making the necessary decisions, the lawmakers passed an act creating an air pollution advisory committee whose nine members were to be appointed by the Governor. The law specified that one member would come from and represent the department of public health, one from the automobile industry, one from the trucking industry, two from industry at large, and three who shall be interested citizens. The committee's charge was to advise the State board of health in three specific areas: establishment of (1) ambient air quality standards, (2) standards of emissions from motor vehicles, and (3) criteria for approval of motor vehicle control devices.

Beginning about a week after the effective date of the law (July 1, 1963), the committee has held 15 meetings. The first meetings were largely for orientation purposes, but soon we were actively studying the basic scientific information on which the standards could be based. Among topics considered were effects of air pollution on human health, animals, plants, visibility, and economics; sources, chemistry, and measurement of air pollution; relationship of air pollution and meteorology; and the nature, results, and costs of control programs and control equipment. Discussions were based primarily on Colorado facts and Colorado problems and were led by inviter experts who represented such agencies as the University of Colorado Medical School, Colorado State University, the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, health departments, building departments, Automobile Manufacturers Association, and the U.S. Public Health Service as well as private consultants and State health department personnel.

When the time came to consider the exact ambient air levels to recommend, the committee decided to emphasize a preventive approach. That is, we agreed to set the levels at points below those at which the pollutants cause acute damage and to use these set levels as indicators as to when control programs would be required. In this way, we hoped to insure that programs would start soon enough to become effective before serious levels were reached. We also hoped to prevent yet undetermined damage from combinations of pollutants and avoid possible chronic effects from concentrations not quite great enough to cause easily recognized acute effects. In regard to the

specific pollutants for which we would set standards, we decided to pick a minimum of easily measured substances that woud give a good indication of the total pollution load. This would simplify the monitoring program and would be inclusive enough for the use we had in mind.

I am supplying for the record a copy of the ambient air standards as finally recommended. You will note that they cover the two general classes of pollutants: particulates and gases. Under particulates we disregarded dust fall since we felt those larger particles reflect more a local individual source rather than mixed community air. On the other hand, we felt that suspended particulates and coefficient of haze (COH) values were pertinent to the ambient air problem.

Suspended particulates cover a broad category of pollutants which include many of the substances that we know are harmful. From time to time, however, these individual substances appear in greatly differing amounts so that it is difficult to tie any overall level of particulates to any specific effect. Other factors, such as the presence or absence

several years.

of certain gases that synergistically add to particle hazards, also influence the potential for causing damage of any particular suspended particulate level. Fortunately, a possible approach to standard setting grew out of the fact that the Public Health Service has had a particulate sampling network operating in many U.S. cities for the past

The committee agreed that in Colorado we want, if possible, at least better than average air, (particularly in view of the importance of the tourist industry to the State), and that when our air quality approaches the national pollutant average we should begin to do something about it. Since the suspended particulate average of all U.S. cities in the Public Health Service network is now under the 100 micrograms per cubic meter as our recommended standard.

COH values measure the optical density of pollution and as a result can be correlated accurately with visibility. The committee a greed that a visibility of 8 miles was not unreasonably stringent for Colorado and recommended the corresponding value of five-tenths СОН.

In the case of the gases we started with concentrations that definitely cause acute damage and then set our standards at slightly lower levels. For example, with oxidant, which is a prime constituent of photochemical smog, we dropped below the California adverse level of fifteen-hundredths part per million and set our standard at tenhundredths part per million. Similarly, with sulfur dioxide, the prime constituent of the other main kind of smog, we lowered the ('alifornia adverse level of one part per million for 1 hour to fivetenths part per million for 1 hour. Finally, we added a standard for oxides of nitrogen that we propose as an index of photochemical smog and not as related to the direct hazard of the gas itself. We did this because the usual indicator, oxidant, is often produced here in small amounts, (possibly because our temperature inversions are more frequent and prolonged in the winter when the ambient air is cold), and we found empirically that oxides of nitrogen seem to be a better index of the actual photochemical potential than does anything else. Since the suggested standard of one-tenth part per million of oxides of nitrogen would be associated, if conditions were optimal, with an oxidant level of about two-tenths part per million, it would seem to serve our purpose

well. While we were thus able to set standards for ambient air, such was not the case for automobile exhausts. The problem here is that there is no accepted device that is capable of efficiently and economically reducing exhaust emissions. It likewise did not seem logical to set criteria for approving exhaust devices since that might hamper future development of practical techniques. The committee did feel that the blowby devices now included as standard equipment on all American cars are acceptable for Colorado and did not recommend additional blowby controls at the present time.

In addition to carrying out its primary functions, the advisory committee has advised the State board of health and department of public health on any air pollution questions the latter have wished to raise. The committee participated in the board of health hearing when the ambient air standards were officially adopted and recommended to the legislature for passage. The committee also commented on eleThank you.

ments of an air pollution control bill that the legislature is considering now.

In conclusion, I believe the advisory committee has worked hard and successfully in carrying out its mission. I believe it has demonstrated its importance and value in reaching acceptable decisions on knotty statewide problems. I am certain that the committee, if retained as suggested in the proposed bill, will continue to serve a useful purpose in Colorado's air pollution program.

Respectfully submitted, Robert T. Haver.

Governor Love also asked me to express his deep concern over the growing problem of water and air pollution in the State of Colorado.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you, Mr. Haver. Now, you have attached a separate sheet entitled “Particulates." These are the standards to which you refer in your testimony?

Mr. HAVER. Yes, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. Are these standards being recommended to the legislature for establishment on a compulsory basis? Mr. HAVER. Yes, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. In other words, legislation has been introduced for that purpose?

Mr. HAVER. Yes, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. So that if the legislation is approved then air quality must be maintained consistent with these standards everywhere in Colorado?

Mr. HAVER. That is true, sir. The bill states that the enforcement power will be the local authority; the county commissioners, I believe.

Senator MUSKIE. What kind of enforcement authority would they be given under the bill ?

Mr. HAVER. Well, if I am correct I think it is

Senator MUSKIE. Do they have authority, for example, to enforce abatement of industrial air pollutions ?

Mr. HAVER. Well, as I understand the bill, yes; they would. Is that correct?

Dr. REESE. Yes. The way the bill is worded, and I think it is changing probably from day to day in the legislature, but essentially, the last I saw it—there was a hearing a couple of days ago—it simply provides that local governments, including cities, counties, and so forth, will have the power to pass ordinances, regulations, and so forth, to regulate air pollution. It is a very general wording. I would assume from this that they could regulate just any kind of air pollution that might be a problem in their area.

Senator MUSKIE. That sounds as though it were permissive rather than mandatory.

Dr. REESE. I believe the wording of the legislation as it is being framed now is definitely permissive. The standards are set up as desirable standards for air. The legislation says that air is a satisfactory quality where it meets these standards. Where it does not meet the standards there is need for a control program, and then it goes on and authorizes local governments to control the problem.

Senator MUSKIE. So it gives local government the authority to create programs to deal with the air pollution problem if and when the applicability of these standards suggests there is a problem?

Dr. REESE. Yes, this is essentially true, although again I believe as it is actually worded local governments could go ahead even where there isn't a problem. It is a very general statewide authorization, but it does say where there is a problem then this should be done.

Senator MUSKIE. Does the legislation give local government the authority to shut down an industry that doesn't comply with its recommendations?

Dr. REESE. It doesn't go into this detail. It just says they may pass regulations. Just what this would mean specifically, legally, I really don't know.

Mr. HAVER. I think industry is interpreting it in that way, Senator, probably rightfully so.

Senator MUSKIE. What is your impression of the public attitude toward this problem in Colorado and Denver?

Mr. HAVER. Well, my impression is that a great many people in Colorado are vitally concerned with the ever-increasing problem of air pollution in many sectors of the State.

Senator MUSKIE. So the legislative program has public support?

Mr. HAVER. I think it has, generally speaking, it has public support, yes.

Senator MUSKIE. You anticipate that your committee will be continued under this legislation? I note that you say it is recommended.

Mr. HAVER. Yes. Senator MUSKIE. I like the preventive approach you have taken with respect to setting the standards. You believe prevention is better than waiting until you have to cure? Mr. HAVER. That is right.

Senator MUSKIE. It is cheaper, as the people in Los Angeles are finding. What would you say is the most important source, the most critical source, of air pollution in Colorado?

Mr. HAVER. Well, I suppose industry, since probably 40 percent of air pollution comes from industry, I believe these figures are correct, 40 percent from automobiles. Industry maybe we can do something with. They have spent already large sums of money in the State of Colorado, millions of dollars, on a voluntary basis, to correct pollution problems in their own particular factories.

Senator MUSKIE. You say about Ā0 percent of your air pollution is due to industrial sources and 40 percent from motor vehicles?

Mr. HAVER. That is correct. Dr. REESE. We have done an inventory in Denver which showed roughly 40 percent due to automobile, maybe about 30 to industries, and 30° to domestic sources—heating, backyard incineration, dumps, and so forth.

Senator MUSKIE. What has been done about any of those sources, what have you done about domestic sources ?

Mr. HAVER. There has been nothing done, to my knowledge, as far as domestic sources are concerned, and it is my understanding that Denver is the only metropolitan area of its size that still permits backyard incineration.

Senator MUSKIE. Does Denver now have authority to deal with this from the State legislature?

Mr. HAVER. Do they?

Dr. REESE. I believe it probably does. Denver is a home rule city and they have quite broad powers in passing ordinances. In fact, they do have a smoke abatement program and I think someone will be here from Denver to talk about their programs.

Senator MUSKIE. What authority exists now on the State level or on the community level to deal with motor vehicle pollution or industrial pollution?

Mr. Haver. There is no authority at this time.

Senator MUSKIE. So you are pioneering the way with the legislation which you have developed ?

Mr. HAVER. Yes, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. This is Colorado's first meaningful step toward control and abatement of air pollution ?

Mr. HAVER. Well-
Senator MUSKIE. I asked the question not in a critical sense.

I am just trying to establish the facts.

Mr. Haver. Mr. Palomba, you have spent a great deal of time on this. Would you care to comment ?

Mr. PALOMBA. I think the State of Colorado has been taking meaningful steps in the control of air pollution for a number of years. Basically we work at the beginning trying to arouse interest and interested parties, both in the Government and the public and industry, to become aware of the problem as we saw it developing. I think actually our first really concrete step on which we can plant a foundation was the action of the last session of the Colorado State Legislature in which they appropriated a sizable amount of money for the State department of public health to establish these standards, to monitor air pollution in the State and to designate areas of the State that do not meet these standards, and the State health department since July 1, 1963, when this money became available, has been visibly working in this endeavor. I think the legislation that is being proposed now, of course we don't know what the final outcome on it will be, is another step in this direction toward controlling air pollution.

Senator MUSKIE. I was trying to distinguish between the steps you have taken already, and which I think are very meaningful and intelligent steps, to alert the public, to undertake some research and to begin establishing standards, but this legislation which you are introducing now is the first legislation designed to actually do something about the problem in the sense of rolling it back?

Mr. PALOMBA. I believe this would be true. However, I would like to add that this does put the control at the local level and it is at the local option. I don't believe there is anything, as I have seen in the bill, compulsory, that is, to require any local area to take any steps. In other words, it isn't a mandatory thing. Once the localities see the standards which have been recommended they aren't forced to begin the program.

Senator MUSKIE. With respect to the standards, is there any community—and I suppose you are speaking particularly of Denver-in which the application of these standards would require some abatement action?

Mr. PALOMBA. According to the studies we have done, and they are a little bit incomplete in that we haven't had much time to actually go through a year of study, which you should do in order to get the vary

« ForrigeFortsett »