directive for a national non-degradation policy. With our present technology, a strict non-degradation policy would keep all additional automobiles, homes, resorts and factories out of any presently undeveloped or developing areas. If the Congress really meant this, it was certainly talking out of both sides of its mouth, since in 1967, it, at the same time, rejected national emission standards, ostensibly because it felt that uniform national emission standards might not allow undeveloped areas to develop.

Non-degredation certainly has an apporpriate place in the scheme of things, but it appears to be more properly a state role. If national emission standards were enacted, a state could determine that certain areas of the state (or, in fact, the state as a whole) would be required to be in a more restrictive class, permanently or decade by decade, than that into which they would fall by application of a national standard. It could thus maintain its own non-degredation policy for its resort and agricultural areas.

Uniform Standards

Neither the approach embodied in Table II, nor uniform national emission standards (Tables V and VI), require that there be prior enactment or development of national, State, or local air quality standards. The approach of Tables V and VI, uniform national emission standards, also requires no area class discriminator. Table II employs two area class discriminators; one, emission density, which discriminates on the basis of the state of development of an area, as reflected by the number, size, type and character of its homes, institutions, automobiles, and factories; another, which discriminates on the bases of the general meteorology and topography of the area, i.e. the atmospheric areas of the United States which have already been officially designated (2) (Fig. 5), as required by Section 107(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, as amended. Since its enactment in 1967, there has always been question in my mind why Congress added Section 107(a)(1) to the Act. There is no indication elsewhere in the Act as to why these areas were to be designated or how they were to be used. It may be that the Congressional drafters of the amendments to the Act may have this type of use in the back of their minds.

TABLE V.-UNIFORM NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS

Designation of standard

Source characteristics

Remarks

Average installations in the United States.... Readily achievable with little cost burden

Better installations in the world.
Best installations in the world.

but of little real value.

Achieved in better installations.
Highest achievable by current technology.

TABLE VI.-APPLICATION OF A SLIDING SCALE TO UNIFORM NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS

The argument most frequently heard for national emission standards is that they would eliminate from our free enterprise system any competitive advantage that would accrue to the owners of a factory, and to the jurisdiction in which it would be located, by virtue of that jurisdiction electing to allow the factory to emit more pollution into its air than in another competitive jurisdiction, ostensibly for the purpose of attracting new industry or holding on to existing ones. In the weeks preceding Earth Day, I heard this argument voiced repeatedly on TV, radio and the press by members of the present federal administration and members of the Congress of both parties. It should be recognized that this posture is inconsistent with that accepted by the Congress in 1967 when it stood firmly for the right of Wyoming to apply a less restrictive emission limit than that for New York City, in effect giving its blessing to some areas of the nation having a competitive advantage over others in the costs for air pollution control they impose on their industry. One thing is certain, we can't have it both ways at the same time. If we mean no competitive advantage, we mean uniform national emission standards of the type of Tables V or VI. Recommendations of Report

In the light of this, let's examine the position of the present federal administration and of the Congress more closely. The National Emission Standards Report to the Congress recommends:

(1) No portion of any state to be without applicable air pollution control standards;

(2) National air quality standards uniform across the nation;

(3) National emission standards for major new stationary sources of air pollution based on the application to the fullest extent possible of the technology available at the time of their constructon; and

(4) Natonal emission standards for both existing and new sources of pollutants that are or may be extremely hazardous to the public health.

I will discuss these in reverse order.

Hazardous Pollutants

Air and Water News (3) quotes HEW Undersecretary John Veneman as testifying in the Congressional Hearings on the administration's new air pollution control bill that the candidates for the category of pollutants extremely hazardous to health are: asbestos, beryllium, cadmium, biological aerosols and chlorinated hydrocarbons. On the strength of this statement, those not in the industries emitting the pollutants mentioned can dismiss this provision as being laudable in intent, but essentially without impact on the major air pollution problems in the nation.

Application of Best Technology

The impact of national emission standards for major new sources depends largely on the definition of the word "major." If Table VI is taken as an example of a statement of national emission standards for a range of sizes of plants, the word "major" could be interpreted to mean either only the largest size range listed in the table, or any size range above the smallest size range of the table. Obviously, the greater the size range encompassed, the greater the impact of such standards, and vice versa. The elimination of the word “major” would allow the full range of sizes to be included. It hardly makes sense to say that national emission standards shall apply to a large cement plant but not a smaller one. It would seem that if the intent is to nationally apply better control technology, there should be no size discriminator limiting this intent. Likewise it will make a tremendous difference to the course of air pollution control in the United States whether the definition of "major source" includes or excludes categories of small stationary sources, which, because they are present in large numbers, constitute major sources of pollution nationally. If it is our national intent that best available control technology be applied to such sources, we must make sure that the applicable legislation explicitly says so.

Application of best technology at the time of construction has several implications. First, by virtue of the advance of technology with time,it implies periodic revision of emission standards derived therefrom to keep up with such advance. Second, since such application is intended to apply only to new plans, the spectre of retroactivity to plants built at an earlier date disappears. Third, by typing into best control technology, such standards would not be derived from consideration of the air quality standards of the nation, the state or the region.

I mentioned non-degradation earlier in connection with air quality standards. However, it is not in that connection, but rather in connection with emission standards, that the real non-degradation battle lines will be drawn. Non-degradationists in this latter sense, and I must confess I am one of them, say "Why discharge any pollutant into the air when we have an adequate economically feasible technology to avoid so doing"-the adequacy and economic feasibility proven by the incorporation of this control technology in the best new plants of the industry, or of comparable industry. Others, and I would hate to label them by the derogatory term "Degradationists," call this "control for control's sake" and argue for the right to dump wastes into the air up to its assimilative capacity as measured by air quality standards. This argument is going to go on for a long time to come and certainly will not be settled by our discussions here today. Role of Air Quality Standards

If we elect to ignore air quality standards in our selection of national emission standards for stationary sources, one may ask, why have air quality standards at all. The answer is that if the application of best control technology does not bring air quality to within air quality standard limits, we have to know it and be prepared to do something about it. What we can do is best exemplified by what we have done with respect to the automobile. Based on careful analysis, we have concluded that even the application of best present control technology will not bring pollutant levels associated with automotive emissions within air quality limits. We have therefore, set future automotive emission limits at better than best present technology, and in effect, told the auto makers, “Either advance control technology or stop making automobiles." The same strategy can be applied to stationary sources should it be needed; again, in effect saying, "The next plant of this type built has to have better than our best present control technology or don't build it." Even though we may elect to apply the best control technology concept to our domestic, commercial and institutional sources, for instance, by requiring no visible emission, we may still wish to apply the air quality standards approach to determine the allowable sulfur content of fuels these sources may burn.

If the nation is to be committed to a course of action involving uniform national emission standards, differences between state, regional or local air quality standards and a uniform national air quality standard would have very little real impact on the course of control activity or effectiveness in these jurisdictions. An individual jurisdiction can argue that its situation is unique to itself and that, therefore, its air quality standard should reflect its uniqueness. This argument may well be valid but its significance and importance to the ultimate cleanup of the air is small compared to the problems created in having each jurisdiction go through the motions of developing a set of standards unique to itself. This argues

for the recommendation of the National Emission Standards Report (1) that there be national air quality standards uniform across the nation.

Slowdown?

Although, as we have seen, I support the major recommendations of the National Emission Standards Report (1), I reject the statements in the Report that imply that recharting our national course along these lines will result in a slowdown of State and local air pollution control activities. I can think of no course of action better designed to slow down State and local control activity than a continuance of the present course of action of regional designation, regional air quality standard adoption and regional implementation as required by the 1967 amendments to the Clean Air Act.

Since I have recently discussed this elsewhere (4), I will not further elaborate here.

Conclusion

By way of conclusion, lest we think we are pioneering in the development of the concept of national emission standards, please be disabused of the notion. National emission standards have for years been the keystone on which most of the other developed nations of the world have based their air pollution control philosophy. We in the United States could do no worse than to discover later what other countries have discovered earlier.

REFERENCES

(1) National Emission Standards Study-Report of the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare to the United States Congress-91st Congress, 2nd Session, Senate Document No. 91-63. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. (1970) XIX+146 pp.

(2) Definition of Atmospheric Areas, Federal Register, Vol. 33, No. 10, p. 548-9, January 16, 1968.

(3) Air and Water News, Vol. 4, No. 12, p. 2, McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York (March 23, 1970).

(4) Stern. Arthur C. "Air Pollution Control Regulation in the 1970's", Presented at Symposium on "Pollution Problems of Our Environment", Joint International Meeting of American Chemical Society and the Chemical Institute of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (May 27, 1970).

CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,

March 27, 1970.

Memorandum to: New England Congressional Delegation.
From: Louis J. Proulx, Jr., Chief, Air Pollution Section, Connecticut Department
of Public Health, Chairman, New England Staff for Coordinated Air Use
Management.

Subject: Public Law 90-148.

This letter is written on behalf of the New England Staff for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM). This Conference group, of which I am presently Chairman, is comprised of New England and New York state public health officials responsible for state-wide air pollution programs. NESCAUM has several major objectives in the advancement of regional cooperation. Uniform air quality evaluation techniques including air sampling, analysis, and reporting of data are being studied and developed. Region-wide interchange of data on air quality is being developed between members and with appropriate agencies within each state. There is close cooperation between the states in determining and identifying actual and potential multi-state air pollution problems. There has also been serious and objective study on such matters as interstate compacts and federal and state legislation.

The Clean Air Act has been of significant value in the development of our state and local programs. When Public Law 90-148 provided for maintenance grants, the intent of this statute was to provide continuing maintenance of up to 50 percent for state and local programs. It does not seem that it was the intent of Congress to penalize the states as this statute is actually administered. However, Section 105(b) PL 90-148 states ". . . No agency shall receive any grant under this section during any fiscal year when its expenditures of non-Federal funds . . . will be less than its expenditures were for such programs during the preceeding fiscal year . . ."