-3

5. On page 3 of your statement you indicate that you fear that nondegradation policy will limit growth and expansion in clean air areas. Would you agree with the policy that attempted to make sure that new growth left room for future growth so that the first sources in an area did not relax pollution control efforts by using less than the best available technology and thereby using up available air quality so that other sources could not come into the area?

The question presumes that some form of the proposed nondegradation policy is essential for all clean air areas. Without the benefit of further study, we disagree. Also, we do not feel qualified to address the technical accuracy of figures used for permissible incremental increases. However, a policy that requires the use of best practicable control technology for all clean air areas is certainly in order. Should the air quality for that area, after time, threaten to exceed the national standards, more severe limitations would then be in order.

6. You have said that no one wants to see Grand Canyon polluted, but you disagree with the nondegradation policy contained in EPA regulations or last year's bill.

-

How do you suggest that clean air areas be protected?

The beauty of the Grand Canyon, like other national parks, should not be spoiled by nearby industrial development resulting in unchecked air pollution. Adjacent areas which directly and significantly affect air quality of major national parks deserve special attention. Using best practicable or available control techniques, generally speaking, growth should be permitted to continue up to the minimum air quality levels. However, a specific pollution problem may require more specific solutions and restrictions, but surely our National Parks can be adequately protected without severely limiting growth and development over vast areas of the country.

7.

Last year the Committee had at least 30 studies available when it considered nondegradation. You have called for additional study. What specific studies do you recommend?

We are not familiar with the 30 studies that deal specifically with the issue of nondegradation. Our records of the Committee Hearings and markup sessions do not reflect extensive time completely dedicated to this very important subject. Indepth, independent research reports on the environmental and economic effects of nondegradation policies on the nation would be of great interest to us, and we would sincerely appreciate a list of references. However, we believe that the ramifications of nondegradation are so important that a special study commission may be necessary to fully analyze all the data.

8.

At least 26 cities cannot meet primary air quality standards for oxidant (smog) even if automobiles meet statutory emission standards. How do you suggest this problem be solved, if parking supply and vehicle use regulations and other transportation control measures are considered too serious?

-

-4

We think the smog problem caused by automobiles can be alleviated by a more innovative use of an integrated public transportation system that would utilize buses, taxis, and jitneys, each one in its most efficient and effective manner. The 1973 Federal-Aid Highway Act provided urban areas with assistance for mass transit equipment purchases, and for construction and/or designation of special bus lanes to provide rapid transit to the central business district and elsewhere as needed, bus shelters, parking areas and the like.

Again, as we stated in response to question four, we think public transportation solutions will vary from city to city. We do not think the federal government should mandate parking, vehicle use or other transportation control measures that would apply to all cities.

A control that may be "too serious" for one city may be proper in another, but each city should be able to evolve it's own best effort.

9. You have spoken of the need for growth.

--Is it not likely that preconstruction review of indirect sources as well as point sources of pollution will help preserve the air to allow for future growth?

Preconstruction review requirements may either assure the potential for future, pollution free growth, or halt or delay growth that is otherwise acceptable. Their value depends largely upon the method of implementation. A process that causes extensive project delays, increases construction costs, and postpones potential employment. Excessive red tape, as noted in the example on the last page of our statement, may even cause project abandonment.

10. Some areas suffer from non-attainment of health standards. This presents a clash between what you have called the "right to industrial expansion" and the right of citizens to air that is healthful.

--How do you recommend reconciling these concerns?

If air quality of an area is having an adverse medical effect on the health of the people in that area, then those people have the right to resist industrial expansion that would further pollute the air. At the same time, they have the right, and perhaps the obligation, to attack and eliminate the existing sources of air pollution. Federal laws, guidelines, and standards can reinforce the rights of citizens to at least a minimum air quality. However, should a community wish to attack existing polluters while at the same time continuing industrial expansion using best control technologies, it should have the right to this choice, even if its present air quality exceeds a federally imposed standard. Progress toward cleaner air is delayed, but not abandoned. The right of every citizen to have a job should be considered in the equation. These rights should be reconciled by those directly affected by the decision, not by a federal agency in Washington.

-5

11. Stationary sources contribute significantly to nitrogen oxide and hydrocarbon emissions, as do mobile sources.

Is it wise then to separate mobile sources into a separate bill? Unfortunately, what is wise is not always practically or politically expedient. An omnibus clean air bill is likely to face opposition similar to the problems experienced last year. However, it appears that the issue of mobile source related pollution can be dealt with satisfactorily and expediciously. This option should be taken.

APPENDIX

STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

NORFOLK, VIRGINIA BEACH, EASTERN CHESAPEAKE AND SUFFOLK, VIRGINIA

CENTRAL LABOR COUNCIL

LABOR

OFFICERS

Paul A. Askew

President

William R. Sykes
Vice President

Mary Ann Foutz Recording Secretary

A.F.L.-C.I.O.

NORFOLK, VIRGINIA 23502

February 10, 1977

Statement by Paul A. Askew, President

PHONE: (804) 461-1240

The Central Labor Council of Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Eastern Chesapeake and Suffolk, Virginia are deeply concerned Joseph D. Christian by what we see as the implications of the existing Clean Air Financial Sec.-Treas. Act and its administration as objectified by EPA's December 21, 1976 offset interpretive ruling on new source review.

Richard Avery Trustee James C Hovis Trustee

Trustee

Edward L. Brown, Sr.

Here, in the Tidewater Region of Virginia, we have experienced a situation in which the Clean Air Act, as administered by EPA, has stalled a major industrial facility which would bring badly needed jobs and tax revenues to our Joseph A. Stupka, Jr.region and provide an important national security function. The Hampton Roads Energy Company, an independent company which proposed to construct and operate a 175,000 b/d oil Exec. Board Memberrefinery in Portsmouth, Virginia, had been issued with the seemingly complicient knowledge of the EPA, a Virginia State Air Pollution Control Board Permit in October 1975. In April 1976 at an Army Corps of Engineers' hearing on dredging acttivities, an EPA representative of the responsible regional office testified that the refinery would be "environmentally unacceptable" because the region, along with 88% of the regions which responsibly monitor, had not attained the national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for oxidants (03).

Hampton Roads Energy Company officials were surprised by this unforewarned announcement by an agency with which they had been in constant touch for months. The Virginia State Air Pollution Control Board has stood behind it's issuance of an air permit to the Company, and has taken contest with the possibility of meeting the stringency of the NAAQS for 03 and the legality of EPA's interpretive offset ruling.

This Central Labor Council wishes to add it's voice to those asking for balance in questions of environmental quality, as reflected by the mandates of the Clean Air Act. We believe that our responsibility for our environment is of

Page 2

vital importance; however, we must stress that industrial facilities which are cooperative and responsible in outfitting their plants with the best available control technology and in accordance with the mandates of the responsible state agencies should be allowed to build. ternative is what we have

no growth.

The al

A stated objective of this administration and a large portion of this Congress is the creation of employment through private industry. This facility would create 2,500 construction jobs, 400 plus on-site jobs and 2,000 or more outside service jobs and related industry jobs. As an addition to our domestic refining capacity, the proposed Hampton Roads Energy Company would provide a needed addition to our nation's energy needs.

We therefore urge you, the Congress to take decisive action to alleviate this serious problem of stalled economic growth by addressing itself to balance between economic and energy needs in its present considerations of amendments to the Clean Air Act.

Respectfully yours,

Paul Q. Cutew

Paul A. Askew
President

PAA:gna

opeiu 334, afl-cio