July 12, 1966
Page 15249
CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1966
The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (S. 3112) to amend. the Clean Air Act so as to authorize grants to air pollution control agencies for maintenance of air pollution control programs in addition to present authority for grants to develop, establish, or improve such programs; make the use of appropriations under the act more flexible by consolidating the appropriation authorizations under the act and deleting the provision limiting the total of grants for support of air pollution control programs to 20 percent of the total appropriation for any year; extend the duration of the programs authorized by the act; and for other purposes.
Mr, KUCHEL Mr. President, sometime shortly before 2 o'clock p.m., I hope to suggest the absence of a quorum so that members of the Public Works Committee may proceed to request a yea-and-nay vote on Calendar No. 1326, S.3112, the pending business. It has been agreed with the leader of the majority that at 2 o'clock p.m. we will proceed to vote, on the assumption that a yea-and-nay vote will be ordered.
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, therefore, that the Senate proceed to vote at 2 o'clock p.m. on the pending business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
Does the Senator from California ask also that rule XII be waived?
Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that rule XII be waived in connection with my request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, a little less than 3½ years ago, the late Senator McNamara, of Michigan, then chairman of the Senate Committee on Public Works, created the Special Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution. Our first major legislation from that subcommittee was the Clean Air Act of 1963. That legislation launched a vigorous Federal program to aid the States and local governments to combat the ever-increasing threat of polluted air. Last year, we amended the Clean Air Act to initiate controls on harmful automotive exhaust emissions, and we added the Solid Waste Disposal Act to our arsenal of weapons in the fight for an improved environment.
Today, we bring to the Senate additional amendments to the Clean Air Act. These amendments have the vigorous backing of the members of the Public Works Committee, on both sides of the aisle. They are evidence of the continued concern of our committee with the problems of air pollution and of the determination of our chairman, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH], to maintain our search for improved ways of reducing the hazards of air pollution.
Today's legislation is a step forward, but it is not the end of our efforts. We cannot rest until we have removed the threats to man's health, well-being and economic advancement which man himself creates in a modern, technological society.
S. 3112 amends the Clean Air. Act in order to provide for a stronger, more effective air pollution control effort at the Federal, State, and local level.
S. 3112, as reported, is based on legislation proposed by the administration. The primary purposes of the bill are to consolidate appropriation authorizations in the Clean Air Act and to authorize funds to continue the program through 1969.
S. 3112 institutes a new grant program to allow air pollution control agencies up to one-half of the cost of maintaining programs for the prevention and control of air pollution, and authorizes the Secretary to make grants to intermunicipal or interstate air pollution control agencies in an amount up to three fifths of the cost of maintaining regional air pollution control programs.
S. 3112 removes the limitation in existing law that no more than 20 percent of the sums appropriated annually under the act may be used for support of air pollution control programs, and provides that in determining the eligibility for a program grant nonrecurrent expenditures of the participating agencies in the preceding year shall not be considered.
Finally, S. 3112 provides that grants for interstate programs, subject to the 12 ½ percent limitation, shall be allocated by the Secretary according to the portion of such grant that is chargeable to any one State.
Mr. President, last year the Congress enacted major legislation dealing with the specific problem of pollution emanating from automobiles. That legislation has resulted in promulgation, by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, of regulations relating to the control of harmful motor vehicle exhausts. Those regulations will require installation of automobile exhaust control devices on all 1968 model automobiles.
Last year's amendments also provided a mechanism for abatement of international air pollution; for acceleration of research concerning methods of control of pollution from motor vehicles and the emission of oxides of sulfur; for public conferences directed toward the prevention of new or more aggravated interstate air pollution problems; and for construction, staffing, and equipping facilities needed by the Department to carry out its responsibilities under the act.
The additional requirements imposed by last year's legislative action require additional funds if the programs authorized are to be adequately and effectively pursued.
The committee bill has, therefore, authorized the requested $46 million for 1967 and provided $70 million for 1968, and $80 million for 1969. These authorizations will provide adequate funds to carry out the new maintenance grant program authorized by this act and give the Division of Air Pollution sufficient funds to support essential research programs. The $46 million authorized for 1967 represents a $10 million increase over existing authorization. This increase is, in part, required by the expanded program of research into the control of sulfur emissions and automobile emissions and includes $7 million as the added cost of maintenance grant program.
The authorizations for 1968 and 1969 represent similar increases in the activities of the division and $10 and $13 million, respectively, to carry out the maintenance grant program.
On the latter point, the committee is convinced of the desirability of providing Federal aid to continuation of air pollution control programs. Existing program grants have stimulated State and local activity by providing Federal matching funds for new or improved programs. They were not designed for sustained State and local control efforts necessary to cope with a continuing air pollution problem. This has discriminated against States and localities who initiated their own excellent programs prior to the Clean Air Act and it has worked a hardship on other States and localities.
Therefore, the committee considers the provision of S. 3112, authorizing the Secretary to make grants for maintaining air pollution control programs, to be essential. The 50-percent matching grant program to State and local agencies and the three-fifths matching grant program to regional agencies should provide adequate incentive for maintenance of this effort.
The committee has further provided that nonrecurrent expenditures of pollution control agencies will not be considered in determining the eligibility for a grant. Many factors may justifiably cause the level of expenditures by a pollution control agency to fluctuate, including, for example, nonrecurrent costs of equipment, of facilities, acquisition of property, or the initiation of studies concerning air quality or other matters. Where the overall workability of the air pollution control program is not impaired, fluctuations in expenditures should not make local agencies ineligible for Federal matching grants support.
S. 3112 deletes the provision in the Clean Air Act which limits the total for grants in support of air pollution control programs to 20 percent of the total appropriation for any fiscal year.
The existing act imposes a fixed relationship between grant funds to the total appropriations for all Federal air pollution activities. Air pollution and the possibilities for control action are subject to rapid change. Over a period of time, the pattern of needs and desirable program balance with respect to research, technical assistance, training, Federal abatement activities, grants to State and local control agencies, and other activities may vary considerably. The committee believes it would be wise to leave the determination of the relative emphasis to be given to each of these activities to the annual budgetary and appropriation process so that judgments may be based upon the overall requirements existing at the time.
Mr. President, these are the major provisions of the legislation pending before the Senate. However, there are two other matters which the committee examined during its hearings on S. 3112 which I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues.
Mr. President, it is the philosophy of the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution and its chairman that discussions limited to pending legislation are not sufficient when dealing with pollution of our air and water environment. The subcommittee has tried to develop as much information as is available on potential problems in order to inform the public of existing or potential threats to our environment which may require additional administrative or legislative action.
An example of this is the question of contamination of the atmosphere from lead and beryllium. The subcommittee learned in its hearings that there is a potential danger to the public health from the use of beryllium in large quantities in rocket firing. On the basis of the information received relative to this subject, the committee, in its report, has recommended that the Public Health Service develop such guidelines as may be necessary to insure the protection of public health and safety against the adverse effects of beryllium dispersed into the atmosphere by rocket firings.
The subcommittee's hearings on environmental lead contamination raised many unanswered questions. It is well known that lead is a toxic substance; that it is an element not natural to the human body, and that, absorbed in large quantities, it can have toxic results. These facts have been common knowledge in lead industries for many years and have resulted in strict procedures for the protection of workers in those industries. The results of that program have been impressive.
However, the problem of adverse effects of lead contamination goes far beyond the clinical injuries of workers in lead using industries. We are concerned with the subclinical effects of long-term low levels of exposure.
Lead in the atmosphere, attributable to automobile exhaust emissions, has greatly increased over the past three decades. There is no unanimity among the experts as to the danger or lack of danger from this increase.
There is some evidence that pregnant women and younger children retain a proportionately greater amount of lead which they ingest from the environment and are more susceptible to its toxic effects. Other evidence indicates that relatively small – compared with industrial standards – concentrations of lead are capable of producing intellectual disabilities and retardation in children, and that some types of disease including kidney, liver, blood, and bone problems, render the body more susceptible to lead toxicity.
The committee notes suggestions in the work of scientists in this country, Russia and Great Britain, that lead in amounts and concentrations much less than levels traditionally connected with lead poisoning are capable to producing serious effects on the central nervous system and particularly the production and maintenance of red blood cells.
This evidence is, at present, only fragmentary and controversial. However, it is important to note that the standards of safety developed for health of male adults working in lead industries are not necessarily relevant to problems of long-term, low levels of exposure, particularly for those who retain higher than normal amounts of lead and who are more vulnerable to toxic effects of lead.
This information, developed during the course of the hearings, suggests that both the committee and those agencies charged with protection of the public health should further investigate the following questions regarding lead in the atmosphere:
First. What are the cumulative effects of subclinical exposure over long and short periods of time?
Second. What dangerous effects of abnormal storage in the bones are likely to result from the normal course of events and from accidents resulting in massive bleeding and dissolution of bone tissues?
Third. What synergistic effects can be anticipated with subclinical concentrations of lead combined with other environmental and somatic agents, either those present in significant quantities now or projected for the future?
Fourth. Are present levels dangerous either clinically or subclinically in the ways suggested?
Fifth. Are levels in danger of increasing to hazardous levels?
Sixth. Are levels reaching a point where unpredictable incidents of a lead or nonlead nature can cause toxicity?
Because the majority of atmospheric lead is held to come from lead compounds in auto exhaust, there is a need to concentrate on this aspect of the problem – to develop further information about subclinical effects of moderate lead concentrations – to evaluate proposals to eliminate lead from gasoline both from technical feasibility as well as the economic aspect – to hear testimony on alternatives to internal combustion – and especially to determine whether any existing governmental body presently has the authority, mechanism and financing to control the lead in the atmosphere from auto exhausts.
Mr. President, it is not enough that the Federal Government should stimulate industry to develop and demonstrate means of control from automobile exhausts.
Because competition is the watchword of American enterprise, the Federal Government should stimulate reasonable alternatives to internal combustion. Predictable increases in urban air pollution may one day dictate elimination of presently conceived modes of transportation from that urban environment. Alternatively, the automobile industry must be encouraged to develop its combustion processes so as to limit, to the maximum extent economically feasible, emissions of air pollutants.
The committee report recommends an interdepartmental task force to investigate means of reducing air pollution by use of new methods of transportation not involving internal combustion engines. Such a task force should consider advanced methods of electrified rapid transit, battery operated vehicles, and the prospects of developing the fuel cell for commercial use.
Urbanization is not reversible. Though many of us from nonurban areas would like to believe that clean air and open space are available to all the people, this is not the case.
If we are to live in an urban society, then efforts must be made to adequately protect the public from the hazard associated with polluted air. This cannot be a secondary goal nor can it be an effort which will take place sometime in the future.
The problem confronts us now and must be dealt with now. The Federal Government has the opportunity and the obligation to provide the leadership in this effort. Should we fail, another Donora, Pa., is not unlikely.
There rests on the shoulders of those of us who legislate today the responsibility to provide a healthy environment for those who will grow up in our cities tomorrow. This will be the pattern of future legislation and will direct the efforts which I, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution will make.
Mr. President, I wish to discuss another matter which came to the attention of the subcommittee, raising serious question of public policy.
The subcommittee heard representatives of the Bureau of Mines, Department of the Interior, and the American Petroleum Institute, discuss a contract pursuant to which the Bureau would conduct a research program for API at API's expense. The committee's attention was directed to this subject by a Department of interior press release which noted:
Lead is toxic, and because increasingly large amounts of it are released into the atmosphere from auto exhausts, considerable interest has been aroused in research on possible new types of unleaded motor fuel to reduce air pollution.
The toxicity of lead and the potential poisoning of the atmosphere from lead have been discussed earlier in this report. The fact that an agency of the Federal Government was apparently performing research on this subject for a private group when the results of the research might have an adverse effect on the sponsoring group concerned the committee.
In testimony from Dr. Walter Hibbard, Director of the Bureau of Mines, the committee learned:
it should be emphasized that the Bureau of Mines neither professes competence nor considers as part of its research mission the health effects of automotive emissions as air pollutants. This properly is a responsibility of the Public Health Service. The Bureau's research on fuels combustion is organized to (1) identify and measure the effluents that are generated in fuel use, and (2) study the interdependence of factors in the vehicle and combustion system.
However, the committee was extremely concerned by a clause in the contract between the Bureau and API which prohibited release of any information prior to the completion of the study "without prior written approval of the other party." The committee feels that in a matter such as the question of lead in gasoline, the primary contributor to lead in the atmosphere; the findings of Federal research should not be bound by potential private economic-based decisions.
The committee does not object to the performance of research by Federal agencies on behalf of private organizations in areas where questions of the general welfare are not involved. However, the potential health hazard from lead in the atmosphere is of sufficient concern that the committee feels this type of research program to be potentially adverse to the public interest.
Mr. President, the fact that a Federal agency performs research on behalf of a private organization is not, by definition contrary to public policy. However, in this particular instance, the potential health hazard from lead in the atmosphere is of sufficient concern that I feel this type of research program to be potentially adverse to the public interest. In its report, the committee recommended:
First. That agreements between Federal agencies and private organizations not include restrictive contractual provisions relating to the release of such information as may be developed during the period of research;
Second. That the research program in this particular instance be constantly reviewed by the division of air pollution in order that that agency may have early access to any information developed relative to public health; and
Third. That in the future, the Bureau of Mines specifically, and other agencies in general, inform the Congress of the purpose, intent, cost, contractual limitation of, and participants in any study by any Federal agency, financed by a private organization, at least 90 days prior to signing any agreement to carry out such a study.
If the Bureau of the Budget does not approve a Federal research program and if the Congress is not given an opportunity to authorize such a research program, it seems to me that a Federal agency is going beyond its legislative limitations in seeking out private financing to perform any research activity. Therefore, the committee has recommended that Federal agencies not enter into research contracts on behalf of private agencies wherein a question of private economic interest as versus the general welfare are involved.
In closing, Mr. President, I wish to take note of another important issue.
Hearings were held by the committee on S. 3400, introduced by Senator PAUL DOUGLAS, of Illinois, which would amend the solid waste disposal act relative to the disposition of junked automobiles. In addition to hearing Senator DOUGLAS, the committee also heard witnesses from the division of solid waste and the scrap industry.
The committee was impressed by Senator DOUGLAS' proposal and testimony, and believes the purpose of ridding the Nation of the blight created by junked automobiles, while preserving the valuable resources associated with the junked automobile, is a goal worthy of achievement.
However, S. 3400 presents the committee with complex problems and the testimony received emphasized these complexities. In the interest of early reporting of the Clean Air Act amendments, the committee decided to delay action on S. 3400 until further information could be received and the necessary study of the legislation could be performed.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending legislation.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I wish at this point to express my appreciation to the distinguished chairman of the full Committee on Public Works (Mr. RANDOLPH], to the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, the Senator from Delaware [Mr. BOGGS], and to all members of the subcommittee and the full committee for the dedicated cooperation and participation which they have given, over a period of 3 years, to the consideration of the problems of air and water pollution. I think it is not inappropriate for me to say that much creative legislation in these fields has come out of the subcommittee and the full committee, which would not have been possible without the contributions of my dedicated colleagues on the subcommittee and the staffs of the committee. I take this opportunity to express my appreciation to them.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD that portion of the committee report (No. 1361) which relates to the lead problem.
There being no objection, the excerpt from the report was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
AIR POLLUTION FROM LEAD AND OTHER SUBSTANCES
During the hearings on S. 3112, the subcommittee heard testimony of an exploratory nature on the question of contamination of the atmosphere from lead and other substances. At these hearings information was presented regarding the questions of atmospheric contamination from beryllium and lead.
Dr. Harriet L. Hardy, Assistant Medical Director, Occupational Health Service of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, an expert on beryllium toxicology, testified that the general population may be in great danger of poisoning from beryllium released by the firing of rockets.
She stated, "The use of beryllium in large quantities in rocket firing is in my opinion unwise. My opinion is based on the impossibility of control of weather and likelihood of technical accident."
Since beryllium has been shown to be incurably damaging to individuals exposed to only small airborne amounts, the Federal Government has a critical responsibility in minimizing exposure to the population from its facilities and programs, including rocket firing. The committee recommends that the Public Health Service consider the standards developed by the National Academy of Sciences, and early adopt and promulgate such guidelines as might be necessary to insure the protection of public health and safety against the adverse effects of beryllium dispersed in the area of rocket firings.
The committee heard a good deal of expert testimony about classical or clinical lead poisoning, derived primarily from occupational experience, and about the safe body levels of lead with respect to concentrations in blood, urine, etc.
The hearings, however, did not provide definite answers to the question of whether present or foreseeable concentrations of lead in the air are dangerous to the general population at levels substantially lower than those associated with clinical lead poisoning.
Representatives of the lead industries and gasoline producers and Dr. Robert A. Kehoe of the Kettering Laboratories contended that levels of lead in the atmosphere have not increased in recent years (from 5 to 30 years); that present or foreseeable levels are not dangerous to the population as a whole; and that workers who are occupationally exposed to lead already receive adequate protection.
Officials of the Public Health Service displayed more concern about the potential dangers of adverse subclinical effects and less certainty about current findings. but were divided as to whether the situation demanded immediate legislative action.
One witness expressed extreme alarm. Dr. Clair C. Patterson, a geophysicist at the California Institute of Technology, suggested that any level of lead in the atmosphere represents an inestimably dangerous increment over values which prevailed during the evolution of the human physiology. Analyses of ice deposits and inference from contemporary data indicate the concentration of lead in the atmosphere has increased tremendously since the introduction of lead antiknock compounds in gasoline in the early 1920's, according to Dr. Patterson. His data indicated that this increase has been a hundredfold.
The Survey of Lead in the Atmosphere of Three Urban Communities (known as the Tri-City study) published by the U.S. Public Health Service and cited by several witnesses, states that concentrations vary in relation to the amount of auto exhausts in the area, a function of volume of traffic and speed of travel. This involves a range from 1 to 3 micrograms of lead per cubic meter of air in rural and residential areas to over 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air near and on Los Angeles freeways.
Dr. Robert A. Kehoe, professor emeritus of occupational medicine, Kettering Laboratory, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, and others, presented information about various safe levels of lead in the body, gained through long experimentation in occupational health laboratories. Some of these levels have been developed as indicators of danger, so that when a worker has 0.06 mg. of lead per 100 gms. of blood, or 0.10 mg. of lead per liter of urine, he is removed from exposure to lead. These levels are only with respect to the possibility of clinical lead poisoning. Dr. Kehoe had earlier stated at the Lead Symposium sponsored by the Public Health Service in December 1965, that the above levels are the points below which clinical poisoning can safely be assumed not to occur, and do not represent a point above which lead poisoning will necessarily occur.
This knowledge may not be adequate to assess the threat of general atmospheric lead levels to the population as a whole. The population is not faced with the immediate threat of concentrations of lead approaching the levels of industrial exposure which are judged marginal with regard to clinical poisoning, but there is a gap in existing knowledge as to whether clinical lead poisoning is the only manifestation of the deleterious effects of lead and whether lead's toxicity is a function only of concentrations commonly thought to be associated with classical poisoning.
There is some evidence that pregnant women and younger children retain a proportionately greater amount of lead which they ingest from the environment and are more susceptible to its toxic effects. Also evidence indicates that relatively small (compared to industrial standards) concentrations of lead are capable of producing intellectual disabilities and retardation in children, and that some types of diseases including kidney, liver, blood and bone problems render the body more susceptible to lead toxicity.
This evidence is, at present, only fragmentary and controversial. However, it is important to note that the standards of safety developed for health of male adults working in lead industries are not necessarily relevant to problems of long-term, low levels of exposure, particularly for those who retain higher than normal amounts of lead and who are more vulnerable to toxic effects of lead.
The committee notes from other information that there are suggestions in the work of scientists in this country, Russia and Great Britain, that lead in amounts and concentrations much less than levels traditionally connected with lead poisoning are capable of producing serious effects on the central nervous system and particularly the production and maintenance of red blood cells.
Dr. Patterson stated in his article, "Contaminated and Natural Lead Environments of Man" (September 1965, Archives of Environmental Health):
"It has recently been maintained, on the basis of experimental evidence from animals, that pathologic and histologic changes of the brain and spinal cord together with functional shifts in the higher nervous activity are induced by exposures to atmospheric lead concentrations corresponding to those exposures now experienced by dwellers in most large American cities.
Some evidence suggests that lead competes with other metals for positions in the vital enzyme systems, and may either disrupt the systems directly or produce other substances which then have toxic effects. Further, the biochemistry of clinical lead poisoning, is not yet known and much research must be done (and supported) on the effects of lead on normal and abnormal cell metabolism and its action in neurochemistry.”
Even well-developed industrial safety standards have been unable to prevent an occasional acute overexposure to lead. It may be difficult also to set standards which provide realistic levels and at the same time avoid incidents of overexposure. For example, an individual may be exposed to what has been established as a safe level of atmospheric lead, and then eat apples contaminated with lead insecticide to a high but similarly permissible level, and be poisoned in a clinical sense.
The committee recognizes that conflicts exist as to the scope and extent of the problem. Mr. Felix E. Wormser, consultant and former president, Lead Industries Association, Inc., of New York, and Mr. P. N. Gammelgard, director, Committee for Air and Water Conservation, American Petroleum Institute, stated that in their opinion no danger exists from lead in the atmosphere. Dr. Patterson stated that in his opinion there is extreme danger from present levels. Dr. William H. Stewart, Surgeon General of the United States, Dr. Richard Prindle, Chief of Bureau of State Services, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and other officials from the Public Health Service suggested that danger is minimal now, but extant, and research and surveillance must expand.
Dr. Patterson contended that levels are increasing at dangerous rates, and noted the differences between concentrations in rural and urban atmosphere and rural and urban dwellers. He cited the Tri-City study statistics. Both Mr. Wormser and Mr. Gammelgard testified that, on the basis of their interpretation of the Tri-City study, they found present levels of lead contamination to be low and not a hazard. and that there is no evidence of an increase of lead in the atmosphere in the last 5 years. Mr. Wormser stated under questioning from Senator MUSKIE that although the Tri-City study did not expressly draw this conclusion , he concluded from its evidence that present levels of lead in the atmosphere did not constitute a hazard to the public health.
In reviewing testimony and material on the problem of lead contamination the committee finds several basic questions which demand answers:
(1) What are the cumulative effects of subclinical exposure over long and. short periods of time?
(2) What dangerous effects of abnormal storage in the bones are likely to result from the normal course of events and from accidents with massive bleeding and dissolution of bone tissues?
(3) What synergistic effects can be anticipated with subclinical concentrations of lead combined with other environmental and somatic agents, either those present in significant quantities now or projected for the future?
(4) Are present levels dangerous either clinically or subclinically in the ways suggested?
(5) Are levels in danger of increasing to hazardous levels?
(6) Are levels unnaturally high (though safe) to the point where unpredictable incidents of a lead or nonlead nature can cause toxicity?
LEADED GASOLINE
An associated problem which the committee feels deserves further investigation is the feasibility or desirability of eliminating lead in gasoline as a means of diminishing environmental lead contamination. There is controversy over the cost and economic effect of eliminating lead compounds from gasoline. The majority of atmospheric lead is held to come from lead compounds in auto exhausts. Further hearings should concentrate on this aspect of the problem before any legislative or administrative control action can be taken.
The Surgeon General, Dr. Stewart, said that he would want the lead in gasoline eliminated immediately if there were a nontoxic substitute available, and further agreed that economic necessity inhibits immediate elimination of lead. Even more, Dr. Prindle said that it is vitally important to hold levels of lead constant until studies have been carried out and hazards are adequately assessed. In fact, he agreed with Senator MUSKIE that in the face of current evidence regarding the relationship between atmospheric lead and health hazards, a safe substitute for lead in gasoline should be sought as quickly as possible.
Mr. Vernon MacKenzie, Chief of the Division of Air Pollution, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, said in his testimony, "dramatic change will be needed to effect dramatic improvements in the quality of the air, and present controls are producing only gradual change."
Hearings would be justified to explore further information about subclinical effects of moderate lead concentrations, to evaluate proposals to eliminate lead from gasoline both for technical feasibility and economics, to hear testimony on alternatives to internal combustion and, especially, to determine whether any existing governmental body presently has the authority, mechanism, and financing to control the lead in the atmosphere from auto exhausts.
SEEKING ALTERNATIVES TO INTERNAL COMBUSTION
New advanced approaches and techniques are required if we are to meet the pollution problems of combustion engine vehicles. With 90 million cars, trucks, and buses operating on the Nation's roads, crossing political boundaries without restriction, and discharging pollutants in all parts of the country, the need for national solutions is self evident. This was the conclusion of the 1965 report of the Environmental Pollution Panel of the President's Science Advisory Committee, which declared:
"We recommend that the Federal Government exert every effort to stimulate industry to develop and demonstrate means of powering automobiles and trucks that will not produce noxious effluents. Less complete steps to reduce pollution from automobile exhausts will certainly play an important role. We must strive for more acceptable mass transportation. We must follow carefully the results of California's imposition of special regulations, and be prepared to extend those that prove effective to other smog-ridden localities. But we must also be prepared, as soon as reasonably may be, to take more drastic action, if, as, and when necessary. The development of alternative means of mobile energy conversion, suitable for powering automotive transport of all kinds, is not a matter of 1 year or a few years. Thus, if fuel cells, or rechargeable batteries, or other devices are to be developed in time to meet the increased threat, we need to begin now."
Gasoline and diesel engines of motor vehicles are major contributors to air pollution. Policy decisions on accommodating greater traffic in cities have important impact on the degree of pollution in urban areas. Some estimates have been made which show that the application of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon controls to the type of engine currently employed may be expected to hold the line until about 1980, after which time the increased number of motor vehicles on our streets and highways will result in a worsening of the situation. Testimony was received suggesting that in Los Angeles the growth of freeways and auto traffic is canceling out gains made in controlling other sources of air pollution.
The Environmental Pollution Panel pointed out that the energy loss through incomplete combustion is about 15 percent of the fuel beat value and is equivalent to 1 million gallons of gasoline daily for Los Angeles. For the Nation, this amounts to a loss of energy corresponding to 10 billion gallons of gasoline per year. "Not only air pollution control but also conservation and wise use of our natural resources demand careful attention to the reduction of this detrimental waste," the panel stated.
Gasoline consumption in the United States rose from 40 billion gallons per year in 1950 to an estimated 70 billion in 1964. It is estimated that by 1980 the use of gasoline in the Los Angeles area will have increased by a factor of four since smog was first noticed around 1945. Parallel with the increase of fuel is the emission of pollutants. "The partial control of emission predicted for the coming years cannot keep up with this increase," the panel declared. "Research and development directed toward improvement in combustion and greatly reduced emissions should be promoted at universities and government laboratories. These studies should include radical changes in engine design and the development of, for example, the fuel cell for practical use."
In view of the interrelationship between air pollution caused by motor vehicles and overall urban planning, the committee urges that the administration form an interdepartmental task force to investigate means of reducing air pollution by use of new methods of transportation not involving the internal combustion engine.
A variety of projects deserve more detailed scrutiny and study. Electrification of mass transit, use of battery-operated delivery vehicles and autos, and prospects for fuel cells to run individual passenger cars, all suggest research possibilities. The Federal Government should insure that research, development, and demonstration work in this area is carried on at maximum levels consistent with orderly progress.
Coordination and interchange of ideas should be encouraged. The subcommittee received testimony that 15 Federal agencies are presently funding a total of 86 projects in battery research; the objectives and results of this work as it relates to transportation should be evaluated and the most efficient method of arriving at desired goals determined. Advisory committees formed from industry and trade groups might assist in this process. Foreign experience should be tapped. (The Electricity Council of Great Britain predicts that within the next 10 years 1 million battery-driven automobiles will be in operation in Great Britain.)
Urban planning, public works, zoning, and licensing questions are inexorably intertwined with pollution problems. Perhaps nowhere is this more evident than in the area of transportation. The aim should be to combine the best thinking on air pollution, urban development, and transportation to deal with a problem which could literally smother cities in smog and smoke unless new approaches are developed and utilized.
The task force should provide Congress and the country with suggested guidelines for 'rational planning of future transportation as it relates to air pollution.
Burgeoning population, increasing number of vehicles, growing air pollution -- all these factors indicate that to continue to solve this problem with piecemeal measures is unacceptable. Plans for new federally supported freeways should not be allowed to cancel out Federal efforts to halt air pollution. Dumping thousands of cars off the end of an eight-lane highway into an urban
complex is not the answer to either transportation or air pollution problems.
The committee therefore recommends that the task force develop a plan for a "model environment" including such proposals as will both meet the economic needs of a rapidly expanding nation and adequately protect the public from the hazards associated with polluted air.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I am happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from Delaware [Mr. BOGGS).
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished floor manager of the bill for yielding to me.
Mr. President, I wish to add a few comments to the concise report on the pending legislation which has just been made by the junior Senator from Maine.
His words reflect his thorough understanding of the legislation as well as his belief in the urgent need for all levels of government to attack the air pollution problem.
I know that as a result of his able chairmanship of the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution over the past 3 years, the public is now much more aware of the seriousness of the air pollution menace.
Yet the peril continues. Air pollution is still a widespread and growing hazard to the health and welfare of our citizens.
State and local governments, in cooperation with the Federal Government, have stepped up air pollution control programs.
But our increasing industrialization, urbanization, and improved standards of living, as well as our expanding population, have combined to offset these advances. The battle is far from won.
The bill we are considering today was introduced by the junior Senator from Maine, and I am happy to count myself among the 15 Senators of both parties who cosponsored it.
It does not establish new policies in the fight against air pollution. Its effect, however, is to reemphasize the intent of the basic 1963 Clean Air Act by increasing the amount of money available for grants to air pollution control agencies. Also, in light of experience gained since the act has been in force, it improves standards and procedures involved in extending grants.
We hope these grants will be well used. We hope they will spur quicker and more effective action against air pollution.
In this effort it is well to recall the policy established by Congress in enacting the Clean Air Act, namely that–
The prevention and control of air pollution at its source is the primary responsibility of States and local government; and ... that Federal financial assistance and leadership is essential for the development of cooperative Federal, State, regional, and local programs to prevent and control air pollution.
The Federal Government is in the role of a partner in combating this nationwide peril. It must team up with all levels of government to get the job done.
Also involved in this effort are the industries who, as good citizens, strive to control air pollution. And we also look to our universities for additional research to help identify and control possible new air pollutants.
We all look to a better tomorrow. Certainly this does not include a world of thin haze which menaces the health of our children.
Civilization cannot advance in a murky, unhealthy atmosphere.
The bill we are considering today will help clear the air.
I thank the Chairman for yielding to me.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. JAVITS. A number of us are very much interested in both air and water pollution and the process of using some form of tax abatement to accelerate the normal process of research and development and the use of new facilities.
I note with great interest that the committee in its report recommends a possible hydroprecipitator as a suitable subject to study.
Would the Senator tell us something about the committee's thinking on that subject.
Mr. MUSKIE. I think it is accurate to say that all members of the subcommittee, and I suppose all members of the full committee, are wholly in accord with the idea of tax incentives for purchase of water and air pollution control equipment. Indeed, the ranking minority member, the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. COOPER], has introduced legislation to that effect.
If this committee had jurisdiction over that subject, that kind of legislation would be on the floor.
Unfortunately, we did not have such jurisdiction, but we are wholly in accord with the position of those Senators sponsoring tax incentive legislation.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, amendments could be offered to the legislation. I realize that it is probably not as cohate in this bill as it would be in water pollution control legislation. However, the committee has not evaluated the consideration of what might be done in this field because the subject was not within its jurisdiction.
Mr. MUSKIE. There was a great deal of testimony in relation to this matter even though it was realized that the committee did not have jurisdiction. The subject was discussed among ourselves. I believe that we have a rather firm and well-defined position on the subject and that we may take the opportunity, in some fashion, to communicate our position to the appropriate committee.