Senator MUSKIE. Unfortunately, since that is a tax measure, it will not come before this committee, but we will certainly give it all the support we can.

Mr. Cortelyou, what is the approximate annual investment by the petroleum industry in air pollution research? Can you give us that? Mr. CORTELYOU. I was informed that it is in the order of magnitude of $24 million since 1953, in research.

Senator MUSKIE. That is the total over that period?

Mr. CORTELYOU. This is at the American Petroleum Institute itself. I am sure there is a large amount beyond this that individual companies have covered.

Senator MUSKIE. I see. Would you be able to give us a figure for the committee's use to cover all the companies, as well?

Mr. CORTELYOU. We will do that.

Senator MUSKIE. Could I ask the same of you, Mr. Garvey? Mr. GARVEY. The research agency of the coal industry with funds from the coal industry and from our cooperative groups, such as the Edison Electric Institute, spent just a little under a million dollars in the last 8 years on this subject.

We are working on it now, and we have a budget of approximately $150,000 for this year.

There is serious consideration being given now to a means by which this can be increased and implemented.

Senator MUSKIE. Would there be additional expenditures by individual companies in the coal industry?

Mr. GARVEY. Not directly related to this subject, except those companies are trying to improve the quality of coal, and their preparation procedures for reduced ash, and other potential pollutant material. But it would be difficult to tie a figure to this in respect to air pollution.

Mr. CORTELYOU. Mr. Chairman, we will also try to list for your committee's use the respective projects.

Senator MUSKIE. That will be fine.

A lot of your research has been also directed to investigation, as well as solutions to the problem?

Mr. CORTELYOU. Some of it has; yes.

Senator MUSKIE. Gentlemen, thank you very much for your very useful testimony, this morning. Our next witness is Dr. Leonard Greenburg.

I should identify Dr. Greenburg as professor and chairman of preventive and environmental medicine of Albert Einstein College, and a member of the New York State Board of Air Pollution Control. At one time Dr. Greenburg was commissioner of air pollution control for New York City.

STATEMENT OF DR. LEONARD GREENBURG, AMERICAN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION

Dr. GREENBURG. Mr. Chairman, I come before you this morning as a representative of the American Public Health Association. We appreciate this opportunity to present to your committee our views of S. 306, the bill proposing amendments to the Clean Air Act. Our members are engaged in daily activities intended to control

the causes of disease to prevent needless illness, suffering, and death, and to foster the health and well-being of mankind.

Over 15,000 members of our national organization, together with more than 25,000 members of our State public health associations, comprise a veritable army of trained and experienced workers dedicated to the improvement of health in this Nation and indeed throughout the world.

Because it is impossible to accomplish this objective unless environmental conditions are given constant attention, we have endeavored not only to cope with current problems, but to anticipate consequences of inaction on emerging threats to health, and to consider preventive measures.

It was in 1958 that, by official action of our governing council, we urged the development of standard methods of air sampling and analysis, and the early establishment of quantitative and descriptive standards of acceptable outdoor air quality for the entire population.

The committee will recall that at that time, and despite several severe and deadly episodes such as the Donora, Pa., disaster, which provided ample warning of this danger, it was the view of most people that air pollution was a geographically isolated problem, and more a nuisance than a danger.

The Nation's complacency, naive at best, has given way to genuine concern. The attention given by this committee to problems of air pollution has contributed greatly to both this awakening of the public and to development of control measures.

The Clean Air Act and the recent amendments, which the APHA was pleased to support, have added much to our ability to halt the steadily increasing air pollution. Additional efforts are required, however, to reverse this undesirable trend. This certainly is the intent of S. 306, and we are in complete accord with these objectives.

May I point out in passing that the air pollution problem in most communities in America is not due to one single source of pollution, but it is a multifaceted problem, and has to be approached in that fashion.

In Los Angeles, as was mentioned here this morning, the backyard incinerators were obliterated. In that particular case, the chief problem appeared to be automobile exhaust gases, the backyard incinerators, plus some other problems. But in general this whole question of air pollution in our American cities is a multifaceted problem, and must be approached in that manner in order to get the results which we all look forward to.

We agree that control devices are sufficiently sophisticated now to insist on reduced pollution due to emissions from gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles. We support with you the belief that uniform standards for levels of emissions and standard methods for measurement of emissions are essential.

In fact, we have a committee of which I happen to be the chairman working now on standard methods for the sampling and analysis of air pollutant gases in the ambient atmosphere in cities.

We have been working under a grant from the Public Health Service of HEW for about 2 years, and we hope to get renewal of this grant, because this is a long-range and a long-term project.

In accordance with our understanding of the bill, we recommend, however, that responsibility for approving both standards and laboratory methods for testing of emissions from automotive sources be vested in the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, and that specific levels of emission, methods of measurement, or control devices not be named in the law.

Our rationale is not based on mere hope, but the expectation that our ability to measure and control emissions will become ever more sophisticated.

Senator MUSKIE. May I say at this point, Dr. Greenburg, in principle, I agree with you. The question is whether or not the Secretary discharges sufficient funds for your ability. But I agree with you. as a matter of principle that this ought to be done.

We wrote the standards of the law in the bill principally to highlight what we were shooting at, at the same level of performance that California has found it feasible to apply, but the best technique to write in the law is the one you are describing, so you go ahead.

Dr. GREENBURG. Yes; I think we all agree on this, and I am sure you do. It is obvious that if you write something in an act or law, when new techniques or technological developments come along, you have to go back and change the law in a pretty deliberate fashion. We in general like some simpler method of keeping current with new techniques and new methodology.

Senator MUSKIE. We will need to write some guidelines into the bill.

Dr. GREENBURG. Yes, that is to be expected.

In spite of your comment, Mr. Chairman, may I just read this? Senator MUSKIE. Yes, indeed.

Dr. GREENBURG. For example, S. 306 specifies that allowable exhaust emissions shall be limited to "275 parts per million of hydrocarbons measured by a nondispersive infrared spectrometer calibrated with hexane."

It is entirely possible that emissions may be reducible by as much as one-third within a year or two. Specifying a permissible emission limit in the law may serve as a deterrent to progress.

In addition, more efficient testing methods may be developed in the near future, and engineering ingenuity may make presently specified control devices quickly obsolete.

This is something we would like to have flexible.

We agree that there is the need for and desirability of reducing emissions of oxides of sulfur produced by the combustion of sulfurcontaining fuels. This is an especially important problem in all metropolitan areas using fossil fuels for heat and power.

May I also add this is also necessary for some areas which are not metropolitan areas? I believe I am right in saying that the TVA denuded a lot of forest land, a great deal of forest land, by the emission of high levels of sulfur dioxide in very rural areas, so this is not a problem of metropolitan areas alone, although it is a major problem there. It also applies to other areas which may be denuded by high sulfur content in the ambient atmosphere.

Senator MUSKIE. May I ask you to expand a little on this, Dr. Greenburg, because in previous witnesses' testimony we got into some discussion as to the significance of sulfur dioxides and sulfur oxides and their contribution to the air pollution problem.

I wonder if you would care to expand on that.

Dr. GREENBURG. I would like to say this: Since I have come to the medical school in New York and left the job as commissioner of air pollution control in New York City, we have been studying the problem of the relationship between air pollution and health.

We have done this under grants from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. As I said before, we hope this grant will be renewed. We have also made application covering a proposed study on the effect of sulfur on animals.

We have not had a reply on that, yet, but I hope we will soon.

This is a very difficult problem to study. It was very simple in the case of a catastrophe like Donora or London, England, where a large number of people were killed in an acute episode, but when you go to chronic exposure over a long time, and try to estimate the effect of what is in the air on human beings, it becomes quite difficult.

It is a little less difficult for the British, because of their socialized medical scheme, where they have complete records of what is going on among the population. It is more difficult here in the United States.

We have been turning our attention more recently in our studies to clinic visits for various causes, and trying to study the relationships between sulfur dioxide and solids in the atmosphere and clinic visits for upper respiratory diseases, asthma, and other ailments.

We are beginning to get some material which looks as though it is fundamentally sound, and does show a relation between sulfur dioxide and health, but one has to be very careful in this field, because there are many things we do not know about it, and you have to be guarded in what you say.

The British in general feel that sulfur dioxide is largely responsible for the problem, although there is some difference of opinion in Britain, also.

I can only say that I believe the final result of this must await the next 5 or possibly 8 or 10 years. I do not know. But evidence is accumulating which seems to indicate that sulfur dioxide is an important pollutant which has a bearing on the health of our population. Senator MUSKIE. Is it the sulfur dioxide itself, or the photochemical reactions in which sulfur dioxide is involved?

Dr. GREENBURG. I do not follow you.

Senator MUSKIE. Is it the sulfur dioxide which has the direct impact on the people?

Dr. GREENBURG. Yes, I think so. I think it was pointed out here this morning that the level of sulfur dioxide in Los Angeles in the general atmosphere is generally low. So far nobody has made a definitive conclusion that sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere is detrimental to health. It produces tearing of the eyes, probably produces some respiratory irritation of a minor nature, but the studies that have been done have not demonstrated any relationship between the Los Angeles atmosphere and death rates, and disease rates, to any reasonable extent.

But that is not true in other places, such as Donora and London, and to some extent from our evidence in New York City there is more of a relationship between sulfur dioxide, because we have it in our atmosphere, than sulfur dioxide in California.

Somebody earlier in the day pointed out that the concentration of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere was about one-tenth of a part, if I remember correctly. Now, in New York City, we have records which clearly show that the concentration of sulfur dioxide can rise to as much as five-, six,- seven-tenths of a part per million.

In 1963 in New York City this took place early in January, and we are getting these results ready for publication. I hope we will have them out in the next couple of months.

Senator MUSKIE. So the concentration in New York City seems to be heavier than Los Angeles?

Dr. GREENBURG. Of sulfur dioxide, yes, without any question.

Senator MUSKIE. We have had these acute episodes of deaths in Donora, London, and New York City. We have not had a single situation in Los Angeles, which almost everybody recognizes as the prime city of air pollution. Why is this so?

Dr. GREENBURG. This is a different kind of air pollution. That is why one must be very careful in talking about air pollution. They are not the same in every place.

Senator MUSKIE. Is it your judgment that it is a sulfur dioxide component that makes it possible?

Dr. GREENBURG. We at the present time think that the sulfur dioxide component is very important in this respect, yes, sir.

Shall I continue, Mr. Chairman?

Senator MUSKIE. Yes.

Dr. GREENBURG. We support the proposal in S. 306 whereby a technical committee comprised of persons interested and knowledgeable in this area of concern would be constituted to study and recommend procedures to alleviate this problem.

In this connection, I have one suggestion that I would like to bring to your attention, for whatever it is worth.

This section of the bill, starting on page 2, line 23, says, "The Secretary shall appoint a technical committee," and so on, and sets up its membership. We think this is a very desirable thing to do, but we would like to suggest that the committee consider the addition of other technical experts, not alone in the Federal service and in industry, but possibly there may be some mechanical engineers or other experts in our universities who might have a good deal to contribute to this subject.

We would therefore like to suggest for your consideration that other technical experts be added to this section of the act.

Senator MUSKIE. Fine. We appreciate that suggestion. We will consider it.

Dr. GREENBURG. We question somewhat the proposed method of attack relative to air pollution which results from disposal of solid wastes through incineration. Bans on open burning of solid wastes have long been urged by our association, just as we have urged improved methods of incineration.

The problems of collection, storage, and disposal of solid wastes go well beyond the contribution to air pollution. In fact, we are convinced that solid wastes should be treated as a separate problem and by measures consistent with its magnitude.