that it works, would create 48 million tons of sludge annually which is enough to cover 160 square miles to a depth of 10 feet. That has some problems of itself, doesn't it? Mr. Moss. I would not advocate the use of a sulfur dioxide stack gas removal process that resulted in a solid waste which would have to be disposed of. Senator MCCLURE. That is what the present technology does, one you said was working well in Japan does exactly that. Mr. Moss. Perhaps I can go back into the material and we can establish this point. But there are a large number of other removal processes-I think this removal process as well-which can be used to produce a product, sulfuric acid or sulfur. Senator MCCLURE. What are you going to do with the sulfuric acid? Mr. Moss. If you have a market for the sulfuric acid close to the powerplant you can just sell it there. Senator MCCLURE. Sell it for what purpose? Mr. Moss. For the normal industrial purpose that sulfuric acid is used for. Senator MCCLURE. It is in excess supply? Mr. Moss. It is in excess supply because we are also mining a lot of sulfur from the ground to make sulfuric acid. The reason we do that is that the transportation costs of sulfuric acid are high, somewhat lower for elemental sulfur. So that rather than pay a little bit more to ship the stuff from the powerplant that is removing it from the stack, industry, for example, in a Texas Gulf region would rather get it from mine sulfur supplies. I should add that mine sulfur consumes a large amount of energy as well. But it seems to me we ought to be able to work out adequate incentives where the sulfur which is recovered from the stacks, which is about the same amount that is being used by industry, would in fact be used by the industry. Senator MCCLURE. One further point. I appreciate your statement. As usual, it is stimulating and topical. I think it is constructive on balance. You suggested that for the interim we should rely upon nuclear as being the least harmful of the possible alternatives. You suggested the hot gas nuclear plants in particular. Dr. Dixie Lee Ray, in testimony before another committee earlier this year, suggested the amount of electricity which might be generated by nuclear plants by the end of the century. Just a little bit of simple calculation indicated that what she was talking about would be starting perhaps by the year 1985 on a fast breeder reactors being the target date for any active commercial application, that there would have to be two fast breeder reactors placed in service each month, two 1,000megawatt plants each month from 1985 to the year 2000, to reach those levels. I think the point that you make with respect to the conservation in energy, the limitation on the growth of energy consumption, is a very valid point which we must explore as we are also exploring the means by which we can do the job that has to be done socially and economically, if we are going to survive as a Nation. Again, I appreciate your statement. I think it is a constructive addition. I appreciate very much the clarification that you have given us on your organization's stand on the question of no significant deterioration versus the term nondegradation, which is sometimes rather loosely applied. Thank you. Mr. Moss. I wouldn't want to leave the impression that I think the solution to our problems is to build as many nuclear powerplants as Senator MCCLURE. I didn't get that from your testimony. Mr. Moss [continuing]. As Commissioner Ray indicated might be necessary. I think we need a balanced energy policy in which we pay as much attention to the demand side as the supply side. When we do that, we will find that we won't have to build, that is, at quite the same breakneck pace as otherwise. Senator MCCLURE. I certainly agree with that. Mr. Moss. And with proper attention paid to the environment and to possible hazards I think a significant component of growth in what is required could probably be nuclear. Senator MCCLURE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your patience. Senator MUSKIE. Thank you, Senator McClure. Thank you, President Moss. I think it has been a very, very useful morning of testimony. I think, thanks to you and members of the committee, that there has been a very careful exposition of the Sierra Club position and I suspect a better understanding of the issues that are involved as we study the testimony and questioning. Thank you very much. Mr. Moss. Thank you, Senator. I have appreciated the opportunity to appear before the committee. [Mr. Moss' prepared statement follows:] IMPLICATIONS OF FRI v. SIERRA CLUB: PREVENTING THE "GRAYING" OF AMERICA by Laurence I. Moss President, Sierra Club Statement before the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, On June 11, 1973, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Fri v. Sierra Club. That same day, June 11, an air-pollution alert was announced for the Washington metropolitan area and the electric voltage was cut throughout the Northeast and Middle West. This coincidence of events demonstrates the urgent need for controlling air pollution, producing more energy by substantially cleaner methods, and reducing the use of energy for non-essential purposes. Even though Fri v. Sierra Club was decided by an equally divided Court and therefore no opinion was written, this was probably the most important environmental case which the Supreme Court has ever decided. It involves that most basic of rights, the right to have the air we breathe and see through be reasonably clean. And it offers the hope that the remaining clean air of this country will be protected from the pollution which is so prevalent in our cities. It is important to put this case into perspective. The idea that the Clean Air Act prohibits significant deterioration of existing air quality was not invented by the plaintiffs or by the district court. It came from the Executive Branch. The 1969 Guidelines for the Development of Air Quality Standards and Implementation Plans of HEW, which enforced the statute until EPA was created in 1970, stated (Section 1.51): [A]n explicit purpose of the Act is "to of the law. In 1970, Under Secretary of HEW, John G. Veneman read a statement on behalf of Secretary Robert Finch to subcommittees of both the Senate Public Works Committee and the House Commerce Committee: 1 [0]ne of the express purposes of the Clean 1 Hearings on Air Pollution Control and Solid Waste Recycling before the Subcommittee on Public Health and Welfare of the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 297 (1970); Hearings on Air Pollution before the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution of the Senate Public Works Committee, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 132-133 (1970). significant deterioration of air quality Under Secretary Veneman told the Senate Committee in his own words: 2 We do not intend to condone "backsliding." On April 3, 1972, EPA itself issued its National Primary and Secondary The position of Congress was equally clear. Both the Air Quality Act of 1967 and the Clean Air Act of 1970 stated as the first purpose of these statutes, "to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources." The significant deterioration of air quality in clean air areas is hardly consistent with the protection and enhancement of |