Mr. MULTER. I think, Mr. Gude, it might be well to state for the record at this point, while there has been the change with reference to the District Government by virtue of the approval of the Reorganization Plan No. 3, the matters we are addressing ourselves to in any event would probably require legislation by the Congress.

Mr. GUDE. That is right. And, of course, the change in organization of the District Government hasn't reduced the problem of air pollution any. We still have to tackle it regardless, and I think this was brought out in the debate on Reorganization Plan No. 3.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to have the opportunity to come before this Subcommittee to discuss legislation which I introduced to attack the grave problem of air pollution in the District of Columbia. This same legislation is being sponsored by Congressman Horton and by you, Mr. Chairman.

Before proceeding, I want to express my appreciation to Chairman McMillan of the full Committee and Chairman Multer of the Submittee for their willingness to conduct this hearing. Their interest in seeking a solution to the critical air pollution problem in the District is most commendable. I know that Chairman McMillan who comes from an especially rural area, is very cognizant of the air pollution difficulties plaguing our large Metropolitan Washington area, and you, Mr. Multer, as a representative from our nation's largest city, have many problems to deal with in your own area, so I doubly appreciate the time you are taking to consider legislation for the District of Columbia.

The largest single source of air pollution in the District is automobiles. The effects of carbon monoxide can range anywhere from drowsiness to death. Scientific tests indicate that at 1000 parts of carbon monoxide per million parts of air, the gas kills quickly and at 100 parts it produces bad headaches and dizziness. In 1966, the maximum onehour concentration of carbon monoxide for the District was 38 parts per million, while the maximum five-minute concentration for the District was 47 parts per million. And while 50 parts per million presently is considered dangerous, we are not as certain as we learn more. For example, California researchers found that 30 parts per million for eight hours seriously affects people who already have poor blood circulation. To me the conclusion is obvious: We are flirting with dangerous levels of carbon monoxide in our own Metropolitan Washington.

I attach chart setting forth these figures.

DATA COMPILED BY THE AIR QUALITY AND EMISSION DATA BRANCH, NATIONAL CENTER FOR AIR POLLUTION

CONTROL

SULFUR DIOXIDE CONCENTARTION IN PARTS PER MILLION FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 1

1 Data were obtained from continuous air monitoring program station in Washington, D.C. at 1st and L Streets, NW.

We do not have any heavy industry as a major source of air pollution in the Metropolitan Washington area. But we do have Federal power plants which provide a good substitute. Mr. S. Smith Griswold, Chief of Enforcement for the National Center for Air Pollution Control, reported to the Senate District Subcommittee that the Federal plants in the Washington area contribute about one-third of the sulfur dioxide in the air.

I might interject at this point that this is one very good reason that Congress should at this time set standards in regard to air pollution; because this is something which the Federal establishment is contributing to and I think that we should show that we have a recognition of the problem and a willingness to do something about it here in Congress.

To be safe, according to the National Center for Air Pollution Control, a city's air should not exceed .015 parts per million of sulfur dioxide on an annual average. Washington's air, over the past few years, has averaged about .04 parts per million of sulfur dioxide. While there are many days well below this annual average, there have been some days, such as in 1965, when the maximum measured was .2 parts per million and the average monthly high reading was .08. Quantities as low as 0.25 may damage some varieties of vegetation over long periods of exposure and will cause severe nose and throat irritation in amounts ranging in the area of 10 to 15 parts per million. In fact, studies have shown a statistical relationship between the incidence of respiratory disease and sulfur dioxide levels.

The third major source of air pollution in the District is the Kenilworth Dump, where 150,000 tons of refuse are dumped each year, producing 2,700 tons per year of flying garbage in the form of dust and

soot.

I could go on at considerable length citing numerous figures to indicate further the urgent need to clean up the air, but I don't want the statistics to obscure the fact that we are dealing with people-their health and their lives.

Once we have decided we are going to clean up the air, we then must decide basically two things: (1) What Governmental structure we are going to use, and, (2) How we are going to set the standards necessary to maintain clean air. It is my belief that the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments approach I am following in this legislation (that is, local government units adopting air pollution regulations in conformance with those developed and recommended by a regional organization to meet the particular needs of the region) is the most effective means of controlling air pollution. Mr. Frederick Babson, President of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments will report on how the local governments of our area can and are moving to take positive steps in the control of air pollution by adopting the Council of Governments model ordinance. My own Montgomery County, I am proud to say, is in the vanguard of this effortin fact, all of the local jurisdictions are moving in the same direction. I strongly feel that this cooperative regional approach I am outlining here is much more in the tradition of local governmental responsibility than a Federal strong-man type of approach, insensitive to local problems.

Thus, under the Council of Governments approach, local units of government will implement and enforce the air pollution ordinance, while the Council of Governments will provide the staff and scientific support to keep abreast of the new developments in the technology of air pollution detection and control. Hopefully, the Federal government would cooperate with the Council of Governments on this approach. H.R. 6981 provides that the governing body of the District of Columbia will appoint an air pollution control agency with an administrator. The policy making decisions as far as the control of air pollution is concerned are left in the hands of the governing body.

There is an important fundamental principle involved here, important to this problem here in the District-and important in public administration in general. Control of air pollution in the District should be tied closely to the other activities of city government which have a direct and indirect bearing on this problem. The creation of a semi-autonomous body to carry on a function of this type ties the hands of the governing body and makes efficient government difficult to achieve.

In the debate yesterday on the reorganization bill, I think we can recall that observations were made as to the fact that there are certain semi-independent bodies in the District government which by future legislation, we could consider if this Committee should be drawn into closer contact with the governing body in order to create better government in the District.

So I think while we are considering this problem of how air pollution should be handled here in the District, we ought not to create a new semi-autonomous agency, but let's make an agency that can tie in with the governing body and be responsive to the governing body.

Having decided upon the governmental structure to be used in the control and enforcement of an air pollution program, we must then decide on the procedure for establishing the specific standards to be followed by industry and government. In H.R. 6981 definite standards (though not without ample provision for exemptions) are set forth. These standards were developed by the Council of Governments after intensive and careful study and with the cooperation of the Public Health Service. With technological advancements, it is reasonable to assume that some refinements and alterations will be necessary in the future. There has been some suggestion that new standards might be proposed at a local air pollution abatement conference in October, but I feel this is an invitation to procrastination. Those who are opposed to the setting of any standards could use the same argument for procrastination then as they do now.

For those governmental agencies, industries and individuals unable to comply with the standards set in the legislation, Section 15, on Page 20, would provide for an exemption procedure. Exemptions, however, cannot be authorized for a period to exceed one year. This legislation, thereby serves notice on those who are creating air pollution hazards, that they must demonstrate that compliance without exemption would cause unreasonable hardship. The compulsion of periodic review will yield the most effective compliance with the standards.

I think that the thought of that last sentence is worth repeating: that by having the specific standards spelled out in legislation, even though industry or government may not be able to conform with them

immediately, it does serve notice that they must at a future time conform with these standards and that they must defend their lack of compliance at regular intervals.

And speaking of compliance, some segments of the industry are active in this fight against air pollution. Last week, members of my staff and I visited the Bituminous Coal Research Facilities in Pittsburgh and had a firsthand look at what the coal industry is doing to bring the sulfur dioxide content at the point of emission to a safe level. The old bugaboo that responsible members of industry are going to flee from one part of the Metropolitan area to another to gain the "best deal" from the governing authorities, just doesn't hold true in my estimation. Responsible industries have faced their obligations in the past (as when the detergent industry accepted the need for biodegradable detergents to stop one of the major sources of water pollution in the United States), and there is little reason to believe they will not continue to do so.

Mr. Chairman, I believe this legislation, which has evolved through the cooperative efforts of the local governmental units of a region, working together for the common good, presents a great opportunity to Congress. By adopting a program and the standards outlined in this legislation, Congress will be setting a fine example for the nationit will be affirming its belief in the viability of local government and its recognition of and the need for action against the national health problem of air pollution.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

And I have attached to this, Mr. Multer, four amendments which we have developed in the process of our study of this legislation since we introduced it and would briefly like to discuss them.

(1) The first one that we propose is that upon modification of the model ordinance by the Council of Governments I feel that the governing body of the District of Columbia must consider these modifications and adopt them if it deems it necessary.

In other words, if the Council of Governments, which is composed of all the representatives of the governing bodies of the jurisdiction that make up our metropolitan area, makes a change in the model ordinance, then I think the District of Columbia Government should consider these changes and adopt them if they deem it necessary.

This is not mandatory that they adopt them but it would be mandatory that they consider them.

(2) And after January 1, 1969, the governing body of the District should be empowered to adopt changes in standards provided that the proposed changes are referred to the Council of Governments for its comments.

I believe that we in Congress have the obligation to point the way to the nation adopting these standards for the nation's capital. But I think that the governing body of the District of Columbia should in time take over the responsibility of setting these standards. So I feel that we will be setting the course by our legislation, setting up what has been proposed as the best for this region at this time and then allow the governing body for the District of Columbia to make such modifications in the future as it deems necessary provided they get the recommendation of Congress first before talking such action.

(3) In the light of our research and investigations, we feel that a proper amendment to this legislation would provide that fuels of more than one percent sulfur content could be burned if the operator of the facility involved incorporated processes or systems which so reduced the amount of SO2 at the point of emission to a safe level.

The coal industry, in our discussions with them, has given evidence that it might be a tremendous hardship on the coal industry and also the people they serve if they were compelled to supply only one percent sulfur coal.

There are processes being developed, and some of them already are at the point where they could be used in industry, where you could burn possibly an oil of more than one percent sulfur but by the process in burning and in passing out of the flue the sulfur dioxide would be reduced so that by the time the emission went into the atmosphere the sulfur dioxide would be reduced to a safe level. I think this is a worthwhile amendment.

(4) This amendment I discussed earlier; certainly this legislation or any bill pertaining to air pollution that is adaptable to the old Commissioner form of government will have to be amended to apply to the new Commissioner-Council form of government. And briefly I think the legislation should provide that the administrative functions would be conferred upon the Commissioner, while the rulemaking authority would be given to the council.

I have some editorials I request to be included as part of my remarks. Thank you, Mr. Multer.

Mr. MULTER. Without objection, the articles referred to will be included with your statement.

WWDC EDITORIAL

EDITORIAL NO. 14-THE AIR WE BREATHE

(Broadcast of this editorial by WWDC Vice President Ben Strouse began on March 14, 1967. We welcome comments.)

The air pollution hearings conducted by Senator Joseph Tydings have been a most valuable exercise in public education. A long list of experts have discussed this area's dirty air in language a school child could understand.

Example: The Federal government-responsible for developing air pollution standards for the whole country-is itself causing from one-third to forty percent of the "highly dangerous" levels of sulfur dioxide in Metro-Washington's air. The sulfur dioxide comes straight out of government smokestacks on Capitol Hill, at the NASA complex in Greenbelt, at the Bureau of Standards in Gaithersburg, at the Pentagon in Arlington, and most anywhere else you see a big government installation.

To reduce the release of this poison it will be necessary for Uncle Sam to quit burning fuels of high sulfur content. Fortunately moves are underway in this direction. We suspect the Tydings hearings will speed up the corrective action. Legislation by Congressman Gilbert Gude would require the government to use fuels with a sulfur content of less than one percent by weight. The President is about to issue an Executive Order along these lines. But it would apply only to Federal facilities in New York, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles.

Let's make it apply to the National Capital Area as well, Mr. President.