United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Off ice of OPA 101/9
Public Awareness (A-107) April 1979
Washington DC 20460
vvEPA
Environmental
Information
CAN AMERICA
HAVE GROWTH
AND CLEAN
AIR?
Questions
and Answers
about Growth
and the Clean
Air Act
Will the Federal Clean Air Act stop or restrict
growth in this country?
That question is being asked more and more frequently.
The concern centers on economic development and stems
from a lack of full understanding of certain sections of
the Act and of the implementation of those sections. One
concern is the prohibiting of new construction whtch
affects air quality in a State which does not submit an
approvable Clean Air Plan.* Such Plans, updating how a
State will control pollution to achieve air quality standards,
must be approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). A second concern is the potential loss of Federal
assistance for new highways, air pollution control, and
wastewater treatment facilities if States fail to submit an
approvable plan. A third concern is based on the possibility
of difficulties and delays that might occur in getting permits
to build new industrial projects even where approved plans
exist.
Congress passed major Clean Air Act Amendments in
1970 recognizing that expanding urbanization, industrial
development and growing use of motor vehicles in this
country was increasing air pollution to levels that
endangered public health and public welfare. To protect
the public health, the Act called for a national program
of pollution emission control and air quality management.
To ensure continued success of that program, Congress in
1977, set new and more stringent requirements for pollution
controls that will require creative solutions and coopera-
tive efforts on the part of States, local governments and
all segments of the American society if air pollution is
to be reduced to acceptable levels.
Because of the current concern for a healthy economy
and high employment and because of the complexities of the
Clean Air Act, the law is viewed by some as a possible
deterrent to continued growth, particularly urban growth.
*A State Implementation Plan
-------
EPA, however, believes that with the policies and guidelines that have been developed
and through its continuing efforts to work with the States and local communities, the Clean
Air Act can achieve the clean air goals set by Congress without stifling essential growth.
This fact sheet has been prepared to answer some of the most pressing questions about
growth and the Clean Air Act.
Q. Aren't the Federal law requirements for States to revise thejr Clean Air Plans impossible to meet?
A. Congress required States to revise their Clean Air Plans for all areas where the health-
based ambient air quality standards are not being met. These revisions, call for (1) adoption
of all reasonable control measures on stationary sources and (2) for inspection and maintenance
(I/M) for in-use vehicles, and/or other transportation control measures. EPA has worked with
the States in interpreting these requirements and believes a workable program to meet the
requirements is possible by any State that makes a good faith effort.
For stationary sources which contribute to the ozone (smog) problem States must adopt
regulations on a phased schedule after the initial submission, and continue to study and
develop measures to control non-traditional sources of particulate matter such as fugitive dust.
For I/M, where it is necessary, the Plan submitted must contain ohly the necessary legal
authority and a commitment to develop an I/M system. That system does not have to be operational
until 1981 or 1982, depending on the kind of system selected. For transportation control measures,
State and local governments must establish a transportation air quality process and commit to
implementation of reasonable measures.
Q. Won't it be impossible for States to demonstrate attainment of the air quality standards
in many of the worst polluted'areas ?
A. The most difficult pollutants to control will be carbon monoxide and ozone. Congress recognized
this and provided additional time—until 1987--for States to meet these standards. During this
period substantial reductions will be achieved by emission controls on new cars under the Federal
Motor Vehicle Control Program. Where the State can show that it uses all reasonable available
control measures and still cannot achieve the standards, the Act requires only that the State commit
to such reasonable measures and then identify what additional control measures could oroduce the
additional required emission reductions. However, the Act does not require the State to make a
commitment in 1979 to implement these additional measures. A final commitment does not have to be made
until 1982, giving the State and local governments'ample time for further study and consideration.
Q. Aren't the so-called "no-growth" sanctions inevitable in many areas?
A. No. The Act says that unless an approved Clean Air Plan is in place by July 1, 1979, no permit
applications for major new construction can be approved. Also, certain types of Federal assistance
including grants for highways, air pollution control and wastewater treatment facilities may be with-
hpld. Congress1 intention was to emphasize the serious need for State and local governments to revise
their Plans as quickly as possible and to encourage the public's involvement as well as that of the
industrial community in developing an adequate plan revision. EPA established criteria that are
reasonable and that can be achieved by a good-faith effort.
If a State Plan is late or is inadequate and sanctions are imposed, all industrial growth will not
stop automatically. Important to remember are:
* All construction permits that are submitted by June 30, 1979 will continue
to be processed;
* The "no-new permit" restriction continues only until the State does submit
an aoprovable plan;
* The "no-growth" sanctions for particulate matter of sulfur oxides generally
will not affect a broad arpa because violations of these pollutants tend to
be more localized.
* Federal assistance for highways and air pollution control will not be withheld
where reasonable efforts are being made to submit a plan.
Q. Is all growth prohibited in nonattainment areas?
A. No. EPA addressed the problem of new sources in nonattainment areas with the Emission Offset Ruling
developed in December 1976. This allows new construction in dirty air areas if there are compensating
emmission reductions from existing sources and if all reasonable available control measures are used on
the new source. During the two years the ruling has been in effect it has worked well. A few delays
have occurred, but only until adequate offsets were found. New construction has continued to be
-------
approved in most areas of the country. The offset concept is being used by many States to provide
for new source growth in their revised Plans. In addition to using the offset concept, States may plan
for the future use of their air through providing a quantified margin for emission growth in these plans.
Such a margin is achieved by adopting requirements to reduce emissions below the level necessary to meet
the standards.
Q. Is it true that the offset concept discriminates against areas that have done the most to clean up
pollution since additional control of existing sources is more difficult?
A. This is true for just a short time until the States complete their revised plans to include all
reasonable available control measures. Once the Plans are revised, the baseline for determing offset
credit should be relatively uniform nationally.
Q. Won't EPA's Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program (PSD) adversely affect the country's
energy program and prevent construction of many new coal-fired power plants?
A. The Clean Air Act calls for keeping clean air areas clean and requires EPA to set regulations for
three classes of areas. The air quality in Class 1 areas which include almost all national and
international parks and wilderness areas must remain virtually free of new industrial pollution and
no new sources are permitted. A limited number of plants are allowed in Class II areas and a somewhat
greater number'of Class III. In no area, however, will air pollution be allowed to rise above the
health and welfare based standards.
The PSD requirements call for a preconstruction review of many major new construction that will
affect air quality. The review insures that (1) the best control technology is used to control
emissions and (2) that the new source will not exceed certain amounts of air quality deterioration
that are allowable.
The PSD process focuses on a relatively few major new and modified sources. Since it began in
mid-1975 some 200 PSD permits have been approved: only two have been denied. Permits have been issued
for some 60 utility boilers totaling 35,000 megawatts since the start of the program. The average
processing time was six months. Eight of the proposed sites are within a Class I area and one location
for two units totaling over 1,300 megawatts is within 15 miles of a Class I area in Florida. In
addition, two new refineries totaling 435,000 barrel-per-day capacity plus numerous refinery expansions
have been approved to date under the PSD program.
Q. 'What sense does it make to require PSD permits for sources that want to locate in nonattainment
areas?
A. A PSD permit is not required if a source is subject to the Emission Offset requirements and demonstrates
that it will not affect a clean air area (and this has been open for public comment). However, a source
that wants to locate in a nonattainment area should not automatically be exempt from PSD because (1) there
could be a clean air area located within the nonattainment area or (2) pollutants from sources in such
nonattainment areas could affect clean air areas by long-range transport.
Q. Don't the new source permit requirements under the Clean _Ai'_r_Act create substantial and costly delays
to new industry?
A. The experience to date simply does not indicate that there have been coslty delays. States issue
as many as 40,0000 new construction permits a year. Most are for small and medium size sources and the
review is straightforward and rapid with few delays or denials.
Under the PSD program the average processing time for permits issued as of October 1978 was less
than six months. Many of industry's concerns about future PSD permit delays center on the requirement
for one year of air quality monitoring and on provisions which allow EPA uo to one year to act on a
permit application.
In regard to the monitoring requirement, this is expected to be necessary in only a few situations.
As for the processing time, EPA has and will continue to process most PSD permits in much less than the
one year allowed. In any case it is expected that many States will be taking over the PSD program and
the PSD permit can be issued as part of the normal permitting procedures.
Those who plan new construction projects can accelerate the process by incorporating the permitting
process into the early planning stages of the project and by consulting with the appropriate EPA
Regional Office before submitting a permit application to first determine what requirements are applic-
able and what information is required.
States qenerally are implementing the Emission Offset Ruling and experience shows that most new
sources have been approved. Delays have been minor where offsets 6re from within the facility beinq
expanded or where a company has other plants in the area to provide the offsets. The most substantial
-------
delays have come where external offsets were needed. Such delays will be fewer
in the future, however, as States and industry become more familiar with this
somewhat novel concept.
&EPA
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
United States Office of
Environmental Protection Public Awareness (A-107)
Agency Washington DC 20460 .
Return mis sheet if you do NOT wish to receive this material a
or il change of address is needed D (indicate change, including zip code I
EPA ho. m 15)0-1 l«ev 10-77)
------- |