In brief, H. R. 6981 would establish regulations for the prevention and control of air pollution from fuel-burning installations, open burning and incineration of refuse, and other manufacturing and processing activities. The bill would also require the Commissioners of the District of Columbia to establish an Air Pollution Control Agency and, through this agency, to perform various functions relating to the evaluation of air pollution problems in the District of Columbia, the development of plans for dealing with such problems, and enforcement of the regulations contained in the bill.

We are strongly in favor of Congressional action to provide effective legislation for the prevention and control of air pollution in the District of Columbia. In our view, however, such action will be most effective, in the long run, if it leads to the adoption of enabling legislation, under which an agency of the District of Columbia government would be authorized or directed to establish and enforce appropriate regulations for the prevention and control of air pollution. There are several reasons why enabling legislation would be the most satisfactory basis for an air pollution control program in the District of Columbia. For one thing, scientific understanding of the problem of air pollution and its effects on public health and welfare is constantly improving, and, at the same time, as Congressman Gude mentioned, technology for the prevention and control of air pollution is constantly being modified and improved. This means that new problems are frequently encountered and that new opportunities for effective control action are being found. To deal with such problems and to take full advantage of such opportunities, the District of Columbia must be in a position to alter its regulations without necessarily seeking the adoption of new legislation, which would apparently be required under H.R. 6981.

May I add here we did not have, Mr. Chairman, a chance to fully evaluate Mr. Gude's suggested amendments prior to the preparation of our presentation.

Mr. MULTER. We will appreciate it if at your leisure you will examine them more closely and give us a supplemental statement with reference to them and also at the same time examine the Commissioners' bill which was introduced yesterday.

Mr. GRISWOLD. I would be glad to, Mr. Chairman.

We recognize that the provisions of this bill are taken from a model ordinance prepared by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments with technical assistance from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Those provisions of the model ordinance containing detailed standards for the prevention and control of air pollution reflect technical judgments made on the basis of data available at the time the ordinance was being prepared; however, our current investigation of air pollution in the Washington area may well indicate that the regulations needed to deal with the problems are different from those contained in the model ordinance. We recommend, then, that those sections of the bill containing standards and regulations for the control of various types of air pollutants be eliminated, and that, in their place, language be inserted which would authorize the adoption of appropriate standards and regulations by the District of Columbia government.

If the Committee wishes to place greater emphasis on the adoption

82-615-67-3

of regulations than it could by merely providing discretionary authority for such action, you may wish to consider a provision which would explicitly direct the responsible agency to develop and adopt adequate regulations to achieve desirable air quality within a specified time period.

In many important respects, H.R. 6981 would provide opportunities for improvement in the District of Columbia's efforts to deal with problems of air pollution. The bill would apparently vest all responsibility for air pollution prevention and control activities in a single agency. We support such a step, for we believe that the current division of responsibility for control activities is a serious obstacle to real progress in the fight against air pollution in the District. We therefore urge that this single-agency concept be retained, regardless of whether authority is vested in the Commissioners or in an existing

agency.

With slight modification, H.R. 6981 could provide opportunities for progress on another front-progress toward the development of a regional attack on air pollution in the Washington area. This area's air pollution problems are regional problems, in very large measure. Many people who live in the area tend to think that Washington is the source of all, or nearly all, of the area's air pollution. This is a myth that serves mainly to obscure the need for a coordinated regional effort to deal with the problem. There are numerous air pollution sources in all parts of the Washington metropolitan area, and their impact is felt throughout the area. This area clearly shares a common air supply and a common air pollution problem. The District of Columbia should, of course, be in a position to participate fully in any regional air pollution control effort that may be undertaken in the months and years ahead. We suggest then, that H.R. 6981 be modified to give the District government explicit authority to negotiate with other State and local governments in the Washington area concerning interstate air pollution and its control. Congress would still have the opportunity to approve any compacts or agreements that might. be produced.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, we believe that new legislation to deal with air pollution in the District of Columbia is urgently needed. In our view, such legislation should provide broad authority for the 'adoption of appropriate standards and regulations and should permit the District to play an effective role in the development of regional control action.

Mr. Chairman, the Assistant Surgeon General, Vernon MacKenzie, was able to come to the hearing today and he played a very active role in the development of the Federal Control Program and he might be interested in saving something.

Mr. MULTER. Will you come forward, sir?

Is there something you would like to add? We would be very happy to hear from you.

Mr. MACKENZIE. Mr. Chairman, I don't believe I have any added comments at this particular time. I would be glad to participate in answering any questions if I can be of benefit in this way.

Mr. MULTER. Will you identify yourself for the record, Mr. MacKenzie.

Mr. MACKENZIE. Vernon MacKenzie, Assistant Surgeon General, Public Health Service, Deputy Director of the Bureau of Disease Prevention and Environmental Controls of the Public Health Service. in HEW.

Mr. MULTER. We are very happy to have you with us. It was my impression, as I indicated earlier, that there is sufficient legislation on the books now to authorize the District to enter into a compact with Maryland and Virginia subject, of course, to approval by the Congress if the compact is finally negotiated. If I am wrong on that I think we will have to do a little research on that. If I am wrong I think that is certainly one of the things that we can add to the bill.

Mr. WINN. Mr. MacKenzie, are you a doctor?

Mr. MACKENZIE. No, sir, I am an engineer.

Mr. WINN. This shoots that one question. I wondered if you had any studies. We are all aware of the nose and throat irritations that most of us probably experience from air pollution.

I wondered if they have had any medical studies that would show us or prove to us that the District has a higher percentage of these nose and throat irritations than comparable cities of its size.

Mr. MACKENZIE. I don't believe, Mr. Winn, that such data are readily available for comparative purposes specifically tied in to air pollution exposures in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. There is a broad mass, however, of scientific information concerning laboratory studies and other studies in various parts of the world which relate to air pollution exposures to various physiologic changes and morbid conditions and even deaths under certain acute conditions.

Mr. WINN. Do you know of any deaths that have actually occurred, directly or indirectly, from air pollution in the District?

Mr. MACKENZIE. No studies have been made on this subject in the District of Columbia, to my knowledge. I am sure you are familiar with some acute episodes that have occurred in other cities, perhaps most notably in London and New York City which have been reported from time to time and have occurred over approximately the last two decades.

Mr. WINN. When we first got here in January and February there were a series of articles in the paper. I think it might possibly have been after Congressman Gude entered his bill. But there were conflicting reports in the press about the rating of the District of Columbia as far as where we stood as far as air pollution is concerned compared to other cities. As I remember, and it is little fuzzy right now, I think at one time somebody said we were the fourth worst city and it came later twenty-second.

Do we have studies along this line?

Here is one that says eighteenth.

I believe that is the third different number. I haven't read this. Mr. MACKENZIE. We have information concerning the actual concentrations of a number of specific air pollutants in the District of Columbia and a large number of other cities throughout the United States.

The air pollution problem in one city is not strictly comparable in quality and in quantity with others because of the variability of traffic density from automobiles, the variability of fuels which are used for space hearings, and of course variabilities in the types of

industry that may be contributing to the pollution problem and the variations in waste disposal practices.

Consequently, if one looks at the District of Columbia and compares it with other places in any one of these factor you will get one type of rating and if you compare it on another type of factor you will get something different.

The traffic density, for example, in the District of Columbia is among the highest in the United States. The density of industry development here and consequently the concentration that you could measure in the open atmosphere of certain types of pollutants derived from heavy industry would indicate the District of Columbia in this regard would be rated relatively low as compared to the others.

One can set up a more complex type of rating in which a variety of such factors may be taken into account. All of this is relatively arbitrary and I think can only be used as an indication and a factor on which judgments can be exercised.

I think in summary there should be no question, however, that the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area does have an air pollution problem which needs attention.

Mr. WINN. Has there been a public relations effort or educational type of effort to make people aware of this? How has that been done in the District?

I probably should know this but I don't.

Mr. MACKENZIE. I am not acquainted with the degree of the public information activity which has been carried on by the District of Columbia Government. I am sure that there are witnesses here today from which this information can be enlicited.

On the nationl level we have made a broad effort and have carried on a considerable activity in dissemination of information, both of a technical character and appropriate to general public information and education on this subject.

Mr. MULTER. Do you think this has had some effect of not only making people aware of the problem, but has it shown any results?

Mr. MACKENZIE. I think in my view it has been helpful in educating the public as to what the actual facts are and what can be done about the problem. Consequently, I think it has been helpful.

Mr. WINN. Thank you very much.

Mr. GUDE. Mr. Griswold, on Page 7, at the end of the second paragraph, you said, "We therefore urge that this single-agency concept be retained, regardless of whether authority is vested in the Commissioners or in an existing agency."

What do you think would be best for the District to establish? Where should the policy making authority as far as the standards, reside?

Mr. GRISWOLD. Well, I wouldn't have an opinion, Congressman Gude, as to whether the policy making levels would be with the District Committee or with the District of Columbia Commissioners.

However, in commenting on this and talking of the regional concepts I think there should be one general over-all policy for the Greater Washington metropolitan area involving the District of Columbia, Virginia, and Maryland. Reasonably the citizens of the District and the citizens of the two states involved deserve the same quality of atmosphere and reasonably in acquiring that acceptable air

quality, reasonably the same type of degree of recognition of those indentical sources would have to take place in the entire area. Whether those were enforced in the District by the District of Columbia in the various portions of Virginia and Maryland by the local government agencies provided they carry on this acceptably would be a matter for determination.

For instance, your county, Montgomery County, having the an agency to carry out enforcement in that area provided they enforce it to the same degree that enforcement was carried on in Virginia of the same regulation. I think it is completely unreansonable for Washington, D.C., the District of Columbia, to have one set of regulations, very stringent regulations, and then have the part of the metropolitan district in Maryland and Virginia to have some other regulations.

Mr. MACKENZIE. I wonder if I might supplement Mr. Griswold's comments on your question.

I think the thrust of our testimony has been toward the desirability of having the regulatory authority or the enforcement of the rules resident in a single agency within the District of Columbia rather than scattered in separate agencies as is the present case.

Now, specifically with regard to the rule-making authority, in most local government jurisdictions with which I am familiar, the rulemaking is retained by either the elected body or in the case of the District of Columbia, this would be presumably the new Commissioner and the Council; whereas the ordinary day-to-day business of enforcing the rules which are adopted is carried out through a single agency designated for this purpose.

Mr. GUDE. We are agreed. I think the Council of Governments approach is to get uniform standards over the metropolitan area. What I was trying to say in my proposal is, that we set the standards. I think we showed the intent of Congress here and I think the Council of the District of Columbia would be the policy-making body eventually as far as standards go.

But there have been proposals that a separate agency be set up. Some people have said let's vest this authority to control air pollution in a body and at that time it was independent of the District Commis

sioners.

In other words, the Commissioners would appoint them but they would draw up the rules and regulations.

Now what I am asking is your preference, would you rather see the Council of the District of Columbia draw up the levels, or a body appointed by the Commissioner of the District, which would not have any relationship with the Council?

Mr. MACKENZIE. Actually we have seen this operating in both of the manners which you have described. And I think that so far as the effectiveness of the air pollution control activity is concerned that this can be accomplished in either way.

From a personal standpoint I believe, however, that the ultimate authority ought to rest in the elected officials and in this case in the absence of elected officials in the District of Columbia I think this would correspond to the proposed Commissioner and Council.

Mr. GUDE. If the Council is drawing up other rules and regulations to govern the District of Columbia that involve building codes, building regulations, and matters of this kind, would it not be better if they