other purposes." This Act, which has subsequently been amended, provides primarily for the control of smoke and other particulate matter discharged from fuel burning facilities. It is quite clear that this legislation is inadequate to prevent, abate or control the types of air pollution now encountered in our community. For example, two of the more deadly kinds of air pollution, carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide, are totally uncontrolled by present legal require

ments.

In 1966, the Department of Public Health employed a legal consultant to prepare a compilation of all Federal and District of Columbia laws and regulations relating to air pollution control and affecting Washington. It became apparent as this compilation was developed that the legal authority to prevent, abate or control air pollution is woefully antiquated and lacking in essential elements.

The Department of Public Health wishes to lend its general suport to the Bill under discussion here today. It will, in our opinion, substantially strengthen the program to prevent, abate or control air pollution in the District of Columbia. The declaration of policy sets forth the necessity for the program and defines the direction it is to take; we support this policy statement.

If air pollution control is to be successful in the District of Columbia, one agency must be responsible for carrying out the overall program. We therefore support the concept expressed in Section 4 of H.R. 6981. However, as currently stated, it would appear to imply the establishment of a new agency for air pollution control. We would point out that the Department of Public Health, through its already existing Air Pollution Division, already has been designated as the Air Pollution Control Agency to receive funds for the District of Columbia under the Clean Air Act of 1963; furthermore, the Department of Public Health is the coordinating agency for air pollution control activities among the several District of Columbia agencies having responsibility in this area. What is required, in our opinion, is that our Department, through its already existing Air Pollution Division, be given the authority it now lacks, namely, not just to coordinate the air pollution program but to be able to ensure that the program is properly implemented. At present, air pollution control activities are scattered throughout several departments in the District of Columbia, with no one agency having the responsibility of ensuring that the appropriate steps are taken to abate conditions leading to contamination of the atmosphere. We would therefore hope that Section 4 can be amended in order that the Department of Public Health can be given the authority to ensure that the air pollution control program can be effectively administered.

It also appears to us that the Bill would be more flexible if some of the specifics were deleted and the authority to promulgate and enforce such reasonable rules and regulations as they deem necessary was vested in the Commissioners. There are several reasons for this:

1. The technology of air pollution is rapidly changing; what may appear to be reasonable standards today may be outdated in a few short years. 2. Not all of the desirable improvements can be achieved over night; for example, several steps may be required to eliminate high sulphur fuels. We would therefore recommend that Sections 9 and 10 be deleted from the proposed Bill and that a new paragraph be added to Section 5 to achieve the purposes covered in the deleted portions. The paragraph might well read as follows:

"(a) The Commissioners are hereby authorized and empowered to promulgate and enforce all such reasonable rules and regulations as they may deem necessary to prevent and control air pollution in the District of Columbia, including but not limited to the authority to:

(1) Establish air quality and emission standards;

(2) Control air pollution caused by emission of vapors, gases, fumes and particulate matter;

(3) Regulate harmful or objectionable odors. dusts, pollens and similar air-borne contaminants;

(4) Restrict or control the use of any fuel containing one or more substances which upon combustion produces harmful air contaminants; (5) Control open fires;

(6) Control or prohibit the use of chemicals which may be used to conceal or mask emission of air contaminants;

(7) Provide for an alert system during periods of temperature inversion or photochemical smog; and

(8) Prescribe the actions necessary to avert excessive accumulation of air 'contaminants during periods of temperature inversion or photochemical smog."

If Sections 9 and 10 are deleted certain of the definitions in Section 3 would no longer be needed in the Bill. In addition, some slight change would be needed in Section 12. Lines 21 and 22 should be changed to reflect the fact that emission standards would be set by the Commissioners under authority of this Bill.

Subsection (c) of Section 11 might well prove to be impracticable as well as unenforceable. There is a national program designed to provide guidance in this area and the present District of Columbia laws relating to motor vehicles provide ample authority to control air pollution from these sources. We would recommend that this subsection be deleted from the proposed Bill.

No matters concerning public health are involved in Sections 13 through 20 and we are, therefore, not expressing any opinions on these sections. We note, however, that the Bill does not contain a Separability Clause.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the Department of Public Health strongly urges the adoption of air pollution control legislation. We support H.R. 6981 and hope that consideration will be given to the suggestions we have made, which, in our opinion, would add strength to the Bill as currently written.

Dr. GRANT. Generally, Mr. Chairman, some of its contents have already been described by Mr. Griswold in his testimony because our views were rather similar, I think. But I think in general what it says is we generally support the legislation under consideration today with certain modifications that we have outlined in this statement.

Basically, we feel it is very important for the District to have air pollution legislation because our present situation is such that while the Department of Public Health is the air pollution control agency in the District, it has only a coordinating role. In fact, it does not have the authority to really enforce adequate air-pollution methods.

We believe, therefore, that it is necessary for an agency to have the enforcement role and adequate legislative authority to back it up. The other point we would make, Mr. Chairman, relates to the question of detailed standards being included or excluded from the legislation. I believe that Congressman Gude feels that such standards are desirable. We feel that it would be preferrable for this to be embodied in authority given to the Commissioners because as I think Mr. Griswold himself testified technological changes are rapidly taking place and what may be good standards today may not be satisfactory tomorrow. Unless the Commissioners had the authority to change these it would be necessary every time we wanted to make a change to come to Congress for specific changes.

I think this summarizes what I have to say.

Mr. MULTER. Thank you, sir.

Do either of you gentlemen or any of you gentlemen want to make any comment on whether or not we need additional authority to enter into a compact with Maryland and Virginia on the subject?

Dr. GRANT. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the District already has such authority, although I believe it would have to come to Congress for definite authorization, for definitive authorization.

Mr. MULTER. The Corporation Counsel's office is represented here. Mr. GIMBLE. Yes, my name is Gilbert Gimble. I am Assistant Corporation Counsel. There is provision in the language submitted by the Commissioners, I presume included in your bill, which would give the Commissioner authority to advise and consult and cooperate with other governmental jurisdictions and inter-local agencies.

However, it might be well that specific consent be included in the bill authorizing the Commissioners to enter into compacts, on the other hand, the consent of Congress would be necessary for entry into an interstate compact. I am not certain as to whether Congress would desire to specifically approve the language of a compact that would be negotiated, but I think the Commissioners would have to have authority to negotiate such a compact.

Mr. MULTER. I think the existing law and the rules of the House require such compacts when they deal with various states, as this would necessarily deal either with Maryland or Virginia or both, probably both, would have to go to the Judiciary Committee, and the compact as agreed upon would then have to be approved by the Congress. I think while the authorization is there to enter into the compact, it carries the provision that it will be subject to approval of the Congress. You might check me out on that. If I am wrong you may submit something additional for the record.

Mr. GIMBLE. I am not absolutely sure. I know of one instance in which Congress has given the states and, I believe, the District of Columbia authority to enter into compacts with regard to traffic safety agreements and I don't believe those specific compacts are brought back to the Congress.

I am not sure how the machinery works with respect to the interstate compact governing regulations of transit which is in effect in this jurisdiction.

Congress may have specifically approved that compact.

Mr. MULTER. Am I right in assuming that even though S. 780 may finally be enacted into law, in substantially its present form as passed by the Senate, we would still need the specific authorization to the District of Columbia to set up an agency and perform the task that must be done to implement that statute?

Mr. GIMBLE. I believe that is true, Mr. Chairman. I believe that the enabling aspects of Mr. Gude's bill and the Commissioners' bill would be required. I believe it would be, although I am not absolutely certain as to all the provisions of the Senate bill.

I believe this bill would in effect complement the national bill and would give the Commissioners authority or their successors authority to develop air pollution control programs, which is the authority we feel that we do not have at this time.

Mr. MULTER. I would appreciate it if you would check that out and give us a supplemental statement on it and also if you would give specific attention to the fact of whether or not the Senate S. 780, why it does not refer to the District of Columbia, in many parts of the bill it is sufficiently broad to permit the District of Columbia to participate in the grants that are called for on the part of the Federal Government and the local governments.

Mr. GIMBLE. I am not certain at this time. I believe it does include the District.

There are programs that are now underway that have been underway for some years that we participate in.

Mr. MULTER. We know it refers to the District in many places, but we must be sure when it refers to grants to the States they are not excluding the District of Columbia. The District must be specifically mentioned in order to be able to receive the grants provided in that bill.

Mr. WINN. I would like to ask Dr. Grant if in his job as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Health, have you run into any individual studies that would show the percentages of air pollution damage to nose and throat, through nose and throat irritation? Dr. GRANT. No; we have not.

As a matter of fact, it is very difficult to do these kinds of studies. I think Mr. MacKenzie previously alluded to the fact that there have been people take a look at this all over this country and, as a matter of fact, in other countries. It is a very elusive kind of problem to tackle. While there has been evidence accumulated over a number of years of the adverse effects of air pollution on human bodies, particularly when that air pollution occurs in a sudden burst as it did, for example, in New York City, London, and Donora, Pennsylvania, it has been very difficult to prove conclusively air pollution in small doses over a long period of time, although there is a very substantial body of circumstantial evidence which has accumulated to show a very closelya very close relationship, it is well known in some cities that people who live very close to large manufacturing plants tend to have a higher mortality and morbidity rate from heart and respiratory diseases than those in other areas of the city. So this is the kind of circumstantial evidence that is available.

But to carry out the kind of definite studies which you are suggesting, certainly these are desirable but very difficult to do in order to prove conclusively a causal relationship.

Mr. WINN. Possibly you might be able to give us a little more information. I am a little surprised with as many people as there are in Washington and the District who talk about the constant air pollution to their nose and their throat and you hear about it, it is general conversation, that we don't seem to have any studies on this thing.

Dr. GRANT. The problem, Mr. Winn, and I think you can see this rather clearly, is how does one design a study, let's say, in Washington, that would prove clearly that an individual's nose problems or throat problems or cardiac problem is specifically referable to air pollution when it could be a whole host of other things. The difficulty is to design a really good study that would prove this point.

Mr. WINN. Do you think this advisable?

Dr. GRANT. I think if one could develop this kind of study it would be most advisable. But I am not sure that one can do it very easily.

Mr. WINN. Again I am no professional on this but it looks like if you are going to try to cut down, rather than just say the various types of air pollution that affect the human life and our daily lives, that you would want to find out which ones of these or which ones are prevalent here in the District and attack those first, which ones are affecting our daily lives.

Dr. GRANT. We do have some evidence on this. You are now talking about the kind of air pollutants that we have and what affect these have. We do have some evidence of this. We are studying carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide, which are two of the real important ones, and we do know the extent to which these exist in our atmosphere through the air monitoring station that Mr. Griswold referred to.

Mr. WINN. Mr. Griswold at one time made the statement, according to the press, that the amount of dirt in the District was the fourth highest in the country and then some additional reports later on put

out by the Public Health Service sort of watered that down. That is one of the types of air pollution that you are referring to?

Dr. GRANT. Yes, sir.

Mr. WINN. And this would be one of the types of air pollution that would come from the Kenilworth dump, with dirt in the air.

Dr. GRANT. Certainly this would be one of the important contributing factors.

Mr. WINN. So those people that live closer to the Kenilworth dump would be more affected by the pollution of dirt in the air than from possibly the gasoline fumes from cars and buses.

Dr. GRANT. There is another complicating factor. There is another large plant located in the same general vicinity that is also an important contributor to air pollution and that is the Pepco plant. That is not too far from the Kenilworth dump. Which one causes which kind of pollution is not too easy to determine.

Mr. WINN. This is again why I would think that the studies would dig into the types of air pollution that are affecting us. I think mainly, Mr. Chairman, we are first interested in what is affecting the daily lives of the people who live there, then animals and plants and on down the line.

Dr. GRANT. Yes, sir, I see what you are getting at and I think it would be possible to design a study where you would compare the morbid or mortality rates of people who live in that area with those who live in other areas of the city.

However, I really question whether the results would be conclusive. For a number of reasons. First, there is a migratory factor of approximately ten percent. We estimate people move within the District of Columbia, about ten percent of them in the District move. So you have difficulties in following these people and any study of this nature would have to be a long term study over many years. In addition, once again these people do travel moving outside of this area just not to live but for traveling purposes and, therefore, they are exposed to a number of other pollutants and it would be very difficult to prove that any condition that he had would be directly attributable to that.

Mr. WINN. I think you have a very good point. They would also be exposed in many cases to good, fresh air, too.

Dr. GRANT. Yes, sir.

Mr. GUDE. Dr. Grant, of course you are talking about long range cumulative effects of low-grade air pollution.

What about the possibility of an air pollution episode in the District?

Dr. GRANT. Yes, I think it is possible if you had the right type of temperature, wind conditions, and so on. I think it is possible we could have a large, strong episode such as has occurred in other cities and that it might prove harmful to people here. I think this is possible. We have had, as you know, occasions in the past when we have had a rather substantial amount of air pollution with very obvious irritation to the nose and throat. I think it is conceivable under certain kinds of conditions that we could have this kind of episode.

Mr. GUDE. If you get a sluggish air mass with an inverted layer and in a few days you get a build-up of the pollution which normally goes off in the area, then we could really be in trouble.