GOVERNMENT Air Pollution: Whose Problem? G o v e r n m e n t should t a k e the l e a d , f e d e r a l officials say; industry spokesmen think it's a local problem f EDEiuL
OFFICIALS
and
representa-
tives of t h e chemical industry seem to be at loggerheads over what part t h e Federal Government should play in air pollution control. M. F . Crass, Jr., secretary of t h e Manufacturing Chemists' Association, says t h e Government should limit its activities to aiding research on air pollution. But Arthur S. Flemming, Secretary of the D e p a r t m e n t of Health, Education, a n d Welfare,
in solving air pollution problems/' H E W Secretary Flemming told t h e committee. Public hearings, conducted by t h e Surgeon General, u o u l d throw the national spotlight on some of t h e major trouble spots. As Flemming sees it, public hearings would be fair to everyone concerned. Evidence a n d views on all sides of a pollution problem would be part of t h e public record. Industry is often u n justly accused of contributing to air pollution, Flemming says, and results of hearings might show that pollution is coming from a different source. When would hearings be called? According to Flemming. requests for hearings would have to come from local authorities. If there is n o lccal interest, Flemming says, there is no point in holding hearings. T h e Surgeon General would hold hearings only if t h e pollution problem meets these tests: • T h e problem is of broad cance—affects large areas.
Says MCA secretary M. F. Crass, Jr., in the letter, "When t h e original Federal Air Pollution Control Act w a s being considered in 1955, we testified that the Federal Government's role in this field should be limited to aiding research on air pollution. W e should like to reaffirm this position." MCA believes t h a t H E W ' s activity in air pollution should consist of these things: research in all phases of air pollution problems; training engineers and scientists in t h e scientific aspects of air pollution; giving technical service to state agencies on request from the states. Because of this belief. Crass says, MCA opposes giving t h e Surgeon General authority to hold hearings on air pollution problems. Air pollution problems are local problems, Crass says. From a technical standpoint, no t w o areas have the same problem. There a r e differences, for example, in climatic conditions, topog-
signifi-
• Investigative and research work in the area has reached t h e point where hearings would be profitable. HEW's Flemming . . . effective federal leadership . . .
After the hearings, t h e Surgeon General would issue findings of fact, draw thinks the Government should h a v e t h e conclusions, and make recommendapower to conduct investigations and tions for solving the problem. T h e rehold public hearings on air pollution sults of the hearings would not b e binding on the participants, Flemming says. problems. This difference of opinion was But making the results of the hearings pointed u p at the second round of hear- public should bring voluntary construcings before t h e House Subcommittee on tive action. There is no need at this time to give Health a n d Safety on bills t o extend the Air Pollution Research and Technical the Government authority to issue cease Assistance Act. Moot point: an and desist orders, Flemming told t h e a m e n d m e n t proposed b y H E W at ear- committee. However, he warned, if lier hearings (C&EN, June 1, page 3 5 ) . the voluntary plan doesn't produce reThis proposal would give the Surgeon sults, H E W may ask for authority to General authority, acting on his own issue stop orders. • No National Problem. As the initiative, to conduct investigations and hold hearings on air pollution problems hearings opened, committee chairman Rep. Kenneth A. Roberts (D.-Ala.) p u t of broad significance. t Step F o r w a r d . "Annroval of the into t h e record a letter from t h e Manua m e n d m e n t is one additional step in the facturing Chemists' Association opposamendment. direction of effective federal leadership ing the H E W - b a c k e d 36
C&EN
JULY
6,
1959
MCA's Crass . . . a local rjroblem . . . raphy, and types of pollution. Result: Local government agencies should have the responsibility for solving these problems. Giving H E W authority to conduct investigations and hold hearings is "a definite step in t h e direction of interference by the Federal Government in a matter that is peculiarly that of the community a n d state." Another d r a w b a c k : Although recommendations resulting from hearings would not b e binding by law, as a practical matter they might have to be complied with. This could happen even though the recommendations were neither desirable nor practicable. Crass says that research carried out under terms of t h e present Act has produced results beneficial to all groups concerned with air pollution. MCA be-
lieves that this work should b e continued, and for that reason, favors passage of H.R. 7476. This bill, introduced by Rep. Roberts, simply extends the Air Pollution Research and Technical Assistance Act for two years beyond its present expiration date of June 30, 1960.
Red Apparatus Banned T h e appropriation bill for the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, just approved by the Senate, puts a crimp in Soviet plans to export large quantities of scientific apparatus to the United States (C&EN, Feb. 16, page 2 3 ) . T h e $60 million appropriated for the coming fiscal year to buy laboratory equipment under terms of the National Defense Education Act carries this instruction : No funds can be used to buy teaching equipment or scientific apparatus that can b e identified as having come from a Communist country. T h e Senate Appropriations Committee, in reporting out the bill, calls the ban on Soviet apparatus "a temporary stopgap to preserve the status quo." The committee urges Congress to launch a broad study of the Soviet economic offensive, with special emphasis on its effect on vital industries. Areas that need special attention: effectiveness of the antidumping laws; countermeasures that need to be taken to protect the U. S. economy. Sen. Kenneth B. Keating (R.-N. Y.) calls the ban "a solid rebuff to the Soviets at the outset of their new cold war offensive." During debate on the appropriations bill, Sen. Keating pointed out that an influx of cheap Soviet scientific equipment could do . ...._! LlflüdU-te/ua
U iiciiiii
t.. i U - -1~ *~·~ -· — LKJ m e υ υ : π ο ι ι ν - χ ι ι -
dustrv. But more important, he says, the U.S.S.R. would reap a huge propaganda harvest if it could tell the world that the U. S. had to come to the Soviet Union to get proper laboratory equipment for its children. To use na tional defense education funds to buy Soviet equipment "would be contraven ing the avowed intent of the Act to strengthen our national security." T h e Scientific Apparatus Makers As sociation applauds the ban on -Soviet equipment. S AM A counsel Eugene L. Stewart says, "Using federal funds to purchase Russian-made science teach ing equipment would constitute a ma jor propaganda victory for the Reds." A ~~,^-Λ;.-»«-τ
*/-»
Cfoii'Oif
nci'nfT
