Mr. McGRATH. No, sir. Let me say this is my opinion. SO, is the most easily measurable gas. A man can sit at his desk and he can know the amount of sulphur by weight in a ton of coal. He can then make a mathematical computation and determine how much, after combus tion, SO2 is going to be in it from that stack. He can also assume certain meteorological conditions and topographical conditions that he can mathematically compute, how far that dispersion of the emission will go, and what it is likely to be at ground level. So what they have done, although there are many other gases which go to make up the atmosphere which we breathe indited SO2 as it happened to be the easiest one to measure. And not only from a mathematical standpoint but also the devices, which we presently have with respect to measuring at ground level, are not very sophisticated devices as yet. They are still not very accurate. However, most of them have been developed to measure SO2, not some of the others. There are some carbon monoxide measurement facilities, but not many of them. So SO2 has been picked on, in my opinion, and I think it has been enforced by a critique by a Dr. Negelbaum. Negelbaum wrote a critique of the criteria which is almost equally as long as the criteria itself, in which he said there couldn't be possibly evidence to support the conclusions published by PHS. So in my opinion they took sulphur because it was the easiest gas or the easiest element to handle to come to some conclusions. They were criticized yesterday for being so slow, but the Senate says you better re-evaluate because we don't like the looks of your criteria at the mo ment. Mr. MULTER. Thank you. Mr. WINN. Do you agree with Mr. Via who said that if the ignition equipment was operated properly there would be "a negligible amount of air pollution. Mr. MCGRATH. From that phase of air pollution, I would say I agree with him to an extent. One, it is of economic benefit to the consumer to burn his fuel in a proper manner. Therefore he gets the most BTUs and the most heat with proper combustion. There is the problem of start up and of cleaning the flu in the boilers where occasionally there will be puffs of smoke for limited periods of time, say three or four minutes duration where nothing would clear it out insofar as burning, burning coal. You are talking about electrostatic percipitators which have efficiencies of ninety nine and a half percent. You are getting out practically everything. But these are terribly expensive pieces of equipment. The only ones who can really afford these are the electric utilities. Now proper combustion, however, in small installations for the most part can give you fairly clean burning but you have a problem of whether the janitor has proper ventilation in the room. He may have the finest piece of equipment in the world in there and yet he isn't operating the equipment properly by improper ventilation. Mr. WINN. Would you agree that approximately fifty percent are not properly operated? Mr. McGRATH. Let me put it this way sir, insofar as coal is concerned our major market here is the utilities and Government. Now both the Federal government and the utilities have of necessity, insisted that there be adequate and proper combustion in the fuel they use Most of them have indicators on the stack so it would indicate when a dark puff would come out so they could change the ingredients, add more air or remove some of the air, so they would get proper combustion. It was just a few years ago we worked very closely with the Federal government at one of the installations here in town and came up with more advanced technology so there was better combustion. I would say in these areas, yes there is, and we are talking in the neighborhood of a half million tons of coal in this area. Yes, they are being burned properly. But of course there is the problem of the SO, removal. We don't have the answers to that yet. We are working on them hard, when we do get the answers to them we will know the technology, but then applying the actual economics to it is something else again. Mr. WINN. Thank you very much. Mr. GUDE. Mr. McGrath, with reference to all of the research that the coal and oil industries are doing you seem unconvinced of the necessity of reasearch. Is it because you are not sure there is a problem? Mr. MCGRATH. Well I'm not sure there is a problem with SO2 because it has not been sufficiently-it has not been a sufficient indictment on this other than a very shallow one, in my estimation. Nevertheless there has been terrific pressure because of abatement proceedings on behalf of the Public Health Service throughout the country. If you don't put a regulation setting up a one percent sulphur, the Federal government is going to step in and beat you over the head and make you do it. Because of the hearings that were held before the Senate, it has become quite apparent there is sufficient information as Dr.Mr. GUDE. Insufficient in formaton? Mr. McGRATH. Insufficient information to indict sulphur dioxide as the principle contributor to the determental effects which occur as a result of air pollution. The two gentlemen from England, Mr. Clarke and Mr. Stone, were over here and testified and they talked about deaths in England and how they had been reduced. They said for twenty years the studies in England have been going on to try to indict sulphur dioxide as the culprit and they have failed to do so. It's this type of thing. Nevertheless the cause of precipitous action like Montgomery County, of which I am a resident, suddenly there is a one percent limitation in Montgomery County and there is Dickerson Plant way out there in the far northwest corner of Montgomery County without hardly any residents around, no complaints, and all of a sudden they are faced with the burden of one percent sulphur coal. Mr. MULTER. We will have to suspend sir. We are being called to Mr. MULTER. You will have to suspend sir. We are being called to the House Chamber. Mr. McGRATH. I'm sorry. Mr. GUDE. The claim has been made that farm crops are being damaged by sulphur dioxide. Mr. MCGRATH. There has been no showing. Mr. MULTER. I suggest you submit a list of questions to Mr. McGrath and let him answer them for the record. Mr. GUDE. We have two additonal witnesses that have not submitted statements. Mr. MULTER. I think we ought to ask them to do that. Mr. Coulter may submit a statement. We have other witnesses that want to be heard but obviously time has run out. We will ask them please to submit their statements for the record. We will add them to the record when they come in. We will keep the record open for additonal data for at least ten days, before we close the record. The Committee will stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair. (Whereupon, at 12:25 o'clock p.m. the Committee adjourned subject to the call of the Chair.) (Subsequently, the following statements and letters were filed for the record :) Hon. B. F. SISK, U.S. House of Representatives, Rayburn Building, Washington, D.C.: WASHINGTON, D.C., May 17, 1967. The Committee of 100 on the Federal City endorses H.R. 6981, the proposed bill for prevention, abatement, and control of air pollution in the District of Columbia. Such legislation is basic to an effective program to safeguard the health of Washington area residents and preserve the appearance and livability of the National Capital. It is respectfully requested that this statement be included inthe official record of the current hearings. DAVID SANDERS CLARK, Chairman, Air and Water Pollution Subcommittee. WASHINGTON, D.C., April 14, 1967. Hon. JOHN MCMILLAN, Chairman, D.C. Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN MCMILLAN : As a citizen of the District of Columbia, I wish to thank you for your interest and efforts in behalf of the city. At the moment, I am most concerned about air pollution. I strongly urge that public hearings be held on proposed legislation in the field, so that facts may be brought out in the open and acted upon. People are already being adversely affected by the conditions of our air. It is my belief that everyone, statesmen, businessmen and private citizens must begin to work together to solve this problem, before we are confronted by real tragedy. Thank you for any thing you may do. Sincerely, (Mrs.) GLADYS F. LOWREY. ROCKVILLE, MD., April 15, 1967. Subject: Air Pollution Bill Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Chairman, District of Columbia Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: On many days it is alarmingly obvious that the District of Columbia desperately needs adequate air pollution control legislation immediately. Clear days when landmarks may be seen for miles are a joy, appreciated increasingly because of the many days when a film of smog hangs heavy. "Let's Get Going On Air Pollution Control", pp. 3-5, BULLETIN, NATIONAL TUBERCULOSIS ASSOCIATION, March, 1967, is only one of a multitude of articles protesting the apathy, ignorance and unconcern that prevent proper legislation. We are aware that powerful, self-interest groups exert pressure, hoping to delay what must be done if people are to escape suffering needless death and sickness from pollution. The evidence is too great to be ignored, and once one has watched a relative die in agony from a disease associated with air pollution, a person no longer could possibly want to ignore mounds of research evidence. Please conduct public hearings so that legislation such as that proposed by Congressman Gude can be enacted. Yours very truly, (Mrs.) PATRICIA DOWNES. Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, WASHINGTON, D.C., April 29, 1967. Chairman, District of Columbia Committee, House of Representatives, DEAR SIR:AS responsible citizens of this country we should all be fully aware of and well informed in the problems that modern civilization has provided us with, not the least of which is the air pollution which is a blight on city living, and I wonder at the increasing number of asthmatic and allergic children that I find in my classes, if in part it might not be due to the pollution. I want you to know that I support Congressman Gude's bill and believe it imperative that public hearings be held on such important legislation. Thank you. Yours truly, MARIE S. CONTRERAS BETHESDA, MD., May 10, 1967. Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Chairman, District of Columbia Committee, DEAR SIR: The members of The Woman's Club of Bethesda are keenly interested in Air Pollution Control. We urge you to schedule public hearings on the House of Representatives Air Pollution Act, H.R. 6981 at your earliest opportunity. Yours truly, EATHOL W. ALLEN, President. EASTLANDS GARDENS CIVIC ASSOCIATION, Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Chairman, District of Columbia Committee, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Eastland Gardens Civic Association has voted to urge your committee to hold public hearings on H.R. 6981, a bill introduced by Mr. Gude, 8th District, Maryland, to provide for the prevention, abatement, and control of air pollution in the District of Columbia. Should hearings be held it is requested that our organization be permitted to express its views at these hearings. We favor this progressive legislation; our interest is more than casual in that our association's boundries are contiguous with a part of those of the Kenilworth Dump, the dump being a well known major source of air pollution in the District of Columbia Metropolitan area. We as citizens urge the closing of Kenilworth Dump since it needlessly adversely affects the lives of all of us, particularly the inhabitants of the District of Columbia and Maryland and those others that have business to attend to in the area. It is our opinion that H.R. 6981 should be enacted into law as a vital piece of legislation designed for the protection of all people and living things in the Metropolitan area. Respectfully submitted. Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Chairman, D.C. Committee, WILBUR C. GOODWIN, President. THE SILVER SPRING WOMAN'S CLUB, INC., House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: The Board of Directors of the Silver Spring Woman's Club voted to request that public hearings be held on Air Pollution Bill HR 6981. I present this request to you, with a copy to Congressman Gilbert Gude. This important matter is the concern of many club women, who wish to keep informed of progress made and actions contemplated. Sincerely, Mrs. G. E. MURCH, Corresponding Secretary. KINGMAN PARK CIVIC ASSOCIATION, Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Chairman, District of Columbia Committee, DEAR SIR: The members of the Kingman Park Civic Association are deeply concerned about air pollution in the District of Columbia. They have had first hand knowledge of the problem. At the last regular monthly meeting, our Association voted to go on record as being in support of the bill introduced by Representative Gilbert Gude of Maryland. The bill, H.R. 6981, provides for the prevention, abatement and control of air pollution in the District of Columbia. Polluted air is a serious menace to the health of many individuals. That fact alone should be sufficient to warrant drastic controls for the air pollution. Yours sincerely, ROBERT REID, President, Kingman Park Civic Association. WASHINGTON, D.C., August 19, 1967. Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia, DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: As control of air pollution in the National Capital area is one of our major current objectives, the COMMITTEE OF 100 ON THE FEDERAL CITY would greatly appreciate having the attached statement included in the printed record of your hearings on H.R. 6981 and H.R. 12232. Respectfully yours, DAVID SANDERS CLARK, Chairman, Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, STATEMENT ON H.R. 6981 AND H.R. 12232, BILLS TO PROVIDE FOR THE PREVENTION, ABATEMENT AND CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AUGUST 19, 1967. The Committee of 100 on the Federal City urges prompt enactment of H.R. 6981 as an essential first step toward prevention and control of air pollution in the Washington area. We find it appalling that among 65 major metropolitan areas studied by the Public Health Service, Washington ranks 6th in the amount of sulfur dioxide in the air from burning coal and heavy oils, 13th in carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, and hydrocarbon from gasoline, and 18th in general severity of air pollution. As residents of the District of Columbia and nearby Maryland and Virginia, our members are acutely aware that air pollution is a regional problem. Efforts to clean up the air over the National Capital will not be truly effective until regulations are enacted for the District of Columbia which are compatible with those adopted by Montgomery County, Maryland, and now under consideration in other adjoining jurisdictions. H.R. 6981 meets the requirements for compatability. The bill further merits approval because it establishes definite standards limiting emissions from fuel-burning equipment, incinerators, and motor vehicles, and sets dates by which these standards must be met. H.R. 12232, which merely authorizes the District Commissioners to take air pollution control measures, but requires no positive action on their part, would, in our judgment, be quite ineffective. STATEMENT BY DR. HAROLD SILVER ON WHAT AIR POLLUTION MEANS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA My name is Harold M. Silver. I am a physician who has been active in Pulmonary Disease from the standpoint of research, teaching, and, most important, patient care, for more than ten years. I am Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine and Director of the Pulmonary Research Laboratory at the George Wash |