ENVIRONMENTAL
NEWS
S UMMA R Y
Office of Public Affairs U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. 20460
CLEAN AIR AMENDMENTS SENT TO CONGRESS
Administration sends Congress package of proposed amendments to '70 Clean Air
Act. Train, who announced proposals in press conference, says revisions won't weaken
Act: "I honestly don't personally believe that this represents a rollback." Sen.
Muskie (D-Me.) credits Train with blocking some anti-pollution rollbacks, says tack-ons
"do not do the damage to the law that some in the administration would have proposed."
CEQ head Peterson says, "Those who don't want any changes in the law will be unhappy.
On the other hand, energy suppliers who have just wanted to scuttle the whole thing will
not be pleased." Spokesman for National Clean Air Coalition: "With minor reservations,
the EPA today joined the rest of the industry-oriented Nixon administration in proposing
unnecessary weakening of the Clean Air Ac.t." (Wash. Post, 3/23/74) N.Y. Times
(3/23/74) says package "would extend several deadlines for abatement of pollutants and
in other ways weaken the act under the mounting pressures of energy demands. On the
whole, however, the package that finally emerged after intense debate within the Admin-
istration was a compromise that represented a considerable retreat from the drastic
revision originally proposed by the White House and the Office of Management and Budget.
By the same token, it represented a limited victory for...Train" EPA IS "backing
away from clean-air requirements" says Knight News Service in Philadelphia Inquirer
(3/23/74), Seattle Times(3/24/74). "Train, at a press conference crowded with glum EPA
employees, said, 'it was not my choice' to send these legislative proposals to Congress
...Train, in his battle with the White House, won only a few small victories."
EPA OFFICIALS VIEW THE AMENDMENTS as "narrow and restrictive," says Newsday(3/22/74).
"According to well-placed agency source," the theory behind the package "is that we
don't want to invite the Congress or...administration to gut the act. What we have done
is to make the act's deadlines more reasonable where necessary without backing off the
act's goals." Before compromise, Train told Nixon officials that he wasn't going to
stand by and watch "the whole act be reduced to a set of useless and absurd droppings."
Train and aides "threatened mass resignations," say "some sources," causing "consider-
able concern" at Watergate-haunted White House. Story also gets extensive coverage in
Wall St. Journal(3/25/74), Cleveland Plain Dealer(3/23/74), Baltimore Sun(3/23/74),
Washington Star(3/23/74), Pittsburgh Press(3/23/74), Seattle Post-Intelligencer (3/23/
74), Las Vegas Review-Joumal(3/23/74). SOME EDITORIAL REACTION; "In deciding whether
clean air is worth it," says Wash. Post(3/23/74). "the reader might want to know that
sulfur oxides...are toxic. They can induce fatal attacks of heart and respiratory
diseases. It is not a hypothetical future threat. To the contrary, the effect of
sulfur oxides can be demonstrated statistically in the current death rates in large
cities as wind and weather shift pollution levels...Nixon has repeatedly called on
Congress to relax environmental standards that, he says, restrict the use of coal. But
utilities can burn high-sulfur coal if they are willing to install scrubbers, and they
can pass the cost on to their customers. Surely most Americans would join in its judg-
ment, embodied in the Clean Air Act, that human health is more important than the con-
venience of power utilities, or low power rates." "THESE AMENDMENTS ARE NECESSARY,
say the White House and the industries...pushing them, because of the energy shortage.
We think that is a false rationale...In the confusion that surrounds the energy problem
it may have been forgotten that the country's unchecked demand for cheap energy brought
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS SUMMARY
on the pollution problem in the first place. And it was the environmentalists, now
under attack for leading the fight against pollution, who for years warned about the
country's waste of energy.. .Train. ..has stated his strong opposition to the White House's
proposals...We hope Congress listens to Train and does not blindly give in the the White
House" (Minneapolis Tribune. 3/20/74) "TRAIN HASN"T BEEN A HARDLINER on environ-
ment," says Honolulu Star-Bulletin(3/19/74). "He has been willing to make accommoda-
tions, but doesn't want to sacrifice the objective of cleaner air, and we don't think
the nation does, either. The uncharitable suspicion about the White House policy is
that it is one more effort to cater to the conservative senators who are counted on to
save the President from conviction if the House ever votes on impeachment. Train is
taking a 'get tough1 stance and...Nixon can make this concession to the conservatives
only at the cost of open repudiation by his widely-respected environmental administrator.
Nixon may do it, and Train may exit from the administration. But it will further erode
the President's public popularity and we doubt that Congress will be in a mood to accept
relaxations of environmental standards nearly as sweeping as the White House recommends."
IN OTHER AIR DEVELOPMENTS. Dr. John Finklea, dir., N.C. NERC, "concedes in
utmost candor" in Baltimore Sun(3/18/74) that "major gaps" exist in scientific knowledge
of air pollution effects on human health and acknowledges that "multibillion dollar
cleanup" required to enforce present standards. "A clear national commitment" to re-
search required over 5-10 period, says Finklea, but adds that administration has shown
"scant interest," allocating only $50 million annually--less than it has spent "on a
single north-south highway across...North Carolina."
NIXON STRANGLING EPA?
Citing OMB-ordered phase-out of federal environmental aid to states, localities,
and Nixon sewage fund impoundment, N.Y. Post(3/12/74) says, "Bit by bit, the...Adminis-
tration is sapping the strength of the environmental protection movement by squeezing
its lifeblood—money. In the long run this is sure to reduce the nation's quality of
life. Not all the ringing phrases of...Nixon's proud environmental messages to Congress
will be able to hide that in the end."
IN OTHER EPA DEVELOPMENTS. "The Environmental Protection Agency...is trying to
dispel the political pollution generated by some of the nation's best-known specialists
at befogging, beclouding and befouling" (N.Y. Post. 3/12/74). "The position is familiar
for the EPA, which has, under...Train, tried to stretch the limits of the possible in
reasonable clean-air, clean-waters legislation. Enroute, it has encountered every con-
ceivable explanation of why effective environmental legislation must be delayed or sup-
pressed. . .Most recently...the most widely exploited excuse is that the 'energy crisis'
requires suspension of all clean-air laws. Train and his aides recognize that argument
...as another version of an old and disingenuous tactic. They are resisting it cour-
ageously and rationally. They are not inflexible dogmatists, or self-righteous purists.
But they are fighting those who would murder safeguards under cover of 'emergency'
rhetoric."
VERDICT ON TRAIN
National Journal(3/23/74) runs some opinions of EPA Administrator, as seen
through the eyes of (1) Former EPA official; "On style, I think RUSH suffers when
people compare him with Ruckelshaus. Bill was a superbly qualified, advocacy lawyer
who enjoyed the give and take. I'm afraid Russ comes on as a kind of stodgy eastern
liberal conservationist by coir orison; (2) Richard Lahn. Washington Sierra Club ref .
"Train has some qualities thst Ruckelshaus did not have. He knows what the environ-
mental movement at the grass roots looks like better than Ruckelshaus did. And I have
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS SUMMARY
a feeling that his environmental ethic is strong. But a lot of things he's doing aren't
good."; (3) Rep. Udall(D-Ariz.). chm.. House Environmental Subcommittee; "I think he's
first rate. He's one of the classiest people this Administration has ever had. He^s
sensible, he has guts, and he's a good low key salesman. I'd give him straight A's";
(4) Sen. Muskie(D-Me.) ; "He has guts and determination in sticking up for what he
believes to be fundamental principles. That doesn't mean to say he doesn't have his
pragmatic streak--he does. And he has to operate within the parameters of this Admini-
stration, which I assume would impose considerable restraint. [He is] not a chip-on-
the-shoulder guy. His style is accommodation. I think that can fool you. You say,
'Here's an easy-going guy, I can get him over on my side1 and, suddenly, he kicks you in
the teeth."
IN OTHER "TRAIN" DEVELOPMENTS. Wall St. Journal(3/22/74) says "some" EPA'ers
describe Train as "bordering on being dull" to work for, and "many continually speak of
Mr. Ruckelshaus as the man who gave the agency identity, spirit and a good name. But the
disputes with the White House are improving...Train's standing with his troops."
Article adds that "the distance between the White House and EPA headquarters seems to
have lengthened immeasurably...Since he took office...Train hasn't seen the President
privately even once." Journal says EPA-Administration relations so strained that one
Train aide says, "We view them as adversaries." But Train will stay on, thinks differ-
ences can be worked out, says paper.
CIRCUMVENTING NEPA
"Among those who watch government lawlessness—in all its shadings.. .many
believe that the National Environmental Policy Act is one of our most regularly and most
casually broken laws" (Colman McCarthy in Wash. Post. 3/23/74). "The abuses," says one
lawyer, "now take the form less of ignoring it than of weak compliance." Another
lawyer says: "Government agencies went several years before they even prepared NEPA
statements. Suits had to be brought to compel them to obey the law. But I've noticed
something new now. When they do hand in a statement.. .large parts of it are mere
boilerplate copies of other statements. But the courts look at the thick, 1,000 page
statement and are impressed by the agencies' hard work and sincerity." Malcolm Baldwin,
dir., Environmental Impact Assessment Project, says that even when written, "the pro-
cedure of reviewing them is usually a mess., .agencies are overwhelmed.. .So in many cases
the statements are approved with only minimal scrutiny." Joseph Browder of Environmen-
tal Policy Center says: "What the government fears is that NEPA forces disclosure not
just about the environment but also the economy...If this kind of information gets out,
the public will be able to see some of the real costs of the current energy policy--
costs that are extremely high, wasteful and controlled by the major oil companies
working with a docile government."
RULES COMMITTEE BLASTED ON MASS TRANSIT OBSTRUCTION
Some media reaction to House Rules Committee blockage of mass transit bill,
pending report of Nixon's alternate proposal (see 3/15/74 News Summary); "The Rules
Committee members," says Boston Globe(3/12/74). mostly from non-urban parts of the
country, will have to live with their consciences on this matter. But we think they
will have to share the blame with [Transpo Sec. Brinegar] who provided them with an
easy excuse for the legislative assassination by saying that he would recommend veto of
the bill if it got out of Congress." Globe mentions Brinegar1 s oil company background,
says Congress should make sure no "residual preference" for highways over mass transit
o-i " is part interfered with public policy THE HOUSE RULES COMMITTEE under the
chairmanship of Indiana Democrat Ray J. Madden is shockingly insensitive to urban needs
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS SUMMARY
and legislative responsibility," says Philadelphia Inquirer(3/25/74). "...A measure of
such importance to the immediate needs of urban transit in a nation hard hit by an
energy shortage should not be allowed to wither and die...after having been approved by
both houses of Congress and a joint conference committee" St. Louis Post-Dispatch
(3/11/74) feels bill was killed because the formula allocated money where need was
greatest, giving most Congressional districts only token aid. "Politically the Nixon
measure [which uses population as sole criterion for allocation] is more feasible, but
it would not be effective...as the Senate-House conference bill...At this point it would
appear that the nation's transit systems cannot expect much help from Washington."
Miami Herald(3/11/74) runs related editorial, stressing that Congressional debate is
conditioning public to transit subsidies as a way of life, along with realization of
mass transit's high cost.
NIXON OPPOSES RECYCLING TAX INCENTIVES
Asst. Treasury Sec. Fred Hickman asks Congress to scrap proposed tax incentives
encouraging recycling of beer cans, waste paper, other materials into useful products.
Hickman says Administration favors environmental cleanup, but adds that "the problem was
not caused by taxes and cannot be remedied by taxes." "Sources" say House Ways and
Means Committee intent on developing plan, despite Nixon opposition (N.Y. Times, 3/21/74)
IF IT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR FLIES ?
L.A. Times(11/3/73): Sen. Aiken(R-Vt.) says Americans may soon be having re-
cycled manure for dinner. Holding cellophane bag of same in front of Vt. farm leaders
meeting, Aiken observes, "While this particular sample is designed for spreading on the
land, our friends tell us that doctored up a bit this is not only good to feed the cow,
but would also suffice for our own nourishment, if properly fortified and flavored."
StC-Vdl
A3N39V NOIlOBlOdd 1V1N3HNOUIAN3
QlVd S33J QNV SSViSOd
09H3Z 'O'Q 'N019NIHSVM
AON30V NOUOaiOdd 1V1N3WNOHIAN3 'STl
£01 -V SHIVddV OliaOd dO 30IJJO
------- |