Sources of air pollution potential in new structures should be controlled through review of all building plans for new structures in the district. This probably would have to be done on a cooperative basis with all building inspec tion departments in the district.

Permanent sampling sites would be established at key locations in the district, maintaining a year-round surveillance program. In addition a vehicle equipped with sampling equipment would be available for use in special industrial applications. Laboratory facilities and personnel would be provided for analysis of samples.

The field inspectors assigned to particular territories would patrol to observe and log any violations of the air pollution regulations in addition to their work of inspection of all existing and new equipment in their areas.

The only steps previously taken have been those of cooperation on the part of the Providence division when requested by Warren, Warwick, and Pawtucket to help out with air pollution problems in their municipalities. East Providence, Pawtucket, Central Falls, Warren, and Warwick now have enacted air pollution ordinances in addition to Providence and I believe that these communities will serve as the nucleus for a Metropolitan Providence district.

Our city solicitors have advised me that State legislation will have to be enacted, permitting the establishment of a Providence Metropolitan Air Pollution Control District.

As yet no steps have been taken toward the setting up of a control district. The Providence and Rhode Island Leagues of Women Voters will explore this area under their general program of metropolitanization.

I am enclosing a copy of the State enabling legislation. Included herewith are past and current air pollution regulations for the city of Providence. appendix, p. 528.)

(See

The CHAIRMAN. Now, our last three witnesses are going to constitute a panel here for the remainder of this afternoon. Dr. Leslie Silverman of Harvard University, Dr. James L. Whittenberger, Harvard University School of Public Health; and Prof. James M. Austin of MIT.

You

Gentlemen, I wish you would come forward and enlighten us. do have all prepared statements and to the extent you can summarize or hit highlights, it would be useful, because we are running a little tight on time, and I would like to have a maximum of time left for questions. You have to stimulate me just enough to get the questions flowing.

Dr. SILVERMAN. Do you want us to go in the order in which we appear?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

STATEMENT BY DR. LESLIE SILVERMAN, PROFESSOR OF ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE, AND HEAD OF DEPARTMENT, HARVARD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND APPLIED PHYSICS, GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Dr. SILVERMAN. I have a rather lengthy statement and the first page and a half describes a little bit of my background. The next part of the discussion is devoted to the Harvard program, the educational program, and we take pride at Harvard in the fact that we have been concerned about air pollution since the early thirties and have been teaching courses related to air pollution for over 40 years.

I point out in this early part how Public Law 159 did a lot to get things going, and I would like to emphasize at this juncture that the important thing we need in air pollution, both the control and the doing of the research and carrying out the processes, are qualified man

power, and one of Harvard's contributions, I think, is to develop a program along the lines of training people in fundamental disciplines related to air pollution. We are trying to avoid this question of air pollution scientists, because a man has to be qualified in programs one, or more than one discipline, related to air pollution, but air pollution itself is a problem and not a discipline.

Now, you spoke earlier of the ship problem which is something we developed in the hope it might alleviate the demolition as well as the disposal problem of great cities, and we have been using this as a study program both for teaching as well as for research and development, and we hope as you probably heard from Commissioner Frechette that that will go forward in Massachusetts. So we can point a way toward perhaps a solution for perhaps 80 percent of the large metropolitan areas in the country.

There are, as you would guess, meteorological problems associated with this. There may be marine biological problems, oceanographic problems, but in general we think this is capable of being evaluated and studied in detail and may solve some of the nuisance and pollution problems of great cities.

Now, one of the things I stress is the importance of recruiting proper personnel, and since we are in the public service area, it is very difficult to compete with private industry, and it is interesting that private industry really doesn't want to hire air pollution control engineers, because they don't have enough in the way of keeping them employed full time; maybe where it is air pollution men or radiation and water, but it is only the very large industry groups that can afford the luxury, we will say, of an air pollution control engineer. However, we have the problem of encouraging people to go into this field, and we have the problem of competition with other professional groups, and the physicians Dr. Whittenberger can talk about, and related fields. We at Harvard have been fortunate in the last several years about training about 66 people, not only those that might be specialist, but have exposed other people to the air pollution basic courses such as aerosol technology. I discussed the needed engineering research, and I might highlight this by saying that the table that is at the end of my prepared statement is a series of the problem areas which I commented on in 1958 at the first National Conference on Air Pollution. At the time just to determine what Public Law 159 had accomplished in its early days, I would like to point out most of these problems still are problems that we are living with, but we think we are making a little progress toward their solution.

I wanted to point out that one of the most important things we have to consider in research in this area is the economic feasibility. It goes without saying that we do have methods that will solve almost all of our problems. The trouble is industry can't or is unable to afford them, and therefore, we have to search for solutions that will be in the realm of acceptability from a cost standpoint.

In the final section I deal with the Clean Air Act assistance and how it can assist to train specialists in various fields and supply the needed manpower we are going to need to get this problem under effective control, and I point out the difference between the 2-year type of training program which we have been emphasizing, the so-called short in

service course of the Public Health Service which has been doing an excellent job in training people who are employed in the field, related fields, and giving them short courses so they can become acquainted with the problem, but you are not going to develop your experts and research men by this technique. You are going to have to look at these men created over a long period of basic graduate training, and it will take 3 or 4 years of graduate training, and perhaps experience beyond that of an equal magnitude in order to get the kind of people we need, and then I commented on the research supports, and the importance of the supports for research in this area.

I think that universities ought to become more interested in the automobile exhaust problem and some of the other problems that their technological capabilities can help solve. I think that is in general the gist of my remarks.

The CHAIRMAN. Your prepared statement will appear in the record at this point, and then we will hear from Dr. Whittenberger. (The statement is as follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT BY DR. LESLIE SILVERMAN, PROFESSOR OF ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE AND HEAD OF DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE, HARVARD UNIVERSITY, SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND DIVISION OF ENGINEERING & APPLIED PHYSICS, GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS & SCIENCES OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY

I appreciate the opportunity to appear again before your special subcommittee, Senator Muskie, to present some of our objectives in air pollution control. As you may recall, I had the opportunity of presenting a statement to your committee during the Washington hearings on September 11 before the passage of the present Clean Air Act, Public Law 88–206. At that time, I stated my qualifications for you in detail.

From 1957 to 1960 I was a member of the original Advisory Committee on Community Air Pollution to the Surgeon General of the U.S. Public Health Service. At present, I am a member of the Air Pollution Training Committee. This Committee advises the Surgeon General (through the Division of Air Pollution) on the training of physicians, scientists, and engineers. We review training grant requests from universities and fellowship support applications from individuals. In addition to these activities, I have served since 1958 on the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards. This Committee reviews all licensed and Government-owned power and test reactors in regard to protection of the health of the public from radiation and radioactive air contaminants. I have been at Harvard for 26 years engaged in research and teaching. I have been a registered professional engineer in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts since 1946.

In the field of air pollution control, my specialty involves teaching, research, and some consulting on community and industrial problems. In appearing before you today, I would like to comment specifically on three items: (1) The Harvard University air pollution training program; (2) engineering research needs to meet the existing and developing air pollution problems; and (3) how the Clean Air Act passed recently can help to meet these needs through training, research grants, and fellowships.

THE HARVARD AIR POLLUTION TRAINING PROGRAM

In discussing Harvard's role in the educational aspects of air pollution control, we take some pride in our history. Interest in this area at Harvard, we believe, extends back further in time than any other academic institution in the United States. The Harvard University School of Public Health was the first school of its kind in the United States. It was established as the HarvardMIT School of Public Health in 1914 and later became the Harvard School of Public Health in 1922. The department of industrial hygiene was also established then. Prof. Philip Drinker, my predecessor, was the head of this department for 39 years. 1 succeeded him in 1961.

Our earliest research publication in the air pollution field appeared in 1930. At that time, the major concern in air pollution was the problem of smoke from solid fuels obscuring sunlight, thus cutting down the antirachitic benefits of sunlight for city dwellers. As you know, changes in fuel use in the last three decades has had a marked effect on the character of air pollution in city atmospheres. Major European cities such as London and Paris still suffer with problems associated with solid-fuel combustion. In the United States our cities have eliminated smoke as a major problem by use of smokeless (oil and gas) fuels or with better combustion conditions.

In our air pollution educational program at Harvard we endeavor to train physicians, engineers, and related scientists (chemists and physicists) together. since in general these problems must be solved by an interdisciplinary approach. We insist on basic disciplinary courses in each specialty and only in general or seminar courses is material presented of mutual benefit to all. Our particular research efforts in the last two decades have concentrated on air pollution control, both from nuclear or atomic energy sources, and from conventional sources, of concern to this committee such as powerplants, steel mills, smelters, chemical plants, and motor vehicles.

When Public Law 159 was passed in 1955, we prevailed upon the newly established Division of Air Pollution of the U.S. Public Health Service to consider establishing graduate training programs in schools of public health and engineering. We believed that this was essential in order to produce welltrained investigators and practitioners who can provide the expert knowledge needed for research, evaluation, and alleviation of the air pollution problems of the coming decade.

This same emphasis on getting well-trained manpower was pointed out several years later by the Gross committee on environmental health in 1962. I was also a member of that committee. We were indeed fortunate in this endeavor because in 1957 the Division of Air Pollution established 10 small training grants in public health and engineering schools. Harvard was one of the first recipients of this limited training grant support. All of these grants were quite small and I believe the total sum of money allocated on an annual basis was less than $100,000. This support, however, enabled several institutions to establish, improve, or expand their program in the air pollution area. Although we had offered some basic course work at that time in areas directly related to air pollution control, such as our courses in industrial air analysis, industrial hygiene engineering, and industrial ventilation, the Public Health Service support made it possible to add additional courses, such as aerosol technology, in which the fundamentals of aerosol behavior are given to qualified students, and a basic course in toxicology of air pollutants. These two courses were supplemented later with an additional seminar course in principles of community air pollution. When Public Law 159 was extended in 1960, we were able to obtain an increase in training support for our program. A most valuable feature of the new support involved funds for a number of graduate fellowships at the postbachelors, predoctoral, and postdoctoral level. Prior to 1960, all of our students came on World Health Organization, Atomic Energy Commission, or other Public Health Service support. Only one individual, a California State employee, was awarded specific support for air pollution training from Public Health Service funds. Since the program has been established at Harvard in 1955, and including this year's class, we have trained 66 engineers, physical scientists, and physicians. A number of other students have come into contact with the air pollution control field by taking one or more of the available courses in our curriculums.

Department of industrial hygiene graduate students are primarily engineers and physical scientists, and a few biologists taking graduate studies in basic sciences and industrial hygiene, air pollution control, or radiological health specialty courses. The basic course is aerosol technology is available to all students and many are encouraged to take this course because of its relation to their specialty.

We have been favorably impressed with the benefits from establishing such a training program at Harvard and elsewhere and we believe that this type of support should be encouraged. Only a limited number of institutions can provide the kind of training needed.

1 Harvard Department of Industrial Hygiene Publication No. 41. R. M., and Choate, S. P., "Atmospheric Pollution and Sunlight." section of transactions of the ASME, January-April (1930).

Drinker, P., Thomson, Fuels and steampower

I would like to discuss briefly a unique aspect of the Harvard air pollution training program which demonstrates the advantages of the many resources of a large university. In taking a comprehensive look at the air pollution problem we considered how it parallels the situation in the water resources area. We have identified our broad problem as one in which the total air resources of a community must be evaluated. This resource must be used carefully because of the recognized dependence of each individual on his share of clean air for individual needs, a share 100 times greater than this for his motor vehicle and home heating systems. It thus becomes apparent that air as a resource must be regarded as an extremely valuable commodity. Each individual in the community must do his or her part to maintain its quality as high as possible. Such a communitywide effort involves not only the physical and biological sciences but some consideration of the economic and sociological factors in a community. In addressing ourselves to this problem at a training level, we have tried to bring into our teaching program not only the physical and biological approaches to evaluating health and property damage situations, but also the effect of longstanding contamination on the appearance and quality of the community environment.

We have focused our attention during the last year on the community air pollution aspects of the solid waste problem. With the help of the HarvardMIT Center for Urban Studies, which utilizes the educational resources of both Harvard and MIT, we have undertaken an investigation of new approaches to solid waste disposal to eliminate or minimize this as an air pollution problem. As you know, solid waste when burned in dump, small incinerators, or with inefficient combustion conditions produces air pollution problems. Further, public acceptance of dumps or incinerators is not easy. In each case we have studied, a proposed incinerator installation has aroused a great deal of complaints and objections.

Even though such incinerators can be designed and operated efficiently, the general idea of having a waste storage dump and trash handling near individual property holders raises concern. In a recent effort which we have undertaken during the past year, we have proposed the use of surplus Liberty ships as oceangoing incinerators. We have evaluated their application to coastal cities such as Boston and possibly other seacoast metropolitan communities. In fact, almost 80 percent of the population of the United States lives close to a large ocean or body of water. The general aspects of use of Liberty ships, equipped with multiple incinerators which can daily sail 20 miles offshore, burn their waste, and then discharge the ash to official dumping grounds, has been a project which we have studied in some detail as a part of our broad air resources considerations.

I am happy to say that this effort is being followed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in some detail, with the assistance of the metropolitan district commission and the State department of public health. A bill has been filed in the Massachusetts House on which hearings were held recently. This bill, if passed, will permit the metropolitan district commission to obtain such a seagoing incinerator and to carry out the shipboard disposal operations mentioned above. This procedure should eliminate the local pollution problem by carrying refuse and waste where it can be burned efficiently and without polluting the community air. The ash discharged to sea may be of assistance to the development of ocean fishing grounds.

Our part of this program will also involve research studies of marine biology. oceanography, and some of the meteorology associated with the problem. We also propose to evaluate the problem by a systems analysis of the technical details of the handling and transshipping and organizing of the waste collection aspects.

We believe that this kind of study involves not only the engineering and biological aspects of the problem, but many economic, sociological, and government problems. This is a good example then of how a communitywide effort, using the talent resources of two large educational institutions, can tackle a program which will become a mounting air pollution problem for major urban areas. As a demonstration project, we hope it will point the way for other communities throughout the country. Our present studies indicate that it is not less in cost than land-based incinerators, but when depreciation of land values in the vicinity of refuse disposal sites and elimination of local nuisances are considered, it should meet with favor. Our present studies indicate that the feasibility of such a shipboard incinerator of both waste and demolition materials