makes little sense to be going forward with pioneer legislation on this subject without first giving those interested and concerned in and out of the Congress an opportunity to study the report and to comment thereon.

On the specifics, and with particular reference to sulfur oxide emissions, unless the technology is available adequately to control or reduce sulfur oxide emissions for coal-fired power plants, it will make no difference whether the emission standards are national or local. The critical element is not the emission standard in this instance but the development of the economically and technologically feasible means of control and reduction of sulfur oxide emissions. As far back as 1963 the Congress directed that the Executive Branch take the necessary steps to develop such means of control. This was reemphasized in the Air Quality Act of 1967. The fact of the matter is that neither the funds nor the necessary effort have been expended.

This critical area is capable of resolution-but no amount of statutory words will do the job. Just as soon as technologically and economically feasible techniques exist, I have no doubt that the electric utility industry will seize upon them and utilize them in major new power plants. This will be true under existing law as surely as if there were national emission standards.

On the other side of the coin, any national emission standard, or any state emission standard for that matter, which effectively precludes the use of coal would be wholly unrealistic. In the last few weeks the Chairman of the Federal Power Commission and the Chairman of the President's Office of Science and Technology have projected major power shortages in the United States, and in particular in the Northeast, with some blackouts and brownouts likely this year. There is a shortage of power plants, and today there is a shortage of coal, as well as of other fuels. This is a result of many causes which I will discuss shortly. In any event, however, the electric energy requirements of the United States will greatly increase in the next decade. There is no question but that significantly more coal than is utilized today for the generation of electric power must and will be utilized for that purpose in the coming years-and by this I mean an increase in annual consumption of hundreds of millions of additional tons of coal by 1980.

If I can borrow a word and phrase from the young people, and talk about what is relevant, and tell it like it is, certainly as far as coal-fired electric power plants are concerned, technology and technology alone is the key to effective air pollution control and abatement.

With respect to national air quality standards, it is our view that they are the wrong approach at the wrong time. First, the Administration bill would appear to eliminate the present requirement of the development and publication of air quality criteria and other pertinent information on which standards should be based.

Second, as the existing criteria have made clear, there are many considerations in establishing an air quality standard. There is health as the primary consideration. There are economic considerations. There are aesthetic considerations. The present law provides that the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare has the right of approval on all standards, and that they must be consistent with the criteria and control technology issued. Patently, a community with older plants, for example, so long as the health requirements are met, may properly be allowed to sacrifice some of the aesthetic objectives in order to permit those plants to remain open and to provide jobs for the people in that community. On the other hand, a residential or resort area may feel that aesthetics should get considerably greater emphasis in order to enhance the quality of that area. This important flexibility, written into the Air Quality Act of 1967, would be destroyed by national air quality standards. If they were written at the least restrictive level, with health alone being protected, they would tend to discourage further community action to protect or enhance the air for economic or aesthetic reasons. If they were written at the most restrictive level with aesthetics dominating, they would virtually destroy a great many industrial complexes and establishments contrary to the desires of the people in those communities.

The job of cleaning up the air is massive and we should neither strive to achieve, nor will we achieve, uniform results.

Senate bill S. 3546 does not have these two major shortcomings. On the other hand, it has other significant defects. It provides for a rapid expansion of the air quality control regions so that they cover all areas of the United States. Had we the money and the manpower, and the know-how to do the job of air pollution control which all of us would desire, no one could object to this con

cept. My objection is simply that the states at this very moment lack the money and lack the manpower to do an effective job in the critical regions already designated.

Since the existing legislation already provides procedures for dealing with individual sources of pollution which pose a serious problem, even though they are outside a control region, we respectfully suggest that the procedure proposed of blanketing the entire United States with air quality control regions is neither necessary nor desirable at this time. It will not expedite air pollution control and abatement. On the contrary, it will slow it down by diverting resources that are more urgently needed at the more serious air pollution control areas.

Second, S. 3546 contains a number of procedures for enforcement which we believe are onerous, cumbersome, and unrealistic. Moreover, they concentrate action in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, which again is understaffed and underfunded. We believe that there will be far more effective enforcement by decentralization, with the states being encouraged and required to do their job. Also, in connection with the over-all approach to enforcement taken in S. 3546, while we respect the view that a well balanced combination of the carrot and the stick is a most effective means of encouraging and prodding, when the club is substituted for the stick, the purpose of the entire endeavor can be defeated.

There is no reason to believe that the enforcement provisions which were carefully worked out in the drafting of the Air Quality Act of 1967 will prove ineffective. They have not even been given a chance to work. Unrealistic enforcement deadlines, harassment by a multiplicity of private litigations, harsh penalties, all inevitably will result in pollution control becoming a series of battles between industry and government rather than a war by both industry and government against air pollution. To be truly effective, our air pollution control procedures must invite a cooperative endeavor by industry and government. The present law seems well designed for that purpose though there are areas in both the Federal and state level where both industry and government could do a better job of executing that purpose.

Let me turn now from the specific legislative proposals to a matter which I consider most important of all in terms of the needs of the United States, and in terms of any rational determination of Federal policy with respect to air pollution control, as applied to electric power plants. We respectfully suggest that the entire approach taken to date by government, and by industry, has been too parochial, too narrow.

If we are to meet our national responsibility for cleaning up the air, and for cleaning up the water, and for providing to the American people the low-cost, plentiful supply of electric power on which our entire economy and our great industrial progress are based, it is indispensable that the United States of America formulate a comprehensive national fuels and energy policy. The threatened power shortages, the imbalance of fuel supplies, the rising cost of fuels, and of electric power, even the dissatisfaction that progress in air and water pollution controls has not been rapid enough, are directly attributable to the failure of this nation to face up to the need for a national fuels and energy policy.

Numerous Federal, state, and local agencies are involved in formulating policies and regulating various aspects of the fuels and energy industries. Any compatibility among these varied policies and regulations emanating from the numerous agencies involved is happenstance rather than the result of careful planning. Permit me to summarize the various and varied sources of policy and regulation which bear on this matter. The electric utility industry is subject to regulation by state commissions and by the Federal Power Commission. It is also directly affected by the Atomic Energy Commission, to the extent that nuclear power plants are involved. The natural gas industry is regulated by the Federal Power Commission.

Air pollution control is within the jurisdiction of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and state and local agencies. Water pollution control is within the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior and state and local agencies. Radiation and thermal pollution problems are within the jurisdiction of the Atomic Energy Commission and possibly state agencies.

Nuclear research is controlled by the Atomic Energy Commission. Coal research is within the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior, but is also under the jurisdiction, as it relates to air pollution, of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Oil imports, which of course include the question of imported low-sulfur fuel oil, are subject to the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior, as delegated by the President. They also are subject to the Office of Emergency Preparedness. Gas imports from Canada are subject to the control of other agencies of governments. Tax policy as it affects production of oil, gas, or coal, or the installation of pollution control devices, resides in the Treasury Department, and in various state agencies.

In addition, we have a new committee on air pollution in the Department of Commerce, we have the President's Environmental Council, the President's Office of Science and Technology, etc. We have new laws on mine safety which will directly affect fuel costs and availability, administered by the Labor Department.

If we are going to have the energy we need at reasonable cost to the American public, and at the same time clean up the air and the water, it is obvious that the policies and regulations formulated by all these different groups must have some real coordination.

Moreover, the allocation of funds and resources by government must bear far greater relationship to our energy needs and to our pollution control requirements than has been the case to date. One striking example of gross disparity in this regard is the annual multibillion dollar allocation of Federal resources to assist the nuclear power industry as compared with the insignificant allocation of funds for either coal research or pollution control research. In this connection may I respectfully point out that had but a small part of the funds expended by the Federal government for the development and promotion of nuclear power been expended for research and development in air pollution control with respect to conventional fuels sources, we would have long since resolved the air pollution problems as they relate to coal fired electric power plants. Further, it makes no sense for a state or Federal agency to decide that air pollution control will be resolved by building nuclear power plants instead of conventional power plants, if, as is now clearly the case, sufficient problems have developed with respect to nuclear power plants, so that the already committed plants are now years behind schedule, and even if they were on schedule they would only fill a comparatively small part of our growing energy needs. It makes no sense to talk about substituting natural gas for coal or oil when in fact our reserves of natural gas are wholly inadequate, the price of natural gas has risen sharply, and it is clear that natural gas can do but a small part of the job.

What we must do is take the broad look and determine (1) what our energy needs will be in the decades ahead; (2) where we have the greatest potential in terms of energy resources for meeting those needs; and (3) what technological and other problems must be overcome so that we can deliver this energy at a low-cost and consistent rate with our need to clean up and protect the environment.

What I am saying is not defeatist about their meeting our energy demands or resolving our pollution problems. For example, I am extremely optimistic about the future of coal in America. It is America's most plentiful low-cost fuel. It is located throughout the United States. Every farsighted person knows that one day coal will be a significant source of oil and gasoline and gas, as well as continuing to be a major fuel for electric power plants. But our economy will pay a frightful cost and we will be subject to great disappointments in the area of pollution control unless we make a comprehensive review of our national fuel and energy needs, and gear our policies, our regulations, and our programs so that they are designed to meet those needs as well as our other important national objectives.

Thus, I would propose a very specific program today which I believe would do far more to clean up the air, and do so for less money in the long run, and probably in the short run, than the legislation now being considered. Moreover, the program I propose also will take the very important steps, not included in any of the proposed legislation, of assuring that this nation fills its energy requirements as well as its environmental requirements.

First, I would establish a National Commission on Fuels and Energy Policy. This Commission should be required to report back within one year with respect to the following:

(a) The nation's energy needs; with particular reference to electric power plants for the next ten years;

43-166-70-pt. 2

(b) The fuel resources available to meet those needs, including a program of research and development to make realities of such major technological advances as magnetohydrodynamics which will greatly enhance our supply and ability efficiently to use our fuels resources;

(c) The air and water pollution problems which these expanded power refinements will generate, including the technological problems which must be overcome if those pollution problems are to be resolved, and a program to overcome those problems promptly and efficiently; and

(d) The compatibility of other major Federal and state policies and programs with the objectives of both meeting the energy needs and resolving the pollution aspects of those needs, including recommendations for change, where change is required.

Second, I would immediately fund and direct that the research and development immediately required with respect to such matters as sulfur oxides and particulate pollution, and possibly now also with respect to the new criteria just issued for nitrous oxides to establish on a greatly accelerated basis commercially feasible methods of pollution control.

Third, with these two programs underway, I would go forward under the existing Air Quality Act, where considerable progress has already been made. At the beginning I pointed out that the nation's resources in money and men in this area are still far too scarce. There is immediate need for funding the training of additional personnel; there is need for funding better instrumentation for measuring emissions and air quality; and there is need for funding more research in the basic cause-effect questions relating to air pollution and health and safety.

There is also an immediate need for recognition that under the Air Quality Act. or any revision thereof, cognizance be taken of the fact that our fuels and energy economy already has been thrown into considerable imbalance and uncertainty by the many conflicting policies, or in some instances the lack of policies, which now exist. It is imperative that timetables for controls be established which, subject to immediate health needs, also are consistent with energy and pollution control requirements for the next decade. In other words, hasty. unrealitsic soluitions today may adversely affect both energy and pollution control requirements of tomorrow.

With these steps, and the experience of one more year under the Air Quality Act of 1967, this Congress will be in a far better position to assess the past, predict the future, and revise our air pollution control and other related laws. If we take these steps, I respectfully submit that within the next two or three years we will have made dramatic progress toward bettering our environment and at the same time assuring that our national economy and our national security are protected by a rapidly expanding, low-cost electric energy base.

STATEMENT BY KAREL A. WEITS, PRESIDENT, INDUSTRIAL GAS CLEANING INSTITUTE, INC.

Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I, as President of the Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute, Inc., a national association of manufacturers of air pollution control equipment, have written this Statement with the hopes that it will be included in the record of the public hearings which have been held by this Subcommittee on the pending Clean Air legislation.

When this Institute testified before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution on May 18, 1967 at the hearings on the Air Quality Act, we stated that:

1. We recognize that there is an air pollution problem in the United States that has become critical in many areas;

2. We recognize that the solution must come from cooperative efforts of industry and the general public with Federal, state and local governments; 3. We recognize our industry's obligation to aid in the solution of this problem;

4. We believe our industry has the necessary skills and facilities to develop equipment to meet many unsolved problems once they are defined as problems, and that such problems will satisfactorily be solved in the fastest manner possible if done on a completely competitive basis;

5. We firmly believe that air quality criteria should be developed as a prerequisite to the establishment of emission standards;

6. We strongly believe that control ordinances should be passed only after thorough study to insure that the desired ends wil be obtained;

7. We believe more in incentives than penalties to obtain compliance with air pollution regulations because we feel that unjust burdens should be avoided, if at all possible, commensurate with good air quality; and

8. We firmly believe that additional research is needed to develop better methods for the accurate, quantitative measurement of air pollutant sources and effects.

As the result of developments in air pollution control since then, we have modified our position in one area. We now believe that the Federal government should set Federal ambient air standards and Federal emission standards on a regional basis as quickly as possible.

The Air Quality Act of 1967 provides for the development of air pollution control regulations through a process known as "air resource management". This process consists of:

The development of air quality criteria,

The establishment of ambient air quality standards, and

The establishment of emission standards.

Air resource management appears to be a logical, orderly and scientific approach to air pollution control. However, in carrying out the air resource management procedure, some weaknesses in the "logic" and "science" of these methods have become apparent. Some of them are:

1. Interpretations of air quality criteria have been oversimplified and have led to many erroneous conclusions and debates.

2. At various public hearings throughout the United States, the public has indicated that it wants the air to be as clean as possible, in some instances approaching "zero" emissions, and done in the shortest possible time. It should be pointed out that such an approach is not consistent with the air resource management concept.

3. Because ambient standards are approaching background levels, emission standards are approaching zero.

4. Various techniques are being employed to develop emission standards from ambient air quality standards. The most often used technique is to obtain emission inventory information and calculate (by diffusion modeling) what rollback would be necessary to achieve the desired standards. There are many inaccuracies in this technique, including the reliability of emission inventory information and the accuracy of diffusion modeling formulae. There are also many questions with respect to the significance of annual and other relatively longterm means with regard to air pollution problems. Most of the modeling techniques employ mean concentrations.

All of these problems are leading to a good deal of subjective input in developing emission standards. The states are approaching this problem in many different ways, and it appears that there will be many different types of emission standards adopted. There is no requirement that the states adopt uniform or consistent regulations.

Unless some corrective action is soon initiated, it appears that nationally we will be faced with a chaotic situation with a hodgepodge of unrelated regulations. Such a situation renders the task of industry and the suppliers of control equipment far more difficult than necessary if not impossible. It appears that present programs not only have built-in delays, but are leading to cumbersome, confused and possibly impractical regulations.

We believe that the best air pollution controls will only be attained when firm, definite and lasting requirements are established with which polluters can endeavor to comply without the fear that the regulations will soon be altered, thus making the control systems inadequate just before or shortly after their installation. The user will then know what is required and have no reason not to comply. It is interesting to note that an article in the Business Week Letter of March 2, 1970, reported that some management consultants are advising their clients to put off the purchase of control equipment because the Federal state and local governments haevn't decided as yet what the rules will be. The most effective regulation can best be established by one overriding authority which expeditiously establishes standards that will remain unchanged for a specific period and cannot be superceded by other authortities. We feel that this authority should be the Federal government for the reasons explained previously. We recognize the attendant legal and legislative problems and the vital issue of States rights that are involved, and our recommendation is made with