February 19, 1974
Page 3435
Mr. JACKSON. I will yield to the able and distinguished Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) who did such a yeoman's job in handling provisions of the bill, such time as he may require, starting with 15 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished manager of the bill.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, first I would like to say that the bill in conference involved three committees – the Commerce Committee, in which the distinguished Presiding Officer, the Senator from Alaska (Mr. STEVENS), was an active participant, the Public Works Committee, in which Senators RANDOLPH BAKER, and MUSKIE played such an important role, as well as the members of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, on both sides of the aisle. I think the Senators should know that there is a multiplicity of coordination of respective committees involved here.
The Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) had the toughest assignment in the meetings of his subcommittee. We had two of those meetings. I have nothing but praise for the courageous, sensible way in which the Senator dealt with the economic problems on the one hand, the real problem affecting the life of every man and woman in America, and the environmental question on the other hand.
I am proud to have worked with him in the economic decisions that are being made here day after day.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that John Pearson of the Government Operations Committee, be permitted the privilege of the floor during the debate and roll call votes on the pending measure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I express my appreciation, to the distinguished manager of the bill who has given such leadership in the consideration of the pending measure.
It is not an easy challenge to meet legislatively. It runs across several committee lines of jurisdiction as well as a wide range of interests in our society which are understandably controversial and difficult.
I will confine my comments this afternoon to the environmental issues which have been raised by the bill. I think that I might be most helpful to my colleagues if I were to refer first to an article which appeared in the Washington Post of February 18, 1974, under the byline of Morton Mintz, on page Al of that issue. It appears under the headline "Shift to Coal Seen Shortening Lives."
I will read the first three paragraphs of that article and will comment on each of them in order to put them strongly into perspective with this bill.
The first paragraph reads as follows:
Thousands of persons with heart and respiratory diseases will die prematurely if plans go through for a massive conversion of power plants to coal, American Public Health Association scientists warn.
Mr. President, let me say flatly and I think beyond any successful possibility of contradiction that if that kind of risk were involved in any proposal to convert to coal under the provisions of this bill, it would not be permissible.
The second paragraph of the article reads as follows:
Tens of thousands more persons with such diseases will suffer acute attacks, according to the scientists, who have made an unpublished study for the association.
Again, I repeat that if there were any risk that tens of thousands more persons with such diseases might suffer acute attacks, that would be prohibited by the provisions of the pending legislation.
The third paragraph reads as follows:
The Nixon administration has asked Congress to give Federal Energy Office Director William E. Simon authority to order all power plants that can convert to coal to do so.
The implication of that paragraph is that the administration is requested and that this bill provides the kind of massive conversion of powerplants to coal which is described in the article. No such request has been made and this legislation does not permit any such massive conversion.
So, the story which was published at a time that may have given some persons fear that it related to this bill does not relate to the bill at all.
That was my own evaluation of the story. In order to reassure myself on this matter, I wrote on February 18, 1974, to Mr. S. David Freeman, director of the Energy Policy Project, which is the sponsor of this unpublished study as described in the Post article.
My letter among other things states:
Recent news accounts of this study suggest that the report is directed to the matter of conversion of electric power plants from petroleum-based fuels to coal. Because the Senate will consider legislation tomorrow which would direct or permit certain limited conversions of this type, I would appreciate a copy of the referred-to study.
I am particularly interested in the basic assumptions of the study; how it relates to the pending legislation; and the extent to which its findings could or should be applied to the legislation before the Senate.
Mr. President, I sent that letter to Mr. Freeman and on February 18, 1974, I received his reply which says in part: Members of my staff have had access to some working papers associated with the study but a completed draft has not been submitted to us. When it is the study will be reviewed by outside experts and will then be published. I therefore cannot supply you with a copy of the study because as far as I know it has not yet been completed – even in a preliminary draft.
So the so-called unpublished study referred to in the Post article of February 16 does not exist in any authorized, finished, completed or evaluated form.
Does it relate to the pending legislation? Well, let me read from the last paragraph of Mr. Freeman's letter which reads:
It was certainly not designed to answer the questions inherent in the emergency legislation before the Congress which I gather turns on judgments as to how long the emergency may last.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that both of these letters be printed in the RECORD at this point in my remarks.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,
Washington, D.C.,
February 18, 1974.
Mr. S. DAVID FREEMAN,
Director,
Energy Policy Project,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. FREEMAN: I understand that the Ford Foundation has funded, through your Energy Policy Project, a study by the American Public Health Association regarding health effects of energy by-products.
Recent news accounts of this study suggest that the report is directed to the matter of conversion of electric power plants from petroleum-based fuels to coal. Because the Senate will consider legislation tomorrow which would direct or permit certain limited conversions of this type, I would appreciate a copy of the referred-to study.
I am particularly interested in the basic assumptions of the study; how it relates to the pending legislation; and the extent to which its findings could or should be applied to the legislation before the Senate.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
U.S. Senator,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution.
THE ENERGY POLICY PROJECT,
Washington, D.C.,
February 18,1974.
Senator EDMUND S. MUSKIE
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution,
Senate Public Works Committee,
New Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATE MUSKIE: This is in response to your letter received this morning for a copy of a study of "Health Effects of the Various Forms of Energy" undertaken as part of the research for this Project by a Task Force of health experts assembled by the American Public Health Association. I am responding to your letter since the APHA officials are not available because of the holiday.
Members of my staff have had access to some working papers associated with the study but a completed draft has not been submitted to us. When it is the study will be reviewed by outside experts and will then be published. I therefore cannot supply you with a copy of the study because as far as I know it has not yet been completed even in a preliminary draft.
The grant to the APHA was made in December of 1972 to undertake a comparative evaluation of the health effects of alternative sources of energy on the basis of available information. Our purpose was to provide such an evaluation as part of our Project's analysis of national energy policy options in order to give relevant weight to the important objective to protecting human health. The study was designed as part of the Energy Policy Project's objective of providing public information in the energy field. It, of course, had no relationship to any legislation and in fact was designed and well underway before the present emergency situation began in October of 1973.
It was certainly not designed to answer the questions inherent in the emergency legislation before the Congress which I gather turns on judgments as to how long the emergency may last.
Sincerely,
S. DAVID FREEMAN, Director.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I would like to address myself now to what the Energy Emergency. Act does with respect to the environmental issues which it raises.
As result of discussions with the House conferees, it became apparent that it would be useful to clarify two provisions of the legislation relative to coal conversion and clean air. This attempt at clarification is, in part, a response to Senator NELSON's questions as to the length of time available to a converted power plant to achieve compliance with applicable emission limitations.
I pointed out during debate that the maximum extension of time – the maximum – under the conference bill would be 18 months beyond current Clean Air Act deadlines – January 1, 1979 rather than July 1, 1977. The new conference report clarifies this question in two respects: First, it recognizes that coal converters which choose to comply with the Clean Air Act emission limits by use of low sulfur coal are required to achieve compliance with applicable limitations as soon as an adequate supply of coal of the proper sulfur content can be delivered. And may I say that the amount of low-sulfur coal in this country appears to be virtually unlimited. In other words, a utility choosing to use low-sulfur coal in a converted plant subject to the provisions of this section could not determine to wait until January 1, 1979, before that plant actually begins to burn low-sulfur coal. The Administrator would be required to cause that plant to begin to utilize complying coal as soon as a supply could be made available.
Priority consideration to use of low sulfur coal will reduce the likelihood of extended violation of applicable emission standards.
As to sources for which continuous emission reduction systems or scrubbers, as they are called, are required, the revised language requires that the facility achieve required levels "not later than January 1, 1979" but "by a date established by the Administrator." In addition, use of the provision requires a showing that conforming coal is not available.
This change makes it clear that the Administrator has broad administrative flexibility to review a plan for compliance for each source subject to the provisions of this section. After a showing of unavailability of conforming coal – that is coal that would meet environmental standards – the Administrator must determine the availability of stack gas control technology to that source and establish a date by which that source must achieve compliance with the applicable emission limitations. The date for compliance could be any time between enactment and January 1, 1979, depending only on the time required to install necessary continuous emission reduction systems, but in no event could compliance be later than January 1, 1979.
This authority, combined with the authority to set priorities for the distribution of available continuous emission reduction systems and the Administrator's authority to fund advanced developments of stack gas control technology, combined with the Administrator's general responsibility to review the health impact of air pollutants and minimize disruption to the public health and welfare, should allay many of the fears of environmentalists in and out of the Senate concerned by the provision as initially drafted.
Finally, this provision has been clarified technically to assure that the emission limitation to be achieved is, in fact, that emission limitation which the particular source in question would have been required to achieve had the implementation plan in effect or coming into effect not been delayed by this provision.
So the delay that is contemplated is a maximum of 18 months, and it could be substantially less.
The second clarification of the conference report relates to those facilities which take advantage of the extension of deadline as result of a voluntary conversion in an attempt to comply with the national effort to conserve petroleum fuels.
There were three questions related to voluntary conversion which the conferees wanted to clarify:
First, what constituted the beginning of voluntary conversion;
Second, whether voluntary conversions would be evaluated on a plant-by-plant basis; and
Third, whether a voluntary conversion would be automatically eligible for extension of deadline or whether such conversion was subject to the same case-by-case environmental balancing judgment as a mandated conversion.
On the first point, the conferees have attempted to establish that eligibility for extension of deadline as result of voluntary conversion must be the result of a considerably greater effort than a single solicitation of bids for coal. Not only must the effort have been directed toward conversion of individual plants, but other steps such as applying for an air pollution variance, obtaining a contract for coal, or making a substantial investment for conversion of the particular source must have been made for such source.
The Administrator would not be able to approve an extension of deadline for a utility generally, but only for specific plants owned by that utility would qualify – the second point.
On the third point, the Federal Energy Administrator would be expected, in consultation and cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, to make a careful, case-by-case, balancing analysis of the eligibility of individual powerplants for an extension as a result of voluntary conversion. And the Federal Energy Administrator could not, according to my interpretation of section 106, require conversion unless the purposes of the act so necessitated.
This would mean that conversion under section 106 can only be required as a result of fuel shortages.
The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency is expected to prohibit conversion under this section where there is a potential for endangerment to health. In these ways public health protection would be maximized while permitting use of coal, where appropriate, in lieu of petroleum fuels.
Additionally, the Environmental Protection Agency Administrator retains the authority for sources which convert either on a voluntary or mandatory basis to require the use of coal of certain grades, types and pollution characteristics. The Environmental Protection Agency Administrator should use this mechanism to limit high sulfur coal in highly polluted areas.
Where necessary to assure distribution of such low sulfur coal, the Environmental Protection Agency Administrator must use his authority to require the issuance of exchange orders.
Mr. President, both the House and the Senate conferees were anxious to clarify these questions to remove any doubt as to the purpose of this provision – to assure that the public health would be minimally disrupted by the requirements of this act and to assure our colleagues of a continued commitment to environmental enhancement.
Mr. President, I shall be glad to cover further the points I have raised, if appropriate questions are raised.
I should like to concentrate now on the issues raised by the Post story, and by the concerns that that story may have generated in some of my colleagues.
Ever since we wrote the Clean Air Act of 1970, our preoccupation with the problem has been that our standard of performance must be that standard dictated by public health requirements.
That is the foundation of the Clean Air Act of 1970. Notwithstanding the questions that have been raised about the pending legislation, in my judgment that standard is still held high by this legislation.
Let me make four or five points with respect to the pending legislation, to clarify that question.
First of all, no conversion is permitted by this bill, by its express terms, which presents "imminent and substantial endangerment" to health.
Second, no conversion is permitted by the pending bill which "materially contributes to a significant health risk" – deals with risks to health which are less severe than these specified by the Agency's "endangerment" regulation. What is intended is that "some violation of the national primary ambient air quality standards can be permitted so long as any of the public would not be exposed to significant health risks."
I submit, Mr. President, that that standard does not permit the kind of risk which is described in the first paragraph of the Washington Post story of last week.
The third point I make is that the owner of a conversion facility must first show that low sulfur coal which conforms to pro-conversion limits is not available before nonconforming coal can be burned.
The fourth point: The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency can require use of coal of particular pollution characteristics to reduce environmental risk.
Incidentally, I understand that 1 percent sulfur coal is in virtually unlimited supply in this country.
The fifth point I would make is that the Administrator of EPA can require redistribution of available low-sulfur coal to minimize environmental risk.
Finally, Mr. President, the Clean Air Act of 1970 as it is now written does not prohibit the use of coal. The Clean Air Act of 1970 as it is now written does not prohibit the use of scrubbers to clean up the emissions from the use of coal.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. Could I have 1 more minute? The Clean Air Act of 1970 establishes emission limits which are honored and protected by the pending legislation. The only slippage involved is a possible maximum of 18 months delay because of the time requirement to install the necessary hardware. I do not consider this a sweeping away of the safeguards of the Clean Air Act of 1970.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, I again want to commend the distinguished Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) for his leadership in handling this most difficult part of the Emergency Energy Act. The cooperation of the distinguished Senator from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER) and the Senator from Maine, with the chairman of the full committee to whom I am about to yield, Senator RANDOLPH, has been one of the highlights of our working together.
The author of the energy study we are involved in, approved back in July of 1971, is the able and distinguished Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH). I now yield to him and extend to him my deep appreciation for his outstanding leadership in the conference. It was a difficult one, especially after going through two rounds.