Unfortunately, the atmosphere we’re now in prohibits objective scientists from coming forward. And why should they, when they would be crucified by the press, the E.P.A. and the environmentalists? . . . Our stance has been that lead from gasoline does not and has not caused health problems, and I have not seen any data that convinces me differently.
Our feeling was and still is that there is no scientific reason for not relaxing regulations. [Easing lead rules would] save billions of dollars in the balance of payments and also of million of barrels of crude oil a year.
Obviously, the Clean Air Act needs to be changed. The construction ban has no place in this country. It is an inherently unfair punishment of communities and does not clean the air.
In contrast to popularized reports, there is no persuasive evidence that low-level lead exposure is responsible for any intelligence defects.
Additional money spent on secondary cleanup standards is not going to make that much difference in air quality, but it will hurt the American steel industry….In short, if it did not have to meet environmental requirements, the steel industry would have the capital to increase its annual shipments from 92 million tons in 1981 to 105 million tons in 1990….The need to meet future environmental requirements will reduce this expansion to 96 million tons.
[Regulations in the Clean air Act] could effectively ban important new large-scale construction in the future.
We believe the way in which the law is currently administered conflicts with other important national goals -- the need to increase productivity levels, to create new jobs and to spur development of domestic energy sources.
The restrictions make us waste oil every time we make gasoline [thus forcing costs up].
[Removing lead from gasoline] threatens the jobs of the 14 million Americans directly dependent and the 29 million Americans indirectly dependent on the petrochemical industry for employment.
At its worst, the Clean Air Act speaks of the potential wholesale shutdown of industrial facilities should a state not be able to attain the standards by set dates -- 1982 and 1987. At its best, the act will require the imposition of new and expensive technology and will severely limit the location of new industry in major metropolitan areas.