However, this does not mean that for instance the District of Columbia, if it had such an agency to carry on enforcement, could not accomplish this effectively within the area in a manner acceptable by the metropolitan commission.

Mr. MACKENZIE. I wonder if I could comment further on this also. I don't think we have the final answers to the problems of providing services generally in the metropolitan areas. This is a subject of government administration that many people have been struggling with now for a long, long time. In general, in the air-pollution control area we see a necessity for a uniform approach on a regional basis in many metropolitan areas, and I think this includes the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. The degree to which substitutions should be made of the authorities conducted by local government units by a strictly metropolitan area organization, I think may well vary from one locality to another.

Mr. Griswold mentioned the New York metropolitan area and there the problem is extremely complex because of the very, very large number of local government agencies whose actions would need to be coordinated if one were to have a uniform approach in the entire area.

In the Washington, D.C., area, on the other hand, you have a much smaller number of local government agencies whose actions would need to be coordinated for a uniform approach in the entire area. It may well be because of this lesser complexity here, due to the smaller number of local government units, that it could prove feasible to accomplish the desired objectives by a voluntary coordination of activity. I would not like personally to rule out this possibility and if it can be done this way in my view it would be preferable and would eliminate further multiplication of government agencies which I think is undesirable unless a strict need can be demonstrated.

Mr. GUDE. Thank you very much. I certainly associate myself with your last remarks. We have quite a few governmental agencies in the metropolitan area now and to see a new one arise would create more problems while trying to solve some old ones. I appreciate your support of a voluntary approach. On these standards which are set forth in the COG model ordinance, do you think these are an improvement over what we have in the District of Columbia now?

Mr. GRISWOLD. I don't think there is any question that they are an improvement over what we have, Congressman.

Mr. GUDE. We could have better air if we could adopt this legislation?

Mr. GRISWOLD. That is certainly true. The representatives of the Council at our consultation asked for comments as to whether they should proceed to try and place these recommendations in effect in the various participants in the Council of Governments, and we felt that this would certainly be in the best interests of the program in the entire area and as a result of these studies we are now undertaking more stringent standards or requirements

Mr. GUDE. What concerns me is that I know you feel that looking with the judgment of scientists these standards may not be perfect. We could certainly perfect these standards and get them down to another decimal point. At the same time, individuals who don't like these regulations and institutions for other motives can say they ought

to be refined, too, perhaps by this, unwittingly, you are combining with them and delaying the day when we really get down to the job. Mr. GRISWOLD. Not intentionally, Congressman.

Mr. MULTER. I might call the Committee's attention to the fact that S. 780 passed the Senate on July 18 and the House Interstate Foreign Commerce Committee will start its hearings on that bill probably tomorrow and conclude them within the next two weeks; and it may be necessary for us to integrate our bill with theirs because their bill covers interstate commerce throughout the country and it specifically includes the District of Columbia. I think in that bill they do set forth specific criteria. It may be we can merely adopt that criteria by reference or on the other hand add to this bill sufficient directives to the local government to implement those provisions by regulation. Thank you very much, gentlemen.

Mr. WINN. I am sorry, Mr. Griswold, but I had to leave the room a minute. But I would like a little more clarification so that I can get a better understanding. I have seen these test stations around the District and in Virginia. I don't believe I have seen any in Maryland. I suppose there are some. Are those run by the National Center for Air Pollution Control? Who puts those up?

Mr. GRISWOLD. Those were installed here last January, last December, to measure the air quality at strategic locations in the metropolitan area in connection with the abatement action which the Secretary initiated last October.

Mr. WINN. How many do you have in the general area?

Mr. GRISWOLD. We have, as I understand it, five stations in addition to the camp station, the permanent station which we have here.

These are what you call temporary or mobile air monitoring stations and we move them from place to place.

Prior to this time they were in New York when we were working on that abatement agency.

Mr. WINN. What type of air pollution are you looking for in that type of station?

Mr. GRISWOLD. That type of station would measure five different contaminants. We are getting sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide and oxygen. They are operated 24 hours a day seven days a week and we utilize this in connection with meteorology, our meteorological data to determine the air quality in the Washington area during different times of the year.

Mr. WINN. Now back to the Kenilworth dump, which is pretty well known as one of the trouble spots. Do you have a station close to that where you can pick up the pollution from the dump?

Mr. GRISWOLD. During certain conditions when the wind is blowing in that direction it will show that. We don't have one established just for the specific purpose of measuring the quantity of the material that comes from that. That we pretty much know. We have undertaken to evaluate the quantity of air pollution that is coming from that, the amount of material that is burned along with all the other open burning dumps and incinerators and other sources of pollution in the area.

Mr. WINN. How many open dumps do we have in the district? Mr. GRISWOLD. There are about five.

Mr. WINN. Are they similar types?

Mr. GRISWOLD. Not as large as that and not quite as well known. Mr. WINN. What steps have been taken to get rid of the Kennilworth dump or to change the system?

In other words, you know it's an immediate problem. You know that is where part of the trouble source is for the entire area. What steps have been taken?

Mr. GRISWOLD. Well, this would take quite a bit of time to go through, Congressman, but it is a well-known source of pollution. There have been several studies made of this. The way the city now exists, the problem of disposing of the material that is taken to the dump there is a more acceptable means from an anti-pollution standpoint. There is no question about the fact that dump that has been in operation has to be terminated. Hopefully it could be done by sanitary land fill. I am hoping that as a result of the abatement conference we will arrive at an agreement on a more acceptable alternate solution to the Kenilworth dump.

Mr. WINN. How long has this been a problem?

Mr. GRISWOLD. This has been a problem, I think, for over a decade. Mr. WINN. I have no more comment.

Mr. GUDE. General Mathe has been working on this problem. It is a tough one.

Mr. GRISWOLD. That is right.

Mr. GUDE. He hasn't had a decade to work on it yet.

Do you share the information you get from your monitoring stations with the Council of Governments?

Mr. GRISWOLD. Yes, we do; in fact the measurement of how much material, what type and quantity of pollutants that come from all sources including all types of incinerators and the open dump_and all of this is developed with a team operation of technicians from the two States and the city and the Council of Governments and they, of course, have ready access to all this data.

Mr. MULTER. Now, then, the representatives of the District Government, will you please come forward, Lieutenant Colonel Henson, Dr. Grant, and Mr. Gimble.

STATEMENTS OF LT. COL. WILLIAM F. HENSON, ASSISTANT ENGINEER COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; MURRAY GRANT, M.D., DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH; AND GILBERT GIMBLE, ASSISTANT CORPORATION COUNSEL; AND ROY L. ORNDORF, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF SANITARY ENGINEERING Colonel HENSON. Sir, I am Lieutenant Colonel William F. Henson, Assistant Engineer Commissioner of the District of Columbia. On my left is Dr. Murray Grant, the Director of the District of Columbia Department of Public Health, and on my right is Mr. Roi Orndoff, Director of the Department of Sanitary Engineering.

It is a pleasure to represent the Engineer Commissioner at your hearing this morning.

The Commissioners are concerned about the increasingly severe airpollution problem in the District of Columbia and appreciate this Committee's interest in helping us set up the necessary machinery for effective air pollution control. We are convinced the aid and guidance of Congress is essential if our effort is to succeed here in the Nation's Capital.

Mr. Chairman, the Board of Commissioners has previously submitted a report on H.R. 6981 and I ask that it be included in the record. Briefly, the Commissioners fully endorse the objectives of the bill; however, rather than enacting H.R. 6981 in its present form, we urge that the Congress adopt legislation granting the Commissioners authority to adopt air pollution controls substantially similar to those prescribed in H.R. 6981. With this in mind, the Commissioners' Report recommends certain amendments which would provide the flexibility necessary to carry out an effective air pollution control program in keeping with the highly desirable objectives contained in H.R. 6981. The Commissioners have recently gone on record expressing the fact that they are most anxious to establish an adequate air pollution control program and will do so as soon as authority is granted by the Congress. They have also expressed their intent to centralize air pollution control, along with all other environmental pollution controls, in the Department of Public Health. This department is presently working on proposed air pollution regulations and it is our intent to hold public hearings on such regulations within sixty days after the authority is granted.

The Commissioners have also indicated they are prepared to provide the air pollution control program with the necessary staff and budgetary support for implementation. We are hopeful that legislation giving the Commissioners appropriate authority will be forthcoming from this session of the Congress.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before your Committee. I have representatives of several District Departments here with me today and we will be pleased to answer any questions from the Committee.

We would therefore strongly endorse and urge enactment of the bill which you, Mr. Chairman, indicated you had introduced yesterday, although we have not had a chance to see that.

Mr. MULTER. I wish you would check that out and see whether or not we have any substantive changes. As the bill is introduced there are some slight differences. If so, call it to our attention.

Thank you very much.

Colonel HENSON. Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before your Committee. I have several representatives of the various District departments here and I believe Dr. Grant is the only one with a prepared statement. Possibly he would want to give his statement.

Mr. MULTER. I think it might be well to hear Dr. Grant's statement first. You may either read it or we will file it. The choice is yours. Dr. GRANT. I would suggest in the interest of time, if it is satisfactory with you, I would file it and perhaps summarize very rapidly what it contains.

Mr. MULTER. Very good.

(The complete statement of Dr. Murray Grant follows:)

STATEMENT OF MURRAY GRANT, M.D., D.P.H., DIRECTOR, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, BEFORE THE HOUSE DISTRICT COMMITTEE, ON H.R. 6981-A BILL TO PROVIDE FOR THE PREVENTION, ABATEMENT, AND CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Aug. 10, 1967

Mr. Chairman, in 1935 an Act was passed by the U.S. Congress with the expressed purpose stated as follows: "to prevent the fouling of the atmosphere in the District of Columbia by smoke and other foreign substances, and for

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 requirements.

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