Page images
PDF
EPUB

- 8

Quality Commission could recommend whether such an Amendment should be modified or continued.

If these steps are taken, it is at least possible that a sericus shortage of U.S. refinery capacity in the 1980s can be avoided.

#

ASSOCIATION

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF NOME BU LDE

National Housing Center

15TH AND M STREETS, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 TELEX 89-2600

February 9, 1977

TELEPHONE (202) 452-0200

The Honorable Edmund Muskie

Chairman

Environmental Pollution Subcommittee

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

On behalf of the 85, 000 members of the National Association of Home Builders, I am pleased to offer this statement on the proposed amendments to the Clean Air Act and ask that it be included in the record of the hearings.

The nation's home builders are primarily interested in Section 110 of the Clean Air Act. In particular we are most interested in Section 110(a)(2)(b) which grants authority to the Environmental Protection Agency to require the states to impose land use controls to meet clean air goals. As you and other members of the Subcommittee know, EPA began requiring the states to impose controls on socalled indirect sources of air pollution in those areas where the primary ambient air quality standards were not being met.

Our primary concern regarding indirect source controls is to insure that they are used as supplementary rather than primary tools for combating air pollution. Shopping centers, apartment buildings, condominiums, and other residential and commercial facilities with parking lots are not sources of air pollution. They simply attract automobiles which are primary pollutors. We feel quite strongly that indirect source controls should not be imposed unless and until the primary sources of air pollution, namely the automobiles, are controlled.

For that reason, we would like to endorse S. 253 which is identical to the bill which last year's Conference Committee reported out.

The Honorable Edmund Muskie
February 9, 1977
Page Two

This bill, we feel, strikes an excellent balance between environmental and economic concerns. A prime example of this balance is the fact that it requires EPA to take the extension of automobile deadlines into account when determining whether an area requires controls on indirect sources.

This is an equitable solution as far as we are concerned. It prevents the residential and commercial real estate industry from being unduly penalized because automobile emissions have not been reduced on schedule.

A matter of special concern for us has been the attempt, by certain regional offices of EPA, to restrict the reserve capacity of sewage treatment plants because of air quality considerations. We have been distressed at the ad hoc nature of this action, especially in the absence of any sort of legislative authorization.

Last year's conference bill provided specific guidelines for EPA to determine if air quality considerations would ever justify restricting the reserve capacity of sewage treatment plants. The conference bill did this by including sewage treatment plants in the definition of indirect sources. If a proposed sewage treatment plant would indirectly cause air pollution, it would have to secure an indirect source permit from the appropriate state agency. Once this was done and the permit was complied with, EPA would not be free to challenge the plant's proposed capacity on air quality grounds.

We urge the subcommittee to adopt S. 253 since it is a carefully balanced and progressive measure. Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on this proposed legislation.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
[blocks in formation]

MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE:

IN PLEASED AT THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO YOU ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES ON THE AMENDMENTS YOU ARE CONSIDERING TO THE CLEAN AIR ACT. AS A RESIDENT OF NEW YORK CITY, AND CHAIRMAN OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY'S CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE, I HAVE A KEEN INTEREST IN THE EXPEDITIOUS IMPROVEMENT OF OUR NATION'S AIR QUALITY. I AM ALSO PLEASED THAT THE VIEWS OF NCSL, IN THE ATTACHED POLICY RESOLUTION ON CLEAN AIR, ARE GENEPALLY CONSISTENT WITH MY OWN.

LET ME BEGIN WITH A WORD ON YOUR LEGISLATIVE STRATEGY. ONE OF THE THREE BILLS NOW BEFORE YOU WOULD DO NOTHING MORE THAN EXTEND THE DEADLINES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH AUTO EMISSION REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE 1970 CLEAN AIR ACT. I HOPE THAT IN FEELING A NEED TO ACT QUICKLY ON THIS PROBLEM, YOU WILL NOT DEFER CONSIDERATION OF THE MANY OTHER ISSUES ADDRESSED IN S. 252 AND 253, STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS NEED CONGRESSIONAL GUIDANCE ON A VARIETY OF PRESSING QUESTIONS, AND THE ENACTMENT OF A MINIMUM BILL ON AUTO EMISSIONS WOULD ONLY REMOVE AN IMPORTANT IMPETUS FOR EARLY ACTION ON A MORE COMPREHENSIVE BILL. GIVEN OUR NEED FOR CLEAR CONGRESSIONAL GUIDANCE IN ORDER TO KEEP POLICY-MAKING AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE OUT OF THE COURTS, I HOPE YOU WILL DO NOTHING TO COMPLICATE THE TIMELY RESOLUTION OF WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN A CONTENTIOUS AND PROTRACTED LEGISLATIVE EFFORT.

ANOTHER IMPORTANT REASON WHY AUTO EMISSIONS SHOULD NOT BE EXCISED FOR SEPARATE CONSIDERATION IS THAT THEY HAVE SUCH FAR-REACHING IMPACTS ON OTHER AIR QUALITY PROBLEMS. THE MORE WE LEARN ABOUT THE LONG-RANGE TRANSPORT OF AUTOMOTIVERELATED POLLUTANTS, THE MORE WE CAN APPRECIATE THAT THEY MAY OFTEN AGGRAVATE PROBLEMS IN AREAS FAR AFIELD FROM THEIR SOURCES. THIS IN TURN HAS SIGNIFICANT IMPLICATIONS FOR THE NEED FOR MORE STRINGENT MEASURES IN TRANSPORTATION CONTROL PLANNING, INDIRECT SOURCE CONTROL, AND AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE PLANNING. AUTOMOTIVELYCONTRIBUTED POLLUTION CAN BE PARTICULARLY TROUBLESOME IN AREAS THAT DO NOT MEET FEDERAL AMBIENT STANDARDS WHERE STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS MAY WISH TO ALLOW

« PreviousContinue »