The NAPCA has established an Emergency Operations Control Center (EOCC) to meet its responsibilities under Section 108 (k) of the Clean Air Act as amended. The objective of the EOCC is to receive and process intelligence relating to air pollution episodes and to determine the extent and effectiveness action undertaken by local authorities. Such information was obtained for the recent St. Louis air pollution advisory occurrence. During air pollution episodes in which the local authorities do not take necessary abatement procedures to eliminate an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health, the Secretary of HEW may request the Attorney General to bring suit to enjoin any alleged contributor of pollution to stop. In such cases the EOCC will supply the NAPCA Commissioner with sufficient technical information to establish that an imminent and substantial danger to the public health exists.

Senator EAGLETON. Our first witness is the Honorable James W. Symington, Member of Congress from the Second Congressional District, St. Louis County, Mo. Congressman Symington.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES W. SYMINGTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE SECOND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Mr. SYMINGTON. Thank you, Senator Eagleton, and members of the staff of the committee.

At the outset I would like to express on behalf of the entire Metropolitan St. Louis area, deep gratitude to you and the other members of this subcommittee for coming here to listen to us. I have prepared a statement for the record which makes four recommendations for Federal initiatives: national industrial emission standards; a guaranteed Federal market for low-emission vehicles; the development of mass transit supported by a trust fund, as contained in a bill I cosponsored last spring; and certain pollution standards for Federal

contracts.

But since you are about to hear my tutors with respect to our regional problems, and would prefer the advice of the professor to that of the student, I will limit my verbal statement to a few general observations-not as an expert on pollution problems, per se, but as a public servant, like yourselves, with a shared responsibility for solving them.

A city, according to the Greeks, "is for the happiness and safety of the people." This was certainly so in that dim time when people actually sought security in cities-security from the dangers of the raw wilderness. Today, we justifiably wonder what true security there is in cities. Apprehensive, we look back to the once foreboding, now comforting wilderness, only to find it, too, becoming part of the city. The wilderness no longer threatens us. We threaten it. To borrow from Woodie Guthrie, "from the redwood forests to the Gulf stream waters, this land is spoiled by you and me." Or, as Pogo once sagely observed, "We have met the enemy and they are us."

But the time for mea culpa is passed. The challenge must serve to invigorate, not paralyze us. We will be judged soon enough. For we surely are the first generation to fully understand that by our action or inaction we can render destitute our planet home. This was the conclusion of last week's 2-day seminar on the environment chaired by Senator Hughes and former Senator Gruening. The scientists and conservationists there assembled gave solemn testimony to their belief that-if the habitable world was indeed created in 6 days-it is less

than a second away from its destruction. The observation was not made in panic. Yet neither was emotion entirely absent from the otherwise measured terminology of men who have watched the erosion of our resources for a long time with, regrettably, far greater care and concern than men of government and industry. Ominous words like "inversion" have now moved from their vocabulary to that of laymen like the teachers of Los Angeles who are legally required to forbid the schoolchildren from running, skipping, and jumping on smog-alert days so unhappy and so unsafe has that city become. The scientists mentioned in cherished tones, the "biosphere." They seemed so anxious about it, it was a temptation to go to the window to see if it was still there. One of them related a parable of herdsmen sharing a commons. For years the grazing of animals on the commons was controlled by conflicts among the herdsmen which reduced their numbers. Then, with a newly acquired political sophistication, the conflicts ceased. Peace came, and the grazing increased rapidly. Noting the disappearing grasses, each herdsman had a choice. Either add an animal to the herd, and profit from the addition, or maintain or reduce the herd size to preserve so much more of the commons. The latter alternative offered no immediate benefit to the individual herdsman commensurate with the addition of one or more animals. So the herds increased, and the profits pocketed, until one day the grass was gone. What was missing was a shared sense of purpose toward the larger goal, leaders to inspire it, and citizens to pursue it. The biosphere, Mr. Chairman, is our commons. We need to know how to preserve it. The decision cannot be left to fragile chance, much less to the remorseless logic of the marketplace.

You are here today, Mr. Chairman and committee members, both as leaders and learners. You will learn from the most distinguished spokesmen in this field what the problem is. I feel that with them, you will lead us to reasonable and sufficiently rapid solutions. We are not, I hasten to say, looking for scapegoats or persons or institutions to blame. We are all at fault. And we all breathe the results of our collective carelessness. What each of us must be encouraged to do, whether we are the drivers or builders of cars or other polluting machines, the employees, stockholders, or managers of industry, planners of cities, appointed or elected officials, and taxpayers all, is to understand the threat and make the necessary individual sacrifices to meet it. Who knows where such a course may take us? Would it lead inevitably to a reappraisal of values even beyond economics? Spokesmen at last week's conference thought so. But they suggested that as the 6 percent of the world's people who consume 60 to 70 percent of the world's resources, we Americans have a grave duty to embark on this pilgrimage to a new world of understanding. Like our forefathers, we are driven by known threats to chart the unknown. In the crossing we may encounter heresies-questions like, do we produce what we truly need? Do we consume what we truly must? Do we in any event foul our spaceship and its atmosphere in the process? The questions are not ours alone to ask, since we share the craft with 3 billion others. But it is largely ours to answer together with the other industrial nations. With them, we bear a stern responsibility. We have talked of the war no one can win. We have said little of the struggle no one can afford to lose-against rampant technology.

This adds a distinctive dimension to the challenge, because allies in the struggle must not only be the industrial west, but the Soviet Union itself, whose nuclear genius Andrei Sakharov has pointed out that our lethal particulates have invaded each other's sky, and that unless it is stopped, we will bury each other "peacefully" in 20 years. Concerning 18th-century England, Mr. Chairman, William Blake asked, "And was Jerusalem builded here among these dark Satanic mills?" This is a good question for the 20th-century world. And the answer may well be given here with the same spirit of hope and wonder that engulfed Laclede and Chouteau in the dawn light of two centuries ago, as they planned the city we intend to save. Thank you, Senator Eagleton. That concludes my formal presentation.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES W. SYMINGTON

Mr. Chairman, we meet today in a great metropolitan area. Our city, which grew from the site chosen in 1764 by August Chouteau and Pierre Liguest, is today located at the crossroads of the most prosperous nation in the world. Bestriding the Mississippi River at its confluence with the Missouri River, St. Louis is a community unified by a single cultural, social and economic life, sharing a common environment, even though divided by political boundaries.

Located at the hub of the nation, our promise has always been great. Even 100 years ago Horace Greeley wrote of St. Louis: "Man will soon accomplish her destiny by rendering her the seat of an immense industry, the home of a farreaching, ever-expanding commerce." Indeed, a vast trade was early established by Liguest, and manufacturing soon followed. With the discovery of iron, coal and other natural resources nearby, manufacturing grew, and from it today's metropolis.

Black smoke at one time epitomized our industrial activity and prosperity. But that same symbol of progress soon became a threat to the physical health-and the economic health-of the city; by 1940, smoke abatement efforts were showing effect and control was established over that problem of our environment.

Today we face a similar challenge. As our technology and industry have become more complex and sophisticated, so have the problems of environmental pollution-not merely in St. Louis, but throughout the Nation and the world. While air contamination often cannot be seen or felt, its dangers have already been made manifest through a number of tragic incidents like those in Donora, Pennsylvania, London, and New York, and the crisis this summer in the St. Louis area. This latter incident is largely responsible for our gathering here today. One question it encourages us to explore is what kind and degree of action are we willing to take to avoid more incidents like these in the future. And for my part, what can be done on the Federal level to supplement and encourage such action. Surely we cannot afford to respond to the problems of air pollution only on a crisis basis. Such action might destroy symptoms; it will never eliminate causes. We must tackle these canses, or we will surely suffocate in the effects.

NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL EMISSION STANDARDS

First, I would like to briefly discuss the question of national industrial emis sion standards. When the Air Quality Act was being debated, considerable attention was devoted to the concept of national emission standards. Ultimately, of course, national standards were not incorporated in this legislation. The Act, as passed, provided a plan for the implementation and enforcement of emission standards on a regional level. I believe this regional approach is a sound one, and that it can be a very effective one, if it is adhered to by State and local governments, industry, and citizens. I also feel that regional enforcement authority should be, as called for in the Act, strictly backed by the Federal government. Nonetheless, I believe that our entire air quality program could be strengthened by the implementation of national emission standards. In the first place, one major factor which has contributed to the lack of initiative at the state and local level in setting emission standards is the threat of economic recrimination. Unfortunately, the local government's role of protecting the public health and welfare seems to be in direct conflict with its role of insuring economic

growth. At the present time, local enforcement officials hesitate to enforce standards, since industrial polluters have the option to relocate their facilities in areas with less stringent regulations. Even a minimum national emission standard would help to eliminate the attractiveness of this option.

There are other reasons for strengthening pollution control efforts through some type of national standards. First, it will take some time before all air quality control regions are established and operating effectively in accordance with the Air Quality Control Act. Until such time as all air quality regions are designated and their authority becomes effective, will we permit the uncontrolled pollution of the environment?

Secondly, and more significantly, there are a number of areas which may never be included in any air quality region. Do we ignore these areas until they become critical, or even rely on voluntary local efforts to prevent them from becoming so? Indeed, the primary purpose of national standards should be the protection of those people living in the vicinity of industries in areas which either are not yet, or will not be, included in air quality control regions. These people, after all, have the same right to a healthy environment as do those living in areas which are or will be included in air quality regions.

In considering the case for national standards, however, we should not presume that any such standard would be adequate to effectively control emissions in our urban areas, or would in any way reduce the need for more stringent regional standards for industrialized areas. As a case in point, we might consider the report proposing emission standards for various air contaminants which has been published by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. That report also states that it is unlikely that these standards would be adequate in any urban area in this country-that they would have to be augmented by more stringent regional emission standards in order to provide a safe environment. Thirdly, because pollutants do not respect political boundaries, an emission which does not present a problem in its particular region may be carried to another region where it will create a problem. Basic national standards would be intended to prevent emissions from low concentration areas from contributing to the problems in areas of high pollution concentration, perhaps until the sources of the contamination could be brought into an air quality control region. There are also technological advantages which could result from national industrial standards. Uniform standards for emissions from various sources could encourage the creation of a national market for pollution control devices. The great range of standards now existing makes the large-scale development of modern methods of control technically and economically not feasible. More definitive standards could certainly facilitate the development of control techniques. This does not mean, however, that we should ignore existing control methods until the most modern pollution control devices become accessible. While advancing the "state of the art" we should do what we can to improve the state of the air.

In passing the Air Quality Act, it was the intent of Congress that the primary responsibility devolved on states comprising air quality control regions. I think we should remember that one reason for ineffective air pollution control in the past has been our dependence on voluntary development of and compliance with safe air standards, without strict enforcement requirements. The Air Quality Control Act provides for (1) state development of emission standards-which must be approved at the Federal level; and (2) compulsory industry compliance with those standards, which are to be enforced at the state and local level, with federal interference if they are not. I cannot see any real conflict between effective action by states in accordance with the Air Quality Act. and the need for national emission standards. In fact. I believe it would be a mistake to advocate the adoption of national standards as a substitute for regional standards geared to the different conditions of different areas. Consider the implica tions of such a suggestion. The air pollution control program would become completely a creature of the Federal government. We would have to be willing to accept Federal development of standards, as well as Federal enforcement of those standards, without local or state interference in cases where standards were not adhered to. Are we willing to give the Federal government complete jurisdiction over industrial pollution? I think not. We must remember that our objective is to control pollution, not to control industry. Most important is that an effective alliance against pollution be established. This means a partnership of industry and government at all levels. Under the Air Quality Act, it means regional emission standards for industry, to be enforced by state and local government, and insured by the Federal government. This Act also provides for

a commission to study the need for national standards. The report of that commission to be submitted to Congress next month-should be enlightening as to the feasibility and desirability of the adoption of national emission standards. I trust they will be deemed useful.

GUARANTEED MARKET FOR LOW EMISSION AUTOMOBILES

There are other areas of legislation, aside from amendment to strengthen the Air Quality Control Act, where Federal support could bolster local and state efforts in pollution control. For instance, in terms of the total quantity of pollutants, the automobile represents the most important single source of air pollution in the United States today. Automotive sources continue to emit more pollutants than all stationary sources combined. In our city alone, 1,114,000 tons of carbon monoxide and 373,600 tons of hydrocarbons are emitted each year from these sources.

The Federal program has sought to cope with automotive air pollution by establishing nationwide standards that limit the emissions of automotive pollutants. Since 1968, when the first national standards became effective, annual automotive emissions per car have decreased 62%.

More stringent standards were issued in June of 1968-to become effective in 1970. In the years after 1971 and 1968 and 1970 standards will achieve a sharp downturn in national emissions per vehicle. However, unless more restrictive national controls are imposed at an earlier date, decreased vehicular pollution levels will be short-lived. By the mid-seventies expanding vehicle population and usage will again send automotive pollution levels soaring. So, we must fight a continuous battle with the ubiquitous automobile for clean air.

Although primary responsibility for developing emission control systems lies with the vehicle manufacturers and fuel producers, Federal policy has been to stimulate and assist in furthering the development of improved control systems. In this regard, I have co-sponsored a bill to make the 400,000 vehicle inventory of the Federal agencies a guaranteed market for low-emission automotive propulsion systems-whether steam, electric or modified internal combustion in nature. The bill would provide for the creation of a Low Emission Certification Board which would decide whether a particular vehicle is a low-emission vehicle, and whether it would be a suitable substitute for any class of automobile now purchased by the Federal government for the use of its agencies.

Certified low-emission vehicles would be purchased in place of non-certified vehicles. Emission standards would follow California's Low-Emission Motor Vehicle Act which has proven so successful thus far. No low-emission vehicle would be eligible for U.S. procurement if its costs exceed 125% of the procurement and maintenance costs of the class of vehicles for which it is a substitute. The Staff Report for the Senate Committee on Commerce entitled The Search for a Low Emission Vehicle recommended such action:

"Legislation requiring Federal procurement of low-emission vehicles will foster low-emission vehicle development. Such legislation will make feasible independent innovative development of low-emission vehicles. By offering legislatively guaranteed markets, a reasonable rate of initial production is possible. Initial costs of low-emission vehicles can thereby be made more competitive with existing vehicles."

The large capitalization for nationwide dealerships and servicing centers would be unnecessary. Sales of these vehicles can be arranged centrally with the purchasing agents of the various departments thereby reducing marketing costs, and many Government vehicles are centrally serviced thereby reducing investment costs for service centers.

Most importantly, the procurement legislation might create a consumer demand for low-emission vehicles. This demand might prompt Detroit auto manufacturers to accelerate their development work in the low-emission field.

DEVELOPMENT OF MASS TRANSIT

Another area of Federal legislation to be considered in the battle against air pollution is mass transit, for as the motor vehicle population increases, so will air pollution-even if we continue to impose stronger standards. The U.S. is experiencing sharp upward trends in urbanization, industrialization, and in automobile usage. Already, our metropolitan areas encompass 78% of our population. These situations point out the urgency of greatly expanding the development and use of non-polluting transportation vehicles and systems. In the past local, state