Problems of Air Pollution in the District of Columbia

But this does not mean that Federal action will be the only means of enforcement. Though many of the details remain to be worked out, it is clear that a commission established under the proposed new legislation would not deprive State and local governments of their right to adopt and enforce regulations for the prevention and control of air pollution. But what such a commission will do is provide assurance that air pollution sources will be uniformly controlled throughout the area affected by a common air-pollution problem. This means that States and communities will no longer feel that control efforts on their part will be futile because of their neighbors' failure to take commensurate action.

I, for one, do not see how the proposed method of creating regional air-quality commissions can fail to be of benefit to State and local governments in all parts of the country. It will deprive them of none of their rights-unless they consider it their right to do nothing about air pollution. They will still be free to exercise their basic responsibility for the prevention and control of community air-pollution problems. The real change will be that, insofar as interstate problems are concerned, the opportunities for meaningful and effective action by States and cities will be greater than ever before.

In the Washington area, such control action is vital. Less than 4 months ago, this area had a warning of how serious the problem of air pollution will become if action is not taken soon. It happened last Thanksgiving, when an immobile air mass trapped pollution. over many Eastern cities. Though greater attention was focused on the situation in New York, it is a fact that on November 23, the Washington area experienced some of the highest pollution levels ever recorded here.

The entire Washington area was indeed fortunate that it happened just that day. The next day was a holiday, with auto traffic and industrial activity at low levels. Temperatures were unseasonably high, so that relatively little fuel was being burned for space heating. And finally, the air began moving again before pollution-producing activities returned to their normal pace. If it had not been for these factors, the entire metropolitan area might have sustained a real tragedy. The next time we may not be so lucky. Sooner or later, tragedy is inevitable if we continue relying on little more than the forces of nature to protect ourselves against a problem that we ourselves have created. The question is not whether decisive action is necessary to control air pollution in the Washington area; for it clearly is. The real question is how the needed action can be taken most promptly and effectively, and the answer lies, in my view, in the development of a regional control program. And now is none too soon to begin developing it.

Senator TYDINGS. Thank you very much, Dr. Middleton. I think we will go ahead here with all the gentlemen with you who have any statements or comments to make before we start the questioning.

Dr. MIDDLETON. May I introduce Mr. Griswold who is in charge of our abatement program, Mr. High, one of his technical assistants, and Mr. Auerbach. They will answer any questions you may have. Senator TYDINGS. Delighted to welcome you all.

Dr. MIDDLETON. We are prepared to answer questions.

77-536 0-67

Senator TYDINGS. Are there any other prepared statements?
Dr. MIDDLETON. No, sir.

Senator TYDINGS. Will you describe for us what that chart is in front of you? (See p. 17.)

Dr. MIDDLETON. The chart before you really gives a comparison of air pollution in four cities. You will notice that Washington, D.C., is listed at the top and the comparison is made with Los Angeles, Detroit, and St. Paul. To the left you will see "total suspended particulates." These are potent words saying "dirt," for which you will see that the ratings of Washington was 3, Los Angeles 5, Detroit 5, and St. Paul 3.

Senator TYDINGS. What is 3? What is 5?

Dr. MIDDLETON. Five is being the worst rating and 1 is the best. If you are in a clean city you have a rating of 1. Washington is down the list at 3. The rest of the headings point out the major fractions of the suspended particulates, including organics, sulfate compounds, nitrate compounds, a variety of metals-lead, for example, which has a rating of 4. This is more than the city of Detroit, much more than the city of St. Paul, and only slightly less than that of Los Angeles, emphasizing the relative importance of motor vehicles as a source of pollution in Washington.

Senator TYDINGS. Would you comment if our area of Washington is equal to or exceeds the pollution factor of Detroit?

Dr. MIDDLETON. In comparing Washington to Detroit, you will notice they have the same levels for organic constituents and particulates, a rating of 4. They have the same in sulfate compounds. Nitrate compounds are slightly less in Washington, perhaps indicating a lower level of industrial activity compared to Detroit.

As for metals, they are much the same for chromium but there are some differences with copper and iron. You will notice that iron is higher in Detroit than Washington, again reflecting the difference between an industrial complex and an urban complex.

With respect to manganese, Washington is lower than Detroit; nickel, about the same; titanium, largely from use of fuels in power generation, is identical in Detroit and Washington; vnadium, Washington has a rating of 5, the worst, whereas Detroit is cleaner.

Last, you will note, that we have higher levels of sulfur dioxide in Washington than occur in Detroit, whereas in the case of nitrogen dioxide, they are the same.

Senator TYDINGS. Sulfur dioxide comes from burning the lowest grade fuel oils and coal; is that right?

Dr. MIDDLETON. It comes from the burning of any fuel that contains sulfur. The less sulfur in the fuel the less sulphur dioxide that is given off. If a community burns a coal or oil of high sulfur content, then the city is faced with elevated sulfur oxides.

Senator TYDINGS. Would this be among the more dangerous emissions, sulfur dioxide-the most dangerous to the health of all the people?

Dr. MIDDLETON. There is no question it is among the most serious and damaging.

Senator TYDINGS. And we have a factor which is, at least 4 to 1 over Los Angeles which is supposed to have bad pollution and 4 to 3 over

Detroit and we do not have any industry, big industry here in the District of Columbia, do we?

Dr. MIDDLETON. No, but you have many people who generally burn sulfur-containing fuel to keep their homes comfortable, and in burning the fuel they produce sulfur dioxide.

Senator TYDINGS. But they have that in Detroit and Los Angeles, too, do they not?

Mr. GRISWOLD. Los Angeles has had a 10-year program to burn the cleanest possible fuel available and this program contemplates natural gas. The net result has been recently, to acquire greater quantities of natural gas so that only natural gas is burned 7 months of the year exclusively by regulation and to the degree that natural gas is available when it is optionally used for its highest priority use which is domestic home heating. The net trend in Los Angeles to generate power at Four Corners or the Mine Mouth or Mojave River are to bring in electricity from the Northwest-but it is just not going to any

more

Senator TYDINGS. Let me be more specific. You said sulfur dioxide was produced when fuels burned in homes are low grade. What are the other major factors of sulfur dioxide pollution?

Dr. MIDDLETON. The principal source of sulfur dioxide is the burning of fuel that contains sulfur.

Senator TYDINGS. What about power companies with plants in the District of Columbia? It is hard for me to believe that a 4 to 1 difference can be solely attributed to homeowners in the District of Columbia area. That is difficult for me to believe. Would you comment some more on the sources of sulfur dioxide in the District of Columbia area? Mr. GRISWOLD. Actually, I might answer this question. We held a meeting, a conference on air pollution abatement in New York in the 17 county area, nine northeastern counties in New Jersey and eight of New York, 1512 million people.

Very conclusive testimony brought out at this conference after years of study showed very definitely that the sulfur dioxide problem in New York which is probably undoubtedly worse than it is in Washington, but not much worse, was caused to a greater extent by use of high sulfur residual fuels in buildings, commercial establishments, apartment houses than by Consolidated Edison of New York that contribute greater levels of sulfur dioxide at the street level where people are breathing.

Senator TYDINGS. Dr. Middleton, you indicated in your statement that you are already making an inventory of air pollution sources in the District of Columbia. I wonder if you would comment about the sulfur dioxide pollution from specific sources in the District of Columbia.

Dr. MIDDLETON. Our survey is still going on. We don't expect to have it concluded until June, but we can give you some figures. Mr. High might list some of the sulfur dioxide levels.

Senator TYDINGS. I am only interested in the type of sources. For instance, what about our Federal buildings in the District of Columbia? You answer the question, Dr. Middleton, if you would. Are they a major contributory factor to this sulfur dioxide pollution in the District of Columbia?