ED 058 085

TITLE

INSTITUTION

PUB DATE

NOTE

AVAILABLE F_

EDRS PRTLE

DESCRIPTORS

DOCUMENT RESUME

SE 013 186

Report of the Council on Environmental Quality.

Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Air and Water

Pollution of the Committee on Public Works, 91st

Congress, Second Session, August 11, 1970.

Congress of the U.S., Washington, D.C. Senate

Committee on Public Works.

Aug 70

30p.

OM Superin endent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing

Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 ($0.20)

MF-$0.65 HC-$3.29

*Air Pollution Control; Committees; *Environmental

Influences; *Federal Legislation; Federal Programs;

Quality Control; *Question Answer Interviews;

Reports; *Water Pollution Control

ABSTRACT

Presented in this bulletin is the text of the hearing

before the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution of the Committee

on Public Works, United states Senate conc.erning the "First Annual

Environmental Quality Report" of the Council on Environmental

Quality. The hearing was held August 11, 1970 tor the purpose of

providing open discussion of the findings and recommendations of the

President's Council on Environmental Quality. These recommendations

generally emphasize the urgency of immediate action to reverse

present trends toward environmental destruction. Russell E. Train,

chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, responded to the

subcommittee questioning led by chairman Senator Edmund S. Muskie,

which dealt primarily with air, water, and solid waste pollution

concerns. (BL)
REPORT OF THE COUNCIL ON

ENViRONMENTAL QUALITY

HEARING

BEFORE THE

U,S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATiON & WELFARE

OFFICE OF EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAF BEEN REPRO- DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIG- INATING IT. POINTS DF VIEW OR OPIN- IONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL or.---xE OF LOU- CAT1:-N POSITION OP POLICY

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

AIR AND WATER POLLUTION

OF TELE

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS

UNITED STITES SENATE

NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS

qECOND SESSION

POR

THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING OPEN DisoussIoN OF THE

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PRESIDENT'S

COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

AUGUST 11, 1970

Printed for the use of the Committee on Public Works

11.5. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 1970

by the SuperinWa tendent of Domuneots,t1.8. Of:moron:to r

shington, D.c: 204027 Price 20 cents
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS

JENNINGS RANDOLPH, West Virginia, Chairman

STEPHEN M. YOUNG, Ohio

EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Maine

B. EVERETT JORDAN, North

BIRCH BAYIT, Indiana

JOSEPH M. moNToYA, New Mexico

WILLIAM 13. SPONG, JR., Virginia

THOMAS F. EAGLETON, Missouri

MIKE GRAVEL, Alaska

carolina

JOHN SHERMAN COOPER, Kentu

J. CALEB BOGGS, Delaware

HOWARD H. BAKER, Ia., Tennessee

ROBERT J. DOLE, Kansas

EDWARD J. GURNEY, Florida

ROBERT W. PACKWOOD, Oregon

ky

RieHARD B. ROYCE, Chief Clerk and Staff Director

J. B. HuYETT, Jr., Assistant Chief Clerk and Assistan: Staff Director

BARRY MEYER, Counsel

BAILEY GUARD, Assistant Chief Cie, k (Minority)

Ton C. JORLING, Minority Counsel

Professional Staff Members: JOSEPH F. VAN VLADRIGKEN, LEON 0. BILLINGS, RICHA'Pr GRUNDY,

STEWART E. McCLuRE, HAROLD H. BnivymAil, ADRIEN WALLER, RICHARD W. WILSON PHILIP T.

CU5.13nNos, and JOHN YAGO

S BCONIMITTEE ON AIR AND WATER PoLLUTION

EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Maine, ChatimanJENNINGS RANDOLPH, West Virginia BIRCH BAYR, Indiana

JOSEPH M. MONTOYA, New Mexico

WILLIA14 B. SPONG, JR., Virginia

THOMAS F. EAGLETON, Missolui

J. CALEB BOGGS, Delaware

SOHN SHERMAN COOPER, Kentucky HOWARD H. BAKER, JR., Tennessee

ROBERT J. DOLE, Kansas
REPORT OF THE COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY

TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1970

U.S. SENATE,

SURCOM1 ON AIR AND WATER POLLUTION

"FIIE COMMITTEE ON PUBIAC WORKS,

i'Vaf Ming ton, D.C.

The subcommit met at 10 :42 a.m. pursuant to call, in room 4200, New Senate Office Building, Senator Edmund S. Muskie (chairman

of the subcommittee) presiding. Present : Senators Muskie, Spong, Boggs, and Dole. Also present ; Ricli.ard B. Royce, chief clerk and staff director ; Bailey Guard, assistant chief clerk (minority) ; M. Barry Meyer, counsel Thomas C. Jorling, minority counsel ; Leon G. Billings, Rich- ard D. brnituy, Adrien Waller, Richard W. Wilson, and Philip T. Cummings, professional staff members. Senator MITSKIE. First of all, I would like to express my appreciation to Chairman Train and his colleagues for taking the time to visit with us this morning about this very mportant report. i

I would like to read a brief statement to put this hearing in its context from our point of view. Today's hearing is for the purpose of providing open discussion

of the findincrs and recommendations of the President's Council on

Environmenal Quality as released by the President at noon yesterday. The Council is to be commended for prepariEg a comprehensive

summary and review of the Nation's critical environmental problems. While the recommendations included in the report are substantially

the same as those made by the President earlier this year, they re- emphasize the urgency of nmnediate action to reverse present trnds

tow a rd environmental destruction.

The report has its limitations. As the report itself explains, time did ncL, allow implementation of the Council's mandate "to formulate and recommend national policies to promote the improvement of the quality of the environment. The report underlines the need to change our crisis response to

environmental problems. Statutory deadlines, mandatory change, and governmental restrictions on mobility are the byproducts of poor planning in the past. The problems we face today should have been dealt with in. the

fifties. But we did not. So today, the erivironmental crisis is accepted

as inevitable.

Pending legislationsome of which will be enacted this year-- should force us to change our habits. Automobiles may be banned

1)
from the downtown streets of major cities and mass transit systems built with massive Federal financial support. Air and water pollution controls may restrict the location, if not

the construction of new powerplants. Some industrial facilities will

cease to operate. And concern for the effects of noise on the environment may stop

the plaimed construction of a supersonic transpovt. But these are only responses to the pressures of crises. They do not compose an environmental policy. As the report points out, the Nation lacks a national energy policy, a national transportation policy, and a national land-use policy. But a national energy policy which does not consider environmental protection_ as a precondition of planning will be worse than a lack of

A national transportation policy which is dictated. by economic

interest rather than environmental and social values will be worse

than a lack of policy. And a national land-use policy which fails to consider the existing

-Vederal system, present and proposed environmental standards, pres- ea outmoded fiscal policies, and population and resource concentration will be worse than a lack of policy. Today's discussion should provide an opportunity to discuss how to deal with these longer range environmental problems : How is the Nation to balance its demand for energy with the en- vironmental problems that energy production ,ates ? How will our consumption patterns be altered to reflect resource

scarcity and the need for pollution control ? What kind of policy will assure planned use of land, water, and

air in urban and rural environments ? 11That kind of governmental structures will be developed to deal

with the environmental problems of metropolitan areas ? What kind of transportation systems will be built in the next 5 to 10

years to assuro mobility without strangulation ? What kind of preevaluation mechanisms will be developed to guard

affainst potential environmental disasters like those triggered by pesticrdes ? None of these questions can wait until the next critical pollution

episode. The Nation cannot afford crisis response to environmental

problems. Today's hearing, investigations by the Joint Committee on the En- . vironmentwhich we hope will he established soonand deliberations by the Council on Enviromnental Quality will focus attention on the

need to evoke fundamental changes in the way we live, work, and play. I would like to add that I think this report, understandably limited because of the pressures of time and because you have been m office

only 6 months, really serves a most useful purpose in spelling out

our comprehension of the dimensions of the responsibility you-have een given. I think the report -represents a broad vision, the kind of vision which ought to motivate the Council in its first Year of endeavors. I compliment the Chairman and the members of dm Council.

Senator Boggs has, I think, a brief statement. Senator BOGGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. May I compliment you

on your statement. I wish to join you and other members of the corn-
3

mittee in welcoming Chairman Train and his colleagues from the Council on Environmental Quality this morning. The work they have accomplished, has been very impressive during

the brief 6 months sinee their nominations to the Council were confirmed by the Senate. I congratulate each of you. I had the opportunity

to read hastily through the Council's report last evening. It seemed to me to be a very excellent summation of our environmental challenge. It brought into better perspective, I believe, many of the issues now

before this subcommittee, the Congres, and the country. Our su,.)committee, of course, has the jursidiction over many of the

subjects discussed in the Council's report, such as air, water, solid waste, and other related pollution problems involving the environmental challenge. Thus, we are keenly interested in your evaluations of these problems. The Council's discussion of the broad range of environmental problems demonstrates the interrelationships of the various factors

threatening the envirrnment and it clearly charts the opportunity our Nation has to improve the quality of life durincr the 1970's. When he sent this report to the Congress yestealay, President Nixon made this observation, and I would like to quote it :

Our environmental problems are very serious, indeed urgent, but they do

not justify either panic or hysteria. The problems are highly compleK, and their

resolution will require rational, systematic approaches, hard work, and patience.

Chairman Train and his distinguished collearrues on the Council have demonstrated their readiness to bring thmese qualities to the

challenge of environmental enhancement. I know eaeli of us is anxious

to hear-from Chairman Train today, and we appreciate his appearance here.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Senator MusKir. Thank you, Senator Boggs. Senator Spong? Senator SPONG. Mr. Chairman, I have no opening statement. I would like to associate myself with the very fine remarks that you

have made, and also like to welcome Chairman TrainI think I called him Dr. Train the other day, in the nerve gas hearingshere toda Senator Mu-8111E. We have looked forward to this day, Mr. Chair- man, and members of the Council. I think I indicated, as did Senator

Boggs, and other Senators our appreciation of your appointment as Chairman of this Council. iIre have high itopes that by creation of the Council and by the related legislation giving you authoritybut, as yet, inadequate appropriations to do your workthat we are at least on the road to development of an enviromnental policy for our country. We are delighted to welcome you this morning.

STATEMENT OF HON. RUSSELL E. TRAIN, CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL

ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT CAHN

AND GOBDOI I. MACDONALD, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL

Mr. TRAIN-. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I might respond to one of the chairman's introductory remarks, in which he exprvssed the hope that the Joint Committee on Environ- ment might be establishad soon, I think that the 'Council would be

associa itself with that hope, ndting that we are presently
4

scheduled to testify before three committees this wee,k oh the report, and I suspect this may be only a beginning. I am sure a joint com- mittee woitld be very welcome by all hands here. Senator Mus KiE. I hope we can help to prepare you this morning

for your later bouts this week. Air. TRAIN. Air. Chairman, and members of the committee, it is a pleasure to appear before fills distinguished committee for the first

time, I would say, in our role as a Council, because, of course, I haxe

appeared before this committee on. previous occasions. For the record, I would like to note that I am accompanied by

both members of the 'Council, Mr. Robert Calm and Dr. Gordon

Mac Donald.

Our appearance today, in connection with the filing by the Presi- dent of the "First, Annual Environmental Quality Report, furnishes a good opportunity to review the work of the Council and those areas

in the report of particular relevance for this committee. s you know, the first annual report has been prepared during the organizing period, of the Council. Only a, few months have been avail- able for the task.

Likewise, the 'Council has had only a small staff during this period. all of whom have carried major responsibility for the wide 'variety of projects and issues, other than the report, which have concerned the. Couneil during these months. We also recognize that we possess insufficient environmental quality

indicators or systems by which to monitor the environment and outline

trends with any degree of accuracy at this time. Nevertheless, within the bounds of these. limitations, the Council has attempted to brinp- together a. comprehensive 'description of environmental problems and issues facing the Nation. It does not require a highly developed monitoring system to tell that the present state of our environment, is badly degraded, that on waters remain seriously polluted, that the air in and around our cities

is in unsatisfaetory condition, that congestion and noise and stress are

increasing, that environmentally related disease is rising, that the solid wastes of our society are continuing to mount, that open space and natural areas are diminishing, that the natural diversity of our surroundings is decreasing, that ugliness and tawdriness are spreading

across our American landscape. Nevertheless, the year 1970 has marked the beginning of a signifi- cant attack on these problems. Not only has public awareness and

concern, reached new levels, but at the same time We have begun to achieve a better understanding of the

complex root causes of our problems ; We have begun to build into the decisionmakino. process of Fed- eral agencies a consideration of a broad range a environmental Aors ;

We have continued and streno-thened the development of a corn- prehensive action program that, given persistence and support, can arrest and reverse the adverse trends m our environment ; and

We have begun to build the institutional base for more effective

environmental management. I. would like to just give one word of 3mphasis to that last item, Which I think is too often overlooked, when public attention tends to

focus on specific problems.
5

We think so much in te ms of profframs to deal with those ad hoc,

immediate problems, and r ghtly so,at over the long pull, we feel that the better institutional base for environmental management is one of

the very basic fundamental goals which we must achieve. Tile annual environmental quality report deals at some length with problems of interest to this commit-we. It includes analyses of the

sources, effects, and major problems of water pollution, air pollution,

and solid waste.

In the field of water pollution, vigorous and effective enforcement of water quality standards is necessary, as this committee well knows. The first need is to strengthen the lecral basis for enforcement. This committee has devoted mucg time to an examination of the

administration's proposals which would extend Federal jurisdiction to

intrastate and ground waters, streamline the conference hearing pro- cedures, establish effluent requirements, and authorize fines up to

$10.000 a day. 18re understand that this committee is working on legislation along

these lines. However, a strengthened lugal basis is only the first step in enforce- ment. To be truly effective, enforcement must be triggered by information from an adequate information system. States, munieipalities, and

industries should systematically be warned of violation of standards. If action does not follow, and if extenuating circumstances do not exist, the Federal Goverimient should automatically seek court action.

The successful control of air pollution requires strengthened legislation, as doss successful control of water pollution. I know that this conunittee has been working lono- and hard on pro- posed amenthnents to the Clean Air Act, and Ihop:that you soon will

be reporting them out of coimnittee. The 'automobile is clearly the number one air pollution problem. The President has proposed legislation to provide for certification el' assembly line vehicles to 'assure that emission control 'standards are met. The Council on Environmental Quality is overseeing an effort to develop nonpolluting alternatives to the internal combustion engine.

However, there is still a need to insure that once new model vehicles are certified as conforming to the standards, they continue to meet the

standards under actual operating conditions. The Council report states that 'alternatives to assure continued control of motor vehicle emissions under actual road conditionsshould be

evaluated.

The international dimensions of the air pollution problem should not

be overlooked. The report contains an entire 'chapter devoted to man's

unhitentional modification of world climate.

The 'discharge of particulates and carbon dioxide to the atmosphere

could have dramatic and long-term effects on the world's temperature

with many major consequences. The United 'States should take the initiative in forming cooperative arrangements to control air pollutants that 'Gould have widespread

effects.

As this committee has recognized, we need to develop much better

techniques for disposing of solid wastes. We must also aim atreducing

the volume of material which is considered waste by encouraging maximum recycling and reuse ofmaterials.
6

The Council is working with a nmnber of Federal agencies to de- velop a recycling strategy and is studying a variety of special disposal problems, such as nonreturnable bottles. These are j ust a few of the many recommendations which our report makes. However, the significance of the document lies as much in its

total coverage as in any of its specific recommendations. We have tried to view the environment as a whole, and we have dealt

with some of the root causes of environmental problems such as population and economic growth and land use. While there are many specific actions which must be taken, there

is also a need to improve our thinking about the environment so that

the interrelationships among problems are recoffnized and so that -we do not create new problems by our attempts ro solve existing ones.

I would like to introduce the subject of the role of our Council by

reviewing briefly the steps taken this year to improve the Federal Government's ahility to deal with env ronmental problems. In recent years, our Federal institutions responsible for environ- mental quality have been handicapped by organizational arrangements poorly suited to effective programs. There has been need for improve- ment in at least three areas.

First, there has been the need to focus environmental policy devel- opment and analysis of trends and programs. Since many problems of the environment cut across the responsibilities of a number of Federal ,ag(ncies, no one entity had an overview function. Sccond, environmental concerns have often been slighted when aLen- cies pursue their primary missions with inadequate attention to side

effects.

For example, the agencies constructing highways, dams, or airports are chiefly concerned with economic and engineering feasibility. Sueh qutintitative factors have tended to overshadow consideration

of the environmental impact of proposed projects. Finally, as pollution control proarams have grown in scope and

authority, effective management lui;become increasingly difficult. Different agencies carrying out similar pollution °control functions such as standard setting, research, monitoring, and regulation have grown up piecemeal. There has been progress this year in all three areas. The establish- ment of the Comicil on Errvironmental Quality under the National Environmental Policy ActPublic Law 91-190has provided a focal point in the executive branch for the development of environmental

The Council's ability to perform its functions has been significantly

strengthened by the passage of the Environmental Quality Improve- ment Act of 1970Publc Law 91-224which your committee ini- i

tiated. This legislation provided for the Office of Environmental uality and staff support to the Council. The Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality serves as Director of the Office and in practice the provisions of the two acts have meshed together in a highly useful way. Public Law 91-224, for example, provides useful contracting author- , ity and flexibility in the hiring of specialists find experts. This additional legislation brought the total authorization for the Council and the Office to $800,000 for fiseal year 1970 - $1 450 000 for 1971 $2,250,000 for 1972 ; and $2,500,000 for 1973.
7

For fiscal 1971, the administration requested funding up to the full

amount of our authorization. That is, $1,450,000 and an additional $50,000 for the Citizens' Advisory Cominittee on Environmental

Quality. As you know, Congress recently appropriated a total of $1 million

for the Council and Office and for the Citizens' Committee.

Section 102(2) (C) of the National Environmental Policy Act has

helped meet the second deficiency which I noted in the Federal Government's organization with respect to environmental issuesenvironmental impacts of Federal action were being overlooked in decisionmaking%

Section 102 (2) (C) requires Federal agencies to include in every

reconmendation or report on proposalF for legislation and other major

Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment a detailed statement on the environmental impact of the

action, adverse impacts that cannot be avoided, alternatives, the relationship between short- and long-term uses, and any irreversible commitment of resources involved. These detailed statements are to include comments of State and

local environmental agencies as well as appropriate Federal agencies with environmental expertise. The statements are to be made available to the Council on Environmental Quality, the President and the public. On April 30, the Council issued interim guidelines for the preparation of environmental impact statements, requiring each Federal agency to establish internal procedures for implementing this provision of the act by June 1, 1970. These interim guidelines have been published in the Federal Register, under date of May 12, as I recall. in response to these guidelines the agencies have been developing

internal procedures to implement section 102. At the same time, with help from the supplementary staffing authorization contained in the Environmental Quality Act, we have been

developing our own staff capacity to review agency 13rograms with parLicular impact on the environment, to evaluate the section 102

statements that have been filed and to identify actions which should

be covered.

With this foundation we should be able to assess the overall effectiveness of the section 102 procedure. In our view, it would be desirable to get another 6 months or so of experience before considering the desirability of any change in the law. Our guidelines have only been in effect for a short permd, the agen- cies' own internal procedures are even more recent. We are only now

beginning to have an opportunity to develop actual operative experience with these new procedures. Having said this, I- would like to underline the understanding of

the Council on two points that have occasioned some debate First, it 4 our understanding that section 102 (2) (C) contem- plates preparation of the impact statement and its circulation

for comment by the relevant agencies early enough to affect the decisionmaking procesr, before the action is taken. We believe this interpretation to be consistent with and, indeed, required by, the statutory requirement that the statement "shall
accompany the proposal through the existing agency review

processes." Secondly, we believe section 102(2) (C) to be a re,niedial pro- vision that should be applied, to the fullest extent possible, to

further actions even though they may be part of a sequence started

before January 1, 1970. As our guidelines put it with respect to existing projects and

programs : Where it is not practicable to reassess the basic course of action, it is still important that further incremental major actions be

shaped so as to minimize adverse environmental consequences. It is also important in further action that account be taken

of environmental consequences not fully evaluated at the outset of

the project or program. Finally, with respect to the section 102 procedure, we have not

limited our operating responsibility simply to the issuance of formal guidelines. On the contrary, we have endeavored to develop and maintain close working relationships at the staff level with the -Ley agencies. The third gap in our Federal organization to handle environmental problems I mentionedthe frammentation of our pollution control operating programsis propose71 to be redressed in Reorganization Plan No. 3, which would consolidate our major operating pollution

control programs in a new, independent Environmental-Protection Agency. This consolidation is based on the same concept of an independent environmental standard-setting .and protection agency as the proposa_

authored by Chairman Muskie and cosponsored by members of this committee.

Our Council strongly supports the plan of reorcranization. We see no conflict between the missions of EPA and the CZuncil on Environmental Quality. Indeed, the two orffanizations should be mutually

einforcing. The Council is not intended to have operating responsibilities, and

its functions are to advise the President with respect to environmental policies and to coordinate all activities of Federal agencies related to

environmental quality. EPA, on the other hand, will be responsible for executing anti- pollution policies and for carrying out the many functions involved

in controlling pollution. It will assist the 'Council on Environmental Quality in developing

and recommending to the President new policies for the protection of

the environment.

There is also a difference in the scope of concern of the two agencies. The Council is responsible for the environment, broadly defined. This

includes such subjects as population, land use, and conservation. I believe that our annual- report, before this committee, bears out

that scope of concern and responsibility to which I have alluded. The new agency, on the other hand, will focus specifically on pollution control, which is only one part of the Council's responsibilities. However 7 the creation of EPA will be a significant building block

in achieving the comprehensive view of environmental matters which

the Council has tried-to encinirage.
9

Apart from these matters of the Federal Goveriment's organization and procedure to handle enviromnental issues the Council has

been involved in a broad variety of environmental policy questions

which. I will mention briefly. In his February 10, 1970, message on the environment, the President directed the Council to provide leadership in the areas of agricultural pollution, the research and development of nonpolluting

power sources for the automobile, the problem of junked automobiles

and the recycling and reuse of commonly used materials.

In a subsequent message to the Congress on pollution in the Great

Lakes and the oceans, the President also directed the Council, in consultation with other Federal agencies and State and local governments,

to develop a Federal policy and program for controlling disposal of

wastes in the oceans.

The Executive order which directed Federal agencies to undertake

an extensive program for bringing Federal facilities into compliance

with air and water quality standards also assigned the Council continuing responsibility to oversee implementation of the order.

In addition to these Presidential directives, the Council is involved

in a number of other activities. It participated with other agencies in

the development of the President's proposals to control and prevent

oil spills from waterborne transport. It is currently working with a number of Federal agencies on proposals for improved control of pesticides, noise, and mercury pollution; reduction of phosphates in detergents ; and pollution control

programs in the Great Lakes.

A. number of our projects relate to assignments made ta the Director of the Office of Environmental Quality in Public Law 91-2'24.

For example, we are giving priority attention to review of existing

environmental monitoring systems, the development of improved

indicators of environmental quality and establishment of comprehensive environmental monitoring systems. Second, the Council is evaluating the impact of a wide variety of

Federal programs on development and Frowth of areas, the sufficiency

of land-use planning and control at State and local levels, and alternative institutional and control mechanisms for better land-use management. Third. as an aspect of the impact of new technology, the Council is

giving attention to the growing levels of toxic substances in the environment resulting from new and complex manufacturing processes

and is evaluating altcrnative methods of pretesting and controlling

these substances.

In the Council and the Office of Environmental Quality, the President. now has a. permanent staff in the Executive 0 ce for the specific

purpose of evaluating the effects of Federal programs and policies on

the environment and for developing environmental policy recommendations. We have built this staff capacity slowly and carefully.

Mr. Chairman, I am particularly proud of our Nuncil's staff.

As you might imagine, the nature of our responsibilities has excited

nterest throughout the country, and we have received literally hundreds of applications for employment. We have-been able to accept, of course, only a few of the many outstanding candidates. I believe the group we have put to ether is exceptional.
10

Me, First Environmen 1 Quality Report shows that much can

be done to prevent some of the worst forms of environ_mental deterioration.

If I might go back to the staff again for a moment, Mr. Chairman, we haveI think it would be of interest to this committee about

seven interns working with us this summer, which I suspect, given

the total number of our staff, may represent a higher proportion of interns than any other agency of the Government, and this has been a

highly successful endeavor on our part. The young people come from law school, colleges, and I believe one

high school, and they have worked out absolutely splendidly, and have made a substantial contribution, in fact, to the work of the Council during this month, and think speaking for the Council; we will miss

them when they go. Senator MITS TUE. Th ey are good. nave 38. Mr. TRAIN . YOU have 38. Well, perhaps you have larger resources

than we do. I-Laughter.] Senator MusirrE. That certainly reflects my lack of resources. I have to reach out and get them; but they are good, delightful. Mr. TRAIN. And I would like to mention also, that yesterday, the President had our entire staff to the White flouse, at noon, and he met with the entire staff, professional, seeretaries, interns, temporary peo- ple on loan from other agencies to help on the report, and so forth, and

the President was able to speak with and meet each single individual, and this was, I think, a very inspiring occasion for the staff. Senator MUSKIE. How large is your staff, at this point? Mr. TRAIN. We have at the present time, if I could -focus on full-time

professional people, approximately 17, of whom either two or three

are on detail from other agencies on a rather Icmg-terin basis, and we ha,,e one Foreign Service officer, for example, working with us, on

international prograrns. Senator MuslilE. How large a staff will you be able to assemble under

the appropriationalready approved by the Congre,s9 of a million

dollars?

Mr. TRAIN. Our expectation and plan, under the requested appropri- ation, had been a staff in both professional and clerical, totaling ap- proximately, as I recall, 54. Now our reexamination of the state of the Council's economy, based

upon the recent appropriations, would 'indicate that we probably would have to cut this back to labout 29 personnel all told, and I believe a

second serious effect would be an almost complete erasure of our ca- pacity to enter into contracts, because I think that we wouid, if forced

to a choice, rather put the available funds on strengthening our staffing, rather thian on outside contra-As.

Senator Musim. I think this entire committee sympathizes with

your need for the full funding that you have requested. I think this view is shared by Senator Jackson and his colleagues.; perhaps we can mount an effective effort to get full funding for your work. I think it is terribly important that you get off to a good, solid start w4h the adeouate staffing. From my understanding of the problem and of what needs to be done, I am sure you have not been 'excessive in

yonr reonest. Mr. TRAIN. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
11

We believe, on this point, that looking ahead, and lookinn. to the

authori zations for subsequent years, it is very importtmt to build the

staff in a methodical fashion, and our own analysis is that the kind of staff level which we had requested for 1971 is fully within our ability

to manage and make effective use of, and we have kept away, I think, from seeking large levels of staffmg and funding simply for the sake of large levels. Now, the levels requested are those which we believe we can effectively use at this time, and would represent a very important s ep our development as an effective instrument of government. I will return to the beginning of this paraffraph. The first environmental quality report slrows that much can be done

to prevent some of the worst forms of environmental deterioration. As

it spells out in detail, much improvement can be accomplished 'despite

serious deficiencies in research and monitoring. In the foreseeable future, it is reasonable to expect to be able to slow

or to stop environmental degradation, especially air and water pollution. Many essential steps toward this end have been proposed by the President and are awaiting action by the Congress. Our report lists a number of specific recommendations for the directions in which we should move in. the future.

We believe that the annual environmental quality report should be of considerable use to your committee by providing a regular survey

of our environmental problems and measurement of our progress. It should also aid your work by fostering greater public under- standing of the nature of environmental problems and the prospects

for taking action to control them. Improved monitoring systems and

the development of indicators of environmental quality should also

prove as useful to your committee as to the Council. I will conclude this first appearance before your committee by say- that we have valued the sustained support and interest of this committee and the help we have received from many quarters. We are conscious of the many contributions made by the Congress

to our understanding and better handling of environmental problems. This committee, in particular, has played a vital role in the develop- ment of our pollution problems programs and deserves much credit for the progress that has been made. Thank- you, Mr. Chairman. Senator MUSKIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I suggest to my colleagues that we might invoke the 10-minute rule on the first round of questions. That may consume the questions, although I doubt it, and then we will prpceed from there. With respect to the air7 water7 and solid waste proposals in the

report, I gather there are no new recommendations in this report. The recommendations are those submitted to us by the President earlier this year, and upon which this subcommittee is now working. Am I right ? I detect no new recommendations. Mr. TRAIN. No, but there are a good many new directions which we

recommend, Mr. Chairman. Senator Musizni. I mean legislative recommendations. Mr. TRAIN. Specific legislative recommendations for action now a

restricted to those already pending before Congress. In addition the Couneil-has set out in varying detail a large number of recommendations for the directions in which we should be moving
12

in all of these programs. I think in the pollution sections alone we have some 50 proposals for action. But we have not set these oul as

nust" legislative items at this time. Senator MUSICIE. No, I understand the distinction. I wanted to be

sure we didn't overlook any specific legislative proposals at this time. The reason I put the questionin addition to wanting to identify the nature of the report in this respect -is this : We still are discussing in

this coimnittee the air pollution legislation. From the testimony that we received in 10 days of hearings, from much that we have learned

about the urgency of the problem this year, and from the reaction of

the public to the problem, we have felt a responsibility to refocus on

some of the legislative proposals which the President introduced, which

I introduced, which other Members of the Senate introduced, to determine whether there are better answers than those contained in that

initial legislation. We are conscious that leadtimes are vanishing for us, and the policy

we write this year is policy we are goine- to have to live with and work with for some time in the future ; aneso we want to be sure that we

have the best answers that we are capable of putting together this

year. Because the committee hasn't reached agreement yet on what con- cepts we ought to write into the law, I don't know if I can bring :Iut all of the options that we are considering, but we may get into some of them if we have enough time Mr. YRAIN. We certainly wouldn't wish to diseourage this committee

irom acting affirmatively on any of the additional proposals which the

Council has set forth.

Senator MIJSKIE. NO9we look at those, 00. Mr. TRAIN-. -We feel that they very definitely deserve careful con- sideration, and the President himself has said that, in. his letter of

transmittal.

Senator Musrciu. May I ask this question : Have you developed a

sufficient expertise in your own staff to get into specific legislative pro- posals, in the air pollution field, for example, or do you rely upon the Air Pollution Control Administration to develop specific legislative proposals which appear in your report ? Mr. TRAIN. We do have expertise within our own staff, in the field of air pollution. Naturally, we also do look to the responsible program agency for a great deal of technical support in the air pollution field, as well as others.

So it is neither one or the other, but we do definithly have our own

staff competence in that particular field. Senator Mu-m(1E. In due course, then I suspect that the committee will be in touch with you, as well as the Air Pollution Control Administration, to test whatever new coincepts the committee has agreed upon. May I say this : I realize, out of the months that have passed since

last January, that there is a tendency to think of the development o f

ideas ;71 this field us an exercise in partisanship. That is understandable, I suppose..But these ideas really don't fall under those labels very comfortably, or very usefully. We welcome

ideas. -We deal with them in our, committee, on a nonpartisan basis. That doesn't mean that we are not going to disaaree with each other,
13

or with the Administration, but I think we have got some. hard deci.ons to make in this situation, and we can't hope to make them if

the basis of our judgment is political partisanship. That is our attitude, and I am sure it is yours. At least, that has

al waTs been my reaction to your approach to the problem.

We hope to have a tough air pollution law, and we may ask for your

reaction to i t before we reach our own final decision.

Mr. TRAIN. Well, we may have differences in detail, Mr. Chairman,

but I assure you that the Achninistration also wants a tough air pollution law, and will behappy to cooperate with this committee in helping

to produce such legislation. Senator MITsKIE. 1 would like to ask two or three questions 'related

to your testimony, if I may. You spoke about as, need for international coopration in this field, and I must say I ,-,ompliment you for

roeusing upon that need. There is an international problem, it seems to me, which falls right in

the context of your comments. The most obvious basis for international

action, of course, is the effect on the atmosphere of the earth, which

doesn't distinguish between peoples on the basis of political boundaries.

s far as long-term. world-wide weather effects are concerned., tlwre

are reports that the operation of the SST at high altitudes will emit

water vapor which will have profound effects on world climate. henever questions of this kind are raised, the usual argmnent that we !ret

in response is that the SST is necessary, because of competition from

abroad, and because of the possible unfavorable impact upon our balance of payments if some other country develops before we do an SST

that is attractive in the world market_

If the SST has these potential atmospheric effects, we ought to be

looking toward an international judgment on whether it should be

developed on a competitive basis. An agreement among all the nations

to drop the SST might serve the needs of humamty better than

competition among the nations to build it. Would you have any comment on that ?

Mr. TRAIN. Well, on two points : We certainly agree wholeheartedly

on the importance that international cooperation bears to this whole

business of producing a better environment for all people. The problems are global, in many cases. Atmospheric problems, and, of course,

related climatic problems, that an area such as Europe, of course, river

basin problems are frequently international in nature. Of course, in our

own case, the problems of the. Great Lakes are international i nature.

In very many ways, problems of the environment can only be gotten

at effectively by international initiatives of various kinds and we

strongly support a leadership role on the part of the United States,

worldwide, in the fight for a better environment. On the second point, with respect to the supersonic transport specifically, the uncertainties as to possible atmospheric impact of the operation of a coimnercial fleet of supersonic transports sometime in the

future are certainly of a kind which lend themselves naturally to international cooperative efforts, leading to the resolution of those uncertainties, and in the testimon3r which I presented on. May 121 I think,

before the Joint Economic Committee on behalf of the council, I

stressed the desirability of hiternational discussions of the various
14

r ossible long-range atmospheric consequences in particular, and also

noise characterisites of the SST. Senator MusKIE. The report on page 99 says, "Further study is

necessary to better determine the effects of supersonic jet transports

in the stratosphere before they are mass produced." And on page 127, you have similar comments on the noise effects to

which you referred. And we are now considering in Congressthis

subcommittee held hearings recentlyon an international agreement

to deal with the consequences of oil spills. It seems to me that our Government might well take the initiative

and raise the question of the SST as another enviromnental hazard

with international implications. All of the momentum is on the other side ; that is, in the interest of

international economic competition, we have got to be at the head of

the race, and to do that, we have got to build. It seems to me we might well take the initiative to r .ise these environmental questions with governments of the other countries in- volvedthe Soviet Union and Franceto see whether it is in the

interest of mankind to go forward with this kind of technological development. As the report emphasizes over and. over again, in a sense, the envi- ronmental crisis of today is the product of heedless and headlong

technological development. The SST represents and symbolizes this very thing. It gives us an opportunity, it seems to me, to focus inter- nationally upon the kind of rearrangement of values that your report represents domestically here at hone. I don't know that you have any role or any influence in the international area, with respect to the State Department, the White House, or any other agency of the Government that might be able to take such

an initiative. But if you have, I would urge its consideration. Mr. Trim/4T. Well, we very definitely do have a role. The President has confirmed this by the Executive order which he issued shortly

after the Council was set up by legislation. The legislation itself didn't address itself expressly to the international aspects of the environment, although I think the leaislative history indicated the intent of Con- gress quite clearly, to th"e effect that the Council should concern itself

with the broader international concerns.

As I mentioned in my testimony on the supersonic transport. in

addition to proposing international discussions, which have taken

lace on a very mformal basis so far, and which we would recommend

e carried out on a definitive basis, and a positive scale, in the near future, we have also suggested the possibility of this kind of tech- nological development being the subject of discussions at the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Problems of the Human

Environment.

We have had very informal discussions, again, with officials of both France and Great Britain on this general subject. You will also recall, I think, that in my testimony of May 12 we, in

pointing out some of the more significant, as it seemed to us, environ- mental uncertainties, recommended a concerted research effort on the

part of the Federal Government, to address itself to those uncertainties, hopefully to lead to their resolution, and the Department of Transportation ltas developed, and I believe has discussed with
15

the appropriate coimnittees, a fairly comprehensive research package, costing, I think, in the neighborhood of 26-pins millions of dollars, which our Council has reviewed and, based on that review, feels is

responsive and does address itself to the environmental questions which we believe should be answered.

Senator MUSKIE. With respect to the SST. Mr. TRAIN. Yes.

Senator MUSKIE. Should they be answered before we proceed yith

further investment of public funds ? Mr. TRAIN. Of course, this repreEe,nts a judgment involving a grea many matters that this Council rerdly does not consider itself appro- priate to offer public conclusions on, such as balance of payments, tech- nological spinoff, airframe sales, and things of this sort, or the

competitive situations with other aircraft. We really are not experts in those particular fields. We have looked

at the prototype program, which has been proposed by the administration, which calls for the design, development and, I believe, 100-hour-or-so flight testing of two prototype commercial supersonic

transports, and we believe that those protoiypes, in and of themselves, raise no significant environmental problems at all, assuming that the

flight testing is carried out under reasonably apprcpriate control circumstances.

Senator Musram. Perhaps you can answer this question, then : If the

environmental risks which the report refers to in connection with the SST are not resolved, should we proceed to build it and operate it ? Mr. TRAIN. It is always difficult to look ahead, but I would risk stating this amount of looking ahead, and that is, if it is the conclusion

of this Council, following research, reasonable research efforts, over

the next 2, 3, 4 years, whatever is available, if it is then determined that there are remaining significant environmental uncertainties. then I have no question in my own mind that this Council would r rn mend

against the development of a commercial fleet of SST's that time, until those uncertainties were resolved.

That is our present position. Senator Musiar. With that advice, I think, the Congress is in a better position to decide whether to invest more money in it at this

tinle. That is a 'decision for us to make.

I have used more than my 10 minutes, but I will be back. I yield to Senator Boggs at this time. Senator BOGGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yon are very good to follow the 10-minute rule. If you want to pursue your questions at

this time I will be glad to yield back to yon. _Senator MI:1'8KM. NO7 I was going to shift to another subject. Senator BOGGS. Very good. I want to say once: again, Chairman Train that I have been impressed with this First Annual Report of

the 0;uncil. In the brief time that you have had it it has been very difficult to cover the whole subject. You have covered it well. The report's -2oimat, I think, is helpful, to Members of the Congress, as well as

to State and local organizations, citizens' groups, and advisory groups. I can't imagine a question I receive more oftencertainly in the

last yearfrom citizens all over the country : "What can we do ?" your approach and your format is very good. It will help me to answer

those queStions. This First Annual Report is going to help to accom-
16

plish a lot f progress in itself. Out of all of it, we are going to make some crreat forward progress toward environmental enhancement. I didn't. intend to take up all this time making a statement, Mr. Chairman. This subcommittee, under the outstanding leadership of Chairman iuskie, since 1963, when the committee was organized has been seeking answers to these environmental issues. I believe we have made significant accomplishments durine- this period, under rather difficult circumstances. Maybe we have herped to develop public recog- nition of the problem, recognition that something must be done. Your report, I think, pulls together this whole picture. To me, this is very encouraging. and very pleasing. The ( `ounci l I realize, is not an operating agency. But there must be a lot qf twilight areas, gray area 'between the 'Council and the operat- in!Y ttencies. Several persons were in my office this morning from

Dover, Del., who have been working on the problem (DI waste crankcase oil.

About a billion gallons of this waste oil is discarded. Some of it is used. Some of it is collected. But a lot of ithundreds of millions of gallonsis not accounted for. It is presumed that it gets into streams and sewers and into the ground. Nas the Council directed any atten- tion to this subject ? Do you have any observations On the need to recycle this waste oil as one example of the things we must examine

that pollutes the air, the water, and the land ?

Mr. TRAIN. Well, we cert_'inly recognize the problem of waste oils as one of the more important of our waste problems, and the Council has been directing attention to this. We have set up an interagency task force, with representatives of the various departments that are concerned with the problem. For example,IIEW, Interior, Treasury, Commerce, and the Federal Trade Commission, and we are working with them, taking a look, to get a better understanding of what causes the problem, what the economic forces are that are at work here, and what possible economic incenC.Tes or disincentive could be generated to help meet the problem, but we are by no means at any point of conclusion on this at this time. Senator BOGGS. I commend you for that. It encourages me that you have this problem in focus. I think that it is one example of how we cart accomplish a great deal in control of air, water, and land pollu- tion. I commend you on that.

Your report discusses the need for land-use planning. That is cer- tainly very important. Could you discuss how such planning is com- plemented by the imposition of regulations dealing with air and water quality standards? Although land-use planning is not necessarily before this subcommittee, it seems to me that the air and water pollu- tion control regulations already enacted, would have a considerable impact on lahd-use profframs. Mr. TEAIN. There is aviouslyI think this committee is well aware Gf ita very close and intimate relationship between air, water pollu- tion programs in particular, and wise land-use, and one need only look at the air quality impact of highways, expressways, in the close proximity to our metropolitan areas, to see one example. The siting of power-generating plants is another exceedingly im- portant example of the relationship of pollution problems to land use, and I think this, the latter one in particular, is an area in which we must be moving forward very, very shortly, and we, here again, are
17

working closely in this case particularly, with the Office of Science and

Technology, Dr. DuBridge's group, on the development of appropriate

Federal policy in coimection with the siting of electric generating

plants for later submission to the Congress.

Se natOrr BOGGS. Very good. Mr. Chairman, our time is moving on.

I yield the balance of my time to you and my other colleagues.

Senator MusiLiu. Senator Spong ?

Senator Srowo. Mr. Train, the battle for a better environment has

been very gleefully joined by Madison Avemn. We hear jingles every

day about lead-free gasoline. I don't know the effect of lead-free gasoline on either the environment or on one's automobile, but I hear of it

daily. Just around the bend, I foresee phosphate-free detergents being

sung about. Do you believe that the Council has any power or responsibilty to the public or to the Congress, to try to comment upon

what might be called fraudulent advertising in this area, either to the

public or to FTC or the FCC ?

Mr. TIZAIN. I think we certainly would have a responsibility to work

closely with the appropriate regulatory agencies, and I suppose this

would be mainly the Federal Trade Commission, and if anythincr of

this sort came to our atthntion, we certainly would take it up withthe

FTC. Senator Sroxe. On pages 9 and 10 of your prepared statement, you

speak of section 120. That section was employed, was it not, in the

decision to dump the nerve gas in the Atlantic Ocean ?

Mr. TRAIN. Yes. You said "employed," and I want to commen

the use of thatword, because-- Senator SroNo. Well, use your own, if you will.

Mr. TRAIN (continuing) . Because it is a section of the statute which

is self-operative. It comes into play whenever any Federal agency is

recommending any major action with potential significant environmental impact, and these are submitted to us.

Such a Statement was submitted by the Department of the Army to

the Council. The Council has commented to the Department of the

Army on its statement pointing out certahi deficiencies which we felt

of a procedural or technical nature in that particular section 102

report. Senator SPONG. As I recall, from listeniii r to testimony, the report

dealt possibly with the chemical aspects, but told us very little, and

possibly that s because i of lack of knowledge as far as everyone is

concerned, about the biological effects.

But what I would like to task you is: Was that report prepared and

"rcularized for comment early enough to affect the decisionmaking

process before the action was taken ?

Mr. TRAIN. The report was initially submitted to the Council in

draft form on the 8th of July, and a finial version was submitted to the

Council on the 30th of July, as I recall, and during that period, although only before us in draft form, our staff did have occasion and

opportunity to comment on and discuss with the bepartment of the

Army's staff various aspectsof the project.

It is hard to state, in any case, whether sufficient time has been given.

In a case that is as complicated and controversial, necessarily, as this

kind of project, I Would say that the 30-day period which our guidelines provide is probably, on the yshort. side.
18

I hesitate to generalize. I think in many cases the answer to that question would turn upon the completeness of tile information pro- vided in the first. instance, so that in this case, where we felt there were

some deficiencies of information, the period probably was not long

enough. Senator SPONG. Well, this will certainly be one of the decisions

that you will have under review in your 6 months' study that you

referred to.

Mr. TRAIN. That is correct.

Senator SIN:LNG. Senator Boggs questioned yon about land use. In your statement, you referred to land use as one of the root causes of environmental problems. Senator Muskie, in his opening statement, said that any land-use policy that failed to consider the existing Federal system would not be better than no policy at all. Has the Council focused upon land-use policy to the extent that you have commented on what you see as the role of the States in the for- mulation of this policy Mr. TRAIN. In a very general way, I would commit. And we are

actively engaged in looking at this -whole, very complex area of land

use.

I think the chapter in our report on this subject indicates the scope

and complexity of this problem. It is not a. single-shot kind of thing. It involves a whole range of functions and responsibilities. I think we can be absolutely certain that under any allocation of

responsibilities, there is going to be a very important role for the Fed- eral Government, for State governments, and for local governments, in

land use.

I don't think there is any suggestion, when we talk about a national land-use policy, that Washington take over all responsibility for all

land-use decisions at the local level. Obviously not. Now, if there is a major shift in the allocation of responsibilities

that is needed, I would say that this would be a shift of some responsi- bility from the local units of government, both municipality and

county, bath toward the State. So many of the problems of land use, with which we are all becoming

increasingly familiar, extend by their very nature well beyond the boundaries of the pa;ticular political entity which may have in fact, the responsibility. The town has a responsibility, but the impact of its decision goes

far beyond that town, so that we have to, in some fashion, institutionalize this broader kind of responsibility for dealing with these problems, on a regional basis, and in many cases, on a State basis. As you know, in most States, all zoning authority resides in the local unit of government. Sometimes towns, sometimes county. And none in

the State government. There is very definitely a trend in the other direction underway. Some States have already established, I think-- about two States have a State zoning law. There is also the taking back of authority in some States over specific kinds of zoning, such as flood plains zoning shoreline zoning, in the State of Wisconsin.

I think these wre indicative of a growing recognition that these problems have a much broader vographical makeup than can be dequately handled by most 'local units of government.
19

So I would say this is the major direction I would see in the years ahead, in terms of the allocation of responsibility between different units of government. It is apt to be very controversial, as you all certainly are aware. I mean, this is a very jealously guarded prerogative of local crovernment, and local governments and 'local communities should plly a very significant role in the making of decisions that so

significantly affect the well-being and. futures of their own communities, so there is a balance here of interests and of responsibilities that must be achieved.

Senator SPONG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator MIISKIE. Senator Dole.

Senator DOLE. Let me sa-y as others have said that I certainly appre- ciate what I consider to .be an excellent report. It should be very

helpful. I have been vi3wing with. great interest the very excellent series on

the OBS Morning News concerning radiation. The series of features was apparently timed to coincide with the 25th anniversary of drop- ping the atomic bomb. It has been particularly interesting to me, because Kansas may become a dumping ground for atomic wastes. -We are eager to have new industry n Kansas, but we have some i

qualms about OUT abandoned salt mines becoming a dumping ground

for atomic wastes. Some serious questions have been raised on the CBS programs this week. Do you have any jurisdiction in a situation like this ? Does this fall in the same category under section 102 as the so-caNed nerve gas question ? Mr. TRAIN. Yes, certainly, Senator. Amy program for the below- groimd disposition or storage of large amounts of radioactive wastes would, in my opinion, call for the preparation of an environmental

impact statement, under section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Actt and submission to our Council. And I think as you know, the act also contemplates that in the prep- aration of such statements, the comments of other aoencies with expertise or jurisdiction in a particular matter is requiAd to be gotten, as vell as the comments of State and local governments that may be in- volved in some way in the particular project. So that there should be, in the process of developing a decision in

this area, 'full opportunity for the people of your State and the com- munities concerned to make their views known fully. Senator DOLE. There appears to be a great .potential for storage of solid wastes in Kansas, because of the salt mines. They appear to be

ideally suited, at least according to the AEC, for safe storage for hundreds and hundreds of years. It was pointed out, on this morninois proram that because of a so- ealled melting process at a facility near. Detroit, Mich., a few years

acro9 there was some serious talk about a total evacuation of the city

of Detroit. There were also estimates of possible destruction, contami- nation, as well as physical injury and death which were ry frightening. It is a.very serious problem, because we are building more and more atomic reactors and they are laroer and larcrer, and apparently. 3 everv

day of production means a problem that extends for as much as 200

years.
20

In a bill recently passed by this coniimtte, and I miderstand it is

now awaitin!, action by House arrd Senate confereesi at least, waiting

for the. House to respond-=Solicl Jas. te _esource Recovery Act, we

provide in section 21-2 a national disposal sites study, which would

create a system of national dispoFal sites for storage of hazardous radioactive, toxic materials w'hidli might endanger the public health. The

Environmental Protection Agency worild have jurisdiction in the

event this program becon les operable.

I do not criticize the AEC, but it does appear that, some independent

review would be most helpful, because they are in. part a party in interest. not only developing reactors, bat disposing of the waste. We have

had some very serious questions raised in our area, and I am certain

they have been raised and will be raised in other parts of the coimtry.

The chairman 'raised some questions, just last week, abc- it the potential hazards of disposal of liquid or solid atomic wastes.

Dr. MacDonald, do you have any comment on that area ?

Mr. MACDONALD. I would, of course, like to distinguish between the

disposal of the waste and the reactor accident, that you referred to, or

a potential 'accident in Detroit.

However we will certainly be reviewing the AEC's 102 statement,

when they 'lave prepared it, and as Chairman Train pointed out, there

will be an opportunity at that time for a really rather wide-ranging

discussion of the whole issue of the disposal of waste.

It does underline one point that we consider very important : That

as one develops new technologies, it is important to look way ahead,

to the whole -process. It is not just the creation of electrical power, but everything that goes with it, and when we talk of a national energy

policy in the report, it is addressed, just to this question, and we can't

just look at the buildiner of a particular powersite, but how that fits

into overall national neds.

Senator DOLE. I agree with that, and I think the report indicates

that there have been some shortcomings in looking at the entire

problem. -We have looked at the consumer& interests, and production, the national energy policy, creation of power, and I assume at the same

time, disposal of the waste but perhaps not in the priority that it

deserves. There are questions being raised, aeltin, on that same television prowhich to me appear to be mosC'interesting. It was not suggested

that we were near a crisis point, but there are areas where we have

liquid atomic wastes stored, and the tanks are corrodino-, and the question, very properly raised, iS how much time do we Rave, and what

policy do we have to deal with the problem ? The other side of the coin, of course, from AEC, is that there really

is no danger, there was no danger in Detroit, there was no danger in Washington. There have been instances, I think, in Idaho, where three persons were killed because of some accident,- I don't understand this

melting process, but at least there is potential danger. This may not ever cause any harm, but the threat is there, and it is ncouraging to me to know that the Council, the EPA, and the -Iwo- vision in the Resource Recovery Act will provide more review of this very important problem: Mr. TRAIN. YOu know, I will just add on that point, Senator Dole. hat the AEC's own agency procedures7 which have been adopted and
91

published for compliance with section 102, specifically list designatioi, of disposal sites as one of the programs which will call for a section

102 statement and its submission to the Council by the AEC.

So the agency itself very definitely recognizes that this kind of pro- gram which we describe comes under the requirements of that section. Senator DOLE. Well, I say very seriously that there is a site now in

central Kansas, which if approvedit has been under study for 7 years or longerwould have some economic impact in the area. But there is some reluctance, bipartisan reluctancea Democratic Governor and

Re ublican Members of Congressto encourage this type industry, and I think it is much like the nerve gas. There are many opportunities

to bring in a little industry, if you want nerve gas in your State. But there also need to be some meaningful assurances that nothing will happen. I am not certain it is possible to ever guarantee that you

can sbore solid wastes or liquid wastes, but at least, the people of Kansas appreciate the fact that there will be additional review. Thank you. Senator MusKIE. Along that line, Senator Dole, there is an interesting little story in this morning's Washington Post based ron a Reuters dispatch. It is short, and I think it is worth reading :

London, August lOth : Police today toured vacation resorts in the Isle of Wight off Britain's south coast to warn swimmers of lethal gas after cannisters containing a corrosive chemical washed ashore on some beaches. The chemical, ferrous chloride, used in dye manufacture, gives off deadly

hydrochloric gas when mixed with water. The manufacturers believed that the one-gallon cannisters were dumped at sea several years ago. It was normal practice to puncture the drums before disposal.

These foolproof methods of disposhig of nerve gas, radioactive wastes, may turn out not to be so foolproof after all. The time is rapidly slipping by, Mr. Chairman. It is clear we are not 0,oing to be able to get into all of the aspects of the report that we nigrit like to, let alone all of the others that merit discussion. I am going to try to concentrate on two or three other points that might be useful, and one of them relates to something the report says on page 53. On that page, the report discusses the Federal -Water Pollution Control Act. As you noted in your testimony, this committee is working on legislation proposed by the 'administration as well as other bills

that have been introduced to strencrthen that act. We all recognize

the need to strengthen. it. But you say this in the report :

Finally, the only force that the government can wield against a polluter is a

ceaseAtnd-desist order. The court's only option in the case of noncompliance is a

contempt-of-court action.

I think a cease-and-desist order, rather than an injunction or a spe- d.fie PerfOinnance of relief, can be very effective tolls. I would like to

suggest anotherone that I gather the administration is turning to

increasinglyand it may be the kind of policy question you would

like to consider as a Council, in concert with the -Water Quality Ad- ministration. This is the Refuse Act of 1899, in conjunction with section 21 (b) of the new Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970. The Refuse Act of 1899 says this :

It shall _not, be lawful to-throw, -discharge, or deposit cause, suffer, or pro- cure to bell:mown, discharged or deposited, either from, or out of any ship, barge,
22

or other floating craft of any kind, or from the shore, wharf, manufacturing establishment, or mill of any kind, any refuse matter of any ldnd or description

whatever.

Now, that was not written as an antipollution piece of legislation. It was legislation written to protect navigation. But nevertheless, it

provides the authority to stop any discharge whatsoever. Then there is a provision that Teads as follows :

Provided that the Secretary of the Army, whenever in !the judgment of the Chief af Engineers, anchorage and navigation would not be injured thereby, may permit the depoSit of any material above-mentioned in navigable water, within

limits to be defined and under conditions to be prescribed by him.

So there is a permit authority, that gives the engineers a handle on

these d i sc ha vges. Under the language of that act, the conditions apparently relate to

anchorage and navigation. But then we come to section 21(b) of this

year's Water Quality Improvement Act. It reads as follows

Any applicant for a Federal license or permit to conduct any activity, including, but not limited to the construction or operation of facilities which may re- sult in any discharge into the navigable waters of the TIWted States, shall pro- vide the licensing or permitting agency a certification from the State in which

the discharge originarbes or will originate, or if appropriate, from the Interstate

Water Pollution Control Agency having jurisdiction, certification that there is

reasonable assurance, as determined by the State or interstate agency, that such

activity will be conducted in a manner which would not violate applicable water quality standards.

What then, is the state of the 1S99 law Congressman Reuss and I want to read this into the record. Mr. Reuss, in an excellent study, reported to the ConoTess on July 29, 1970

you might want to look at thatpoints out tha the permit authority

has not been used. Table A, which is attached to his statement, "shows that there are no existing Corps permits for industrial wastes in 23 States." That

includes mine, I might add. And in all of those States, then, those discharges into navigable waters or tributaries of navigable waters are illegal at the present

time. They are not operating under permits of any kind. In Massachusetts, the only existing Corps permit was suspended

on February 13, 1970, because of unspecified complaints by State of- ficials. Except. for New Jersey, California, and Louisiana, there are

less than 25 existing. Corps permits for industrial waste discharges

in each of the remaining States and Puerto Rico. The discharges covered include some of the Nation's producers of pulp and :paper, synthetic fibers, chemicals, petroleum products, steel and aluminum.

Here is authority, which, if used, could establish guideline controls, direct controls over all industrial disch.lrges into navigable waters of

the United States, those permits to be conditioned upon compliance

with water quality standards set up under the 1965 Act. I think it woula be usefuland I am not going to ask for art off-thecu ff policy opinion from you on thisto consider this area of established anthority. We are going to supplement it this year with additional law. It strikes me this authoritymight be very useful to control more effectively the discharcres of industrial waates into our navigable

rs.
23

Mr. TRAIN. Well, let me comment on that, Senator Muskie.

We are quite aware of the existence of this authority in the statute,

and while it has not been used, as you point out, since the statute was

put on the books in 1899, the Corps of Engineers has recently announced in, I believe, public hearings before another subcommitiee of

the Senate, that it intends to and in fact, is developing a program

which would involve the use of this permit authority, and our Council

is working closely with the Corps of Engineers, and the Department of Justice, and the Department of InteriorFWQA, specificallyto

coordinate the various interests involved here, because as you point

out, we are now also very much aware of the relationship between this permit authority in the 1899 Act and the certification requirement

in the legislation section 21 (b) which you mentioned. And speaking insofar as the Council is concerned, we are fully in

accord with the maximum use of the Refuse Act of 1899 and all oilier

available tools to the Federal Government for the enforcement of

water quality standards. No question about it. And we believe that this permit authority doesalthough appar- ently it has never been used, really, over the yearsit does provide a

very significant kind of Federal levt age, and I would be hopeful that in a very short period of timeI don't know quite what I mean by

that, perhaps a month's time there will be a promulgation of an

actual proffram. But juseexactly what the timing on that is, I can't answer. I would

presume that this would address itself first to new facilities, rather

than trying to deal in an ex post facto way, with what is it someone

said ? Some 50,000 plants scattered all over the United States already. But with respeet to new facilities, I would think that this pro- gram would get underway fairly soon, and be very effective, and would

require the certification by the ap p rop ri a t e water standard

administration of the various States.

Senator MUSKIE. It would be ironic, wouldn't it ? Perhaps one of

the most effective statutory tools we have is one written in 1899, for

other purposes entirely. Mr. TRAIN. I would also ppint out, of course, the cease-and-desist

authority of the 1899 act is being employed. It is the basis of the action

recently brought by the Department of Justice against some eight

concerns in connection with alleged mercury violations.

Senator Muslim. That includes firms in my state.

Did you.complete your statement on that ? Mr. TRAIN. Yes, sir ; I believe I did. Senator MusxtE. Now on the question of new leffislation, I woukl

like to ask just one or two questions. My purpose s not so much to i get,

at this point, your definitive response to policies this committee is considermg, but to test the flavor of your reaction to this kind of thing. I think the most difficult problem we are facing in the air pollution

legislation is the guestion of national deadlines of some kind to meet either ambient air quality standards or emission standards on a

national scale. And the single most important problem that we see in this is the

automobile which you have correctly identified in your statement as

the single most important air polluter. The problem is not the new automobile we have intended to focus

on since the 1965 act, but the used car. There are 110 million of them on
94

our hi,o.hways, and although there has been developed, add-on hard- ware of one kind or another, which initially, at least, might improve

the environmental performance of used ears, the hardware involves considerable cost ; S150 to $250 per car. There is also the problem of enforcing the attachment of this hardware to 110 million automobiles and the problem of leaded gasoline, which we still have, even though

there seems to be increasino- consensus that we ought to get rid of

leaded gasoline because it a7ffects the performance of these devices. There is also the economic burden on a lot of people who can't afford

the added cost, who need the automobile in day-to-day work, and so on. There are all sorts of other questions that arise, as we pursue the

implications of a national policy. But what is the answer ? How do we clean up the performance of

this lmge used car population ?

If we proceed under the present policy, even strengtheuA by the amendments which the administration has submitted, and others which we have submitted, what the Congress talks about is 1990. It will be that long before we have turnover in this used car population, before we get new teclmology on new cars manufactured in the future, before we begin to get a clean automobile in cities and urban areas.

Can we wait that long? Must we set what might appear to be arbitrary imtional deadlines, in order to increase the sense of ur_gency to develop the new technology or to find some substitute for the auto- mobile in our crowded cities ?

This is really a tough problem, with tough choices, that this committee is facing. We could simply try to accelerate the evolutionary

process that we tried to set in motion with the 1965 act and the 1967

act, but that clearly is not o-oino- to move us along the road fast enough

to deal with this automobile pralem, in my judgment. Has the Council really focused on this ? Does it have some guidance

to give us ? Mr. TRAIN. Well, the Council very definitely is focusing on this particular problem, Mr. Chairman. The President, in his February 10 message, devoted quite a bit of attention, as you will recall, to the problem of automotive emissions, and I believe he singled it out as, if memory serves, the single most important problem that we had to deal with.

And he made a number of suggestions. but specifically, I believe, directed to your concern, he charged our Council with responsibility

for coordinating the Federal Government's research and development efforts with respect to the development of what has been called unconventional vehicles, substitutes for the internal ccmbustion engine and the goal of that program, as established by the President, is the devel- opment of two commercially feasible alternatives by 1975. And that is a goal toward which we are workino-, and there is a re- search and development program in this year's balget of $9 million, with primary responsibility in HEW, in furtherance of that goal. Senator Muslim. But, you see, that is the evolutionary approach, and that is the one this committee adopted in 1965. It means, perhaps, that if you do develop those commercially feasible clean cars by 1975, the industry may be able to tool up and put them on the road in another couple of years. But in the meantime, we will be putting on the road unsatisfactory automobiles from the environmental poia of
25

view, for another 7 or 8 years, at the rate of 7 million or 8 million a

year or more, thus perpetuatincr this problem. The automobiles that werebuilt under the anidelines established

under the 1965 act simply haven't been satisfact7wy, from an environmental point of view. We wrote the law. We hoped that we would

stimulate the. evolutionary process, but the cars are not satisfactory

now, and I suspect that 1975 may be as early as you could hope to get a prototype of the internal combustion engine. Maybe we could get

an electric automobile, but if we get an electric automobile developed by 1975, what do we do about providing the electric power to fuel

those ears ?

We have had hearings in another subcommittee pointing up the

dilemma that the power companies face, especially in the eew York

area, with respect to providing their present projected needs, let alone

the massive amounts of power that would be needed, to fuel an electric

automobile. What is the answer to this ? Do we need to restrict the use of individually operated automobiles in our urban centers? Are we going

to get some judgments from the Council on questions like that, say,

in its second annual report ?

realize it is not a judgment you are in a position to make in this

annual report. But how do you do it ? We have just had this air polhition problem on the whole east coast within the last 2 weeks, and most

of it was caused by the automobile. There is no other important source

of pollution here in Washington. We approached the air pollution alert stage herein the District

of Columbia. That was caused by the automobile. And in accordance

with the administration's program, and indeed, legislation that we

have written, it is going to be some time later than 1975 , before we

really begin to clean up the problem created by the automobile. Isn't

that right ? Mr. TRAIN. Yes, that is correct, sir. Senator MITSKIE It isn't a satisfactory answer. I ani not being

critical of you. I am as frustrated as anybody else is.

Mr. TRAIN. No, I would hope not. Senator MUSKIE. You have been in office 6 months. Another year,

aybe we will blame you a little. Mr. TilAIN. I am a little hit alarmed by the fact we only filed onr annual report yesterday, and now you already have me worrying about

the contents of the second annual report. We had hoped for a little

longer vacation than that. Seriously, in terms of the unconventional vehicle, you refer to the

problems of the electric-battery-driven alternative, and I think that

we have given this a very low priority at the present time, as a viable

It, certainly would represent a major new demand on electric power,

with all of the pollution side effectE, that we are all too familiar with,

and I think our present best bet would be in the area of the steam

turbine and gas turbine and hybrid vehicles. You asked me whether we recommend a banning of the automobile, nd I certainly do not believe that the time has yet come when we

would recommend undertaking such a step.. That is not to say it could

t be a possibility at some niture date of course.
26

The automobile does represent, particularly in oar urban areas, a very major source of air pollution. Now we believe that as new emission standards take hold, and as the older cars get phased out, that there need not be in the immediate future any substantial worsenincr of the situation. There will come a time, as the President indicateein his February message, and as we do in our report, that despite the improvement in individual automobile emiss;cn controls, the sheer increase in automobile population will at some point probably toward 1980, overcome any possible, or could overcome any possible improvement such as I have described. It is this reason, and to guard against this kind of eventuality, that is leading us to emphasize the development of viable alternatives. But first, we do not have the alternatives at hand as yet. I would not believe that the pollution impact of the automobile is yet to a degree which would lecl this Congress to tell the American people that you can't drive a car anymore. Now that day may come, but I would say it is a considerable ways off yet. And in the meantime, I think that what we should be doincr is em- phasizing the development of alternatives, rand that is whae'we are doing.

Senator MUSIKTE. According to the criteria on carbon monoxide emis- ons is.sued by the Department of HEW, the carbon monoxide con- centrations already exceed what would be the health effects limits in everv major city of the -United States today, for some period of time, during the day. Now, these emissions are bound to .1-icrease because the used car nomtlation is goinz to be increasedby some millions of unsatisfactorily operating automobilesbefore we begin to get the satisfactory substi- tute which you are talking about. That means the carbon monoxide levels in these cities are going to rise above the present levels. I don't think carbon monoxide emissions are going to stabilize at present levels. I think they fare going to rise above the present levels, during the years in which we are waiting for something like a clean, new car.

It seems to me that unless -we impose some kind of pressure we do not, now havethe evolutionary approach isn't satisfactory. This is the question the committee is laboring with. I can't prejudge what the committee will do. I think we are all frustrated by it. But think we are strongly drawn to the idea of national deadlines as a way of applying the pressure, leaving it, of course, to ibe particular regions to establish stronger standards or more restrictive ones within their own areas.

We are not talking about a national mandate to limit the movement of cars, but national standards which give regions that option. Mr. MAIN. Of course I haven't seen the language which the com- mittee may have developed. I am not, even sure whether the committee has developed language along these lines. But if I could comment very generally, not having seen any specifics, and addressing myself to this idea of deadlines, national deadlines on an across-the-board kind of way, and not sneaking specifically of the automobile problem, but of a range of problems I think that probably much could be said for that kind of an approach.
27

Now again, I would want to know what the details would be, before committing myself to that statement, but in. principle I think there

is much to be said for the use of that kind of deadline.

I think we all have to recognize that deadlines don't solve problems. There is a lot else that has to go with it. Tough standards, and tough

enfo.ocement, and ftmding to support those programs, training, and. so fcwth.

But deadlines, I suppose can help create an atmosphere of urgency, and help encourage the kiild of action which leads toward solutions. I think that would be my general reservation. I don't think that the ublic should be led to believe that just because we set some deadline ates, that the particular problems will go away on that date. They mi ht or might not. e must make some technological breakthroughs, and this takes a

lot else beyond jugt deadlines, but in principle I am not a bit opposed

to the idea. I think that there may be much to be said for it. Senator MUSICIE. It might be useful to you to give a little bit of the argument we have with ourselves, that leads us to our present state. First, the administration proposed national ambient air quality

standards. We feltat least I felt, and there have been several mem- bers of the committee who feltthat that would be deluding the public : to set national ambient air quality standards, without a deacnine. Without a deadline, there is nothing national about the standard. To make a standard national, there must be a national deadline, it seems to us, because under the proposal submitted, we have national standards, but the deadlines for meeting them would have varied within various regions and various cities of the country. I am saying this not in critical context at all. This was the way our

reasoning went. Then we began to debate with ourselves the idea of a national deadline for ambient air quality standards. This seemed to us to pose the problem that we have discussed of the automobil. We are talking

about a national deadline 3 or 4 or 5 years from now how do we on

a national basis insure that at the end of that period, whichever we

choose, the automobile is going to be in a position to comply ? That created a problem for us. Now we are considering a combination : National emission standards

for automobiles, tied to a deadline, combined with regional ambient air quality standards, giving communities with the tougher problems

the option of being tougher in dealing with them, either by requiring

add-on 'devices or -13.3r restiricting the movement of automobiles within

their own

This9 I think, traces the 'route we have taken, and brings you to the point at which we are now trying to decide what we ought to do. I would be interested in having any followup comments off the record

or in any way representing -.Tour reaction to this approach. Mr. TRAIN. Well, naturally, we would be delighted, members of the Council and our staff, to discuss these matters with the members of your subcommittee, your staff. Senator MusicrE. Thank you very much. Senator BOGGS. No farther questions. Senator Musim. I guess th.at there-are no further questions that we have to ask at this point. There are many we would like to ask, and I

2 9
28

am sure in the course of the m Aths and years ahead, we will have many exchanges.

Mr. TRMN. We would be willing to come back, Mr. Chaim

Senathr MUSKIE. Thank you very midi.

(Whereupon, at 12 :47 p.m., the sub2ommittee recessed, to reconvene

subject to call of the Chair.