Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1515747
label
Air Quality (1)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1515747
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Air Quality (1)
citationUrl
collections
James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)
James Cannon's Issues Files
subjects
Automobile emissions
Clean Air Act
Legislation
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1515747
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-09-30
month
9
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1976-04-01
month
4
year
1976
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
3758fd36fdb71743
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 1, folder "Air Quality (1)" of the James M.
Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
[undated]
STATEMENT Had BY THE PRESIDENT
WFGan
DRAFT
Both Chambers of the Congress will soon consider amendments
to the Clean Air Act of 1970. There are several sections of both
the Senate and House amendments, as reported out of the respective
committees, that I find disturbing. Specifically, I have serious
reservations concerning the amendments dealing with auto emissions
standards and prevention of significant deterioration.
In January 1975, I recommended that the Congress modify
provisions of the Clean Air Act of 1970 related to automobile
emissions. This position in part reflected the fact that auto
emissions for 1976 model autos have been reduced by 83% compared to
uncontrolled pre-1968 emission levels (with the exception of nitrogen
oxides). Further reductions would be increasingly costly to the con-
sumer and would involve decreases in fuel efficiency.
The Senate and House amendments, as presently written, fail
to strike the proper balance between energy, environmental and eco-
nomic needs. Therefore, I am announcing my support for an amendment
to be offered by Congressman John Dingell. The Dingell Amendment
reflects the position recommended by Russell Train, Administrator
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Furthermore, a recent
study by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Trans-
portation and the Federal Energy Administration indicates that the
Dingell Amendment, relative to the Senate and House positions, would
result in consumer cost savings of billions of dollars and fuel savings
of billions of gallons. Resulting air quality differences would be
negligible. I believe the Dingell Amendment best balances the critical
considerations of energy, economics and environment.
I am also concerned about the potential impact of the sections
of the Senate and House Amendments that deal with the prevention of
significant deterioration of air quality. In January 1975, I asked
the Congress to clarify their intent concerning significant deterio-
ration. As the respective Amendments are now written, new economic
uncertainties concerning job creation and capital formation would be
created. Additionally, the impact on future energy resource develop_
FORD is LIBRAR,
Digitized from Box 1 of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
2
ment might well be negative. While I applaud the effort of the
Committees in attempting to clarify this difficult issue, the
uncertainties of the suggested changes is disturbing. I have asked
the Environmental Protection Agency to supply me with the results
of impact studies showing the effect of such changes on various
industries. I am not satisfied that the very preliminary work of
that Agency is sufficient evidence on which to decide this critical
issue. We do not have the facts necessary to make proper decisions.
In view of the potentially disastrous effects on unemployment
and on energy development, I cannot endorse the changes recommended
by the House and Senate. Accordingly, I believe the most prudent
course of action would be to amend the Act to preclude application
of all significant deterioration provisions until sufficient informa-
tion concerning final impact can be gathered.
The Nation is making progress towards reaching its environmental
goals. As we continue to clean up our air and water, we must be care-
ful not to retard our efforts at energy independence and economic re-
covery. Given the uncertainties created by the Clean Air Amendments,
I ask the Congress to review this legislation further.
LIBRARY GERALD R. FORD
[ca. April 1976]
Organ
NV university
deyen
But dovt wb
now Tu know that
we win not
NUT a wish
we dr rom to tipen
Tab a long- surge an
FORD i LIBRARY 938470
Natural J mit
caun
lew an
with sul angens
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
REQUEST
April 14, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR: JIM CANNON
FROM:
GEORGE W. HUMPHREYS runs
SUBJECT:
Ozone Depletion in the Stratosphere
Attached is a memo to the President, which he
requested, on the ozone problem.
Attachment
GLARLB FORD LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
INFORMATION
WASHINGTON
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JIM CANNON
SUBJECT:
Ozone Depletion in the Stratosphere
In response to your concerns about the ozone problems,
I asked Russ Peterson to prepare the attached summary
report for you (TAB A).
You will note that Russ believes that we have an
effective and well-coordinated Federal effort that is
examining this issue. The OMB program people concur
in this assessment.
The Interagency Task Force on the Inadvertent
Modification of the Stratosphere (IMOS), co-chaired
by Chairman Stever of the Federal Council for Science
and Technology, along with Russ Peterson of CEQ,
is comprised of 15 Federal organizations covering
both research and regulatory functions. This task
force has the responsibility for studying the issue
and for making appropriate recommendations as to the
need for regulatory or legislative action.
A short-term and long-term research program has been
designed. In the proposal, additional funding will be
required -- $5.5 million for FY 1976 and $13.9 million
for FY 1977. Outyear projections are $36.2 million for
FY 1978 and $48 million each year until 1981. OMB is
now reviewing this program.
Recommendation
I suggest that you meet with Dr. Stever and Dr. Peterson
for a briefing on the current status of the task force
studies and conclusions.
E0RD & LIBRARY GERALD
TAB A
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL quality
722 JACKSON PLACE, N. W.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006
April 13, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT: Federal Actions on Fluorocarbons/Stratospheric
Ozone
Jim Cannon asked me to prepare this status report on the
"fluorocarbons/ozone problem" for you.
In June 1974 the first scientific paper was published hypothesizing
that fluorocarbons released from aerosolized products, refrigeration/
air conditioning equipment, and miscellaneous industrial uses could
damage the ozone layer in the stratosphere that protects the earth's
surface from harmful solar radiation. The hypothesis is as follows
over two billion pounds of fluorocarbons -11 and -12
(CFC1₃ and CF₂C¹₂) are released annually and are
substantially inert in the lower atmosphere
over a period extending from many years to several
decades the fluorocarbons are circulated upward to
the stratosphere where they can be broken down by
the sun
the decomposition products, particularly chlorine
atoms, may each react with many thousands of ozone
molecules thereby disturbing the natural dynamic
equilibrium of ozone
Until the emergence of the fluorocarbon hypothesis, federal involve-
ment in stratospheric modification consisted primarily of research
by NASA, NOAA, and DOT into the possible effects of SST's and the
space shuttle. In January 1975 Dr. Stever, as Chairman of the
Federal Council for Science and Technology (FCST), and I established
an Interagency Task Force on the Inadvertent Modification of the
Stratosphere (IMOS). The task force included representatives of
FORD
&
GERALD
-2-
15 federal organizations covering both the research and regulatory
aspects of the problem. IMOS's first task was to evaluate the
fluorocarbon issue and, on the basis of that assessment, recommend
an appropriate coordinated Federal response.
In June 1975 the task force published its report, Fluorocarbons and
the Environment, the first and only comprehensive review of this
subject to date. The major conclusions of the task force were:
fluorocarbon releases to the environment are a
"legitimate cause for concern";
--
rulemaking for regulating fluorocarbons should be
initiated if the study underway by the National
Academy of Sciences (expected in April 1976)
confirms the preliminary IMOS conclusions.
January 1978 was suggested as a date by which
regulations might become effective;
--
while consumer aerosol products can be regulated
under the present authority of three Federal agencies,
many important fluorocarbon uses are outside the
control of present law. IMOS recommended enactment
of toxic substances control legislation as a remedy;
research into various aspects of atmospheric
physics and chemistry, biological and climatic
effects of ozone reduction, and economic impacts
of regulation is needed to improve our current
understanding and future decision-making on this
matter.
Approximately $22. 9 million in atmospheric research relevant to
this problem will be undertaken in FY 76. NASA will take the lead
in research on measurement and instrumentation. This effort is
being complemented by industry-sponsored studies. Results
derived from this program since the June 1975 IMOS report reinforce
rather than diminish the concern over fluorocarbons.
FORD LIBRARY & GERALD
-3-
Although we are certain that increased ultraviolet radiation from
the sun is harmful, we still do not know much about its effects on
earth. Skin cancer is the best documented effect but may well be
of less consequence than agricultural, ecological, or climatic
effects. Because there is very little ongoing research into these
effects, an IMOS subcommittee - in consultation with OMB and
the appropriate agencies - developed a proposed short- and long-
term research program designed both to obtain critical information
for regulatory action and to improve our basic understanding.
Because this problem has global implications, the State Department
is working with the United Nations Environment Program, the World
Meteorological Organization, the Organization for Economic Coopera-
tion and Development, and appropriate individual countries to develop
cooperative approaches to research and, if necessary, regulation.
To date toxic substances legislation is still pending before Congress,
although some form is likely to pass this year. (Different House and
Senate versions were passed but not reconciled in each of the last
two Congresses. ) Specific fluorocarbon amendments are being
considered by both houses as amendments to the Clean Air Act.
Each would give EPA regulatory authority and require a report to
Congress in 1978. Administration witnesses have supported enact-
ment of comprehensive toxic substances legislation in lieu of an
ad hoc chemical-specific law.
The Council and FCST are continuing coordination on this matter
through the IMOS task force. A recent IMOS follow-up report on
other possible man-made modifiers of the stratosphere concludes
that, while research is needed, there is no immediate problem
either because the concern is highly speculative or because it is
based upon compounds not as yet released in quantities believed
sufficient to produce a significant effect.
This matter has attracted as much public attention in the past year
as any environmental issue. Despite the many agencies involved,
we believe that the Federal effort is well-coordinated. We would
be happy to brief you in greater detail.
Russ Peterson
Russell W. Peterson
Chairman
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 19, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
GEORGE HUMPHREYS
FROM:
JIM CANNON
SUBJECT:
Ozone
Jun
At the Cabinet meeting today, after Secretary Coleman
completed his remarks about the Concorde decision, the
President said "We ought to undertake an examination
of this ozone problem." He indicated that he had strongly
supported the SST and indicated that the ozone problem was
one of the worst things he had to deal with.
Would you discuss this with me.
Thanks.
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
2.20
INFORMATION
7600489
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JIM CANNON
SUBJECT:
Ozone Depletion in the Stratosphere
In response to your concerns about the ozone problems,
I asked Russ Peterson to prepare the attached summary
report for you (TAB A).
You will note that Russ believes that we have an
effective and well-coordinated Federal effort that is
examining this issue. The OMB program people concur
in this assessment.
The Interagency Task Force on the Inadvertent
Modification of the Stratosphere (IMOS), co-chaired
by Chairman Stever of the Federal Council for Science
and Technology, along with Russ Peterson of CEQ,
is comprised of 15 Federal organizations covering
both research and regulatory functions. This task
force hascthprtesponsibility for studying the issue
and for making appropriate recommendations as to the
need for regulatory or legislative action.
A short-term and long-term research program has been
designed. In the proposal, additional funding will be
required -- $5.5 million for FY 1976 and $13.9 million
for FY 1977. Outyear projections are $36.2 million for
FY 1978 and $48 million eash year until 1981. OMB is
now reviewing this program.
Recommendation
I suggest that you meet with Dr. Stever and Dr. Peterson
for a briefing on the current status of the task force
studies and conclusions.
GWH/pt 4-14-76
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
cc:WH files
are 2 werm
schlud Hope
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
722 JACKSON PLACE. N. W.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006
April 13, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT: Federal Actions on Fluorocarbons/Stratospheric
Ozone
Jim Cannon asked me to prepare this status report on the
"fluorocarbons/ozone problem" for you.
In June 1974 the first scientific paper was published hypothesizing
that fluorocarbons released from aerosolized products, refrigeration/
air conditioning equipment, and miscellaneous industrial uses could
damage the ozone layer in the stratosphere that protects the earth's
surface from harmful solar radiation. The hypothesis is as follows
over two billion pounds of fluorocarbons -11 and -12
(CFCl₃ and CF₂ Cl₂) are released annually and are
substantially inert in the lower atmosphere
over a period extending from many years to several
decades the fluorocarbons are circulated upward to
the stratosphere where they can be broken down by
the sun
the decomposition products, particularly chlorine
atoms, may each react with many thousands of ozone
molecules thereby disturbing the natural dynamic
equilibrium of ozone
Until the emergence of the fluorocarbon hypothesis, federal involve-
ment in stratospheric modification consisted primarily of research
by NASA, NOAA, and DOT into the possible effects of SST's and the
space shuttle. In January 1975 Dr. Stever, as Chairman of the
Federal Council for Science and Technology (FCST), and I established
an Interagency Task Force on the Inadvertent Modification of the
Stratosphere (IMOS). The task force included representatives of
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
-2-
15 federal organizations covering both the research and regulatory
aspects of the problem. IMOS's first task was to evaluate the
fluorocarbon issue and, on the basis of that assessment, recommend
an appropriate coordinated Federal response.
In June 1975 the task force published its report, Fluorocarbons and
the Environment, the first and only comprehensive review of this
subject to date. The major conclusions of the task force were:
fluorocarbon releases to the environment are a
"legitimate cause for concern";
rulemaking for regulating fluorocarbons should be
initiated if the study underway by the National
Academy of Sciences (expected in April 1976)
confirms the preliminary IMOS conclusions.
January 1978 was suggested as a date by which
regulations might become effective;
while consumer aerosol products can be regulated
under the present authority of three Federal agencies,
many important fluorocarbon uses are outside the
control of present law. IMOS recommended enactment
of toxic substances control legislation as a remedy;
research into various aspects of atmospheric
physics and chemistry, biological and climatic
effects of ozone reduction, and economic impacts
of regulation is needed to improve our current
understanding and future decision-making on this
matter.
Approximately $22. 9 million in atmospheric research relevant to
this problem will be undertaken in FY 76. NASA will take the lead
in research on measurement and instrumentation. This effort is
being complemented by industry-sponsored studies. Results
derived from this program since the June 1975 IMOS report reinforce
rather than diminish the concern over fluorocarbons.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
-3-
Although we are certain that increased ultraviolet radiation from
the sun is harmful, we still do not know much about its effects on
earth. Skin cancer is the best documented effect but may well be
of less consequence than agricultural, ecological, or climatic
effects. Because there is very little ongoing research into these
effects, an IMOS subcommittee - in consultation with OMB and
the appropriate agencies - developed a proposed short- and long-
term research program designed both to obtain critical information
for regulatory action and to improve our basic understanding.
Because this problem has global implications, the State Department
is working with the United Nations Environment Program, the World
Meteorological Organization, the Organization for Economic Coopera-
tion and Development, and appropriate individual countries to develop
cooperative approaches to research and, if necessary, regulation.
To date toxic substances legislation is still pending before Congress,
although some form is likely to pass this year. (Different House and
Senate versions were passed but not reconciled in each of the last
two Congresses.) Specific fluorocarbon amendments are being
considered by both houses as amendments to the Clean Air Act.
Each would give EPA regulatory authority and require a report to
Congress in 1978. Administration witnesses have supported enact-
ment of comprehensive toxic substances legislation in lieu of an
ad hoc chemical-specific law.
The Council and FCST are continuing coordination on this matter
through the IMOS task force. A recent IMOS follow-up report on
other possible man-made modifiers of the stratosphere concludes
that, while research is needed, there is no immediate problem
either because the concern is highly speculative or because it is
based upon compounds not as yet released in quantities believed
sufficient to produce a significant effect.
This matter has attracted as much public attention in the past year
as any environmental issue. Despite the many agencies involved,
we believe that the Federal effort is well-coordinated. We would
be happy to brief you in greater detail.
Russ Peterson
Russell W. Peterson
Chairman
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Some items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted
materials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to
these materials.
Threats to the atmosphere
Concern over preserving the ozone layer
has raised alarming questions. Among
them: Do our basic agricultural policies
pose a greater threat to health than
aerosol cans ever did?
by Michael B. McElroy
Every generation has its own historically unique vision of
is essential to life, and that atmospheric ozone is threat-
the end of the world. Children of the early Sixties grew up
ened by certain air pollutants. The problem that remains
certain that doomsday would be announced with a
is to clarify the exact biological consequences of serious
shower of nuclear fireballs. But in the Seventies, the
ozone depletion, and to figure out how to prevent such an
bomb has dropped from public consciousness, and inter-
environmental disaster.
national attention has focused on a new threat to hu-
The aspect of this problem that first caught the
manity: the spray can.
public's attention was the possibility that a drop in ozone
In the past year and a half, the possibility that chemi-
levels-and the resultant increase in the amount of ultra-
cals used in aerosol sprays could destroy the earth's
violet radiation reaching the surface of the earth-might
protective ozone layer has sparked heated debate.
cause skin cancer. Many forms of skin cancer are rela-
Spokesmen for the aerosol industry claim that their
tively innocuous and may be repaired by surgery; the link
products are virtually harmless, while many people have
between these skin diseases and exposure to ultraviolet
begun to believe (equally irrationally) that total ozone
radiation in sunlight has been well established for quite
depletion is imminent, that the sun's rays will soon fry us
some time. But very recently, new findings have begun to
all. Ozone is clearly the issue of the day. Prophets of
suggest that ultraviolet exposure may have much more
thermonuclear disaster have even begun to argue about
serious medical consequences. Testimony presented to
the effect a full-scale nuclear war could be expected to
the U.S. Senate by Dr. Thomas Fitzpatrick, Edward
have on levels of ozone worldwide.
Wigglesworth Professor of Dermatology at Harvard
At first glance, ozone seems a rather unlikely sub-
Medical School, cites convincing evidence that some of
stance to be the center of so much concentrated atten-
the more dangerous forms of skin cancer, particularly
tion. It is a very simple gas; its molecules consist of three
malignant melanoma, are also associated with solar
atoms of oxygen bound loosely together. Ozone makes up
ultraviolet radiation.
a very small fraction of the atmosphere, less than one
Malignant melanoma is a medical tragedy at least as
part in a million. But this tiny quantity of gas plays an
fatal as breast cancer. The epidemiological data show
exceedingly important role: it is the only protection the
that only 40 percent of those it strikes survive as long as
surface of the earth has against high-frequency ultra-
five years following surgery--and the disease affects
violet solar radiation, which can produce a variety of
people in their most productive years (between the ages
harmful biological effects. There is no doubt that ozone
of twenty and sixty). The incidence of malignant mela-
noma is rising rapidly in all countries at a rate of between
Opposite: In Sarah Landry's painting, the troposphere is
3 and 9 percent a year; death rates from the disease have
represented in light blue, the stratosphere in dark blue.
doubled in the last fifteen years. According to Dr. Fitz-
The ozone layer is in the lower stratosphere.
patrick, the disease is definitely linked to exposure to
sunlight, since it occurs at areas of the body that are most
Michael B. McElroy is Abbott Lawrence Rotch Professor
often exposed to ultraviolet radiation: the lower legs in
of Atmospheric Sciences at Harvard and director of the
females and the trunk in males. Whatever the specific
Center for Earth and Planetary Sciences.
reasons for this increase, malignant melanoma is defi-
FEBRUARY 1976
19
nitely on the rise. In Canada, the inci-
on atmospheric ozone levels came under
dence of the disease is increasing at a
intensive study, following the prediction
rate greater than that of any other tumor,
that the supersonic aircraft then being
except for lung cancer in males. And this
developed might emit significant concen-
increase is apparently independent of
trations of nitric oxide into the strato-
medicine's improved diagnostic capabili-
sphere. Stratospheric pollution poses
ties in this area.
special problems. The stratosphere is
If malignant melanoma is already
much more stable than the lower atmos-
spreading in the population with general-
phere we are familiar with, the tropo-
ly greater exposure to sunlight, the addi-
sphere. Pollutants deposited in the tropo-
tional effects of ozone destruction could
sphere are periodically removed from the
Unlike pollution of the lower
be dangerous indeed. Epidemiological
atmosphere by rain; it is only the contin-
atmosphere, the stratospheric-
data suggest that the incidence of skin
uous release of industrial chemicals into
pollution problem is both global
cancer increases at least 2 percent for
the lower atmosphere that keeps air
every 1-percent decrease in the amount
polluted at those altitudes. In the strato-
in scope and long-term.
of ozone in the atmosphere; a 10-percent
sphere, however, it does not rain. Gases
decrease in ozone levels, for example,
emitted into the stratosphere may stay
could be expected to cause at least a
there for five or ten years before the slow
20-percent increase in the incidence of
turning over of the atmosphere may carry
melanoma. This fact alone makes it
them down into the troposphere, where
imperative that we study the processes
rain can cleanse the system. For this
controlling levels of atmospheric ozone,
reason, one pollution source in the
and that we take steps to prevent the
stratosphere is roughly equivalent to
release of chemicals capable of destroy-
about three hundred pollution sources of
ing ozone in significant amounts.
similar magnitude in the lower atmos-
phere. Stratospheric sources of pollution,
O
like the SST, are thus intrinsically more
hazardous to the general environment.
zone is produced by the interac-
All of these factors were taken into
tion of sunlight with the oxygen in the
account in 1970 to predict the effect that
earth's atmosphere. Sunlight below a
large fleets of supersonic aircraft would
certain wavelength splits molecules of
be likely to have on the atmosphere. It
oxygen (O2) into separate oxygen atoms,
was estimated at that time that 500
which react with other molecules of O2 to
Boeing SST's flying daily would cause a
make ozone. The over-all reaction is
reduction in ozone of 3 to 5 percent. The
described by the equation
best calculations available today, using
Sunlight +20,=O, +0
methods that have been proven accurate
The reaction can also go in the other
in estimating present levels of ozone and
direction: ozone can react with single
nitric oxide, show that these figures were
oxygen atoms to re-form the oxygen
well founded and accurate. This predic-
molecules that were present initially. The
tion received a great deal of publicity in
entire process is maintained in a sort of
1970, and was a factor in the Congres-
crude equilibrium, which is disturbed
sional decision to prevent the production
when chemical pollutants are released
of supersonic commercial aircraft in the
into the air.
United States. Today, the British and
When a little bit of nitric oxide (NO) is
French have only a few Concordes
added to the atmosphere, it speeds the
(smaller aircraft than the Boeing SST,
reconversion of ozone and oxygen atoms
and sources of less pollution); and the
into molecular oxygen, through the two
amount of nitric oxide released by mili-
reactions
tary supersonic aircraft remains insig-
nificant. In short, it is unlikely that
NO₂+O=NO+O₂
supersonic aircraft will cause us all to
The net reaction of a nitric-oxide mole-
contract skin cancer in the near future.
cule with ozone and atomic oxygen gives
The banning of large fleets of SST's
nitric oxide back, ready to react with
was certainly an environmental victory;
ozone again, while two molecules of O2
but it may have been a victory over an
are formed in the process. Nitric oxide
almost imaginary enemy. The fleet of 500
very effectively catalyzes the removal of
Boeing SST's envisioned in 1970 actually
atmospheric ozone. Less than one part
represents a tremendous number of
per billion of the atmosphere consists of
planes, enough to move every man,
nitric oxide; yet this minute amount is
woman, and child in this country an
sufficient to lower the level of ozone to
average of about a thousand miles a year.
half of what it would be were nitric oxide
The need for such a huge fleet is ques-
not present.
tionable, but even if such a project were
In 1970, nitric oxide's potential effect
economically feasible, it could certainly
20
HARVARD MAGAZINE
INFORMATION
7600 489
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JIM CANNON
SUBJECT:
Ozone Depletion in the Stratosphere
In response to your concerns about the ozone problems,
I asked Russ Peterson to prepare the attached summary
report for you (TAB A).
You will note that Russ believes that we have an
effective and well-coordinated Federal effort that is
examining this issue. The OMB program people concur
in this assessment.
The Interagency Task Force on the Inadvertent
Modification of the Stratosphere (IMOS), co-chaired
by Chairman Stever of the Federal Council for Science
and Technology, along with Russ Peterson of CEQ,
is comprised of 15 Federal organizations covering
both research and regulatory functions. This task
force hascohprtesponsibility for studying the issue
and for making appropriate recommendations as to the
need for regulatory or legislative action.
A short-term and long-term research program has been
designed. In the proposal, additional funding will be
required -- $5.5 million for FY 1976 and $13.9 million
for FY 1977. Outyear projections are $36.2 million for
FY 1978 and $48 million each year until 1981. OMB is
now reviewing this program.
Recommendation
I suggest that you meet with Dr. Stever and Dr. Peterson
for a briefing on the current status of the task force
studies and conclusions.
GENAL FORD EXAST
GWH/pt 4-14-76
!
INFORMATION
7600 489
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JIM CANNON
SUBJECT:
Ozone Depletion in the Stratosphere
In response to your concerns about the ozone problems,
I asked Rues Peterson to prepare the attached summary
report for you (TAB A).
You will note that Russ believes that we have an
effective and well-coordinated Federal effort that is
examining this issue. The OMB program people concur
in this assessment.
The Interagency Task Force on the Inadvertent
Modification of the Stratosphere (IMOS), co-chaired
by Chairman Stever of the Federal Council for Science
and Technology, along with Russ Peterson of CEO,
is comprised of 15 Federal organizations covering
both research and regulatory functions. This task
force hascomprtesponsibility for studying the issue
and for making appropriate recommendations as to the
need for regulatory or legislative action.
A short-term and long-term research program has been
designed. In the proposal, additional funding will be
required -- $5.5 million for FY 1976 and $13.9 million
for FY 1977. Outyear projections are $36.2 million for
FY 1978 and $48 million eash year until 1981. OMB is
now reviewing this program.
Recommendation
I suggest that you meet with Dr. Stever and Dr. Peterson
for a briefing on the current status of the task force
studies and conclusions.
FORD & GERALD
GWH/pt 4-14-76
---
...
INFORMATION
7600489
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JIM CANNON
SUBJECT:
Ozone Depletion in the Stratosphere
In response to your concerns about the ozone problems,
I asked Russ Peterson to prepare the attached summary
report for you (TAB A).
You will note that Russ believes that we have an
effective and well-coordinated Federal effort that is
examining this issue. The OMB program people concur
in this assessment.
The Interagency Task Force on the Inadvertent
Modification of the Stratoaphere (IMOS), co-chaired
by Chairman Stever of the Federal Council for Science
and Technology, along with Russ Peterson of CSQ,
is comprised of 15 Federal organizations covering
both research and regulatory functions. This task
force hascomprtesponsibility for studying the issue
and for making appropriate recommendations as to the
need for regulatory or legislative action.
A short-term and long-term research program has been
designed. In the proposal, additional funding will be
required -- $5.5 million for FY 1976 and $13.9 million
for FY 1977. Outyear projections are $36.2 million for
FY 1978 and $48 million eash year until 1901. OMB is
now reviewing this program.
Recommendation
I suggest that you meet with Dr. Stever and Dr. Peterson
for a briefing on the current status of the task force
studies and conclusions.
GWH/pt 4-14-76
DOMESTIC COUNCIL CORRESPONDENCE PROFILE
DOC
RECD
LCG NBR
MO
DA
MO
DA
HR
02
19
02
19
16
7600489
REFERENCE:
TO:
PRES
FROM:
CANNON
WHSS
V.P.
DUNHAM
OTHER
CANNON
CAVANAUGH
DUNHAM
WHSS
OTHER
SOURCE/DESCRIPTION
OTHER CAVANAUGH EX. SEC Thempheys
SUBJECT: D.C/Fards Harvard Humphurp Magazine article, fel 1976 come, re
INITIAL ACTION OFFICER
SPECIAL CODE
ozone by Michael B. me Elroy
LEAD dept/agency;
INTERNAL ROUTING AND DISTRIBUTION
REC
ACTION REQUIRED
ACTION
CY
MEMO FOR PRES
1
)
ADVANCE CYS TO JMC
FOR
MEMO FOR JMC
(
)
DEPUTY DIR POLICY AND RG
REPLY FOR
)
DEPUTY DIR - OPERATIONS
APPROPRIATE ACTION
(
,
STAFF SECRETARY
DISTR/INITIAL ACTION ASSIGNMENT
HEALTH, SOC SCTY AND PUB. ASST.
ANY ACTION NECESSARY?
(
,
MEMO: FROM
TO:
1
)
CRIME, JUSTICE, CIVIL RTS. AND COMM.
HOUSING AND COMMT'Y AFFAIRS
JOINT MEMO
1
,
REFER TO:
(
,
ENVIRONMENT
FOR:
(
,
AGRIC. ECON DEV AND COMMERCE
CONCURRENCE
(
,
LABOR, EDUC, AND VETERANS
ENERGY AND TRANSPORTATION
COMMEN FYI INCLUDING SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS)
1
)
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT
DATES
DUE
DUE: Feb 19
5
AM/PM
LDA
AM/PM
DATE
FROM
TO
S
SUBSEQUENT ACTION REQUIRED (OR TAKEN):
CY TO
-NAN
2/23
SUBSEQUENT ROUTING/ACTIONS
10Am Qunn Humph
Cannon
Dis
(due Feb. 28,
2/23 50
Skacke
3pm)
35
X
Ret to for further
4/19 11am
Humpil
CAnnon
X
SP memo to Pres (+122 5pm)
DISPATCH
FILE RQMTS:
CY RQMTS: SEE ABOVE PLUS
EXEC SEC DISP INSTR
BY FRAD
SA
WHCF
NOTIFY
AND DATE
CA
DCES
DY
SPECIAL DISPOSITION
2-24
CRT ID
CROSS REF W/
OPEN
SUSPENSE COPY ATTACHED
CLOSE
Bubu
*U. $. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1975-590-319
CC: Humphreys
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 23, 1976
ACTION
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE PRESIDENT
THROUGH:
L. WILLIAM SEIDMAN
JAMES CANNON
FRANK ZARB
use
FROM:
WILLIAM F. GOROG
SUBJECT:
Clean Air Amendments
The Senate Committee on Public Works recently reported S. 3219, includ-
ing the Clean Air Amendments of 1976. Action by the full Senate is
expected shortly after the Easter recess. The House version of the
Clean Air Amendments, H.R. 10498, is expected to reach the House floor
in mid-May. This Memorandum outlines options regarding your response
to these Amendments.
I. BACKGROUND
In a message to the Congress on June 27, 1975, you asked that the
Clean Air Act of 1970 be amended to extend the current automobile
emission standards from 1977 to 1981. This position in part re-
flected the fact that auto emissions for the 1976 model autos have
been reduced by 85% compared with pre-1968 emission levels, and
that further reductions would be increasingly expensive to obtain.
Both Chambers of the Congress have held extensive hearings on this
matter, and the respective Committees on each side have reported
Bills that include far more stringent emissions standards than you
requested. The present law, without amendment, would establish
standards beginning in 1978 that are even more stringent than those
contained in the Senate or House Bills.
For comparative purposes, your recommended position and the Senate
and House positions are outlined as follows:
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
2
Administration
Senate Bill
House Bill
HC
CO
NOx
(units=grams/mile)
1977
1.5
15.0
3.1
1.5
15.0
2.0
1.5
15.0
2.0
1978
1.5
15.0
3.1
1.5
15.0
2.0
1.5
15.0
2.0
1979
1.5
15.0
3.1
.41
3.4
2.0*
1.5
15.0
2.0
1980
1.5
15.0
3.1
.41
3.4
1.0
.41
3.4
2.0
1981
1.5
15.0
3.1
.41
3.4
1.0
.41
3.4
.4-2.0 waiver
* 1.0 for 10% of light duty vehicles produced
In addition, both Bills contain provisions to deal with prevention
of significant deterioration of air quality due to new stationary
sources. This is in response to a District Court finding upheld by
the Circuit Court of Appeals and the U. S. Supreme Court, which
stated that significant deterioration of air quality in any region
was contrary to the language of the 1967 Air Quality Act to "pro-
tect and enhance" air quality. Both Bills would make the require-
ments of existing law more explicit in order to force States which
contain areas in which air quality levels are better than the air
quality standards, to adopt and enforce provisions to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality. In line with this need,
the Bills being considered would mandate the use of best available
control technology (BACT) for all new major emitting facilities.
The assumption is that, given the constraints of the significant
deterioration clause, continued economic growth can be gained only
if all new facilities use BACT. There are serious concerns about
the economic impact of such provisions.
The Administration, through existing EPA regulations, already has
in effect a program that allows States to increase emissions up to
air quality standard levels. This position could serve as an
alternative to the pending Congressional proposals.
Strategy considerations would suggest that attempts to provide for
for less stringent auto standards should be made on the House side.
Similarly, progress towards gaining a less restrictive significant
deterioration clause may best be made on the Senate side.
Congressman John Dingell will offer less stringent auto emissions
standards by amendment on the House Floor. The same position
narrowly failed on a vote in Committee. The Dingell-Train Amend-
ment, which reflects the position of Russell Train at the conclusion
of EPA's March 1975 Auto Emissions Suspension Hearings, is as follows:
GERALD FORD
3
HC
CO
NOₓ
(units=grams/mile)
1977
1.5
15.0
2.0
1978
1.5
15.0
2.0
1979
1.5
15.0
2.0
1980
.9
9.0
2.0
1981
.9
9.0
2.0
1982
41
3.4
Administratively
established
A recent interagency report by DOT, FEA, and EPA estimated in-
creased consumer purchase and maintenance costs ranging into
billions of dollars, and fuel economy losses ranging into billions
of gallons resulting from imposition of the current House Bill
rather than Dingell-Train. Health and air quality benefits from
the Bill's provisions are negligible. The same report also demon-
strated that the original Administration position would result in
additional savings in the billions of dollars for consumer costs
and in billions of gallons for fuel. Health and air quality
losses were measurable, but small.
Senator Frank Moss has offered an amendment on the Senate side to
submit the entire significant deterioration question to study under
a Commission established by the Bill.
II. OPTIONS
Issue #1 - Should you meet with Minority Senate Committee
leadership to discuss these issues prior to making
your decisions?
EPA recommends that you defer making decisions on
the above issues until you have had an opportunity
to discuss the questions with Senator Howard Baker
and the other Minority Members (Buckley, Domenici,
Stafford, McClure). Senator Baker feels that they
have battled hard to bring the Senate version of
the Bill to its present state from a more strin-
gent position.
Option A: Meet prior to making your decisions.
Option B: Meet after making your decisions to ask
for his support.
FORD & LIBRA GERALD
4
Recommendation: Approve Option
Concur:
Dissent:
Decision:
Option A
Option B
Issue #2 - How should the Administration confront the auto
emissions problem?
Option A: Maintain present advocacy of a
five-year freeze.
Pros:
0
Results in greater fuel savings
relative to other proposals.
0
Results in least additional consumer
costs.
Cons:
0
Is unlikely to be given serious, if any,
consideration by the Congress. Our
strongest advocate, Dingell, is unwilling
to offer this Amendment.
Option B: Shift to backing of the Dingell-Train
Amendment.
Pros:
0 Allows Administration to ally with Din-
gell in order to push for a suitable
compromise.
0 Recommended by motor vehicle manufacturers.
Cons:
0
Necessitates a change of the current
Administration position.
FCRD LIBRAR : 15
5
Recommendation: Approve Option B
Concur: EPA, Treasury, Commerce
Dissent: CEA (prefers/A, but accepts B), OMB
Decision:
Option A
Option B
Issue #3 - How should the Administration deal with the significant
deterioration problem?
Option A: Back referral of entire significant deteri-
oration section, including BACT, to study
Commission to be established by Bill.
Pros:
0
Defers action in this area until remain-
ing questions concerning effects on air
quality are resolved.
0
Prevents risk of industry being unduly
penalized by overly-stringent regulations.
Cons:
0 The potential cost and growth-restraint
problems could possibly be resolved by
amendments.
Option B: Back Amendment to Senate Bill to give States
sufficient flexibility, as in EPA's regula-
tions, to allow for continued growth of heavy
industry and increased emission levels as
long as ambient levels are not raised above
present air quality standard levels.
Pros:
0 Gives States more control over industrial
development.
0
Prevents severe restrictions at the
Federal level on industrial growth.
&. FORD LIGRE
6
Cons:
0
Was defeated in Committee; theoreti-
cally rejected in Committee Report.
Recommendation: Approve Option A with flexibility to
move to Option B if necessary.
Concur: Treasury, Commerce, OMB
Dissent: CEA, EPA
Decision:
Option A
Option B
Corollary Issues:
Issue #4 - How should the Administration deal with the production
line test provisions?
The Senate Bill requires the EPA Administrator to
"establish a test procedure" for production line test-
ing within six months of the time the Bill becomes
law. OMB prefers the existing requirement which makes
assembly line testing a discretionary action on the
part of EPA.
Option A: Delete production line test provisions
(Section 26) by Amendment.
Option B: No action.
Recommendation: Approve Option A.
Concur: OMB
Dissent:
Decision:
Option A
Option B
FORD & LIBRARY
7
Issue #5 - How should the Administration deal with Transportation
Control Planning Agency provisions?
The Senate Bill requires areawide planning agencies
modeled after areawide agencies established by the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act. OMB opposes
these new structures on the grounds that they would
be duplicative of other existing agencies receiving
Federal funds from DOT and EPA.
Option A: Delete Transportation Control Planning
Agency provisions by amendment.
Option B: No action.
Recommendation: Approve Option A.
Concur: OMB
Dissent:
Decision:
Option A
Option B
Jjm
As this issue develops, you may be faced with a Bill that is accept-
able on the auto emissions side and unacceptable regarding significant
deterioration or vice versa. For this reason, possible veto strategy
must be carefully developed. It is suggested that we withhold con-
sideration of veto strategy until we can determine more clearly what
provisions will be contained in House and Senate versions. We also
need to determine if there is any possibility of splitting the auto
emissions section for consideration as separate legislation.
It is further suggested that, in the interim, Frank Zarb indicate
that he would recommend a veto to the President in the event that the
President's position on these issues is not acted upon favorably.
Approve
Disapprove
FORD & LIBRA arvi
Copies: Cannon, Humphreys
UNITED STATES.
Original
Gorog
AGENCY
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
PROTECTION
Mashington, D.C. 20460
April 29, 1976
The Administrator
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT: Clean Air Act
I have requested an opportunity to meet with you to discuss the
Clean Air Act which, as you know, will reach the Senate floor next
week and the House floor about two weeks later.
After more than a year of work, the House Commerce and Senate
Public Works Committees have developed comprehensive amendments
which address substantially all of the issues raised by the Administra-
tion. The Republican members of the Public Works Committee (Baker,
Buckley, Stafford, Domenici, and McClure) have devoted tremendous
time and effort to the bill and support it. I therefore recommend very
strongly that you meet with them before making any decisions on an
Administration position.
Although there are a number of important issues including auto
emissions which I would like to review with you, I want to focus in
this memorandum on the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD).
You may remember that EPA issued PSD regulations in December 1974
pursuant to a decision of the Federal courts that provided very little
guidance for implementation. Following your request last year in trans-
mitting the Energy Independence Act proposal (which included Clean Air
Act amendments), both Committees have devoted major efforts to clari-
fying the law's requirements in this area in a way that takes economic
and energy as well as environmental factors into account.
PSD is a program aimed at preventing the rapid deterioration of clean
areas up to the levels of the air quality standards. These standards are
suitable objectives for the remedial abatement efforts needed in most
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
- 2 -
urban areas, largely to alleviate health impacts. They are not suitable
for, and were never intended to be, tolerable limits on the increased
pollution that will occur in some presently clean areas. The standards
cannot, for example, prevent the often dramatic, but unquantifiable, impacts
on visibility and vegetation that can occur well below the levels of the
standards.
There is a particular national concern with protecting priceless
elements of our national heritage, such as the major national parks and
wilderness areas, which are given special protection under the Senate
and House bills. Professional public opinion polls have shown well over
80 percent support among both urban and rural citizens -- for a policy
of preventing pollution of clean areas. Unfortunately, there are already
examples of markedly degraded air quality in several such areas as a
result of major facilities located nearby without fully adequate pollution
controls.
I believe it is essential, in order to safeguard sensitive national
areas and to minimize pollution increases in other clean areas, to require
that new facilities install the most effective control technologies. It is
always much more feasible, technologically and economically, to install
such technology at new facilities than to attempt retrofit after the air has
become dirty. Indeed, I am convinced that this policy, which is an
inherent part of the PSD concept, is a necessary precondition to
facilitating orderly industrial expansion and development of our energy
resources, much of which must occur in presently clean areas. A sensible
PSD program can avoid much of the citizen opposition that now surrounds
many proposed projects because of substantial pollution threats.
EPA has carried out an extensive series of industry impact studies,
focusing particularly on coal-fired power plants, refineries, oil shale
and coal gasification plants, pulp and paper mills, and smelters. These
studies convince me (and apparently the two Congressional Committees)
that a reasonable PSD program will ensure clean growth, and will by no
means lead to "no growth" as some have claimed.
A PSD program will not prevent construction of major, economically-
sized facilities in clean areas. Fairly close colocation of such facilities
is usually possible as well. Except in unusually hilly terrain, most new
industrial facilities will be able to comply with PSD requirements using
GERAAD FORD LIBRARY
- 3 -
controls that are already required under the Act. Siting in very hilly
terrain is usually possible with some added controls, although in some
cases firms will simply choose alternative sites.
Our studies of the most likely impacted industries show that coal-
fired power plants would be most substantially affected. It is significant,
then, that even the most stringent proposals for PSD would add no more
than about three percent to the utility industry's anticipated 1975-1990
capital expenditures and only slightly more than two percent to the con-
sumers' utility bills over this period.
A number of States have taken initiatives to protect clean areas.
However, one of the principal Congressional concerns has been the need
for some minimal Federal rules to ensure economic equity among the
States. Without such Federal involvement, States wishing to require
clean growth will either be dissuaded from acting or economically dis-
advantaged if a few States choose to lure new industry with the promise
of weaker air pollution controls.
As you told the Congress in 1975, and as I have urged in numerous
hearings, we need certainty and clarity with regard to PSD. Otherwise,
important industrial planning is inhibited and construction costs increased
due to delays. Industry can proceed with new construction and meet
clean air needs at the same time only if the requirements are made clear.
Senator Moss will propose an amendment to provide for a deferral and a
further study of the issue. I strongly urge against Administration support
of this amendment. The issue has been studied enough. Support for
deferral and study will simply be interpreted as Administration opposition
to addressing the problem of significant deterioration.
I do believe that the Senate version of PSD can be improved. For
example, I would support the addition of a "Class III" option which, as
in EPA's regulations, would allow States in appropriate areas to allow
deterioration up to the air quality standards levels. Furthermore, I
would welcome the provision now included in the House bill which
would exclude EPA from any role in the State designation process. My
strong recommendation is that the Administration's efforts be directed to
securing these improvements.
FORD
"MAIT
- 4 -
In conclusion, the Administration's position on significant
deterioration (generally viewed as opposition rather than a desire
for balanced clarification) and also on auto emissions is widely
regarded as anti-environmental. The pending amendments offer an
important opportunity to demonstrate that the Administration's
legitimate emphasis on economic recovery and energy development
need not and will not be pursued at the expense of environmental
goals.
Runelli Train Russell E.Train
FORD LIBRAI & RALD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
5/1/26
Biu Garas -
would you
disaus this
point with
we,
Thank
Jan
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 27, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
FROM:
GEORGE W. HUMPHREYS
out
SUBJECT:
Suggestions from Corning Glass on
Auto Emissions
Yesterday, Mr. John MacAvoy, President of Corning Glass,
urged that we establish specific limitations on emissions
at dates certain. He argued that technology could meet
any reasonable requirements provided the lead times were
adequate. He further argued that the projected fuel
economy losses and cost estimates are highly overblown.
His argument centered on the premise that no prudent
manager will invest in the R&D today if the future
11
statutory requirements are unknown. If he is not
required to develop a technology by market demands, he
will allocate his resources elsewhere.
I believe he makes an excellent point. Corning's suggestion
are attached.
Corning sells catalytic convectors to Chrysler and Ford.
Attachment.
FORD is LIBRARY 038ALD
CORNING GLASS WORKS
CORNING
1800 K STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
(202) 296-8640
April 27, 1976
Mr. George Humphreys
Associate Director
Domestic Council
Executive Office Building
Washington, D.C.
20501
Dear Mr. Humphreys:
Mrs. Foer has relayed your question about auto emission control levels to us.
Following our conversation yesterday, and understanding some of the overall
considerations that are important to you today, we propose this position:
HC
CO
NOx
'78
1.5
15.0
2.0
'79
1.5
15.0
2.0
'80
0.9
9.0
2.0
'81
0.9
9.0
1.5
'82
0.4
3.4
1.5
'83
0.4
3.4
1.0
'84
0.4
3.4
1.0
'85
0.4
3.4
0.4
This provides a firm incentive to continue the extensive and highly encouraging
industry programs to control NOx. Leaving the final NOx value at 2.0 destroys
all incentive for practical implementation of better technology. Even if the
incentive is restored a year later, the development effort would be crippled.
Scientific teams are dispersed to other jobs. Some companies withdraw from the
program altogether. Starting again would be exceedingly costly in time and money.
Concern about NOx and its carcinogenic implications has been steadily increasing.
There is considerable reason to expect that it will be a greater worry in future.
When the control technology is demanded, we should have it available.
Very truly yours,
Government John R. Blizard Affairs RBlyad Manager
JRB/so
FORD & LIBRARI SERALD
CORNING GLASS WORKS
CORNING
1800 K Street N. W., Washington, D.C. 20006
WASHINGT
THE WHITE HOME
Mr. George Humphreys
RECE ID SECURITY UNIT
1976 APR 27 PM 2 20
Associate Director
Domestic Council
Executive Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20501
BY HAND
WHITE HOUSE MAIL
RECEPTION & SECURITY
APR 27 1976
Processed by:
5
Environment
and
THE WHITE HOUSE
cc: Humphaps
WASHINGTON
May 10, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD B. CHENEY
THROUGH:
L. WILLIAM SEIDMAN
FROM:
WILLIAM F. GOROG
SUBJECT:
EPA Actions Regarding Clean Air Act
This Memorandum is in response to your request for a review of recent
EPA actions regarding the Clean Air Act.
I asked OMB to review both the EPA study circulated at the Senate and
Administrator Train's Memorandum to the President regarding the Clean
Air Act. Their response to each of these issues are attached as
Tabs A and B.
The material which the EPA submitted to the Senate was in response to
a letter from Senator Muskie asking for an EPA Report dealing with
the significant deterioration issue. The speed of their response
(one day) is indicative of the fact that there was already a Report
in preparation, and that the Senate Committee Staff was aware of its
existence.
OMB Circular A 19 clearly sets forth the fact that the agency should
submit this type of report to OMB for clearance before they are
transmitted outside the Executive Branch.
It is important to note the last paragraph of OMB's comments on this
matter, however. This indicates that although this particular action
was a violation of the intent of the OMB directive, EPA has an above
average record of compliance with their procedures in other legisla-
tive areas; and that this action is not representative of their normal
way of doing business.
I am concerned to a greater extent about general representations of
the EPA in dealing with matters of the Clean Air Act. Their spokes-
men tend to be advocates of an environmental position, rather than
technical specialists who deal even-handedly with the facts.
FORD & LIBRARY GENALD
2
The second OMB Memorandum dealing with Administrator Train's
recommendations to the President clearly indicates this problem.
This letter, and also the material which was supplied to the Senate
is very vague on the issues of technology and economics. As an
example, the letter to the President indicates that the EPA has
completed studies on impact of significant deterioration on indust-
ries such as coal-fired power plants, refineries, oil shale and
coal gassification plants, pulp and paper mill and smelters. When
I read this statement, I wrote a Memorandum to Russell Train asking
him to immediately forward copies of those studies so that we might
have the information for our use in advising the President. The
studies have not been forthcoming, and I suspect that they do not
exist.
At this point, I think we must be extremely careful in our handling
of the meeting which Russell Train has requested with the President.
I am sure that there will be a strong presentation of the environ-
mentalist point of view. While we need to be even-handed in present-
ing the President with all sides of the issue, I think it is
important that we insist that EPA backs up its presentation with
specific facts, rather than broad generalities, and that we make
sure that Jim Lynn and Frank Zarb are in attendance.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF management AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20503
May 5, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR MR. GOROG
I am responding to your request that we review the materials
recently submitted by EPA to the Senate with respect to the
significant deterioration issue and to determine if the
Agency complied with existing guidance with respect to the
clearance of Agency reports to Congress.
OMB Circular A-19 sets forth the procedures for the coordi-
nation and clearance of Agency recommendations on proposed,
pending and enrolled legislation.
The germane section of A-19, which applies to the issue at
hand, is Section 7 which states:
Clearance of agency proposed legislation and reports.
The originating agency shall submit to OMB for clearance,
proposed legislation or reports before they are transmitted
outside the executive branch. Agencies should not commit
themselves to testify on pending bills or to submit reports
or proposed legislation to Congress on a time schedule
which does not allow orderly coordination and clearance
to take place. To facilitate congressional action on
Administration proposals and to forestall hasty, last-
minute clearance requests on pending legislation, agencies
should plan their submissions to OMB on a time schedule
which will permit such coordination and clearance to take
place
The important phrase is "Agencies should not submit reports
to Congress in a time schedule which does not allow orderly
coordination and clearance to take place. "
The above phrase, and the remainder of A-19 is subject to
degrees of interpretation by different agencies. OMB moni-
tors the legislative clearance process very closely and
advises the agencies of when they cross the line.
During the past several years, there have been several
FORD
instances where, in our opinion, EPA violated the intent
&
GERALD
2
of A-19. Consequently, last summer we began monitoring EPA's
legislative activities on the Clear Air Act very closely. In
our opinion, the most recent violation of the intent A-19
occurred last August.
Senate Working Draft #2 (July 11, 1975)
OMB made repeated attempts to get copies of this from the
agency. The Agency stated it did not have final copies
and would get us one shortly. After several delay tactics
we got a copy from other sources and we had every reason
to believe the Agency had a copy but we could not prove
it.
9
This lead to the OMB requirement that the Agency would give
OMB .weekly briefings on congressional activities related
to Clear Air Act.
Senate Working Draft #3 (July 23)
The Agency failed to provide us with a copy. Although
OMB-EPA staff were meeting weekly on this issue, EPA
issued a report entitled "EPA Preliminary Staff Comments"
on August 8 without OMB clearance.
In response to concerns expressed by OMB, Administrator Train
issued a memorandum to all Assistant Administratorsto inter-
pret more specifically the intent of Circular A-19. A copy
of this memo is appended hereto. In part the memo stated:
"A recent failure on our part to do this---while possibly
explainable in terms of technical interpretation of A-19
nevertheless has caused misunderstanding between us and the
Office of Management and Budget. I look to the Office of
Legislation and to Bob Ryan to assure that in all cases there
is appropriate coordination with OMB on views and comments
that we may wish to make on proposed or pending legislative
issues.
"
EPA
The Office of Legislation advises us that they cleared the 4/26/76
report. They state that per previous agreement on the
significant deterioration issue only that they were allowed
to differ from the Administration's position. They also
argue that their study is soley a technical study.
With respect to the statements I made in the EPA report
I
it is an accurate statement of previous EPA studies on
this subject.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
3
However, had the document gone through a formal OMB clearance
process particularly at this sensitive time, it is highly
unlikely that we would have cleared one of the principal
conclusions as stated, namely:
The Senate significant deterioration proposal will not
prevent the construction of major, economically sized
industrial facilities. Rather, some sources may have to
employ different air pollution control strategies such as
further control of sulfur dioxide emissions, relocation
at an alternative site construction of taller stacks or
smaller plants, etc.
We would have emphasized that the cost of locating powerplants
at alternative sites and the cost of added pollution abate-
ment equipment might prohibit the development of energy
sources at alternative sites.
Finally, we would like to state that EPA has without doubt
the best record of any Agency with which we deal with respect
to submitting its proposed regulations through interagency
review. Furthermore, the current and past problems we have
had with respect. to legislative activities related to the
Clean Air Act are not representative of the agency's above
average compliance with OMB Circular A-19 in other legislative
areas.
James L! Mitchell
Associate Director
FORD
LIB
SERALD
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
'BJECT:
OMB Circular A-19 Procedures and Agency
DATE:
Comments on Pending Legislation
FROM:
Administrator
TO:
Assistant Administrators
I want to emphasize that we must insure that all EPA
comment provided to the Congress on proposed legislation
is not only consistent with the letter of OMB Circular A-19
(attached), but also in the spirit of the guidance provided
in that document. A recent failure on our part to do this--
while possibly explainable in terms of a technical interpretation
of A-19--nevertheless has caused misunderstanding between us and
the Office of Management and Budget. Such misunderstandings can
only impede the execution of our mission, and must be avoided.
I consider OMB to be an active and welcome partner in the
execution of our mission. We are a part of the Administration
and it is vital that we work through the established channels
to provide to the Congress a coherent Administration view on
controversial issues. It must be obvious to everyone that a
failure to do SO can only result in increasingly limited
opportunity to comment on the positions that may be proposed
by other agencies on issues of interest to us; the OMB coordinatic
mechanism is as much an assurance that our views will be heard
as it is an opportunity for others to comment on our views.
Let me quote a key paragraph from Circular A-19:
"Clearance of agency proposed legislation and
reports. The.originating agency shall submit to OMB
for clearance, proposed legislation or reports before
they are transmitted outside the executive branch.
Agencies should not commit themselves to testify on
pending bills or to submit reports or proposed
legislation to Congress on a time schedule which
does not allow orderly coordination and clearance
to take place. To facilitate congressional action
on Administration proposals and to forestall hasty,
last minute clearance requests on pending legislation,
agencies should plan their submissions to OMB on a
time schedule which will permit such coordination and
clearance to take place. Particular care should be
given to ensuring that draft legislation to carry out
Presidential legislative recommendations is submitted
promptly to OMB with the maximum possible allowance
for analysis and review.'
FORD
ail
EPA Form 1320-6 (Rev. 6-72)
2
I believe we can assure adherence to Circular A-19
and still provide the assistance the Congress needs in the
development of legislation. I look to the Office of
Legislation and to Bob Ryan to assure that in all cases
there is appropriate coordination with OMB on views and
comments that we may wish to make on proposed or pending
legislative issues. But Bob needs your help, for in many
cases there is need for technical backup to the Office of
Legislation to make such coordination effective. For that
reason, I ask you and your staffs to give a high priority
to Bob's requests for assistance in briefing OMB on technical
issues, and for assuring that we comply with both the letter
and the spirit of A-19. In addition, I have asked Bob Ryan
to make sure that OMB is given regular status reports on our
legislative initiatives and legislative developments affecting
our jurisdiction and responsibilities, including necessary
congressional documents, drafts and committee reports.
I intend to raise this matter at an upcoming Administrator's
staff meeting for further discussion.
Attachment
FORD LIBRAR & GERALD
PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE
CENHO
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
STATES
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
MAY 10 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR MR. GOROG
From: James L. Mitchell
Subject: Clean Air Act - Administrator Train's Memorandum
The following comments are in response to your request
for our views on the Memorandum to the President from
Administrator Train on significant deterioration.
1. The national ambient air quality standards are
designed, with an adequate margin of safety, to
protect public health and welfare. Questions
of visibility, while perhaps important in selec-
ted locations, are entirely different, and not
particularly germane to the purpose of the stan-
dards.
2. Administrator Train is somewhat vague on the issue
of control technology. His terminology "most
effective control technologies" is considerably
different than the term utilized in the Senate
version of "best available control technology."
We see no necessity to alter the current Clean Air
Act language, which, via the new source performance
standards section, requires "the application
of the best system of emission reduction (taking
into account the cost of achieving such reduction)
that has been adequately demonstrated. " We
do not see the necessity, in areas already cleaner
than national standards, to further limit the
choice of control strategies as long as the stan-
dards are not violated. Any changes such as sug-
gested in the Senate amendments imply a more
restrictive approach than currently utilized.
3. It is highly questionable whether the inclusion of
"a sensible PSD program" can avoid much of the
citizen opposition that now surrounds particular
projects. The entire point is conjectural and
misleading.
FORD & LIBRARY
2
4. The memorandum is also misleading in the manner
in which economic analysis is presented. The
statements are over-simplified. To date, there
have been no analyses made of the combined effect
on development in this country of industry by
industry impacts resulting from significant de-
terioration provisions. While it is feasible to
re-locate or to utilize alternative control mechan-
isms, it is not clear that alternative approaches
are economically viable.
5. While the Administrator recommends the adoption of
a Class III, he does not emphasize just how impor-
tant that concept is for overall industrial growth.
EPA's own analysis indicates that a Class III pro-
vision becomes critical to prevent significant
restrictions and or altered development in the post-
1980 period. Also Class III provisions will be
required for large scale energy and industrial
development at a single location and for copper
smelters and gasification plants in hilly terrain.
The issue of a Class III is considerably more
important than simply to give states more flexi-
bility.
We disagree with the recommendation made by Administrator
Train to oppose the Moss amendment. Although we prefer
the elimination of the significant deterioration sections
from the Senate amendments, we believe that enough work
has not been done to inter-relate the various industry by
industry impact studies. That issue alone, in addition
to the gaps that still remain in the analysis, would be
reason enough to support a further study period.
UNITED
STATES.
AGENCY
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
PROTECTION
Washington, D.C. 20160
April 29, 1976
The Administrator
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT: Clean Air Act
I have requested an opportunity to meet with you to discuss the
Clean Air Act which, as you know, will reach the Senate floor next
week and the House floor about two weeks later.
After more than a year of work, the House Commerce and Senate
Public Works Committees have developed comprehensive amendments
which address substantially all of the issues raised by the Administra-
tion. The Republican members of the Public Works Committee (Baker,
Buckley, Stafford, Domenici, and McClure) have devoted tremendous
time and effort to the bill and support it. I therefore recommend very
strongly that you meet with them before making any decisions on an
Administration position.
Although there are a number of important issues including auto
emissions which I would like to review with you, I want to focus in
this memorandum on the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD).
You may remember that EPA issued PSD regulations in December 1974
pursuant to a decision of the Federal courts that provided very little
guidance for implementation. Following your request last year in trans-
mitting the Energy Independence Act proposal (which included Clean Air
Act amendments), both Committees have devoted major efforts to clari-
fying the law's requirements in this area in a way that takes economic
and energy as well as environmental factors into account.
PSD is a program aimed at preventing the rapid deterioration of clean
areas up to the levels of the air quality standards. These standards are
suitable objectives for the remedial abatement efforts needed in most
FORD LIBRE
- 2 -
urban areas, largely to alleviate health impacts. The are not suitable
for, and were never intended to be, tolerable limits On the increased
pollution that will occur in some presently clean areas. The standards
cannot, for example, prevent the often dramatic, but unquantifiable, impacts
on visibility and vegetation that can occur well below the levels of the
standards.
There is a particular national concern with protecting priceless
elements of our national heritage, such as the major national parks and
wilderness areas, which are given special protection under the Senate
and House bills. Professional public opinion polls have shown well over
80 percent support -- among both urban and rural citizens -- for a policy
of preventing pollution of clean areas. Unfortunately, there are already
examples of markedly degraded air quality in several such areas as a
result of major facilities located nearby without fully adequate pollution
controls.
I believe it is essential, in order to safeguard sensitive national
areas and to minimize pollution increases in other clean areas, to require
that new facilities install the most effective control technologies. It is
always much more feasible, technologically and economically, to install
such technology at new facilities than to attempt retrofit after the air has
become dirty. Indeed, I am convinced that this policy, which is an
inherent part of the PSD concept, is a necessary precondition to
facilitating orderly industrial expansion and development of our energy
resources, much of which must occur in presently clean areas. A sensible
PSD program can avoid much of the citizen opposition that now surrounds
many proposed projects because of substantial pollution threats.
EPA has carried out an extensive series of industry impact studies
focusing particularly on coal-fired power plants, refineries, oil shale
and coal gasification plants, pulp and paper mills, and smelters. These
studies convince me (and apparently the two Congressional Committees)
that a reasonable PSD program will ensure clean growth, and will by no
means lead to "no growth" as some have claimed.
A PSD program will not prevent construction of major, economically-
sized facilities in clean areas. Fairly close colocation of such facilities
is usually possible as well. Except in unusually hilly terrain, most new
industrial facilities will be able to comply with PSD requirements using
FORD
is
- 3 -
controls that are already required under the Act. Siting in very hilly
terrain is usually possible with some added çontrols, although in some
cases firms will simply choose alternative sites.
Our studies of the most likely impacted industries show that coal-
fired power plants would be most substantially affected. It is significant,
then, that even the most stringent proposals for PSD would add no more
than about three percent to the utility industry's anticipated 1975-1990
capital expenditures and only slightly more than two percent to the con-
sumers' utility bills over this period.
A number of States have taken initiatives to protect clean areas.
However, one of the principal Congressional concerns has been the need
for some minimal Federal rules to ensure economic equity among the
States. Without such Federal involvement, States wishing to require
clean growth will either be dissuaded from acting or economically dis-
advantaged if a few States choose to lure new industry with the promise
of weaker air pollution controls.
As you told the Congress in 1975, and as I have urged in numerous
hearings, we need certainty and clarity with regard to PSD. Otherwise,
important industrial planning is inhibited and construction costs increased
due to delays. Industry can proceed with new construction and meet
clean air needs at the same time only if the requirements are made clear.
Senator Moss will propose an amendment to provide for a deferral and a
further study of the issue. I strongly urge against Administration support
of this amendment. The issue has been studied enough. Support for
deferral and study will simply be interpreted as Administration opposition
to addressing the problem of significant deterioration.
I do believe that the Senate version of PSD can be improved. For
example, I would support the addition of a "Class III" option which, as
in EPA's regulations, would allow States in appropriate areas to allow
deterioration up to the air quality standards levels. Furthermore, I
would welcome the provision now included in the House bill which
would exclude EPA from any role in the State designation process. My
strong recommendation is that the Administration's efforts be directed to
securing these improvements.
HALO FORD
- 4 -
In conclusion, the Administration's position on significant
deterioration (generally viewed as opposition rather than a desire
for balanced clarification) and also on auto emissions is widely
regarded as anti-environmental. The pending amendments offer an
important opportunity to demonstrate that the Administration's
legitimate emphasis on economic recovery and energy development
need not and will not be pursued at the expense of environmental
goals.
Russell E. Train
The NAS has designated two groups to
New Questions Arise
examine the fluorocarbon issue. A panel on
atmospheric chemistry, headed by Herbert
On. Aerosols' Effect
S. Gutowsky. a professor at the University
of Illinois, will assess the amount of ozone
On the Ozone Shield
depletion. Its findings will be critical to the
NAS's conclusions. A second group. the
Committee on Atmospheric Impacts. headed
by John W. Tukey. a professor at Princeton
Report That Could Determine
University and employe of Bell Telephone
Laboratories Inc., a unit of American Tele-
If Fluorocarbons Should
phone & Telegraph Co., will assess the
Be Restricted Is Delayed
health and environmental effects. Both re-
ports are expected to reach the government
by early summer.
By a WALL STREET JOURNAL Staff Reporter
WASHINGTON New scientific uncer-
tainties have arisen over the effect of aero-
may 10, 1976
sols on the earth's protective ozone shield.
was there Journal
The uncertainties are delaying for sev-
eral months a National-Academy of Sciences
Cannon
w This adds some
daty to comment my have to
problem but,
many that" me
* a crisis GougsH. /
5/12/76
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Environment
CC: Humphreys
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
air file Quality
May 21, 1976
ADMINISTRA TIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
WILLIAM F. GOROG
FROM:
JAMES E. CONNOR JEC
SUBJECT:
Clean Air Amendments
The President reviewed your memorandum of May 11, 1976 on the
above subject and approved the following:
Issue #1 - Should you meet with Senate Minority Members to discuss
these issues prior to making your decisions?
Option B - Meet with Minority group representative of
various positions before making your decisions.
:
Issue #2 - How should the Administration confront the auto emissions
pr oblem ?
Option B - Shift to backing of the Dingell Amendment.
Issue #3 - How should the Administration confront the question of
significant deterioration?
Option A - Adhere to the Administration's original position
that the Clean Air Act should be amended by
deleting the significant deterioration provision.
The further option of flexibility to move to B or C.was approved.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
-2-
Issue #4 - How should the Administration deal with the Production
Line Test/Selective Enforcement Audit provisions?
Option A - Delete production line test provisions by amendment,
and instruct EPA not to authorize Selective Enforce-
ment Audits.
Issue #5 - How should the Administration deal with Transportation
Control Planning Agency (TCPA) provisions?
Option A - Delete Transportation Control Planning Agency
provisions totally, by amendment.
Please follow-up with appropriate action.
cc: Dick Cheney
L. William Seidman
James E. Cannon
Frank Zarb
Jerry Jones
Environment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Jun Paul r
May 22, 1976
O'Neill
MEMORANDUM TO:
DICK CHENEY
FROM:
You should be aware that Congressman Juck Jim Broyhill called in
JACK
MARSH
reference to Administration support for the Dingell/Broyhill
amendment to the Clean Air Act. This is the emmissions
standard which is more desirable insofar as we're concerned. Al-
though it is not everything we want, it is preferable to other proposed
amendments. It was also a position supported earlier by Russell
Train. Broyhill advises that there are some elements undercutting
the Dingell/Broyhill position on Capitol Hill because of parochial
interests that seek more rigid standards. He advised me on the
phone that some representatives of EPA were backing off the
Administration position.
Jim requested the President read the Riot Act to those in the
Administration involved so that everyone is aboard, particularly
Russell Train. Also, Jim feels downstream a statement by
Passkey on the Administration position in support of Dingell/Broyhill
would be helpful.
I mentioned the above briefly to Passkey last evening, and he
wants to take steps through Domestic Council and other key players
in this building to get a united front as well as keep Train and
EPA on track. This would be the first step, and there is no
rush for his statement prior to his return from the West Coast.
I have shown this message to Jim Cavanaugh, and we will keep
you advised.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Environment
air
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 26, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
WILLIAM F. GOROG WFG
SUBJECT:
Meeting with Senator Howard Baker concerning
Clean Air Amendments, 2:30 p.m., Thursday,
May 27, Oval Office.
PURPOSE
To meet with Senator Howard Baker, ranking Minority member,
Senate Public Works Committee, in order to discuss the
significant deterioration and auto emissions sections
of the Clean Air Amendments.
PARTICIPANTS
Senator Howard Baker
Mr. Bailey Guard, Minority Clerk, Senate Public Works
Committee.
William Gorog, Jim Cannon, Max Friedersdorf
FORD i GERALD LIBRARY
BACKGROUND and TALKING POINTS
Senator Howard Baker and the other four Minority members
of the Senate Public Works Committee are essentially
in agreement with the Senate Clean Air Amendments as they are
now written. Your decisions, as reflected in the Clean Air
Amendments options paper of May 11, indicate differences
of opinion with the Senate Minority members, particularly
regarding signification deterioration and auto emissions.
You indicated a desire to discuss your positions with
Baker, while reserving to your own judgment whether or not
you should inform him of your decisions at this meeting.
A. Significant Deterioration:
In 1972, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of a lower
court that significant deterioration of air quality in
-2-
any region of the country was contrary to the intent of the
1967 Air Quality Act to "protect and enhance" air quality.
As a result of this decision, EPA promulgated regulations
allowing the States to designate regions with air quality
better than national standards in one of three categories:
Class I -- pristine areas when practically any
air quality deterioration would be
considered significant;
Class II -- areas where deterioration in air quality
that would normally accompany moderate
growth would not be considered signi-
ficant;
Class III -- areas where concentrated industrial
growth is desired, and where deterior-
ation of air quality to National Ambient
Air Quality Standards levels would
be allowed.
EPA originally designated all areas of the country as
Class II, effective January 6, 1975. The States have
been allowed in the intervening period to redesignate
areas either as Class I or as Class III. In addition, the
Federal Land Managers (Secretaries of Agriculture of
Interior). have been allowed to propose redesignation
of federal lands under their jurisdiction to Class I.
To date, there have been no redesignations by States
or by Federal Land Managers.
Under current EPA regulations, the States notify the
EPA of all areas exceeding national standards for sulfur
dioxide and total suspended particulates. All other
areas become classified as Class II. Redesignations can
be made as outlined above. The States are then responsible
for filing State Implementation Plans to indicate how
they will act to prevent significant deterioration.
Upon receipt of EPA approval of the overall plan, the
States are responsible for proper implementation. EPA,
however, assures this through the use of a source-by-source
preconstruction review system, with which development
plans for industrial facilities in any of the specified
source categories are reviewed to determine if the source
would violate any of the appropriate increments.
Emission limitations are currently based on New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) for those sources covered
by a standard. In other cases, limitations are set at
the discretion of the EPA Administrator, after consider-
ation of costs, siting, and fuel availability.
FORD & LIBRAK GERALD
In summary, with the present system, EPA has tremendous
potential authority, with flexibility in the use of such
authority. Costs and feasibility are major considerations
in the determination of emission limitations. Finally,
Federal Land Managers provide advisory comment only in
connection with the preconstruction review system.
Changes Contemplated in Senate Bill
Under the Senate Bill, the States would submit to EPA
lists of areas with air quality better than current stand-
ards. Each State would then submit a State Implementation
Plan which categorizes these areas into Class I or Class
II. National Parks, International Parks, National Wilder-
ness Areas, and National Memorial Parks greater than
5,000 acres must be designated Class I. This provision
would presently cover 131 areas, constituting 1.3% of
the total U.S. land area.
States are given the option to redesignate Class II areas
to Class I status, however, mandatory Class I areas may
not be redesignated. Additionally, States would have
to require each new major emitting source to apply for
a permit before construction. Such permits would be
granted only if:
1) Best Available Control Technology (BACT) is
used, as determined by the State on a case-by-case
basis, taking into account energy, environmental,
and economic impacts and costs. (In no case
could the application of BACT result in emissions
exceeding those allowed under NSPS).
2) In the case of a protest notice from the Federal
Land Manager, the Governor of another State,
or the EPA, the source demonstrates to the State
that the emissions from that source would not
contribute to a significant change in air quality.
In addition, the State must deny a permit, regardless
of increment violation, if the Federal Land Manager can
demonstrate to the State that emissions from a source
will have an "adverse impact" on air quality. Conversely,
if the Federal Land Manager is convinced that a source
will have no adverse impact, regardless of increment
violations, the State may issue a without further review
by EPA.
FORD & LIBRARY RALD
-4-
Major Differences
The Senate Bill does not provide for Class III designations,
which would allow for deterioration up to National Ambient
Air Quality Standards.
The Senate Bill provides for more stringent control technology,
mandating the use of BACT. The Bill is unclear in this
area, and seems to include some contradictory language.
The Committee Report states that the Bill "requires that
large new sources use the best available technology to
minimize emissions, determined by each State on a case-by-
case basis. BACT is then defined to mean:
"an emission limitation based on the maximum
degree of reduction of each pollutant subject
to regulation under this Act emitted from
or which results from any major emitting facility,
which the permitting authority, on a case-by-case
basis, taking into account energy, environmental,
and economic impacts and other costs, determines
is achievable
However, another section of the Bill states that the
EPA Administrator or a Governor may seek injunctive relief
to prevent permit issuance or facility construction if
such facility "does not conform to the requirements"
of BACT provisions. This appears to leave substantial
control authority in the hands of the EPA Administrator,
should he wish to override the decision of a State on
what constitutes BACT.
Finally, the Senate Bill would mandatorily establish 131
Class I areas, removing voluntary authority to do so from
the States.
Your Position
In your decision on the significant deterioration question,
you indicated a desire to adhere to the Administration's
original position that the Clean Air Amendments should
be amended by deleting the significant deterioration
provision. You further indicated the desire to retain
flexibility to move to support of the Moss Study Amendment
or to support of the Senate provision if Class III areas
are allowed.
The Moss Amendment would authorize submission of the
significant deterioration/BACT question to a one year
study by an Air Quality Commission established by the
Bill. During the one year period, the existing EPA regul-
ations described previously would remain in effect.
-5-
Senator Baker's Position
In drafting the air pollution control strategy outlined
in the 1970 Clean Air Act, the Congress gave careful
consideration to the need for improving air quality in
more polluted areas. Consideration of a strategy for
the protection of cleaner air regions was largely over-
looked. Senator Baker feels the Committee has worked
diligently to develop a suitable strategy for dealing
with the problem of significant deterioration in cleaner
air regions. The Committee held 45 markup sessions on
the Clean Air Amendments during this and the previous
session of Congress. Much of this time was spent dealing
with the significant deterioration provisions.
Baker suggests that the Senate Bill is preferable to the
existing regulations for several reasons:
1) The Committee Bill limits mandatory Class I desig-
nations to major parks and wilderness areas, while
EPA regulations allow any federal area to be
designated Class I at the sole discretion of the
Federal Land Managers.
2) The Committee Bill rejected arbitrary buffer zones
(areas around Class I regions where development
would be predictably curtailed to protect the
Class I sector) around Class I areas, while the EPA
regulations effect buffer zones. In addition, the
Committee Bill bases buffer protection of Class I areas
on a case by case basis.
3) The Committee Bill would turn the EPA permit program
over to the States with direction that economic and
energy impacts be given appropriate consideration.
Discussion
While Senator Baker claims that the above considerations
are valid, and that the Senate Bill will allow more
State control, greater flexibility, and clarity of applic-
ation, the Administration's analysis of the Bill indicates
contrary results.
First, State control over Class I designations would
be decreased by the mandatory imposition of some Class
I designations. To date, no federal lands have been
voluntarily redesignated to Class I by the Federal Land
Managers or by the States. The Senate Bill would auto-
matically impose on the States designation of 131 Class
I, amounting to 1.3 percent of total U.S. land area.
-6-
Second, the Committee Bill would require a programmatic
approach to buffer zones, contrary to Senator Baker's
statement. For example, EPA has already estimated probable
buffer distances for various types of industrial facilities.
Third, while the permit authority would be turned over
to the States, State authority would be diminished due to
the removal of the right to designate areas to Class III.
This removes from the States the authority to allow
deterioration up to the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. Furthermore, the mandated use of BACT, as
decided by the States on a case by case basis, still
requires that regardless of economic or energy con-
siderations, emissions could not exceed those allowed
under the current New Source Performance Standards.
The statements of numerous Governors echo the concern over
the contention that the States would receive greater
authority and flexibility under the Bill. This concern
has been raised most often regarding the difficulity
in determining the effects of buffer areas, and the lack
of flexibility to provide for less stringent emissions
limitations where needed.
Perhaps the most compelling argument against the imposition
of the changes contemplated in the Bill arises from the
uncertainty of its final effects on industrial growth.
By the estimation of OMB, the Bill is more restrictive
than current EPA regulations. There are serious
concerns within the Administration and industry alike
that the bill would have adverse effects on future economic
development, and that it bears a close relationship to
Federal land use planning.
As examples, Interior is concerned about the adverse
impact on new surface mining operations; and FEA expects
adverse effects on the development of refineries, synthetic
fuel plants, and electric power generating facilities.
Various sectors of industry, in addition to those mentioned
above, believe the impact of the Bill would be such as
to impose serious constraints on job creation and capital
expansion.
Tab A includes talking points reflecting the above.
-7-
B. Auto Emissions
In a message to the Congress on June 27, 1975, you asked
that the Clean Air Act of 1970 be amended to extend the
current automobile emission standards from 1977 to 1981.
This position in part reflected the fact that auto emissions
for the 1976 model autos have been reduced by 83% compared
with uncontrolled pre-1968 emission levels (with the
exception of NOx), and that further reductions would
be increasingly expensive to obtain. Both Chambers of
the Congress have held extensive hearings on this matter,
and the respective Committees on each side have reported
Bills that include far more stringent emissions standards
than you requested. The present law, without amendment,
would establish standards beginning in 1978 that are
even more stringent than those contained in the Senate
or House Bills.
In light of legislative considerations and evidence compiled
by EPA, as well as DOT-EPA-FEA in a joint study, you
decided to shift to backing of an amendment to be offered
by Congressman John Dingell on the House floor. The
same position narrowly failed on a vote in Committee.
The Dingell Amendment, which reflects the position of
Russell Train at the conclusion of EPA's March 1975 Auto
Emissions Suspension Hearings, compares to the Senate
position as follows:
DINGELL ADMENDMENT
SENATE BILL
HC
CO
NOx
HC
CO
NOx
(units=grams/mile)
(units=grams/mile)
1977
1.5
15.0
2.0
1.5
15.0
2.0
1978
1.5
15.0
2.0
1.5
15.0
2.0
1979
1.5
15.0
2.0
.41
3.4
2.0*
1980
.9
9.0
2.0
.41
3.4
1.0
1981
.9
9.0
2.0
.41
3.4
1.0
1982
.41
3.4
Waiver
(*1.0 for 10% of light duty vehicles produced)
A recent interagency report by DOT, FEA, and EPA estimated
increased total lifetime cost per vehicle ranging as high
as $540 and fuel economy losses ranging as high as 4.64
billion gallons, per model year fleet, resulting from
imposition of the current Senate Bill rather than the
Dingell Amendment. Health and air quality benefits
from the Bill's provisions are limited.
Your position in support of the Dingell Amendment as
opposed to the Senate Bill is predicated on the limited
health benefits and their relation to substantially
increased costs due to:
- additional fuel consumption
- higher consumer purchase price
- higher maintenance and replacement costs
Tab A contains talking points that reflect the above
discussion.
TALKING POINTS -- SINGIFICANT DETERIORATION
I am opposed to the significant deterioration section as
it is now written for several reasons:
-- mandatory imposition of Class I areas decreases State
authority and flexibility
- uncertainty over size and impact of buffer regions
- abolition of State discretion to designate Class III
areas decreases State authority and flexibility
- mandated use of BACT at least as stringent as current
New Source Performance Standards negates value of
case-by-case review
Other concerns:
- numerous Governors have echoed considerations mentioned
- FEA concerned over impact on refinery, synthetic fuel,
and electric power facility development
- Interior concerned over effect on new surface mines
- industry is uncertain about impact on job creation/
capital formation
There are too many doubts raised by responsible individuals
and entities. This is not a time to risk additional
uncertainty regarding jobs and capital formation.
FORD LIBRARY & GERALD
TALKING POINTS -- SINGIFICANT DETERIORATION
I am also opposed to the auto emission standards contained
in the Senate Bill. Cost/benefit studies indicate:
- total additional lifetime cost per vehicle ranging
as high as $540
- additional fuel consumption ranging as high as 4.64
billion gallons per model year fleet
- negligible health or air quality benefits
These costs are from an EPA-DOT-FEA joint study, carried
out in March.
We have reduced auto emissions for 1976 model autos 83%
over pre-1968 models.
Russell Train of EPA advises me that the Dingell Amendment
offers the best balance of environmental, economic, and
energy considerations.
With the auto industry in the midst of a strong recovery,
we cannot afford to penalize it unnecessarily.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
MARSH AND FRIEDERSDORF
WANTED THIS TO GO IN LETTER
FORM FROM THE PRESIDENT;
IT IS NOW BEING PROCESSED.
This
whoco
who
1
CC: Humphreys
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 28, 1976
ACTION
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
WILLIAM F. GOROG
WE,
SUBJECT:
Presidential Statement on the Clean Air
Amendments
BACKGROUND
Legislative considerations suggest that you communicate
to the Congress immediately your position on the auto
emissions and significant deterioration provisions of the
Clean Air Amendments.
Attached is a statement to that effect which would be
transmitted in the form of a letter to the following
individuals:
Senator Jennings Randolph,
Ranking Majority Member,
Senate Public Works Committee
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
Congressman Harley Staggers,
Ranking Majority Member,
House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee
Copies to:
Senator Howard Baker,
Ranking Minority Member,
Senate Public Works Committee
Congressman Samuel Devine,
Ranking Minority Member,
House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee
The proposed statement received full staff review prior to
submission to you.
RECOMMENDATION
That you approve the attached letter for immediate
transmission.
Approve
Disapprove
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 28, 1976
Dear Chairman Staggers:
Both Chambers of the Congress will soon consider amendments to the
Clean Air Act of 1970. There are several sections of both the Senate
and House amendments, as reported out of the respective committees,
that I find disturbing. Specifically, I have serious reservations
concerning the amendments dealing with auto emissions standards and
prevention of significant deterioration.
In January 1975, I recommended that the Congress modify provisions
of the Clean Air Act of 1970 related to automobile emissions. This
position in part reflected the fact that auto emissions for 1976 model
autos have been reduced by 83% compared to uncontrolled pre-1968 emission
levels (with the exception of nitrogen oxides). Further reductions would
be increasingly costly to the consumer and would involve decreases in
fuel efficiency.
The Senate and House amendments, as presently written, fail to strike
the proper balance between energy, environmental and economic needs.
Therefore, I am announcing my support for an amendment to be co-sponsored
by Congressman John Dingell and Congressman James Broyhill, which re-
flects the position recommended by Russell Train, Administrator of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This amendment would provide for
stability of emissions standards over the next three years, imposing
stricter standards for two years thereafter. Furthermore, a recent
study by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Trans-
portation and the Federal Energy Administration indicates that the
Dingell-Broyhill Amendment, relative to the Senate and House positions,
would result in consumer cost savings of billions of dollars and fuel
savings of billions of gallons. Resulting air quality differences
would be negligible. I believe at this point the Dingell-Broyhill
Amendment best balances the critical considerations of energy, economics
and environment.
I am also concerned about the potential impact of the sections of the
Senate and House Committee Amendments that deal with the prevention of
significant deterioration of air quality. In January 1975, I asked
FORD & LIBRARY OERALD
2
the Congress to clarify their intent by eliminating significant deterio-
ration provisions. As the respective Amendments are now written, greater
economic uncertainties concerning job creation and capital formation would
be created. Additionally, the impact on future energy resource develop-
ment might well be negative. While I applaud the efforts of your com-
mittee in attempting to clarify this difficult issue, the uncertainties
of the suggested changes are disturbing. I have asked the Environmental
Protection Agency to supply me with the results of impact studies showing
the effect of such changes on various industries. I am not satisfied
that the very preliminary work of that Agency is sufficient evidence on
which to decide this critical issue. We do not have the facts necessary
to make proper decisions.
In view of the potentially disastrous effects on unemployment and on
energy development, I cannot endorse the changes recommended by the
respective House and Senate Committees. Accordingly, I believe the
most prudent course of action would be to amend the Act to preclude
application of all significant deterioration provisions until sufficient
information concerning final impact can be gathered.
The Nation is making progress towards reaching its environmental goals.
As we continue to clean up our air and water, we must be careful not to
retard our efforts at energy independence and economic recovery. Given
the uncertainties created by the Clean Air Amendments, I will ask the
Congress to review these considerations.
Sincerely,
The Honorable Harley 0. Staggers
Chairman
House Interstate and Foreign
Commerce Committee
House of Representatives
Washington, D. C. 20515
CC: Humphreys
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 29, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR RON NESSEN
the
FROM:
WILLIAM F. GOROG
File
SUBJECT:
Fact Sheet
CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS
On Friday, May 28, the President sent letters to Jennings Randolph,
Chairman of the Senate Public Works Committee, and to Harley 0.
Staggers, Chairman of the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce
Committee, regarding Clean Air Amendments. A copy of the text of
this letter is attached.
The letter refers to two of the most significant Amendments offered
by the Senate and the House regarding changes in Auto Emission Stan-
dards, and changes in the significant deterioration provisions of
the Clean Air Act of 1970.
In January 1975, the President recommended that the Congress modify
provisions of the Clean Air Act because of great concern that the
provisions of this Act would have serious impact on industrial ex-
pansion, job creation, and energy, without materially improving the
environment as far as health standards were concerned.
When the Senate version of the Bill was reported out of Committee,
the President requested the Environmental Protection Agency to
provide him with an analysis of the impact of the provisions of this
Bill on the factors of unemployment, energy, and health standards.
These analyses were delivered on the 27th of May. It was the opin-
ion of the President's advisors that the preliminary work presented
did not contain sufficient evidence to endorse the provisions of the
Senate Bill. There are great uncertainties concerning impact on
industrial expansion and effect on the economy and job creation. As
a result, the President made the decision on Friday, May 28, to
recommend that the most appropriate course of action would be to
amend the Act to preclude application of significant deterioration
FORD
provisions until sufficient information concerning final impact can
be gathered.
LIBRA
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 28, 1976
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Both Houses of the Congress will soon consider amendments
to the Clean Air Act of 1970. There are several sections of
both the Senate and House amendments, as reported out of the
respective committees, that I find disturbing. Specifically,
I have serious reservations concerning the amendments dealing
with auto' emissions standards and prevention of significant
deterioration.
In January 1975, I recommended that the Congress modify pro-
visions of the Cléan Air Act of 1970 related to automobile
emissions. This position in part reflected the fact that
auto emissions for 1976 model autos have been reduced by
83% compared to uncontrolled pre-1968 emission levels (with
the exception of nitrogen oxides). Further reductions would
be increasingly costly to the consumer and would involve
decreases in fuel efficiency.
The Senate and House amendments, as presently written, fail
to strike the proper balance between energy, environmental
and economic needs. Therefore, I am announcing my support
for an amendment to be co-sponsored by Congressman John
Dingell and Congressman James Broyhill, which reflects the
position recommended by Russell Train, Administrator of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This amendment would
provide for stability of emissions standards over the next
three years, imposing stricter standards for two years there-
after. Furthermore, a recent study by the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Department of Transportation and the
Federal Energy Administration indicates that the Dingell-
Broyhill Amendment, relative to the Senate and House positions,
would result in consumer cost savings of billions of dollars
and fuel savings of billions of gallons. Resulting air
quality differences would be negligible. I believe the
Dingell-Broyhill Amendment at this point best balances the
critical considerations of energy, economics and environment.
FORD
LIBRARY
2
I am also concerned about the potential impact of the sections
of the Senate and House Committee Amendments that deal with
the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality.
In January 1975, I asked the Congress to clarify their intent
by eliminating significant deterioration provisions. As the
respective Amendments are now written, greater economic un-
certainties concerning job creation and capital formation would
be created. Additionally, the impact on future energy resource
development might well be negative. While I applaud the efforts
of your committee in attempting to clarify this difficult issue,
the uncertainties of the suggested changes are disturbing. I
have asked the Environmental Protection Agency to supply me
with the results of impact studies showing the effect of such
changes on various industries. I am not satisfied that the
very preliminary work of that Agency is sufficient evidence
on which to decide this critical issue. We do not have the
facts necessary to make proper decisions.
In view of the potentially disastrous effects on unemployment
and on energy development, I cannot endorse the changes recom-
mended by the respective House and Senate Committees. Accord-
ingly, I believe the most appropriate course of action would
be to amend the Act to preclude application of all significant
deterioration provisions until sufficient information concerning
final impact can be gathered.
The Nation is making progress towards reaching its environmental
goals. As we continue to clean up our air and water, we must
be careful not to retard our efforts at energy independence
and economic recovery. Given the uncertainties created by
the Clean Air Amendments, I will ask the Congress to review
these considerations.
Sincerely,
The Honorable Jennings Randolph
Chairman
Public Works Committee
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510