The Honorable Edmund S. Muskie Chairman, Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution February 11, 1977 Page 3 the magnitude of the problem, and what is to be done about it, we urge the Congress to include in this section a provision to the effect that construction of new industrial sources emitting VOC may be permitted in non-attainment areas provided they incorporated the Best Available Control Technology and provided that any existing VOC source owned or controlled by the owner of the proposed new source is in compliance with VOC emission standards, or is under an approved schedule for compliance. FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE CONTROLS Federal motor vehicle pollution control regulations need to be strengthened to make the manufacturer accountable for the air pollution emissions compliance of the vehicle at the time of manufacture. The current situation irrationally leaves the prospective owner liable for repairs required for compliance with emission standards, regardless of the cause of non-compliance. The current legal impediments to the Administrator's establishment of an enforceable motor vehicle emissions assembly-line compliance regulation should be removed. SECTION 124 It This section would permit the Administrator to extend the date for attainment of the oxidant standard for states that initiate controls for stationary VOC sources and establish land use and transportation controls aimed at curtailing automobile usage. Naturally occuring volatile organic compounds have caused the oxidant standard to be exceeded in Virginia; and in fact, account for almost 50% of this type of compound in the Commonwealth. Of the manmade sources, we estimate that 55% of the VOC emission in Virginia comes from mobile sources and 45% from stationary sources. Elsewhere, in Section 201 of this bill, it is proposed to postpone still further the most stringent automobile emission standards. seems incongruous to delay the advent of the clean car to provide economic relief to the automobile industry while at the same time requiring the states to pass the burden of compensating emission reductions onto the consuming public through tighter controls on stationary sources. We concur with the extension of achievement dates, but feel the conditions placed on the granting of such an extension should become effective only after the Administrator has completed his review of the standard and is able to provide the states with adequate methodology for handling the problem. SECTION 208 This section would require establishment of a production line test for new automobiles. This has long been needed and we concur in it. It should also provide that vehicles failing this test cannot be sold until the deficiencies in their emission control systems have been corrected. SECTION 215 This section calls for establishment by the states of inspection-maintenance programs, under which in-use automobiles will be subject to periodic emission test with a mandatory failure rate. Owners of cars failing the test The Honorable Edmund S. Muskie Chairman, Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution Page 4 would be required to have their automobiles repaired. While inspection and maintenance for automobiles may be beneficial in terms of reducing emissions it shifts the burden of cost from the automobile industry to the consuming public. The General Assembly of Virginia has been reluctant to enact enabling legislation for us to have inspection-maintenance since the benefits appear small, if any, and since the major impact will fall on those least able to afford repair costs. Also the states can ill afford the costs associated with the establishment and operation of the inspection-maintenance program when the public is demanding decreased governmental costs. The House Bill would have required the Administrator to promulgate regulations establishing gasoline fill pipe standards for new vehicles. This was omitted from the Conference agreement. Effective collection of vapor from vehicle refueling cannot be accomplished without standardization of fill pipes. The Environmental Protection Agency is now in the process of making rules concerning vapor recovery from vehicle fueling. It is highly desirable that fill pipe standards be established, as such standards are an indispensable link in the chain of vehicle fueling control, and without them effective vapor collection is impossible. We urge that the Congress reinstate a requirement that the Administrator promulgate fill pipe standards for new vehicles. SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION We are opposed to any No Significant Deterioration requirements because it adds an administrative expense at a time when EPA and State agencies are confronting budget reductions. This provision is very manpower intensive and the available manpower and funds should be devoted entirely to the statutory requirement of meeting the primary and secondary standards. Prevention of Significant Deterioration should be recognized as a land use planning procedure and as such, should be removed from the jurisdiction of air pollution control enforcement by suitable legislation. It is not a legitimate air pollution control function because the needs of health and welfare are served when the primary and secondary standards, respectively, are maintained. Rather, it relates to subjective, aesthetic characteristics of the environment which are more properly managed by the zoning authorities of our local political jurisdictions. Favorable action on these recommendations should be of benefit to all citizens of our nation. CONSUMERS UNION/A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION/PUBLISHER OF CONSUMER REPORTS 1714 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 February 16, 1977 Honorable Edmund S. Muskie Chairman, Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution United States Senate Dear Mr. Chairman: This is in response to your letter of February 14, 1977 in which you ask whether Consumers Union has additional comments regarding our support of a 50,000 mile warranty requirement for auto emissions control devices, which was indicated in my letter to you, with enclosures, dated April 2, 1976. Consumers Union would like to reiterate its support of a 50,000 mile warranty provision. We hope that the Senate will act to ensure this requirement. Sincerel Mock Thickyard Mark Silbergerd Attorney, Washington Office 256 WASHINGTON STREET/MOUNT VERNON, NEW YORK 10550 As the President of the Connecticut Lung Association, a nonprofit, voluntary, health agency interested in prevention and control of chronic lung disease, I am writing to express our Association's deep concern and dismay with the statement regarding outdoor air pollution and lung disease made by Arend Bouhuys, M.D., at the February 11 hearing of the Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution, which you chaired. While we agree with Dr. Bouhuys that indoor pollution may be more important than previously believed in terms of its public health impact, his conclusions (that ill health from lung disease is not an important reason for air pollution control) are based on a Connecticut study which has, in many instances, faulty assumptions and incomplete or inaccurate air quality monitoring data. We would like to call to your attention some of these problems which would tend to negate some of Dr. Bouhuys' conclusions: 1. Inappropriateness of Choosing Lebanon as a "Rural" Town On page 3 of Dr. Bouhuys' testimony, he states that "Lebanon, Connecticut may be considered a town with acceptable air quality throughout the year, according to the criteria of the Primary Air Quality Standards". Unfortunately, continuous monitoring of ozone levels begun by the State Department of Environmental Protection since the time of his 1973 monitoring, indicates that all areas of Connecticut exceed the Primary Health Standards for photochemical oxidants (measured as ozone) by wide margins and with great frequency, due to the transport of precursor pollutants from other areas of Connecticut and other states. It is interesting to note Formerly The Connecticut Tuberculosis and Respiratory Disease Association Senator Edmund Muskie -2 February 18, 1977 that Eastford, Connecticut, a "rural" town in terms of auto traffic (even further in distance from Connecticut metropolitan areas than Lebanon), had oxidant levels approximately three times higher than the health standard in 1974 and 1975. In addition, Middletown, Connecticut, a small city near Lebanon, had the highest oxidant level in the Eastern United States in 1974 with concentrations exceeding the health standard by a factor of 4 (see Attachment A). Since no other pollutant exceeds the Federal standard by such a wide margin everywhere in Connecticut, we feel strongly that the comparison for prevalence of respiratory illnesses between Lebanon, a "rural" town and Ansonia, a small industrial town, may be totally inappropriate. Indeed, the entire State of Connecticut could be considered an "urban" area with regard to this pollutant. Another possible source of error is the measurement method used in the studies to monitor nitrogen dioxide levels. The abstract, attached to Dr. Bouhuys' testimony, states that "standard" methods were used to monitor levels of particulates, SO2, NO2, ozone, sulfate and nitrate. It should be considered that the standard EPA reference method for measuring NOx used before 1973 has now been dropped due to its unreliability in getting accurate NOx levels (see Attachment B). If this measurement method was used by Dr. Bouhuys, and we believe it was, it would tend to further negate his findings. In addition, on page 3 of Dr. Bouhuys' testimony he states that "peak one hour 03 concentrations exceeded the primary AQS of 160 micrograms per cubic meter in only one of 41 observations over the year 1973". Again, we contend that this is extremely misleading, since ozone levels peak at high levels only during summer months and only for a few hours in the afternoon during days with hot weather and other meteorological conditions which aid in the formation of smog. The Federal Health Standards are based on the second highest hourly level recorded per year, and, therefore, 41 "observations" are not nearly enough to establish any relevant conclusions regarding ozone levels in Lebanon. We have stated previously that it is possible that high levels of oxidant in both Lebanon and Ansonia occur due to the regional nature of this pollution problem, and that this could offset any differences in the levels of other pollutants between the two towns. 3. Lack of Attention to Chronic Lung Disease Patients Dr. Bouhuys admits on page 4 that "short-lasting effects may not be detected by our methods, nor do we have data on risks of other diseases in relation to air pollution". As a lung physician, this particularly disturbs me, since lung patients may be the most susceptible persons to higher air pollution levels. I believe that my patients have significantly increased breathing difficulties during smoggy days, and feel that this is reason enough for maintaining sufficiently strict air quality standards to protect the health of |