STATEMENT SUBMITTED TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT BY CONGRESSMAN DON EDWARDS, OF CALIFORNIA, SEPTEMBER 6, 1966

Mr. Chairman, as a Representative from a State which has its own serious and well-known problems of pollution of our environment, I am very pleased to be able to present this statement to your committee as you inquire into the adequacy of our technology for controlling pollution.

The deleterious effects of pollution for plant and animal life, for human health and comfort, for our economy and our recreational life, are reaching a critical stage. An unfortunate byproduct of the growth and development of America as an urban, industrial nation has been the pouring into our waters, air, and land, the waste of our produce. As we have taken out and used the resources of the earth, we have paid little if any attention to the quality of what we put back. We have reached a point where if we do not take forceful comprehensive steps to clean up our own filth and to place effective controls on the source of pollutants, we shall indeed stifle life on earth.

We are essentially a user society, as opposed to a consumer society. While the streamflow and the amount of air remain constant, the degree of pollution is ever greater with the increased production and consumption of goods, the increased number of cars, the increased demands for heat and electric power and the urbanization and concentration of people.

The Federal Government has an undeniable and essential role in reversing this deadly trend. I strongly support the legislation now before the Congress to amend and expand last winter's Water Quality Act and Clean Air Act and I will support strengthening of these bills. We must recognize that this problem is not limited by State lines. Air currents know no State boundaries. Nor do streamflows. The Federal Government, with its vaster resources, can financially assist local governments in construction and operation of treatment plants and other facilities. And it can offer incentives to municipalities and industries to take requisite action. Nationally coordinated research can avoid duplication and wasted money. Finally, I recommend strengthening the enforcement powers of the Government of the United States. I'm in total agreement with the President's recommendations in this regard, as he outlined them in his message to the Congress in February of this year.

It is imperative that the National Government take the lead in this field both because of its financial resources and its interstate character. But there is the additional and more crucial reason that without this potential force, we will not even be able to come close to cleaning up our environment. Without the clearly defined national goals, forcefully implemented, of unspoiled rivers and pure air, industries and municipalities and individuals will continue to dump their refuse and soot into surroundings belonging to all Americans.

How many small towns across the country have allowed their prime industry to continue to pollute the rivers and the air for fear that attempts to regulate may stimulate the plant to move? How many of these towns do not have sufficient funds to construct a modern, efficient sewage treatment plant? Instead of air pollution devicesor safety features the automobile industry has offered an unending and amazing assortment of gimmicks-from blinding chrome to stereo phonographs to catch the eye of the buying public.

These are the reasons why Federal action is unavoidable if we desire to achieve the goal the President has outlined.

It has often been said that our technology is adequate to the problem, if only it were applied. Although this is not entirely accurate, there is much to this statement. For example, no technical advances are needed for alleviating pollution from farm animal wastes, particulate materials in the air and sewage effluents-only standards and regulations, controls and devices. Pittsburgh's battle against air pollution is justly renowned. By placing controls on soot and restricting the use of high-sulfur fuels, pollution in that city was reduced by 67 percent in 2 years.

Nonetheless, it would be foolish and shortsighted to say our technology is adequate to our needs. Development of feasible technology has been hindered by some important factors which we might consider at this point. First, it has been shown that there is not sufficient communication of the knowledge we do have particularly between the research scientist and the engineer. More work is needed in both basic and applied research but the work of the scientist and engineer must interact in order to stimulate progress on both ends.

We cannot overlook the problems of cost and market for developing technology. Without a requirement to do so, without a clear profit incentive, industries and municipalities have not pressed for improved equipment; thus there has been no market for such hardware. Conversely if these considerations were reversed, I have little doubt that we would see a competitive development of new, effective, low-cost equipment for pollution abatement.

At this point, the most serious problem in my home State of California is air pollution. A conservative estimate is that, across the Nation, damage to crops, deterioration of buildings, bridges, and machines runs over $11 billion a year. Each year these pollutants are released into the air: 65 million tons of carbon monoxide, 23 million tons of sulfur oxides, 15 million tons of hydrocarbons, 12 million tons of other matter. These pollutants may be transformed by a chemical process, such as oxidation; or they may blow away or fall to the ground. The ventilating capacity of the local area can only handle so much and in some areas, the geographic and meteorological problems, such as inversion, cause even greater difficulty.

Much work remains ahead of us in both research and technology. We need more research into the effects of longtime exposure in order to establish meaningful standards for control. Our knowledge of the interrelationship and secondary effects of various pollutants is not sufficient.

Clearly, two of our most serious problems are the automobile and oxides of sulfur. Incomplete combustion in motor yehicles is a major problem in every metropolitan area in our Nation. The national

requirement of control mechanisms is a significant beginning. I am in full accord with the more extensive recommendations of Mr. Norman Cousins, chairman of the mayor's task force on air pollution, New York City, and I'd like to reiterate these points as he presented them to the Committee on Public Works earlier this year.

First, that studies should be made to determine whether the blowby and afterburner devices required under the Clean Air Act might not have the adverse side effect of emitting oxides of nitrogen, thus creating a substantial new problem.

Second, effective air pollution control devices should be required for all cars, regardless of age.

Third, extensive research should be aimed at the idea of developing chemical additives for use in all fuels which now produce pollutants, including fuels used in automobiles, buses, trucks, heating furnaces, and steam and power generating stations.

With respect to sulfur oxide, a great deal of progress can be made by using low-sulfur fuels while continuing to work on improving furnaces and developing inexpensive devices to catch dust and sulfur fumes. In this whole field, I think it is extremely important to remember this point recently expressed by Senator Edmund S. Muskie, of Maine: "Additional study is needed, of course, but this fact is too often used as an excuse for delay."

The rivers and streams of our Nation have for so long a time served as a dumping ground for our waste products that it will require a major commitment of money and talent to overcome the harm done by enterprising but unthinking Americans. In this day and age, even, approximately one-fourth of our towns and cities are without any kind of treatment facility for raw sewage. Over $40 billion is required merely to catch up to the needs of the moment. In comparison, the $600 million to be spent by local communities and the $150 million by the Federal Government are totally inadequate. The sources of water pollution are many and include domestic sewage and other oxygen demanding wastes, infectious disease-producing agents, plant nutrients, organic chemicals including pesticides and detergents, industrial wastes, sediment and silt from land erosion, and heat from power and industrial plants.

Intensified research and development is urgent to keep ahead of the problem of waste treatment. We need advanced means of treating municipal and industrial wastes. Particularly, we might look into the development of joint treatment systems such as is that shared by the Potomac communities of Lake, Md.; Westernport, Md.; and Piedmont, W. Va.; and the West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co.

New methods of solving the problems of cities which have combined storm and sanitary sewers are sorely needed. Over one-third of our Nation faces having their sewage flow untreated into their streams because of the overflow of the system during storms.

Another area of investigation for our scientists and engineers would be to develop alternative methods of waste disposal, instead of the age-old one of unloading it into our rivers. Basic research will always be in demand to determine the effect and fate of new chemicals discovered and used in industry and on such complex problems as recently cropped up in Riverside, Calif. when Salmonella typhimurium was polluting that city's well water supply.

Two indispensable elements of a successful program in combating water pollution are money and enforcement power. Funds are required to support both research and construction. The demand for treatment plants alone will require $20 billion in the next 6 years. The Federal share of this should be at least $1 billion annually and should constitute a contribution of 50 percent of the cost. The present dollar limit for any one city's project should be removed for this is unrealistic and unfair to our large metropolitan areas.

Insofar as enforcement authority is concerned, I strongly support my colleague, Representative John D. Dingell, who has done a great deal of work on this, in urging that the Secretary of the the Interior be authorized to call a conference for intrastate as well as interstate streams on his initiative without the requirement of the Governor's

consent.

There is much to be done. Our technology is closely related to the climate we create for its growth and to the goals the public sets for its use. Although there is no question but that the situation is urgent and requires immediate action, we can take heart from the tremendous example set by West Germany. With over one-half the West German industrial capacity located along the Ruhr River, with that river's relatively small streamflow, we may be surprised to learn that the Ruhr is not polluted. Their method was one which we might consider: industrial plants are charged a stiff fine proportionate to the amount of pollution each plant puts into the river. I feel sure that with the wholehearted support of the public and the Federal Government, we can do as well. As President Johnson has said: "We see that we can corrupt and destroy our lands, our rivers, our forests, and the atmosphere itself-all in the name of progress and necessity. Such a course leads to a barren America, bereft of its beauty, and shorn of its sustenance. We see that there is another course-more expensive today, more demanding. Down this course lies a natural America restored to her people. The promise is clear rivers, tall forests, and clean air-a sane environment for man." The responsibility and the opportunity lie before us to take this other course.

STATEMENT SUBMITTED TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT, BY EVERETT P. PARTRIDGE, CALGON CORP., SEPTEMBER 12, 1966

In the flood of reports by committees and panels and of statements by organizations before congressional subcommittees few engineers with a substantial professional career in the management of water for industrial use have become involved. I now consider it unfortunate that what such engineers say to each other is not more frequently said in the public forum. The following statement may be considered a personal expiation of my sins of omission,

As a chemical engineer immersed in research, development and engineering consultation for 40 years, I offer first my convictions that:

1. We do not face an immediate national crisis with respect to water.

2. We do not lack adequate technology to meet the current actual needs with respect to control of pollution of water.

3. We cannot expect to overcome the "crisis" by simply allocating additional effort to research.

Is there an immediate national crisis? I believe not. Yes, we must work harder and harder to keep a relatively constant supply of water in condition to be reused more and more times by more and more people who desire to have more and more things manufactured by and for them. But we do have adequate time to adjust the economy of the Nation to progressively greater reuse of water.

The reasons we hear the screaming of "Crisis! Crisis!" are multiple and complexly interrelated. Perhaps the most pervasive factor is the conviction at the level of practical political management that only by crying "Wolf!" can we stimulate our society sufficiently to support even slow action.

Do we lack adequate technology to face a crisis, if one actually existed? No, of course not. Economics limits our action, not technology. Our society already has available effective technology to meet the problems posed by pollution, but it is only just beginning to face up to the cost and the readjustment of our national economy to absorb it. Few citizens comprehend that they are individual taxpayers and buyers of the products of industry must each contribute part of their personal effort in the form of earnings to buy for their use and enjoyment the clean water they are being encouraged to demand.

When we talk about new, advanced technology for control of pollution what we really are hopeful of attaining is a minimized increase in the cost of doing what must otherwise inevitably become the more and more burdensome job of keeping water reusable.

Can we create the new technology to minimize the cost of keeping water reusable? Perhaps. But we must consistently remember that we are seeking economy of operation as well as improvement in technical performance.