Word: cleaning
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1970-1979
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
Ford proposed a wide range of other programs to reduce energy consumption or increase supplies. Among them: opening to commercial drilling the Navy's Petroleum Reserve No. 4 in Alaska; amending the Clean Air Act and other legislation to enable utilities to burn more coal; enacting heat-saving standards for all new buildings; budgeting more federal money for energy research and development. He set a list of specific goals to be achieved by 1985: production of 1 million bbl. per day of synthetic fuels and shale oil; construction of 150 "major" coal-fired power plants, 30 new refineries...
Ford: Higher taxes and tariffs on imported and domestic crude oil, natural gas and imported petroleum products. In addition, all domestic oil and gas would be freed of price controls, and Congress would be asked to approve an excess-profits tax on windfall earnings of oil and gas companies. Clean-air laws would also be weakened to permit more coal to be burned, especially by electric utilities...
...might seem to be a classic case of economics v. ecology. But the case is more complicated than that. It began in 1965, when U.S. Steel voluntarily entered into a legal agreement with Gary-which had the dubious distinction of having the dirtiest air of any U.S. city-to clean up its smoke. To do that, U.S. Steel pledged either to install antipollution equipment or replace all 53 of its open-hearth furnaces in the city with more efficient, less polluting basic oxygen furnaces by Dec. 31, 1973. When that date came, though the other U.S. Steel furnaces in Gary...
Paying Tribute. Last month U.S. Steel once again announced that it needed additional time to clean up Mill No. 4. The company argued that it had acted in good faith. But its new furnaces were not yet able to operate at full enough capacity to allow the old ones to be phased out and replaced. In granting a third extension, Federal Judge Allen Sharp ruled that the company must pay a fine of $2,300 a day for 90 days, or until the air-pollution problem was solved. The fine was meant, said an EPA representative, only as "an incentive...
...Administrator Russell Train expressed "shock" at the company's decision, saying: "Our intention is to clean up, not close down this facility." The cost of the fine, he figures, comes to an additional 94? per worker per day, and 75? per ton of steel produced. Unemployment benefits, on the other hand, cost the company $7 per day per laid-off worker. Train urged U.S. Steel to "reconsider" its decision. But the company still refuses to pay the fine, and the EPA refuses to accept any compromise solution. Both sides apparently fear setting precedents that might influence their future disputes...