Again, to make the gas movements visible, an oil fog was mixed with the heavier-than-air gases. The model simulates a stack 100 feet tall, and the wind is 3 miles per hour. Air is used for comparison and is shown at the top. You will note that the air plume stays aloft.

At the lower left we have simulated a gas which is 50 percent heavier than air; and at the lower right the gas is five times heavier than air. You will note that the heavier-than-air gas descends quickly, its rate being dependent upon its weight-its rate of descent being dependent upon its weight.

Fortunately, this sort of behavior is fairly rare. However, by broadening the base of our knowledge through such research, we can better solve existing problems and anticipate and hence prevent this occurrence on new design.

I might say at this point that it is the philosophy of the chemical industry in general, on new construction, to arrive at solutions to pollution problems during the design stage. In fact, the management of most chemical companies want to be assured that this has been done before they approve the money for the project.

So far, I have indicated that the chemical industry recognizes the air pollution problem and expends considerable time and money to control it. We do this in recognition of the great obligation we have to sustain and protect the public health of our citizens and prevent damage to crops and property.

In meeting this obligation in Los Angeles County, all industry spends about one-quarter of its equipment cost for specific air pollution control devices.

It is fortunate that the problem is less severe in other sections of the country as an extrapolation of these costs would indicate a potential air pollution control equipment cost for industry alone in the United States of $50 to $75 billion.

Costs of this magnitude are a significant part of our country's annual increase in productive capacity and gross national product. These estimates do not include the potential cost to control automobile exhaust or household heating contaminants. They are large even when compared to the $7 to $11 billion we hear quoted as the cost of air pollution damage per year.

The large costs for pollution prevention equipment are cited not to discourage control, but, rather, to encourage us all to exercise responsibility in deciding what our needs are in each locality.

The second broad area of my discussion is the point of how the Clean Air Act will assist industry in meeting its responsibility.

The emphasis placed on research by the act is in accord with industry thinking. One area we are particularly enthusiastic about is the research to remove sulfur from fuels. Present techniques for scrubbing a flue gas are too costly and impractical.

While our expanding technology has increased the variety of potential air pollutants, the fact remains that most of today's air pollution problems result primarily from the same gases and dusts that we have had around for a long time.

What has changed is the astounding rate at which we now use these fuels, and the increasingly congested areas into which these combustion products are discharged.

Many of us feel that if we stopped burning fossil fuels that air pollution would largely disappear. For instance, Dr. Harry Heimann, Assistant Chief of the Air Pollution Division of the U.S. Public Health Service is of this opinion. Since this would mean walking and freezing, we will have to look for other solutions.

The fact that incineration is becoming an increasingly important method for disposal of the solid and liquid wastes that accumulate in our industrial processing and urban living adds additional value to the worth of the Federal agency studying this whole combustion problem as is outlined in the Clean Air Act.

Within the development of criteria of air quality, as provided for in the Clean Air Act, industry will have greater impetus to relate its discharge to the total environment. More and more we must look to the long-term benefits that will come from a wise air quality program.

Industry should be a key member of such a program. The Clean Air Act provides the opportunity for the Federal agency to give leadership and guidance in developing air quality criteria.

From my observation, I believe it is the lack of knowledge of what .constitutes an acceptable quality of the air, as much as anything else, which has prevented industry from properly assessing air pollution problems created by their emissions and led to the lack of clear-cut solutions.

The chemical industry certainly advocates this approach of using air quality criteria as being technically sound for gaging the degree of control needed for a given community or area.

Industry certainly faces multiple problems in satisfying the requirements for criteria of air quality and anticipating the esthetic desires of a particular area. When you observe an area from the air, you see the most prominent discharges which may be from the highest stacks. It may well be that these cause the least problem for the community.

The chemical industry believes, in the final analysis, that it is the condition of the air where people and their property are located that is important. We are happy that this philosophy is pointed up in the Clean Air Act.

We believe that the Secretary can provide the needed degree of organization and statesmanship to carry forward this approach. We hope that industry can be made a part of this activity to establish air quality criteria. This might be done under the act by the Secretary setting up an advisory committee, including representatives from industry.

With its broad range of experiences and engineering and scientific specialists, industry has much to offer in this endeavor. As these problems are pointed up, certainly, industry's responsibility can range from prevention of the stack emission to prevention of the effects.

In a recent talk by Mr. MacKenzie, he noted that the State air pollution control agencies can play a real part in the new program as envisioned in the Clean Air Act.

We agree, and would hope that the Federal agency will now renew its efforts to encourage the formation of State and local control agencies.

We believe industry has a responsibility to offer encouragement to such efforts. Members of industry, including chemical, have, in the past, provided advisers and participants to agencies formulating laws and regulations.

Industry will need to give more of its time and talents to cooperating on projects that involve area and regional planning to assure that our story is properly told and understood and made a responsible part of the management of our air resources.

The Clean Air Act, by giving proper publicity to this theme, can help direct thinking and coordinate this long-range planning effort.

As we people crowd in more and more upon each other, we must find solutions to the air pollution problem along with many others. I think larger scale studies on dispersion are required, and new techniques for tracing and monitoring our air contaminants are needed.

We must learn more about the self-cleaning of the atmosphere through the action of rain, since we could be faced with the prospect of using weather modification to help maintain the purity of our air supply.

To summarize, I believe the record of activity and accomplishment of the chemical industry indicates that we have been taking a very serious and responsible view on our air pollution prevention programs for a long time.

We are using ingenuity, hard work, and money in this endeavor. Through the application of the Clean Air Act, we foresee assistance from the Secretary in helping us meet our acknowledged responsibility of air quality control.

To accomplish this, we hope that the Secretary will develop sound air quality criteria with industry's help, will encourage the formulation of local and State control agencies, and not use the enforcement provisions until it is clear in a given situation that voluntary efforts and local enforcement measures are inadequate.

With these efforts to assure air quality, we think we can then meet our goals of providing chemicals for the comfort and enjoyment of mankind.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you, Mr. Chalker, for your thoughtful use of the statement.

I have a question on this point: you refer to the $3 million investment in air pollution control facilities by your member companies. What kind of industries did that involve principally in these investments?

Mr. CHALKER. Well, sulfuric acid plants, the manufacturing of nylon or textile fibers, photo products-pretty much the whole range there.

Senator MUSKIE. In other words, there has not been a concentration in any particular category?


Senator Muskie. Are there any industries which have peculiarly unsolved problems in air pollution?

Mr. CHALKER. Well, I don't believe so. I think that there are areas that make the problem, certainly, more costly. For example, we are still in search of bag collectors, for example, that will withstand high temperatures. Glass has been tried, and there are difficulties in using it.

Bag life is not sufficiently long to suit some people. There is work going on, I might add, on this problem at the Taft Center now.

I believe that most of these problems can be solved. I am not talking now about the automobile. This seems to be a little stumbling block. But, what I am talking about are problems that I am familiar with, and I think that most of these can be solved and that they can be very expensive, and we hope that we can find efficient ways to do these.

Senator MUSKIE. Our next speaker will be Mr. Gwyn Thomas. Mr. THOMAS. Senator, welcome to New York.

Senator Mtskie. I have been made to feel very welcome. You may proceed, Mr. Thomas.



Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman and members of this honorable committee, my name is Gwyn Thomas. I am executive assistant to the president of Associated Industries of New York State, Inc., and I am also governmental affairs director for that organization. Associated Industries is the manufacturers' association of our biggest industrial State. While we include a number of employers from outside of manufacturing, our membership is fundamentally manufacturing and our 1,500 members located in all parts of the State employ more than half of the factory workers in New York. By virtue of my job activity I am also vice chairman of the newly organized New York State Action for Clean Air Committee-a voluntary organization which I will describe in more detail later.

In the cordial invitation sent to me by Senator Muskie, as chairman of your committee, he asked that I particularly emphasize two points. These points are:

1. Industry's responsibility in the control of air pollution, and

2. How the Clean Air Act will assist, and I quote, "in creating this responsibility."

Mr. Chairman, may I in all good will correct the implication of the second point. Industry in New York State, at least, long ago acknowledged its key responsibility in this field and so I propose to really address myself to the question of “how industry is discharging this responsibility."

I think the committee will pardon a reference to how I became, in a business way, connected with the problem of air pollution. Fresh out of the Armed Forces in 1946, when I was with the Manufacturers Association of Syracuse, I had the privilege of helping a group of businessmen who agreed that industry and business generally had responsibilities in connection with air. On their own initiative they requested and secured for Syracuse, one of the early "smoke” ordinances in our States. I cite this to illustrate the “coming to grips” with a problem which, in my judgment, has resulted in the development here in the Empire State of a tradition of teamwork between industry and Government in air pollution that some of my friends from out of the State believe to be outstanding.

The New York State Air Pollution Control Act is the product not of government or of nonindustrial groups, but of the teamwork bet ween

industry, government, especially our health department, and many other groups.

We are quite proud of this background.

I have read with real interest the statement given at the hearing on behalf of the State health department and its eminent commissioner, Dr. Hollis S. Ingraham, by Alexander Rihm, the executive secretary of our air pollution control board. That statement covers a number of the points which I would otherwise, on behalf of industry, include in this statement to you.

What I propose to do in the few minutes before us is to discuss under five sections the background of what we have done and are doing regarding air pollution in New York State.

1. So that you can understand how this teamwork developed, I propose to give you a little background going back to the early 1950's.

2. I propose to give you concrete instances of cooperation by all team members in the intervening period.

3. I propose to bring you up to date on studies that are now being continued with the full and wholehearted cooperation of industry in carrying us from the “make ready period" into development of standards for the control of existing air pollution, and

4. I should like to tell you a little bit about our work in cooperation with official and health organizations of the State in achieving public awareness of the problem through our new and unique New York State Action for Clean Air Committee.

5. Finally from the viewpoint of New York State industry and on the basis of experience with Federal aid in this State, I should like to share with your committee some general observations concerning the effect of Federal aid in connection with Federal-State-local relations as we have seen those relationships at work. I think that this point may be of some interest to your committee.

My feeling is that all of these will tie in with this committee's efforts to secure what Senator Muskie described as "a basis for evaluating continued progress" in connection with the public policy of State and local responsibility which Congress adopted in enacting the Clean Air Act last December. I particularly refer to subparagraph 3, section 1-A which states without equivocation that the prevention and control of air pollution at its source is the primary responsibility of States and local governments.

Quite frankly, and the committee should know this, we of Associated Industries and New York industry did not agree with some of the principles developed in the Federal approach to problems like this involving air and water pollution. But we are hopeful therefore that any new regulations to be promulgated by the Secretary will reflect what I conceive to be a key purpose of this committee—the encouragement of State and local governments to carry their full responsibility in this field.

At this point I would like to give the committee the benefit of our official New York policy as contained in our own Clean Air Act which is chapter 931 of the Laws of 1957 and is article 12-A of our Public Health Law. It is a brief declaration of policy, and I am including with it as a supplement to that declaration of policy the paragraph which follows it in the act-the statement of purpose. With your permission may I read from our act:

[ocr errors]
« ForrigeFortsett »