on your capital would be less to meet other problems. But that is in the past. We can't rewrite the past. I don't think either of us are necessarily the guardians of the public interest with respect to what is needed.

You pursue the interests of your stockholders and your companies. But we try to pursue the public interests with all of the pressures that are brought to bear upon us that dilute our performance as well.

The second observation I would like to make is throughout these statements I get this sense of urgency about the pressures upon our energy supplies, without any comparable feeling of urgency about the pressures upon our air and water supplies. In fact, the one common denominator in your statements is to urge upon us the use of the assimilative capacity of the air as though the air were limitless. What will happen if we should follow that strategy when the day arrives that the assimilative capacity of the air is exhausted and you have put in place your new plants? It would be even more costly then to adjust to the new imperative, a scarcity of air or a scarcity of water, and presumably the pressure on energy supplies would be no less than it is today.

You have painted horror stories about all of the options that you present to us and the options that you close off if you have your way. They are all painful. I don't know of any painless way to meet national imperatives with respect to energy, air, and water.

When you gentlemen suggest that you have a costless, painless way to achieve all three, I have very healthy skepticism about that. We will get into those questions.

I am happy to yield to Senator Domenici at this point.

Why don't you use the remaining 10 minutes, Senator, and then at 2 o'clock we will come back and it will give us all a chance to focus on the central issues.

Senator Domenici?

Senator DOMENICI. Mr. Chairman, I will probably be able to come. back at 2. I might have to go to the floor for a while, but I would like to participate so I will get back this afternoon.

Let me first ask a few questions of Mr. Dowd.

Mr. Dowd, you spoke about Ohio and its imposition of standards, which have been more stringent than the basic standards in the Clean Air Act, which obviously any State has the authority to do.

I take it, although I will ask the gentleman from Wisconsin in a while, they did not apply more stringent standards than the Federal standards.

Let me ask, does not the State of Ohio have a procedure whereby you can seek an extension from them for the imposition? What has your experience been with reference to that?

Mr. Down. Yes, Senator, they do have a procedure. Virtually every powerplant in the State of Ohio has sought variances from the SO2 emission limitation. In fact, there were adjudication hearings before the Ohio EPA that commenced on March 4 and, I believe, were either concluded last week or they may still be in progress. The problem is that they can only grant a variance for 1 year under their statute, as I understand, or it might be renewable. Going beyond

that, we have gotten decisions from the First Circuit, the Second Circuit, the Fifth Circuit and I believe the Eighth Circuit Courts of Appeals to the effect that the only way of obtaining variances beyond the so-called attainment date, which in our States is mid-1975, is through section 110 (f) of the Clean Air Act whereby a Governor of a State requests as to specific emission sources, requests of EPA, a 1-year extension. In order to obtain that, you have to go through a formal adjudicatory hearing before EPA. We have done that in West Virginia.

There is pending now a decision by the Administrator of EPA as to whether we will get this 1-year extension on SO2 compliance at a number of our plants and other plants. Ohio has not done that.

I am concerned under the interpretation of the Clean Air Act by the courts of appeals that Ohio may lack the authority to grant variances from the SO2 emission limitations beyond mid-1975.

Senator DOMENICI. Even variances from their own more restrictive standard?

Mr. Down. That is my understanding. Their standards were approved by the Federal EPA as a part of the State's implementation of the program. I may be wrong on that, Senator, but it is my understanding that the emission limitations contained in Ohio's approved implementation plan cannot be extended beyond mid-1975 other than under section 110 (f).

Senator DOMENICI. I would gather from your statement that because of the urgency expressed, you would like us to set a standard for all the States, at least temporarily, or are you comfortable with the States having the authority to set their own and with you having the right to go before them when you have the kind of problems you are telling us about.

Mr. Down. We are pointing out that there are situations where States have adopted standards considerably more stringent than the Federal, and that this does create severe problems. Our solution, and we are only proposing it as basically an interim solution, is where we have what I regard as virtually an impossible situation, in view of the state of the technology, in view of the scarcity of conforming low sulfur eastern coal, that the Congress recognize so-called intermittent controls as a full-fledged alternative to constant emission limitations. We feel we can meet the ambient standards. We are not here to quarrel about the national primary or secondary ambient standards. We have some reservations that they may be more stringent than are necessary to protect public health and welfare, but we are not here quarreling about that. We can meet them. We can meet them through intermitten controls. We can meet them through tall stacks, monitoring, diversion or cut-back of generation or by keeping a limited supply of low sulfur fuel on site at these plants to be fed into the plant's boilers when there are atmospheric problems. We are proposing this not as an ultimate solution to the problem; we are proposing it as perhaps an interim solution until the technology develops.

In terms of technology, I am inclined to think that eventually the reliability of scrubbers will improve. But we are not at all sure on the AEP system that the waste disposal problem is one that is ca

pable of ultimate resolution. We are looking at gasification and liquefaction as a more optimistic approach.

What we are saying is let us operate under an intermittent control strategy until the Nation's supplies of low sulfur coal can be developed in the west, in the east, and until the technology develops bevond what it is today.

Senator DOMENICI. Forgive me if I don't understand your answer. Do we have two distinct problems that you are addressing yourself to: One, what is the authority of a State with reference to granting variances, and then that we have some fixed Federal standard that you are going to have trouble meeting, except with the intermittent control? Do I understand that to be what you are saying?

Mr. Down. I am not sure I understand your question. What I am trying to say, and this relates to something Senator Muskie asked other witnesses today, is all of our States have adopted constant emission limitations. They are not permitting interim controls as a method of meeting ambient standards. I strongly suspect that these States believe that the Clean Air Act, itself, section 110, requires constant emission limitations. What I am asking is that the Congress clarify this by pointing out to the States, through an amendment to the Clean Air Act, that if the State so wishes it can opt for intermittent controls as a method of achieving and maintaining the ambient standards. I don't think the States feel that they have that right under present law. I strongly suspect, although I can't prove it, that EPA has, in effect, told them that they have to have constant emission limitations in their implementation plan if they want to have that plan approved. The one instance where a State, as I understand it, adopted an approach somewhat different was in Georgia. This is very different. They proposed emission limitations related to stack height. That is very different from what we are proposing here. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit said no. They rejected that part of the Georgia plan.

I am not sure that that answers your question, Senator.

Senator DOMENICI. Yes, it does.

Senator MUSKIE. May I make an observation? The Act requires constant emission limitation. It doesn't require uniform. There is a difference between the two and you gentlemen don't distinguish between the two, or you haven't yet.

Mr. Down. I understand this, Senator Muskie. I am just saying that all of our States have adopted constant emission limitations. They vary from State to State. In Ohio it is more stringent than West Virginia. West Virginia is somewhat more stringent than Kentucky and Virginia. The Ohio limitation is what presents the most difficult problem.

Senator MUSKIE. Senator Domenici?

Senator DOMENICI. No, Mr. Chairman, I will have to leave.

Senator MUSKIE. We will recess at this point and return at 2 o'clock. We will see you all at 2 o'clock.

[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m., the same day.]

AFTER RECESS

[The subcommittee reconvened at 2 p.m., Senator Edmund S. Muskie, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.]

Senator MUSKIE. The subcommittee will be in order.

STATEMENTS OF AUBREY J. WAGNER, T. L. MONTGOMERY, A. J. PFISTER, WILLIAM G. LALOR, JR., JOSEPH DOWD, JOHN E. DOLAN, PAUL D. MARTINKA, THOMAS STEELE, JOSEPH S. IVES, AND BRADLEY KOCH-Resumed

Senator MUSKIE. There is a vote at 3 o'clock. It is conceivable that some members of the committee would like to come back after the vote to continue questioning.

I just forewarn you in the event that it should happen. We will try to minimize the delay. We all concur in the view that since we have you gentlemen here who are involved in some controversial questions in this whole debate about the Clean Air Act, we ought to make maximum use of the time to question you in areas of your experience and expertise.

May I open, and I will limit myself to 10 minutes and then yield to my colleagues-so don't filibuster my questions, though I may filibuster myself.

First of all, I gather you are in agreement that you do not challenge the primary ambient air standards.

I see you all nod affirmatively, that you do not.

Mr. Wagner, in your statement you say this:

For example, around TVA's very worst plant, burning the coal which we do, and without any kind of control, the short term ambient standards are exceeded no more than 5 percent of the time.

Around most of our plants these limits are exceeded less than 1 percent of the time or not at all.

You made that statement for the purpose of arguing that to impose controls in such situations is unreasonable? Are you saying that if ambient standards are exceeded no more than 5 percent of the time, they should not be enforced?

Mr. WAGNER. No, sir, quite the opposite. What I am saying is that without any controls they are exceeded only a very small percent of the time, and the sulfur dioxide emission limitations program that we propose would provide that they would never be exceeded.

I made the point also, Senator, to emphasize the fact that a great majority of the time the sulfur dioxide levels in the air around our plants is way, way below the standards permitted. This is not a question of our plants loading almost up to the standard almost continuously.

The normal sulfur dioxide levels are a very small percentage of the permitted standards, and we agree the standards should be met and we think they could be met by our proposed method.

Senator MUSKIE. What I wanted to clarify was the question of whether or not you were reciting those 5 percent and 1 percent

figures as a challenge to the standard or simply as a record of your performance. I gather it is the latter.

Mr. WAGNER. It is a record of the fact that even without any attempt to correct the situation we do not have a serious problem, but we will correct even that 5 percent and 1 percent so that the figures would be zero percent.

Senator MUSKIE. The second question I would like to ask with reference to those paragraphs is this: Is that description of your performance regarding the extent to which you depart from the standard, an EPA evaluation, or is it your own evaluation?

Mr. WAGNER. It is our own evaluation. We make the measurements, but it is a commitment on our part to comply with the ambient standards.

Senator MUSKIE. It is your own measurement, it is not EPA's measurement?

Mr. WAGNER. Yes, sir, but I don't believe EPA has challenged that.

Senator MUSKIE. Does EPA have a monitoring system in your area?

Mr. WAGNER. They don't have independent monitoring system, but they understand what our monitoring systems are and I believe they have accepted them as accurate.

Senator MUSKIE. Well, we can check with them. But this is your monitoring system that you describe?

Mr. WAGNER. Yes.

Senator MUSKIE. How extensive is your monitoring system?

Mr. WAGNER. I believe it is one of the most extensive in the country. If you would like it described briefly, I can ask Dr. Montgomery to do it.

Senator MUSKIE. Is it 24-hour continuous monitoring?

Mr. WAGNER. Let Dr. Montgomery cover that.

Senator MUSKIE. It would be useful to have that.

Dr. MONTGOMERY. Yes, sir, our ambient monitors for sulfur dioxide are continuous monitors, 24 hours per day, 365 days a year. Senator MUSKIE. We will check with EPA on its evaluation of your monitoring system.

All of you. I think, have testified on the question of scrubbers and refer to them as unreliable and unproved. You appear to continue to use experiments from about 1972. American's statement said the longest run has been 3 weeks, and yet the plant at Cholla, Ariz., has run since December 1973 with no scrubber process breakdown. I understand that Arizona Public Service has recently voted four more scrubbers with 250 megawatts of the plant than other utilities such as Texas Utilities, Southern California Edison, and Nevada Power.

Do you have any observation to make with reference to that experience?

Mr. Down. Senator Muskie, if I might respond to that, we did quote from the report which spoke as of the spring of 1973, and pointed out that the longest run on coal-fired plants in the United States during 1972 was 3 weeks or approximately 3 weeks.