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'"'-

-------

-------