ENVIRONMENTAL
NEWS
S UMMA R Y Apri! 12. 1974
Office of Public Affairs U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. 20460
CLEAN AIR AMENDMENTS DRAW MIXED REACTION
"One of the most difficult military and political sciences," says Buffalo
Evening News feature (3/26/74), "is the retreat with dignity...Train...is doing his
best to hold his head high while the Nixon administration...seeks major revisions in the
1970 Clean Air Act in the name of making the United States self-sufficient in energy.
...Mr. Train retreated with dignity on some fronts; held his ground on others. Now it
is up to Congress." Same paper runs ed. (3/27/74) claiming Nixon package "seems to
mark a reasonable compromise between energy and environmental needs. That the revisions
are much less far-reaching than previously indicated is a tribute to effective internal
lobbying by...Train...No one concerned about the air we breathe will relish any relax-
ation of hard-won clean air requirements. Congress clearly has an obligation to give
all of the pending measures tough-minded scrutiny. However, their comparatively limited
nature and the endorsement given most of them by the independent-minded EPA suggests
that they represent an aaceptable price to pay for helping the nation through the harsh
realities of the present energy shortage." "IT'S REASSURING TO FIND key adminis-
tration figures who are refusing to be stampeded by dire news on the fuel front"(Chicago
Daily News. 4/1/74). "Serious as the U.S. energy situation is, efforts to clean up the
environment and to protect what nature has bestowed upon America deserves no less
concern." "CONSERVATIONISTS AND MANY POLLUTION-CONTROL OFFICIALS feel the proposals
...are a 'complete sellout' under the banner of saving energy...another case of back-
pedaling by an administration that—at best—has a shoddy record for protecting the en-
vironment" (Detroit_News, 3/25/74) "ACTUALLY." says St. Louis Post Dispatch (3/26/
74), "the...proposals,...were rather minimal, so much so that Senator Muskie..., one of
the principal defenders of the...Act, expressed relief that they were no worse. It will
be up to Congress to see that every departure from the standards already set is justi-
fied." "THEIR OVER-ALL EFFECT," says Kansas City Star(3/26/74), "will be to stretch
out the time needed to overcome air pollution and achieve acceptable standards. In
point of fact the deadlines proposed by law are not being realized on schedule nor do
they seem likely to be. The technology of air pollution abatement...still has a way to
go. So if there is a note of consolation in the projected relaxation of clean air re-
quirements. . .it may be that in the end the job can be done better and at less cost by
not having to force industry too soon into inadequate control methods." "TRAIN
OUGHT TO GUARD ZEALOUSLY" all advances toward cleaning up the air and waters" (Cleveland
Plain Dealer. 3/25/74). "He should not run interference for compromises that extend
* m ^ * *m -A - • 4 • • • ^^ _—. _- _—_ Y_ — _^. d_ .^ «_ ^ _ ^ ^ «M ^h. ^m m £ ^M f*. *V rfh.«Hh^%. *U*f* ^4 ^ ^P 4 ^% 4 4" 4
deadlines for meeting anti-smog limits. Energy shortages do require some modification
of air pollution controls. But clean environment advocates should yield ground only
grudgingly when they must, and then for as brief a period as possible." "WE...KNOW
FOR SURE," says Dayton Daily News(3/29/74). "that sulphur dioxide is dangerous for
people with heart trouble or lung disease. It can kill them...Most technological prob-
lems with scrubbers have been solved. The only real argument against their installation
is cost. But the increase in electric bills would be offset to some degree by decreases
in costs for building maintenance and paint, among other things. When people understand
that higher electric bills might help save their health--perhaps their lives—they will
pay it without complaint." "THE ADVERSARY RELATIONSHIP that has been building up
between the White House and... [EPA] was heightened. ...States cannot alone solve their
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS SUMMARY
clean air problems. They must rely on federal regulations and if the EPA is weakened in
the name of getting more energy, the battle for clean air will be lost at the local
level. It is time for the administration to give more support to Train's concept that
there should not be any basic conflict between...energy goals and progress in cleaning
up the only air and water the nation has" (Portland Oregonian. 3/25/74) "OREGON'S
POLITICIANS HAVE VOICED OUTRAGED OPPOSITION to...Nixon's proposal..."(Oregon Journal,
Portland, 3/25/74). Sen. Bob Packwood(R-Ore.) says, "While I plan to look at the...pro-
posals objectively I do not believe we can afford to use the energy crisis as an excuse
:o fall back on the strides we have made in environmental protection." Former Sen.
Wayne Morse(D)(now running again for Senate): "The President has submitted no evidence
that justifies our surrendering of our environment to the polluters for two years or any
other period of time. We've already waited too long in protecting this generation and
future generations' rights to living in a clean environment. What [Nixon] ought to be
talking about is what he is going to do to stop his favoritism in favor of the oil cartel
and the other monopolies...who have been violating the rights of the people in respect
to protecting the people's trusteeship rights in all natural resources, including oil."
Syndicated columnists Evans-Novak reveal that "deep split between...Train and the
White House over watering down the Clean Air Act reached a hysterical climax.. .when con-
servative Republican Sen. William Scott of Virginia demanded that Train 'quit.1 Scott
was rebuked by other ["key1*] Republican members of Congress. ..but he was not far from
representing the true sentiment in the Oval Office. If...Nixon were stronger political-
ly, he might well have fired Train outright" (Wash. Post. 3/31/74) THE SENATE PUBLIC
WORKS COMMITTEE, which wrote the Clean Air Act, is willing to amend the law to allow
greater administrative flexibility," says Business Week(3/16/74). "but it will undoubt-
edly resist the latest...proposals. Adds a staffer iti the House: 'We may look at some
changes in the...Act, but not on any panic basis. The President says the emergency is
over."1 Amendments also get extensive coverage in Detroit Free Press(3/23/74),
Cleveland Press(3/19/74). Rocky Mountain News (3/19/74), Portland Oregonian(3/23/74),
Eugene, Ore. Register-Guard(3/23 & 3/24/74), Corvallis Gazette-Times(3/23/74), Albany,
Ore. Democrat-HeraId(3/23/74).
MISSISSIPPI FOWLS OUT
Despite objections by Mississippi poultry producers and congressional delegation,
EPA refuses to permit marketing of 22 million chickens containing concentrations of
cancer-indueing pesticide dieldrin above 0.3 parts per million, orders gassing of 4
million fowl. Extensive coverage in N.Y. Times(3/28.26.25,24/74), Wall St. Journal(3/25/
74), Wash. Post(3/26/74), Wash. Star-News(3/27/74). L.A. Times(3/24/74), Boston Globe
(3/24/74), Cleveland Plain Dealer(3/24/74). Pittsburgh Press(3/27/74). Minneapolis
Tribune(3/25/74), Birmingham News(3/24/74). REACTION; Miss. Gov. Bill Waller charges
inadequate evidence to merit chicken killing(Wash. Star-News. 3/28/74) "DESPITE
WARNING AFTER WARNING," says Baltimore Sun(3/31/74). "we go on poisoning our food be-
cause it is cheaper to produce that way... This was only the latest development in a
long battle...between environmentalists on the one hand and the makers and users of
those persistent poisons called chlorinated hydrocarbons...on the other...The most ridi-
culous irony of all is that these chemical poisons are not even very good insecticides,
for insects grow immune to them. The beetles will still be here after we have poisoned
ourselves."
i
OFFSHORE DRILLING AN "ACCEPTABLE RISK" SAYS CEQ
In preliminary report, CEQ says drilling for oil, gas off Atlantic Coast, Gulf
of Alaska, poses "major environmental problems," but risks can be made "acceptable."
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS SUMMARY
CWall St. Journal. 4/2/74). Government official says report raises a "lot of big ifs
and provided thats." "Sources" say report notes there are varying degrees of environ-
mental risk in drilling and it "implies" that high-risk areas (off Long Island, S.C.,
Fla., Ga., eastern Gulf of Alaska) be left until improved technology lessened problems.
Story also gets extensive coverage in N,Y. Times(3/23/74), Wash. Post(4/1/74), Wash.
Star-News(3/22/74), Chicago Tribune(3/25/74), Boston Globe (4/1/74). Bergen County Record
(3/24/74), Charlotte, N.C. News & Observer(3/23/74). REACTION: Antidrilling Congressman
from Long Island, Rep. Norman Lent(R), was surprised by report's objectivity: "Frankly,
I had expected it would be a more favorable slant to offshore drilling. It takes aj
hard-line position and fully sets forth the dangers of drilling." Another antidrilling
spokesman: "I'm surprised...! expected the usual Washington bureaucratic gobbledygook
telling us how good drilling would be for us." News day (3/24/74) adds: "It draws no con-
clusions but seems to indicate that the council believes that the routine spillage and
dumping of fluids associated with day-torday drilling operations pose a more serious
threat than the possibility of accidental explosions or spills."
IN RELATED DEVELOPMENTS. "We have got to go to an oil-oriented policy rather .
than a money-oriented policy," says Interior Sec. Morton in Wash. Post(3/24/74), "be-
cause we are short of oil.. .To achieve a measure of independence in this decade you have
to consider those places that could pay off in the time-frame. The only place, really,
because of lead times and everything else, is the Outer Continental Shelf...My mission
over here, and this department's mission, is to really substantially increase the domes-
tic petroleum base. And I see the Outer Continental Shelf as the best place to do it."
"OILMEN, at...Nixon's urging, are sailing forth in ever growing numbers these days
to work claims in the Gulf of Mexico...So many rigs are out on the water that the gulf
in some places today looks like the staging area for a strangely shaped invasion force
...The stepped-up activity...is just the beginning of a whole new era in exploiting the
resources of the Outer Continental Shelf...And the impact—especially for the East Coast
—will confront Americans with a whole new set of difficult choices in their life-styles
and landscape."(Wash. Post, 3/24/74). Complains Barbara Heller of Environmental Policy
Center: "No one in the federal government knows what the national interest is in the
coastal zone because no attempt has been made to reconcile the multiple uses of the •
ocean environment with a view to the long-term productivity of the seas. If we are
really facing any kind of shortage, this argues in favor of caution in development!
rather than haste while we search for the most efficient ways to develop, transport,
refine, distribute, and utilize oil and other energy resources for the long term."
Post also points out that CEQ was not even consulted before Nixon's recent decision to
increase offshore leasing ten-fold.
CONSORTIUM WANTS CANADIAN PIPELINE BUILT
27 U.S., Canadian companies file applications with Federal Power Commission to
build $5.7 billion, 2,600-mile natural gas pipeline from Arctic Alaska and Canada to
lower 48 States(Oregonian, 3/22/74). Consortium faces opposition from El Paso Natural
Gas Co., which plans to file later this year to build pipeline from Alaska's north slope
to southern Alaskan port of Valdez (roughly paralleling oil pipeline)--then transporting
gas by ship to West Coast. Story also gets extensive coverage in Wall St. Journal
(3/22/74), Wash. Star-News(3/21/74). Detroit News(3/21/74). Miami HeraId(3/24/74). Salem
Ore. Statesman(3/22/74"). Oregon Journal(3/21/74). REACTION; In column strongly favor-
able to natural gas pipeline, Chicago Daily News(3/27/74) says, "Interior.. .working; with
the State Department and regulatory agencies, should choose the plan that will bring
natural gas most quickly to the areas of greatest" need. A target date of the late 1970s
should be the goal, for the increased flow of gas from the Arctic to the lower 48 states
by then could be important in determining whether this nation progresses in its drive
for energy independence from foreign sources."
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS SUMMARY
STRIP MINE BILL A NULLITY?
"Intensive lobbying by coal-mining and public-utility interests, with the help of
the Nixon Administration," says N.Y. Times(3/18/74), "is succeeding in weakening—
section-by-section—the strong Federal Strip-Mine Control Bill that these interests
narrowly failed to kill in its entirety last month"[see 3/8/74 News Summary]. Rep. Mink
(D-Hawaii), chm., interior Mining Subcommittee, says opponents have made the measure
"a complete nullity." STRIP MINE BILL will likely end in a compromise, says L.A.
Times(3/27/74). "And the danger is that strip-mined land will be poorly protected, if
protected at all. Strip mining has a major effect on the environment. It is estimated
that strip-mined land was abandoned last year at the rate of 1,000 acres a week. This
devastation cannot be permitted to continue. The cost of reclamation may be high; the
cost of continued neglect will be far higher. Unless our present profligate course is
changed, future generations will be deprived of their rightful heritage—an unspoiled
land."
SCIENTISTS WARN OF ENVIRONMENTAL CANCER PERIL
Citing recent liver cancer fatalities among workers exposed to vinyl chloride
as example, Drs. E. Cuyler Hammond and Irving Selikoff of American Cancer Society's
Environmental Cancer Research Project say we live in expanding sea of chemicals that may
cause human cancers(Cleveland Plain Dealer. 3/23/74). Noting World Health Organization
estimate that 85% of all cancer derived from environmental sources, they warn: "The air
we breathe contains gasses and particles that never before entered the human lung. Our
food has chemicals designed to improve its taste, freshness, appearance—but which are
strange to our intestines, livers, kidneys, blood. We touch, ingest, inhale, absorb an
ever-increasing number of synthetic materials and, in other circumstances, agents which
have existed on earth but were never part of the immediate human environment. Cancers
we are seeing now had their origin 15 to 35 years ago. And cancer agents being newly
introduced into our environment will not show their effect for decades. Prevention of
cancer in the year 2000 is the order of the day in 1974." Story also covered in Wash.
Star-News(3/23/74), N.Y. Times(3/23/74), Wash. Post(3/23/74), Miami Herald(3/23/74),
Honolulu Star-Bulletin(3/24/74).
ttC-Vdl
A9N1BV NOIiraiOlM 1V1N1NNOHIAN1
OIW Ii34 ONV
09KB -0-Q 'NOiONIHSVM
AON39V NO 110310 yd 1V1N3WNOHIAN3 'ST1
LOI -v suivjjv onaru do
------- |