulated from 1970, the base year, through fiscal 1978. Since
investments projected for the next five years (1974-1978) are
of interest, these are presented in this chapter for each industry
reviewed. The difference between these investments and those
presented in Table 1-3 represents, of course, estimates of invest-
ments made by June, 1973. Annual costs in this chapter reflect
investments since 1970.
The list of sources analyzed is given in Table 5-1. Their number
has been expanded to 46 from the 20 industries reviewed in the
last annual report. Still, some activities that might seem to merit
analysis may seem missing from the table. For some absences,
the lack of information and of agreement on effective control
strategy are to be held responsible. The painting industry, build-
ing, and road construction are in this category.
Some additions to the list are a result of New Source Perfor-
mance Standards to be promulgated in 1973. As discussed in section
IB, the Standards have identified certain industrial operations
in which it will be mandatory to control to a specified limit the
emissions from units being constructed or modified after August
17, 1971. These now include steam generators fired by fossil fuels,
incinerators, Portland cement plants, nitric acid production plants,
and sulfuric acid production plants. In addition, standards have
been proposed for asphalt concrete plants, petroleum refineries,
petroleum and gasoline storage vessels, brass and bronze refineries,
iron and steel mills, sewage sludge incinerators, and secondary
smelters of lead. These standards were presented in Chapter 1.
B. Emission Estimates
For each industrial category of source, two sets of emission
levels have been calculated: the level of emission of each pollutant
[p. 5-1]
189
-------
190 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
TABLE 5-1. Listing of Industrial Sources of Air Pollution
Burning and Incineration Group:
Solid waste disposal
Municipal incinerators
Structural fires
Forest fires, both controlled and accidental
Agricultural burning
Coal refuse burning
Sludge incinerators for sewage
Metals Industries Group:
Iron and steel manufacture
Gray iron foundries
New basic-oxygen furnaces for steel manufacture
Ferroalloys
Primary aluminum
Primary copper
Primary zinc
Primary lead
Primary mercury
Primary beryllium
Brass and bronze
Mercury cell chlor-alkali
Secondary aluminum
Secondary zinc
Secondary lead
Secondary beryllium
Fuel Industries Group:
Petroleum refineries
Catalyst regeneration
Petroleum products storage
Gasoline and crude oil storage
Coal cleaning
Natural gas production
Fuel gas burning
Commercial heating
Residential heating
Drycleaning
Biochemicals Industries:
Grain milling and handling
Forest products
Carbon black
Kraft pulp
Quarrying and Construction:
Crushed stone, sand, gravel
Limestone crushing
Cement
Asbestos mining and milling
Asbestos fireproofing and insulation
Asbestos products
Asphalt
Chemicals:
Lime manufacture
Sulfuric acid
Nitric acid
Phosphate fertilizer
[p-5-2]
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 191
with pollution control equal to that exercised prior to the Clean
Air Act of 1970, and with control exercised in accordance with
standards set under the provisions of that Act. These standards
are provided in the State Implementation Regulations to achieve
ambient air quality levels for the six criteria pollutants identified
by the Administrator, New Source Performance Standards issued
by the Administrator, and Hazardous Materials Emissions Stan-
dards also issued by the Administrator.
Emission levels are proportional to industrial output, provided
emission control practice is unaltered. In addition to industry
growth, trends in production methods are of importance. The steel
industry, for example, exhibits an internal trend whereby open
hearth production is decreasing, while production by the basic
oxygen process and electric arc production are increasing". Avail-
able data on shifting percentages of production, as in the steel
industry, were included in the analysis when the different modes
of production yield different emission levels.
The magnitude of industrial output for each industry studied
was projected through the 1974-1978 period, based on 1970 out-
put and growth rate. The levels of emission in 1978, assuming
no additional control, are given in Table 5-2 for each industrial
source. Other emissions, such as sulfuric acid mist from sulfuric
acid plants, omitted from this table, are presented in the individual
discussion of the industry.
C. Control Analysis and Costing
The estimated annual costs of industrial air pollution control
expressed in constant 1970 dollars, are included in Table 1-3. The
figures present annual costs for each industry in 1978 and include
interest on capital equipment, depreciation of equipment, and
costs of operation and maintenance. Costs of monitoring the emis-
[p. 5-3]
sions that pass through the control devices have not been included
in the annual cost figures in the table. Costs for equipment pres-
ently installed are also omitted from this table.
For each industry, the total cost of air pollution control equip-
ment installed between June 1974 and July 1978 is also presented
in the table. These costs include that of the equipment, transporta-
tion, site preparation, and installation.
D. Pollution Level with Control
Future airborne industrial emissions levels will be affected by
the growth of the industry in question, together with the control
-------
192
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
TABLE 5-2. Airborne Emissions in 1978 With Current Control Practices
(thousands of tons)
Industry
Solid Waste disposal
Municipal incinerators ---
Forest fires -
Agricultural fires --
Coke -
Secondary Pb -_
Asbestos construction
Asphalt
Sulfuric acid - .
Part
2981
60
49
1890
2400
538
12
690
153
61
2 2
111
75
79
22
29
15
13
15
097
6.7
17
218
7
71
6727
140
1306
233
84.5
237
960
2935
390
432
4 3
15
688
2184
687
348
sox
0.4
17
177
437
4511
140
430
4403
276
540
7398
376
0 Z
-
1857
HC NOX CO
7283 - 5321
57 5.7 186
444 1220 5554
2800 300 13800
322 67 1610
4092
183 1.7 55
586
169 - 10445
45
1361
682
1853
216
15.5
23 2.1 275
-
115
[p. 5-4]
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 193
achieved over the process emissions.
Industrial growth can be extrapolated with a fair degree of
confidence from trends in the past five years, whenever tech-
nological innovations are not involved. Where innovation has oc-
curred, growth trends must be analyzed more carefully and some
uncertainty will still exist. However, for the near term, this un-
certainty is not a major problem. To take an example, a process
emitting 1000 tons of pollution in 1972 and growing at a rate of
3 percent would in 1978 emit 1190 tons. If we had erred badly,
and estimated the growth rate to be 5 percent, the 1978 emission
forecast would be only 150 tons in error. In those industries where
new source performance standards have been set up at sig-
nificantly lower emission levels than existing sources, the con-
tribution of growth to total emissions becomes less significant.
Present U.S. philosophy is not to reduce the industrial base and
thereby reduce living standards to achieve clean air, but to apply
controls to the industrial processes that have been identified as
significant polluters. To this end, assistance in the form of long-
term, low-interest loans for pollution control equipment is avail-
able when hardship can be demonstrated. The laws that regulate
the amounts of industrial airborne emissions are summarized in
[p. 5-5]
Chapter I. In this chapter, it is assumed that in 1978 industry on
the average will meet these regulations, perhaps with some plants
achieving even lower levels of emission. With this working as-
sumption, we may calculate the emission levels on an industry-
wide basis, regardless of control device used to achieve this legal
emission level.
The emission levels in 1978, with control, are presented on an
industry-by-industry basis in Table 5-3. As with Table 5-2, only
the principal five pollutants are presented.
-------
194 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
TABLE 5-3. Maximum Airborne Emissions in 1978 with Control
(thousands of tons)
Industry Part SOX HC NOX CO
Solid waste disposal 205 - 967 - 655
Municipal incinerators 6
Structural fires * --
Forest fires * —
Agricultural fires *
Coal refuse fires *
Sludge incinerators 0.3 - - - -
Iron and steel 46 4092
Coke *
Gray iron — 12 412
Basic oxygen 0.8 - - - -
Ferroalloys 1.8
Primary Al ._ 2.8
Primary Cu 3.6 826
Primary Zn -- - 4 94
Primary Pb — - 1.8 186
Primary Hg __ 1
Primary Be _ -
Brass and bronze 0.4 - - - -
Mercury chlor-alkali .02
Secondary Al 0.9
Secondary Zn 0.2
Secondary Pb -- 0.4
Secondary Be -
Petroleum refineries 89 97 8 - 3292
Catalyst regenerators 1.8 45
Refinery tanks - - 575
Gasoline tanks - 262
Coal cleaning 26 - - - -
Fuel gas heat 27
Natural gas 22
Commercial heat ___ 1076 1258 - 1056
Residential heat *
Drycleaning __ 14
Gram elevators 23
Grain milling 4.6 — - - -
Forest products .... 17 0.2 23 21 39
Carbon black * --
Kraft pulp 80
Rendering
Stone, sand *
Limestone *
Cement _ 40
Asbestos milling 0.04 -
Asbestos construction _____
Asbestos products 116 -
Asphalt - 607
Lime 85
Sulfunc acid - 574 -
Nitric acid 12
Phosphate fertilizer 32 -
: No control feasible
[p. 5-6]
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 195
II. BURNING AND INCINERATION
A. Group Description
Disposal of refuse is by burial, dumping, or combustion. The
last of these alternatives, although it has many desirable features,
is a significant source of air pollution.
At present, the two major methods of treating solid municipal
waste are dumping and burning. Both incineration (the confined
reduction of waste to ashes) and open burning result in significant
airborne pollution but the exhaust from an enclosed incinerator
can be vented through emission controls to reduce these emissions.
Incineration is therefore to be preferred. Of course, no such choice
is available when the burning is out of control, as with accidental
fires!
[p- 5-7]
GROUP 1: BURNING AND INCINERATION
Solid waste disposal
Municipal incinerators
Sludge incinerators
Structural fires
Forest fires
Agricultural burning
Coal refuse burning
The categories in this group whose emission control can be
achieved most readily, and therefore the categories which receive
the most attention, are the ones where the burning is conducted
in closed incinerators. Uncontrolled incineration typically releases
10 to 30 pounds of particulates per ton of waste charged. State
regulations require emission controls that reduce this to 2 to 4
pounds per ton. Specific regulations are given in Table 5-4.
-------
196
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
TABLE 5-4. Regulations Applicable to Incineration Sources
(Ibs paniculate/100 Ibs refuse charged)
Capacity, Ib/hr
<200
>200 <2000 >2000 <4000 >4000 > 15,000 ALL
Alabama 0.20 1
Alaska 2 0.29 0.19 0.09 "
Arizona' 0.22
Arkansas — - 0.29 0.19
California5
Colorado 0 15 0 09
Connecticut - 0.08 »
Delaware 0 20 0 18 0 16 ?
Dist. of Col. 0.03 "
Florida 0.08 »
Georgia 0 10 » 0.08 1°
Hawaii - 0.20
Idaho _ 0.20
Illinois —- 0.09 i« 0.08 3 0.05 «
Indiana 0.39 "> 0.23 »
Iowa 0.20
Kansas 0.29 0.19 0.09«
Kentucky 0.19 «
Louisiana 0.19
Maine 0.19 0.08
Maryland" 0.29" 0.19" 0.091« 0.03 u>
Massachusetts 0.09 «
Michigan w -
Minnesota — 0.30 0.20 0.10
Mississippi 0.09
Missouri 1° 0.29 0.19
Montana 0.29 0.19
Nebraska 0.19 0.09
Nevada M
N. Hampshire 0.29 0.19
New Jersey 0.19 0 09
New Mexico21
New York - 0.50""
N. Carolina — 0 20 0.02
N. Dakota »
Ohio 0.202* 0.1021
Oklahoma 0-40
Oregon 2E - 0 29 0.19
Pennsylvania 0.09
Rhode Island 15™ 0.08 2«
S. Carolina (27)
S. Dakota —. 0.20
Tennessee — 0 20 * 0.10 2«
Texas * (">
Utah 0 10
Vermont 0.10
Virginia 0.13
Washington 0.09 3»
W. Virginia 0.41 0.27 0.13
Wisconsin31 0.17 3a 0.11 008
Wyoming 0.20
Samoa 0.20 0 10
Guam 0.20
Puerto Rico 0.40 0.20
Virgin Islands 0.29 0.19
1 0.40 lbs/100 Ibs refuse for wood waste burners
2 for new installations only; 40% capacity for existing installations (more than 3 minutes in any hour)
3 for >1000 Ibs/hr capacity
[p. 5-8]
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 197
TABLE 5-4 FOOTNOTES—Continued
[p. 5-9]
1 0.09 lbs/100 Ibs refuse for Mancopa County
= no general regulation stated in the final plan
° for new sources only; 0.23 lbs/100 Ibs refuse for existing sources
'for <3000 Ibs/hr capacity; no regulation stated for >3000 Ibs/hr capacity
8 for new sources only/ 0.08 lbs/100 Ibs refuse for existing sources
8 for new sources only; after July 1, 1975 existing incinerators with charging rates of >4000 Ibs/hr shall
be restricted to emitting 0.09 lbs/100 Ibs refuse
10 for new incinerators; 0.19 lbs/100 Ibs refuse for existing incinerators
"for >60,000 Ibs/hr capacity
u for <1000 Ibs/hr capacity
13 for >20,000 Ibs/hr capacity
" for all existing sources and for new sources 4000 Ibs/hr capacity; 0.08 lbs/100 Ibs refuse for new
sources 4000 Ibs/hr capacity
[p. 5-10]
15 These regulations are for the following AQCR's: Eastern Shore, Md.; Southern Md.; Central Md.; and
Cumberland, Md.-Keyser, W. Va. The following regulations apply to the other two AQCR's: National Capital
Interstate and Metropolitan Baltimore; 0.03 lbs/100 Ibs refuse for all incinerators after July 1, 1973
10 for existing and modified incinerators only
17 for all existing incinerators and for new commercial, industrial, and residential incinerators; 0.05 Ibs/
100 Ibs refuse for new municipal incinerators—these regulations apply to all 6 AQCR's
18 for Michigan the following regulations apply:
Rating in Ibs/hr Ibs/1000 Ibs gas
Residential apartments 0-200 0.65
Residential apartments 200 and over 0.30
Commercial & Industrial 0-400 0.65
Commercial & Industrial 400 and over 0.30
Municipal All 0.30
19 0.19 lbs/100 Ibs refuse for all incinerators in Kansas City
20 cannot exceed 20% opacity for periods totaling one minute in any one hour
2» state regulation not specified in final plan. Albuquerque regulation: 0.09 lbs/100 Ibs refuse for existing
incinerators; construction, use or operation of new incinerators is prohibited and after Jan. 1, 1976 use or
operation of any incinerator is prohibited.
— for existing incinerators except in New York City, Nassau and Westchester Counties; for new and modified
incinerators:
0.3 lbs/100 Ibs refuse for <1000 Ibs/hr capacity
0.22 lbs/100 Ibs refuse for 10,000 Ibs/hr capacity
0.13 lbs/100 Ibs refuse for 100,000 Ibs/hr capacity
for all incinerators in New York City, Nassau, and Westchester Counties:
0.2 lbs/100 Ibs refuse for <1000 Ibs/hr capacity
0 15 lbs/100 Ibs refuse for 10,000 Ibs/hr capacity
0 08 lbs/100 Ibs refuse for 100,000 Ibs/hr capacity
23 for <1000 Ibs/hr refuse burning rate E-0.00515R0<*> and for >1000 Ibs/hr refuse burning rate
£=0.025R° °7 where E=alloivable emission rate in Ibs/hr and R=refuse burning rate in Ibs/hr
24 for <100 and >100 Ibs/hr capacity
25 State regulations for existing sources; 0.09 lbs/100 Ibs refuse for new sources, Regulations for Mid-
Willamette Valley and Lane Regional:
0.19 lbs/100 Ibs refuse for existing sources
0 09 lbs/100 Ibs refuse for new sources
Regulations for Columbia-Wilamette: Depending on heat input rate
0.09-0.29 lbs/100 Ibs refuse for existing sources
0.05-0.09 lbs/100 Ibs refuse for new sources
26 for new incinerators; applies to existing incinerators 3 years after effective date of regulation
27 0 5 lbs/10° BTU of heat input for new installations and for all incinerators by 1974; 0.75 lbs/10« BTU
of heat input for existing incinerators
28 for new incinerators only; 0.6 lbs/100 Ibs refuse for existing incinerators with <200 Ibs/hr capacity;
0.4 lbs/100 Ibs refuse for existing incinerators >200 Ibs/hr capacity
29 85% control for > 10,000 Ibs/hr capacity
30 for all incinerators after July 1, 1975; until then 0.19 lbs/100 Ibs refuse for existing incinerators and
0.09 lbs/100 Ibs refuse for new incinerators
-------
198 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
TABLE 5-4 FOOTNOTES—Continued
31 for new sources; 0.34 lbs/100 Ibs refuse for existing sources <500 Ibs/hr capacity and 0.27 lbs/100
Ibs refuse for existing sources >500 Ibs/hr capacity
32 for <500 Ibs/hr capacity
[p. 5-11]
The trend, then, is to prohibit open burning where feasible, and
to install emission controls on incinerators. This is recognized as
only part of the answer. Reclamation of individual resources from
trash is already standard procedure for many items, notably
metals, in many municipal trash systems. Separation of trash into
its ingredients and recycling more of these ingredients can be
expected to become more desirable economically with time and
experience.
Once the reclaimable materials are extracted, can the residue
be incinerated for profit? Studies of this possibility are underway.
Conceivably, the heat generated when waste is incinerated can be
of use. Used as fuel to generate steam for an electric power sta-
tion, waste could become an asset rather than a liability. A demon-
stration project, consuming 300 tons per day to generate
electricity, is to be carried out soon.
While major attention is being given to these possibilities for
solid waste presently being incinerated, waste that is presently
being burned in the open should not be overlooked. Air pollution
by open fires can be controlled. Wasteful burning of stubble and
weeds is recognized as poor agricultural practice not only for
the air pollution resulting, but for the loss of organic matter that
could be turned under to improve the soil. Accidental fires of
structures or woods can be prevented or limited. The group of
sources of pollution that is characterized by open burning remains
to be given serious attention from a pollution point of view.
[p. 5-12]
B. Solid Waste
\. Growth and Cost Factors
The amount of solid waste increases with population growth;
the per capita amount is also increasing. The following table
demonstrates the expected increase in the number of pounds gen-
erated per person per day.
1970 1973 1978
Collected 6.0 6.6 7.6
Uncollected 5.1 5.6 6.5
Total 11.1 12.2 14.1
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 199
Collection costs neglected, the cost of disposal of this waste
varies from a low of about $1.50 per ton for dumping on worth-
less land, up to $20 per ton in an incinerator. Many incinerators
operate in the range of $5 to $20 per ton, with $7 being a typical
figure.
Emission control requires electrostatic precipitators, high ef-
ficiency wet scrubbers, or other devices to limit particulate, carbon
monoxide, and hydrocarbon emissions. A high efficiency wet scrub-
ber for a typical 215 ton/day rectangular furnace incinerator
would cost about $210,000 installed. Including operation and main-
tenance, it would cost about $49,000 annually. If the incinerator
without control had operated at a cost of seven dollars per ton of
charge, the emission control would increase this by 0.9%.
The costs on a nation-wide basis of meeting emission standards
total an investment in the next five years of $519 million and an
annual cost by 1978 of $250 million. In the following sections,
the control strategy and its effectiveness in reducing air pollution
are given.
2. Control Strategy
To obtain an estimate of the cost of reducing air pollution by
burning and incineration and an estimate of the effectiveness of
the control, it was necessary to assume a strategy for future
solid waste disposal.
The control strategy assumed is the following:
a. All open burning of municipal waste is discontinued by 1978.
At present, 25% of total collected refuse is disposed of in this
way.
b. New municipal incinerators are installed to dispose of 25%
of waste previously burned in the open.
c. Sanitary landfills replace the remainder of 1970 open burn-
ing refuse disposal and 25% of existing small incinerators.
d. No new small incinerators are built.
[p.5-13]
e. Old incinerators in each State are controlled to levels speci-
fied by its State Implementation Plan.
f. New municipal incinerators are installed in 1974-1978 with
control levels specified by the New Source Performance Standards.
g. Open burning of agricultural waste and other open fires
remain uncontrolled.
-------
200 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
3. Emission Factors
The airborne emissions due to disposal in a sanitary landfill
are negligible. For a goal of clean air, this solution to the solid
waste disposal problem is ideal but the lack of sites makes it not
always attainable, especially for municipal waste. Combustion
reduces the bulk of the waste with the environmental price of
airborne emissions. In pounds of emission per ton of waste
handled, the emission factor is given roughly by the following
table:
Source Particulates Hydrocarbons Carbon
monoxide
Open burning 16 30 85
Municipal incinerator 30 1.5 35
Small incinerator 30 7.5 20
where "small" incinerators typically handle less than one or two
tons of waste per hour. As was mentioned above, each State Im-
plementation Plan requires that incinerators be fitted with ex-
haust gas treatment to reduce the particulate emissions to a lower
value, the gaseous pollutant emissions can be expected to decrease
with this treatment. Table 5-5 summarizes the State limits, to-
gether with the maximum size at which an incinerator may be
treated as a small incinerator.
C. Seivage Sludge Incineration
About forty new incinerators, of 10 ton/day capacity, repre-
sents the annual increase in sewage sludge incinerators. To meet
New Source Performance Standards, each can be supplied with
a low energy venturi scrubber, at a cost of about $60,000. These
reduce particulate emissions from 60 tons/year for an incinerator
without control, to 1.4 tons/year. The projected five year invest-
ment to fiscal 1978 is $12 million, with an annual cost in 1978 of
$2,340,000.
III. METALS INDUSTRIES
A. Overview
Metals are undoubtedly the touchstone of civilization, but the
symbol of the metals industries has too often been a cluster of
tall chimneys sending black smoke into the sky. The refining of
[p. 5-14]
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
TABLE 5-5. Particulate Regulations for Solid Waste Incineration
201
State
Pounds/ton of refuse burned
"Small"
Incinerators
"Large"
Incinerators
"Smal/"/"Large"
Tons/hour *
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas ___ _„
California
Colorado __
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa __.
Kansas .-_
Kentucky —
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts -
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi _.-
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York ._ _
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island ___
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas _-
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin __
Wyoming
American Samoa
Canal Zone
Guam
Puerto Rico ___
Virgin Islands _
4.0
I1)
4.4
5.8
1.8
3.0
4.6
4.0
1.6
30.8
3.8
4.0
4.0
1.6
7.8
4.0
5.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
5.8
1.8
7.2
5.8
1.8
5.8
5.8
3.8
w
5.8
3.8
1.8
10.0
40
(•)
4.0
8.0
5.8
1.8
3.0
6.8
4.0
12.0
30.0
4.5
2.0
3.8
1.8
8.2
6.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
8.0
5.8
5.8
4.0
W
4.4
3.8
1.8
1.8
4.6
4.0
1.6
1.8
3.8
4.0
4.0
1.0 3
4.6
4.0
3 8--
2.0
3.8
1.6
3.8
1.0
3.4
3.8 «
1.8
3.8
3 8
1.8
(4
3.8
1 8
1.8
10.0
4.0 =
<»>
2.0
8.0
3.8
1.8
1.6
6.8
4.0
8.0
30.0
4.5
2.0
3 8
1 8
5.4 '
4 0
4.0
2.0
4.0
4 0
3.8
3.8
0.1
0 1
2.0
30.0"
0.5
0.1 s
2.0
2.0
0.1
1.0
0.2
0.1'
0.1
0.1
1.0
«
0.1
1.0
0.05
0.1
1 0
0.1
0.1 i
0.25
2.0
2.0
0.1
0.1
1 No regulation (no incinerators).
9 3.8 Ib/ton of refuse burned for less than 1 ton per hour of capacity.
[p. 5-15]
-------
202 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
TABLE 5-5. Continued
3 1.8 Ib/ton of refuse burned for >10 tons (hour of capacity).
4 1.8 Ib/ton of refuse burned for greater than 1 ton per hour of capacity.
5 4.0 Ib/hour for greater than 1 ton/hour of capacity.
0 Pounds/ton of refuse burned=.00515 (pounds per hour) '•' for less than 1,000 Ibs. per hour capacity.
Pounds/ton of refuse burned=(pounds per houO-w/lo (pounds per hour) for greater than 1,000 pounds/hour.
7 2.6 pounds/ton of refuse for greater than 7.5 tons of refuse per hour.
* The maximum incinerator capacity for which the "small" incinerator allowable emission factor applies.
[p. 5-16]
metals from their ores in all cases results in airborne particulates
that must be controlled. When the metal itself is highly toxic, as
with mercury and beryllium, its vapors are of great concern.
When the ore contains large amounts of sulfur, sulfur oxide emis-
sions must be controlled. To these concerns must be added concern
for control of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions in the
metals industries, where coal is used to refine the ore.
GROUP 2: METALS INDUSTRIES
Iron and steel
Gray iron foundries
New basic oxygen furnaces
Ferroalloys
Primary aluminum
Primary copper
Primary zinc
Primary lead
Primary mercury
Primary beryllium
Brass and bronze
Mercury cell chlor-alkali process
Secondary aluminum and zinc
Secondary lead
Secondary beryllium
To put these industries into perspective, it is worthwhile to
note U.S. production figures for 1970. In that year,
131.5 million tons of steel ingots,
93.8 million tons of pig iron and ferroalloys,
[p. 5-17]
4.0 million tons of aluminum,
1.7 million tons of copper from native ores,
0.96 million tons of zinc,
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 203
0.67 million tons of lead, and
0.31 million tons of brass and bronze were produced.
One sees that the iron and steel industries are the largest;
perhaps this helps explain why the largest quantity of emissions
for the group, shown in Table 5-2, is given by this industry.
B. Iron and Steel
1. Description
Steel production in the U.S. is highly concentrated, with more
than 50% of production accounted for by four companies and an
additional 25% by four more. However, when one considers the
processes involved in transforming iron ore into fabricated iron
or steel products, hundreds of companies are involved. These
processes include coking, in which coal is reduced to coke in coke
ovens; sintering, in which iron ore is beneficiated and prepared
for charging into blast furnaces; smelting, in which pig iron is
produced from iron ore, coke and limestone in blast furnaces;
casting in iron foundries when steel is not desired for the final
product; refining, in which iron ore is refined into steel (and
alloyed if desired) in open hearth, basic oxygen, or electric furn-
aces; rolling, in which raw steel is shaped into blooms, billets,
slabs and other basic shapes; finishing, in which basic shapes are
rolled, drawn, coated, or otherwise treated to produce sheet, strip,
tin plate, pipe, wire, and other products for use in manufacturing;
and fabrication of finished products.
Blast furnaces are always well controlled to prevent the emis-
sions of particulates, while the gaseous emissions are fully utilized
in the production of process heat. At present, very little is known
about the emissions or present control patterns for the scarfing
machines that are used to clean the surface of billets before roll-
ing. Control of coking operations at existing facilities, which
constitute significant sources of both particulate and gaseous
emissions, does not appear to be either technologically or eco-
nomically feasible. There does not appear to be adequate tech-
nology to significantly reduce particulate emissions during coal
charging and coke pushing operations from byproduct coking.
Required technology consists of sealed ovens and offgas collection
of particulates vented to scrubbers, such as are installed on
modern coke ovens. However, most older ovens are not structurally
designed for this approach. Therefore, total replacement of many
coking plants would be required. The steel industry expects tech-
nological developments in a few years to improve the coking
-------
204 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
process itself ("third generation" technology) which will require
large amounts of new capital. This is a deterrent to investing
heavily in modern facilities which will become obsolete within a
few years. Cost estimates of $1 to $1.5 billion for control of
current facilities have been mentioned by various sources, but
these estimates are of questionable reliability. For these reasons,
control cost for coking have not been included.
[p. 5-18]
Very little recent growth has occurred in the steel industry.
Industry changes will be dictated by technology during the next
few years. A survey of available data indicates that for the period
1971-1978, six new basic oxygen process furnaces of approxi-
mately 250 tons/heat capacity will be built to provide additional
capacity of 13 million tons of steel per year, and eight new electric
arc furnaces, of about 84 tons/heat capacity, will be built to pro-
vide an additional capacity of 1.5 million tons. Against these addi-
tions, it is expected that 16 open-hearth furnaces of 250 tons/heat
will close, removing 6 million tons of production, and 9 sintering
plants of 4,000 tons/day capacity will also close, removing 11
million tons of production. The net result of these changes is a
loss in steel making capacity of 2.5 million tons.
A similar lack of growth is evident in the iron fabrication in-
dustries. Iron foundries, which use pig iron, gray iron and scrap,
show zero growth for the short term. Ferroalloy production,
where iron is combined with manganese, chromium, silicon, or
other elements to produce specific products, appears to be growing
at an annual rate of 0.6 percent.
2. Emissions and Control Costs
Airborne emissions by the iron and steel industry are prin-
cipally results of coke production, steelmaking, and casting opera-
tions. Particulate emissions are most obvious and are normally
controlled where they originate from sources that are not too
diffuse, such as blast furnaces. Sulfur oxides are of high priority.
About 75% of all sulfur entering a plant is found in coke-oven
gas and slag from blast furnaces. If the gas is used as a fuel, the
sulfur is carried off as sulfur dioxide. When the slag is disposed
of, it may give off hydrogen sulfide while weathering. Practical
controls for these gaseous emissions are not available.
Particulate emission factors are given in the following table
for the various processes.
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 205
Particulate Emissions in Steel Processing
Lbs/ton
Process of product
Open hearth 22
Basic oxygen 46
Electric arc 11
Sintering windbox 20
Sintering discharge 22
Because there is no currently accepted practice for control of
emissions from coke ovens, the following levels of emission are
expected annually:
153,000 tons of particulates
437,000 tons of sulfur dioxide
55,400 tons of carbon monoxide
183,000 tons of hydrocarbons
1,700 tons of nitrogen oxides
7,800 tons of ammonia
[p. 5-19]
Blast furnace operation results typically in very little particu-
late emission. The hot gases from the furnace are stripped of
dust and used as fuel. These gases contain very little sulfur.
Steelmaking emissions call for high-energy wet scrubbers, elec-
trostatic precipitators, or fabric filters. The cost and size of the
emission control system depends on plant size and pertinent State
regulation. Regulations controlling particulate emissions are based
on plant throughput, with smaller plants permitted larger quanti-
ties of emission per ton processed.
For new plants, New Source Performance Standards apply.
These can be expected to require an investment of $1,327,000
between 1974 and 1978, and an annual cost of $497,000 in 1978.
These figures are included in the industry costs given in Table
5-3. It is anticipated that four new furnaces will be affected by
the New Source Performance Standards between 1974 and 1978.
To reduce emissions, a combustion hood and precipitator can
be placed on two 250 ton/melt furnaces, manifolded together, at a
cost of $663,000. The industry investment in fiscal years 1970-78
will total $494 million, with an annual cost in 1978 of some $179
million. This will result in a reduction of particulate emissions
from new basic oxygen furnaces from 2190 tons to 882 tons in
fiscal 1978.
-------
206 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
3. Iron Foundries
Iron foundries produce castings, such as iron pipe, machine
parts, and automobile parts, from gray iron, pig, and scrap. The
industry employs four types of furnaces to melt iron for casting
—electric arc, electric induction, reverberatory, and cupola fur-
naces. Cupolas currently account for over 85 percent of all cast-
ings, with electric arc and induction accounting for most of the
remainder. Electric induction and reverberatory furnaces emit
relatively small quantities of pollutants and require little or no
air pollution control expenditures. Electric arc furnaces account
for less than 5 percent of industry production.
Cupolas are vertical, cylindrical furnaces in which the heat
for melting is provided by burning coke in direct contact with
metal charge. Most foundry emissions result from this metal-
melting operation. Particulates, in the form of dust and smoke,
and carbon monoxide are the significant emissions from cupolas.
Afterburners, to oxidize carbon monoxide emissions, and gas-
cleaning equipment, such as wet scrubbers or fabric niters, can
achieve compliance with stringent process weight regulations for
particulates and a 95 percent removal rate for carbon monoxide.
Cost of control is on the order of $300,00 investment for a high-
energy wet scrubber, with $125,000 the annual cost in 1978. With-
out control, about 17 Ibs of particulates and 145 Ibs of carbon
monoxide are emitted per ton of metal melted.
[p. 5-20]
The iron foundry industry is expected to invest $579 million
for particulate control, and $2.1 million for carbon monoxide
control to meet ambient air standards. In 1978, these investments,
with operation and maintenance costs, will result in annual costs
of $163 million and $4.4 million respectively. Of this last figure,
$3.9 million is attributed to operation of the carbon monoxide
afterburners.
4. Ferroalloy Industry
The independent ferroalloy industry consists of about 140 elec-
tric furnaces where iron is combined to form such ferroalloys as
ferromanganese (FeMn), ferrochromium (FeCr) and ferrosilicon
(FeSi). The numerous other ferroalloys are produced in relatively
small quantities and quite often under well-controlled conditions.
Ferroalloy production is expected to follow the growth pattern of
the iron and steel industry.
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 207
The major pollutant from ferroalloy plant installations is par-
ticulates. The rate of particulate emissions from the United States
ferroalloy industry in 1967 is estimated to have been 160,000 tons
per year. It is estimated that this total consists of 1,000 tons from
blast furnaces, 150,000 tons from electric submerged-core fur-
naces, and 9,000 tons from handling of materials.
An uncontrolled 30-Mw electric submerged-arc furnace pro-
ducing ferromanganese, silicomanganese, or calcium carbide can
release 800 to 2,000 pounds of particulate emissions each hour of
operation. Well-controlled ESA furnaces producing ferroman-
ganese, silicomanganese, and calcium carbide are totally enclosed.
Fumes are collected and directed to venturi scrubbers, fabric niters
or electrostatic precipitators; venturi scrubbers are the most com-
mon collection device. Average emissions (excluding tapping emis-
sions) from well-controlled 30-Mw furnaces producing ferro-
manganese, silicomanganese, and calcium carbide vary from about
0.03 to 0.09 pound per hour (0.001 to 0.03 lb/Mw-hr.). The in-
vestment cost for this control for the next 5 years is estimated as
$245 million and annual cost of $66 million in 1978.
[p. 5-21]
C. Aluminum
1. Nature of Product and Process
Virtually all aluminum is produced from bauxite ore. The ore
is processed to remove impurities and chemically combined with
water, leaving alumina (aluminum oxide). Aluminum is com-
mercially produced by passing an electric current through a
molten bath of alumina dissolved in cryolite (Na3AlF6) which
serves as the electrolyte. This is done in a large carbon-lined steel
pot holding the alumina solution, with carbon anodes suspended
from above and extending down into the solution. The carbon
combines with the oxygen in the alumina, gradually consuming
the anode. The aluminum gathers at the bottom of the pot and is
periodically syphoned off. The pots are run continuously over long
periods of time with alumina added as necessary to maintain the
necessary solution and the anodes gradually lowered into the bath
to maintain the required position.
Three types of pots are employed, distinguished by the type of
anode and the location of the spikes through which the current
is fed to the pot. Prebaked systems use anodes that are carbon
blocks separately formed and baked before use. In the Soderberg
system an unbaked carbon paste is fed into a casing in which it
-------
208 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
is baked by the heat of the process as it is lowered, with addi-
tional paste feeding in constantly from above. Two types of Soder-
berg pots are used: horizontal spike, with the spikes on the side
of the pot, and vertical spike, with the spikes on the top.
The pots are operated in large cell rooms containing lines of
up to 180 pots arranged in a row or loop to provide close spacing
for economical electrical connections.
2. Emissions, Controls, and Cost of Control
Particulate emissions from the potlines in primary aluminum
plants in 1967, with 73 percent control, were 31,800 tons. At the
same level of controls, there would be 74,717 tons of particulates
emitted by fiscal 1978.
The emission control systems required for even close approach
to the applicable standard are very complex because of the ex-
tremely fine nature of the particulates and the large gas volumes
which must be handled. Each pot must be hooded and vented to a
primary collection system to capture as much of the emission as
possible with minimum gas flow. The proportions of particulates
captured by the best possible hooding systems are shown in Table
5-6 for each pot type. Also shown in the table are the overall con-
trol efficiencies attainable for each pot type. These provide an
average control of 97.2 percent for the industry. To meet the
applicable standard each plant should achieve an overall removal
efficiency of approximately 98 percent. As the table shows, only
newer prebaked plants will do so.
[p. 5-22]
The type of pot in use determines what type of primary control
system is required; these systems and the associated removal
efficiencies, are listed in Table 5-7. For the remaining emissions,
the pot room itself acts as a hood and is vented to a secondary
control system. All pot rooms require use of cross flow packed
TABLE 5-6. Particulate Emission Capture by Cell Hoods
Pot type
Emissions
(Ibs/ton)
55
55
80
140
Particulates
captured by
best available
hooding (%>
95
79
50
80
Overall control
efficiency
attainable (%)"
98 2
97.1
94.5
97.2
* Only systems on new prebaked potlines are capable of meeting the process weight rate standard.
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 209
TABLE 5-7. Primary (Cell Hood) Emission Control Systems
Pot type
Prebaked
Control systems
dry electrostatic precipitator
followed by cross flow
packed-bed wet scrubber *
followed by cross flow
packed-bed wet scrubber *
Removal
efficiency (%)
99
99
99
* Scrubbing water must be treated for water pollution control
bed wet scrubbers with appropriate water treatment, achieving a
90-percent removal of entrained particulates.
Costs of control for Soderberg pots are significantly higher,
even at the lower overall efficiencies shown in Table 5-6, because
[p. 5-23]
the hooding is relatively inefficient. In addition, gaseous hydro-
carbons from the anode slurry are driven off as the anode bakes
during pot operation. These hydrocarbons must be flared to avoid
fouling the emission control systems, thereby greatly increasing
gas handling problems. These hydrocarbons also affect the fluorides
in the gas stream; only fluorides recovered from prebaked pots
are reused. Cost savings from reuse of these fluorides are included
in the control costs presented below.
At the control levels indicated, it is estimated that particulate
emissions from the primary aluminum industry would be 2,800
tons in fiscal 1978.
Required investment and annualized control costs have been
estimated, by company, on the basis of projected fiscal 1978 ca-
pacity and summed for the industry as a whole. The required
investment through fiscal 1978 is estimated to total $751.4 million,
and the annual cost of control for that year is estimated to total
$209.1 million.
Net annual control cost per ton of capacity, after allowance
for recovery of valuable materials from the control devices, is
lowest for firms using the prebaked process—vertical spike Soder-
berg cells cost 1.6 times as much per ton and horizontal spike
cells cost 2.8 as much. Depending on the proportions of systems
used, firms with some Soderberg cells will experience an average
annual control cost ranging from 10 to 100 percent higher per ton
of capacity than those required of firms using prebaked cells only.
-------
210 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
D. Copper, Brass, and Bronze
I. Industry Description
There are three main stages in the production of primary cop-
per: mining and milling, smelting, and refining. Copper ores are
usually mined by open-pit methods and are concentrated in mills
on or near the mine site. The concentrates are transported to
smelters and processed to produce "blister" copper. There are
seven smelters in Arizona, and about as many more in all the rest
of the Western states, located close to mining areas. The final
stage of production, refining the blister copper, is usually by
electrolytic deposition. Refineries tend to be located where the
fabricators are. An annual average growth of 2.2 percent in
production of primary copper is anticipated for the next five years.
Secondary copper, produced from scrap, may or may not require
smelting. Where the copper has been combined with other ma-
terials, the alloy is not refined but used as is. The secondary copper
industry produces about 35 percent of copper products in the
United States.
Almost all the copper alloys in use are brass where zinc is the
additive, or bronze, where tin is the additive. Other metals are
frequently added in these alloys to enhance specific properties.
Brass and bronze are generally manufactured from copper-bear-
ing scrap. There are about 183 brass and bronze plants, widely
dispersed about the country. This industry is essentially stable,
with a zero growth rate.
[p. 5-24]
The scrap, after some preprocessing and sorting, is cleaned and
charged into a furnace to be melted, smelted, refined, and alloyed
as required. The most common type of furnace in use is the sta-
tionary reverberatory furnace. Batch processing is used; 10 to
100 tons are typically processed in 24 to 48 hours. For small
batches, seldom exceeding 30 tons, cylindrical rotary furnaces are
used. For special alloys in very small batches, crucible furnaces
are used.
2. Emissions and Cost of Control
Sulfur dioxide is the primary pollutant emitted from the smelt-
ing of copper ore concentrates. Sources of emission are roasters,
reverberatory furnaces, and converters. The emissions are char-
acterized by heavy mass rates and relatively weak flue gas concen-
trations from reverberatory furnaces and uneven pulsating flows
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 211
from converters. In addition, the flows are contaminated with
small quantities of materials harmful to human health, such as
arsenic, bismuth, cadmium, and mercury. These factors also make
the collection of sulfur pollutants difficult and costly.
Generally, sulfur dioxide emissions from reverberatory fur-
naces and converters are uncontrolled. Control techniques depend
on the size of the furnaces, gas flows, emission rates, plant
condition, and degree of obsolescence of present smelters. (Aver-
age age of existing smelters is 40 years.) For some plants, re-
verberatory furnaces may have to be replaced with flash smelters;
flue ventilation systems will have to undergo extensive modifica-
tion, and converters may have to receive oxygen enrichment to
produce gas volumes sufficiently small for less expensive control
facilities. Overall control will rise from an average of 81 percent
in 1970 to meet the regulations given in Table 5-8. Control tech-
niques costed for this report take into account the costs of calcium
sulfate and sulfuric acid recovery and modifications of dry precipi-
tators and flue gas flows. Other production and process improve-
ments are not included.
TABLE 5-8. Sulfur Oxide Regulations for Primary Copper Smelters
State Regulation
Arizona _ 26.335 tons of S0t/hr (state total)
Montana __ _ 3.52 tons of SO^/hr
New Mexico _ _ 60% control
Nevada --_ —_ _ 60% control
Texas --- - 43% control
Utah 14.7 tons of SO^/hr
Washington _ — _ ___ 90% control
[p.5-25]
The investment required for primary copper smelters is $771
million. Annual costs are $178 million by fiscal 1978 with full
implementation of controls. No credits were assumed for collected
by-products.
The 1973 emission level of 4.02 million tons of sulfur dioxides
will increase to 4.51 million tons in 1978 without new controls;
full implementation will reduce the level to 826,000 tons. The
1973 emission level of particulates of 70,625 tons will increase to
78,846 tons in fiscal 1978 without net controls; full implementa-
tion of the abatement strategy for sulfur dioxides will reduce
particulates to 3,625 tons.
The investment required for brass and bronze plants is $13.5
million. Annual costs are $2.67 million by fiscal 1978 with full
-------
212 LEGAL, COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
implementation of controls for particulates. The model control
system selected was fabric niters.
The 1973 emission level of 12,241 tons of particulates will re-
main the same in 1978 without new controls; full implementation
of State Implementation Plans and New Source Performance
Standards in this industry will reduce the level to 339 tons.
E. Lead and Zinc
Primary lead smelting is similar to zinc smelting in that the
first treatment is sintering for separation of sulfur from the de-
sired metal. The sintered product is lead oxide, which is reduced
to lead in a blast furnace and further purified in a lead refining
furnace.
Sulfur dioxide is the primary pollutant emitted from the smelt-
ing of lead and zinc ore concentrates. For lead smelters, sinter
machines account for about 98 percent of total emissions. The
gas volume flow is steady from the sinter machine and is of
sufficient sulfur dioxide concentration (about 5 percent) to permit
its recovery as sulfuric acid. As seen from Table 5-9, half of the
United States lead smelters have acid recovery plants.
Investment required for the primary lead industry to apply
the control techniques cited in the table is $24.4 million, and
annual costs are estimated to be $6.06 million by fiscal 1978.
Zinc sulfide concentrates are roasted in Ropp, multiple-hearth,
or other type roasters to separate the sulfur from zinc. In the
roasting step, the zinc sulfide is converted to zinc oxide calcine.
Sintering machines are then used to agglomerate the calcine ma-
terial. Recycled dusts and other valuable materials are added to
the sintering to produce the final zinc-bearing agglomerates. Me-
[p.5-26]
TABLE 5-9. Primary Lead Plant Inventory, 1970
State
Idaho
Missouri - _ __.
Montana _ -
Number of plants
1
3
1
1
Capacity
(Tons of charge)
300 000
600,000
300,000
180,000
420,000
420 000
Present acid
plant
(Yes, No)
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Control technique
applied 1
S 1
A
A
A
A
A
1 Control techniques applied:
A—Acid plant
S,l—Dimethylanilme scrubber plus intermittent operation.
[p. 5-27]
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 213
tallic zinc is extracted by electrolytic deposition or by distillation
in retorts or furnaces. Electrolytic deposition requires a pre-
liminary step of leaching zinc calcine with sulfuric acid to form
zinc sulfate for the electrolysis step.
The emissions of sulfur oxide from zinc smelters are basically
from those plants that emit dilute off-gas from roasters and sinter
machines. These gas streams usually contain about 0.5 to 1.0
percent in sulfur dioxide strength. Recovering sulfuric acid from
such a diluted gas is costly. (Zinc plants that do recover sulfuric
acid have concentrated sulfur dioxide gas streams.) Like the lead
industry, dry collectors are not included in the cost estimates, and
it is assumed that the limestone scrubbers used for removing
sulfur dioxide emissions will also sufficiently remove particulates.
Investment required for the zinc industry amounts to $21.1 mil-
lion, and annual costs under full implementation are estimated
to be $6.46 million by fiscal 1978.
The assumed controls should reduce the estimated fiscal 1978
emission level of 140,000 tons of sulfur dioxide to 93,500 tons.
(Emissions for 1973 were 140,000 tons.) Particulates emitted in
1973 were 2,000 tons; the fiscal 1978 level will be reduced to
4,000 tons.
The secondary lead industry uses scrap lead, much of it from
motor vehicle storage batteries. It involves nearly 150 companies
and accounted for some 536 thousand tons of lead in 1970, or
about 31.4 percent of United States consumption. Growth of this
industry is expected to consist of two new 50-ton/day lead furnaces
of various types in operation each year. From recent trends, blast
furnaces will be selected twice as often as reverberatory furnaces.
New source performance standards apply, and particulate emis-
sions are to be controlled, probably by fabric filters.
The investment required for the secondary lead industry is $1.68
million. Annual costs are $687,000 by fiscal 1978 with these con-
trols. The 1978 emissions without controls would be 906 tons of
particulates; control reduces this to 75 tons.
F. Mercury
Without emission controls, the production of a seventy-six
pound flask of mercury can result in about 1680 grams (3.7 Ibs)
emitted, half as mercury vapor and half as mercurous particulates.
The proposed national standards for mercury will limit refinery
emissions to five pounds a day. Controls to meet this standard
will normally be required of plants with an output of over 700
flasks per year.
-------
214 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
Recognition of the toxicity of mercury and mercury compounds
is curtailing its use. In 1970, about 27,300 flasks were produced,
with two-thirds of this in California alone. Annual production
over the fiscal years 1973-1978 is expected to average about 8000
flasks. Without emission control, this would result in 14.8 tons of
mercury emitted to the atmosphere in fiscal 1978. With an invest-
ment of $348,000 and annual costs of $56,000, this emission can
be reduced to 1.1 tons.
[p. 5-28]
G. Beryllium
There are only two firms producing beryllium metal. These
firms produce the pure metal, metal sheets and shapes, and a wide
range of other materials containing beryllium in five plants.
An engineering analysis of air pollution control for both these
firms indicates that all potential sources of beryllium emissions
are controlled within the limits of the control standards proposed.
At the present time, over 90 percent of the pure beryllium metal
produced is used in products made for the United States Govern-
ment, particularly for the Department of Defense and the Atomic
Energy Commission. These agencies have, for many years, re-
quired suppliers to comply with the guidelines proposed for the
maximum allowable concentration of beryllium in ambient air.
As a result, the major producers of beryllium products are familiar
with the hazards involved and have been complying with the
proposed standards.
Firms processing beryllium and beryllium compounds include
firms forming and shaping metal, such as machine shops, foun-
dries and forges, and makers of molds for plastic parts; firms
alloying metals; and firms manufacturing ceramic products. Pro-
cesses include melting, casting, forging, turning, shaping, grind-
ing, rolling, slitting, stamping, cutting, and bending. Any
nonferrous foundry, metal fabricating or machine shop has the
capability of working beryllium or its alloys. Because of this and
the wide range of applications, beryllium becomes widely dispersed
and may lose its identity, making it very difficult to identify the
firms and products of its ultimate use.
The two primary producers of beryllium metal also produce
secondary beryllium products. An engineering analysis of air
pollution control for these two firms indicates that beryllium
emissions from their plants are within the limits of the proposed
control standards. Similarly, an analysis of the five plants using
beryllium oxide in making approximately 99 percent of the ceramic
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 215
products containing beryllium indicates that present emissions
are within the limits of the proposed control standards.
The proposed national emission standard for beryllium provides
total emissions to the atmosphere shall not exceed 10 grams of
beryllium in a 24-hour day or 0.01 microgram of beryllium per
cubic meter of air averaged over a 30-day period, measured in
accordance with a sampling network approved by the Adminis-
trator.
IV. FUELS INDUSTRIES
A. Overview
The products of the industries included in this section are
distinguished by having carbon in their makeup. They are part
of the organic world, having participated at some time in the
cycle of life. With the fossil fuels, of course, this participation
was in the distant past. Therefore, we place fuels industries into
a subdivision of the group discussed herein, and the remainder of
the industries lumped somewhat indiscriminately into a second
subdivision.
[p.5-29]
All the products of the industries in this group contain carbon
and are, to various degrees, storehouses of chemical energy. As
such, they can be combustible and yield the pollutants carbon
monoxide and volatile hydrocarbons.
Group 3a: FUELS INDUSTRIES
Petroleum refineries
Catalyst regeneration
Petroleum products storage
Gasoline and crude oil storage
Coal cleaning
Natural gas production
Fuel gas burning
Commercial heating
Residential heating
Drycleaning
-------
216 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
Group 3b: BIOCHEMICALS INDUSTRIES
Grain milling and handling
Forest products
Carbon black
Kraft pulp process
Rendering
B. Petroleum Refineries and Product Storage
There are about 130 firms, owning 250 refineries in the petroleum
industry. This industry, storing hydrocarbons, refining and burn-
ing them, presents a major potential for air pollution. New Source
Performance Standards have been promulgated for refineries and
for storage depots; State Implementation of Clean Air require-
ments combine with these standards to call for a large control
effort by the industry.
The industry is estimated to grow at a rate of 4 percent per
year. In recent years, this growth has taken the form of expan-
sion of existing operations. Three stages in the industry are
singled out for emission control: catalytic cracking, petroleum
and petroleum products storage, and burning. The emissions dur-
ing the catalytic cracking process are shown in Table 5-10.
[p. 5-30]
TABLE 5-10. Emissions per 1000 bbl of Petroleum Cracked
Process
Fluid
Thermofor or Houdriflow
Participates
76 Ib
23.5 Ib
Hydrocarbons
273 Ib
120 Ib
CO
8.5T
2.6T
Refinery emissions of hydrocarbons from catalytic crackers and
regenerators were estimated at 158,000 tons in 1973, at 20 percent
control. Industry growth would increase this to 169,000 tons by
fiscal 1978 if control practices remained unchanged. Use of carbon
monoxide-hydrocarbon boilers on crackers could effect a 95 percent
control level, reducing emissions to 8000 tons in fiscal 1978.
Sulfur dioxide emissions in refineries may occur from many
sources including internal combustion engines for compressors,
boilers, catalyst regenerators, acid plants, hydrogen sulfide in-
cinerators, and sulfur plants.
Engines and boilers are commonly fueled by sulfur-bearing
gases or liquids that cause scattered, relatively dilute, sulfur di-
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 217
oxide emissions. Catalyst regenerators have sulfur oxides in exit
gas streams, depending on the sulfur content of the coke deposited
on the catalyst. Spent alkylation acid (H2S04) sludge may be
shipped away for regeneration, but if it is regenerated at the re-
finery, the emissions of sulfur oxides should be similar to those
for other nonsulfur-burning acid plants. Hydrogen sulfide (H2S)
incineration, at refineries producing H2S not used for acid sludge
regeneration or sulfur plant feed, is a large concentrated source
of S02 emissions; when sulfur plants are used on the H2S stream
(in place of incineration), they are strong sources of S02 emis-
sions.
The primary source of S02 in most refineries results from
processing the H2S-rich stream generated from various desulfuri-
zation and sweetening processes. The H2S stream is most com-
monly produced in the regeneration of spent amine scrubbing
liquors used to sweeten product, process, or exhaust streams. The
stream may be incinerated, sent to a spent acid regeneration plant,
or sent to a sulfur recovery plant. All three processes result in
significant emissions of sulfur oxides. Incineration of hydrogen
sulfide to sulfur dioxide is normally controlled by recovery as
sulfuric acid; these and spent-acid plant emissions are included
in Section P on sulfuric acid. Sulfur plants and their tail gas
streams are considered below. The H2S-rich stream is amenable to
partial recovery by conventional Glaus sulfur plants.
Hydrogen sulfide emissions in refineries are best controlled by
use of sulfur recovery plants. The available data indicate that
many of the refineries have sulfur plants and that overall these
provided control of 37 percent of emissions. Thus, the plants emit
[p. 5-31]
4,393,000 tons of sulfur oxides per year, and it is estimated that
industry growth would increase this to 4,403,000 tons by fiscal
1978 with the same sulfur contents and level of control. Installa-
tion of sulfur plants and tail gas cleaners on all refineries could
reduce the fiscal 1978 emissions of sulfur oxides from these sources
to 97,000 tons per year. There are additional sulfur oxide emis-
sions that result from operations involving the combustion of
natural gas and/or fuel oils for process purposes. These are not
generally amenable to control.
Regeneration of the catalysts used in catalytic cracking units
results in emission of catalyst fines (particulates) and carbon
monoxide. An estimated 140 pounds of particulates per thousand
barrels of total feed are emitted from fluid catalytic cracking unit
-------
218 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
regenerators in the absence of air pollution control equipment,
and an estimated 12.5 pounds per thousand barrels of total feed
from thermofor and houdriflow unit regenerators. Installation of
electrostatic precipitators provides the maximum control now
available, and should easily meet the assumed process weight
rate standard.
Carbon monoxide in the exit gas of regenerators has been con-
trolled by carbon monoxide boilers in many refineries. The carbon
monoxide boiler burns the carbon monoxide into carbon dioxide
(and also burns hydrocarbon emissions from the catalytic crack-
ing unit) and provides a substantial source of heat for process
use in addition to controlling pollution. Installed in all the subject
refineries, they would control all but a negligible amount of carbon
monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions from the cracking process.
Nearly all bulk storage of petroleum or petroleum products
consists of storage at the refinery of crude oil and gasoline, and
storage at bulk terminals of gasoline. These were studied in two
groups, depending on location.
There are 3,230 gasoline storage tanks, with an average capac-
ity of 2,814,000 gallons (67,000 bbl) and 7,350 crude oil storage
tanks, with an average capacity of 2,100,000 gallons (50,000 bbl)
associated with refineries. It is estimated that 75 percent of all
gasoline and crude oil storage tanks are presently equipped with
floating roofs to control hydrocarbon emissions.
At the bulk terminals, in every state but Delaware, a smaller
tank with an average capacity of 890,000 gallons is typical. Again,
about 75 percent of the tanks are estimated to be equipped with
floating roofs. About $4.8 million was spent in 1971-1973 to reach
this control level.
C. Catalyst Regeneration
New Source Performance Standards will apply to new units
for catalyst regeneration in the petroleum refining industry. The
anticipated growth is equivalent to two new 65,000 barrel/day
and one new 20,000 barrel/day fluid catalytic cracking units per
year. Emissions from the larger units, at previous design levels,
would be 695 tons of particulates and 3948 tons of carbon mo-
noxide per year; emissions from the smaller units would be 213
tons of particulates and 1075 tons of carbon monoxide per year.
[p. 5-32]
With a further investment of $1.15 million, a 65,000 bbl/day
unit can be controlled to an annual emission level of 157 tons of
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 219
particulates. An investment of $0.7 million permits control to an
annual emission level of 43 tons of particulates. This control,
industry-wide, reduces the particulate emission in fiscal 1978 to
3,785 tons, from 7,015 tons without additional control.
D. Storage Vessels
Storage vessels for hydrocarbons are the subject of a proposed
new source performance standard. The standard would require
a floating roof for storage tanks with vapor pressures above 1.5
psia and a vapor recovery system for liquids with vapor pressures
above 11 psia. The costs of these requirements (about $26,000
for a 50,000 bbl gasoline storage tank) are offset by the savings
from the recovery of hydrocarbons. For an 80,000 bbl tank, sav-
ings would be $ll,000/yr for gasoline, $5,200/yr for crude oil,
and $l,000/yr for jet naptha. About 75 percent of existing storage
tanks have floating roofs.
E. Coal Cleaning
1. General Description
Coal from the mines is prepared in response to market demand.
Three types of preparation plants are common: 1) "complete
preparation," those that clean both coarse and fine coal; 2)
"partial preparation," those that clean only coarse coal; and 3)
"coal crushing," where the coal is merely crushed to a maximum
size specification.
In a complete coal preparation facility, coal from the mine is
broken and screened to remove oversize material, then stored until
the batch processing in the plant is begun. Crushing is sometimes
necessary to ensure good separation in the cleaning plant. Classi-
fying screens separate coal particles by size and route them to
various cleaning processes represented by the "cleaning process"
portion of the diagram. In general, this cleaning process may be
wet, dry, or a combination of both.
Normally water is used; about 7 percent of coal washing uses
air in pneumatic washers. About 21 percent of the wet washed
coal is dried in thermal driers of flash or fluidized bed type. There
appears to be a long-term decrease of 5 percent per year in the
practice of drying the cleaned coal; more of the washed coal is
shipped wet to the user.
2. Wet Cleaning Systems
Wet cleaning systems use centrifugal or gravity separation of
-------
220 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
heavier rejects from coal, and generally do not emit air pollutants.
However, the auxiliary processes of handling and drying can be
major sources. After the coal is wetted by the cleaning process,
the operator normally dries it to minimize weight, thereby de-
creasing shipping costs, and to prevent freezing during winter
months. The first stage of drying is often a simple mechanical
dewatering screen followed by centrifugal driers.
[p. 5-33]
Where customer demand is for low surface moisture (3 to 6
percent) of finer coal sizes, secondary drying is required. Such
low moisture levels can only be accomplished by thermal drying.
It appears that new coal preparation plants that install thermal
driers will use a fluid-bed type.
In the fluid-bed drier, hot combustion gases from a coal-fired
furnace are passed upward through a moving bed of wet coal of
fine particle size. As the bed fluidizes, the coal is dried as the fine
particles come into intimate contact with the hot gases. Particulate
emissions occur predominantly from ultrafine ( — 200 mesh) coal
particles which are entrained and carried from the drier by the
combustion gases.
The dried coal is conveyed to storage, where it remains until
principally to recover product, can retain up to 95 percent of the
entrained fines. These are returned to the product coal. All sec-
ondary emission control systems are wet collectors. The high dew
point and explosion potential of the exhaust gas makes other
emission control systems impractical.
The primary control device, a dry centrifugal collector used
principally to recover product, can retain up to 95 percent of the
entrained fines. These are returned to the product coal. All sec-
ondary emission control systems are wet collectors. The high dew
point and explosion potential of the exhaust gas makes other emis-
sion control systems impractical.
The dried coal is conveyed to storage, where it remains until
being loaded into railroad cars, trucks, or barges.
3. Dry Cleaning Systems
About 7 percent of coal washing uses air in pneumatic washers.
Coal containing refuse particles enters the air table, where it is
stratified into a bed by pulsating air. The heavier refuse settles in
a layer beneath the coal. As the bed travels forward, the refuse
drops into packets or wells from which it is withdrawn to the
refuse bin. The upper layer of coal is removed as it completes its
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 221
travel over the slowly moving bed of refuse. Dust, airborne by
the pulsating- air, is drawn into an overhead hood to be recovered
by a cyclone dust collector; cyclones are installed by the operator
for product recovery. Secondary collectors, which are the air pol-
lution control device, are usually fabric niters.
4. Emissions and Methods of Control
Emissions from uncontrolled coal preparation plants consist
of NOX, S02, CO and fine particulates generated or airborne by
thermal drying. Particulate emissions alone come from crushing,
screening, storage, transfer, grinding, conveying, or loading opera-
tions. Particulate emissions, at times severe and highly visible,
increase as surface moisture in the coal decreases. Particulate
control requires good collection of the emissions which must then
be discharged to a control device.
Thermal driers in the wet cleaning circuit use cyclones as an
integral part of the process. Particulate emissions upstream of
the cyclone have been measured in the range of 50 to 200 grains
per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf) for fluid-bed driers. Emis-
sions downstream of the cyclones have measured from 0.7 up to
14.4 gr/dscf. An average emission factor often used for fluid-bed
driers without secondary control is 3.0 gr/dscf. (At 3.0 gr/dscf,
a 500-tons-per-hour thermal drier without secondary control would
emit over 5,000 pounds of particulates per hour.)
[p. 5-34]
Well-controlled thermal driers use high-energy venturi-type wet
scrubbers to reduce particulate emissions. The investment cost
for venturi scrubbers to remove particulates from the drying gas
stream depends on the rate of flow. Air flow, per ton of coal
processed in an hour, is typically 360 cubic feet per minute for
pneumatic cleaners, 480 cfm for fluidized bed driers, and 580 cfm
for flash driers. With the type of control device selected, cost is
affected by which of these air flow processes is used, but is ap-
proximately $120,000 for a plant with a gas flow of 50,000 cfm.
An investment of some $12 million is projected for abatement
devices installed in fiscal 1974-1978. Annual costs in fiscal 1978
will be $2.9 million. These costs will reduce the fiscal 1978 partic-
ulate emissions by this industry from 71,000 tons to 26,000 tons.
F. Natural Gas Production
The domestic production of natural gas, increasing by about
0.55 percent per year, is expected to reach 26.2 trillion cubic feet
-------
222 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
in 1978. Control of sulfur dioxide emissions from the tail gas of
Glaus sulfur plants calls for the installation of a tail gas scrub-
ber, which can achieve an overall capture of 99.5 percent of the
input sulfur of the raw gas processed. There are currently 84
Claus units at natural gas production facilities. Elsewhere, amine
scrubbing is practiced.
A breakdown of control costs by State to meet ambient air
quality standards is presented in Table 5-11.
TABLE 5-11. Direct Costs 1974-1978 Natural Gas Production Plants in Place, 1970
Costs (1,000's of dollars) Emissions (tons/year)
State Investment Annual Before control After control
Alabama
Arkansas
California
Florida
Mississippi
New Mexico
North Dakota —
Oklahoma
Texas
Utah
Wyoming
1,940,000
1,295,000
740,000
1,850,000
4,535,000
1,650,000
300,000
420,000
22,441,000
190,000
7,210,000
510,000
345,000
195,000
492,000
1,216,000
435,000
78,000
110,000
5,967,500
51,000
1,923,000
12,624
6,240
4,080
6,355
62,256
5,424
960
1,104
130,368
480
44,112
972
480
314
635
4,798
416
74
84
10,085
37
3,397
[p. 5-35]
To meet ambient air quality standards for sulfur oxides emis-
sions, the industry is expected to invest $43.65 millions over the
next five years, with an annual cost in fiscal 1978 of $11.8 million.
This will reduce industry-wide emissions of sulfur oxides, ex-
pressed as sulfur dioxide, to 22,100 tons. Without additional con-
trol, the emission level in fiscal 1978 would be 276,000 tons.
G. Burning Fuel Gas
To meet the requirement of reducing the hydrogen sulfide
(H2S) of fuel gas to new boilers and heaters would require addi-
tional amine scrubbing as well as additional Claus unit capacity
to convert the scrubbed H2S to sulfur. Since the fuel gas is tra-
ditionally scrubbed (usually to about 200 gr/scf), there is basically
no investment or operating cost difference between a new instal-
lation designed to meet the equivalent of 200 gr/scf and one
designed to meet 0.1 gr/scf. However, there will be additional
costs for the incremental Claus capacity required. It is estimated
that there will be a requirement of approximately 9 new 15 long
ton/day Claus units per year to meet the standard.
A 15 long ton/day Claus unit costs about $350,000 and may be
operated with an annual expense about equal to the worth of the
recovered sulfur at $20/ton. Such a unit reduces the industry total
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 223
for sulfur dioxide emissions from 540,000 tons to 27,000 tons in
fiscal 1978.
V. BlOCHEMICALS INDUSTRIES
A. Grain Handling and Milling
1. Industry Description
Grain elevators which load, weigh, store, and unload grain and
have capacities less than one million bushels are found in 47 of
the States. These country elevators are to be distinguished from the
larger terminal elevators, which also clean, dry, blend, and oc-
casionally turn the grain they store. Country elevators are typically
operated 2500 hours per year, with an average annual throughput
of 220 percent of capacity. In contrast, the larger terminal ele-
vators are operated almost full time but with a slower average
annual throughput, about 150 percent of capacity.
The bulk of grain (normally wheat, corn, oats, barley, rye, or
soybeans) is transported from the farm to the country elevator
operator. Grain is unloaded from farm trucks, weighed, inspected,
and transferred to a storage bin. Once a buyer has been found,
the grain is loaded (normally by spouting) into a prepared rail-
road car, truck, or barge. The function of the elevator is not
primarily to store, but to hold the grain until a market can be
found in the large centers of accumulation—at processing plants,
large mills, and terminal elevators. The physical process is quite
simple.
[p. 5-36]
If the grain is not sold to a local mill, exporter, or other outlet,
it is transferred to the terminal elevator operator. Terminals are
very large elevators (up to and exceeding capacities of 10 million
bushels), generally located at significant grain trade cities. The
function of a terminal merchant is to store the grain without de-
terioration in quality and to bring it to commercial grade so as
to conform to the needs of buyers. Handling parallels that at the
country location, but terminal merchants are the first to thoroughly
clean, dry, separate, and store the grain at proper temperature and
humidity. Grain moving out from terminals is ultimately used for
food, feed, export, or industrial purposes.
2. Emissions Control
Large quantities of particulates are airborne during the handling
of grains, principally due to mechanical abrasion between kernels
and the loosening of adhered dirt from the field. Because opera-
-------
224 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
tions are normally located in rural areas, there has historically
been little emphasis placed on air pollution control practices which
exceed the level required for economical recovery of materials,
reduction of explosion hazards, and general good housekeeping.
Consequently, low efficiency cyclone separators have been the most
commonly employed control devices in the industry.
The dust emitted as a result of these operations amounts to
about eight pounds of particulates per ton of grain handled in a
country elevator, and 23 pounds per ton handled in a terminal
elevator. A fabric filter system to control these emissions could
remove them with 99 percent efficiency, but present control
averages about 28 percent efficiency.
For this control, an investment of $492 million is required over
the next five years. This will result in an annual cost in fiscal
1978 of about $113 million, and a reduction in particulate emis-
sions from 1.3 million tons to 23,000 tons in fiscal 1978.
The milling of grain results in about 18 pounds of particulate
emissions per ton of feed. However, current practice is to remove
about 35 percent of these emissions. A fabric filter system could
further improve this to 99 percent control. With an investment
of $21.6 million, and annual costs of $4.1 million in fiscal 1978,
such a system would reduce emissions by this industry to 4,600
tons from 232,000 tons emitted under present practice.
B. Forest Products
The manufacture of forest products results in residues such as
bark, sawdust, slabs, trim, and shavings. Only about half the log
entering a sawmill or plywood plant emerges as lumber or ply-
wood. Disposal wastes by incinerator in a wigwam (teepee)
burner has been a common practice. Economic utilization of the
residue is reducing the quantity incinerated, but where markets
do not exist, incineration is still the only practical disposal method.
[p. 5-37]
Control of wigwam burner emissions can be effected by improv-
ing and controlling combustion so that the carbon monoxide and
particulates resulting from incomplete combustion are reduced.
While controls are aimed, primarily, at reducing particulates,
carbon monoxide emissions are reduced by a proportionately
greater amount. Control is obtained by providing properly pro-
portioned forced underfire and overfire air, a top damper, and
auxiliary fuel for start-up and burn-down so as to quickly attain
and maintain temperatures above 700° F. A. thermocouple and
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 225
bolometer provide for automatic operation of the system. An alarm
system and a recorder are included for monitoring operations.
Residue from the forest products industries is being utilized
increasingly for pulp, chip board, steam generator, charcoal, soil
amendments, mulch and landscaping, and the production of waxes
and chemicals. Residue utilization is developing rapidly. By 1978,
forest products plants using wigwam burners to dispose of resi-
due are expected to be about 25 percent of those in 1970. In the
South within two years, each forest products plant is expected to
have at least two markets competing for the residue produced.
In the more populated States of the East and industrial Midwest,
residue markets are expected to take everything available by
1978. The same is expected eventually for the Pacific Coast States,
although it may be somewhat later than 1978. Complete residue
utilization will occur latest for plants located in the less populated
States and in States where forest products industries are less
concentrated.
For the remaining wigwams in 1978, combustion control equip-
ment to reduce emissions is estimated to have required an invest-
ment of $70.6 million, with an annual cost in fiscal 1978 of $6.6
million. This will result in a reduction of particulate emissions in
that year from 84,500 tons without the control equipment to
16,900 tons with it. Carbon monoxide emissions will be lowered
from 275,000 tons to 39,300 tons by this action.
C. Carbon Black
The two basic methods of carbon black manufacture are the
furnace process and the channel process. Furnace process plants
are controlled to at least 97 percent efficiency, with a large number
controlled to 99.5 percent. A reasonable average for the furnace
black segment of the industry is probably 99 percent.
The four channel black plants in existence are not controlled
and would be difficult to control since methods have not been de-
veloped to recover the black from the vent gases. Attempts to
separate the black in the smoke upset the production process and
result in diminished quantity and quality of the product.
What the States of Texas and New Mexico will do with respect
to the four channel black plants can be to grant a variance or
attempt to have the plant closed. Furnace black plants require no
additional control and, therefore, no added cost.
[p. 5-38]
Future growth of 4.7 percent for the industry can be expected
-------
226 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
to be in the furnace process. These plants will provide 99 percent
control. With this growth, the emissions of particulates in fiscal
1978 will reach about 237,000 tons.
D. Kraft Pulp
Several methods are used to produce pulp from wood for use
in making paper and related products. Of the chemical methods,
the kraft sulfate process can cause significant air pollution. Some
estimates of the particulate emissions as a result of each step of
the kraft process are presented in Table 5-12.
TABLE 5-12. Kraft Pulp Paniculate Emission Factors
Ib. particulates, ton pulp
Process Uncontrolled 1970 control level
Lime kiln -. --
Smelt tank
Bark boiler _^ -- - --
151
45
5
4.5
13.6
21.5
0.3
4.5
In the kraft process, which accounts for approximately 64 per-
cent of the pulp industry output, woodchips are cooked in a liquor
composed of sodium hydroxide and sodium sulfide to separate the
lignin from the cellulose. Pulp is produced from cellulose. The
lignig is burned as a fuel in the recovery furnace, to satisfy the
energy requirements for the pulping process. The chemicals re-
covered from the salt cake solution (black liquor) are recycled.
Three portions of the process emit significant quantities of par-
ticulates : recovery furnaces, lime kilns, and bark boilers. The
level of sulfur dioxide emissions from the main source, the re-
covery furnace, generally does not exceed 500 parts per million.
State Implementation Plans for these particulate emissions are
generally stated in permissible emission rates; typically, the re-
quirements lead to 97 to 99 percent control of emissions. To
achieve such control, recovery kilns and lime kilns may be pro-
vided with a Venturi scrubber, smelt tanks with an orifice scrub-
ber, and bark boilers with a multicyclone scrubber. This would
result in an industry-wide investment over five years of $108
million with an annual cost in fiscal 1978 of $46 million. Control
would reduce particulate emissions in 1978 from 960,000 tons
to 80,000 tons.
[p. 5-39]
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 227
VI. QUARRYING AND CONSTRUCTION
A. Overview
Quarrying and use of rocks, sand, and minerals on a large scale
readily results in large amounts of dust generated and blown into
the atmosphere. As a result, the industries presented in this section
are characteristic emitters of particulates. Furthermore, this is the
exclusive output of these industries as far as clean air is con-
cerned.
B. Quarrying
1. Crushed Stone, Sand, and Gravel
It has been estimated that the quarrying and transport of stone,
sand, and gravel for construction purposes resulted in 4.6 million
tons of airborne particulates in 1970. Assuming a growth rate of
3 percent, equal to the composite of the asphalt and cement in-
dustries, the emission level would rise to 5.05 million tons in 1973
and 5.87 million tons in 1978. However, about half of these par-
ticulates settle out within the confines of the industrial site. No
control has been proposed for this emission, although practices
such as routing of trucks away from residential sectors, etc., are
commonplace.
2. Limestone Crushing
Limestone crushing, primarily to provide raw material for the
lime industry, generated about 264,000 tons of airborne particu-
lates in 1970. Growing at a rate equal to that of the lime industry,
this activity will generate 390,000 tons of particulates in fiscal
1978.
No control procedure appears feasible for this industry.
C. Cement
1. Industry Description
Although the Portland cement industry presently suffers from
overcapacity, a net growth of 21 percent in capacity is expected
by June 1978. This growth after 1973 must meet the New Source
Performance Standards for particulate emissions by cement plants.
Portland cement, which accounts for approximately 96 percent
of cement production in the United States, is a blend of materials
such as chalk, clay, limestone, and shale. As the binder in concrete,
-------
228 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
Portland cement is the most widely used construction material
in the United States and the world.
The four major steps for producing Portland cement are: (1)
quarrying raw materials and reducing their size, (2) grinding
[p. 5-40]
and blending these materials to obtain proper composition and
uniformity, (3) heating the materials in a rotary kiln to liberate
carbon dioxide and cause fusion, and (4) fine-grinding the re-
sultant clinker, which is sold in bulk or bagged. All Portland
cement is produced by either a wet or dry process with the chief
difference being whether the raw materials are introduced into
the kiln as a dry mixture or as a wet slurry.
2. Emissions and Cost of Control
Particulate matter is the primary emission in the manufacture
of Portland cement. Emission sources include: (1) raw material
crushing; (2) raw material drying and grinding; (3) kiln opera-
tion; (4) clinker cooling; (5) finish grinding and packaging;
and (6) various other points such as material conveyance and
storage. Sulfur oxides are also formed from the combustion of
fossil fuels during kiln operations, but these are mostly eliminated
through combination with calcined lime within the kiln.
The raw drying-grinding mill (dry process only), the rotary
kiln, and the clinker cooler are the major points of emission. Other
sources are already controlled to high degrees for economical
reasons as the collected material is usually returned to the process.
Cement plants using the dry process are expected to employ
fabric niters. Plants using the wet process can be controlled with
an efficiency up to 99.3 percent by electrostatic precipitators; be-
yond this, an insulated baghouse must be used where higher
efficiency of control is necessary. The costs of insulation for the
wet process control raises baghouse investment by about 30 per-
cent.
Uncontrolled dry process plants emit 46 pounds particulates
per barrel processed, and uncontrolled wet process plants emit
38 pounds particulates per barrel processed. In fiscal 1978, new
plant construction and partially controlled existing plants would
as a result provide 432,000 tons of particulates emitted by the
industry. Emission controls will reduce this to 37,000 from older
plants and 3,000 from new plants. Investment through 1978 for
controls is $107 million for improving old plants and $38 million
for new plant controls. Annual costs are $66.2 million for plants
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
229
built before fiscal 1974 and $7.35 million for plants built in fiscal
1974 to 1978.
D. Asbestos Industries
1. Asbestos Milling
The emission standard proposed for asbestos milling prohibits
visible emissions of particulates from ore dumps, open storage
areas, external conveyors, or tailings dumps for asbestos-contain-
ing materials. Emissions from ore dryers, process air streams,
milling operations, and manufacturing operations are to be filtered
to reduce particulate levels to the permissible concentrations.
Typical emissions control costs are shown in Table 5-13.
[p. 5-41]
TABLE 5-13. Emission Control Costs in Asbestos Milling
Control Unit
Investment
($/CFM)
Operation & Maintenance
($/CFM-Year)
Cyclone collector __
Baghouse
Low temperature
High temperature
0.55
3 00
6.00
0.13
0.90
1.30
Currently, there are nine asbestos mills in the United States,
with a combined capacity of 163,600 tons of asbestos per year.
The industry is expected to grow at a rate of 1.6 percent per
year. This will probably occur through expansion of production
at existing mills; no new mills are anticipated.
For an investment of $506,000 and annual costs of $232,000,
the industry can remove 99 percent of the estimated 4,300 tons of
particulate asbestos fibers it would otherwise release in fiscal
1978.
2. Sprayed Asbestos Fireproofing and Insulation
Asbestos-cement insulation is applied to steel-frame and steel-
reinforced buildings as thermal insulation and fireproofing. Other
formations are used for high temperature or acoustic insulation.
Although only small amounts of asbestos are emitted from these
uses, they are of significant concern because of their concentra-
tion in urban areas. Emissions of asbestos in this process arise
from handling of the dry mixture, escape of unwetted fiber and
mixture, overspray and backsplash, cleanup and disposal of
-------
230 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
wastes, and demolition of structures where asbestos products
have been used.
The proposed control is to ban these uses of asbestos when ap-
plied to a building or when the application is open to the atmos-
phere. Asbestos emissions from these sources would be reduced
from an estimated 15 tons per year to nearly zero. There are alter-
native materials available such as mineral wool, and ceramic and
glass fibers, which yield comparable results at a modest increase
in cost. When it is considered that the cost of materials is only a
small part of the total cost of the application of insulation, and
that insulation is a minor expense in total construction, the im-
pact would not be significant. In fact, it is usually cheaper to use
a different material than to apply other control techniques.
3. Asbestos Products
Asbestos fiber is widely used for its durability, inertness, and
insulation. Five major groupings of asbestos products, accounting
[p. 5-42]
for over 93 percent of the fiber consumption by the United States,
were studied for the costs of emission control to meet current air
quality standards for particulates. These groupings are given in
Table 5-14.
TABLE 5-14. Asbestos Products Emissions
Asbestos Friction Materials _
Percent of
total annual
consumption
50 2
24 5
12.7
3 7
2.2
Potential
emissions
(pounds per
ton of fiber
consumed)
4
4
120
4
40
Percent of
potential
emissions
currently
controlled
75
75
95
75
95
The manufacture of these products consumes 412.5 thousand
tons of asbestos and, in 1970, resulted in the release of about 204
tons of airborne particulates. Control, in the form of hooding and
installation of fabric filters, is projected to meet a national emis-
sion standard of one percent of uncontrolled emissions.
In fiscal 1978, with an industry growth of five percent per year,
this control will have required a 1973 to 1978 investment of $7.83
million. Annual costs will be about $1.75 million, exclusive of mon-
itoring. These expenses will reduce the projected emission of par-
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 231
ticulates in 1978 to 116 tons, from about 690 tons with current
control practices.
E. Asphalt Concrete
Asphalt concrete for paving generally consists of about 5 per-
cent asphalt and 95 percent crushed stone. The crushed stone ag-
gregate is dried, sized, and blended with hot asphalt and mineral
filler at a batching plant. Brought to the paving site by trucks,
the hot mixture is then spread and compacted into a smooth sur-
face.
Drying, moving, sifting, weighing and mixing operations in the
hot-mix plant producing asphalt concrete are sources of particu-
[p.5-43]
late emissions to the atmosphere. Cyclone collectors are usually
installed. These control emissions to some degree and recover and
recycle fine aggregate.
To meet State regulations, additional particulate control is usu-
ally necessary. Venturi scrubbers are the popular choice, resulting
in emission control of about 96 percent. Fabric filters are chosen
when more control is required. The operating costs are lower but
the initial investment is greater than a fabric filter is chosen over
a scrubber.
It has been estimated that the cost to the industry for meeting
ambient air quality standards will be about $199 million for ad-
ditional equipment. This amounts to about $43,000 per plant, al-
though, of course, individual plant costs can be expected to vary
widely depending on location, current emission control, and dif-
ficulty of retrofit of new controls.
In addition to air quality standards, it has been proposed that
new plants in this industry meet a new source performance stan-
dard.
The standard being considered will limit new plant emissions to
0.03 grain per dry standard cubic foot as a maximum 2-hour
average and opacity of the emissions to less than 10 percent with
corrections made for water vapor. Dilution of excessive emissions
by excess air to meet the standard will be disallowed.
The cost of emission control for new sources does not increase
in proportion to the plant capacity. This means that the greatest
economic impact will be on the smallest plants. This would result
in a reinforcement of the current trend away from plants with
capacities of 150 tons per hour and less, and to plants with ca-
pacities of 300 tons per hour and more.
-------
232 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
The industry currently is growing at a rate approaching 6 per-
cent per year. In addition, with an average 10-year life for
asphalt concrete plants, there is a replacement rate of 10 percent
yearly. The current annual output of the industry is 320 million
tons, from 4500 existing plants.
The capacity of existing plants can be typified by four repre-
sentative sizes:
Average size in group Fraction of plants
75 ton/hr 20%
125 ton/hr 35%
175 ton/hr 30%
225 ton/hr 10%
All plants considered, this is equivalent to an average capacity
of 135 tons/hr. It is clear that the 4500 existing plants need not
operate very often to achieve the current annual output of 320
million tons.
Typical new plants can be expected to have a capacity of 300
ton/hr. To provide for replacement of old plants and an industry
growth of 6 percent, some 320 new plants are required annually.
[p. 5-44]
The investment in a fabric filter particulate control and dust re-
moval system has been estimated at $135,000; the operating cost
has been estimated at $37,000 annually.
With these figures, one can project an industry investment as a
result of new source performance standards. The projections come
to $43.2 million invested annually and $11.8 million operating
costs as a result of this investment.
These new plants, providing 16 percent of the asphalt concrete
production capacity, will compete for 16 percent of the market for
340 million tons. Their share comes to 54.5 million tons. Dividing
the annual operating costs evenly among this production indicates
a cost increase of under 35 cents per ton, over what would be re-
quired if the plant operated with no control. The average value
per ton of asphalt concrete in 1971 was $6.08.
The asphalt industry investment in emission controls for fiscal
1974 to 1978 is estimated to be $544 million, with an annual cost
of 132 million. This will reduce particulate emissions in fiscal 1978
from 2,184,000 tons to 1,577,000 tons.
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 233
VII. CHEMICALS
A. Overview
Four industries producing inorganic chemicals are presented
here.
GROUP 5: CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES
Lime
Sulfuric Acid
Nitric Acid
Phosphate Fertilizer
B. Lime
1. Industry Description
Lime is a calcined or burned form of limestone, commonly
divided into two basic products—quicklime and hydrated lime.
Calcination expels carbon dioxide from the raw limestone, leaving
calcium oxide (quicklime). With the addition of water, calcium
hydroxide (hydrated lime) is formed
The production of lime is growing at about 5 percent per year.
The proposed uses of lime for sulfur dioxide removal from stack
gases, and as a precipitant in municipal waste treatment, may
significantly raise the growth rate.
The basic processes in production are (1) quarrying the lime-
stone raw material, (2) preparing the limestone for kilns by
[p. 5-45]
crushing and sizing, (3) calcining the feed, and (4) optionally
processing the quicklime further by additional crushing and siz-
ing and then hydration. The majority of lime is produced in ro-
tary kilns and shaft (vertical) kilns; both can be fired by coal,
oil, or gas. Rotary kilns have the advantages of high production
per man-hour and a uniform product but require higher capital
investment and have higher unit fuel costs than most vertical
kilns. The open market lime industry shows a trend toward in-
stallation of larger rotaries with a far higher capacity than verti-
cal kilns.
Reduction of limestone is accomplished usually in rotary kilns,
typically capable of handling 2 to 600 tons/day; about 20 percent
of lime is calcined in vertical kilns, with a typical capacity of 10
-------
234 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
to 50 tons/day. For the larger, rotary kilns, State Implementation
Plans call for an efficiency of removal of particulates from the
airstream in the range of 98.8 to 99.4 percent. High efficiency wet
scrubbers are most effective in meeting this requirement. For the
smaller, vertical kilns, State Implementation Plans call for ef-
ficiency of removal of particulates in the range of 77 to 85 percent,
and a low energy wet scrubber would often suffice.
2. Emissions and Costs of Control
Air pollution in the lime industry consists primarily of par-
ticulate emissions in the form of limestone and lime dust. The
main source of these emissions is the calcination process; the
peripheral processes of crushing, pulverizing, sizing, and convey-
ing of the feed material are also significant potential sources.
Since most modern plants adequately control the peripheral pro-
cesses for economic and industrial hygiene purposes, only the kiln
emissions will be considered in this analysis.
Most rotary kilns are equipped with dry mechanical collectors
which remove an average of 75 percent of the particulate effluent.
The application of low-energy venturi or two-stage dynamic scrub-
bers to the smaller rotary kilns (less than 500 tons per day) and
fabric niters to the larger rotary kilns (500 tons per day and
larger) would allow this segment of the industry to achieve the
assumed process weight rate standard at an overall control ef-
ficiency of 98.9 percent.
Vertical shaft kilns account for virtually all of the remaining
lime production. These kilns tend to be smaller in capacity and to
emit significantly less dust, about 1 percent of the lime produced.
Few, if any, vertical kilns are presently equipped with control
devices. The assumed process weight rate standard could be met
by adding cyclonic scrubbers, resulting in an 88.5 percent overall
control efficiency.
Uncontrolled emissions from rotary and vertical kilns are 200
and 8 pounds per ton of product, respectively, but present con-
trols reduce these emissions to about 58 and 5 pounds, respec-
tively. To control emissions to the mandatory level will require an
industry investment in the next five years of almost $40 million,
and an annual cost in that year of $13 million.
[p. 5-46]
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 235
C. Sulfuric Acid
1. Introduction
Sulfuric acid is the largest single chemical product in the
United States. It is used in the production of phosphate fertilizers
and other industrial chemicals, in the purification of petroleum,
the leaching of copper ore, and the pickling of steel.
Almost 97 percent of all sulfuric acid is produced by the con-
tact process. Generally in this process, sulfur or pyrite is burned
to form sulfur dioxide (S02) which is then catalyzed to sulfur
trioxide (S03). Sulfur trioxide is absorbed in sulfuric acid to form
more concentrated grades of sulfuric acid and oleum. An increas-
ingly important source of sulfur dioxide is that liberated during
the smelting of sulfide ores bearing copper, nickel, zinc, and lead.
The final 3 percent of acid is produced by the obsolete and costly
chamber process, but because this process is rapidly being phased
out, it will not be emphasized in this analysis.
2. Emissions and Cost of Control
Pollutants consist of sulfur dioxide escaping catalytic con-
version and acid mists emitted from the absorption tower. Most
plants today operate with a single absorption step resulting in a
sulfur dioxide to sulfur trioxide conversion of 96 to 98 percent.
To comply with the assumed emission standard requires upgrad-
ing the conversion efficiency to 99.5 percent or tail gas scrubbing
with alkaline solutions. (New acid plants are expected to achieve
99.7 percent conversion efficiency.) This would result in a reduc-
tion of 86 percent from the existing emission level of a typical
acid plant. To accomplish 99.5 percent conversion requires partial
removal of the sulfur trioxide formed, via primary absorption,
which improves the oxygen-to-sulfur dioxide ratio for favorable
conversion of the residual sulfur dioxide. Secondary absorption
is required to complete the recovery of sulfur trioxide as acid.
It is estimated that two new sulfuric acid plants of 1500 tons
per day capacity will be constructed each year to meet the grow-
ing demand for sulfuric acid. Sulfur dioxide is, of course, the pol-
lutant of major concern in this industry, but acid mist particu-
lates are also of concern. Some idea of the costs of controlling
these pollutants can be obtained from the following tables.
Investment costs for the industry in fiscal years 1974 to 1978 to
meet Ambient Air Quality Standards total $128.7 million for sul-
fur dioxide and $12.1 million for particulates. To meet New
Source Performance Standards, they total $18 million for sulfur
-------
236
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
dioxide and $570,000 for particulates. A total of $159 million is
required for emission control by this industry, and annual costs
are expected to be near $29 million.
[p. 5-47]
TABLE 5-15. Tubular Demister Control Costs
50
250
750
1500
2000
Plant
capacity
tons/day
Investment
cost ($1000)
78
100
150
240
290
Annualized costs
99% HaSOi plant
23 0
30 5
47 2
62 0
69 0
($1000)
Oleum plant
19 0
259
37 5
52 0
58.0
TABLE 5-16. Dual Absorption Costs {or SO. Control
50
250
750
1500
2000
Plant
capacity
tons/day
Investment
cost ($1000)
260
482
920
1450
1750
Annualized cost
($1000)
22 5
67.5
141.5
266.4
340.0
D. Nitric Acid
The industry synthesizing nitric acid from air and ammonia
is growing at a yearly rate of one new plant of 300 tons/day.
Emission control costs for the new plants, to meet New Source
Performance Standards, are negligible, inasmuch as the industry
has adopted the new D. M. Weatherly plant design, which meets
the standards of no more than 3 pounds of nitrogen oxides emit-
ted per ton of acid produced.
Older plants emit up to about 62 pounds of nitrogen oxides in
the tail gases for each ton of acid produced. For control of a 300
tons/day plant, an investment of $400,000 in a selective abater is
adequate. Without this additional control, an emission of about
115,000 tons of nitrogen oxides can be expected in fiscal 1978.
Control reduces this to 12,400 tons, with a five-year investment
of $16.5 million and an annual cost of $5 million.
[p.5-48]
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 237
E. Phosphatic Fertilizers
1. Industry Description
Phosphate rock is processed into many products used in the
United States. Chiefly, these are agricultural fertilizers (75 per-
cent) , animal feed supplements, elemental phosphorous, and phos-
phoric acid.
Complete or balanced fertilizers involve the production of P20B
("phosphate") from phosphate rock and mixing this chemically
and/or mechanically, with nitrogen and potassium nutrients.
Plant foods are produced in various NPK (nitrogen, phosphorus,
potassium) grades to fit varying soil requirements.
The manufacture of the phosphate for fertilizers begins with
the preparation of rock for processing. Ground rock is treated
with sulfuric acid to produce either normal superphosphate fer-
tilizer (20 percent P20B) or wet process phosphoric acid. This
acid intermediate (about 54 percent P205) may be used to produce
diammonium phosphate (18 percent nitrogen and 46 percent P20S)
or triple superphosphate (46 percent P205). Superphosphoric
acid (about 70 percent P20B) is produced by dehydration of wet
process phosphoric acid and used in the preparation of mixed
liquid fertilizers for direct application to the soil.
2. Emissions and Costs of Control
Dusts, acid mists, sulfur dioxide, fluorides (gaseous and par-
ticulate), and ammonia are emitted from various processes in the
phosphate fertilizer industry. Dusts are emitted from drying and
grinding of phosphate rock, calcination, drying and cooling in the
granulation process (the major source), and conveying, bagging,
and other handling operations. Sulfur dioxide is emitted from the
sulfuric acid plants owned by some major phosphate processors
that produce wet process phosphoric acid. (Sulfuric acid produc-
tion was discussed in detail above; the control costs described in
that section have their major economic impact on the fertilizer
industry.)
The production of diammonium phosphate, triple superphos-
phate, and NPK fertilizers generates airborne particulates through
the screening and drying of phosphate rock and the cooling of the
granulated product. The only part of the industry that is pro-
jected to grow is the production of diammonium phosphate; this
at a rate of 4.2 percent per year.
Control of emissions by some 53 phosphate plants (both DAP
-------
238 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
and TSP), and some 354 NPK plants can be achieved with high
efficiency venturi scrubbers. Typical costs would be:
Plant type Capacity (T/yr) Investment Annual cost
DAP
TSP
NPK
120,000
190,000
50,000
$125,000
390,000
15,000
$ 64,000
177,000
34,000
[p. 5-49]
These costs result in an industry investment through fiscal 1978
of almost $39 million and annual cost of almost $23 million. With-
out this additional control, the fertilizer industry would generate
348,000 tons of airborne particulates in fiscal 1978. With this con-
trol, emissions drop to 32,000 tons.
[p. 5-50]
-------
CHAPTER 6. FOSSIL FUELS
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Outline of the Chapter
Most air pollution and the expense of reducing it come from
burning coal, oil, and gas. A glance at the subtotals in Table 1-3
shows how much larger is the problem of control of this activity,
compared with all other industrial activities. The mobile sources
of the transportation sector were reviewed in Chapter 4. The dis-
cussion presented here covers the stationary sources which de-
pend on burning of fossil fuels.
By 1978, burning of fossil fuels by stationary sources can be
expected to generate 60 percent of all sulfur dioxide emissions,
even with proposed controls. As well, major amounts of particu-
lates and oxides of nitrogen will be emitted by these sources. Re-
duction of these emissions will require a major application of new
technologies and examination of the alternatives. Regulations
presently enacted provide for such reduction within the next few
years. Each affected industry will, therefore, be faced with the
need to make major decisions as to the acceptable alternative it
will choose. The principal alternatives for pollution abatement are
presented in Sections II, III, and IV of this chapter. This presenta-
tion is perhaps overly long, but warranted in view of the im-
portance of the decisions to be made.
With the uncertainty as to course of action, a prediction had to
be made arbitrarily. Reliable predictions depend, of course, on
future trends being merely continuations of past trends. Only if
this sort of stability occurs in technology, international politics,
and resource reserves does the prediction hold. The reader must
supplement the conclusions presented herein with what is to
transpire after this analysis. Expectations for the future rarely
materialize to three significant figures.
Two groupings of stationary sources are presented. Household,
commercial, and industrial consumers of fossil fuels are combined
as one grouping in Section V of this chapter. Industrial con-
sumers generate the bulk of emissions by this grouping. Steam-
electric power plant emission control strategy is presented in Sec-
tion VI of this chapter.
Because household, commercial, and industrial consumers are
the end consumers of electric energy, a breakdown of the distri-
bution of electric energy consumption is appropriate here. Of the
1970 electric energy consumption,
• 31.9 percent went to residential use,
239
-------
240 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
• 22.4 percent went to commercial, and
• 41.4 percent went to industrial
[p. 6-1]
Other miscellaneous users consumed the remaining 4.3 percent.
Knowledge of the ultimate distribution of energy consumption
permits assigning the costs of control to their appropriate sources.
B. Scope of the Problem
There is no cheap fuel with combustion products that are
acceptable as non-polluting. The problem, therefore, is to choose
among the available fuels and to provide sufficient environmental
protection from their combustion products so as to meet protec-
tion standards while generating heat and power as economically
as possible. In the near term, energy resources that will be con-
sumed in large amounts are nuclear fuels with their radioactive
waste disposal requirements, and the fossil fuels with their ash
residue disposal and gaseous emission control requirements.
Of the fossil fuels, natural gas is the cleanest, but is in short
supply. Consider the pollutants that an uncontrolled steam-electric
plant producing 1000 megawatts would emit without control:
TABLE 6-1. Uncontrolled Emissions From a 1000 Mwe Plant (Ibs/hr)
Fuel
Coal
Oil _
Gas
Participates
67,400
670
140
so,
32,000
21,000
4
NO,
8430
6930
3730
As Table 6-1 indicates, natural gas is preferable from an emis-
sions standpoint. Indeed, gas-fired power plants provided 23 per-
cent of electricity in 1970, and gas provided one third of all heat
energy derived from fossil fuels. However, the consumption of gas
during the near term is expected to remain fairly constant, and
growth in fossil fuel demand will be taken up by coal and oil. The
scarcity of natural gas, which represents about 4 percent of the
known fossil fuel potential thermal inventory, is to blame for this
lack of expansion.
Petroleum is a relatively abundant fuel, at least internationally.
The domestic production is becoming increasingly critical due to
limited reserves and increasing demand. The deficit is being met
by imports. Mobile sources, using gasoline and diesel oil, provide
one-half of the demand. Stationary sources, using distillate and
residual fuel oil, provide the rest. Distillate, like natural gas, has
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 241
a low sulfur content generally meeting sulfur regulations. The ash
content of fuel oil, about 0.05 percent, does not present a major
emission problem.
[p. 6-2]
The most abundant fossil fuel in this country is coal. In 1970,
about 320.5 million tons of coal were burned to supply about half
of United States electric power. In the same year, 100.5 million
tons were used for heating, 98 million tons were used as coke in
industrial processes, and 73 million tons were exported. The re-
sources of coal are widespread through the U.S., but coal has not
been used in proportion to its availability.
Coal typically has an ash content of 9 percent, of which under
uncontrolled conditions about 85 percent would be emitted from a
dry-bottom boiler, and 65 percent from a wet-bottom boiler. The
resulting emissions would be orders of magnitude (as Table 6-1
shows) higher than those from the combustion of the other fossil
fuels. Particulate control is found on all but the smallest coal
burners.
Sulfur dioxide emissions from coal burning are even more seri-
ous and more difficult to control. In 1970, the sulfur content of coal
burned by utilities, industry, and in heating units for household
and commercial use averaged 2.5 percent. This sulfur appears as
sulfur dioxide and some sulfur trioxide when the coal is burned.
To reduce the sulfur oxides, a coal with low sulfur content could
be chosen. However, much of the low sulfur coal is reserved to be
used as coke by the metals industries. The major deposits avail-
able for fuel have a lower heat value than the bituminous coal in
use, and are often far from the potential users.
In spite of these problems, use of coal to supply most electric
power in the near future remains highly desirable. Meeting the
sulfur oxides standard for air quality will require development by
coal users of the available options as to method of control. These
include switching use to low sulfur coal or other low sulfur fuel,
removing sulfur from coal, and removing sulfur oxides from the
flue gases. Each of these options has a number of technical ap-
proaches and of course combinations of options are possibly de-
sirable in specific situations. At present, no single method appears
to be superior for all. The national practice in 1978 can be ex-
pected to include many control methods. Economics and technical
development will dictate the strategy mix.
[p. 6-3]
-------
242 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
II. EMISSION CONTROL
A. Control of Particulates
Coal-fired steam-electric plants generally use coal ground to
a fine powder before injection. When the powder reaches the flame,
it burns, creating a fine particulate that flows with the exhaust
gases to the stack.
The removal of particulates from stack emissions is a well-
established practice. Coal-fired steam-electric power plants are
normally fitted with electrostatic precipitators. Removal efficien-
cies up to 99 percent are possible, with 97.5 percent being com-
mon. At this latter efficiency, a 1000 megawatt electric plant emits
about 5200 tons of particulate per year.
Oil combustion, because of the low ash content of most oils, does
not require emission control to meet most standards. However,
several electrostatic precipitators are on order for oil-fired plants,
and several coal-fired plants with electrostatic precipitators have
switched to use of oil and continue to operate precipitators. An
electrostatic precipitator on an oil-fired plant permits use of oil
with high-ash content, and is an insurance in the event of soot
emission as a result of faulty combustion.
B. Control of NO* Emissions
Power plants produce nitrogen oxides, particularly nitric
oxide (NO), in concentrations up to 1000 ppm. This pollutant is
formed from the nitrogen and oxygen of the air in the intense
heat of the firebox. Because it is sensitive to temperature and
amount of excess air, several design methods of control are avail-
able. The fuel and air can be mixed at a slower rate, lowering gas
temperature and reducing the reaction rate. Two-stage combustion
is effective in reducing temperature and excess air, thereby limit-
ing the reaction. Recycle of flue gases has also been shown to be
effective. With, these methods, a reduction of 90 percent appears
feasible for gas and oil-fired plants. Control of NOX from pul-
verized-coal-fired plants, however, requires further development.
C. Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions
Control technology for this pollutant lacks an extensive his-
tory of operation. There are more than fifty processes in various
stages of development, but only a handful are developed to the
point where performance and cost can be estimated with any cer-
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 243
tainty. Four of these scrubbing processes for removal of sulfur
dioxide are in operation or on order for power plants.
[p. 6-4]
Of 29 operating or proposed full-size scrubbing systems for
power plants, 21 are based on variations of the wet lime or lime-
stone scrubbing process. In this process, the flue gas, laden with
sulfur dioxide and some sulfur trioxide, passes through a slurry
containing ground limestone which in some variations has been
calcined to improve its reactivity. The calcium carbonate of the
limestone reacts with the gas to form calcium sulfate and release
carbon dioxide. The calcium sulfate is removed as a sludge in a
settling pond, and the slurry is usually recycled to the scrubber.
Efficiency of sulfur dioxide removal is about 70 to 90 percent. In
general, particulate removal, as by an electrostatic precipitator,
is not considered necessary since the limestone scrubbing process
removes about 99 percent of particulates.
The magnesium oxide process is installed on one plant and
planned for four others. This process relies on magnesium oxide to
combine with the SOX gases. Unlike the products of the limestone
scrubbing process, the magnesium salts may be processed eco-
nomically to obtain sulfuric acid for sale and magnesium oxide
for return to the system. Because of the low value of the acid,
relative inexperience with this system, and its higher initial costs,
it is not as popular as limestone scrubbing.
The catalytic oxidation process is a modification of the well-
known contact process for sulfuric acid production. The flue gas
flows through a fixed catalyst bed where the sulfur dioxide is oxi-
dized at a high temperature to sulfur trioxide. This is then re-
acted with water in an absorption tower to form sulfuric acid. A
disadvantage of this process is that an electrostatic precipitator
or other high efficiency particulate remover must be installed
upstream of the desulfurization unit. Against this, an obvious ad-
vantage is that no solid reactants need be entered into the system,
as was required in other processes. An experimental prototype
of this system has recently been retrofitted to a 100 megawatt
power plant.
Two power plants are to be fitted with flue gas treatment
systems based on the sodium base scrubbing process. In this
process, the sulfur dioxide in the flue gas is absorbed into a mixed
solution of sulfite, bisulfite, and sulfate salts of sodium. Some of
the sulfur dioxide reacts to form soluble sulfates; much of it
reacts with sodium sulfite and water to form sodium bisulfite. The
-------
244 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
solution is then evaporated, drawing off the sulfur dioxide and
water in a reverse of the reaction, thereby separating the sulfur
dioxide from the rest of the flue gases and permitting its process-
ing to sulfur or sulfuric acid. Efficiency of this regenerative
process is anticipated to be at least 90 percent. A drawback is the
production of sodium sulfate from some of the sulfur dioxide, as
well as other contaminants. These must be removed from the
regenerated solution and discarded.
Use of a flue gas scrubbing system entails a cost equivalent to
a premium of $4 to $7 per ton of coal. A disadvantage of desulfuri-
zation systems until recently has been their uncertain reliability,
with a history of erosion and corrosion problems. Another prob-
lem, to a utility, might be a relative difficulty in obtaining permis-
sion to pass on investment costs to the consumer, for rates are
more easily adjusted when fuel costs vary than when capital
investments are made.
[p. 6-5]
III. FUEL SWITCHING
These considerations will encourage users of fossil fuels with
high sulfur problems to switch to fossil fuels with low sulfur.
Small plants, especially, will follow this alternative. Many large
steam-electric plants will switch to low sulfur oil or low sulfur
coal, if it is available in sufficient quantity at a competitive price.
Deposits of low sulfur coal (less than 1% sulfur) are mined
in two principal locations in this country. The western subbitumi-
nous supply is in Wyoming and Montana. In 1970, about 16 million
tons were produced. By 1975 a capacity of about 55 million tons
is planned in these States. Production could increase to 90 million
tons or more, if mining and reclamation regulations can be de-
veloped which do not prohibit the necessary stripmining. The
coal is near the surface in seams over 25 feet thick, and can be
recovered cheaply by stripmining, as compared with the more
expensive underground mining. The deposits are sufficiently vast
that the cost per ton will not be affected by the demand. Costs at
the mine are expected to be under $3 per ton.
To this must be added very large transportation costs. The
nearest major market for low sulfur coal is the Chicago area,
some 1,200 miles away. Development of the unit-train concept has
reduced transportation costs significantly for long distance haul-
ing. A cost of about $6 per ton for the 1,200 mile trip by unit-train
will raise the delivered fuel cost to under $9 per ton. This total is
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 245
to be compared with recent coal costs of $6.50 per ton in the
Chicago area.
In the eastern part of the country, low sulfur coal deposits are
concentrated in western Virginia and the adjoining parts of West
Virginia and Kentucky. Production in 1970 was about 70 million
tons, disregarding the export and coking coal. The increase in
production will depend on the increase in price per ton. Unlike
western supplies, eastern supplies of low sulfur coal become in-
creasingly difficult to mine as the demand is increased.
An increase in annual production to 120 million tons is esti-
mated to result in an increase from the recent price of $8 to $10
per ton in 1978. This may be compared with recent high sulfur
coal costs of about $5 per ton.
These figures suggest an economic incentive to develop new
mines for low sulfur coal. Limitations to this development will,
however, act both on eastern and western mines. The western
development will be limited to supply markets within distances
with acceptable transportation costs. The eastern development
will be limited by the rising price of each ton of increased capacity.
As well as increase in fuel cost, a utility choosing to switch
from high to low sulfur coal will encounter capital costs to con-
vert plant burners. Modern steam-electric plants are tailored to
optimal burning of a specific coal; shifting to another requires
costs depending on burner design. Most difficulty occurs with a
wet-bottom burner, where much of the ash is removed as a hot
liquid. The ash of low sulfur coal usually has higher fusion
temperature than that of high sulfur coal; as a result extensive
[p. 6-6]
modification, costing over $35 per kilowatt, is required. About 85
million tons of coal per year are burned in wet bottom boilers.
For dry bottom burners, the modification cost is more typically
$12 per kilowatt of capacity.
Fuel oil has long been an option for fossil fuel use. In 1970,
electric utilities consumed 332 million barrels of fuel oil, and 2
billion barrels were consumed as fuel for industrial, household,
and commercial uses. (Four barrels of oil are roughly equivalent
in heat value to one ton of coal.) U. S. production of crude oil is
currently not enough to supply this growing use, plus fuels used
in transportation. The added requirements must be imported until
synthetic processes become feasible. Because gasoline demand is
not proportionately as heavy in the rest of the world, foreign
refineries produce large quantities of residual fuel oil, without
-------
246 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
further processing it into gasoline and distillate. This residual
fuel oil, available for import, usually requires desulfurization.
Many coal-fired plants, especially in the Northeast, have been
converted to burn low sulfur fuel oil, which is in short supply.
Indeed, current practice in this region is to design fossil fuel
plants for easy conversion between coal and oil. Thus, a plant
could have been converted to oil when low sulfur coal is unavail-
able and returned to coal use later when mines open up or a flue
gas scrubbing system seems more economical.
IV. OTHER OPTIONS
In the broader view, air quality standards raise the costs of
fossil-fuel steam electric plants, raising the attraction of a number
of alternatives. For the short term, many of these may be ne-
glected because of the extensive research and development that
will be required if they are to be commercially competitive. This
group of long term options includes methods for harnessing wind,
sunlight, tides, and thermal profiles in the ocean. While important
applications of these methods exist today, their long-term potential
certainly lies beyond 1978.
The option of using natural gas would provide energy with
acceptable levels of pollutant emission. In 1971, natural gas pro-
vided 29% of steam-electric power, 42% of household and com-
mercial heat and 46% of industrial heat. For small installations,
this option is preferable to expensive emission controls. For large
installations such as steam-electric plants, the short supply of
natural gas, evidenced by sporadic curtailment of service and by
rising prices, will preclude this option. By 1978, many steam-
electric plants will have been forced to switch away from natural
gas, and usage in this sector will decline from 4 to 3.5 trillion
cubic feet, unless higher prices stimulate production. Import of
natural gas, liquefied for ocean transport, is one option being
adopted to fill the demand for natural gas, although this liquefied
natural gas is several times more expensive at the point of de-
livery then domestic natural gas.
To augment the supply of natural gas, coal gasification is being
undertaken. This process can also be an alternative to flue gas
[p. 6-7]
scrubbing, although the hot coal gas has to be cooled to permit
sulfur removal. The gas could then be used in a power plant
converted to this fuel, or in a combined cycle plant. The combined
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 247
cycle, using coal gas in a gas turbine and using the hot exhaust
to provide heat energy for a steam boiler, delivers efficiencies up
to 50%, as compared with conventional plant efficiencies around
40%. For an existing plant, the conversion cost would be about
$115 per kilowatt, and the cost of low BTU gasification would be
about 35^ per million BTU. Considerable development of this
option will take place in the next five years. Liquefaction of coal
with removal of sulfur, is also being developed as a source of
synthetic gasoline, petroleum products, and boiler fuel.
A more immediately applicable process for removing sulfur
from certain grades of coal is physical desulfurization, or "deep
cleaning" of coal. The coal is first crushed, to expose pyritic
sulfur, and the exposed pyrites are then removed by flotation or
washing. This process is well-developed, and was described in
Chapter 5. The cost increase, for Eastern coal, averages $2 per
ton. Only a small upgrading, as a result of removal of up to
one-third of the sulfur, is possible. This process is not expected to
be extensively used, since most of the coal susceptible to physical
desulfurization already meets sulfur regulations for some users.
V. HOUSEHOLD, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL HEATING
A. Household and Commercial
Household heating and cooking, and commercial space heating
uses of fossil fuels are projected to consume 11.4 million tons of
coal, 1120 million barrels of oil, and 9 trillion cubic feet of gas
in 1978. The small and declining use of coal will doubtlessly be
further reduced by switching to the less polluting fuels, oil and
gas, in response to the SIP requirements. This switch will require
capital to convert the coal-fired boilers. The cost will range from
$1,000 to $260,000 because of the large range of boiler sizes and
types. Very small boilers, such as found in household heating
plants, will not require conversion or switching. No costs of con-
trol were assigned to these.
B. Industrial Heating
Industry uses fossil fuels for space heating, process heating,
and moving machinery. Industrial use of fossil fuels is projected
to consume 166 million tons of coal, 715 million barrels of oil,
and 11 trillion cubic feet of gas in 1978.
-------
248 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
C. Costs
New equipment will be needed to convert 565,000 commercial
and industrial boilers, of which 127,000 will be switched from coal
burning to oil burning. The investment cost is estimated to be
$879 million.
Annual costs include increased costs for low sulfur coal and
oil. With capital costs and depreciation, the total annual cost for
commercial and industrial boiler emission control in 1978 is esti-
mated at $1,342 million.
[p. 6-8]
VI. STEAM-ELECTRIC PLANTS
A. Strategy Selection
Electric utilities, particularly those with coal-fired plants, will
analyze the various strategies presented in the previous sections
for sulfur dioxide control. Each will select the alternative that
complies with SIP regulations and has the most attractive cost,
availability, and convenience of use.
Some generalizations can be made. First, where the premium
for using low sulfur coal is not above that of flue gas desulfuri-
zation, the utility will elect to convert. When the plant is old, or
the conversion costs are high and the retrofit of a desulfurization
system is also difficult, the utility may switch to fuel oil.
The projected use of coal by the utilities in 1978 is 430 million
tons. About 175 million tons of low sulfur coal (under 1%) will
be used, with an additional 10 million tons washed to reduced
their sulfur content. Utilities will use about 120 million tons of
medium and high sulfur coal as well. This leaves a demand for
125 million tons to be met by coal burned with stack gas cleaning
equipment to remove sulfur oxides.
B. Costs to Meet Regulations
For an individual steam-electric plant, the cost on a mills per
kilowatt hour basis of air pollution abatement will depend on
many factors and range widely from any average that can be
presented. Average costs for the various strategies possible have
been presented in previous sections along with the description of
each strategy. The costs, for a specific plant, can generally be
expected to be higher when the plant must be retrofitted with
extensive new equipment such as a limestone flue gas scrubber.
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 249
In contrast with retrofitting older plants, costs for more modern
plants will be less, especially with the economies of size of the
larger new plants.
Switching from high sulfur bituminous coal to low sulfur coal
of low heat value, such as the Western subbituminous deposits,
will result not only in a conversion cost, but a loss of generating
capacity. Depending on boiler design, this loss could be from 5
to 15 percent, if modifications cannot be made to allow for in-
creased throughput capacity for coal. Replacement of this loss
by building of additional coal-fired plants would cost about $300
per kilowatt. The affected utility might find its capacity reserve
margin so low that the new capacity would be needed sooner than
coal-fired plant construction time would permit. Then, a peaking
unit with low capital costs but high fuel costs would be required.
In addition to capacity loss, switching to low sulfur coal in-
volves variable boiler conversion costs, as discussed earlier, roughly
from $12 to $35 per kilowatt. The average cost of conversion will
be at the low end of this range, since plants faced with high
conversion costs will tend to select other strategies.
[p. 6-9]
The low sulfur coal itself will cost the utility more, as dis-
cussed earlier. An increment of $6 per ton is used in this report,
and amounts to an annual cost of 2.0 mills per kilowatt-hr. The
individual plant costs will vary around this, as described earlier.
Flue gas scrubbing system costs depend on the process chosen,
the size of the steam-electric plant, the problems of retrofitting,
the ease of disposal of sludge, and future developments that will
doubtlessly affect design, installation, and performance costs. Ex-
isting estimates of costs vary widely, in view of the developmental
nature of this technology.
In general, both capital and operating costs are lowest for the
wet lime/limestone scrubbing process, of the four processes dis-
cussed above. Capital costs range from $30 to $65 per kilowatt
for present processes, and annualized costs range from 1.5 to 3.0
mills per kwhr.
Comparison of the two leading strategies for sulfur dioxide
control can be made on the basis of the average costs cited above.
Per kilowatt, a utility selecting to switch could have a lower
capital requirement than a utility selecting to scrub flue gases,
provided that the boiler design was compatible, and that the lost
generating capacity was not an immediate problem. The utility
selecting the scrubbing alternative would, in general, have a lower
-------
250 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT II
operating cost, assuming no severe technical or waste disposal
problems.
Switching to oil presents some boiler conversion costs, a cost
in higher fuel price in many instances, and an uncertainty in fuel
supply. The price of oil depends on access to refineries, and there-
fore on location of the steam-electric plant. A utility on the east
coast could switch, for example, from coal at $10 a ton to oil at
$4 a barrel. This would increase the energy cost by 2.8 mills per
kwhr. A utility further inland where coal is cheaper and oil dearer
would pay perhaps 0.8 mills per kwhr above this. Boiler con-
version costs to convert to oil are estimated at $20 per kilowatt.
Oil burning plants will elect to switch from high sulfur oil to
oil of low sulfur content. The incremental cost to obtain low sulfur
fuel oil is about 85$ per barrel.
The cost of an electrostatic precipitator for particulate emis-
sion control depends on plant size, efficiency requirements, and
quality of fuel to be burned. Typically, investments are between
$4 and $10 per kilowatt for high efficiency (99.5%) precipitators.
Operating costs are much lower than they are for other forms of
particulate control. Utility practice has been to include an electro-
static precipitator on coal-fired steam electric plants. When flue
gas scrubbers are used, this is not necessary. Credit against the
cost of the scrubber can therefore be taken for omission of the
precipitator.
These costs are summarized in Table 6-2. A total capital in-
vestment of $2900 million is anticipated in 1978. Annual costs
due to pollution control are estimated at $1860 million.
[p. 6-10]
TABLE 6-5. 1978 Cost Estimates for Steam-Electric Plant Emission Controls (Millions of Dollars)
Control
Totals
Investment
160
220
2750
(230)
2900
Annualized
420
770
680
(10)
1860
[p. 6-11]
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 251
VII. EMISSIONS
Pollutant emission by fossil-fuel steam-electric plants includes
all of the six pollutants for which ambient air quality standards
have been set, although normally negligible amounts of photo-
chemical oxidants are emitted. Carbon monoxide emissions, typ-
ically below one pound per ton of coal burned, are also of minor
importance. Estimates of the principal pollutant emissions are
summarized in Table 6-3.
The disposal of waste products from stack gas desulfurization
systems remains a major problem with serious environmental
consequences. Based on the control strategy outlined above, 23
million tons per year of throwaway sludge would be produced.
This corresponds to a potential land requirement of 80 square
miles, assuming a 20-year storage requirement and ponding to a
10-foot depth. We have included disposal costs of $2 per ton for
this material, but the technical problems of transportation, pre-
vention of water pollution, and land requirements have not been
studied for this report. Development of recycling systems that are
competitive with throwaway systems would solve the problem.
Fly ash is an ever increasing problem for solid waste disposal.
Readily controllable by modern electrostatic precipitators, annual
recovery is now 30 million tons and is expected to reach 50 million
tons by 1980. However, few uses for it currently exist. Because of
its uniform particle size and composition, fly ash could be used
in building and highway construction. It may be used agricul-
turally for improving soil texture and, being alkaline, as a lime-
stone substitute.
TABLE 6-3, Emissions (Tons) Steam-Electric Power Plants
Emissions Participates SO. NO
In 1973 — - -
In 1978
w/o Additional Control
w/Additional Control . _
- - 3,194 000
4,083 000
, — 498,000
3 585 000
23 465 000
28 150 000
5 260 000
22 890 000
11 918 000
16 053 000
13 637 000
2 416 MO
[p. 6-12]
-------
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
fteqion V, l.ir.ri-ry
230 South Dearborn Street /J'
Chicago, Illinois £0604 ->'' <^:M'"'-
-------
------- |