DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Washington, D.C. January 30, 1970. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your January 27 letter concerning the hearings of your Committee and the Senate Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution on the agreement to curb engine emission pollution. As we explained to your staff in trying to arrange an alternate date, I am already scheduled to appear before the House Ways and Means Committee in executive session on both February 3 and February 4. I regret that I thus cannot accept the invitation of your committee for February 4. Creed C. Black, Assistant Secretary for Legislation, will represent the Department and plans to appear at 10:00 a.m. on February 4 in Room 5110, New Senate Office Building. Sincerely, ROBERT H. FINCH, Secretary. Mr. BLACK. Thank you. I would simply like to make two or three points bearing on what has been said of particular interest to HEW. There have been references this morning to the report that the Department of HEW filed in January of 1969 in response to a congressional mandate in the Clean Air Act. That report took note of the fact that technology was available to deal with this problem that we have been talking about this morning, and went on to say that: Accordingly, it is the intention of this Department to encourage such action by engine manufacturers and airline operators and to keep close watch on their progress. If, at any time, it appears that progress is inadequate or the completion of the work will be unduly prolonged, or that the concern of the industry lags, the Department will recommend regulatory action to the Congress (and ask) that statutory authority for such action be provided. So, this agreement that was reached in January is, as Secretary Volpe indicated in his testimony, consistent with that announced policy of the Department of a year ago. We are planning, as Secretary Volpe and Mr. Shaffer indicated, to monitor the progress of this effort very closely. We will work with DOT and FAA in doing that. The Federal Aviation Administration will assemble and give us detailed information within 90 days from the date of the agreement on the various airlines companies' plans for installation of new combustors. Then, we will also get quarterly reports from FAA on the progress of the actual installation work. If we find that the airline companies' plans or their progress in implementing the plans are unsatisfactory, it is our intention to make such a finding known not only to the industry but also to the public, and we will not hesitate to name the companies involved. Now, looking beyond the agreement that we are dealing with here this morning, we think we should call attention to a number of other steps which are being taken because, as indicated, the agreement does not cover all of the engines contributing to this problem. These include: The JT9D engine now in use on the Boeing 747 is essentially smokeless. General Electric has reported that its CF6 engine, which will come into use on the DC-10 airbus early in 1972, will be equipped with a combustor that produces virtually no visible smoke. General Electric is also developing a low-smoke combustor for the J79 engine used in military aircraft. But smoke, as we have found, is not the only problem and smoke abatement is not our only objective. In this same report which we referred to earlier, the department did address itself to the other types of pollutants. I would like to quote this from the report: "Further research is needed to define more precisely the present and probable future nature and magnitude of all other air pollution problems associated with aircraft activity in the United States and to identify needs for control measures. Emphasis must be placed particularly on the assessment of air pollutant levels in the air terminal environment and their effects on health and safety and on evaluation of possible long-term effects of upper atmospheric pollution resulting from aircraft flight activity." The report then said this about our future action, "As further research results in identification of needs for additional measures to control air pollution from any type of aircraft and as measures to achieve such control become available through research and development, it is the department's expectation that engine manufacturers, airline operators, and other segments of the aviation community will take the initiative in the development and application of such control measures. If the private sector fails to provide adequate controls, the department will not hesitate to recommend to the Congress that Federal regulatory action be authorized." In accordance with that summary of our research needs and our plans, our department has a number of projects underway which we will be glad to discuss with you in detail. These are under the auspices of Dr. Middleton's administration. We are, in short, concerned very much with the impact of aircraft emissions on the Nation's air quality and on public health and welfare. As we succeed in defining specific aspects of the problem and identifying practical means of dealing with them, we intend to make prompt application of that knowledge. To the extent that enactment of laws and regulations is necessary at any point in this effort, we will recommend that approach. But wherever there are opportunities for progress, even in the absence of specific legislation, we will encourage the private sector to take the initiative in preventing and controlling problems of air pollution. The problem is too serious, too complex for any level of government or any segment of industry to solve by itself. Obviously, there have to be cooperative efforts directed toward the goals set forth in the Clean Air Act. We think this understanding we have reached with the airlines as far as smoke emission is concerned represents that kind of cooperative effort, and we hope that we can look forward to it in dealing with the remaining problems of jet emission. Mr. CHAIRMAN. Dr. Middleton and I will be glad to answer any questions about the agreement or our other efforts or anything else that is of interest to the Committee. Senator SPONG. Mr. Secretary, is it not true that the installation. of the so-called burner-can device on jet engines simply serve to reduce the relatively nontoxic particulate matter from the aircraft engine but do little to eliminate the more noxious constituents such as oxides of nitrogen, hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxides? Mr. BLACK. That is absolutely correct. Senator SPONG. Do you believe that aircraft engine-emission control should also be considered from the standpoint of eliminating the noxious gases associated with the engines? Mr. BLACK. Absolutely. That is what this further reseach is directed toward. The CHAIRMAN. What recommendations does your department make to deal with these portions of aircraft engine emissions? Mr. BLACK. As indicated in this report of a year ago and in my statement a few moments ago, we have at the present time a number of research projects under way, some of them conducted in conjunction with the FAA, some of them conducted by contract. They are aimed at different parts of this problem of dealing with the noxious gases, the other emissions not covered by the understanding that we have with the airlines to eliminate the smoke problem. We have never presented this understanding as dealing with anything except the smoke problem, the visible portion of it. Senator SPONG. If I understood the testimony of Secretary Volpe this morning, of course, they are concerned with the pollution, but it is confined to the integrity of the engine in what is done. I remember in the early experimentations and actually applications so far as motor vehicles were concerned in California they found that they could cut down on the hydrocarbons, for instance, with certain devices, but it resulted in more emissions of oxide of nitrogen, and that these were particularly harmful to plant life, tobacco particularly, I remember now. I think some of the concern expressed by Senator Eagleton here this morning, implicit in what he said, is that the problem insofar as aircraft are concerned and the effect of the emissions and the pollutants goes far beyond the smoke and far beyond the matters that thus far DOT has concerned itself with. Is this experimentation and the research that you are conducting aimed toward this? Mr. BLACK. Yes, Senator, it is. I think DOT is interested in more than just eliminating the smoke, but speaking for HEW, certainly we are. We have dealt with this one problem. The technology is such that this step being taken now will eliminate the smoke, but obviously we have to continue our research to take care of other pollutants. As you know, the relative contribution of aircraft to the total pollution in the atmosphere of these noxious gases is not at the moment large. It may be 1 percent overall. But it is also true that we recognize we ought to do all we can to eliminate that or reduce it even if it is only 1 percent. In the future that proportion is probably going to increase as air traffic itself increases, and-as we hope-the contribution of some of the other sources, such as automobiles, decreases. So we are very much concerned with it. We are carrying forward research in these areas. But the state of the art today is such that we are not able to measure accurately just what the contribution of the jet aircraft is in these other areas. Senator SPONG. In your report to Congress last year it is stated: If at any time it appears that progress is inadequate or that completion of the work will be unduly prolonged or that the concern of the industry lags, the Department will recommend regulatory action to the Congress, itself, that statutory authority for such action be provided. Do you believe that the agreement between the Government and the carriers precludes regatory action about which the Department wrote last year? Mr. BLACK. We believe that this agreement will do the job. Secretary Finch said in a press conference following this meeting with the airlines that he didn't feel in this area any additional legislation was needed. Senator SPONG. Again in the report, and I quote, you say "It is the Department's conclusion that adoption and enforcement of State or local emission control regulations pertaining to aircraft cannot be adequately justified at this time. The Department recommends that if and when regulations become necessary, the rationale used to develop Federal rather than local emission standards for motor vehicles be applied to aircraft." Is that statement reflective of the current departmental position? Mr. BLACK. Yes, sir, it is. Senator SPONG. How does the Department view recent State actions in New Jersey, Illinois and Michigan which seek to regulate aircraft emission pollution? Mr. BLACK. I think those were lawsuits initiated there. Our position is the one stated in this report. Insofar as standards or regulations become necessary, we think this should be an area for Federal action because it is a national problem. Our position further is, however, that we do not feel at this time that any further legislation or regulations or standards are indicated at any level of government. Senator SPONG. Senator Pearson? Senator PEARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Black, this is repetitious, but I want to spell it out on the record as clearly as we can. Are there any devices or any known technology by which the more noxious gases can be eliminated from jet aircraft emissions? Mr. BLACK. Not at this time, no. Senator PEARSON. Do you have under any authority at the present time the means to enforce mandatory regulations regarding the emissions of jet aircraft, either through DOT or HEW or both? Mr. BLACK. HEW doesn't have such authority. We agree with what DOT said this morning as far as this agreement we have on smoke emission is concerned, that DOT's authority, if it should be necessary to invoke it, is adequate to do that. Senator PEARSON. Are you talking about enforcement now? Mr. BLACK. Enforcement, yes. Not standard-setting, but enforcement. Senator PEARSON. So other than a voluntary agreement on this subject, there is no other means of reaching any sort of solution based on the technology you now have? Mr. BLACK. You are talking about the noxious gases now? Senator PEARSON. Yes. Mr. BLACK. That is correct, sir. Senator PEARSON. I want to make the point also that if Congress should enact the legislation now pending, or any other legislation giving authority for regulatory_provisions, any voluntary agreement is not going to preclude your Department or DOT from proceeding ahead with the regulatory provisions as granted by the Congress. Mr. BLACK. No. Senator PEARSON. Let me spell it out for you. There is concern that these voluntary agreements and the attitude of DOT and HEW in relation to voluntary agreements will preclude the agencies and the administration from following through with the congressional mandate as to regulations. Mr. BLACK. I don't think there should be any concern on that score, Senator. We have confidence in this understanding that we have reached. Senator PEARSON. I understand. Mr. BLACK. We think it is going to take care of this particular problem. We have similar hopes that as the technology advances we can reach the same kind of understanding with the industry on dealing with the noxious gases. As Dr. Middleton has pointed out to me, one difference between this and automobile emissions or some of the other pollution problems we are dealing with, is you are talking of only two manufacturers in this field-Pratt & Whitney and General Electric. The progress we have made now insofar as dealing with smoke is concerned, as indicated in the earlier DOT testimony, is the result of a private, voluntary effort that began several years ago on the part of Pratt & Whitney to solve this problem. We like to think they are equally interested in solving now the further problem of dealing with the noxious gases. They are, as was said here, conducting their own research. We are doing research of our own. If we had additional legislative authority granted us at this time in the standard-setting field, for instance, it is authority that, first of all, we couldn't use, because the state of the art has not reached the point where it would be useful to us. Second, we are not at all sure that we will need it ever. Senator PEARSON. What is the Department's position as to the Federal preemption in dealing with this subject? Mr. BLACK. I think that position is one that is covered in the statement in our report of a year ago. We think it is a field for national attention, for the Federal Government, if and when standards become feasible; if we find the need to set them and spell them out in regulations or law, it should be done at the Federal level, not by each State or locality individually. But we further say that we have reason to believe that we may not reach that point. Meanwhile, in this agreement that was reached with the airlines, our experience with New Jersey and Illinois suggests that the States are going to let the Federal Government take the lead. Those two States were represented at the meeting and expressed satisfaction with this deadline, as you heard earlier this morning, and I think we will get a good indication from that meeting of the attorneys general this week that they are willing to follow the lead of the Federal Government in this area, as long as we are leading. You have to remember that those lawsuits were filed at a time when we didn't have this agreement that was reached in January. We had a meeting with the airlines earlier last August in which they were still talking about 1974, and I think the States felt, as we did, that you could move faster than 1974. We have demonstrated that now. I think if we can work with the industry in demonstrating that we can make progress as the technology develops in the other areas, that the States certainly ought to let the Federal Government take the lead, through voluntary efforts or though legislation and regulations, if that becomes necessary. Senator PEARSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Black. |