Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

Our efforts under the ordinance in 1968 to find all possible sources of pollution from process operations and to register all such sources brought to light about 12,000 potential sources of process emissions. Of these, we estimated that somewhere, 10 percent to 15 percent, exceeded at some times the ordinance limitations. The second phase of that source reduction program is now underway. Our records show that some 356 source operations have had control equipment installed at a cost of about $22 million and various other actions, such as process changes, have resulted in further reductions at a cost of about $1,700,000. Many emission sources have been entirely abandoned or other methods substituted eliminating 211 such sources.

Since the passage of our ordinance in 1967, a very strict review of new proposed emission sources prior to completion to assure compli ance with emission requirements has been maintained. Plans of processes and control equipment are reviewed for conformance in detail before construction is allowed to start. One hundred forty-eight such source operations have been installed encompassing 102 control devices at an estimated total cost for control equipment of $625,000.

A less optimistic view of progress must be taken with regard to the emission of pollutants from motor vehicles. From our estimates, it appears that in spite of the fact that new automobiles in recent years under the Federal requirements have been produced with emission controls, the increase in the number of vehicles and in fuel consumption has probably negated any emission reduction. In addition, our estimates of hydrocarbon emissions from industrial solvent use indicate increases. Thus it can be seen that much has been accomplished in the city and the pace is accelerating but much remains to be done.

With regard to future needs under the Clean Air Act and the role of the Federal Government, we believe that the act provides a rational and systematic approach with its stepwise program of criterias and control technology documents, followed by regional air quality standards and regional implementation plans, all supervised by a Federal review of performance. These procedures enable tailoring programs to effectively meet the needs of air quality regions and assure effective action to clean up the air to the air quality standards utilizing the available State and local resources in a most effective way. However, none of this can proceed without the vital help to Federal funding and technical support.

1

In the future, as soon as knowledge can be gathered, there is need for criteria from the Federal Government on additional pollutants to guide our future control programs and strategies. Federal technical assistance and advice will always be of great help and it is hoped that the reorganization of the Federal programs will soon be firmly established so that the channels of communication will be more readily available in obtaining technical assistance when needed.

There is a continued great need for additional federally supported research and development on the technology of control methods. This field needs continued emphasis and financial support. In my opinion, one of the most important of these needs at the present time is to forge ahead with all possible speed in developing technically feasible ways of controlling sulfur dioxide from fuel combustion in electric power generation. We must push ahead as rapidly as possible from pilot plants and tests to full scale test applications.

Motor vehicle emission reduction and other alternates to the internal combustion engine must continue to receive concentrated Federal attention and action if solutions are to be found for this major air pollution problem. I urge the Federal authorities to place increasing emphasis and resources on bringing these alternates to trial and tests of feasibility.

I am most appreciative of the opportunity to appear before this body and give you the information as I see it on our accomplishments in this area and where I believe it is possible for the region to go in cleaning up our air pollution problem with the help of the Clean Air Act and the Federal Government.

Mr. PECSOK. I will answer any questions you have.

Senator EAGLETON. Do you wish to add anything to your statement, Mr. French?

Mr. FRENCH. I believe much of my testimony was covered in the previous questioning.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT R. FRENCH, CHIEF, BUREAU OF AIR
POLLUTION CONTROL, DIVISION OF SANITARY ENGINEERING,
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, SPRINGFIELD, ILL.
Mr. FRENCH. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee:
My name is Robert R. French, I am chief of the Bureau of Air Pol-
lution Control in the Division of Sanitary Engineering of the Illinois
Department of Public Health. The Bureau of Air Pollution Control
serves as the technical staff for the Illinois Air Pollution Control
Board.

I appreciate this opportunity of commenting very briefly on some of the technical aspects of procedures for dealing with air pollution episodes, some of the long-range control activity and certain considerations for Federal assistance.

Our earliest experience with air polution episodes occurred in January of 1968 when for a period of 24 hours our personnel were on continuous duty at our three continuous monitoring stations at Wood River, East St. Louis and, at that time, one at Granite City. It is our opinion that the continuous monitoring was essential, but that the need for personnel at each site on a contínuous basis probably was not necessary. These conclusions are based on the fact that the concentrations of sulfur dioxide and suspended particulate matter reached a product value of 1.0 for only 2 consecutive hours during the entire period which according to the Illinois episode regulation is not sufficient to require this intensity of personnel action.

In the most recent episode of August 1969 we did not observe pollutant levels requiring emergency action. You have heard that certain ambient air quality standards were exceeded, however, during the period and it is in this light that control measures, both existing and desirable must be evaluated.

During both of these episodes we were in contact with officials of Missouri control agencies. In addition it is my pleasure to serve with these officials on the Air Pollution Technical Coordinating Committee for the St. Louis area which as you have heard is providing further analyses of pollution episodes. All of us on the committee are seeking methods for improving monitoring and control activities dur

38-702-70- 9

ing pollution episodes. Such factors as the number and location of sampling sites, the types of pollutants being monitored, the levels or concentrations at which certain actions should take place and the specific control actions are among those under consideration. Motor vehicles, for instance, are suspected of being a predominant factor in the visibility problems experienced during the August episode.

It should be noted at this point that the work of the committee has been aided substantially by contributions from its nonvoting member, a representative of the National Air Pollution Control Administration.

As Dr. Yoder has stated the program of the Illinois Air Pollution Control Board began its expansion on a more comprehensive basis some time ago. In November 1968, for instance, the board adopted air quality objectives for a number of pollutants and also a comprehensive plan for the control of air pollution. It is interesting to note that the approach considered by Illinois is very similar to that set forth by the Federal Government for controlling air pollution in federally designated regions. Illinois has adopted air quality standards for suspended particulate matter and for sulfur dioxide and has the distinction of being the first State to submit standards to the Public Health Service for preliminary review. The standards are applicable only to the Illinois portions of the St. Louis and Chicago regions, but the board has directed its staff to proceed rapidly with the development of air quality standards for these two pollutants for the remainder of the State as well as to recommend standards for other pollutants. A policy statement regarding nondegradation of the air is being embodied in the Illinois proposals.

From a comparison of the existing air quality data and the air quality standards it is obvious that the standards are exceeded in certain parts of the Illinois portion of the region. No decisions have been made at this date regarding additional control measures to be included in an implementation plan to meet the standards, but every conceivable approach is being explored. We recently welcomed a discussion by Federal representatives for relating emissions of pollutants to air quality. We are acquiring more accurate emission inventory data for input into a new data processing program to provide better information on which to base an implementation plan. At the same time we are improving and expanding our air monitoring program within the region. As you may know, the entire subject of the economics and the availability of low-sulfur coal is being studied in Illinois and although the study probably will not be completed soon enough for purposes of the implementation plan we expect to make use of data that are available from that study.

With reference to Federal assistance in coping with air pollution problems may I touch only very briefly on two areas for your consideration. The first subject has to do with the prohibition by control agencies of the open burning of automobiles and its relation to the total waste disposal problem. We are not unaware that in restraining the open-burning-type salvage operations we may be contributing to this total disposal problem. I merely wish to bring this subject to your attention and urge your consideration since we as responsible control officials have no alternative but to enforce the laws and the regulations relating to this subject.

The second matter involving the need for Federal assistance concerns Federal installations or contractors for the Federal Government and the need for the control of air pollutants from their facilities. This again became apparent in the recent action by the Illinois board against an electric utility in southern Illinois. The electric utility generates power for a Federal nuclear facility across the river in Kentucky. The existence of the utility is vitally dependent upon a contract with the Federal Government for this purpose. Ironically, a nearby powerplant in Kentucky operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority continues to belch forth its air pollutants. Since both installations represent a potential interstate air pollution matter these Federal relationships seem worthy of urgent and diligent consideration by the Federal Government.

Thank you for this opportunity of appearing before you today. Senator EAGLETON. I will ask one question and I think it will lend itself to being answered by all three of you in rotation. All of you heard Mayor Cervantes' and Supervisor Roos' testimony. They were sort of pessimistic about the future in terms of interstate, intergov ernmental cooperation insofar as air pollution was concerned. Are you gentlemen, one at a time, pessimists about the chances of success of this method of coping with air pollution; to wit, the one presently authorized under the 1967 act, this cooperative venture on the local level?

Mr. FRENCH. I am very optimistic about it. It is true the responsi bility is on the backs of the States involved in this matter, but on the basis of our recent experiences with the State of Missouri and, indeed, of local officials in St. Louis and St. Louis County, our relationship with the State of Indiana, the fact that once we do propose standards, we must submit them to the Federal Government, like Mr. Copley said, Uncle Sam is looking over our shoulders, and if we don't do the job right, the Federal Government is going to come back to us and say this job isn't done right, you got to do it all over until you get it right. I am greatly optimistic that this mechanism as set forth in the Clean Air Act of 1967 is going to work.

Mr. PECSOK. Well, I assure you, Mr. French is optimistic. I think the Air Pollution Control Committee has been mentioned, I think it is a bona fide task force, three of us at the table, plus Harvey Shell, a member of this committee, plus a member of the National Air Pollution Control Administration, is also a nonvoting member of the same committee and we have strived to develop an alert plan, as one example, striving to develop a total implementation plan over the course of the next 6 months. I think we have an effective interstate cooperation underway.

Mr. COPLEY. About the only thing, Senator, that I could add to that, I don't for a minute think that Mr. Middleton or Secretary Finch are going to approve an inadequate implementation plan. I don't think the Federal Government would tolerate or accept such a plan, or when they got such a plan from this area that they would not refuse to approve it and require that it be changed to assure reasonably clean air. I think the mechanism is there and I think the Federal Government will see that it works.

Senator EAGLETON. What about the state of the art in terms of technology in the last couple of years or so? Has it developed rapidly in

that we know a lot more now than we did 3 years ago, in terms of how to control pollution, industry by industry, stack by stack, item by item? Not that we know everything. We never will know everything. But don't we know a lot more about particulates and specific pollutants and how to deal with them than we did 3 years ago?

Mr. COPLEY. We know considerably more, however, I think the knowledge that we have gained is not particularly so much in getting better control than it has been in getting it at a better price. The technology, for instance, to control particulates to 99.9 percent was here 10 years ago, but nobody would use it because they thought it was too expensive. The one big thing I can say, in power generation, the one I mentioned still in the infancy, such as sulfur dioxide control from fuel burning, it looks like this has to be solved. Most of what can be done now could have been done 21/2 years ago.

Mr. PECSOK. Probably with the same synonyms, but the breakthroughs we have anticipated in the auto industry to remove the auto exhaust, I think they are hopefully forthcoming in another 5, 10 years, and I think we look forward to some of the developments which will enable the power industry to remove sulfur dioxide, those, too, in the next several years, but during the last 2 and 3 years, there was the same old methodology where it was more economical, so we can perhaps raise the effectiveness to some minor degree, but there have been, in my opinion, no major breakthroughs appearing over the past 2 or 3 years.

Senator EAGLETON. In technology?

Mr. PECSOK. In technology, yes.

Senator EAGLETON. Not even in the cement industry?

Mr. PECSOK. Let me, perhaps, dwell on this point, since it has been brought up before, I think we should appreciate that when a new cement plant is built, one can put on the very newest of equipment and do it in an economical sense. As to the Missouri Portland Cement Co., you heard that they had a 20-year-old plant, they did have an electrostatic precipitator on this plant which provided reduction of pollutants by about 98.6 percent. They had two alternatives at this point. One, they could scrap entirely these older precipitators and build a new one which would be at a cost estimated at $3.8 million at a time estimated at 3 years, or, alternatively, they would strive to perfect the system that they now have, like taking the old model T and putting it on an exhaust pipe eliminator that, as we know, in Detroit they can put it on there very cheaply, when you try to put it on an old model T, it is not very economical in terms of space requirements and so on.

The company chose in this case to invest a smaller amount of money and a smaller amount of time to do exactly the same job. Do I make my point clear?

Senator EAGLETON. Yes; I think so. Are you optimistic as to the end result of Missouri Portland's undertaking?

Mr. PECSOK. Yes, I am.

Senator EAGLETON. Mr. French?

Mr. FRENCH. I don't believe I have anything to add to this discussion, sir. I concur with the speakers.

Senator EAGLETON. Is there some kind of exemption in Illinois. whereby, for instance, big steel plants are treated somewhat differently than other industries?

Mr. FRENCH. No, sir.

« ForrigeFortsett »