21. FUNDING On the critical side: - EPA should demand and get enough money to see that the law's provisions are carried out and violators prosecuted. - Whether a task can be accomplished depends largely on whether it The Act should, though it does not, provide adequate help, not only - Fiscal authorization for programs provided for in the Act are spread throughout the document, instead of being given in one section. And authorization of specific amounts might better be left to the appropriation process. (A) (B) (C) STATEMENT OF LAURENCE I. MOSS, PRESIDENT, SIERRA CLUB, ACCOMPANIED BY BRUCE TERRIS Mr. Moss. I would like to congratulate this committee concerning the new suggested use of high sulfur coal. I hope the safeguards that you have included in the Senate bill will be adhered to in the conference. Senator MUSKIE. We tried to provide sufficient leverage in the bill. We will see how it works out. Mr. Moss. I don't want to waste the time of the committee by repeating many of the points made today by my colleagues. Let me say for the record that I subscribe to almost all of the comments and recommendations of those who have testified before me. I believe they have done an extraordinary job of outlining the issues and suggesting appropriate solutions. What I intend to do is just to quickly cover a few points that I think need reemphasis or perhaps were not covered earlier, and then speak a bit about the issue of prevention of significant deterioration which was not gone into in too much detail. On the matter of scrubbers, I think Dick Avres covered the main points. We agree that the technology is indeed available. We believe that a much greater use of coal in any event cannot occur overnight. The heavy equipment needed for strip mining, as an example, is back ordered now for 4 years. The so-called clean fuels deficit that was dramatized by EPA beginning 2 years ago, the thought that maybe one-third of our coal production capacity would have to be shut down because of inadequate supplies of scrubbing equipment in 1975, has been corrected to a large extent by modifications made in State implementation plans and the deficit now, if it exists at all, is very much smaller. If you look at years after 1975, the rate at which the use of coal can be expanded is not significantly greater, if it is greater at all, than the rate at which the scrubbing capacity can be brought on the line. What the argument really comes down to is whether we should give the utilities and certain other industries the option of saving money by not putting in the scrubber equipment that they could put in, and polluting the air and jeopardizing the public health and welfare in the process. I don't believe we should give them that option. I believe that abatement, not dispersion through tall stacks and intermittent control systems, or through repeal of the requirement that significant deterioration be prevented, is the policy we must follow to protect the public health and welfare. Intermittent control has been covered well by my colleagues, so I will not add to their thoughts. On transportation controls, I would just add two things to the comments made by David Hawkins in his testimony and in the answers he gave to questions asked. The first has to do with a question asked by Senator Stafford about the effect of traffic and automobile use curtailment on air pollution levels. There was indeed observed a significant drop in ambient pollutant levels in many urban areas during the height of the energy crisis as people used their automobiles less. I think this illustrates the point that a major factor in urban air pollution is the emissions from automobiles. Second, on the question of how do you resolve the policy differences between two different agencies of government, the Department of Transportation on the one hand and the Environmental Protection Agency on the other, to take an example, it seems to me that were it at all possible an attempt has to be made to satisfy the mandates and requirements of law that apply to each agency by developing a mutually consistent strategy. That is possible in the area of transportation controls. We can move people and goods efficiently and with less pollution committed to the environment than we are doing now, thereby helping to meet the goals that I presume are those of the Department of Transportation in addition to meeting the goals of the Clean Air Act. It is the strategies which are not mutually consistent that have to be avoided. If it turns out that the Department of Transportation is advocaing such a strategy, although I don't know the specifics that were behind the question that was asked, then they should be prohibited from putting forth and implementing that strategy. I would like to turn now to the question of prevention of significant deterioration, which, if you believe some of the people in industry and electric utilities, is about the equivalent of the end of the world. We think that is far from the case. I would like to refer to data in the testimony I gave to the Environmental Protection Agency in the hearings they had on prevention of significant deterioration in August of 1973. I believe copies have been handed to you. I would like also to ask, since I will be referring to it, that it be included in this hearing record. Senator MUSKIE. That material will be included, without objection. [The statement referred to appears at p. 602.] Mr. Moss. In the testimony I go into the history of the suit, the main points at issue, the alternative regulations that EPA has proposed for discussion purposes which we find are inadequate and inconsistent with the court order, and the more stringent regulations that we propose be promulgated. I won't go into those today, though. What I want to point out for your particular attention is that when you look at the kinds of developments that can take place even under the very stringent Sierra Club definition-and here I refer you to table 3, which begins after page 13 in the testimony, you see first that a wide range of industrial activities can take place even in areas of very clean air and even applying stringent Sierra Club recommended definition. We list the sizes of coal gasification plants, pulp mills, phosphate rock processing plants, cement plants, iron and steel plants, steel foundries, cotton gin plants, fertilizer plants, plastics plants, and copper smelters that can be built. In all of those cases large industrial operations are possible if the best abatement technology is used. Senator DOMENICI. Where is that testimony? Mr. Moss. This is following page 13, table 3. The real crunch comes from the question of electric generating companies using coal. I would like to turn to that in a moment. Before I do. I would like to direct your attention to the fact that we list the size of new cities that we calculate that can be built in these very high air quality areas. We show that even for an automix in 1975, which doesn't have very many vehicles with stringent emission controls, you can build a city of 15,000 people without much regard to proper transportation planning. With the mix of autos that would be likely in the early 1980's, and with better transportation control planning, it seems to me that you could easily talk about city sizes in areas with no population at all now of about 100,000 without causing significant deterioration in air quality, again using the stringent Sierra Club definition. So those who charge that no development at all would be possible under the mandate to prevent significant deterioration just, we believe, are not stating the facts. By the way, on all of these figures we had presented them to EPA and asked their technical people if they disagreed with the figures to work with our technical people to reconcile the differences and we have had no response from them so far. They may or may not have accepted these figures, but they have not indicated to us that they are wrong in anyway. Senator MUSKIE. Mr. Moss, we are advised that there is another vote. How much more time would you require? Mr. Moss. I need only 5 minutes. Senator MUSKIE. All right. Mr. Moss. Turning to the coal burning electric generating stations, which are a problem, with our stringent definition we have a limitation of about 200 megawatts for such a station. With EPA's most stringent definition but one which is less stringent than the Sierra Club definition, they would allow, according to their testimony, coal burning powerplants in the range of 800 to 1,200 megawatts, properly located. This, again, is in the most pristine areas. The point I want to make about either of those figures is that they show that all the powerplants you need, even using coal, which is inherently a dirty fuel, all the powerplants you need to supply the power requirements of the areas we are talking about, can be built. It is only when you talk about building thousands or ten thousands of megawatts of coal burning powerplants in clean air areas to export power to other areas that you get this problem. I maintain that is an important policy question which we say Senator MUSKIE. Due to the necessity of our having to go to the floor for the vote, the committee will stand in recess until Monday morning at 9:30. [Mr. Moss' testimony at hearings held before the Environmental Protection Agency follow:] HOW TO PREVENT SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION OF AIR QUALITY IN ANY PORTION OF ANY STATE by Laurence I. Moss President, Sierra Club Statement before the Environmental Protection Agency, Hearings on Introduction The Sierra Club welcomes the opportunity to present its views on how to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in any portion of any state, as EPA is required to do by order of the District Court for the District of Columbia, affirmed by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. We wish to cooperate with EPA to the fullest extent possible, consistent with applying the letter and spirit of the court order. In that regard we are pleased that the draft opening statement of Acting Administrator John Quarles, prepared for these hearings, accepts the requirement that EPA abide by the court order in enforcing the Clean Air Act. We assume that the statement of Acting Administrator Robert W. Fri on July 12, 1973, to the effect that "...there has been no definitive judicial resolution of the issue whether the Clean Air Act requires prevention of significant deterioration... the Act does not require EPA or the states to prevent significant deterioration |