CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1977 HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS UNITED STATES SENATE NINETY-FIFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON S. 251, S. 252, and S. 253 BILLS TO AMEND THE CLEAN AIR ACT, AS AMENDED FEBRUARY 15, 1977 DENVER, COLO. ᏢᎪᎡᎢ 4 SERIAL NO. 95-H7 Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 87-299 O U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: 1977 This is the real, unavoidable issue. Although we can postpone its consideration, we cannot avoid it. If we care about the quality of our lives, and the lives of our children, we must act now. We know the enormity of the task; now we must get on with the job. I know this job is one of great concern to the people of the Denver area and Colorado and Rocky Mountain region and across this country. In the past, unfortunately, I think it has been contrasted with the need for people to have jobs and to work. And the assumption has been made too often that concern for the quality of the air we breathe and the water we drink is somehow exercised at the expense of full employment economy or income to the working people of this State or this country. I don't think those two concerns are mutually exclusive. That is one of the things we want to explore here today. Today the Environmental Pollution Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works holds a public hearing to discuss exactly how much progress we have made in this State toward the goal of protecting health and what midcourse corrections are necessary. One of the primary sources of air pollution in Denver and other urban areas is the automobile. Automobile pollution alone has contributed to the deaths of 4,000 people each year. This is one-twelfth of the total number of deaths due to car accidents each year. Furthermore, American workers lose 4 million working days each year as a result of auto pollution-related illnesses. Last year, the auto industry lobbied for a 5-year moratorium on auto emission standards. They claimed that the technology for cleaner cars was not available or was too costly. What they did not tell the American people was that those 5 years of delay would expose 83 million people in this country to 20 percent more smog and carbon monoxide by the 1980's. The health implications of automobile pollution are not new to the people of Denver and other Front Range cities. Denver residents own more cars per capita than residents of any other American city. This is just one of the reasons why standards designed to protect the public against lethal levels of carbon monoxide were exceeded on 85 separate days in 1975. Standards for ozone pollution were violated on 100 separate days-that is almost once every 3 days. Before we consider relaxing standards on these lethal pollutants, we must demand unequivocal evidence that the health and welfare of the American public would not be damaged. The standards we enact must reflect the true hazard of these pollutants to our health. Relaxing air quality standards to the detriment of public health and safety misplaces our national priorities. It is at best an ineffec tive weapon against inflation and unemployment. Certainly Congress has at its command jobs programs, tax rebates, and other economic tools far more powerful to deal with national economic problems than relaxing air and water quality standards. Relaxation of standards may increase the profitability of some individual companies or industries. However, an accurate accounting of the economic gains and losses to society will show a net loss. The social costs of pollution are real. They are not reflected on industry balance sheets, but citizens pay them nonetheless. In fact, relaxing existing automobile standards would cost American consumers as much as $10 billion per year in health care bills and property damage. The public health aspect of air pollution is not the only issue of concern to Colorado which will be discussed today. The impact of clean air legislation on growth and development in our State will also be addressed. This issue has been the subject of a great deal of misinformation, and I hope that today's hearings will provide an opportunity for us to fully understand the implications of proposed legislation. Some national lobbying groups attempted to label last year's Senate proposal as no-growth legislation. That is false. The Senate proposal would not prohibit increases in pollution levels. What it would do is establish upper limits on the amount of increase in pollution that can be tolerated in clean air areas. Furthermore, the Senate proposal would have given the States, not the Federal Government, the authority to determine what constitutes significant deterioration, and the flexibility to balance their various objectives, with full public participation. Today's hearing will focus on how the existing Clean Air Act and proposed amendments could affect the air quality in the State of Colorado. This issue will be addressed by four panels focusing on specific topics: The first panel will focus on the air pollution problems specific to Denver and indeed most of our Front Range. The second panel will be comprised of public officials who have the responsibility for implementing Federal Clean Air legislation in Colorado. Following those two panels, testimony will be taken from public witnesses who wish to come forward and make their views known. This hearing will continue with Senator Floyd Haskell at 1 p.m., followed by the third panel which will focus on the problem of pollution from automobiles operating at high altitudes-a problem unique to Colorado and several other Mountain States. The last panel of the day will focus on the protection of air quality in regions where air quality is better than Federal standards. We will be hearing initially this morning before the first panel begins from Congresswoman Pat Schroeder, who represents the Den ver area. I believe Congresswoman Schroeder is not here yet, so we will recess for a few minutes until she arrives. She should be here momentarily. [Brief recess.] Senator HART. The hearing will reconvene. I think we will go immediately to our first panel. Before I introduce the members of that panel, I would like to state for the record that the staff of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is represented by Mr. Braithwaite and Miss Charlene Sturbitts. Dr. Kevin Cornell of my staff and Mr. Lee Rawls of Senator Domenici's staff are also here. The first panel is comprised of four distinguished scholars and experts. I would like for them to come forward. Prof. Edwin F. Danielsen, Ms. Laboyta Garnand, Prof. Myron L. Corrin, Prof. Chia Szu Kiang. Professor Danielsen will open the panel with brief remarks. Then we will have prepared statements or summaries of those statements from other members of the panel. Then there will probably be some questions for the panel members. Dr. Edwin Danielsen is a senior scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colo.; professor of atmospheric sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Ore.; member, Advisory Panel to the Atmospheric Sciences, the National Science Foundation. Ms. Laboyta Garnand is vice chairman, Colorado Air Pollution Control Commission, recently appointed to the Council of the Metropolitan Planning Organization. Myron L. Corrin is a member, Colorado Air Pollution Control Commission, and professor, department of atmospheric sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colo. Prof. Chia Szu Kiang is leader, atmospheric aerosol project, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colo., and adjunct professor of physics, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Ga. STATEMENTS OF LABOYTA GARNAND, COLORADO AIR POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISSION; MYRON L. CORRIN, DEPARTMENT OF ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY; EDWIN F. DANIELSEN, NATIONAL CENTER FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH; AND C. S. KIANG, NATIONAL CENTER FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH Mr. DANIELSEN. Thank you. People concerned about air quality generally can be divided into two groups whose priorities, criticisms and recommendations often appear to conflict and even be contradictory. One group concerned with long-range solutions emphasizes the global scale of air quality, stresses scientific field experiments to determine causes of air pollution, and recommends specific action to reduce or eliminate them only after their causes have been unambiguously identified. The other group advocates more immediate action emphasizing regional or local differences and stresses the social, economic and political realities in their decisionmaking and proposed control strategies. Both views will be expressed by the four members of this group. Although we differ in our priorities and recommendations, we agree that both points of view are valid, both can be defended. And both should be considered by the Federal agencies and the Congress. To concentrate on short-term solutions and neglect the long-term ones or vice versa is fundamentally unwise. In principle the two groups can be complementary and exert beneficial influences on each other. Senator HART. Our first statement will be from Ms. Garnand, who is the vice chairman, Colorado Air Pollution Control Commission, recently appointed to the Council of the Metropolitan Planning Organization. |