tion of the public health and welfare. Our progress in understanding this relationship has been uneven. Our initial steps were concerned with the hazards inherent in some of the more flagrant abuses of our natural environment.

With respect to contamination of such resources as air and water, we are only beginning to approach a full understanding of the connection between man's health and well-being and the quality of his environment.

That we have been tardy in this area is not surprising, for environmental contamination is generally a slow process, and some of the most important health and welfare hazards posed by such contamination are essentially subtle and insidious.

Our scientific knowledge and understanding of the ways in which we threaten ourselves by contaminating our natural environment are still far from complete. However, that is not to say that those who have seriously examined the problem are in doubt as to the existence of significant health and welfare hazards arising from the increasing contamination of the air we breathe.

In dealing with air pollution, we have had just two choices basically. We can move energetically to curtail what is now a serious problem, or we can do less than is necessary and allow the problem to become critical, which, at our present pace of population increase and economic growth, would not take long.

In dealing with other problems affecting the environment we have, with few exceptions, followed the latter course, and we know from experience that it is more costly, both in terms of human health and welfare and in terms of dollars.

The effects of air pollution are serious now. In terms of injury to vegetation and livestock, corrosion and soiling of material and structures, depression of property values, and interference with ground and air transportation.

But of even greater significance are the adverse effects of air pollution on human health. Here we must be concerned not just with the threat of severe air pollution episodes capable of causing acute illness and death, but also with the hazards of long-continued exposure to the levels of air pollution which are common in many American communities.

A growing body of scientific evidence indicates that exposure to ordinaary levels of air pollution adversely affects the health of many people and is associated with the occurrence and worsening of chronic respiratory diseases and with premature death.

Air pollution is related to increased mortality from cardiorespiratory disorders, increased susceptibility to respiratory disease, and interference with normal respiratory function. Specific diseases associated in one degree or another with air pollution are emphysema, chronic bronchitis, asthma, lung cancer, and nonspecific respiratory infections, that is the common cold.

There is no good reason why the trend that we anticipate in the years to come as a result of our growing economy must be accompanied by the further deterioration of our atmosphere. We have available the technical means for preventing or minimizing the discharge of most types of contaminants by the use of control equipment or through such means as industrial process modification or fuel substitution.

For a few other contaminants for which such procedures are not now available at socially acceptable costs, current research can be expected to make new tools available within a relatively short period in the future.

There have also been many indications of a fundamental change in the national response to the problem of air pollution-a change which is manifested in rising public demands for increased control efforts on the part of both government and industry,

The Clean Air Act of 1963 and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1965 have given all levels of government greatly improved tools for the control of air pollution. I should like to comment very briefly on the significance of this legislation on the Nation's efforts to deal with air pollution.

The provisions of this act have served us well. We have initiated several interstate abatement actions which will ultimately benefit millions of people; we have established standards which will bring all new automobiles under control during the 1968 model year; we have increased our research efforts and have made progress toward the control of sulfur oxides, oxidants, and other gaseous pollutants which were once clearly beyond our reach; and through the matching-grants provision of the Clean Air Act, State and local control programs have been able to increase their budgets by more than 65 percent nationally.

The activities carried out under the Clean Air Act have, in very direct ways, stimulated all levels of government, industry, and the public to exert greater effort toward the control of air pollution sources.

It should be stressed that the Federal Government alone cannot do the job. State and local governments and the private sector must assume additional responsibilities in combating air pollution. And the public must be better informed as to the actual and potential hazards of pollution.

Mr. MacKenzie will comment on S. 3112, and the House version thereof.

I would like to add that I feel that that enactment of this legislation would permit the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to expand and improve the financial assistance activities which have already been of considerable benefit to States and local governments.

Moreover, it would insure the continued maintenance of State and local programs for the control of air pollution. It would authorize an increase of some $9 million in our appropriation for fiscal year 1967 for the Federal program. In short, Mr. Chairman, enactment of the bill will enable us to continue and augment the vital work we have begun under the Clean Air Act.

Thank you. I would like to have Mr. MacKenzie give you a little detail about the progress of the program and I would be happy to answer your questions.

Mr. JARMAN. That would be fine.



Mr. MACKENZIE. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, in the interest of conserving your time, I also have a statement that I would like to submit for the record and to summarize very briefly here. (Mr. MacKenzie's prepared statement follows:)



Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the adoption of the Clean Air Act in December 1963 and the enactment of major amendments to it in October 1965 gave the Federal Government a mandate to provide leadership and assistance in the national effort to control air pollution. I am pleased to have an opportunity to review the progress of the Federal air pollution program under that legislation and to supplement Dr. Prindle's testimony on the bills you have under consideration.

In the two and one-half years since the adoption of the Clean Air Act, farreaching changes have taken place in the air pollution activities of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare-changes which constitute important steps toward the creation of a truly dynamic national program capable of meeting more effectively the threat of air pollution in all of the diverse ways in which it affects the lives and well being of the American people. I will discuss some of the ways in which the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, for its part, has begun meeting its responsibilities under the Clean Air Act and the 1965 amendments.

One of the primary objectives of the Clean Air Act is to stimulate greatly increased air pollution control activity at the State and local levels of government. The Act reaffirmed the national policy that State and local governments have a basic responsibility for the prevention and control of community air pollution problems, and, for the first time, authorized awarding of Federal funds directly to State and local agencies to assist them in meeting that responsibility. Under provisions of the Clean Air Act, grants can be made for any of three purposes—the development of new air pollution control programs, the establishment of programs already authorized by local or State law, or the improvement of existing programs.

The response to this new Federal activity has indeed been heartening. Awards in Fiscal Years 1965 and 1966 totaled $9.18 million, the full amount appropriated by the Congress; thus far in Fiscal 1967, from funds available under a Continuing Resolution of the Congress, we have made new awards totaling $437,000. In all, grants have been made to 120 local, State, and regional agencies. In addition, we now have a backlog of 25 applications, totaling about $500,000, from agencies which are eligible for awards but for which funds are not currently available.

In all parts of the country, State and local governments have chosen to inaugurate new or improve existing air pollution programs with the assistance from Federal grants. Totally, including both Federal and non-Federal spending, the funds available for State and local air pollution programs have increased by about 65 percent since the adoption of the Clean Air Act. On an annual basis, some $20 million is now being invested in State and local regulatory programs—about $5.1 million at the State level and about $14.9 million at the local level. This amount of money is far from adequate, but it does compare favorably with the combined State and local spending of $12.7 million in 1963.

Of the agencies that have received Federal grants under the Clean Air Act, 57 are developing new programs. Another 23 are establishing programs which had already been legally authorized but not activated. Thus, as a direct result of the Federal grants activity, efforts are now being made which, if fully successful, will bring a total of 80 new air pollution programs into being. In addition, 40 agencies have received grants to assist in the improvement of existing programs.

In short, the response of State and local agencies has been encouraging, but it is important to recognize that our work is only beginning. The fact is that a great many cities and States are still without the services of truly effective control programs. Although encouraging progress is being made, we still have a long way to go before State and local agencies will be adequately authorized and equipped to enforce regulations for the prevention and control of air pollution.

In brief, Mr. Chairman, there are still many serious deficiencies in State and local air pollution control efforts in nearly all parts of the country. To achieve a really significant degree of improvement will require a much greater effort in the months and years ahead than has been made at any time in the past. A great deal of new local and State legislation will be needed. More trained manpower will be needed. Local and State agencies must not only redouble their efforts to prevent new air pollution problems from developing, but, at the same time, must begin dealing more effectively with the many obvious sources of air pollution which remain uncontrolled in virtually every city and town. Not least important, an increased investment of public funds will be needed to achieve and sustain the high level of control activity that is so clearly called for by our knowledge of the present and probable future dimensions of the air pollution problem.

In his testimony, Dr. Prindle emphasized that a share of the needed funds must come from the Federal Government. To provide this assistance, we recommend that the Congress give favorable consideration to the pending legislation, which would amend the Clean Air Act to authorize Federal financial assistance to control agencies on a continuing basis and remove the existing provision limiting the total of grants to air pollution control programs to 20 percent of our total annual budget. In our view, adoption of this legislation is essential to permit the Federal Government to continue to meet its national responsibility for helping State and local governments to cope with the mounting problem of air pollution.

Also, the Federal Government must be prepared to deal with serious air pollution problems wl are inherently beyond the reach of State and local agencies. Air pollution affecting interstate areas is a prime example. Even where people living in such areas are able to insist on effective control of air pollution sources within their own communities, they are powerless to prevent pollution from reaching them from sources in another State. To provide a means of dealing with such situations, the Clean Air Act authorized Federal action to abate interstate air pollution problems.

Thus far, this new Federal authority has been invoked in nine interstate areas, including, most recently, the area in which our Nation's Capitol is located. In terms of the number of people affected, the most significant case concerns interstate air pollution in the metropolitan New York and northern New Jersey area. In two interestate areas, abatement action has been undertaken at the request of States affected by pollution originating outside their boundaries. The first such case involved pollution from a feed and fertilizer plant in eastern Maryland affecting people in Delaware. The second involved emissions from a pulp mill in northern New York affecting people in Vermont. In both instances, the Secretary has issued recommendations calling for prompt and effective control of the interestate problems. To assess the present and possible future need for additional Federal abatement action, we have begun technical surveillance activities in other interstate areas across the country.

In the 1965 Amendments to the Clean Air Act, major new authority was provided for Federal action to deal with one of the most important single factors in the contemporary air pollution problem—the growing problem of motor vehicle pollution. Under this authority for the establishment and enforcement of national standards, Secretary Gardner has issued standards which will apply to new gasoline-powered passenger cars and light trucks, including both Americanmade and imported vehicles, beginning with the 1968 model year. This means such motor vehicles must be equipped or designed to comply with Federal standards for the control of the two predominant sources of motor vehicle emissionsthe exhaust tailpipe and the crankcase. The standards call for significant reductions in tailpipe emissions of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide, as well as 100 percent control of crankcase emissions.

As new cars equipped to comply with the Federal standards replace older, uncontrolled cars, and as the standards are revised in accordance with improvements in control technology an in scientific knowledge of the harmful effects of motor vehicle pollution, we fully expect to see a significant reduction in this important national problem. But this does not provide a permanent solution to the problem. This important point was emphasized by Secretary Gardner in December 1965 ; "It is important to bear in mind," the Secretary said, “that with the increase in the number of automobiles projected for the remainder of this century, the pollution problem could become even more serious than it is today.”

We estimate, Mr. Chairman, that by about 1980, motor vehicles will be so numerous that present approaches to controlling pollution from the internal combustion engine will be totally inadequate. If the public is to be protected against the threat of a steadily worsening motor vehicle pollution problem, new approaches to dealing with it must be found. Ultimately, if our present

[blocks in formation]

dependence on motor vehicles for a major portion of our transportation needs continues, we will almost certainly need to develop virtually pollution-free power sources for motor vehicles.

The need to control emissions from diesel engines is an important aspect of the problem of motor vehicle pollution; indeed, from the standpoint of someone driving behind a diesel bus or truck, it may well seem the most important. I suspect that no other aspect of the problem makes so many people so indignant or so uncomfortable on so many occasions. The 1965 Amendments to the Clean Air Act provided auth under which the Secretary can establish national standards for the control of diesel emissions. A number of technical problems relating to the control of diesel emissions must be resolved before such standards can be established.

The functions of conducting and supporting research and training activities are an integral part of the Federal air pollution program under the provisions of the Clean Air Act and the 1965 amendments. In the past three years, we have expanded and accelerated our efforts in both of these important areas of activity.

In the area of research on the health hazards of air pollution, the early efforts of many scientists concerned with this problem produced a substantial body of evidence associating air pollution with illness and death from a number of respiratory diseases, including asthma, bronchitis, emphysema, and lung cancer. Though we are pursuing our investigations of the connection between air pollution and specific diseases, we are placing increasing emphasis on identifying and assessing the significance of earlier manifestations of the adverse effects of air pollution—such as changes in respiratory function that may be precursors of chronic disease.

In the area of technology for the control of air pollution, the knowledge and skills needed to control most major sources have been available for several year. Our present and projected future research efforts in this area relate principally to improving the effectiveness and reducing the cost of existing control methods. Of particular importance in this connection are the efforts we are making to accelerate the development of effective, low-cost methods of dealing with the problem of sulfur oxide pollution arising from fuel combustion. These efforts are described in detail in the report submitted to you on July 27, 1966, Mr. Chairman.

In the area of training activities, our efforts have been expanded three-fold, in terms of expenditures, since the adoption of the Clean Air Act. A major share of the increase has been directed toward helping to enlarge the supply of technical personnel qualified to work in the air pollution control field. We are currently supporting graduate training programs at 19 universities and providing aid to individual graduate students under a fellowship program. In addition, short-term training courses are conducted at the Taft Sanitary Engineering Center and in other locations, primarily to improve the technical competence of individuals already working in the air pollution field.

The major purpose of our training activities is, of course, to help meet the increasing manpower needs of local and State air pollution programs. The shortage of trained personnel is becoming a serious obstacle to the needed expansion of State and local control activities. For a variety of reasons, many State and local agencies are unable to recruit and retain personnel who have been trained under the auspices of the Federal Government. The result is that most of our trainees ultimately have been finding employment with industry or universities. We are currently seeking ways of channeling more of these people to State and local programs.

Technical assistance in dealing with specific air pollution problems is another area in which the needs of State and local agencies are increasing. Two types of activity account for most of our effort in this area. The first involves assistance to State and local governments in assessing their air pollution problems and planning control programs. Among the places where we are currently providing assistance for major projects are northwestern Indiana, the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, the Kanawha Valley in West Virginia, and the City of Chicago; in addition, we provided extensive assistance for the major air pollution study just completed in the St. Louis metropolitan area-a comprehensive study that provides a sound basis for control action both in the city of St. Louis and in the surrounding areas of Missouri and Illinois.

The second major purpose of our technical services activity is to gather and publish reliable technical information on air pollution control problems associated with specific industries. This effort is intended primarily to assist State and local control officials in dealing with such problems, but it is, of course, of

« ForrigeFortsett »