Now, in any discussion of Federal-State relationships, too often industrial people like myself leave it up in the air, and we say that we don't like this particular thing.

Let me say positively that the U.S. Public Health Service activity in this field has been particularly good, speaking particularly of the need as you indicated, the research functions and the training functions. I wish that you could hear the discussion in my own committee, the nice things that have been said about Federal research and about the training activities.

On balance, we feel, however, that the research need is broad. But, one of the problems that we suggest to those who are in control at Washington is to avoid duplication with some of the real heavy work being done in industry already.


In summary then, what I have been attempting to do is to explain that industry in New York State is thoroughly conscious of its responsibility for clean air. Working through associated industries and through Government, we are trying sincerely to discharge that responsibility. I think that we are making progress that may be of considerable significance to this committee as you study the problem on a nationwide level. If I have given you an impression that everything is perfect, I have not meant to do so. Much, much remains to be done but we are moving. My final summary point is that industry is taking a positive rather than a negative approach to the problem in this State. Thank you very much for your attention.

I shall welcome your questions and thank you for your patience.

Senator Musku. I think we are in agreement that as long as the current division of responsibilities is actively dealing with the problem, that division ought to continue.

Let us have Mr. Merrill, who has been sitting here patiently waiting for his crack at me to present his case.



Mr. MERRILL. Thank you, Senator.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is E. I. Merrill. My statement today is being made on behalf of the New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce and in my capacity as chairman of the chamber's air pollution committee.


The Clean Air Act became effective in 1955. Some 5 years prior thereto, representatives of New Jersey industry within the New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce had seen the need for preserving and enhancing the quality of New Jersey's air. A permanent State chamber committee was established September 1950 to determine the elements involved in controlling air quality and the type of legislation that would best achieve this control. Concurrently, a joint committee of the New Jersey State Legislature, under the chairmanship of Senator Freas L. Hess, reached findings and made recommendations for specific legislative action. The State cham

ber's air pollution committee devoted a great deal of time to assisting the legislative committee providing information which helped materially in the ultimate development of New Jersey's Air Pollution Control Act of 1954.

Our committee strongly advocated that New Jersey's legislation be technically sound and we urged that regulations controlling air pollution be drawn up by technically proficient personnel. Furthermore, our committee recommended that the legislation be sufficiently flexible to permit additions and deletions after public hearing-to keep pace, so to speak, as knowledge within this new field permitted.

Our committee has consistently advocated specific regulations for particular classes of contaminants. We feel that such regulation must be founded on sound engineering principles so that New Jersey industrialists—as they themselves have repeatedly insisted—will be able to know where they stand with respect to air pollution control law administration.

As a result of industry's detailed, technical analysis, much of which subsequently served as ingredients for the formal legislative action, New Jersey achieved in 1954 one of the first State laws for control of air pollution. Not only was it a pioneer law, but many consider it a model piece of legislation. It has served New Jersey well for nearly 10 years and it will find an increasing role to play as time goes on. New Jersey industry is proud of the constructive role it played in helping to develop this control law. New Jersey industry is also proud of its role as a public citizen, participating continuously in the process of maintaining this law as an up-to-date instrument through the device of public hearing as changes become necessary.

It is clear from the foregoing that New Jersey industry has demonstrated its responsibility in the field of air pollution control prior to the passage of the Federal Clean Air Act. Inasmuch as the latter law essentially places responsibility for control in State hands, and since New Jersey has an operating law that is well understood and supported by its industry, it is reasonable to assume that New Jersey industry will continue the same degree of responsibility under the newly amended Federal act as it has since the original Clean Air Act was enacted in 1955.

An example of New Jersey industrial activity in this field has just come to light which we think will interest your committee.

The Air Sanitation and Industrial Waste Committee of the Eastern Union County Chamber of Commerce has recently completed a survey among its members, the results of which are attached as an appendix hereto.

The committee's questionnaire was quite detailed. It developed information by categories which is briefly repeated here.

During the 10-year period ending 1963, 27 industries spent the following amounts for capital expenditures and operating costs for pollution control in the categories indicated : Smoke control.-

$2, 273, 000 Particulate matter

450,000 Gas and vapor.

4, 172, 000 Research and development--

550, 000 Administration -

1, 704, 000

Grand total.-

9, 149, 000

While the committee did not request data on the effectiveness of the industries' individual projects, it did ask if the investments had achieved the results intended. The committee reports that "the answers were generally positive, many firms showing almost complete elimination of smoke, fly ash, and dust or odors and gases."

Translating these dollar amounts into per capita figures, the chamber committee's report goes on to state: “Industry has spent $18.14 for each of Union County's 504,000 citizens in the last 10 years to improve their environment." The report comments that “the committee believes that Union County citizens and industry can take some satisfaction in the knowledge that local industry is accepting and acting on its responsibilities relative to problems of air pollution.”

It is our experience that New Jersey industry recognizes its responsibility regarding air quality and acts quickly whenever there is a clearly understood, workable means of correction. It is our belief that the Clean Air Act will encourage local initiative and responsibility through one of its major findings-namely, “that the prevention and control of air pollution at its source is the primary responsibility of States and local governments." There is no better way to develop responsibility than to turn it over to the proper person. We concur heartily with the act's forthright position on this point and we wish to assure you that New Jersey industry can be counted on to meet its responsibilities in achieving cleaner air.

Senator MUSKIE. May I say at this point that it is my own judyment that the responsibility can be met at the State and local level, and that it should be met there! I am hopeful that it will be.

On the other hand, it ought to be pointed out that there are those who subscribe to that finding of the act who nevertheless have doubts that the responsibility would be discharged at those levels.

So that the case still has to be proved to them, and we are anxious to help prove that case because I think here is a real opportunity to demonstrate that the law in the Federal system can be effective.

Mr. MERRILL. I think I have given you an example of what happened in eastern Union County that demonstrates that industry is working at it.

Senator MUSKIE. It has been effective in Los Angeles and in other areas. So, it can work. If this spirit of cooperation and strong motivation, as was indicated in these statements all day long, carries through and is followed through, I am sure it can be.

But, I thought it would be well to interject at this point the real reservations and doubts that some people have that this can be done at the State and local levels. So, you and I have a case to prove.

Mr. MERRILL. I will proceed.


There are a number of commendable features in the basic provisions of the Clean Air Act. To encompass the wide range of possibilities which might arise, it is obvious that the act itself must contain rather "broad cage" language. However, paragraph 4 under section 3a, on the subject of research, deals with a specific phase of air pollution

namely, a program to find ways of reducing the sulfur content of fuel oil. Similarly, section 6 deals with automotive vehicle and fuel pollution. Many other specific programs could probably have been mentioned in the act. In my opinion, however, there is one particular aspect which transcends all others in air pollution and which I feel should be given greater emphasis under the Clean Air Act. I refer to the meteorological aspects of air pollution control.

The U.S. Public Health Service-acting presumably under Clean Air Act authority—has successfully stimulated new thinking with its program entitled "Meteorological Research in Air Pollution. In cooperation with the U.S. Weather Bureau this program has led to forecasts of stagnating air masses over the entire country as a part of normal Weather Bureau procedures. Quite obviously, this forecasting mechanism could also be the means for public alerts and other precautionary measures to protect our population from the loss of life such as occurred at Donora, Pa., in 1978, and in London in both 1952 and 1962. This is a worthy purpose and, in our opinion, should be pursued with diligence. Nevertheless, it is a somewhat passive action, as have been most of our actions regarding the weather. Weather is something we observe, we chart, we forecast and at the same time we dump our airborne waste upon the nearest convenient air current and let it drift downstream. Our wealth of observations has led us to conclude that the power of the winds is so great that man cannot hope to control it. Yet we know that the power of the winds provides the air movement which normally dilutes our wastes to tolerable concentrations with tremendous "carrying capacity." At the same time we know that this great capacity dies when the wind dies and in the calm of an inversion we find excessive concentrations of pollutants. Fortunately, these periods of calm are the exception rather than the rule. This being the case, is it not time to seek some means whereby we can take advantage of some small part of nature's great wind power to help out with this relatively small job of disposing of man's airborne wastes?

We read daily of increasingly great applications of power, nuclear or other. Is it too much to believe that air currents might be turned, slowed, accelerated, or otherwise modified by strategic applications of man-manpower? Not too many years ago the seeding of clouds to produce rainfall was an unknown process. There are some who believe today that cyclonic storms can be prevented by timely action. If a cyclone may somehow be tamed in its incipient stages, is it asking too much to believe that some of our miracle power packages could start a stagnant air mass on its way, or better, prevent its formation ?

These are large questions which admittedly will not be answered quickly. Yet after ages of accepting the weather as it comes, isn't it time to take a more active attitude toward weather control? For air pollution control purposes, we need resort to controlling weather forces only a few times a year. Perhaps manmade power can enable us to trigger enough natural wind power to exert the relatively small local influence we would require upon the weather-particularly when modern computers can tell us that a stagnating weather formation is developing

Are these questions unrealistic? Ten years ago they would have been termed "fanciful”-10 years from now will they appear more plausible?

The potential aid which meteorology can bring toward the control of our air quality is so great that we cannot afford to pass up any opportunity to enlist weather as a tool in air pollution control.

Knowledge of weather utilization can have great practical benefits. For example, stack emission standards are being established in numerous places across the land on the basis of existing knowledge, but accepting weather conditions pretty much "as they come.” If in the future we learn how to utilize weather in pollution control, it follows that emission allowances could either be increased or the investment in contaminant removal equipment be reduced. In either case, lower emission treatment costs will result yet we will be able to maintain satisfactory air quality.

Accordingly, it is my personal recommendation that there be greater emphasis upon meteorological research under the act with the objective of preventing those periods of air mass stagnation which so concern all knowledgeable air quality control officials.

To summarize: (1) The Clean Air Act will not diminish the demonstrated capacity of New Jersey industry to meet its air pollution control responsibilities, rather we believe the act can strengthen local responsibility in the handling of air resource problems.

(2) In its proposed support of existing control programs, the Clean Air Act can support a number of programs which have merit, but which may not otherwise be fully implemented.

(3) Through its research provisions thé Clean Air Act can contribute substantially to air pollution control knowledge, particularly through increased emphasis in evaluation of the potential of meteorological control.

We appreciate this opportunity to present our views on this important aspect of our Nation's natural resources.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you, Mr. Merrill. The appendix to your statement will be placed in the hearing record at this point. (The exhibit is as follows:)

PROGRESS IN AIR POLLUTION CONTROL IN EASTERN UNION COUNTY In a 10-year period Union County industry has spent over $9 million in its efforts to control air pollution, according to a survey just completed by the Chamber of Commerce of Eastern Union County's Air Sanitation and Industrial Waste Committee. The survey, conducted late in 1963, showed that 27 companies took steps in air pollution control either through new equipment, purchases, operations, changes, or research, during the past 10 years. Many maintain continuous programs for this purpose.

The memberwide survey brought responses from over 50 members with about half indicating no air pollution problems. These included small industries. banks, and retail shops where operations do not affect conditions to any marked degree.

The committee's involved questionnaire sought answers to a number of specific questions for two 5-year periods—1953–58, 1958-63. Information was sought on new investment in equipment des to improve control. the cost of operating the equipment, and the companies' efforts in the research and development in this field. The use of two periods was designed to elicit information relative to trends in this important activity. Finally, information on results achieved was requested.'

Because of the complex nature of air pollution control, information on activities in five broad areas was requested-smoke control; particulate matter; dust, fly ash, mist; gases and vapors and odors; research and development; and organization. With advances in the technology and methods of control, as well as a changing industrial complex, a change in emphasis is to be expected in approaches to air pollution control, and the survey was designed to obtain data which might indicate such changes.

« ForrigeFortsett »