Page images

It is my understanding that to date Federal authority has been inYoked in eight interstate areas. Certainly the Federal Government has a particular responsibility, too, in the Nation's Capital.

The Federal City, pollutionwise, should be a model city of clean air.

I only wish, Vr. Chairman, that the State of California was making as rapid progress in controlling the pollution from the automobile as we have made in controlling pollution from stationary sources. Unfortunately, such is not the case.

w1lthough we are making progress, the truth of the matter is that we have to run as fast as we can to stand still.

This is so because of our rapidly growing population, which is expected to double by the end of this century, and the increasing nunber of aritos,

On May 27 the lir Pollution Control District of the County of Los Ingeles issued its report to the Bourd of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles regarding the status vif air pollution control in Los Ingeles County and the prospects of success of the current control programs. Their conclusions were: (1) Current motor vehicle control programs will not achieve acceptable air quality in Los Angeles, in the next decade, and ) control of notor vehicle croissions must be intensified and acceleratel if Los Angeles County is to have acceptable air quality by 1980).

Since it has been estimated that emission from the motor vehicles is responsible for about so percent of the Los Angeles problem, and a sulostantial contribution elsewhere, we must do better.

In California, all 1966 and later model cars must meet California standards that limit the amount of hydrocarbons to 275 parts per million and carbon monoxide to 1.5 percent. Standards love been islopted io further reduce these exhaust en issions in the case of laverocarbons from 27 parts per million to 150 parts per million, and carbon monoxide from 1.5 percent tol percent by 1970. This raises a rery interesting question, Mr. Chairman.

The question of Federal preemption. Since the Federal Government is in eileet going to alopt the 1966 California standards as rational standards on 1969 vehicles, the very serious question of artiether the Federal Government's action will preempt the field and thus prevent California from enforcing more stringent staudarls established for 1970 is presented.

It would be mundesirable from a poliev standpoint for the Federal Government to preempt the field. I feel certain such was not the intent of Congress in enacting the Clean Air Act, since primarily the responsibility for air pollution was recognized rightfully to belong to the States. For obviously the degree of control needed in one community will vary with the degree of control needed in another. I therefore believe the committee should clarify this point.

Mr. Chairman, I would also urge that the automobile industry of this country give the problem of air pollution the top priority to which it is entitled.

I feel very confident that the industry, if it focuses the skills and abilities of its personnel, will find solutions to the pollution problem. In any event, the industry should move and move quickly, for I can

say that the public is demanding answers to the problem of air pollution.

Also Mr. Chairman, I believe it imperative that the Federal, State, and local governments undertake educational programs designed to make the public aware of the air pollution problem. In this effort, I would hope that such voluntary groups as the tuberculosis association might join in such a campaign in view of the increasing statistical evidence showing some relationship between respiratory prollems and pollution.

Finally, although I understand, Mr. Chairman, this lies outside the jurisdiction of this committee, I believe the Federal Government should provide a tax incentive to private industry to anyone who acquires, constructs, or installs air pollution devices that have been certified.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the work of this subcommittee is as important as that carried on anywhere in the Congress. Indeed, if we are to pass only the benefits of our great civilization and unsurpassed technology to future generations without eliminating or at least controlling some of its undesirable byproducts, such as pollution, we may be cursed rather than praised.

We in this country must learn to conserve our air and water resources, just as we learned to conserve other natural resources. We have already been given a glimpse of the folly of the failure to do otherwise.

In closing, I again congratulate the chairman and my colleagues for their work in keeping the air pollution problem before our people and for their efforts in bringing S. 3112 before the subcommittee.

I feel confident that the enactment of S. 3112, which establishes maintenance grants and increases the authorization by $9 million during fiscal year 1967, will help us to continue the battle against air pollution.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes the reading of Senator Murphy's statement.

Senator Mtskie. I take this opportunity to thank Senator Murphy. although he is not present, for his excellent statement. I particularly commend to the attention of the Secretary Senator Murphy's suggestions relative to the city of Washington. They are most appropriate and most pertinent.

On the question of stricter State standards on automobiles than those of the Federal Government, I would say that it is the intent, of course, of the committee, and as indicated in last year's bill, that the whole country be given the benefit of any technology which is used in California to control the performance of the automobile.

We would expect the Secretary to reflect in his legislation the advance of the technology which might be reflected in California regulations.

But, nevertheless, if there is a discrepancy which puts the Secretary in a bad light on this point then I think we ought to make sure that the lesser or lower Federal standards do not preempt the higher or more effective standards of any State, including California.

So I think we will undertake to clarify both of those points.

I think Senator Murphy has made a distinct contribution in raising this question at this point in the record.

Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator MUSKIE. This concludes the scheduled hearings on air pollution legislation. We never foreclose the possibility that we may schedule others to further probe points that have been raised but we have no specific plans to do so at the present time.

So, for the present time, the hearings are adjourned and the record will be kept open for a week to 10 days for any additional statements. Thank you all very much.

I note that we have a number of communications and statements in the hands of the staff. I will order them and any subsequent statements placed in the record at this point. (The material placed in the record is as follows:)



Albany, N.Y., June 10, 1966. Hon. Edmund S. JUSKIE, Chairman, Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, Committee on Public

Works, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE:The Conference of State Sanitary Engineers sincerely appreciates the opportunity to present its views on the Federal Solid Wastes Program initiated under P.L. 89-272.

We are extremely gratified with the prompt and effective initiation of the new Federal program by the Public Health Service, and in particular, the efforts to encourage and develop State programs to cope with this serious and growing problem.

At the 41st Annual Meeting of the Conference of State Sanitary Engineers, action was taken to review the present authorizations, and resolutions were adopted which we believe should be considered when modification of the present Act is undertaken. Copies of these resolutions are enclosed for your consideration. Sincerely yours,

MEREDITH H. Thompson, Eng. D., Chairman.

RESOLUTION No. 1. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT GRANTS Whereas, P.L. 89–272 provides funds for the development of State comprehensive plans for solid waste disposal, and

Whereas, these grants will provide a nucleus of trained professional personnel capable of maintaining and carrying on statewide programs of solid waste disposal, and

Whereas, the basic concept behind the development of comprehensive statewide plans is the establishment of a continuing, on-going program in solid waste management, and

Whereas, the fiscal resources in many of the States are not adequate to support the costs of such a program, and

Whereas, the problem has certain intrastate, interstate, and regional aspects : Therefore, be it

Resolved, that the Conference of State Sanitary Engineers requests consideration by the Congress of amending the Solid Waste Disposal Act to provide for solid waste management grants to the States, regions, and communities on a matching basis which will permit funding and support of comprehensive programs of solid waste disposal : And be it further Resolved, that copies of this resolution be transmitted to the State and Territorial Health Officers, to the Surgeon General, Public Health Service, to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, and to the appropriate members

1 of Congress.

RESOLUTION No. 2. SOLID WASTE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT GRANTS Whereas, the Solid Waste Disposal Act provides authority for the awarding of grants to assist in the demonstration of new and improved solid waste disposal techniques and facilities, and

Whereas, there is a genuine need for improvement in the technology of solid waste management, as well as application of proven effective waste management procedures: Therefore, be it

Resolved, that the Conference of State Sanitary Engineers request the Congress to consider amending the Solid Waste Disposal det to authorize the a Tarding of demonstration project grants to encourage and support demonstrations of existing solid waste management procedures in geographical areas and under operating conditions in which such procedures have not previously been attempted, so as to add much-needed information which could promptly be applied to help meet ihe national solid waste management problem.


Ciuitanooga, TNI, June 17, 1966. Reconnents on S. 3400. Senator BOMUNDS. MUSKIE, 17}" Chuteire Building, Ilushington, D.C. (Attentie of Mr. Leon G. Billings).

GENTLEMUN : May I respectfully submit to you my observations on Bill S. 3100, intrancer by Senator Paul Douglas of Ilinois. In the beginnin lpi me state thai I sili bo't this bill, and my only criticism of it is that I do not believe that it is broad Chh or strong enough, for, as I will state later, I think that we are on the range of reiching full understanding of the problaris of circumentalno tanimation hinh may prove to be one of the most infortunt adultees of 011! ti e, iar overhoring the more dramatic programs now $

10 illiy the feceri guterhout. The magnitude of what our Precilenc and Senator Dolas lare pro osm may not be fully appreciai ai in this derasie, but it may weil ?... an actithin will remenber lith vratiude.

I leaf. 'WE I'd this problem in the carti dars ri World War II, when, as a
Ilemeler ile OM12Ke Deventi in Biwing: 22, Aldea, I was asked tu

anvenil this tuli ilif-tal (?!lection (nariitee of that citi Leing soreet sen.
sitives frair :;'linien, I was in power lay the seady senseitss waste of our
itist natural rene drops and the terrilie Dhantion of 14 at:.espillere, our
strasiitthal itsell. After their las over, I did to verk: to find out
frir !"" own balit iť inste Wis a r471.562172, la PUST ir to these problnius. Over
tipistest trendy! Als, I 5,0" SRL Ijr' und einirl tiers Tils of hours of
l'esearch wark, beih my own üle that of other ensinars km;sloperi ly nie, on a
}," ili na program for the chimilation of environmental contamination, and as
all er i fer hrabren responsible for a number of adranced machines for the
processing of scrap metal.

Ini Prostated in calitars, orr werk his sinn that environmental con tarmation, both air an water, is the result of a senseless waste of valible ral materials that an he recyried at great prostit bik into the economy of our country. (oftin' total problem, the ju kod automobile is really a minor part, and opers the simplest suitior. The total problem includes the reuse of city garbage, industrial wastes and litter found alongside our nation's highways.

To do this requires no «reat technologie breakthrouzh, because the technology of how to do this exists today. It will require the support of the federal government to start the bichinery turning and a firm supporting hand until suficient momentun is gained for private industry to take over.

To answer critics who might complain that this is just another government subsidy and that it interferes with private enterprise and establishes anoiber unwanted bureau, let me remind them that ill great economic changes since the beginning of time have been essentially subsidized by governments.

I have heard no complaints about the fact that Christopher Columbus himself receivei a subsidy from a head of state. Yor do I hear people complaining that our aircraft industry and systems had their fledgling wings firmly supported by government subsidies in their infancy. For some reason, the terrible consequences of federal support of new ideas that were predicted when I was a young man in the mid 1930s do not seem to have materialized. I therefore urge that the committee consider that a new technology to recycle our invested resources will bring great and lasting benefit to our nation. To put such a pro gram into effect will require from three to five percent of our total population, and will be the greatest single blow at poverty we can achieve by creating thou

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

sands of new job opportunities. It will eliminate forever the city dump and the roadside junk yard, and the piles of refuse alongside our highways. By placing ralue on this refuse, the pressure of good, sound economics will cause it to disappear.

After two decades, I have stopped using the word "waste", for the material itself is not waste. It is simply our inability to recognize its value to which the word "waste" really applies. I prefer to call this material invested resources, for, in effert, this is precisely what they are. These materials have had great quantities of other irreplaceable natural resources invested in them to produce a technimal le 'el of excellence as a material. The simple fact that the mechanical function has ceased does not in any way affect the quality of the material which is as tine as it was the day it emerged from the factory. The original cost of refining has already been borne by the consumer. This investment offers to our economy a subsidized raw material.

Our great nation grew from the vast deposits of natural resources unmatched any there on earth. The great industries of our nation, to whom we owe a lasting debt, developed processes that shed the unrefined resources through the mills in a nerer ending strean to pour out on our land and into the world into the tens of thousands of items that contribute to our present civilization.

However, Imerican industry, particularly the American steel industry, made little provision in its overall scheme of its production facilities to reuse any of the material that it produced, once its mechanical life had ceased.

Tiere are tiro very siguiicaut reasons why this was not done. It is economimally impractical for the large monolithic unidirectional mills to use two very dissimilar raw materials. Secondly, serap metal, particularly that of the automobile, becomes widely distributed by civilization, and is not found in the high concentrations as is or. The problem of collecting this material becomes difficult logistically, and transportation costs, digging deeply into sale price-8, eroded awas profits on which the scrap industry must depend. Of course, in the case of the lighter body steels that we are concerned with, the problem is magnified. Edorts to overcome the disadvantages of the light material by the use of povertu! haliig presaos gure life to the industry for a short time. But the rital ele. penis of life itself were missing from this industry, and it gradually died, leaving the problem we see today. The recycling of automobile steel did not break down: it simply naver existed as an important industry.

lain. This has nothing to do with the importance of this material to the future of our country. Essentially, it is the finest raw material available anywhere in the world in commercial quantities. Properly prepared, it represents the greatest source of high purity iron in the world today. Latent within every juink yard in one nation is a partial solution to our frustrating problems of unPuloyilmat. We should consider the potential of ready world markets for new and siecializal steels that are purchased on the basis of their properties rather than their prices, bringing relief to our balance of payments headaine, and most

pertant, giving this country the security of being able to be independent within its own borciers by learning to recycle its investeri resources. It is well worth noting here that a large percent of our better iron ore now comes from other countries where recent history teaches us that the rising wave of rationalism may induce these countries to protit from their own natural resources by converting them into finished goods within their own borders, thus diminishing a feady supply of raw materials to our country. This, of course, was what made our country great, and we may expect other countries will follow our example. The solution to the junkevi automobile problem, as well as the solution to other environnental contamination, depends upon the theory that markets must be developed to absorb them as raw material. These marketu do sot exist in our muntry at this time as, of course, they did iu both Germany and Japan during World War II. The ability to recycle their important resources enableri Germagyar 1 Ja an to hold off half the world in World War II for a longer period of time than would otherwise have been possible. And I am sure that there are many people who remember vividly our own struggle to develop this technology for ourselves during this conflict. There is no great technological breakthrongh necessary, however, to bring about markets for these materials, for latentiy they do exist. This new industry will in no way be in competition with any existing industry in the United States today, but will simply augment our present industrs, and expand our economy in the vacuum where most unemployment now exists. From a metallurgical standpoint, the new low frequency induction furhaces that will convert the very high quality irons in the automobile body di. rectly into high quality, fine grain, fatigue resisting steels, are available in

« PreviousContinue »