STATEMENT OF MICHAEL TRESHOW, PROFESSOR OF BIOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF UTAH, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH

Mr. TRESHOW. More and more, standards are being based on citizen pressure and emotion rather than scientifically established threshold concentrations of effects; each State is trying to outdo its neighbors in setting lower standards. Alarmists and foresayers of doom are pressing for complete removal of pollutants, and recommended standards for almost every pollutant are approaching zero. While a zero pollution level is a noteworthy goal, it rarely provides a realistic standard. Some States (for example Oregon) have adopted a plan of developing desired air quality goals to supplement the standards. Hopefully standards would be realistic and could be met using today's technology. Goals provide a long-term ideal to be sought and achieved as more effective technology becomes available in the future.

Approaches to setting air quality standards, and the standards themselves, are almost as numerous as the States developing them. Nearly every State is developing different standards and basing them on different criteria. This inconsistency in standards is confusing to control officials but is still more disturbing to the general public who don't know what to believe. The confusion is particularly critical near State boundaries where air regions overlap boundaries, and standards differ within the same airmass.

Such confusion can only be resolved by establishing Federal standards to be met by all the States. Resolving the inconsistencies among State air quality standards is vital to an effective nationwide air quality program.

Senate bills S. 3229, S. 3466, and S. 3546, the Air Quality Improvement Act, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, and the National Air Quality Standards Act of 1970 should adequately unify air quality standards across the country and minimize the existing confusion. Legislatively, the needs for air quality standards were most recently established in the Clean Air Act of 1967. But placing the authority for establishing standards with the States was a mistake.

In the first place, few States possess the expertise essential to developing realistic standards even with help of the Federal air quality criteria. Many States are even so naive as not to know who to contact for help. Utah's Air Conservation Committee, for instance, in developing sulfur dioxide standards, called on only five "experts"—all from industry and all with questionable qualifications to discuss the subject. On still more obvious weakness in State standards lies in the pressure large industries may be capable of exerting, and the influence they can wield in setting standards. The importance of major industry to a State's tax base cannot be underestimated. No rational State government is likely to jeopardize this base regardless of the hazards the pollutants from the industry might impose on the environment. Concerned industry may cooperate to the extent of moral obligation or economic feasibility, but is not likely to go much beyond this if its competition across the State line is spared the expense of maintaining a stringent control program.

Too often State air pollution control officials are too naive or too oblivious to demand stringent controls on new facilities even if backed by

adequate laws. A current case in point is the power generating plants under construction near Page, in northern Arizona. Proposed control facilities are inadequate, and over 700 tons of SO2 and 200 tons of fly ash will be deposited on the surrounding desert biome each day. Stacks 700 to 800 feet high are planned which will simply disperse the wastes over a wider area. The sensitivity of desert species to SO2 is not known, but the bulk of the emissions will drift over and into Glen Canyon creating first an esthetic insult to the thousands of boaters hoping to enjoy the pristine majesty of this remote national recreation area. Secondly, pollution of Lake Powell itself is inevitable. The seriousness of this to the stability and productivity of the lake isn't known, but the sulfates will add measurably to the already saline waters, and the increased acidity may have a serious impact on the aquatic biota as demonstrated in smaller bodies of water subjected to far less pollution. Regrettably, Arizona is accepting these powerplants without demanding maximum control emissions. If S. 3466 were in effect, boaters, campers, fisherman, sightseers, and the public at large would not have to be concerned with the impending desecration of the Lake Powell recreation area.

Such areas are for the enjoyment of the entire Nation, not just the citizens of a small corner of one State. It is imperative that our natural areas be protected; it is the responsibility of us all to see they are!

Powerplants and other major sources of pollution are being constructed in many parts of the country. Each contributes its share of wastes into regional air sheds oblivious to State boundaries. Where the State is remiss in its obligations by not demanding maximum emission control, excessive wastes are dispersed into neighboring air sheds where they may violate the air quality standards of that State. Uniformity in standards, as can be attained only through Federal standards, is needed to uniformly protect the natural ecosystems of the country to say nothing of the agricultural crops, recreation areas, parks, and home landscapes. Such standards must not be set loosely at concentrations expedient to industry but failing to provide adequate protection to the land. Nor must they be based on the unqualified emotions of a few alarmists, and set so stringent that present technology does not enable compliance. Such a situation either forces violating industries to shut down, to be granted variances, or the law to be ignored-all situations no one wants. Yet, such situations exist now due to inadequate deliberation and consideration given prior to establishing air quality standards.

Finally, States and air quality regions are duplicating each others efforts. Many lack the capability or competence to develop realistic standards. Federal air quality standards, developed in accordance with recommendation of the most knowledgeable experts in the country, must be provided. Standards for major pollutants must be established rapidly but sagaciously. Only then can our health and esthetics be adequately protected, and our natural and cultivated lands receive the uniform protection needed for their preservation.

STATEMENT OF MRS. JEAN SOMERS, CHAIRMAN, STAMP OUT SMOG, ORANGE COUNTY CHAPTER, GARDEN GROVE, CALIF.

Mrs. SOMERS. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee; I am Mrs. Jean Somers, chairman of Stamp Out Smog, Orange County chapter. I would like to share with this committee some of the thoughts that concern many Orange County residents about air pollution.

We are afraid that the agencies who could act, the elected officials who could direct priorities, and the legislators who are in the position to create the legal means to end pollution, will take such necessary action too late. Too late to save the elderly from suffering the fright and despair that comes with worry about the fate of their children. Too late to prevent our impatient youth and indeed even others, from taking regrettable acts of violence against the industries, powerplants, and automobile manufacturers, that are poisoning the air. We fear the bombing of pollution sources. We fear the laying siege of freeways. Mothers and fathers in our county call Stamp Out Smog everyday to get involved with our citizens effort to end air pollution. These good folks are up tight and extremely eager to do all that is possible. Often I feel discouraged that I haven't got a magic button to change the smoggy sky to blue. While a "shutoff" button may be an oversimplification for solving our dilemma, it can serve to remind us that it is tiresome to hear how complicated and complex the elimination of pollution from the environment will be. We consider this propaganda and ask you, and all concerned, to direct your actions to the problems dealing with pollution, rather than the complexities of industry as it attempts to squeeze out the last minute of profit at our expense.

We also ask lawmakers to coordinate information, not from economist, but from doctors of physics, biologists, and all scientists who will define the present urgent pollution problem.

We ask then, that the medical teams work in close association with the data eminating from the scientists task force, and that they document precisly how severely our health is affected.

We ask then, that the legislators adopt laws to end the violence. And we ask that the engineers be brought in to see if they can help avoid the possible future technological errors. Then we feel we should get busy training teachers with environmental ecology to assure some hope that the future generations benefit by our mistakes rather than repeat them.

It seems we are great when it comes to fussing and fuming because of the very serious drug addiction of our young people. It seems we also excel at being hypocrites. The perfect example of this can be pointed up in our locale. In Orange County, the Southern California Edison Co. wants to expand the present fossil fuel plant at Huntington Beach. Our County Air Pollution Control District Chief, Mr. William Fitchen, informs us that the proposed expansion would result in tripling the pollution from the powerplant. We oppose this additional pollution. Those asking us to accept that "little bit more," when already there is too much pollution in our south coast air basin, are comparable

to drug addicts asking for a little more when already they have had too much. This public solicitation by the powerplant is setting no good example for the young. Citizens who can vote, and citizens who are too young to vote reject this, and lose respect for the asking company.

Stamp Out Smog members and spokesmen from various civic and social organization that we have contacted, would appreciate a reporting of pollution cleanup costs, as they relate to the family unit, rather than reporting the total of billions upon billions of dollars. It is natural to ignore a task that requires a budget of a billion dollars or more. This is no time to discourage people's support. The average person turns off when you mention costs of a million dollars. This is not a figure he can respond to. Whatever the costs are, the price is one we are willing to pay. We do not mean pay and continue to pollute, however, we mean pay and end pollution.

We feel it is preposterous to think we can go on breathing the air that kills our forests trees in San Bernadino, without ill effects. Our good sense dictates, and our elementary school children can tell us this is not possible.

There was a time when we did not generally realize that venting the products of industrial combustion and auto exhaust into our atmosphere would poison the air we breathe. We know it now. It is stupid to permit it to continue. Please take all action necessary to end the destruction of our atmosphere.

Thank you.

Senator BOGGS. We will recess until the call of the Chair.

(Whereupon, at 11:55 A.M., the subcommittee recessed, subject to the call of the Chair.

AIR POLLUTION-1970

FRIDAY, APRIL 17, 1970

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AIR AND WATER POLLUTION
OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 4200, New Senate Office Building, Senator Thomas F. Eagleton presiding. Present: Senators Randolph, Eagleton, Gravel, and Baker.

Staff members present: Richard B. Royce, chief counsel and staff director; M. Barry Meyer, counsel; Bailey Guard, assistant chief clerk (minority); Tom Jorling, minority counsel; Leon G. Billings and Adrian Waller, profesisonal staff members.

Senator EAGLETON. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. The Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution of the Senate Committee on Public Works is once again in session to continue its hearings on various and sundry pieces of legislation dealing with matters of pollution.

We have three witnesses scheduled this morning. There was to have been a fourth witness, Mr. Lewis Green, attorney at law from my home city of St. Louis, Mo. But regrettably, it was necessary for him to be in Federal court in St. Louis this morning. Thus, he cannot be with us. Our first witness this morning is Dr. Eneas D. Kane, president, Chevron Research Co., San Francisco, Calif.

STATEMENT OF DR. ENEAS D. KANE, PRESIDENT, CHEVRON RESEARCH CO., SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.; ACCOMPANIED BY DR. EUGENE SPITLER, MANAGER, FUELS DIVISION

Senator EAGLETON. You may proceed, Doctor.

Mr. KANE. Thank you, Senator. My name is Eneas D. Kane. I am president of Chevron Research Co., which is a research subsidiary of Standard Oil Co. of California.

I would like to thank the subcommittee, on behalf of the Standard Oil Co. of California, for this opportunity to comment on the pending air pollution legislation you are considering. Specifically, I would like to comment on provisions relating to regulation of automotive fuel composition and fuel additives.

My associate here is Dr. Eugene Spitler, who is manager of our fuels division.

Let me first state that it is a primary goal of our company to do whatever it can to assist in the elimination of air pollution from automobiles. With that goal in mind, we have recently begun the in