also have to worry about the availability of reliable coal supply to the converted plants. However, the environmental agencies will have converted plants. However, the environmental agencies will have completed their analyses and be prepared to make decisions on variances in time to insure the above magnitude of oil savings could be realized by next winter if variance requests were forthcoming and appropriate conditions agreed to by the utilities.

(3) Within an appropriate period after conversion, or before conversion if possible, the utilities must propose a compliance schedule acceptable to EPA and the States showing how and when they plan to meet applicable emissions regulations. This schedule would have to be adopted by the State as appermanent SIP revision. Where emission regulations for these plants are presently keyed to achievement of the primary standard, EPA would work with the States to revise SIP's so as to exclude the plant, given interim restrictions on coal quality, from its control strategy to achieve the primary standards.

(4) EPA would strive to insure that oil savings from coal conversion do not drop below present levels as we try to phase out coal use at environmental unacceptable sites while approving variances for new conversions where health standards would not be violated. In some instances, this may require temporary extensions to variances for plants currently burning coal which are not suitable candidates for long term coal use.

Cost Savings of Coal Conversion

The lower cost of coal should probably not be the determining factor in whether a plant converts from oil to coal. But it is emerging as the principal issue for such utilities as Con Ed in New York and New England Electric System in Boston. Others can be expected to follow now that the oil shortage argument is invalid. EPA must show that it is aware of the cheaper coal cost factor and attempt to prove that such costs are usually less onerous than the utilities argue and are well worth hearing in the interests of public health. EPA can also point out that the end of the Arab oil embargo will depress residual fuel oil prices while coal costs will continue to rise. When or whether the two price trends converge is not the issue; the point to be made is that the dollar saving on coal will decrease in the face of a growing health risk unless the converting plant is environmentally acceptable.

Scrubbers on Oil Fired Power Plants

In view of the uncertain availability of low sulfur oil in the future, many States are considering whether or not to require installation of stack gas cleaning units. I recommend that you adopt an interim policy of not encouraging States to require scrubbers. The States should be actively discouraged from requiring scrubbers where the health standards would not be jeopardized if high sulfur oil has to be used. The rationale for this position is:

(1) We are already facing a shortage of scrubbers for coal fired plants when we break the compliance deadlock with the utilities. It is more important to use the scrubbers on high sulfur coal.

(2) It is not clear at present whether or not sufficient supplies of low sulfur oil needed to meet State regulations will be available in the future. However, we can be fairly confident that conforming fuel will be available most of the year, except perhaps during the peak heating season, sufficient supplies of low sulfur oil will be available in areas where it is needed to help meet health standards.

(3) In adopting this strategy, we should obtain a commitment from the FEO to use its allocation authority, if necessary, to insure that low sulfur fuel is available to critical air quality zones.

RECOMMENDATIONS

(1) Oil Variances-that you adopt a policy based on the following tenets at least through next fall: variances will be granted on a case-by-case basis, using the usual Clean Air Act procedures (expediting the schedule for hearings if necessary), EPA will not renew variances keyed to Statewide contingency plans or blanket variances which require no source specific demonstration of need.

(2) Coal Conversion-EPA, hopefully in conjunction with FEO, has studied the energy need for coal conversions as well as the potential environmental

impacts. EPA has concluded that because of possible oil problems next winter and the longer term goals of self sufficiency, some long term conversions to coal should be encouraged. However, the present crisis situation for fuel oil has passed. Due to coal shortages and the potentially serious health consequences resulting from conversions, EPA will proceed quickly but carefully to help identify the best environmental candidates for conversion. Variances will not be granted where health standards are jeopardized. We believe that this position strikes a reasonable balance between our energy needs and environmental objectives. Thus, I recommend that you adopt a policy which: EPA is willing to grant long term variances for coal conversion in specific cases under appropriate environmental safeguards; Such variances would be granted only when health standards would not be violated during the period immediately following conversion; Long term variances would only be granted if the utility agrees to an acceptable compliance schedule to meet applicable emission regulations; EPA working with the States, would conduct environmental analysis, identify "good" candidate plants for conversion, on a schedule which would allow coal conversions sufficient to save 100-150,000 barrels of oil by next December.

I would recommend that you announce this policy in the forum of a press conference, emphasizing that this policy strikes a reasonable balance between energy and environmental needs. You might want to use our upcoming decision on the coal variance for Brayton Point as an occasion to lay out this policy. (3) Scrubbers on Oil Fired Units-That you adopt an interim position of now encouraging the use of scrubbers on such plants and that EPA actively discourage any requirement for scrubbers on oil fired units where health standards are not likely to be jeopardized.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Barsky, may we have the benefit of your views. We have your statement. You can summarize it or read it. It will be in the record, I can assure you of that. Mr. Moss speaks so highly of you that we could not let you go back home to California without receiving the benefit of your views.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT M. BARSKY, DEPUTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER, LOS ANGELES COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Mr. BARSKY. I have some copies of the statement if you want to distribute those to the other members at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. That will be fine. You can read it or summarize it.

Mr. BARSKY. I can read it rather quickly. It is short.
The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. BARSKY. My name is Robert M. Barsky. I am deputy air pollution control officer for Los Angeles County. The board of supervisors, whose five elected members are the directors of the Air Pollution Control District, have instructed me to testify on the "Standby Energy Emergency Autorities Act."

Section 201 of the bill adding section 119 to the Clean Air Act is a cause of great concern to us. This section gives the administration of the Environmental Protection Agency the power to preempt the authority of local jurisdictions to limit the sulfur content of fuel.

In Los Angeles County regulation of the sulfur content of fuelparticularly the fuel burned by electrical generating plants-dates back to 1959. This was the first rule of this nature adopted anywhere and has served as a model nationally. The benefit of such a rule has been established by the reduction in fuel-burning type

pollution observed over the past 15 years. Widest public attention has been focused on this question in Los Angeles County and the Air Pollution Control District has been directed to participate in many proceedings concerning this regulation before the Federal Power Commission, the Oil Import Administrator and in both the Federal and State courts. We have defended the constitutionality of rule and done all we can to help implement it.

The issue of Federal preemption in this area was raised for the first time at the beginning of this year, when the Department of Water and Power of the city of Los Angeles and three smaller municipally owned utilities believed they would be unable to obtain a supply of low sulfur oil adequate to meet their needs. Spokesmen for these utilities said that they would seek Federal preemption of this rule, however, they found that at that time the law did not provide this preemption. Instead they had to follow the usual procedure of appealing to the Air Pollution Control hearing board, where a careful review of the situation disclosed that only one of the small plants could prove a need for a variance. The city of Los Angeles found that it was able to obtain sufficient oil and took its application off calendar.

Had these utilities at that time been able to plead their case under panic conditions in a tribunal 3,000 miles away they might very well have received relief, which ultimately proved to be unnecessary. As low sulfur oil is more expensive than high sulfur oil there would have been a strong incentive for these utilities, once granted a variance, to have bought and burned high sulfur oil, and to have filled their storage tanks with cheaper high sulfur oil thus precluding a purchase of low sulfur oil when it became available.

The effects of burning high sulfur oil are dramatic. In addition to the heavy discharge of sulfur, there are emitted from the smoke stacks heavy plumes that extend for many miles, and there is a heavy fallout of particles and liquid droplets which are highly acidic and cause extensive damage to houses, cars, boats and vegetation in the vicinity of the powerplants. In Los Angeles County the powerplants for the most part are on or near the coast. The sulfur emitted from the burning of high sulfur fuel is converted to sulfates and in the presence of sea fog, which is frequent in this area, the toxicity of these sulfates increases markedly. This is of critical concern in the vicinity of one powerplant complex consisting of a dozen large boilers generating more than 3,600 megawatts or about 45 percent of the total electrical generating capacity in the county. In the actual shadow of these powerplant stacks is a community of 10,000 senior citizens whose average age is 71 years. Most of them suffer from respiratory and cardiac disability. The effect of burning high sulfur oil in these boilers would be tragic for this population as well for patients in nearby nursing homes and hospitals, and young children in the adjacent residential areas. While section 119 might be said to protect against the granting of a variance capriciously, after discussing this matter at the White House recently we are struck with new concern. We were told that our provincial preoccupation with air pollution is secondary to the broad national problems of energy self sufficiency and a favorable

balance of trade. It was pointed out to us that section 103 of this bill amending section 4 of the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973, and other already existing provisions of that act, allow the President to promulgate rules for the end use allocation of fuels. As this was interpreted by the White House spokesman, such rationing could be imposed to implement "Project Independence" or a favorable balance of trade. Low sulfur oil already contracted for import into California could be banned, or it could be allocated elsewhere in the country. This in turn would create the section 119 "Unavailability of types or amounts of fuels" which forms the basis for the Environmental Protection Agency administrator to "suspend any stationary source fuel or emission limitation a it applies to any person.

It is the position of Los Angeles County that matters of such critical importance should not be decided by Federal bureaus 3,000 miles away from the community which will have to suffer the consequences of those decisions. Whether the people of Los Angeles County should endure the air pollution consequences of burning high sulfur fuel in their powerplants or else undertake to tighten their belts and reduce their consumption of energy is a matter for local determination. The possibility of the introduction of extraneous factors and considerations, increases with the distance of the decisionmaking process from the community involved.

The preamble to the Clean Air Act states that the prevention and control of air pollution at its source is the primary responsibility of States and local governments. Section 119 appears to be in conflict with this premise and it should not be enacted.

We would like now to turn to another portion of this bill, section 203 which amends section 202 of the Clean Air Act, establishing vehicle emission standards and dates for compliance. It is our view that proper aute emission standards by themselves can bring about attainment of the air quality standards and achieve clean air in Los Angeles County-and everywhere else in the State-without any of the drastic social changes now proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency.

These standards can be met without the use of a catalyst device, though probably not in 1975. Spokesmen for the automobile industry have stated that they definitely can meet these standards by 1977, without the use of a catalyst; in 1975, without a catalyst devicee, they could improve performance over the 1974 car approximately 20 percent; and in 1976 approximately another 20 percent.

Six years of leadtime is necessary from the date of introduction of production model cars meeting these emission standards until the

air quality standards are attained through the replacement of older cars.

Control of the photochemical reaction requires that there be a proper ratio of hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen in the atmosphere. The ratio which produces the least eye irritation and makes possible attainment of the air quality standards in Los Angeles County is: 1 part hydrocarbons and 2 parts oxides of nitrogen.

The emission standards should be reviewed in 1978, when any slight adjustments necessary to maintain this ratio can be made. Attainment of the oxidant air quality standard, which is very close to the natural background of oxidant in the Los Angeles area, requires that there be an excess of oxides of nitrogen to combine with and "eat up" some of the hydrocarbons and ozone that occur in the air due to natural causes.

The easing of the carbon monoxide standard from 9 grams per mile to 15 grams per inile in California is adequate to take care of the problem posed to public health by this air containment, while at the same time easing of the demand upon the emission control system makes more feasible the attainment of the necessary hydrocarbon and oxide of nitrogen standards without the use of catalytic afterburners. The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency deliberately set the California level of carbon monoxide low so as to compel the use of catalyst devices there to provide a large scale field test for the auto industry.

These vehicle emission standards will achieve all the air quality standards that have been set by the Environmental Protection Agency-even though these are very stringent-with the possible exception of the particulate standard this standard probably cannot be attained because of the large amount of particulates from natural sources; that is to say, the standard is too low.

Attainment of these air quality standards solely by vehicle controls means there is no need for an Environmental Protection Agency Los Angeles transportation plan, no need for indirect source control, and no air pollution reason for land use planning. Catalyst devices can be eliminated, with all of their problems and questions, including toxicity, durability, the need for unleaded gas, and an added cost og $250 to $300 per vehicle.

The program advocated by the Environmental Protection Agency is based upon the concept that control of automobiles down to the levels required in the Clean Air Act will not suffice to bring about attainment of the air quality standards. This has been the springboard for the program to reduce vehicle-miles traveled and all of the other proposals of the Environmental Protection Agency, such as parking surcharges, land use planning and indirect source control, which are designed to implement reduction of vehicle-miles traveled. Our data shows that this fundamental premise by the Enrivonmental Protection Agency is erroneous and all of the subsequent far-reaching societal changes are unnecessary.

It is Los Angeles County's position that the oxidant and nitrogen dioxide air quality standards will be met by 1980 or 1981 if the emission control program we have recommended is followed and enforced. By 1977, air quality will be acceptable to the general