AIR POLLUTION-1970

WEDNESDAY, MAY 27, 1970

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AIR AND WATER POLLUTION OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, D.C. [This day's proceeding was held in executive session and was subsequently released for publication with the full consent of the committee on July 8, 1970.]

The subcommittee met at 2:30 p.m. in room 2400, New Senate Office Building, Hon. Edmund S. Muskie (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Muskie, Spong, Eagleton, Boggs, Cooper, and Baker.

Also present: Richard B. Royce, chief clerk and staff director; Bailey Guard, assistant chief clerk, minority; Thomas C. Jorling, minority counsel; Leon G. Billings, Richard D. Grundy, Adrien C. Waller, and Harold H. Brayman, professional staff members.

Senator MUSKIE. The committee will be in order.

I would like to start by outlining what I think troubles all of us about the concept of national standards, both national ambient air quality standards and national emissions standards. I won't undertake to presume to outline the committee's questions in a way that reflects all of the questions of all of the members of the subcommittee, but I will do it in terms of my own.

It seems to me that when we discuss national ambient air quality standards we are talking levels of quality between the point of no known effects of any pollutant and the maximum effects, whatever they are health, welfare, and so forth.

The standard would be somewhere between those two points. And if it is a national standard nationally applied, the question is whether those areas which are above are required only to come down to that standard-regardless of local requirements and any areas which are below that standard in effect are permitted to allow pollution up to that standard, whatever it is.

This poses problems for all of us. As far as problem areas are concerned, supported by the testimony over and over again, we depend then upon local control to set higher standards to meet the local problems.

Insofar as the clear, clean areas of the country are concerned, the national standard would be held up by industrial developers as the prudent national goal-to move in that direction which places the people at the local level of trying to insist upon a more stringent standard in an area where there is no problem, in an area which requires industrial growth and development.

Whatever approach we take to this problem, whether it is national standards or regional standards, the objective that we all have clearly in mind is to see that there be some acceptable national uniformity of approach, with variations reflecting local conditions.

Nobody who is advocating national standards has advocated absolute conformity in every area of the country. We thought that, with these questions in mind and other members of the committee have other questions, we might ask you to respond to these observations and give us some suggestions, enlighten us.

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN T. MIDDLETON, COMMISSIONER, NATIONAL AIR POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION, HEW, AND IRWIN L. AUERBACH, SPECIAL ASSISTANT FOR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, NATIONAL AIR POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION, HEW

Dr. MIDDLETON. I am sure I can respond, and I hope it is enlightening. The purpose, of course, Senator Muskie, and your colleagues, in having a national air quality standard, is to hasten the process and see that in all places that there is action to achieve air quality improvements.

Although there are some exceptions most places do need to have something done to improve their air quality. National emission standards would be designed to be sure that wherever a new industry is located, a significant source of pollution, it would have the same base point from which to work.

Senator EAGLETON. Are you talking about standards or criteria? Dr. MIDDLETON. We are talking about emissions now, talking about national emission standards.

Senator MUSKIE. In this discussion we will be talking about both national emission standards and national embient air quality standards and air quality criteria.

Dr. MIDDLETON. I am trying to bring these two things together now. Senator EAGLETON. I thought criteria would be first. I thought that was the first thing established.

Dr. MIDDLETON. The air quality criteria system that was set up by the 1967 amendments to the Clean Air Act is a mechanism for bringing about the adoption of standards of air quality by the States, a system in which we find great strength, one which the present administration likewise favors.

This system really provides an assessment of the problem, what are the effects of pollutants, at certain concentrations and exposure times upon health and welfare. The criteria documents describe the situation in a way that we hope the States are able to understand. States then must arrive at some decision, which is usually not just an administrative decision but social-political decision, on what kind of air quality that particular place wants to have.

So from the criteria documents which provide the background information, the States in each air quality control region are expected to adopt air quality standards. There can't be any air quality standards insufficient to protect health, but they do have the option of being better.

I think the crux here is that the air quality standards that are being adopted reflect the desired socio-economic status of those particular regions.

The purpose of having national air quality standards is to be sure that wherever you are, not just in selected regions, but throughout the Nation, that no area can be any worse than a level of air quality that will be protective of health.

Senator BoGGs. It would be the same in Wilmington, Del. for example, as it would be in the California desert?

Dr. MIDDLETON. Right, You could not be any worse in Wilmington than in the California desert, based on that being protective of health. Senator MUSKIE. Then let me ask you this: You are talking about that line between these two programs, these two extremes.

Dr. MIDDLETON. That is right.

Senator MUSKIE. In other words, the national standards you describe accepts the other effects that might be related to a pollutant below the level of health effects?

Senator BAKER. Is it correct to say that Dr. Middleton is describing phase I as the establishment of criteria upon which the States and regions base their own standards?

Dr. MIDDLETON. That is right.

Senator BAKER. Now we are moving into phase 2 where we are saying that States and regions can still establish the standards but HEW is going to establish a national floor so that no standards will be below a certain point.

Dr. MIDDLETON. Perhaps I mean this for discussion purposes of course, pursuant to the chairman's question.

Senator BAKER. Good.

Dr. MIDDLETON. I am trying to make quite clear, with reference to the chairman's comments about a no-effects level, perhaps, background level, as opposed to something that does have a deleterious effect on health and welfare, that a national air quality standard will be one that protects against the minimum adverse health effect.

Senator EAGLETON. That is different than known no effects. Dr. MIDDLETON. To identify a no-known-effects level is something that would be, in my opinion, not only extremely difficult but very likely not possible.

The question raised is whether the national air quality standard could be at a no-effects level. Yes, it could be set at a no-effects level, but I could not tell you where that level would be, because the knowledge that we have shows there is not any single level where something either begins or stops. There are a series of things taking place. Two things happen: The state of our knowledge is always in flux, improvement, and secondly, it is not that simple a decision, because the causes of destruction of lung tissue, as an example, may be the end result of a series of biochemical effects that occurred earlier and that may be difficult to detect under average observation conditions.

So, Senator Baker, it is that series of events which makes it, I would say, virtually impossible to state quite forthrightly that there is a no-effects level.

Senator MUSKIE. How does that relate to your national ambient air quality standard which you say would be set at the no-healtheffects point?

Is that subject to the same difficulty just described for the no-healthand-welfare effects?

Dr. MIDDLETON. The criteria documents state the level at which effects begin, some measurable things that are observed to take place. The Clean Air Act provides that the standards shall be protective of health, which means they must be lesser than the level at which this thing was observed.

In addition, we say that a margin of safety must be included. What the margin of safety is to be is always debatable. Some people say it ought to be 10 times less than the minimum observed effect level; others have different views. That is part of the problem we can't skip over in saying that there is a no-effects level.

Senator MUSKIE. But there is a no-effects area?

Dr. MIDDLETON. We know from the criteria published for sulfur oxides, that at certain levels definite adverse effects occur in the lung. We also know that at a little lower level there are more subtle effects on the action of the lung, and that below that some enzyme system begins to fail or to function improperly.

The no-effect level would have to be somewhere below that, but as science progresses, it is very likely we are going to find still other body chemical systems that are being affected, so the no-effect level always corresponds, you might say, to the limitations of scientific knowledge in this area.

It is because our knowledge is, hopefully, improving with time that review and, perhaps, revise the air quality criteria periodically, there is a need to which, in turn may require different air quality standards. Senator BAKER. An extension of what we are saying would include an observation, would it not, that even the accumulated background contamination in the air envelope has some effect?

You can't classify even normal background as a no-effect situation. Dr. MIDDLETON. That is true.

We know that some civilizations have lived for sometime at certain levels of pollution in the air. Whether those levels have an adverse effect is a moot point. I think the question you raise, or the statement you make, can be borne out rather well in the radiological health area, since, in certain areas of Brazil, there are rather high radon emanations. But whether this has an effect on the native population remains a question.

Senator MUSKIE. Let me put it this way, to get away from the technical language now. As regards national standards, ambient air or emissions, what troubles me is that it is not going to be tough enough in a lot of places and is it going to be to permissive in other places?

In other words, if you have a standard above the no-effects level, whatever that is, or the low-effects area, you are not going to give a national standard which is going to be the absence of pollutants. It is going to be some level to permit pollutants up to that level across the country. If that is not so, I would like that clarified.

If that is the case, if what you are talking about is a level, I assume, it is going to be a clearly defined range of numbers, which admits there is some pollution in the air in some parts of the country.

If you can establish that level, then why can't you establish it at a lower level where there is no area underneath it which is permissive of pollution?