enon of synergism. The obviously important criteria for carbon monoxide and other emissions from the internal combustion engine have been delayed too long. Further, the criteria deal inadequately with the air pollution problem because of their concern with ambient air quality. The adoption by States of ambient air quality standards has given a false sense of progress to the citizens who will perish from specific situations not average pollution levels.

TECHNOLOGY AND THE NATIONAL ECONOMY

The Air Quality Act of 1967 does recognize the necessity for national standards relative to emissions from motor vehicle engines but the procedures of the act have moved too slowly in this regard. The requirement that the Secretary give appropriate consideration to technological feasibility and economic costs in this regard ignores the possibility of a much more rapid pace through Federal investment in research on a crash basis. Economic costs do not seem to be important when we underwrite a questionable supersonic transport program or an antiballistic missile program but we do concern ourselves with economic costs of breathing clean air.

Clearly the technological problems relative to developing propulsion engines, be it land or air vehicles, are national problems not focal or State problems. Further, the problem of requiring stringent air pollution controls on existing industries in a particular location by a local or State air pollution agency inevitably brings the response that the industry or company cannot be competitive if it is required to meet certain standards if its competitors in other areas are not. An analogy can be made here to the establishment of the open housing requirements in the Civil Rights Act of 1968. A ground swell of support developed for the act from legislators and heads of government at the State and local level who did not want to take the unpopular step of passing a local law. Many homebuilders expressed a similar attitude. Direct Federal regulation would take into account the fact that our technology and economy are national in scope.

PROPOSED NEW FEDERAL DIRECTIONS

The board of directors of the Coalition for the Environment, St. Louis region, believes that the Federal role relative to the environment must be changed drastically if we are to stem the deterioration in not only the quality of the air but also in every other aspect of the environment. The people of the St. Louis region are far more aware of the ecological balance and the destructive and stupid role that man has played relative to the environment than they were in 1966 and 1967 when the present Air Quality Act was being considered. In 1966 the St. Louis regional interstate air pollution study in discussing an air resource management plan stated a general concept that, "The air, being a basic material for combustion, many manufacturing processes, and for the use of humans in supporting life, can hardly escape the attention due it by present-day society. The air is a matter of public business calling for good management practices.* This limited engi

*See Air Pollution 1967, pt. 2, hearings before the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution of the Committee on Public Works, U.S. Senate, St. Louis, Mo., Apr. 4, 1967, p. 973.

neering-economic view of the air is no longer acceptable. We have a responsibility to the total environment no matter what the economic implications may be. Man must survive in the environment. He is not above it or outside of it. We are not supermen. We are still only another animal slightly different but perhaps not significantly so.

The Air Quality Act of 1967 should be drastically amended to create a direct Federal administration of air pollution standards in order to meet a serious threat to the environment and to human society. Perhaps the 1967 act was the best that we could get at that time but public concern has increased tremendously in the past 2 years and a far more serious approach must be taken. I cannot suggest details of a Federal structure at this time but it could take on the best aspects of the Pure Food and Drug Administration in its standard setting and the wartime Office of Price Administration in its widespread detailed activity. The States have not done a satisfactory job and do not appear to be capable of meeting the challenge.

The Federal Government must act through a coordinated program relative to the environment if we are to make any progress in stemming deterioration. Such a program should include as a minimum:

1. Control over emissions must be at the source in standards relating to the source rather than ambient air quality. All industries should be required to monitor stack emissions directly.

2. The Federal Government must act to get satisfactory propulsion engines developed on a crash basis for motor vehicles, airplanes, et cetera. The support for an SST with no significant support for design of relatively pollution free engines is incomprehensible.

3. In 1967, the Federal Government contributed $173 million to the State of Illinois and $89 million to the State of Missouri for highway construction. We can no longer afford this wasteful expenditure which is insatiable but not problem solving. These expenditures must be stopped and the money used for development of public mass transit systems in the metropolitan areas. Such a shift would aid in solving many environmental problems including the air pollution problem, the open-space problem, and the problem of unsatisfactory metropolitan growth form.

4. We need Federal programs with strong emphasis on recycling of waste material. This is necessary in both solid waste programs and in regard to sewage treatment programs. We can no longer tolerate incineration for dealing with the problem of waste disposal including the burning of sludge as undertaken by the St. Louis Metropolitan Sewer District when we are faced with a growing pressure on our natural resources.

Our national attitude toward air pollution is not an isolated phenomenon. Man cannot do everything that his whim dictates or the advertising industry would like him to do or to buy. We must gain control over our activities relative to the environment if we care about longterm survival. A newly created approach relative to clean air can help in bringing us back to sanity.

Senator EAGLETON. Thank you, Mr. Drey and Mr. Kahn. I have this little footnote. It would apply to what Dr. Commoner testified to, as well as what you gentlemen have mentioned. I think we all would admit that we would have to, to use the current vernacular, reexamine our national priorities. I think there is a commendable shift in the public mood in terms of making such a reexamination. The public is

less tolerant of, less reconciled to domestic imperfections. The public is aroused and wants more action. This is evidenced in part by all that has been going on here today. I share some of your sentiments, as you perhaps already know, on the ABM, et cetera. Thank you very much for being with us today. Hon. Raymond S. Zielinski, major, city of Bellefontaine Neighbors, Mo.

It was brought to my attention and we have four Girl Scouts who have been with us since quarter to 9 this morning and they are getting hungry. I hope that you would yield so that they can make their presentation. You have been very patient and I certainly appreciate it. Miss GOERNER. The 44,000 Girl Scouts and 11,000 adults, members of the Girl Scout Council of Greater St. Louis, would like to join voices today with those in our community who are appealing to you to help clean up our air and our water which are so vital to our existence. Girl Scouts have always held the national surroundings in the highest esteem and respect for the environment which surrounds us, which is a part of our program which we teach to all our girls. We want to breathe clean, fresh air and we want to look eastward and see our arch, not just part of it, but all of it, and not hidden by a large gray cloud.

We want to paddle a clean stream, unspoiled stream, not one littered with bottles and tires and cans. We want an open space for trees and want to be able to grow flowers that will not wilt and die in dirty city air. This is part of our Girl Scout program, as well as part of everyday life. We have hauled bushels of trash; we have made posters. This is not enough. We must do more than clean up the problem after it happens and, in this, we need help from our representatives in Washington.

Help us make our world a cleaner place to live. This was the official statement given to me by the adult president of Girl Scouting in St. Louis.

Now, as the president of Girl Scouting here, I would like to make another appeal. Any girl who has seen the scum and filth in the waterways in Missouri and tasted the dirt in our air knows that pollution is a very real and imminent problem, but as my more qualified predecessors have stated, the problems extend far beyond St. Louis and Missouri. Much more is needed than just local solutions. For our part, we cannot, by the nature of our organization, provide funds or become politically involved, but we can involve great quantities of willing manpower on behalf of the more than 3 million Scouts in the United States who have been actively fighting for the preservation of our national resources. I would like to urge you to help us clean up our environment.

Senator EAGLETON. That is a nice statement and I do apologize for keeping you here all day. I hope you enjoyed part of the hearing, at least.

Mayor Zielinski, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF RAYMOND S. ZIELINSKI, MAYOR, CITY OF BELLEFONTAINE NEIGHBORS, MO.

Mr. ZIELINSKI. It is a privilege for me to appear before your committee in behalf of clean air in our Metropolitan St. Louis area. I am mayor of one of the most beautiful and progressive cities in the State

of Missouri-Bellefontaine Neighbors however, there is one matter with which we haven't been able to make much progress, and that is eliminating air pollution.

I have been fighting and will continue to fight the air pollution battle in Bellefontaine Neighbors. Why, way back in September 1963, the polluter, Missouri Portland Cement Co., acknowledged our complaints about the fly ash were of real concern to them and said they were making every effort to stop dust emission from their plant.

We continue to be bombarded with pollutants in the air-emissions that we, in Bellefontaine Neighbors, call August snow. This snow is not the pure, white, fluffy substance that decorates the countryside in the wintertime; rather, this is heavy particles of concentrated pollution that falls in our area on our homes, cars, outdoor furniture and so forth, and inhaled into our lungs. The past year, the emisions seem to be in ever-increasing amounts.

The medical profession warned us in a recent newspaper article about the high level of sulfurous pollution that exists most of the time in many parts of St. Louis County. For example, the average sulfation rate which is a reliable measure of the level of air pollution exceeded the maximum acceptable standards 9 out of 11 measured months in 1968 in Bellefontaine Neighbors. With all the cement dust bearing down upon us and the high level of sulfurous pollution in our area, our residents are exposed to conditions extremely hazardous to healthas well as harmful and destructive of property.

In 1966, as the result of petitions presented to the Missouri Air Conservation Commission, minimum quality standards and air pollution regulations for the St. Louis metropolitan area were adopted.

In 1967, I went to the State legislature for enabling legislation to grant St. Louis County authority for enforcement of these regulations and standards in our metropolitan area; the legislature granted this authority to St. Louis County.

The enforcement, however, has not been to my satisfaction.

I would like the St. Louis County air pollution control to answerwhen they grant variances of any type-are matters of health taken into consideration? I believe that, until now, they have failed to consider the health factor in St. Louis County in granting variances to polluters. I believe it is time the burden of proof should be on the industry-and not on human beings-to prove their emissions of the pollution does not injure the health of a person.

In October 1967, at a public gathering, I prodded St. Louis County for not moving fast enough on this pollution matter. Mr. Edward Rudolph, acting director of the air pollution control division of St. Louis County Health Department, told the people that some of the abatement of the dust problem in our area should be noticeable by early 1969.

He, further, stated that by the summer of 1968, the equipment to curtail the emissions from the cement plant that emits this dust in our area should be purchased by the cement company.

In 1967, the people accepted Mr. Rudolph's explanation and were in hopes of some relief-bearing in mind that some relief might be granted in 1969.

In May 1968, Mr. Pecsok of the St. Louis County Air Conservation Commission presented me a variance schedule for the cement plant which St. Louis County Air Conservation Commission granted.

38-702-7011

In November 1968, at a public hearing to an overflow crowd at the city hall in Bellefontaine Neighbors, concern was registered because of the variance granted by St. Louis County and demands for relief were made. The people stated, simply, that Missouri Portland Cement Co., the violator in this particular case, had too much time already and requested action be taken and that the air pollution code be enforced.

As a result of this meeting, I appeared before the Missouri commission again in January 1969, requesting the Missouri commission to determine whether or not the variances granted by St. Louis County were proper. A report from the Missouri air commission staff assistant, Mr. H. D. Shell, stated that in view of the many complaints that were voiced to St. Louis County, the required time should have been shorter to develop a comprehensive plan to abate the air pollution.

I heartily agree with Mr. Shell's report of June 1969, regarding the extended time necessary to develop a comprehensive plan, and urge that the Federal Air and Water Pollution Committee do everything in its power to have the supervisor of St. Louis County look further into the scheduling and installation of the necessary equipment to see if something can be worked out to speed up the elimination of these emissions.

On September 19, 1969, I read with interest a newspaper article wherein the supervisor of St. Louis County criticized the Missouri Air Conservation Commission for "their inaction" on his request for a "smog alert plan" during periods of severe air pollution in the St. Louis area. He, further, stated that meetings have been held by technical personnel in the past and that we cannot afford to wait any longer because the citizens are entitled to protection of an emergency plan.

I believe that criticism is in order for the supervisor of St. Louis County for the lack of enforcement. The people of Bellefontaine Neighbors cannot wait any longer and, as Mr. Shell's report of June 1969 indicates, we have waited too long. The abatement of this nuisance is long overdue. Perhaps, these emergency conditions which the supervisor seems to be worried about are actually due, in part, to these vary same emissions that I have been complaining about for these many years.

Now, gentlemen, you heard the dates. I am recounting here-1963, 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969. We have had promises, promises, promises. What we want now is action-we are tired of promises.

Enforcement of the air quality standards seem to always be clouded when it is on a local basis. It appears, now, that a national or Federal law of enforcement is essential in order to be effective.

I ask that the Federal Government take immediate action to develop legislation for stronger air pollution control and more effective enforcement necessary to stop the emissions of the dust in this area be taken.

It appears as if the only hope we have for enforcement would be some Federal regulation or some Federal regulatory body on this

matter.

Again, I wish to thank you for the time you have given me to register my ever growing concern, and I am sure that anything you can do to alleviate our problem in the city of Bellefontaine Neighbors will be appreciated. Again, gentlemen, I beseech you to act now.