255 



erate as an independent Federal agency or as an entity with a Department of the 

 tnvironrnent. If it is placed in the Department, it should operate independently of 

 the regulatory programs. 



The Bureau of Environmental Statistics called for in S. 171 would logically be 

 combined with an Environmental Monitoring Agency. This Bureau, as defined in 

 the bill, would be an important step forward in ensuring that Federal, state, and 

 private sector decision-makers have available reliable data. 



• The Environmental Protection Agency's existing laboratory structure, now com- 

 prised of 12 laboratories, should be consolidated to create a National Ecological Lab- 

 oratory, a National Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, a National En- 

 vironmental Engineering Laboratory, and a National Health Effects Research Labo- 

 ratory. 



Substantial changes are needed in the EPA laboratory structure to accommodate 

 the growing need for integrated environmental systems research and monitoring. 



• A Federal Interagency Environmental Technologies Program should be estab- 

 lished to promote and support the development of advanced technologies by Federal 

 agencies, universities, industry, and nongovernmental organizations. 



Such a program would provide support to Federal agencies and the private sector 

 through grants, loans, and cooperative agreements to promote the development and 

 diffusion of a wide range of advanced environmental technologies. EPA, or a Depart- 

 ment of the Environment, should function as the lead Federal agency, providing 

 funds to other agencies, industries, academic institutions, and nongovernmental in- 

 stitutions as appropriate to support development and diffusion. 



EPA has experience in administering programs of this kind. In the 1970s, the Fed- 

 eral Interagency Energy/Environmental R&D Program successfully coordinated ef- 

 forts with 16 Federal agencies. I was intimately familiar with that program, since I 

 was its initial director beginning in 1974. I am convinced that a similar program 

 focused on environmental technology development could also be successful. Legisla- 

 tion introduced in the last Congress by Representative Joseph P. Kennedy would 

 establish such an interagency program. 



These recommendations, taken together, would provide a major step forward in 

 ensuring that public and private resources are optimally used to bring new control 

 technologies to the market as well as to understand and deal with threats to the 

 planet's biosphere. 



Why Develop New Environmental Control Technologies? 



Before we undertake new, expanded Federal programs to develop environmental 

 control technologies, we should answer a strategic question: Why is America inter- 

 ested in developing environmental control technologies at this time? A number of 

 answers have been offered: 



• Further reduce environmental pollutants emitted by industrial and other 

 sources here in America; 



• Clean up thousands of sites here in America contaminated by industrial and 

 governmental activities; 



• Support growing efforts in pollution prevention; 



• Reduce our balance of trade deficit through sale of such technologies to rapidly 

 growing markets in Europe and Asia; 



• Provide leadership and assistance to other nations whose pollution and prac- 

 tices threaten the global environment. 



Each one of these answers suggests a distinctly different strategy. Some of these 

 strategies are mutually supportive; others are clearly incompatible. Let me give you 

 several examples. 



First, developing more efficient, more cost-effective control technologies for sale to 

 other advanced industrial nations may have little effect on reducing pollution here 

 in the U.S. This is because our current technology-based regulations often "freeze" 

 technology at a "tried-and-true" level, i.e., technologies which were introduced dec- 

 ades earlier. It is no secret that regulation can and often does destroy incentive for 

 innovation. Other industrial countries, which rely on more cooperation between gov- 

 ernment and industry, could exploit our improved technologies but we couldn't 

 without another costly and painful round of standard setting. 



Second, control technologies for sale to developing nations will probably not be 

 those which we term as "Best Available Technology." In most of the underdeveloped 

 world where raw sewage is being dumped in rivers, even primary treatment is a 

 critical step forward. Any type of exhaust or stack gas control is an improvement. 

 Our foreign competitors learned this lesson many years ago so they sell "appropri- 

 ate," often scaled-down technologies to developing countries where cost and cost-ef- 



