Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

Wisconsin Administrative Code Section Ind 59.60.

(b) All new, reconstructed and altered incinerator installations having a primary furnace volume' greater than 5 cubic feet shall be provided with their own separate high temperature flue of adequate cross-section and height to provide ample draft for capacity operation of the incinerator. No other combustion devices shall be connected to an incinerator flue, except where adequate draft and cross-section exists to insure emission performance of both the incinerator and the other combustion devices within the emission limitations of the Milwaukee County Air Pollution Control Ordinance.

(c) All incinerators shall be equipped with adequate automatic draft regulation.

(d) The products of combustion from all incinerator installations shall be discharged to the atmosphere at such heights and in such manner as to prevent nuisances being created to neighboring occupancies.

(e) When the design of a proposed incinerator installation is such that there is little or no basis to predict the air pollution emission performance of the incinerator, the Director will require that perfomance emission test data and reports by an approved laboratory or testing group be submitted by the supplier to support any claim that the incinerator will meet the Milwaukee County Air Pollution Control Ordinance performance emission requirements prior to issuance of an Installation Permit. Such supporting tests and report shall be in detail and shall describe the nature of the wastes consumed, the rate of incinerator operation, the frequency of charges, draft and temperature conditions, a description of the test procedures and sampling system, and detailed quantitative and qualitative data and results on the visual, particulate and fume emissions of the unit, plus any other infomation the Director may request. A listing of those laboratories or test groups who by virtue of equipment, skills and experience are acceptable to the Director shall be maintained in the office of the Department of Air Pollution Control.

When the supplier is unable to supply such data as the Director requires, an Installation Permit and an Operating Permit will be issued only on an experimental basis and the Department shall so notify the owner or operator prior to issuance of the Installation Permit. For all experimental installations, the supplier shall be required to conduct, or have conducted, air pollution performance tests concurrently with capacity buming tests to demonstrate that the incinerator installation is capable of complying with the emission limitations of the Milwaukee County Air Pollution Control Ordinance. The Testing organization shall be one of those laboratories or test groups that have established their qualifications with the Director. Or, upon written request, as provided by Section 89.10 (2) Fees, the Director is authorized to conduct quantitative and qualitative emission tests using qualified Departmental personnel.

When the emission tests conducted under the Operating Permit fail to show that the incinerator is capable of operation within the emission limitations of the Milwaukee County Air Pollution Control Ordinance, no Certificate of Operation will be issued for this installation and the Director shall issue an order to seal the incinerator from future operation until, after modifications, it can be demonstrated to the Director that the modified incinerator has the capability to operate lawfully under the Milwaukee County Air Pollution Control Ordinance.

(f) Flue-fed incinerators utilizing combined refuse chute and flue shall be prohibited unless equipped with combustion control devices and air pollution control equipment acceptable to the Director. In all flue-fed incinerator installations, performance demonstration tests conducted at the expense of the supplier shall be required under the Operating Permit. Where such tests fail to demonstrate compliance with the emission requirements of the Milwaukee County Air Pollution Control Ordinance, a Certificate of Operation will not be issued and an order to seal this installation shall be issued by the Director until, after modifications, it can be demonstrated to the Director that the modified incinerator has the capability to operate lawfully under the Milwaukee County Air Pollution Control Ordinance.

(g) Refuse bumers not connected to a chimney, flue or stack shall be prohibited. No chimney or stack base shall be used as a refuse burner. Refuse burners shall be considered incinerators for purposes of these Rules and Regulations.

(h) Only approved domestic incinerators shall be installed. An approved domestic incinerator is one which has been tested by an acceptable and recognized national laboratory or test group and certi fied as conforming to the emission limitations of the latest Approval Requirements for Domestic Gas-Fired Incinerators of the American Standards Association.

(i) Whenever an incinerator is found to be in a state of disrepair such that it cannot be operated within the performance emission requirements, the owner or operator shall be so notified. If after 30 days the obvious defects in the incinerator have not been remedied, the Director shall order the incinerator to be sealed. Any person who shall break a seal or who shall use an incinerator sealed by order of the Director shall be in violation of Section 89.11 (10), and upon conviction thereof, shall be subject to the penalties provided in Section 89.14 of the Milwaukee County Air Pollution Control Ordinance.

(j) An order of the Director to seal an incinerator under provisions of this Regulation is subject to appeal in accordance with provisions of Section 89.17 of the Milwaukee County Air Pollution Control Ordinance.

(Rules and Regulations adopted June 16, 1965 J. Proc., p. 11711176; published July 1, 1965, effective August 1, 1965)

Mr. JARMAN. The committee will accept in the record letters from the U.S. Conference of Mayors and from the National Coal Association. (The letters referred to follow :)

U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS,

Washington, D.C., September 27, 1966. Hon. HARLEY O. STAGGERS Chairman, Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN STAGGERS : The United States Conference of Mayors supports the provisions of H.R. 13199, a bill to amend the Clean Air Act.

Air pollution in our urban areas continues to be a serious threat to community health and welfare. The many factors contributing to the air pollution problem are increasing, and the challenge facing our control agencies is becoming more critical each day.

The United States Conference of Mayors believes that the provisions of the Clean Air Act are designed to assist the cities of this nation in carrying out the front-line responsibility for the control of air pollution. Since the passage of the act, many cities have received financial and technical assistance under the program. Many others have submitted requests for financial asistance and are presently awaiting the availability of additional Federal funds.

This assistance has provided a real stimulus to the initiation and improvement of local control programs. However, the short-term financial assistance now provided by the Clean Air Act does not satisfy the need for the continuing, longerrange effort required for the prevention and abatement of growing air pollution piroblems. We believe that the provision of grant support for the maintenance of effective control programs, as contained in H.R. 13199, will contribute directly to the effort needed now and in the future.

The United States Conference of Mayors believes, however, that the provision contained in the third sentence of subsection (b) of Section 104 of the Clean Air Act, should not apply to maintenance grants authorized by H.R. 13199. This provision, a narrow maintenance of effort concept, while logical in relation to the existing short-term stimulatory grant program, should not be applied to grants in support of long-range control programs. Over a period of years, control program costs may fluctuate, due to non-recurring costs, without substantially affecting overall program effectiveness. Within the matching requirements prescribed in H.R. 13199, we believe that this grant authority should be flexible enough to allow Federal supplementary financial assistance for the maintenance of the level of effort required for an effective control program regardless of the availability of local matching funds.

We strongly support, too, the provision of H.R. 13199 that would delete that portion of Section 104(a) of the Clean Air Act which limits the total of grants for support of control programs to 20 percent of the total appropriation for any year. In order to control air pollution, it is essential that greater emphasis be placed upon the application of current technology. Larger amounts of grant funds will be needed to assist control agencies in this regard, and the removal of the 20 percent limitation would provide budgetary flexibility in meeting this need. Sincerely yours,

JOHN J. GUNTHER,

Executive Director.

NATIONAL COAL ASSOCIATION,

Washington, D.C., September 27, 1966. Hon. JOIN JARMAN, Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Health and Welfare, Committee on Interstate

and Foreign Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington. D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : It is our pleasure to comment on S. 3112 and H.R. 13199, which are the subject of a public hearing today by the Subcommittee on Public Health and Welfare.

We believe that this legislation would be strengthened by the adoption of H.R. 15481 which would amend Section 107 of the Clean Air Act to allow public hearings on any changes proposed in air pollution standards for Federal installations. As you are aware, on June 2, pursuant to Section 5 of Executive Order No. 11282, the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare published in the Federal Register performance standards for the prevention, control and abatement of air pollution from Federal facilities and buildings. They became effective thirty days later.

While Executive Order 11282 requires publication in the Federal Register of any modification or changes in the standards before they become effective, there is no provision made for a public hearing on such changes. H.R. 15481 would correct this situation by allowing any person affected by the proposed changes to make a request, within ninety days of their publication, for a public hearing.

This would be a constructive move. While the Secretary will maintain complete responsibility for the promulgation of any Federal air pollution standard, there may be times when the full impact of proposed standards may not be understood unless there is an opportunity for affected parties to be heard. The time to resolve the problems which can result from this lack of understanding is prior to the effective date of the standard, not after!

Indeed, without the benefit of a public forum at which all facets of a problem can be considered, there is real danger that an action program may be based on erroneous assumptions. That is why we believe it of utmost importance to provide for public hearings on any proposed change in the existing standards governing air pollution from Federal facilities.

We would also like to see the sense of H.R. 15481 applied to any air pollution control criteria for which the Secretary of HEW is responsible under Section 103(c) (2) of the Clean Air Act. While these criteria are required to reflect the "latest scientific knowledge" the present law in essence says that they require only the latest scientific knowledge of the Secretary of HEW. We do not believe that the true state of any art, or that any scientific knowledge, can be complete without the full and free opportunity for all interested parties to participate in a discussion of what is knowledge and what may be false assumption.

While it may be argued that criteria are not the same as standards, in this case they come very close to being standards. In effect, the Secretary of HEW controls the purse strings of many air pollution control agencies in that he may make grants to such agencies upon his terms and conditions. The net effect must certainly be that state air pollution control agencies will consider any criteria advanced by the Secretary of HEW as a minimum and act accordingly. Nowhere along the line is there any provision at present that calls for a public forum at which all opinions on proposed criteria, or a change in criteria, can be heard. We do not believe that such is the intent of Congress, and urge that any legislation to amend the Clean Air Act include language to correct this situation. Sincerely,

STEPHEN F. DUNN,

President. Mr. JARMAN. This concludes our hearings and the committee stands adjourned.

(The following material was submitted for the record :)

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY ALEX RADIN, GENERAL MANAGER, AMERICAN PUBLIC

POWER ASSOCIATION

The motor vehicle commonly is described as a major source of air pollution. A report by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, published last November, estimated that about half of the total air pollution problem in the United States is caused by cars, trucks and buses. A report published in June in St. Louis, Mo., indicated that 63% of the hydrocarbons discharged into the atmosphere in that city during a 1963 test period were attributed to automobiles.

Efforts are being made to control the exhausting of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide by vehicles, but even the best of these provide something less than 100% control. For example, 1966 auto models for sale in California, where a stringent exhaust control law is in effect, are equipped with exhaust control systems that reduce hydrocarbon emissions by about 65% and carbon monoxide cmissions by about 50%, according to the HEW report.

A PERMANENT SOLUTION POSSIBLE

On this basis, even the adoption of California-type legislation by all of the other states would not solve the vehicular pollution problem ; it would merely permit a doubling of the number of automotive vehicles without any increase in

« ForrigeFortsett »