As I mentioned earlier, the worst problem in the State is right under our nose, in the Denver metropolitan area, with reference to water pollution, and the same certainly applies to air pollution. I realize the problems are complex and this is certainly not the fault of any one administration, in particular the present administration. It has been a cumulative problem, it has been accumulating, as I mentioned, with respect to water pollution for at least 20 years, with respect to air pollution for at least 10 years.

Senator MUSKIE. Would you say that air pollution today is a health problem in Colorado?

Dr. CLEERE. Yes, sir. It definitely is a health problem. The problem would vary, of course, according to the pollutants in the air. The health department will continue studies as authorized by the legislature. We are going to do more with respect to qualitative analysis of ambient air, and as you know, this does require rather expensive equipment and we were surprised that the equipment which we ordered, the mobile unit to conduct these studies in various sections of the metropolitan areas that have the worst problems, and again in particular the Denver area, has not been delivered to date although it was ordered about 6 months ago. We are anticipating arrival most any time. It is not available as of this week. So it is one of the problems related to air pollution.

Again, Senator, you are more familiar with these problems than I am, but I have particular reference to the shortage of trained personnel, which I was glad to see included in the Clean Air Act, on the problems related to the necessary equipment needed to conduct the studies, and also could be used in specific control measures and in control activities. We know we are not going to lick this problem overnight. We think if we get adequate legislation, which again we made progress last year and the year before, I am still confident we are going to make some definite progress in this session of the Colorado Legislature, and I am looking forward to even more progress in the 1965 session of the Colorado Legislature. We did receive a specific appropriation from the State health department in 1963, for the first time, for air pollution control activities. That was in the neighborhood of $161,000. Part of this was earmarked specifically for equipment and supplies, and the most expensive piece of equipment is the one I previously referred to that is needed from the viewpoint of qualitative analyses of ambient air, to deal more specifically with the type of chemical and the amount of chemical in the ambient air.

Our studies have been directed to date primarily at particulates and the standards that we have recommended to the legislature deal primarily with particulates. We did have one session relating to the Ringelmann chart written into this act as a standard-Ringelmann No. 2. There is considerable confusion in the minds of many people in industry and also among the legislators considering this bill as to whether that should be included at this time.

Again, you know it is difficult to accomplish objectives in any one fell swoop, so to speak, in any one given session of the legislature. I am not attempting to speak for Congress. I am sure you don't have that same problem. But we have to, as you know, make a little progress each year, and then sometimes we get our ultimate objectives accomplished.

Senator MUSKIE. In Congress it is hard to even stand still. You have been very generous in your approving comments on the Clean Air Act. Do you have any suggestions as to how it might be expanded and strengthened?

Dr. CLEERE. I don't believe I do at this time, Senator. I was just recently invited to attend a meeting in Washington on the 13th and 14th of February to serve as a member of an ad hoc advisory committee to the Public Health Service on air pollution. I think they want to review some of the guidelines, and so forth, that they have in mind adopting in connection with the Clean Air Act. I thought I might get a better idea after that meeting, so to speak, and after we have had an opportunity to work with the Public Health Service under the provisions of the present act than I do have today.

Personally, I am well pleased with the act and satisfied with it. I am sure as you go along you will probably determine that maybe some improvements are needed or the act may need broadening, but in my opinion it is a rather comprehensive act because you gave consideration before it was recommended to Congress, you and the members of your committee, to the various needs with respect to grant-inaid programs with respect to research, and also with respect to any requested or needed Federal action with respect to enforcement. Í personally feel it is an excellent act and I think we are going to be well pleased with the implementation of the act as we go along with the pollution control services.

As you know by my brief comments, we have benefited greatly by the consultation services that we have received from the Public Health Service, which we requested as early as 1947, from the viewpoint of necessary technical assistance needed in some of the survey work because in communities and industries they do want to know what they are dealing with and certainly they want to know what the standards are, the minimum acceptable standards, and I think they can set the sights, we all can, for working toward accomplishing compliance with minimum acceptable standards.

It is true, as you know, again better than I, there is not entire agreement on some of the fine points with respect to standards. I think additional study will be required to determine just exactly what minimum acceptable standards should be adopted in all of these complexities of the air pollution problem before they can be written into law or before they can be adopted by a State board of health as minimum acceptable standards. I am intrigued about the progress in Colorado with respect to air pollution control. I think we are certainly laying a good basic foundation, a good framework for an adequate control program.

Again, I think it is going to take us 3 to 5 years to meet some of the objectives that we are outlining today because we have let it get out of hand. That is, the problem related to open incineration is serious. We know it is going to cost more money. We know that Denver, and not only Denver but other local jurisdictions, need to do more with respect to maintaining adequate sanitary landfill procedures for disposing of refuse, which also has increased in amount in recent years. We know that is a problem from the viewpoint of cities growing into fringe areas when the land values have increased tremendously in recent years, but nevertheless it must be done if we are to correct 25 percent, approximately, of the air pollution problem, the problem related to backyard incineration, the tremendous amount of additional money that will be required on the part of the city to make the necessary improvements in pickup service, to say nothing of the problem related to acquiring the necessary land for landfill methods for disposing of garbage and refuse. I just mention that as one problem.

I think the Federal Government, which may already have been done, I don't know, can be of material assistance in stimulating the automobile industry, the manufacturing industry, to try to do more at the factory from the viewpoint of licking this problem related to unburned hydrocarbons. Possibly more research needs to be done on the fuel itself to try to get it licked before the automobile gets off the assembly line, because we know it is going to take years to correct 40 years of this problem, approximately that amount, caused by the automobile exhause problem. We know from a practical viewpoint it is most difficult to require a blowby device on a crankcase on an engine to reduce that portion of the unburned hydrocarbons, which, as I understand it, is about 40 percent of the total problem of unburned hydrocarbons from automobiles. The other 60 percent is the unburned hydrocarbons from the exhaust. So just as a matter of reality, since blowby devices have been installed on new automobiles for the past 3 years, which we think is excellent, if we can visualize how long it is going to take just to reduce 40 percent of the problem, even though they are highly effective in reducing that much of the unburned hydrocarbon, but how long would it take on the basis of manufacturing new automobiles, to reduce, say 97 to 98 percent of 40 percent of the problem. Yet we know it is the most difficult problem that was related to the older automobiles, but I don't think it has been determined as practical by any local area or by a State to require by law that these blowby devices be installed on old automobiles, those manufactured previous to 3 years ago, to say nothing of the 60 percent of the problem that is unsolved at this time from the viewpoint of discharge of the unburned hydrocarbons from the exhaust. We know that if it could be done, and possibly, I don't know what the Federal Government might do in the way of helping, from reading some articles I think some suggestions or recommendations have been made with respect, if possible, to income tax exemptions or some type of tax exemption on the part of industries that would conduct certain research that I have just mentioned and also make certain installations from the viewpoint of the reduction of smoke and other problems from the emission from the industrial stacks. We need to present a united front, and I again think the Clean Air Act offers an excellent opportunity for continuing our Federal, State and local partnership in the field of environmental health, and beyond that, in the entire field of public health.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much, Dr. Cleere, for your excellent statement.

Do you have any questions, Senator Moss?

Senator Moss. No. I would like to congratulate Dr. Cleere. This has been most enlightening and heartening, too, to find that the Colorado State Board of Health and the Governor's committee have indeed started to attack the problem. Obviously, there are many answers that you must find, and to do that you have to have measurements and data

[blocks in formation]

on which to provide the answers. Polluted air just sort of sneaked up on us in a way, and there isn't very wide awareness of it.

I think in my own city when we have a smoky, foggy day everybody complains about it and grumbles about it, but the next day will turn up clear and they have forgotten all about it. The problem is gone just because the smog seems to be gone, and we haven't realized, or the public hasn't realized, the carryover of this and its acceleration, its growing importance, and it is just recently that we have recognized the tremendous problem that the automobile has presented to us as we get more and more of them and we get more and more freeways on which more automobiles can drive back and forth. I agree this has become a major problem. We need a lot of education, and to educate our people we need specific factual answers. I think you are doing an excellent job here, the beginning of the job. You have a long way to go, of course, and I would hope that this Clean Air Act will be of great assistance to you, as it should be to other communities throughout the country.

Do you think in organizing for this clean air enforcement, as you go forward, that it should be done, then, by districts rather that statewide? Would that be a better organization, do you think, in Colorado here?

Dr. CLEERE. I think definitely, Senator, there should be a State authority which, in my humble opinion—I don't need to say, you can guess what I would say the agency should be in my humble opinion it should be the State health agency, the State health department. In certain States where that agency is showing leadership in trying to mobilize and organize forces to combat air pollution I think the State agency should have authority to establish minimum acceptable standards. I do feel that the local jurisdictions should have authority to establish higher standards than those established by the States, either by the legislature enacting standards into law or by designating or authorizing the State health agency to adopt the standards. I think a legal agency, preferably a local health department, should have authority to adopt higher standards to meet a specific local problem. There should be an additional clause or provision that the standards cannot be lower than or in conflict with State standards. I think the enforcement should be primarily vested in a local authority.

Now, I realize I don't have the final answer as to the most desirable type of local government jurisdiction that should be established in Colorado.

As I mentioned previously, there is considerable opposition in Colorado, which developed in the 1963 session, toward establishment of additional single purpose districts. One reason that is true here in this State is because we have experienced some difficulties in the single purpose sanitation district law, and I think that is one reason why the legislature was not ready in the last session to adopt a new single purpose district authority in the field of air pollution because of the problems that have been experienced with the sanitation district law that was enacted several years ago in Colorado. But I know in my own mind that additional studies should be conducted, or preferably, to put it differently, I feel that these studies that are now being conducted will give us the answer as to the most

your time.

desirable type of metropolitan authority that should be established in Colorado to meet these problems of environmental health, including air pollution.

I know the hour is getting late. I don't want to take more of Senator Moss. I do appreciate it. I appreciate your willingness to stay on and answer our questions and elaborate on some of our points. It has been intensely interesting and most helpful.

Dr. CLEERE. Thank you, Senator Muskie and Senator Moss.

Senator MUSKIE. May I ask just one more question? Do you have any data showing the incidence of illness relating to air pollution ?

Dr. CLEERE. You will be hearing from Dr. Robert Mitchell this afternoon. We work very closely, our department does, with Dr. Mitchell, and we do have some data, I wouldn't say it is entirely conclusive, with respect to trying to pinpoint an exact pollutant that may be responsible for this general increase in respiratory diseases. I wouldn't say that just any one pollutant is responsible, to be more specific, for the increase in emphysema, bronchitis, and problems related to asthma and cancer of the lungs, but there seems to be some definite correlation from the viewpoint of the increase in intensity of the pollutants in the air as related to the increase in these diseases that I just mentioned.

Senator Muskie. Thank you very much, Dr. Cleere.
Dr. CLEERE. If I can just say one other thing, Senator.
Senator MUSKIE. Yes, sir.

Dr. CLEERE. When I was appearing before the Colorado Legislative Committee just considering air pollution control measures, the hearing that you are conducting today was announced and one of the legislators thought it was entirely appropriate that Muskie and Cleere get together to discuss air pollution problems. [Laughter.]

Senator MUSKIE. With that clear statement, thank you, Doctor. I think we have done so well with our witnesses this morning, we have one left on the morning schedule, I think we will take a 5-minute break and then come back with Mayor Currigan. I understand you rushed over, Mayor, from another speech across the street. Mayor CURRIGAN. A 5-minute break sounds wonderful to me. (A short recess was taken.) Senator MUSKIE. Our next witness—I have seen so much of him this morning already I think of him as an old friend, not a new one mayor of the city of Denver, Thomas Currigan. It is good to have you here to sandwich in a little bit of testimony between a couple of civic speeches.


Mayor CURRIGAN. Thank you, Senator Muskie and Honorable Senator Moss. I feel after our very informal and social morning we are back on the trail again.

I would like to take this occasion to introduce two gentlemen who are with me here. My assistant, Joe Barry on my right; on my left Len Dobler, the chief air pollution engineer for the city and county of Denver.

I would like to present a statement on behalf of the city and county of Denver.

« ForrigeFortsett »