Mr. RUBEL. Anything can be done if you have the money. As far as our own plant is concerned, both the oil- and coal-fired boilers could be converted to natural gas. The probem is: Is the company prepared to furnish us a reliable supply 24 hours a day! And that is important here. And, I mean at a reasonable rate. Senator TYDINGS. Is it possible to have it partially converted? Senator TYDINGS. One without complete conversion? gas Mr. RUBEL. It would be easier to convert the oil-fired boilers than the coal-fired, and a lot cheaper. It is the oil-fired boiler that is the offender on the sulfur dioxide. Senator TYDINGS. We would like to have your thoughts as to what steps can be taken, or reasonably taken, to start cleaning up the sulfur dioxide emissions here in the District and with our own powerplants right here in our Capital? Mr. RUBEL. Powerplants are not the only offenders. Senator TYDINGS. Certainly not; but if we are going to require industry and other people to meet set standards, certainly we have to clean up our own and do our best with our own system. We have to show the way. Mr. RUBEL. There are six relatively large steam-generating plants in the District, two operated by the General Services, two by the Potomac Electric Power Co., and one at the old Naval Gun Factory, and our own. Now, I think the Naval Gun Factory, the size of their plant is probably about the same as ours. The other four plants are very much larger than ours. But any large steam-generating plant is much more efficient in the burning of fuels than a multitude of small furnaces. So, I sometimes question this accusation that the Federal plants are responsible for one-third of this sulfur dioxide. I would like to know how that figure is arrived at. Senator TYDINGS. With or without. And it was not just the Federal powerplants, it was all the Federal facilities in the District of Columbia. Mr. RUBEL. Most of the Federal facilities in the District of Columbia are supplied from steam from two General Services steam generators. Senator TYDINGS. That is right. Mr. RUBEL. There may be a few small ones that have their own plant. Senator TYDINGS. I think your testimony has been most helpful, Mr. Rubel. Mr. RUBEL. I would like to repeat again that Mr. Clark-I will admit that I am on the defensive, because I listened to a couple of television programs last night, and I hope you will get in touch with Mr. Clark of the District Smoke Inspection Bureau. In fact, he said that our plant has done everything possible to eliminate, to reduce smoke emissions. He has had no complaint from the local citizens in over a year, and we have residences right close by. Senator TYDINGS. There is no question in my mind that the powerplant on the Capitol does an extremely able job, insofar as smoke control is concerned. You know what we are concerned with here. We are concerned with trying to contain the emission of sulfur dioxide which one cannot see. This is the problem. That is why we appre ciate your spirit of cooperation and the way you came up here, Mr. Stewart, on such very short notice, a few hours or so, to assist us. We are, after all, all working for the same thing. This is your city as much as it is anyone else's. Mr. STEWART. I might say the initial groundwork for modernization in the cleanup for the Capitol was started in 1950 by the late Mr. Rayburn. He was very much concerned about it at that time, and I think it has helped and we are put in the position where we have done something. Senator TYDINGS. We would welcome any recommendations you might have on this sulfur dioxide problem. Mr. RUBEL. I wish I had some. Senator TYDINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Stewart. Senator SPONG. Mr. Rubel, are you going to give us some cost figures? Mr. RUBEL. Yes, on the natural gas. I will try to get some. (The data requested follows:) Hon. JOSEPH D. TYDINGS, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL, Washington, D. C., March 10, 1967. Chairman, Subcommittee on Business and Commerce, of the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia, U.S. Senate. DEAR SENATOR TYDINGS: This office has been informed by the Washington Gas Light Company that the sulphur content in the natural gas used in the Washington Metropolitan Area is approximately 0.00043%. Compared to the sulphur content in bituminous coal and in No. 6 fuel oil, this sulphur content obviously is insignificant. The sulphur is deliberately added to the natural gas to provide a trace of odor. Otherise, the natural gas would be odorless and hazardous to the consumer. Sincerely yours, Hon. JOSEPH D. TYDINGS, J. GEORGE STEWART, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL, Chairman, Subcommittee on Business and Commerce, of the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia, U.S. Senate. DEAR SENATOR TYDINGS: In compliance with your request at a recent District Committee Hearing on the subject of air pollution in the Washington Metropolitan Area, this office has initiated a feasibility study of the use of natural gas as a substitute fuel for the bituminous coal and No. 6 fuel oil presently being utilized at the Capitol Power Plant. Since this study will involve the cooperation of the local gas utility and the manufacturers of our steam generators, immediate conclusive results cannot be assured. However, the project will be pursued assiduously and a comprehensive report will be submitted at the earliest opportunity. Subsequent to the hearing mentioned above, we learned that similar studies have been made in the recent past for other geographical locations. It is our understanding that the results thereof indicate that the use of natural gas in a number of heating plants located in a single metropolitan area would cost about three times as much as the cost of the bituminous coal and low grade fuel oil presently being used in those plants. It will be interesting to learn how the results of our own studies compare with this reported cost differential. Enclosed is a copy of a letter from the Washington Gas Light Company concerning the sulfur content in the natural gas distributed in the local metropolitan area. You will observe that the contents of this letter confirm the information transmitted to you in my letter of March 10, 1967. Sincerely yours, J. GEORGE STEWART, WASHINGTON GAS LIGHT CO. Washington, D.C., March 10, 1967. Mr. WALTER L. RUBEL, Office of the Architect of the Capitol, DEAR MR. RUBEL: In answer to your inquiry concerning the sulfur content of the natural gas distributed by this Company, we offer the following information: The natural gas received by us from our supplier has but a trace of sulfur and little or no odor. To make certain that the gas we distribute is easily detectable we add an odorant, a tertiarybutylmercaptan-hexane mixture which contains a small amount of sulfur. This is added at the points at which gas is received into our system and results in the gas entering the system with a maximum sulfur content of 0.00043% by weight. This odorant tends to be absorbed in the system so that in areas far removed from the points of odorization the sulfur content may fall to 0.0001%. On specified occasions, normally twice a year, we increase the odorant level as part of a main leak survey procedure. During these periods the sulfur content may rise to 0.00077%. If we can provide further information, do not hesitate to call us. L. BERT NYE, JR., Director of Research. Mr. RUBEL. We are more concerned about keeping the plant operating than how much it costs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Spong. Senator TYDINGS. Thank you very much, again, gentlemen. Mr. William A. Schmidt, accompanied by Mr. Anthony W. Innamorati, Mr. Robert Davis, and Mr. Joseph Vaughn of the Public Building Service, General Services Administration. Delighted to welcome you here this morning, gentlemen. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM A. SCHMIDT, COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; ACCOMPANIED BY ANTHONY W. INNAMORATI, DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BUILDINGS MANAGEMENT; ROBERT T. DAVIS, DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATION, AND JOSEPH VAUGHN, ENGINEER IN CHARGE, HEATING PLANTS, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION Mr. SCHMIDT. I would like to identify the people with me: Robert Davis, Director of Legislation, to my right; Mr. Joseph Vaughn, who is the Engineer in Charge of Heating Plants, and Mr. Innamorat who is Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Buildings Management. Senator TYDINGS. Delighted to welcome you all. Mr. SCHMIDT. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am William A. Schmidt, Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, General Services Administration. On behalf of the Administrator of General Services, Lawson B. Knott, Jr., who asked me to represent him at this hearing, I wish to thank you for the opportunity of appearing before subcommittees for the purpose of discussing the steps GSA have taken and is presently taking to prevent and control air pollution originating from Federal installations under its control. These steps, Mr. Chairman, are applicable to Federal installations not only in the District of Columbia but throughout the country and are in conformity with the provisions of Executive Order 11282 issued by the President May 26, 1966, in furtherance of the purpose and policy of the Clean Air Act, as amended-42 U.S.C. 1857. As you know, the President, by this Executive order, directed the heads of Federal agencies to provide leadership in the nationwide effort to improve the quality of our air through the prevention, control, and abatement of air pollution from Federal Government activities in the United States. Executive Order 11282 provided, among other things, that new Federal facilities and buildings shall be constructed so as to meet the objectives prescribed by this order and the standards established by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare pursuant to section 5 of the order. Further, it directed that the head of each Federal agency shall provide for an examination of all existing facilities and buildings under his jurisdiction in the United States and shall develop and present to the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, by July 1, 1967, a phased and orderly plan for installing such improvements as may be needed to prevent air pollution, or abate such air pollution as may exist, with respect to such buildings and facilities. Accordingly, GSA immediately began a survey of all Federal facilities under its control in conformity with the criteria outlined in the Executive order, the performance standards and techniques of measurements for the prevention, control, and abatement of air pollution originating from Federal installations which the Public Health Service of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare established pursuant to the order, and as further prescribed by the Bureau of the Budget. GSA's formal plan to control air pollution is being finalized and will be submitted to the Bureau of the Budget by July 1, 1967. Interim guideline specifications, which detail the methods of providing air pollution control for new Federal facilities constructed by GSA were issued January 6, 1967, copy of which is submitted for the record. In addition, we require that construction contractors make every effort to control both air and water pollution during construction of Federal facilities. The fuels which are being burned at some of our heating plants are of a type which does contribute to air pollution in the District of Columbia. I have a list of the plants we operate and the fuels used which I submit for the record. That particular list included only the plants operated in nearby Virginia and the District; at Suitland, Md., where we have four individual plants now, but these will be replaced with a central heating plant now under construction at that location. That is at Suitland, Md. We also have some plants near Alexandria, Va., small plants, a number of which will ultimately be disposed of when we finally release those properties. Coal is used in the large central plants and oil is used for the most part in the smaller plants, the extent of this contribution has not at this time been determined to be objectionable with respect to the definitions contained in Executive Order 11282. The responsibility for identifying the level of permissible contamination is vested in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and has not yet been specified for the District of Columbia. We have three central heating plants in the District of Columbia and nearby Virginia. HEW has made such specifications for Phila delphia, Chicago, and New York, but not for Washington. These central plants are equipped with precipitators which remove from 95 to 98 percent of fly ash and other particulate matter from the smoke which is emitted to the atmosphere. Products of combustion which are being discharged into the District's air have not been measured since the acceptable level has not yet been established for other than particulate matter, GSA is comply. ing with what has been established as good standard practice for control of particulate matter. Acting on the judgment of officials of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare who have close association with the air pollution program in other localities and other fuel specialists, we have further reviewed our fuel specifications to reduce the sulfur content. We have also been working with representatives of the Bureau of Mines and the coal and fuel oil industries and have agreed that improvements should be made in stages in order to minimize the impact on the economy and labor market in the communities in which these industries are located. Since the presence of sulfur in a fuel contributes to air pollution, the sulfur content allowed in coal to be purchased by GSA, effective on July 1, 1967, will be reduced from 2 to 1.75 percent by weight, a reduction of 12.5 percent. Similarly, the maximum sulfur content for heavy fuel oils to be purchased will be reduced from 3.5 to 2.65 percent by weight. This is a reduction of over 24 percent. It is our plan to progressively reduce the percentage of sulfur which may be allowed for both coal and oil, a step at a time, until a value is reached which, it is believed, will satisfy the contemplated air pollution requirements. Until criteria is established, however, the precise percentage of sulfur that will be allowed will not be known. As another means of reducing objectionable sulfur gases from fuel burning units, we in GSA are studying the feasibility of using natural gas as a fuel, particularly in the large heating plants in the vicinity of Washington, D.C. GSA engineers have been conferring with the Washington Gas Light Co. to explore the various factors which must be considered if conversion to gas is undertaken. Under present plans, GSA should be specifying improved coal containing not over 1 percent of sulfur and oil having a comparable percentage of sulfur by 1969-70. In the event it is determined to be economically feasible and desirable to utilize natural gas in lieu of coal and oil, it will take an estimated 3 to 5 years. It will cost GSA an estimated $180,000 per year to purchase the improved quality of coal and oil indicated above and approximately $360,000 in the event we substitute natural gas. Senator TYDINGS. What do you base those figures on? Mr. SCHMIDT. Based on total consumption and reduction of the sulfur content to approximately 1 percent. Senator TYDINGS. This is for the District of Columbia facilities? Mr. SCHMIDT. Facilities in the District of Columbia and nearby Virginia. Senator TYDINGS. And not in Maryland? Mr. SCHMIDT. It does not include those few locations in Maryland that I mentioned. |