« ForrigeFortsett »
Dr. GRANT. Yes, sir.
Mr. GUDE. In regard to the standards that are set forth in the COG model ordinance, you think these would be an improvement over what you currently have?
Dr. GRANT. Yes, sir, I think there is no question, Mr. Gude, we all agree these would be an improvement. I think the questions here relate to two points.
One, whether they are all immediately enforceable or enforceable within the time limit specified in the provisions of the bill as you rendered it; and, secondly, as I have indicated, whether it would be wise to specify specific regulations in light of the rather changing technology in this field which seems to me would render it more desirable to give the Commissioners the authority to enact these kinds of technical kinds of requirements plus amendments that might be required that would not necessitate us having to come back to Congress every time we wanted to make a change.
Mr. GUDE. Right now, from what we know today, would you see any major revisions in these standards that are essential to clean up the air?
Dr. GRANT. I think that I would have to refer that question, Mr. Gude, to some of our technical experts-Mr. John V. Brink, who is Chief of our Bureau of Public Health engineering.
Mr. BRINK. No, I think as a whole actually, Congressman, we in the District work very hard-have worked very hard on this model ordinance in Committees. We are a member of the Council of Governments and we think it is a good ordinance with maybe some revision in it so we could use it.
Mr. GUDE. Don't you feel that there is no doubt that the technology is going to change and if we said we are going to have a revision next January, then the January following we can always have more revisions because science is advancing. But isn't this a way to avoid getting down and actually getting started on what we know today and drawing standards and trying to work toward a solution ? Do
you think this one-year exemption which can be extended serves notice on everyone else, industry and everyone else, you have to clean up.
Mr. BRINK. I think that is a valuable feature. The only question here would be is it desirable to have an exemption which you know is going to be extended and maybe extended indefinitely. But it is a desirable feature, certainly better than not having any.
Mr. GUDE. It is better to spell out in the law what is the proper standard, rather than avoiding standards, if you don't provide for some type of exemption.
Mr. WINN. I would like to ask Colonel Henson a question.
For quite a while I have heard there is an equipment shortage of certain types of pollution control machines.
Are you aware of this?
Have you run into this or had any industry say they cannot secure the equipment needed to control their own problems?
Commissioner Henson. Sir, I have no firsthand knowledge on this particular question. Possibly some of the other people in the District Government here may be able to answer that.
Mr. Winn. I would like to ask any of the engineers or District people if this is true, and if it isn't, we ought to throw this line out.
Mr. BRINK. Insofar as our District problems are concerned we could say no, in most instances, but for incinerators this is not an area where we can say it is not a question of equipment shortage. We are not sure what the right equipment is that can handle a problem from an incinerator. There are gases that come off when you burn insecticides and paints and there are some unsolved technical problems.
Mr. WINN. Several people have told me that some of the types of equipment have really not been proven and still the authorities are urging industry and people to meet these requirements and they don't have the equipment. I also understood there was a shortage.
Possibly it might fall the same way so that they can't meet the requirements if we would legislate that way, whether it would be in the District or in the nation. This would be probably one reason, Congressman Gude, that they would have an extension on certain types of incinerators.
Mr. GUDE. Unless we have standards and ideals to work for us I don't think business and the government know what they are trying to achieve. I think that is why these have to be drawn.
Dr. GRANT. I think If I might add, I completely agree with Mr. Gude that we would have to have standards. I think that the standards that are included here, Mr. Gude, we could live with reasonably well at the present time in general. I think the only question is whether these standards should be included in this specific legislation or whether the Commissioners should have the authority to enact them under regulatory authority because of the problem of having to come back regularly to get changes made. I think this is really the heart of the question.
Mr. MULTER. Í think Mr. Gude covered that when he provided for exemptions and judicial review. I think we may have to broaden those provisions to make sure we don't work an undue hardship on people or force them to use things that have not been proven.
Mr. WINN. There have been insinuations throughout the nation, in the press and trade journals that industry does not want to cooperate. I am sure there are certain people in industry who don't want to spend a tremendous amount of money for this equipment if they don't know or their engineers are not convinced that this piece of equipment has been proven. They don't want to spend two or $300,000 and I understand they are a tremendously expensive piece of equipment that is involved in air pollution, and I think industry may be the whipping boy here when in some cases they are earnestly trying to do the job.
Mr. MULTER. We will have to give close attention to those things. There are some interesting witnesses listed and I hope they will touch on those subjects.
Mr. GUDE. Dr. Grant, one more question.
As you know, I am proposing an amendment whereby the authority to establish the regulations or modify them would be turned over to the government by 1969, thus giving them the opportunity to then move ahead and modify as they see fit.
What would you think about this procedure ?
Congress does have a very real responsibility in that the Federal establishments are creating some of these problems.
Dr. Grant. I think, Mr. Gude, that that is a very reasonable com promise. As I understand what you are suggesting here, it would give
the District immediate standards that they could work with and these could be changed by Council action effective in 1969. I think this is a realistic kind of compromse.
Mr. MULTER. I think what you say, Dr. Grant, about the changing of technology in the scientific approach is best emphasized by the fact that on July 19, 1967, President Johnson found it necessary to issue his proclamation 3794 with reference to petroleum and petroleum products and that modified a prior proclamation on the same subject. Obviously air pollution from burning fuel oil was one of the many problems.
Mr. GUDE. I might point out that the enactment of the legislation which I produced here would provide under this Presidential order that the Federal establishment in the District would have to conform to certain standards on sulfur in their fuel.
Mr. MULTER. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
(Subsequently, the following letter was received from the Commissioners for the record.) GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
Washington, August 21, 1967. Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. MCMILLAN : In the course of hearings held by Subcommittee No. 2 on H.R. 6981, relating to air pollution in the District of Columbia, certain information was requested of the Assistant Corporation Counsel who accompanied the witnesses representing the District of Columbia government. This letter is in response to the questions raised at that time.
AUTHORIZATION OF INTERSTATE COMPACT ON AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
The Congress has expressly authorized the District of Columbia to negotiate and enter into interstate compacts with respect to air pollution control. This authorization is contained in section 102 (c) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857a (c)), which provides as follows:
"The consent of Congress is hereby given to two or more States to negotiate and enter into agreements or compacts, not in conflict with any law or treaty of the United States, for (1) cooperative effort and mutual assistance for the prevention and control of air pollution and the enforcement of their respective laws relating thereto, and (2) the establishment of such agencies, joint or otherwise, as they may deem desirable for making effective such agreements or compacts. No such agreement or compact shall be binding or obligatory upon any State a party thereto unless and until it has been ap
proved by the Congress.” The definition of the term “State" as used in the Clean Air Act includes the District of Columbia (42 U.S.C. 1857h (e)). Thus the District of Columbia may negotiate and enter into interstate compacts respecting air pollution control and abatement, subject to the approval of Congress in the terms of the compact.
STATUS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNDER THE AIR QUALITY ACT OF 1967 (s. 780)
Now pend the House of Representatives the Senate-passed bill known as the Air Quality Act of 1967 (S. 780). The question was raised as to whether the District of Columbia would be eligible to receive grants under the Senatepassed bill. S. 780 would amend the Clean Air Act, which, as noted above, includes the District of Columbia within the meaning of the term "Štate”. New grant programs contemplated under S. 780 would provide funds for air pollution planning and control programs administered by state air pollution control agencies. The District of Columbia Department of Public Health has been designated by the Board of Commissioners, for purposes of the Clean Air Act, as the official agency for air pollution control, and grants have been made to the District of Columbia under existing programs. The District of Columbia could also be eligible for new grants under the programs to be established should s. 780 be enacted.
S. 780 also provides for a national program to enhance the quality of air resources. The proposed new section 107 of the Clean Air Act (contained in section 2 of S. 780) would require the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to define atmospheric areas of the Nation on the basis of those conditions which affect the interchange and diffusion of pollutants in the atmosphere, designate air quality control regions, and develop criteria for air quality for such regions. The bill provides for a method by which the States may establish air quality standards based upon the criteria proposed by the Secretary.
Those provisions contained in H.R. 6981 granting the Board of Commissioners enabling authority to control, prevent, and abate air pollution would complement the provisions of S. 780 authorizing the local adoption and enforcement of air quality standards. However, the detailed provisions establishing standards that are contained in H.R. 6981 would impose a statutory requirement which, as the bill is now written, could not be changed either by local or Federal officials. Such inflexible statutory requirements could frustrate attempts by the District of Columbia to develop air quality standards.
Congressman Gude, the sponsor of H.R. 6981, may have foreseen this problem when he proposed to the subcommittee that his bill be amended to empower the Board of Commissioners (or its successor) to adopt changes in the standards after January 1, 1969. Nevertheless, the statutory imposition of standards until that date could delay participation by the District of Columbia in the program contemplated under S. 780.
PROVISIONS OF H.R. 12232 H.R. 12232, introduced by Congressman Multer, the Chairman of Subcommittee No. 2, is based on suggested amendatory language provided by the Commissioners in their report on H.R. 6981. Congressman Multer requested the District of Columbia representatives to examine his bill, which they had not had opportunity to see prior to the hearings, and report whether any substantive change had been made in drafting the bill. Examination of H.R. 12232 reveals that it is essentially similar to the proposed legislation recommended by the, Commissioners.
If any further material or information is desired by the committee, the Commissioners will be pleased to provide whatever is requested. Sincerely yours,
(S) WALTER N. TOBRINER,
President, Board of Commissioners, D.C. Mr. MULTER. Our next witness this morning is Dr. Geiger.
It is quite obvious we cannot finish this morning. May I inquire whether or not the other witnesses can come back on another day? Any from out of town can leave their statements if it would be inconvenient to come back on another day. After Dr. Geiger we have Mr. Coulter, Mr. Counts, Dr. Kailian, and Mr. McGrath.
If it is necessary, can all of you gentlemen come back on another day?
We can tentatively schedule it for next Wednesday at 10:00 o'clock, if we cannot finish with you today. We have to check to seek whether another Committee or another Subcommittee has preempted this room for that day.
Dr. Geiger, you may proceed as far as we can with you today.
STATEMENT OF JASON GEIGER, M.D., CHAIRMAN, MEDICAL AD
VISORY COMMITTEE, THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY (MD.) TUBERCULOSIS & RESPIRATORY DISEASE ASSOCIATION
Dr. GEIGER. My name is Jason Geiger. I am a physician specializing in internal medicine and pulmonary diseases and have been active in this field for about 15 years.
I am appearing here today as the Chairman of the Medical Advisory Committee of the Montgomery County Tuberculosis and Respiratory Disease Association.
My interest also includes work in the District of Columbia on the Committee on Inhalation Therapy for the Washington Hospital Center and various other hospital activities.
I am actually substituting to some extent for Dr. Harold Silver, who was originally scheduled to appear here, but because of the change in time, was unable to.
There have been a number of statements made and the only ones that I can substantiate are those directly relating to the care of patients with pumonary and respiratory problems, and this is my primary interest.
I have noticed in my own practice there are frequently changes for the worse in patients with emphysema and with other respiratory diseases when there is a heavier apparent air pollution. This has been particularly apparent often in clinics that we have had at the Washington Hospital Center in the pulmonary clinic where we have many patients with emphysema, chronic bronchitis, and chronic lung disease.
I cannot give any specific figures. Unfortunately this has to be simply a subjective impression.
Mr. MULTER. May I interrupt you?
Are there no statistics available and/or reports of statistics available on reports on conditions that existed in Pittsburgh before and after they cleaned up the city there?
Dr. GEIGER. I can't state as to Pittsburgh. I have a little data on an area of Staten Island in New York which was affected by Elizabeth and Bayonne, New Jersey.
Mr. MULTER. I refer to Pittsburgh specifically because we know Pittsburgh had a very bad situation at one time and they cleaned it up to a tremendous extent. Staten Island is a bad situation and the situation is getting worse. They haven't begun to clean it up.
Dr. GEIGER. That is right. I was talking earlier this morning with a doctor that comes from Pittsburgh and his impression was there was improvement. I think the work in Pittsburgh has been smoke abatement rather than the actual diminution of other contaminants which are not so readily visible and there is still considerable trouble with automotive exhaust and sulfur dioxide and other things in Pittsburgh.
In the interest of time I don't want to read a lot of things that I have written here. I would certainly hope that this kind of legislation would help to eliminate the hazards of air pollution in this area, and I would feel strongly that the capital of the nation certainly should be in the vanguard of those areas developing model standards for air pollution control.
I would hope that this bill will meet with favorable action by the Committee and the Congress.
Mr. Winn. Doctor, these people in the clinic that you mentioned and the ones that you have treated, do you feel that they would be better off, healthier, if they were sent away from the District or from the cities where there is known heavy air pollution?
Dr. GEIGER. I have seen this. Actually I can think of one particular patient of mine who has severe emphysema and who has moved to Arizona. I am not exactly sure where, but a small town in Arizona where the air is much less polluted. And from what I have heard from this man he has been benefitted by this. He would have specific worsening of his shortness of breath and cough whenever he attempted to