is that of "epidemic" mortality in the case of severely concentrated noxious fumes.

Fourth, the change of the temperature of the river water will promote additional bacteria growth. Other discharges into the river will have their rate of growth increased.

Fifth, safety problems, accidents and injuries will increase with the advent of industrialization.

Senator NELSON. Thank you very much.
Senator Metcalf, any questions?

Senator METCALF. No questions.

(There follows complete text of statement of Dr. Fox :)

STATEMENT OF JAMES ROGERS FOX, M.D.

The impact of the erection of a powerplant of the magnitude proposed by Northern States Power in any community must be considered medically in two areas. The first is that of emotional reaction of the community, the second is that of the physical effects on the community. This is particularly true in the St. Croix River Valley proposal, as it relates to the mental health of those in the community. To have a handful of people change the entire way of life of a given area without the consideration of their desires or needs invariably results in an emotional response varying from simple anger to extreme anxiety and even depression. It is quite evident that there has been an emotional response by reason of the fact that this committee is meeting and by reason of the fact that such concerted effort to obtain facts for presentation to the community has been undertaken not by just a few but by hundreds of people in the St. Croix Valley. Medically speaking, it is not desirable to have a community emotionally disturbed. Therefore, as is the case in health education, all the facts must be known and understood by the persons involved in order for them to arrive at a stable reaction of reason and adjustment. In a sentence. since the proposed powerplant will infiuence the life and living habits and the mental health of thousands of people from Prescott to Riverside, the ideal medical recommendation is that each be given the opportunity to agree or to disagree with the proposal, for mental health is as important as physical health.

The physical effects resulting from the construction of a powerplant of the size proposed by Northern States Power is more tangible and more readily understood. To background your evaluation of my next points of testimony, you have been supplied copies of (1) "The Power Industry and Air Pollution," as presented in November 1962 by HEW. (2) "The Summary of an International Conference on the Medical Aspects of Air Pollution" held in Vienna, August 1960, (3) "A Summary of Conference in Emphysema," stressing "Air Pollution and Chronic Pulmonary Insufficiency," presented in Aspen and published in The American Review of Respiratory Diseases in 1961, (4) an article on "Air Pollution and Respiratory Disease" as published in the Annals of Allergy, in 1963 and most importantly (5) a "Physician's Guide to Air Pollution" as published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. These represent a bibliography of well over 150 other publications. Thus, the first physical effect of a powerplant of the type proposed is that of air pollution. You will note that in a number of the studies and opinions expressed, metropolitan areas are cited as being dangerous. This is only the fact that there are more people available for the contamination to affect and, in general, metropolitan areas have the older age group in higher numbers. It does not matter where the plant is located for, if it is contaminating the air, as the population grows, the problem is compounded. Thus, the same precautions are necessary in considering the dangers of air pollution no matter where the location may be metropolitan, suburban, or rural.

To best understand the medical effect of air pollution, it is well to know the mechanics of the respiratory system. We all, of course, realize the effect of an irritant in the air which causes the eyes to burn. This same type of sensitivity reaction can occur in the linings of the nose and of the sinuses. The sinuses are air spaces in the bony portion of our skull, which spaces are lined in a manner similar to that of the nose. This lining secretes the same type of material as does the nasal passage. Thus, irritation of this lining can result in symptoms referable to the nose and sinuses. The same situation prevails in the throat, however there

is a different reaction in the pulmonary tree. Actually, this term, "pulmonary tree," is a good one, because it describes the fact that your lungs and your tubes are much like an inverted tree with the trunk in the throat. The trunk is the trachea. From it arise major branches which become smaller branches. These are known as bronchi and bronchioles. Finally, the leaves of the tree are numerous as are the little air sacs that exist in the lungs. The tubes have a series of little fine hair-like organs, known as cilia. These act to sweep the secretions, that occur within the lung, upward along with the foreign air pollution particles. When there is considerable activity, a cough develops to help clear what has been swept along. Anything that interferes with the action of the cilia, or that will result in increase secretions of mucus, will result in ultimate damage of a permanent nature to the lungs. This may be known as chronic bronchitis, or it may be emphysema.

The principal air pollutants, that one considers from power generating stations, include smoke, fly ash, hydrocarbons and gaseous oxides of nitrogen and sulfur. Merely because of esthetic objections, smoke and fly ash emissions have received considerable attention in the past several years, primarily as a result of interference with visibility, soiling and corrosion of structures, metals, fabrics, and other materials. Those that are of concern to the medical profession are particularly related to (1) the fine particles because of the chance of retention in the lung resulting in chronic disease, (2) hydrocarbon substances which have been demonstrated definitely to be cancer causing irritants, (3) the gaseous oxides of nitrogen and sulfur. In themselves there is danger, but even more completely is the fact that there is the ability, in some instances, of an increase in the rate of oxidation to result in the trioxides. I believe Mr. Humphries mentioned the trioxides. The effect of all these various noxious agents upon the community is dependent upon a number of factors, including the fuel that is used, the protection of the effluent byproducts, the physical location of the community (good versus bad air circulation) the usual humidity of the community and the protective measures established by the local health officer. Larger particles of dust, particularly in concentrated amounts, can result in local skin irritation, upper local upper respiratory secretions and irritations, but most importantly, in lung irritation. The result of this latter generally comes only after chronic exposure.

The hydrocarbons have been shown to be cancer causing in nature. In areas of heavy concentration of hydrocarbons, the incidence of cancer of the lung is greater. The oxides of nitrogen are definitely dangerous, but fortunately are very seldom in sufficiently high concentration to be significant. The oxides of sulfur, however, can result in acute respiratory problems, as well as chronic reaction. These will cut the ability of the little hairlike cilia to function and will increase the amount of mucus formation. With this combined abnormal functioning, the ability to exchange air is lessened, the promotion of a chronic cough is increased and although mortality is not great, morbidity is. Thus, it becomes just as evident that the control of air pollution is important to the health and the life of these United States, as was the need for proper water supply and sewage disposal back at the turn of the century. Let us hope that instead of a drive for clean water, as currently is promoted by the Government, a drive for clean air before it becomes dirty can be effected.

One other health matter to be considered, as it relates to the actual physical plant for power, is that of the water to be used by the plant. Obviously, the intake of water has no effect, so we are not concerned about the effluent flow. There is no contamination of the water in advance of the effluent flow, but there is a change in the oxygen content. Most importantly, the water to be returned to the river will be hot water. Since I am not an expert in conservation, I am not qualified to point out what change in balance of the fish, the mammals and the flora will be, but I am qualified to state that hot water promotes the growth of organisms and of plants. Certainly no one could state that the St. Croix River will be overwhelmingly contaminated as a result of the hot water, so that bacteria and fungi just sweep through the entire river. It is true, however, that there will be a change and a promotion of the growth of bacteria and of fungi and algae, also it is possible that with contaminants and hot water combining a local problem could arise.

The last factor that enters into the medical profession's evaluation is that of safety. Since I have been asked to cover all of the causes and influences of this proposal upon the health of the community, it may be pointed out that the medical profession prefers to prevent accidents and illness, rather than to treat what has occurred. Since far and away the greatest proportion of deaths in

children are accidential and since the number of deaths on the highways are about the same as the number of deaths from cancer, it is well to realize that any increase in potential can result in an increased number of injuries and deaths. Therefore, with industrialization as a part of the influence of a powerplant in the St. Croix River Valley, necessarily there will arise further problems of safety and safety control, including river traffic, which is not well patrolled and even now, railroad traffic, construction, etc.

SUMMARY

(1) The effects of a powerplant upon a community are dependent upon the size of the plant, the type of fuel that is being used and the protective measures instituted.

(2) The effects include those of mental reaction and those of physical reaction. Mental reaction is one which has no mortality attendent to it, but does have a good deal of morbidity.

(3) The morbidity of the physical reaction varies from simple irritation of the skin, the mucous membranes and the lung tissues, whereas the mortality is related to chronic irritation of the lung tissues, resulting in respiratory collapse, or heart failure. One other is that of "epidemic" mortality in the case of severely concentrated noxious fumes.

(4) The change of the temperature of the river water will promote additional bacteria growth. Other discharges into the river will have their rate of growth increased.

(5) Safety problems, accidents and injuries will increase with the advent of industrialization.

Senator NELSON. I notice we have of record here six additional witnesses. We started at 9:30. The allocated time was 3 hours. We will continue to 12:30. We will come back at 1:30 for whatever rebuttal either side may wish to make. I would suggest, therefore, that those who have prepared text to summarize their remarks. The text of all statements will be put into the record. So if it is possible for those of you who are going to testify from now on to give a little thought to summarizing your testimony before you get up here, it would expedite the hearings and make it possible to conclude them within the 3-hour period. The committee staff and the rest of us do have a plane to catch out of Minneapolis at 6 o'clock.

Who is the next witness?

Mr. THUET. The next witness will be Mr. Robert Burns, who is an attorney in St. Paul. He will discuss the areas of possible future resolution relative to pollution.

May I ask as to procedure this afternoon before calling Mr. Burns! Will each proponent and opponent be given some time for summation, 10 or 15 minutes after rebuttal perhaps?

Senator NELSON. Anyway you wish to use it. The rebuttal time can be used for summation if you wish.

Mr. THUET. The reason I ask, I am on here, I would just as soon include it at the end.

Senator NELSON. That is perfectly all right. The reason for having an adversary proceeding is to afford an opportunity for each side to make a response, if they desire, to any points made by the other side. As a matter of fact, if you aren't prepared to make a response now we will accept your response in writing prior to the 18th of December at which time the record will be closed. So if you would rather prepare some remarks and send them to the committee instead of giving them "off the cuff" at a rebuttal session, then the committee will accept them and they will be part of the record. Mr. THUET. Thank you.

Mr. Burns.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT W. BURNS, ST. PAUL, MINN., ATTORNEY

Mr. BURNS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, what I have here is the legal report, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee. What I am giving is the legal report of the "Save the St. Croix, Inc.," and it is divided into two parts. This is shown in the testimony that is already filed with the committee.

The first part is related to some suggested changes in the Federal Air and Water Pollution Control Acts, while the second part explores some possible areas of Federal legislation that are not specifically covered by the two Federal acts.

As to the Federal Air and Water Pollution Control Acts, when the specification data of the proposed NSP plant on the St. Croix River was first examined, it appeared that a problem of interstate air pollution might exist. At the same time we wondered if the provisions of the Federal Air Pollution Control Act, which as you know is sometimes called the Clean Air Act, might also apply. Specifically, we wondered if section 5 would apply. Section 5, as you know, states that pollution of air in any State which endangers health shall be subject to abatement proceedings. As you know, this is an administrative proceeding in the office of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, and consists of a series of hearings designed to stop or abate in one way or another air or water pollution. After a study of the act, it was rather doubtful that abatement would apply to situations where it appeared from a set of proposed plant specifications, or that there would be future or anticipatory air pollution. The abatement seems to apply in actual pollution. In other words, the plant would be in operation. The facilities would be working before there would be any possibility of this administrative proceeding to take jurisdiction over the matter.

Accordingly, we wanted to check this, so we wrote the General Counsel of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in Washington. We asked them specifically if section 5, the abatement section, would apply in a case of anticipatory air pollution. Their answer was in the negative, stating that in their opinion section 5 did not authorize abatement proceedings on the basis of expected or future air pollution. Copies of their correspondence are attached on record with the statement of this committee.

Senator NELSON. I might say at this point in testimony yesterday, President Ewald of the Northern States Power stated that he thought also that so far as water pollution was concerned it would be beneficial to have quality standards established in advance rather than after the fact. And you are testifying as to a point that is of particular interest to this subcommittee, because this is one of the precise questions we considered in the last session of Congress, and I anticipate we will consider in the next session of Congress.

Mr. BURNS. Thank you.

As the record shows, the counsel of the Department felt that they could not take jurisdiction in this matter on the basis of the present

statute.

Senator NELSON. I might say, so nobody is misled, President Ewald's testimony was as to water pollution and not the air pollution. Mr. BURNS. I am also going into air pollution in a moment.

I think the basic reasons for any relief in future air pollution situations, such as in the present controversy, represents a weakness. There is no redress available until after actual pollution has started, by which time it is often too late for an appropriate remedy. Also, the Air Pollution Control Act is often the only statutory remedy available in questions of interstate pollution. For example, if there is a complete absence of any interstate agreements such as a contract arrangement of some kind between two adjoining States, there is no interstate forum or hearing to be heard except through that of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. It is, therefore, doubly important that the Federal statutes offer an appropriate remedy for all types of situations. To remedy the problem of future air, it is suggested that the abatement section of the Air Pollution Control Act be changed to include a provision for abatements in situations where there is a reasonable expectancy that future pollution will occur from a proposed plant or industrial facility.

We drafted the following merely as a guide for the committee in suggesting the inclusion of anticipatory air pollution into the Clean Air or Federal Air Pollution Control Act. That amendment is on the record. I don't think I will bother to read all of it here. The first section is already there. It states that pollution in the air of any State which endangers the health or welfare of any persons shall be subject to abatement. We propose the following sentence be added to cover future anticipatory air pollution. It might read as follows:

Pollution of interstate or navigable waters shall include anticipatory pollution, if such anticipatory pollution reasonably appears from the plans, specifications, prototypes, or models of proposed industrial plants and facilities, buildings, and structures, that after completion and operation of such proposed industrial plants and facilities, buildings, and structures, pollution of waters will result which endangers the health of any persons.

That is a possible suggestion for the Air Pollution Control Act. Now, the same problem applies to the Water Pollution Act. They had exactly the same-almost substantially the same, anyway-provision for abatement, and we propose that a change also be made to that act. I will not take the time to read it. The language is almost identical to the one I just read, except it applies to water pollution. In other words, we have the abatement section which is an administrative proceeding to modify or halt air or water pollution, and we ask that this be revised somewhat so that future or anticipatory water and air pollution will be included in the abatement proceedings. That is the object of the two recommended changes that we have submitted.

Now, there is another possible change in the Federal statutes regarding the Water Pollution Control Act, which I will touch on very briefly. As you probably know, in both acts, as a matter of fact, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare has the power to conduct research investigations and surveys. This is found in the Clean Air Act in section 3(a) (3). Now, section 3(a)(3) also provides that the Secretary alone, with the request of State, can come in and undertake investigation, research, and surveys if the Secretary believes that an air pollution problem exists in a State other than the State in which the source of pollution exists. In other words, the Secretary can act alone without the request of a local or State government, insofar as research is concerned, where air pollution drifts across a line. The whole purpose of this is to bring in the authority of the Public Health Depart