The Robert MacNeil Report; Clear Air Debate

ROBERT MacNEIL: Jumping into the political lull between nominating conventions, the Senate today launched a showdown debate on one of the most controversial issues of this session, clean air. After months of hearings, the Senators will vote for an updated national policy on controlling automobile and industrial pollution and protecting stretches of the nation where the air is still clean. The battle lines are drawn between environmentalists on one side , and industry and the Ford Administration, largely, on the other. Six years ago, the Clean Air Act of 1970 committed federal and state governments to the first major pollution clean-up in the country`s history. The Environmental Protection agency was to enforce a five year timetable of stringent controls. But the energy crisis and economic recession brought relaxation of the timetable. Industry and the Administration want further relaxation, so that automobile exhausts, for example, would not have to meet the original, 1975 standards until 1981. The most committed environmentalists want the timetable and standards made tighter, not relaxed. In the middle, the Senate Public Works Committee has produced a compromise which does some tightening and some relaxation. The outcome, expected later this week, will affect the quality of life in this country for years to come. The debate is political, philosophical and technical, with heavy economic overtones. Tonight, we want to examine the political and philosophical arguments.

John Quarles is Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency which is responsible for administering the Clean Air Act. EPA was charged with setting national air quality standards. He is with us in our Washington studio.

Mr. Quarles, I`d like to know the EPA`s position on the Clean Air Amendments now before the Senate. Do you generally approve them?

JOHN QUARLES: We have recommended that there be extentions in the timetable for complying with the original statutory deadlines and Russell Train in his proposal recommended extentions somewhat more generous than those that are in the Senate bill or in the House bill which is being considered at about this same time.

MacNEIL: The Senate bill seems to offer very significant relaxations in some areas, giving industrial plants till 1979 to meet certain standards, proposing giving cities five or ten more years to meet certain clean air standards there, giving the automobile industry until 1980 or perhaps `79 in some states to meet standards originally set for 1975. You, on the Environmental Protection Agency, do you feel in any way the environmental pass has been sold?

QUARLES: No, but I do think that it is important to keep the perspective in mind. The 1970 Clean Air Act laid out a far reaching and a very ambitious program to achieve clean air. The need for that program to protect the health of the people in this country is just as high today as it ever was. What we faced a couple of years ago, particularly when the economy went into a recession and when the fuel economy became so important because of the Arab embargo, were the practicalities of achieving those deadlines and, in some cases, particular problems as to how rapidly those goals could be achieved. There`s been a lot of debate on just what modifications should be made, and it is important to remember that the majority of provisions in that Act are still recognized as important, and we are moving forward to achieve those goals.

MacNEIL: Do you feel in the EPA that the 1970 goals were too ambitious?

QUARLES: There`s no doubt that in some respects the deadline for achieving those goals was unrealistic. That law was passed at the peak of public concern over the environment, and I don`t think that the goals themselves are in any way too ambitious. But the attempt to achieve those goals within five years or seven years, irrespective of whether or not it was technologically feasible to achieve those goals, I think that part of it was too ambitious.

The need now, when we get into the crunch and face some of these hard realities, the need is to make some of these adjustments that are required but still maintain the momentum to move ahead, because the health of the people which is at stake demands that we continue a high level of national effort with high investments and stringent regulations.

MacNEIL: Gary Hart was elected to the Senate from Colorado after serving as George McGovern`s campaign manager in 1972. He is a member of the Senate Committee which produced the amendments now being debated but opposed them in committee. Senator Hart, do you accept that the implementation of our 1970 goals was too ambitious a target?

GARY HART: Not in the least, Mr. MacNeil. If they were realistic and obtainable in 1970, they`re certainly obtainable and realistic in 1976 and `77 and `78 and into the 1980`s. The arguments against them are not that they were unrealistic; they are those that you`ve mentioned: energy problems, employment, economic problems. I think we`re at a crossroads in this country. We have a basic choice to make. That is whether we`re going to live up to the commitment of cleaning up our environment and protecting the health, as Mr. Quarles has said, of the people of this country, or whether we`re going to sacrifice those goals on what I think are temporary and even phony economic grounds. The record which was established in the Public Works Committee upon which I served justified not only maintaining the standard established in 1970 but perhaps even going beyond those. I was the lone dissenter on our committee, not because I thought that the standards should be weakened even more, but because I thought they should be strengthened, and I`m going to attempt to do that on the floor of the Senate. The issue before the American people in 1976 is `not an environmental issue, it`s a public health issue. We`re destroying our lungs, and we`re hurting the health of the people of this country, and that`s what we`re going to have to face up to.

MacNEIL: Senator, wouldn`t you say in one area that the principle which the Senate amendments put forward of controlling industrial expansion into certain areas of the country, like state parks and other areas where the air is still clean, that is a significant advance in the direction you want.

HART: I certainly do, and that`s why there`s still ambivalence about the committee report because it does several things. It deals with the auto emission problem as I say in my judgment in too lax a manner, but at also deals with the so-called stationary source or nondegradation problem of fixed industrial plants. In that respect I think our committee did a good job, and I intend to support that against any weakening amendments.

MacNEIL: Do you feel that the committee position which will be voted upon this week in the Senate represents an abandonment of that commitment to clean air in the country that you mentioned a moment ago?

HART: I think it represents a serious step backward in the area of auto emission controls, and I think the record clearly demonstrates that and can be made available to the American public. Unfortunately, in both areas, both the stationary source or nodegradation area and in the area of auto emission controls there`s been an incredible amount of misinformation that`s been spread before the public, and I think the difficulty some of us have is to correct some of that information.

MacNEIL: Thank you. Donald Jensen represents the Ford Motor Company with federal and state agencies. He is Director of Auto Emissions for Ford`s Environmental and Safety Division. Before this, he was First Executive Officer of the California Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Board.

Mr. Jensen, what do you think of the proposal and the Senate committee position to give your industry until 1980 to meet controls originally set for 1975?

DONALD JENSEN: In the first place, you indicated that we`re seeking a relaxation of the automotive emission standards. That is absolutely false. Year by year the standards have been tightened, and year by year we`ve controlled automotive emissions until they`re now approximately 85% controlled which is further reduction of air pollution or more reduction of air pollution than any other industry that I know of.

MacNEIL: Perhaps what I should have said, which is what I meant, is that you are seeking an extension of the implementation of those standards.

JENSEN: Yes. We feel that all the issues in the United States have got to be looked at. On December 22, the United States Congress passed, and the President signed on December 22, a fuel economy bill that requires over a hundred percent improvement in fuel economy, and this is a goal we think the people wanted, and we just can`t move ahead on all fronts at all times at the same point in time. We need some attempt now for stability in the automobile industry as our engineers try to achieve the goal that was adopted by Congress and signed by the President December 22. And then move ahead. Site want to move ahead into tighter emission controls as we have time to do the engineering.

MacNEIL: As the law stands right now, you were supposed to meet the `75 standards by 1977. Why was that not possible?

JENSEN: The `75 standards, as indicated by Mr. Quarles, were adopted in 1970. At that time there was very tenuous evidence if any at all that they were needed, and there was no evidence at all of technological feasibility. In fact, neither one of those terms was really addressed in any hearings whatsoever. So, as time has gone on, those standards have been re-examined by the National Academy of Science, by other scientists; many people, and I know there`s a big debate on this, feel that they`re not needed.

MacNEIL: Yes. If there had not been a recession and an energy crisis, apart from the technological side, could you have met these standards before? Would it have been feasible to meet them before?

JENSEN: I don`t think so. I think that we`ve applied hundreds of thousands of man-hours and millions of dollars, we`ve made progress year by year in the United States, in Canada, in California as we`ve reduced emission standards from passenger car, light duty trucks and heavy trucks. We`ve got a ways to go and we`re making that improvement year by year. But you just can`t do it over-night by passing a law.

MacNEIL: Do you think the committee`s position of giving the auto industry nationally until 1980 to meet these standards is a satisfactory position?

JENSEN: What we`ve done is subscribe to Mr. Train`s recommendation. Mr. Train recommended a tightening of standards over a period of time, and we`ve endorsed that. We feel that that`s the technical arm of government, they know the needs, the health needs, and we`ve supported it.

MacNEIL: Good. Next week the House of Representatives takes up the clean air bill. Democratic Congressman, Henry Waxman of California is co-sponsor of an amendment there to strengthen controls on auto pollution nationally by calling for adoption of standards now in force in California.

Congressman, California has imposed stricter standards already, and you want these imposed nationally as I gather, until the standards that are planned for 1980 can come into force. Can you explain how those standards compare with the federal ones?

WAXMAN: California`s been allowed to adopt a stricter standard than the rest of the country. We`ve been in the area of trying to do something about automobile emissions longer than the federal government, and therefore we have a stricter standard which right now is the standard that is being suggested that the automobile manufacturers meet for the rest of the country after three years of freeze. It seems to me incredible when we hear the automobile manufacturers talk about the problems they would have meeting that standard all over the country when, right now, in California, they are meeting that standard, and meeting that standard for ten percent of the automobile market. I find it completely unpersuasive when I hear these arguments about giving out further extensions, further delays. The original 1970 act talked about meeting the 90% reductions in automobile emissions by 1975.

MacNEIL: You mean that 10% of new cars sold in California have to meet those more stringent standards?

WAXMAN: No, no. 100 of the new cars sold in this country are sold in the state of California, and they are meeting that standard right now.

MacNEIL: And the same companies make those cars.

WAXMAN: Absolutely.

MacNEIL: Are the cars much more expensive in California for that reason?

WAXMAN: No.We haven`t found that to be the case. And I`ll tell you a development which is very encouraging to me, and I think may well tip the balance in the debate in Congress, is

the fact that Volvo will be marketing next fall an automobile that meets the statutory standards, not these interim standards and not the present California standard, but the ultimate standard that we`ve ascribed for the new cars themselves. They`ll be doing it; they`ll be meeting that standard; they`ll even be doing better than that standard, and there`ll be, not an energy penalty but 10% more effectiveness on the energy itself. 5o, I think the energy question, the economy have been used as excuses by the automobile manufacturers to do what we in the Congress have mandated they do, and that is to control the amount of pollution coming from new cars so that eventually we`ll meet the air quality standards for the protection of the public health. And the public health is the thing that we ought to be most concerned about.

MacNEIL: Mr. Jensen, representing the Ford Company, why can`t the California standards be applied nationally very quickly

If the technology is available to do it there, why isn`t it available elsewhere?

JENSEN: No question it`s available. What we`re saying though when tie facts show that there`s a 10% fuel economy penalty today, in California, with those standards, there`s some cost penalty, and more than that there`s a reduction in the offering of the product line that`s available to the public. So, there are some negative factors as well as positive, but we haven`t said that they are not technologically feasible. Obviously, if we`re building cars there that meet that standard, we can build them nationally.

WAXMAN: I`d like to dispute the gentleman`s figures. The California Air Resources Board has shown an improvement in fuel economy over the 1975 to 1976 models. The Volvo situation shows a 10% increase in fuel economy. I just have to seriously question the gentleman`s figures when he talks about a fuel penalty that will be paid when we`re told that we`re going to ask them to meet these standards. Now we`ve been told over and over again by the automobile manufacturers that there`s going to be a fuel penalty and there`s going to be a greater cost to the consumer.

JENSEN: I would think Mr. Waxman should ask the California Air Resources Board, the government agency in California, Tom Quin, the Chairman, what the facts are.

WAXMAN: I have.

JENSEN: These are not my facts. He`s published statements that there`s a 107o fuel economy penalty if you compare model to model California `76 models versus the 49 states `76 models. It is a fact.

WAXMAN: If you trust Mr. Quin`s judgment, and I question your reading of his factual information, Mr. Quin strongly supports the position we`re advocating in the Congress, and that`s that we have a meeting of the statutory standards by 1981. It can be done; it should be done; we must do it.

MacNEIL: Gentlemen, could I introduce another point here. Since the Senate amendments that we`re talking about are going to be voted on this week, call for greater emphasis on state rather than federal regulation, is this example in the motor industry of California being able to impose more stringent controls, whatever their effect, an argument that control is better at the state level rather than at the federal level? Congressman?

WAXMAN: I don`t think that`s the real issue. It`s not a question of having it on the state level. You know, we have a natural, national resource, and that`s the clean air that our citizens breathe, and we have to understand that on a national basis, when Senator Hart has an amendment that deals with the deterioration of the air in areas that are now not as bad as we have in Los Angeles and some of the major areas, the purpose behind an amendment like that is that we`re not going to waste the clean air that we have, because we are eventually going to use it in different parts of the country, and it`s going to use this resource that belongs to all of the people.

JENSEN: Let me say something on this last question.I agree with the Congressman. This is not an issue in the automobile. The automobile industry, at least Ford Motor Company, has recommended that California have tighter standards so that we could use new technology there to solve that issue and apply it nationally. So I think the issue, as the Congressman has indicated, is more stationery sources from industry.

MacNEIL: What does Mr. Quarles of the EPA think about that?

WAXMAN: Excuse me just one minute. I`d like to interrupt and say just one thing that I can`t let Mr. Jensen get away with that fact. The single, largest polluter that we have is the automobile. Certainly we have to do something about stationery sources just as we have to do something about the automobile, but if we don`t do something about the automobile we`re never going to meet the clean air standards.

MacNEIL: Yes. What does Mr. Quarles think about the suggestion that control at the state level as suggested in this amendment is more effective in some ways.

QUARLES: I think it can be more effective in regard to some of the industrial plants, but there is no question when you are talking about automobiles which travel throughout the country and are sold throughout the country, but all for the most part originate from Detroit, you`ve got to have a federal and national program. California is an exception. California began to deal with auto pollution back in the `60`s before the federal government even began this program because of the extreme conditions of auto pollution in Los Angeles. California has remained a leader in dealing with auto pollution and has always had somewhat more stringent standards. But the real question is where we go with the national program in the future. And here, I also would like to throw some additional factors into consideration. I don`t believe that there is any remaining question that it is a technological possibility to achieve those stringent statutory standards which were first established by Congress back in 1970. It can be done. Secondly, in regard to the trade-offs between health protection through clean air, cost to the purchaser of a car, and fuel economy from the view point of preserving our national supplies of energy, these three factors do intermingle, .and they do have to be balanced. However, technology that we have available I thin: would facilitate meeting those more stringent standards at a reasonable cost. And if the best methods are used to reduce a fuel economy impasse. Those also could be held to a minimum. What we were concerned about, with the rapid use of the catalyst, is another factor that hasn`t been mentioned yet, and that was the concern that the catalyst, particularly when used with an air pump to meet the more stringent standards, before enough time is allowed to really refine and improve that technology, could give rise to sulphuric acid emissions, and we are currently conducting tests in California to monitor the levels of sulphuric acid emissions that may come from the California cars. That was the main reason that Russ Train had when he recommended deferring the over- all schedule a little bit longer.

MacNEIL: Yes. Senator Hart, could we move from cars for a moment onto this other area of the bill, and given that this is a significant deterioration clause which is to protect those areas of the country like national parks where the air is still clean from new industrial encroachment, if there is a trade-off between economic factors and energy conservation and environmental protection as Mr. Quarles has just said in the case of the car, and granted this has to happen in this area as well, why is that provision so controversial? Why is there so much objection to this idea that some areas of the country like national parks have to be protected from industrial encroachment?

HART: I can`t quite account for that myself. Frankly, the provision which the committee passed is more industrially oriented. It offers much more predictability to industry and to those seeking to site power plants or locate new industrial locations or whatever. It frees industry from the burden of EPA regulation which presently exists and the court cases which have flowed from that and which have delayed industrial construction and siting. It puts a lot more authority in the hands of state and local land managers than presently exists, and generally it`s a pro industry provision which does at the same time protect the clean air areas, particularly the recreation areas of this country which we have to leave to future generations. I think industry, many industries, the power industry and others, have again been guilty of the kind of misinformation which I suggested at the outset. They confuse people; they`ve misinformed people; they`ve mislead people; they`ve created an atmosphere of fear, and frankly, I`ve had a considerable amount of time in my own state of Colorado, as I think other members of Congress have, trying to put down that misinformation. That doesn`t elevate the level of public dialogue.

MacNEIL: Mr. Quarles, why do you think this measure is controversial?

QUARLES: I would agree that I think a large part of the controversial nature of this arises from the misinformation which has been given out. I also think that it arises in part from the pecular history in which this particular provision was developed. When the act was first passed, it was unclear that there was any direct authority to establish the type of program we are now discussing. The Sierra Club brought suit against the Environmental Protection Agency. It had been our judgment that the law did not call for this. After a Supreme Court decision affirmed that it does require this type of provision, we went to work and developed roughly the type of regulations that the Senate and the House are now both considering. The real question that we face, and I think this is one of the reasons that this is so controversial, is whether future industrial growth in this country is going to proceed on the basis of past growth which is without any real consideration of the environmental impact, or whether there is going to be some system of regulation that will establish certain constraints and guidelines for the direction of growth. My own feeling is that the time has come when the Senate and the Congress have to face up to this type of issue as the American people really have to face up to it and chart our course for the future.

MacNEIL: Congressman Waxman, how does that provision look in the House of Representatives?

WA:M"U1: We have, I think, a stronger provision in the House bill than the Senate has in protecting the areas that are not now as polluted as the urban areas. If we don`t have any restriction on the pollution in areas that are now not just pristine clear but relatively not as polluted, it`s going to be up for grabs by any industry that wants to come in and take more than its share of that clean air and pollute it. The House provision requires that they use the best available technology so that we at least protect those areas from absolute waste of it, and some kind of ordering of priorities of the use of that national, natural resource of clean air. The Clean Air Act is not only trying to clean the air in the heavily polluted urban areas but to protect the air that we have in other areas of the country that are going to be wasted away unless we do something about it.

HART: Mr. MacNeil could I intervene at this point, because I think it`s important to define what`s really at issue here. People think we`re debating abstractions. We mentioned, I think all three of us on this end, the issue of public health, and you mentioned at the outset the environmental concerns. I think the issues, the so-called environmental issues of the `60`s have become the public health issues of the 1970`s. That`s what is confronting Congress right now. It`s whether we`re going to mortgage the future of our children and their children on the alter of immediate economic gain. Now, technology exists to accomplish these things. We can accomplish the goals which I think are reasonable in this legislation and protect the public health at the same time and not sacrifice jobs. The history of protecting clean air in this country is the history of delay and retreat. And that`s because of industry pressure and unfortunately it`s increasingly because of labor pressure. It`s labor and management that are coming in and saying, "Don`t destroy our plants; don`t destroy our jobs." Well those are phony arguments. We can achieve these, and we can have a sound and healthy economy at the same time, and that`s the issue before the Congress and the American people right now.

MacNEIL: They may be phony arguments, Senator, but they carry a lot of weight do they not? Can I just ask in conclusion as this is an election year, how is the senate bill, as it stands at the moment, going to fare?

HART: If I had to guess right now, it`s going to be close on the issue of nondegradation because of the misinformation flowing from industry which I`ve already mentioned. On the question of auto emissions, I think we`ll pass the committee bill. i4y only hone is that we can strengthen that bill and make it much more realistic and much more protective of the public health.

JENSEN: Let me go back to what Senator Hart said initially about the public health. I`ve been working in environmental areas for 16 years and was instrumental or had a large part in starting the program in California, and the progress we`ve made in the automobile industry shouldn`t be overlooked. Now I admit that we`ve got a way to go, and we want to meet those health goals. But if there`s a picture here of the automobile industry that we`ve been sitting on our hands and have done nothing, then I think the impression is completely in error.

QUARLES: I would support that. It`s certainly not correct to say that the auto industry has done nothing. There has been real progress, and there has been progress made by a lot of the rest of American industry as well. We are moving ahead in a number of areas to achieve clean air. But the questions that remain are the continued progress toward the goals that are required if we are going to provide full. protection to public health. I think during the last two or three years, as Senator Hart said, there has been a great amount of argument that the protection of public health is not economically achievable. At the same time that these arguments have been made, we have been demonstrating through actual experience . . .

MacNEIL: We have to leave it there, Mr. Quarles. I think we get the point. Thank you very much all of you in Washington, and thank you, Mr. Jensen, here. I`m Robert MacNeil. I`ll be back tomorrow night. Good night.