Page images

of the country, has to be watched, to make sure that we know where we are. This will take time, this will take trouble, this will probably continue and should continue after I am no longer around to be looking at this problem at all. But I can say very definitely that in my view it is essential that these observations be made. We must know and not have to guess about it.

Now I am only saying, with respect to the things that might happen, that we have no experience of their happening and I simply am not so constituted to go on the basis--in the present world in which we live, which is full of dangers—I am not so constituted that I can be very anxious about a situation that has been with us for 30 years and in which nothing has happened. What might conceivably happen years from now, is something different.

In the situation in which we are living at the present time we are confronted with many dangers; the dangers of contamination of the water of the country, the dangers of contamination of the atmosphere with a varity of things are much more imminent than this particular one. Whereas this one must be investigated, it must be followed, and we must know what we are about, we have no reason at the present time to fear what is “under the bed."

Senator MUSKIE. Having listened to all your testimony, Dr. Kehoe, I would say that that last pretty well summarizes my impression of your position and I do appreciate your coming and taking the time to listen to our questions and to answer them.

The work of this committee is intended to be educational for the committee as well as for the public. So we do appreciate your contribution this morning.

Dr. KEHOE. Thank you.

Senator MUSKIE. I wonder if Dr. Hardy would be interested in commenting upon the question that we just discussed.

Dr. Hardy. You read from my comments. That is really the heart of what I have to offer.

Thank you.
Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much.

The remaining two witnesses on our schedule this morning have been kind enough to agree to come back next Tuesday because of the time limitation this morning. I understand that it will not be an inconvenience to either of them to do so. I want to make sure of that. Therefore, Mr. Felix Wormser, consultant and former president of the Lead Industries Association, Inc., and Mr. Gammelgard, of the American Petroleum Institute, will be the first witnesses when we meet next Tuesday at 9:30. I appreciate that courtesy very, very much.

There are several statements and communications which I will place
in the record at this point.
(The material is as follows:)

Washington, D.C., June 9, 1966.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution,
Committee on Public Works, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: OCAW is concerned about the possible dangers of lead in the atmosphere that you are now investigating. We are particularly

[ocr errors]

concerned about the relatively high levels of lead in the blood of service station
mechanics and parking lot attendents, reported in the Public Health Service's
Tri-City study of lead in blood. It's commendable that you are trying to bring
out the facts in this area of public health and we would like to know whether
present levels of lead in the air are dangerous. If not, are the levels of lead in
the blood of employees beyond the safe point? Is the petroleum industry acting
to protect its marketing and production employees from the risk of lead in
Sincerely yours,


[ocr errors]


CLEAN AIR, INC. I am David Sheffrin, Chairman of the Board of Directors of Citizens for Clean Air, Inc., a group representing several thousand citizens in the greater New York metropolitan area. These doctors, engineers, lawyers, housewives and businessmen share one common problem-breathing what has been labeled "the world's dirtiest air." Air Pollution Chief Vernon MacKenzie has said that our negalopolis could not sustain life if it had the same topographical conditions as Los Angeles.

Therefore, perhaps more than any other segment of the population, we applaud the leadership of this Committee in tackling the growing national air pollution problem and we commend you for not resting on your excellent achievements.

However, the Committee's failure to propose the removal of the 1212 percent limitation of financial aid suggests that you may not have fully appreciated the proportions of an air pollution problem like New York's. The growth of the problem in all urban areas requires the replacement of old principles with a new realism. We feel that the elements of our contaminated air-sulfur dioxide, automotive exhaust, solid waste disposal, interstate pollution-are common to every growing urban area in the nation, only in greater severity in New York. We have, in fact, all the ingredients of a disaster area. Our city's air pollution, foreshadows the blight of cities across the nation. Therefore, we urge the Committee to designate New York as a pilot project in the control of air pollution.

Since mobile sources of pollution seem to be the immediate concern of this Committee, we plead a particular urgency in the development of solutions for automotive congestion. We commend your interest in the reports of the alarming rise in the amount of lead in the atmosphere and we are heartened by your many-sided approach to the automotive problem in considering the disposal of

However, we hope that you will not neglect the development of pollution free surface mass transit. Diesel vehicles, so far an uncontrolled source of New York pollution, have been shown to emit toxic as well as noxious fumes, New York City, as the largest single purchaser of diesel buses, could exercise great leverage in the development of pollution free surface transit. We have pressed the City to apply for a Federal demonstration grant to develop alternatives to the diesel bus, with the electric storage battery bus possible candidate.

And we hope that this Committee, as well as Senators Jacob Javits and Robert Kennedy, will use their good offices in support of this grant.

We would also like to see the accomplishments of this Committee in establishing national standards for automotive exhaust on 1968 model cars be aug. mented by extending the standards to include used cars and by insuring the maintenance of these standards through annual inspection programs. Gentlemen, I can assure you that the residents of New York are not willing to wait a decade before seeing an alleviation of the automotive exhaust problem.

I respectfully remind you, gentlemen, that while we in New York are hemmed in by and saturated with automotive congestion, it is only one aspect of our air pollution problem. On behalf of Citizens for Clean Air, Inc., and all New Yorkers, I urge that you make the New York metropolitan area the crucible in which to forge your clean air standards. Standards which fall short of the needs of New York City will soon fall short of the needs of our growing urban nation.

junked cars.

[ocr errors]


Washington, D.C., June 15, 1966. Hon. EDMUND MUSKIE, Chairman, Subcommittee on Water and Air Pollution Control, Committee on Public Works, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.O.

DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: On behalf of the National Association of Counties, I should like to offer our endorsement of those provisions of S. 3112 which would consolidate the appropriation authority under Titles I and II, extend that authority to 1973 and eliminate the 20% limitation on total appropriations for program grants. We believe these provisions are both necessary and desirable to ensure the needed flexibility in the use of funds for the variety of activities authorized under the existing legislation, including the federal program of financial assistance to state localities.

We feel these provisions will provide the necessary federal authority to strengthen and continue its program of financial support to state and local control agencies which have the primary responsibility for controlling the growing problems of air pollution. Therefore we strongly urge approval of S. 3112 by your Committee and its enactment by Congress.

With respect to the proposal to provide federal financial support in the form of maintenance grants, our association must remain silent inasmuch as we have not taken a formal action on that concept. Although, many of our counties have expressed their individual support of this idea, we have not formally brought to our association for approval or disapproval, however, it is anticipated that it will be opposed to support this concept at our coming meeting, in July of this year and we will be pleased to forward to you and your Committee, the results of our action. Very truly yours,

W. W. DUMAS, President.


Washington, D.O., June 21, 1966. Hon. EDWARD S. MUSKIE, Chairman, Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, Committee on Public

Works, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: The United States Conference of Mayors supports the provisions of S. 3112, a bill to amend the Clean Air Act.

Air pollution in our urban areas continues to be a serious threat to community health and welfare. The many factors contributing to the air pollution problem are increasing, and the challenge facing our control agencies is becoming more critical each day.

The United States Conference of Mayors believes that the provisions of the Clean Air Act are designed to assist the cities of this nation in carrying out the front-line responsibility for the control of air pollution. Since the passage of the Act, many cities have received financial and technical assistance under the program. Many others have submitted requests for financial assistance and are presently awaiting the availability of additional Federal funds.

This assistance has provided a real stimulus to the initiation and improvement of local control programs. However, the short-term financial assistance now provided by the Clean Air Act does not satisfy the need for the continuing, longer-range effort required for the prevention and abatement of growing air pollution problems. We believe that the provision of grant support for the maintenance of effective control programs, as contained in S. 3112, will contribute directly to the effort needed now and in the future.

The United States Conference of Mayors believes that subsection (b) of Section 104 of the Clean Air Act, a narrow maintenance of effort concept, should not apply to maintenance grants authorized in S. 3112. Long-range control activities cannot be fully effective if they are not maintained at a reasonable and necessary level of support. Within the matching requirements prescribed in S. 3112, we believe that this grant authority should be flexible enough to allow Federal supplementary financial assistance for the maintenance of the level of effort required for an effective control program regardless of the availability of local matching funds.

We strongly support, too, the provision of S. 3112 that would delete that portion of Section 104(a) of the Clean Air Act which limits the total of grants for

support of control programs to 20 per cent of the total appropriation for any year. In order to control air pollution, it is essential that greater emphasis be placed upon the application of current technology. Larger amounts of grant funds will be needed to assist control agencies in this regard, and the removal of the 20 per cent limitation would provide budgetary flexibility in meeting this need. Sincerely yours,

JOHN J. GUNTHER, Executive Director, Senator MUSKIE. With that we will adjourn until next Tuesday at 9:30.

(Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m. the hearing recessed to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, June 14, 1966.)

« PreviousContinue »