Skip to main content

Full text of "Air pollution--1970. Hearings, Ninety-first Congress, second session, on S. 3229, S. 3466 [and] S. 3546"

See other formats


AIR POLLUTION— 1970 

Part 1 



HEARINGS 

SEFORE ITHB 

SUBCOMMIHEE ON 
AIB AND WATEB POLLUTION 

OF THB 

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS 
UNITED STATES SENATE 

NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 
ON 

S. 3229, S. 3466, S. 3546 



MARCH 16, 17, 18, 1970 



Printed for the use of the Committee on Public Works 




n 



AIR POLLUTION— 197 O 

Part 1 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 
AIR AND WATER POLLUTION 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WOMS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

NIKETY-FIEST CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 
ON 

S. 3229, S. 3466, S. 3546 



MARCH 16, 17, 18, 1970 



Printed for the use of the Committee on Public Works 




U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
43-166 WASHINGTON : 1970 



For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing OfSce 

Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1.75 f 



COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS 

JENNINGS RANDOLPH, West Virginia, Chairman 
STEPHEN M. YOUNG, Ohio JOHN SHERMAN COOPER, Kentucky 

EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Maine J. CALEB BOGGS, Delaware 

B. EVERETT JORDAN, North Carolina HOWARD H. BAKER, Jr., Tennessee 

BIRCH BAYH, Indiana ROBERT J. DOLE, Kansas 

JOSEPH M. MONTOYA, New Mexico EDWARD J. GURNEY, Florida 

WILLIAM B. SPONG, Jr., Virginia ROBERT W. PACKWOOD, Oregon 

THOMAS F. EAGLETON, Missouri 
MIKE GRAVEL, Alaska 

Richard B. Rotcb, Ohief Clerk and Staff Director 

J. B. Hdtbtt, Jr., Assistant Chief Clerk and Assistant Staff Director 

Barry Meyer, Counsel 

Bailey Gdard, Assistant Chief Clerk (Minority) 

Tom C. Jorlino, Minority Counsel 

Professional Staff Members: Joseph F. Van Vladricken, Leon G. Billings, Richard D. 

Grundy, Stewart E. McClure, Hal Brayman, and Adrien Waller ; and Department 

of Commerce Fellow, Walter Planet 



Subcommittee on Ant and Water Pollution 

EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Maine, Chairman 
JENNINGS RANDOLPH, West Virginia J. CALEB BOGGS, Delaware 

BIRCH BAYH, Indiana JOHN SHERMAN COOPER, Kentucky 

JOSEPH M. MONTOYA, New Mexico HOWARD H. BAKER, Jr., Tennessee 

WILLIAM B. SPONG, Jr., Virginia ROBERT J. DOLE, Kansas 

THOMAS F. EAGLETON, Missouri 

(H) 



CONTENTS 



Page 

S. 3229, a bill to amend the Clean Air Act 3 

S. 3229 (amendment No. 501) 24 

S. 3466, a bill to amend the Clean Air Act 26 

S. 3546, a bill to amend the Clean Air Act 47 

WITNESSES AND STATEMENTS 

Monday, March 16, 1970 

Boggs, Hon. Caleb : Opening remarks 2 

Muskie, Hon. Edmund S. : Opening statement 1 

Schaefer, Dr. Vincent J., director. Atmospheric Sciences Research Center, 

State University of New York, Albany, N.Y 88 

Weiner, Dr. Ruth, president, Colorado Citizens for Clean Air, Denver, 

ColoL -- - 68 

Tuesday, March 17, 1970 

Cohen, Dr. Alexander, Chief, National Noise Study, Bureau of Occupa- 
tional Health and Safety, Department of Health, Education, and Wel- 
fare 203 

Finch, Robert H., Secretary, Department of Health, Education, and Wel- 
fare, presented by John Veneman, Under Secretary, HEW, accom- 
panied by C. C. Johnson, Administrator, Environmental Health Service; 
Dr. John Middleton, Commissioner, National Air Pollution Control Ad- 
ministration, Environmental Health Service; Dr. Alexander Cohen, 
Chief, National Noise Study, Bureau of Occupational Safety and Health; 
and Sidney Saperstein, Assistant General Counsel 126 

Johnson, Charles C, Jr., Administrator, Environmental Health Service, 

Public Health Service, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.- 196 

Randolph, Hon. Jennings, a U.S. Senator from the State of West Virginia, 

and chairman. Committee on Public Works, U.S. Senate 125 

Wednesday, March 18, 1970 

Frechette, Alfred, M.D., statement on behalf of The Association of State 

and Territorial Health OflBcers 210 

Linsky, Benjamin, P.E., professor in air pollution control engineering. 
Department of Civil Engineering, West Virginia University, Morgan- 
town, W. Va 250 

Tucker, Fred E., manager, pollution control and services. National Steel 

Corp. . :_-... 239 

ADDITIONAL DATA 
Cohen, Dr. Alexander: 

Table: "A" weighted sound levels of some noises found in different 

environments 204 

Health, Education, and Welfare, Department of: 

Letter dated March 2, 1970, to Senator Randolph from Creed C. 
Black, Assistant Secretary for Legislation, Department of Health, 
Education, and Welfare 112 

Table: Estimated potential sulfur dioxide pollution without abate- 
ment 172 

Letter from Dr. Middleton, with telegrams received by him protesting 
alleged lack of consideration given citizen spokesmen to air quality 
standards hearings — 394 

Answers to questions sent by Chairman Muskie in letter dated April 8, 

1970.. ._. .. 345 

(in) 



IV 

JohnRon, Charles C, Jr.: 

Table: Air quality control region information relating to standards 

and implementation plans for sulfur oxides and particulate matter Page 
through March 10, 1970 202 

Linsky, Prof. Benjamin: 

Chart: Average household customer's monthly price of electricity 252 

Chart: Air pollution potential growth and cutback concept chart 257 

Table 3-9. — Expected annual control costs relative to capacity and 

shipments of industrial process sources 255 

Table 33. — Estimated cost of motor vehicle emission control systems, 

1968-74 260 

Air pollution control law of West Virginia 265 

Manpower questions answered 34 1 

Muskie, Hon. Edmund S.: 

Comparison of provisions of pending legislation 66 

Letter dated April 8, 1970, with questions, sent to Secretary Finch, 

HEW 193 

National Society of Professional Engineers: Statement on S. 3466 113 

Randolph, Hon. Jennings: 

Environmental quality measures cosponsored by Senator Randolph 
in interest of bipartisanship, extract from Congressional Record, 

February 17, 1970 128 

"Must We Breathe Sulfur Oxides?", by Prof. Thomas K. Sherwood, 

M.I.T., from Technology Review, January 1970 183 

"Pollution from Combustion of Fossil Fuels, by Paul W. Spaite and 

Robert P. Hangebrauck 172 

Letter dated April 9, 1970, to Dr. John T. Middleton 190 

Appendix to March 17 hearing: 

Letter dated March 10, 1970, to Senator Randolph from Frank J. 
Ball, director, Charleston Research Center, discussing West- 

vaco SO2 recovery process 211 

Letter dated April 17, 1970, to Rep. Harley O. Staggers, W. Va., 

from Frank J. Ball, discussing Westvaco SO2 recovery process.. 213 
Letter dated March 16, 1970, to Senator Randolph, from Russell 
Haden, Jr., president. Ionics, Inc., Watertown, Mass., describ- 
ing Ionics/Stone & Webster SO2 removal process 215 

Letter dated March 13, 1970, to Senator Randolph, from Joseph 
G. Stites, Jr., manager. Air Pollution Control Department of 
Monsanto Envirochem Systems, Inc., St. Louis, Mo., describ- 
ing their air pollution abatement system 220 

Statement of James R. Garvey, president. Bituminous Coal Re- 
search, Inc., Monroeville, Pa., made before Joint Committee on 

Atomic Energy, February 25, 1970 222 

Statement of Robert H. Quig, P.E., engineer-utility operations. 
Chemical Construction Corps., before the Joint Committee on 

Atomic Energy, February 25, 1970 225 

"Modified SO2 System Faces New Test," article reprinted from 

Electrical World, December 8, 1969 232 

Statement of Stuart Watt, Wellman-Lord, Inc., before the 

Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, February 25, 1970 _ . 234 
Abstract paper presented by Stuart G. Watt before National' Air 

Pollution Control Association in New York City, June 1969_._ 235 
Schaefer, Dr. Vincent J. : 

The Inadvertent Modification of the Atmosphere by Air Pollution, by 
Vincent J. Schaefer, Atmospheric Sciences Research Center, State 

University of New York at Albany 102 

Some Effects of Air Pollution of Our Environment," by Vincent' J. 

Schaefer jqq 



Solomon, Neil, M.D., Ph.D., Secretary, Department of Health and Mental 

Hygiene, State of Maryland : Page 

Statement on S. 3466 116 

Statement on S. 3229 118 

Statement on S. 3546 119 

Treshow, Michael; professor of biology. University of Utah: Statement 

submitted on S. 3229, S. 3466, S. 3546 114 

Wichert, Karl E., Des Moines, Wash.: 

Statement re air contamination by exhaust fumes 120 

APPENDIX 

Questions submitted to Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 
by Senator Muskie, in letter of April 8, 1970, and subsequent answers by 
Department: 

Air quality criteria 345 

Control technology and development 353 

Automotive emission control 360 

Standards and enforcement 380 

Fuel additives 428 

President's Air Quality Advisory Board 436 

Noise pollution 437 

Personnel and staffing 439 

Governmental expenditures 441 



AIR POLLUTION— 1970 



MONDAY, MARCH 16, 1970 

U.S. Senate, 
Stjbcommittee on Air and Water Pollution 

OF the Committee on Public Works, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met at 9 :40 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 4200, 
New Senate Office Building, Hon. Edmund S. Muskie (chairman of 
the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present : Senators Muskie, Boggs, and Dole. 

Also present: Richard B. Royce, chief clerk and staff director; 
Bailey Guard, assistant chief clerk, minority ; M. Barry Meyer, coun- 
sel ; Thomas C. Jorling, minority counsel ; Leon G. Billings and Rich- 
ard D. Grundy, professional staff members, and Adrien Waller, staff 
member. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDMUND S. MUSKIE, CHAIRMAN, 
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AIR AND WATER POLLUTION 

Senator Muskie. The committee will be in order. 

At this opening of our hearings on air pollution, I will begin with 
a brief statement. 

Today the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution begins 10 
days of hearings on pending air quality legislation. These hearings 
will be held in Washington through Thursday, March 26, and will 
continue in San Francisco on March 31 and in Los Angeles on April 
1. Additional field hearings may be scheduled.* 

During the next 10 days the subcommittee hopes to develop a broad 
public record on the need for additional Federal air quality legisla- 
tion. The particular bills before the subcommittee represent a major 
extension of Federal involvement in air pollution control and will 
require an expanded Federal presence as well as additional manpower 
and funds. 

Today's witnesses will provide the subcommittee with information 
on the environmental aspects of the air pollution problem, including 
the pollution ramifications of a proposed new technology. 

There is no acceptable justification for a policy that controls only 
those sources that are easily or conveniently controlled. This pollution 
control will require a commitment from each of us — a commitment 
to make sacrifices, to spend money, and to give up some technological 
comforts and luxuries. 

We must not control a source here and a source there and believe 
that we can survive with half an effort. 



♦Subsequent to this announcement the San Francisco hearing was conducted for the 
purposes of S. 2005 and amendments (Resource Recovery). The Los Angeles hearing was 
canceled because of urgent business of the Senate. Statements were accepted for the record 
for that day. 

(1) 



We cannot afford to play a constant catch-up game with the quality 
of our air. 

The bills before the committee today will let us make a whole effort, 
control) injr all sources of pollution and discouraging the introduction 
into tlie environment of those sources we cannot control. 

Tomorrow the subcommittee will hear Secretary Robert Finch of 
the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and his represent- 
atives who will discuss the pending legislation as well as the admin- 
istrative aspects of the program. 

The balance of this week will be taken up by industrial, public and 
other witnesses who will discuss the economic, social and health as- 
pects of the legislation and of the air pollution problem. 

Next week the subcommittee will hear representatives of the legal 
profession on the new enforcement authority proposed in these bills 
and will sit jointly with the Subcommittee on Energy, Natural Re- 
sources, and the Environment of the Senate Commerce Committee, 
chaired by Senator Hart, on those aspects of the pending bills which 
relate to moving sources of air pollution. 

Before we proceed with the witnesses I will recognize Senator Boggs 
for his opening remarks. 

Senator Boggs ? 

OPENING REMARKS OF SENATOR BOGGS 

Senator Boggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join you in your wel- 
come to the witnesses who will open this very important series of 
hearings. 

Each of the three bills before us brings the opportunity for signif- 
icant advancement in the fight for clean air. I had the honor to co- 
sponsor one of the bills, S. 3466. The two other bills were offered by 
the distinguished chairman of our subcommittee. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask that these bills be included in the record at the 
start for purposes of reference. 

Senator Muskie. It is so ordered. And following the bills we will 
include also the comparison of provisions of the pending legislation. 

Senator Boggs. In the past 7 years since its creation, this subcom- 
mittee has acted in a most nonpartisan manner in its consideration of 
pollution control legislation. 

It is my hope that these hearings will provide us with the informa- 
tion we need to blend the very best features from each of these bills 
and make the 1970 extension of the Clean Air Act an event that will 
meet to the fullest extent the demand from across our country for 
clean, healthy air. 

(The bills and comparison follow :) 



91sT CONGRESS 
1st Session 



S. 3229 



IX THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

Decembkr 10 (legislative day, Decembeu 0), 1969 

Mr. Muskie (for himself, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Eagleton, Mr. Montoya, Mr. Ran- 
Doi.i'ii, and Mr. Spong) introdiicefl the following bill ; which was read twice 
and referred to the Committee on Public Works 



A BILL 

To amend the Clean Air Act in order to extend the authorizations 
for such Act, to extend the provisions of title II relating to 
emission standards to vessels, aircraft, and certain a^lditional 
vehicles, and for other purposes, and to provide for a study 
of noise and its effects. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 

2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 TITLE I 

4 Sec. 101. This title may he cited as the "Air Quality 

5 Improvement Act". 

6 Sec. 102. Section 104(a) (2) of the Clean Air Act 

7 is amended by striking out "and (B) " and inserting in lieu 

8 thereof "(B) part of the cost of programs to develop low 

II 



2 

1 emission alternatives to the internal combustion engine, in- 

2 eluding steam, electric, and fuel cells; and (C) ". 

3 ' Sec. 103. Section 104(c) of the Clean Air Act is 

4 amended by striking out "and for the fiscal year ending 

5 June 30, 1070, $45,000,000" and inserting in lieu thereof 

6 "for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, $45,000,000, 

7 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, $125,000,000, for 

8 the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, $150,000,000, 

9 and for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, $175,000,000". 

10 Sec. 104. Section 108(c) of the Clean Air Act is 

11 amended in the first sentence by inserting before "a plan 

12 for the implementation" a comma and the following: "after 

13 further public hearings at least thirty days following the 
^"^ publishing of such standards and the proposed plan,". 

15 Sec. 105. Title II of the Clean Air Act is amended to 

1^ read as follows: 

17 "TITLE II-NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS 

18 AQrp 

^^ SHORT TITLE 

20 "Sec. 201. This title may be cited as the 'National 

21 Emission Standards Act'. 

'establishment of standards 

2^ "Sec. 202. (a) The Secretary shall by regulation, giv- 

^ ing appropriate consideration to technological feasibility 
and economic costs, prescribe as soon as practicable stand- 



3 



1 ards, applicable to the emission of anj' kind of substance, 

2 from any class or classes of vesisels, aircraft, commercial 

3 vehicles, new nonconnnercial vehicles, vessel, commercial 

4 vehicle, or aircraft engines, or new non-commercial-vehicle 

5 engines, which in his judgment cause or contribute to, or 

6 are likely to cause or to contribute to, air pollution which 
'' endangers the health or welfare of any persons, and such 
S standards shall apply to such vesisels, aircraft, vehicles, or 
^ engines whether they are designed as complete S3'stems or 

1^ incoi-porate other devices to prevent or control such pollution. 

11 Any such standards shall include requirements with raspect 

1^ to the manufacturers' warranty of such systems or devices 

1^ necessary for the purposes of this Act. 

14 "(b) Any regulations initially prescribed under this 

15 section, and amendments thereto, with respect to an}- class 

16 of vessels, aircraft, commercial vehicles, new noncommercial 

17 vehicles, vessel, commercial vehicle, or aircraft engines, or 

18 new non-commercial-vehicle engines shall become efTective 

19 on the efTective date specified in the order ])romulo'ating 

20 such regulations, which date shall l)e determined l)y the Sec- 

21 retary after consideration of the period reasonably necessary 

22 for compliance. 

2'i "(c) Any such regulations, or amendments thereto, 

24 with respect to aircraft, shall not be made efTective until 



4 

1 determined by the Secretaiy of Transportation to not inter- 

2 fere with the safety of such aircraft. 

3 "prohibited acts 

4 "Sec. 203. (a) The following acts and the causing 

5 thereof are prohibited — 

6 " (1) in the case of a manufacturer of new vessels, 

7 new aircraft, new vehicles, new vessel engines, new air- 

8 craft engmes, or new vehicle engines for distribution in 

9 commerce, the manufacture for sale, the sale, or the 

10 offering for sale, or the introduction or delivery for in- 

11 troduction into commerce, or the importation into the 

12 United States for sale or resale, of any new vessel, new 

13 aircraft vehicle, or new vessel aircraft, or vehicle engine, 

14 manufactured after the effective date of regulations under 

15 this title which are applicable to such vessel, vehicle, or 

16 engine unless it is in conformity with regulations pre- 
1"^ scribed under section 202 (except as provided in subsec- 
18 tion (b) ) ; 

"(2) in the case of an owner of a vessel, aircraft, 
commercial vehicle, or vessel, commercial vehicle, or 
aircraft engine, the use in commerce of such vessel, air- 
craft, vehicle, or engine after the effective date of regu- 
lations under this title which are applicable to such ves- 
sel, aircraft, or engme unless it is in conformity with 



19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 



5 

2 regulations prescribed under section 202 (except as 

2 provided in subsection ( b ) ) ; 

3 "(3) for any person to fail or refuse to permit 

4 access to or copying of records or to fail to make reports 

5 or provide information, required under section 207; 

6 " (4) for any person to remove or render inopera- 

7 tive any device or element of design installed on or in a 

8 vessel, aircraft, or vehicle, or vessel, aircraft, or vehicle 

9 engine in compliance with regulations under this title 

10 prior to its sale and delivery to the ultimate purchaser ; or 

11 "(5) for any person to remove or render inopera- 

12 tive, other than for purposes of maintenance or repair, 

13 any device or element of design installed on or in a 

14 vessel, aircraft, or vessel or aircraft engine in compliance 

15 ^^•ith regulations under this title during the term of its 

16 use in commerce. 

17 "(b) (1) The Secretary may exempt any new vessel, 

18 new aircraft, new vehicle, or new vessel, aircraft, or vehicle 

19 engine, or class thereof, from subsection (a), upon such 

20 terms and conditions as he may find necessary to protect the 

21 public health or welfare, for the purpose of research, in- 

22 vestigations, studies, demonstrations, or training, or for 

23 reasons of national security. 



8 



6 

1 "(2) A new vessel, new aircraft, new vehicle, or new 

2 vessel, aircraft, or vehicle engine offered for importation Ijy 

3 a manufacturer in violation of subsection (a) shall be re- 

4 fused admission into the United 8tates, but the Secretary 

5 of the Treasury and the Secretary may, by joint regulation, 

6 provide for deferring final determination as to admission and 

7 authorizing the delivery of such a vessel, aircraft, vehicle, or 

8 engine offered for import to the owner or consignee thereof 

9 upon such terms and conditions (including the furnishing of 

10 a bond) as may appear to them appropriate to insure that 

11 any such vessel, aircraft, vehicle, or engine ^^■ill be brought 

12 into conformity with the standards, requirements, and limita- 

13 tions applicable to it under this title. The 'Secretary of the 
^■1 Treasury shall, if a vessel, aircraft, vehicle, or engine is 

15 finally refused admission under this paragraph, cause dispo- 

16 sition thereof in accordance with the customs laws unless it 
1''' is exported, under regulations prescribed by such Secretary, 

18 within ninety days of the date of notice of such refusal or 

19 such additional time as may be permitted pursuant to such 

20 regulations, except that disposition in accordance with the 

21 customs laws may not be made in such manner as may result, 

22 directly or indirectly, in the sale, to the ultimate consumer, 

23 of a new vessel, aircraft, vehicle, or engine that fails to com- 

24 ply with appHcable standards of the Secretary of Health, 
2-'^ Education, and Welfare under this title. 



9 



7 

1 " (3) A new vessel, aircraft, vehicle, or engine intended 

2 solely for export, and so labeled or tagged on the outside of 

3 the container and on the vessel, aircraft, vehicle, or engine 

4 itself, shall not he sul)ject to the provisions of subsection (a) . 

5 "injunction peoceedings 

6 ''Sec. 204. (a) The district courts of the United States 

7 shall have jurisdiction to restrain violations of paragraph 

8 (1), (2), or (3) of section 203(a). 

9 " {h) Actions to restrain such violations shall be brought 

10 by and in the name of the United States. In any such action, 

11 subpenas for witnesses who are required to attend a district 

12 court in any district may run into any other district. 

13 "PENAXTIES 

11 "Sec. 205. Any person who violates paragraph (1), 

15 (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203 (a) shall be subject 

1^ to a fine of not more than $1,000. Such violation with re- 

1'^ spect to sections 203 (a) (1 ) . 203 (a) (2) , 203 (a) (4) , and 

1^ 203(a) (5) shall constitute a separate offense with respect 

1^ to each vessel, airciaft, vehicle, or engine. 

2^ "certification 

21 "Sec. 206. (a) Upon application of the manufacturer, 

^^ the Secretary shall test, or require to be tested, in such man- 

'^^ ner as he deems appropriate, any new vessel, aircraft, vehicle, 

-'■* or engine submitted by such manufacturer to determine 

'^'^ whether such vessel, aircraft, vehicle, or engine confoj-ms 



10 



8 

1 with the regulations prescribed under .section 202 of this 

2 title. If such vessel., aircraft, vehicle, or engine conforms to 

3 sudi regulations the Secretary shall issue a certificate of con- 

4 fonnity, upon such terms, and for such period not less than 

5 one year, as he may prescribe. 

6 "(b) Any new vessel, aircraft, vehicle, or engine sold 

7 by such manufacturer which is in all material respects sub- 

8 stantially the same constmction as the test vessel, aircraft, 

9 vehicle, or engine for which a certificate has been issued 

10 under subsection (a) , shall for the purposes of this Act be 

11 deemed to be in conformity with the regulations issued under 

12 section 202 of this title. 

13 "(c) Vessels and aircraft and vessel and aircraft engines 
1-4 used in commerce and subject to standards promulgated under 

15 section 202 of this title shall l)e periodically certified under 

16 such procedures as the Secretary may by regulation presci'ibe. 

17 "records and reports 

18 "Sec. 207. (a) Every manufacturer or owner of a ves- 

19 sel or aircraft shall estabhsh and maintain such records, make 

20 such reports, and provide such information as the Secretary 

21 may reasonably require to enable him to determine whether 

22 such manufacturer or owner has acted or is acting in compli- 

23 ance with this title and regulations thereunder and shall, 

24 upon request of an officer or employee duly designated l)y the 



11 



9 

1 Secretary, j)eniiit sudi oflieer or employee at reasonable 

2 times to have access to and coj)y such records, 

3 " {^) AH int'ormation reported or otherwise oht^iined hy 

4 the Secretary or his representative pursuant to subsection 

5 (a) , which information contains or relates to a trade secret 

6 or other matter referred to in section 1905 of title 18 of the 

7 United States Code, shall be considered confidential for the 

8 purpose of such section 1905, except that such information 

9 may be disclosed to other officers or employees concerned 

10 ^vith carrying out this Act or when relevant in any proceed- 

11 ing under this Act. Nothing in this section shall authorize the 

12 withholding of information by the Secretary or any officer or 

13 employee under his control, from duly authorized committees 

14 of the Congress. 

15 "state standards 

16 "Si:c. 208. (a) No State or any political subdivision 

17 thereof shall adopt or attempt to enforce any standard relat- 

18 ing to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or 

19 new motor vehicle engines subject to this title. No State shall 

20 require certification, inspection, or any other approval relat- 

21 ing to the control of emissions from any new motor vehicle 

22 or new motor vehicle engine as condition precedent to the 

23 initial retail sale, titling (if any) , or registration of such 

24 motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or equipment. 



12 



10 

1 "(I)) The Secretary shall, after notice and opportunity 

2 for public hearing, waive application of this section to any 

3 State which has adopted standards (other than crankcase 

4 emission standards) for the control of emissions from new 

5 motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines piior to March 

6 30, 1966, unless he finds that such State does not require 

7 standards more stringent than applicable Federal standards to 

8 meet compelling and extraordinary conditions or that such 

9 State standards and accompanying enforcement procedures 

10 are not consistent with section 202(a) of this title. 

11 "(c) Nothing in this title shall preclude or deny to any 

12 State or political subdivision thereof the right otherwise to 

13 control, regulate, or restrict the use, operation, or movement 
li of registered or licensed motor vehicles. 

15 "federal assistance in developing vehicle 

16 inspection programs 

17 "Sec!. 209. The Secretary is authorized to make grants 

18 to appropriate State air pollution control agencies in an 

19 amount up to two-thirds of the cost of developing mean- 

20 ingful uniform motor vehicle emission device inspection and 

21 emission testing programs except that (1) no grant shall 

22 be made for any part of any State vehicle inspection program 

23 which does not directly relate to the cost of the air pollu- 

24 tion control aspects of such a program; and (2) no such 

25 grant shall be iiiade unless the Secretary of Transportation 



13 



11 

1 has certified to the Secretary that such program is consistent 

2 with any highway safety program developed pursuant to 

3 section 402 of title 23 of the United States Code. 

4 "registration of fuel additives 

5 "Sec. 210. (a) The Secretary may by regulation desig- 

6 nate any fuel or fuels (including fuels used for purposes other 

7 than motor vehicles) , and after such date or dates as may 

8 be prescribed by him, no manufacturer or processor of any 

9 such fuel may deliver any such fuel for introduction into 

10 interstate commerce or to another person who, it can rea- 

11 sonably be expected, will deliver such fuel for such introduc- 

12 tion unless the manufacturer of such fuel has provided the 

13 Secretary with the information required under subsection 
!■* (b) (1) of this section and unless any additive contained 
1^ in such fuel has been registered with the Secretary in ac- 
16 cordance with subsection (b) (2) of this section. 

1"^ " (h) For the purposes of this section the Secretary 

1^ shall require ( 1 ) the manufacturer of such fuel to notify him 

1^ as to the commercial identifying name and manufacturer of 

2^ any additive contained in such fuel; the range of concentra- 

^^ tion of such additive or additives in the fuel; and the pur- 

^^ pose in the use of such additive; and (2) the manufacturer 

^■^ of any such additive to notify him as to the chemical composi- 

■^^ tion of such additive or additives as indicated by compliance 

^'^ with clause (1) above, the recommended range of concen- 



14 

12 

1 tration of such additive, if any, the recommended purpose 

2 in the use of such additive, and to the extent such information 

3 is available or becomes available, the chemical structure of 

4 such additive or additives. Upon compliance with clauses ( 1 ) 

5 and (2) , including assurances that any change in the above 

6 information will be provided to the Secretary, the Secretary 

7 shall register such fuel additive. 

8 "(c) All mfomiation reported or otherwise obtained by 

9 the Secretary or his representative pui"suant to subsection 

10 (b) , which infonnation contains or relates to a trade secret 

11 or other matter referred to in section 1905 of title 18 of the 

12 United States Code, shall be considered confidential for the 

13 purpose of such section 1905, except that such infonnation 

14 may be disclosed to other officers or employees of the United 

15 States concerned with caiTying out this Act or when rele- 

16 vant in any proceeding imder this title, Nothing in this sec- 
1*7 tion shall authorize the withholding of information by the Sec- 

18 retary or any officer or employee under his control, from the 

19 duly authorized committees of the Congress. 

^^ "(d) Any person who violates sul)section (a) shall 

21 forfeit and pay to the United States a civil penalty of $1,000 

22 for each and every day of the continuance of such violation, 

23 which shall accrue to the United States- and be recovered in 

24 a civil suit in the name of the United States, l)rought in 
2'^ the district where such person has his principal office or 



15 



13 

1 in any district in wliicli he does business. The Secretary 

2 may, ujiun application therefor, remit or mitigate any for- 

3 feiture provided for in this subsection and he shall have 

4 authority to deteiraine the facts upon all such applications. 

5 "(e) Tt shall be the duty of the various United States 

6 attorneys, under the direction of the Attorney General of the 

7 United States, to prosecute for the recovery of such forfeitures. 

8 "development of low-emission vehicles 

9 "Sec. 211. In order to encourage research and promote 

10 the development of low-emission vehicles the Secretary is 

11 authorized to — 

12 "(1) prescribe special low-emission standards for 

13 any class or classes of vehicles or engines and such stand- 

14 ards shall pemiit an emission of not more than 50 per 

15 centum of the amount of pollutants permitted by stand- 

16 ards estalilished pursuant to section 202 for the same 

17 class of vehicle or engine; 

18 "(2) provide testing procedures to determine if vehi- 

19 cles and engines meet such standards ; and 

20 '* ( 3 ) certify vehicles or engines meeting such stand- 

21 ards as low-emission vehicles or engines for the purpose 

22 of this section. 

23 "solvents 

24 "Sec. 212. (a) The Secretary by regulation may desig- 

25 nate solvents, coating materials, organic or inorganic mate- 



16 



14 

1 rials, and products containing any such substance as a con- 

2 stituent thereof, either singly or Ijy classes or in combina- 

3 tions, which when used in uncontrolled situations, in his 

4 judgment, may cause or contribute to air pollution adversely 

5 affecting health or welfare; and after such date or dates as 

6 may be prescribed by him, no manufacturer of any such 

7 product or substance may deliver any such product or sul)- 

8 stance into interstate commerce unless such substance has 

9 been registered with the Secretary in accordance with this 

10 section. 

11 "(b) For the purposes of this subsection the Secretary 

12 shall require (1) the manufacturer of any product which 

13 contains any such substance to notify him as to the commer- 

14 cial identifying name and the manufacturer of the solvent, 

15 coating material, organic or inorganic material, or other such 

16 substance contained in the product; the range of concentra- 

17 tion of such substance; the purpose of such substance; and 

18 (2) the manufacturer of any such substance to notify him as 

19 to the chemical stmcture and composition of such substance 

20 as indicated by compliance with clause (1) above, the rec- 

21 ommended range of concentration of such substance, if any, 

22 and the recommended purpose of such substance. Upon com- 

23 pliance with clauses (1) and (2) . including assurances that 

24 any change in the above information will be provided to the 

25 Secretary, the Secretary shall register such product. 



17 



15 

1 "(c) The Secretary may develop and publish proposed 

2 standards, either singly or by classes, for the use of those 

3 substances and products that are registered in compliance 

4 with subsections (a) and (b) above. The Secretary may 

5 from time to time review such proposed standards and make 

6 changes therein, taking into consideration increased knowl- 

7 edge regarding technology or effects on health or welfare. 

8 ''(d) If the Secretary determines that any such sub- 

9 stance or class thereof constitutes a substantial and immi- 

10 nent danger to the health or welfare of an}^ person, he may 

11 promulgate any of the proposed standards for such substance 

12 which have been developed and puljlished pursuant to sub- 

13 section (c) and he may prohibit the introduction of such 

14 substance into interstate connnerce unless it complies with 

15 such regulations as he shall promulgate under this sub- 

16 section. 

17 "(e) If two or more manufacturers, vendors, or dis- 
38 tributors of any such substance or product notify the Secre- 
1& tary that two or more State, interstate, or local agencies or 

20 authorities have estabHshed standards, rules, or regulations 

21 applicable to such substance or product and varying from 

22 each other in their terms or effects upon the manufacturer, 

23 vendor, or distributor, the Secretary may promulgate any of 

24 the proposed standards he has developed, and published for 



18 

16 

1 such substance or product under subsection (c) and they 

2 shall become elective alter a date established by him. 

3 "(f) At any time he shall deem it necessary, the Secre- 

4 tary may add additional substances or products to the desig- 

5 nations made under subsection (a) , add additional sub- 

6 stances or products to those to which proposed standards 

7 existing under subsection (c) already apply, or promulgate 

8 under subsection (d) or (e) additional standards which 

9 have been proposed under subsection (c). 

10 " (g) All information reported or otherwise obtained by 

11 the Secretary or his representative pursuant to this section, 

12 which information contains or relates to a trade secret or 

13 other matter referred to in section 1905 of title 18 of the 

14 United States Code shall be considered confidential for the 
1^ purpose of such section 1905, except that such information 
1^ may be disclosed to other officers or employees concerned 
1''' with carrying out this Act or when relevant in any pro- 
1^ ceeding under this Act. Nothing in this subsection shall au- 
^^ thorize the withholding of information by the Secretary or 

20 any officer or emploj^ee under his control from the duly au- 

21 thorized committees of Congress. 

^^ "(h) (1) Any person who violates after the efifective 

^3 date the provisions of subsection (a), (d),or (e) or regula- 
tions promulgated pursuant thereto shall forfeit and pay to 
the United States a civil penalty of $1,000 for each and 



19 



17 

1 every day of the continuance of such violation, which shall 

2 accrue to the United States and be recovered in a civil suit in 

3 the name of the United States brought in the district where 

4 'such person has his principal office or in any district in which 

5 he does business. The Secretary may, upon api)lication there- 

6 for, remit or mitigate any forfeiture provided for in this 

7 section and he shall have authority to determine the facts 

8 upon all such applic^itions. 

9 "(2) It shall be the duty of the various United States 

10 attorneys, under the direction of the Attorney General of the 

11 United States, to prosecute for the recovery of such for- 

12 feitures. 

13 "definitions for title II 
11 "Sec. 213. As used in this title— 

15 "(1) The term 'manufacturer' as used in sections 203, 

16 206, and 207 means an}^ person engaged in the manufac- 

17 turing or assembling of new vessels, aircraft, or vehicles, or 
38 new- vessel, aircraft, or vehicle engines, or importing such 

19 vessels, aircraft, vehicles, or engines for resale, or who acts 

20 for and is under the control of any such person in connection 

21 with the distribution of such vessels, aircraft, vehicles, or 

22 engines, but shall not include any dealer with respect to new 

23 vehicles or new vehicle engines received by him in commerce. 

24 "(2) The term 'vessel' means anv self-propelled water- 



20 



18 

1 craft designed for transporting persons or property on or in 

2 water. 

3 " (3) The term 'new vessel' means a vessel the e(iuital)le 

4 or legal title to which has never heen transferred to an ulti- 

5 mate purchaser; and the term 'new vessel engine' means an 

6 ensine in a new vessel or a vessel engine the equitahle or 

7 legal title to which has never been transferred to the ultimate 

8 purchaser. 

9 "(4) The tenn 'aircraft' means any self-propelled con- 

10 trivance designed for transporting persons or property in the 

11 air. 

12 "(5) The term 'new aircraft' means an aircraft the 

13 e(iuitd)le or legal title to which has never heen transfeiTed 
1^ to an ultimate purchaser; and the term 'new aircraft engine' 
^^ means an engine in a new aircraft or an aircraft engine the 
1^ ecjuitahle or legal title to which has never been transferred to 
l'^ the ultimate purchaser. 

18 " (6) The term 'vehicle' means any self-propelled 

1^ vehicle designed for transporting persons or property on a 

20 street or highway or on rails, or any vehicle for agricultural 

21 use, and the term 'motor vehicle' means only such a vehicle 

22 designed for transporting persons or property on a street or 
-"^ highway. 

"(7) The term 'commercial' means used with profit as 
the primary aim. 



21 



19 

1 " (8) The term 'new' as used with respect to a vehiek% 

2 motor vehicle or vehicle or motor vehicle engine means a 

3 vehicle, motor vehicle, or engine the e(}nitahle or legal title to 

4 which has never heen transferred to an ultimate purchaser. 

5 "(9) The temi 'dealer' means any person who is 

6 engaged in the sale or the distiihution of new vehicles or new 

7 vehicle engines to the ultimate purchaser. 

8 "(10) The term 'ulthnate purchaser' means, with 

9 respect to any new vessel, aircraft, vehicle, or new vessel, air- 

10 craft or vehicle engine, the first person who in good faith 

11 purchases such new vessel, aircraft, vehicle, or engine for pur- 

12 poses other than resale. 

13 "(11) The term 'commerce' means (A) commerce 
^'^ hetween any i)lace in any State and any place outside thereof; 
1^ and (B) conunerce wholly within the District of Columbia," 
16 Sec. 106. Section 309 of the Clean Air Act is amended 
1'^ by striking out "and $134,300,000 for the fiscal year ending 

18 June 30, 1970" and inserting in lieu thereof "$134,300,000 

19 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, $150,0<.)0,0(K) for 

20 the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, $175,01)0,000 for the 

21 fiscal year enduig June 30, 1972, and $200,000,000 for the 

22 fiscal year ending June 30, 1973". 

23 TITLE II 

24 Sec. 201, This title may be cited as the "Noise Pollution 
2^* and Abatement Act". 



22 

20 

1 8ec. 202. (n) The Secretary of Health, Education, and 

2 Welfare shall establish within the Department of Health, 

3 Education, and Welfare an Office of Noise Abatement and 

4 Control, and shall carry out through such office a full and 

5 complete investigation and study of noise and its effect in 

6 order to determine — 

7 ( 1 ) effects at various levels ; 

8 ( 2 ) projected growth of noise levels in urban areas 

9 through the year 2000; 

10 (3) the psychological effect on humans ; 

11 (4) effects of sporadic extreme noise (such as jet 

12 noise near airports) as compared with constant noise; 

13 (5) effect on wildlife and property (including val- 

14 ues) ; 

15 (6) effect of sonic booms on property (including 

16 values) ; and 

17 ( 7 ) such other matters as may be of interest in the 

18 pubfic welfare. 

19 (b) The Secretary shall report the results of such 

20 investigation and study, together with his recommendations 

21 for legislation or other action, to the President and the Con- 

22 gress not later than one year after the date of enactment of 

23 this Act. 

24 (e) In any case where a department or agency of the 

25 Government is carrying out any activity resulting in noise 



23 



21 

1 whicli amounts to a public nuisance or is otherwise objec- 

2 tionable, such department or agency shall consult with the 

3 Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to deteraiine 

4 possible means of abating such noise. 

5 (d) There is authorized to be appropriated such amount, 

6 not to exceed $30,000,000, as may be necessary for the pur- 

7 poses of this section. 



24 



9l8T CONGRESS 
2d Session 



S. 3229 



IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

February 18,1970 
Keferred to the Committee on Public Works and ordered to be printed 



AMENDMENTS 

Intended to be proposed by Mr. Montoya to S. 3229, a bill to 
amend the Clean Air Act in order to extend the authoriza- 
tions for such Act, to extend the provisions of title II relat- 
ing to emission standards to vessels, aircraft, and certain 
additional vehicles, and for other pui-poses, and to ])rovide 
for a study of noise and its effects, viz : 

1 On page 13 betw^een hnes 7 and 8 insert the following: 

2 ''establishment of STANDAKDS For FUELS 

3 "Sec. 211. (a) The Secretary shall, as soon as prac- 

4 ticable, prescribe (1) such standards with respect to the 

5 composition of fuels of all types as are necessary to protect 

6 the public health and welfare and carry out the pohcy of this 

7 Act, (2) such rules and regulations as are necessary to pre- 

Amdt. No. 501 



25 



2 

1 vent the manufacture or processing for use in the United 

2 States of fuels not meeting such standards, and (3) after 

3 consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, such rules 

4 and regulations as are necessary to prevent the importation 

5 into the United States of fuels not meeting such standards. 

6 Included with such standards shall be specific methods by 
'^ which fuels shall be tested by the Secretary to determine if 
S they conform to such standards. 

^ "(b) Any person who violates any provision of rules 

1^ and regulations prescribed pursuant to this section shall be 

11 subject to a fine of not more than $1,000. Each day on which 

12 any such violation occurs shall constitute a separate offense. 
1^ " (c) All action taken under this section in prescril)ing 
14. standards, rules, and regulations shall be taken in conformitj^ 

15 with the provisions of title 5, United States Code, relating 

16 to administrative procedure." 

17 On pages 13 through 17, redesignate sections 211 

18 through 213 as sections 212 through 214, respectively. 



26 



9l8T CONGRESS 
2d Session 



S. 3466 



IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

February 18,1970 

Mr. Scott (for himself, Mr. Ccx)per, Mr. Randolph, Mr. Baker, Mr. Bri.lmon, 
Mr. Bennett, Mr. Bocujs, Mr. Brooke, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Dole, Mr. Ervin, 
Mr. Fannin, Mr. Fong, Mr. Goldwater, Mr. Goodell, Mr. Griffin, Mr. 
(iurney, Mr. Javits, Mr. Jordan of Idaho, Mr. McIntyre, Mr. Mansfieiji, 
Mr. Miller, Mr. Mundt, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Packwood, Mr. 
Pearson, Mr. Percy, Mr. Prouty, Mr. Saxbe, Mr. Schweiker, Mr. Sjiitii 
of Illinois, Mr. Stevens, and Mr. Tower) introduced the follo\vin<j hill ; 
whicli was read twice and referred to the Committee on Public Works 



A BILL 

To amend the Clean Air iVct so as to extend its duration, })r()- 
vide for national standards of aml)ient air (jnality, expedite 
enforcement of air pollution control standards, authorize 
regulation of fuels and fuel additives, provide for improved 
controls over motor vehicle emissions. estal)Iish standards 
applicalde to dangerous emissions from stationary sources, 
and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted b,'/ the Senate and House of Representa- 

2 tives of the United States of America in Conr/ress assembled, 

3 That this Act may he cited as the "Clean Air Act Amend- 

4 ments of 1970". 

II 



27 



2 

1 BXTE5NSI0N OF DURATION 

2 Sec. 2. (a) The first sentence of section 104 (c) of the 

3 Clean Ah- Act (42 U.S.C. 1857b-l (c) ) is amended by 

4 striking out ''and" before "for the fiscal year ending June 

5 30, 1970," and by inserting before the period at the end 

6 thereof ", and such sums as may be necessary for the fiscal 

7 year ending June 30, 1971, and for each of the next two 

8 fiscal years". 

9 (b) Section 309 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 

10 18571) is amended by striking out "and", and insertmg 

11 before the period at the end thereof ", and such sums as may 

12 be necessary for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, and 

13 for each of the next two fiscal years". 

14 TESTING OF MOTOE VEHICLES AND ENGINES 

15 Sec. 3. (a) Subsection (a) of section 206 of such Act 

16 (42 U.S.C. 1857f-5) is amended by strikmg out in the 
1"^ first sentence thereof "Upon application of the manufacturer, 
18 the" and inserting in lieu thereof "The"; by striking out 
1^ "such manufacturer" and inserting in lieu thereof "the manu- 

20 facturer"; and by inserting after "not less than one year" 

21 in the second sentence thereof " (except as provided under 

22 subsection (c) ) ". 

23 (b) Subsection (b) of such section is amended by in- 

24 serting before the period at the end of the sentence ", ex- 

25 cept as provided in subsection (c) ". 



28 



3 

1 (c) Such section 206 is further amended by adding 

2 after subsection (b) the following new subsections: 

3 "(c) (1) In order to determine whether new motor 

4 vehicles or new motor vehicle engines being manufactured 

5 by a manufacturer are in. fact constructed in all material 

6 respects substantially the same as the test vehicle or engine, 

7 the Secretary is authorized to test such vehicles or engines. 

8 Such tests may be conducted by the Secretary directly or, 

9 in accordance with conditions specified by the Secretary, by 

10 the manufacturer. 

11 " (2) If, based on such tests conducted on a representa- 

12 tive sample of such vehicles or engines, the Secretary deter- 

13 mines that such vehicles or engines do not conform with the 

14 regulations in efifect on the date the certificate of conformity 

15 was issued, he may revoke such certificate and so notify 

16 the manufacturer. Such revocation shall apply in the case 

17 of any new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines 

18 manufactured after the date of such notification and until 

19 such time as the Secretary finds that vehicles and engines 

20 being manufactured by the manufacturer do conform to such 

21 regulations. 

22 "(d) For purposes of enforcement of this section, offi- 

23 cers or employees duly designated by the Secretary, upon 

24 presenting appropriate credentials and a written notice to the 

25 manufacturer, are authorized (A) to enter, at reasonable 



29 



4 

1 times, any factory, or other business or estaltlisliuient, for the 

2 piii*pose of conducting tests of vehicles or engines coming 

3 ofif the production hne, or (B) to inspect, at reasonable 

4 times, records, files, papers, and processes, controls, and fa- 

5 oilities used by such manufacturer in conducting tests under 

6 regulations of the Secretary. A separate notice shall l)e given 

7 for each such inspection, but a notice shall not be ro<[uired 

8 for each entry made during tlie i)eriod covered by the in- 

9 si)ection. Each such insi)ection shall be commenced and conl- 

10 pleted with reasonable promptness." 

11 (d) The heading of such section 206 is amended to 

12 read: 

13 "COMPLIANCfE TESTING AND CERTIFICATION" 

14 (e) Paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of section 203 of 

15 such Act (42 U.S.C. 1857f-2) is amended by striking out 

16 '*it is in conformity with" and inserting in lieu thereof "such 

17 manufacture is covered ])y a. certificate of conformity issued 

18 (and in effect) under". 

19 (f) The amendments made by this section shall apply 

20 in the ease of motor vehicles ami motor vehicle engines man- 

21 ufactured after the month in which this Act is enacted. 

22 IMPORTATION OF VEHICLES AND ENGINES 

23 Sec. 4. (a) Paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of sec- 

24 tion 203 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1857f-2) is amended by 

25 inserting "(in the case of any pei'son, except as provided 



30 



5 

1 l)y iTgiilatioii of the Ser-retary) ," after "commerce, or"; 

2 and by striking out "United States for sale or resale" and in- 

3 sertiug in lieu thereof "United States". 

4 (b) The first sentence of paragraph (2) of subsection 

5 (b) of such section is amended by striking out "by a manu- 

6 facturer" and inserting in lieu thereof "of imported by any 

7 i>erson". 

8 (c) Paragraph (3) of section 212 of such Act (42 

9 U.S.C. 1857f-7) is amended by striking out "The" and 

10 inserting in lieu thereof "Except with respect to vehicles or 

11 engines imported or offered for importation, the" ; and by add- 

12 ing before the period at the end thereof " ; and with respect 

13 to imported vehicles or engines, such terms mean a motor 

14 vehicle and engine, respectively, manufactured after the efTec- 

15 tive date of the regulations issued under section 202". 

16 (d) The amendments made by this section shall apply 

17 in the case of motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines 

18 imported into the United States on or after the sixtieth day 

19 following the date of enactment of this Act. 

20 REGISTRATION AND REGULATION OF FUELS AND FUEL 

21 ADDITIVES 

22 Sec. 5. (a) Subsection (a) of section 210 of such Act 

23 (42 U.S.C. 1857f-6c) is amended to read as follows : 

24 " (a) The Secret^i-y may by regulation designate any 



31 



6 

1 fuel (which, for purposes of this section, means only fuel 

2 intended for use in the transportation of any person or thing) 

3 or fuel additive, and after such date or dates as may be pre- 

4 scribed by him, no manufacturer or processor of any such fuel 

5 or fuel additive may sell or deUver it unless the manufacturer 

6 of such fuel or fuel additive has provided the Secretary with 
"7 the information required under subsection (c) of this section 

8 and unless such fuel or fuel additive has been registered with 

9 the Secretary in accordance with subsection (c) of this 

10 section." 

11 (b) Section 210 of such Act is amended by redesignat- 

12 ing subsections (b), (c) , (d),and (e) as subsections (c) , 
1^ (d) , (e) , and (f) , respectively, and by adding after sub- 

section (a) the following new subsection : 

"(b) The Secretary may, on the basis of information 
obtained under subsection (c) of this section or any other 

information available to him, establish standards respecting 

1ft 

the composition or the chemical or physical properties of any 

fuel or fuel additive to assure that such fuel or fuel additive 

wiU not cause or contribute to emissions which would endan- 

21 

ger the pubUc health or welfare, or impair the performance of 

22 

any emission control device or system which is in general use 

23 

or likely to be in general use (on any motor vehicle or motor 

24 

vehicle engine subject to this title) for the purpose of pre- 

25 

venting or controlling motor vehicle emissions from such 



32 



7 

1 vehicle or engine. For the purpose of cairying out such stand- 

2 ards the Secretary may prescribe regulations — 

3 • "(A) prohibiting the manufacture for sale, the sale, 

4 the offering for sale, or the delivery of any fuel or fuel 

5 additive; or 

6 "(B) limiting the composition or chemical or physi- 

7 cal properties, or imposing any conditions applicable to 

8 the use of, such fuel or fuel additive (including the maxi- 

9 mum quantity of any fuel component or fuel additive that 

10 may be used or the manner of such use) . 

11 (o) The subsection of section 210 herein redesignated 

12 as subsection (c) is amended by striking out 'Tor purposes 

13 of this section, the Secretary shall" and inserting in lieu 

14 thereof "For the purpose of establishing standards under 

15 subsection (b) , the Secretary may require the manufacturer 

16 of any fuel or fuel additive to furnish such information as is 

17 reasonable and necessary to determine the emissions result- 

18 ing from the use of the fuel or fuel additive or the effect 
1^ of such use on the performance of any emission control 

20 device or system which is in general use or likely to be in 

21 general use (on any motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine 

22 subject to this Act) for the purpose of preventing or con- 

23 trolling motor vehicle emissions from such vehicle or en- 

24 gine. If the information so submitted establishes that toxic 

25 emissions or emissions of unknown or uncertain toxicity 



33 



8 

1 result from the use of tlie fuel or fuel additive, the Secretary 

2 may require the submission within a reasonable time of 

3 such scientific data as the Secretary may reasonably pre- 

4 scribe to enable him to determine the extent to which such 

5 emissions will adversely affect the public health or welfare. 

6 To the extent reasonably consistent with the purposes of 
'^ this section, such requirements for submission of information 
S with respect to any fuel additive shall not be imposed on 
9 the manufacturer of any such additive intended solely for 

1^ use in a fuel only by the manufacturer thereof. Among other 
^^ type» of information, the Secretary shall"; by inserting in 
^^ clause (2) "the description of any analytical technique 
^'^' that can be used to detect and measure such additive in fuel," 
after "above," ; by striking out in such clause "to the extent 
such information is available or becomes available,"; by 
striking out "clauses (1) and (2)" in the second sentence 
and inserting in lieu thereof "the provisions of this subsec- 
tion" ; and bv striking out "such fuel additive" in such sen- 



15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 



tence and inserting in lieu thereof "such fuel or fuel addi- 
tive". 

(d) The subsection of section 210 herein redesignated as 
subsection (d) is amended by inserting between the first and 
second sentences the following new sentence: "The Secre- 
tary may disseminate any information, obtained from reports 
or otherwise, which is not covered by section 1905 of title 18 



34 



9 

1 of the United States Code and which will contribute to 

2 scientific or public understanding of the relationship between 

3 the cheniiciil or physical properties of fuels or fuel additives 

4 and their contribution to the problem of air pollution." The 
^ first sentence of such subsection is amended by striking out 
^^ "subsection (b) " and inserting in lieu thereof "subsection 

^ (0)". 

5 (c) The subsection of section 210 herein redesignated as 
^ subsection (e) is amended (1) by adding "or subsection 

^0 (b)" after "subsection (a)"; and (2) by striking out 

11 "$1,000" and inserting in lieu thereof "$10,000". 

1^ (f) The amendment made by subsection (e) (2) of this 

1"^ section shall be effective with respect to any fuel or fuel addi- 

14 tive to which a regulation issued under subsection (a) of sec- 

l-'^ tion 210 of such Act or a standard estabhshed under subsec- 

16 tion (b) of such section, as amended by this Act, applies. 

1'^ NATIONAL AIR QUALITY STANDARDS 

18 Hev. 6. Section 107 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1857c-2) 

19 is amended to read as follows : 

20 "national air QUALITY STANDARDS 

2' "Sec. 107. (a) As soon as practicable after enactment 

22 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, l)Ut in no event 

23 later than the close of the sixth calendar month after the 
--4 month in which such enactment occurs, the Secretary shall. 



35 



10 

1 after consultation with ap])iopnate advisory committees and 

2 Federal departments and agencies, jjublish in the Federal 

3 Kegister proposed regulations estal)lishing nationally ap- 

4 plicahle standards of aml/ient air quality for any pollutant 

5 or combination of })ollutants which he determines endanger 
G or may endanger the puhHc health or welfare, and allow a 

7 reasonable time for connnent thereon by interested parties. 

8 After considering such comments and other relevant infor- 
^ mation. the Secretary shall ])romulgate such regulations 

1^^ with such modifications as he deems appropriate. He may 

11 from time to time thereafter, by regulation similarly pre- 

12 scribed, extend such standards to other pollutants or other- 

13 wise revise such standards. 

14 "(b) As soon as possible after establishing or revising 

15 standards under subsection (a), the Secretary shall, after 

16 consultation with ai)propriate advisory committees and Fed- 

17 eral departments and agencies, issue to appropriate air 

18 pollution control agencies informaticm on those recommended 

19 pollution control techni(iues the application of which is 

20 necessarv to achieve such standards of air (juality at the 

21 earliest practicable time. Such information shall include 

22 data relating to technology and costs of emissi(m control. 

23 The recommendations shall also include such data as are 

24 available on the latest available technology and economic 

25 feasibility of alternative methods of ])revention and control 



36 



11 

1 of air i)oIlution. Such issuance shall he announced in the 

2 Federal Kegister and copies shall he made availahle to the 

3 general puhlic." 

4 AIR QUALITY STANDAUDB AND ABATEMENT OF All? 
.) POLLUTION 

f> Sec. 7. (a) Paragraphs (1), (2), and (:]) of subsec- 

'7 tion (c) of section 108 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1857d) are 
^ amended to read as follows: 

^ " (c) (1) If, after the date on which the Secretary has, 

^^ pursuant to section 107, established standards of ambient air 

^1 quality and issued recommended control techni(|ues therefor — 

^2 " (A) any State or any interstate air pollution con- 

1<^ trol agency, within ninety days after such date, files with 

the Secretary a letter of intent that it will adopt a j)lan 

^'^ (meeting the requirements of sub])aragraph (B) ) within 

the thue specified, a desciiption of how it will proceed to 

develop the plan (meeting such reipiirements) for the 



18 



\ 



arious areas within its jurisdiction, and the lime within 



^^ which the plan will be applied to each such area giving 

2^ due regard, in setting this order of application of the 

plan, to the relative re(|uirements of each area; and 

" (B) such State or interstate agency adopts a plan 

for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement 

of such standards d air (piality, which adoption occurs 

-'^ within one hundred and eight>' davs after the filing of 



37 



12 

1 such letter of intent and other material pursuant to sub- 

2 paragraph (A) and after public hearuigs held not less 

3 than thirty days following" publication of a i)roposed plan 

4 for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of 

5 such standards; and 

^ "(C) the Secretary determines that such plan — 

7 " (i) includes emission standards, or equivalent 

8 measures, and such other measures as may be neces- 

9 sary to assure achieving or preserving such stand- 

10 ards of ambient air quality within a reasonable time 

11 in all areas within the jurisdiction of such State or 
1^ interstate agency; 

13 " (ii) contains adequate provisions for intergov- 

14 emmental cooperation, including, in the case of any 

15 area covering part or all of more than one State and 
1^ designated by the Secretary, appropriate provision 

17 for dealhig with interstate pollution problems ; 

18 " (iii) provides adequate means of enforcement, 

19 including authority comparable to that in subsection 

20 (k) of this section to prevent or deal with air pollii- 
-1 tion presenting an imminent and significant cndan- 
-- gennent to the public health : and 

23 "(iv) provides for revision from time to time 

'^^ as may be necessary to take account of revisions of 

2'^ such ambient air quality standards or improved on 



38 



1 o 

1 more expeditious inetliods of achieving such staud- 

2 ards ; 

3 such plan (except with respect to any area for which an 

4 extension is granted pursuant to the last two sentences of 

5 this paragrai)h) shall he approved by the Secretary. Any 
(j revisions of such a plan which are similarly adopted and 

7 otherwise meet the requirements of the preceding sentence 

8 shall also be approved by the Secretary. For good cause 

9 shown, the Secretary may extend, for such period as he finds 
10 necessary and appropriate, the one hundred and eighty day 
n period referred to in subparagraph (B) with respect to any 
12 area or areas under the jurisdiction of the State or interstate 
l'^ agency. No such extension may exceed ninety days unless 
1-i the request therefor accompanies the material filed pursuant 
15 to subparagraph (A) and is in turn accompanied by satis- 
1^ factory assurances that the portions of the plan relating to 
1^ the areas most in need of air pollution abatement action will 

18 receive priority in the development and submission of the 

19 plan. 

•^^■' " (2) If a State or interstate agency doeg not file a letter 

21 of intent and the other mateiial described in paragraph ( 1 ) 

2- or adopt a plan in accordance with paragraph (1) with 

23 respect to any State or portion thereof, the Secretary shall 

2^ prepare regulations establishing such a plan for such State 

■"^ or portion. Prior to promulgating such regulations, the Sec- 



39 



14 

1 retary ^^hall call a public hearing for the })urpose of receiving 

2 testimony from State and local pollution control agencies 

3 and other interested parties affected l)y the regulations, to 

4 l)e held in or near one or more of the ])laces where the plan 

5 will be applical)le. At least thirty days prior to the date of 
^ such hearing, notice thereof shall be pul)lislied in the Federal 
'^ Kegister. If. jnior to the date the Secretary publishes such 

8 regulations, the State or interstate agency has not adopted 

9 such a }dan. the Secretary shall jironudgate such regulations. 
1^ (b) raragraph (4) of such subsection (c) is amended 
^1 to read as follows: 

12 "(4) (A) Whenever, on the basis of surveys, studies, 

13 or reports, the Secretary finds that the and)ient air (piality in 
I'l any State or the area uiider the jurisdiction of any interstate 
15 air ])ollution control ageaicy fails to meet the air quality 
1^ standards established ])ursuant to section 107, and he deter- 

17 mines, on the l)asis of facts thus ascertained, that such 

18 failure results from the failure of a State or interstate agency 
1-* to carry out its plan (or the plan i)rovided Inr it l)y the 

20 Secretary) under section 108 (c), the Secretar}- shall notify 

21 the State or the interstate agency, and the persons con- 
-2 tributing to the lowering of the air (piality or to the alleged 
2" violations, of such findings. 

24 "(B) If such State or interstate agency has not taken 

"-- ai)pro])riate remedial action within ninety days of such noti- 



40 



15 

1 fic'iUion, the Secretary may re(|iiest tlie Attorney General 

2 to bring suit on behalf of the United States in the appropriate 
;) I'nited States district court to enj(/ni violation of applicable 

4 standards or regulations by any person within that State or 

5 the area under the jurisdiction of any interst^ite air p(»llution 
() control agency." 

7 (l') (1) Paragraph (1) of subsection (d) of such sec- 

8 tion is amended by striking out sul)paragraphs (A), (B), 

9 (C), and by striking out "(D)" and inserting in lieu 

10 thereof "(d) (1)". 

11 (2) The second sentence of paragraph (1) of subsec- 

12 tion (f) of such section is amended by striking out "and 

13 each State claiming to be adversely affected by such poUu- 

14 tion". 

15 (3) The first sentence of paragraph (2) of such sub- 

16 section is amended by striking out "pollution refen'ed to in 

17 subsection (a)" and inserting in lieu thereof "any pollu- 

18 tion". 

19 (d) Subsection (g) of such section is amended to read 

20 as follows: 

^1 " (g) If action reasonably calculated to secure abatement 

22 of the pollution within the time specified in the notice follow- 

-3 ing the public hearing is not taken, the Secretary may re- 

-4 quest the Attorney General to bring a suit on behalf of the 



41 



16 

1 United States in the appropriate United States district court 

2 to secure abatement of the pollution." 

3 (e) The first sentence of subsection (j) (1) of such 

4 section is amended by striking out "based on existing data," 

5 and inserting before the period at the end thereof ", or any 

6 other information which may reasonably be required to assist 
'^ the Secretary in evaluating the emission of pollutants caused 
S by such person". 

^ (f) Section 108 of such Act is further amended by strik- 

1^ ing out subsection (b). 

11 (g) The amendments made by subsections (a), (b), 

12 and (c) of this section shall become effective on the date on 

13 which the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare pre- 
scribes regulations pursuant to section 107 of the Clean Air 
Act as amended by this Act. The amendments made by sub- 
sections (d) and (f) of this section shall also be effective on 
such date, except that they shall not apply with respect to 
any proceeding begun under sul)section (d) of section 108 of 
the Clean Air Act prior to such date on which such regula- 
tions are prescribed. 

21 

Sec. 8. Title I of the Clean Air Act is amended by 

adding after section 111 the following new sections: 

23 

"stationary source emission standards 

24 

"Sec. 112. (a) The Secretary shall from time to time 

25 

by regulation, giving appropriate consideration to technolog- 



42 



17 

1 ical feasibility, ostablish standards with respect to emissions 

2 from classes or types of stationary sources which (1) con- 

3 tribute substantially to endangerment of the public health or 

4 welfare, and (2) can be prevented or substantially reduced. 

5 Such standards may be established only after reasonable 

6 notice and opportunity for interested parties to present their 

7 views at a public hearing. Any regulations hereunder, and 

8 amendments thereof, shall become effective on a date specified 
^ therein, which date shall be determined by the Secretary after 

10 consideration of the period reasonably necessary for com- 

11 pliance. The Secretar}^ may exempt any industry or establish- 

12 ment, or any class thereof, from this section, upon such teniis 
1^ and conditions as he may find necessary to protect the public 
1^ health or welfare, for the pui^pose of research, investigations, 
1^ studies, demonstrations, or training, or for reasons of national 
1" security. 

"(b) Such regTilations shall provide that — 

" ( 1 ) if such emissions are extremely hazardous 
to health, 

" (A) no new source of such emissions shall 
be constructed or operated, except where (and sub- 
ject to such conditions as he deems necessaiy and 
appropriate ) the Secretary makes a specific exemp- 
tion with respect to such constmction or operation; 
"(B) any existing source of such emissions 



19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 



25 



10 

11 

12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 



43 



18 

1 shall install and maintain any control measures 

2 necessary and appropriate to meet the standards 

3 prescribed under this section; 

4 "(2) in other cases to which subsection (a) ap- 

5 plies, any new source of such emissions shall be designed 
" and equipped to prevent and control such emissions to 
' the fullest extent compatible with the available tech- 
° nology as determined by the Secretary. 

*'(c) (1) If, within such period as may be prescribed 
by the Secretary, any State or interstate air pollution con- 
trol agency adopts a plan for enforcement of the standards 
promulgated by the Secretary under this section, such plan 
shall, if the Secretary determines it provides adequately for 
the enforcement of such standards, be applicable within such 
State or other area. 

"(2) If a State does not adopt a plan in accordance 
with paragraph (1) of this subsection, the Secretary shall, 
after reasonable notice and a conference of representatives 
of appropriate Federal departments and agencies and State 
agencies, prepare regulations establishing a plan for such 
State which shall meet the criteria for enforcement plans 
required under section 108. If, prior to the date the Secre- 
tary publishes such regulations, the State has not adopted 
such plan, the Secretary shall promulgate such regulations. 

" (d) If at any time the Secretary determines that 



44 



19 

1 emissions from any stationary sources are in excess of the 

2 standards establisheid by him pursuant to this section, and that 

3 this results from the failure of a State or interstate agency 

4 to carry out its State plan adopted as provided in paragraph 

5 (1) or established as provided in paragraph (2) of subseo- 

6 tion (c) , he shall notify the aflfected State or the interstate 

7 agency, the person contributing to the pollution, and other 

8 interested parties and specify a time within which such failure 

9 must ceiase. If such failure does not cease within such time, 

10 the Secretary may request the Attorney General to bring 

11 suit on behalf of the United States in the appropriate United 

12 States district court to secure abatement of the pollution. 

13 "(e) Prior to establishing standards under subsection 

14 (a) , the Secretary shall consult with appropriate Federal 

15 departments and agencies having responsibilities related to 

16 any stationary sources to which such standards will be 
1*7 applicable." 

18 "federal enforcement 

19 "Sec. 113. (a) If the Secretary, after reasonable notice 

20 and opportunity for a hearing, determines (1) (A) that the 

21 ambient air quality of any area fails to meet the air quality 

22 standards established pursuant to section 107, or (B) that 

23 any person is violating any standards established pursuant 

24 to section 112, and (2) that such failure or violation results 

25 from the failure of a State or mterstate agency to carry out 



45 



20 

1 its plan meeting the requirements of section 108 or 112, 

2 as the case may be, or the plan of the Secretary established 

3 thereunder, h« shall so notify the State or interstate agency 

4 and the persons contributing to the lowering of the air qual- 

5 ity or to the violation of such standards, and shall specify 

6 the remedial action to be taken and the time, not less than 
''' sixty days, within which such persons must take; such action. 

8 " (b) If such action is not taken within such time, the 

9 Secretary may recpiest the Attorney General to bring a suit 

10 on behalf of the United States in the appi-opriatc United 

11 States district court to enjoin continued failure to take the 

12 necessary remedial action. In any such suit, the court shall 
1^ receive into evidence a transcript of the hearing held by the 

14 Secretary and a copy of the findings prepared by the Secre- 

15 tary as a result thereof. The court may also receive such 

16 additional evidence as it deems necessary. The court, giving 
1'^ due consideration to the practicability and to the physical 
IS feasibility of taking the necessary remedial action, shall 

■^■. - 

1^ havi> jurisdiction to enter such judgment and orders cnforc- 

20 iiig silch judgment as the public interest and the equities of 

21 the case may require. The court may also assess a penalty 

22 of lip to $10,000 for each day after the end of the period 

23 specified by the Seci'etary pursuant to subsection (a) for the 
2^ taking of the necessaiy remedial action except that, in deter- 
25 mining the amount cif such penalty, the court shall take into 



46 



21 

1 account the efforts of the defendant to abate the pollution 

2 involved." 

3 . CONFORMING AMENDMENTS 

4 Sec. 9. Section 106 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1857c-l) 

5 is hereby repealed. 

6 EFFECTIVENESS OF NEW PROVISIONS 

7 Sec. 10. Section 108 (c) of the Clean Air Act as in effect 

8 prior to enactment of this Act and ambient air quality stand- 
^ ards and implementation and enforcement plans promulgated 

10 or approved, prior to enactment of this Act, under such sec- 

11 tion shall not be considered invaHd by reason of such enact- 

12 ment until (1) the Secretary of Health, Education, and 

13 Welfare establishes ambient air quality standards pursuant 
1^ to such section as amended by this Act; and (2) either the 

State adopts an implementation and enforcement plan which 
1^ is approved by the Secretary pursuant to such section as so 

amended or the Secretary provides such a plan pursuant 
1^ thereto. 



47 



9l8T CONGEESS 
2d Session 



S. 3546 



IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

March 4,1970 

Mr. MusKiE (for himself, Mr. Bath, Mr. Eagleton, Mr. Montota, Mr. Kan- 
DOLPH, and Mr. Spong) introduced the following bill ; which was read twice 
and referred to the Committee on Public Works 



A BILL 

To amend the Clean Air Act, as amended, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 

2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That this Act may be cited as the "National Air Quahty 

4 Standards Act of 1970." 

5 Sec. 2. In order to accelerate the establishment of am- 

6 bient air quality standards pursuant to section 108 of the 

7 Clean Air Act, as amended, the Secretary of Health, Educa- 

8 tion, and Welfare shall designate immediately all air quality 

9 control regions pursuant to the provisions of section 107 of 

10 the Clean Air Act, as amended. 

11 Sec. 3. (a) Section 107(a) (2) of the Clean Air Act, 
II 



48 



2 

1 as amended, is amended by changing "section 108," to "see- 

2 tion 108(c) (1),". 

3 .(b) Section 107 (a) of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 

4 is further amended by adding a new paragraph at the end 

5 thereof to read as follows: 

6 " (3) For the purpose of establishing ambient air qual- 

7 ity standards pursuant to section 108(c) (2), and for ad- 

8 ministrative and other purposes, each State shall, after pubUc 

9 hearings and within six months after the effective date of 

10 this paragraph, designate one or more air quality control 

11 regions within such State which shall include all areas of 

12 the State not included in such regions designated under 

13 paragraph (2) of this subsection. Such regions shall be 

14 based on jurisdictional boundaries, urban-industrial concen- 

15 trations, and other factors necessary to provide adequate 

16 implementation of air quality standards. The State shall 

17 immediately notify the Secretary of such designations. If 

18 the State fails to make such designations within the time pre- 

19 scri))ed, the Secretary shall promptly make such designations 

20 and notify the Governor of the State thereof. Such designa- 

21 tions may be revised from time to time thereafter as neces- 

22 sary to protect the public health and welfare". 

23 Sec. 4. (a) Paragraph (1) of section 108(c) of the 

24 Clean Air Act, as amended, is amended to read as follows: 
^^ " ( 1 ) If, within thirty days of receiving any air quality 



49 



3 

1 criteria and recommended control techni(iiies issued pursuant 

2 to section 107, the Governor of a State files a letter of intent 

3 that such State will, after public hearings and within one 

4 hundred and eighty days, and from time to time thereafter, 

5 adopt ambient air quality standards applicable to anj'^ air 

6 quality control region or portions thereof designated pursu- 

7 ant to section 107(a) (2) within such State, and, after 

8 public hearings and within one hundred and eighty days 

9 thereafter, and from time to time as may be necessary 

10 adopts a plan which shall include compliance schedules and 

11 emission requirements necessary for the implementation, 

12 maintenance, and enforcement of such standards of air qual- 

13 ity adopted; and if the Secretary determines that — 

14 "(A.) such standards and plan are established in 

15 accordance with the letter of intent; 

16 "(B) such State standards are consistent with the 

17 air quahty criteria and recommended control techniques 

18 issued pursuant to section 107; 

19 " (C) such plan assures that such standards of air 

20 quality will be achieved within a reasonable time; 

21 "(D) such plan includes emission requirements 

22 necessary to implement such standards of air quality; 

23 "(E) such plan includes a procedure to assure that 

24 proposed new sources of emissions will not cause vioja- 

25 tion of such standards ; 



50 



4 

1 "(F) a means of enforcement by State action, in- 

2 eluding authority comparable to that in subsection (k) 

3 ■ of this section, is provided ; and 

4 " (G) any such State standards and plan are con- 

5 sistent with the purposes of this Act and this subsection; 

6 such standards and plan or revisions thereof shall be the air 

7 quality standards apphcable to such region or portions 

8 thereof." 

9 (b) Paragraphs (2) through (6) of ssection 108 (c) of 

10 the Clean Air Act, as amended, are amended to read as 

11 follows : 

12 "(2) (A) After public hearings and within twelve 

13 months of the effective date of this Act, the Governor of 

14 a State shall adopt ambient air quahty standards applicable 

15 to any air quality control region or portions thereof desig- 

16 nated pursuant to section 107(a) (3) of this Act for any 

17 pollutants or combinations thereof for which air quahty cri- 

18 teria and recommended control techniques have been issued 

19 prior to enactment of this Act. 

20 **(B) After receiving any air quality criteria and recom- 

21 mended control techniques issued after the date of enactment 

22 of this paragraph and after public hearings, the Governor of 

23 a State shall adopt ambient air quahty standards applicable 
2^ to such regions pursuant to the procedures set forth in para- 
25 graph ( 1 ) of this subsection. 



51 



5 

1 "(G) Such standards and plan or revisions thereof shall 

2 be the air quality standards applicable to such region or 

3 portions thereof if the Secretary determines that — 

4 " (i) such standards and plan are established in 

5 accordance with the letter of intent; 

6 ' " (ii) such State standards are consistent with the 
"^ air quaUty criteria and recommended control techniques 
S issued pursuant to section 107; 

^ " (iii) such plan assures that such standards of air 

10 quality will be achieved within a reasonable time; 

H " (iv) such plan includes emission requirements nec- 

12 essary to implement such standards of air quahty; 

1^ " (v) such plan includes a procedure to assure that 

1^ proposed new sources of emissions will not cause viola- 

1^ tion of such standards; 

1^ " (vi) a means of enforcement by State action, in- 

1"^ eluding authority comparable to that in subsection (k) 

18 of this section, is provided; and 

19 " (vii) such State standards and plan are consistent 

20 with the purposes of this Act. 

21 " (3) The Governor of a State shall, from time to time, 

22 but at least every five years, hold public hearings for the 

23 purpose of reviewing the air quality standards established 

24 under this subsection and, as appropriate, revising and adopt- 
^^ ing improved air quahty standards. No revised air quality 



52 



6 

1 standards shall reduce the ambient air quahty of any desig- 

2 nated region or portion thereof to which such standards are 

3 a;pplicahle below the quality established by the air quality 

4 standards for such regions or portions thereof prior to such 

5 revision. 

6 " (4) If a State does not (A) file a letter of intent or 

7 (B) establish or revise air quality standards in accordance 

8 with paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this subsection with 

9 respect to any air quality control region or portion thereof, 

10 or if the Secretary finds it necessary to achieve the purpose 

11 of this Act, or if the Governor of any State affected by air 

12 quality standards established pursuant to this subsection peti- 
1^"' tions for a revision in such standards, the Secretary shall 

14 within one hundred and eighty days develop proposed regu- 

15 lations setting forth such standards or revisions thereof eon- 

16 sistent with the air (juality criteria and recommended control 
1'^ techniques issued pursuant to section 107 applicable to such 
18 regions or portions thereof. When such standards are devel- 
^^ oped, the Secretary shall, after notice, promptly hold a pub- 

20 lie conference of interested representatives of Federal, State, 

21 and interstate agencies and of municipalities, industries, and 
other persons to revicM^ and comment on such proposed stand- 
ards. Upon completion of such conference, the Secretaiy shall 
publish such proposed standards in the Federal Register with 
such modifications as he deems appropriate and notify the 



53 



7 

1 affected State or States. If, within ninety days from the date 

2 the Secretary pubhshes such standards, the State has not 

3 adopted air quality standards found by the Secretary to 

4 meet the requirements of this subsection for estabhshing such 

5 standards, or if a petition has not been filed under paragraph 

6 (5) of this subsection, the Secretary shall promulgate such 

7 standards. 

8 " (5) At any tune prior to thirty days after standards 
^ have been pubhshed under paragraph (4) of this subsec- 

10 tion, the Governor of any State affected by such standards 

11 may petition the Secretary for a hearing. The Secretary shall 

12 promptly issue a notice of such public hearing before a board 

13 of five or more persons appointed by the Secretary for the 

14 pui'pose of receiving testimony from State and local ponti- 
le tion control agencies and other interested persons affected by 
1^ the proposed standards, to be held in or near one or more of 
1'^ the areas where such standards will apply. Each State af- 
18 fected by such standards shall be given an opportunity to 
1^ select a member of the board. The chairman and not less 

20 than a majority of the members shall not be officers or em- 

21 ployees of Federal, State, or local governments. Board mem- 

22 bers, other than officers or employees of Federal, State, or 

23 local governments, shall be, for each day (including travel- 

24 time) during which they are performing committee business, 

25 entitled to receive compensation at the rate fixed by the ap- 



54 



8 

1 propriate Secretary but not in excess of the maximum rate 

2 of pay for grade GS-18 as provided in the General Schedule 

3 under section 5332 of title 5 of the United States Code, 

4 and shall, notwithstanding the limitations of sections 5703 

5 and 5704 of title 5 of the United States Code, be fully rehn- 

6 bursed for travel, subsistence, and related expenses. On the 
'7 basis of the evidence presented at such hearing, the board 
8 shall, within thirty days unless the Secretary determines a 
^ longer period is necessary, but in no event longer than sixty 

^^ days, make findings of fact as to whether the standards 

11 comply with the requirements of this subsection for estab- 

1^ fishing such standards and issue a decision incorporating such 

^^ findings therein and transmit its findings to the Secretary 

14 and make its findmgs public. If the board ^nds that such 

15 standards so comply, they shall be promulgated mimediately. 

16 If the board recommends modifications therein, the Secre- 

17 tary shall promulgate revised standards in accordance with 

18 such recommendations. 

19 *'(6) Any violation of air quality standards established 

20 under this subsection, including the implementation plan is 

21 prohibited. 

22 '' (7) Whenever, on the basis of surveys, studies, investi- 

23 gations, or reports, an authorized representative of the Sec- 

24 retary finds a violation of such standards, he shall promptly 

25 issue an order in writing to the person causing or contributing 



55 



9 

1 to such violation reqiiinng such person to abate such viola- 

2 tion as soon as possible and within a time to be prescribed 

3 therein, except that in the case of a violation of emission re- 

4 (juirenients, such time shall not exceed seventy-two hours. A 

5 copy of the order shall l)e sent to the State pollution control 

6 ao-encv of the State or States in which the violation occurred. 

7 Subject to the provisions of this subsection, such order shall 

8 remain in efiect until such representative detemimes by writ- 

9 ten notice to such person that such violation no longer exists. 

10 All such orders shah contain a detailed description of the con- 

11 ditions or practices which cause or constitute a violation. 

12 Nothing in this paragraph shall affect the authority of the 

13 Secretary pursuant to subsection (k) of this section. 

14 "(8) (A) Any person issued an order pursuant to para- 

15 graph (7) of this subsection other than an order to abate a 

16 violation of an emission recpiirement may file with the Sec- 

17 retaiy an appHcation within thirty days of receipt thereof for 

18 a pubhc hearing to re\4ew such order. The applicant shall 

19 send a copy of such appHcation to the State pollution control 

20 agency m which the violation occurred. Upon receipt of sucli 

21 apphcation, the Secretary shall promptly hold a public hear- 

22 ing to enable such person and other interested persons to pre- 

23 sent inforaiation relating to the issuance and continuance of 

24 the order, or the time fixed therein, or both. The filuig of an 



56 



10 

1 ai)|)licati<)n for review under this paragraph shall not oper- 

2 ate as a sta}^ of the order. Any such hearing; shall he of rec- 

3 ord and shall he suhject to section 554 of title 5 of the United 

4 States Code. 

•5 "(^) Ininiediately ui)on completion of the hearing, the 

^^ Secretary shall make findings of fact givuig" due considera- 

"^ tion to the technological feasihility of complying with such 

8 standards and he shall issue a written decision, incorporatinjr 

^ therein an order vacating, affirming, modifying, or termiim<- 

1^ ing the previous order complained of and his findings. 

^1 " (C) In connection with any hearing under this pavn- 

1- grai)h, the Secretary may sign and issue sul)penas for tlip 

-^'^ attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of 

34 relevant papers, hooks, and documents, and administer oaths, 

15 Witnesses sunnuoned shall he paid the same fees and mileage 

1^ that are ])aid witnesses in the courts of the United States. In 

1^ case of contumacy or refusal to o))ey a subpena served upon 

18 any person under this paragraph, the distriot court of the 

1^ United States for any district in which such i)(.'rson is found 

-^^ or resides or transacts business, upon application by the 

"■l Ignited States and after notice to such person, shall have 

-^ jurisdiction to issue an order recpiiring such person to ai)pear 

"'' and give testimony before the Secretary or to appear and 

•^■^ ])roduce documents before the Secretary, or both, and any 

-"'^ failure to obey such order of the court may be punished by 

^ such court as a contempt thereof. 



57 



11 

1 " (9) Any decision issued by the Secretary under para- 

2 (Trapli (7) or (8) of this subsection shall be subject to ju- 

3 dicial review by the United States court of appeals for the 

4 circuit in which the violation occurred, or the United States 
•5 Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, upou 
'> the filhig in such court within thirty days from the date of 
T such order or decision of a petition by any person aggrieved 

8 thereby ^jrayino; that the order or decision be modified or 

9 set aside in whole or in part. Any order issued by the Sec- 

10 retary to abate a violation of an emission requirement shall 

11 l)e final and shall be in force until and unless the court de- 

12 termines that the interests of the public are best served b}' 

13 staying; such order. A copy of the petition shall forthwith 

14 l)e sent by registered or certified mail to the Secretary and 

15 rhe State water pollution control agency, and thereupon the 

16 Secretary .shall certify and file in such court the record upon 

17 which the order or decision complained of was issued, as 

18 ])rovided in section 2112 of title 28, United States Code. 

19 The court shall hear such petition on the record made Iteforc 

20 the Secretary. The findings of the Secretary, if supported by 

21 substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole, 

22 shall be conclusive. The court may afhrni. vacate, or modify 

23 nny order or decision of the Secretary and, when appro- 

24 piiate. issue such process as may be necessary to abate such 

25 violation, or may remand the proceedings to the Secretary 



58 



12 

1 for such further action as it may direct. The judgment of 

2 the court shall be subject to review only by the Supreme 

3 "Court of the United States upon a writ of certorari or 

4 certification as provided in section 1254 of title 28, United 
^ States Code. The commencement of a proceeding under this 
6 paragraph shall not, unless specifically ordered by the court, 
"^ operate as a stay of the order or decision of the Secretary. 

8 "(10) (A) The Secretary shall institute a civil action 

^ for relief, including a permanent or temporary injunction, 

10 restraining order, or any other appropriate order in the dis- 

11 trict court of the United States for the district in which 

12 a person subject to air ([uality standards estabUshed imder 

13 this section is located or resides or is doing business, when- 

14 ever such person (i) violates or fails or refuses to comply 
1^ with any final order or decision issued under this subsection 
16 to enforce air quafity standards established under this sub- 
1''' section or (ii) interferes with, hinders, or delays the Secre- 
1^ tary or his authorized representive in carrying out his respon- 
1^ sibilities under this section, or (iii) refuses to furnish any 

20 information, data or reports recpiested by the Secretary in 

21 furtherance of the provisions of this section, or (iv) refuses 

22 to pci-mit access to, and copying of, such records as the 

23 Secretary detennines necessary in carrying out the pr<»\i- 

24 sions of this section. Each court shall have jurisdiction to 
2*5 provide such relief as may be appropriate, except that such 



59 



13 

1 court shall have jurisdiction only Avith regard to the issue 

2 of relief heing sought pursuant to this paragraph. Temporary 

3 restraining orders shall be issued in accordance with rule 

4 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, ex- 

5 cept that the time limit in such orders, tflien issued without 

6 notice, shall be seven days from the date of entry. In actions 

7 under this section, subject to the direction and control of the 

8 Attorney General, as provided in section 507(b) of title 

9 28 of the United States Code, attorneys appointed by the 

10 Secretary may appeal* for and represent him. In any action 

11 instituted under this section to enforce an order or decision 

12 issued by the Secretary after a public hearing in accordance 

13 with section 554 of title 5 of the United States Code, the 

14 findings of the Secretary, if supported by substantial evi- 

15 dence on the record considered as a whole, shall be conclusive. 

16 "(B) Any person who knowingly violates any air 

17 quahty standards established under this subsection or who 

18 knowingly violates any plan for implementation or emission 

19 requirements included in such standards or who knowingly 

20 violates or fails or refuses to comply with any final order or 

21 decision issued under this section shall, upon conviction, be 

22 punished by a fine of not more than $25,000 per day of vio- 

23 lation, or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or 

24 by both, except that, if the conviction is for a violation com- 

25 mitted after the first conviction of such person under this 



60 



14 

1 section, punishment shall be by a fine of not more than 

2 $50,000 per day of violation, or by imprisonment for not 

3 • more than five years, or by both. 

4 " (C) Any person who knowingly makes any false state- 

5 ment, representation, or certification in any application, rec- 
^ ord, report, plan, or other document filed or required to be 
'^ maintained under this title or any order or decision issued 
^ under this section shall, upon conviction, be punished by a 
^ fine of not more than $10,000, or by imprisonment for not 

more than six months, or by both. 

"(11) For the purpose of making any investigation 

19 

under this subsection of any building, structure, or other 

13 

facility subject to air quality standards established under this 

14 sul)section, the Secretary or his authorized representative 

1^ shall have a right of entry to, upon, or through such building, 

16 structure, or facility. Whenever any person is required by a 

1' final order issued under this subsection to abate any viola- 

1° tion of air quality standards established under this subsection, 

1^ the Secretary shall, when appropriate, require such person 

to sample any emissions subject to abatement by such order 

m accordance with such methods, at such locations, at such 

mtervals, and in such manner as the Secretary shall prescribe 

pq 

and report such samples to the Secretary as he may prescribe 

24 

and such report shall l)e public. 

"(12) (A) No person shall discharge or in any other 



61 



15 

1 wa}^ discriminate against or cause to be discharged or dis- 

2 criminated against any employee or any authorized repre- 

3 sentative of employees by reason of the fact that such em- 

4 ployee or representative of any alleged violator has filed, 

5 instituted, or caused to be filed or instituted any proceeding 

6 under this Act, or has testified or is about to testify in any 

7 proceeding resulting from the administrations or enforcement 

8 of the pro^dsions of this Act. 

9 " (B) Any employee or a representative of employees 

10 who believes that he has been discharged or otherwise dis- 

11 criminated against by any person in violation of subparagraph 

12 (A) of this paragraph may within thirty days after such vio- 

13 lation occurs, apply to the Secretary for a review of such 

14 alleged discharge or discrimination. A copy of the application 

15 shall be sent to such person who shall be the respondent. 

16 . Upon receipt of such application, the Secretary shall cause 
1'^ such investigation to be made as he deems appropriate. Such 
18 investigation shall provide an opportunity for a public hear- 
1^ ing at the request of any party to enable the parties to present 

20 information relating to such violation. The parties shall be 

21 given written notice of the time and place of the hearing at 

22 least five days prior to the hearing. Any such hearing shall 

23 be of record and shall be subject to section 554 of title 5 of the 

24 United States Code. Upon receiving the report of such inves- 

25 tigation, the Secretary shall make findings of fact. If he 



62 



16 

1 finds that such violation did occur, he shall issue a decision, 

2 incorporating an order therein, requiring the person commit- 

3 ting such violation to take such affirmative action to abate the 

4 violation as the Secretary deems appropriate, including, but 

5 not Imiited to, the rehiring or reinstatement of the employee 

6 or representative of employees to his former position with 

7 compensation. If he finds that there was no such violation, he 

8 shall issue an order denying the application. Such order is- 
^ sued by the Secretary under this subparagraph shall be 

1^ subject to judicial review in accordance with this subsection. 

11 Violations by any person of paragraph { 1 ) of this subsection 

12 shall be subject to the provisions of paragraph (10) of this 
l"^ subsection. 

14 "(C) Whenever an order is issued under this para- 

15 graph, at the request of the applicant, a sum equal to the 

16 aggregate amount of all costs and expenses (including the 

17 attorney's fees) as determined by the Secretary to have been 

18 reasonably incurred by the appHcant for, or in connection 

19 with, the institution and prosecution of such proceedings, 

20 shall be assessed against the person committing such 

21 violation. 

22 "(13) The district courts of the United States shall have 

23 original jurisdiction, regardless of the amount in controversy 

24 or the citizenship of the parties, of civil actions brought by 

25 one or more persons on behalf of themselves or on behalf 



63 



17 

1 of any other persons similarly situated within any air quality 

2 control region or portion thereof designated under section 

3 107 against any person including a governmental instru- 

4 mentality or agency, for declaratory and equitable relief or 

5 any other appropriate order against any person, where there 

6 is an alleged violation of any applicable air quaUty standards, 

7 plan for implementation or emission requirements estabhshcd 

8 pursuant to this section. Nothing in this subsection shall 

9 affect the rights of such persons as a class or as individuals 

10 under any other law to seek enforcement of such standards." 

11 (c) Section 108 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 

12 is further amended by adding a new subsection at the end 

13 thereof to read as follows : 

14 " (i) Within six months after the effective date of this 

15 Act, the Secretary shall issue regulations to insure that any 

16 person constructing or installing any new building, structure, 

17 or other facility subject to any air quahty standard estab- 

18 lished or revised pursuant to this section installs, maintains, 

19 and uses the latest available pollution control techniques. 

20 Such techniques shall be consistent with information de- 

21 veloped pursuant to section 107 (c) . No person shall con- 

22 struct or install any such building, structure, or facility 

23 without first receiving certification of compliance with such 

24 regulations from the Secretary or, as appropriate, the State 

25 pollution control agency. In no event shall the Secretary or 



64 



18 

1 State agency certify any technique which does not implement 

2 emission re(j[uirements established pursuant to this Act." 

3 * Sec. 5. Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, is 

4 amended further by addmg a new subsection at the end 

5 thereof to read as follows: 

6 ''(c) Beginning on and after July 1, 1972, no Federal 
'^ department or agency ( 1 ) shall make any loan or grant to, 
8 or issue any license or permit to, or enter into any contract 
^ for financial assistance with, any person for the construction, 

1^ installation, or operation of any commercial or industrial 

^^ building, structure, or other facility from which any matter 

^^ is discharged into the air within any air quality control 

^^ region or portions thereof designated under this title, or (2) 

■^^ shall procure goods or products from any person who manu- 

■'■^ factures such goods or products in a buildmg, structure, or 

■^" other facility from which matter is discharged into the air 

•'■' within any air quality control region or portions thereof 

^° designated under this title, unless it is found that such matter 

^^ is being discharged in compliance mth the air quality stand- 
ards including emission requirements established under this 

91 . 

title for such region or portions thereof by the air pollution 

99 

control agency of the State in which such building, structure, 

9'-^ 

or other facihty is located and such person files a statement 

94 

with such department or agency of such finding." 

25 c( 

Sec. 6. The provisions of this Act amending the Clean 



65 



19 

1 Air Act, as amended, shall, unless otherwise provided in 

2 said amendments, be effective on July 1, 1971, except that 

3 such amendments shall not, unless otherwise provided there- 

4 m, affect actions taken under the sections as amended prior 

5 to such effective date. 



66 

Comparison of Provisions of Pending Legislation 

The Administration bill, S. 3466, would amend many of the provisions of the 
Clean Air Act, as amended, as folhnvs : 

(a) Extend authorization of — 

(1) Existing flection 104(c) (fuel and internal combustion enginge re- 
search) by authorizing "such sums as may be necessary" for the next three 

fiscal yearsL ^ ^^. ^ 

S 3229 before the Committee would similarly extent S. 104 by author- 
iziJig: 1970, $45 million; 1971, $125 million; 1972, $150 million; and 
1973, $175 million. 

(2) Existing section 309 (general NAPCA appropriation) by authorizing 
"such sums as may be necessary for the next three fiscal years." 

S. 3229 would authorize : 1970, $134 million ; 1971, $150 million ; 1972, 
$175 million ; and 1973, $200 million. 

(b) (1) To provide authority to spot check assembly line motor vehicles for 
in fact compliance with emission standards i)romulgated under existing law and 
(2) clarifying amendments to the motor vehicle registration provisions. 

(c) To amend exislting law (section 210) providing authority for fuel additive 
registration by reiiuiring (1) regii-tration of fuels, (2) compilation of data and 
research on such fuels and additives, and (3) authority to regulate sale of fuels 
and fuel additives and increasing to $10,000 the penalty for violation. 

S. 3229 does not contin such an amendment for fuel additives and fuels. 
However, it does propose to authorize extension of motor vehicle emission 
standard authority to all moving internal combustion engines — including 
aircraft. It also provides for Federal preemption for this authority. S. 3229 
would also provide for a Federal grant program to assist States in inspection. 

An amendment to S. 3229 (#501) introduced by Senator Montoya would 
authorize the Secretary of HEW to sets standards for fuel composition, to 
regulate manufacture and processing of fuels, and to regulate their im- 
portation. The Amendment further provides a penalty of $1,000 per day for 
violation of any such regulations. 

S. 3229 would authorize HEW to set emission standards for all sources 
of "solvents". 

(d) To substitute for the present procedure for establishment of regional 
standards, a new authority for HEW to set national ambient air standards for 
any pollutant or combination of ix>llutants. This would eliminate a procedure 
requiring a 6-month time period required under the present Act It is not clear 
from the language whether the States could adopt more stringent standards. 
Even though Section 109 of the existing law is preserved giving States the author- 
ity to seit more sitringent standards there is no procedure set out in the proposed 
bill, consequently Section 109 may prove to be impossible to implement. Another 
problem is that this pFopo.sal would avoid public hearings in standard setting 
xVhich to date have resulted in more stringent standards than recommended by 
government agencies. The Secretary would continue his responsibility to furnish 
criteria. 

S. 3546, introduced by Senator Muskie, would provide that regional .stand- 
ard setting would be continued but would direct the Secretary of HEW to 
designate all air quality control regions immediately. It would also accelerate 
the regional standards .setting processes by requiring a letter of intent from 
the Governor within 30 days of the issuance of criteria rather than the 90 
days under present law. S. 3546 preserves the 6-month period for regional 
standard setting and the 6-month period for establishment of implementation 
plans in requiring public hearings in both procedures. It will also, as does 
the Administration bill, require emission requirements (effluent standards) 
for all sources of air effluence in a given region. 

S. 3546 will require consideration of revision of air quality standards 
every five years. S. 3546 adds a new provision to authorize the establishment 
of ambient air quality standards for those areas of the States not included 
in the air quality control regions designated by the Secretary, 
(e) In order to conform to the National air standard States would be required 
to file in 90 days from date of setting the national standard a letter of intent to 
prepare an implementation plan that would include enforcement, effluent stand- 
ards and intergovernmental cooperation provisions, that must be submitted to 
HEW within 6 months and if there is failure to do so HEW would impose such 
plan ( with a procedure provided ) . 



67 

S. 3546 would provide for imposition of Federal standards where the 
States fail. S. 3546 is more detailed than the Administration's proposed revi- 
sion in that it calls for the Secretary to act within 180 days to establish 
regulations to notify interested parties, to hold a conference, and at the con- 
clusion af the conference publish the proposed standards and within 90 days 
promulgate the imposed standards. The Administration bill would require 
the Secretary only to have a public hearing, taking testimony from inter- 
ested parties, and following such public hearings, to promulgate such regu- 
lations. The minimum time under S. 3546 approximately 10 months ; the 
minimum time under the Administration proposal would be approximately 
2 months before such federally imposed regulations were promulgated. 

(f) to amend the Secretary's abatement authority to provide that he may 
initiate abatement upon (1) violation of ambient air standards due to failure of 
a State or interstate agency to enforce its "Plan." The abatement authority re- 
quires the State to act within 90 days of the Secretary's notice or the Secretary 
refers the matter to the U.S. Attorney General for court abatement. 

S. 3546 also imposes penalty provisions including fines up to $25,000 per 
day violation. 

(g) preserves the enforcement and abatement procedures on international 
pollution from U.S. Source culminating in court action, following notice and 
conference. 

S. 3546 also preserves this authority with some modification, 
(h) authorizes the Secretary of HEW to set, by regulation, emission stand- 
ards (effluent standards) for stationary sources. The Secretary would (1) pro- 
hibit or condition construction and operation of those sources having emissions 
"extremerly hazardous to health"; (2) require installation of devices on exist- 
ing sources ; and (3) require that any new source of emission shall be constructed 
with the most advanced applied technology. Although the President's message 
indicates that this authority was restricted to "new sources" a fair reading of 
the proiKjsed legislation discloses no such limitation and it appears that the 
authority is only limited to new or existing sources that "contribute substantially 
to endangerment of public health and welfare, and (2) can be prevented or 
substantially reduced." Although there is provision that a State can adopt Fed- 
eral stationary source emission standards in its implementation plan, it is not 
clear if a State can impose more stringent emission standards for such stationary 
sources. 

In addition, an abatement provision is provided that if following notice of vio- 
lation and after a time set in such notice for compliance, there is non-compliance, 
the Secretary then refers the matter to the Attorney General. 

S. 3546 will also require emission requirements for all sources of air pol- 
lution in a region to be filed with the implementation plan, 
(i) To provide general Federal enforcement authority for violation of air qual- 
ity standards resulting from a failure to enforce implementation plans. This is 
initiated by the Secretary furnishing notice of required remedial action that must 
be taken in not less than 60 days. If there is non-compliance with such notice 
the matter is referred to the Attorney General for court proceeding. There is also 
provision that the court tnay impose a fine up to $10,000 for each day after the 
end of the period set for compliance in the notice from the Secretary. This 
authority may or may not exist in present law. 

S. 3546, as does the Administration bill, abbreviates the enforcement pro- 
cedure. Whenever the Secretary finds a violation of standards he shall issue 
an order to the person causing or contributing to such violation requiring 
abatement as soon as possible except that in the case of a violation of 
emission requirements such time shall not exceed 72 hours. Except for an 
order requiring abatement of violation of an emission requirement, the 
alleged violator may request a public hearing after which the Secretary 
shall make a finding of fact giving due consideration to technologic feasi- 
bility complying with such standards and issue a decision. Such decision is 
reviewable in the Court of Appeals. Following such decision the Secretary 
shall in.stitute civil action in the District Court for abatement. 

S. 3546 would mandate a fine for violation up to $25,000 or 1 year in prison 
or both. 

In addition to the governmental abatement provided in the existing law 
and proposed to be modified in both the Administration bill and S. 3546, 
S. 3546 would add provision that the District Courts shall have original 
jurisdiction to hear complaints brought by citizens for alleged violation of 



68 

air quality standards and plans for implementation. The remedy sought is 
limited to declaratory and equitable relief. 

S. 3221) would authorize the establishment in HEW of an Office of Noise 
Pollution Abatement. The President's message was silent on Noise. 

Senator Muskie. Our first witness this morning is Dr. Kuth Weiner, 
president of the Colorado Citizens for Clean Air. 

Dr. Weiner, it is a pleasure to welcome you this morning, and to 
receive your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DR. RUTH WEINER, PRESIDENT, COLORADO 
CITIZENS FOR CLEAN AIR, DENVER, COLO. 

Dr. Weiner. Thank you very much. 

It is a great honor to be here, to be asked to appear before the 
committee. 

I am here as representative of the Colorado Citizens for Clean Air, 
which presently has a membership of about 250 citizens, mostly of 
Denver, and I am also representing the Colorado Open Space Coordi- 
nating Council, which is a federation of about 26 conservation-oriented 
organizations, with an accumulative membership of 25,000, mostly 
citizens of Colorado. 

Professionally, I am a professor of chemistry at Temple Buell Col- 
lege in Denver, and I hold a doctorate in physical chemistry from 
Johns Hopkins University. 

I would like to comment, first of all, on the national program which 
sets up ambient air quality standards. I^et me say, we are extremely 
grateful for Federal leadership in this area. Without Federal leader- 
ship, we would have no pollution control at all, I am certain, in 
Colorado, or anywhere else. However, there are certain aspects of 
the Federal program which I don't think work quite as they are 
intended. 

The ambient air standards, which are set up under section 108 of 
the existing act, have become, on the statewide level, a kind of low- 
numbers game. If you look on the ambient air standards as a goal, 
then the obvious goal should be zero, or background, whatever the case 
may be. 

To set anything higher as a goal implies that some community will 
be permitted to pollute up to a certain level. And it is our opinion 
that the total pollution burden of the earth, if you will, can no longer 
bear that kind of addition. 

You have got to, instead of saying to a community, as setting an 
ambient air standard does, "OK, this particular level of pollution is an 
OK level," so this is in a sense a license to pollute up to that level. 

Senator Muskie. That really isn't what the act says. 

Dr. Weiner. I know it isn't what it says, but it is sort of the way it 
really works in practice. 

We have got ambient standards in Colorado, and this is the way 
they are interpreted. I know it is not what the act says, but it is the 
interpretation that has resulted. 

Senator Muskie. Let me ask you a question. Do you think there is 
a way of establishing a control mechanism which will achieve zero 
of purely manmade pollutants? 



09 

Dr. Weiner. No; I don't think there is, because there are always 
leaks. 

Senator Muskie. So I gather what you mean, or what I understand 
you to mean, is that we need a way of tightening the screws on pollu- 
ters, which means that you have got to do it as fast as technology 
permits. 

Dr. Weiner. That is correct. 

And I think my own feeling about the way this should be done is 
to set emission standards, not at some ambient levels, or some permis- 
sive level, but at the ultimate level of control, and then to keep re- 
vising them as control mechanisms become available in an off-the-shelf 
fashion. 

Senator Muskie. Might I say in response that just as we can't expect 
zero as the goal for purely manmade pollutants under ambient air 
standards, in the same way if you have national emission standards 
you have got to set those in stages. 

Dr. Weiner. I think if you set 

Senator Muskie. If you set them in stages, isn't your first stage a 
permission, a license to pollute ? 

Dr. Weiner. Yes, it is; and I think that I would envision that over 
the next 5 years you could set for stationary emitters of certain pollu- 
tants of the major pollutants, sulfur dioxides, nitrogen dioxides, nitric 
oxide, and hydrogen sulfide, an approaching goal of zero emission. 

It is now possible to control anything that comes out of a stack, be- 
cause in the laboratory, we do it all the time, and you test stacks quan- 
titatively. It is not economic, and part of the point 

Senator Muskie. The very limited point I am making is that what- 
ever mechanism you adopt, you have got to approach your ultimate 
goal in stages. 

Dr. Weiner. Yes. 

Senator Muskie. And you are saying that because the 1967 act rec- 
ognizes the fact that you have got to approach it in stages that the 
first stage amounts to a license to pollute. And all I am saying is that 
if you adopt your mechansm, since it also depends upon approaching 
it in stages, the first stage is going to be interpreted as a license to 
pollute. 

Dr. Weiner. Yes, I think you are right, and perhaps I should alter 
my own thinking, and not adopt the first stage. 

Senator Muskie. What we are all striving for is the ultimate goal, 
which you state, and that is where there would be no manmade pollu- 
tants, and where we approach background levels. Since you can't do 
it tomorrow morning with whatever mechanism you adopt — I think 
we have to consider all, including national emission standards, ambient 
air standards, and so on. I think we will gradually put together — I 
hope, at least, we will — a mechanism that will begin to tighten the 
screws effectively. But to concentrate upon the first stage, only, I 
agree with you, is misleading. It is discouraging. We ought to recog- 
nize that whatever mechanism we are talking about, whether it is the 
1967 act or the one you propose, we are going to have to propose to 
move toward it in stages. The real test really is how rapidly your 
mechanism permits you to move to the ultimate. 

Dr. Weiner. Yes, and this is the place where I would tliink that a 
mechanism which sets emission standards, which is the basis on which 



70 

you ajctually have enforcement — you don't really enforce against am- 
bient standards, you enforce against emission standards — would move 
more rapidly toward a state of cleaner air than the present and con- 
tinued mechanism of setting ambient standards, and then setting forth 
an implementation plan which will meet the ambient standards. 

Senator Muskie. Of course, the approach of the ambient standards 
is this: If you talk only albout national emission standards, I assume 
you have got to identify the national polluters. You are not going to 
control the backyard burning, under a national standard, presumably. 
I don't know what you have in mind. 

A lot of pollution sources are not national in their scope. In a given 
community, they could be heavy contributors to that community's air 
pollution problem. 

The whole idea of the ambient standards is not that you don't con- 
trol emissions ; of course you have to control emissions. They are the 
source of pollution. But tlie idea behind ambient standards is that 
they give you a mechanism to get at all polluters, whether national, or 
regional, or local, in impact. 

Dr. Weiner. Yes. And this is, in that sense, a very good mechanism. 

But what we would en\dsion is that the relationship between na- 
tional emission standards. State emission standards, and local emis- 
sion standards is somewhat the way under the new bill which was just 
passed in Colorado, we have a relationship between State and local : 
the local agencies may set more stringent standards than the State. 

In other words, if you don't ban backyard burning on a national 
level, you still permit a given community, as Denver, in fact, does, to 
prohibit backyard burning, whereas another community, such as Flem- 
ing, Colo., which is very small, permits backyard burning. 

So this much leeway is allowed. 

My only quarrel with the ambient standards is that what happens 
with ambient standards becomes a little misleading. You permit a 
given emitter to say, "How can you prove that this particular ambient 
level of sulfur dioxide is due to my emission?" And the enforcing 
agency, or in some cases the citizens group, then has to go through 
a long routine with the diffusion model, and everything else, proving 
that it was in fact his emission. This is a question I don't think we 
should ever have to answer. We should never have to say to anyone, 
"It was you, and therefore, you have to stop." 

You shoidd be able to say to an emitter, "Because you are emitting 
sulfur dioxide" 

Senator Muskie. I agree, but I think also that you can't ignore the 
relationship between a whole range of emissions and their results in 
terms of ambient air quality. 

Dr. Weiner. No, I don't propose to ignore it. 

Senator Muskie. It seems to me that we need both, under what- 
ever mechanism of control we use. They are interrelated. In the case 
of the 1967 act, we haven't really started. This is one of my complaints 
about it, frankly; in the administration of the program, we haven't 
really started to implement it. 

Dr. Weiner. Yes. 

Senator Muskie. And we do not understand, or at least we haven't 
made clear, the comiection between emissions and the ambient air 
quality. As long as that point is involved, I think your criticism is 
perfectly valid. 



71 

But I don't think that it needs to be endowed under the 1967 act, 
and that is why some of the amendments that we are considering are 
before us. I think, eventually, we have to move into increasing the 
range of national emission sources that we control. 

The internal combustion engine is one. That is the national stand- 
ard. We ought to establish others, for local sources. 

I didn't mean to interrupt your statement at this point. I wish you 
would continue with that and we will get into some of these questions, 
maybe, more thoroughly after you have finished. 

Dr. Weiner. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

The next point I was going to make involves exactly the connection 
between ambient standards and the implementation plan study. There 
are really only two ways of judging an implementation plan. 

At least, from various materials we have received from NAPCA. 

The first one is a sort of general 

Senator Muskie. First, where are you picking up ? 

Dr. Weiner. Oh, I am picking up at the last paragraph on page 1. 

Senator Muskie. I wish you would go back and pick up that 
fourth paragraph, because that is a Denver situation, and I would 
like to have that. 

Dr. Weiner. Oh, I am sorry. 

We have in Denver a very high particulate background. At Cherry 
Creek Dam, which is considerably outside the city limits of Denver 
and which is generally considered, in the Denver air quality region, to 
be a pollution-free area, we measure a background annual arithmetic 
mean of 55 micrograms per cubic meter, which is very high. Now, 
how we can expect to get our particulate level in Denver below this 
escapes me, and I don't think that NAPCA has given sufficient con- 
sideration to the fact that we do have a high ambient background. 

The other problem that we have with the Federal criteria is that 
we have very little sulfur dioxide. The present standards in the 
Colorado law are such that Colorado is essentially a sulfur dioxide 
haven, the industries have taken the attitude that, because there isn't 
any problem, they can come right in and create one. We only have 
about three significant sulfur dioxide emitters in the Denver metro 
area, and one of those shouldn't be operating at all; they should be 
shut down. 

We would like to have more consideration given soon to what our 
real problem is, which is the production of nitric oxide and nitrogen 
dioxide. This is the really bad constituent of the Denver problem, 
because there is reason to believe now that nitric oxide is the photo- 
chemical trigger, it is the energ;v' absorber, for photochemical radiation. 

Senator Muskie. What kinds of emitters do you have that produce 
that? 

Dr. Weiner. All high temperature emitters do. Our powerplants 
do, the foundries — we have a couple of foundries in South Denver, a 
number of refineries north of Denver city limits, and Adams County, 
and since they emit fairly hot gases, they are heavy producers of nitric 
oxide, and of course all of the automobiles produce nitric oxide at the 
exhaust, and the four power-generating stations in the South Platte 
Valley. . 

The problem is that we are subject to temperature inversions, very 
severe temperature inversions, and our industries are situated along 



72 

the South Platte Valley, which is the low point, so that everything 
collects and builds up during the day, and the typical brown color of 
nitrogen dioxide on bad smog days screens the mountains from Den- 
ver. It is a visibility thing. You can see it very well. 

This is why we are so aware of this. 

Senator Muskie. You see that in a lot of those mountain cities out 
there, don't you? 

Dr. Weiner. Yes, it is becoming an increasing problem. 

Well, this was my point about the background. 

My point about the implementation plan is that there are only two 
ways of judging it: one the reduction of percentages; the other is by 
a diffusion modeling technique, and insofar as I am familiar with the 
diffusion modeling technique it doesn't take enough of the variables 
into account. It does not, for example, take into account the photo- 
chemical reaction between different sources of pollution. Although you 
can put different sources into the diffusion equation, it is not developed 
to a point where you can include the products of reactions, largely 
because the reaction mechanisms are not well established. 

So it is a little difficult to see on what basis our implementation plans 
are going to be judged as being adequate, and here is one place where 
S. 3546, on page 3, does set up some criteria for judging this, which in- 
cludes emission standards. 

It seems to me that in order to judge an implementation plan 
NAPCA has got to consider what the local emitters are, and what the 
local emission standards are. They can't simply plug into a diffusion 
model and say, "It is good," or "It is bad." I would also hope that in 
judging any of these implementation plans differences in altitude are 
taken into account. We have a very severe problem in Denver because 
of the high altitude, because we are operating at nine-tenths of an 
atmosphere, rather than one atmosphere pressure. 

Senator Muskie. I would like to make two points here. 

One, we had intended that emission requirements be taken into ac- 
count in the 1967 act, and the confusion which has developed under it 
is one of the reasons why this provision is in this bill. 

The second point is that one of the reasons why we took the regional 
approach in 1967 is the very one that you have touched upon ; that is, 
there are differences, altitude, and so forth. In my part of the coun- 
try, we are presumably ventilated by the ocean breeze. The ventilation 
doesn't work very efficiently, but, nevertheless, the fact that we are 
located on the ocean is one of the reasons why there is a different 
approach. The regional plan is a way of taking into account the 
variables. 

Dr. Weiner. I think part, of this has been in the actual working 
of the plan, and in Durham, N.C., where our plans were criticized, they 
often don't have any real picture of what the Denver situation is. 

I know that S. 3466 includes national ambient standards, and I 
have failed to see what effect they are going to have at all. 

It seems to me any national ambient air standard just is going to 
foul Denver up hopelessly. It would be a disaster for Denver, 

We are in a situation where a little smog goes a long way, and I am 
sure tliat any national standards would be set above the level that 
Denver could tolerate. 

Senator Muskie. I have my own ideas of why that language was 
used, but we will get it defined tomorrow, with the Secretary. 



73 

Dr. Weiner. I think this would be a very bad way to go, myself. 
I think this is something we are already arguing with our own enforce- 
ment agencies, that for an emergency alert system, for example, we 
can't use Los Angeles measurements. We have got to make a correla- 
tion in Denver of what the citizen of Denver perceives as bad smog, 
versus what our single monitor downtxjwn measures as bad smog, and 
we have as yet been unable to convince our own enforcement agencies 
or anybody else that this is the case. 

The Citizens for Clean Air is starting a voluntary program of 
correlation, getting the data and correlating it with what various 
people around Denver see as bad smog on that day, or as a good day, 
for that matter. So far as I know, this is the only program of its kind 
in the country. There is a lot of correlation with health effects. There 
is almost no correlation with visible or esthetic effects. It seems to me 
that is extremely imj3ortant, because this, in a sense, the esthetic effect 
is an early warning system. Smog is unpleasant a long time before 
it is bad for you, and in Denver, especially, we are accustomed to a 
visibility of 80 miles, and when it is cut down to 1 or 2 miles, people 
still aren't dropping dead, nor are we having increased hospital admis- 
sions, but it is noticeably bad and unpleasant, and it does serve as a 
warning to everyone. 

I would like to see some visibility standards adopted. 

Senatx)r Muskie. We ought to get some smell from that, too. 

Dr. Weiner. And some smell. But this is very difficult to get in. 

Another problem, incidentally, to get back to the diffusion modeling, 
is that we do have agricultural opening burning taking place in 
agricutlural counties which are near major or urban cenlters. There 
is an agricultural area included in the present Denver air quality 
region, and it is impossible to include those in the diffusion equation, 
because you don't know when the people are going to burn, you don't 
know where they are going to burn, what the extent of the burning is ; 
it may be just a ditch, it may be a fence row, it may be a whole field, 
and this does contribute significantly to the pollution problem in 
Denver. 

For example 

Senator Muskie. Is it seasonal ? 

Dr. Weiner. It is somewhat seasonal, and we have had bad situa- 
tions where tree burning has been done in the city of Denver, because 
of Dutch Elm disease, and at the same time, some fellow in Adams 
County burns off a field, and the sky is just dark brown everywhere. 

Senator Muskie. For what purposes are the fields burned off ? 

Dr. Weiner. I am not a farmer, so I don't know. I think there is a 
lot of debris that collects in ditches. Partly, we suspect, they burn off 
their own trash. If you drive around in rural counties, you do see huge 
piles of old tires and papers and stuff being burned. The farmers claim 
that the city slickers dump a lot of trash on their ground, and they 
have to bum it. 

Senator Muskie. I can't blame them. I think that is true. 

Dr. Weiner. And I can't blame them for that at all. 

My point is only that it is a relatively uncontrolled source, and no 
matter how much we try to control it this will be a limited control at 
best, and should be taken into account in any judgment of our 
implementation. 



74 

Senator Muskie. There are some parts of the country where burn- 
ing is associated with the crop itself. 

Dr. Weiner. Yes. 

Senator Muskie. That isn't so in the Denver region ? 

Dr. Weiner. There is some, and I really couldn't answer to that 
with any kind of knowledge, because I have none. 

The Federal criteria have concerned themselves primarily with 
health effects, and that has gotten us into a trap, especially with the 
industrial emitters in Denver, because they keep saying, "Well, all 
right, such and such a level is immediately below the demonstrable 
health effects, so beyond that, you don't have to control," and this 
definitely doesn't take into account long-term effects of pollutants 
building up in the atmosphere. 

I see no way to take this into account. 

Again, I would like to make the pomt thait the esthetic effects is an 
early warning system for the health effects, and I think we should 
control below the level of discernibility, if we possibly can. 

This w^as our point when we had the Federal hearings last October 
in Denver, and we were very much attacked for it. 

This was the reason for suggesting nationwide emission standards, 
at least for some pollutants, and for some processes, because it seems 
to me every emitter should be controlled to the point where the 
emission can be controlled. 

Senator Muskie. I would like to just make this point : It was not 
the intent that ambient air standards be related only to health effects. 
The ambient air standards were supposed to be designed, the statute 
says so, for health and welfare. Welfare included esthetics, smell — 
which we have a little bit of in my State, because of the manufactur- 
ing processes we have. The standards should go across the whole range. 
I would agree with you that if it would relate w^holly to measurable 
health effects, we would have very little control. Crisis situations, po- 
tential crisis situations, are pretty limited. Still, in spite of the air 
pollution problem, long-term, low-level, health effects haven't yet 
been measured well enough to give us any rule. I would agree with 
you on this point. 

Dr. Weiner. I am just talking about the way the thing seems to 
work, rather than the intent of the act. 

Senator Muskie. And the only reason I am interrupting is because 
I think this is going to be an issue in these hearings. I ]ust wanted 
at key points to indicate what our intent was, so that we can get the 
true record in the hearings. 

Dr. Weiner. Yes. 

Senator Muskie. May I make another point here? Again, I am 
saying this for the purpose of the record : There is a difference, of 
course, in health effects with different groups of people, old versus 
the young, the ill versus the healthy, and so on. In setting standards, 
not only ambient standards but emission standards, I would assume 
as we proceed through the stages, we must be concerned with the 
health effects upon the most vulnerable in our population rather than 
upon the healthy groups. 

Dr. Weiner. Yes. I think this is very important, and it is very 
important to us. 

Denver is a community where a great many people move to retire, 
in order to retire, and elderly citizens, retired citizens, form a large 



75 

segment of our population. I think the effects on them should be con- 
sidered very much. 

We also, of course, have a hospital for asthmatic children, Children's 
Asthma Research Institute, and Xational Jewish Hospital, which for 
many years has been a center for people with lung disease, so we are 
quite concerned about effects on the vulnerable population, and we 
srill have very little health effect in Denver, although everyone con- 
cedes that the smog is terrible. 

I would like to go on to the subjeot of vehicle emissions. In 
Colorado, we have just been through the throes of passage of a new 
State air pollution law, and the Federal preemptions of emission 
standards for new vehicles has hurt us vei-y much, mainly because, 
again, the difference in altitude is not taken into account. Most of 
the time when a car in Detroit is manufactured even to meet Federal 
standards, it won't meet those standards in Denver, much less ait 
the top of Loveland Pass, which is 11,000 feet above sea level, 
and we are getting bad pollution situations in high-altitude areas, 
primarily over the major highways of the State. If you stand by 
U.S. 40, just below Berthoud Pass, at about 10,000 feet, you can smell 
the exhaust. It just builds up hugely, and I am sure it will only be 
a matlter of time before we get enough that there will be photo- 
chemical reaction, and you will have a visible haze, which will destroy 
Colorado as a tourist State. 

The ^'isible smog is already having an effect on the tourist industry 
in Denver and I would hate to see this go to high altitudes. 

Senator Muskie. Here is a case where national emission standards 
don't work. 

Dr. Weiner. AVell, what I was going to suggest is, again, the same 
thing that we have in Colorado between State and local agencies, 
that we peiTnit localities to set more stringent standards, because in 
some locations, they are needed. Wouldn't it be possible to permit 
more stringent standards to be set for vehicles by some States, and 
have, let us say, a Federal emission standard, and permit the States 
to be more stringent, if they could ? 

I realize this is not going to find a happy audience in Detroit, but 
I think it would be a better situation all round. 

Senator Muskie. You put your finger on one of the points that 
troubled us in 1967 when we were considering these two approaches. 
It was clear from the testimony then that when we talked about na- 
tional emission standards, we were talking about minimal standards, 
whether it is automobiles, or steel mills, or paper mills, or any other 
polluters. And there are two difficulties : One, that if you are dealing 
with the kind of national technology which you have in the automo- 
bile, and you contemplate the possibility of requiring 50 makes, 50 
different models of automobiles in a given year to fit 50 different sets 
of standards, you impose perhaps an impossible requirement. 

The other side of it is that minimal standards tend to be interpreted 
as licenses to pollute. And industry says, "Well, now, these are the 
Federal standards, and we meet those. So if we meet those, that ought 
to be good enough." You are right back where you started from, be- 
cause the people will say, "Now, if you force us to do more than the 
Federal standards require, you are going to drive us out of business." 
These businesses will go into States which are content with the Federal 
standards. 

43-166 O — 70 — pt. 1 .6 



76 

See what yoii get into ? , „ , , i i 

Dr. Weiner. Yes, I can see, and I would prefer that the standards 
which woukl be acceptable in the high altitude regions of Colorado 
be adopted na;tionwide. This would be ideal, because it would mean 

less pollution. 

Senator Muskie. Yes, but it also may mean that if we designed these 
standards to meet Colorado conditions, the standards might not meet 
conditions in other States. You might be imposing difficulties upon 
other States that they would be just as restive under as you are with 
respect to the present national standards. 

Dr. Weiner. I don't see how an emission standard which would be 
acceptable in Colorado would be unacceptable anywhere else, because 
the difficulty in Colorado is that because of the relatively low oxygen 
pressure at high altitudes, you get less complete burning of fuel than 
you do at lower altitudes, so that the carbon monoxide and hydrocar- 
bon problem is always worse. _ . 

Our big problem with cars is incomplete combustion, and this is 
where our standards should be more stringent than low altitude stand- 
ards, so it seems to me that a standard that is acceptable at 10,000 feet 
is certainly going to be preferable at sea level, too, because the engine 
functions much more efficiently. 

Senator Muskie, When you talk about the automobile, I think you 
must have — and this is the whole theory behind the 1965 act — the 
toughest standards that technology permits. That ought to mean as 
soon as possible emission free, I don't buy the view that the 1965 act is 
geared to Los Angeles, or to Maine, or to some other place, 

I think we gave California an exemption from the preemption fea- 
ture of the 1965 act because California has the most urgent problem 
and is in a better position to press against the frontiers of technology 
than some other areas would be inclined to do. But we think that what- 
ever it is possible to do, and I think we ought to press to expand the 
possibility, ought to be done ; but ought not to be geared to some accept- 
able level of pollution from the automobile. If we do not now have 
standards with respect to the internal combustion engine that are even 
slightly tougher than technology permits, then we haven't done a good 
enough job. 

Dr. Weiner, Well, then maybe this is the problem. One of the prob- 
lems with standards is, in my opinion, they can never be in terms of 
parts per million. Parts per million is a concentration standard, and 
you can always meet these just by putting more air through the engine, 
which is in fact done; they should always be in terms of grams per 
mile, which is an absolute standard. 

Senator Muskie. I think that is the new measure. 

Dr. Weiner. That is the new measure and, in addition, I don't see 
any reason for having very big engines. You are always going to get 
the situation where given the ultimate level of control of the internal 
combustion engine, a 400-horsepower engine pollutes more than a 90- 
horsepower engine, and I see absolutely no reason for having anything 
over 200 horsepower. 

IVlio needs it anyway ? 

It seems to me that these things should either be outlawed outright, 
or taxed very heavily. 



77 

I don't see why anyone would want them ; if they were not so heavily 
advertised, nobody would want them, and this is one of our major 
problems. 

Denver depends very heavily on automobiles for transportation — 
much too heavily — and this is one of our big problems, that the 
people drive these things with huge engines, and they turn on 300 
horsepower to go down to the store and get a box of Wheaties, and who 
needs it? 

This is where the immediate control should come. 

Now, I am speaking as a citizen. I don't sell cars. We have only one 
car. I ride a bicycle to work. 

Senator Muskie. As a matter of fact, maybe more often than not, 
we ought to walk to the store and get that box of Wheaties, rather than 
ride at all. Should we go that far ? 

Dr. Weiner. Well, (there should be some control, and if it is 
immediately only in the direction of small engines, it seems to me this 
should be done. 

There is no pollution-free internal combusion engine. Such a thing 
thermodynamically can't exist. Nor, for that matter, can a pollution- 
free of any other type engine. 

This is part of the trap, if I can talk about physical chemistry ; it is 
part of the trap we are caught in with the second law of thermody- 
namics, that there is no machine that is 100 percent efficient, and you 
are always throwing out waste heat. 

Senator Muskie. Of course, we could go a step further. We could 
say what I think is quite true. In a consumer-oriented society, anything 
we produce and use ends up as waste, so that maybe we ought to pro- 
hibit rises in the standard of living, because the rise will be more con- 
sumer products. The more consumer products we have, the more waste 
we have to dispose of. 

You are talking about the size of an automobile engine. It goes 
much beyond that. Take the new types of containers that are being 
produced. If we went back to the old glass bottle, we would have less 
of a difficult kind of waste to dispose of than we have now. This is a 
problem in a consumer-oriented society. How far do we go ? I am sure 
it is an area of inquiry that will open up more and more as public 
concern with the environment intensifies. 

How far do we go in actually limiting the kinds of products that 
can be produced, the kinds of consumer tastes to which private enter- 
prise will be free to serve? Just what limitations do we impose, in a 
consumer-oriented society, that is also free in the kinds of products 
that we manufacture, the kind of products that people can buy? 

It is relatively easy to say — the size of an automobile engine is an 
obvious one. But then you go beyond tliat, and we are going to have 
disagreement as to how big an automobile engine. Then there are 
going to be those wlio say maybe we ought to go to something else, 
that we ouglit to get away from the internal combustion engine alto- 
gether. 

On this kind of decision, for instance, I raised this question. It is 
conceivable there is emerging — the SST may be an example — there 
is emerging a technological development that can be just as serious in 
terms of the environment as the internal combustion engine has proved 
to be. 



78 

We have no mechanism for preventing the reemergence of that kind 
of a development. We couldn't prevent Henry Ford from inventing 
the automobile today. AVe couldn't prevent him from mass-producing 
it. We couldn't prevent him from distributing, so something like that 
could develop again. In a free enterprise society, there is no way of 
inhibiting it or limiting it. 

It wouldn't necessarily be in the field of transportation. It could 
be in the field of some household appliance. 

The disposal is such a thing. At the very time when water pollution 
was already a runaway problem, we put the disposal on the market. 
And we put into the waste treatment plants and the streams of our 
country the things that we formerly sent out to the dumps, either for 
landfill or the incinerators. 

We moved the pollution from one form to another, and greatly in- 
tensified this one. There is no way to limit that. You have opened up 
a very interesting field of inquiry. 

Dr. Weinp:r. Well, if I can answer your comment for a moment, I 
also agree with you, incidentally, about total waste, and it seems to 
me there are two ways of approaching it. 

One is the incentive method. If people realized the relative pollution 
of large engines versus small engines, or some sort of containers 
versus another, there could be incentives to use the less polluting 
form as long as there is a choice, and in most cases, there is a choice, 
and you don't have to use a disposal, either. 

Perhaps it would be better if you didn't. 

Senator Muskie. Yes, but we all feel that somebody else's waste is 
the real problem. 

Dr. Weiner. Well, I am for one thing very much opposed to the 
"no deposit, no return" bottle. These things are immortal, anyway, 
and I think we should stop using them, and go to consumer pressure to 
reuse as much as possible. 

So there is the incentive mechanism, and it seems to me that we 
could put incentives on the greater promotion of smaller engines. 

And there is also the question of equal time in advertising. Now I 
noticed that the people w^ho are opposed to cigarette smoking have 
obtained equal time to answer the cigarette ads. 

I wonder what would happen if we could obtain equal time to an- 
swer the 400-horsepower car ads ? 

Senator Muskie. Cigarettes have been taken even beyond that. After 
1970, advertising is absolutely prohibited. Should we have a govern- 
mental agency deciding which consumer products should be permitted 
to be advertised and which ones not ? 

Dr. Weiner. No, I don't think we have to go quite that far, but I 
do in all seriousness make the equal time suggestion. 

Senator Muskie. Who will pay for that time ? 

Dr. Weiner. Who is paying for it in the case of cigarette ads? It 
has been done as a public service. 

Senator Muskie. It is the proliferation of products that you are 
going to try to provide equal time — that is the problem. 

As a matter of fact, it is the problem in the political field. You see, 
it is easy to deal with the problem in presidential campaigns. But when 
you get down to all of the other campaigns. Senators, Congressmen, 
Governors, local councilmen and so on, there isn't enough time on the 
air. 



79 

You have a similar problem with cigarette advertising related to 
health. Public opinion finally supports legislation to prohibit it, or 
to control it, at least. But if we give this kind of control to all products 
that contribute to waste, which means all products, would there be 
enough time? 

Dr. Weiner. Well, I am just making the suggestion, as something 
to think about. 

But the additional problem Avith cars is that there is Federal subsidy 
of highways and Federal subsidy of suburban housing tliat promtes 
further use of aiutomobiles. This subsidy should be reversed. 

We have two instances in the Denver metropolitan area right now, 
branches of the Interstate System that, by the State highway depart- 
ment's own admission, are being constructed only because Federal 
money is available. 

These are Interstate 470, and Interstate 1 South. Interstate 470 
goes from nowhere to nowhere. It runs around the southwest, comer of 
Denver just east of the foothills, and there is nothing there at present, 
not even suburban development. Of course, once the interstate is there, 
there will be. This is also a temperature inversion pocket. 

The smog problem will be tremendous, if there is ever any buildup 
of housing. Interstate 1-S again runs just east of the mountains from 
Boulder north to, I guess, about Fort Collins or Loveland, or some- 
thing like that. It parallels Interstate 25, which already exists, is not 
that heavily traveled. 

We do not yet have the need for these highways, and of course, once 
the highway's are built, like every other highway, they will be used, 
and we will get lots and lots of use, and more and more cars. 

We need a subsidy for mass transit system. We don't need any more 
subsidies for highways. 

And I wish I could make this point more strongly. Denver could 
really benefit from a good urban, interurban, and intraurban mass 
transit system. It would benefit the many elderly people who live there 
who are physiologically unable to drive cars. It would benefit the poor 
people, who now can't get to jobs. 

AVe have a huge Hispano population in Northwest Denver. They 
can't get to Southeast Denver. The Denver Technological Center is 
miles away from the nearest mass transit. This is true all over. 

We have dispersed industry, and we desperately need a mass transit 
system. 

If we had one, we could make the tourist attractions that are within 
a 20- or 30-mile radius of Denver that much more available to people 
who now really have only an individual automobile to get there. And 
this has been the direct result of Federal highway subsidy, and I think 
this highway subsidy is ruining us. 

I recognize this is somewhat beyond the scope of this subcomrnittee, 
but it is a real problem, and if there were some way to reverse it im- 
mediately, I would be all for reversing it immediately. 

It was wrong ever to put an east-w^est interstate highway through 
Colorado, I think everyone admits that now. It is just criminal. 

You go and you see these bulldozers just chopping up the moun- 
tains, and it makes you ill, physically. There are places where we now 
question whether the interstate should go at all, 

I don't know if you have heard about the Glen Canyon controversy, 
but this is all part of the same problem, and the continued subsidy of 



80 

roads leads in effect to an increased nse of cars and a promotion of a 
sort of "one man, one car" philosopliy, and especially in the urban 
areas, this has got to be reversed right now, if we are ever to get any- 
where with this. 

Finally, I would like to say a word about visible emissions. There is 
plenty of evidence that visible emissions from diesels can be completely 
controlled, and it seems to me here is a national standard that we do 
need to go to, and that is zero visible emission from diesels. 

Again, this is a particular problem at high altitudes. It is not a 
health problem, but it is centainly an esthetic problem. 

You get these buses going over the passes, and the snow all around 
the highway is black. Sometimes you can't even see the bus, it is so 
black. 

Senator Muskie. I guess any one of us who has been stuck behind 
a diesel on a two-way road knows. 

Dr. Weiner. We have tried in Colorado at various times to pass 
laws prohibiting visible emissions from any vehicle, and we have been 
unsuccessful in doing this, and here is some place where w^e need 
Federal help. 

Senator Muskie. I might remind you that during the war I was a 
destroyer escort engineer. We had this sort of emission. We were re- 
quired, under the interests of the security on seas, to so operate our 
engine plants that there were no emissions because emissions were 
visible at great disance. It was possible to do it — to operate them, and 
to maintain them — at levels that would absolutely cut out emissions. 
We did it. 

It drove home a very good lesson to me. Of course, one of the great 
problems concerning not only diesel engine emissions but emissions 
from all vehicles is maintenance, which is dependent upon owner 
conscientiousness and attention. If every automobile and truck was 
operated at the highest standard of performance, that would mean 
periodic trips to the service station. You could greatly reduce emis- 
sions without any new technology. But then, you might have the 
problem of finding the help at these service stations to carry the load. 

Dr. Weiner. We also have the pi-oblem that many diesel trucks, 
the interstate trucks, are tuned for low altitudes, and they are not 
tuned for high altitudes, and this gives us an additional visible emis- 
sion, and then to get over the passes, they gim the motors, and just, 
you know, quantities of unburned fuel come out. I am sure that 
the visible emission is also in proportion to the invisible not com- 
pletely burned fuel emission, so that the whole problem is worse. 

Senator Muskie. I think you are right. 

Dr. Weiner. And we could get rid of that some way. 

The problem of Federal grant aid has been a difficult one, and 
again, I speak from my own experience since we have just been through 
passing a new law. It is very evident that the same factions in the 
State that are opposed to air pollution control in the first place are the 
sarne ones who don't want Federal control. They are apt to be State 
legisktors in Colorado who don't believe there is any such thing as air 
pollution because they don't live in Denver, and where they live, there 
isn't any. 

We had a problem with our recent legislation where a given pro- 
vision, had it been included, would have made us ineligible for Fed- 



81 

era! grant aid. The same people who want it included, also don't 
want us to get the Federal grant aid, so in a sense, witliliolding 
of Federal funds, if the State laws or implementation plans are not 
adequate, is punishing the wrong people. It is punishing the people 
who are trymg to get good pollution control in the first place. 

I don't know how you handle this problem. I really have no solution 
to offer; maybe a direct Federal intervention. In other words, if the 
State does not come up with an appropriate plan, then the Federal 
Government substitutes their own jDlan for it. 

Senator Muskie. How about a little people pressure? 

You sound to me like — and this isn't the first time I have had the 
privilege of listening to your concern and articulateness— a great po- 
tential leader for building up public pressure in Denver, Colorado has 
passed some good laws on this subject. 

I am sure you are constantly trying to strengthen them, but I think 
as compared to other States, Colorado has done reasonably well. 

Dr. Weiner. Well, I don't point this out as a theoretical problem. 
During our present fracas over the law, we actually had one legislator 
get up and say on the Floor of the House, "Well we don't want that 
Federal money anyhow." 

Senator Muskie. I am sure of that, although it doesn't happen often 
enough, as I look at our Federal budget. 

Senator Dole. You had better give us the name. 

Dr. Weiner. Finally, we have a problem which is probably peculiar 
to Denver. We have had Federal installations, which really contribute 
fairly heavily to the pollution problem, and the worst one is the Rocky 
Mountain Arsenal, which is immediately north of Denver. 

Presently, the Arsenal is undertaking a demilitarization program of 
stored mustard gas and ner\^e gas. Aside from the unpleasantness 
of having enough nerve gas to wipe out the city of Denver several 
times over stored about 20 miles north of Denver, we also have the 
problem that the Amiy is intending to burn the nitrogen mustards, and 
this is going to release large quantities of both nitrogen oxides and 
sulfur dioxide. 

The original proposal was that they would wait until the wind was 
right — ^toward eastern Colorado, I presume — so that the smoke 
wouldn't blow over Denver, but it seems to me that the arsenal could 
afford 'to burn absolutely clean. They are not in the business of making 
a profit. It is going to cost them less in any case to get rid of the stuff 
than it cost them to produce it in the first place, and I see no reason 
why stringent controls should not be applied. 

They have said that they will comply with the StaJte law — our 
present State law — which is not terribly good. Even the new one would 
not much address itself to this problem, and finally, we can't get 
much indication of what it is they actually are emitting, because some 
of these processes are classified. 

Now, HEW does have monitors, within the confines of the arsenal, 
but they won't tell the State enforcement agency what it is they are 
emitting. 

There is also a Shell pesticide plant within the arsenal grounds. They 
lease land from the arsenal, and workers at the Shell plant say that 
on Interstate 70, which is somewhat south of there, and on Interstate 
25, they can smell the chemical constituents of the pesticides being 
released. 



82 

We know that there are plant breakdowns, and that stuff does get 
by tlie filter and does get emitted into the air. 

These are, chemically, bromine and chlorine compounds, and 
pesticide precursors. Tliey are not good for you in any case. 

We have had several episodes of very bad odors, where people ac- 
tually did get sick, in the Commerce City area, which is quite close to 
the Shell plant. These episodes could never be traced to anything 
largely because the State enforcement agency has no idea of what is 
being emitted. 

And it seems to me a simple way to clear up this problem would be 
to give a fairly high-ranking official in our State agency a security 
clearance, so that at least he could be the recipient of this information, 
and could work with the Federal installation to control the emission. 

Right now, it is a very scary business. We don't know what is 
being emitted ; we don't know how dangerous it is, and we don't know 
to what extent it is covering the Denver area. 

We also have this problem with the Dow plant operated for the 
Atomic Energy Commission at Rocky Flats, and I am sure that even 
here in Washington people are aware that there has recenitly been evi- 
dence found of plutonium oxide in the soil, all around Denver, which is 
emitted at one time or another from Rocky Flats. 

Again, this is a secret installation, they do classified work, and we 
have no idea of the extent of radioactive wastes leakage from this 
plant. 

On a minor basis, we have the same problem with Fitzsimmons 
Hospital, with the Veterans' Administration hospital, in Denver; they 
emit and they feel quite free to emit in violation of the State laws, 
even our present State law, which is not a very good one, and it is 
more or less a continuing problem of cooperation and liaison, and 
perhaps something could be done about this at the Federal level, but 
we are simply unable to do in Denver. 

Senator Muskie. I agree with that. It has been of concern to this sub- 
committee, almost from the time it was created, to try to make the 
Federal Government a good citizen, a good environmental citizen, and 
it has not been easy. 

Two questions from the Executive Office. I think it might be well to 
include both at this point in the record, just so that we have that 
record. 

Congress is about to approve the Water Quality Improvement Act 
of this year, which creates some additional tools in this area. I think 
maybe one of the stickiest kinds of problems is this one that deals with 
Defense Department facilities of the kind you are concerned with 
here in your statement. 

Perhaps we ought to look at them to see what we can learn about the 
problem from our vantage point here. The Federal Government 
should set an example for the industrial establishment. 

Senator Muskie. Please continue. Dr. Weiner. 

Dr. Weiner. The question of Shell is a particularly sticky one, be- 
cause this is a private industrial operation, which to the best of our 
knowledge, is not doing any classified work, and because it is on gov- 
ernment land, the State inspection people have a great deal of diffi- 
culty entering and inspecting and monitoring their emissions. 

And here, I have no idea how this problem is handled, but it seems 
to me Shell should have definitely come under the State enforcement 



S3 

and the emissions there are quite obviously detrimental to public 
health. 

Senator Muskie. The Secretary of HEW, as I said earlier, will be 
testifying tomorrow. We will be happy to bring these to his attention 
and ask the Department to check out the ponits you have made. 

Dr. Weiner. Well, that is the end of my statement. 

(Dr. Weiner's prepared statement follows :) 

Prepaked Statement of Ruth Weinek, Representing Colorado Citizens fob 

Clean Air 

My name is Ruth Weiner, and I am here as representative of the Colorado 
Citizens for Clean Air, Inc.; an organization of about 250 members, of which I am 
chairman. I am also representing the Colorado Open Space Council, Inc. a fed- 
eration of 26 organizations interested in environmental preservation, with a 
cumulative membership of about 25,000, mostly residents of Colorado. I am pres- 
ently on the faculty of Temple Buell College in Denver, as assistant professor of 
chemistry ; I received the Ph. D. degree in physical chemistry from the Johns 
Hopkins University in 1962. 

The Air Quality Act of 1967 was evidently intended to assist states in setting 
up strong and effective air pollution control programs. If the act is to accom- 
plish this end, some fundamental revisions are needed. First, the ambient air 
standards promulgated under Section 108 of the act have become, in fact, a 
kind of low numbers game. The uitility of ambient air standards in achieving 
clean air is questionable. Ideally, of course, the ambient air quality goal for each 
region should be zero for purely man-made pollutants and background for those 
pollutants that also emanate from other than man-made sources. 

In the long-range view of the overall pollution problem, we should not permit 
ourselves the view that we will remain satisfied with some level of ambient air 
pollution, because the total pollution burden of the atmosphere only increases — 
it can never decrease. We must instead adopt the attitude that any source of 
pollution which can be controlled, must be controlled. Any ambient standard 
above background becomes, in effect, a license to pollute up to a certain amount. 
No community or air quality region can elect to live with a given level of air 
pollution, because the air does not stay over that community. 

It is also not clear by what criterion NAPCA will find a given set of ambient 
air standards acceptable or unacceptable. The Denver region is a case in point. 
A little smog goes a very long way in Denver, and the level of SO2 (which does 
enter into the photochemical smog reaction) which may be quite tolerable at sea 
level, may well be intolerable in Denver. No one, including NAPCA, has yet 
made a systematic correlation of monitored levels of pollutants with the aver- 
age person's perception of "bad smog." Colorado Citizens for Clean Air is pres- 
ently engaged in such a study, and I believe it will be the first in the nation. In a 
city like Denver, where the visibility is more than 60 miles on a clear day, photo- 
chemically producer haze is much less tolerable than in other parts of the coun- 
try. What we think of as "bad smog" may be considered quite acceptable else- 
where, and I cannot see how this situation could be judged by NAPCA. 

As far as particulates are concerned, the background in the Denver region, at 
Cherry Creek Dam, is quite high : 55/xg./m.' annual arithmetic mean. If NAPCA 
does not take this into account, and they do not appear to, how can they judge 
our ambient standards? 

The intent of the act is that NAPCA should judge whether a region can meet its 
ambient goals with its implementation plan. There are only two methods for 
judging the efficacy of an implementation plan : the very crude method of 
estimating percentage contribution of each sources, and a diffusion model. Even 
the latter can only approximate the actual situation. There are pollution sources 
in the Denver basin, such as agricultural burning in the surrounding counties, 
that the diffusion model cannot take into account. Nor does the diffusion equation 
as it now exists consider photochemical reactions between pollutants which 
play a large part in Denver's smog problem. The diffusion model cannot do this 
because neither the rates of these reactions nor. in most eases, the mechanisms, 
are known or understood. A diffusion model concerned only with SO2 and par- 
ticulates makes little sense for Denver anyway, because our primary problem is 
NO and NO- 

Finally, the Federal criteria concern themselves primarily with health effects, 
and we should not permit any level of pollutant at which there is any dis- 



84 

cemible short-term effect on humjan, plant, or animal life. Such a level is already 
much too high, since we have no way of predicting long-term effects of lower 
levels of pollutants. Iristead of ambient standards, we shmild have natiomvide 
emission standards, for every known pollutant and every known emitting proc- 
ess. The criteria for these should be the greatest possible level of control, and 
should be revised at least every other year as better controls become available. 

I would like to turn my attention briefly to the subject of vehicular emission. 
Federal pre-emption of emission standards for new vehicles has hurt Colorado. 
Because of the altitude, intense sunlight, and consequent ease of photochemical 
smog formation, we cannot tolerate as much vehicular emission as lower alti- 
tude areas. We need more istringent emission standards, not only for the state 
as a whole, but even with greater degrees of stringency in those parts of the 
state above 8,000 feet above sea level. 

Because of rapid growth in recent years, and the FHA subsidy of suburban 
housing, the residents of Denver depend too heavily on private cars for trans- 
portation. We have a totally inadequate mass transit system, which is con- 
stantly on the verge of bankruptcy. In addition, we are victims of the Federal 
road subsidies. Right now, tvm branches of the interstate system, 1-470 and 1-15, 
are being planned in the Denver region only because Federal money is available, 
and for no other apparent reason. If I could make only one appeal, it is this : stop 
subsidizing highways now and subsidise mass transit systems instead ! 

Although I recognize that this plea is somewhat outside the scope of this bill, 
I want to bring it to your attention. In Denver we are caught in a smog trap : the 
Federal government refuses to let us set our own standards for vehicular emis- 
sions, although their effect is demonstrably worse in Denver than elsewhere, and 
at the same time seduces our state highway department into building more and 
more roads and producing housing patterns that force more car use. 

Automobile emission standards should never be in terms of parts per million 
(ppm), which is a concentrated measurement, Imt always in terms of an 
absolute measurement such as grams per mile. Large engines, which in fact 
always pollute more than small ones can meet ppm standards by putting more 
air through the engine and diluting the exhaust. In general, a car pollutes in 
direct proportion to the engine displacement. In my opinion, engines of more 
than 200 cubic inch displacement on automobiles should be either outlawed 
outright or very heavily taxed. No one needs them and no one would want them 
were they not so heavily advertised. 

Visible emissions from diesels and jet engines should be outlawed nationwide. 
Diesels can be totally controlled — this is evident even at Colorado's altitudes. 

I would like to deal briefly with the question of federal grant aid to state 
pollution control programs. You must remember that the same elements in 
a state legislature which do not want pollution control, also are not anxious 
to have properly funded enforcement programs. They are, in fact, delighted 
if federal money is withheld, and are only too glad to write laws to make sure 
that this happens. The people in a state who suffer by withholding of Federal 
funds are exactly those who are working for stronger pollution control. As a 
punitive measure, withholding of Federal funds punishes the wrong people. 
Isn't there another way? 

I would like to ask the aid of the committee in a problem which is perhaps 
peculiar to Denver. We have two installations very near Denver — the Rocky 
Flats plant of Dow Chemical Company and the Rocky Mountain Arsenal — 
where classified work is done. We have good reason to believe that the latter 
installation, and the Shell Chemical Company plant within its confines, con- 
tributes substantially to the air pollution problem in Denver. The demilitariza- 
tion of the nitrogen mustard gases at the Arsenal involves production of large 
quantities of oxides of sulfur and nitrogen. The pesticide production at the 
Shell plant releases pesticide precursors and other toxic chemicals used in the 
production process into the air. Some of these are identifiable by their char- 
acteristic odor in north Denver. 

HEW monitors emissions at the Arsenal, but will not release this data to the 
state enforcement agency — the Colorado Department of Health. If the nature 
of this data is also classified, surely at least one high-level state employee 
could be appropriately cleared to receive such data. It should be mandatory 
for this type of data to be shared with the state enforcement agency, so that 
we may know where these emissions fix into the total pollution picture. In 
fact, it should be mandatory for all Federal installations to operate absolutely 
clean. W^e in Denver are not happy about the proximity of the Arsenal, because 
of its vast stores of nerve gas. At least the Arsenal, and other Federal instal- 
lations, should not contribute to our air pollution problem. 



85 

Senator Muskie. Thank you. 

I have asked you several questions in the course of your testimony. 
1 would like to invite Senator Dole at this point to ask any questions 

he might have. , -, , ^ -n 

Senator Dole. I read your statement and don't have any specihc 

questions. . . , i i 

We in Kansas flock to Colorado because it is known as the clean air 

country. I wonder what polluted air will do to your tourist business. 

However, I was particularly interested in your comments concermng 

Veterans' hospitals in Denver. 
Now, what specific problems do you have there? 
Dr Weiner. I think it is just with their incinerator and heating 

plant, that , ■, -r -, -, , x j 

Senator Dole. I visited there a number of times, and I hadn t noted 
any smoke billowing in the air, but maybe I didn't look in the right 

place. 1 /A u J 

Dr. Weiner. It varies very much from day to day. On very bad 
inversion days, we sometimes get a temperature inversion where the 
mixing level of air close to the earth, with higher air, is no more than 
300 feet, and on very bad inversion days, it kind of collects over the 

hospital. . 1 • u 

These are also extremely cold days, so that it is a cumulative prob- 
lem. Mostly, I think, from the heating plant, and the incinerator, 
things of this sort. 

Senator Dole. Are there any other Federal installations m the 
Denver area that we might check on? 

Dr. Weiner. I don't know of any, but I am sure that the Colorado 
Department of Health would have this kind of information. They keep 
pretty good tabs on the Federal installations in and around Denver. 

Also, the Denver Air Pollution Control Agency would know. But 
these are the only ones that I know of. 

Senator Dole. Do these two agencies see any improvement? Do 
you visit with them frequently? 

Dr. Wiener. Yes ; we certainly do, and that is another whole story 
in itself. We have very poor enforcement of our own laws. I don't 
quite know why this is. We have a relatively nonaggressiye State 
agency, and up until the new law was passed, which was just last 
week,\ve have had overlapping jurisdiction between State and local 
agencies, and in the Denver area, for example, we have three agencies, 
the Denver city agency, tricounty, which are the three counties sur- 
rounding Denver, and the Sta.te agency, and what they do most of the 
time is bicker with each other, instead of cooperating with each other, 
but this is a problem that I am at a loss to see how the Federal Gov- 
ernment can help us out with. 

Senator Dole. Well, they could provide another party to bicker 
with. That would be three instead of two. 

Dr. Weiner. Maybe that would be a good thing. 

Senator Dole. The question I raised, then, and I am not familiar 
with either the ordinances in Denver or the State laws— do you feel that 
if they were adequately enforced, many of your problems could be 
resolved? 

Dr. Weiner. Yes; I very definitely do. There would not even have 
been a need for a new State law, had the old one been really adequately 



86 

enforced, and had we had any kind of an aggressive State enforce- 
ment agency. 

One of the problems, incidentally, is that the CAMP monitor in 
Denver is run by the city of Denver agency, which then won't release 
data to the State or to the citizens on request, and we have had to 
threaten them with suit under the Colorado open records law, so that 
they would give us the data from the monitor. 

This is just one instance, but another thing has resulted: because 
the State enforcement has been so poor, the legislarture is reluctant to 
appropriate more money to an agency that hasn't done a good job with 
what they received in the first place. 

We hope to rectify some of this with the new laws, because we have 
set other somewhat more stringent guidelines for the State agency, 
and we have eliminated some of the overlapping jurisdiction between 
the State and local agencies. 

Senator Dole. Of course, this is an area that we can't do much 
about here, but it emphasizes that perhaps additional laws aren't as 
necessary as enforcement of existing provisions. The chairman has 
pointed out that takes people pressure at home. 

If you have the law, and it is not being enforced then concerned 
citizens must act. 

Dr. Weiner. It is very difficult to put pressure on civil servants, who 
are completely insulated from this sort of pressure, and this has 
been our problem, really. 

They don't have to listen to us, if they don't want to listen to us, 
and they don't want to listen to us. 

Senator Dole. You have seen some improvement because of the 
efforts of people like yourself? 

Dr. Weiner. We have seen some improvement. I would say it is a 
concerted effort. We do have a couple of members of our State legisla- 
ture, notably Senator John Birmingham, who continuously needles 
them, needles the State agency into better enforcement procedures, and 
we can do this somewhajt^ through publicity. That is, they don't like to 
get a lot of phone calls complaining, and so on, and there is eventually 
a response. 

But it is very difficult to put pressure on people who are in a position 
where they are not immediately affected by any pressure. 

Senator Dole. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Muskie. On this question of potential people to achieve 
response, you obviously agree with the concept that there ought to be 
public participation and the setting of public policy in this field. 
You are aware that under the Air Quality Act of 1967, as well as 
the Water Quality Act, we have built in the whole concept of public 
participation in the setting of standards ? 

Dr. Weiner. Yes. 

Senator Muskie. You suggest that this isn't always as effective as 
it might be. I was interested in the development of the air quality 
standards for the city of Pittsburgh. I don't know if you followed 
that or not. 

Dr. Weiner. A little bit, yes. 

Senator Muskie. The conference was set, under the law, and it 
was set for a relatively small room. But somebody took hold and 



87 

generated public interest. The crowd that descended on that room 
obviously exceeded its capacity. 

So the room was changed. There was such great public interest 
that industry statements which had been prepared were filed rather 
than read. The hearings were pretty much, I think, dominated by 
public testimony, with the result that we have quality standards in 
Pittsburgh which have been described by the National Air Pollu- 
tion Control Administration as the toughest established in the coun- 
try under the act. Here is a very specific instance of how effective public 
interest, concern, and response can be. 

The problem always is to sustain public interest so that there is 
follow through as well as an initial burst of interest. This is the great 
problem, which I am sure you run into, as I used to, years ago, before 
I was in politics, and just involved in civic affairs. 

Dr. Weiner. It is also quite a different thing to generate public in- 
terest for a single hearing, which we also did when we had our Fed- 
eral hearings in October, and we were helped along by the fact that the 
day before was one of the worst smog days Denver had ever ex- 
perienced, and to sustain public interest in the more detailed and 
less immediately romantic aspects of air pollution control. Someone 
has to attend all the various board hearings, keep needling the State 
agencies, when you see that they are not enforcing, and this is difficult 
and time-consuming, and it is something that most citizens are not 
technically prepared to undertake. 

Senator Muskie. What you have to do is operate your public pro- 
grams much as taxi drivers or chauffeurs or drivers of Russian cars 
years ago used to ; I don't know if they still do or not. But in 1959, I 
spent 30 days in the Soviet Union, and I was taken by the way that 
the Russian drivers handled their automobiles. They would build up 
a burst of speed, 70, 80, 90 miles an hour, and then shift into neutral, 
and just coast for as long as the car would run. Then they would turn 
on the engine again and build up another burst. They did this on 
mountain roads. It scared you to death. You would be coming down 
a corkscrew road, and they would build up to top speed then turn off 
the engine, go into neutral, and coast. 

In a way, you almost have to do that with public opinion in this 
country. You have to build up speed at a crisis stage and then coast. 
You have to hope that the momentum will carry you through some 
of these jobs, dull technical periods of the formation and implemen- 
tation of public laws. 

Dr. Weiner. I must say that the Federal act has been very help- 
ful in helping to generate public opinion, and helping to guarantee 
public participation. 

If we had this kind of activity in all conservation efforts, we would 
be way ahead, in the environmental game. 

Senator Muskie. We think the public participation is important. 
The administration bill would eliminate that feature of it. I hope we 
are able to persuade the administration to a different point of view. 
I don't know what was involved in reaching that decision. 

We will have an explanation of that tomorow, I hope, but I think 
that these public conferences and hearings on the setting of standards 
are a terribly important part of this whole process. I would like to see 
them continued. 



88 ' 

Dr. Weiner. If I can comment on the new bill in that respect. 1 

Senator Muskie. Yes. 

Dr. Weiner. It is very dangerous to limit public participation, 
because as it is, the citizens groups don't have the facilities, they 
don't have any staff; ours, for example, has none whatsoever, nor 
any money, and it is very difficult to make our presence felt at all, 
in the first place, and if it is not encouraged a little bit, it will just 
never haf^pen, and things will move out of the hands of the citizen 
entirely, and into tlie hands of those groups that have more immediate 
access to legislatures and to enforcement agencies than we have. I 
think this would be a very bad thing. 

Senator Muskie. Thank you. Dr. Weiner. 

Thank you very much for the contribution you are making in this 
whole field. 

Dr. Weiner. Thank you for having me appear. 

Senator Muskie. Our next witness. Dr. Vincent J. Schaefer, is di- 
rector. Atmospheric Sciences Research Center, State University of 
New York at Albany. 

Dr. Schaefer, it is a pleasure to welcome you here this morning, sir. 

STATEMEITT Or DR. VINCENT J. SCHAEFER, DIRECTOR, ATMOS- 
PHERIC SCIENCES RESEARCH CENTER, STATE UNIVERSITY OF 
NEW YORK, ALBANY, N.Y. 

Dr. Schaefer. Thank you. Senator. 

I am Vincent Schaefer, director of the Atmospheric Sciences Re- 
search Center of the State University of New York at Albany. 

I have been measuring atmospheric particles for more than 25 years. 
Much of the effort of my group at the university is directed toward 
basic and applied research in the air pollution problem. 

I might say that the testimony and comments that we have just been 
hearing from Professor Weiner are very much to the point and I think 
beautifully demonstrate the kind of problems that we are all con- 
fronted with, both those in the political arena as well as in the uni- 
versities, and with the general public. 

I wish we had a great many more people like Professor Weiner. 

I would like to present some of the evidence I have been accumulat- 
ing for the past 10 years related to the effect which is exerted by very 
small particulate matter and gases. 

The particles I wish to discuss have a size range from 0.1 to 0.3i 
micron. Many atmospheric particles are smaller than 0.5/a and in fact, 
the majority are quite invisible to the unaided eye. Even the most 
sensitive light microscope will not resolve most of them. 

Wliile these particles have very little mass, they constitute the larg- 
est number of the particulates in polluted air. 

Concentrations of these particles in different environments I have 
given in a table, and this table indicates the sources, as we have meas- 
ured and observed them, and the degree of pollution which seems to 
be related to those measurements. 



89 
(The table referred to follows:) 

TABLE 1.— POLLUTION RANGES (INDICATED BY CONDENSATION NUCLEI (CN)) 

Degree of 
Typical source Concentration of particulates pollution 

Oceanic and polar air.. _ Less than 1,000 per cubic centimeter Clean. 

Country air 1,000 to 5,000 per cubic centimeter Light. 

Suburban air 5,000 to 50,000 per cubic centimeter... Medium. 

Urban and industrial air More than 50,000 per cubic centimeter Heavy. 

Dr. ScHAEFER. In oceanic and polar air if we measure the total num- 
ber of particles, for example, we find in general less than IjOOO per 
cubic centimeter. And we consider that concentration to be quite clean 
air. That is the characteristics of the global backgroimd of particulates 
at the present time. 

Senator Muskie. Does that global background build up at all? 

Dr. Schaefer. It has, unfortunately. It used to be that measure- 
ments showed 50 to 200. Now quite frequently, we find 1,000, under 
the same kind of conditions. 

For example, if we go to a place like Newport, Oreg., and wait for 
the air to move in from the ocean, for 2 or 3 days we will get the values 
that we generally find in the middle of the Pacific. It takes 2 or 3 days 
to get true oceanic air because of the effluent of the continent, the eddy- 
ing around of the particulates from the continent that come from 
pollution. 

In many places, where one used to find what I would call clean 
air, I have observed a tenfold increase in the past 10 years. 

That, I think, is one of our problems, and that is why I am so 
concerned about the small particles which are invisible. 

Senator Muskie. And these particles are carriers. 

Dr. Schaefer. Absolutely. 

Well, I intend to say something about that. Senator. 

In country air, which is the cleaner air that is available to dilute the 
polluted city air such as lias happened in the past we find 1,000 to 5,000 
per cubic centimeter. This we consider to be characteritsic of light 
pollution. 

Suburban air, as we are now measuring it, contains 5,000 to 50,000 
per cubic centimeter, which we consider to represent a medium degree 
of pollution, and then in the urban and industrial category of air — 
values of more than 50,000 up to 500,000, depending on where the 
measurements are made. 

And, of course, that is heavy pollution. 

Senator Muskie. May I ask you this question ? 

Dr. Schaefer. Yes. 

Senator Muskie. You have classified these as degrees of pollution. 
Is that an official classification ? 

That is a trial balloon. Senator. We are trying to obtain a concensus 
among the people that we are in contact with. Thus far we seem to 
have fairly good agreement among the scientific community that we are 
in touch with, and we are just proposing these values as something 
that we would like to have considered because our experience indicates 
that these categories represent a realtistic classification. 



90 

Senator Muskie, So now you have four categories: Clean, light, 
medium, and, heavy. 

Dr. ScHAEFER. That is right. 

Senator Muskie. Have you gone to the point of defining what those 
mean in terms of health effects, or esthetic effects ? 

Dr. ScHAEFER. Not yet. Senator. These are things we are working 
on at the present time. 

Senator Muskie. Those categories are simply a measurement of the 
physical side of it ? 

Dr. ScHAEFER. That is right, yes. 

If one looks at the air along a freeway or other heavily traveled road, 
very little if any exhaust smoke can be seen coming from the traffic. 
Going through a long vehicular tunnel, however, a blu sh haze will be 
seen in the air and if windows are open a foul smell can be noted. Such 
air contains tremendous numbers of small particles as well as gases 
of combustion, particularly CO, CO2, the nitrogen oxides and 
hydrocarbons. 

Measurement of the small particles in such restricted places will 
show values which may be higher than 500,000 particles per cubic 
centimeter. Similar measurements along roads frequented by automo- 
biles commonly exceed 150,000 per cubic centimeter since the auto is 
now a major source of the polluted air in all large cities. Small par- 
ticles, even those which are quite invisible, are playing an increasingly 
important role in the pollution problem of America. 

First of all, as you just mentioned, Senator, they serve as carriers of 
other substances. This is particularly true of carbon particles. Instead 
of being a solid chunk of matter, most tiny carbon particles consist 
of cage-like structures of extremely small primary particles chained 
together into a space enclosing skeleton. Such particles are essentially 
inert but they can serve as frameworks on which gases adsorb and 
other liquids and solids agglomerate. While carbon is probably a very 
important "getter" for gases and an effective nucleus for other liquid 
and solid particulates, a vast host of other substances behave in a sim- 
ilar manner or coalesce to form microscopic liquid droplets. 

I am dismayed by the all-pervasive bluish and greyish hazes that in- 
creasingly Tmit the visibility of distant hills and mountains and even 
the ground as seen from a high-flying plane, and I might mention that 
this morning, flying down from Albany, it was exactly this situation. 
From takeoff until landing here in Washington, the visibility was lim- 
ited to 5 to 7 miles, and, as far as I could see, the pollution was up to our 
flight level, which was probably about 20,000 feet. 

A particularly distressing feature of this hazy atmosphere is its uni- 
formity and massive extent. I commonly notice it over at least half 
of the United States, am not surprised to see it on the continental scale. 
On several transoceanic flights during the past 6 months — one to Ja- 
pan, the other to Czechoslovakia — I have seen evidence that it may 
have reached global continuity, at least in the middle latitudes of the 
Northern Hemisphere. 

The source of such widespread pollution is not easy to establish. 
It is now possible to fly over large cities such as Los Angeles without 
seeing a single visible smoke source. In fact, I have considerable diffi- 



91 

ciilty in recent years to ascertain the direction of the wind at low levels 
as I could in the past by using smoke plumes as wind indicators. 

Pollution control agencies have succeeded in eliminating nearly all 
visible sources of air contamination in many urban localities. Visible 
smoke sources are relatively easy to detect, and those responsible can 
be cited and penalized. 

If most visible plumes have been eliminated, why are we confronted 
with an increasingly serious air pollution problem ? The blame can be 
placed quite easily — most of the pollution comes from effluents which 
consist of invisible particulate matter and accompanying vaporous 
gases which cannot be seen when they are released into the atmosphere. 

It is easy to demonstrate this principle. If a large transparent plastic 
bag is placed over the exhaust pipe of an idling automobile, it will be- 
come full of an ordorous effluent in a few seconds. This bag is now 
filled with air, water vapor, gases and particulate matter, the latter 
having a concentration of lOycc or more. 

With a simple instrument— the Gardner small particle counter is 
what I use, available from Gardner Associates, Schenectady, N. Y. — the 
concentration of small particles can be determined. Such a measure- 
ment shows that a typical idling automobile engine emits at least 100 
billion small particles per second. Most of these particles are sub- 
microscopic and invisible. However, if the bag is observed carefully, 
it will soon have its inside coated with a dense layer of water drops, 
and if some of the trapped effluent is transferred to a box made of 
clean sheets of glass and illuminated with a strong beam of light, such 
as a home movie or slide projector, a visible bluish or grayish shaft of 
scattered light will be seen. 

Because of the very high concentration of particles emitted by the 
idling motor, the original invisible particles have coagulated to "form 
the now visible aerosol. 

Thus a measurement of the number of particles in the sample after 
20 minutes will show a drop in concentration of a hundredfold as 
coalescence proceeds and the particles become visible by their scat- 
tered light. Very few particles fall out, however, since the effect of 
gravity on such small particulates is negligible. 

As particles grow from their original invisible size range of 0.02 
microns to the visible sizes of 0.1 to 0.3/x diameter — producing a bluish 
haze— their light scattering effectiveness becomes quite noticeable, 
especially in the blue end of the visible spectrum. Such particles 
scatter almost as niuch light back toward the illuminating sources — 
such as the sun — as in a forward direction. 

This effectiveness in the scattering of visible light reach a maximum 
with a diameter of about 0.6/x, and it was this feature that caused us 
to produce particles of that size during World War II when we suc- 
cessively hid our armed forces from surveillance and bombing at the 
Anzio Beachhead in Italy and during the crossing the the Rhine River 
in Germany. 

There has been a tendency on the part of some engineers and others 
to employ afterburners and similar devices to vaporize an effluent 
so that ordinarily visible emissions are reduced in size so as to be- 
come invisible. Where this is done in a manufacturing process, only a 
measurement of the stack effluent with a small particle counter or ob- 
servations by a careful observer will detect the subterfuge. 

43-166— 70— pt. 1 7 



92 

Thus, a phimeless chimney or clean-looking jet engine or an auto- 
mobile exhaust pipe does not necessarily mean that the removal of an 
offending pollutant has been achieved. In fact, I believe that in some 
instances the so-called improvement produces a worse situation than 
before. 

One of the other subtle results results of this shift from large to 
small particle size in the pollution production of a large city is that 
the "dust fall," high-volume sampling and other measurement at 
ground and building top level will quite likely show a decrease from 
earlier measurements. This can be very misleading since the end results 
will be the extension of the effect of the city into regions down wind of 
the source. 

During the past few years I have seen the plume of the Los Angeles 
Basin area in such areas as the Owens Valley, the Mojave Desert, The 
Charleston Mountains in Nevada, and a few weeks ago in the vicinity 
of Palm Springs and Palm Desert. I have even observed pollution 
plumes from southwestern California near Spokane, Wash., and 
central Nebraska when carried by low level jet streams. 

To measure such plumes, one must depend primarily on aircraft 
although during my recent observations in California I was able to 
obtain data by direct measurements at the desert floor and on the slopes 
and near the summit of the mountains called Baldy, near Claremont, 
and San Jacinto, near Palm Springs. 

While the hot flame temperature needed to vaporize an otherwise 
visible effluent might achieve improved combustion, it also oxidizes 
some of the natural nitrogen in the air to produce nitrogen oxides. In 
addition to being poisonous, these gases are believed to be an important 
catalyzer for the photochemical reaction which converts liydrocarbon 
vapors to particulates. 

When converting visible particles to invisible sizes, the residence 
time of such particles is also greatly extended. Thus a very large aero- 
sol particle of say 50 microns (0.002 inch) diameter if ejected into the 
atmosphere at the top of a 100-meter (300 feet) chimney would fall 
to the earth in less than 15 minutes. 

If such a particle was vaporized and then condensed so that the 
resulting particles were invisible (say 0.02 microns in diameter) a 
single 50 micron particle would produce more than 10 billion of the 
smaller size. 

Such particles would have a residence time in the atmosphere of 
months or years depending on where thej were carried by the wind 
or whether they were removed by precipitation. As mentioned earlier, 
gravity has little effect on such particles. They are primarily removed 
from the atmosphere by growing much larger through agglomeration, 
a very slow process, by the scavenging effects of snow or rain, or dif- 
fusion to various objects on the earth's surface. 

If the vaporized particles recondensed to form a bluish smoke 
(around 0.2 micron diameter), a single 50-micron particle would pro- 
duce about 10 million of the smaller size but they also would have a 
residence time in the atmosphere of weeks or months unless removed by 
the processes just mentioned. 

This points up one of the many problems which will develop when 
high flying aircraft such as the SST fly in the stratosphere in large 
numbers. The stratosphere is a very stable region without benefit of 



93 

a cleansing mechanism like snow or rain. We must consider the possi- 
ble effect of lariie concentrations of small particulates and gases such 
as would be emitted into this region and the effect which an accumu- 
lation of these aerosols on the present equilibrium of that region of 
the upper atmosphere. What will such pollutants do to the ozone 
concentration, the radiation balance and similar properties? 

Thus far I have not succeeded in obtaining satisfying answers to 
these questions. 

The effect of small particles on health is becoming recognized. I 
liave recently suggested tliat a possible additional hazard confronting 
the smoker is that air pollution particles passing through the burning 
zone of a cigarette are vaporized and the lungs then serve as a test 
tube where synergistic reactions can occur to form a myriad of exotic 
particles coating the surface of the entire respiratory tract. 

Thus the persons who smoke in an urban air region commonly in- 
sult their lungs with the vapor from at least fifty to a hundred 
thousand more particles than produced by the burning tobacco. 

This then brings me to ni}- final point wliicli is related to inadvertent 
weather modification. I am convinced that man-caused pollution raises 
a host of new problems which I didn't contemplate when in the 1940's 
I was conducting my experiments of seeding supercooled clouds with 
dry ice fragments and other substances. 

Supercooled clouds were of common occurrence in the Northeast 
and in fact we carried out more than a hundred experimental seeding 
flights in New York and New England between 1946 and 1950. Ex- 
tensive areas of supercooled clouds were of common occurrence and 
in our Project Cirrus activities we learned many scientific facts about 
the possibilities and limitations of cloud modification durng that 
period. 

I vrould be reluctant to conduct a similar research program in that 
same area at the present time. It is my experience over the past 5 years 
that extensive areas of supercooled clouds are of less frequent oc- 
currence and that massive areas of ice crystals at low level and more 
frequently encountered than 20 years ago. These high concentrations 
of low level ice crystals are so high as to produce brilliant undersuns '^ 
sudi as we only saw during our early experiments in stable, heavily 
seeded areas produced by our experiments. 

Where are these ice nuclei coming from? I have presented my ideas 
on this source in several papers published in the scientific literature. 
I am not alone in my findings. Briefly stated, we have found abundant 
evidence that a potent source of ice nuclei is to be found in air polluted 
with automobile exhaust from leaded gasoline. Submicroscopic lead 
compounds apparently react with small quantities of iodine vapor to 
form lead iodide. These activated nuclei must be very small to be most 
effective since they apparently act as sublimation nuclei ; that is, the 
water molecules in the air form ice ciystals directly from the vapor 
phase. 



^ The undersun is an optical phenomenon caused by the specular reflection of the sun 
from the surfaces of myriads of hexagonal plate ice crystals. It occurs at the same angle 
below the horizon as the sun is above it. In order to produce an undersun, it is necessary 
for the crystals to consist of smooth-surfaced plates which float with their long axes hori- 
5:ont:il to the ground. Thus they act as many tiny mirrors. If the crystals were not 
hpxr.gonal plates but rather prisms, the optical effects would include under parhelia and 
other reflections which are well known and have been related to crystal types during our 
winter studies at Yellowstone Park. 



94 

If these particles were larger so that the water condensed to form 
liquid droplets the lead compound would dissolve destroying its effec- 
tiveness as an ice nucleus. The number of these potential ice nuclei in 
polluted air is from hundreds to a hundred thousand times more than 
is found in clean air. 

I have also observed and photographed a great many examples of 
high concentrations of ice crystals in polluted air. Such areas are so 
extensive that I believe they could exert an effect on the weather pat- 
terns over America. 

I previously described the misty rains and very light snows which I 
believe can be attributed to automobile pollution. An interesting and 
rather paradoxical effect can be postulated which suggests that a super- 
abundance of effective ice nuclei over extensive areas could reduce as 
well as increase precipitation. High concentrations of ice nuclei would 
stabilize clouds containing low amounts of liquid cloud water and thus 
reduce or prevent precipitation. 

On the other hand, if a rich source of moisture moved into a region 
and entrained extensive areas of polluted air containing many poten- 
tial ice nuclei, it could produce excessive amounts of snow or rain. 

This is not to say that only pollution can cause a reduction or an in- 
crease in precipitation. What I anticipate based on an increasing 
amount of cause and effect field observations I have obtained is that 
the frequency of such unusual weather phenomena may increase as air 
pollution increases. 

In conclusion I would like to emphasize that we are dealing with an 
extremely complex problem which will require a much greater involve- 
ment of our total society than has occurred at present. The type of 
legislation required at the Federal level must consider aspects of the 
problems that can't be solved by the individual States. I am sure that 
we must also establish global rules of conduct if we are to halt the 
rapid deterioration of the environment that has alarmed us. 

I believe that the university community has an important role to 
play in solving some of these problems. It is heartening to see the 
way in which many young people in our universities are espousing the 
cause of environmental improvement. They are actively seeking edu- 
cation and guidance in their concern and have responded in a wonder- 
ful manner to our action programs. 

The time is passing when the American community will tolerate 
arrogance, hypocrisy, or cynicism on the part of anyone or any group 
whose activity will further degrade the quality of our environment. 
This is not a fad. Anyone who believes it is does so at their peril. 

I am an optimist. Any system that can put a man on the moon in 
10 years can certainly solve the teclmioal aspects of our pollution prob- 
lem. At the same time we must rethink our sense of values and prob- 
ably reorder many of our current procedures so that together we can 
seek goals that are addressed to community well-being in every sense 
of the word. 

Senator Muskie. Thank you. Dr. Schaefer, for your excellent paper. 

Since you spent considerable time in your paper emphasizing the 
fact that some of the present technology dealing with particulate mat- 
ter exacerbates rather than solves it, do you have any thoughts to 
communicate to us about what are the best approaches to deal with it? 

Dr. Schaefer. Yes ; I think I do. I would say first of all eliminate 



95 

leaded gasoline. I think that the leaded gasoline could lead us to prob- 
lems, I mean, serious problems in terms of climate, much sooner than 
we are ligely to be troubled with a lack of air to breathe. 

Xow I could be wrong about that, but the more data I gather, the 
more concerned I become, that we are already in a situation that might 
be producing atmospheric change. 

Tlien I would certainly agree with Dr. Weiner's proposals that we 
reduce the engine zine in our autos. I think it is absolutely ridiculous 
tliat we should use the fantastic voliune of steel that w^euse at the 
present time to move ourselves from one place to another. It just doesn't 
make sense. 

I think we have to establish much more effective ways of mass 
transport. I think that is essential. _ ^ . 

I think we should outlaw the use of private automobiles in cities. 

You know, we are back to a horse-and-buggy speed in most of our 
big cities. 

Senator Muskie. Or even slower. 

Dr. ScHAEFER. Yes; I saw it this morning coming down. Fantastic 
traffic jams, on the roads leading into New York City. Intolerable. 

I think we have to reduce the imnecessary use of electricity. The 
electrical industry has done a marvelous job of selling the people 
on the need for electricity. We don't turn off our lights, and we do 
a lot of silly things, that I think are nonessential. We must begin to 
reorder our sense of values. 

In terms of what we do about small particles, I think we need to 
completely reverse the present trend. We need to learn how to make 
particles grow bigger faster, so we can use gravity fall to get the 
particles out of the atmosphere. Once we have grown a big particle 
it is a lot easier to grab hold of it. 

Now, obviously, that is going to raise our solid waste disposal 
problem, but I am sure you are aware of the fact that we have hauled 
fly ash thousands of miles, because it makes better concrete. As I 
have been told, some of our big dams in the West were built using fly- 
ash as one of the components. 

So I think there are a lot of good things that we can extract from 
these effluents that at the present time we are putting into the at- 
mosphere, in a way that we can't ever get it back again. It produces 
hazy air which from my standpoint is inexcusable. 

We heard about the deterioration of the situation in Denver. I first 
saw Denver about 20 years ago, in a beautiful part of our coimtry. 
I go back there quite frequently, because of some of the work I do. 
It is dismaying to me to see the fantastic decrease in the quality 
of the air that is occurring in that region. Something that my Denver 
friends haven't yet considered — which relates to the refining of the 
oil shale, in northwestern Colorado and the southern part of Utah. 
Unless carefully plamied such processing will ruin one of the choicest 
parts of America. The Colorado Rockies, are second to none, and yet, 
we may not see them at some future time if the present trend of re- 
source exploitation keeps on, which is tragedy. 

Senator Muskie. In your response to my question, you emphasized 
automobiles as a source of particulate matter, rather than stationary 
sources. Do you intend that emphasis ? 

Dr. SciiAEFER. No, I would say about half of our problem is from 
automobiles. The other half is from incinerators, from our own in- 



96 

diviiliuil lieatiii^ plants, from trash burning, which is done without 
much thouf^ht. There are all sorts of things, including the fixed instal- 
latio]! of industry. 

Now, as 1 said earlier, you go into a region sucli as any big city and 
look for visible plumes, and you have great deal of trouble seeing 
them, and yet there is the smog. And I am sui-e that at least half of 
the smog comes from industrial processes of one kind or anotlier and 
the other sources I just mentioned. If you reduce particulates to gases 
then we have gas to particle reactions, which finally ends up as pro- 
ducing this bluish haze I am concerned about. 

Senator Mttskie. What is the ansvrer to that ? 

Dr. SciiAEFER. Well, I think that one of the things wb.ich must be 
done in terms of fixed installations, involves a redesign about how we 
prit our industrial plants together. One of the things I have proposed, 
and I am sure that a lot of people will not agree with me, is the elim- 
ination of vertical chimneys. Chimneys are no longer used for which 
they were originally invented. They were made to provide a draft 
for a fire. The effluent from most chimneys nowadays, emerges four 
or five times faster than it could possibly obtain from just the heat 
of the chimney. Chimneys at present are nothing but atmospheric 
sewer pipes just like a water outfall spilling into a river. 

As I said earlier, I think we need to design a new approach, where 
we have horizontal chimneys, if you want to call them that, Avhich 
are designed in euch a way that we take advantage of gravity. We 
malce the particles just as big as we can make them, so that gravity 
will cause them to fall out. 

Now, that is not going to be easy, and we have to put the best brains 
of our scientists and technical people and engineers to address them- 
selves to that problem. Once the particle enters the atmosphere as 
an invisible or a bluish haze type of particle, there is nothing on earth 
going to get it back exce})t slow diffusion and the scavenging by 
precipitation. 

Senator Muskie. You have no objection, I assume, to the electro- 
static precipitator? 

Dr. SciiAEFER. Oh, no, no, of course not. That is one very good way 
of removing the smaller particles. 

Senator Dole. My. Chairman ? 

Senator Muskie. Yes, I will yield to Senator Dole for some ques- 
tions. 

Senator Dole. The staff has indicated that the Smithsonian Insti- 
tute has recorded that since 1910 instant sunlight striking the Mall has 
decreased 16 percent. Is there any evidence that this phenomenon is 
not restricted to urban development? Is anyone studying this area? 
What effect will this have on crop production in rural areas in the 
next 10, 15, or 100 years ? 

Dr. Schaefer. Yes, Well, Senator, this is the vei-v thing that con- 
cerns me, because I am beginning to see this, in our"counti*yside. The 
one trouble is that these very small particles, because they don't fall 
out, diffuse and gradually work themselves up to the base of the 
stratosphere, so we are getting more and more of the. troposphere filled 
up with these small particles. It takes an awful lot of them to have 
an effect on sunlight, to reduce "insolation"— incoming solar radiation. 



97 

It takes a lot of them to hide a mountain. But still, that is what we are 
beginning to see. 

And, the trouble is, the mass method of weighing atmospheric par- 
ticulates is not going to really pinpoint the problem we are now up 
against. Because you see, with a very small particle, about as much 
light is reflected back toward the sun as comes through. That is an- 
other factor, which is important. 

And now that this vast region of tlie tropospliere is being affected 
Avith these kinds of particles, then the kind of measurements that the 
Smithsonian is noting is some of it from local sources, but I think a 
lot of it is from a distance. 

^Ye recently completed the tenth transcontinental flight made, at low 
level for measuring small particles so we have obtained a feeling for 
the three-dimensional nature of this atmospheric pollution on a large 
scale. "^Miile it is true that the majority of the pollution materials are 
in the lower 5,000 feet, concentrated in that location. There is an in- 
creasing amount extending to the inversion level, at the top of the 
troposphere at 30-35,000 feet. 

Most people don't realize the tremendous amount of particulate 
matter that is up there, and it is onl^^ when a stagnant air situation 
develops that the region below the lower inversion begins to fill up, 
and they become alarmed. 

If they had to live at this inversion level they would have been in 
trouble a long time ago. 

Senator Dole. What finally happens to these small particles? 

Dr. ScHAEFER. The only way that they are eliminated is as they serve 
as nuclei for ice and snow or precipitation when they diffuse to the 
precipitation particles. That is a x^rimary way in which the atmosphere 
is cleaned. 

Senator Dole. In other words, they stay in the atmosphere. Yester- 
day was Sunday, for example, and I was flying around different cities, 
Dallas, Kansas City, Dayton, and in every area there was a haze. And 
this was Sunday, with no industrial plant operating that I could see. 
So it just hangs around for clays, apparently. 

Dr. Schaefer. Gravity has no effect on it, to speak of, because the 
particles are so small, brownian motion drives them up just as much 
as it drives them down, so they are just floating in the air until they 
are cleaned up by precipitation. If we don't have precipitation, then 
it just gets worse and worse. 

Senator Dole. So it is not beyond speculation that, if something 
isn't done in the next hundred years, that this might have an effect. 
Air pollution that originates in Los Angeles may end vqy in the State 
of Washington, or the State of Nebraska. 

Dr. Schaefer. Right. 

Senator Dole. So it is not beyond speculation that this could have 
an effect not only in urban areas, but rural areas. 

Dr. Schaefer. That is right. 

Senator Dole. And even on agricultural products, and growth and 
production. 

Dr. Schaefer. These are some of the effects which are very diffi- 
cult to assess, but I am sure are very important. And it goes way 
beyond just the esthetic aspects of the environment. 



98 

As you point out, it could be changing our radiation balance, it 
could be doing a number of things. We are not smart enough to say 
what all of these effects are likely to lead to in relation to our health, 
the corrosion of our buildings, and many other things that we haven't 
thought too much about. 

Senator Dol,e. Mr. Chairman, I need to go to another committee. 
I wanted to point out that we have Congressman Hechler from West 
Virginia, who has been long interested in this subject matter, visiting 
this morning. 

Thank you. 

Senator Muskie. Thank you. Senator Dole. 

It seems to me you have just ended in discussing another problem 
that troubled us in 1967, and I think we need to refocus on today. 
There was some feeling in 1967 for the idea of regional airsheds, as 
a basis for creating the mechanism or the institutions to deal with 
the air pollution problem and controls. 

Is there, from your point of view, any validity to that idea ? 

Dr. ScHAEFER. Very little. Senator. I feel that the airshed concept 
is a very misleading one. I think it could get us into a great deal 
of trouble. Unlike water, which follows gravity, the particles that I 
am concerned about pay no attention whatever to gravity. 

They are moved by the air. The air and its particles which we are 
breatliing here probably was 500 to a thousand miles away a day or 
so in the past. 

And therefore, except for the nighttime inversions, which will cause 
local build ups of particles over cities, I think the airshed concept is 
a misleading one. 

We in New York State are quite concerned about pollution and 
I think we have done a very good job, in facing up to the kind of prob- 
lems that we are confronted with on the local scene. But if we are get- 
ting a load of particles, coming in from the West and the South or 
the Southwest much of our effort will be diluted by pollution from 
distant sources. 

We have the evidence, and that is what really bothers me. 

Senator Mtjskie. What variables are there in the atmosphere, varia- 
bles, depending on local or regional conditions, that ought to be taken 
into account in developing control mechanisms or control policy ? 

Dr. ScHAEFER. We must initiate a much more comprehensive moni- 
toring program. We must develop an aerosol climatology. There is a 
small amount of work in this direction going on with the NAPCA 
agency— the meteorological group which is located in North Carolina 
are paying some attention to the problem but I believe they have only 
one scientist who is really concerned about meteorological aspects of 
pollution on a large scale. 

I believe that much more attention needs to be paid to this problem, 
and I think the Weather Bureau have the personnel who could do it. 
They certainly need additional funds to focus a major effort in this 
direction. I think it is very important. 

I think, too, that one of the extremely important potential programs 
for particulate studies, could be related to the World Weather Watch, 
and the global atmospheric research program. Much more emphasis 
should be paid to the global levels of air":pollution because after all, 
we can do a good job in America, and if we are getting a big flow, of 



99 

these particulates coming in from distant sources, as I am sure will 
occur then some of our work goes in vain. 

It certainly isn't all lost effort, but we have to look at the atmos- 
phere as a global problem. 

Senator Muskie. You have emphasized that throughout your testi- 
mony. I think it is very helpful. 

You use the phrase "global continuity." I think that increasingly 
we become aware that it is something more than a local phenomenon. 

Dr. ScHAEFER. Yes. 

Senator Muskie. And that what we do in one community, however 
small, does have an impact, however small. 

Dr. ScHAEFER. That is right. 

Senator Muskie. On a much wider region than the local political 
jurisdiction. 

Dr. Schaefer. That is why it is so important for the Federal Gov- 
ernment to move into this area in a way so that, for example, in a local 
situation, where an industry is criticized for the damage it is doing 
to the local environment, one of the things they camiot say is "Well, if 
you don't like it, we are going to go somewhere else." 

Well, thanks to your efforts, there is no place to hide in America; 
but, on the other hand, there are many other countries that will toler- 
ate this for a while, and the next thing we are going to hear is that 
the industries are going to say, "Well, if you don't like it in America, 
we will take it to some other country where they aren't concerned 
about clean air." 

So I believe that the U.N. must address itself, as it apparently is, to 
this problem on a global scale. 

Senator Muskie. In a very real sense, then, as the world's greatest 
industrial country, we are mortgaging the future air supply of other 
less industrialized or less developed countries. 

Dr. Schaefer. We have made a proposal, rather informal so far, but 
I think that this is one thing I would like to see given much attention, 
is realted to the great reservoir of clean air which at the present time 
is over the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans. This is where the last really 
clean air is located, together with the air in the polar areas. 

We need to be monitoring the quality of this air on a much bigger 
scale than we have, thus far achieved. I believed the U.S. Navy has a 
major role to play in accomplishing this objective. It is just as im- 
portant for the success of their mission as it is for our objectives. And 
I would strongly urge that very careful thought be given that the 
Navy be given the job of keeping track of this big mass of clean air. 
This air is cleaned periodically by oceanic storms on a vast scale. 

Senator Muskie. Senator Baker and I have introduced a bill that 
we hope will stimulate widespread interest, a bill to create National 
Environmental Laboratories. The idea is something much broader 
in concept than the usual scientific research laboratory; something 
comparable, I suppose, to the National Institutes of Health, in which 
the total nature of the environment would be taken into account to 
evaluate what we are doing to the environment, what we must do to 
reduce our insults. 

Dr. Schaefer. Yes. 

Senator Muskie. Is it a concept to which you respond ? 



100 

Dr. SciiAEFER. I would respond in this way, Senator: I strongly 
feel that something of this sort could be marvelous, provided the 
people in those laboratories are the very best we can find in America, 
if not the world. 

There should be a small group of those people, and then they should 
relate to the universities, in my opinion, because the universities have 
very high competence in many areas which are not being effectively 
used. I think a combined, hard-core national institute, with very 
strong relationships with the best people in the miiversities, and 
especially the younger people — one of the real problems in America 
at the moment is we have trained a lot of brilliant young people, and 
they can't get jobs, because they have been trained to be specialists. 

One of the most serious problems confronting us is this large group 
of bright 3'oung people are now^ being frustrated, because they have 
been trained in an area where they can no longer use their brain power. 

Now, fortunately, the environment is a problem that is almost like 
a sink. I mean, there is almost no end to the things that have to be 
done if we are going to solve the problems about which we are con- 
cerned. One of the things we are addressing ourselves to at our univer- 
sity is how do we retrain these brilliant young people enough, and 
then how do we find suitable jobs for them after they have been 
retrained ? 

I personally think that there are going to be lots of jobs, but we 
have to do a lot of this on faith. 

Senator Muskie. In the age of specialization we have assumed 
that as society became larger, more compliacted and sophisticated, 
each of us had to narrow our perspective to that piece of it with whicli 
we dealt. Actually the environment is demonstrating that we should 
have been broadening our perspective all the time, becoming general- 
ists rather than specialists. 

Dr. ScHAEFER. Yes, of course. Well, I have mixed feelings about 
this. I think we need the specialist who is also a generalist. I think the 
specialist should at least have some understanding of the ecological 
pattern that he fits into. I think this is terribly important, and this is 
where I think the univereities and the lower schools have been 
inadequate. 

We need to start when the kid is, you know, just beginning to com- 
prehend things, and then continue on from kindergarten on up, a so- 
cial awareness of all of these complex relationships. And such a per- 
son, a person educated in this general way, is going to be very careful 
about what he does to his environment, because he will understand the 
fragility of it. 

Senator Muskie. I would like to ask another more specific question. 
Dr. Schaefer. 

You have expressed concern over the environmental air pollution 
aspects of the SST. I wonder if you would summarize the reserva- 
tions that you have with respect to the SST? I would like to refer vou 
to the statement made by Dr. Bryson of the University of Wisconsin, 
who said that at any one time there are 385,000 square miles of cloud 
cover, produced by cirrus cloud formations stimulated by jet contrails. 

I would like to have your impression of the SST's relationship to 
that. 



101 

Dr. SciiAEFER. Well, I am not sure that the SST is likely to produce 
a cloud cover. I sure hope it doesn't. If you look at the moisture rela- 
tionships up there, it probably will take quite a lot of moisture to 
saturate the air above the tropopause. 

The tliin£T I am concerned about is the small particles will un- 
doubtedly come from the exhaust. The small particles and gases, and 
just what their lifetime is likely to be. I am not an expert on this 
kind of reaction mechanics, and I am relying quite a bit on my 
colleafTues to try to work up the answers ; but, when you attempt to get 
firm iiiformation as to exactly what it is that will come out of the 
tailpipes of the four jets per plane and the 500 or more planes that are 
going to be flying, and then you work out the dimensions, a quick meas- 
urement shows either that it is going to be on the ragged edge of being 
important, or maybe it is going to be quite important. It doesn't say it 
is of no consequence. 

It is one of these iffy things, that perhaps, until we do it, we are 
not going to be really sure that what we are saying is true. 

But, on the other hand. I think we need to take an awfully hard 
look at that. Is there a real need to go so far so fast ? 

As one who does a lot of traveling, I find that it takes me a couple 
of days to get back to normal when I land in Japan, so that saving 
a few hours isn't really going to help mucli. So I think we have to 
give a lot of careful tliought to the real value of such a thing. I think 
it is a classic example of something that we certainly can do, but 
is it the smartest thing to do it ? 

And we are going to have many of these decisions that we liave 
to make, over the next few years — including more power from elec- 
trical powerplants. 

I see electricity being used for a lot of rather silly things at ihe 
present time. And I have a feeling that you know there is a limit 
to all of such activties. We can't just keep on going up, in terms of 
production of everything that we think that we have to have. I 
think, basically, this is what the young people are saying: That we 
have to begin looking at the values that we have developed in this 
wonderful country of ours, and see whether or not there aren't some 
tilings that need to be rethought. 

I, for one, am willing to do without some things that I now 
consider to be something I am entitled to, jjrovided I can see that 
it is going to be good from the standpoint of everything else. 

Senator Muskie. Institutionally, that is one of the toughest prob- 
lems we face. How do we control consumer demand, and the many 
ways we have to stimulate consumer appetites? It is a tough one. 

Dr. ScHAEFER. We have to find, Senator, a much better way of 
contacting the general public, and while I don't agree with every- 
tliing that Vice President Agnew says, on the other hand, he hns cer- 
tainly touched some tender nerves, in some of the things that he has 
been talking about. 

We have really not used our mass media as well as it could be used. 

Now, I understand why these things happen, but when I see what 
a magnificent job of communication can be done with radio, television, 
newspapers and magazines, and the word of mouth, and see the lack 
of imagination that we have permitted to develop in this country, it 
is sometimes rather dismaying. 



r 102 

We are much smarter than what we do. 

Senator Muskie. We don't concentrate enough on doing the 
important. 

Dr. ScHAEFER. I think you are right. 

Senator Muskie. I think we have the capacity for doing it, if we can 
agree on what it is. 

Dr. ScHAEFER. Absolutely, and especially the young people. We 
have a fantastic reservoir in our youth. I consider this our greatest 
natural resource. Aiid yet we are doing a miserable job in using it. 

Senator Muskie. I would agree. 

Dr. Schaefer, I am going to include in the record at this point — and 
there is no one here to object except me, and I won't— an article that 
you wrote in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society for 
last year. I think it would be a very helpful addition to the record. 
Also' included will be an article written by you for BioScience. 

(The article follows:) 

[Reprinted from Bulletin of the American Meteonologieal Society, vol. 50, No. 4, 

April 1969] 

The Inadvertent Modification of the Atmosphere by Air Pollution 

(By Vincent J. Schaefer, Atmospheric Sciences Research Center, State University 

of New York at Albany ) 

ABSTRACT 

There has been a very noticeable increase in air pollution during the past ten 
years over and downwind of the several large metropolitan areas of the United 
States such as the Northwest — Vancouver-Seattle-Tacoma-Portland ; the West 
Coast from San Francisco-Sacramento-Fresno-Los Angeles ; the Front Range of 
the Rockies from Boulder-Denver-Colorado Springs-Pueblo ; the Midwest— 
Omaha-Kansas City-St. Louis-Memphis ; the Great Lakes area of Chicago- 
Detroit-Cleveland-Buffalo ; and the Northeast — Washington-Philadelphia-New 
York-Boston. The worst accumulation of particulate matter occurs at the top of 
the inversion which commonly intensifies at night at levels ranging from 1000 to 
4000 ft or so above the ground. This dense concentration of air-suspended parti- 
cles is most apparent to air travelers. Thus, it has not as yet disturbed the general 
public except during periods of stagnant weather systems when the concentra- 
tion of heavily polluted air extends downward and engulfs them on the highways, 
at their homes and in their working areas. 

1. RECENT MODIFICATION OF OUR AIR ENVIRONMENT 

Until recently there is little question that except in very exceptional cases, 
natural processes dominated the mesoscale weather systems by initiating the 
precipitation mechanism. The effluent from the larger cities was quickly diluted 
by the surrounding "country air" so that at a distance of a few miles downwind 
of a city, little evidence of air pollution could be detected. 

The recent spread of urban developments due to better roads and the massive 
proliferation of people and automobiles has led to a nationwide network of 
county, state, and interstate highways. This interconnection of thousands of 
smaller towns and with large cities and the phenomenal increase in auto, truck 
and air traflSc has caused a massive reduction in the regions which have 
"country" type air. This increase in massive air contamination is of fairly 
recent origin. It is not easy to document this fact in the detail I would prefer 
since we have not had reliable automatic recording equipment for measuring 
Aitken, cloud and ice nuclei until the last few years. However, using simpler 
devices with which we made measurements at a number of scattered locations 
during the past ten years, we have in the past year used the same techniques 
to make comparative observations. The measurements indicate an increase in 
airborne particlates at these sites of at least on order of magnitude during this 



103 

ten year period. At Yellowstone Park in the winter-time which has the cleanest 
air we have found in the continental United States, the background levels of 
Aitken nuclei have increased from less than 100 to the 800-1000 ml"-^ range within 
a five-year span. At Flagstaff. Ariz., where in 1902 the background levels ranged 
from 100-300 the concentration now lies between 800-3(KKl. At Schenectady. X.Y., 
the average concentration of these nuclei has risen from less than 1000 to more 
than 5000 with values occasionally exceeding 50,000 ml-\ 

While it is difficult to ascribe these increases to any one cause, it is obvious 
that the increased demand for electric power, the large increase in garbage and 
trash incineration and the automobile, are likely to represent the major sources 
of increased pollution, especially since many industrial plants have been forced 
to reduce their pollution due to more rigorous regulations. 

Just as it is not easy to place the blame for increased air pollution specifically 
on the power plants, incinerators and automobiles, it is equally difficult to demon- 
strate clear cut or unequivocal atmospheric modification to these sources. I am 
confident that in time there will be ample proof of these effects which are now 
inadvertently modifying the atmosphere. 

The presence of high concentrations of visible as well as invisible particulates 
above and downwind of our cities produces a heat island effect as real as a sun- 
drenched Arizona desert or a semitropical island in the Caribbean. 

Those cities like Boston, New York and Philadelphia which are not affected 
by geographic barriers as is Los Angeles, Salt Lake City, or Denver are able to 
get rid of miich of their effluent whenever the wind blows. Their plumes of air- 
borne dirt extend as visible streamers for many miles downwind of the source 
areas. In the case of the metropolitan New York City-northeastern New Jersey 
complex, these plumes will be found in the upper Hudson Valley, in southeastern 
New England or over the Atlantic Ocean. 

Commercial airline pilots flying the Atlantic are often able to pick up these 
pollution plumes hundreds of miles at sea. Hogan recently obtained data which 
provides a quantitative measurement of the New York effluents near the surface 
of the Atlantic between the United States and Europe. This same paper [1] amply 
demonstrates a similar zone of air pollutants being exuded over the seas sur- 
rounding Europe, the British Isles and the east and west coa.st of the United 
States. 

2. PROPEBTIES OF MARITIME AND "COUNTRY" AIR 

We have known for twenty years that maritime air is characterized by low 
levels of both cloud droplet and Aitken nuclei. Vonnegut [2] showed by a very 
simple experimental device that about 50 effective nuclei at low water satura- 
tion droplet formation existed on the upwind coast of Puerto Rico where the 
trade wind clouds are seen. We were all much surprised when we established 
the nature of trade wind clouds during our research flights near Puerto Rico in 
1948 [3]. Following these activities, I pointed out [4] the large difference notice- 
able even then between the "raininess" of the clouds upwind of the island and 
those which formed over the land after entraining the polluted air from San 
Juan, the sugar fields and refineries, the cement mills and the myriads of char- 
coal pits which dotted the island, each sending out its plume of bluish smoke. 
In our studies in the vicinity of Puerto Rico we observed that in many instances 
trade wind clouds would start raining by the time the clouds had a vertical 
thickness of not more than a mile while those over or immediately downwind 
of the island often reached three times that thickness without raining. 

During a continent-wide flight over a large area of Africa, I found [5] an even 
more spectacular effect of inadvertent cloud seeding. As a result of the massive 
bush and forest burning initiated by the inhabitants preceding the onset of the 
rainy season, huge cumulus clouds, some of them reaching a height of more than 
35,000 ft. (vertical thickness 4—5 miles) were observed which were not producing 
any rain. Instead the clouds grew so high that very extensive ice crystal plumes 
hundreds of miles long extended downwind of the convective clouds. No evidence 
of glaciation was ob.served in the side turrets of the clouds indicating a deficiency 
of ice nuclei at temperatures warmer than the homogeneous nucleation tempera- 
ture of — 40C. Thus it appeared that the precipitation process was being con- 
trolled almost entirely by coalescence and that so many cloud droplet nuclei were 
being entrained into the clouds from the fires below, that the coalescence process 
was impaired so that no rain developed. If ice nuclei were present, they were 
probably deactivated by the high concentration of smoke particles and gases 
flowing into the base of the clouds. Similar effects have been observed on a 



104 

smaller scale in the Hawaiian Islands. During the trade wind cloud regime, 
clouds which form over sugar cane fields when they are burned prior to harvest 
are actually larger than the surrounding clouds but they have never been ob- 
served to rain even though smaller ones nearby produce showers. Warner more 
recently has documented such observations [6]. 

A further observation of secular change in the microphysics of clouds has been 
observed in the vicinity of large cities during airplane flights through convective 
clouds. The observations I have noted in particular were made in commercial 
twin engine planes over the past ten years. Of recent years it has been noticed 
that such clouds often have so many. cloud droplets in them that visibility is re- 
stricted so much that the engine is hardly visible. In my earlier observations I 
can never recall being in clouds so opaque that the wing tips could not be seen. 
Several of my colleagues have reported similar experiences. 

Perhaps the most impressive field evidence of inadvertent weather modifica- 
tion is the overseeding of supercooled clouds which is readily observed over and 
downwind of our northern cities in the wintertime. 

3. ICE CBYSTALS FROM POLLUTED AIR 

Although I have been observing such phenomena for more than ten years, the 
effect was brouglit to my attention in a vivid way during a flight from All)any to 
Buffalo on 20 December 196.3. After flying above a fairly thin deck of supercooled 
stratus clouds downwind of the Adirondack Mountains, I noted a massive area of 
ice crystals above and downwind of Rochester, N.T. The crystals were so dense 
that the reflection from the nndersun* was dazzling. Since that time I have 
observed similar high concentrations of crystals at low level above and down- 
wind of most of the large northeastern cities such as New York, Albany, Utica, 
Syracuse, and Buffalo as well as Detroit, Chicago, Sacramento and Los Angeles. 
In all instances the ice crystals were observed at low level (below 5000 ft. above 
the ground in most instances), and extending for at least 50 miles downwind of 
the city sources and without cirrus clouds above the areas affected. In a few in- 
stances when the plane passed through the crystal area, I observed the particles 
to be like snow dust, though in a number of instances after landing I observed 
very symmetrical though tiny hexagonal crystals drifting down from the sky. 

4. MISTY RAIN AND DUST-LIKE SNOW 

For the past several year I have also been observing a number of strange snow 
and rain storms in the Capital District area in the east central part of New 
York State. These storms consist of extremely small precipitation particles. When 
in the form of snow, the particles are like dust having cross sections ranging 
from 0.02 cm (200 m to 0.06 cm (600 fi). When in the form of droplets, they 
often are even smaller in diameter, at times being so tiny that they drift rather 
than fall toward the Earth. When collected on clean plastic sheets, the precipita- 
tion is found to consist of badly poilluted water. It is a well-known fact that pre- 
cipitation "cleanses the air." In the past much of this cleansing action has been 
ascribed to the sweeping up of suspended aerosols by rain and snow. Little atten- 
tion has been given to the possibility that submicroscopic particulates from man- 
made iMllution may in fact be initiating and controlling precipitation in a pri- 
mnry manner rather than being involved in the secondary process wherein pre- 
cipitation elements coming from "natural" mechanisms' serve to remove the 
particles by diffusion, collision and similar scavenging processes. 

My first evidence that there might be substances in urban air which would 
react with other chemicals was encountered while studying ice nucleation effects 
at the General Electric Research Laboratory in 1946 [7]. At that time I found 
that laboratory air contained aerosols which would react with iodine vapor to 
form very effective ice nuclei but that when the air was free of particulate mat- 
ter, no further ice particles would form. 



*Note : The undersun is an optical phenomenon caused by the specular reflection, of the 
bun from the surfaces of myriads of hexagonal plate ice crystals. In order to produce an 
undersun it is necessary for the crystals t;o consist of smooth-surfaced plates which float 
■with their long axes horizontal to the ground. They thus act as many tiny mirrors. If the 
crystals were not hexagonal plates but rather prisms, the optical effects would include 
under parhelia and other reflections which are well known and have been related to crystal 
types during our winter studies at Yellowstone Park 



105 

5. POTENTIAL ICE NUCLEI FROM AUTO EXHAUST 

In 1966 I published a jmper [8] which suggested that air iwllution in the form 
of automobile exhaust could account for the high concentration of ice crystals 
which I have observed downwind of the larger cities in the United States and in 
any area where a considerable number of automobiles are used. My laboratory 
studies have shown that submicroscopic particles of lead compounds produced 
from the combustion of leaded gasoline can be found at concentrations exceeding 
1000 cm-3 in auto exhaust. These were measured by exposing auto exhaust sam- 
ples to a trace of iodine vapor before or after putting the samples into a cold 
chamber oi)erating at — 20C. Presumably this reaction with iodine formed lead 
iodide which is an effective sublimation nucleus for ice crystal formation. Evi- 
dence that the active ingredient in auto exhaust consists of submicroscopic parti- 
cles of lead was determined by comiparing its temperature ice nucleation activity 
pattern with that of lead oxide smoke produced by electrically sparking lead elec- 
trodes which was also reacted with a trace of iodine vapor. One of the problems 
related to the evidence that leaded gasoline is responsible for the ice crystals ob- 
served in laboratory and fie'ld experiments concerned with auto exhaust is the 
source of the iodine needed to pi-oduce the lead iodide reaction. All evidence thus 
far encountered shows that only a few hundred molecules of iodine are required 
to produce a nucleating zone for ice crystal formation. The amount of iodine re- 
ported in oceanic [9] air (tlie order of 0.5 U G. m-^) is orders of magnitude 
greater than would be required to activate such particles. 

I have recently completed further studies in Arizona, New York and France 
[10, 11] and have found that wood smoke and other organic sources add iodine 
to the air which could react with the auto exhaust submicroscopic lead com- 
pounds which are always present in urban pollution. Hogan has recently showed 
[12] that similar reactions will proceed from the vapor phase. 

Admittedly we are dealing with chemical reactions in the realm of surface 
and even "point" chemistry as Langmuir termed such molecule by molecule re- 
actions. This is an area of particulate research for which there is very little 
experimental data or practical experience. The size of the primary lead particles 
from auto exhaust which are 0.008-0.010 diameter are far too small for analysis 
by any currently available chemical reaction techniques. All of my laboratory 
experiments indicate that the submicroscopic particles in auto exhaust which 
react with iodine vapor act only as nuclei for ice formation from the vapor phase. 
No evidence has been found that they act as freezing nuclei. 

6. THE EFFECT OP LAKGE CONCENTRATIONS OF ICE CRYSTALS 

The presence of high concentrations of tiny ice crystals in air colder than 
00 over thousands of cubic miles raises interesting aspects of the dynamics of 
weather systems. Such crystals continually modify small supercooled clouds 
soon after they foi-m. The net results is a reduction in the number of local 
rain or snow showers and the production of extensive sheets of '"false" cirrus. 
Bryson has pointed out (13) that cirrus sheets and even the presence on a large 
scale of airborne dust exerts a measurable decrease of insolation. If a much 
larger supply of moist air moves into such a region, the entrainment of high 
concentrations of crystals by more vigorous supercooled clouds may trigger the 
formation of a massive storm through the release of the latent heat of sublima- 
tion. Langmuir described [14] such a storm system which he believed was 
initiated and then intensified when dry ice in successive seeding operations 
was put into the lower level of a rapidly developing storm. 

7, FINDINGS OF PROJECT AIE SAMPLE 

In order to determine whether or not polluted air above cities contained 
particles which would react with free iodine molecules, eight transcontinental 
flights have been made by Atmospherics. Inc., under our auspices during the 
Fall of 1966 and 1967 and the Spring and Fall of 1968. A Piper Aztec aircraft 
was fitted with instruments which could measure in a semiquantitative manner 
the concentration of atmospheric particulates which would become ice nuclei 
by the reaction with iodine, and which would also measure natural nuclei for 
ice crystal formation. The iodine reactions were conducted in a cold chamber 
at — 20C. The determination of naturally occurring nuclei was done at — 22C. 
In addition, measurements were also made of Aitken nuclei (a measure of 



106 

polluted air) and cloud nuclei. This last measurement which is made at very 
low water saturation is also a measure of the degree of air pollution since 
values above about 50 cloud nuclei and 500 Aitken nuclei per cubic centimeter 
is indicative of some degree of air pollution. The flight samples were made 
mostly just below the top of the haze layer which ranged from 1500 to 5000 ft 
above the ground throughout the flights. Of the 266 measurements in November 
1966, 31 were made on the ground. All of these showed excessive pollution levels. 
Great care was exercised in making these observations to avoid contamination 
from the engine exhaust of the aircraft being used for the measurements. 

At several locations observations were made above as well as within the 
upper part of the haze layer. In every instance the air above the visible top of 
the haze layer was low in lead particles while that just below the top or farthel 
down showed very high concentrations. 

All other locations where counts of the ice nuclei were low involved regions 
free of pollution sources. Of the 266 observations 108 or 40% of the measure- 
ments were in areas such a'' upwind of cities (9) ; above large lakes (8) ; above 
haze l.-ryers (22) ; and above woods and farms (33). The 60% remaining had 
values of potential ice nuclei of 100 per liter or more. Some 115, all of them 
above or downwind of cities had values in excess of 200 per liter which I consider 
would lead to definite over-seeding of the atmosphere with ice particles if suitable 
moisture was available. Values of 1000 per liter or more occurred at 101 of the 
stations. If concentrations of ice crystals that high occurred the cloud would 
resemble a stable ice fog as occurs at Fairbanks, Alaska, or the Old Faithful area 
of Yellowstajie Park [15] when the temperatures are colders than — 40C. With 
crystal concentrations of this magnitude, the particles grow very slowly if at all 
and thus remain floating in the air for extended periods. This then reduces the 
incoming solar radiation to a noticeable degree. If such areas are extensive, they 
caimot help but cause changes in the weather patterns of the affected areas. 

Similar findings characterized our second, third and fourth round-trip trans- 
continental fiights covering more than 25,000 additional miles and consisting of 
over 1500 more observations. In practically every instance where polluted air was 
present, hig'h values in potential ice nuclei (using the iodine reaction) was found. 
The only exceptions were instances where the plumes of steel mills, forest fires 
and other highly concentrated effluents were measured in areas where auto 
exhausts could contribute very little if anything to the sampled air. 

Fig. 6 [not reproduced herein] illustrates the type of pollution which still 
occurs along Lake Erie at Buffalo and Fig. 7 [not reproduced herein] a zone of 
snow falling from low clouds about eighty miles downwind of Buffalo at a loca- 
tion where the iodine-activated nuclei had dropped from 5000 per liter measured 
at Buffalo to 500 near Cayuga Lake and the Aitken count from 25,000 ml"^ 
to 4500 as measured at 3000 ft above the terrain. 

Fig. 8 [not reproduced herein] illustrates' the fantastic amount of smoke which 
shrouded the metropolitan New York area on 23 November 1966, when one of the 
first dangerous smog alerts was sounded by New York City health officials. Just 
prior to obtaining this picture the airplane was flown up through the smog. At 600 
ft the cloud nucleus count was 2000 ml-i, the Aitken count 25,000 and the ice 
nuclei measured were for the natural background and 50,000 to 100,000 per liter 
for ice nuclei activated with iodine vapor. 

Fig. 9 [not reproduced herein] shows the conditions at Albany, N.Y., on the 
previous day. At 1200 ft the cloud droplet nuclei numbered 900 ml-i, the Aitken 
count was 4000, the natural ice nucleus background was but the concentration of 
ice nuclei activated with iodine was 50,000 per liter. These are concentrations 
which are commonly observed in the air below the top of the invension over and 
downwind of all large cities. In many instances the smoke concentrations in 
such areas isi not as spectacular as shown in Figs. 7 and 8 since a considerable 
portion of the pollution is submicroscopic. These aerial photos were taken bv 
Thomas Henderson who also made the air measurements. 

8. FLIGHT OBSERVATIONS OF INADVERTENT SEEDING 

It is quite feasible to detect and observe the massive systems of ice crvstal 
nuclei which produce inadvertent effects on cloud and weather systems due to 
man's activities. This is accomplished most easily bv riding on the sunnv side 
of a jet aircraft. 

I observed and photographed three such systems in 1967 during a flight from 
Buffalo, N.Y., to Denver, Colo., by way of Chicago, returning directlv from 
Denver to New York City. 



107 

(a) Ice crystals related to polluted air 

On Wednesday, 6 November 1967, I left Buffalo at 1035 by Boeing 727 land- 
ing at Detroit and Chicago. Upon take-off I noted a heavy pollution pall over 
Buffalo extending westward to the horizon. Just west of Buffalo we climbed 
above stratiform clouds estimated to be at 15,000 ft or lower which consisted 
of very high concentrations of ice crystals as established by an undersun. This 
extensive zone of ice crystals was observed all the way to Detroit and was 
associated with visibly polluted air. We flew at 20,000 ft where the temperature 
was — 20C. Enroute from Detroit to Chicago I found the same condition to exist 
from the 1108 take-off until 1132 at which time only supercooled clouds were 
visible. At the same time all evidence of polluted air disapi>eared, visibility 
between cloud decks was unlimited and no further trace of ice crystals could 
be seen as we lauded at Chicago The air pollution from Chicago was being 
carried to the southeast over Indiana about 30 miles south of our jet route. 

(&) Ice crystals produced hy dust from plowed land 

Upon take-off of Chicago in a Boeing 707 at 1320 CST, the air was clear, 
several decks of stratiform clouds were visible with no evidence of ice crystals. 
Heading west I saw no ice crystals until 1424. Just previous to that time a 
peculiar zone of dusty air could be seen ahead of us extending toward the 
southwest. Within a few minutes a brilliant undersun could be seen which 
persisted for the next half hour. When we finally emerged from the affected 
zone over northeastern Colorado it was quite obvious that the 300 miles long 
zone of ice crystals was due to very extensive dust storms caused by 50-100 
mph katabatic ground winds pouring down out of the Front Range of the 
Rockies and blowing top soil from the extensive wheat fields extending from 
northeastern Colorado to the region about 50 miles east of Pikes Peak. The low 
level dust was rising only from tilled land, the grassy areas such as the Pawnee 
Grass Lands were unaffected. 

A similar massive dust storm which produced very extensive cloud seeding 
was observed by me on the afternoon of 12 April 1967, between Amarillo. Tex., 
and Denver, Colo. This affected region was so extensive and had such a pro- 
found effect on the Great Plains and midwest weather .systems that I was able 
to identify it and see its effects over western Illinois two days later. 

On the return flight from Denver on 8 December, a third source of inadvertent 
weather modification was observed. Take-off in a DC9 occurred at 1206 MST 
on a non-stop jet flight to New York City. Very fine snow was falling at the 
ground upon take-off. Four minutes afterward we climbed above an extensive 
area of ice crystals. A bright undersun became visible and was seen continu- 
ously all the way from the Denver area to the Atlantic Ocean east of New 
Jersey. Jet contrails appeared to be the source of these crystals throughout the 
entire flight which was conducted at 37,000 ft. More than a dozen different 
planes were seen coming from the east within the flight corridor we were using, 
most of them several thousand feet below us. From time to time we were close 
to contrails being made by planes at our level but ahead of us. 

The most striking effect observed was the sharp line of demarcation between 
the area affected by contrail seeding along our flight corridor and an extensive 
area of high altocumulus cloud (or cirrocumulus) which paralleled our zone at 
its southern extremity. This region of non-modified clouds was estimated to be 
about 10 to 20 miles away and extended over large regions of the country. 
I expect that an effect such as was observed could be seen on satellite cloud 
photographs. 

Perhaps the most disturbing feature about inadvertent weather modification 
is that in a subtle manner it seems to be changing the nature of clouds over 
increasingly large areas of the globe. Much of our current consideration of 
cloud seeding assumes the ubiquity of supercooled clouds and the effectiveness 
of a seeding material for triggering the instability of such systems. 

If pollution sources lead to increased dustiness from ill-u.sed land, more cloud 
nuclei from burning trash and many more ice nuclei from the lead-permeated 
exhaust of internal combustion engines, not only w-ill we lose the possible 
advantage we now have of extracting some additional water from our sky 
rivers, but we might even be confronted with a drastic change in our climato- 
logical patterns. 

Interesting climatological evidence of inadvertent weather modification has 
been found by Changnon [16] to exist in the area downwind of the Chicago, 
Illinois-Gary, Indiana, complex of extensive urban, highway and steel mill 
concentrations. 

43-166— 70— pt. 1 8 



108 

A very noticeable increase in precipitation and storminess is evident in the 
rt'oonls of the past three decades. The LaPorte, Indiana region whose record is 
cited as evidence of this effect is downwind of the heavy pollution source men- 
tioned above as well as the close proximity to a very moist air source in the form 
of Lake Michigan. It is a common observation to see a lake effect street of cumu- 
lus clouds extending in the convergence zone south and southeast of Lake 
Michigan. The combination of very moist air and an abundance of ice nuclei are 
apparently in very favorable juxtaposition for an optimum reaction to occur. The 
LaPorte anomaly' was first observed by a local weather observer which was then 
evaluated by Changnon. He found that there has been a notable increase in 
precipitation starting ahout 1925 with definite increases since that time also of 
the number of rainy days, thunderstorms and hail storms. There has been a 
31% increase in precipitation, 38% of thunderstorms and 240% increase of hail 
incidences. The increases show a marked correlation with the production of steel. 

Since this data Vv^as obtained entirely from an evaluation of the climatological 
records, it is of great importance that careful "on-the-spot" field observations 
should be made in the LaPorte area to establish the atmospheric dynamics which 
are responsible for the apparent change in the precipitation pattern of that area. 
It is particularly important that the concentration of particulate matter be cor- 
related with storm patterns. The weather systems at the mesoscale level should 
especially be sudied to determine whether the area receiving increased pre- 
cipitation is in the center or edge of the city-industrial plume effluent and the 
properties of the moist air moving in from Lake Michigan. 

9. EXPERIMENTAL PRODUCTION OF LARGE AREAS OP ICE CRYSTALS 

During the past ten winters field operations have been developed by our Yellow- 
stone Expeditions in which we have established certain relationships of ice 
crystal concentrations in the free atmosphere. The early morning inversions of 
the Old Faithful Geyser Basin in the wintertime often have liquid water con- 
tents ranging from 0.5 to 1 gm m-^ This rich supply of moisture is contained 
within a strong ground-based inversion having a vertical thickness of about 100 
m. At a distance of 2000 m from a point source of seeding, ice crystal concentra- 
tions up to 10,000 per liter have been measured. Such crystals at — 12C are hex- 
agonal plates with cross sections of from ten to a thousand microns, the size de- 
pending on concentration and moisture supply. Those of 200 fx, occur typically at 
a concentration of 200 per liter with a fall velocity of 10 cm sec~\ The brilliance 
of the undersun and related optical phenomena indicates that the number of 
crystals observed in areas caused by air pollution, jet contrails or dust storms 
often have concentrations as high or higher than observed in our experiments. 
Thus at Yellowstone we have an ideal outdoor laboratory to study some of the 
factors which must be better understood if we are to work out the physical inter- 
actions resulting from the inadvertent modification of the atmosphere. 

10. THE NEED AND OPPORTUNITY TO STUDY THESE PHENOMENA 

The effects cited are but a few examples of many which I have observed and 
photographed during the past few years. It is the rule rather than the exception 
that such massive zones of ice crystals can be observed over large areas of the 
country which can be related to man-caused modification. 

Such occurrences must be exercising a detectable effect on the weather systems 
of the Northern Hemisphere. I feel that nowhere near enough effort has been 
directed toward the establishment of an organized and continuing study to 
determine the effect of such inadvertent seeding mechanisms on the synoptic 
weather patterns of our country. Such studies should have a major place in 
the World Weather Watch and the Global Atmospheric Research Project. I 
strongly recommend that the part played by atmospheric particulates should 
become an important research feature of this program. 

There is a critical need for knowledgeable field scientists having an extremely 
broad scientific background who can work effectively in the real atmosphere 
under all types of conditions and extract quantitative and meaningful data from 
such systems. 

Our Universities must place far more emphasis on this type of training than 
is being done at present. The eventual understanding of these complex inter- 
relationships do depend on computers, electron microscopes, mass spectrometers 
and other costly instruments and equipment. However, the real atmosphere is the 



109 

thing that must be understood and it is not enough to rely on data obtained by 
automatic instruments and uninformed field men as is too often the case. It is 
not easy to conduct efiicient field operations. We must approach nature to an 
ever increasing degree but this confrontation must involve "intelligent eyes," 
an understanding of the physics, chemistry and electricity of the reactions which 
can occur and a zeal to understand the things which combine to produce at- 
mospheric phenomena. 

REFERENCES 

1. Hogan, A., 1968 : Experiments with Aitken counters in maritime atmospheres. 

-/. de Rccherches Atniospheriqiies, 3, 53. 

2. Vonnegut, B., 1950 : Continuous recording condensation nuclei meter, Proc. 

First Natl. Air Pollution Symposium, Pasadena, Calif., 1, 36. 

3. Schaefer, V. J., 19.53 : Final Report Project Cirrus Part I Laboratory, Field 

and Flight Experiments. Report Xo. RL-785 General Electric Research 
Laboratory. March 1953, Schenectady, New York. 

4. — , 1956 : Artificially induced precipitation and its potentialities, Man's 

Role in Changing the Face of the Earth, W. L. Thomas, Editor, Univ. of 
Chicago Press. 

5. , 1958 : Cloud explorations over Africa. Trans. N. Y. Acad. Sciences, 

20, 535. 

6. Warner, J., 1968 : A reduction in rainfall associated with smoke from sugar 

cane fires^an inadvertent weather modification. J. Appl. Meteor., 7, 247- 
251. 

7. Schaefer, V. J., 1948 : The production of clouds containing supercooled water 

droplets or ice crystals under laboratory conditions. Bull. Amer. Meteor. 
Soc, 29, 175. 

8. , 1966 : Ice nuclei from automobile exhaust and iodine vapor. Science, 

154, 1555. 

9. Junge, C. E., 1963 : Air Chemistry and Radioactivity. Academic Press, New 

York. 

10. Schaefer, V. J., 1968: Ice nuclei from auto exhaust and organic vapors. J. 

Appl. Meteor., 7, 113. 

11. , 1968 : The effect of a trace of iodine on ice nucleation measurements. 

J. de Rccherches Atmospheriques, 3. 181. 

12. Hosran, A., 1967 : Ice nuclei from direct reaction of iodine vapor with vapors 

from leaded gasoline. Science, 158, 800. 

13. Bryson, R. A., 1967: Is man changing the climate of the Earth? Saturday 

Re'i>ien\ p. 52, April 1. 

14. Langmuir, I., 1962 : Results of the seeding of cumulus clouds in New Mexico. 

The Collected Works of Irving Langmuir, Pergamon Press, Vol. II, pp. 
145-162. New York. 

15. Schaefer, V. J., 1962 : Condensed water in the free atmosphere in air colder 

than —40° C. J. Appl. Meteor., 1, 481. 

16. Changnon, Stanley A., 1968 : LaPorte weather anomaly, fact or fiction. Bull. 

Amer. Meteor. Soc, 49, 4. 



[Repriuted for BioScience, vol. 19, No. 10, October 1969] 
Some Effects of Air Pollution on Our Environment 

(By Vincent J. Schaefer*) 

The rapid increase in air pollution is a fact that even the casual observer 
can see — and often smell. In some areas it is so bad that eye-watering conditions 
from smog are not uncommon. This condition has happened and is actually 
getting worse despite considerable effort on the part of air pollution control 
officials, industry, and the enforcement of a number of local laws controlling 
trash burners, brush burning, and other practices. 

Many observers are puzzled about this buildup of pollution especially when 
they notice that visible plumes from chimneys and smoke stacks are rarely 
seen except from electric power plants, steel and pulp mills, cement plants, 
and some chemical plants. 



*The author is with the Atmospheric Sciences Research Center, State University of 
New York .at Albany. 



no 

One of the major sources of air pollution consists of invisible plumes of 
particulates so small, as they emerge from the combustion chamber, chemical 
reaction, or gaseous vapor source, that they are optically invisible. Huch particles 
have cross sections less than 0.1 ii. One source of such particles is the automobile. 
When in good operating condition, the effluent from the auto exhaust pipe is 
quite invisible. However, if one measures the number of particles emitted by an 
idling automobile, it is the order of one hundred billion (1 X 10") particles 
per second. Another potent source of invisible particles may actually result 
from an air pollution law which is directed at the control of visible smoke 
plumes. While this law was designed to force industrial plants to install electrical 
precipitators, scrubbers, and other smoke control devices, it is possible in some 
instances to pass the effluent from an industrial process through a hot flame (an 
afterburner) to vaporize it and thus as with the automobile, the pollution 
plume becomes invisible. The concentration of tiny particles is so high, however, 
that agglomeration often occurs and the knowledgeable observer will detect 
the plume downwind of the offending source. Under such conditions the use of 
the afterburner is particularly bad since in addition to making the particles 
much smaller than they would normally be, they then have a longer residence 
time in the atmosphere because of their smaller size. Also, the afterburner will 
generate nitrogen oxide, a poisonous gas which also serves as one of the catalysts 
for particle growth involving unburned gasoline vapor. 

Although some persons believe that unless pollution is curbed in the near 
future we will run out of breathable air, I believe that other problems will 
confront us before that happens. The human body is a highly resistant mecha- 
nism to airborne particles. If this were not the case, I do not see how smokers 
could live ! In the process of somking, the individual insults his lungs with a 
concentration of at least ten million smoke particles per cubic centimeter. This 
is a concentration that is 10 to 100 times greater than is encountered in a vary 
badly polluted urban area like Los Angeles or New York City. While there is 
increasing evidence that the smoker is, in fact, shortening his life by the act of 
smoking, there are many contradictory facts about smoking which require more 
understanding about this complex question. 

In considering this problem I have called the cigarette a "synergistic reactor." 
By this term I mean the following : when a cigarette is smoked, there is a very 
hot zone at the site of the burning tobacco. When the smoker inhales, this burn- 
ing zone increases in temperature as more air ventilates and intensifies the 
burning of the tobacco. If the cigarette is smoked in air which contains pollution 
particles, many of these particles (with a concentration of 10,000 to 100,000 per 
cubic centimeter or more) are drawn through the burning zone and vaporized. 
Thus, besides receiving the products of combustion of the tobacco and paper of 
the cigarette, an additional load comprised of a wide variety of chemical sub- 
stances is also taken into the lungs. Through vaporization these chemical sub- 
stances are now in a highly reactable condition with the lungs virtually serving 
as a test tube, the concentration of gaseous vapors being so high that many reac- 
tions can take place and consequently a host of new chemicals may form. These 
new precipitates being small are readily adsorbed, dissolved, or precipitated on 
the moist surface of the lungs. 

When one considers the nearly infinite variety of substances which float in the 
air of the urban environment, is it any wonder that confused information is an 
inherent part of the health records of smokers in an urban region ? 

One of the disturbing aspects of the increase in air pollution over the past 
decade is that it has apparently increased by nearly an order of magnitude in the 
area upwind of our cities. This tenfold increase in particulates in areas which 
previously were characterized as clean "country" air has been measured in 
northern Arizona near the San Francisco Peaks, in northwestern Wyoming at 
the Old Faithful area of Yellowstone National Park, and in the Adirondack 
Mountains of northeastern New York. 

When the country air becomes contaminated, then it can no longer dilute the 
pollution sources to the degree which once was possible. 

During the past 3 years we have measured the concentrations of particulates 
in many parts of the contiguous United States (Schaefer, 1969). In eight trans- 
continental flights which encompased most of the major cities of the countx-y and 
the majority of the clean and polluted regions of the country in between, we have 
been able to gain a very broad view of the degree to which polluted air covers 
the country. These findings show the extent to which pollution sources spread 



Ill 

their pall over large areas of the continent and clearly shows the fallacy of the 
"air shed" idea. Unlike water which is primarily controlled by gravity and thus 
can be related to a particular drainage system often called a water shed, the air 
and its load of particulates is not controlled by geographical barriers in most 
instances as it moves rapidly from one region to another, controlled primarily by 
pressure systems and the weather accompanying them. It is only during periods of 
clear, quiet weather that local inversions intensify the pollution loads and thus 
cause local concern as the concentration of particles builds downward from the 
lid of the temperature inversion and the general public becomes aware of the 
pollution haze and is sometimes frightened by it. 

It is the measurable increase in the continental and global levels of particulates 
which concerns me at the present time, since I believe certain components of the 
polluted air may affect us in a more subtle way which may become a more serious 
problem than the foul smell and eye-watering components we now associate with 
polluted air. 

For a quarter of a century I have been observing, studying, and measuring 
the characteristics of atmospheric clouds. In the mid-1940's, supercooled clouds 
were frequently observed in the northea.stern United States. During the period 
1946-52, we conducted more than 1.50 flight studies of supercooled clouds in east- 
ern New York, mainly over the Adirondack Mountains. During the past 5 years, 
supercooled clouds have become relatively rare in the same region while low- 
level ice crystal clouds (false cirrus) are of common occurrence. 

This disapperance of supercooled clouds has been accompanied by the occur- 
rence of a strange kind of precipitation which I have called "misty" rain and 
"dusty" snow. The mist consists of water droplets of about 0.0.50-cm. diameter, so 
small that they tend to drift down rather than fall. 

The "dusty" snow has a slightly larger cross section, but the droplet from a 
melted crystal has about the same size as the misty rain. Thus, it is likely that 
some of the mist originated as snow but melted as it fell into warm air. When 
this type of snow is falling, only a thin dust-like layer of snow accumulates on the 
ground. 

I believe the origin of both of these forms of precipitation are produced by 
air pollution. A superabundance of both cloud nuclei and nuclei for ice crystal for- 
mation are commonly observed in polluted air. The water vapor in the air col- 
lects on such particles, but since there are so many of them (often 10 to 20 times 
more cloud nuclei and hundreds of times more ice nuclei), the particles are so 
numerous and so small that they inhibit the precipitation process by stabilizing 
the clouds. Such stable clouds prevent sunshine from reaching the earth and thus 
may effectively change some of the dynamics of weather systems. Whether such 
effects will eventually cause changes in climate can only be determined by much 
more intensive research. 

The type of air i>ollution which produces a large increase in the concentration 
of cloud nuclei could be almost any smoke from the burning of organic mate- 
rials such as garbage, wood, paper, the efSuent from pulp mills, a majority of 
chemical plants, and electric power plants emitting sulfur residues. On the other 
hand, only a few sources of ice crystals have been identified. A very definite in- 
crease in such nuclei may be found in the smoke from steel plants (Chagnon, 
1969). By far the greatest and ubiquitous source is the automobile. The most ef- 
fective source is the auto whose exhaust is quite invisible. I have recently found 
that an auto equipped with the so-called anti-pollution devices is as effective 
a source of potential ice nuclei as a car without such a control mechanism. If 
anything, it api)ears to produce even more nuclei ! The material responsible for the 
production of ice crystals is the submicroscopic residues produced by the burning 
of gasoline. This mechanism and the results have been previously described in 
some detail (Schaefer, 1966; Hogan, 1967; Schaefer, 1968a and b) and will not 
be repeated here. 

If our studies continue to show the increase in occurrence of overseeded clouds, 
the persistence of clouds for longer periods of time due to their stabilization 
in areas of polluted air, there is a strong possibility that such conditions will 
lead to serious environmental and ecological problems resulting from this inad- 
vertent modification of the weather and precipitation. 

I hope I am wrong about these mechanisms and their consequences. However, 
the more data I accumulate and the more observations I make increases the evi- 
dence that some major effects in the atmosphere are occurring over hundreds 
of thousands of square miles. Since the weather systems of our planet are inter- 



112 

connocted on a global scale, these effects may lead to an ever-increasing impact 
on the climatic patterns of the world. "While such effects are not necessarily ir- 
reversible, it would require major changes in the present trend of our scientific 
and technological developments to reverse the present situation. 

Only an educated and aroused public is likely to demand a change in this dete- 
rioration of our environment. There are some hopeful signs that the public is 
aware of some of these abuses and dangers. Many more efforts like the "Con- 
versation in the Disciplines" in which we have participated are needed. I hope 
this will hapi>en ; otherwise we will encounter a host of serious problems within 
the next generation. 

EEFEEENCES 

Chagnon, S. A. 1969. La Porte weather anomaly fact or fiction? Bull. Amer. 

Meteorol. Soc, 49 : 4. 
Hogan, A. 1967. Ice nuclei from direct action of iodine vapor with vapors from 

leaded gasoline. Science, 158 : 800. 
Schaefer, V. J. 1966. Ice nuclei from automobile exhaust and iodine vapor. Scir 

ence, 154 : 1555. 
. 1968a. Ice nuclei from auto exhaust and organic vapors. J. Appl. Meteorol., 

7 : 113. 
. 1968b. The effect of a trace of iodine on ice nucleation measurements. J. 

Rech. Atmos., 3 : 181. 
. 1969. The inadvertent modification of the atmosphere by air pollution. 

Bull. Amer. Meteorol. Soc, 50 : 199. 

Senator Muskie. I note as we close this morning session that you 
have been the first Avitness in the years we have held testimony on this 
subject to emphasize the importance of this particular area. 

Dr. Schaefer. Thank you. 

Senator Muskie. It is one of the reasons that we asked you to begin 
this series of hearings. I tliink it has been very helpful. Thank you 
very much, sir. 

Dr. Schaefer. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator Muskie. We will include statements received relevant to 
the bills and amendments at this point in the record. 

( Statements follow : ) 

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 

Washington, D.C., March 2, 1970. 
Hon. Jennings Randolph, 

Chairman, Committee on Public Works, 
U.S. Senate, 
Washington, D.C. 

Dear Mr. Chairman : Since submission of our draft bill, the "Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1970", on February 10, 1970, which has been referred to vour 
Committee, it has been called to my attention that a provision in the bill "may 
be given a construction which we had certainly not intended 

The_ proposed section 112 of the Clean Air Act, relating to "Stationary Source 
J^.mission Standards", was intended to authorize regulation of new and exist- 
ing sources which would be extremely hazardous to health and of other new 
sources which would "contribute substantially to endangerment of the public 
health or welfare." Subsection (b) of this section correctly refers onlv to 
rrgnations for these sources of emissions. Subsection (a), however, is' not 
clearly limited to these sources and might be open to the construction that it 
applies also to existing sources which are not extremely hazardous to health 
This was certainly not our intention. 

To obviate any such unintended interpretation, I would appreciate it if 
prior to reporting the bill, subsection (a) of the proposed section 112 could lie 
amended by changing the first sentence to read: "The Secretary shall from 
time to time by regulation, giving appropriate consideration to 'technological 



113 

feasibility, establish standards with respect to (1) emissions, which are ex- 
tremely hazardous to health, from any stationary sources, and (2) other emis- 
sions, which contribute substantially to endangerment of the public health or 
welfare, from any new stationary sources." 

Sincerely, 

Creed C. Black, 

Assistant Secretary for Legislation. 



Statement of the National Society of Professional Engineers on S. 3466 

The 66,000 members of the National Society of Professional Engineers ap- 
preciate the opportimity to present their views on S. 3466, a bill to amend the 
Clean Air Act. 

The National Society of Professional Engineers, a nonprofit organization 
headquartered in Washington, D.C., consists of engineers who are engaged in 
virtually every aspect and phase of engineering practice as well as educa- 
tional and governmental employment. Each has qualified by virtue of academic 
training, experience, and demonstrated fitness for a license to practice engineer- 
ing under one or more of the various state registration and licensing laws. 
Organized at chapter, state, and national levels, the Society is the authoritative 
voice for these professionals. 

Society members all across the country actively participate in programs in- 
tended to correct, control, and prevent pollution of our air. These engineers not 
only design pollution control equipment, direct its installation, and supervise its 
operation, but they also serve on governmental pollution control boards and other 
concerned agencies and groups, both formal and informal, at all levels of govern- 
ment. Engineers are, because of their training, discipline, and involvement, most 
conscious of the serious threat which air pollution poses to the public health, 
safety, and welfare. Moreover, they are alert to the heavy obligation they share in 
providing leadership in the nation's air pollution abatement efforts. They are, at 
the same time aware of the need to insure that these efforts are based upon sound 
engineering, economic, and governmental principles. 

in recognition of their leadership role in this area, the membership of the Na- 
tional Society of Professional Engineers, acting through its Board of Directors, 
has continuously con.sidered how best to deal with air pollution problems in the 
United States, and has arrived at a number of conclusions. 

Engineers are convinced that the total responsibility for activities relating to 
the prevention and control of air pollution involves all levels of government^ 
local, state, and Federal — and includes private industry and individual citizens. 

Engineers are equally convinced that abatement of air pollution through regu- 
latory action should be the primary responsibility of state and local govermnent, 
utilizing, to the extent feasible, a regional approach. 

In order to strengthen the national effort for prevention and control of air pol- 
lution, engineers feel that the Federal government should take at least tlie fol- 
lowing positive steps : 

(a) Conduct and support research, development and demonstrations 
through intramural programs, contracts and grants, in cooperation with 
pulilie and private institutions. 

(b) Encourage the development of effective state and local programs, and 
provide financial assistance in furtherance thereof. 

(c) Stimulate and financially support training and educational activities 
to increase the quality and quantity of engineering and other es.sential man- 
power resources, including technicians: sponsor conferences, seminars and 
other methods to explore new developments in combating air pollution, and 
disseminate information resulting from such discussions. 

(d) Control air pollution resulting from Federal installations and direct 
Federal activities. 

(e) Control interstate air pollution through regulatory action, if. after 
the responsible states have been allowed the prescribed period of time, ade- 
quate abatement measures have not been taken. 

(f) Include appropriate professional engineering representation on the 
National Advisory Committee on Air Pollution. 

Engineers believe in the principle that primary regulatory responsibility for 
the prevention and control of instrastate air pollution should rest with the state 



114 

and local governments. We agree with the statement of this principle as set out in 
Section 101(3) of the Air Quality Act of 1967 as follows: "The prevention and 
control of air pollution and its sources is the primary responsibility of state and 
local governments." 

S. 3466, would, however, provide for substantial Federal control over states' 
internal affairs, and appear to be in direct contradiction to this established 
principle. 

The Clean Air Act of 1967 provides for interstate air quality control regions. 
Basically, this is a field in which the Federal Government should provide 
guidance and support for cooperative efforts by contiguous states, and much 
has already been done in establishing interstate regions by the National Air 
Pollution Control Administration of HEW. 

There appears to be a legitimate basis for concern over some of the proposed 
interstate regions involving cities and associated air pollution sources which 
are widely separated, raising a question about the basis for Federal interven- 
tion. A reasonable application of the interstate control principle is understood, 
but some of the interstate regions recently announced appear to be unnecessary 
and deliberate attempts by the National Air Pollution Control Administration 
to impose its authority where it is not needed. 

Some analysts of S. 3466 see no need for a Federally-established air quality 
standard for the entire country. They note that all states will have segments 
of interstate air pollution control regions where Federally-approved air quality 
standards must be adopted, and feel that those states not having general intra- 
state standards can and will readily adopt them. 

These same analysts note the National Air Pollution Control Administration's 
record in having failed to set up its intended number of interstate air quality 
control regions as scheduled, and wonder whether it is therefore reasonable to 
assume that HEW can be expected to assume the larger task of setting up stand- 
ards and control air pollution in all state of the United States. 

S. 3466 genuinely presents the question of whether, under its provisions, state 
and local air pollution control boards and staffs would not cease to have au- 
thority except for "rubber stamping" Federal action, and would not, in sub- 
stance, become enforcement agencies for the National Air Pollution Control 
Administration. 

Engineers believe that care should be exercised so that the real progress which 
is being made under existing state and local control is not jeopardized through 
federalization. 

Areas in which there does exist an undisputed need for substantial Federal 
activity do, however, exist. The conduct of research, development, and demon- 
stration is one. Reliable research is very much needed to determine the effects 
on health of various pollutants. The authorization and funding provided in the 
Clean Air Act of 1967, for rsearch, we feel, should be continued. 

Pollution resulting from internal combustion engines of motor vehicles is 
another appropriate area for Federal action. This source contributes about 
64 percent of all air pollutants on a national average annual basis — 80 percent in 
Washington and 88 percent in Los Angeles. Federal governmental action affecting 
the manufacturing process of internal combustion engines for motor vehicles, 
aimed at reduction in this source of pollutant emissions, is a function that 
cannot be successfully undertaken by the states and would therefore appear 
properly within the province of the Federal sphere. Regulatory action necessary 
for the continued maintenance of air pollution control devices on motor vehicles, 
on the other hand, is properly a state function. We believe that this division of 
responsibility in connection with motor vehicles is a sound one. and recommend 
it be considered in connection with S. 3466. 

Engineers sincerely believe in the need for adequate and reasonable control 
of air pollution. But they also believe that there exists a real danger of unwise 
proposals becoming law in the current clamor for air pollution control. The 
possibility of a harmful over-reactiton through enactment of unnecessarily 
rigid controls is ever present, and we urge the need for sound judgment at the 
National level. 



Statement of Michael Treshow, Professor of Biology, University of Utah 

More and more, standards are being based on citizen pressure and emotion 
rather than scientifically established threshold concentrations of effects : each 
State is trying to outdo its neighbors in setting lower standards. Alarmists and 



115 

foresayers of doom are pressing for complete removal of pollutants, and rec- 
ommended standards for almost every pollutant are approaching zero. While 
a zero pollution level is a noteworthy goal, it rarely provides a realistic standard. 

Some States (e.g. Oregon) have adopted a plan of developing desired air 
quality goals to supplement the standards. Hopefully standards would be real- 
istic and could be met using today's technology. Goals provide a long term ideal 
to be sought and achieved as more effective technology becomes available in 
the future. 

Approaches to setting air quality standards, and the standards themselves, 
are almost as numerous as the states developing them. Nearly every state is 
developing different standards and basing them on different criteria. This in- 
consistency in standards is confusing to control officials but is still more dis- 
turbing to the general public who don't know what to believe. The confusion 
is particularly critical near state boundaries where air regions overlap bound- 
aries, and standards differ within the same air mass. 

Such confusion can only be resolved by establishing federal standards to be 
met by all the States. Resolving the inconsistencies among State Air Quality 
standards is vital to an effective nationwide air quality program. 

Senate bills S. 3229, S. 3466, and S. 3546. the Air Quality Improvement Act, 
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, and the National Air Quality Stand- 
ards Act of 1970 should adequately unify air quality standards across the 
country and minimize the existing confusion. 

Legislatively, the needs for air quality standards were most recently estab- 
lished in the Clean Air Act of 1967. But placing the authority for establishing 
standards with the States was a mistake. 

In the first place, few states possess the expertise essential to developing 
realistic standards even with help of the Federal Air Quality Criteria. Many 
States are even so naive as not to know who to contact for help. Utah's Air 
Conservation Committee, for instance, in developing sulfur dioxide standards, 
called on only five "experts" — all from industry and all with questionable quali- 
fications to discuss the subject. 

One still more obvious weakness in State standards lies in the pressure large 
industries may be capable of exerting, and the influence they can wield in set- 
ting standards. The importance of major industry to a State's tax base cannot 
be underestimated. No rational state government is likely to jeopardize this 
base regardless of the hazards the pollutants from the industry might impose 
on the environment. Concerned industry may cooperate to the extent of moral 
obligation or economic feasibility, but is not likely to go much beyond this if 
its competition across the state line is spared the expense of maintaining a 
stringent control program. 

Too often State air pollution control officials are too naive or too oblivious to 
demand stringent controls on new facilities even if backed by adequate laws. A 
current case in point is the power generating plants under construction near 
Page, in northern Arizona. Proposed control facilities are inadequate, and over 
700 tons of SO2 and 200 tons of fly ash will be deposited on the surrounding 
desert biome each day. Stacks 700 to 800 feet high are planned which will simply 
disperse the wastes over a wider area. The sensitivity of desert species to SO' 
is not known, but the bulk of the emissions will drift over and into Glen Canyon 
creating flrst an aesthetic insult to the thousands of boaters hoping to enjoy 
the pristine majesty of this remote National Recreation area. Secondly, pollu- 
tion of Lake Powell itself is inevitable. The seriousness of this to the stability 
and productivity of the lake isn't known, but the sulfates will add measurably 
to the already saline waters, and the increased acidity may have a serious im- 
pact on the aquatic biota as demonstrated in smaller bodies of water subjected 
to far less pollution. 

Regrettably, Arizona is accepting these power plants without demanding 
maximum control emissions. If S. 3466 were in effect, boaters, campers, fisher- 
man, sightseers, and the public at large would not have to be concerned with the 
impending desecration of the Lake Powell Recreation area- 
Such areas are for the enjoyment of the entire nation, not just the citizens of 
a small corner of one State. It is imperative that our natural areas be protected ; 
it is the resi)onsibility of us all to see they are ! 

Power plants and other major sources of pollution are being constructed in 
many parts of the country. Each contributes its share of wastes into regional air 
sheds oblivious to State boundaries. Where the State is remiss in its obligations 
by not demanding maximum emission control, excessive wastes are disi)ersed 



1 



116 



into neighboring air sheds where they may violate the air quality standards of that 
State. 

Uniformity in standards, as can be attained only through federal standards, 
is needed to uniformly protect the natural ecosystems of the country to say 
nothing of the agricultural crops, recreation areas, parks, and home landscapes. 
Such standards must not be set loosely at concentrations expedient to industry 
but failing to provide adequate protection to the land. Nor must they be based 
on the unqualified emotions of a few alarmists, and set so stringent that present 
technology does not enable compliance. Such a situation either forces violating 
industries to shut down, to be granted variances, or the law to be ignored — all 
situations no one wants. Yet, such situations exist now due to inadequate 
deliberation and consideration given prior to establishing air quality standards. 

Finally, States and air quality regions are duplicating each others efforts. 
Many lack the capability or competence to develop realistic standards. Federal 
air quality standards, developed in accordance with recommendation of the most 
knowledgeable experts in the country, must be provided. Standards for major 
pollutants must be established rapidly but sagaciously. Only then can our health 
and esthetics be adequately protected, and our natural and cultivated lands 
receive the uniform protection needed for their preservation. 



State of Maryland, 
Office of the Secketart, 
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. 

Baltimore, March 26, 1970. 
In re S. 3466. 
Hon. Edmund S. Muskie, 

Chairman, i^uhcomniittee on Air and Water Pollution, Senate Committee on 
PuMic Works, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 
Dear Senator Muskie: We have reviewed Senate Bill 3466, which proposes 
various amendments to the Clean Air Act. After considerable thought, we have 
developed some opinions which we hope will be useful to your committee in 
making its determinations as to what action should be taken on the bill. 

The bill calls for establishment by the U.S. Secretary of HEW of nationally 
applicable standards of ambient air quality. The existing requirement for 
publication of air quality criteria prior to setting air quality standards would be 
deleted. This is considered to be undesirable for the following reasons : 

1. Standards set at the National level would probably not call for air as clean 
as would standards set by many (if not most) States under existing arrange- 
ments because National industrial and commercial pressure groups could con- 
centrate all of their influence on a very few Federal oflSeials while the capability 
of the general public (which has been very influential in standard setting in 
recent months) to influence decisions would be greatly weakened. Few citizen 
groups could afford the cost of trips to hearings. True, a few States may pro- 
pose air quality standards which do not call for adequately clean air. But 
the.se could be up.graded by provisions for Federal review and approval and the 
setting of adequate standards through a Federal mechanism, if a State fails to 
adopt adequate standards. 

2. Without published air quality criteria, carrying the weight of broad back- 
ing from the scientific community, the ability to overcome the statements of 
doubt offered by those who do not favor an aggressive clean air approach woiild 
be seriously impaired. The public at large. State and local governments, and 
others do not often have the resources to conduct comprehensive literature re- 
views and thus, would be at a di.sadvantage when discussing standards with in- 
dustrial and commercial representatives who do have the capability to search 
the literature. Even Federal officials would be at a disadvantage if they had 
not invested the time and effort needed to prepare a public criteria document. 
True, the preparation of criteria takes time but it is time well spent. 

3. If nationally applicable standards are set by the Federal government, it 
may well bp the nnh/ standard. The chances are remote that any State could 
overcome the opposition of those not favoring an aggressive clean air iwlicy to 
a standard calling for better air quality than that prescribed in a National 
standard. The contention would likely be that any National standard »?»•<?/ rep- 
resont the lowest justifiable pollution levels since tlip basic Federal law has as 
its imrpose " — to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources — "' 



117 

" — and to promote the public health and welfare." Yet, truly desirable standards 
are unlikely at the National level, because of the situation described in No. 1 
above. 

4. Public backing at the State and local level for truly aggressive clean-up 
programs would be weakened by National air quality standards. When the pub- 
lic has been involved in and has had an evident and strong voice in setting com- 
munity goals (air quality standards), the public commits itself to taking the 
steps necessax-y to achieve the goals. Without this extensive, broad, and intimate 
involvement in goal .setting, it may well be impossible to get needed public back- 
ing for such necessary sweeping changes as elimination of small on-site incinera- 
tors, controls on pre-1968 vehicles and mandatory heating plant maintenance, 
which involve direct expenditures by a great many private citizens. 

The bill proposes that the Secretary of HEW be empowered to promulgate 
emis.sion regulations applicable to sources which contribute substantially to en- 
dangerment of the public liealth or welfare." Certain .special provisions would 
apply to regulations relating to emissions which are "extremely hazardous to 
health." We would agree that because of the uniqueness of such '"extremely 
hazardous sourc-es", the shortage of expertise in some State and local govern- 
mental agencies and the necessity of being as sure as possible that there will 
be no plants built which are extremely hazardous to health, regardless of other 
considerations, that the Fedei'al government should set standards for emissions 
which are "extremely hazardous to health." However, a list of typical emissions 
should be given in the bill which would provide guidelines as to the kinds of 
emissions intended to be regulated. (For example, beryllium, a.sbe.stos, cadmium, 
arsenic, pathogenic aerosols, war gases.) There should be no problems in re- 
quiring absolutely minimum possible emission of such materials on a National 
basis because of the health hazard involved. 

With regard to emission of other materials (those not extremely hazardous 
to health), we believe that the establishment of standards should be left to 
State agencies, with provision for Federal review and approval and for promul- 
gation of standards by the Federal government for a jurisdiction when a State 
agency fails to adopt adequate standards. Our reasoning is along the lines of the 
concepts expressed in items number 1 and 3 above in regard to ambient air 
quality standards. A further factor is the generally recognized suitability of 
variations in emission regulations from one locality to another. It is our opinion 
that with a system such as we prefer, emission standards would tend to gravitate 
toward those representing "best possible control" whereas with National stand- 
ards, they would tend more to gravitate toward some less restrictive. Nationally 
acceptable and "reasonable" level, such as might be needed at a source located 
in an isolated area. Our concept number 3 above would be especially valid. A 
National emission standard which was more restrictive than that which made 
sense for a plant in an isolated area would not seem likely. 

Beyond these major considerations, some other observations and suggestions 
concerning the bill as written are as follows: 

1. Page 10 — lines 2 and .3 — The Federal agency should be required, to send the 
proposed regulations to all air pollution control agencies in the Nation, even 
though this is usually done on a voluntary basis. 

2. Page 12 — lines 6 through 25 — There is no requirement that before the Sec- 
retary approves a State's implementation plan that he mvst determine that 
such plan will prevent inequitable contributions to pollution levels in a neighbor- 
ing State or unduly contribute to excursions of pollution levels above the ambient 
air quality standards of a neighboring State. This seems to us to be a key element 
(interstate flow of pollution) in the Federal role and should he provided for. 

3. Page 14 — line 7 — The Federal agency should be required to send the pro- 
posed regulations to concerned air pollution control agencies, even though such 
might be considered almost automatic. 

4. Page 14 — line 2."> — The ninety day time allowance seems unduly short in view 
of the rather substantial actions that might be needed. It would seem appropriate 
to allow the Secretary to specify the time for taking action (but no less than 
six months) so that he could vary the time to suit the circumstances. 

5. Page 15 — lines 11 through 14 — We do not understand why the adversely 
affected States should not be represented on the hearing board, if the "polluting" 
States are. We suggest deleting this language from the bill. 

6. Page 17 — line 4 — This condition ("can be prevented or substantially re- 
duced") should be omitted. It might preclude the Secretary from the desirable 
action of setting a standard, to go into effect in the future, for sources for which 
control is not currently practical. 



118 

7. Page 18— lines 11 and 12 and lines 16 and 17— Provision should be made that 
plans which are more restrictive than those promulgated by the Secretary will 
be considered satisfactory. T'c.T^TTTnT.T 

The bill does not propose to give authority and responsibility to LfeDHH-W 
in two important fields which we believe it should. First, we believe that HEW 
should be charged with promulgation of standards for emissions from aircraft 
engaged in interstate commerce and that a mechanism for enforcement of such 
standards by an appropriate Federal agency should be established. Secondly, 
we believe that HEW should be given authority and responsibility for prescrib- 
ing the characteristics of solvents in materials which are shipped in interstate 
commerce. The materials involved are such items as paints, adhesives, printing 
inks, etc. Pure solvents, used as such in degreasers, dry cleaning, etc. could be 
regulated effectively by State and local agencies. The objective would be to 
minimize use of photochemically more reactive solvents in formulating various 
compounds. To have a variety of regulations in this field in the several States 
would cause substantial problems in the producing industry and in national 
organizations using solvent containing materials, such as the Federal govern- 
ment. 

We appreciate this opportunity to submit our views on this important bill. 
If we can be of further service, please let us know. 
Very truly yours, 

Neil Solomon, M.D., Ph. D., 
Secretary of Health and Mental Hygiene. 

Office of the Secbetary, 
Department of Heath and Mental Hygiene, 

Baltimore, Md., March 27, 1910. 
In re S. 3229. 
Hon. Edmund S. Muskie, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, Senate Committee on 
Public Works, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 

Dear Senator Muskie: We have reviewed Senate Bill 3229, which amends 
the Clean Air Act. We would like to offer the following comments for considera- 
tion by you and your subcommittee. 

Section 104 would require a public hearing, after 30 days notice on proposed 
implementation plans. While most states are already required, by State law, 
to hold hearings on proposed regulations, there is rarely any such requirement 
concerning a full implementation plan. The idea of involving the public in 
development of implementation plans is a good one and we suport it. 

Amendments to Section 202(a) of title II would give the Secretary power 
to prescribe standards for vessels, aircraft and commercial vehicles and for 
new noncommercial vehicles, vessels, commercial vehicles or aircraft 
engines or new noncommercial vehicle engines. We believe this pro- 
posal has merit and we support the general concept. However, implementa- 
tion and enforcement of any such standards with regard to other than new items 
would pose major operational problems for a Federal agency, except perhaps 
for aircraft, because of the great numbers of items to be kept under control 
and their mobility. Perhaps a workable approach would be for the Federal 
government to publish recommended standards for non-new items for guidance 
of the States and leave much of the enforcement to the States. Hopefully, 
the States would incorporate the recommended standards in their own laws or 
regulations and enforce them. Also accompanying the standards should be 
testing procedures for field use by semi-skilled personnel and specifications for 
any needed testing equipment. We believe that railroad locomotives should 
be included in the items for which standards should be set. As we interpret the 
definitions, they would be. 

Provisions of the bill regarding registration of fuel additives are unchanged 
from the existing law. We believe that the Federal government should be au- 
thorized to regulate the characteristics and composition of fuels used in trans'- 
portation and of additives to such fuels. 

In regard to a program to limit the impact of solvents on air quality, we feel 
that the proposed bill is not sufficiently direct and strong. The probiem is. as 
you know, a matter of reducing emissions of organic solvents which are relatively 
more active in atmospheric photochemical processes. This can be done by use 
of emission control devices or by substitution of less reactive solvents for more 



119 

reactive solvents. The uses of solvent may be divided into two general classes: 
(1) Use of solvents by themselves in such operations as decreasing or dry clean- 
ing. Often only a single solvent is used in a given application; and (2) Use of 
solvents as part of a mixture of materials as in paints, adhesives and print- 
ing inks. State agencies can reasonably be expected to establish needed regula- 
tory programs in the first instance but the Federal government is in a much 
better position to regulate in regard to the second instance. States can also 
readily operate programs to achieve control of emissions by application of 
emission control devices such as afterburners and absorbers. Therefore, we 
would favor legislation which would empower the Federal government to pres- 
cribe standards for the kinds of solvents incorporated into such materials as 
paints, adhesives, and printing inks. 

We appreciate this opportunity to offer our views on this important legisla- 
tion. If we can provide further information, please let us know. 
Very truly yours, 

Neil Solomox, M.D., Ph. D., 
Secretary of Health and Mental Hygiene. 

State of Maryland, 
Office of the Secketaby, 
Department of Hbialth and Mental Hygiene, 

Baltimore, March 21, 1910. 
In re : S. 3546. 
Hon. Edmund S. Muskie, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, Senate Committee on 
Public Works, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 

Qf.ar Senator Muskie : We have reviewed Senate Bill 3546 which would 
amend the Clean Air Act. We would like to offer some comments for consideration 
by you and your subcommittee. 

Sections 2 and 3 of the bill would accelerate the process of establishing air 
quality control regions. We endorse this objective. However, to clarify the matter 
of whether the Secretary of HEW or a State is to be responsible for designating 
a particular region, it is suggested that specific dates be added into the two 
sections. It could be specified that the Federal government shall designate appro- 
priate regions on or before (say) January 1, 1971 and that after such date, the 
States should define regions to cover all parts of their respective States not then 
included in Federally designated regions. On July 1, 1971, the Federal government 
would again become active and designate the remaining regions not designated 
by the States or by previous Federal action. (As you may know, the State of 
Maryland has already divided the entire State into definite air quality control 
areas.) 

The proposed amendment of paragraph (1) of section 108(c) is an improve- 
ment over the existing law and we concur with it, even though the shortened 
time schedule will put severe pressure on our newly developing staff of relatively 
inexperienced people. We suggest however that the words "and plan" be inserted 
after "standards" in (B) and after the last word "standards" in (G). We also 
suggest that an additional criteria be set forth for use by the Secretary in deter- 
mining the adequacy of any standards and plans. It would relate to contributions 
to pollution levels in a neighboring State. No standards and no plans of a State 
should be considered adequate if they would allow an inappropriate increase 
of pollution levels in another State. 

Section 3(b) of the bill is diflScult to comprehend in several places. The 
difliculty seems to be associated with an inconsistent use of the terms "air 
quality standards", "implementation plans" and "emission requirements." The 
concepts and phraseology should be straightened out and be made consistent 
throughout the proposed new sections 2 through 11 of section 108(c). 

In proposed section 108(c) (2) (C), an additional item should be added for use 
by the Secretary in determining whether State standards are adequate. It 
should require that the standards of one State must be such that air quality 
in a neighboring State will not be inappropriately degraded. 

The proposed section 108(c)(3) (last sentence) forbids revised standards 
which would allow higher pollution levels than previous standards. While this 
has some merit, it does not seem to allow for proper consideration of recently 
developed facts nor for reasonable allowances associated with the changing 
nature of a community or changes in the purposes and goals of its citizens. It is 
suggested that the last sentence be deleted. 



120 

The Federal government appears to be authorized to initiate abatement ac- 
tions in connection with violations without any prior consultation with the 
State concerned, by the language of proposed section 108(c)(7). This could 
generate a lot of work for Federal authorities and could well lead to friction 
between Federal and State authorities and confused situations. We would sug- 
gest that when the Federal government learns of a violation of standards that 
it first advise the State thereof and specify a time for the State to take action 
to bring about abatemen action. If the State then failed to act, direct Federal 
enforcement action could appropriately ensue. 

In this same section 108(c) (7) , we feel that allowing not more than 72 hours to 
abate an emission regulation violation be unrealisitcally short in most eases. It 
is suggested that the time allowed to abate such violations be left to the descretion 
of the Secretiiry. It might be appropriate to require a public hearing if the con- 
templated time allowance were more than a given period, perhaps one year. 

We do not understand the reasoning for requiring that a copy of a petition 
be sent to the State water pollution control agency, as specified in section 108 
(e) (9). Was it intended that this be sent to the State air pollution control agency? 

Violators who have been issued final orders to abate may be required to 
provide data on their emissions, under provisions of section 108(c) (11). This 
is a u.seful requirement but it should be broadened to authorize the Secretary 
to require submission of such data at any time the Secretary has just cause 
for believing that a violation is occurring. 

The new section proposed for addition to section 108 (shown as (i) but (1) 
is probably correct) would authorize the Secretary to issue regulations to 
insure that new installations are provided with good emission control. While 
this is a laudable idea, it would appear that the cost of administering such 
a program would be very large and that effectiveness would be very difficult to 
achieve. It seems to us that this is a function better left in the hands of State 
and local governments. 

Similarly, the concept embodied in section 5 of the bill is attractive but the 
problems and cost of administration of such a program would appear to be so 
formidable as to make it unwise to attempt it. 

We hope that these observations and suggestions will be helpful to you and 
your committee. 

Very truly yours, 

Neil Solomon, M.D., Ph.D., 
Secretary of Health and Mental Hygiene. 



Karl E. Wichert. 
Des Moines, Wash., March 21, 1970. 

Re Air contamination by exhaust fumes — Report in Seattle Times March 16 about 

activity of the subcommittee on air pollution. 
Senator Edmund S. Muskie, 
Old Senate Building, Washington. 

Dear Sir: May I be permitted to submit some technical remarks to the sug- 
gestion by Mrs. Ruth Weiner to limit the horsepower range of cars. 

(A) Limitation of Horsepoxcer. — Although newspaper reports let often missing 
some vital details, the cited report said that it was suggested to limit the engine 
power to 200 hp. This is misleading, because : 

1) It is impossible, to drive a tank or a tractor with the same limited nmoimt 
of i)ower as a passenger car. 

2) It should read .... passenger cars to be limited to 50 hp. 

So far. i.e. in the past, the industry had settled for mainly three standard 
engine sizes : 120 hp, 170 hp 220 hp. These engines are applied to a very wide 
range of vehicles from passenger cars to trucks. 

Concentrating on passenger cars, it is shown in the Addendum (1) that only 
50 hp are utilized when driving under normal conditions. The rest of the in.stalled 
power is wasted weight. Everybody can observe that a Volkswagen or a Volvo 
or any foreign car in that class performs as well as a heavier car. If a Volks- 
w^agen-engine would be installed in a Plymouth, Ford or etc., these cars would 
perform as wel for normal driving conditions : the difference would be in some 
additional gear shifting. The extra gear in the transmission costs less than the 
gain in price by using the smaller engine. Furthermore, especially for use by non- 
professional drivers, hydrostatic transmissions are on the market with efficiencies 
of more than 90%, which provide a smooth elegant stepless power conversion 
without any gear, not even for reverse. 



121 

If designed to standard practive, best engine efficiency is obtained at nominal 
rating power. At part load, such as 20%, the engine efficiency is "louzy". indicat- 
ing a poor combustion. This means that an over.sized engine has a poor burning 
rate all the time and therefore contributes maximum amounts of air contamina- 
tion, while a "right-sized" engine (50 hp for passenger cars) oi^erates with a 
high efficiency, i.e. good burning rate, nio.«tly all the time when equipped with 
adequate "gearing" in an attempt to run the engine clo.se to optimum speed. — The 
word "gearing" includes hydrostatic and hydrodynamic transmissions. 

Therefore, an engine with 50 hp or less produces little air contamination. 

(B) Air Contamination. — (falsely called "air pollution") A clear definition 
of air contamination is mandatory. 

Tolerable are all combustion products of natural characteristics, i.e. as can 
be found present in air under normal environmental conditions : 

Oxygen — O and O2 

Nitrogen — N and N2 

Water— H2O 

Carbondioxyd — CO2 and combinations thereof 

(In gaseous or solid form (the latter can lead to ice fog in arctic regions).) 
Xot tolerable are all unsaturated combustion products, because poisonous, and 
irritating fumes are produced by evaporation and/or partial combustion : 

Carbonmonoxyd CO 

Unsaturated Water 

Oil fumes which can recondensate 

Fumes of additives, such as sulphur, metals (lead), etc. 

The definition demands a thorough publication of nontolerable products, their 
concentration in air samples and their probable sources. This information is 
already available, but not broadly published. 

The most common energy production is by HEAT. 

The most common fuel is OIL. 

The oil industry will be furious if .somebody would advocate the idea to 
abandon oil from the market or even to limit its use. Facing facts, oil in its vari- 
ous forms is and will remain for long time to come the major fuel. 

The exact chemical combination of each fuel on the market must be honestly 
published, which information is already available in various places, but most 
likely locked in .safes. — Unlock it. — 

Chemical Engineering, no doubt, will have no difficulties to determine : 

(a) what minimum burning temperature must be achieve to avoid un- 
saturated combu.^tion products and what maximum temperature can be 
tolerated to avoid dissociation. 

(b) what minimum oxygen supply through air is necessary. 

(c) what additives to the fuel are required to provide chemical reaction 
with fuel ingredients of non-hydrocarbon character to avoid irritant fumes. 

(d) ban certain fuels from the market due to their present chemical 
characteri-stics until such time when they are improved by proper proc- 
essing. 

This outlines a program, simple to comply with, regarding the present knowl- 
edge and capability of our chemical industry. With these informations avail- 
able, the power industry will have no difficulties to create engines capable of 
producing exhaust gases at low level contamination. 

(C) Suitable Approach in Engine Design. — The attached addendum (2) pres- 
ents a brief description of an engine having features which make it easily 
adaptable to the different requirements outlined above. 

Some additional remarks came into mind after finishing this letter : 

Police cars shall remain equipped with 200 hp or more. 

Other persons wishing to drive a car equipped with more than 50 hp shall 
obtain a special license and pay for it. 

The use of engines of foreign origin, as suggested in the addendum (1), 
is assumed for preliminary test purpose only. 

Road Test — Performance Check — Rambler GGO 

To obtain an approximate idea of fuel consumption and performance a check 
was made on a Rambler Classic 660 — V8 with a rated power of more than 220 hp. 
Checkpoints : Des Moines, Wash, to downtown Seattle — round trip. 



122 

Distance : .jO miles. 

Time : 1 hour, using Interstate (5). 

1.5 hours, using normal roads, i.e. Highway (99) or 1st Ave. 

Fuel consumption : 3 gallons ; practically the same for both roads. 

Performance: 50/3 = 16.6=appr. 11 miles I gallon. 

The si>eeific fuel consumption, referred to jwwer, is to be expected more than 
0.2 kg/hp.h=:0.44 Ib/hp. h. 

The specific gravity of gasoline amounts to 0.8 or the specific weight of 7.5 
lb/gallon, which varies widely within the different brands, depending on the 
combination of ingredients and how much useless air is dissolved in the fuel. 
Hence sfc=0.05S7 gallon/hp.h. 

Based on these favorable figures, the consumption of 3 gallons/h indicates an 
average power utilization of 3/0.0587=51 hp.h. ( HP=51 hp. ) 

Two factors will change this figure in one way or the other : 

(a) Driving conditions on normal roads require many stops at traffic lights 
etc., where the engine runs at idle and u.ses unnecessary fuel and even more 
during the following acceleration. 

However the one-hour figure was taken from checks along Interstate (5) with 
no interruptions by trafiic lights. Using the normal-road test with 1.5 hours, 
the average power consumption is obtained to : HP=51/1.5=3/0.05S7.1.5=34 hp 
which, again, is a mean value (0 to max) between stops including idle time. 
Assuming % of the time to be idle, the figure changes back to 51 hp maximum. 

(b) The initially assumed sfc of 0.44 Ib/hp.h is valid only for high eflicient 
engines, such as Diesel, and only at rated load. At part load the figure of sfc=0.66 
Ib/hp.h is much more likely, hence a power output of 34 hp maximum is certainly 
the more accurate amount, which would also confirm the mileages of small foreign 
cars, whicli claim 22 to 25 miles/gallon. 

To avoid misinterpretation, ithe objective is to have a normal American standard 
middle class car (Plymouth, Mercury, Rambler, etc.) equipped with an engine 
of foreign origin for test purpose. 

The writer would be glad to undertake the assembly of such vehicle and test it, 
if funds were available. 

Patent Application Group 342, Serial 777642 

1. Brief Description. 

2. Claims. 

3. Drawings are not attached, due to lack of copying machine. 

References Application, Rotary Internal Combustion Engine — Filing Date, 
Nov. 21, 1968, Group 342 Serial 777642 

It is believed that this engine will be of interest to you. The principle of the 
engine is a combination of known reciprocating machines and turbine effect, but 
has no alternating moving parts; the working parts are strictly rotating around 
their axis. The bearings have to carry only the load of the rotor weight and 
therefore these bearings can be simple ball bearings, the lubrication of which 
will be "turbine oil," which gives an easy start even at extreme cold conditions 
(Arctic). 

Furthermore the mean gas temperature, the main components are exposed to, 
are at such level that cooling, especially water cooling, is not required. This 
becomes even more obvious if the engine is used as a constant speed drive whereby 
the power output is controlled by varying the combustion temperature rather than 
throttling the breathing air for part load. For car applicaition it w^ould match 
ideally with a hydraulic transmission at variable filling or with a hydro-static 
transmission at variable plate angles. 

The engine can i»e easily adapted to the various fuel burning rates, i.e. ordinary 
gasoline, Diesel oil and/or bottled gas, such as to comply with State's require- 
ments for prevention of air contamination. 

The ignition does not require a timing device inasmuch either a spark plug is 
used in combination with high frequency ignition system, or a glow plug is used 
for starting purpose in combination with grooves in the end walls firing zone, 
to provide crossfiring from a burning cylinder into the following w^hich jusit 
entered the combusion sector. 

The electric power requirement during start, etc., is so little that a battery of 
8 Ah capacity would be fully suflicient instead of a conventional 80 Ah battery. 

The auxiliary power drive such as an exhaust gas turbine puts out excessive 



123 

power if built of minimvim practical size (not being itoo small for manufacturing), 
that an all electric system becomes most obvious with all the advantages of con- 
venient location and simplicity of controls. 

The main advantages are "constant volume" combustion without moving valves, 
the rotor containing the combustion chambers acts at the same time as a turbine, 
the expansion is not limited as in reciprocating machines, a mechanical com- 
pression is not required — the compression being strictly a thermal one. All forces 
are completely balanced. 

Since there is no mechanical compression and therefore, as in reciprocating 
machines, a built-in limited expansion ratio, the full expansion head to practical 
atmospheric pressure is available for conversion into shaft horsepower, which 
however depends substantially on the form of the expansion nozzles, which there- 
fore become a very important part of the engine and will require some develop- 
ment work. 

The fuel consumption can be expected to be: sfc=.2 kg/hp h=.44 Ib/hp h. 

The applications of the engine are for all kinds of cars, marine vehicles and 
light propeller-driven airplanes. 

Setting up a small special division, the first engine would be within 15 months 
or less, with relatively simple test facilities involved. 

What I Claim: 

1. An internal combustion engine with constant volume combustion and no 
mechanical compression, said engine producing high pressure gases by thermal 
compression only, said pressurized gases producing work by fully expanding 
through nozzles without restriction by mechanically built in expansion ratios, 
said nozzles comprising a convergent and a divergent portion, the combination 
of size and number thereof being such that maximum expansion of the gases is 
achieved by means of supercritical velocities therein. Said engine comprising in 
combination an outer member, an inner rotating member disposed within said 
outer member and adapted to rotate relative thereto : at least one bore arranged 
within said inner member coaxially thereto, a plurality of apertures communi- 
cating between said bore and the peripheral surface of said inner member, means 
to admit a combustible mixture to said bore means to ignite said mixture within 
said bore whereby high pressure gases are produced, said gases being exhausted 
from said bore through said nozzles in a tangential fashion thereby imparting 
a reactionary force to said inner member relative to said outer member. 

2. The combination as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the axial surfaces of said 
outer member adjacent to the inner member are provided with sealing surfaces. 

Senator Muskie. We will recess until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning. 
(Wliereupon, at 11 :4:0 a.m., the subcommittee recesed, to reconvene 
at 10 a.m., Tuesday, March 17, 1970.) 



43-166 — 70--pt. 1- 



AIR POLLUTION— 1970 



TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 1970 

U.S. Senate, 
Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution 

of the commit'i-ee on public works, 

Washington^ D.C. 

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 4200, 
New Senate Office Building, Hon. Edmund S. Muskie (chairman of 
the subconmiittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Randolph, Muskie, Spong, Eagleton, Boggs, 
Cooper, and Dole. 

Also present : Richard B. Royce, chief clerk and staff director ; Bailey 
Guard, assistant chief clerk, minority; Thomas C. Jorlmg, minority 
counsel ; Leon G. Billings and Richard D. Grundy, professional staff 
members. 

Senator Muskie. The committee will be in order. This series of hear- 
ings began yesterday. Obviously this testimony this morning is im- 
portant opening testimony in the real sense. I opened the hearings 
yesterday with a statement. Senator Randolph was not here yesterday 
to make a statement. 

Senator Randolph ? 

HON. JENNINGS RANDOLPH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF 
WEST VIRGINIA, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC 
WORKS, U.S. SENATE 

Senator Randolph. My statement will be relatively brief. I regret 
that it was impossible for me to join you yesterday for the beginnmg 
of these hearings on the status of our effort. It must be a vei-y strong 
effort if our countiy is to reduce the level of air pollution. 

We were gratified by the productive nature of our hearings of the 
past 3 weeks when the subcommittee was presented with a significant 
amomit of information on the problems of solid waste disposal, plus 
the new and imaginative technology being developed to cope with them. 

I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that these hearings on air x^ollution will 
be equally informative and challenging. 

As you know, the Air Quality Act of 1967 was a very significant 
milestone in the struggle — and it has been a struggle — to progress 
toward cleaner air. 

It was a good basic law that made available to the various levels of 
government the machinery to move against air pollution. 

Since that law was enacted, it has become obvious that additional 
legislation is needed; the consideration of new or strengthened air 
pollution law is our concern now. 

(125) 



126 

^Iv. Chairman, I am not a carping critic, but I do want to say that- 
I am disappointed to note tlie hesitant manner in which the Air Qual- 
ity Act of 1907 has been implemented. The administration has moved 
neither far enough nor fast enough in taking the steps toward estab- 
lisliing controls over air pollution. 

The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare origmally 
estimated that it would have designated 57 air quality control re- 
gions by April of this year. Tliat deadline was later postponed to 
December of 1970. 

At this time, however, fewer than half the desigriations — 25 on 
January 1, 1 believe — have been made. 

I think it is important, Mr. Chairman, for me to state, as chairman 
of the Public Works Committee, that there seems to have been too 
little urgency in publishing the criteria and technology available for 
achieving the objectives of the 1967 act. 

Since these are to be the foundations on which the standards for 
control of individual pollutants are set and accomplished, the air pol- 
lution control program is in serious danger of being shortchanged. 

Prior to yesterday, we had knowledge of criteria published for only 
two pollutants. Then, wdien the hearings opened yesterday, we re- 
ceived criteria on three more pollutants and information on four con- 
trol technologies. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT H. FINCH, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF 
HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, PRESENTED BY JOHN 
VENEMAN, UNDER SECRETARY, HEW, ACCOMPANIED BY C. C. 
JOHNSON, ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERV- 
ICE; DR. JOHN MIDDLETON, COMMISSIONER, NATIONAL AIR 
POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION, ENVIRONMENTAL 
HEALTH SERVICE; DR. ALEXANDER COHEN, CHIEF, NATIONAL 
NOISE STUDY, BUREAU OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH; 
AND SIDNEY SAPERSTEIN, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL 

Senator Randolph. Mr. Under Secretary, the standards study under 
the national emission program was due on November 21, 1969. 

Mr. Veneman. That is correct. 

Senator Eandolph. These came to us, for all purposes, only yester- 
day, and also the printed report on the cost of the clean air program 
that was forwarded to us. Then the third annual report on pollution 
control came at the same time. These were really due in January of 
1970. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, we have 1,800 pages of detailed reading matter 
delivered to us at approimately the same time — much of it long overdue. 

It is our proper role to express concern that progress has been made 
so slowly. Mr. Chairman, I believe you will agree with me that the 
criteria should already be determined for at least eight or 10 other 
dangerous substances that are released regularly and in large quantities 
into the air. 

Our hearings will focus attention on these deficiencies and the imple- 
mentation of the Air Quality Act, not only of 1967. But we will look 
forward, too, and prepare for the challenging responsibility that are 
with us on a continuing basis. 



127 

It is imperative tliat the administration and the Bureau of the 
Budget act immediately to provide tlie funds and the manpower, to 
accelerate the preparation and publishing of criteria and the designa- 
tion of air quality control regions. 

You and your associates, Mr. Secretary, have responsibility to help 
us as a subcommittee and a committee to act affirnuitively and thor- 
oughly, and as quickly as possible. 

So, Mr. Chairman, under your able leadership, I am sure the sub- 
committee will give serious consideration to ways and means to assure 
more expeditious action, I think, in a very critical area of our life. 

Senator Muskie. Thank 3-ou, Senator Eandolph. 

Senator Boggs ? 

Senator Boggs. I am sorry for being late, Mr. Chairman. I was at- 
tending a meeting on another matter in which I am vitally interested. 

ISIr. "Chairman, I want to join you in welcoming Secretary Vene- 
man and Commissioner Middleton to this important hearing. I know 
that each member of the subcommittee looks forward to the very help- 
ful testimony you will give. 

The Clean Air Act, under the leadership of Secretary Finch and 
Commissioner Middleton, has proved to be an excellent foundation 
for the efforts to improve air quality in America. For exam])le. Secre- 
tary Finch just a couple of weeks ago approved the air quality stand- 
ards for my State of Delaware, an important step in the efforts in 
Delaware to enhance the environment. 

The legislation we are considering today will augment the efforts 
to improve air quality by setting emission standards in certain cases 
and by accelerating the enforcement procedures. But we cannot expect 
that such innovations will bring us 1871 air by 1971. We are involved 
in a struggle that has consumed 7 years since the Clean Air Act was 
adopted. It is a struggle that will require many more years, yet a 
struggle that we must pursue relentlessly. 

Mr. Under Secretary, we value your leadership in this struggle, and 
we will value your testimony and your analysis of the pending legisla- 
tion. 

Today is the day for the wearing of the green. Let that green 
stand for the green fields and green forests that will flourish in an 
environment less burdened with air pollution. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Muskie. Thank you. Senator Boggs. Senator Cooper? 

Senator Cooper. Mr. Chairman, I think our committee can take 
some satisfaction, perhaps a great deal of satisfaction in these proceed- 
ings. Several years ago, under the leadership of the chairman of the 
subcommittee — and I may say the ranking member of the minority 
on this committee. Senator Boggs — that legislation was initiated and 
passed dealing with several aspects of the environmental qualit}' , water, 
air, and now^ solid waste. I think this has contributed a great deal to 
the emphasis that is now being manifested throughout the country on 
the environment. 

But we know that the solutions are not all at hand, and I am sure in 
these hearings great progress will be made. 

I am very glad that the Under Secretary is here to represent Secre- 
tary Finch to testify on air pollution legislation. I think the President 
and Secretary Finch are to be commended for the commitment which 



128 

has been made to work unceasingly for the solution of environmental 
quality. An outstanding manifestation of this commitment is the ad- 
ministration's bill S. 3466 which has been introduced. It is a proposal, 
in my view, based on the experience of the Clean Air Act which was 
enacted by this committee. 

I know the President's recommendation will receive thorough con- 
sideration from the committee resulting in fair and just legislation. 

This committee has been cited, and I think notably, for being a 
nonpartisan committee. Our problems deal with the country's problems, 
and I think all of us will try to be nonpartisan, and I think we hope to 
continue to be so. 

I think constructive criticism is well taken and necessary. It could 
be that we have the problems in the States and regions. I know that 
new ideas and concepts are presented by the administration. It may be 
a fact that your proposal of a national standard rather than regional 
standards may have something to do with tliis. But I arn confident 
we will go forward, and I am sure this committee will assist in every 
way we can, as we have worked together in the past. 

Senator IIandolpii. Mr. Chairman, may I add a comment? 

Senator Muskie. Certainly. 

Senator Eandolph. I would like to comment further upon the state- 
ment by Senator Cooper, the ranking minority member of the full 
committee. I was very careful to say that I have not desired to be a 
carping critic. I have not assumed that role. I will call attention, how- 
ever, to the matters that are important. 

I will ask, Mr. Chairman, to place in the record my recent Senate 
remarks in the Congressional Record of February 17, 1970, in which 
I stated that we would proceed in the bipartisan manner that we have 
in the past. 

(The remarks referred to follow :) 

Environmental Quality Measures Cosponsored by Senator Randolph in 

Interest of Bipartisanship 

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, another period of intense activity in the Con- 
gress on legislation to improve the quality of the environment impends. As always, 
it is one of our most challenging areas of legislative endeavor. The need for 
quality improvement — vast improvement — is as vital as any requirement con- 
fronting society. The environment in which we live has become 80 complex that 
the really effective solutions to problems created by man's befoulment of it are 
elusive because the environmental problems generally are complex, too. 

Our proven leader in this body in the pollution control effort. Senator Edmund 
S. Muskie, of Maine is developing again to develop a broad agenda for the Public 
Works Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, which he chairs so ably and 
vigorously. As chairman of the full Public Works Committee, I am coordinating 
the committee's agenda with that of the subcommittee headed by the Senator 
from Maine, who is preparing to introduce broad legislative measures to expand 
and improve upon the antipollution laws heretofore enacted under his leadership. 

President Nixon indicated clearly in his state of the Union message the em- 
phasis his administration places on the need to upgrade the quality of the en- 
vironment. And his special message to the Congress on the environment, delivered 
February 10, spells out the administration's understanding of the problems 
and pronounces the points and methods of attack on these problems. The Nixon 
administration's versions of legislative remedies have been prepared and made 
available to us and will be introduced formally as legislative measures by the 
minority leader, the senior Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Scott), who has 
invited cosponsorship. 

In a letter today to the minority leader, I wrote that Senator Muskie invited 
me to cosponsor the bills he will introduce, and I have accepted. And I asked 



129 

Senator Scott to list me as a cosponsor of the legislation he will introduce to 
implement the President's proposals. 

As I noted earlier in a communication to Senator Muskie, I also informed 
Senator Scott that I agree in principle on the objectives espoused by the Senator 
from Maine and those espoused in the Nixon administration measures. I expressed 
the belief that we will be able to negotiate solutions where we may have some 
differences on methods of reaching the environmental goals to which I ascribe 
the same high priority expressed by the President, by Majority Leader Mansfield, 
by minority Leader Scott, and by Senator Muskie. 

In communicating my desire to cosponsor the Muskie bills and the Nixon 
administration proposals. I called attention to the fact that in our Public Works 
Committee and in our Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, legislation to 
improve the quality of the environment never has been considered on partisan 
political lines. I reiterate the belief that the same conditions will prevail in this 
session of the (Congress and that vital questions relating to upgrading the quality 
of our environment will have bipartisan consideration. 

It is in this tradition that I am gratified to cosponsor in principle and purpose 
the bills of the Nixon administration and those which Senator Muskie will in- 
troduce, based on his lengthy and comprehensive experience with environmental 
legislation. 

Senator Eandolph. For that reason, I am a cosponsor, as Senator 
Cooper knows, of all the administration legislation that has been sent 
to the Congress. My name is also listed, Mr. Chairman, to show 
my cosponsorship of all the legislation that you have introduced re- 
lating to the environment. I support these legislative proposals in 
principle on a bipartisan basis. 

I will not belabor this point because I feel it is not necessary. We 
will continue as we have to move forward constructively. But where 
there are deficiencies, where there are problems, we would want to ad- 
dress attention to them. Also, we would want you gentlemen to be 
equally conscious of your responsibility to speak to the members of 
the subcommittee and the full committee concerning actions which 
you believe we should take with dispatch. 

So I feel that we meet in an atmosphere of clarification, somewhat, 
but, more importantly, with a purpose to move forward in this job. 

Senator ]\Iuskie. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator Spong ? 

Senator Spoxg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no extended 
statement at this time. I would like to observe that we meet here today 
with an administration bill that represents in some aspects a new ap- 
proach to a problem that we have had under study for some time. 
I would join with Senator Randolph in expressing the hope all of us 
will recognize a sense of urgency about this legislation. I hope this 
subcommittee, between the approaches advocated by some of us on 
the one hand and the administration on the other, will develop legisla- 
tion which will be effective and be presented in such a way that those 
charged with administering it will seize upon it with the urgency 
that we view is necessary. 

Senator Muskie. Thank you very much. 

Senator Eagleton ? 

Senator Eagleton. No comment at this time, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Muskie. I would just like to make, as chairman of the sub- 
committee, one or two observations. First of all, I think we are all 
conscious that for the first time in 7 or 8 years there is a tremendous 
reservoir of public concern and support for effective action in this 
field. 



130 

I think our primary challenge is to use that resource in developing 
the soundest and most effective legislation of which we are capable. 

I think the first thing we ought to do, in light of that challenge, is 
to review critically, not only the administration of public policy in 
the years that we have been writing it, but the statutes we have written, 
as well. - 

This legislation, in many instances, incorporated compromises that 
were the product of a kind of public support we might like to have 
to write public law at that time. 

So we have an opportunity— and we might regard it as such — to re- 
view everything that has been done up to today, to review all of the 
concepts that underlie our current legislation and current program^s, to 
subject them to critical review and to examine every new^ idea ad- 
vanced — national emission standards, regional approaches — every new 
idea incorporated in the administration's bill, in the legislation that we 
have introduced. We need to produce the best policy of which we are 
capable at tliis time. 

I guess that criticism across party lines is unavoidable, especially 
in an election year. I will be tempted, as well as everybody else, and 
if I am, I will get my reactions in time. That is all right ; that is part 
of the game. But let us not forget the primary challenge, which is to 
sort out all of the ideas we have in front of use, and all others that 
will be presented to us by witnesses, and put together some good 
legislation. I think that is our challenge. 

If we criticize, even though there may be overtones of partisanship, 
what we are really trying to do is to get through the hard-core stuff 
that we need to write the legislation. 

"With that as a preliminary, may I welcome as our first witness 
the Under Secretary of HEW, John Veneman. May I express my 
regret that Secretary Finch could not be here. I understand fully 
why he camiot. He is suffering from a temporary indisposition ; and I 
understand fully, having had a touch of the same in the past myself. 
But it is our pleasure to welcome the Under Secretary. It is a pleasure 
to welcome Dr. Middleton, who is a long-time friend and advisor in 
this field, and your other colleagues. Please identify them for the rec- 
ord, Mr. Under Secretary. 

Mr. Veneman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me say 
at the outset that I do appreciate the tone that has been expressed by 
the members of the subcommittee, for I believe that not only the 
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, but this administra- 
tion, justly stand committed to solving what is a key problem in this 
country today, as do the members of this committee, and I am confi- 
dent that by working together, that the public attitude and public 
mood are such that we can obtain some good results at the present 
time. 

Let me also, on behalf of the Secretary, express his regrets for 
bein;^ unable to attend because of illness. We would hojje that if the 
hearings do proceed at some future time that he may be able to appear 
before the committee hunself. 

Senator Muskie. May I say at this point that you have the new 
criteria and the suggestions for control technology. "Wliatever the 
reason for the timing, we haven't had time to examine these. At 
some point, we may want to call some of the witnesses back so we 



131 

may get into questions suggested by this material. It is voluminous, 
and it would be premature to get into it this morning. 

]Mr. Veneman. I think we can work that out. I think, Mr. Chair- 
man, that many of the technical questions that pertain to the criteria 
can be answered by Mr. Johnson and Dr. Middleton to the degree that 
you would like. 

But, as I have indicated, I am sure the Secretary would be pleased 
to come and cover the policies you would like to discuss. 

Let me introduce the rest of those at the table. Mr. C. C. Jolmson, 
who is the Administrator of the Environmental Health Sei-vice, to my 
left. To my far right, Mr. Sidney Saperstein, Assistant General Coun- 
sel of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. To my 
immediate right is Dr. John Middleton, Commissioner of the National 
Air Pollution Control Administration of the Emaronmental Health 
Service. 

Mr. Chairman, I have submitted a detailed statement on behalf of 
Secretary Finch. "What I would like to do is cover some of the high- 
liglits and comment upon S. 3466, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 
1970, and also convey some of our remarks regarding S. 3229 and 
S. 3546, plus make some references to title II of S. 3229, which ad- 
dresses itself to the problem of noise pollution. 

STATEMEITT OP HON. EOBEET H. FINCH 

iMr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, in his message 
to tlie Congress en February 10, 1970, the President described the air 
as our most vital resource and air pollution as our most serious environ- 
mental problem. To strengthen and to speed up the Nation's attack on 
this problem, he proposed a series of amendments to the Clean Air 
Act. These proposals are before you today in S. 3166. I welcome the 
opportunity to testify in support of the bill, and to comment on 
S. 3229 and S. 3516 which you also have under consideration. 

Enactment of the administration bill would enable the Department 
of Health, Education, and Welfare to extend and accelerate its na- 
tional i>rograni of air pollution research and control. S. 3466 does not 
represent a radical departure from the present Clean Air Act; rather, 
it preserves the best features of that act and provides for change 
where change seems necessary. There would be a high degree of con- 
tinuity with ongoing efforts. 

The administration bill is unique, however, in its reflection of the 
fact that the Nation's air resource is indivisible. Air, polluted or 
not, crosses the maginary lines that divide State from State. Air 
quality, therefore, is not a matter of purely local or regional concern 
but rather of national concern. That national concern must be reflected 
in the way air quality standards are established — and it is so reflected 
in the administration bill. 

Under the proposed bill, two other matters of national concern also 
would be the focus of national effort: (a) new stationary sources of 
air pollution that would contribute substantially to endangering public 
health or welfare; and (b) any stationary source emitting pollutants 
that are extremely hazardous to health. National leadership in deal- 
ing with such sources is essential, and the administration bill would 
provide it by authorizing the establishment of national emission stand- 
ards for these sources. 



132 

National standards, however, whether air quality standards or sta- 
tionary source emission standards, obviously would have to be applied 
to many different situations. Accordingly, the administration bill pro- 
vides for continued decentralization of the responsibility for imple- 
mentation and enforcement. 

The administration bill also would provide new tools for dealing 
with a problem that has long been recognized as national in scope — the 
problem of motor vehicle pollution. Of particular importance are 
those provisions dealing with fuels and fuel additives. Motor vehicle 
engines are not the sole cause of the problem. Engines, fuels, and ad- 
ditives are interrelated causes and must be treated as such. 

Now, let me describe the provisions of S. 3466 in greater detail, and 
discuss corresponding provisions of the other bills you have under 
consideration. 

Under S. 3466, section 6 would authorize the Department of Health, 
Education, and Welfare to establish national air quality standards, 
and section 7 would call upon each State to adopt an implementation 
plan for each area within the State. Each standard would, as State 
standards now do, set maximum permissible concentrations of a pol- 
lutant per unit of ambient air. 

National air quality standards would provide for protection of pub- 
lic health and would guard against the environmental and economic 
effects of air pollution. They would be derived from the best available 
scientific knowledge and would be developed with the assistance of 
experts within and outside the Federal Government. 

Once formulated, such national standards would be published in 
the Federal Register, and all interested parties, including the general 
public, would have the opportunity to submit comments for considera- 
tion prior to issuance of the standards. 

Thus, where as each State now sets air quality standards for specific 
pollutants on the basis of Federal air quality criteria documents — 
Avhich describe effects of pollutants at various concentrations — the 
Federal Government would, under S. 3466, establish uniform nation- 
wide standards. We anticipate that these Federal standards would 
also be based on criteria documents. 

The provisions for national air quality standard-setting would not 
impair any State's right to establish standards requiring higher levels 
of air quality. This right is stated as a national policy in section 109 
of the Clean Air Act, and there would be no change in this policy. 

Following the promulgation of national standards, each State 
would have 90 days to signify its intention of adoptmg an implemen- 
tation plan. Each State would be expected to describe the steps it 
would take to develop such a plan and to indicate which areas of the 
State would be given priority. 

In their implementation plans, the States would have to spell out 
the measures to be taken to achieve and preserve national air quality 
standards. As I have indicated, they would have the option of design- 
ing their implementation plans to achieve or preserve higher than 
national quality levels, if they wished to do so. 

As you know, one of the express purposes of the Clean Air Act is 
"to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources" (em- 
phasis added). Accordingly, it has been and will continue to be our 
view that implementation plans that would permit significant deterio- 



133 

ration of air quality in any area would be in conflict with this provi- 
sion. We shall continue to expect States to maintain air of good quality 
where it now exists. 

State implementation plans Avould have to include provisions for 
intergovernmental cooperation, particularly in dealing with inter- 
state air pollution problems. Under the administration bill, it would 
be a responsibility of the Department of Health, Education, and Wel- 
fare to designate significant interstate problem areas. We estimate 
that there are about 50 such areas at present. This number includes 
21 of tlie first 57 areas marked for designation as "air quality control 
regions" under the provisions of the existing Clean Air Act. _ 

Finally, implementation plans would have to include provisions for 
(a) enforcement; (7j) preventing the occurrence of pollution episodes 
during periods of adverse meteorological conditions; and (c) making 
modifications to take account of changes in standards or the avail- 
ability of improved pollution-control techniques. 

States generally will be expected to submit their implementation 
plans to t\\e Department of Health, Education, and Welfare no more 
than 180 days after filing their letters of intent. If, however, their 
letters of intent indicate that implementation plans for some areas can- 
not be developed within this time period, and if there is good reason 
wliy more time should be allowed, then the Department would be 
authorized to grant an extension. If a State does not spell out any 
such problems in its letter of intent but subsequently requests an ex- 
tension, one still can be granted, but for not more than 90 days. 

Upon enactment of this bill, States will be expected to begin at- 
tacking air pollution in all their cities, counties, and towns. Many 
States, not surprisingly, have not yet been able to mount such a broad 
effort, and we cannot realistically expect every State to shift gears 
overnight. For our part, we intend to support tlieir efforts. We will 
continue and indeed augment our technical and financial assistance. 

We expect that implementation plans would be developed on sched- 
ule, particulary for areas where air pollution is most serious. For other 
areas, however, extensions may be necessary. Indeed, by granting more 
time for the development of implementation plans for areas of least 
urgency, we can encourage the States to allocate their resources most 
efficiently by focusing initially on areas of greatest immediate concern. 

If a State fails to adopt an implementation plan for any area, the 
Department would be empowered to prepare one and, after a public 
hearing, to publish it in the Federal Register. If the State still had 
n{^t adopted a plan, the Department would promulgate the one it had 
developed. 

In provisions corresponding to those I have been discussing, S. 3546 
would provide for continued regional air pollution control efforts along 
essentially the same lines as the Clean Air Act. S. 3546 calls for ac- 
celerated designation of air quality control regions through a combi- 
nation of Federal and State action. States would have 6 months from 
enactment of the bill to designate air quality control regions in any 
areas where none had been designated by the Department of Health, 
Education, and Welfare. 

States would continue to be responsible for adopting air quality 
standards and implementation plans after the Dej^artment issued air 
quality criteria and reports on control techniques. The timetable for 



134 

State action would be cut down by 2 months througli a reduction in 
tlie time allowed for filing letters of intent. 

As a general rule, under the administration bill, the timospan for 
State action leading to submission of an implementation plan would 
be 9 months. Under the present act the timespan is 15 months. Under 
S. 3546 if would be 13 months. 

The administration bill and S. 3546 are aimed at the same objec- 
tive: to insure that air quality standards and implementation plans 
are put into effect across the entire Nation. There is, however, a sig- 
nificant difference between them in regard to responsibility for adopt- 
ing air quality standards. In my view, there are three principal ad- 
vantages in unifonii nationwide air quality standards, established by 
the Federal Government : 

First, there would be an opportunity to take into account factors that 
transcend the boundaries of any single State. States cannot be expected 
to evaluate the total environmental impact of air pollutants, or take 
it into account in standard setting. 

Second, States would be able to concentrate their resources on tlie 
complicated and critical tasks of developing and carrying out imple- 
mentation and enforcement plans. 

And third, the process of putting air quality standards into effect 
would be accelerated, primarily because there would no longer be 
any time consumed in reviewing and approving air quality standards 
for each air quality control region. 

For these reasons, I believe that the approach we have proposed 
promises far more effective results than that contained in S. 3546. 

The administration bill and S. 3546 have common provisions for 
public hearings prior to adoption of State implementation plans. 

Public participation in State hearings on air quality standards has 
been highly productive. I strongly feel that continued public involve- 
ment in the evolution of State air pollution control programs must 
be encouraged. Participation in hearings on implementation plans 
will give citizens even greater opportunities to influence the course 
of air pollution control efforts in their States and communities. 

Ainong other things, S. 3546 also calls for review of air quality 
standards at least every 5 years. Such a periodic reexamination would 
be desirable whether air quality standards are set by the States, as 
proposed in S. 3546, or by the "Federal Government,' as proposed in 
the administration bill. Indeed, the reexamination process — with re- 
spect both to quality standards and control technologv — should be 
continuous. 

I come now to the second major element of the administration bill : 
The provisions that would authorize the Department of Health, Edu- 
cation, and Welfare to establish national emission standards for cer- 
tain stationary sources of air pollution. I refer to our proposed section 
112, in section 8 of the bill. With one important exception, such na- 
tional emission standards would apply only to new stationary sources, 
of certain designated classes or types." The "exception would involve air 
pollutants which are extremely' hazardous to health; in such cases, 
national emission standards could be applied to all stationary source 
emissions. 

In general, existing stationary sources of air pollution are so nu- 
merous and diverse that the problems they pose can most efHciently 



135 

be attacked by State and local agencies. Even with air quality stand- 
ards being set nationally, as proposed in the administration bill, the 
steps needed to deal with existing stationary sources would necessarily 
vary from one State to another and, within States, from one area 
to another. 

In the years ahead, however, many potentially significant new sta- 
tionary sources of air pollution will come into being as a result of the 
iS'ation's growing demands for electric power, manufactured goods, 
and other necessities and amenities of modern life. Large stationary 
sources, such as electric generating plants, iron and steel mills, and 
petroleum refineries frequently have adverse effects not only on 
public health and welfare in their own communities but also on air 
quality over broad geographic areas. This problem is one that demands 
natiorial attention. If we are ever to begin preventing air pollution, 
instead of just attacking it after the fact, then we must at least in- 
sure thiU. R-iajor nevr stationary sources, wherever they are located, are 
designed and equipped to reduce emissions to the minimum level con- 
sistent with available technology. The application of national emis- 
sion standards would also tend to minimize the competitive advantage 
of locating a new facility in an area where emission standards are 
less rigorous than in other areas. This would eliminate "polluter hav- 
ens." 

AVith respect to pollutants that are extremely hazardous to health, 
national emission standards could be applied to existing, as well as new, 
stationary sources. Among those pollutants that might require applica- 
tion of national emissions standards are asbestos, beryllium, cadmium, 
biological aerosols, and chlorinated hj^drocarbons. Under the adminis- 
tration bill, new sources of extremely hazardous pollutants could not 
be constructed or oj^erated without a specific exemption from the 
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; such exemptions 
would be granted only where we are satisfied that emissions would be 
controlled sufficiently to preclude hazards to public health. Existing 
sources would be required to take any measures necessary to comply 
with the applicable national emission standards. 

States would be expected to assume the primary responsibility 
for enforcing national emission standards. Following the adoption 
of such standards, States would be expected to develop enforcement 
plans. If a State failed to do so, or if it developed a plan which was 
madequate, the Department would be empowered to promulgate such 
a plan after holding a conference of appropriate Federal and State 
agencies. 

S. 3546 approaches the prevention of air pollution from new sta- 
tionary sources in a different way. It would provide for issuance of 
Federal regulations to insure that new buildings, structures, or other 
facilities are equipped with the best available air pollution control 
techniques. A Federal or State certificate of compliance would have to 
be obtained before construction could begin. 

This provision apparently would apply to all new buildings, in- 
cluding single-family homes, and would necessitate the establishment 
of a Federal-State system for review of construction plans. 

From the standpoint of most efficient use of the resources available 
for air pollution control activities, the provisions of the administra- 
tion bill are superior, because they would provide for efforts to be 



136 






focused on the most significant new stationary source problems and 
on tliose existing sources whose emissions pose the greatest threat to 

heahh. . 

Under the administration bill, enforcement of air quality and emis- 
sion standards would be primarily a State responsibility, as I have 
indicated, but the bill provides for effective Federal action m those 
cases Avhere States fail to get the job done. The scope of Federal 
enforcement authority would be broadened to cover all air pollution 
problems, whether interstate or intrastate, and enforcement proce- 
dures would be greatly streamlined. 

The principal enforcement provisions of the administration bill 
are contained in the proposed section 113. Federal enforcement action 
could be initiated whenever (a) air quality fails to meet the appli- 
cable air quality standards, or stationary source emissions are in 
excess of applicable national emission standards, and (b) this results 
from a State's failure to carry out its implementation plan. There 
would be a two-step procedure, rather than the three-step procedure 
prescribed by the Clean Air Act. A hearing would be the first step. 
Following such a hearing, the Department would specify the reme- 
dial action to be taken and allow a period of not less than 60 days 
for such action to get underway. Then, if the specified action were 
not taken, the Department could ask the Attorney General to bring 
suit to enjoin continued failure to comply. Federal district courts 
Avould be authorized to assess fines of up to $10,000 per day for failure 
to take remedial action specified by the Department. This procedure 
would be more expeditious and effective than present provisions. 

Under S. 3546, Federal enforcement would involve issuance of 
abatement orders, with compliance to be achieved in no more than 72 
hours in any case where violation of emission control requirements is 
said to be occurring. In other cases, presumably those in which a num- 
ber of sources are alleged to be contributing to a violation of aid qual- 
ity standards, the alleged polluters could request a hearing on the 
abatement orders. Any decision made by the Department of Health, 
Education, and Welfare after such a hearing could be appealed in 
court, but the Department's findings, if supported by substantial 
evidence on the record considered as a whole, would be conclusive. If 
necessary for the purpose of enforcing an abatement order, the 
Department would be empowered to institute civil action. 

In our judgment, the enforcement procedure proposed in the ad- 
ministration bill is preferred because it is simpler and more direct. 
An important advantage is that it would require that the Department 
simply specify the remedial action to be taken, while S. 3546 would 
require that abatement orders "contain a detailed description of the 
conditions or practices which cause or constitute a violation." 

S. 3546 includes two other provisions relating to control of air pol- 
lution from stationary sources. One would give the Department of 
Health, Education, and Welfare the right of entry to buildings, struc- 
tures, or other facilities and would authorize the Department to re- 
quire polluters to measure emissions in cases where a final abatement 
order has been issued. If the first part of this provision were modified 
to provide explicitly for inspections and access to relevant informa- 
tion, we would view it favorably; such authority, within the frame- 
work of the administration's bill's enforcement provisions, could help 
to insure an effective enforcement j)rogram. 



137 

The other provision dealing with stationary sources would require 
compliance with applicable air quality standards and emission control 
requirements as a condition of eligibility for Federal loans, grants, 
licenses, permits, and contracts for construction and Federal procure- 
ment of goods or products. 

We have serious reservations about this j^ro vision. Effective enforce- 
ment would require a very substantial and probably unwarranted in- 
vestment of resources. Moreover, the objective would be accomplished 
more simply and directly through State or Federal enforcement of 
air quality and stationary source emission standards, as proposed in 
the administration bill. 

I turn now to the area of motor vehicle pollution control. The estab- 
lisliment and enforcement of national emission standards for new 
motor vehicles constitute the cornerstone of our program. The admin- 
istration bill would improve our enforcement activity m three principal 
ways : (1) by authorizing assembly line testing of new motor vehicles; 
(2) by providing for revocation of certificates of conformity when as- 
sembly line testing shows that new vehicles do not meet the standards ; 
and (3) by prohibiting importation of motor vehicles that are not 
equipped to comply with the standards. 

Under the existing provisions of the Clean Air Act, testing of pro- 
totypes in advance of actual production is the principal means of deter- 
mining whether new motor -^-ehicles will comply with the standards. If 
prototype testing indicates that vehicles will comj^ly, the manufacturer 
is issued a certificate of conformity valid for a period of not less than 
one year. We are finding, however, that production models do not per- 
form as well as the prototypes. 

To help rectify this situation, we intend to make changes in our 
test procedures under our present statutory authority. But to insure 
that motor vehicles are capable of meeting the standards when they 
come off an assembly line, we must test them at that point. Further- 
more, if such testing shows that vehicles are not capable of meeting 
the standards, we must be able to require that manufacturers make 
whatever adjustments are necessary. Clear authority to revoke cer- 
tificates of conformity would enable us to accomplish this. 

AYith regard to importation, the existing provisions of the Clean 
Air Act require that new automobiles imported for sale in this coun- 
try must be equipped to comply with our national standards. This 
means, however, that if the title to a vehicle was transferred to the 
purchaser before the vehicle was brought in, or if a vehicle is brought 
in for purposes other than sale or resale, such a vehicle is exempt from 
compliance with the standards. One effect of this exemption is that 
persons returning from other countries may legally bring in non- 
complying motor vehicles. Since all the major foreign manufacturers 
make vehicles equipped to meet our standards, there appears to be no 
justification for this exemption. 

The administration bill also would enable us to open a second front 
in the Nation's fight against air pollution from motor vehicles. I refer 
to the bill's provisions for registration and regulation of fuels and fuel 
additives used in transportation. There is great potential for improv- 
ing the Nation's air quality through modification of motor vehicle 
fuels, particularly gasoline. By controlling the chemical composition 



138 

of gasoline and the use of fuel additives, we can significantly reduce 
motor vehicle emissions. 

The problem of motor vehicle pollution is the product of a complex 
combustion system involving engines, fuels, and fuel additives. Emis- 
sions can be reduced to some extent through alterations of any of these 
elements 'or through such other means as the use of control devices 
of one kind or another. But it is necessary to bear in mind that all 
the elements of the motor vehicle combustion and emission control 
systems are interrelated; if engines are altered, the fuel may also 
need to be altered. This means that effective control of motor vehicle 
i^ollution requires a capability of dealing not only with engines and 
control devices but also with fuels and fuel additives. Under the 
existing provisions of the Clean Air Act, however, Federal action can 
be taken only with respect to the motor vehicle itself. Fuels are 
beyond our reach. The Federal Government must be in a position 
to require fuel modifications and changes in the use of additives. The 
provisions of the administration bill are intended to open the way 
for an effective regulatory program. 

I now turn to S. Z'2-2d, which, like the administration bill, would 
extend the duration of the Clean Air Act for another 3 years and 
would amend the act in seA'eral respects. 

S. 3229 contains provisions designed to stimulate the development 
of low-pollution vehicles of various types. One of these would ex- 
plicitly authorize the Department to support, by means of grants 
and contracts, programs for the development of low-pollution alterna- 
tives to the internal coml^ustion engine. We hilly agree that support 
for such programs is desirable. But it does not require new legislation. 
Under section 104 of the Clean Air Act, we are greatly increasing 
our ]:)rogram of research and development in the area of motor 
vehicle pollution control. A major portion of this increased effort 
will be focused on development of low-pollution alternatives to the 
internal combustion engine. Furthermore, to stimulate parallel efforts 
in the private sector, a program involving the i5urchase and testing 
of low-pollution vehicles individually and in fleets is being imple- 
mented. In fiscal 1971, we are proposing to earmark at least $12 
million for these activities, about $9 million of which would be devoted 
to the development of unconventional power sources. 

Another provision in S. 3229 designed to stimulate development 
of low-pollution vehicles would authorize the Secretary of Healrli, 
Education, and Welfare to prescribe "special"' emission standards for 
any class of vehicles; such standards would have to be at least 50 
percent more stringent than the standards required for such class 
of vehicles. Voluntary compliance with such '"special-' standards would 
be rewarded by certification of the vehicle or engine as being a "low- 
emission" vehicle or engine. 

It is not clear what incentive for development of a "low-emission" 
vehicle is provided by the mere assurance of such a certificate. In 
contrast, our existing program, described above, of purchasing low- 
pollution vehicles individually and in fleets for testing does provide 
what would seem to be a requisite financial incentive. 

In this connection, it may be noted that the emission standards we 
plan to prescribe for 1975 model vehicles would reduce emissions more 
than 50 percent below current levels. 



139 

The new carbon monoxide standards, proposed for the 1975 model 
year, represent a reduction of 52 percent below the current standards. 
The new hydrocarbon standards, also for the 1975 model year, rep- 
resent a reduction of 77 percent. The proposed nitrogen oxides stand- 
ards, proposed for the 1973 model year, will reduce nitrogen oxides 
emissions by 50 percent; a further reduction is proposed for the 
1975 model year. Finally, the proposed standards for particulate 
emissions, to' take efl'ect in the 1975 model year, would produce a 
reduction of 66 percent. 

Another provision of S. 3229 would authorize the Department to 
require automobile manufacturers to provide warranties on air pol- 
lution control equipment installed in compliance with standards estab- 
lished under the Clean Air Act. While the exact nature and scope 
of such warranty requirements would have to be worked out, the 
l)roposed authority appears to be a desirable additional means to in- 
sure proper performance of emission control systems throughout the 
useful life of an automobile. 

Also with respect to the problem of motor vehicle pollution, S. 3229 
would authorize the Department to establish separate emission stand- 
ards for connnercial vehicles, both old and new. Present provisions of 
the Clean Air Act make no distinction between commercial and non- 
commercial vehicles. Furthermore, we currently are authorized to 
establish standards only for new vehicles. 

This proposal appears to have merit. The proposed new authority 
would enable us, for example, to establish special emission standards 
for commercial vehicles operated in fleets, such as taxicabs. Fleet 
vehicles generally are used more intensively than noncommercial 
vehicles and thus make a proportionately greater contribution to the 
problem of air pollution, particularly in large urban areas. But fleet 
operation has an ofl'setting advantage. The centralized maintenance 
and servicing facilities usually associated with fleet operations offer 
opportunities for the application of air pollution control techniques, 
such as the use of special fuels, that generally would not be practical 
for family cars. 

The proposed authority to set standards for commercial vehicles 
also could be used to broaden our attack on the obnoxious problem of 
diesel smoke and its odors. Techniques capable of producing a signifi- 
cant reduction of diesel smoke are becoming available in 1970. But 
while we began to set standards for new diesel-powered vehicles under 
existing provisions of the Clean Air Act, there is no way of insuring 
that new techniques will be applied to older diesel-powered vehicles. 
S. 3229 also would authorize the Department to establish national 
standards for the control of emissions from aircraft, vessels, loco- 
motives, and agricultural vehicles. While vessels, locomotives, and 
agricultural vehicles are not major sources of air pollution at this time 
and do not require immediate attention, we support the principle of 
making them subject to emission controls. 

Aircraft also account for only a small fraction of the total air pol- 
lution problem, but their emissions are substantially concentrated in 
the vicinity of metropolitan airports. Moreover, air traffic is steadily 
increasing. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, in 
conjunction with the Department of Transportation, has already 
taken a major step toward controlling air pollution from aircraft. 
At a meeting on January 20, 1970, attended by representatives of 31 

43-166 — 70 — pt. 1 10 



140 

airlines, we presented our estimate of the shortest feasible schedule for 
installation of "smokeless" combustors in JT8D engines. These engines 
account for a major share of the jet aircraft smoke problem. The air- 
lines have agreed to install such combustors in accordance with this 
schedule, whicli means that this program will be substantially com- 
pleted by late 1972. By mid- April, we expect to have detailed action 
plans from the airlines. The Federal Aviation Administration will 
furnish us with quarterly reports on the progress of this work. 

Smoke is not the only pollutant emitted by aircraft. Accordingly, 
we are conducting and supporting research to define niore precisely 
all components of aircraft emissions and to explore various means of 
controlling gaseous emissions, including nitrogen oxides. We will seek 
prompt application of new knowledge that is obtained. If the enact- 
ment of laws and regulations becomes necessary, we will recommend 
that approach. But where we can make progress in the absence of leg- 
islation, we will do so. 

Another provision of S. 3229 would authorize the Department to 
register organic solvents and solvent-containing products, to recom- 
mend emission standards applicable to such products, and to establish 
such standards in the event that there are conflicting State regulations 
or that an air pollution prolalem associated with solvents poses an im- 
minent and substantial danger to public health or welfare. 

The use of solvents and solvent-containing products, such as paints, 
is a source of hydrocarbon emissions into the atmosphere and thus 
contributes to air pollution, particularly photochemical smog. The 
magnitude of this contribution varies significantly from one area to 
another. 

In the National Capital area, for example, solvents account for an 
estimated 4 percent of hydrocarbon emissions; in New York, they 
account for about 26 percent ; and in Los Angeles, for about 20 per- 
cent. In Los Angeles County and the San Francisco Bay area and in 
New York State, regulations pertaining to solvent emissions and the 
solvent content of paints and other architectural coatings are already 
in effect. 

Since varying State and local regulations may cause 2)roblems not 
only to manufacturers of solvent-containing products but also to orga- 
nizations such as the General Services Administration and the Depart- 
ment of Defense, which have their own specifications for such prod- 
ucts, there may be a need for Federal involvement in dealing with 
solvent emissions. The provisions of S. 3229 would provide a basis for 
such involvement, but further study is necessary to determine what 
measures would be most effective. 

In summary, I believe that enactment of the administration bill is 
essential to the Nation's attack on air pollution. Some of the provisions 
of S. 3229 and S. 3546 would also contribute to this effort. I recognize 
that we do not all agree on all the provisions of these bills. But I am 
sure we can agree on the need to itensify and expand our efforts be- 
yond the existing provisions of the Clean Air Act. 

I turn now, Mr. Chairman, to the proposals regarding noise con- 
tained in title II of S. 3229. Unwanted sound is a major component 
of environmental pollution. It is a growing problem, and there is need 
for intensified research leading ultimately to effective abatement and 
control procedures. Dr. Alexander Cohen, the Department's leading 



141 

noise expert, will describe for you the present state of the art and our 
ongoinc; programs hiter this morning. 

The problem is not whether to tackle "noise pollution" but how 
best to proceed. Perhaps some background would be useful. 

When the Enviromnental Quality Council (now the Cabinet Com- 
mittee on the Environment) was established, the importance of this 
environmental problem was recognized in the creation of a Connnittee 
on Xoise, chaired by the Secretary of Commerce, with the Secretaries 
of Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, and Health, 
Education, and Welfare as members. This Committee developed a pre- 
liminary strategy for a national attack on noise pollution. With the 
passage of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the newly 
created Council on Environmental Quality is undertaking a compre- 
hensive review of the Committee's report. 

S. 3229 would establish a new Office of Noise Abatement and Con- 
trol in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. We do 
not think it would be desirable to separate out in this way the prob- 
lems of noise from all our other environmental and health programs. 

Beyond this reason for recommending against enactment of title II 
of S. 3229, there are two others of even greater weight : 

(1) We strongly believe that it would be unwise to establish such an 
office by statute. To do so would diminish the organizational flexi- 
bility that is so essential to the Department's efficient and effective 
use of its total resources. 

(2) As I have noted, the Congress recently created the Council on 
Environmental Quality with a comprehensive mandate in the area 
of ecology. It has just embarked on thorough reviews and studies of 
noise pollution and all other environmental components. We do not 
recommend any further assignment of statutory function, pending the 
Council's recommendations to the President and those of the White 
House Council on Government Organization. 

It will now be a pleasure to take your questions, Mr. Chairman, on 
all the subjects we have covered in this statement. 

]Mr. Vexemax. ]Mr. Chairman, also, I thinlv the committee is to be 
commended for their efforts in the past and their interest in develop- 
ing legislation that has set an objective to work toward. 

As far as Senator Randolph's opening statement is concerned, I will 
fry to respond to the various issues he raised in more detail, or ]Mr. 
Johnson or Dr. Middleton might. 

But to bring you up to date on the air quality control regions, we 
presently have 29 of the 57, and we anticipate having 40 by June 30, 
and we propose that all 57 will be designated by September 1. 

With regard to the reports that were received by the committee on 
Friday, I shall not attempt to make excuses for the Department for 
the delay. I realize that the one report was due in November and the 
other two were due in January. They were held up in the review proc- 
esses. We would hope that in the future the connnittee would have 
additional time in receiving this. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I think the con- 
cern that has been expressed in the preliminary statements is also 
shared by the President, who rightly described the air as our most 
vital resource and air pollution as our most serious environmental 
problem. To strengthen and to speed up the Nation's attack on this 



142 

problom, he lias proposed a series of amendments to the Clean Air 
Art. These projwsals are before voii today in S. 3466. 

The administration bill is not a radicial departure from the present 
Clean Air Act. Eather, it preserves the best features of that act and 
provides for necessary change. It guarantees continuity with ongomg 

efforts. ■ ..... 

The administration bill does break new ground m its recognition ot 
the fact that the Nation's air resource is indivisible. Air, polluted or 
not, crosses the imaginary lines that divide State from State. Air 
quality, therefore, is not a matter of purely local or regional concern. 
It is of national concern. And that national concern must be reflected 
in the way air quality standards are established. 

Tender the proposed'bill, two other matters of national concern also 
would be the focus of national efforts: (a) new stationary sources of 
air pollution that would contribute substantially to endangering public 
health or welfare; and (&) any stationary source emitting pollutants 
that are extremely hazardous to health. S. 3466 would authorize the 
establishment of iiational emission standards for these sources. 

National air quality standards and stationary source emission 
standards obviously would have to be applied to many different situa- 
tions. Thus, the administration bill provides for continued decentral- 
ization of the responsibility for tlie implementation and enforcement 
aspects. 

The measure would also provide new tools for dealing with a problem 
that has long been recognized as national in scope — the problem of 
motor vehicle pollution. Of particular importance are the provisions 
dealing with fuels and fuel additives. Automobile engines are not the 
sole caiise of the problem. Engines, fuels, and additives are interrelated 
problems and must be treated as such. 

Later in this statement I want to make note of certain actions we 
already are taking in this area of fuels and fuel additives — pending 
congressional action on our proposed legislation. 

Now, let me highlight the specific provisions of the bill. Section 6 
would authorize the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to 
establish national air quality standards, and section 7 would call upon 
each State to adopt an implementation plan for each area within the 
State. Our objective is to insure that air quality standards are put into 
effect across the entire Nation. We see three principal advantages in 
the establishment by the Federal Government of nationwide uniform 
standards : 

First, no State can be expected to take into account, in standard set- 
ting, the total effects of air pollution beyond its own boundaries. 

Second, States would be able to concentrate their resources on the 
critical tasks of implementation and enforcement. 

And, third, the process of putting air quality standards into effect 
would be accelerated, because there would be no time consumed in 
reviewing and approving standards for each air quality control region. 

National air quality standards would be derived from the best avail- 
able scientific knowledge, developed both within and outside the Fed- 
eral Government. 

Once formulated, such national standards would be published in the 
Federal Register, and all interested parties, including the general pub- 
lic, would have an opportunty to submit comments for consideration 
prior to issuance of the standards. 



143 

Therefore, whereas each State now sets air quality standards for 
specific polhitants on the basis of Federal air quality criteria docu- 
ments— which describe effects of pollutants at various concentrations— 
the Federal Government, under our bill, would establish uniform 
standards nationwide. 

The provisions for national air quality standard setting would not 
impair any State's right to establish standards requiring higher levels 

of air quality. . i • • 1,4. 

I think we should particularly emphasize that point, that this right 

is stated as a national policy in the Clean Air Act, and it is a right that 

we reaffirm. 

Following the promulgation of national standards, each State would 
have 90 days to sio-nify its intention to adopt an implementation plan, 
describe the steps""it would take to develop such a plan, and indicate 
which areas of the State would be given priority. 

In their implementation plans, the States would have to spell out 
the measures to be taken to achieve and preserve national air quality 
standards— or even higher air qua] ity levels. _ 

One of the express purposes of the Clean Air Act is ;'to protect 
and enhance the qualitv of the Xation's air resources." It will continue 
to be our view that im])lementation plans that would permit significant 
deterioration of air quality in any area would be in conflict with the 
provisions of the act. We"^do not' intend to condone "backsliding." 

If an area has air quality which is better than the national standards, 
they would be required to stay there and not pollute the air even 
further, even though they may'be below national standards. 

State implementations' plans would have to include provisions for 
intergovernmental cooperation, particularly in dealing with interstate 
air pollution problems. Under the administration bill, it would be an 
HEW responsibility to designate significant interstate problem areas. 

We estimate that there are about 50 such areas at present. This num- 
ber includes 21 of the first 57 areas marked for designation as air 
quality control regions under the provisions of the existing Clean Air 

Act. ' ..■,.•! 

States generally will be expected to submit implementation plans 
no more than 6 months after filing letters of intent. If there is good 
reason why more time should be allowed, for some areas withm the 
State, then an extension would be authorized. 

In provisions corresponding to those I have been discussing, fe. 3545, 
sponsored by the chairman, would provide for continued regional air 
pollution control efforts alons^ essentially the same lines as the Clean 
Air Act. S. 3546 calls for accelerated designation of air quality con- 
trol regions through a combination of Federal and State action. 

The States would continue to be responsible for adopting air quality 
standards and implementation plans. The timetable for State action 
would be cut down by two months through a reduction m the time 
allowed for filing letters of intent. .„ , . „ 

As a general rule, under the administration bill, the time span tor 
State action leading to submission of an implementation plan would be 
9 months. Under the present act, the time span is 15 months. Under 
S. 3546, it would be 13 months. . . 

I come now to the second major element of the administration bill; 
authorization for the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 



144 

to establish national emission standards for certain stationary sources 
of air pollution. 

With one important exception, such national emission standards 
would apply only to new stationary sources of certain specified types 
and classes. The exception would involve air pollutants that are ex- 
tremely hazardous to health in such cases, national emission stand- 
ards could be applied to all stationary source emissions. 

In general, existing stationary sources of air pollution are so numer- 
ous and diverse that the problems they pose can most efficiently be 
attacked by State and local agencies. Even with air quality standards 
being set nationally, dealing with existing stationary sources would 
necessarily vary from one State to another and, within States, from 
one area to another. 

In the years ahead, however, many potentially significant new sta- 
tionaiy sources of air pollution will come into being— to meet growing 
demands for electric power, manufactured goods, and other necessi- 
ties and amenities of modern life. Large stationary sources, such as 
electric generating plants, iron and steel mills, and petroleum refineries, 
often have adverse effects on air quality over broad geographic areas, 
and this is the kind of problem that demands national attention. 

If we are ever to begin preventing air pollution, instead of just 
attacking it after the fact, then we must at least insure that major new 
stationary sources, wherever they are located, are designed and 
equipped to reduce emissions to minimum feasible levels using the 
latest available technology. 

The application of national emission standards would also tend to 
minimize the competitive advantage of locating a new facility in an 
area where emission standards are less rigorous than in other areas. 
This would eliminate "polluter havens" that exist today. 

With respect to pollutants that are extremely hazardous to health, 
national emission standards could be applied to existing, as well as 
new, stationary sources. Such pollutants might include asbestos, beryl- 
lium, cadmium, biological aerosols, and chlorinated hydrocarbons. 

Under the administration bill, new sources of extremely hazardous 
pollutants could not be constructed or operated without a specific 
exemption from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. 
And such exemptions would be granted only where we are satisfied 
that emissions would be effectively controlled. Existing sources would 
be required to take any measures necessary to comply with the applica- 
ble standards. 

S. 3546 approaches the prevention of air pollution from stationary 
sources in a different way. It would provide for Federal regulations to 
insure that new buildings, structures, or other facilities are equipped 
with the best available air pollution control teclmiques. 

This provision apparently would apply to all new buildings and 
would mean establishing a Federal-State system for review of con- 
struction plans. 

From the standpoint of most efficient use of available resources, we 
feel the proWsions of our bill are preferable. It would focus on the 
most significant new stationary source problems and on those existing 
sources whose emissions pose the gi'eatest threat to health. 

Although States would have primary responsibility for enforce- 
ment of air quality and emission standards, our bill provides for effec- 
tive Federal action where States fail to get the job done. 



145 

Federal enforcement action could be initiated whenever (a) air 
quality fails to meet the applicable air quality standards, or stationary 
source emissions are in excess of applicable national emission stand- 
ards, and (h) this results from a State's failure to carry out its imple- 
mentation plan. 

There would be a two-step procedure, rather than the three-step 
procedure under the existing act. A hearing would be the first step. 
Then the Department would specify the remedial action to be taken, 
and allow a period of not less than 60 days for such action to get 
under way. If the specified action were not taken, the Department 
could ask the Attorney General to bring suit to enjoin failure to com- 
ply. Federal district courts would be authorized to assess fines up to 
$10,000 a day. _ _ . 

Under S. 3546, Federal enforcement would involve issuance of abate- 
ment orders. If alleged polluters requested a hearing on an abatement 
order, a decision made by the Department of Health, Education, and 
Welfare after such a hearing could be appealed in court. The Depart- 
ment's findings, if supported by substantial evidence on the record 
considered as a whole, would be conclusive. If necessary, in order to 
enforce an abatement order, the Department could institute civil 
action. 

In our judgment, the enforcement procedure we propose is prefer- 
able because, as already described, it is simpler and more direct. 

S. 3546 includes two other provisions relating to control of air pol- 
lution from stationary sources. One would give our Department the 
right of entry to buildings, structures, or other facilities and would 
authorize us to require polluters to measure emissions in cases where a 
final abatement order has been issued. 

We view this provision favorabh', but we would suggest that it be 
made more explicit to provide specifically for inspections and access to 
relevant information. Such authority, within the framework of our 
bill's enforcement provisions, could help to insure an effective enforce- 
ment program. 

The other provision would require compliance with applicable 
standards and control requirements as a condition of eligibility for 
Federal loans, grants, licenses, permits, and contracts for construction, 
and Federal procurement of goods or products. 

We have some reservations about this particular provision, which 
is the concept of enforcement through Federal procurement that is 
presently being studied at the Federal level. But effective enforcement 
would require a very substantial and possibly unwarranted invest- 
ment of resources. 

Moreover, the objective could most likely be accomplished more sim- 
ply and directly through State or Federal enforcement or air quality 
and emission standards, as proposed in the administration bill. 

I would now like to turn to the area of motor vehicle pollution con- 
trol. The establishment and enforcement of national emission stand- 
ards for new motor vehicles constitute the cornerstone of our program. 
The administration bill would improve our enforcement activity in 
three principal ways : (1) by authorizing assembly line testing of new 
motor vehicles; (2) by providing for revocation of certificates of con- 
formity when such testing shows that new vehicles do not meet the 
standards; and (3) by prohibiting importation of all motor vehicles 
that are not equipped to comply with the standards. 



146 

Under the existing act, testing of prototypes in advance of actual 
production is the principal means of determining whether new motor 
veliicles will comply with the standards. If we find that they will, the 
manufacturer is issued a certificate of conformity. We have found, 
however, that production models do not j)erform as well as the 
prototypes. 

To insure that vehicles meet the standards when they come off the 
assembly line, we must test them at that point. And if they fail to 
measure up, we must l^e able to require that manufacturers make what- 
ever adjustments are necessary. Clear authority to revoke certificates 
of conformity would enable us to accomplish this. 

Tlie administration bill also would enable us to open a second front 
in the fight against air j^olhition from motor vehicles. I refer to the 
bill's provisions for registration and regulation of fuels and fuel addi- 
tives used in transportation. 

Effective control of motor vehicle pollution requires that we deal 
not only with engines and control devices but also with fuels and fuel 
additives. 

Under the existing act, however, the Federal action can be taken 
only with respect to the motor vehicle itself. Fuels are beyond our 
reach. The Federal Government nnist be in a position to require fuel 
modifications and changes in the use of additives. 

There has been a great deal of discussion about the standards we 
recently proposed in the Federal Register for 1975 model automobiles. 
And much of it has centered on the lead additive now used in almost 
all gasoline. 

The proposed 1975 standards call for major reductions in emissions 
of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides. They also re- 
quire, for the first time, control of particulate emissions. Much of 
this form of emissions is lead — and it appears unlikely that the 1975 
standard for particulates can be met without the removal or major re- 
duction of lead in gasoline. 

Moreover, devices that the auto manufacturers plan to use in order 
to achieve the 1975 standards for gaseous emissions cannot be used 
with leaded gasolines. 

Most firms m both the automobile and petroleum industries have rec- 
ognized that lead must soon be removed from gasoline. Automobile 
manufactures are preparing to market 1971 cars that can operate satis- 
factorily on low-octane unleaded fuel. A number of major oil com- 
panies either have plans or have indicated a willingness to make un- 
leaded gasoline available for those vehicles. 

There are still many questions to be resolved — such as the timing of 
the removal of lead from gasoline, and the number and types of fuels 
to be marketed. And the answers will have a significant impact both 
on consumers' pocketbooks and on the quality of the air we breathe. 

Members of the industries involved have recognized the need for 
Federal leadership in suggesting the answers, and our ])ill would give 
us the needed regulatory authority. 

In the meantime, we must take advantage of the commendable will- 
ingness of most petroleum companies to provide unleaded fuels. We 
want to avoid fragmented and possibly counter-productive actions by 
individual firms. Therefore, we are sending letters this week to execu- 
tives in the petroleum industry requesting their views on the basic is- 



147 

sues as well as information on their pre^sent plans, resources, and 
problems. 

Then, on the basis of their responses — and working also with the 
automobile and lead additive companies — we will seek t-o develop an 
interim course of voluntary action. 

I now turn to S. 3229, which, like the administration bill, would ex- 
tend the Clean Air Act for 3 years and amend it in several respects. 

S. 3229 contains provisions designed to stimulate the development of 
low-pollution vehicles of various types. We certainly fully agree with 
that objective, as the President's environmental message clearly indi- 
cated. But we do not feel that new legislation is required, except for 
Federal procurement. 

Under section 104 of the existing act, we already are greatly in- 
creasing our progi*am of research and development — with primary 
emphasis on the development of low-pollution alternatives to the in- 
ternal combustion engine. And to provide financial incentives for ef- 
forts in the private sector, HEW has initiated a program for the 
purchase and testing of low-pollution vehicles, individually and in 
fleets. 

In fiscal 1971, we propose to earmark at least $12 million for these 
activities — about $9 million of which would be devoted to the develop- 
ment of unconventional power sources. 

Another provision of S. 3229 would authorize the Department to 
require automobile manufacturers to provide warranties on air pollu- 
tion control equipment. While the exact nature and scope of such 
warranty requirements would have to be worked out, the proposed 
authority might well be a desirable additional means to insure proper 
performance of emission control systems throughout the useful life 
of an automobile. 

S. 3229 would also authorize the Department to establish separate 
emission standards for commercial vehicles, both old and new, and 
we believe this proposal appears to have merit. 

It would enable us, for example, to establish special emission stand- 
ards for commercial vehicles oi^erated in fleets, such as taxicaljs. We 
have found that fleet vehicles generall}" are used more intensively 
than noncommercial vehicles and thus make a proportionately greater 
contribution to the problem of air pollution, particularly in the 
large urban areas. 

On the other hand, the centralized maintenance and servicing facili- 
ties usually associated with fleet operations offer opportunities for 
the ap]:)lication of control techniques — the use of special fuels, for 
example — that generally would not be practical for family cars. 

The proposed authority to set standards for commercial vehicles 
also could be used to broaden our attack on the obnoxious problem 
of diesel smoke and its odors. 

S. 3229 also would authorize the Department to establish national 
standards for the control of emissions from aircraft, vessels, locomo- 
tives, and agricultural vehicles. 

While vessels, locomotives and agricultural vehicles are not now 
major pollution sources, and do not require immediate attention, 
we support the principle of ultimately making them subject to emis- 
sion controls. 



148 

i 

Our Department, in conjunction with the Department of Trans-^ 
portation, has already taken a major step toward controlling air 
pollution from aircraft. 

At a meeting last January, attended by representatives of 31 air- 
lines, we proposed a tight "schedule for installation of "smokeless" 
combustors in JT8D engines. These engines account for a major share 
of the jet aircraft smoke problem. The airlines have agreed to our 
schedule, which means that this program will be substantially com- 
pleted by late 1972, By mid-April, we expect to have detailecl action 
plans from the airline'^s, and the Department of Transportation will 
furnish us quarterly progress reports. 

Of course, smoke is not the only pollutant emitted by aircraft. 
We are exi)loring various means of controlling gaseous emissions 
as well. And we will seek prompt application of new knowledge. 
If the enactment of laws and regulations becomes necessary, we will 
recommend that approach. But where we can make progress in the 
absence of legislation, we will continue to do so. 

In summary, I believe that enactment of the administration bill is 
essential to the Nation's attack on air pollution. Some of the provisions 
of S. 3229 and S. 3546 would also contribute to this effort. I recognize 
that we do not all agree on all the provisions of these bills. But I am 
sure we can agree on the need to intensify and expand our efforts 
beyond the existing provision of the Clean Air Act. 

]\rr. Chairman, I would like to speak very briefly to the proposals 
regarding noise contained in title II of S. 3229. Unwanted sound is 
a major component of environmental pollution. It is a growing problem 
and there is need for intensified research leading ultimately to effective 
abatement and/or control procedures. 

Dr. Alexander Cohen, the Department's leading noise expert, will 
describe for you the present state of the art and our ongoing programs 
later this morning. 

I think we would like to em])hasize that the question is not whether 
we should tackle the noise pollution problem, but the question is how 
we can best tackle the noise pollution problem. 

When the Environmental Quality Council (now the Cabinet Com- 
mittee on the Environment) was established, the importance of this 
problem was recognized in the creation of a Cabinet-level Committee 
on Noise. This Committee developed recommendations for a national 
attack on noise pollution. 

Following passage of the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969, the newly-created Council on Environmental Quality is under- 
taking a comprehensive review of the Committee's report. 

S. 3229 would establish a new Office of Noise Abatement and Control 
in the_ Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. We do not 
thinkit would be desirable to separate out, in this way, the problems 
of noise from all our other environmental and health programs. 

Beyond this reason for recommending against enactment of title II 
of S. 3229, there are two others of even greater weight : 

1. We strongly believe that it would be unwise to establish such an 
office by statute. To do so would diminish the organizational flexibility 
that is so essential to the Department's efficient and effective use of 
its total resources. 

2. We do not favor new statutory assignments of noise control re- 
sponsibilities until the Council on "Environmental Qualitv has com- 



149 

pleted its review of ongoing activities and sul^mitted its recommenda- 
tion:^ to the President. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe that I liave covered most of tlie subjects that 
are incorporated in the statement that was filed with the committee, 
I would be very pleased to respond to any questions the members of 
tlie committee may have. Those that I cannot respond to, I will pass off 
to the experts from the Department who have been around since the 
Clean Air Act was adopted. 

Senator Muskte. There are two other statements, one of Dr. Cohen. 
Is that going to be presented by Mr. Saperstein ? 

]Mr. VEXE^rAN. No. Dr. Cohen's statement we anticipated would be 
submitted this afternoon, along with Mr. Johnson's. Or do you want to 
attempt to do it after the discussion now? We can do it either way. 

Senator MrsKiK. At any rate, they are not essential at this point? 

!Mr. Vexemax. Xo. 

Senator ^Iuskie. I think, because of the number of committee mem- 
bers present, we ought to enforce a 10-minute rule for questioning on 
each of us, if there is no objection from the committee. 

The new concept tliat the administration bill introduces with re- 
spects to air pollution control and national ambient air standards, 
combined in the case of two categories of industries, is national emis- 
sion standards. 

It is going to take a little time, I tliink, to sort out the differences 
from the approach incorporated in the 1067 act. 

I will try at least to begin the sorting out with a few questions, if 
I may. 

First of all, as I read the administration bill, it will repeal the author- 
ity to designate the air quality control regions. You have stated in 
your testimony that you are proceeding with the designation of air 
quality control regions under the 1967 act. Can you relate to me how 
you would move from the air quality control regions into this national 
amlnent air standard? Why would you repeal the authority to desig- 
nate such regions if you j^roposed to use them ? 

Mr. Vex^emax. Well, first of all, with regard to moving ahead on the 
57 regions, we do not have a new act at this point. Of course, we are 
going to continue to proceed in that particular area. I will let Mr. 
Jolmson speak to the question of the new procedure for getting the 
entire Nation under air quality regions and the need for making the 
modifications in the proposal. ' 

Senator Muskie. It might be helpful for the record if I might justify 
my understanding of how the present act works. 

Upon the designation of the air quality control regions, there is a 
necessarv^ precondition, or the triggering device, for setting in motion 
the standard-setting machinery. 

The standard-setting machinery then applies to the criteria which 
have been issued by the Department and which now include, I take it, 
five in all. 

Mr. Vexemax. Yes, five, and we anticipate there would be nine 
by January 1. 

Senator Muskie. So if you proceed with the designation of the air 
quality control regions, you would continue the settings of the ambient 
air standards under the 1967 act. This raises two questions: (1) 
Wliether the air quality control regions, and whatever is done for 



150 

s^ettiii^ the standards under the 1967 act, would be rendered useless. 
11 the administration proposal were adopted, what would be the 
relationship ? 

Mr. Johnson. Well, actually, Mr. Chairman, we would build on 
what we have now. We think that what we are doing is still good. 
We don't think we are moving fast enough. The new procedure in 
the administration bill would give us, within a meaningful period 
of time, actual national standards covering the entire Nation, all 
50 States and attendant territories, within a period of about a year 
and a half. 

We Avould build on the air quality standards that are now existent 
in the present air quality control regions. No regions would be dis- 
solved until such time as future needs would determine that there 
is a better configuration. So the 57 or more than we would have at 
the time that the new bill came into effect would still be in force. 

Also, the new bill recognizes that tliere will be situations which 
would be interstate types of situations in whicli the Federal Govern- 
ment should help work tliose problems out. 

Senator Muskie. Would you have in mind eventually State control 
machinery at the air quality control region level ? 

Mr. Johnson. Very definitely, sir. The whole point is to ]dace the 
States in control of the implementation of the national air quality 
standards and the enforcement of those standards. 

Senator Muskie. That is fully consistent with the present act. 

Mr. Johnson. That is correct. 

Senator Muskh:. In your statement, Mr. Under Secretary, you said 
that the national ambient air standards should be based on criteria 
documents. The proposed bill would repeal the section of the 1967 act 
which provides for the establishment of criteria. 

Mr. A^'eneman. No. I think we have to distinguish between the 
criteria and standards. We would continue to develop criteria. It 
would be the intention to base the standards upon the criteria that 
were developed. Criterin. of course, are facts. Each criteria document 
is the assimilation of factual information and data wliich are avail- 
able to help determine what the standards should be, which would be 
no less thai\ the criteria. 

Senator Mfskie. ^Y^\y do you provide for the rei 'eal of the a iitlmrity 
in the present law or mandate — it is not authority, but it is a mandate. 
The provision of the law is thnt "the Secretavv shall after consultation 
with the nppropriate advisorv committees. Federal departments and 
agencies, from time to time, issue to the States such criteria of their 
quality that in his judgment may be requisite for the protection of the 
]iublic health and welfare," and so on. 

One of tJie reasons wo wrote that into the 1967 act was that the au- 
thoritv wJiicli was created in tlie 1963 act to establish criteria was never 
Hpplemented. We wanted to make sure in the 1967 act that the Ton- 
gross regarded this as an essential activity. 

Now, vou pro]wse to ro]ieal it. If you' projiose to continue to use it. 
wh V don 't we kee p i t i n th o 1 a w ? " ' 

^ Mr. Venehtan. Well, I think it is a point we could easily give, Mr. 
(Miap-man. Tlie basis upoji yrhidi the standard would be set would re- 
quire tlie continuation of ostablishin.q- criteria. 

Now, if it makes the act clearer, the requiremon.t that we e.sta]:»lish 
criteria, I think, could be verv easilv written back into the bill. I don't 



151 

think there would be any technical or administrative objections to 

that. . ■ • ^ n J. 

Senator Muskie. The reason I emphasize the point is the farst one 

I already made. 

Second, you say in your statement that the national ambient air 
quality standards are minimal standards, and that States are in a 
position to impose higher standards, if they so desire. 

If the higher standards are to be imposed, it would seem to me that 
they ought to be related to the criteria which must be developed by the 
Federal Government. If they have developed uniform approaches to 
the problems, there ought to be criteria to trigger that action on their 

part. 

Mr. Veneman. It w^ould be essential that there would be criteria, 
Senator, and the kind of information by which the national quality 
standards were developed, such as the criteria, would be made avail- 
able to the States. 

Now, as I say, I don't see any particular problem with being more 
specific in the language. I don"t think it causes any particular problem. 

Senator Muskie. Then the next question I would ask is with respect 
to the standards. You also would repeal the provision for standard-set- 
ting conferences. It is my impression that these are proving to be 
a very useful way of involving citizen participation in the stand- 
ard-setting process. In the case of the city of Pittsburgh, for example — 
I am told this is the judgment of NAPCA — the conference on citizen 
participation resulted in the toughest standards that have been set. 
And this has all been accomplished because we have found a way to 
channel public concern into an institutional form. Why, then, repeal 
the standard-setting conferences ? 

Mr. Veneman. ^Vell, I think we have to recognize two things, one 
of which is the fact that we are establishing national standards. It is 
not as it w^as previously where the hearings were conducted within 
the State, which is a relatively simple thing to do. 

Senator Muskie. The national standards are in two limited areas, 
however, important. There are other areas, which you say you are not 
going to touch on. You are going to touch on your national standards. 

Mr. Veneman. Let me point out, I think in my testimony I at- 
temj)ted to make it clear that during the period when the State was 
developing its implementation plans that there would be the oppor- 
tunity for public participation ; for public input. It is not a hearing in 
the sense you have described it, as in the previous act. But there is the 
opportunity for public comment. 

Senator Muskie. Public comment is different from a hearing, 

Mr. Veneman. Well, when you are setting a national standard, I 
find it difficult to see how we will set up a national hearing process. 
Now, we have seen some of that occur in Government. We have it 
before our Department right now. We have had hearings going on for 
over 2 years on food and drugs, and I don't think that is what the 
public wants when they are dealing in setting standards. I think they 
want action more rapidly than that. 

Senator Muskie. My time is up, and I must leave this point. I will 
return to it, unless my colleagues cover it further. But let me say this : 
As I understand the national ambient air quality proposal, it deals 
with ambient air. Standards, to me, imply mass machinery imple- 



152 

mentation, as well, at the level of those pollutants which are the objec- 
tive. But you leave implementation to the States. It seems to me that 
the States ought to be in a position, then, since your anibient quality 
standards are minimal rather than maximum, to participate in the 
standard'Setting procedure in a way that would put into motion the 
toughest standards that the community wants at that time. 

If you just issue minimum air quality standards that are applicable 
nationally and open up a temptation to buy those — whatever the com- 
munity's needs may be — and you don't provide for public participation 
to screw up the local courage, to stiffen the standards as it may be nec- 
essary in a community, then it seems to me you may be setting up here 
a minimal standard rather than a maximum one, which we need in 
some metropolitan areas. 

Mr. Veneman. We don't preclude that. If the State wanted to go 
above the national air quality standard, they could have public hear- 
ings as frequently as they desired and as lengthy as they desired. 

Senator Muskie. It wouldn't be provided in national legislation — 
required, a mandate. I know one of the things industries don't like is 
this public participation. I like to give it the blessing of national leg- 
islation by writing it into the law. Senator Boggs can pursue this. I am 
sure he is interested in the same point, and I don't want to trespass on 
my colleague's time. 

Senator Boggs. You are not. We want the chairman to take all of 
the time he wants. You are very generous about sharing the time 
with us. 

To pursue that point a bit so that we can try to understand what 
we are talking about : Section T of S. 3466 says, "Such State or inter- 
state agency adopts a plan for the implementation, maintenance, and 
enforcement of such standards of air quality, which adoption occurs 
within 180 days after the filing of such letter of intent and other 
material pursuant to subparagraph (A) and after public hearings 
held not less than 30 days following publication of a proj^osed plan for 
implementation," and so forth. 

This specifically provides for public hearings at the State level in 
support of whatever implementation plan the State may propose after 
the national standards have been issued. Is that correct? 

Mr. Vexeman. When the State is developing an implementation 
plan, there would be an opportunity for public input, that is correct. 

Senator Boggs. The implementation plan by the State is proposed 
after the national air quality standards have been published, is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Veneman. Well, the State implementation would be the plan 
by which they would put into effect within their State, the national 
ambient air quality standards. 

Senator Boggs. Or higher ? 

Mr. Veneman. Or liigher. And I think the issue the chairman is 
questioning is whether or not there must be public input into the 
development of the national ambient air quality standards. There are 
public hearings prior to development of the State implementation 
plans. I think this is where we have to distinguish. 

Senator Muskie. Will the gentleman yield ? 

Senator Boggs. I yield. 

Senator Muskie. It troubles me very much. This committee has had 
long discussions about the difference between standards and criteria. 



153 

The criteria establish the relationship between pollutant and the health 
and welfare effects. This is scientific and technical, and it is a necessary 
base for setting the public policy. 

But standards, in my understanding of them, include the imple- 
mentation plan. That is the definition we have always had, and yet, 
you are talking about the State plan to implement standards by the 
standards already set by the Govermnent, which presumably include 
timetables. If not, what is the meaning of "standards"' under what 
we are discussing ? 

Senator Boggs. Would you discuss that further ? 

Mr. Johnson. I think we are talking about three things, Mr. Chair- 
man. One, we are talking about the criteria against which all stand- 
ards are developed. National ambient air quality standards would be 
developed from criteria. 

Xow, in order to meet these standards, you have to have developed 
point source emission standards to give you the mix that ultimately 
produces the ambient air quality that a community has to enjoy. 

Now, in the development of the ambient air quality standards on a 
national basis, this would be done by the Federal Government. It 
would be proposed and published in the Federal Eegister, and we would 
invite public comment on those national ambient air quality standards. 

Now, it is important to point out here that these are not minimal. 
These would be very tough standards designed to carry out the in- 
tent and purpose of the Air Quality Act, to enhance and protect the 
public health and welfare. Now, once we did 

Senator Muskie. Let me read from the Secretary's statement. It 
says, "The provisions for national air quality standard-setting would 
not impair any State's right to establish standards requiring higher 
levels of air quality." 

Mr. Johnson. That is true. 

Senator Muskie. If higher standards of air quality are technolog- 
ically possible, then why does your proposed policy admit the pos- 
sibility that the national standard would require something less than 
is technologically possible ? 

Mr. Johnson. That is very easily explained, Mr. Chairman. You 
take an area like, let us say, Miami. They need very good, exceptionally 
high-quality air that is much better than you are likely to get, even 
with the best technology, in New York or Chicago, in order to con- 
tinue to take care of their tourist trade. 

Now, when they do this, they are going to be protecting against the 
encroachment of that air quality by the introduction of new indus- 
tries, even with the best technology, which would cause some deteriora- 
tion in the quality of that air. 

Now, that is where a local community can do more to carry out even 
more stringent standards than would be proposed on a national basis. 
You could carry that into any number of other situations and come up 
with somewhat the same conclusion. 

Senator Muskie. AVhat you are talking about relates to public policy 
as it bears upon the siting of new industry, the zoning of land. 

Mr. Johnson. That is correct. 

Senator Muskie. What I thought we were talking about were air 
quality standards and standards that would be met by standards of 
pollutants and by the way in which we control emissions. 



154 

Mr. Johnson. Remember, I s^aid we have three things we are con- 
sidering. One is criteria, against which you set stnadards; two, the na- 
tional ambient — that is the general air quality — standards set by the 
Federal Government; three, the implementation plan. A State has to 
tell how it is going to control the point source emissions that contrib- 
ute to whatever air pollution they are attempting to control, the power 
sources, the industrial sources, the home incineration, this type of thing. 

The}^ Avill set point source emission standards that they feel are de- 
signed to achieve at least the national air quality or better, if they so 
choose. 

They can hold public liearings in order to do this so that the public 
gets an opportunity to determnie how much better than the national 
standards they want their air quality to be. 

Senator Muskie. I am interested in all that you have said, but I 
still haven't had an answer to the question. The Secretary's statement 
clearly implies — and you said so — with respect to the performance of 
existing polluters, the national air quality standards must be exceeded 
by local standards or State standards. That means the State conceiv- 
ably could, under the policy you are enunciating, require a stricter 
application of technological possibilities than the national standards. 
Do you mean that or don't you ? 

Mr. Johnson. Perhaps there is another element that is being con- 
fused here, Mr. Chairman. Within the existing legislation, and even 
within the proposed legislation, there are certain responsibilities and 
authorities given to the Federal Government for even point source 
emission standards, as opposed to ambient air quality standards. 

For instance, under the proposed legislation we would set national 
standards for those types of new sources that contribute substantially 
to the pollution of the air and that affect on the health and welfare 
of the people. 

In that instance, there would be at the Federal level point source 
emission standards that would be applicable throughout the Nation 
and that would be required b}^ all people that came within the purview 
of that portion of the act. 

Senator Muskie. I still haven't had an answer to my question, but 
I will get back to it later. In order to fully pursue it, I have to raise 
some other questions. 

Thank you. 

Senator Boggs. I have several other questions on other topics, but 
I would like to yield to the other members of the committee if they 
wish to pursue this question, Mr. Chairman. I think it is imj^ortant 
that we get an understanding of this. 

Senator Muskh:. Senator Spong ? 

Senator Spong. I would just like to ask one question. Under the 
present bill, S. 3466, there is no provision for public hearings prior 
to the establishment of national standards ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Venetian. Prior to enactment. 

Senator Spong. So prior to this legislation at the present there is 
no provision for public hearings, and you contemplate hearings at the 
State level when the enforcement procedures are being reviewed ? 

Mr. Veneman. During the 6-month period when they are de- 
veloping their implementation plans there is requirement of public 



155 

hearings. There is an opportunity for public comment as it relates to 
the establishment of Federal standards. 

Senator Muskie. May I ask one question ? 

Senator Spong. I yield. 

Senator Muskie. I just want to know where we get into the ma- 
chinery or the process of setting higher standards by the States. If 
you merely issue national standards, whether they are minimal or 
maximum, I am not satisfied. But put that aside for the moment. Let 
us suppose you issue national standards and then you give the State 
time and you provide hearings on implementing those standards. Now, 
suppose the State wants tougher standards ? 

All you are asking of them is not to demonstrate implementation 
of tougher standards. You are not inviting them to make their input 
at that point to raise the standards. You are saying, "Give us a plan 
to implement the national standards." 

You issue standards that aren't tough enough for a particular com- 
munity. Then you say, all you have to show us is your plan for im- 
plementation of these standards. And they give you such a plan. 
Haven't you, in effect, frozen the situation for some time and really 
diluted the potential for stricter standards ? 

Mr. Veneman. "Well, let me, first of all, speak to the question of 
whether or not we want additional language than we have in the 
proposed bill. 

Mr. Chairman, section 109 of the Clean Air Act, which would not 
be repealed, provides : 

"Nothing in this title shall prevent a State, political subdivision, 
intermunicipal or interstate agency from adopting standards and 
plans to implement an air quality program which will achieve a higher 
level of ambient air quality than approved by the Secretary." 

Senator Muskie. But you see, that provision would be in a different 
context under the law as you would revise it than under the present 
law. In the present law, that would be in the context of a procedure 
which leaves the initiative for setting the standards in the first instance 
at the State level. But you propose to eliminate that. You are setting 
national standards. Then when you set them, you go to the States 
and say, "Give us a pi an for implementing these." 

Now, that isn't a time for them to set higher standards ; that is the 
time for implementation, you say. 
proposed bill. 

Mr. Veneman. But there is nothing to preclude them from setting 
higher standards at that time, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Muskie. Under the present law, we go to them and we say, 
"You set the standards. These standards shall measure the require- 
ments of health and welfare in this air quality control region. There 
is nothing minimal about it. If you don't do it, we will do it ; and we 
will do it in terms of your requirements, the requirements of your 
people." 

This isn't minimal. If you ^o to New York City, imder the present 
law, there is nothing about mmimal or maximum. You go in and say, 
under the New York situation, "If you don't set standards sufficient to 
meet the health and welfare requirements of your people, we will set 
them." 



43-166 — 70 — pt. 1 11 



156 

Under present law, you arc not fooling around with whether the na- 
tional needs are tough enough. Should they be tougher? Are we in-| 
vol ved in an implementation plan ? 

You put a clear-cut responsibility for initiating the standards neces- 
sary for particular control of the area right at the State level. You 
pinpoint and you trigger the time for their initiative to run. When 
that time is up, you give them no extension of time, such as your bill 
provides, for delay. When that time runs out, if they haven't set those 
standards, the Federal Government has a clear responsibility to go in 
and not set minimal national standards. 

]\Ir. Veneman. Minimal standards. 

Senator Muskie. You would have to revise your statement. The 
stanclards that are implied apply by the imperatives of the local 
situation. 

As I said at the outset of the hearing, we are interested in new 
ideas; and we are going to explore yours. The question I am raising, 
a very important one, is: At what point do you trigger the setting 
of the highest standards required in a particular problem area? 

It seems to me that you have opened the door to the possibility that 
by seting national standards — whether you call them minimal or not, 
standards that could be exceeded by your own language, something- 
less than maximum for the Nation- — and asking for only implementa- 
tion of those standards, you open up the possibility that the States 
may be satisfied with something less than they ought to be in the given 
problem area. 

I think your legislation, even if your concept is sound — and we 
might buy it, I don't know — I think a loophole here needs to be 
closed. That is why I raise the question. 

Mr. Johnson. I would like to speak very briefly to that because 
there is a very definite point at which the States do get into the act. 
They have an opportunity to work for higher standards, if that is 
what they desire in their particular locality, and that is the time at 
which they have to develop the implementation plan. 

As they develop this implementation plan, they are obligated to 
divulge what quality of air will obtain when they implement this 
implementation plan. 

By doing that, those citizens that are desirous of a higher quality 
of control than required by the national standards can at that time 
insist upon emission control procedures in terms of point source emis- 
sion that will give them that higher quality of air. 

Senator Spong. I think we all understand the difference here, Mr. 
Chairman. I think it has been clearly stated, and we will just have to 
resolve where the middle ground is. 

We have all agreed that there is an urgency, and there has been 
some mention of an overall time schedule when an effective program 
could be initiated. But in reading this over, the proposed changes 
to section 107 would require publication of regulations establishing 
air quality standards within 6 months of enactment of the bill, but 
there is no time schedule for the standards to go into effect. When 
will the standards become effective ? 

Mr. Veneman. Well, the bill provides 90 days after the setting of 
standards for them to declare their intention to come up with their 
implementation plan, then 6 months for them to come up with the 
plan, so after 9 months they would be covered. 



157 

Senator Spong. I don't think that is sufficiently spelled out, but in 
;he interest of time 

Mr. Johnson. There may need to be clarification on that. The intent 
is that each time new national air quality standards were developed, 
;hat within the 9 months' time there would be an implementation 
schedule and plan for that particular standard. 

Senator Spong. Well, I would suggest, Mr. Jolmson, that we have 
;o spell that out in the section. 

Also, there is no definite timetable for issuance of information on 
Dollution control techniques to the State, such as you have in section 
B of 107. It seems to me that this also has to be spelled out. Do you 
have any comment on that ? 

Mr. Johnson. I am sorry, sir. Would you ask that question again ? 

Senator Spong. What I am seeking is, first of all, when the stand- 
ards would become effective. When we move down to section B, when 
will the information be disseminated to the States under that section? 
Is there any time schedule called for? It just seems to me we have a 
irap in here, between the time the bill is enacted and the time the 
States actually go into action. I am just exploring this to ask if that 
is your impression, also. 

jMr. Johnson. The intent is that no later than G months after en- 

ictment of the bill, the Federal Government would issue such ambient 

air quality standards as they have in preparation — and we have indi- 

ated that we would probably have nine such standards by about 

lanuary of 1971. 

Senator Spong. They would be published in the Register ? 

Mr. Johnson. Yes, they would be published. 

Senator Spong. Then would they become effective ? 

Mr. Chairman, I have used my 10 minutes. 

Senator Randolph. Thank you. Senator Spong. Senator Cooper, 
la ve you a desire to question further ? 

Mr. Veneman. Mr. Chairman, may I make one correction, on 
^hen the standards would be in effect. The Secretary would have 
o 

Senator Spong. All he would have to do is publish — 30 days 
ifter they have been published, with due consideration given to the 
lomments received from the public and other interested parties, they 
u'ould become effective. 

Mr. Veneman. Yes; publish in the Federal Register. And it does not 
specify 30 days. There would be reasonable time for comment thereon 
oy interested parties. 

Senator Spong. I don't want to "nit-pick," but I will say that I think 
f this bill is enacted, we must spell out a better timetable. 

Mr. Veneman. Perhaps Mr. Saperstein from the General Counsel's 
office can comment. 

Mr. Saperstein. We can work with you, if you think that is neces- 
sary. I just want to point out the rationale. Senator Muskie was 
worried about our having public hearings throughout the country 
before we establish the standards. That, of course, would take quite a 
bit of time if we had to go all over the country and hold hearings on 
what the standards should be. 

What we have done is to take another method of promulgation of 
regulations which is used by the Federal Government, and that is to 
allow a reasonable time, as it says in the bill, for comment. Then it says, 



158 

we shall, after considering? the comments, promulgate the regulations _ 
establishing the standards. 

Now, if the committee thinks we have to liave some kind of a time 
limitation specilied in the statute, we would be glad to work with you 
on that. But I think you can rely upon the Secretary to try to provide 
a balance between giving the people a reasonable period of time in 
wliich to connnent and, on the other hand, trying to make these stand- 
ards effective as rapidly as possible in order to protect the public 
interest. 

Senator SroNO. Thank you. 

Senator Randolph. Senator Cooper? 

Senator Cooper. I am sure I won't take long. But I want to pursue 
the line of inquiry that Senator Muskie opened, and I hope I don't 
^confuse the issues. 

I v,-ant to speak first to the ambient air quality standards. I want 
to set aside for a moment the emission standards. As I understand it, 
there are two approaches. The Muskie or this committee's approach 
is to develop r^igional air quality standards as opposed to national air 
quality standards. 

You proposed to immediately or as quickly as possible establish 
national ambient air quality standards, and let me say that I think 
that proposal has value. If you wait until every region has established 
standards, it could be a very long time the kind of delay that Senator 
Randolph spoke of. 

I suppose by establishing national air quality standards, you estab- 
lish what might be called a level below Avhich no region in the country 
could pollute the air ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Vbnemax. That would be correct. But I think you have to bear 
in mind, Senator, that the establishment of these standards M'ould be 
pursuant to the national air quality criteria, so that your criteria are 
the basis by which you would establish the standards. 

Senator Cooper. You have a situation in which the standards Avould 
control perhaps the area in the country which is the worst polluted. 
There might be other areas in the country where higher standards 
could be established ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Veneman. There could be other areas with better air quality, 
because of stricter implementation plans. 

Senator Cooper. Why wouldn't it be possible to accept the proposal 
of the administration to establish immediately, or as quickly as possi- 
ble, national ambient air quality standards to place a control on pollu- 
tion all over the country, but at the same time, why couldn't we retain 
the procedure in existence — not just saying they may do this, but pro- 
viding the criteria, so that the regions can make the standards, imple- 
menting them with public hearings. Thus you would enable every 
region in the country to have the opportunity to provide more efficient 
and higher ambient air quality standards ? 

If you preserve the procedure in existence, I think you could ac- 
complish both aims; you could have immediately a standard Mhicb 
would protect the country to some degree, and a very high degree, and 
at the time assist in other areas, to look at their own situation and 
circumstances and develop higher quality standards of that is 
desirable. 

Mr. Veneman. I think. Senator Cooper, this might erode the con- 
cept of having the national air quality standards in the first place. 



159 

If you vrere trying to set uj^ — I shouldn't use tlie word "minimum," 
because the standards tliat are adopted are tough enougli standards. 

I asked Dr. Middleton, trying to put this thing in perspective a 
little bit, to give me an example so that maybe we can make it clear. 
For example, in the criteria that were established for sulphur oxides, 
the minimum identifiable human health effect occurs at a level of 0.04 
part per million. 

Now, in establishing a national air quality standard, it would be 
below that. It would not be above that. 

Now, what we are suggesting is that you do not set standards just 
at the point of minimum impact or effect upon human health. They 
have to be below it. We are suggesting that if a State or an area 
within a State, even in the intrastate regions, wants to reduce that 
even below the national standard, they would have the prerogative. 

Senator Cooper. What I am proposing is the suggestion, to the 
proposition you make, that as quickly as possible to establish national 
standards but maintain the current procedures. In effect, the regions 
would have the procedures, as we have them in the committee bill, to 
effect higher quality air standards. I think you say "they may." Our 
bill, in effect say they "shall" if the conditions require it. 

]Mr. Veneman. Well, Senator, let me toss one out, having spent 
several Aveeks with the Ways and Means Committee discussing 
welfare reform, and this is not too much different. 

In the concept where you are establishing a national minimum 
standard and then permitting the States to supplement, what if we 
were to build in a maintenance of effort provision. Nov,', I am sure 
my attorneys and administrators would be shaken up about that, but 
what if we were to say that any State or locality that is above the 
national minimum standards that were adopted would not be per- 
mitted to go below what they have presently in effect ? 

Senator Cooper. Well, I think I have made my case, and I think 
we can argue it in the committee. But I make the same proposition 
to emission standards and the agents that pollute the air. We can 
accept your proposition of the national emission standards, but at 
the same time provide the regions, if they desire, to adopt higher 
standards. 

One other question that I will pose, I notice some place in your state- 
ment, I think, you said that if the region or an area had a certain 
air quality which might be higher than other areas of the country, 
that tliat would be maintained. It could not be degraded; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Veneman. Yes. We pointed out we did not want deteriora- 
tion of the air in those areas that may be below what the standard 
is at the present time. 

Senator Muskie. Senator Cooper, may I interject at this point? 

Senator Cooper. Yes. 

Senator Mfskie. We always regard a criteria as, in a sense, a stand- 
ard. A criteria identifies the health and welfare effect of pollutants. 
This is factual. It has no relationship to what may be attainable in 
a given community. This should be the ultimate. 

If you establish your criteria scientifically, you ought to be able to 
move in the direction of just background quantities of pollutant. That is 
what criteria are. This is why we want them published, so that the 



160 

public would know what tlie best scientific brains in the country ou2:ht 
to know in terms of eliminating possible dilatory effects upon health 
and welfare. 

You ha\'o repealed that section as a mandatory requirement. Now, a 
standard — in the sense we understand a standard — ^doesn't it identify 
effects that ought to be pretty well understood by the public? And 
from there, the application of the knowledge is in terms of what is 
achievable, I take it ? 

Tlie standard is something di fie rent from the criteria; isn't it? 

Mr. Veneman. The criteria are the basis upon which you establish 
the standard. 

Now, getting back to the sulfur oxide example, the criteria is now 
0.04 parts per million. If you were to adopt a standard which has to he 
below that — well, that is the minimum at wliich effects upon the health 
of a 'human being occur, the 0.04. That is the minimum level. So you 
would establish a standard wdiich would he below that. 

Senator Muskie. How does that differ from a criterion? What else 
is there of the standard? You have said they are the same at a point. 
\\niat else is there in a standard that differs from this? If you say on 
this point it is health effects, it is identical with criteria, but what does 
a standard establish in addition I 

Mr. Veneman. Your point has something to do with the environ- 
ment. As well as the health aspect, there are esthetic, economic, and 
other aspects. You may want to take other things into consideration in 
your standards. 

Senator Muskie. "Standard" is the word used in the 1967 act. Ac- 
cording to Dr. Middleton, standard is the way for implementing the 
criteria or any different level of achievement that may be possible. 
Let me quote Dr. Middleton's testimony : 

Air quality criteria are an expression of tlie scientific knowledge of the rela- 
tionship between various concentrations of iwllutants in the air and their adverse 
effects on man, animals, vegetation, materials, visibility, and so on. Air quality 
criteria can and should be used in developing air quality standards. Criteria and 
standards are not synonymous. Air quality criteria are descriptive ; that is, they 
describe the effects that can be expected to occur whenever and wherever the 
ambient air level of a pollutant reaches or exceeds a specific figure for a specific 
time i>eriod. 

That is what the 1967 act required to be published, so that the public 
would know these affects. 
Further — 

Air quality standards are prescriptive. They prescribe pollutant levels that 
cannot legally be exceeded during a specific time in a specific geographic area. 

Is that what you are talking about ? 

Mr. Johnson. That is right. 

iMr. Veneman. We can also let Dr. Middleton respond, because 
I think those are his quotes. 

Dr. Middleton. Senator Muskie, I believe that is wdiat all of us 
have been trying to tell you again. 

Senator Muskie. With different spokesmen, it didn't come through 
as clearly. 

Mr. Veneman. We will start over. 

Senator Muskie. I am sorry. Senator Cooper. 

Senator Cooper. I am finished. 



[ 161 

Senator Muskie. I have used up my time for 3 days. Senator 
Eagleton ? 

Senator Eagleton. I have just one question now, but I will have an 
entire series of questions that in the interest of time I will submit to 
you later in writing. 

(Included in questions from Senator Muskie to Secretary Finch. 
Seep. 193.) 

But I would like to ask this one basic question with respect to S. 3466, 
the administration bill. As I read sections 107 and 108, contained on 
pages 9 through 16 of the administration bill — it appears to be a pre- 
scription for another 18-month delay. We would tragically, in my 
judgment, be turning the clock back to zero and starting all over again. 

Here we are now, in point of time, close to the end of the 3-year 
startup period of the 1967 act. As I read 107 and 108, we would be 
starting all over again and going into another 18-month period. 

Apparently, you try to save that from happening. As I read section 
10 on page 21 you are theoretically going to try to maintain the pres- 
sure of the old air quality procedures of the 1967 act until the State 
has succeL-sfully met the pressures of the new procedure. 

I will make this observation. In point affect, this effort would surely 
fail. It would fail because as long as you keep the old procedures — 
the 1967 act — in a sort of limbo on the statute books, the bureaucracy 
will concentrate their attention on the news procedures. I think the 
old ones would be largely ignored. 

My point is this. You may be. perhaps inadvertently, creating a 
whole new mechanism and a whole new time delay period for the issu- 
ance and the promulgation of air quality procedures. The net effect of 
this being that here, in 1970, after we have been laboring under the 1967 
act for 3 years and are now almost at the point where plans have been 
established at the local regions, including my region of St. Louis, and 
where implementation of those plans are now forthcoming, we are about 
to scrap all of those plans and place them in suspended animation and 
start off on another 18-month long process. So, by the year 1972, we 
will be back here where we are today with very little having been ac- 
complished in the interim. 

Mr. Veneman. Well, Senator, I just can't concur. No. 1, we don't 
anticipate taking the pressure off the provisions of the 1967 act. 

If we are going to take this attitude, we would never change any- 
thing. You wouldn't change any legislation, if that were to follow. 
This is in bill form. It is still speculative. NAPCA isn't going to slow 
down the implementation of the current law. 

Senator Eagleton. You recommend that S. 3466 should become law. 
If we adopted it without changing one letter or one comma, the present 
procedures would go into limbo for 18 months, while the new ones are 
being cranked up. 

I have added up the various time periods that are contemplated under 
sections 107 and 108 of the new bill. 

Mr. Saperstein. The existing plan would continue to be effective 
until we issued national standards— ambient air quality standards — 
and the particular State implemented those standards by the adoption 
of a plan which provided emission standards and a means of 
enforcement. 



162 

Until this happens the existing standards, which would be both the 
ambient air quality standards and the emission standards, would 
continue to be effective. 

Now, I think, Senator, this is a problem that you have, as the Under 
Secretaiy pointed out, wliencver you have any new legisltttion. We have 
it all the time in our grant-in-aid legislation where people say you are 
going to delay the salutory action that individuals have taken now to 
build ncAv hospitals or to establish water pollution control plans, and 
soon. 

If you propose legislation which would encourage them to act by 
providing grants, some are concerned they will then wait until the 
grants are eifective. 

I think the same thing may be true here, I think you have to balance 
the two considerations. As the Under Secretary says, you would never 
change the legislation if you were to adopt these approaches. 

Senator Eagleton. Let me comment on that. I lind that interesting 
because Dr. Egeberg of your Department — HEW — was in to see me 
last week. Dr. Egeberg asked me to consider delaying any new consid- 
eration on population control, because if we considered new legislation, 
it would delay the ongx)ing thrust and hamper the eflectiyeness of their 
existing programs. They asked us to postpone consideration of any new 
legislation. 

Mr. Veneman. Our Department and the administration have a 
family population proposal on the Hill right now. 

Senator Eagleton. Yes, that is the famous midnight bill that was 
submitted to Congress the night before our public hearings. 

Mr. Veneman. We are advocating changes. 

Senator Eagleton. I would call them titular changes— I come from a 
rural State. 

The point I am trying to make is a very impoi-tant one. Wiiiie you 
are cranking up your new^ national standards during what I add up to 
be a possible 18-month period — perhaps my mathematics are wrong, as 
Senator Spong thinks it is longer because it is opened-ended ^' "^ * the 
whole tlirust, focus, and effort on both the national and regional basis 
will be on what the news standards are going to be. 

Time and again you will find industry — and I believe you will find 
it in my area of St. Louis, for example, Missouri Portland Cement, 
National Lead, Monsanto Chemical and other polluters in the St. Louis 
area will say, "Look, w^e are going to have a new ball game within the 
next few months. Give us more time." The enforcement agencies will 
fall for it, and with your proposal, I don't think we will be one iota 
farther along than we are here today in 1970. 

Mr. Veneman. I think there are two or three things that are mis- 
leading in that respect. First of all, I don't see how it can be an 18- 
month period. You have got to take into consideration that we are not 
going to slow down on the 1967 act. These things are moving ahead. 

What we are going to do is really provide for a procedure where, 
within 9 months, implementation plans would have to be submitted. 
We are going to provide for a procedure where we are not going to 
wait for regions to be designated, but where plans will be adopted 
throughout the States and territories at one time. We are going to 
do it at once. 



163 

I tliink we are expediting rather than delaying. We are not slowing 
any procedure down in the 1967 act, and wo are expediting the overall 
procedure. We are going to be better off with the proposal we 
submitted. 

Senator Eagleton. I yield to Senator Spong. 

Senator Spong. I think 20 States have submitted their standards, 
and standards have been approved for Xew Jersey, Pennsylvania, and 
Delaware. You are talking m tenns of moving ahead rapidly and con- 
tinuing under the 1967 act. 

Xow, here are States that submitted their standards in October of 
1969, going forward to January of 1970, and only three States 
approved. 

If what you say represents your present plan for this interim period, 
am I to take it that you intend to act upon all of these almost 
immediately ? 

yiv. Veneman. As I stipulated at the opening of my statement in 
response to Senator Randolph, we anticipated that 40 would be estab- 
lished by June 30 of this year and 57 would be in by September. 

Senator Spong. I am speaking of State plans. Let me say to you that 
I share some of Senator Eagleton's concern, because it has been neces- 
sary in other instances of pollution, not specifically air pollution, for 
the State to go back and jDass new laws, as in my own State, in recent 
sessions of the general assembly. Immediately when it was learned 
there would be a new ball game, an attitude developed to wait and see 
what the national standards are going to be. 

I want to know, in terms of these 20 States, whether there will be an 
immediate review of ^vhat they ha'\'e submitted and if the 1967 act 
will remain in effect until we have new legislation, if it is contem- 
plated that you will act on those, as well as designate additional regions. 

Mr. Johnson. The answer is yes to both of those. Senator Spong. I 
think what we need to understand is that we did recognize that the 
procedure that we now have is a little bit long in coming to fruition in 
terms of actually getting implementation plans going. We would, by 
the procedure in the administration bill, expand this beyond a region- 
by-region operation, such as 57 by September, and we would require the 
States to develop all of their regions by the end of the time, I think 
indicated as a 9-month period, after national ambient air quality stand- 
ards are set. 

This gives you, then, a speedup in covering the entire Nation, not 
just the 57 regions, but the total country in terms of air quality con- 
trol and the plans they would have to adopt. This does speed up, in 
many respects, the current procedure that we have. 

Senator Spong. Thank you. 

Senator Eagleton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Dole. Senator, I have just a couple of questions. First of all, 
there has been something said about public hearings. Now, as I read the 
administration bill, there are public hearings provided at the time 
and implementation of the State plan; is that correct, the only differ- 
ence being on the formulation of standards? Then you would have 
comments and, of course, they can be comments by any interested party, 
as I read that section of the act. 

Mr. Veneman. That is correct. Senator. In setting the national air 
quality standards for ambient air, the bill would not provide for pub- 



164 

lie ]ieanno:s, per se. It would provide for the piibliration of tlie stand- 
ards ill the Federal Register with a reasonable length of time for 
connnent. 

I just don't see, administratively, from any practical standpoint, how 
we can run around this country and hold public hearings on national 
air quality standards. I just don't think it is a practical thing to do if 
we want to solve the problems confronting this Nation. 

Senator Dole. But it is practical when it reaches the State level, and 
this is Avhere it is provided for. 

Mr, Veneman". Right. When you get to that point, then you have 
public hearings. 

Senator Boogs. The State would have hearings on the question of 
emissions from a certain source; is that correct? 

Mr. Venemax. Right. 

Senator Boggs. In other words, a cement plant near Wilmington, 
Del., might have to have to meet more rigid requirements than a cement 
plant in a rural area of Missouri in order that the area's air meets the 
natiouiil air quality standards. There wouldn't be any comparison in 
the emission levels each would have to achieve ; is that right ? 

Mr. Vexeinian. Unless it is in excess of national standards. 

Senator Boggs. As the air in Delaware or any industrial area might 
be alrea^dy loaded up with pollutants, a plant in a rural county in 
Missouri mi^rht be allowed to emit a whole lot of things that'3'ou 
couldn't emit in Delaware; that would be the difference; wouldn't it? 

Mr. Vexeman. I think that there would be different judgmental 
factors thatgo in. I think you have to recognize there would be na- 
tional emission standards for certain stationary facilities, as defined 
in the bill. It wouldn't be all of them. 

_ Senator Boggs. Therefore, there wouldn't be any uniform restric- 
tions on emitters under the national air quality standards. Their emis- 
sion levels would depend on their location in the country? 

Mr. Veneman. That is true as to old plants, particularly, unless they 
emitted extremely hazardous pollutants. The old ones would all be 
controlled by the Stat^. They would implement and enforce. 

Senator Dole. I think that is a good point. In other words, we are 
not depriving the public of a right to be heard. We are trying to do it 
in a time that has some meaning and when it has some im]:)act. And you 
indicate that the standards are different in Kansas than they are in 
California, or at least the problems are different in reference to air 
pollution and water. 

So it might serve some function to have a national public hearing, 
but I am not certain it could be any great benefit. But I see a reason for 
it if it IS a regional or State concept at the time the plan is 
implemented. 

Mr. Veneman, That is provided for. 

Senator Dole, Is this really— and I know the word "transition" 
worries my colleagues on the left, as we have been going through one 
now— but is there any substance to the concern expressed by the Sena- 
tor from Virginia and the Senator from Missouri? Are we, in effect 
pyramiding programs or permitting some delay in what might be an 
on,<Toin£r in-ogram now? 

Mr. Veneman. No; and that is the point I was attempting to make. 
On page 21, that Senator Eagleton referred to, we provide in section 10 



165 

that eveiTthin<r would stay in effect that was done prior to the enact- 
ment of this bill. 

Senator Dole. At least I can understand the concern. Even though 
it is not effective until these two things happen in section 10, what 
would be the practical effect on someone, say, in St. Louis? Would they 
be permitted to wait until this Act became effective, or would they be 
required to proceed under the present law ? 

Mr. Vexeman, If they are violating any laws, they would be sub- 
jected to the penalties or requirements under the existing law. A\'lien- 
ever you supersede one piece of legislation with another, you just don't 
turn oft' the clock when you introduce a bill. The clock is turned off 
when it is enacted. 

Senator Dole. I think it will make it clear, though, but I think he 
does have a real concern. 

I have a question in concern to Federal enforcement. It seems to me 
that section 103 would give the Secretary of HEW almost mtermina- 
ble discretion on whether or not you should proceed against a violator. 
It says that first of all he allows a reasonable time. Then it says the 
remedial action should be taken in not less than 60 days. 

It seems to me you ought to take out the "less" and put in "not more 
than 60 days." Then you say he may request the Attorney General to 
bring suit,' and it seems the word ^"will" should be inserted in that 
section. 

The point is that it doesn't seem to be moving in the direction of 
really abating pollution, if that is necessary, to be done very quickly, 
because of all of the time lag between the violation and the charge. 

Why not provide an injunctive process immediately and then let the 
violator make the corrections and have the injunction dissolved after 
the abatement procedures have been filed on ? 

Mr. Vexeman. Well, it is a matter of procedure, and I thiiik the 
point you are making has a great deal of merit. Mr. Saperstein was 
deeply involved in trying to get together on the enforcement procedure. 
I think I will let him speak to this particular section of the bill. 

Mr. Saperstoix. Senator, I think it is true that if we change the 
provisions the way you suggested, we could expedite enforcement very 

greatlv. 

Xow, I want to point out that the existing law's provision under 
which, if there is an imminent danger to health, we can get into court 
inimediatelv and get an injunction, would still be in the law. 

Senator Dole. That is not repealed ? 

Mr. Sapeksteix. No, sir; that is not repealed. That is still retained. 
Now, I think there is a clioice to he made. You can set up a procedure 
where you hold a hearing and then issue an order and the polluter is 
required to comply with that order immediately. He must take the 
initiative to go to "court. If he doesn't go to court, the penalties apply 
immediately. 

Or you could provide that we hold the hearing and issue an order 
which is not effective until we go to court. 

Now, I think you will notice in our bill, when we go to court, the 
court may assess the penalty back to the date when we ordered the 
polluter to comply with the order. So he is taking a risk if he continues 
to pollute. 

I think I would also like to call attention to the fact that we have 
proceeded on the assumption that the States are going to have to have 



166 

inipleiiiention plans and we would act only if the State is not carrying 
out its implcniention plan. Ordinarily, we would assume the State 
would continue to implement the standards and would proceed against 
the violators as expeditiously as they are supposed to. 

Senator Dole. In other words, the Federal enforcement would be 
second ; is that right ? 

Mr. Saperstein. That is right. 

Senator Dole. In the plan submitted by the State would be pro- 
visions with reference to enforcement, as I read the bill ? 

Mr. Saperstein. Right. 

Senator Dole. Maybe that would explain it. But it appears to me 
that if there were a case — and certainly we don't want to harass who 
may be unintentionally at fault — but if there were a case and the 
Secretary had to become involved because there was no action taken at 
the State level, then it would seem to me he should have the authority 
to immediately issue some type of cease-and-desist order to protect 
the public and then ])roceed with the hearing, and, if necessary, then 
go on to court procedure. 

But the only question I raise — maybe I just haven't studied it care- 
fully enough — but it says, for example, on page 20, "The remedial 
action must be taken in a time not less than 60 days, in which such 
person must take such action." In other words, are they permitted to 
continue whatever they might be doing, a violation for 60 days before 
they are required to act? 

]Mr. Vexemax. Well, it gives them that period of time to take 
remedial action. I think, actually, this enforcement section was pat- 
terned after the enforcement section in the water pollution control bill. 
Senator. 

Senator Dole. It may satisfy, particularly where you assess the 
penalty and it is retroactive to the date the order is made. It is one I 
think that might deserve some study, and I know it is difficult to 
protect the interest of the public and not be in a position of harassing 
those w^ho might be attempting to comply and might not be able to 
do so. 

Mr. Saperstein. I think you must balance the interests. "We would 
be glad to work \Ath. the committee in trying to work this out. It was 
our judgment this w-as the best way to proceed at this time, to follow 
the jxTttern in the water pollution control bill rather than proceed the 
other way. 

Senator Dole. And I think the conference has potential and you 
might eliminate a lot of court action in conference on a friendly basis, 
which would save costs and other problems. You are not suggesting 
we appoint a noise administrator ; is that right ? You are suggesting we 
already have a cabinet level 

Mr. Veneman. I recommended in the Secretary's testimony this 

ttt'tV"^ ^^^^^ ^^^ '^°^ ^^^ "P ^^^ °^^® °^ "°^^^ "^ ^^ Dei^artment of 
JiP.W as reconnnendod, as a statutory provision. But I also certainly 
recognize the environmental problem caused and created by the noise 
pollution. I also recognize the health factors that are involved, and that 
we have a responsibility in HEW in this particular area. 

Senator Dole. The recognition is there. You have alreadv an on- 
going program concerned with this problem and there wouldn't ' 
possibly oe any need for any separate agency. 



167 

Mr. Veneman. Well, we have Mr. Cohen, who will be available this 
afternoon, and who has snbmitted testimony, w^io has indicated he 
has recognized the need. We just don't feel it is necessary to set up an 
office of 'Mioise" in the Department of HEW which is in line with this 
office at the present time. 

Senator Dole. Thank you, Mr. Chairmari. 

Senator Muskie. I have just one question I would like to ask at 
this point on another subject. I am reading from the testimony : 

I turn now to the area of motor vehicle pollution control. The establishment 
and enforcement of national emission standards for new motor vehicles con- 
stitute the cornerstone of our program. The Administration bill would improve 
our enforcement activity in three principal ways: (1) by authorizing assembly 
line testing of new motor vehicles ; (2) by providing for revocation of certificates 
of conformity Avhen such testing shows that new vehicles do not meet the stand- 
ards ; and (3) by prohibiting importation of all motor vehicles that are not 
equipped to comply with the standards. 

"Under the existing act, testing of prototypes in advance of actual production 
is the principal means of determining whether new motor vehicles will comply 
with the standards." 

That is not the way I read the existing act : 

Upon application of the manufacturer, the Secretary shall test, or require to be 
tested, in such manner as he deems appropriate, any new motor vehicle or new 
motor vehicle engine submitted by such manufacturer to determine whether such 
vehicle or engine conforms with the regulations prescribed under Section 202 of 
this title. If such vehicle or engine conforms to such regulations the Secretary 
shall issue a certificate of conformity, upon such terms and for usch i>eriod not 
less than one year, as he may prescribe. 

As I read it, you do this now. 

Mr. Veneman. Well, I will turn that over to Dr. Middleton, Mr. 
Chairman. We went through a lengthy discussion on this yesterday 
before Chairman Rogers' subconunittee. 

Senator Muskie. Let me add that we went into a considerable dis- 
cussion wlien the law was written as to whether we ought to put the 
standard in the law, whether we should give sufficient authority to the 
Secretary to do the job, and we wrote the law with the intention of 
giving the Secretary eveiy authority he could conceivably need. 

Dr. ]MiDDLET0N. Perhaps your statement would make mine shorter. 
The problem that you pose is a real one and the reason we test pro- 
totypes is ba.sed on the fact that we need to test vehicles in advance 
of their production for sale. 

Senator Muskie. But the law doesn't say you must test prototypes 
and nothing else. 

Dr. Middleton. But the practice of giving a certificate in order 
that manufacture takes place requires that there must be an earlier 
determination of the suitability of such vehicles for sale purposes. The 
law also says that the vehicles shall be manufactured in substantially 
the same way or of substantially the same material. I don't remember 
the exact words. 

What we are learning through this system is that the prototypes, 
while they meet the standards — I am advised by the Assistant General 
Counsel it is the same construction — what we are finding is that there 
apparently is a difference in the quality control of such vehicles. 

Senator Muskie. "Wliat I am saying is that as I read the language 
of the 1967 act, you have got the authority. 



168 

Dr. MiDDLETON. It is possible that that interpretation could be made. 
We are saying that if it would be clearly made, there would be no 
question about it. 

Senator Muskie. Let me read it again : 

Upon application of the manufacturer, the Secretary shall test, or require to 
be tested, in such manner as he deems appropriate. 

That seems clear. 

Mr. Saperstein. We are not disagreeing with you, Senator. We are 
just not having a meeting of the minds because what I think you are 
talking about is the production-line vehicle and what Dr. Middleton 
is talking about is the fact that we test a prototype and that the 
vehicles 

Senator Muskie. I am not complaining about how you do it. 

Mr. Saperstein. And that the vehicles that come off the production 
line later, although they are of substantially the same construction, 
do not test out satisfactorily. And we do not think the existing legis- 
lation is clear on the point that we may revoke a certificate when the 
producion line vehicle is of substantially the same construction as the 
prototype that we tested earlier. 

Senator Muskie. The law says, "shall issue a certificate of con- 
formity, upon such terms as he may prescribe." 

You are able to spell out the terms you think you are able to describe 
in this testimony, "\¥liy can't you do this with the certificate? 

JNIr. Saperstein. Having been in the business of drafting legislation 
for the past 25 years, I realize that every time we draft legislation 
we try to do the job successfully, but sometimes we don't succeed. 

In this case, I think you have to read the statement you are quoting 
along with the next subsection, which says that if the vehicle is of 
the same constimction as the prototype, it is deemed to comply with the 
regulations. 

Now, that is the difficulty, Senator, and I would like to clarify 
the law. Certainly we would like to administer it the way you are 
suggesting. However, we would like to make it clear that we may 
test the vehicles as they come off the production line. The automobile 
manufacturers know what the situation is, and we don't want a 
series of law suits that drag on for years. 

Senator Muskie, The word "prototype" doesn't appear in the statute. 

Mr. Saperstein. No, but it says they are to submit something for 
us to test; and the whole theory was that they would do this in advance 
of the production of the vehicles so that they wouldn't have to wait 
to find out as these vehicles came off the production line, whether they 
would comply. 

Senator Muskie. You say that the law gives the manufacturer the 
prerogative of telling you what vehicles yon should test? 

Mr. Saperstein. That is a different issue. Senator. 

Senator Muskie. No. You are saying that they submit a prototype 
and you test it, and you can't test anything more. 

Mr. Saperstein. We may test other vehicles. Senator, but as we 
interpret the law, it is the fact that other vehicles which come off the 
production line don't perform as well as even thougli they are sub- 
stantially of the same construction as the vehicle they submitted 
for purposes of getting this certificate. 



169 

Senator Muskie. What you are saying is that the vehicle submitted 
is tlie only one you can test 'i 

Mr. Sapersteix. We could require them to submit another one. 

Senator Muskie. Couldn't j'ou require them to submit the whole 
assembly line ? Can't you require them to do so ( 

Mr. Saperstein. I don't think so. 

Senator Muskie [reading] : 

Upon application of the manufacturer, the vSecretary shall test or require ro 
be tested as he deems appropriate. 

Mr. Veneman. Mr. Chairman, may I point out that these regula- 
tions that were applied to section 206 were adopted during the previous 
administration, and we are doing our very best to straighten it out. 

Senator ]SIuskie. Then change it, ]Mr. Secretary. Don't take time 
to delay the legislative process. You won an election in Xovember 
of 1968. You have the authority to change it. 

Mr. Sapersteix. We have got to interpret the law as we see it, and 
we have serious doubt that we can do what you are saying. Now, 
lawyers can disagree on this, but that is the problem. 

Senator Muskie. If this language, "as he deems appropriate," doesn't 
give you enough authority, then I guess we are going to have to spell 
it out, comma by comma, to satisfy you. We are going to be writing 
awfully long law, and it is going to take an awfully long time. 

Mr. Sapersteix. All I am suggesting is that subsection (b) has 
language which is not consistent with the lang-uage you are quoting, 
and v;e have to read both subsections together. 

Senator Muskie. All I can say is that this is a much slower process 
in the interpretation. As I read the language, you have the authority 
to do exactly what you are proposing. But I guess I can't force that 
interpretation upon you. 

Senator Rax^dolph. Mr. Chairman, I believe it is important for us 
to realize that there is a responsibility on the Secretary, and on the 
administration, to draft and forward to the Hill legislation on which 
this committee would work its will. And there is a responsibility also 
on the members of this subcommittee and on the full committee to 
develop legislation within our own jurisdiction, with the cooperation 
of the executive establishment. 

I think sometimes we do allow those downtown, and this is no criti- 
cism of the agencies, to draft the legislation, forward it here, and then, 
in a sense, feel that we should take it and send it with little refinement 
to the Senate floor. 

Our responsibility goes much deeper than that, as you well realize, 
yir. Under Secretary. 

Mr. Vexemax. I fully appreciate that responsibility. Senator. 

Senator Raxdolpit. On the other hand, there can be the cooperative 
effort which, I feel sure, all of us prefer. 

Now, as you recall, Mr. Veneman, our subcommittee was largely 
responsible for section 104 in the Air Quality Act of 1967. Section 
]0o was a feature of the measure from its inception, but there was 
a reason why I moved forward, perhaps with a certain amount of per- 
sonal leadership, in reference to the inclusion of section 104. 

I did so because I realize that we needed to define a legal basis for 
supporting projects involving construction and installation of pollu- 



170 

tion control equipment on private property for the purpose of testing. 
This was one reason. 

Tliere should be cooperation and partnership between government 
and industry. Above all, however, pollution control technology must be 
expanded. 

Industrial pLants often are the best possible sites for making the 
realistic tests and evaluations of the economic and technological 
feasibility of processes for the control of pollution problems such as 
sulfur oxides, and others. "Would you agree with that? 

Mr. Vexeman. I would agree. It is my understanding that section 
101 remains in the act. We certainly recognize the desirability of that 
particular provision. 

Senator Randolph. Thank you very much. There was another rea- 
son, ))erhaps as important as the one I have just given, for providing 
the funds that would be available until expended. I think that in 
research and development we have to provide that flexibility. 

It is oftentimes necessary in the planning and scheduling of re- 
search and development and demonstration projects that they extend 
beyond the end of a fiscal year. Is this not right ? 

Mr. Veneman. Yes, certain research grants do. 

Senator Randolph. That is correct. As you know, I represent a coal 
State where huge tonnages of bituminous coal are produced and 
marketed. But most of it is not low in sulfur content. 

So I was wondering, naturally, about the domestic low-sulfur fuel 
requirement as we seek to effectuate air pollution control. I wanted 
others to join me in thinking in terms of reduction in the sulfur oxide 
concentration due to the burning and combustion of fuels with high 
sulfur content. 

It was obvious that we needed new and certainly we need additional 
technolog^^ to accomplish any substantial amount of reduction in sul- 
fur oxide concentrations. 

I am speaking in some detail on this matter because I believe the 
Senators from the respective States have responsibilities in connection 
with their industries and those working witliin them. Wlien the Depart- 
ment of HEW published the sulphur oxides criteria, there was very 
little technological backup. I am not sure wdiether or not you agree 
with that. 

Mr. Vexemax. I am not in a position to speak. 

Mr. Randolph. Well, certain people here can address that subject, 
and that is why I am going to direct my questions to Dr. Middleton, 
and those who join him here. 

Senator Coope,r. Would the gentleman yield a moment? 

Senator Raxdolph. I yield. 

Senator Cooper. I am glad to see you are pursuing that line of 
inquiry and wish to be associated with it, or considering the problems 
which are inherent in the state of the art of planning techniques with 
relation to certain fuels. I think the funds which have been authorized 
are, or at least a substantial amount of those funds, should be made 
available for research. 

Senator Randolph. I thank you. Senator Cooper. We do know 
that sufficient quantities of domestic low-sulfur coal will not be 
available to meet the requirements of air pollution control. In the 
first place, it is metallurgical coal needed in steelmaking. The same 



171 

problem relates to domestic residual oil. Without a reduction in 
sulphur oxides, the concentrations of them will be hannful. But do 
we have technology to achieve the reduction ? Dr. Middleton, I know, 
has given very much attention to this. 

Now, I will try to be as brief as possible, but still cover the ground. 
How far toward development of technically and economically feasible 
sulphur oxide technology nas tnis seccion iO-± reseaicii, anu research 
in general, progressed ^ 

Dr. Middleton. I think we have made substantial progress. Senator 
Randolph, in identifying the systems that must be employed to reduce 
the sulphur oxides. I would have to agree with your earlier statement 
that the control technologies available to abate and control sulphur 
oxides are not all they should be. And it is true that the use of section 
104 has the accent on the problems, such as the cost sharing with 
industry in an R. & D. development system that we are presently 
demonstrating, for example, with the Tennessee Valley Authority in 
a dry limestone injection system, which we expect to complete in about 
a year. 

We are setting up a program with wet limestone scrubbing to work 
out what are better known as bugs in the systems which are available 
from certain commercial organizations. 

Not only are we concerned with these specific it^ms, but we are 
presently looking at three others in a cost-sharing arrangement and 
are dealing now with the General Counsel's office on business arrange- 
ments so we can enter into contracts to install demonstration systems. 

Further, I would say we are now limiting our sulphur oxide research 
to stack gas cleaning but, as you earlier recognized, also accenting 
the need for cleaner fuel. Today only about 8 percent of the coal used 
by utilities has a sufficiently low level of sulfur to permit their use, 
based on sulfur content alone. 

We have looked at some 100 utility coals, coals used by the power 
generating companies, and have learned that at least IT percent are 
cleanable and can be used after they have been cleaned. So we are 
now in the process of developing a system. Senator Randolph, which 
would permit us to remove pyritic sulfur from coals that contain 
more than 1 percent sulfur. 

Senator Randolph. When could we reasonably expect feasible sul- 
fur removal or reduction devices to be available to be used by our 
electric generating plants to help meet the ambient air quality stand- 
ards in the various areas of the country where the standards have 
already been invoked ? 

Dr. Middleton. Depending on the location of the powerplant and 
the economy of the area, we may already be able to use a system dem- 
onstrated by a private company, such as Monsanto. 

Through improvements in the combustion engineering wet lime- 
stone process; that may be used if those companies guarantee 
performance. 

The dry limestone injection, which we call a throwaway process, 
would mean its use is limited to existing powerplants, and we would 
not recommend its use in a new plant. Finishing investigative work 
in TVA in this next year would mean it probably could be used m 
commercial applications in about 2 years from then. 

So a specific answer is about 1973. There would be no reason for 
not having this system available for certain utility plants. 

43-166 — 7(^— pt. 1< '12, 



172 

Senator Randolph. "Well, I think your answer is very specific and, 
in a sense, it is somewhat comforting. Naturally we realize that you 
must base it on expectation to grow out of experimentation and pilot 
projects. Is that right? 

Dr. MmDLETON. Tliat is right. It may be comforting, but we do not 
yet have available for use the high-efficiency control systems required, 
and we must work toward them. 

Senator Ranix>lph. But it is gratifying to know that you look 
toward something with a reasonable degree of hopefulness. We have 
followed with intense interest the early history of section 104 develop- 
ments. I insisted on section 104 and Senator Cooper supported it with 
vigor, as did other members of our committee, including our 
distinguished subcommittee chaimian. 

As we continue research and development efforts, such as you have 
discussed, we are thinking of the sulfur oxide emission control problem. 
The questions that continue to arise in my mind relate to the adequacy 
of the methods to offset the increased emission estimated to occur in 
the future. 

I have some figures — I am not sure that they are correct — but we 
believe that emissions of sulfur oxides will be an estimated 37 million 
tons in 1970. Is this correct ? 

Dr. MiDDLETON. Yes, Senator. 

( Figures referred to and later supplied follow :) 

ESTIMATED POTENTIAL SULFUR DIOXIDE POLLUTION WITHOUT ABATEMENT— UNITED STATES » 

Annual emissions of sulfur dioxide 
1967 1970 1980 1990 200( 

Powerplant operation (coal and oil) 15.0 20.0 41.1 62 94.6 

Other combustion of coal __ 5.1 4.8 4.0 3 1 1.6 

Other combustion of petroleum products. 2.8 3 4 3.9 4.3 5.1 

Smelting of metallic ores 3.8 4.0 5.3 7.1 9.6 

Petroleum refinery operation--. 2.1 2.4 4.0 6.5 10.5 

Miscellaneous sources 2 2.0 2.0 2.6 3.4 4.5 

Total - 30.8 36.6 60.9 86.4 125.8, 

> February 1970 estimates by National Air Pollution Control Administration. 

2 Includes coke processing, sulfuric acid plants, coal refuse banks, refuse incineration, and pulp and paper I 

manufacturing. ' 

Senator Randolph. And that they are expected to increase to about 
65 million tons by 1990; in the power industry alone. Is that right? 

Dr. MiDDLETON. Yes. 

Senator Randolph. This causes us to realize the enormity of the 
problem which we face, and I think it is important that we insert in 
the record of this hearing, the material of Paul Spaite and Robert 
Hangebranck, of NAPCA, on this particular subject. Do you think 
that would be helpful ? 

Dr. MiDDLETON, I think it would be helpful to have the informa- 
tion produced and provided for the record. 

(The information later furnished follows :) 

Pollution From Combustion of Fossil Fuexs 

(By Paul "W. Spaite and Robert P. Hangebrauck, Bureau of Engineering and 

Physical Science) 

INTRODUCTION 

About half the air pollution from industrial and commercial activities is 
produced by the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas. Currently, emissions of 
fly ash, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides by these fossil-fuel-burning sources 
come to about 45 million tons per year in the United States, and consumption 



173 

of fossil fuels is doubling every 25 years. At predicted rates of increased con- 
sumption, in 30 years total emissions could be well over 130 million tons per year. 
These emissions originate in power plants, industrial boilers, and smaller installa- 
tions used for commercial and residential heating. Electric power production, 
which is the largest and fastest growing category, is doubling every 8 to 10 years. 

Today, our ability to control pollution from fossil-fuel-burning sources is very 
limited. Much of the fly ash from combustion can be collected by available 
hardware, but methods for effective control of sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and 
very small particulates need greatly increased research and development to 
I provide methods that can contain the problem without excessive impact on our 
economy. 

If we assume that the work we are doing now to develop and apply control 
methods is successful, overall amounts of sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxide 
emissions can be held to relatively modest increases over present levels, instead 
of increasing by a factor of five as seems probable otherwise. Although it is 
apparent that the cost of controlling pollution will be high, (1) the benefits to be 
gained in reducing the impact on the environment will be substantial. The cost of 
economic damage to vegetation and materials is estimated at billions of dollars 
per year at current emission levels. Increases of the magnitude that are fore- 
seen without controls would seem to be intolerable. Even with controls increases 
in emissions will be significant, e.g., SO2 emissions from the power industry are 
expected to increase with controls by an estimated 2 to 3 times by the year 2000. 
Clearly, air pollution from fossil fuel combustion is a national problem of great 
importance, and every avenue of attack to bring about additional controls 
should be vigorously pursued. 

THE NATUEE OF THE PROBLEM 

The potential for damage to health and property, the rate at which emissions 
are increasing, and the long lead time necessary to develop and apply air pollution 
control technology make it impertive that we act now. Dealing with the overall 
problem of controlling air pollution is complicated by the necessity of simul- 
taneously coping with technical, economic, social, and political constraints. The 
problem is multiplied by the diversity of the engineering solutions that must be 
developed for the different combustion processes and different kinds of pollutants 
they produce. For each of the three major pollutants — sulfur oxides, fine par- 
ticulates, and nitrogen oxides — the overall problem is characterized by the 
complexity and non-uniformity of the technical subject matter. Still we must 
deal with the problem in the shortest possible time, without undue impact on 
our economic system. 

BecauS'e of the need to quantify the magnitude of problems associated with 
sulfur oxides emissions from the utility industry of the United States, the 
National Air Pollution Control Administration (NAPCA) analyzed predictions 
of power industry growth. By interpreting projections by the Atomic Energy 
f^^mmission, the EMison Electric, the Federal Power Commission, and the 
President's Office of Science and Technology, NAPCA developed estimates of 
how much sulfur oxides pollution we might expect from production of the electric 
power that will be required by our expanding economy over the next 30 to 50 
years. These estimates C,') have been carefully examined in detail. Independ- 
ent experts both inside and outside of government have generally concurred, that 
NAPCA's estimates of sulfur oxides pollution potention and the cost of control 
are realistic estimates based on the best available information for projected 
levels of power production. 

To provide a broad perspective of the total problem of polilution from com- 
bustion, the basic data on power industry growth have recently been further 
analyzed. Estimates have been made of the quantities of nitrogen oxides and 
particulate pollution that will accompany anticipated increases in power produc- 
tion unless prevention action is taken. Also, consumption of fossil fuels for non- 
utility uses was considered so that projections for the utility industry could be 
expanded into a projection for all consumption of fossil fuels in the United 
States. The results of these analyses with general comments on the problems 
associated with control of predicted emissions are discussed below. 

Sulfur oxides 

The emissions of sulfur oxides from power production and other sources are 
shown in Figure 1. The sources of information used in making the projections 
were mentioned and referenced above. The individual factors considered included 
projections of electric utility capacity, nuclear generating capacity, hydroelectric 
capacity, fossil fuel capacities, sulfur levels in fuels, heat rates, and capacity 
factors. 



174 



o 

2 
o 

E 



■< 

Q_ 

<: 




I960 



1970 



1980 



1990 2000 

YEAR 



2010 



2020 



FIGURE 1. PROJECTED POWER GENERATING 

CAPACITY OF ELECTRIC UTILITIES IN THE 

UNITED STATES IWITH BREEDER). 



From these data it is apparent that power production, which accounts for 70 
percent of the present total sulfur oxides emissions from combustion and over 90 
percent of the total anticipated in 30 years, is by far the most important source 
judged on the basis of total contribution from all combustion sources. Even 
recognizing that other combustion generally takes place in centrally located 
furnaces that emit their effluents at low levels so that they have a disproportion- 
ate eeffct on ambient air concentrations in urban atmospheres, it seems apparent 
that control of surface emissions from power production deserves paramount 
consideration. 

It is further recognized that part of the impact of increased emissions from 
power production will not be felt equally in all parts of the country ; some areas 
will be affected more or less than the national average. It is clear, however, that 
public concern about the health hazards and damage imposed on the public by 
present levels of pollution is such that 3- to 4-fold increases in overall emissions 
will not be tolerated. 

About 90 percent of the sulfur pollution from power generation comes from the 
burning of coal. EVen when consideration of the nature of the control problem is 
limited to coal burning power plants, the problem of non-uniformity in the proc- 
esses which must be controlled still is apparent. Factors such as plant size 
(which may vary by a factor of 10) , plant age, and a host of considerations asso- 
ciated with location make each power plant a unique control problem. For 
example, a large modern power plant (1000 mw) burning a typical 2.5 percent 
sulfur content coal produces 1.7 million standard cubic feet per minute of 
effluent containing about 0.2 percent SO2. A process to clean this gas and recover 
the by-product sulfur as sulfuric acid would have to have assured markets for 
over 500 tons of acid each day. 



175 



"Nitrogen Oxides 

Nitrogen oxides emissions from all combustion of fossil fuels are shown in 
Figure 2. These projections were made using the same fuel usage data developed 
in making the sulfur oxides projections, plus nitrogen oxides emission factors 
for the various fuels and classes of combustion equipment. The tonnages involved 
range from an estimated 9 million tons at present for the most recent estimates 
to about 25 million tons by the year 2000. These tonnages represent 50 to 60 per- 
cent of the total NOx pollution expected from all sources, including motor vehi- 
cle, for the foreseeable future. Even though the role of nitrogen oxides in the 
overall pollution problem is not well understood, it seems apparent that the docu- 
mented role of NOx in the production of photochemical smog is sufficient evidence 
to justify giving immediate attention to development of ways to limit future 
emission's. With NOx, as with SOx, the power plant is a major contributor that 
will become an increasingly dominant contributor. At present 30 to 40 percent 
of all NOx emissions from stationary sources come from i)Ower production. This 
contribution will increase to 60 to 70 percent in 30 years. Thus, in the year 2000, 
it appears that the power plant and the automobile will present potential prob- 
lems of equal magnitude measured in terms of total projected amounts of pollu- 
tant emissions. 

It should be noted that the curves .shown on Figure 2 are probably conservative, 
since they are ba.sed on available data on NOx concentrations in combustion off- 
gases. The emission factors used came from studies of older boilers ; modern 
boilers operate at higher temperatures and therefore are expected to emit substan- 
tially higher concentrations of NOx. 

Particulates 

Controlling particulate emissions from combustion processes is, contrary to 
some opinions, likely to require development of new technology. Overall emis- 
sions of fly-ash from all combustion sources are shown on Figure 3. These future 
emissions were calculated using the same fuel usage data mentioned earlier. A 




I960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 

YEAR 



2020 



FIGURE 2.PR0JECTED POWER GENERATING 

CAPACITY OF ELECTRIC UTILITIES IN THE 

UNITED STATES [WITHOUT BREEDER). 



176 

fuel ash content of 11.9 percent was assumed ; the present and future extent of 
control equipment application and eflBciencies for both utility and various non- 
utility boiler hardware tyi)es were estimated. The curves show what can be ex- 
pected if the increase in control equipment application continues at tlie present 
rate. In terms of overall particulate emissions, our situation does not seem to be 
as critical as it is with SOx and NOx. The overall picture may be misleading, 
however, because it fails to take into consideration the fact that presently avail- 
able equipment for fly-ash control does not efliciently collect particles less than 
approximately 1.0 micron in diameter. 

The lower curve in Figure 3 .^hows what it is reasonable to expect in the way 
of increases in fine particulate emissions. In addition to the estimates mentioned 
above on fly ash generation and present and future extent of control equipment 
application, the estimates of fine-particle emissions were based on extrapolated 
data on fly ash particle size distribution and fractional eflSciency of electrostatic 
precipitators for particles less than 1.0 but greater than 0.2 micron in diameter. 
Figure 4 shows projected numbers of fine particles that will be emitted by utili- 
ties with and without control by conventional electrostatic precipitators. With 
control, emissions are les.sened slightly, but the number of particles in this size 
range increases by a factor of 4 from the 1970 to the year 2000. This is particu- 
larly significant because the particles in this range are the most objectionable 
in several respects. They tend to stay susi>ended in the upiier atmosphere where 
they may accumulate to a degree that is .serious ; accumulation of fine particles 
in the upper atmosphere could lead to significant climate changes.*"* Particles in 
this size range reduce visibility and inhibit world-wide solar radiatioiL Finally, 
particles of this size are the most hazardous to health in that they tend to be in- 
haled and retained in the lungs. 

CAPABILITY FOB CONTEOL 

From the control point of view combustion sources can be be divided into three 
classes with distinctly different characteristics as far as the nature of the control 
problem is concerned: (1) boilers under 500 million Btu/hr capacity (70 mw 
equivalent), (2) existing boilers larger than 70 mw, (3) large new boilers that 
will be built in the future and for the most part will be 500 mw to 1000 mw in 



o 
a> 



o 



c 
o 



E 
on 



on 



O 
on 




70 75 



15 2020 



YEAR 
FIGURE 3. PROJECTIONS FOR 
TOTAL UNCONTROLLED SO2 EMISSIONS. 



177 

size. These tbree classes are not all inclusive, but they account for a very large 
percentage of all of our present and projected fuel consumption. There will be 
many individual exceptions to general rules as they apply to each category, but 
certain valid overall observations can be made. 

Boilers Under 10 Megaicatts 

It has been estimated that we have about 950,000 boilers that are in the range 
of 500 thousand to 500 million Btu /hr ( 70 mw ) . As a class, this group includes 
essentially all non-utility combustion units (with the exception of residential- 
sized units) and about 30 percent of the utility boiler capacity. This group repre- 
sents over three-quarters of all of our capacity to burn fossil fuels. The total 
pollution production potential for this group is not as great as these figures sug- 
gest, however. The overall capacity factor or use factor for units in this class is 
low, and in many instances, they burn gas or distillate fuels that are essentially 
non-polluting from the standpoint of particulate of sulfur oxides emissions. Also, 
these imits generally operate at lower peak temperatures so that nitrogen oxides 
production is less than would be expected from equivalent fuel consumption in 
larger and newer units that operate at higher temperatures. Unfortunately, this 
group is made up in large degree of single boiler installations that are operated 
intermittently, and therefore, control of sulfur oxides or particulate pollution by 
any means other than fuel substitution is not feasible. Also, many are located in 
urban areas and usually their emissions are vented to the atmosphere through 
short chimneys so that the impact on ground level pollutant concentrations can 
be of special significance. 

Existing Boilers Over 70 Megawatts 

Practically all of the existing boilers over 70 mw equivalent are utility boilers. 
This class includes about 1100 boilers that range in size up to 1000 mw. These 
boilers are located at power plant sites where the total capacity at a given site 
usually ranges from 300 mw to 1000 mw, but may run higher than 2000 mw. The 
age of these boilers varies from newly installed to over 35 years, but most of the 
fuel consumption (70%) is in boilers less than 15 years old, so that pollution 
from existing boilers can be expected to prevent problems for a considerable 
period. 

At present electrostatic precipitators could be used to control much of the fly 
ash, but only about 40 percent of existing boilers are equipped with precipitators. 
Further, precipitators now in operation frequently function ineflSciently, either 
because they were designed to meet less stringent requirements than are needed 
today or because they have suffered losses of efficiency with time. Even with the 
best available equipment, the collection efficiency for particles smaller than 2 
microns in diameter is estimated to be only 60 percent. To deal with the problem 
we are now facing, we need to upgrade existing systems as well as improve tech- 
niques for control of submicron particles. 

Control of sulfur oxides pollution from many existing utility boilers by applica- 
tion of flue gas cleaning devices should be practical in the short term. Being 
larger, newer, and located in closer proximity to other boilers than is customary 
with smaller utility and industrial boilers, boilers larger than 70 mw are more 
amendable to control by flue gas cleaning methods that can be fitted into space 
available at existing sites. 

In general, the lower the capital cost, the more economically feasible a process 
will be for existing boilers. For this reason, the so-called "throwaway" processes, 
which involve reaction of SOx in flue gas with lime or limestone so that calcium- 
sulfur compounds can be collected in precipitators or wet scrubbers, are most 
likely to find application to sources in this class. In addition, certain regenerable 
aqueous scrubbing processes, because they are relatively compact systems, may 
be especially applicable to existing boilers. 

At present, commercially proven methods for controlling SOx from this class 
of boilers are not available. Certain processes have been offered commercially, 
but none have been demonstrated to be capable of tlie long-term reliability neces- 
sary for routine application in the utility industry. Others are in advanced stages 
of development, but are still several years away from commercial availability. 

Our ability to control nitrogen oxides emissions from existing boilers is not 
clearly defined. It appears that SOx control processes that may be applied in the 
future may provide some incidental NOx control — about 20 percent might be 



178 

collected by systems that remove sulfur oxides. Also, it has been demonstrated 
feasible to minimize NOx emissions from some types of existing boilers by modify- 
ing combustion conditions to minimize peak temperatures, but the methodology 
and economic feasibility of approaching this problem on a broad scale has not 
been defined. If significant reductions are to be made in the projected emissions 
from existing .sources, considerable attention will have to be given to develop- 
ment of reliable control methods that can be applied as the need is demonstrated. 

H^ew Utility Boilers 

Control of pollution from boilers yet to be built offers possibilities that are 
not economically feasible for existing indu.strial or utility boilers. Improve<l con- 
trol processes tiiat may be develoijcd in the immediate future can be designed 
into the equipment prior to construction. Further, new units tend to be much 
larger, and therefore, economy of scale can be realized. At present, however, 
reliable, commercially proven processes are not available for control of either 

SOx or NOx. 

For control of particulates even the best available equipment will not be ade- 
quate for future needs. We have recognized limits on present capability for high- 
efiiciency collection of high-resistivity dusts, e.g., fly ash from many low-sulfur 
coals. Fui-ther, the previously discussed inefiicient collection of fine particles, 
which may be tolerable at present levels of 300,000 tons per year, may pose a 
critical problem in the year 2000 and beyond when emissions are expected to 
reach 1,300,000 tons per year, as shown in Figure 3. 

Although several sulfur oxides control processes have been offered commercially 
or are in advanced stages of development, only a few demonstration studies will 
be completed by 1972-1973, even if present plans are accelerated. How fast proc- 
esses will be applied after firm data on design and economics are available is 
speculative. Much will depend on legislative pressure and the public willing- 
ness to pay the cost of control. 

For nitrogen oxides control from new utility boilers, we will have to depend 
on what the boiler makers can accomplish using empirical approaches to design 
based on qualitative understanding of the relationship between boiler oi>erating 
conditions and nitrogen oxides production. Beyond this, little can be expected 
unless we begin to implement existing research and development plans that have 
been developed to improve our understanding of how NOx emissions are related 
to combustion hardware configuration and how SOx scrubbing systems can be 
more effectively applied for NOx control. Even if planned work is undertaken 
in the very near future and is successful, it may be 10 years or longer before new 
boiler configurations and new scrubbing systems can be designed for minimum 
NOx production. 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

At present, our capability for control of increasing emissions of nitrogen oxides, 
sulfur oxides, and the fine particulates from combustion sources is seriously 
limited. The rate of increase of these emissions is relatetl principally to growth 
of the power indu.stry, but other combustion sources are making significant con- 
tributions to pollution. Unless we act now to prevent it, the insult to our environ- 
ment will be massive. 

For control of particulates, our most important need is for high-efficiency 
devices for collection of fine particulate. This iwllutant produces damaging effects 
on health, visibility, and the climate of urban areas. Also, fine particulates tend 
to remain in suspension in the upper atmosphere, where continued buildup 
of such materials could produce unacceptable worldwide climate changes. For 
control of sulfur oxides, we need to develop sources of low-sulfur fuel for the 
large number of small combustion sources that will be with us for many 
years. For control of SOx emissions from existing and planned fossil-fuel-fired 
power plants, we need accelerated programs for development and application 
of processes that will prevent SO o emissions, as well as additional sources of 
low-sulfur fuel. For control of nitrogen oxides, we need to develop better capabil- 
ity for designing combustion equipment and scrubbing systems so that NOx 
emissions are minimized without undue economic penalty. Without these im- 
proved control capabilities, we may produce irreparable damage on a global 
scale and we will certainly produce urban conditions that are intolerable from 
the standpoint of health effects and damage to vegetation and materials. 



179 

From information available to NAPCA it appears that national expenditures, 
including those by government and industry, for research and development aimed 
specifically at evolving improved control methods will total well under $50 
million this year. By the year 2000 we can expect that the power industry 
will be spending many hundreds of millions of dollars per year to keep air 
pollution within acceptable limits. Even though this expenditure will amount 
to modest percentage increases in the cost of producing power, the expenditure 
will be so great that we can't afford to attempt to do the job with marginally 
acceptable methods that will unnecessarily add to the cost. Further, we know 
that failure to control air pollution from combustion will result in large economic 
losses. Losses resulting from damage to vegetation and materials will unnec- 
essarily add billions more i>er year to the pollution i>enalty we are paying for 
continued economic growth. Even without consideration of health effects, the 
savings to be realized by minimizing the cost of control and by minimizing prop- 
erty damage make the increased development effort required to do the job 
an economic necessity. 

REFERENCES 

1. Hangebrauck. R. P., and P. W. Spaite. Pollution from power production. 
Paper presented at the National Limestone Institute 25th Annual Convention, 
Washington, D.C., Jan. 21-23, 1970. 

2. Spaite, P. W., and R. P. Hangebrauck. Environmental quality through 
responsible resource management. Paper presented at the 19th Canadian Chemi- 
cal Engineering Conference. Canadian Society of Chemical Engineers, Edmonton, 
Alberta, Oct. 19-22, 1969. 

3. McCormack, R. A., and J. H. Ludwig. Climate modification by atmospheric 
aerosols. Science 156:1358-1359, June 9, 1967. 

POTEWTIAL UWCOWTROLLED SOj; EP-IISSIOWS 

FROrvl CO'.IBUSTIOW Ol- FOSSEL FUELS • ' 



AKNUAI. 
SOx 

L;AiS5!OMS 

MILLIONS 
OF 

■io;-;s pfR YE.'.r: 



100 



80 



60 



/o 



20 



TOTAl SOx EMISSIONS 

FROM FOSSIL FUEL COMCUSTIOK- 





yooo 



yfa:c 



180 



POTENTIAL UNCONTROLLED NO, EMISSIONS 
FROM COKilBUSTION OF FOSSIL FUELS 



ANNUAL 

NOx 
E/AISSIONS 

MIIUONS 

OF 

70IIS PER YEAR 




2000 



YEAR 



PARTICULATE EMiSSiONS FROM COMBUSTJON 
OF FOSSIL FUELS 



ANNUAL 

FLYASH 

EMISSIONS 

MILLIONS 

OF 

TONS PER YEAR 



10.0 



TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM FOSSIL FUEL 
COMBUSTION V^ITH CONTROL 



NON-UTILITY COMBUSTION 




UNCONTROLlAP.r: 



FINE PARTICULATE EMISSIONS (Ui'MTV 
J I L 



2000 



YEAR 



181 



FINE PARTICLE EMISSIOrj PROJECTION 
COAL FIRED UTILITY BOILERS 
O.J^TO 1.0(1 DIAMETER PARTICLES 



:u//.^ER ■ 
or 

Fi,-.'E 
.RTia.ES 

Yfi/.R 

(7. lo") 



50.0 



40.0 



30.0 



20.0 



100 



0.0 




1970 



65 90 

YEAR 



2000 



Senator Randolph. Dr. Middleton, I presume that you may have 
data that would help us to understand the capability of our current 
research and development effort to meet these projected increased 
emissions of sulfer oxides that we have been discussing. Is that 
correct ? 

Dr. Middleton. That is correct. You are perhaps aware of the earlier 
report on the Federal plan for control of sulfer oxide, and we are 
in the process now of updating that and making a more recent assess- 
ment, particularly taking advantage of the work of Professor Sher- 
wood and liis colleagues in the National Academy of Engineering. 

Senator Randolph. Dr. Middleton, of course you are familiar with 
these matters, and I bring them into discussion for the record. There 
was the study in 1967 by the Stanford Research Institute on sulfer 
oxide pollution control, and the Federal research and development and 
planning and programing, 1968 and 1972. 

I have read it in part, only in part. It is a study to provide a sys- 
tematic j)lan of required research and development to cope with sulfer 
oxide emissions. Is that correct? 

Dr. Middleton. Yes ; it is. 



182 

Senator Randolph. And we want to rely, at least in part, on the 
information in tliere. That plan, as T understand it, has called for an 
expenditure approximating $255 million over a 5-year period, so 
let us say 1965 to 1972. 

Now, the actual expenditures, as you know, Dr. Middleton, have 
been much less than authorized for section 104. As you have said, sec- 
tion 104 deals mth more than just sulphur oxide. Isn't that correct? 

Dr. Middleton. Yes. It deals with products of fuel combustion, both 
from stationary and mobile sources. 

Senator Randolph. That is correct. And for what it is worth, I refer 
to fiscal year 1968, when the figure was $9 million. Is that a correct 
figure? 

Dr. Middleton. Yes. 

Senator Randolph. And for fiscal 1969, a $13 million figure. Would 
that be correct? 

Dr. Middleton. Yes. 

Senator Randolph. And for fiscal 1970, $20 million. Would that 
be correct ? 

Dr. Middleton. With the funds presently available we will have 
an amount available for obligation that would be about $37.8 million. 

Senator Randolph. Well, then that would total possibly sometliing 
close to $40 million. That would be an approximate figure? 

Dr. Middleton. Yes. 

Senator Randolph. Our committee authorized expenditure of $270 
million for this same 3-year period. Is that correct ? 

Dr. Middleton. That is a matter of record. Senator. 

Senator Randolph. Yes; that is a matter of record. Dr. Middleton, 
will you supply the figures indicated, the expenditures under section 
104 of the Air Quality Act. Not necessarily at the moment. 

Dr. Middleton. I would be pleased to supply this for the record or 
I can give you something at this time. 

Senator Randolph. Briefly you might touch on a few of the figures 
available to you. 

Dr. Middleton. The appropriations for 1969 under section 104 were 
$18.79 million, and we were able to obligate $13.1 of that. For 1970, 
you, of course, know we have just recently received an appropriation 
of $45 million, and we would expect to be able to obligate $37.8 mil- 
lion of that. 

Senator Randolph. I think a useful review, Dr. Middleton, of the 
sulfur oxide control technologies that we have under development is 
the study by Dr. Sherwood. Is he a doctor? I think he works in chem- 
ical engineering. 

Dr. Middleton. He is a chemical engineer and he bears the title of 
professor from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 

Senator Randolph. Well, I checked briefly his article m the January 
1970 issue of Technology Review. I would like to insert that in the 
record. Do you think it would be helpful, Dr. Middleton, at least parts 

of it? 5 P 

Dr. Middleton. Yes, it would. 

(The document to be furnished follows :) 



183 



[From Technology Review, Januar\' 1970] 



The sulfur oxides are a major health hazard in air pollu- 
tion. But our supplies of low-sulfur fuel are few and our 
technology for sulfur removal is inadequate to give us 
comfort 



Thomas K. Sherwood 

Professor of Chemical Engineering, Emeritus 

IVI.I.T. 



Must We Breathe Sulfur Oxides? 



The control of our deteriorating environment has be- 
come a national goal of high priority. Many Americans 
are increasingly alarmed by our pollution of air and 
water and concerned about noise and about solid waste 
disposal. Increasingly stringent control legislation is 
being proposed by Congress and by the states. College 
students— especially in engineering — want to use their 
education to tackle these problems. A recent newspaper 
poll placed pollution control fourth on a list of national 
priorities. Government and industry are spending hun- 
dreds of millions of dollars annually in efforts to under- 
stand and control pollution. 

The much-quoted 1967 estimates by the Department of 
Health, Education and Welfare give the following figures 
for total discharge, in millions of tons each year, of the 
atmospheric contaminants of greatest present concern: 
carbon monoxide, 72; sulfur oxides, 26; nitrogen oxides, 
13; hydrocarbons, 19; and particulate matter, 11 — a total 
of 141 million tons per year, or some 140 pounds per 
year for each acre of the continental U.S. 

Impressive as these figures are, they mean little unless 
each pollutant can be assigned a weighting factor in- 
dicating its relative importance as a health hazard and 
as a source of annoyance. Unfortunately, the medical 
evidence as to health hazards is incomplete and con- 
tradictory, and the extent to which any form of pollution 
simply annoys people is highly subjective. 

N/lany pollutants are suspected of contributing to the 
pollution hazard, but health authorities appear to con- 
sider sulfur dioxide — and the very unpleasant trioxide 
by which it is invariably accompanied in small amounts 
— as the most serious single threat. Though automobiles 
contribute some 60 per cent of the total mass emissions 
of air pollutants, the Department of Health, Education 
and Welfare spends several times as much money on 
research directed to sulfur oxide control as on work 
toward abatement of the pollution from auto exhaust. 

About 80 per cent of the sulfur oxides discharged into 
the atmosphere come from the combustion of coal and 
oil. Gasoline contains almost no sulfur, so emissions 
from automobiles contribute little. But the combustion of 
coal, averaging about 2.5 percent sulfur, accounts for 
more than half the total SOo. Heavy fuel oil. burned in 
apartment houses and power plants, contributes quite 
substantially. 



H.E.W. predictions shown in the table (page 30) indicate 
that total SO., pollution may triple in the next thirty years 
if not controlled more effectively than at present. Nu- 
clear power plants emit no SO2, but the use of coal for 
power is increasing steadily and will more than triple by 
2000 before leveling off after the turn of the century as 
large nuclear power stations replace those burning 
fossil fuels. 

The Health Hazards of Sulfur Oxides 

Much of the alarm about the health hazards of sulfur 
oxides stem from publicity regarding several "episodes" 
in which people died during periods of heavy air pollu- 
tion. These occurred in the Meuse Valley in 1930, in 
Donora, Pa., in 1948, in London in 1952 and 1962, and in 
New York in 1953 and again in 1966. Some 4,000 more 
people died in the few days of the London episode in 
1952 than would normally have succumbed in a similar 
period of time. These "excess deaths" are usually 
blamed on SO2, though the smog at the time contained 
many other pollutants. 

Congress has asked the Department of Health, Educa- 
tion and Welfare to publish summaries of data on the 
effects of various individual pollutants on health. These 
are intended to provide "criteria" which the states and 
"quality control regions" will use in establishing "stan- 
dards" of acceptable atmospheric pollution levels. Only 
criteria for SOo and for particulates have been issued to 
date. Most of the data quoted were obtained in labora- 
tory experiments with animals; there have been few 
clinical studies on man with SO^ concentrations typical 
of polluted city air. The first publication on SOo in 1967 
was widely criticized on the grounds that the research 
studies cited as justification for the criteria were "fre- 
quently vague, incomplete, or quoted out of context." 
The second publication on SOo standards, in 1969, re- 
peated the earlier conclusion that ambient SO2 concen- 
trations of more than 0.1 p. p.m. for 24 hours in any con- 
secutive 100-day period may produce adverse health 
effects in particular segments of the population. 

Without control measures, most coals now burned in 
power plants would cause this concentration to be ex- 
ceeded in large cities. (The maximum average 8-hour 
concentration reported for U.S. cities is 1.5 ppm, in New 
York). 

The evidence regarding SO2 (or almost any other pollu- 



184 



Concentrations ot sulfur oxides in the atmosphere in the U S 
range up to 3.2 p.p.m., the higher figures appearing in commer- 
cial and industrial sections at solid-tuel-using cities. The chart 
shows a frequency distribution of sulfur oxide data for six 
American cities. (Chart: Arthur C. Stern, Air Pollution) 



tant) is highly confusing, but one conclusion appears 
valid. It is that people with bronchitis, emphysema, or 
lung cancer are highly susceptible to prolonged expo- 
sure to SO2— or to generally polluted city air which 
always contains SO2. 

As Dr. William H. Stewart, Surgeon-General, told 
Senator Edmund S. Muskie's committee in 1967, "It is 
rarely possible ... to point to an individual case and say 
with certainty, 'This man died because of air pollu- 
tion.' " And Dr. P. J. Lawther, a leading British authority, 
has stated that "experimental exposures to SO™ or sul- 
furic acid in the kind of concentrations which rnay be 
found in towns have never resulted in significant or con- 
sistently reproducible increases in airway resistance in 
human subjects." Yet Dr. Stewart has shown convincing 
evidence that SO, seriously affects people with respira- 
tory diseases, though the possibility that it may cause 
such diseases is not proved. Dr. Lawther, referring to 
the increased death rates during periods of heavy air 
pollution, confirms this evidence: "The excess deaths 
are among the old and the frail, the newborn, and those 
suffering from diseases of the respiratory and cardio- 
vascular system." That the old and weak are more sus- 
ceptible is supported by the fact that the SO, standard 
set by the American Conference of Governrriental and 
Industrial Hygienists is 5 p.p.m. for an eight-hour expo- 
sure by healthy industrial workers. 

Much has been made of the probable health hazards in 
presenting the case for SO, control. But there are addi- 
tional reasons to limit pollution, perhaps even more per- 
suasive. One is the damage it does to property and 
plants. Another is the fact that people just don't like 
polluted air. This last is really a pretty good reason, 
since pollution annoys almost everyone. In the modern 
U.S. economy we can afford to get rid of serious nui- 
sances, and we are (erroneously) believed to have the 
technology to control SOj. 

Demoting pollution to a serious nuisance, however 
would demote its control to a lower position on the'list 
of national priorities than if it could be shown that New 
York was about to become a large-scale Donora. 

Though a great deal of clinical research is needed to 
clarify the impact of pollution on health, H E W is con- 
vinced, as Dr. Stewart has stated, that "it would be 
foolish to say that we do not need more research it 



Sulfur dioxide concentration 
parts per million 




Chicago 
Philadelphia 
St. Louis 

Cincinnati 
Washington 



San 
Francisco 



Per cent of measurement equal to 
or less than stated concentration 



would be equally foolish and much more dangerous to 
suggest that we must wait for more knowledge before 
we begin to control pollution. We can, and we must pro- 
ceed now," he insists. In any case, both Congress and 
the public and the public are aroused, and the country 
IS committed to action. 

Limiting the Sulfur Content of Fuel 

The obvious way to reduce air pollution by sulfur oxides 
IS to limit the sulfur content of the fuels burned About 
60 per cent of the total SO, discharged into the atmo- 
sphere comes from the burning of coal; of this 80 per 
cent IS emitted from power plants. The relation between 
the SO, concentration in the atmosphere to that in the 
coal varies with meteorological conditions and topog- 
raphy, but it is estimated that the standards suggested 
by H.E.W.'s criteria would be met if the coal burned 
were limited to 1.0 per cent sulfur, or substantially less 
in some large cities. 

The New York-New Jersey Metropolitan Area has set 
standards requiring a maximum of 1.0 per cent sulfur for 
fuels burned in existing power plants, and other regions 
are following suit. Bituminous coal containing more than 
1.0 per cent sulfur cannot now be sold in New Jersey 
and the limit will drop to 0.3 per cent in 1971. But the' 



185 



To reduce the suHur content of residual tuel oil — the product 
corrjmonly used lor power generation — is within the power ol 
present-day technology. But the cost is so high that it repre- 
sents an increase in basic luel cost ol 20 to 35 per cent. At 50 
cents per barrel ol oil. desulturization is adding 0.7 mills per 
kwh. to the cost ol power. (Data: Chemical Engineering 
Progress) 



Cents per barrel 
60 



Refinery realization 
cents per barrel 
of product 



Desulturization cost 
cents per barrel 
of fuel oil 



undertake a massive program to quickly build nuclear 
power plants; remove sulfur from fuels before they are 
burned; remove the SOo from the combustion gases be- 
fore emission to the atmosphere; and employ very high 
stacks or other means to deliver the gases at such a 
high elevation that they are dispersed and diluted to an 
acceptable level before they reach the ground. New 
power plants can be located in sparsely-populated re- 
gions. 

The first approach Is impractical because o' the prohibi- 
tive expense. Tall stacks are being promoted in England 
but appear to have limited applicability. The second and 
third approaches offer the best promise in the U.S. 
The processes to accomplish sulfur removal from fuels 
and combustion gases are not fully developed, however, 
and not immediately available for wide application. 



0.5 0.7 0.9 



1.1 1.3 1.5 

Weight per cent sulfur 
in residual fuel oil 



supply of low-sulfur coal and oil is limited, and it ap- 
pears impossible to provide the needed fuels if this 
standard were to be enforced across the country. 

Half the U.S. coal reserves are east of the Mississippi 
and half west. But 90 per cent of the low-sulfur coal re- 
serve, much of it low-grade, is in the west, remote from 
the large eastern markets. The low-sulfur coal produced 
in the east amounted to but 34 per cent of the coal 
mined in 1964. Approximately one-quarter of our low- 
sulfur coai is in fact exported, and much of the rest of it 
is sold at a premium for metallurgical use. Consolidated 
Edison (New York) is reported to have entered into a 
long-term contract to purchase low-sulfur coal at $1.50 
per ton more than its usual price in the past. 

The dilemma is apparent. If all fuels were to be limited 
to 1.0 per cent sulfur in order to control air pollution, 
there would simply not be enough coal to meet the 
growing demand for power, and much of the coal in- 
dustry would be put out of business. We must control 
sulfur emissions, and we must have the power. The situ- 
ation is like that of an irresistible force and an immov- 
able object. 

There would appear to be four solutions to this dilemma; 



Sulfur is readily removed from distillate oils and the 
technology is well established. Residual fuel oils are 
more difficult to treat because they contain metals 
which deposit on the solid catalysts employed. The 
petroleum industry has spent a very large amount of 
money on the development of ways to desulfurize 
"resid," however, and there is no doubt that these 
schemes will work. Esso, for example is now installing 
desulturization units in Venezuela to produce 100,000 
barrels per day of low-sulfur residual fuel oil primarily 
for U.S. east-coast power plant use. The investments 
required in such plants are enormous, and the added 
refining step to reduce the sulfur content from 2.6 to 0.5 
per cent will apparently increase the price of residual 
fuel to the power station by 50 to 80 cents per barrel 
(assuming a five-year pay-out) — an increase in fuel cost 
of 20 to 35 per cent. Fifty cents per barrel of oil is 
equivalent to an increase of about 0.7 mills per kwh. in 
power costs. 

Coal is quite another matter. The sulfur is present both 
as pyrite and as complex organic substances. The first 
can be largely removed by grinding and washing, 
using existing technology. No one seems to have a good 
idea as to how the organic sulfur might be removed, ex- 
cept by expensive hydrogenation and liquefaction proc- 
esses. The two forms of sulfur exist in coals in widely 
varying ratios, and segregation of those readily washed 
to remove pyrites is difficult. The National Air Pollution 
Control Administration is actively studying the problem, 
and it appears that the supply of low-sulfur coal may be 



186 



The sulfur oxides are not— by lar—ihe grossest polluters ol 
our urban air. But many health authorities consider them the 
most serious single threat. The curves show the amounts (in 
parts per million) ol various pollutants in the atmosphere ot 
Chicago. III., during the period 1962 to 1964. as published by 
the U.S. Public Health Service in 1966 (Data: Arthur C. Stern, 
Air Pollution) 




43-166 O - 70 - pt. 1-13 



187 



increased appreciably by wet cleaning methods. Pre- 
liminary results suggest that perhaps 15 to 20 per cent 
of the high-sulfur utility coal is washable to 1.0 percent 
sulfur at an incremental cost of 25 to 75 cents per ton. 

Where fuel desulfurization is practical at reasonable 
cost it offers the most obvious and direct method to re- 
duce SO; pollution from combustion. Though they are 
not yet economically attractive, there are several proc- 
esses under development for the production of liquid 
fuels from coal, and these will perhaps be employed 
commercially within a decade. In the meantime most of 
the needed coal cannot be adequately desulfurized at 
acceptable costs. 

Controlling Power Plant Emissions 

This leaves us with the third of the solutions to the 
dilemma: burn high-sulfur fuels, but remove the sulfur 
from the stack gas. Many ways of doing this are being 
actively developed at the moment. All involve some 
means of bringing the gas in contact with some sub- 
stance which picks up SO;, leaving the gas going to the 
stack relatively free of this pollutant. There are some 
25 such processes under development in this country by 
industry and by the National Air Pollution Control Ad- 
ministration (N.A.P.C.A.), and many others are being de- 
veloped in Japan and Europe. Most are small-scale 
laboratory projects, but several have reached the pilot- 
plant stage. Only one has been installed in sizable oper- 
ating power plants. 

Several of these processes will doubtless turn out to be 
technical successes, but the economics are not yet well 
established for even the most advanced. Contrary to a 
widely held belief, the technology does not in fact now 
exist to effectively control SO; emissions, and it is com- 
ing along too late to prevent a very substantial increase 
in SOo pollution levels during the next ten to fifteen 
years. 

The limestone injection process uses limestone in two 
ways. Powdered limestone blown into the combustion 
chamber picks up some of the SO;. The gas is then 
cooled and scrubbed with an aqueous suspension of 
lime or limestone to remove the solid particles of sulfite 
and sulfate, fly ash, and most of the remaining sulfur 
oxides. It is then reheated to maintain plume buoyancy 
leaving the stack. The scrubber is necessary because 
less than half of the sulfur is picked up by the powdered 



limestone in the combustion chamber. The total solids to 
be disposed of amount to nearly three times the normal 
fly ash from a coal containing 10 per cent ash. These 
solids are essentially worthless and present something 
of a disposal problem — for example, 160,000 tons per 
year for a 200-MW. power plant. 

The lime-scrubbing process has been installed to treat 
all of the stack gas from two 125-MW. boilers — one at 
the Meramec Station of the Union Electric Company in 
St. Louis, the other at the Lawrence plant of Kansas 
Power and Light Company. Both plants have had 
start-up troubles but are expected to meet the design 
objectives of 82 per cent sulfur removal and 99 per cent 
removal of particulates. 

Though the wet scrubber appears to be necessary be- 
cause of the low SO; removal in the combustion cham- 
ber, the possibility remains that dry limestone injection 
alone, with no scrubber, can be developed to remove 
sufficient SO; to be useful with many coals. This simpler 
and cheaper version of the limestone process is being 
tested in a 150-MW. boiler at the Tennessee Valley 
Authority under a contract with N.A.P.C.A. 

Several processes employ aqueous solutions of sub- 
stances which react chemically with SO; and remove it 
from the gas. The chemical agents must be regenerated 
and reused, since they are relatively expensive. These 
processes usually require a high-efficiency electrostatic 
fly-ash eliminator, an absorber in which the gas comes 
into contact with the solution, a mist eliminator, and, in 
most wet scrubbing processes, some provision for re- 
heat of the gas going to the stack. 

The regeneration of the solution liberates the absorbed 
sulfur, normally as SO;. This can be sold as such, or it 
may be converted to sulfuric acid or to sulfur. Sale of 
these by-products can conceivably offset the cost of 
the entire operation. One process regenerates the solu- 
tion with steam, another by electrochemical methods. 
Most schemes of this type involve the addition of a 
chemical plant of considerable size to the power-gen- 
erating facility. 

A variation of the aqueous solution schemes is the use 
of a molten mixture of inorganic carbonates. This mix- 
ture has a high capacity to absorb SO; chemically, and 
the circulation rate is small. The sulfites and sulfates are 



188 



converted to sulfides, which are treated with reducing 
gas to yield hydrogen sulfide. The product gas is suit- 
able as the feed to a Claus plant for the production of 
salable sulfur. The stack gases contact the molten salt 
at 800° F. in a simple spray device, and no reheat is re- 
quired. Only laboratory bench-scale studies have been 
made. 

Sulfur oxides can be absorbed chemically by various dry 
solids, including several metal oxides. The finely divided 
or pelleted material contacts the gas in a packed or 
fluidized bed or in some form of "raining solids" device. 
It is then regenerated by use of a reducing gas. The SOo 
ends up as marketable sulfur. Processes of this type 
have received something of a set-back because of re- 
cent difficulties with the Bureau of Mines "alkalized 
alumina" process. The solid reacting agent was found 
to be insufficiently stable, physically or chemically, to 
last through the large number of cycles of absorption 
and regeneration required to make the process eco- 
nomically attractive. 

Solid carbon in the form of inexpensive char has been 
used in Germany to pick up SOj from stack gas. A re- 
lated process using activated carbon has been operated 
in a fair-sized pilot plant in this country. The carbon 
contacting the gases at 300° F. in a fluidized bed acts 
as a catalyst to produce sulfuric acid, which is held by 
the carbon. The acid is removed from the carbon by 
chemical methods and the carbon is recycled. No gas 



reheat is required, and marketable SO^, sulfuric acid, or 
elemental sulfur can be produced. 

One final example will illustrate the varieties of the 
processes being developed for SO2 control from station- 
ary sources. This Is the catalytic oxidation process, now 
well developed, based on the well-known technology of 
sulfuric acid manufacture. The gases pass from the 
boiler to an efficient high-temperature electrostatic pre- 
cipitator and then to a bed of solid catalyst which con- 
verts SOo to SO3. The latter is absorbed in weak acid to 
produce 70-80-weight-per-cent sulfuric acid. This con- 
tains a trace of fly ash, but is directly useful in the 
manufacture of fertilizers, the principal market for this 
acid in the U.S. 

These examples illustrate the diversity of the stack-gas 
treatment processes being developed. One type pro- 
duces a "throw-away" product; the others will yield 
SO2 (with a very limited market), sulfuric acid (with a 
market limited by shipping costs), or elemental sulfur, 
which is easily stored and shipped. The total sulfur 
effluent of all utilities would now supply more than half 
the U.S. sulfur market. 

As noted above, none of the stack-gas cleaning proc- 
esses has been operated in a large power plant for more 
than a few weeks. Costs, therefore, are highly specula- 
tive. The less advanced the development, the lower the 
estimated costs. Cost estimates range from zero to one 





Annual emission of sulfur dioxide 




.^ 




Power plant operation-(coal and oil) 


(millions 
1966 

13.0 


of tons) 








^1970 ~ 
28.0 


1980 


1990 


2000 


42.0 


60.0 


97.0 


Other combustion of coal 


4.7 


4.3 


3.5 


2.9 


2.5 


Combustion of petroleum products (excluding 












power plant oil) 


4.4 


5.3 


7.1 


9.6 


12.7 


Smelting of ores 


3.5 


3.7 


4.1 


4.5 


5.0 


Petroleum refinery operation 


1.6 


1.4 


1.2 


0.9 


0.8 


Miscellaneous sources* 


1.3 


0.9 


0.5 


0.3 


0.2 


Total 


28!5 


43'6 


58.4 


78.2 


TTs^ 



' Includes coke processing, sulfuric acid planls, coal refuse banks, and refuse Incineration. 



Emission of sulfur dioxide, 
millions of pounds 



189 



Power 
plant 
operation 
(coal and 
oil) 



Atmospheric pollution by sulfur oxides wilt increase as U.S. 
power consumption increases during the last 30 years of this 
century. By the year 2000 power plant operation — (he major 
source — will add nearly 100 million tons of sutlur dioxide to the 
atmosphere unless restrictions more severe — and costly — than 
any now in ellect are applied. Other sources make relatively 
modest contributions to the sulfur dioxide burden of the at- 
mosphere. (Data: October, 1969, estimates of the National Air 
Pollution Control Administration) 



Petroleum 
products 
(excluding 
power plants) 



Smelting 
of ores 



Ottier 

combustion 
of coal 

Petroleum 

refinery 

operation 

Miscellaneous 



These developments, however, will not provide the total 
requirements of low-sulfur fuels necessary to control in- 
creasing sulfur emissions, so many utilities will install 
facilities to remove sulfur from stack gases. By 1975 
there should be several proven processes to do this. The 
simpler methods which produce "throw-away" by-prod- 
ucts will be adopted by many existing plants. The more 
complicated processes which produce acid or elemental 
sulfur will be incorporated primarily in large new steam 
power plants. 

By perhaps 1980 or 1985 sulfur emissions stemming 
from smelters and the combustion of fossil fuels will be 
under fairly good control, though total sulfur emissions 
will have risen substantially over those at the present 
time. By 1985 or 1990 there may be better ways to burn 
coal, as by fluidized-bed comustion in the presence of 
lime, which both improves boiler efficiency and elimi- 
nates sulfur from the stack gases. By 2000 the sulfur 
problem will be greatly lessened by the substantial 
switch to nuclear power. 

All of this will cost a great deal of money — perhaps $500 
million to $2 billion per year. But this would seem to be 
no great price to pay for removing a threat to health 
and making the U.S. a better place in which to live. 



mill per kwh. If the proven cost turns out to be 0.5 mills 
per kwh., the annual charge to U.S. electricity con- 
sumers would be about $500 million in 1970 and $2 
billion in the year 2000. (The investment in facilities at 
$10/kw. would be some $8 billion by 2000.) These costs, 
of course, would be added to the bills sent to users of 
electric power. 

The Future of Sulfur Control 

The future of sulfur control is not hard to predict, at 
least in general terms. The country is committed to do 
something about air pollution, and increasingly stringent 
standards regarding sulfur concentrations in the am- 
bient air are beginning to be enforced. Users of high- 
sulfur fuels will turn first to natural gas. desulfurized 
fuels oils, and the limited supplies of low-sulfur coals. 
These will command a premium over present fuels, and 
the coal industry will find washing of steam coals prof- 
itable. 



Thomas K. Sherwood, a native of Canada, has been a member 
of the M.I.T. faculty in the Department of Chemical Engineering 
since 1929, when he completed his Sc.D. degree at the Insti- 
tute. He became Emeritus Professor upon reaching retirement 
last June, and he will soon take up an academic post at the 
University of California (Berkeley). This article is drawn, in 
part, from his experience as a member of the Committee on Air 
Quality Management of the National Research Council. 



190 

Senator RANDOLrn. Dr. Middleton, I am going to have provided 
for insertion in this record certain statements of organizations that 
are develo})ing sulphur oxide control methods. I would like your sub- 
sequent comment on them because I think it would be helpful to our 
subcommittee. I would be interested, and I am sure the members of 
the subcommittee would, in receiving your best estimates on the total 
industry-Government expenditures that wall be required to demon- 
strate and to develop these technologies. 

(The follo^^^ing letter was later sent to Dr. Middleton by Senator 
Randolph:) 

April 9, 1970. 
Dr. John T. Middleton, 

Commissioner, National Air Pollution Control Administration, Department of 
Health, Education, and Welfare, Rockville, Md. 

Dear Dr. Middleton : Thank you for your excellent testimony before the Sub- 
committee on Air and Water Pollution on March 17, 1970, on pending legislation 
amending the Clean Air Act. As always, your comments were clear and concise. 

During our colloquy on sulfur oxide control technologies, I mentioned an article 
by Professor Thomas Sherwood in the January 1970 issue of the Massachusetts 
Insititute of Technology publication Technoloffy Review. In this article a number 
of potential methods for controlling sulfur oxide emissions from fossil fuel 
energy production are mentioned. Although not mentioned by name, the list 
appears to include the processes under development by Bituminous Coal Research, 
Inc.; CTiemico (Chemical Construction Corporation); Combustion Engineering, 
Inc. ; Monsanto, Enviro-Chem Sy.'tems, Inc. ; Scientific Research Instruments 
Corporation; Stone and Webster Ionics; Westvaco; and Wellman-Lord, Inc., to 
name a few. 

I wouild appreciate your estimate of the exi>en<iltures that have been made 
and would be required to develop and demonstrate these sulfur oxide control 
methods. This estimate should include both government and industry funds. 
Your assistance in this regard is appreciated. 

With warm regards, 
Truly, 

Jennings Randolph, Chairman. 



(Additional materials relating to foregoing colloquy appear in ap- 
pendix to this day's session. See p. 211. ) 

Senator Randolph. Can we agree, Dr. Middleton, that our discus- 
sion has centered, at least to a degree, on control technologies tliat can 
be added on the output end of new and existing facilities? 

Dr. Middleton. Yes, it is. 

Senator Randolph. There is ample evidence that technologies of 
control are now available at the input end — and I use, for example, coal 
cleaning ; is that correct ? 

Dr. Middleton. Coal cleaning is available now for taking some of 
the ash out, and we are at the point of developing a pilot plant to 
determine the economic feasibility of removing sulphur from coal on a 
commercial basis. This is around the corner. There is presently avail- 
able no control technique at this time for that. 

Senator Randolph. "What about gasification of coal ? 

Dr. Middleton. Coal gasification is a very attractive way of taking 
even high sulphur containing coals and turning them into pipeline 
gas. There is a pilot demonstration of this process going on at the 
present time, largely under the aegis of the Department of the Interior 
in conjunction wnth a number of other organizations. 



191 

Senator Randolph. Would you say it might be an effective way of 
controlling sulphur oxide in particular emissions? 

Dr. MiDDLETox. Not only that, but it would be a particularly a-t- 
tractive way of assuring that low-quality coal lignites, particularly in 
the Middle West, could be readily available as an energy source. 

Senator Randolph. Well, now, we want to make sure section 104 
is broad enough. I think it is, but can it cover the matter of develop- 
ment efforts in coal gasification? Do you think section 104 is broad 
enough as it is now within the law or as it is proposed to be continued 
in new legislation? 

Dr. MiDDLETON. It presents no problem for our including it in our 
system, but in view of the funding difficulties, we have had to assess a 
different set of priorities, and knowing the Department of the Interior 
and others had some interest, we were happy that they were able to 
use some of their funds in the area of coal gasification. 

But in direct response to your question, section 104 would, in fact, 
allow research of this kind to be undertaken. 

Senator Randolph. Dr. Middleton, I am sure that you and your 
colleagues realize that with some 35,000 or 40,000 coal miners working 
in the State of West Virginia, these questions are not cursory on my 
part. They certainly go to the point of the discussions of how the mining 
of coal within that industry and the uses of that coal within its market- 
ing program can possibly be made to better meet pollution control 
requirements. Is that correct? 

Dr. Middleton. That is correct. I would extend thpt to say that the 
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare has indicated as a na- 
tional policy its concern that coal be continually used as a source of 
the development of energy, and we are indicating ways in which it 
might be used in the public interest. 

Senator Randolph. Thank you. You mentioned coal cleaning and 
you say that we have come a long way with that process. Is that 
correct ? 

Dr. Middleton. We have come a long way in the laboratory research 
side in understanding what things now need to be tried on the commer- 
cial feasibility basis. We are at the threshold of making that a pilot 
plant trial. So, in that way we have come a long way, but we are far 
short of having available commercial techniques for that purpose. 

Senator Randolph. Well, then, you are not sure it is an alternative, 
are you? 

Dr. Middleton. We look at coal cleaning, burning coal, and stack 
gas cleaning as three routes that should be made available for those 
who burn coal as an energy source to use to remove sulphur oxide. 

Senator Randolph. I am not sure that we know precisely the degree 
of availability of low sulphur domestic fuels. But we hear much about 
the setting of limits on the sulphur content of fuels and on importation 
of foreiafn oil. 

I think we ought to bring these factors into this discussion today. 
We do have an importation problem, and we do have a problem, also, 
in helping to keep our domestic fuels industries viable and healthy. 

I spoke of the jobs of not only coal miners but of American workers 
generally involved in these matters. There is the balance-of -payments 
problem, too. It could be adversely affected by overincreasing the im- 
portation of foreign fuel oil. 

What would be your comment, if you feel you could make it? 



192 

Dr. MiDDLETON. Well, as earlier stated, the Department is officially 
on record as assuring that the energy resources of this country should 
be properly made available so that they can be used in context with 
the clean air policy. 

In this sense, the importation of foreign oil of low sulphur is one 
possibility. We know they now come from Indonesia, from Libya and 
from Nigeria. 

We know that there are domestic oil companies building desulphur- 
ization plants to take the sulphur out of both domestic and foreign 
crudes, but the thing that is important to point out is that the importa- 
tion problems related to the distribution of oil and coal are different. 
And there are many places in the United States that may have diffi- 
culty in finding low sulphur containing oil, 

Fr»r these and other reasons you have indicated, we emphasize the 
need to develop ways in which we may burn high sulphur containing 
coals in this country and not reject them from the market. 

Senator Randolph. There is a problem of balance constantly in our 
economy and I recognize this. There is the need, insofar as possible, 
as we work with other nations and use their products, to insure the 
strength of our own output. I am thinking of it in connection with the 
production and use of coal today. 

Dr. MiDDLETON. Certainly in projections of the energy requirements 
of this country. Senator, we are going to need all of the coal and oil 
resources here, plus those that are presently being imported. 

I would like to add, for your information, perhaps. Senator, that 
in developing oil quota information, the Department of the Interior 
has obliged as a consultant with the Department of HEW, so there is 
a proper liaison in these matters. 

Senator Randolph. Do you approve of the techniques of mangneto- 
hydrodynamics in power production ? 

I am not sure whether section 104 funds could finance research in 
such a program. I think it would be feasible, perhaps, to research 
and develop and further advance this technique, if it is a technique. 
I am not sure, could Interior's Office of Coal Research, and possibly 
private and other research fund investments be used? What do you 
think? 

Dr. MiDDLETON. There is a report, I am sure you and your staff 
are aware of, from the Office of Science and Technology using the 
expertise of the National Academy of Engineering suggesting that 
there be a proper pilot run of this system, MHD — which for me is much 
easier to say — to determine whether it has some real value in electric 
generation. 

Since this is the use of a raw energy resource in a more efficient way, 
we look at this as an object of research that is primarily within the 
purview of the Department of the Interior and those associated with 
energy development rather than a project that the Department of 
Health, Education, and Welfare would directly join in. 

Senator Randolph. Thank you for that explanation. Now, this final 
question : Power generation, Dr. Middleton, is cerainly a prime source 
of air pollution ; isn't it ? 

Dr. MrooLETON. It is clearly a significant and large source of pollu- 
tion that needs to be controlled in all places. 

Senator Randolph. And there are other techniques. We need to use 
section 104 to the fullest to research and develop air pollution control 



193 

techniques to the fullest extent. Now, I want to say, Mr. Under Secre- 
tary, that it has been my privilege, personally and officially, to confer 
with Dr. Middleton many, many times, and this morning, as always, he 
brings to the consideration of this subcommittee the expertise and, 
also, an understanding and an awareness of the problems that confront 
us, and a need, where possible, not just to compromise but to be realistic 
in what we do. 

I thank you. Dr. Middleton. 

Mr. Veneman. Thank you. 

Senator Randolph. Now, I believe that while we have been talk- 
ing. Senator Spong has had a conference with Senator Muskie, and 
he would like to make an announcement. 

Senator Spong. Yes. I would like to make a suggestion. I only have 
one other question of this panel. 

I would suggest that we receive into the record the statements of 
Mr. Johnson and Dr. Cohen in their entirety, and that those Senators 
who have been here this morning, and any others on the committee may 
submit additional questions. 

(Senator Muskie subsequently sent the following letter and ques- 
tions to Secretary Finch. The answers will be found in the appendix 
to this volume, beginning p. 345. ) 

U.S. Senate, 
Committee on Public Works, 
Washmgton, D.C, April 8, 1970. 
Hon. Robert H. Finch, 
Secrctari/, 

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 
Washington, D.C. 

Dear Mr. Secretary : Pursuant to my conversation with Under Secretary John 
G. Veneman at the conclusion of ithe Department's testimony before the Subcom- 
mittee on Air and Water Pollution ion March 17, I am forwarding a number of 
outstanding questions regarding the pending legislation and the activities of 
the National Air Pollution (Control Administration. 

An early resiwnse to these questions will assist the Subcommittee in con- 
eluding action on the legislation. 
I appreciate your cooperation and look forward to receiving your resiwnse. 
Sincerely, 

Edmund S. Muskie, 
Chairmmi, Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution. 

AIE QUALITY CRITERIA 

(1) Since enactment of the Air Quality Act of 1967, air quality criteria have 
been issued for particulate matter, sulfur oxides, hydrocarbons, photochemical 
oxidants, and carbon monoxide. 

What factors have contributed to the delay in issuing other air quality criteria, 
and what are the priorities and time schedules for the issuance of additional 
criteria ? 

(2) Please describe the organization and membership of the ad hoc committees 
which have participated in the development of air quality criteria? 

(3) Please indicate the annual expenditures on air quality criteria related 
research since enactment of the Clean Air Act of 1963 in the following areas : 

Nitrogen dioxide 

Nitrogen dioxide and ozone 

Oxidents 

Particulate matter 

Carbon monoxide 
L Behavioral toxicology 

I Epidemiologic studies 

Vegetation effects 

Effects on materials 

Socioeconomic effects 

Other 



194 

(4) Please justify the reported .$3 million reduction for fiscal 1971 in research 
on health and economic effects of air ix)llution. 

(5) What specific steps have been taken by NAPCA to coordinate health effects 
research with the National Institute of Environmental Health? 

(6) What research has been initiated to obtain information on the long-term 
effects of contaminants and combinations of contaminants V 

(7) What research is NAPCA conducting or supporting on carcinogenic and 
mutagenic effects of contaminants and combinations of contaminants? 

CONTROL TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

( 1 ) What specific contracts and grants were awarded under Section 104 for the 
following categories? 

Control of Sulfur Oxide Pollution : Removal of sulfur from coal ; removal 
of sulfur from fuel oil; removal of sulfur from flue gas; new process 
development. 

Control of nitrogen oxides pollution. 

Control of particulate pollution. 

Control of pollution from specific industries. 

Control of pollution from solid waste disposal. 

Control device improvement studies. 

Control of automotive emissions. 

Alternatives to the internal combustion engine. 

(2) How many contracts and grants have been awarded since July 1, 1969 
under section 104? For what purpose? In what amounts? 

(3) A five-year (fiscal 1968-1972) research and development program was de- 
veloped by the Stanford Research Institute for NAPCA. What were a) the recom- 
mended total and annual expenditures for this program; b) the actual and esti- 
mated exi)enditures ; and c) the expenditures recommended by the National 
Academy of Sciences ? 

AUTOMOTIVE EMISSION CONTROL 

(1) What has been the level of funding for motor- vehicle ix>llution control 
research and development and what are the estimated expenditures for fiscal 
years 1971 to 1973? 

(2) What specific program efforts are being made to develop alternatives to the 
internal combustion engine? 

(3) What data is available on compliance with auto emission standards after 
sale by certified vehicles? Please provide this data for the record. 

(4) What is the estimated effect of this failure to continue to comply witli 
automative emission standards on projected air pollution levels of carbon monox- 
ide, hydrocarbons, and photochemical oxidants? 

(5) To what extent have States applied for the two-thirds grants for develop- 
ing emission device inspection programs authorized in Sec. 209? Please indicate 
the States to which grants have been made and the amount of each, if any. 

(6) S. 3466 would increase penalties under Sec. 205 from .$1,000 to $10,000. To 
what extent have penalties been assessed under the existing provision ? How many 
times? Against whom? 

STANDARDS AND ENFORCEMENT 

(1) What is the current status of the designation of the first 57 air quality con- 
trol regions, the filing of letters of intent, and the establishment of standards and 
implementation plans? 

(2) Why does S. 3466 provide for deletion of section 106 which provides 100 
percent planning grants for interstate agencies? 

(3) What factors have caused delay in the designation of air quality control 
regions? How many staff members are assigned to this function? To criteria de- 
velopment? To control technology information development? 

(4) What additional regions will be designated this year? j 

(5) S. 3466 proposes only to enforce failure to meet air quality standards estab- I 
lished pursuant to section 107 rather than plans for implementation of emission 
standards. Would this weaken the existing law? 

(6) S. 3466 proposes to give the Secretary authority to establish standards with 
respect to emissions from classes or sources of pollution which contribute "sub- 
stantially to the endangerment of public health and welfare and which can be 
prevented or substantially reduced." This is, in effect, national emission stand- 



195 

ards for stationary sources. This provision appears to be in conflict with other 
l)rovisions of the bill which require the States, after the publication of national 
ambient air quality standards, to promulgate plans for implementation which 
will assure compliance with those air quality standards by industry or other air 
pollution sources. With which emission standards would a polluter comply? 
Would a state be authorized to enforce its emission plan if a conflict with 
national standards occurred? 

(7) How many substances or source categories would be subject to national 
emission standards for both new and existing sources? What estimates of cost 
of compliance are available? 

(8) Could you provide for the record a summary and status of Federal 
enforcement activities to date? 

(9) Would you supply the Committee with a summ'ary of State and local 
ambient air quality standards, emission standards, and compliance schedules 
developed under State and local law ? 

FUEL ADDITIVES 

( 1 ) Section 210 of the Air Quality Act of 1967 provided for the registration of 
fuel additives. Would you provide the Committee with a copy of the regula- 
tions propo.sed by the Department? Have these regulations been promulgated? If 
not. why not? 

(2) Lacking the technical information that registration was intended to pro- 
vide, what is the basis for the Administration's request for the authority to set 
standards for fuel composition and additives? 

(3) To what extent has the Department compiled and analyzed information 
on the effects of fuel additives on health and welfare? 

(4) Please cite for the record any additives for which standards may be 
promulgated. 

(5) If lead is banned from gasoline, what assurances are available that other 
toxic additives will not be used? 

president's air quality advisory board 

( 1 ) W^hen has the President's Air Quality Advisory Board met? 

( 2 ) What policies has the Board reviewed or recommended, if any ? 

noise pollution 

(1) Is noise pollution a health problem? 

(2) If a separate noise abatement agency is established, should that agency 
be located in the Department of Health, Education and W^elfare? 

personnel and staffing 

(1) What were NAPCA's originally projected staflSng requirements to imple- 
ment the Air Quality Act of 1967? 

(2) What are the currently projected stafiing requirements for NAPCA? 

(3) How does actual staflSng since enactment of the Air Quality Act of 1967 
compare with these projections? 

(4) In tabular form please indicate the number of persons presently employed; 
the number of persons needed to fully implement existing law ; and the number 
of persons required to implement proposed legislation. 

governmental eixpenditures 

(1) What were NAPCA's originally projected funding requirements under sec- 
tions 104 and 309 to implement the Air Quality Act of 1967? 

(2) What are the projected funding levels for NAPCA through 1975? 

(3) How do the following figures for sections 104 and 309 compare: (a) 
authorization, (b) Departmental requested funds, (c) 'appropriations, (d) 
budget authority, and (e) actual expenditures? 

(4) The Administration bill, S. 3466, provides that the authorization shall be 
"such sums that may be necessary" for fiscal vetars 1971-1973 for both Sections 
104 and 309. 

At what level do you expect to request appropriations for Sections 104 and 
309? Please indicate the proposed allocation of the appropriation requests: low 



196 

emission vehicle research, criteria development, control technology information 
development, regional designation, enforcement, etc. ? 

(5) What has been the total annual Federal-State-local funding for air pol- 
lution control since the Air Quality Act including the estimated fiscal 1970 

and 1971 exi>enditures? ,, , ^ ,• i ..v, 

(6) Could you update individual State and local agency figures supplied the 

Committee in 1967 V 

I myself have a series of questions on fuel additives I would like 
to submit to you, and then we will recall the witnesses at the end of 
these hearings. I think all of us would be in a better i^osition to con- 
tinue in that manner at that time. Does that meet with Senator 
Cooper's approval ? 

Senator Cooper. Yes. 

(The statements referred to follow :) 

Prepared Statement of Charles C. Johnson, Jr., Administrator, Environ- 
mental Health Service, Public Health Service, Department of Health, 
Education, and Welfare 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, in the period since November 
1967, the National Air Pollution Control Administration of the Environmental 
Health Service has made significant progress in implementing the provisions of 
the Clean Air Act, as amended. I am pleased to have this opportunity to review 
that progress with you. 

To begin with, the process of planning for regional control of air pollution has 
been set in motion in areas involving 23 States and the District of Columbia. In 
the next few months, this process will be extended to the rest of the first 57 
areas earmarked for designation as air quality control regions. There will then 
be at least a portion of an air quality control region in every State. 

In designating air quality control regions, we have worked very closely with 
State officials. Because the factors that must be taken into account in drawing 
regional boundaries are also relevant to the process of adopting air quality stand- 
ards and implementation plans, the involvement of State officials has given them 
an excellent opportunity to prepare to carry out their responsibilities under the 
Clean Air Act ; indeed, it was for the purpose of offering State oflBcials this op- 
portunity that we have taken a rather deliberate and methodical approach to 
this task. Having accomplished our purpose, we are now in a position to acceler- 
ate the designation of regions in the months ahead. 

For the regions already designated, State governments have begun adopting 
air quality standards and are in the process of developing implementation plans 
for sulfur oxides and particulate matter, for which we issued air quality criteria 
a year ago. In twelve cases, these air quality standards have already been sub- 
mitted to us, and in one case, the Philadelphia air quality control region, the 
standards submitted by the States of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware 
have been approved. 

This week, when we issue air quality criteria for carbon monoxide, hydro- 
carbons, and oxidants, the air quality standard-setting process will get underway 
for these pollutants, as well. Early next year, we plan to issue air quality criteria 
for three more important types of air pollutants — nitrogen oxides, fluorides, lead, 
and polynuclear organic compounds. Air quality criteria for several other types 
of pollutants will be issued in succeeding years. In each instance, of course, their 
issuance, together with reports on control techniques, will trigger the standard- 
setting process. 

The extent of public participation in State hearings on air quality standards 
has been one of the most gratifying and encouraging aspects of our experience 
thus far. A great many individual citizens and organizations have taken advan- 
tage of the opportunity to participate in such hearings. Never before in the his- 
tory of the Nation's efforts to cope with the problem of air pollution has there 
been such widespread and well informed public involvement. And for the most 
part, State oflBcials have responded quite constructively to the views expressed 
at these hearings. 



197 

Another very encouraging sign is the continuing expansion of air pollution 
control activities not only at the State level but also at local and regional levels. 
Over the past few years, there has been a substantial increase in budgeting and 
staffing for State, regional, and local programs ; these trends are illustrated in 
two charts appended to my statement. The availability of Federal grant support 
and technical assistance has been a major factor in this growth. In Fiscal 1970, 
approximately one-fourth of the National Air Pollution Control Administration's 
budget was devoted to direct support of State, regional, and local air jwllution 
control activities. 

Our manpower development activities also are intended largely to support 
State and local air pollution control programs. Through training grants to edu- 
cational institutions and fellowships to individual students, we have continued 
to prepare qualified personnel for careers in the air pollution field. And through 
our short-course training program, we are helping to upgrade the competence 
of personnel already employed in this field. Very recently, we took an initial 
step toward the creation of regional air pollution education centers. I am refer- 
ring to the establishment of a consortium through which three universities in 
the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill area in North Carolina are, in effect, jwoling 
their air pollution research and training resources. We look forward to the crea- 
tion of similar arrangements in several other areas. 

Nationally, we have taken significant steps toward improved control of air 
pollution from motor vehicles. The national standards that were in effect for 
exhaust emissions of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide for new passenger cars 
and light trucks in the 1968 and 1969 model years have been supplanted by more 
restrictive standards. Hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide standards for heavy- 
duty gasoline-fueled vehicles and smoke limitations for heavy-duty diesel- 
powered vehicles also have been placed in effect. Limitations on hydrocarbon 
evaporation from passenger cars and light trucks have been established for 
application in the 1971 model year. 

On February 10, Secretary Finch announced plans for further improvements. 
In the 1973 model year, national standards for nitrogen oxides emissions will 
be placed in effect for passenger cars and light trucks. In the 1975 model year, 
the standards for carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides emissions 
will be substantially tightened, and limitations on particulate emissions will be 
placed in effect. In setting these new and more restrictive standards, we are 
taking maximum advantage of the emerging technical capability for moving 
ahead with the control of the motor vehicle pollution problem. 

Naturally, the success of all air pollution control efforts, whether undertaken 
at the local or national level and whether aimed at stationary or mobile sources, 
depends on the availability of practical and effective control techniques. For many 
tyi^es of air pollutants and many important sources, such techniques are avail- 
able. But there still are many gaps to be filled if we are to succeed in attaining 
and maintaining satisfactory levels of air quality. 

In the area of motor vehicle pollution control, essentially pollution-free auto- 
mobiles must be available in the 1980's. Whether this can be accomplished with- 
out abandoning the internal combustion engine is questionable. Accordingly, we 
aie continuing to conduct and support research and development on emission 
control techniques applicable to the internal combu.stion engine, including tech- 
niques such as engine and fuel modification and the use of emission control 
devices. But at the same time, increasing emphasis is being placed on the devel- 
opment of alternative, low-emission engine .systems. Under the President's pro- 
posed budget for Fiscal 1971, our total investment in research and development 
relating to motor vehicle pollution control will be substantially increased — from 
about $4 million to $12.9 million, some $9 million will be devoted to .stimulating 
and supporting the development of unconventional, low-emission engines. 

Insofar as stationary sources of air pollution are concerned, a major portion 
of our research and development program is directed toward demonstrating the 
technical and economic feasibility of sulfur oxides control processes applicable 
to electric generating plants. This activity includes processes for removing a 
portion of the sulfur from coal and for removing sulfur oxides from stack gases. 
Several promising processes are in various stages of development under the 
National Air Pollution Control Administration's auspices and in the private 
sector. Large-scale demonstration testing of the dry limestone injection and wet 
scrubbing process. In addition, negotiations are underway with various organi- 



198 

zations in the private sector for joint funding of demonstrations of other prom- 
ising techniques, including coal-cleaning. The objective of this activity is, of 
course, to insure that the Nation will not have to rely solely on the use of fuels 
which are naturally low in sulfur as a means of dealing with the sulfur oxides 
problem but, instead, will have a range of alternatives applicable to the various 
sizes, configurations, and locations of combustion sources of sulfur oxides 
pollution. 

There are, of course, many other stationary source problems for which new or 
improved control techniques are needed. Our program includes research and 
development on many of these problems. A comprehensive appraisal of currently 
available techniques for dealing with nitrogen oxides emissions is nearing com- 
pletion ; this undertaking will provide a basis for planning of research and 
development in this area. A series of studies of the air pollution problems asso- 
ciated with specific industries has been undertaken. Studies of the pulp and 
paper, iron foundry, sulfuric acid, and secondary metals industries are underway. 
The primary aluminum, phosphate fertilizer, cement, and petroleum refining 
industries are others in which studies will be initiated. In all of these studies, 
the primary objective is to define needs for new or improved control techniques, 
so that government and industry can move ahead with needed research and 
development activities. 

The activities I have described thus far constitute one major segment of our 
program, in that all of them are directed toward the objective of insuring the 
development and application of techniques for preventing and controlling air 
pollution. The other major program segment encompasses our continuing efforts 
to acquire an improved understanding of the nature and extent of the Nation's 
air pollution problem and of its impact on man and his environment. 

Our program of research on the effects of air pollution is oriented toward 
acquiring the information needed for the development of air quality criteria. With 
this objective in mind, our health research activities have been broadened to 
provide knowledge not only about the relationship of air pollution exposure to the 
occurrence of chronic respiratory disease but also about human body burdens of 
substances present in the air, physiological and mechanical changes, and altera- 
tions in behavior and psychomotor functions. 

A major new effort has been initiated to observe and measure people's health 
in relation to air pollution exposure. I am referring to the health effects surveil- 
lance network which we are establishing in communities that have high, low, 
and intermediate levels of air pollution. In several such communities across the 
Nation, we will make regular measurements of the levels of various air pollutants 
and maintain records of fluctuations in selected health factors, such as the occur- 
rence of respiratory illnesses among children and asthmatic attacks among 
adults. 

Air quality surveillance activities are a vital part of our efforts to define the 
nature and extent of the Nation's air pollution problem and to assess the progress 
of control programs. In this area, our objective is to have an integrated Federal- 
State-local air monitoring system covering the entire Nation. In addition to ex- 
panding and modernizing our own air monitoring network, we are assisting State 
and local agencies in expanding and improving their networks and in making 
more efficient use of the data they gather. Furthermore, we have set up a national 
air data bank to facilitate the storage, retrieval, and use of air pollution data ; 
our ultimate objective is to have all past and current air quality data stored in 
the bank and thus provide a base for nationwide measuring and reporting of 
air quality changes. 

That completes my summary of our progress during the past two and one-half 
years. I have tried just to highlight some of the most important areas of activity. 
Our annual reports to the Congress \mder section 306 of the Clean Air Act have 
provided a much more detailed picture. Looking back over this period, I feel that 
our accomplishments have been significant ; certainly, the Nation's capability 
of dealing with the problem of air iwllution is now much closer to matching our 
awareness of the need for action. There can be no doubt, however, that our capa- 
bility still is not adequate or that our programs of action still need to be improved 
and accelerated. Air pollution threatens our health and welfare and the overall 
quality of our environment in many direct and indirect ways. The sooner we 
overcome that threat, the better off we all will be. 



199 




o 



O 



O 

I— I 

< 

a 

t— < 

CO 

M 
Q 

8- 



o 

CO 

H 



en 



o 



o 



60 



SO 



40 



30 



20 



10 



(44)* 



200 



(190* 



(170)^ 



FEDERAL 
15.6 



feoeHal 

31.2 



(93)* 



NON- 
FEDERAL 
9.3 



FEDERAL 
4.1 



NON- 
FEDERAL 
9.6 



I I 

! I 



NON- 
FEDERAL 
23.1 



NON- 
FEDERAL 



\961 1965 1968 1969 JULY 

YEAR ■ ' 

Stale, local, and regional agencies air pollution control budgets. 



* Number of agencies 



201 






1 



ry^i-.'-i-i'Yi'iViwi'iVi'iSyivVi'.'iiiym 



■ [•■■■■Mil 



cr 

lil 

UJ o 

< -> ^ 

5 < S 



& 
o 

z 
< 



< 

o 
o 
_l 

o 
z 
< 

UJ 

< 

1- 
co 

Q 

UJ 

z 
m 



< -1 






"■^ 1 : : 


: .:;:■;■;. 






-~l 



k^^l.A 



' ^■■•- ■■' '-^ ■ 




■^^^'■- *-•■■'.. 



CC 

< 



' _1 

-I < 

1 u 



■1 U1 

i,\ ■>•■■■•: V, .-■«•■■'■■■ im'! iViv^ 



I r^^ <• i ^ v i I V . s ^ ' 



o 
o 



o 
o 

o 



SNOiiisod o3i3oana jo agawnn 



202 



AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION INFORMATION RELATING TO STANDARDS AND IMPLEMENTATION PLANS FOR 
SULFUR OXIDES AND PARTICULATE MATTER THROUGH MAR. 10, 1970 













Standards 














Public hearings 
scheduled/held 










Region 


Designation 


State 


Due 


Submitted 


Plans due 


Washington, D.C.. 


. Oct. 


1,1968 


Virginia 


. July 14,1969 


. Nov. 10,1969 


Oct. 


13,1969 


May 7, 1970 








Maryland 


. Oct. 1,1969 


do 


Feb. 


3, 1970 


Do. 








District of 


Oct. 24, 1969 


do 


Nov. 


7, 1969 


Do. 








Columbia. 












New York City.... 


. Nov. 


20, 1968 


New York 


May 13, 14,15, 


do 


Nov. 


19, 1969 


Do. 


- 








1969. 
















New Jersey 


Sept. 22, 1969.-.- 


do 


Oct. 


30, 1969 


Do. 








Connecticut 


- Aug. 12, 19, 1969- 


do 


Nov. 


7,1969 


Do. 


Chicago 


. Dec. 


4,1968 


Illinois 


Aug. 5,1969 


do 


Nov. 


3, 1969 


Do. 








Indiana.. 


July 21; Sept. 26, 
1969. 


do 


Nov. 


10,1969 


Do. 


Philadelphia 


. Dec. 


17, 1968 


Pennsylvania... 


Sept. 10, 1969... - 


do 


Nov. 


3, 1969 


Do. 








New Jersey 


Sept. 22, 1969.... 


do 


Oct. 


30, 1969 


Do. 








Delaware 


Sept. 26, 1969.... 


do 


Oct. 


29, 1969 


Do. 


Denver.. 


. Jan. 


15,1969 


Colorado 


Oct. 15,1969 


do 






Do. 


Los Angeles 


. Jan. 


29, 1969 


California 


Sept. 17; Nov. 19, 

1969. 
Nov. 12,1969.... 


do 


Dec. 


15, 1969 


Do. 


St. Louis 


. Apr. 


11,1969 


Missouri 


. Jan. 6,1970 


Jan. 


5, 1970 


July 6,1970 








Illinois... 


Aug. 12, 1969... - 


do 


Nov. 


3, 1969 


Do. 


Boston 


. Apr. 


12, 1969 


Massachusetts. 


Nov. 25, 1969...- 


- Jan. 7,1970 


Jan. 


15,1970 


Do. 


Cincinnati... 


. May 


2, 1969 


Ohio 


Dec. 17,1969 


- Jan. 27,1970 






July 27,1970 








Indiana 


Oct. 28,1969 


do 


Feb. 


25, 1970 


Do. 








Kentucky 


Dec. 2, 1969 


do 


Jan. 


22, 1970 


Do. 


San Francisco 


. May 


1, 1969 


California 


Sept. 17; Nov. 19, 
1969. 


Jan. 26,1970 


Dec. 


15, 1959 


Do. 


Cleveland 


. May 


23, 1969 


Ohio 


Jan. 20, 1970 


. Feb. 17,1970 






Aug. 17,1970 


Pittsburgh... 


. May 


1,1969 


Pennsylvania... 


Sept. 9,1969 


. Jan. 26,1970 


Nov. 


3, 1969 


July 27,1970 


Buffalo 




do 


New York 


Aug. 19, 20, 1969. 


do 


Jan. 


27,1970 


Do. 


Kansas City 


- July 


19, 1969 


Missouri 

Kansas 


Jan. 21,1970 


- Apr. 15,1970 
do 






Oct. 12,1970 
Do. 


Detroit... 


. Dec. 


17,1969 


Michigan 




Sept. 14, 1970 






Mar. 12,1971 


Baltimore 


- Aug. 


16, 1969 


Maryland 


Mar. 12,1970...- 


May 13,1970 






Nov. 9,1970 


Hartford- 


Oct. 


3, 1969 


Connecticut 


Feb.9, 16,1970..- 


. June 30,1970 






Dec. 28,1970 


Springfield. 






Massachusstts.. 


Mar. 19,1970.... 


...-.do 






Do. 


Indianapolis 


. Sept 18, 1969 


Indiana 


Feb. 6, 1970 


. Jun. 15,1970 






Dec. 14,1970 


Minneapolis- 


















St. Paul 


- Aug. 


16, 1969 


Minneapolis 




. May 13,1970 






Nov. 9,1970 


Milwaukee 


. Sep. 


18, 1969 


Wisconsin 




. Jun. 15,1970 






Dec. 14,1970 


Providence 


. Dec. 


6, 1969 


Rhode Island.... 




. Sept. 2, 1970 






Mar. 1,9171 




. Oct. 


25, 1969 


Massachusetts.. 
Washington 


Mar. 18, 1970 


.do. 






Do. 


Seattle-Tacoma... 


Mar. 13,1970.... 


. Jul. 22,1970 






Jan. 18,1971 


Louisville 


. Dec. 


6, 1969 


Kentucky 

Indiana 




. Sept. 2, 1970 
do 






Mar. 1,1971 
Do. 


Dayton 


. Dec. 


17, 1969 


Ohio 




. Sept. 14, 1970 






Mar. 12,1971 


Phoenix 






Arizona 


Dec. i2, 1969 










Houston 


. Jan. 


20, 1970 


Texas 




Oct. 19,1970 






Apr. 15,1971 


Dallas-Fort Worth. 




Jo 


do 




do 






Do. 


San Antonio 




Jo . 


do 




do . . 






Do. 


Birmingham 


. 




Alabama 












Toledo 


Ohio 














Michigan 












Steubenville 


. Dec. 


6, 1969 


Ohio 

West Virginia... 




Sept. 2,1970 
do 






Mar. 1,1971 
Do. 


Chattanooga 






Tennessee 














Georgia 












Atlanta 






Georgia 












Memphis 


Mississippi 














Tennessee 














Arkansas. 












Portland 


Oregon... 














Washington. 












Salt Lake City 


Utah.. 












New Orleans 


Louisiana 












Miami 


Florida 












Oklahoma City... 


Oklahoma 












Omaha 


Nebraska 














Iowa 












Honolulu 


Hawaii 












Beaumont-Port 














Arthur 






Texas 












Charlotte 


North Carolina.. 












Portland 


Maine 












Albuquerque 


New Mexico 












Lawrence- Lowell- 


Massachusetts.. 












Manchester. 


New Hampshire. 
Texas 












El Paso 












Las Vegas 


Nevada 













203 

(\IR QUALITY CONTROL REGION INFORMATION RELATING TO STANDARDS AND IMPLEMENTATION PLANS FOR 
SULFUR OXIDES AND PARTICULATE MATTER THROUGH MAR. 10, 1970 



Standards 
Public hearings 



Region Designation State scheduled/held Due Submitted Plans due 



Fargo-Moorhead. North Dakota. 

Minnesota 

Boise Idaho. 

Billings _ Montana 

Sioux Falls... South Dakota. 

Cheyenne... Wyoming 

Anchorage Alaska 

Burlington Vermont 

San Juan Puerto Rico... 

Virgin islands 



Prepared Statement of Dr. Alexander Cohen, Chief, National Noise Stiidy, 
Bureau of Occupational Health and Safety, Department of Heialth, 
Education, and Welfare 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee : I appreciate the opportunity 
to offer some technical comments on noise as a problem. Major intent of the 
noise provisions in Section II of S. 3229 is to investigate present and anticipated 
noise levels in our environment and their possible effects. My remarks are in- 
tended to provide a reference point for such a task. First, they will depict the 
nature of noise conditions presently being experienced in industry, outdoors in 
the community, and indoors in the home. Second, they will consider the real of 
alleged effects of these noise exix)sures on humans in light of current knowledge. 

I direct your attention to the table included in my prepared testimony. Shown 
ht're are sound levels for various sources of noise encountered in different environ- 
mental situations. Such noise levels are expressed as decibels measured on the 
A -network of a sound-level meter, abbreviated as dBA. Noise readings in dBA are 
w eightetl in a manner designed to approximate the human ear's sensitivity to 
sounds of different frequency. 



is-iee o— 70 — ^pt. 1 14 



204 



CO 
m 



Q.T3 



-a> 



^ CO 

«£:CQS "^•X. 
■™ 2"^^°® oCQ 



— c:>SB 



« Q.-° ro £ M 5 =1 3 « 
^0U-C30_jQt->0 



O 

oe 



z 



00 

LLl 

o 



o 

CO 



o 

CO 



3 

o 
CO 



C9 

< 



O 

o 
•a 



CO 



CO 



a> 

io 

OQC-OD — 



oo CO 



oo CO 



~ o 



' ii; 0) « « >N 

^0» CNJ o Cvt •*- 

♦^ 5 "''^ " if 

•^O-OOfSO. 



Q. 

E 



i. £ 



o 



o i/^ tl 



coX 
-oco 



■"aSi^cO 
to**" a>_. 

O ^ wO 



5 9 vJ o 

5-0 2 TO 



u_ ^ Dfl oj tj k_ j;; 

r _ = -s~r 



CO 



CDS' - 
00 CO 



00 



■i5^::mC-°£S^2S So 



00 trt.^ Q> 



oo 

c ^^ 

= 00 

.E "" 



(/> oj _Z -= ^^ Sj ^^ _ — 
2<Jre^"'E = o,_oo 

e"2E"-K^E5o= r £J 
•COcoOO:)— Ljju.zo^ o —i^ 



00.1; 



CO 



< 

CO 



>CQ 



•a 
o 



o 



205 

The table shows that noises in mechanized industry, as a group, have higher, 
more intense levels than those found outdoors in a community or indoors in a 
home. Furthermore, industrial operations allow for more sustained types of 
exposure to these higher noise levels during the typical 8-hour workday. None- 
theless, certain noises intruding in community or home environments can reach 
levels comparable to those noted for their noisier workplaces. Residents living 
under the flight-path of a nearby airport, for example, may experience the same 
noise levels as produced in riveting operations or around textile looms. A home 
power-mower gejierates the same noise levels as a farm tractor or newspaper 
press. The noise of a food blender may slightly exceed that noted in a milling 
machine workplace. 

Fortunately, these more significant sources of community and home noise 
occur intermittently and perhaps infrequently which reduces the overall severity 
of exposure. On the other hand, some non-occupational exposures, while inter- 
mittent, may occur over longer daily periods than the usual 8-hour workday. 
Indeed,' neighbors to major airports and busy expressways may experience inter- 
mittent noises on a round-the-clock basis. Moreover, key sources of community 
noise, such as those caused by transportation systems, may have wide areas of 
impact and affect sizeable populations. Present indications are, for example, that 
the supersonic transport, if permitted to fly at supersonic speeds across the United 
States, could produce sonic boom corridors 50-miles wide that would impact from 
35 to 60 million persons per transcontinental crossing. Even without the SST 
booms, 130 million persons are living in urban areas throughout the U.S. which 
are becon^ing steadily noisier due to increasing crowding and traffic con- 
gestion, construction activity, and wide-scale manufacturing. Suburban areas 
have not been spared either. A survey of these residential areas on 1967 revealed 
noise levels that were from 4 to 7 decibels gerater than those noted 13 years 
earlier. Even more striking, the maximum levels intruding into communities in 
1967 were as much as 18 decibels greater than those found before. I should point 
out that an increase of 3 decibels is equivalent to a doubling of acoustic energy. 
This 18 decibel increase means that the maximum noise energy affecting the area 
in which our people live has increased as much as 64 times in a 13 year period. 

The environmental noise levels and exposures just noted can adversely affect 
man in various ways. Real or alleged effects include — 

( 1 ) Temporary and permanent hearing loss ; 

(2) Physical and mental disturbances ; 

(3) Interference with voice communication ; 

(4) Disruption in job i)erformance ; and 

(5) Disruption of rest, relaxation, and sleep. 

Permit me to elaborate on these noise-induced effects in the context of indus- 
trial and community /home exposures. ^ . , i, ii.v. 

Noise-induced hearing loss is believed to be the most serious physical health 
hazard posed by excessive noise, and such problems are prevalent in mechanized 
industry. Surveys in a cross-section of manufacturing, construction, mining, 
farming and other occupations have found noise levels potentially harmful to 
hearing, and hearing studies on select worker groups exposed to such noise have 
shown them to have poorer hearing than those in quieter jobs (office workers). 
Estimates of total number of production workers experiencing noise conditions 
hazardous to their health range from 6,000,000 to 17,000,000, the true figure is 

unknown. , ^ j 1.1, 

Recognition of noise and hearing loss problems in industry has prompted the 
passage of regulations to curb this health hazard. The criteria or noise limits 
contained in these regulations, however, still lack wide acceptance among noise 
experts who believe that more information will be needed to justify limits pre- 
scribed for certain types of industrial conditions. The Bureau of Occupational 
Safety and Health, of the Environmental Health Service is conducting field and 
laboratory research to provide documentation of hearing conservation criteria 
for a wide array of possible industrial noise exposures. Noise and hearing sur- 
veys have already been made in select steel-making, paper and wood products, 
printing and publications, metal products, construction and transportation oc- 
cupations. At the end of June 1970, there will be a hearing data compiled on 
3,000 workers exposed to noise in these industries and evaluations performed to 
establish safe levels of noise exposure. Other research supported by the National 
Institutes of Health in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, has 
attempted to identify mechanisms underlying noise-induced injury to the ears 
and susceptibility factors. 



206 

• Community and home noise exposures, owing to their generally less severe 
nature, do not pose the same hazard of noise-induced hearing loss as is the 
case in industry. Yet, it is now contended that exposures to the aggregate of 
noises characterizing life in a modern society — noises from mass transportation, 
arrays of hou.sehold appliances, power tools, and hobbies and recreational activ- 
ities—can cause some degree of hearing loss aside from that due to the work 
environment. The Bureau of Occupational Safety and Health, Environmental 
Health Service, has undertaken some pilot work in this area and is planning 
more formidable studies in FY 1971. In particular, representative noise measure- 
ments will be made in recreational activities including sport flying, drag-strip 
racing or cycling, and rock-and-roll music playing and rated against criteria for 
safe exposures to noise. Hearing of participant groups will also be tested and 
compared with others of comparable age having minimal noise exposure. Evi- 
dence of significant noise-induced hearing loss here will .seriously complicate judg- 
ments of industrial hearing los.s and po.se problems in defining "normal" hearing. 

Presently, there is much conjecture as to whether excessive noise conditions 
can cause physical or mental health disorders. That noise can trigger changes 
in cardiovascular, endocrine, neurologic and other physiologic functions, with 
correlated feelings of distress, is readily demonstrated. At issue is whether re- 
peated noise-induced changes of this nature ultimately result in a disease process. 
Many noi.se experts believe that man's tolerance to noise is quite high and that 
most environmental noise conditions can be adapted to without ill effects. Yet, 
there are others who maintain that the stressful effects of noi.se, along or to- 
gether with other stress factors, can eventually overwhelm man's capability for 
healthy adjustment with resultant physical or mental health problems. Scat- 
tered evidence for both points of view exist but in point of fact crucial, systematic 
studies remain to be done in this problem area. 

For example, numerous studies on animals as well as humans have found 
physiologic changes initially induced by noise to subside with repeated or pro- 
longed exposure to the same sound. This suggests adaption and pre.sumably 
no health problem. These studies, however, have not been conducted over 
sufficiently long time periods to judge the possible long-term costs of this adap- 
tion to the health of the organism. In this regard, physiologic irregularities of 
a cariodvascular and neurologic nature have been reported in the foreign liter- 
ature for workers expo.sed many years to high level industrial noise. Also noted 
in these studies is increased irritability and social problems among the workers 
both at the job as well as in their home situations. These results conflict, 
however, with other investigations involving human exposure to high level noise 
in the military. No unusual physical or psychiatric disturbances were found in 
aircraft carrier deck personnel subjected to extremely intense noise for concen- 
trated operational periods. Reasons for the di.serepant nature of these findings 
are not obvious. Perhaps military per.sonnel, rei>resenting a select and condi- 
tioned group, are better able to cope with a noxious noise environment. This, of 
course, raises the issue of the possible stressful effects of noise on persons whose 
physical and mental health is already imi)aired. Would, for example, better 
noise exclusion in hospital wards hasten recovery time in the sick? A recently 
published study found patients' requests for pain relieving medication in a 
surgery recovery room to rise coincident with increased noise levels straying 
into this area. 

Hypertension, undue nervousness, and assorted mental difficulties have been 
claimed by some residents living in communities subjected to intense aircraft 
and highway noise. These claims have not been suflBciently inve.stigated to 
ascertain their validity. Indeed, only two cursory type evaluations have been 
made yielding conflicting results. In one, an inquiry of doctors having oflBces in 
the vicinity of London Airport revealed only one patient being treated for a 
mental disturbance attributed by the physician to aircraft noise exposure. A 
check of pharmacies in the same neighborhoods found no above-normal u.se of 
tranquilizers or drugs which might have reflet-ted the stress of the aircraft noise 
disturbance. A more recent preliminary report from the same airix>rt locale has 
found the number of admissions to a mental hospital from a residential area 
receiving intense aircraft noise to be significantly more than from a comparable 
demographic area not so exposed. 

Clearly, the incomplete, incon.sistent nature of the evidence summarized above 
underscores the need for comprehen.sive study of possible acute and chronic 
health effects that may be caused by long-term cumulative noise exposures on 
both general and .special populations. One can envision investigations where 



207 

the health status of groups experiencing known levels of noise will be monitored 
for i)eriods of 10 or more years in length in order to fully evaluate this problem. 
Such work will be complex, obviously time consuming, and fraught with eon- 
founding factors. Nevertheless, resolution of the issue of physical and mental 
health problems posed by environmental noi.se will require this type of effort. 

Noise not intense enough to cause hearing damage or other physiologic effects 
may still disrupt speech communication as well as the hearing of other desired 
.sounds. In industry, this disruption can degrade efficiency on jobs requiring 
reliable communication by voice. Much is known about the masking effects of 
noise on speech and recommended noise limits for offices are based on these 
masking considerations. Inability to hear warning signals or shouts of caution 
in other workspaces because of high level noise can also be implicated as a factor 
in industrial accidents but data to indicate the significance of this problem are 
not available. 

Noi.se annoyance reactions in communities also have arisen from interference 
with listening activities. Schools neighboring busy airports and roadways in this 
country have reported severe disturbances in classroom activities from intrud- 
ing noises of these transportation activities. Measures of the masking effects of 
noi.se on speech are now being considered as a basis for establishing permissible 
outdoor noise limits in city noise ordinances. 

The effects of noise on performing tasks for which voice communication is not 
necessary are quite variable and depend greatly on the nature of the noise con- 
dition present, the task being performed, and the attitude of the worker. The 
most consistent laboratory evidence for noise performance loss has been shown 
for those tasks requiring complete and unremitting attention to detail. Consist- 
ent with the.se laboratory finding.s, performance on jobs involving vigilance 
activities, such as monitoring machines and quality control inspection, show 
improvement with the introduction of noise control. Data coupling industrial 
noise conditions with accident rates, absenteeism, and employee turnover are 
not available. Noise may be implicated in these occupational problems but 
cau.sal relationships may be difficult to demon.sitrate. Also, the build up of fatigue 
in a noi.sy job and its possible after-effects in off-job situations, e.g., automobile 
accidents in returning to one's home, have not been studied. 

There is little doubt that noise can frustrate one's desire for privacy, rest, 
relaxation and sleep. Questionnaire surveys of communities exposed to intense 
air craft fly over noise have found interruption of rest relaxation and sleep to be 
major causes of annoyance and complaints. Presently, there is interest in devel- 
oping annoyance criteria for noise based upon noise disturbances to sleep. 
Various considerations dictate this type of criterion development. Field studies 
have shown annoyance results when sleep or rest are disturbed than when other 
activities, e.g. listening, are interrupted. Rest and sleep presumably provide the 
conditions for restitution of body energy and recovery from fatigue and thus 
may have health significance. Disruption of sleep by noise also offers a more 
objective method for gauging annoyance than other procedures using subjective 
ratings of acceptability. However, identification of noise or sound levels capable 
of disrupting sleep is going to be difficult. For one thing, the amount of noise 
needed to awaken a slumberer varies greatly for different stages of sleep. The 
degree of familiarity or meaningfulness of the noise also has a significant effect 
upon this disturbing quality. Common experiences have shown, for example, that 
the city-dweller, frequently encountering high levels of outdoor and indoor noi.ses 
becomes accustomed to such sounds and .sleeps in their presence. The same 
per,son, vacationing in the relative quiet of the country, finds it difficult to sleep 
because of the cricket noises. 

Still another question that has to be answered in setting noise criteria for 
minimizing .sleep disturbances is whether the noise may adversely affect sleep 
even though a person is not consciously awakened. One expert in sleep research 
believes that noise can interfere with the dream process during sleep, without 
conscious awakening, and recurrent interventions of this sort may cause greater 
irritability, tiredness, and difficulty in con cent rating during the awake hours. 
Work presently in progress under the supervision of the Public Health Service 
indicates that noi.se interruptions to sleep patterns over a succession of nights 
may cause noticeable change in measures of ijerformance taken each day following 
the noise-sleep sessions. 

In addition to evaluating noise effects in sleep, great efforts have been made 
to determine an acou.stic measure that can best quantify noi.se annoyance and 
define limits for tolerable exposures. These limiting measures are essential in 



208 

environmental planning, but it is well to remember that many sounds are judged 
annoying, not because of their acoustic properties, but because of psycho-social 
considerations. For example, some sounds are judged annoying because they con- 
vey distress, alarm, or have other unpleasant meanings. A Public Health t^ervice 
supported survey of noise conditions in hosivitals found one prevalent source of 
annoyance to be staff conversaitions in the halls. These sounds were not objection- 
able because of their loudness, but because of the information communicated, 
namely, descriptions of patients symptoms, forthcoming operations, and prog- 
noses. To cite another case, the sounds of approaching aircraft can elicit fear, 
owing to a crash possibility, and such fears appear to motivate complaints of 
aircraft noise in neighborhoods near airix>rts. Similarly, the screaming sirens of a 
patrol car, a clanging fire engine, because of the purix>ses attached to them, can 
engender annoyance out of fear. These unpleasant associations, together with 
nimierous other social, psychologic factors, including the necessity or advantage 
attached to a noise source, the time of day where a given noise is heard, the listen- 
ers conditioning to noise, all complicate the use of any acoustic measures for 
rating noise annoyance. These considerations also make it clear that tliere are no 
practical means for freeing everyone from the annoyance problems caused by 
noise. 

In closing, I should like to make two summary observations : 

1. Noise levels and exposure conditions in communities and home environments 
are beginning to approach in overall severity those found in mechanized industry. 
Effects of noise believed si)ecific to only high level industrial noises are beginning 
to emerge even in non-occupational situations. Perhaps I should iwint out too that 
my division of noise levels and effects into indu.strial and communities categories 
is somewhat artificial. In fact, hearing loss problems in industi-y may be aggre- 
vated by the inability of the worker to find an off -job environment quiet enough 
to allow his ears to recover from the occupational noise exposure. The distress 
or disturbance created by community and home noises may be a carry-over from 
the noise encountered in the work situation. 

2. There is sufficient knowledge about certain noise conditions and their effects 
to permit interim criteria to be established as regards hearing loss and t-peech 
interference problems. Gaps in these formulations have been recognized and 
research to supply needed information is in progress. On the other hand, there 
is comparatively little effort being directed to study possible non-aural physical 
and mental problems connected with excessive noise exposures. The nature of 
such investigations requires long-term investment of time and money with the 
possibility of results clouded by numerous confounding factors. Noise researchers 
are understandably attracted to other short-term problems mth a greater poten- 
tial of clean, definitive results. Nevertheless, it is this problem area that now 
should recei/e the highest priority in any on-going research program concerned 
with noise and health. The noi.se problem is most complex. I have tried to touch on 
the major issues. I shall be glad to amplify my remarks on the technical matters, 
in more detail, and to answer any questions that you or the Subcoonmittee 
may have. 

Senator Spong. I have only one other question that touches on what 
Senator Randolph has covered. I would like to know the level that you 
contemplate funding the air pollution program in the fiscal year 1971, 
in particular regard to section 104 that Senator Randolph has been 
talking about and, of course, section 309, for the balance. 

Mr. Veneman. The total estimate for funding, Senator Spong, is 
$112,118,000. 

Nowj I will have to ask Dr. Middleton to break out the specific 
sections. 

Dr. Middleton. As to section 104 for 1971, we would expect to 
obligate $33.9 million. 

Senator Spong. And the balance of the $112 million would come 
under section 309 ? 

Dr. Middleton. That is right. 

Senator Randolph. Senator Spong, I forgot to ask a question that 
I would like to ask before we recess. 



209 

Let us consider aircraft emissions of tlie operating airlines. They 
have entered into a voluntary agreement to attempt to decrease the 
emissions from the aircraft engines. I am not sure who would want to 
speak to that, but that is a voluntary agreement, isn't it? 

Dr. MiDDLETON. That is correct. 

Senator Randolph. Now, that relates to the airlines in the United 
States. I must be very careful here. Does that include the foreign air- 
lines, or is it only those airlines of the United States? 

Dr. MiDDLETON. It includes the U.S. airlines, all of whom had the 
smoky jet manufactured by Pratt- Whitney. It doesn't include the 
foreign. 

Senator Randolph. Now, that leads me to this observation : Let us 
take New York City on the east and Los Angeles on the west, on our 
two coasts. What fraction is foreign traffic that moves into one or more 
airports on hoth the east and west coast. 

Dr. MiDDLETON. This information would have to be obtained from 
the Department of Transportation and Federal Aviation Authority, 
but it was discussed in general terms in the Secretarys' conference. 

They agreed at that time with the airlines that they would be able 
to control most of the pollution, substantial quantities of pollution, 
by December of 1972 from the smoky engines. The foreign aircraft 
were discussed at this point in the meeting, and it was determined that 
while they did fly planes that smoked, that the 707's would be likely 
phased out in 4 or 5 years or probably disappear from the interna- 
tional airports. 

Senator Randolph. Well, I commend the action of the U.S. airlines 
and some might have said it should have been done sooner. But cer- 
tainly they have moved here on a voluntary basis on a large degree. 

I don't want, however, a voluntary action as we have in the United 
States to be, let us say, in reverse, a discrimination against the U.S. 
airlines, if the foreign airlines are allowed over our airways, wherever 
they may be, not to do so now. Would the regulatory authority, as 
opposed to voluntary agreement, which didn't work for the automo- 
bile, eliminate this discrimination ? 

Mr. Veneman. Well, I indicated, also speaking to S. 3229 today, 
Senator, that we did not feel the vessel, the aircraft, and the agricul- 
tural vehicles are a major problem at this time, but we did feel that 
should they become that, that ultimately legislation should be adopted 
there if the voluntary effort did not materialize to produce results. 

So I think it is something we have to be aware of, but I think we 
also have to recognize the volume by which they are, in fact, polluting 
the air. 

Senator Randolph. Thank you. 

Senator Spong. I would like to comment on Senator Randolph's 
last question, I join in commending the airlines for what they have 
done, but I think we all ought to recognize the extent of this. All they 
are doing is removing the smoke. Technology has not reached the point, 
if I understand Dr. Middleton's testimony before the Commerce Com- 
mittee, where we know what we are doing with the hydrocarbons or 
oxides of nitrogen. My understanding is that this is causing 1 percent 
or less of the pollution, but I think we ought to know that getting rid 
of the smoke really isn't really attacking the problem, and I think 
that ought to be on the table at all times. 



210 

Senator Cooper ? 

Senator Cooper. No questions. 

Senator Spong. Speaking on behalf of the chairman, Mr. Under 
Secretary, I want to tliank you for your appearance here today. We 
look fonvard to the fui-ther hearings and to having you with us again. 

Mr. Veneman. I would like to express my appreciation for the 
cooperation you have rendered in behalf of the Secretary who has 
been unable to be with us. 

Senator Spono. Additional statements received relating to the ap- 
pearance of the Department witnesses and their testimony here today 
will \k^ included in the record at this point. 

(The following statement was subsequently received :) 

The Association of .State and Territiorial Heai^th Officers, 

Washington, April 20, 1970. 
Hon. Edmund Muskie, 

Chairman, Subcommitfcc on Air and Water Pollution, Senate Committee on 
Public Works, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 

Dear Mr. Chairman : I wish to forward for you and your Committee's con- 
sideration the views of the Association of State and Territorial Health OflScers 
relative to amendments to the Air Pollution Control Act which you have under 
consideration at the present time. Please know that primary substantive contribu- 
tion to this expre.ssion was furnished by the Conference of State Sanitary Engi- 
neers, ASTHO's affiliated organization whose members are responsible for the 
day-to-day environmental control efforts of state health agencies throughout the 
nation, and which subscribes to this statement. 

Much remains to be accomplished in respect to the complex problems of air 
pollution control. That progress to date in these efforts has not been sufficient 
is apparent to all — to you. to us. and most importantly, to both our consituents, 
the American people. It is our joint constituency which suffers the ill effects of 
ineffective air pollution control, and whose demand for more stringent control 
measures are becoming a nationwide cre.scendo, and whose active participation 
in policy determinations relative to this problem is a vital key to ultimate success. 
It is the coordinate efforts of us all that is essential and legislation to control 
air pollution should be cognizant of that fact. 

We are of the opinion that certain of the proposals forwarded by the Ad- 
ministration would not be in the best interests of this combined effort. Prominent 
is the call for nationally applicable ambient air quality standards. The sole 
justification for such a nationwide standard would be eliminating the possibility 
of industry bargaining one state or locality against another for selfish economic 
reasons. We believe that our citizens are sufficiently alert to a short-term pay- 
roll versus long-term environmental despoiling to make sound judgemental 
decisions relative to acceptable standards. We believe that this arrangement will 
make possible the most effective cooperation of the public, the state and the 
federal government. 

For similar reasons, we believe responsibility for establishing emission stand- 
ards should be a delegated state responsibility. Except for sources whose 
emisisons are "extremely hazardous to health" such as asbestos, war gases, 
pathenogenic aero.sols, beryllium and cadmium where in some instances no 
plant should be built, establishment of standards should be done by the state 
agency with, once again, federal review and approval or standards promulgation 
in the event a state failed to establish adequate standards. Suitable differences 
in requirements between one locality and another could be much better accommo- 
dated resulting in desired control levels in contrast to national levels which, we 
fear would be likely to be set at the lowest common denominator and reflect "rea- 
sonable" levels rather than "best possible" levels. 

It is advocated by some that publication of air quality criteria no longer be 
required. We are of the opinion that such publication should be continued for 
important reasons. Such criteria carries considerable weight at the best judge- 
ment of the scientific comm,unity, conclusions which the public, local and state 
governments simply do not have the resource to derive. These data are useful 
and publication thereof should be continued. 



211 

In reference to certain amendments proposed by the Administration to the 
present Act, we would raise the following questions. 

(1) A^Tiy should not the offended state be represented on the hearing board 
along with the offending state? 

(2) AMiy should not air pollution control plans which are more restrictive than 
those of the Secretary sui)ersede the latter? 

(3) Why is the Secretary to be given authority to grant variances? The concept 
that c-ompliance schedules allowed adequate time to implement standards is 
preferable to the variance authority. 

(4) Why does th^ proposal eliminate the requirement for public participation 
in the development of air quality standards? As stated previously, we believe this 
involvement a cornerstone to success. 

(5) What accounts for the apparent discrepancy between the President's an- 
nounced intent to designate interstate air quality control regions (where not 
now named) and the HEW deletion of the requirement to designate air quality 
control regions? 

(6) Should not HEW be required to forward proposed regulations to all air 
pollution control agencies? 

(7) Should there not be the requirement that prior to Secretarial approval 
of a state's implementation plan determination be made that such plan will not 
adversely affect the ambient air quality standards of appropriate neighboring 
states? 

It is our judgment, after study of the current situation and the proposals 
of the Administration, that priorities for involvement by agencies of influence 
are inappropriately assigned by the Administration's proposal. Specifically, we 
believe the roles of the Federal establishment in enforcement and in research 
have been inadequate. In respect to enforcement the strong cooperation and 
backing of HEW is essential. Since an increase in the amount of fines from $1,000 
to $10,000 has been proposed, we are curious as to the number of $1,000 fines 
which have been assessed under the present authority. As to research, we are 
of the view that a much more extensive role could he assumed by the federal 
govenmient. We have urged and we continue to urge increased appropriations for 
research activities. 

We trust that these views and expressions of our judgement will be instructive 
of our position and of assistance to your Committee. 
Yours truly, 

Alfeed Frechette, M.D., President. 



Senator Spong. "We are in recess until 9 :30 tomorrow morning. 
(Whereupon, at 1 p.m. the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 
9:30 a.m., Wednesday, March 18, 1970.) 

(Appendix to today 's hearing follows :) 

Appendix — March 17, 1970 

March 10, 1970. 
Senator Jennings Randolph, 
Committee on PuMic Works, 
New Senate Office Building, 
Washington, B.C. 

Dear Senator Randolph : We very much appreciated the opportunity to discuss 
with you the present status and technical promise of the Westvaco SO- Recovery 
Process and to hear your feelings on the urgent need to push such a process to 
large scale technical reality. We also went into the technical details of the pro- 
ce.ss and its potential for rapid scale-up with your quite capable technical as- 
sistant, Richard Grundy. I was thus very pleased to receive your letter indicating 
that our process apparently had considerable potential and was badly needed to 
control air pollution when burning coal. The technical personnel in the National 
Air Pollution Control Administration for the past year have had similar feelings ; 
but as indicated in the enclosed letter received from Mr. Margolin la.st month, 
their hands were tied until their budget was approved by Congress. Since the 
HEW budget was approvetl last week, I understand our proposal for government 
support of a scaled-up integrated pilot plant has now been sent to the contracting 
officer for negotiation. I sincerely hope and believe these negotiations will be 
given the needed priority to permit marked acceleration of this development. 



212 

Because of our belief in the technical feasibility of our process and the urgent 
necessity to have a viable solution in operation within a very few years, we 
have spent over two hundred thousand dollars in process development since sub- 
mitting our proposal to the government at the beginning of last year. These 
studies have further increased our confidence in the technical and economic 
soundness of the process for use on existing or new boilers; and of its ability 
to be scaled up with existing chemical engineering technology and hardware. 
Since Senator Muskie has indicated that power utilities may soon be forced 
to put in partial, stop-gap approaches, adequate governmental funding of soundly- 
based, rapidly-expandable complete recovery processes could result in manyfold 
savings to the ultimate power consumer and taxpayer. 

I will briefly recap here my description to you of the Westvaco SO2 Recovery 
Process: A specially-tailored, highly-eflBcient granual carbon absodbent is pro- 
duced in existing commercial equiiraient from bitumimous coal. The efficient 
adsorbent permits the use of relatively small flue gas adsorption equipment. 
Similar equipment using granular carbon is currently used to recover waste 
solvents from air streams which are comparable in volume to the flue gas from 
large power boilers. The sulfur dioxide in the cooled fine gas going to the stack 
is continuously absorbed on fiuidized carbon and reacts with residual oxygen in 
the flue gas to form sulfur trioxide. This sulfur trioxide reacts with water vapor 
in the carbon pores to form sulfuric acid which is retained at high levels within 
the carbon. Continuous regeneration of the carbon with complete recovery as 
sulfur dioxide or sulfur is achieved through progressive reaction between sul- 
furic acid on the carbon and hydrogen. This hydrogen is produced from coal 
employing the widely used producer gas unit and hydrogen requirements are 
significantly below such experimental recovery processes as molten carbonate. 
Process conditions have been optimized to prevent carbonlloss by any chemical 
reaction, and the minimal attrition lass with proper granular carbon in similar 
large scale processes appear to permit several hundred cycles with the carbon thus 
minimizing make-up requirements. Since this is a dry process, the expensive re- 
heat of flue gas required in water scrubbing processes is not needed. Capital and 
operating costs for the process based upon semi-continuous pilot operation, which 
were presented to NAPCA, indicate economics as or more attractive than any 
other potentially competitive process currently known. 

Although this process stands a good chance of satisfactorily solving sulfur 
dioxide pollution from power boilers, it is virtually unknown since it has been 
privately and confidentially developed. Our only presentations of the process have 
been detailed presentations on the chemistry, engineering and economics to 
NAPCA during the past year; and a half-day presentation this summer to the 
Committee on Air Quality Management of the National Research Council. This 
committee, si>ecially convened by President Nixon to consider the acute problem of 
sulfur dioxide pollution, personally interrogated the developers of about twenty- 
five potential sulfur control processes and received written presentations from a 
number of others. Their specific evaluations were for governmental use and have 
not been released. The only public hint of their evaluation appears in an article 
by Professor Thomas K. Sherwood of Massachusetts Institute of Technology who 
was associate chairman of this committee. In the January 1970 issue of M.I.T.'s 
Technology Review a copy of which is enclosed, Professor Sherwood's article 
Must We Breathe Sulfur Oxides? discusses "Controlling Power Plant Emissions" 
based on his experience as a member of the committee. He states that "the tech- 
nology does not now exist to effectively control SO2 emissions, and it is coming 
along too late to prevent a very substantial increase in SO2 pollution even during 
the next ten to fifteen years". He then describesi the few widely publicized proc- 
esses which have been under development during the past decade some of which 
are low eflBciency partial treatments such as limestone injection, some have been 
set-back because of apparent basic process deficiencies such as in the alkalized 
alumina process, and some produce diluted sulfuric acid as in Monsanto's process. 
The only unreported process which he mentions is the Westvaco SO2 Process but 
not by name or its then secret details. He says : 

"Solid carbon in the form of inexi)ensive char has been used in Germany to 
pick up SO2 from stack gas. A related process using activated carbon has been 
oi)erated in a fair-sized pilot plant in this country. The carbon contacting the 
gases at 300° F in a fiuidized bed acts as a catalyst to produce sulfuric acid, which 
is held by the carbon. The acid is removed from the carbon by chemical methods 
and the carbon is recycled. No gas reheat is required, and marketable SO2, sul- 
furic acid, or elemental sulfur can be produced." 



213 

The temperature in the process is mentioned to indicate that our process can 
be adapted to existing power boilers since it operates on the gas being vented to 
the stack. A number of other processes under consideration such as the Monsanto 
Process and the molten carbonate process must operate on high temi)erature 
gases and thus require high temperature precipitators and breaking into the 
present heat economy train. 

Since making our proposal to NAPCA we have put up a mock-up of our pro- 
posed pilot installation, a picture of which is enclosed. We are not running this 
at room temperature with expected air flows to work out all the various 
mechanical and materials handling problems to expedite start up when we erect 
our proposed integrated pilot plant. In contacting some major engineering firms 
in the power utilities field to aid us in most meaningful and speedy pilot plant 
erection, we have been quite encouraged by their interest and the magnitudes 
of their scale-up from similar pilot size eqipment. Whereas earlier postulated, 
a prototype plant between this 18" diameter pilot-plant and that required for a 
50 megawatt boiler, it now seems it may be possible and worthwhile to make 
this jump in one step considering the amount of engineering technology already 
available in this field. This decision would partially depend upon the amount of 
risk capital available at the time, but your obvious determination to demand rapid 
progress in SO2 recovery should prove most important in government support. 

I apologize for the length of this letter, but you seemed anxious to receive 
additional background on our process and its relation to the field. I am also 
enclosing some additional literature for your possihle perusal and for Richard 
Grundy. We appreciate your interest and I might mention that Senator Hollings 
and Representative Rivers, who are from Charleston, have both shown a continu- 
ing lively interest in the potential of this process. I have never asked any specific 
help from them as I believed the process would move on its own merits. 
Sincerely, 

Frank J. Bat.t., 
Director, Charleston Research Center. 

Enclosures. 



Westvaoo, AprU 17, 1970. 
Representative Harley O. Staggers, 
Rayhtim Hotise Office Building, 
Washington, D.C. 

Dear Representative Staggers : It was an exciting pleasure to discuss with 
you the critical problems that are arising so rapidly in continued combustion of 
available coals and of the developing plans for accelerated development of the 
Westvaco SO2 recovery process as a likely solution. You asked that I 
thus write you a letter covering the background and the i)Ossibilities for expedit- 
ing this development. I have just recently also written a letter to Senator Ran- 
dolph, as chairman of the Senate Public Works Committee, covering our process ; 
so to avoid any possible confusion, I will use some of the same language. 

Although the Westvaco SO2 recovery process stands a good cihance of satisfac- 
torily solving sulfur dioxide pollution from power boilers, it is virtually unknown 
since it has been privately and confidentially developed. Our only presentations 
of the process have been detailed presentations on the chemistry, engineering 
and economics to NAPCA during the past year ; and a half-day presentation this 
summer to the Committee on Air Quality Management of the National Research 
Council. This committee, especially convenend by President Nixon to consider the 
acute problem of sulfur dioxide pollution, personally interrogated the developers 
of about twenty-five potential sulfur control processes and received written pre- 
sentations from a number of others. Their specific evaluations were for govern- 
mental use and have not been released. The only public hint of their evaluation 
appears in an article by Professor Thomas K. Sherwood of Massachusetts In- 
stitute of Technology who was associate chairman of this committee. In the 
January 1970 issue of M.I.T.'s Technology Review, a copy of which is enclosed. 
Professor Sherwood's article Must We Breathe Sulfur Oxides? discusses "Con- 
trolling Power Plant Emissions" based on his experience as a member of the 
committee. He states that "the technology does not now exist to effectively control 
SO2 emissions, and it is coming too late to prevent a very substantial increase in 
SO2 pollution levels during the next ten to fifteen years." He then describes the 
few widely publicized processes which have been under development during the 
past decade some of which are low efficiency i)artial treatments such as limestone 
injection, some have been set back because of apparent basic process deficiencies 



214 

such as in the alkalized alumina process, and some produce diluted sulfuric acid 
as in Monsanto's process. Tlie only unreported process which he mentions is the 
Westvaco SO2 process but not by name or its then secret details. He says: 

"Solid carbon in the form of inexpen.^ive char has been used in Germany to 
pick up SO:; from stack sas. A related process using activated carbon has been 
operated in a fair-sized pilot plant in this country. The carbon contacting the 
ga.ses at 300° F. in a fluidized bed acts as a catalyst to produce sulfuric acid, 
which is held by the carbon. The acid is removed from the carbon by chemical 
methods and the carbon is recycled. No gas reheat is required, and marketable 
S(\., sulfuric acid, or elemental sulfur can be produced." 

The temperature in the process is mentioned to indicate that our process is 
not limited to new plants but can be adapted to existing power boilers since it 
operates on the gas being vented to the stack. A number of other processes under 
consideration such as the Monsanto Process and the molten carbonate process 
must oi^erate on high temperature gases and thus require high temi^rature 
precipitators and breaking into the present heat economy train. 

The highly adsorptive carbon which is used in this process to trap the SO2 from 
power plant stack gas was produced in large scale commercial e(iuii)ment from 
bituminous coal. Similar si>ecially-tailored activated carbons produced in our 
same plant are being used for purifying the air in the Polaris submarines and 
this year for preventing gasoline vaiwr emission from California cars. This granu- 
lar carbon adsorljent, highly-efficient in adsorbing sulfur dioxide, permits the use 
of relatively small flue gas adsorption equipment. Similar equipment using granu- 
lar carbon is currently used to recover wa.ste solvents from air streams which are 
comparable in volume and rate to the flue gas from very large power boilers. The 
sulfur dioxide in the cooled flue gas going to the stack is continuously adsorbed 
on fluidized carbon and reacts on the carbon surface with residual oxygen in the 
flue gas to form sulfur trioxide. This sulfur trioxide reacts with water vapor in 
the carbon pores to form sulfuric acid which is retained at high levels within the 
carbon. Continuous regeneration of the carbon with complete recovery as sulfur 
dioxide or sulfur is then achieved in a second continuous step by progressive 
reaction between the sulfuric acid on the carbon and hydrogen. This hydrogen 
is produced from coal employing the widely used producer gas unit ; and hydrogen 
requirements are significantly below such experimental recovery processes as 
molten carbonate. Process conditions have been optimized to prevent carbon loss 
by any chemical reaction, and the minimal attrition loss with proi>er granular 
carbon in similar large scale processes makes several hundred cycles with the 
carbon likely thus minimizing make-up requirements. Since this is a dry process, 
the expensive reheat of flue gas required in water scrubbing processes is not 
needed. Capital and operating costs for the process based upon semi-continuous 
pilot operation, which were presented in detail to NAPCA, indicate economics as 
or more attractive than any other potentially competitive process currently 
known. 

Because of our belief in the technical feasibility of our process and the urgent 
necessity to have a viable solution for this problem in operation within a very 
few years, we have spent well over flve Inmdred thousand dollars in this process 
developmemt within a relatively short time. These .studies liave progres-sively in- 
creased our confidence in the technical and economic .soundness of the process for 
use on existing or new boilers; and of its ability to be scaled up with existing 
chemical engineering technology and hardware. We are now running a mock-up 
of a portion of our proposed pilot installation, a picture of which is enclosed. The 
expected air and carbon flows permit working out the various mechanical and 
materials handling problems to expedite start up when we erect the proposed 
integrated pilot plant adjacent to our power boiler. In contacting .some major 
engineering firms in the ix>wer utilities field to aid us in most meaningful and 
speedy pilot plant erection, we have been quite encouraged by their interest and 
the magnitudes of their scale-up from similar pilot size equipment. Whereas we 
earlier postulated, a prototype plant between this 18" diameter pilot plant and 
that required for a 50 megawatt power boiler, it now seems it may be po.ssible 
and worthwhile to make this jump in one step considering the amount of engi- 
neering technology already available in this field. Such plant scale decisions 
which might be made with our process in late 1971 assuming immediate go-ahead 
depend upon the ready availability of governmental or private capital willing to 
take the calculated risks to further telescope time requirements. Adequate en- 
couragement, determination and funding by you and Senator Randolph as chair- 



215 

men of the congressional committees directly responsible sihould markedly 
expedite the executive decisions necessary to achieve relatively rapid solution 
of these crises now facing the country in air pollution, utility generation and coal 
fuel supply. 

The technical personnel in the National Air Pollution Control Adminis- 
tration for the past year have shown considerable interest in supporting ac- 
celerated confirmation of our process; but as indicated in the enclosed letter 
received from Mr. Margolin, their hands were apparently tied until their budget 
was approved by Congress. Nevertheless, unfortnnately, fifteen months have 
elapsed since we proposed immediate erection of our pilot equipment with 
NAPCA supiwrt. By dint of a quarter of a million dollars of dedicated small 
scale technical effort during this time, however, we uncovered significant ad- 
ditional novel chemical and engineering approaches which have improved our 
process versatility and control. Shortly after the HEW budget was approve'ci 
last month, we thus met with NAPCA personnel in Cincinnati to discuss their 
desire for immediate progress toward larger scale demonstrations of our 
process. 

Our present pilot plant proposal, which has recently been discussed with 
NAPCA and involves less than one and a quarter million dollars in capital and 
operating expenses during an eighteen month effort, should be formally sub- 
mitted within the next two weeks. The object of this proposal is to rapidly 
obtain substantiating technical and economic data on the integrated process 
on power plant flue gases ; and to indicate the preferred chemical engineering 
equipment requirements for large scale use. I sincerely hope and believe that the 
contract decisions can be given the needed priority so we can very shortly 
accelerate this encouraging potential solution for the serious pollution problems 
facing the coal and utility industries. 

Gus Brust, Al Repik and I very much appreciated and welcome your apparent 
interest in further expediting this development. The WESTVACO SO2 RE- 
COVERY PROCESS should have associated with it all the technical merit, 
personnel capability and prompt support to now fulfill its present promise. 
Sincerely, 

Frank J. Ball, Director. 



Ionics, Inc., 
Watertown, Mass., March 16, 19t0. 
Senator Jennings Randolph, 
Chairman, Committee on Public Works, 
Washington, D.C. 

Dear Senator Randolph : You are currently holding hearings on extending 
the Air Quality Act of 1967. A key provision of this Act is Section 104, particu- 
larly as it relates to Federal support of demonstration plants on new air pol- 
lution control technology. I wish to call to your attention the Ionics/Stone 
& Webster process for removal of SO2 from stack gases and append a brief de- 
scription of it. We are negotiating now with NAPCA for support of a demon- 
stration plant jointly with the utility industry. If it is possible, I feel the at- 
tached write-up should be a part of the hearing record. 
Sincerely, 

Russell L. Haden, Jr., President. 

Stone & Wbibstiir/Ionios Process for SO2 Removal 

The Stone & Webster-Ionics Process has undergone pilot tests at the Gannon 
Station of Tampa Electric Company, in Tampa, Florida, where the operation of 
the process as a whole and of critical comiwnents was evaluated on actual 
flue gas from a pulverized coal-fired boiler. The pilot plant was capable of proc- 
essing about 150 to 200 CFM of fine gas which had an approximate concentra- 
tion of 0.25 volume % SO2. As a result of these tests, a process design of com- 
mercial size has been prepared and an estimate of the economic factors as a 
function of plant desigia and other parameters. For large power generating 
stations burning moderate to high sulfur-content coal it is believed that this 
process will remove up to 95% of the sulfur dioxide stream, suitable for further 



216 

processing, presiimably for sale as sulfuric acid. Most important of all, this 
abatement in air pollution in many cases should be achieved at no cost to the 
power station. In fact, at the pre.sent price of sulfur, the installation of this 
proc«'Ss should result in a net operating profit for the utility. 

In its simplest terms, the process may be described as follows: A solution 
composed of sodium sulfate electrolyte (Na^SOi) is fed to an electrochemical 
cell wherein a cau.stic stream (NaOH) is produced at the cathodes and an 
acidic stream (NaHSOi) at the anodes. The caustic (or alkaline) stream is fed 
into the top of an absorption tower where it is contacted counter-currently with 
flue gas rich in sulfur dioxide. A chemical reaction between the caustic and 
sulfur dioxide to produce sodium acid sulfite (XaHSOj) effectively scrubs up to 
95% of the sulfur dioxide out of the gas phase. The sodium acid sulfite is then 
fed to a heated tank where it is neutralized by the acidic stream from the electro- 
chemical cell. The neutralization reaction results in the reformation of the 
sodium sulfate, which is recycled to the electrochemical cells, and the evolution 
of pure sulfur dioxide. The sulfur dioxide is condensed and may either be 
stored as a liquid or sent directly to a sulfuric acid plant. 

Ba.sically, then, sulfur dioxide is removed from flue gas and recovered through 
the use of only water and the electrical energy which is required to operate 
the cells, pumps and blowers. There is no requirement for large quantities of 
chemical reactants, and, most important, with this process no new waste stream 
results which may be a .serious di.si>osal problem in itself. This is because the 
process automatically purge the system of any sulfate from the absorption of 
SO3 formed through the oxidation of sulfur dioxide in the absorption towers. 
Moreover, pure hydrogen and oxygen gas streams are useful by-products of the 
electrolytic cell operation. 

To date, all data on the process have been obtained on laboratory and pilot 
plant size equipment. One of the interesting aspects of electrochemistry is that 
one can secure meaningful process data on a small scale. However, it is essen- 
tial that there be a scale-up to production modules and demonstration of such 
modules in the field on a .scale of sufficient magnitude to convince users of the 
accuracy of the economic projections and of the reliability and ease of opera- 
tion of large-scale cells. These cells and their grouping in "stacks" will be 
similar to those now in a large-scale plant manufacturing a nylon intermediate 
for Monsanto's Textile Division. Scale-up, therefore, is felt to be within the state- 
of-the-art, but a demonstration plant is a necessary engineering step to minimize 
contingencies. Stone & Webster and Ionics submitted in July, 1968, a proposal 
to design, construct and operate such a demonstration plant for the National 
Air Pollution Control Administration (NAPCA) at a suitable location. In 
December, 1969, NAPCA was advised by the key utility in a consortium of 
utilities that the consortium was prepared to advance half of the necessary 
funds, provided NAPCA would furtd the other half. None of such funds would 
reimburse Stone & "Webster and Ionics for the monies already spent by them, 
which are estimated to be in excess of $750,000. 

The demionstration plant will contain comon.np'nts of commercial size and form 
and will be designed to treat about 75,000 CFM of a flue gas containing 0.25% 
SO2. This quantity is equivalent to that produced by a power station having an 
approximate capacity of 25,000 kw. It is anticipated that the demonstration plant 
wotdd operate for a period of about one year in order to acquire the necessary 
data such as the useful life of key comx>onents and the critical operating 
parameters. 

The key features of the process may be summarized as follows : 

1. It uses simple inorganic chemistry, and it works. All technical investigators 
who have inspected it in detail, agree that it is technically sound. 

2. It does not contribute to water or solid waste pollution in any way as so 
many other processes do. 

3. It eliminates the air pollution of the remaining particulate matter which 
passes through electrostatic precipitators. 

4. It probably also eliminates some of the air pollution caused by nitrogen 
oxides, although this must be proven on a larger scale test. 

5. It is unique in that it consumes power that can be instantaneously inter- 
rupted. In quantities large enough to constitute a "loaded spinning reser\'e" useful 
in preventing blackouts. 



217 

GENERAL PE0CE8S DESCRIPTION 

The St<me & Webster-Ionics Process for the removal and recovery of SO2 
from the flue gases generated by large stationary fossil fuel fired boilers involves 
three basic steps. These are : 

1. Absorption 

2. Reaction and Recovery 

3. Fliud Regeneration and Oxidation Product Rejection 

Absorption 

The flue gas is first cooled by quenching and drawn into a tower, in whicih 
it is brought into contact with a dilute (2N) caustic solution. The flue gas 
enters the bottom of the tower and the fluid enters at the top. At the top of the 
tower, the flue gas, with most of the SO2 removed, is reheated and sent to a stack. 
The caustic component of the absorbing fluid solution is converted to a sodium 
sulfite-sodium bisulfite mixture which contains the SO2 removed from the flue gas. 

Reaction and Recovery 

The S02-bearing fluid can be stored because the compounds contained in the 
solution are stable at the temperatures and pressures of the process. This sulfite- 
bisulfite mix is reacted with a dilute acidic solution which is essentially sodium 
acid sulfate. Tlais reaction forms coclium siiitate, fe02 and water, and is carried 
out in a stripping tower. The oi-ertiead from this stripping tower is water- 
saturated SO2. Tlie water content of the SO2 overhead gas is reduced by cooling, 
with the condensed water ph^se saturated with SO2 being returned to the tower 
on an appropriate tray. The SO2 gas then goes through a conventional counter- 
current drying step with concentrated sulfuric acid. Pure, dry SO2 is recovered 
at this i)oint in the process. Stripping tower bottoms is essentially a solution of 
sodium sulfate in water. 

Since the absorption proc*ess must follow power plant load, a large buffer 
storage is provided after the absorber to allow the stripper and SO2 purifica- 
tion and regeneration cells to function at a relatively constant rate. This liquid 
storage also permits the cells to be interrupted on demand, thus using ofif-i)eak 
power. Since this power can be made instantaneously available, it actually func- 
tions as a "loaded spimiing reserve" ratlier than a simple off-peak load. The size 
of the various liquid storage tanks is a function of power plant load factor, both 
long and short range, but is expected to allow for shut-down of the cells for 
periods up to two days. 

Fluid Regeneration and Oxidation Product Rejection 

The sodium sulfate solution is sent to two types of electrolytic cells which 
are described in detail in the attached diagram. In both cells a cathode stream 
of sodium hydroxide (caustic) is generated. This caustic solution is the ab- 
sorption tower liquid feed. In the three compartment cells the anode product 
is sodium sulfate. In the four compartment cells the anode product is pure 
dilute H2SO4. The anode product from the three compartment cells is the acid 
reactant required in the Reaction and Recovery step mentioned above. Oxygen 
is generated at all anodes and is recovered as a pure gas and hydrogen is gen- 
erated at all cathodes and it too is recovered as a pure gas. Each can be com- 
pressed and sold, or otherwise used. However, the only value assumed in the 
economics is to use the hydrogen as fuel. 

The critical components in the Stone & Webster-Ionics Process are these 
electrolytic cells wherein the spent liquid absorbent is continuously regenerated. 
Reference has been made above to the use of two different cell designs, a three- 
compartment cell and a four-compartment cell. The three-compartment cell is 
the basic design which converts the neutral electrolyte into two streams, one 
acidic and one basic. The four-compartment cell represents a further refinement 
in design and is the means by Which excess sulfate ion is removed from the re- 
circulating liquid electrolyte. 

Excess sulfate will arise from two main sources. Any absorption process for 
SO2 removal must consider the fact that a portion of the SO2 in the flue gas may 
be oxidized to SO3 in the ab.sorpt.ion tower. In addition, an amount of SO3 will 
already be present in the entering flue gas stream as a result of the combustion 
operation. Upon absorption, any SO3 will ^how up in the electrolyte in the form 
of sulfate instead of the desired sulfite-bisulfite. Since sulfate ion is extremely 
stable (in contrast to the sulfite ion) it is not broken down in the stripi)er and 
any recovery process must provide some means of purging this amount of sulfate 



218 

from the system. In other systems this is done by precipitation as calcium sulfate, 
gypsum, which creates water pollution and solid waste. In the Stone & Webster/ 
Ionics process, it is removed as pure, dilute sulfuric acid, which has a value, in 
the four-compartment cells. 

Economics 

Stone & Webster has prepared detailed capital and operating cost estimates 
indicating that sales of recovered SO2 not only would cover operating expenses 
but also would actually give the utility a return on the invested capital. 

Capital cost varies with five conditions : power-plant size, number of boilers, 
po.sition of existing ductworlc, sulfur content of the fuel, and power-plant load 
factor. Operating cost is a function of energy cost, sulfur content of the fuel and 
SO2 content of the effluent gas. 

At June 1968 prices. Stone & Webster estimates a 1,200MW. electric station 
burning 3.5%-sulfur coal in four boilers would require an investment of $18.5 
million. Ductwork, dampers, reheaters, distribution substation, sulfuric acid 
plant, interest during construction, initial chemical charge and initial supply 
of membranes, electrodes and spare parts are included. 

To remove 90% of the SO2 from the staclcs, operating costs at a Mid-west loca- 
tion are set at $2,972,000. Income of $5,810,000 during the fir.st year of operation 
would come from the sale of 340,000 tons of 99% sulfuric acid at $17/ton. No 
credit is taken for merchant sales of oxygen and hydrogen. 

Thus, Stone & Webster predicts a 5.24% return after federal income taxes 
(52.8%) during the first year. Average return over the 20-year depreciation life 
of the plant : 9.6%. 



219 



o 
.^ 

M 

Q 

3 

w 
w 
u 
o 

Or 




43-166 0— 70-pt.l- 



-15 



220 



N0,S04 



9i 



©--,; 



ANODE 



No HSO* 



-No* 



':/ 



;_M* — fso; 



CM 



No" 



< > 






"•n 


^^ 




OH- — 


CATMO'JE 




1 







»• noOm 



No OH 



No SO. 



* Porous diophregm 

:M * Nop porow< co)ion ptrm •tricet ivc mtmbront 



SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF 3- COMPARTMENT ELECTROLYTIC CELL 



Ot 



MjSO* ■^- 



AM 



ANODE 



/ 



-►H 



so; 



M,SO« 



■No' 



so; 



CM 



No' 



No SO* 



OH" 



o 



CATHODE 



NeOH 



NoOH 



* Parous diophrogm 

CO ' Non-porous cotion perm • sel ect ive mrmbrore 

AM > Non-porovs onion ptrm- ttlec live membrine 



SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF 4-COMPARTMENT ELECTROLYTIC CELL 



Monsanto Enviro-Chem Systems Inc., 

m. Louis, Mo., March IS, 1910. 
Hon. Jennings Randolph, 
Committee onPuhllc Works, 
Washington, B.C. 

Dear Senator Randolph : The Air Pollution Control Department of Monstanto 
Enviro-Chem System.^, Inc., formerly a part of Monsanto Company, announced 
in October 1968 that it had available for sale a proven air pollution abatement 
system which would remove essentially all of the fly ash and over 90% of the 
sulfur dioxide from power plant stack gases. Since that time we have approached 
each of the major utilities in the U.S. (and a number overseas) offering guar- 
anteed performance and assistance in marketing the by-product sulfur acid. 

We have spent many millions of dollars in the past nine years developing the 
process and so far, fruitlessly attempting to sell a unit. 



221 

The system not only will solve a major air pollution problem but will also 
conserve our natural resources. It makes i)o.ssible the continued use of lower 
cost high sulfur coal and oil both of which are available in the United States. 
The higher the sulfur content of the fuel, the lower the operating costs because 
sale of the by-product sulfuric acid produced helps to offset some of the operating 
expenses. 

However, air pollution control will cost money. It requires a relatively large 
capital investment and in most cases there would be a net out-of-pocket oi>erating 
cost. 

It becomes a question then of what Is the most practical and most economical 
solution to the problems. 

We believe that our Gat-Ox system will be less expensive than low sulfur coal 
or oil in many situations. 

Monsanto foresaw the probable need to control sulfur dioxide emissions. Based 
on its many years of experience as the world's leader in designing and building 
sulfuric acid plants, it built a pilot plant at the Seward Station of Pennsylvania 
Electric Company in 1961. Operation of this small unit proved that technology 
developed for production of sulfuric acid could be applied to the relatively low 
concentrations of sulfur dioxide in power plant stack gases. 

To develop information leading to commercial reality, however, a prototyi)e 
plant using commercially available equipment was required. Therefore, Monsanto 
and the Metropolitan Edison Company agreed to build a prototype at Portland, 
Pennsylvania. Portland was selected for this installation because it burns a 
variety of bituminous coals and is essentially a base load station. In the Cat-Ox 
unit at Portland, approximately 6% of the total boiler flue gas is extracted, proc- 
essed and discharged through the prototyjte plant stack. 

Ash removal is accomplished at an eflSciency of about 100%. More than 90% 
of the sulfur dioxide present in the flue gas is oxidized and removed as sulfuric 
acid. The strength of the acid obtained is a function of the operating temi)erature 
of the absorption tower but averages 78%, which is a commercial grade. Operation 
of the prototype unit began in August, 1967, and it is presently being operated as a 
production unit Over 9,000 hours of operation — equivalent to over one full year — 
have been successfully accomplished. 

Over two million pounds of acid have been produced and sold. This acid has 
been used in the manufacture of plant food through the acidulation of phosphate 
rock. 

The entire process is controlled from a small console located adjacent to the 
boiler control console. No additional operating manpower is required for the 
prototype plant. There are no unusual process control requirements. The controls 
for the Cat-Ox system in a new full-scale installation would be integrated among 
the conventional boiler controls. 

While the process is foreign to operators of conventional power plants, it has 
been readily a.ssimilated by the operators at Met-Ed. The system is simple and 
has no moving parts that are not found in a conventional ix)wer .station. 

As public concern increases and regulatory pressures intensify, the utilities are 
looking at possible alternatives to flue gas abatement systems. They are finding 
that the long-term viability of alternate solutions is uncertain. 
For example : 

Thinking people realize that higher stacks are not a long range solution, 
if a solution at all. 

Nuclear plants cannot meet the demand due to stretch-outs in construction 
schedules and steeply rising capital costs. Even more fossil-fueled plants are 
being planned. There is also a question of the long range availability of 
nuclear fuels. 

Low sulfur content coal is in limited supply at a premium price. Natural 
or processed low sulfur oil already does or will command a sizable premium 
over coal. Most existing coal fired plants will have to be modified to burn 
either of the low sulfur fuels. Frequently, installation of Oat-Ox will prove 
less costly. 

Natural gas is in very limited supply. 

Many new plants will find it less expensive to burn high sulfur coal and 

utilize a Cat-Ox unit — rather than bum a low sulfur coal or oil. 

Utilities eventually will be forced to adopt fiue gas abatement as the most 

prudent course of action, yet there is a reluctance to do anything until they are 

forced to, particularly if control measures are going to increase the cost of 

electricity. 

Although we have demon.strated that Cat-Ox is operable in a prototype con- 
sisting of commercially available components and we know we can scale-up and 



222 

are willing to ^larantee performance and to assist in marketing acid, we have 
been unable to sell a Cat-Ox unit. We believe this is due to lack of the legislation 
forcing the utilities to clean up their eftiuent streams. 

It is difficult to generalize on the economics of an installation ; however, the 
following tables illustrate some projected costs. 

TABLE I.— CAT-OX SYSTEMS-EXISTING PLANTS BURNING 3.5 PERCENT SULFUR COAL 







Powerplant size 






100 
megawatts 


250 
megawatts 


500 
megawatts 


Added capital: 

Amount (million dollars)... 

Amount (dollars Der kilowatt) 


6 

60 


9 
36 


18 
36 








Added operating cost (cents per million B.t.u.): 


8 


7 


7 


Net (after acid credit) 

Fixed costs 


5 

15 


4 
9 


4 
9 








Total costs 


20 


13 


13 








Total increase In cost of electricity (cents per kilowatt-hour).. . 


0.19 


0.13 


0.12 








TABLE ll.-CAT-OX SYSTEMS-NEW PLANTS 


BURNING 3.5 PERCENT SULFUR COAL 








Powerplant size 






250 
megawatts 


500 
megawatts 


1,000 
megawatts 


Added capital: 

Amount (million dollars). 

Amounts (dollars per kilowatt) . .. 


10 

40 


18 
36 


32 
32 








Added operating cost (cents per million B.t.u.): 
Gross 


4 


4 


3 








Net (after acid credit) 


1 


1 
9 


1 


Fixed costs 


10 


8 








Total costs. - 


11 


10 


9 








Total increase in cost of electricity (cents per kilowatt-hour)... 


0.10 


0.09 


0.08 









Thus, for control of emissions from coal burning power stations, assuming 
2.0(?/kwh as the average residential rate, the homeowner could exi)ect an 
increase in his electricity bill of about 6%. 
Respectfully, 

Joseph G. Stites, Jr., 
Manager, Air Pollution Control Department. 



Statement of James R. Garvey, Before the Joint Committee on Atomic 

Enekgy, February 25, 1{>70 

Mr. Chairman: My name is James R. Garvey. I am President of Bituminous 
Coal Research, Inc., Monroeville, Pa. BCR is an affiliate of National Coal 
Association, Washington. D.C. A biographical summary of my qualifications 
is attached to my written statement. 

In the almost twenty-five years I have been with the national research agency 
of the coal industry, I have been engaged in or directed research on coal 
combustion including control of pollution resulting from coal combustion. During 
the past ten years I have on numerous occasions appeared before Committees of 
Congresis and other governmental agencies to testify oti the "state of the art" 
of control of sulfur oxides. 

At one such appearance, before the New Jersey State Department of Health 
on October 6, 1967, I said : 

"With all the activity by various re.search organizations, we are confident 
that an economically attractive approach for the recovery of sulfur oxides from 
flue gases will be available in the next three years, give or take a year." 



223 

The purpose of my testimony here today is to bring to your attention the 
fact that this prediction of about two and one-half years ago was correct. We 
now have commercial processes available for use although their economic attrac- 
tiveness may not be ail we desire ; the added cost for sulfur oxide control may 
increase the cost of electricity to residential consumers by at least three and 
perhaps eight percent. 

There are four companies offering for sale sulfur oxide recovery systems 
for existing and new electric power generating plants which when applied 
will enable the use of high sulfur fuels with stack emissions equivalent to the 
burning of fuels with 0.5 percent or less sulfur. We had hoped to have the four 
companies offering these systems appear here individually to describe their 
proce.sses, and their confidence therein, but in the interest of conserving the 
Committee's time, three companies have agreed for me to present a brief 
summary of their development and to submit their written statements on the 
processes for the record. These statements are attached to my statement, together 
with a copy of a published review of the fourth. I hope the Committee will 
approve the inclusion of them in the printed record of these hearings. 

All four processes have some similarities and some basic differences. Because 
of the.se, one or the other may have certain advantages in application to a 
given power plant depending upon size, location, age and available space. But 
all have in common the desirable advantage of upwards of ninety percent 
elimination of sulfur oxide emissions. For your information I will briefly describe 
the processes without any attempt to favor one over the others, although the 
coal research agency which I represent carried out work in our laboratories 
on one of the approaches and contributed financially to one other. 

To fully iinderstand the technical problems involved, and to better appreciate 
the cost, we mu.st keep in mind that even with a very high sulfur fuel the gases 
emitted from a power plant stack contain very little sulfur oxides per cubic foot — 
of the order of a couple of thousand parts per million. To remove the dilute 
quantities of sulfur oxides we must first convert them chemically to another 
material so a separation can be made. All four systems available do this, but in 
a somewhat different manner. 

One system is offered by Monsanto Chemical Company a large and well-known 
chemical company, located in St. Louis, Missouri. Their process converts the 
sulfuric oxides into -saleable sulfuric aicd. The principal advantage of the Mon- 
santo process is that the chemical recovery of the sulfur values is self-sufficient ; 
that is, no chemical reagents must be brought into the power plant. By use of a 
catalyst and changes in the heat exchange cycle, a disposable liquid, sulfuric acid, 
instead of an untouchable gas, sulfur dioxide, is produced. To reduce the idea to 
commercial practice has required millions of dollars and the operation of a 15,000 
KW pilot plant in Eastern Pennsylvania for two and one-half years. But the 
necessary development work has been done and Monsanto is prepared to seU this 
process and guarantee performance. 

The second process has been developed by Commis.sion Engineering. Inc., whose 
main offices are in Windsor, Conn. Combustion Engineering is one of the leading 
suppliers of ix)wer boilers to the electric power industry — for both fossil and 
atomic fuel firing. 

The Combustion Engineering approach to sulfur oxide control differs consider- 
ably from the Monsanto approach. First of all, no saleable product results. In 
addition, a chemical reagent must be brought in to react with the sulfur oxides — 
to change them into removable solids. But the end result is the same, removal of 
both particulates and sulfur oxides from the exit gas stream. The process has 
been proven feasible at a pilot installation in St. Louis and another at Lawrence, 
Kansas. As Combustion Engineering has pointed out in public statements, they 
are confident they can design and erect a recovery plant with a guaranteed sulfur 
removal equivalent to that of burning 0.5 percent sulfur coal and a guaranteed 
particulate removal of ninety-nine percent. Further, they have stated that 
while they will guarantee this high level of recovery, they expect to do even 
better. 

One mid-west utility. Kansas Power and Light Company, has sufficient faith in 
the process that they are incorporating it into the design of a new 430 MW plant 
planned for operation in 1971. The decision of that Company is best expressed by 
an official thereof who, in discussing their pilot test of the Combustion Engineer- 
ing process and their future plans, said : 

"As you can appreciate, I am sure, this has not been an easy road, and there 
have been numerous detours, but it does look like we are going to be able to 



224 

accomplish what we set out to do. Retain the clean air in Kansas, and bum coal 
at the same time." 

The remaining two systems which are described in statements attached to my 
written test have not quite reached the advanced state of commercial develop- 
ment as that of Alonsanto and Combustion EJngineering. However, they are 
nearly there and as the statements of the companies indicate, they are confident 
of success in the near future. 

Wellman-Lord Company, a prominent consulting firm in the phosphate fertilizer 
plant field, has pilot tested a sulfur oxide recovery plant at a large Maryland 
power station, and will start up another in New Jersey this year. Like Mon- 
santo, this proeessi produce.^ a .saleable product — but conc-entrated sulfur di- 
oxide instead of sulfuric acid. This product can be used directly or shipped 
for ultimate conversion into sulfuric acid or fertilizer depending on markets in 
the power plant vicinity. Unlike the Monsanto process, an alkalai reagent must 
be introduced. 

The final sulfur oxide recovery system described in the statements submitted 
is under development by Chemical Construction Corporation, commonly re- 
ferred to in the trade as Chemico. This company is one of the oldest and largest 
chemical engineering firms in the world. For more than 50 years Chemico has 
been designing and erecting major process plant installations for the chemical, 
petrochemical and mineral process industries. 

The Chemico sulfur oxide recovery process also produces a saleable product, 
elemental siilfur. But the approach is unique in that the final product is not 
evolved at the power plant. Recognizing that (1) electric power generating 
plants are not in the chemical business nor interested in getting into it, and 
(2) the economics of any sulfur recovery process will be primarily a function 
of the size of the plant which produces a final chemical product, Chemico con- 
ceives the total system as being in two parts. First, the power plant would be 
supplied with a chemical reagent for use in scrubbing sulfur oxides from the 
flue gases and, second, the used reagent would be shipped to a central processing 
plant for recovery of sulfur values and regeneration of the reagent for return to 
the i)ower plant. Under this system, one large reagent processing plant could 
serve many small utilitie.s — and even some industrial plants — in the most eco- 
nomic manner. As with the other three processes described, Chemico is ready 
to move into full scale application and eliminate sulfur oxide pollution. 

The four processes which I have briefly described have been developed by in- 
dustry without financial support from government. It is estimated that fifteen 
to twenty million dollars have been spent on them to date. A number of other 
companies have processes in various stages of development. In addition the 
National Air Pollution Control Administration of the Department of Health, 
Education and Welfare is researching with public funds other feasible approaches 
to sulfur oxide control. One of these, the use of dry alkalai additives, is cur- 
rently undergoing large scale pilot test at a TVA power plant. 

Gentleman, that concludes my description of what we believe are currently 
available commercial processes and which, in at least two cases, the manufac- 
turer is prepared to guarantee will eliminate the so-called "SO2 pollution prob- 
lem." I have made only passing reference to cost. As the President in a recent 
message to Congress stated, the cost of pollution control will be high. But the 
processes for sulfur oxide recovery which we are calling to your attention today 
are less costly than other solutions which have been suggested. These include the 
use of natural gas and imported foreign fuels. As this Committee has acknowl- 
edged, fossil fuels must be the source of energy for our power plants for many 
years to come despite the expected growth in atomic power. We feel the means 
are available to supply the needs without sulfur ix)llution by use of our vast re- 
serves of coal, most of which is high in sulfur, through the application of the 
processes I have described and others now under development by the National Air 
Pollution Control Administration of HEW. 

Still to be accomplished is the application of such processes to existing and 
new power plants. When one considers the tremendous capital investment re- 
quired for sulfur oxide control processes, the reluctance of the utility companies 
to apply them is understandable. We believe the Federal government could stimu- 
late more intere.st by applying the available systems to government-owned power 
plants and by participating in the financing of installations at privately-owned 
plants for demonstration purposes. 



225 

James R. Gabvey, President and Director of Research, Bituminous 
Goal Research, Inc., Monroeville, Pa. 

James R. Garvey, president and director of research of Bituminous Coal 
Research, Inc., and vice president, research and engineering, National Coal 
Association, received a Bachelor of Engineering degree in Mining from the Ohio 
State University in llWl. Since then, with the exception of four years during 
World War II when he served in the Air Force, he has been associated with the 
coal industry in mining and in research. 

He joined Bituminous Coal Research, Inc., in 1946, as a development engineer, 
rising to supervising engineer, assistant director of research, director of research 
in 1958, and president in 1963. As president of BCR, he has the primary respon- 
sibility for the development and execution of the cooperative research program 
of the coal and related industries. Early in 1966, the Board of Directors of Na- 
tional Coal Association, of which BCR is an affiliate, elected him vice president, 
research and engineering. In that capacity, he assumed the management of the 
indusibry's cooperative engineering service program as well as its research. 

Mr. Garvey is a member of the New York and American Academies of Science; 
the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, and 
the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. He is also a member of the 
American Gas Association, International Briquetting Association, American As- 
sociation for the Advancement of Science, and American Coke and Coal Chemicals 
Institute. He has been an active member of committees of these societies, serv- 
ing as chairman of several of them. 

Mr. Garvey's service to the state and federal governments has been extensive. 
On appointment by Governor Scranton and reappointment by Governor Shafer, 
he has served on a Pennsylvania Advisory Committee on Pneumoconiosis. At the 
federal level, he serves on the General Technical Advisory Committee to the OflSce 
of Coal Research, U.S. Department of Interior ; is a member of the Environmental 
Pollution Panel of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and is a member of the Na- 
tional Air Quality Advisory Committee of the U.S. Department of Health, Educa- 
tion, and Welfare. 

In addition to mining engineering, his experience includes design and develop- 
ment of coal-handling and coal-burning equipment for residential, commercial, 
and industrial markets and technical supervision of coal utilization research cov- 
ering a wide scope. He holds several i>atents on coal-combustion equipment and 
is the author of many professional impers covering research and engineering 
application in these fields. 

In 1963, Mr. Garvey received the Percy NichoUs Award. This award is pre- 
sented annually by the Fuels Division, ASME, and Coal Division, AIME, for 
notable scientific and industrial achievement in the field of solid fuels research. 



Statement of Robert H. Quig, P.E., Engineer-Utility Operations, Chemical 

Construction Corp. 

chemico and its affiliates 

Mr. Chairman : Chemical Construction Corporation, or as it is better knoT\Ti — 
ChemicH) — is an architect, engineers and construction firm of large chemical com- 
plexes and pollution control systems in the U.S.A. and around the world. Chemico 
designed plants account for : 

30% of world sulfuric acid production through 237 plants ; 

20% of world ammonia production through 106 installations ; 

25% of world urea production. 
Chemico's Pollution Control Division has in operation or under construction 
over 1,000 systems in the chemical, oil refining, pulp and paper, smelting, steel 
and most recently utility industries. Chemico is afiiliaited as a sister organization 
with Ebasco Services, Inc., who are architect-engineers of utility power plants. 

Chemico has associated itself with Ba.sie Chemicals of Cleveland, Ohio, to form 
a joint venture company for the removal and recovery of SO2 from stack gas as 
a salable product. Basic has developed numerous applications for the use of mag- 
nesium oxide in agriculture, pai)er processing and pollution control. The joint 
venture company is called Chemico- Basic and its main purpose is to promote the 
use of magnesium based scrubbing for SO2 recovery in the electric utility and 
other pertinent industries. Since the removal and recovery of SO2 is more than a 
sole desired function of the power plant operator, this joint venture company will 



226 

coordinate and make arrangememts for the nece.'jsary integration of the utility 
and c-heniical industries. 

While Chemico is prepared to offer SO2 recovery programs to the utility indus- 
try, it is also prepared and is now offering SO2 control programs for tlie disi>osal 
of waste materials. We recognize that the decision of a utility to enter into 
recovery or disposal of SO2 must be made within the framework of economical 
marketing of the recovered SO2 in certain geographical areas. Scrubbing of the 
SO2 from stacks utilizing low-co.st calcium additives for disposal may very well be 
the cheapest solution in many instances. 

I would like to dedicate the remainder of this .statement to the recovery of SO2 
utilizing the concept of centralized recovery oi^e rations. 

FACTORS FOB AND AGAINST SO2 RECOVERY 

The decision to recover SO2 from stack gas will be made as an economical alter- 
native to the potential land waste problems associated with di.spo.sal of calcitmi 
sulfite/sulfate and fly-ash materials obtained from dry and wet collection sys- 
tems. This is especially true in the densely populated and heavily industrialized 
sections of the country where disposal areas are limited. 

SO2 recovery, while being an improvement over a disi>osal c-ondition in mosit 
cases, still needs refinements itself. To date, the ba.sic problem involved with SO2 
recovery from stack gas is that while the SO- is present in sufficient quantities 
to be considered an air pollution problem, it is not great enough from any single 
stack to be an efficient and economical source of sulfur. 

Figure #1 illut^trates this problem. The concentrations of SO2 emitting from a 
stack are very small, but the gas cleaning systems reipiired to absorb or ab.sorb 
the gas musit, of necessity, be constructed to handle the total gas volume of 100% 
boiler output. If the SO2 recovery section of the total control .system is also located 
between the boiler and the .stack, it too mu.st be designed for 100% ouput con- 
ditions. This creates an undesirable situation of sulfur recovery economics at 
each individual SO2 emission source not only being a function of unit load factor, 
but also power plant size and sulfur content of fuels burned. 



FIG.I- THE EFFECT OF LOAD FACTOR 
UPON SO2 RECOVERY REVENUE 



100% 



80% 



-►SO2 RECOVERY SYSTEM DESIGN LEVEL*- 






/ 

60%4j \ DECLINING LOAD FACTOR CURVE 



40%- 



20%- 



I S OR 

^ PRODUCT RECOVERY 

*. REVENUE CURVE 



^ —I 1 1 1 1 1 1— 

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 

FOSSIL FUEL STEAM GENERATING UNIT LIFE- YEARS 



227 

Based on past, present and estimated future performance, it is generally ac- 
cepted that the average annual load factor of a fossil burning unit will assume 
a pattern as described in Figure #1. Thus, it is noticeable that even in the early 
life of the generating unit, the best annual load factor will hardly ever exceed 
807f . After the seventh or eighth year of operation, the load factor will then begin 
to decline with an increasing rate- Assuming that the average sulfur content 
of the fuel remains relatively fixed and sulfur product marketing conditions do 
not change, the declining load factor curve will represent the diminishing prod- 
uct recovery revenue curve. This same problem exists in the very early life of the 
unit when start-up problems keep the unit off the line or forced to operate at 
reduced loads. 

It is clear then that the impact of declining load factor plus the added com- 
plexities of a utility being in the chemical business require further thought as to 
the best SO2 modus operandi for the utility. Chemico feels that, while the SO2 
removal system being designed for the gas volume associated with full load con- 
ditions cannot be avoid, the SO2 recovery operation can be restructured so that it 
is a meaningful and economical source of sulfur products. The concept which 
we refer to is that of centralized recovery. 

PROCESS FOR THE CONCEPT CENTRALIZED SO2 RECOVERY 

Chemico envisions that sulfur dioxide, eflflciently removed from boiler flue gas 
by the application of proven scrubbing techniques, may be effectively and eco- 
nomically recovered at one centralized process plant. This central concept of 
recovery then allows many SO2 emitters in a given geographical region to con- 
solidate their pollution control efforts into one effective recovery operation. This 
is in lieu of constructing many small inefficient chemical plants at each power 
plant site : whose economics are, of necessity, directly related to the size and load 
factor of the power plant as well as the sulfur content of fuels burned. The SO2 
scrubbing system at the power plant is utilized simultaneously for over 90% 
removal of fly-ash. 

Fig. II illustrates the concept of consolidating "captured" SO2 emissions from 
many sources in a region at one centralized recovery complex. These "captured" 
emissions are in the fonn of magnesiimi sulfite crystals obtained from the aqueous 
scrubbing of flue gases using solutions of SO2 absorbing materials such as mag- 
nesium oxide- The crystals of magnesium sulfite are then removed from the 
scrubbing system in an anhydrous form and forwarded to the central recovery 
plant. At the recovery plant, these cry.stals may be processed to elemental sulfur 
or sulfuric acid. Ultimate business and marketing evaluations w^ill determine the 
best products to recover. The conversion of magnesium sulfite for recovery is 
accomplished by utilizing calcining or fluid bed techniques. Figure III further 
describes this. A concentrated but manageable SO2 gas stream is generated for 
introduction into a conventional sulfuric acid plant. Essentially this is no differ- 
ent than the conventional processes for the recovery of .sulfuric acid from metal- 
lurgical roasting plants such as copper converters or smelters. A secondary proc- 
ess reaction is the regeneration of the magnesium oxide for recycle back to the 
utility scrubbing systems at the various power plants. The SO2 gas may also be 
reduced directly to elemental sulfur. 



228 




■*Ti POWER PLANT 

INDUSTRIAL PLANT 
CENTRAL PROCESSING PLANT 
MAGNESIUM SULFITE SALTS 
REGENERATED MAGNESIUM OXIOE 



229 




230 

ADVANTAGES OF THE CENTRAL RECOVERY PLANT 

The major advantages of a centralized sulfur recovery oi)eration are believed 
to be : 

1. With the exception of producing magnesium sulfite in a dried transiK>rtable 
condition, the capitalization and operation of chemical recovery processing is 
divorced from power plant activity. 

2- One central process plant strategically located could provide recovery for 
500O-7500 MW or more of power plant capacity. At the same time it could also 
provide recovery activity for smaller industrial customers Avho would have no 
hope of achieving economical sulfur recovery as an alternate to solid waste dis- 
po.sal. The small industrial plants would enjoy the results from economies of 
scale created by the large central .stations. 

3. EJconomies of scale and good process efficiency may be obtained by one large 
chemical complex which is sized for the SQ2 emitting from the average load fac- 
tor of the system it services. 

4. One large recovery plant, owned and managed by companies knowledgeable 
in chemical industry oi>erations and marketing would be a formidable and com- 
petitive source of sulfur. The central plant would be able to sustain sulfur mar- 
ket fluctuations with greater capability than many small recovery plants could 
do individually. 

5. Fuel suppliers as a joint venture effort with chemical producers and mar- 
keters could establish the recovery plant in return for long-term fuel contracts 
with utility and industrial fuel consumers. 

6. Central process in concept is not foreign to utilities since they already have 
inter-relationships with power pooling over their transmission grid networks. 
Many utilities today are sharing the investment burden for new generating 
facilities. 

7. The participating utilities as "sulfur donors" may elect, if desired, to have 
an equity position in the recovery plant. 

8. Most important, the historical lines of conventional and economical fuel 
supply would not be interrupted by the pressure of SO2 laws. Low sulfur fuels 
could then be diverted to very small consumers such as high-rise apartments or 
shopping centers. 

COSTS FOR CENTRALIZED SO2 RECOVERY 

The utilities and other industrial organizations who must control SO2 are 
expected to assume the capitalization and operation of the total scrubbing system 
for SOi; and fly-ash removal which includes all process steps at the power plant 
site necessary to get the magnesium sulflte into a transportable condition. Cap- 
italization estimates for this indicate that a range of $5-7/kw may be expected 
for a new powder plant and $6-9/kw should be exi>ected for a retrofit operation 
(1969 pricing basis). Operating co.sts including capitalization for these scrubbing 
systems are expected not to exceed $1/T of coal or 25(;^A>bl of oil burned. No 
credits are included for avoiding the use of electrostatic precipitators or the 
utilization of short stacks. See Figure IV for comparable figures escalated to 
1975. 



231 



CAPITAL INVESTMENT 

ESCALATED TO 1975 

COAL VS. NUCLEAR UNITS 



q: 
u 

Q. 

t- 
{/) 
o 
o 



350- 



300- 



250. 



200- 



i5G ■ 



100 



•\. 



NOTE 

I. MEAN AVERAGE COST FOR INITIAL UNITS 
Z DEVIATION FOR SPECIFIC PROJECT: -10.* B% 



NUCLEAR 

source: ebasco 



COAL- FLY ASH 8 SOz REMOVAt*^ ^ 
ALKALI SULFITE TO CENTRAL 
PROCESS 
SOURCE ; CHEMICO 




t5/KW 



■COAL- FLY ASH REMOVAL ONLY 
source: EBASCO 



300 



400 



500 



600 



700 



800 



900 



1000 



1100 



UNIT SIZE -MW 

In return, the central recovery plant, if made large enough, say, 1000 T/day 
of sulfuric acid will be completely self-sustaining oi)eration sufficient for a third 
party to realize a rate of return consistent with chemical industry practices. 
This third party could very ivell he the fuel supplier. Magnesium sulfite from the 
power plant scrubbing systems will be "donated" to the recovery plant in direct 
exchange for regenerated alkali with makeup supplied on a "free" basis. 

A 1000 T/day acid plant can be "supported" by approximately 3000 MW of 
power plants which burn approximately 2.5% S fuel and have a system load 
factor of 65%. This large acid plant including off-sites would require approxi- 
mately an $8,000,000 investment and can produce sulfuric acid in a cost range 
of $l()-$12/ton. 

PRIOR TESTING WORK IN PROGRESS FUTURE 

Chemico has conducted pilot plants for fly-ash and .SO2 testing at seven differ- 
ent power plants and a sulfuric acid plant. The reduction of SO2 can be guar- 
anteed at 90% or better. Fly-ash removal can be guaranteed in excess of 99%. 
SO2 recovery as a guaranteed process for yield and operating economics must 
I still be considered elusive until prototype plants are operated — we are presently 
' planning to build such a prototype system sized for a 150 MW generating unit. 
Chemico is working with a consortium of four private utilities, an international 
I oil supplier, the National Coal Association, a leading chemcal company and the 
Natonal Air Pollution Control Administration to complete final plans and financ- 
ing for this prototype project. 
Under construction by Chemico is a large 150 MW equivalent venturi scrubbing 
*l system on an eastern utility boiler designed for fly-ash removal initially with 
provision for future SO2 control, if desired. 



232 

Recently announced by the Arizona Public Service Company is APS plans for 
Cheniico to design, engineer and construct a fly-ash now — future SO2 scrubbing 
system for 575 MW. 

CONCLUSION 

We at Chemico conclude that work by us and the other fine organizations, Mon- 
santo, Combustion Engineering and Wellman-Lord will enable SO2 control to be 
achieved in a manner which will not upset the historic fuel consumption patterns 
in this country. 

Much still needs to be done. A major problem is the financing of these large 
demonstration projects to convince and give confidence to industry that SO2 con- 
trol is economically attainable. This may and should require a reassessment of 
R&D priorities in federal grants, etc. SO2 control to date, has been at the bottom 
of the list. 

For the purpose of record, we at Chemico believe that SO2 control is available 
now. 

Modified SO2 system faces new tests 



Sustained operation under three types of limestone 
injection is goal for Combustion Engineering wet scrubber 
system at Kansas Power & Light's 125-Mw Lawrence 4 



Operatioi] of an air polution control 
system (sulfur and particulate re- 
moval) under three types of limestone 
injection, and sustained operation at 
or exceeding guarantees are objectives 
this fall and winter at the Lawrence 
Power Station of Kansas Power & 
Light Co. These plans were revealed 
recently by D. M. Miller, KPL's man- 
ager of electric production, in a status 
report on the wet scrubber system in- 
stalled on the 125-Mw No. 4 unit at 
Lawrence (EW, March 4, 1968, p 35). 
Modifications in the system since oper- 
ation began late last year will be in- 
corporated into a similar sulfur-re- 
moval system for the station's 430-Mw 
No. 5 unit now under construction. 

Miller first told of these minor prob- 
lems encountered on initial operation 
with the limestone-injection wet-scrub- 
ber system : Severe vibration of the ID 
fan duct at reduced load levels, cor- 
rected by changing the operating mech- 
anisms on inlet dampers originally 
installed "in reverse"; high pressure 



differential across the scrubber's mar- 
ble bed and excessive a^ carryover,' 
eliminated by removing "construction, 
dirt" from water spray nozzles immedi- 
ately below affected areas; and buildup 
of fiyash cement by eddying of mois- 
ture into the scnibber inlet duct. Lad- 
der baffles under the marble bed in 
the inlet plenum and baffles and flow 
guides above the reheaters were in- 
stalled to improve gas flow distribution. 
This l^t modification also allowed the 
unit to carry up to 90% of load with- 
out excessive ash carryover to the re- 
heat coils in the scrubber. Also, tem- 
porary air soot-blowing lances below 
the reheat coils are used to maintain 
clean coils without water washing as 
previously planned. 

A low level of effluent pH in the 
marble bed overflow caused advanced 
corrosion in the bed overflow pots, 
unpainted piping and scrubber tank 
bottom. Overflow pots and drains were 
replaced using PVC components, while 
the scrubber bottom was given a 2-in. 



To stock 




— U.J 

Oeloy and 
mixing tonk . — > 



fe" 



Cleon 
recycle 



Oispoall 
poiKJ 



Modification* to Increase sulfur removal include (1) recycling and retention of spray 
reject water and (2) direct discharge of bed overthrow to disposal pond. These 
changes will promote reactivity between sulfur oxides and calcined limestone 



gunite lining over a heavy bitumastic 
coating. Analysis of pH values through- 
out the scrubber clearly indicated that 
reactive (limestone) materiab were 
not getting into the bed area. This was 
due to drop-out of heavier particles of 
ash and lime dust in the inlet plenum 
below the marble bed. 

The air pollution control system on 
the No. 4 unit is designed to remove 
99% of particulates and 83% of sul- 
fur oxides (under conditions in ac- 
companying table). But during initial 
operation the pulverizer did not reject 
a 1 % suUur-equivalent of pyrites from 
the coal-limestone mixture. Coal as 
fired averaged over 3% sulfur. How- 
ever, concentrations of SO2 at the 
scrubber inlet were equivalent to 2% 
sulfur coal, supporting the expected 
30% reduction by furnace reaction. 
Conditions at the scrubber outlet av- 
eraged the equivalent of 1% sulfur 
coal. 

Although guarantee and acceptance 
tests are incomplete, preliminary read- 
ings on stack discharge indicate a par- 
ticulate removal exceeding 99%. 

For greater removal of SOo, a test 
was made of recycling the solution in 
the effluent tank back to the marble 
bed; results proved affirmative. Sub- 
sequent tests of pumping and recycling 
modes led to further improvement in 
SO2 removal. Additionally, powdered 
limestone was injected at the furnace 
arch level (gas temperatures of 2,000 
to 2,20OF) for less over-burning and 
a more readily reactive material at the 
scrubber. The combination of recycling 
and direct injection allowed the hold- 
ing of SOo concentration at the stack 
to a mean of 250 ppm during a test 
run of almost two days. 

Based on these and other tests, it 
was decided by KPL in conjunction 
with Combustion Engineering, designer 
of the system, to make these changes 
in the handling of effluent and reactive^ 
materials: 

1. Bed (or pot) overflow is pip 
separately from inside the scrubber I 
the effluent (drain) tank and then di\ 
rectly into the settling pond. This wat( 
has a pH of 5.8 to 6.4. 

2. Spray-nozzle-reject water that fal 
through the plenum under the maibh 
bed is collected in a separate delay i 
mixing tank, sized for about a i- 
holding time. This water then recycles 
to above the marble bed where it 1 
comes a part of the violent action 1 
the fluidized bed. 



233 

From Electrical World , December 8, 1969. 



The recycle solution consists of bed 
plate reject water and the reactive 
limestone and ash materials which 
drop directly from the flue gas stream 
in the inlet plenum. This recyclemeten- 
tion system is expected to yield a 250- 
ppm further reduction in SOj at the 
stack. 

Though the flue gas handling system 
is imchanged, KPL is installing perma- 
nent air soot blowers in the scrubber 
itilet to help move solid materials into 
the unit and to further minimize the 
wet-dry interface problem. Addition- 
ally, permanent air soot blowers will be 
installed at the reheater to keep it 
clean. And, unrelated to the scrubber 
modiflcations, two more air soot blow- 
ers (for a total of 9) will be installed 
in the furnace superheat-reheat pass 
to keep injected material and ash mov- 
ing through the furnace. It is planned 
to leave 50% of the scrubber reheat 
surface out of service, as its effect on 
plume rise is not great. Remaining 
surface will still give a 25F reheat to 
keep the ID fan dry and cledn. 

The limestone injection system has 
been modified to make three methods 
of injection available on the 125-Mw 
unit: 

1. Limestone and coal mixed on the 
belt to the bunker are pulverized and 
injected at all burners. This mode, 
planned initially, allows full-load oper- 
ation of the imit, but its associated 
extreme calcining temperature yields . 
the least reactive material at the wet 
scrubber. Also, the 1-hr detention time 
for the reject spray water will not re- 
sult in the reactivity of all available 
material. Nevertheless, this mode is 
expected to approximate SO2 removal 
guarantees. 

2. Inject pulverized limestone only 
through the top burners at each comer 
of the boiler and coal only in the other 
burners. This method permits opera- 
tion only up to 90% of full load be- 
cause a pulverizer is used to grind the 
limestone. However, it separates the 
limestone feed from the main flame 
and thus provides more reactive mate- 
rial at the scrubber. It is expected that 
this method will meet SO2 removal 
guarantees. 



3. Inject limestone (pulverized inde- 
pendently of the unit) through sep- 
arate injection nozzles at the top gas 
burner locations in each comer of the 
boiler. Nozzles will be angled to inject 
the limestone high into the furnace for 
calcining, thus minimizing overbuming 
and providing a maximum of reactive 
material at the scrubber. Based on test 
performance, this method offers not 
only full-load operation but also SO2 
removal in excess of guarantee (350 
ppm SO2 in effluent gas). 

For the air pollution control system 
being installed on the 430-Mw No. 5 
unit, limestone will be pulverized in an 
adjacent unit. Limestone will be in- 
jected into the coolest location in the 
fumace as is practical to reach. Flue 
gas and material will follow a normal 
path through the fumace, i.e., from the 
air heater into a plenum and through 
six wet scrubber marble beds, the dem- 
ister and reheater, and then to the ID 
fan and out the stack. A 25F pickup 
in the scmbber reheater is planned. 

The bed overflow water will be sep- 
arated and flow by gravity to the set- 
tling pond. Plate reject water and ma- 
terial collected under the marble bed 
will flow to detention tanks for re- 
cycling above the activated 'bed. It is 
fully expected that the system on the 
larger unit will be reliable, avaUable 
for continuous operation, and capable . 
of meeting SO2 and particulate re- 
moval guarantees. 



Design conditions for 
sulfur removal system 

Coal Supply: 

12,300 Btu/lb 

3.4% Sulfur 

12.5% Ash 
Limestone injection: 

13% by weight (of coal fired) 
PyrKe rejection by pulverizer: 

Equivalent to 1% sulfur 
Fumace reaction: 

20 to 30% of sulfur oxides to 

combine in dry furnace reaction, 

remainder in wet scrubber 
Guarantees: 

Removal of 83% of sulfur oxides 

and 99% of particulates 



234 

Statement of Stuabt Watts, Wellman-Lord, Inc. 

Mr. Chairman, in June, 1969, Wellman-Lord presented a paper at the National 
Air Pollution Control Association meeting in New York City. This paper covered 
the economic reasons for and technical development of our potassiuin sulphite 
based iSO:; recovery system, and reiKvrted on initial results of the commercial 
demonstration plant for the process which is the Maryland Clean Air Project. 
In preparing this second report, we have for clarity recapped the June report 
and added the following information to bring you up to date on the status of 
our work.. 

1. A summary of results and experience on the Maryland Clean Air Plant 
regarding pollution control with the potassium system. 

2. New information on our first full commercial plant which removes SO2 
from the sulfuric acid plant tail gas. This plant is based on our .sodium sulphite 
system. 

3. A comparison of the potassium and sodium systems and which look most 
promising. 

4. Plans for commercialization in Japan. 

Summary. — In cooperation with the utility industry and certain chemical 
companies, Wellman-Lord has worked on the development and commercialization 
of SO2 pollution control systems for over three years. The basic technique u.sed 
is absorption of the SO2 present in stack gases in an alkali salt solution, followed 
by recovery of the ab.«orbed SO2 and continuous recycle of the solution. Develop- j 
ment emphasi.s was placed on producing a salable form of sulfur as liquid SO2, 
strong sulfuric acid, or element .sulfur. Two technically similar absorption j 
processes have been studied — one uses a potassium salt solution, and the other 
a sodium salt. Both produce SO2 as an end product. The SO: can be converted to 
strong H2SO4 by standard technology, and additional investigations are underway 
to reduce the SO2 to elemental sulfur or alternately produce elemental sulfur 
directly from the absorption process instead of SO2. Progress to date can bej 
summarized as follows : 

1. In a joint venture with the Tampa Electric Company a one megawatt pilot! 
plant was operated on the potas.sium system in April through September 1967] 
at their Gannon Station. Results proved the process to be chemically feasible^ 
and indicated good process economics. 

2. The Maryland Clean Air Project was develoi>ed as a 25 megawatt demon- 
stration plant for the potassium system and the plant started up in January] 
1969 at Baltimore Gas and Electric's Crane Station. Operating results proved*] 
decisively that this approach can remove over 90% of the SO2, SO3 and particulate] 
in the flue gas and is therefore effective from a pollution control standpoint.! 
Certain mechanical problems were encountered, particularly in the final S0:| 
compression section, which limited the operating factor of the test program, butJ 
these problems were either corrected or solutions have been identified whicbj 
can be employed at a future date. Based on the Baltimore operating exiwriencei 
an improved design for the particulate pre-scrubber is being evaluated, witbj 
the objective of removing more of the fly-ash in the pre-scrubber and less irrl 
the in-line centrifuge. The biggest disappointment was in steam economy. Low! 
pressure steam requirements for SO2 stripping appeared to be over twice as] 
high as we had hoped for. Therefore, unless a solution to this problem can b^ 
developed, investment and operating costs for the pota.s.sium system will hi 
higher than our projections from the TECO tests. 

3. Early in 1968 we began preliminary studies on a sodium based absorptioi 
system. Certain advantages over potassium became apparent, particularly fo| 
small plants, and where SO2 concentrations in the gas to be treated exceede 
about 0.3 per cent. In early 1969 we evaluated both the potassium and sodiui 
systems for reducing SO- emission from Olin Chemical's 700 TPD H2S04 planj 
in Paulsboro, New Jersey. The sodium system showed significant advantages anc 
in July 1969 we were awarded a firm price contract to install this system. Recov^ 
ered SO2 is reused in the H2SO4 plant and SO2 concentration in the clean gas i^ 
guaranteed to be less than 500 ppm. Engineering design is complete and has beei 
based on unit operation pilot tests in suppliers' laboratories . . . plant start-u| 
is scheduled before June 1, 1970. 

In summary, we can compare the design basis and operating experience of th^ 
Maryland Clean Air Plant (postassium) with the Olin Chemicals plant (sodium) 
and believe that the sodium design is the most economical. The experience gaint 
at MOADP was of direct use in the Olin design and is the basis for our confidence 
in the sodium system. Advantages of sodium are elimination of a separate stear 



235 

stripping section (reduces capital investment), lower steam usage, and a simpli- 
fied over-all operation. The MCA plant has been temporarily shut down pending 
the results on the Olin plant. If projected performance is obtained, the sodium 
system will be recommended for utility application. 

In addition to these projects, Wellman-Lord is evaluating two approaches for 
production of elemental sulfur, using the absorption process as a first step. One 
involves direct reduction of KzSsOfe crystals where we have a pilot plant installed 
in Lakeland, and the second relates to application of provel technology for reduc- 
ing SO: gas to sulfur. Also, negotiations are imderway by our Japanese licensees 
(Mitsubishi and Sumitomo) to install the Wellman-Lord system which has been 
selected as one of three government-sponsored 150 MW demonstration units in 
Japan. 

Abstract of Paper Presented Bbtfore National Air PoLLtmoN Control 
Association in New York City, June, 1969 

(By Stuart G. Watt, Executive Engineer, Wellman-Lord, Inc. ) 

The Wellman-Lord SO2 recovery process is based on absorption of SO2 in 
potassium sulfite solution, crystallization of K2S2O5 from this solution, and 
conversion of K2S2O0 to KHSO3 by dissolving the crystals in water. SO2 is stripped 
from the KHSO3 solution and can be used as a gas or compressed for shipment. 
The 3-year development program included a 1 megawatt pilot plant at Tampa 
Electric's Gannon Station and a 25 Megawatt demonstration plant in operation 
at Baltimore Gas and Electric's Crane Station. Technical and economic perform- 
ance have been promising. Tests have been conducted at a metallurgical smelter 
and this process concept has wide application. An alternate sodium sulfite system 
is available. Pilot plant tests to produce elemental sulfur are in progress. 

I A. general background 

Wellman-Lord's basic business has been design, engineering, and construction 
of agricultural mining and chemical complexes and related facilities. In 1965 
and 1966 we were involved in tlie planning stages of agricultural projects which 
were limited by a sulfur shortage. Although current supply/demand on sulfur 
shows increasing availability, we had seen price escalations of nearly 80% 
during the past few years. Government sources give the following quantities of 
sulfur potentially available from stack emissions : 



Sulfur (tons 
Source per year) Percent 



Coal combustion -.-. - I'9)>J'929 Si"? 

Petroleum combustion. .-- ^' c^'xSS ?o o 

Other industrial (including smelting) -- - 2,257,000 18^ 

Total _-_ - - 11,680,000 100.0 



The total sulfur consumed in seulfuric acid is about 9,000,000 tons per year, so 
it is apparent that an economic SO2 recovery process could provide an effective 
alternate sulfur source, providing logistics are reasonable. We have mapped 
sulfur emission versus the H2SO4 use, by state, and there are many areas where 
emission and use are in close proximity. 

Following a state of the art review of existing recovery processes, we began 
research in June 1966 to develop a process which would both control SO2 pollution 
and recover valuable sulfur. Design objectives (and how they were achieved) 
were as follows : 

1. End Product.— Should be either pure SO2 or sulfur which have wide market 
acceptance, can be economically transferred over long distances, and are not tied 
to a single market. The Wellman-Lord process makes pure SO3 and we have two 
methods in the pilot plant stages to produce elemental sulfur. 

2. Efficient Pollution Control— Tests to date indicate removal of over 90% of 
I SO2, SO3, and fly ash leaving electrostatic precipitators (utilities) . 

3. Liquid System. — Our experience with liquid versus fluosolid systems indi- 
cates liquid is much easier to control, operate, and maintain. We, therefore, based 
our development on liquid scrubbing systems, which are the basis for our process. 



236 

4. Common Chemical — Regenerative. — Our processes are based on either KOH 
or NaOH as starting materials for the sulfite, which are widely available from 
competitive sources, and of uniform, well established quality. System regenera- 
tion is positive, in solution form, and chemical makeup is a minimum. 

5. Secondary Polution/ Disposal. — There are no solid or large liquid streams 
to dispose of in our process. 

6. Proven Process Equipm^ent. — Equipment is well proven for use in the chem- 
ical industries. The basic unit operations of absorption, crystallization, filtra- 
tion, and steam stripping are involved. 

7. Variable Stack Conditions. — The absorption process can handle varying 
SO2 concentrations and gas flows because of its relatively high inherent turn- 
down ratio. 

8. Fuel Benefits. — Because of an economic base which favors high SO2 produc- 
tion, in fuel burning units, high sulfur fuel improves economics. Similarly, when 
the process is used to remove SO2 from industrial units (such as H2SO1 plant) 
where the capacity of industrial plant can be increased by permitting higher 
SO2 in gas, the Wellman-Lord process can be designed to recover this higher 
gas strength. 

B. PROCESS DESCRIPTION POTASSIUM SYSTEM 

The chemistry of SO2 absorption in potassium salt systems has been studied 
for nearly 40 years with one of the basic problems being the high steam re- 
quirement to strip and recover the SO2 from the resulting solution of potassium 
sulfite (K2SO3) and potassium bisulfite (KHSO3). However, if a nearly pure 
solution of KHSO3 could be obtained (without K2SO3 present), the partial pres- 
sure of SO2 above this solution is very high and consequently the SO2 could be 
stripped out with very low steam requirements. This is illustrated by the partial 
pressure diagram in Figure 1. Development of a simple method to obtain a pure 
KHSO3 solution, then became one of the key points of our process. This was 
accomplished by developing a method to crystalize potassium pyrosulfite crystals 
(K2S2O5) out of a complex potassium salt solution. The crystals are filtered and 
when redissolved in water give the high purity KHSO3 solution required for 
low cost steam stripping. Our process has three basic unit operations — absorption 
crystallization, and steam stripping. 

Absorption Section 

The absorber section is comprised of a specially designed prescrubber to 
remove particles of fly ash. and an absorption column where the SO2 is absorbed 
in the sulfite solution. Principal reactions are : 

1. 2KOH+SO2 KsSOs-fHsO 

2. K2SO3+SO2+H2O 2KHSO3 

The prescrubber operates at low pressure drop and a water rate of less than 
0.2 gpm per 1,000 cubic feet of g'as treated. In utility operations, a high per- 
centage of the SO3 present in the gas is adsorbed on the fly ash surface and leaves 
with the small fly ash slurry to waste disposal. The sulfite solution absorbs over 
90% of the SO2 in the original flue gas and the gas: leaves the stack at 140° F. 
unsaturated. The overall pressure drop across the absorber circuit is less than 
8 inches of water. 

Crystallization Section 

The sulflte solution is cooled in a vacuum crystallizer and K2S2O6 crystallizes 
out as follows : 

cool 

2KHSO3 > K2S205-f-H20 

The crystals are filtered and the mother liquor is recycled to the process. The 
pure pyrosulfite is dissolved in H2O to form the KHSO3 for stripping. 

Stripping Section 

The KHSO3 solution is pumped counter-currently through steam stripping 
columns where SO2 vapor comes off the top of the column and the stripped 
solution is recycled to the absorber. 

2KHSO3 > K2S03-FH20-f-S02 

A 

As the bisulfite is converted to sulfite, the partial pressure of SO2 in the solu- 
tion decreases very rapidly. The steam consumption for stripping is dependent 



237 

on the number of stages used, but we are projecting consumption las 4 to 8 
pounds iJer pound of SO2. The SO2 and steam vapor, discharged overhead from 
the column, are fed to a heat exchanger to condense most of the steam. Depend- 
ing upon the end use for the product, the SO2 can either be used as a gas or 
compresvsed for shipment. 

C. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT 

The chemistry of the process described was confirmed in our laboratories in 
late 1966 and a program was outlined for pilot plant testing. In a joint venture 
with Tampa Electric Company, approximately $300,000 was allocated for con- 
struction and operation of a 1 megawatt pilot plant at their Gannon Station in 
Tampa, Florida. Operation began in April 1967 and was successfully concluded 
in September 1967. Problems with fly ash removal were recognized early in the 
program and a special pre-scrubber was designed to clean the gas before it 
contacts the solution. Basic process chemistry was demonstrated on a continuous 
basis and results on K2S2OB crystal growth were encouraging. 

Successful operation at a larger scale, and on a continuous basis were necessary 
before any firm design could be made for a full scale utility. It was decided that 
a 25 megawatt unit would provide design information which could be scaled up 
reliably for larger power plants. The Maryland Clean Air Project was developed 
as a 25 megawatt demonstration plant for this process with the following partic- 
ipants : 

The W. R. Grace Company (operates demonstration plant) 

Baltimore Gas & Electric Company 

Potomac Electric Power Company 

Delmarva Power & Light Company 

Potomac Edison Company 

The Bechtel Corporation 

Wellman-Lord, Inc. 

The project is installed at Baltimore Gas and Electric's Crane Station in Bal- 
timore. This $2,000,000 demonstration unit started up on schedule January 
1969 and the operating and test programs conducted to date have been en- 
couraging. Results on basic process chemistry continue to be very satisfactory 
and a number of design modifications have been made to improve operating 
factors. All unit operations have been tested through production of liquid SO2 
and optimization of the total circuit is in progress. An extensive test program 
in the prescrubber section has minimized problems encountered with fly ash 
during the start up phase, and identified methods of removing various types 
of fine solids depending upon their chemical composition and size distribution. 
Over 90% of the SO2 has been consistently removed from the flue gas with fly 
ash removal as high as 98%. There have been extended test runs through 
production of gaseous SO2. We are currently modifying the compression step 
and studying overall steam balance. 

In addition to the projects at Tampa Electric's Gannon Station and Baltimore 
Gas and Electric's Crane Station, test work has been conducted at two other 
utility stations covering both fuel oil and coal fired units. These latter tests 
used a portable test unit of the prescrubber and absorber only. This portable 
unit is available for testing with other clients. 

In the metallurgical area, the portable unit was tested on smelter ofiF gases 
in the western United States. During a three-week test, the following results 
were obtained : 

(a) From a 2.2% SO2 gas stream, SO2 recovery averaged 96%. 

(b) Particulate rejection averaged 90%. 

D. DEVELOPMENT STATUS 

We expect to complete testing of the potassium sulfite process at the Mary- 
land Clean Air Project within the next few months. At that time we plan to 
convert the demonstration unit to a sodium based circuit and continue the 
test program. Patents have been filed for on both processes. We are currently 
prepared to offer either the sodium or potassium based circuits for immediate 
application to small power stations, and certain industrial plants such as sul- 
furic acid, in those cases where SO2 is to be used as a final product. Pending 
the results of continuous demonstration tests, we will be able to begin firm 



238 

designs for large units by tlie end of 1969. We are studying two processes for 
production of sulfur instead of SO2 from these systems. A pilot unit is in opera- 
tion at our Lakeland oflSce and in the first stages of testing. Feed materials 
for the Lakeland unit are shipped from the Maryland Clean Air Plant which 
permits the results to be directly related. 

Summary and Acknowledgements 

Following nearly 3 years of development work, the technical and economic 
feasibility of this approach to SO2 recovery is being successfully demonstrated. 
Although there have been mechanical improvements as the program developed, 
basic process chemistry has been unchanged since inception. There appears to 
be a wide range of possible applications in the utility, industrial, and metal- 
lurgical fields as an effective pollution control system. Economics are dependent 
on the size of installation, the amount of SO2 or sulfur produced, and product 
marketing. For medium utility stations using high sulfur fuel (or the equiva- 
lent industrial plant) we are projecting at least a breakeven cost for the 
operation. j 

Wellman-Lord is totally indebted to the utility companies who gave their full 
support and guidance throughout this program. Without this support and co- 
operation, none of the development work would have been possible. We would 
also like to acknowledge the financial, operating, and marketing assistance W. R 
Grace and Company is providing for the Maryland Clean Air Project. 



AIR POLLUTION— 1970 



WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18, 1970 

U.S. Senate, 
SuBOOMMirrEE ON Air and Water Pollution 

or THE Committee on Public Works, 

Washington^ D.G. 

The subcommittee met at 9 :30 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 4200, 
New Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas F. Eagleton (member of 
the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present : Senator Eagleton. 

Also present: Eichard B. Koyce, chief clerk and staff director; 
Bailey Guard, assistant chief clerk, minority; Thomas C. Jorling, 
minority counsel; Leon G. Billings and Richard D. Grundy, pro- 
fessional staff members. 

Senator Eagleton. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.. The 
Committee on Public Works, Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollu- 
tion, is now in session to continue its hearings on S. 3229, S. 3466, and 
S. 3546. 

Our first witness this morning was to have been the Governor of 
Massachusetts, the Honorable Francis Sargent. Unfortunately, the 
Governor is ill. He will be with us at a later date, presumably 
tomorrow. . . . 

Our next two witnesses are from the State of West Virginia. 
Senator Jennings Randolph, the chairman of the full Public Works 
Committee, is at another committee meeting, but he will be with us 
later so that he can officially greet and introduce his constituents. 

We will move on in his temporary absence, and call on Mr. Fred 
Tucker, coordinator, industrial health engineering for National Steel 
Corp. 

STATEMENT OF FRED E. TUCKER, MANAGER, POLLUTION CONTROL 
A2ffl> SERVICES, NATIONAL STEEL CORP. 

Mr. Tucker. Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Subcom- 
mittee on Air and Water Pollution : 

My name is Fred E. Tucker, manager, pollution control and services, 
National Steel Corp. 

I have appeared before this subcommittee on many occasions to 
present testimony for the steel industry on legislation affecting air 
and water quality. 

I accepted with pleasure the invitation of the subcommittee of 
March 5 to present testimony on S. 3229, S. 3466, and S. 3546 presently 
being studied by your committee. 

(239) 



240 

I can well remember when hearings held on this subject before this 
committee went virtually unnoticed. Your committee is to be com- 
mended for its foresight in anticipating national problems of air 
and water quality long before the press or the public shared your 

concern. 

Legislation approved by your committee many years ago, although 
heard in virtual public silence, has served the r^ation well and pre- 
pared it to meet today's challenge. 

Your efforts have also given us in industry who support air quality 
control an opportunity to learn and prepare for today's challenge. 

As early as 1965, the steel industry went on record supporting 
environmental control legislation under study by the committee. My 
statement today will be a positive one in support of legislation to 
control and improve air quality in the United States. 

Although I am aware of my industry's progress in environmental 
control and note with pride an investment by steel companies of over 
$1 billion in air and water quality control equipment, I will spend 
little time in reflection on these accomplishments. 

It should be recognized, however, that with the tremendous costs 
involved for the required equipment to bring about pollution control, 
special tax treatment should be afforded industry for this equipment. 

The facts facing this committee today are that air quality in many 
areas of this country needs to be improved to meet public health and 
welfare criteria and that the people of this Nation look to Congress 
to provide legislation which will effect such improvement. 

Quite frankly, I have not had sufficient time since invited to appear, 
to examine in detail the legislative proposals before your committee. 

For this reason, I will limit my discussion to several basic questions 
embodied in these proposals and request permission to submit addi- 
tional statements later for the record on more specific items in the 
legislation. 

Senator Eagleton. We will make a part of the record, when received, 
any additional material or statement you would like to submit. 

Mr. Tucker. Thank you. 

The points in the legislation I will speak to today concern national 
air quality standards, national emission standards, penalties, class 
action suits, and limitations on Federal contracts. 

NATIONAL, AIR QUALITY STANDARDS 

We support in principle the provisions of Senate bill 3466, section 
107, for the establishment of National Air Quality Standards. 

In 1967, our industry supported the provisions of S. 780, sponsored 
by this committee, and later passed as the Air Quality Act of 1967, 
which provided that the Secretary of HEW establish air quality 
criteria to be used as guides for the States to adopt air quality stand- 
ards in the various air quality control regions. 

This concept, although legislatively sound, may well result in utter 
chaos as a means of establishing air quality standards in these regions. 

First, in an interstate region affecting two or more States it is 
necessary for these States, meeting separately in public hearings, to 
adopt air quality standards. 



241 

This is not only time-consuming for already overburdened State 
staffs, but leads to controversy between the States if disagreement 
occurs between standards. 

Second, and perhaps most damaging, has been the appearance at 
most hearings of groups of well-meaning but highly emotional, over- 
zealous and sometimes uninformed persons who seem to be playing 
a numbers game with air quality standards. 

For example^ after much responsible study by Federal scientists, 
a basic air quality criterion of 80 micrograms per cubic meter annual 
average for suspended particulates, was recommended by the Depart- 
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare. 

Such a criterion is strict but can probably be achieved in most 
metropolitan areas by enactment of properly tailored and enforced 
State or regional emission standards as prescribed by the Air Quality 
Act of 1967. 

Then the numbers game be^an with one State reducing the number 
to 75, then 70, and finally 65 m Cleveland, Ohio, recently following a 
near-riot at its air quality standards hearing. 

I recently read a publicity release from a so-called Breathers Alert 
Lobby in another region saying "Cleveland got 65 — let's go for 60," 

The question is where will it all end and what will happen when 
regions set these standards and are then frustrated to find they cannot 
be met regardless of the emission controls adopted and met. 

In regions with no industry and few inhabitants levels of 30 to 50 
micrograms per cubic meter are common. 

S. 3546 strives to close some of the gaps in standard-setting proce- 
dures but does not go far enough to solve the basic problem. 

In my testimony before this committee in 1967, 1 said the following : 

The Clean Air Act gave HEW authority to formulate air quality criteria. This 
authority . . . logically belongs with a national agency. Adverse air quality 
that affects the health of people in Washington, D.C., will have the same effect 
on people living in Chicago, Charleston, Hawaii, Detroit or any other area of 
the United States. 

Today, we hold the same opinion but in light of recent events, rec- 
ommend that this legislation go one step further and give HEW au- 
thority to set air quality standards for all contaminants. 

EMISSION STANDARDS 

We oppose all reference to Federal emission standards for stationary 
sources found in section 112 of S. 3466. We are well aware that this 
provision is intended to apply only to sources which "contribute 
substantially to endangerment of the public health or welfare." 

Such a limitation, however, is difficult to interpret depending as it 
does on a subjective definition of words such as "substantial," "en- 
dangerment," "public health," and "welfare." 

We are convinced that this would lead to national emission standards 
for all stationary sources. 

It should be pointed out that our position on national emission 
standards is not a protective one. Some areas of the country require 
more restrictive controls than others to meet a specified air quality. 

Just like the automobile, the "speed limits" on air pollution source 
control must be adjusted to suit a specific environment. 



242 

On our new interstate highways the car is permitted to travel at 70 
miles per hour, as it enters secondary roads, it is reduced to 50, and on 
down to 15 miles per hour in school zones. The car itself is no more 
or less hazardous on the superhighway than in the school zone; it 
hasn't changed one bit. The environment in which it is located, how- 
ever, has changed, and, thus, we decrease or increase speed limits to 
suit the environment. 

The same reasoning should apply to stationary air pollution sources. 
Control of the source should be dictated by the environment, not the 
source. Some regions of the country will require much more restrictive 
emission controls than others to assure a standard air quality. I 

For these reasons, we believe the present procedure for States in 
air quality control regions to supply miplementation plans, including 
emission standards, should be continued and given a fair chance to 
work before we embark on new procedures for source control. 

If we continue to draft and pass new legislative procedures before 
existing procedures have a reasonable chance to work, we will never 
develop workable procedures for air quality control. 

To my knowledge, no regional implementation plan has been ap- 
proved, let alone given a chance to work, since passage by the Congress 
of the 1967 Air Quality Act. 

In our opinion, present provisions for regional emission standards 
based on the needs of that region will work ; we request that you give 
them a chance to do so. 

Section 108 (i) of S. 3546 requires certification by the Secretary 
of new installations based on source control regulations issued by 
the Secretary. 

From a practical point of view, we see no way in which such a 
provision can be implemented. 

Judging by past experience, if the Secretary would do nothing more 
than develop air quality standards, he would have his hands full. For 
at least 5 years, the Secretary has had authority to issue air quality 
criteria. During that period he has issued only two criteria documents : 
One for suspended particulates and a second for sulfur oxides. 

I understand, incidentally, Mr. Chairman, that three more docu- 
ments were issued earlier this week. 

To expect the Secretary to review and approve the thousands of 
new buildings, structures, or other facilities subject to air quality 
standards installed monthly in the United States would require staffs 
of trained engineers which are simply not available. Most State staffs 
are either prepared or getting prepared to perform this function. 

State staffs should be permitted and required to certify that all new 
installations will met emission standards established for their regions 
under the Air Quality Act. Many States already require such 
certification. 

PENALTIES 

Both S. 3466 and S. 3546 provide severe penalties for failure to 
respond to provisions of the legislation. S. 3466 provides penalties for 
violation of air quality standards under section 113 but only when 
such violation results from failure to meet the States' or Secretary's 
implementation plan. 



243 

\ fine of $10,000 per day seems unnecessarily severe. The procedure 
proposed for levying fines under S. 3466, section 113, is preferred to 
that found in S. 3546. , . 

S 3546, on the other hand, prescribes a procedure for penalties 
which is extremely complicated and somewhat confusing. It provides 
fines starting at $10,000 and 6 months in jail and progresses on up to 
$50,000 per day and 5 years imprisonment. ojo f^ nnn 

Section 4(10) (b), page 13, of the bill, provides fines up to $25,000 
per day for anyone who "knowingly violates any air quality 

standards." . . . , . . , n 4.;^., 

I submit that unless you have a situation involving a single pollution 

source, no one knowingly or unknowingly violates air quality 

standards. , , . - . , ^. j. • i 

Penalties can only be enforced on the basis of violation of implemen- 
tation plans or emission standards, not air quality standards. Air 
quality is a measure of the sum of all sources m a region and usually 
cannot be identified with any single pollution source. , , ■, 

If such severe penalties must be assessed, then let them be based 
on matters which can either be proved or disproved on specific tacts, 
not the circumstantial evidence of a violation of air quality standards. 

S. 3466 offers a simple, direct penalty procedure which can be easily 
enforced by Federal or State control agencies. 

We believe that section 4(13) of S. 3546, which provides for private 
civil actions, is inconsistent with the entire rationale ot the other 
provisions of the bill and is subject to several legal objections. 

Likewise, we feel that section 5 of the bill is objectionable because 
it fails to provide procedural safeguards and is unnecessary and in- 
consistent with the overall purpose of the act. 

I am not qualified to comment on these points but our lawyers are 
preparing a legal brief which we respectfuUy request be subsequently 
submitted for the record. -, ^ • -, -..x. 

Senator Eagleton. As stated earlier, any additional material, either 
statistical, factual or legal, will be made part of the record. 

Mr. Tucker. Thank you. , ., i ^i, ^ 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make it clear that we 
have no desire to discourage strong legislation for Air Quality 

Control. . T • n j: 4.-U 

We want controls which will provide air quality m all areas ot the 
United States which will adequate protect the health and welfare o± 

all the people. 

Bills pending before your committee today, however, are so coni- 
plicated and designed to cover so many and varied conditions that it 
passed, they may actually retard air quality control. 

Many State agencies complain today that so much ot their stall s 
time is devoted to hearings, testimony before commissions, and the 
like, that they have little time left to control pollution. I know that 
this problem exists for industry. ■ ^ ■, 

We have so many regulations and regulatory bodies to satisfy al- 
ready that we sometimes have little idea whether what we are doing 
meets all existing requirements. 

We have a Federal Air Quality Act on the books right now which 
hasn't even begun to be implemented, and we now consider new legis- 
lation to replace that which has not been given proper chance to work. 



244 

If for some reason you must draft new legislation, we implore you 
to make it direct, simple, and effective. This is one of the reasons why 
we propose national air quality standards. The Federal agency in 
HEW is competent and staffed to meet this function. It is not staffed 
to draft or enforce regional emission standards or to certify constriic- 
tion plans for new control facilities in addition to air quality 
standards. 

Once the States are relieved of any responsibility to draft air 
quality standards, they are, or can be made capable to adopt and 
enforce regional emission standards and approve construction plans 
to meet these standards. 

Proposals for punitive fines and public suits are extremely com- 
plicated and restrictive. As you are well aware, once our courts be- 
come clogged with legal actions of this type, actual air quality im- 
provement can be delayed for years. 

A simple provision for fines against failure to meet implementation 
plans seems adequate to assure completion of control facilities and 
their continued efficient operation. 

Specifically, we propose national air quality standards, State plans 
for implementation, including emission standards on a State or re- 
gional basis, penalties based on violation of implementation plans. 
State certification of equipment, and a general simplification of pro- 
cedures for air quality control. 

My comments today were intended to suggest ways to simplify this 
procedure and not in any way to weaken or delay action. We are ready 
to meet our responsibility for air quality control wherever we operate 
steelmaking or processing plants in the United States. 

Senator Eagleton. Thank you, Mr. Tucker. 

So as to clarify the record, are you speaking, sir, for your immediate 
employer, the National Steel Corp., or are you a si^okesman for the 
steel industry in general ? 

Mr. Tucker. I am speaking as an employee of National Steel Corp., 
but, as in the past, w^e have endeavored to get the support of this state- 
ment by other steel companies. Unfortunately, in this case, we didn't 
have adequate time to contact all of them. 

But I can say that a major percentage of the steel industry has 
reviewed this statement and does support it. 

Senator Eagleton. Can I be a bit more specific ? Would this state- 
ment be endorsed by United States Steel, Jones-Laughlin, Bethlehem, 
Republic, Kaiser, Inland ? 

Mr. Tucker. Hoping that I don't leave any companies out, I have 
contacted United States Steel, Bethlehem, Republic Steel, Armco, 
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel, Youngstown Sheet & Tube, Jones & 
Laughlin, and, of course, my own company, and they do support the 
testimony. 

Senator Eagleton. Have you contacted Granite City Steel? 

Mr. Tucker. Not as yet, sir. 

(Since giving the statement endorsement has been received from 
Granite City Steel.) 

Senator Eagleton. That is near my State. I am quite parochial. 

Mr. Tucker. They will be contacted tomorrow and I am reason- 
ably sure that they will support the statement. 



245 

Senator Eagleton. I find this curious in your statement : So often 
I hear from industrial spokesmen and commercial interests telling me 
that they want the Federal Government to keep out of various thmgs. 

For instance, you are from West Virginia. When we started on the 
Coal Mine Safety Act, we were told by the coal operators at first to 
leave it in the hands of the States, that they know how to handle these 
things, that they are more familiar with the problem, and that Wash- 
ington is too remote to make a decision binding on West Virginia and 
Pennsylvania. 

I am hearing now, for instance, from the insurance industry, telling 
me that it would be dangerous for the Federal Government to get 
involved in insurance; that the States are doing a hangup job in in- 
surance; that they are really good regulators. Unfortunately, some of 
these companies are going mider. 

That is just one of those things. 

Yet, in this instance, at least as far as National Air Quality Stand- 
ards are concerned, industry — a significant portion of the steel indus- 
try in particular — wants the intervention of the Federal Government. 

To me that is curious. Do you find that curious ? 

Mr. Tucker. I can easily understand how you would find it curious, 
Senator. I hope that our industry is big enough to maintain a flexible 
policy in looking at various legislation that is presented to us. 

We have, unfortunately, seen a number of delays occur in the im- 
plementation of the Air Quality Act since its passage in 1967. 

We supported that act, and so we must share the blame for any 
delays that were built into the legislation. 

We simply feel that the adoption of the air quality criteria papers 
presented to date as standards would speed up the implementation 
of air quality control. 

We have invested, as an industry, roughly a half billion dollars 
in air quality control equipment. A large number of those installations 
have been made in very recent years. 

We have no idea, Senator, whether they are going to meet the emis- 
sion standards that will be adopted or not. If they do not meet them, 
then we perhaps have wasted a good deal of our limited financial 
resources in order to install these facilities. 

We would like to get on with the work of air quality control. We 
would like to see the establishment of standards on air quality, and 
we would like to see the implementation of emission plans and sched- 
ules so w^e would know where we have to go. 

We are getting quite confused as to what we should do where, 
whether we are doing what needs to be done, and we would like 
answers to these questions. We think those answers should be coming 
very shortly. 

Senator Eagleton. Let me pick up that thread from your statement. 
In it you say : 

Bills pending before your committee today, however, are so complicated and 
designed to cover so many and varied conditions that if passed, they may actually 
retard air quality control. 

Let me submit to you this: You recommend that we scrap one of 
the basic premises of the 1967 act, and now in 1970 go to national air 
quality standards. 



246 

We are at the threshold now of the 1967 act gaining implementation. 
Many regions have filed their standards and many are now in the 
process of filing their implementation plans. 

So we are on the threshold of something really being done, 3 years, 
albeit, after the inception of the act in 1967. 

If we scrap that now and start all over again with national air 
quality standards, with what I deem to be the built-in delays that are 
in sections 107 and 108 of the administration bill, I think it will be 
another 18 months to 2 years before w^e are at the point of 
implementation. 

I agree, in part, with that excerpt from your statement, but your 
basic recommendation that we go to national air quality standards 
will, I believe, delay us, perhaps as much as 2 years. 

What do you thmk ? 

Mr. Tucker. If there are delays built into S. 3466, and I quite 
honestly have not had time to study the language in detail, then I 
respectfully suggest that you wipe them out. We have air quality 
criteria documents available today. In my statement I said two, and 
yesterday I heard there were five, and I hear there will be nine by the 
end of the year. 

I see no reason why these could not be immediately adopted as 
national air quality standards. 

If we get confused about the terms national air quality standards 
and national air quality criteria as the testimony indicated yester- 
day, perhaps we should find a new word. But there is no objection on 
my part as an industry representative to see those criteria adopted as 
national standards immediately, and this would provide that all of 
the regions could get on with the job of adopting implementation 
plans and emission standards and not have to go through this time- 
consuming effort of hearing each and every one of these national air 
quality standards. 

I don't think there are delays if the legislation is properly drafted. 
I submit that it may not be now. 

Senator Eagleton. As I read the administration bill, it repeals the 
provision whereby HEW promulgates the standards that you are 
talking about. 

Mr. Tucker. I believe it repeals the promulgation of criteria. 

Senator Eagleton. And the implementation. 

Mr. Tucker. It is simply, I think, a play on words. Senator. They 
would now draft, instead of criteria documents, standards documexits. 
They mean almost exactly the same thing. 

Senator Eagleton. We went around and around on that yesterday. 
There is, from a semantic point of view — and I trust it is also from a 
philosophical point of view — a difference between a criteria and a 
standard. 

Dr. Middleton and others were trying to articulate that benign 
difference. At least, they feel there is a significant difference between 
the two. 

Do you interrelate and couple them all together; that is, criteria 
being the same thing as standard. 

Mr. Tucker. I do. I have read the criteria documents that have 
been issued to date. To me, they have enough safety factors built into 
them to protect the health and welfare of the public so that they 
could be interpreted as standards. 



247 

I agree completely with your statement that the difference is benign. 
I think there is a very, very slight difference between a criteria docu- 
ment and a standards document. 

Senator Eagleton-. What level of standard do you want to see 
adopted nationally ? Let me be more specific. Take the two levels that 
have already been published, and now roughly five. A few more are 
coming down the pike later on. Stick with any one you are familiar 
with. 

As you know, when they publish the criteria, they say at "this" 
level it is dangerous to humans, and at "that" level it is not dangerous 
to human health, but it is dangerous to plant life. 

At still another level it is not dangerous to human health and plant 
life but it affects environment. 

I can't spell it all out, but as you know, they have varying levels. 
What kind of a national level do you want to see established? 

Are you satisfied with one that is just good enough for human 
health, or do you want one which would extend beyond human health 
considerations ? 

Mr. Tucker. I certainly would want to do a more complete job than 
limit our standards setting to straight human health. I don't think 
that HEW has done that. I respect their staff. I respect Dr. Middle- 
ton very much as an administrator and as an expert in air pollution 
control. 

I am willing at this point to respect his judgment on what an accept- 
able standard for these particular contaminants would be. 

I think they did an excellent job with the first two criteria docu- 
ments that I studied. I am certainly not expert enough in the health 
effects or the welfare effects of air pollution to be very critical of them. 

I am willing to accept HEW's judgment in this matter with the 
option, of course, as always, that we have an opportunity to comment 
on the papers. 

Senator Eagleton. Do you admit to the possibility that conditions 
can vary from region to region or area to area, atmospheric con- 
ditions, environmental conditions, humidity, and so forth? 

The point I am suggesting, of course, is that if you have a national 
standard it might t^ good enough and workable in region X, but 
because of conditions indigenous to region or area Y it might not be 
satisfactory. 

Is that at all possible ? 

Mr. Tucker. That is very possible and one of the reasons why we 
recommend the establishment of State or regional emission standards. 

As far as air quality standards are concerned, drafted to protect 
the health and welfare of the public, it really doesn't matter. Senator, 
whether you are in Pittsburgh or Chicago or Kansas, or where you 
may happen to be. 

If a certain contaminant makes your eyes water, it will make them 
water in any one of those cities; or if it affects your health in any 
way, it will affect it regardless of where you are. 

So I think national air quality standards should be approved, and 
that State or regional emission standards should be adopted to con- 
trol the emissions in a particular area dependent upon environmental 
conditions. 

Emission standards do need to be different and flexible. 



248 

Senator Eagl.eton. Somewhere in your prepared statement, Mr. 
Tucker, you say, "For example, after much responsible study by Fed- 
eral scientists, a basic air quality criterion of 80 micrograms per cubic 
meter annual average for suspended particles was reconnnended by the 
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare." 

We are not aware of that criterion. Do you have a copy of it? 

Mr. Tucker. I do not have a copy of it with me, but that is in their 
suspended particulates criteria document. 

Senator Eagleton. We are just not aware of any recommendation 
by the Department of HEW along the specific lines you have stated 
in that sentence. 

Mr. Tucker. We would be happy to supply it for the record, if you 
would like. 

Senator Eagleton. You have spelled out on page 3 the agonies 
that you have had with people who want to clean up the air in Cleve- 
land and other cities. You want to get away from that because it is a 
nuisance in your Department, I guess. 

Do you support public participation in regional emission and im- 
plementation plans i 

Mr. Tucker. I think public participation at that point, Mr. Chair- 
man, will be necessary. The people in these regions are going to have 
to decide what type emission standards they want. I heard Miami 
mentioned yesterday. Perhaps a city such as Miami would like to have 
much better air quality than anybody else to satisfy their tourist trade. 

If in the judgment of the people who live in Miami they should 
exempt industry from that particular part of the counti-y or exempt 
anything else that contributes to air pollution, that is a judgment that 
they should make. 

1 certainly do not object to them participating in that decision. 

Senator Eagleton. Let me carry you one step further. If, as you 
say, the public should participate in that facet of this undertaking, 
how does that square with your opposition to civil action, class action 
suits, and so forth, by the public, to enforce those very standards ? 

If the public is to have the right to show up at a hearing and be 
heard, be it in Miami or elsewhere, to participate and make suggestions 
on the kind of air they want in their community, and then those stand- 
ards are set, why shouldn't the public have the right to follow up on 
that hearing and bring legal actions if they think the standards are not 
being enforced ? 

Mr. Tucker. As I said in my statement. Senator, I am not at all 
qualified to talk about class action suits. I will supply more informa- 
tion on that. The thing that I am basically concerned about, in look- 
ing at the legislation, is we would like to see legislation that is simple 
and effective and can get on with the job of air quality control as soon 
as possible. 

If we garble that legislation and confuse that legislation by a lot of 
extraneous requirements and provisions, I see nothing but a lot of 
frustration on the part of both the public and industry for many years 
to come as to how quickly we can implement these bills. 

We would like to see this job done and done soon. I am afraid that 
a good deal of the language that is being suggested in the legislation 
will do nothing but slow it down. 



249 

Senator Eagleton. In your prepared statement you say : 

Penalties can only be enforced on the basis of violation of implementation 
plans or emission standards, not air quality standards. Air quality is a measure 
of the sum of all sources in a region and usually cannot be identified with any 
single pollution source. 

I call your attention to the Muskie bill, S. 3546, page 5, subsection 
(c) and subsection (c) (4) thereof. 

Such standards and plan or revisions thereof, shall be the air 
quality standards applicable to such region or portions thereof if the 
Secretary determines that,'' and down to sub (4), "such plan includes 
emission requirements necessary to implement such standards of air 
quality." 

So that makes the standards and the emission requirements 
enforceable, as I read it, under the Muskie bill. 

Can you comment on those two portions of the bill in light of the 
statement that you make on page 7 ? 

Mr. Tucker. I must admit I am a little confused about this lan- 
guage. I tried sf)ecifically last night to read it and clarify my own 
position on this. 

Under the existing act, for example, the Secretary sets air quality 
criteria. He also establishes air quality control regions. 

Following 90 days, the States file a letter of intent and within 180 
days they establish air quality standards. Then they have an additional 
180 days to submit a plan of implementation. 

Senator Eagleton. Correct. 

Mr. Tucker. For this reason, and also even with this language 
which you have just read to me, which I admit ties the thing a little 
closer together than it did in the original act, I still think enough 
confusion exists that we should be quite specific in where the fines are 
going to be applied. 

I do not believe that the language in S. 3546 is sufficiently specific to 
identify where you do apply the penalty to the act itself. 

Senator Eagleton. Perhaps the language should be tightened up. 
You are in favor of tightening it up, I take it ? 

Mr, Tucker. Yes ; I am. 

Senator Eagleton. Do you have objection to the imposition of sub- 
stantial and significant fines for violation of standards with respect 
to excessive emissions ? 

Mr. Tucker. I object to some of the fines that are laid out in the 
two pieces of legislation before us today. I think they are a little ex- 
cessive. Perhaps not for some of the bigger industries, but certainly 
for some of the smaller industries. 

I realize the language says "up to" that figure. With that in mind, 
I really would not prefer to take a position on the fines. 

Senator Eagleton. I think the administration bill says "up to." 

Mr. Tucker. That is right. 

Senator Eagleton. The Muskie bill doesn't have that degree of 
gentility. 

Mr. Tucker. I didn't realize that, sir. 

It says "by a fine of not more than $25,000," which I assume to mean 
the same thing. 

Senator Eagleton. The Muskie bill ? 



250 

Mr. Tucker. Yes. Tliat is on page 13. On page 14 it says "by a fine 
of not more than $50,000.'' 

Senator Eagleton. I stand corrected. 

Thank you, Mr. Tucker. 

Mr. Tucker. Thank you, sir. 

Senator Eagleton. Our next witness is Dr. Benjamin Linsky, pro- 
fessor, air poHution control engineering, department of civil engi- 
neering. West Virginia University, Morgantown, W. Va. 

STATEMENT OE BENJAMIN LINSKY, P.E., PROEESSOR IN AIR POL- 
LUTION CONTROL ENGINEERING, DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGI- 
NEERING, WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY, MORGANTOWN, W. VA. 

Senator Eagleton. May I say to both Mr. Tucker, who has just left 
the witness table, and Professor Linsky that it is just impossible for 
Senator Kandolph to be present in this hearing room at this time 
because he is involved in another very important hearing which he 
cannot leave. He apologizes and extends his best wishes to both of you. 
He hopes you understand. 

Mr. LiNSKY. Senator Eagleton, it is my pleasure to be before you. 
I hope that two of my graduates who are working in the State of 
Missouri have been serving you well, Mr. Auberle and Mr. Marshall. 

I am professor of sanitary engineering (air pollution) at West 
Virginia University in the department of civil engineering. 

I have been engaged full time in air pollution control engineering 
and control program development and administration since 1948. 

From 1951 to 1956, I was head of the city of Detroit's official air 
and noise pollution control agency. 

From 1956 to 1963, I developed and directed the official San Fran- 
cisco Bay area's regional air pollution control district, covering six 
counties and 70 cities. 

When, as an agent of social change, I was used up, I left to teach 
and train others who would be younger, and hopefully better, because 
they would receive deliberate distilled experience and selected course 
content regarding air pollution control engineering and program 
administration. 

I was the 50th President of the National Air Pollution Control 
Administration in 1956, and a member of the U.S. Public Health 
Service Surgeon General's first National Advisory Committee on 
Community Air Pollution Control from 1957 to 1960. I now serve on 
the National Air Pollution Manpower Development Advisory Com- 
mittee of the National Air Pollution Control Administration. 

"While I was in California, from 1956 to 1963, I served on almost 
all of the advisory committees to the State legislature and the State 
department of public health in drafting their motor vehicle pollution 
control laws and standards (limitations) for atmospheric pollutants 
and emissions. 

I started the air pollution committee of the National Association 
of Counties and hold memberships in a number of other national and 
regional, technical and other, voluntary organizations concerned with 
bettering and protecting the physical enviromnent, and especially its 
atmospheric environment. 



251 

I am also a member of Editorial Advisory Board of the Interna- 
tional Journal on Atmospheric Environment. 

The American Public Health Association has me serving as chair- 
man of one of its committees on air pollution, and as a member of 
another of its committees on the same subject. 

I serve on the air pollution measurements committee and the plan- 
ning and zoning committee of the Air Pollution Control Association, 
National Society of Professional Engineers and vice presidency of its 
West Virginia Morgantown chapter ; American Public Works Associa- 
tion and presidency of the West Virginia chapter; American Institute 
of Planners (affiliate membership) ; American Meteorology Society; 
American Society of Government Industrial Hygienists; American 
Society for Engineering Education; American Society for Public 
Administration; American Academy of Environmental Engineering; 
American Academy of Industrial Hygiene ; Public Affairs Conference 
of West Virginia; American Academy for the Advancement of Sci- 
ence; Izaak Walton League of America; American Society of Plan- 
ning Officials ; the Civil Engineering honorary Chi Epsilon ; the Engi- 
neering Society of Detroit; Engineers Club of San Francisco; San 
Francisco Press Club ; and others. 

I received my bachelor of science and master of science degrees in 
mechanical engineering from Wayne State University in Detroit and 
the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and have held appointments 
as special lecturer and teacher at the University of California, Stan- 
ford University, and Wayne State University. 

I am chairman of the technical committee that has been advising 
the State of West Virginia and the Federal Government on its study, 
just being printed, of air pollution in the Kanawha Valley, Charleston. 

This study has resulted in the enactment and preparation for future 
enactment of regional and statewide air pollution control regulations 
by the State of West Virginia Air Pollution Control Commission, 

I also serve as an editorial consultant to the Maxwell Reprint Co., 
a division of Maxwell Scientific International, Inc. 

Senator Eagleton. It will show in the record that you are a na- 
tionally recognized, sanitized version of Art Carney. 

Mr. LiNSKY. Thank you. 

Tlie information I have prepared for you is consistent with my 
intent to help you restore clean air to our cities, towns, and rural 
countryside, while fully retaining and expanding our standards of 
living. 

The added costs to the national economy's production, the added 
costs to the regulator}^ Government tax budgets, and the added costs 
to each citizen-consumer are so small that the air pollution control 
officials and the "aware" editors who are caught up in the bitter battles 
with resisting polluting industries have been reluctant to tell the gen- 
eral public or their elected representatives how cheap it really is to 
have clean air, lest they endanger their own jobs or limit their oppor- 
tunities for promotion. 

One suggested solution for the air pollution control official's dilemma 
might be to provide a "carry along" pension system similar to that 
available to city managers, or to college faculty members who are en- 
couraged, when younger, to move in order to broaden their knowledge, 



43-166 O— 70— pt. 1 17 



252 



and when older, to move in order to spread their wisdom in other 
colleges and universities. 

The dilemma of the man in the middle of a public controversy who 
can only find employment in large organizations is obvious when he 
begins to plan for his future and that of his family. 

As to the editors who have been hanging back — I trust that the open 
competition of the freedom of the press will meet this. The example 
of consistent failures and refusals to carry the "It only costs a few 
cents" story will be discussed more fully, using the two Federal reports 
on "Costs of Clean Air," my own 1965 report to this committee regard- 
ing cleanly produced electricity, and my 1965 report to this committee 
regarding the very large profit value of even 1 year's deferment in air 
j^ollution control installation. 

Each year's deferment is worth about $250,000 to $300,000 for stall- 
ing the installation of $1 million of air pollution control equipment. 
Even so, the added retail cost is usually less than 1 percent to the 
consumer. 

This chart, which I present here, was prepared for you and illus- 
trates electricity production in St. Louis, Mo., with the cost as of a few 
years ago. 



$10. 00 



$9.00 



$8.00 



$7.00 



.$6.00 



to 

Qi 

3 

_j 
o 



5.00 



' $ 4. 00 



$3.00 



$2.00 



$1.00 



SO. 00 



Average Household Customer's Montnly Price of Electricity 1 



940 



R -- $9. 40 - Total Household Customer Cost 
(Including $0. 56 assumed profit) 

S I $6. 04 ; Distribution Cost 

T = $2. 77 -- Total Production Cost at Power Plant 

U -. $1. 39 ; Capitol Investment Cost of Production 
Equipment 

V i$0.79 --Fuel Cost 
W = $0. 22 - Operation Cost 
X - $0. 30 = Maintenance Cost 

Y -$0.06 -Air Pollution Control Cost (Including 
Copltol, Maintenance, and Operation) 



Linsky after Tarquin' 



ot 375 Kw-Hr. Per Month 




Statement by Linslsy, B.,W. V. U.. before 
the Subcommittee on Air and Woter 
Pollution of the Senate Committee on 
Public Worl(S, Porkersburg, W. Va. 
Dec. 16, 1965. 

A method for Determining the Riesiden- 
tial Customer's Cost of Air Pollution 
Control in the Power Industry, Problem, 
Anthony Tarquin, W.V. U., 1965. 



Tliis is the air pollution control cost of the best fly ash control equip- 
ment that you could buy at that time in relation to the retail price of 
electricity in St. Louis of an average household. 

It is about 6 cents a month. 



253 

Senator Eagleton. I hate to interrupt, but could you explain this 
chart to me a little further ? I am not very good with figures. 

Mr. LiNSKY. I will be pleased to. The $9.40 is the retail delivered 
price of electricity for a customer that uses about 375 kilowatt hours 
a month. 

The $6.04 is the cost of owning and operating the distribution system, 
admmistering and metering, meter reading, and so forth. 

The $2.77 is the cost of the electricity at the gates of the power plant, 
the so-called bus bar cost. That includes the value of the capital and 
everything else. 

The 79 cents represents the cost of the fuel that went in to make up 
that $9.40 worth of electricity. 

The 6 cents represented the cost of good fly ash control equipment 
then available. 

Senator Eagleton. On the 6-cent figure, would that be as you view 
it, triple X special pollution control equipment doing a really bang-up 
job? 

Mr. LiNSKY. That was only for fly ash. 

In the newest report, the second HEW report of January 1970 on 
costs of clean air, which has just been delivered to you, I believe you 
will find the figure for electricity running about 40 or 50 cents now 
for well controlled sulfur dioxide and everything else we know how 
to do. 

Senator Eagleton. Let us take the high figure of 50 cents. If you 
add 50 cents to $9.40 could you really do a thorough job in the public 
interest ? 

Mr. LiNSKY. Yes, the best job anyone could possibly think of doing 
at this time, or even in the next 5 years. 

Senator Eagleton. That is strictly air and has nothing to do with 
the picture for water pollution ? 

Mr. LiNSKY. With regard to a powerplant's thermal pollution, that 
is a subject in which I am not expert, but into which I have looked 
sharply. 

The best information I can find is that it would add about 50 cents to 
a family's monthly electricity bill, to get rid of thermal pollution en- 
tirely by going to dry, mechanical cooling towers. 

Senator Eagleton. That would be another 50 cents, if your figures 
are borne out, to do both air and water, perhaps making it $10.40. 

Mr. LiNSKY. Yes. This is for one of the commonly located, in- 
herently polluting operations. 

It has, in recent years, been difficult for you to meet organized pres- 
sures from large polluters who wish to walk you away from the ob- 
vious public desires for unpolluted air. 

They try to focus you only upon toxic and hazardous to human 
health pollutants and effects. 

As a professional engineer who is licensed to practice the profession 
of engineering because of responsibilities for health, welfare, and 
safety, it is proper to call for a greater safety factor whenever there 
is doubt or differences between specialists, as is true in the case of 
medical researchers into air pollution illness and toxicity. 

In the criteria documents are the best statements, without a safety 
factor built in, of what professionals have found, have reported, and 



254 

which have been considered worthwhile enough by the review com- 
mittees to be inchided. 

They do not contain safety factors beyond that. 

Senator Eagleton. Are you recommending that with whatever 
standard is set, by whatever method is used, that there will be an x 
percent safety factor because distinguished, sophisticated experts are 
not in precise agreement on the figures ? 

Mr. LiNSKY. Yes. In engineermg we call the safety factor and the 
ignorance factor the same thing between ourselves when nobody is 
listening. 

In addition to the illness and toxicity, people resent the other mali- 
fits as much as, or more than, they fear impairment of their health. 

There are at least seven other types of man-induced undesirable air 
pollution effects : 

1. Annoyance to senses, including malodor and eye irritation. 

2. Soiling of surfaces, li^ht or dark. 

3. Interference with visibility, in the absence of clean, natural fog. 
These hazes, when damp, are called sooner fogs, reminiscent of the 
land rush cheaters. They probably should be called sooner or later 
because they last longer, too, than if the air pollution were not there. 

4. Sky darkening. 

5. Injury to vegetation including reduced yields per acre. 

6. Other property damage, including rubber cracking, corrosion, 
paint damage, and rotting fabric. 

7. Interference with production, services, or social activity such as 
flying, outdoor sports by children and adults, precision production, 
cormnercial baking of cakes and cookies — 

You can imagine how they would taste and smell if made near 
an uncontrolled foundry — and close eye work such as in the needle 
trades. SuCh polluting industries also chase out and keeps out modern 
clean industries. Varian, for example, moved about 20 miles to an- 
other city, from San Carlos to Palo Alto, Calif. 

Any one of the eight types of undesirable effects of air pollution 
cause uninvited stresses in people who then seek, and are willing to 
pay for, displeasure avoidance, to the extent they think they can ob- 
tain it without economic ruin. 

In the past, they have been short changed of information as to how 
inexpensive it is to control air pollutants — how few pennies it takes 
when they pay for something made in a non-air-polluting way and 
for non-air-polluting use. 

TWO TYPES OF GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS AND BUDGETS 

You, as legislators, and your constituents would probably also be 
helped if more people understood more clearly the distinction between 
(1) regulatory Government functions, and (2) owning and operating 
governmental functions. 

These two generally different types of governmental function result, 
as you know, in two different types of budgets, taxes, and service fees 
in Federal, State, and local governments. 

Regulatory Government functions include police, fire prevention, 
building code enforcement, and air pollution control agency work. 



255 

These are different and far smaller than the owning and operating Grov- 
ernment functions which includes public schooling, construction and 
operation of roads, bridges, and airports, and TVA steam powerplants, 
and so forth. 

Tlie operating functions resist and cause conflicts with air pollution 
regulatoiy agencies just as the regulatory agencies meet resistance and 
conflicts from privately owned industry polluters. 

The same conflicts exist between the air pollution control agencies 
under the ministries of production in Communist countries, and health, 
as we learn from their air pollution specialists when they visit here. 

The leverage of control agency budgets, at $1 per capita per year, 
can be several hundred dollars of control capital investment and 
an annualized added price of $50 per year is so far for all the things 
consumers buyers. 

Information should be clearly provided for your use and for the 
public at large so they can see more easily that the regulatory work 
they want to see done costs only a very small addition to their tax pay- 
ments, while the cleaning up of Government operations, just like the 
cleaning up of non-Grovernment air polluting sources also usually 
adds only a A-ery small percentage to the costs of their construction 
and operation. 

Table 3-9, included here, gives some cost ratios with added air pol- 
ultion cost i^er dollar of shipment shown, as a percentage of price at 
the plant. 

(Table follows) 

TABLE 3-9.— EXPECTED ANNUAL CONTROL COSTS RELATIVE TO CAPACITY AND SHIPMENTS OF INDUSTRIAL 

PROCESS SOURCES' 

[1967 base; 100 metropolitan areas) 



Source totals 



Cost ratios 



Value of 



Type of source 



Capacity 


shipments 


(millions 


(billions 


of units) 


of dollars) 


4.1 


0.4 


116.0 


10.5 


10.0 


1.7 


3.4 


.6 


24.4 


.2 


3.5 


.4 


2, 530. 


13.5 


250.0 


.6 


279.0 


.6 


9.6 


.1 


61.4 


.3 


5, 140. 


9.8 


43.9 


3.7 


1,330.0 


C) 


52.0 


.1 


170.0 


2.5 


2.4 


1.4 



Annual 

control 

cost 

(millions 

of dollars) 



Cost per 
unit of 
annual 

capacity 
(dollars 

per unit) 



Cost per 

dollar of 

shipment 

(percent) 



Kraft (sulfate) pulp plants tons.. 

Iron and steel plants tons raw steel.. 

Gray Iron foundries tons castings 2.. 

Primary nonferrous metallurgical plants tons 3.. 

Sulfu ric acid pla nts do 

Phosphate fertilizer plants tons P2O5. . 

Petroleum refineries barrels.. 

Asphalt batching plants tons paving mixture *.. 

Cement plants barrels. . 

Lime plants.. - tons.. 

Coal cleaning plants do 

Petroleum products storage plants gallons 5.. 

Grain mills tons.. 

Grain elevators bushels ' . . 

Varnish plants gallons.. 

Rubber plants ..tires and tubes.. 

Secondary nonferrous metallurgical plants tons.. 



2.5 

204.0 

49.1 

23.5 

2.2 

5.5 

1.4 

18.6 

5.7 

.5 

.5 



7.9 

7.5 

.8 

2.5 

11.9 



0.61 
1.76 
4.91 
6.91 
.09 
1.57 


.74 
.02 
.05 
.01 


.18 
.01 
.02 
.01 
1.96 



0.63 

1.94 

2.89 

3.92 

1.10 

1.39 

.01 

3.10 

.95 

.50 

.17 



.21 

.8 

.10 
.85 



'Costs tor controlling particulate, sulfur oxide, hydrocarbon, and cabron monoxide emissions from facilities operating 
in calendar year 1967. The areas are defined in app. I. 
2 Capacity is calculated assuming 1,000 operating hours per year. 
5 Tons applies to copper, lead, zinc, and aluminum smelters; for copper and lead, capacity is input material. 

* Capacity is calculated assuming 1,000 operating hours per year. 
5 Capacity is in million gallons of gasoline storage space. 

* Capacity is in million bushels of storage space. 
■ Not applicable. 

Source: National Air Pollution Control Administration; taken in full by Linsky from "The Cost of Clean Air " 2d Report of 
the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to the Congress of the United States in compliance with Public Law 90-148, 
January 1970. 



256 

This percentajje cost is not for a finished product, but for a com- 
paratively basic material, except for rubber tires and tubes. The high- 
est ratio Was for sulfuric acid plants at 8.92 percent. After the other 
labor and clean distribution work costs are added, the result is less than 
1 percent added to consumer costs, on the average. 

Senator Eagleton. The 3.92 applies to primary nonferrous and 
metallurgical plants. 

Mr. LiNSKY. I don't know how much brass and aluminum we buy 
or what credit has been allowed in here for regained material. 

In the nonferrous smelter industry, particularly in the brass, zinc, 
lead, and so forth, the recovered sulfur is a major part of the profit 
side of the industry. 

I have a little report here that I thought might be amusing to you, 
perhaps a little awkward as well. 

It is a 1913 report on air pollution in California by members of the 
Comjnon wealth Club, which clearly depicts and describes the recovery 
of sulfur from smelters as being profitable even then in some instances. 

Senator Eagleton. Looking at table 3-9, in the last column, the cost 
ratios are listed as cost per dollar of shipment, and you have discussed 
or mentioned the primary nonferrous plants, 3.92 per shipment. 

What is a shipment? How big or how little? 

Mr. LiNSKY. That is per dollar of shipment. This is factory billing 
of the material. 

In this case, you may have raw pulp, raw craft pulp, raw steel, cast- 
ings that have not been machined or anything else done to them, tons 
of brass, aluminum, and so forth, tons of sulfuric acid, tons of phos- 
phate fertilizer, where a small part of the cost goes into agriculture. 

Senator Eagleton. To put it in my layman's language, what that 
column indicates is that for a dollar of a shipment of these items listed 
in the left-hand column, it would add, as in the instance of primary 
nonferrous metallurgical plants almost 4 cents per dollar? 

Mr. LiNSKY. That is correct. 

Senator Eagleton. And for cement plants, my particular enemy 

Mr. LiNSKY (continuing). It would add almost 1 cent. 

Senator Eagleton. One percent increase. 

Mr. LiNSKY. This kind of figure has not been widely available. It 
has been buried. 

Senator Eagleton. In addition to your other academic pedigrees, 
are you an economist of sorts? 

Mr. Linsky. Not by degree but by compulsion. I have had to learn 
the economics of engineering economics and production in the same 
way I have had to learn other kinds of specialties, just enough to 
laiow when to reach for the specialist. 

Senator Eagleton. Do you feel, for instance, that the addition of 
less than a penny on cement plant shipments would be found inflation- 
ary by some people? 

Mr. Linsky. I doubt it. The ])rices of cement seem to go up far more 
than that without anyone paying any attention to it. 

Senator Eagleton. I agree with you, but a lot of people find infla- 
tion in ditferent tilings when tliey want to look for it. None of us want 
to be guilty of inflation. I am glad to hear you say youdon't think this 
is too inflationary. 



257 

Mr. LiNSKY. Not only do you not have inflation, but also if that 
adds a j^enny to the cost of ordinary manufactured cement it might 
even operate to help in resources recovei*y. 

A little more fly ash might be used because that is in competition 
with cement for some kinds of construction. You might have an offset 
in reducing the cost of fly ash disj^osal. 

Senator Eagleton. On this table, does it take into account recycling, 
reuse, secondary use, and so forth? 

Mr. LiNSKr. The reuse factor is minor in these figures, so far as I 
could tell. 

One of the questions I am most frequently asked is, "What should 
we do to clean it up once and for all?" 

I worked out an answer for the League of Women Voters group in 
northern California in 1958 or 1959. It seems to be easier to understand 
and helpful to many. That is in this chart which I refer to now. 



AIR POLLUTION 
2X = t9/|2YRS. 




REG, 

CONTROLS 



EOPLE 
2X=I5YRS. 



REG 2 

CONTROLS 



7\IR POLLUTIOI^ 




^@ m 



^BLE 



OTHER 
REGULATIONS ' 



1950 



1960 



1970 



1980 



Air Pollucion Potential Growth and Cut Back Concept Chart 



Developed by Linsky in lata 1950s while San Francisco Bav 
Area Air Pollution Control District chief of agencv. 



The idea, shown in chart form, is that our air pollution potential 
keeps increasing along with our general productivity per person and 
improved material standard of living. This leads to the understanding 
that the total amounts of pollutants in any area will also grow unless 
tighter and tighter regulatory limits are set and enforced on all those 
in the area. Added to this identified need for periodic added tightening 
is the fact the air coming into an area might contain more and more 
pollutants from elsewhere, below the legal threshold but, when added 
to the locally produced stuff adds up to trouble. This tightening wall 
therefore need to be done at locations 50 or 100 miles away, farther 
too, l^ecause even very small percentages of the "potential" that are 
allowed to "leak" or "penetrate" add up to the locally emitted "small 
percentage." 



258 

In addition to all of this, it is obvious that people's goals are shifting 
so that after they achieve frequent 6-mile visibilities in Detroit, they 
wish to have frequent 12-mile visibilities, comparable to that on a 
gusty, windy day, infrequently. 

I think the same kind of thmg is happening elsewhere around the 
country. 

By the way, it is not always clear to nonspecialists that in air 
pollutants and in noise control we are often dealing with trace quanti- 
ties of "lost" pollutants and energy that cause significant trouble 
nearby and farther away. 

For example, the small amount of energy that goes to make up a 
very troublesome noise is very liard to harness, in fact, impossible to 
harness and use. It only results in a little bit of heat, unusable. 

But as our technology improves and as our easier, richer resources 
are used up or reservecl for later use, more and more of these trace 
quantities can be transformed and recovered — but I never expect to see 
noise or glare energies regained. 

One of the advantages of good air pollution control engineering is 
that it often concentrates and assembles larger quantities of wastes 
for possible production use. 

Until quite recently, in most parts of the United States in large 
cities, small cities, and rural areas — and I have a report of the study 
of West Virginia, showing troubles county by county, even in the most 
niral county — the people who protested, demonstrated, and crowded 
the hearing halls were well organized industrial polluters who used 
irrational, emotional, and even hysterical language such as "ruinous 
costs," "it will drive industry away," "enormous costs that the public 
will pay in the end," "regulation for regulation's sake," "arbitrary," 
and so forth. 

I have brought along a 12-year-old photograph showing an air 
pollution control officer being hung in effigy by the organized secondary 
materials and private refuse disposal industry. 

They were trying to tell a city-county board of supervisors they 
should not adopt a local ordinance against open burning of rubbish 
and scrap metal and thus help enforce a regional law\ 

This was at the San Francisco City Hall, and my effigy was sus- 
pended from the yardarm of an auto wrecking "company truck, as 
depicted in the San Francisco Chronicle. This was in 19.58. 

Senator Eagleton. Is that when you moved to West Virginia? 

Mr. LiNSKY. No. As a matter of fact, I was able to get enoua:h work 
done so that it wasn't until 1963 that I used up all my "brownie" points. 

But until recently, only in a few other places had the shoe been on 
the other foot, with the public insisting on clean air for themselves 
and their children. These publicly protesting places a few years back 
were often not even the dirtiest. 

Los Angeles, Calif., rather than Gary, Ind.; Seadade, Fla., rather 
than Eiver Rouge, Mich., or Charleston, W. Va., were scenes of citizen 
protest. 

Occasionally the housewives would picket a specific nearby power- 
plant or a nearby coal-drying plant, or demonstrate at a mayor's office, 
as in Chicago, almost 10 years ago, on in two coal mining towns. 

An advertisement for Virginia Electric Power Co., appearing in the 
Washington Post, Wednesday, August 10, 1969, states : 



259 

The cost of living has risen 136% since 1941. The average annual unit cost 
of electricity has gone down 46%. If your bill is higher, it's because you're using 
more electricity. Six times as much as in 1941. 

The legislation sponsored by your committee, the increased travel 
and permanent mobility of people, and the easier movement of infor- 
mation have let more people now know that they are entitled to 
unpolluted air, even though legal mechanisms are quite cubersome and 
complex at times. 

The need for faster acting legal mechanisms, which might be found 
buried in some older laws — and I see they just dug up one that could 
operate very rapidly in Florida, an 1890 law or thereabouts — and the 
need for more trained people to work in public agencies and private 
service point to the need for added Federal, State, regional, and local 
budgeted positions, and added budget appropriations for specialized 
education and training, as well as general public and schoolchildren's 
education. 

The added $1 or $2 or even $4 per ton for cleanly made steel and 
iron castings do not add much to the car payments for a new car, but 
people don't yet realize this, and so the steel towns and foundry 
neighborhoods are not cleaned up. 

Similarly, the added 1 cent per gallon for nonleaded high-octane 
gasoline is almost lost in the 8 or 10 cents a mile overall cost for operat- 
ing an automobile, even assuming only 12 miles per gallon of gasoline. 

I recently ran into a 1920 paper by a civil engineer named Tribus. 
It was entitled "Travel Habits of Odors," and contained a statement 
attributed to "the first public utterance of the first State board of 
health in the United States, that of Massachusetts, in 1869 : 

We believe that all citizens have an inherent (emphasis mine) "right to the 
enjoyment of pure and uncontaminated air and water and soil ; that this right 
i^hould be regarded as belonging to the whole community ; and that no one should 
be allowed to trespass upon it by his carelessness or his avarice or even by his 
ignorance. 

When people are asked if they would pay a few cents a month for 
a good air pollution control regulatory effort, and when they are asked 
if they would pay an added 1 percent or less for the things they buy, 
almost all of it resulting in increased employment for someone, the 
answers I have been receiving are astonishment at the low price and 
assurance that it is a bargain they would go for. 

Various attempts to predict the future needs for trained air pol- 
luion control manpower produce different answers. 

Public agency employment, at Federal, State, regional, and local 
level, after job descriptions, titles, and salary restructuring are ar- 
ranged for, can be competitive with industrial employment of spe- 
cialists only if the manpower supply is reasonably adequate. 

Otherwise, the industrial higher salary incentives will be so high 
as to overcome even the public-minded motivation that usually permits 
public salaries for professional practitioners to be a little lower. 

Some of tlie estimates of future manpower needs do not seem to take 
into account tlie full impact of the future requirement that industrial 
air pollution control equipment be kept up-to-date and be brought 
up-to-date to match ordinary changes in production processes. 

It will be requiring much more stack sampling and much more 
frequent control equipment adjustments and revisions in the future 



260 

to meet more of the control regulations in more parts of the country 
tlian now takes place. 

In addition, as yon probably know, a large amount of control equip- 
ment has been bought in the past without any requirement that its 
effectiveness be physically tested prior to the customer paying for it, 
or prior to a smaller, weaker control agency approving it for initial 
and ongoing use. 

Tlie growing role of volunteer watchdog agencies can also be ex- 
pected to lead them to employ additional trained specialists, full tinie 
or as consultants, for their day-to-day or week-to-week supportive air 
l^ollution control activities. 

Thus, the need for specialists at technician, professional, and re- 
search expert, levels has been underestimated by all manpower studies 
to date, I believe. 

T have become fed up with the publicly scary figures that result 
when tlie added air pollution control capital costs and annualized 
costs of something I buy is given an emotional aura by multiplying 
it by millions of buyers and then multipling that hobgoblin figure 
again by several years of purchases and usage. 

' Tims', table 3.3 in the 1969 "Cost of Clean Air" report shows the 
fvrowth of a $1.80 to $5.80 annualized cost per motor vehicle into a 
$304 million cumulative national annualized cost by 1974, and an even 
larger $2,604 billion cumulative national capital cost by 1974. 

(The table referred to follows :) 

TABLE 33— ESTIMATED COST OF MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS, 1968-74 





(National cost in millionsl 














Estimated national cost 




Assumed cost 


per car 


Capital 
Annual 


cost 


Annualized 




Capital cost 


Annualized 


Cumulative 


Annual Cumi 


iative 



1968 $18 $1.80 $180 .__ ._. $18 

1969 18 1.80 180 $360 18 $36 

1970. 36 3.60 360 720 36 72 

1971 48 5.80 480 1,200 58 130 

1972 48 5.80 480 1,680 58 188 

1973 48 5.80 480 2,160 58 246 

1974 48 5.80 480 2,640 58 304 

How often have you heard either the low figure of $5.80 annualized 
cost per car year used from public platforms or seen it in print ? Why 
not? 

If we followed the same patterns in looking at the cumulative cost 
for Colonel Sanders' Kentucky Fried Chicken by 1974, for those who 
like to add the cost to our food budgets, I believe that figure would be 
startlingly large, too. About one-half billion dollars a year in Colonel 
Sanders Kentucky Fried Chicken sales is not very relevant to the 
question of whether or not you or I, as individual people want some. 
We have already shown they do. 

Please let me repeat a small paragraph from one of my previous 
public statements, reprinted in one State's conservation magazine, the 
Delaware Conservationist, summer 1966, volume X, No. 3 : 

However, the best long-range or short-range self-interest of a management may 
lie in deferring installations. Every year of delay in a $1,000,000 nonprofitable 



261 

installation may save $250,000 a year. A small part of this will buy a lot of time 
in studies, lobbying, etc. 

Mr. LiNSKY. I had a few other comments which I had not prepared 
ahead and worked on last night. May I proceed ? 

Senator Eagletoist. Yes. 

Mr. LiNSKY. As a tax relief or financial incentive, I know many 
who will say, "We will pay $5 a family per month for all open and 
hidden product and servdce charges, plus all open and hidden taxes," 
to reduce soiling, corrosion, including, perhaps, the Silver Bridge 
disaster, and so forth. 

This means that new coal mines for the United States as well as 
for Japan will be dug fast. It will see new sulfur chemical plants 
grafted onto electricity plants. 

We will even see wet evaporator that cause sooner fog from cooling 
towers replaced by dry natural draft or mechanical draft towers, such 
as are growing elsewhere in the world to avoid thermal pollution and 
air pollution. 

Some people, such as my impatient wife, say : 

Why doesn't the Federal Government pay everyone to put a corrective change 
in 100 percent and then inspect and ix)liee them to make sure they maintain it? 
Also, every time he changes production there can be a government insi>ector 
or engineer around who can see to it that the air pollution controls, too, that 
he is fully controlled, and if the States sit on their plans and hands, to put it 
lightly, the Federal i)eople can move in fast as they do when it is an AEC nuclear 
matter. 

If the Federal Government is as serious as my wife believes the 
American people are, when they learn it is only a high maximum of 
$5 a month for all sorts of controls and modifications on everything — 
I will leave the conclusion o'f that sentence open. 

With a similar sense of urgency, the last air pollution control public 
wave began before 1900 and was only stopped by World War I, as 
the scholars now appreciate. 

This one has the further advantage that some added employments 
could be used, equal to one percent or so of the employed population, to 
do the work of building and maintaining control equipment. 

In addition, when things boom the air pollution control engineer- 
ing work can be a price increase reason for not dropping below a 40- 
hour week, while maintaining our pleasurable goods standard of living 
along with a vastly improved pleasurable outdoor air level of enjoyable 
living. 

All it takes is guts and money plus a plan and a very few years. 

Senator Eagleton. Thank you. Professor, for both your prepared 
statement and the addendum thereto. 

Have you had occasion to examine in any detail the three bills that 
are immediaitely before us ? 

Mr. LiNSKY.' I have looked at them. I have not explored them 
intently because I didn't know what questions were in the minds of 
the committee. 

Senator Eagleton. Rather than go into the bills in fine detail, let 
me ask you a more broadly based policy question. 

In the administration bill, they recommend going, at this time, to 
national air quality standards. In "the Muskie bill, it is an improvement 
upon or an extension of the basic fabric of the 1967 act. 



262 

Maybe I am oversimplifying it. Which route do you prefer or do- 
you have a preference ? 

Mr. LiNSKY. The national air quality standards as minimal stand- 
ards would be usable and would be useful, but not as a substitute for 
the region, State and local standards. 

It might be an additional fabric, again, for those States and regions 
that sit on their plans and hands. 

Senator Eagleton. Under Secretary Veneman said yesterday he 
viewed them as minimum standards, that the States and regions would 
be free to improve them. 

Do you run this risk : If you set a national standard that is theo- 
retically tolerable, don't you run the risk that that standard, perforce, 
becomes the nationwide standard ? 

That is, a local region says, "Well, if that is good enough for the 
whole country, if it is good enough for New York and Los Angeles, 
why should we here in St. Louis and Kansas City worry about it?" 

Mr. LiNSKY. For standards, can I substitute the word "limitations" ? 
Then I don't get confused with good or better or tighter or looser. 

I think it has been well demonstrated that area-wide legal limits 
are not always good enough for locals by the local's own viewpoints. 

The previous witness was complaining that these recommenda- 
tions — and they are rather broad, kind of fuzzy recommendations that 
you couldn't label as recommendations — were pointed at without a 
safety factor, that the localities have. been going tighter for their own 
good reasons. 

Senator Eagleton. I agree with you and Mr. Tucker who testified 
before. 

For instance, he stated that basic air quality criterion of 80 micro- 
grams per cubic meter annual average — well, he said was recommended 
by HEW. We don't know that. 

Assuming it has been, it is his position that it is a good nationwide 
standard and that Cleveland, Ohio, and Chicago and Charleston are 
f utzing around with it. 

Mr. LiNSKY. This is almost irreligious. If I want to live in a com- 
munity that is cleaner. I don't know why I couldn't have a tighter liv- 
ing standard and tighter limits on my neighborhood just as I do in 
zoning, and neither do you. 

If you want to live in a cleaner area than is accepted as a result of 
bargaining at the national level, and, frankly, that is what it is 

Senator Eagleton. It is even more than that. Is it not only what 
people think they ought to have locally, which I think is very im- 
portant, but also isn't it a scientific fact that regions do vary in terms of 
atmosphere, humidity, climate control, so that conditions are not iden- 
tical in all 50 States ? 

^ Mr. LiNSKY, The major differences with regard to the outdoor air 
dirtiness limitations, if you are calling these air quality standards, are 
dust and fog. Any measurements of air pollutants that are done well 
will take into account such factors as sunshine that convert material 
A to material B while it is in the air. 

So the only backgrounds that you have that may be troublesome and 
different will be dust and natural fog. Those two differences are 
important. 



263 

The citation of areas that are sparsely settled that have high back- 
grounds might very well be from a desert area. 

Senator Eagleton. On page 4 of your prepared statement, you list 
seven other types of undesirable air pollution effects. 

How would national standards apply to those seven others? Are 
those seven others variable from one district or one region to another, 
or would you say they are constant factors in all districts or regions 
and, therefore, susceptible to a national standard ? 

Mr. LiNSKY. The background conditions that are different are cer- 
tainly No. 3, which is the interference with visibility because of the 
presence of fog, damp air, and soiling, where you may have the desert 
kinds of dust. 

Senator Eagletox. Do I take it, then, the others would be constant 
factors ? I don't know whether that is a term of art. 

Mr. LiNSKY. I think reasonably, yes. You have a little more rubber 
cracking out on the west coast because of more extended sunshine. 

Senator Eagleton. I now have three questions which I would like to 
propound to you from Senator Randolph. He sent them over to us 
and asked that we direct these three questions to you. 

In your prepared statement you refer to cumbersome and complex 
enforcement provisions in existing air pollution laws. 

Could you specify particular legal roadblocks in these statutes and 
suggest how they might be overcome ? 

Mr. LiNSKY. I would sit down and work them out for any particular 
State and locality since each State's laws, as you know, are so different. 
Even within the States the home rule cities, home rule counties, have 
specific provisions. 

So other than a totally uniform federal system, which is apparently 
not contemplated, it would have to work out those specific roadblocks 
case by case. 

Senator Eagleton. You are correct. There is an enormous variance 
in State laws, municipal ordinances, and so forth. So passing that, just 
viewing it in terms of Federal legislation and Federal regulations, 
what comment would you make ? 

Mr. LiNSKY. I think national emission standards would have value. 
National emission limits have real value, again as floors beyond which 
local operations could go tighter when and if they wish unless it be- 
comes the policy of the Congress and of the Federal Government that a 
British system be used, such as the British Alkali Act, as "the best 
practicable means" to be utilized, coupled with exclusion as an area 
approaches its air quality legal limits. 

Such exclusion is being practiced practically here and there around 
the country, generally not advertised. The only place that I know of 
that was loudly advertised was in Los Angeles County where they said 
"no new fossil -fuel-fired powerplants in our county." 

Senator Eagleton. Describe for me how you would set up a national 
emission standard, say for the st€el industry. You call it a floor or a 
limit. 

Mr. LiNSKY. The best, well-used equipment would be prescribed. 
Numbers would be set up that would match the best well-used control 
equipment for the process. 



264 

Beyond that, since you have a land space factor and a general limit 
location factor — well, let me put it this way : The best, cleanest steel 
mill in the country does not belong next to the State capitol building 
or a school because of spills, upsets, and some not yet controlled oper- 
ations in which adequate engineering has not been done, such as the 
coke oven charging. 

So you would need a combination of the emission limits and a hard 
caution prior to location of location factors that are inherent, sensi- 
tivities to neighboring land uses. 

Senator Eagleton. Would you support the basic concept, then, 
that by Federal legislation we should require all new plants, steel, 
automotive, lead plants, and so forth, at the time of construction to 
have as part of their process the then best available pollution control 
equipment ? 

Mr. LiNSKY. Yes, with an additional proviso, that its location be 
appropriately governed so that it isn't in an area that is either crowded 
with other pollutants already being produced, with some margin for 
growth by that plant itself, and with a sensitivity of nearby neighbors. 

Senator Eagleton. How would you handle this plant site certifica- 
tion business? Should this be done by the Federal Government, the 
State Government, county, or municipality ? 

Who would certify the propriety of a plant being located on a cer- 
tain plot of land ? 

Mr. LiNSKY. I wish I had a good answer for that one, but the politi- 
cal scene is changing, and if the public interest continues to develop 
as it has been, then I think it might be safely left to a local or a State 
operation. 

If it doesn't, then it is going to require, shall we say, a Federal over- 
view and review. There is no reason why the location should not require 
a Federal overview to make certain that an error has not been made or 
that undue pressure has not been placed by those who w^ant to grow 
their department stores and grow their subdivision with new 
eniployees. 

Senator Eagleton. Senator Randolph's second question : In your 
statement you said you have participated in the preparation of air 
pollution control regulations for the State of West Virginia. 

Could you provide these for the record ? 

Mr. LiNSKY. Yes. The regulations to which contributed, although 
not all of my suggestions were accepted, are numbers I tlirough VI, 
as well as the proposed regiilation VII. The State law was rewritten 
in part, as a result of my advice to the State's agency staff and members 
of the State legislature at their request. 

(The documents furnished follow :) 



Air Pollution Control Law 

OF 

West Virginia 



Issued by 
WEST VIRGINIA AIR POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISSION 



Reprinted from Michie's West Virginia Code and 
1967 Cumulative Supplement 



THE MICHIE COMPANY 

Charlottesville, Va. 

1967 



(265) 



266 



Air Pollution Control Law of West Virginia 



CHAPTER 16. 

PUBLIC HEALTH. 



ARTICLE 20. 
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL. 



Sec. 
16-20-1 



Declaration of policy and pur- 
pose. 
16-20-2. Definitions. 

16-20-3. Causing statutory pollution 
unlawful; article not to pro- 
vide persons with additional 
legal remedies. 

16-20-4. Air pollution control commission 
— Composition; appointment 
and terms of members; vacan- 
cies; compensation and ex- 
penses of members; organiza- 
tion and personnel; appoint- 
ment of director; records; 
meetings. 

16-20-5. Same — Powers and duties; 
legal services; rules and regu- 
lations; public hearings. 

16-20-6. Issuance of cease and desist or- 



Sec. 

ders by director; service; ap- 
peals to commission; hearings, 
subpoenas, etc.; orders and 
findings of commission. 

16-20-7. Appeals from orders of com- 
mission. 

16-20-8. Penalties; recovery and disposi- 
tion; duties of prosecuting at- 
torneys. 

16-20-9. Applications for injunctive re- 
lief. 

16-20-10. Emergencies. 

16-20-11. Powers reserved to State board 
of health, local health boards 
and political subdivisions; 
conflicting statutes repealed. 

16-20-12. Severability. 

16-20-13. Effective date of rules and reg- 
ulations. 



§ 16-20-1. Declaration of policy and purpose. 

It is hereby declared to be the public policy of this State and the purpose 
of this article to achieve and maintain such levels of air quality as M^ill 
protect human health and safety, and to the greatest degree practicable, 
prevent injury to plant and animal life and property, foster the comfort 
and convenience of the people, promote the economic and social develop- 
ment of this State and facilitate the enjoyment of the natural attractions 
of this State. 

To these ends it is the purpose of this article to provide for a coordinated j 
state-wide program of air pollution prevention, abatement and control ; to 
facilitate cooperation across jurisdictional lines in dealing with problems 
of air pollution not confined within single jurisdictions; and to provide a 
framework within which all values may be balanced in the public interest. 
(1961, c. 63; 1963, c. 76; 1967, c. 13.) 

Effect of amendment of 1967. — The 

amendment rewrote this section. 



267 



§ 16-20-2. Definitions. 

The terms used in this article are defined as follows : 

The term "person" shall mean any and all persons, natural or artificial, 
including any municipal, public or private corporation organized or exist- 
ing under the laws of this or any other state or country, and any firm, 
partnership or association of whatever nature. 

The term "commission" shall mean the air pollution control commission, 
and the term "commissioner" shall mean a member of said commission. 

The term "air pollutants" shall mean solids, liquids or gases which, if 
discharged into the air, will result in a statutory air pollution. 

The term "discharge" shall refer to the release, escape or emission of 
air pollutants into the air. 

The term "statutory air pollution" shall mean and be limited to the 
discharge into the air by the act of man of substances (liquid, solid, gas- 
eous, organic or inorganic) in a locality, manner and amount as to be 
injurious to human health or welfare, animal or plant life, or property, or 
which would interfere with the enjoyment of life or property. 

The term "director" shall mean the director of the West Virginia air 
pollution control commission appointed as hereinafter provided. (1961, c. 
63;1967, c. 13.) 

Efifect of amendment of 1967. — The "statutory air pollution," and added the 
amendment made changes in the defini- definition of "director." 
tions of "commission," "discharge" and 

§ 16-20-3. Causing statutory pollution unlawful; article not to pro* 
vide persons with additional legal remedies. 

For the purposes of this article and subject to all of the provisions here- 
of, it shall be unlawful for any person to cause a statutory air pollution as 
herein defined : Provided, however, that nothing contained in this article 
shall be construed to provide any person with a legal remedy or basis for 
damages or other relief not otherwise available to such person immediately 
prior to enactment of this article [June 6, 1961]. (1961, c. 63.) 

§ 16-20—4. Air pollution control commission — Composition; ap- 
pointment and terms of members; vacancies; compen- 
sation and expenses of members; organization juid per- 
sonnel; appointment of director; records; meetings. 

The "air pollution control commission," heretofore created, shall con- 
tinue in existence as an agency of the State but on and after the effective 
date of this act [June 9, 1967] shall consist of seven members, including 
the State director of health and the commissioner of agriculture, who shall 
be members ex officio, and five other members to be appointed by the 
governor with the advice and consent of the senate, two of whom shall be 
representative of industries engaged in business in this State, and three 



268 



of whom shall be representative of the public at large. The three appointed 
members of the commission in office on the effective date of this act shall, 
unless sooner removed, continue to serve until their terms expire and until 
their successors have been appointed and have qualified. On or before 
June fifteen, one thousand nine hundred sixty-seven, the governor shall 
appoint one member to serve until June thirty, one thousand nine hundred 
seventy, and one member to serve until June thirty, one thousand nine 
hundred seventy-one, or until their successors have been appointed and 
have qualified. As the terms of the three appointed members of the com- 
mission in office on the effective date of this act expire and as the terms 
of the two members to be appointed by the governor on or before June 
fifteen, one thousand nine hundred sixty-seven, expire, members shall be 
appointed for overlapping terms of five years, so that one term expires 
each year, or until their successors have been appointed and have qualified. 
Any vacancy in the office of an appointed member of the commission shall 
be filled by appointment by the governor for the unexpired term of the 
appointed member whose office shall be vacant. 

The ex officio members of the commission shall receive no salary or 
remuneration for their services as such but they shall be reimbursed, out 
of moneys appropriated for such purpose, for all reasonable and necessary 
expenses actually incurred in the discharge of their duties as such. 

As compensation for his services on the commission, each appointed 
member shall receive, out of moneys appropriated for such purpose, the 
sum of fifty dollars for each day or substantial portion thereof that he is 
actually engaged in the work of the commission. Each member shall also 
be entitled to be reimbursed, out of moneys appropriated for such purpose, 
for any reasonable and necessary expenses actually incurred in the dis- 
charge of his duties as a member of the commission. 

At its first meeting the commission shall elect from its membership a 
chairman, and at the first meeting in each fiscal year thereafter the com- 
mission shall elect from its membership a chairman to act during such 
fiscal year. At similar times the commission shall appoint a secretary, 
who need not be a member of the commission. The commission shall 
appoint and employ a director and such personnel as may be required, 
whose duties shall be defined by the commission and whose compensation, 
to be fixed by the commission, shall be paid out of the State treasury, upon 
the requisition of the commission, from moneys appropriated for such 
purposes. 

The commission may establish rules for the regulation of its affairs 
and the conduct of all proceedings before it. All proceedings of the com- 
mission shall be entered in a permanently bound record book, properly 
indexed, and the same shall be carefully preserved. Copies of orders en- 
tered by the commission, as well as copies of papers or documents filed 
with it, or the records of proceedings before the commission, shall be at- 
tested by the secretary of the commission. The commission shall meet at 
such times and places as may be agreed upon by the commissioners, or 



269 



upon the call of the chairman of the commission or any two commissioners, 
all of which meetings shall be general meetings for the consideration of 
any and all matters which may properly come before the commission. 
(1961,c. 63;1967, c. 13.) 

Efifect of amendment of 1967. — The 

amendment rewrote this section. 

§ 16-20-5. Same — Powers and duties; legal services; rules and 
regulations; public hearings. 

The commission is hereby authorized and empowered : 

(1) To develop ways and means for the regulation and control of pollu- 
tion of the air of the State ; 

(2) To advise, consult and cooperate with other agencies of the State, 
political subdivisions of the State, other states, agencies of the federal 
government, industries, and with affected groups in furtherance of the 
declared purposes of this article ; 

(3) To encourage and conduct such studies and research relating to air 
pollution and its control and abatement as the commission may deem 
advisable and necessary ; 

(4) To adopt and to promulgate reasonable regulations, not inconsis- 
tent with the provisions of this article, relating to the control of air pollu- 
tion: Provided, that no rule or regulation of the commission shall specify 
the design of equipment, type of construction, or particular method which 
a person shall use to reduce the discharge of air pollutants, nor shall any 
such rule or regulation apply to any aspect of an employer-employee re- 
lationship ; 

(5) To enter orders requiring compliance with the provisions of this 
article and the regulations lawfully promulgated hereunder ; 

(6) To consider complaints, subpoena witnesses, administer oaths, 
make investigations, and hold hearings relevant to the promulgation of 
regulations and the entry of compliance orders hereunder ; 

(7) To encourage voluntary cooperation by municipalities, counties, 
industries and others in preserving the purity of the air within the State ; 

(8) To employ personnel, including specialists and consultants, pur- 
chase materials and supplies, and enter into contracts necessary, incident 
or convenient to the accomplishment of the purposes of this article ; 

(9) To enter at reasonable times upon any private or public property 
for the purpose of investigating an alleged statutory air pollution: Pro- 
vided, however, that no such investigation shall extend to information re- 
lating to secret processes or methods of manufacturing or production ; 

(10) Upon reasonable evidence of a violation of this article, which pre- 
sents an imminent and serious hazard to public health, to give notice to 
the public or to that portion of the public which is in danger by any and 
all appropriate means ; 

(11) To cooperate with, receive and expend money from the federal 
government and other sources ; 



270 



(12) To represent the State in any and all matters pertaining to plans, 
procedures and negotiations for interstate compacts in relation to the 
control of air pollution ; and 

(13) To appoint technical advisory councils from such areas of the 
State as it may determine. Each such council so appointed shall consist of 
not more than five members for each area so designated, at least two of 
whom shall be truly representative of industries operating within such 
area, and may advise and consult with the commission about all matters 
pertaining to the regulation, control and abatement of air pollution within 
such area. 

The attorney general and his assistants and the prosecuting attorneys 
of the several counties shall render to the commission without additional 
compensation such legal services as the commission may require of them 
to enforce the provisions of this article. 

No rule or regulation of the commission pertaining to the control, re- 
duction or abatement of air pollution shall become effective until after at 
least one public hearing thereon shall have been held by the commission 
within the State. Notice to the public of the time and place of any such 
hearing shall be given by the commission at least thirty days prior to the 
scheduled date of such hearing by advertisement published as a Class II 
legal advertisement in compliance with the provisions of article three [§ 
59-3-1 et seq.], chapter fifty-nine of this Code, and the publication area 
for such publication shall be the county wherein such hearing is to be held. 
Full opportunity to be heard shall be accorded to all persons in attendance 
and any person, whether or not in attendance at such hearing, may submit 
in writing his views with respect to any such rule or regulation to the 
commission within thirty days after such hearing. After such thirty-day 
period, no views or comments shall be received in writing or otherwise, 
unless formally solicited by the commission. The proceedings at the hear- 
ing before the commission shall be recorded by mechanical means or 
otherwise as may be prescribed by the commission. Such record of pro- 
ceedings need not be transcribed unless requested by an interested party, 
in which event the prevailing rates for such transcripts will be required 
from such interested party. (1961, c. 63 ; 1963, c. 76 ; 1967, c. 105.) 

Effect of amendment of 1967. — The former last sentence thereof which for- 

amendment, effective May 1, 1967, made merly provided that the commission might 

changes in the last paragraph with re- solicit comments in writing from parties 

gard to publication of notice, added the affected or interested in proposed rules 

fourth sentence thereof, and deleted a and regulations. 

§ 16-20-6. Issuance of cease and desist orders by director; service; 
appeals to commission: hearings, subpoenas, etc.; or- 
ders and findings of commission. 

If, from any investigation made by him or from any complaint filed 
with him, the director shall be of the opinion that a person is violating 
the provisions of this article, or any rules and regulations promulgated 



271 



pursuant thereto, he shall make and enter an order directing such person 
to cease and desist such activity. The director shall fix a reasonable time 
in such order by which such activity must stop or be prevented. The order 
shall contain the findings of fact upon which the director determined to 
make and enter such order. 

The director shall cause a copy of any such order to be served upon 
such person by registered or certified mail or by any proper law enforce- 
ment officer. 

Any person upon whom a copy of such final order has been served may 
appeal such order to the air pollution control commission in the manner 
hereinafter provided. The person so appealing shall be known as the ap- 
pellant and the director shall be known as the appellee. Such appeal shall 
be perfected by filing a notice of appeal, on the form prescribed by the 
commission for such purpose, with the commission within fifteen days 
after the date upon which the appellant received a copy of the order. The 
notice of appeal shall set forth the order complained of and the grounds 
upon which the appeal is based. The filing of such notice of appeal shall 
stay the effect of the order complained of until final determination thereof 
is made by the commission. A copy of the notice of appeal shall be filed 
by the commission with the director within eight days after the notice of 
appeal is filed with the commission. 

Within seven days after receipt of his copy of the notice of appeal, the 
director shall prepare and certify to the commission a complete record of 
the proceedings out of which the appeal arises, including all documents 
and correspondence in the director's file relating to the matter in ques.- 
tion. The commission shall hear the appeal de novo, and evidence may be 
offered on behalf of the appellant and appellee. 

All of the pertinent provisions of article five [§ 29A-5-1 et seq.], chap- 
ter twenty-nine-A of this Code shall apply to and govern the hearing on 
appeal authorized by the provisions of this section and the administrative 
procedures in connection with and following such hearing, with like effect 
as if the provisions of said article five were set forth in extenso in this 
section, except that any such appeal hearing shall be held in the county 
wherein the alleged statutory air pollution complained of originated. 

Any such appeal hearing shall be conducted by a quorum of the com- 
mission. For the purpose of conducting any such appeal hearing, any mem- 
ber of the commission and the secretary thereof shall have the power and 
authority to issue subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum in the name of 
the commission, in accordance with the provisions of section one [§ 29A- 
5-1], article five, chapter twenty-nine-A of this Code. All subpoenas and 
subpoenas duces tecum shall be issued and served within the time and for 
the fees and shall be enforced, as specified in section one, article five of 
said chapter twenty-nine-A, and all of the said section one provisions deal- 
ing with subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum shall apply to subpoenas 
and subpoenas duces tecum issued for the purpose of an appeal hearing 
hereunder. 



272 



Any such hearing shall be held within twenty days after the date upon 
which the commission received the timely notice of appeal, unless there is 
a postponement or continuance. The commission may postpone or continue 
any hearing on its own motion, or upon application of the appellant or 
the appellee for good cause shown. The director shall be represented at 
any such hearing by the attorney general or his assistants. At any such 
hearing thfe appellant may represent himself or be represented by an at- 
torney at law admitted to practice before any circuit court of this State. 

After such hearing and consideration of all of the testimony, evidence 
and record in the case, the commission shall make and enter an order 
affirming, modifying or vacating the order of the director, or shall make 
and enter such order as the director should have entered. 

Such order shall be accompanied by findings of fact and conclusions of 
law as specified in section three [§ 29A-5-3] , article five, chapter twenty- 
nine-A of this Code, and a copy of such order and accompanying findings 
and conclusions shall be served upon the appellant, and his attorney of 
record, if any, and upon the appellee in person or by registered or certified 
mail. The order of the commission shall be final unless vacated or modified 
upon judicial review thereof in accordance with the provisions of section 
seven [§ 16-20-7] of this article. (1961, c. 63; 1963, c. 76; 1967, c. 13.) 

Effect of amendment of 1967. — The 

amendment rewrote this section. 

§ 16-20-7. Appeals from orders of commission. 

Any person whose interest shall have been substantially affected by 
an order of the commission may appeal from such order or decision by 
filing with the commission a written notice of appeal. Such notice shall 
be filed within thirty days from the date notice of the order or decision 
of the commission was given to such person, and shall be signed by 
him or his attorney. Within thirty days from the receipt of the notice of 
appeal, the commission shall prepare and forward to the appellant or 
his attorney a copy of a full transcript of the proceedings, together with 
a copy of the order or decision of the commission and a copy of the no- 
tice of appeal, and at the same time shall file a transcript of the proceed- 
ings before the commission and the other documents mentioned above 
with the clerk of the circuit court herein designated. All documents shall be 
duly certified by the secretary of the commission. The court shall there- 
after have complete jurisdiction of the matter. 

The appeal shall be taken to the circuit court of the county wherein 
the alleged statutory air pollution complained of originated. The circuit 
court to which any such appeal shall have been taken, or the judge there- 
of, shall fix a time for the hearing of the appeal and shall, after such 
hearing, without a jury, by order entered of record, afiirm, modify or 
set aside in whole or in part the order of the commission. The said court 
shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law based upon the trans- 
cript of the proceedings before the commission and upon any additional 



273 



evidence adduced before said court, the right to adduce such additional 
evidence being hereby reserved to the commission or to any person sub- 
stantially affected by the order of the commission. In the event the cir- 
cuit court shall affirm or modify the commission's order that a statutory 
air pollution exists under the provisions of this article, the order of the 
court shall specify that such pollution shall be corrected within a reason- 
able period of time to be fixed therein. The commission or any person 
whose interests shall have been substantially affected by the final order 
of the circuit court may appeal to the supreme court of appeals in the 
manner prescribed by law. 

An appeal to a circuit court or to the supreme court of appeals shall 
serve to stay the order of the commission or circuit court, as the case 
may be, pending final determination thereof. (1961, c. 63.) 

§ 16-2Q-8. Penalties; recovery and disposition; duties of prose- 
cuting attorneys. 

Any person who shall fail or refuse to comply with any final order made 
and entered hereunder to correct a statutory air pollution within the time 
fixed by such order, or any extension of time granted by the commission, 
shall be subject to a penalty of not more than one thousand dollars for 
each day that such failure or refusal continues after such time has ex- 
pired, which penalty may be recovered in a civil action brought by the 
commission in the name of the State of West Virginia in the circuit court 
of any county wherein such person resides or is engaged in the activity 
complained of. The amount of the penalty shall be fixed by the court with- 
out a jury. The amount of any such penalties collected by the commission 
shall be deposited in the general fund of the State treasury according to 
law. Upon a request in writing from the commission, it shall be the duty 
of the prosecuting attorney of the county in which any sucn action for 
penalties accruing under this section may be brought to institute and 
prosecute all such actions on behalf of tne c^mmis^sion. 

For the purpose of this section,, violations en separate days shall be 
considered separate offenses. (1961, c. 63; 1967, c. 13.) 

Effect of amendment of 1867. — The 

amendment rev. rote '.his section. 

§ 16-20-9. Applications for injunctive relief. 

In addition to the remedy provided for in section eight [§ 16-20-8] of 
this article and in the absence of reasonable progress toward correction 
of the statutory air pollution, the commission may request the prosecuting 
attorney of tbj county in which the person resides or is engaged in the 
activity complained of to apply to the circuit court of such county for an 
injunction to restrain all violations of any final order entered pursuant to 
section six [§ 16-20-6] of this article. (1961, c. 63; 1967, c. 13.) 



274 



Effect of amendment of 1967. — The sion" which formerly appeared following 
amendment inserted "person" in lieu of the words "final order." 
"defendant" and deleted "of the commis- 

§ 16-20-10. Emergencies. 

Whenever air pollution conditions in any area of the State become such 
as, in the opinion of the commission, to create an emergency and to re- 
quire immediate action for the protection of the public health, the com- 
mission may, with the written approval of the governor, so find and 
enter such order as it deems necessary to reduce or prevent the emis- 
sion of air pollutants substantially contributing to such conditions. In 
any such order the commission shall also fix a time, not later than 
twenty-four hours thereafter, and place for a hearing to be held before 
it for the purpose of investigating and determining the factors caus- 
ing or contributing to such conditions. A true copy of any such order 
shall be served upon persons whose interests are directly prejudiced 
thereby in the same manner as a summons in a civil action may be 
served, and a true copy of such order shall also be posted on the front 
door of the courthouse of the county in which the alleged conditions 
originated. All persons whose interests are prejudiced or affected in any 
manner by any such order shall have the right to appear in person or 
by counsel at the hearing and to present evidence relevant to the sub- 
ject of the hearing. Within twenty-four hours after completion of the 
hearing the commission shall affirm, modify or set aside said order in 
accordance and consistent with the evidence adduced. Any person ag- 
grieved by such action of the commission may thereafter apply by peti- 
tion to the circuit court of the county for a review of the commission's 
action. The circuit court shall forthwith fix a time for hearing de novo 
upon the petition and shall, after such hearing, by order entered of rec- 
ord, affirm, modify or set aside in whole or in part the order and action 
of the commission. Any person whose interests shall have been substan- 
tially affected by the final order of the circuit court may appeal the same 
to the supreme court of appeals in the manner prescribed by law. (1961, 
c. 63.) 

§ 16-20-11. Powers reserved to State boau'd of health, locjJ health 
boards and political subdivisions; conflicting statutes 
repealed. 

Nothing in this article shall affect or limit the powers or duties here- 
tofore conferred by the provisions of this chapter upon the State board 
of health, county health boards, county health officers, municipal health 
boards, municipal health officers, combined boards of health or any other 
health agency or political subdivision of this State except insofar as such 
powers and duties might otherwise be hereafter deemed to apply to the 
control, reduction or abatement of air pollution. All existing statutes or 



275 



parts of statutes are, to the extent of their inconsistencies with the pro- 
visions of this article and to the extent that they might otherwise be 
deemed to apply to the control, reduction or abatement of air pollution, 
hereby repealed : Provided, however, that no ordinance heretofore adopted 
by any municipality relating to the control, reduction or abatement of air 
pollution shall be deemed repealed by this article. (1961, c. 63.) 

§ 16-20-12. Severability. 

The provisions of this article are severable and if any provision, sec- 
tion or part thereof shall be held invalid, unconstitutional or inappli- 
cable to any person or circumstance, such invalidity, unconstitutionality 
or inapplicability shall not affect or impair any of the remaining pro- 
visions, sections or parts of the article or their application to him or to 
other persons and circumstances. It is hereby declared to be the legis- 
lative intent that this article would have been adopted if such invalid or 
unconstitutional provision, section or part had not been included there- 
in. (1961, c. 63.) 

§ 16-20-13. Effective date of rules and regulations. 

The rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the provisions of 
this article shall be of no effect until one year after the effective date of 
this article [one year after June 6, 1961] . (1961, c. 63.) 



276 



WEST VIRGINIA ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS 
Air Pollution Control Conunission 

Chapter 16-20 

Series I 

(1965) 

Subject: To Prevent and Control Air Pollution from Coal Refuse 
Disposal Areas. 



Section 1. Definitions. 

1.01. "Air Pollution" - The term 'statutory air pollution* shall 
have the meaning ascribed to it in section two of chapter sixteen, 
article twenty of the code of VJest Virginia, 1931, as amended. 

1.02. "Coal Refuse." - Any combination of carbonaceous waste with 
rock, shale, culm, boney, slate, clay, and related materials assoc- 
iated with or near a coal seam, which are either brought above ground 
or otherwise removed from the mine in the process of mining coal, or 
which are separated from coal during the cleaning or preparation 
operations, provided, however, that coal refuse shall not mean over- 
burden from strip-mining operations or incombustible materials from 
mine shafts and mine tunnels. 

1.03. "Coal Refuse Pile" - Any deposit of coal refuse on the sur- 
face which is intended as a permanent disposal of or long-term storage 
of such material. Continuous deposits of coal refuse and deposits which 
are not separated shall be considered a single coal refuse pile. 

l.Ot. "Coal Refuse Disposal Area" - Any area or plot of land which 
is used as a place for dumping, storage, or disposal of coal refuse. 
A coal refuse pile must be contained in a single coal refuse disposal 
area; however, a coal refuse disposal area may contain two (2) or more 
coal refuse piles if the area is so designated. 



277 



1.05 "Operate" - The act of disposing, depositing or dumping 
of coal refuse upon a coal refuse disposal area or of physically 
altering the coal refuse disposal area, except by removal of ashes, 
red dog, or other material from a burned-out coal refuse pile. 

Other words and phrases used in this regulation, unless otherwise 
indicated, shall have the meaning ascribed to them in section two of 
chapter sixteen, article twenty of the code of West Virginia, 1931, 
as amended. 
Section 2. Registration. 

2.01 Within ninety (90) days after the effective date of this 
regulation all persons operating coal refuse disposal areas within 
the State on the effective date of this regulation shall have regis- 
tered with the Commission on forms to be made available by the Com- 
mission, the name of the person, company or corporation operating 
the disposal area, the address, location, county, ownership (lessee 
and lessor), the principal officer of the company, or the manager of 
the mine, and any other such reasonable information as is needed. 

2.02 After the effective date of this regulation all persons 
who intend to establish coal refuse disposal areas shall register with 
the Commission, on forms made available by the Commission, the name of 
the person, company or corporation that will operate the disposal area, 
the address, location, county, ownership (lessee and lessor), the 
principal officer of the company or the manager of the mine and other 
such reasonable information as is needed. 

2.03 notification in writing is to be given to the Commission 
when the operation of a coal refuse area is to be permanently dis- 
continued. 



278 



2.0U Notification in writing is to be given to the Commission 
within thirty (30) days after the ownership or operation of a coal 
refuse disposal area changes. 

2.05 It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a coal 
refuse disposal area unless such area has been registered. 
Section 3. Standards. 

In order to prevent and control air pollution from coal refuse 
disposal areas, the operation of coal refuse disposal areas shall be 
conducted in accordance with the standards established by this Section. 

3.01 Coal refuse is not to be deposited on any coal refuse dis- 
posal area unless the coal refuse is deposited in such a manner as to 
minimize the possibility of ignition of the coal refuse. 

3.02 Coal refuse disposal areas shall not be so located with 
respect to mine openings, tipples, or other mine buildings, unpro- 
tected coal outcrops or steam lines, that these external factors will 
contribute to the ignition of the coal refuse on such coal refuse dis- 
posal areas. 

3.03 Vegetation and combustible materials shall not be left on 
the ground at the site where a coal refuse pile is to be established, 
unless it is rendered inert before coal refuse is deposited on such 
site. 

3.04 Coal refuse shall not be dumped or deposited on a coal 
refuse pile known to be burning, except for the purpose of controlling 
the fire or where the additional coal refuse will not tend to ignite 
or where such dumping will not result in statutory air pollution. 



279 



3.05 Materials with low ignition points used in the production 
or preparation of coal, including but not limited to wood, brattice 
cloth, waste paper, rags, oil and grease, shall not be deposited on 
any coal refuse disposal area or in such proximity as will reasonably 
contribute to the ignition of a coal refuse disposal area. 

3.06 Garbage, trash, household refuse, and like materials shall 
not be deposited on or near any coal refuse disposal area. 

3.07 The deliberate ignition of a coal refuse disposal area or 
the ignition of any materials on such an area by any person or persons 
is prohibited. 

Section H, Burning Coal Refuse Disposal Areas. 

Each burning coal refuse disposal area which allegedly causes air 
pollution shall be investigated by the Commission. 

4.01 Each coal refuse disposal area which causes air pollution 
shall be considered on an individual basis by the Commission. Consis- 
tent with the declaration of policy and purpose set forth in section one 
of chapter sixteen, article twenty of the code of West Virginia, 1931, 
as amended, as well as the established facts and circumstances of the 
particular case, the Commission shall determine and may order after a 
proper hearing the effectuation of those air pollution control measures 
which are adequate for each such coal refuse disposal Area. 

4.02 With respect to all burning coal refuse disposal areas, 
the person responsible for such coal refuse disposal areas or the 
land on which such coal refuse disposal areas are located shall use 
due diligence to control air pollution from such coal refuse disposal 
areas. Consistent with the declaration of policy and purpose set forth 
in section one of chapter sixteen, article twenty of the code of 



280 



West Virginia, 19 31, as anended, the Commission shall determine what 
constitutes due diligence with respect to each such burning coal refuse 
disposal area. V/hen a study of any burning coal refuse disposal area 
by the Commission establishes that air pollution exists or may be 
created, the person responsible for such coal refuse disposal area or 
the land on which such coal refuse disposal area is located shall sub- 
mit to the "Commission a report setting forth satisfactory methods and 
procedures to eliminate, prevent, or reduce such air pollution. The 
report shall be submitted within such time as the Commission shall 
specify. The report for the elimination, prevention or reduction of 
air pollution shall contain sufficient information, including completion 
dates, to establish that such program can be executed with due dili- 
gence. If such report is not submitted as requested or if the Com- 
mission determines that the methods and procedures set forth in such 
report are not adequate to reasonably control such air pollution, then 
a hearing will be held pursuant to the procedures established by 
Code 16-20-6. 
Section 5. Effective Date. 

Regulation I shall become effective on the 1st day of January, 
196U. 

The foregoing is a true and correct copy of the VJest Virginia 
Air Pollution Control Commission Regulation I as adopted on the 
15th day of November, 1963. 




Carl G. Beard, II 

Secretary 

West Virginia Air Pollution Control 

Commission 



281 



WEST VIRGINIA AD^'ir-ISTPATIVE PEGULAT irir:S 
Air Pollution Control Commission 

Chanter 16-20 

Series II 

(1966) 

Subject: ReFulation II - To Prevent and Control Air Pollution 
From Combustion of Fuel in Indirect Heat Excharpers. 

Section 1. Scope of This Peculation. 

1.01. The effective area of this re^^ulation will be the 

Kanawha Valley air basin starting at the junction of the 
Gauley and i:ew Rivers and terninatin?; at the center of 
the 'vinfield Loc^.s and extending a distance of three (3) 
statute niles, measured horizontally, with no reference 
to terrain, on each side of the center line of the 
Kanawha River. 

Section 2. Definitions . 

2.01. ''Air Pollution", 'statutorv air pollution' shall have 
the meaninf^ ascribed to it in Section Two of Chapter 'Six- 
teen, Article Twenty of the Code of .I'est Virginia, 19 31, 
as amended. 

2.02. "Commission' shall mean the '.-/est Virpir.ia Air ^'ollution 
Control Coiir.ission. 

2.03. 'Person' sh.all ::iean any and all persoi'.s, natural or 
artificial, includin'^ anv municipal, public or private 
corporation or-'.anized or existing under tlie laws of this 
or any other state or count", and any fir:T>, partnership 
or association of whatever nature. 



282 



AdJT.. ?.ez- 16-20 Sec. 2.0M 

Series II 



2.04. "Fuel Burning Equipment" shall mean and include any 
furnace, boiler apparatus, device, mechanism, stack or 
structure used in the process of burninf^ fuel, or other 
combustible material for the primarv purpose of producing 
heat or power by indirect heat transfer. 

2.95. "fuel'' shall mean a fuel such as anthracite, or semi- 
anthracite, bituminous or sub-biturr>.inous coal, lignite,, 
or coke breeze, which is fired in fuel burning equipment 
as a solid. '.Vhen p,as , liquids or any products or by- 
products of a manufacturinc process are substituted for 
or used in conjunction v;ith any of the above fuels, the 
same re.'^ulation will apply. 

2.C6. 'Tly Ash'' shall mean particles of t^as-borne matter 

arising from the combustion of fuel as defined by defini- 
tion 2.05. 

2. 07. "Smoke" shall mean small ras-borne and air-borne 
particles arising from a process of combustion in suffic- 
ient number to be visible. 

2.08. "Pinfelnann Smoke Chart" shall be the '^in<?clmann ' s 
Scale for Cradinr t>;e Tensitv of Smoke published by the 
U.S. Bureau of Mines as information circular 7718, Aut^ust, 
1955, or any chart, recorder, indicator, device which is 

a standaraizad --.ethod for the reasuroment of snokc dersitv 
■.-hie: is aroroved ty the Commission as the equivalent of 
said ~ in,-'2lmann ' 3 Scale. 



283 



Adm. Re^^. 16-23 Sec. 2.09 

Series II 



2.09. "Pulverized Fuel Surnin?, Equip'^ent" - Fuel burning 
equipment in which is burned fuel which has been pulver- 
ized so that at least 90 percent will pass through a 100 
nesh U.S. standard sieve. 

2.10. "New Equipnent" - 

(a) All fuel burr.int^ equip-nent installed after the 
adoption of this rep.ulation. 

(b) Existinp, equipnent will be reclassified as new equin- 
nent when modifications or changes aTountin^^ to 30*- of 
the replacement cost of the entire steam t'eneratinc, unit 
(but not including air pollution control equipment) are 
made in any 12-month period, or when any chanp.es are made 
in the cor.bustion equipment which si^ni f icantlv alters the 
combustion characteristics. Prior to making such chanrrss , 
a written notice of intent, including scheduled comoletion 
dates, must be filed with the Commission. After completion, 
a report must be submitted to the Commission for their 
consideration and decision as to whether the characteristics 
hAwe Deen changed sufficiently to iustifv a reclassifica- 
tion. This report must be submitted within 45 days after 
the completion of the modifications or chanres. 

Other words and phrases used in th.is regulation, 
unless otherwise indicated, shall h.ive the meanine ascribed 
to them in Section Two of Chapter Sixteen, Article Twenty 
of the Code of West Virginia, 1931, as amended. 



284 



Adm. Reg. 16-20 Sec. 3 

Series II 



Section 3. Emissions of Smoke and/or Fly Ash Prohibited and 
Standards of Measurement. 

3.01. Hew Fuel Burning Equipment. 

No person shall cause, suffer, allov; or permit 
emission of smoke and/or fly ash into the open air from 
any fuel burning equipment which is: 

(a) As dark or darker in shade or appearance as 
that designated as l.'o. 1 on the Rineelmann Smoke Chart. 

3.02. Existing Fuel Burning Equipment. 

iJo person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit 
emission of smoke and/or flv ash into the open air from 
any fuel burning equipment which is: 

(a) As dark or darker in shade or appearance as 
that designated as IJo. 2 on the Ringelriann Smoke Chart. 

3.03. The Provisions of Sub-sections 3.01 and 3.02 of this 
Section Shall ilot Apply To: 

(a) Smoke and/or fly ash emitted durinp the build- 
ing of a new fire, tlie shade or appearance of which is 
less than 'io. 3 of the Rinf-elm.ann Smoke Chart for a 
period or periods aggregating no more than 8 minutes in 
any hour. 

(b) Smoke and/or fly ash emitted during the clean- 
ing of a fire box or soot blowing tlie shade or appearance 
of which is less than iio. 3 of the Ringelmann Smoke Chart 
for a period or periotls agj^i^sgat ing no more than 8 minutes 
per boiler for any 8 hour period. 



285 



Adm. Rer;. 16-20 Sec. 3.04 

Series II 



3.04. The equivalent opacitv of those RingelT^ann number-; 
in (a) of sub-section 3.01 and sub-section 3.02 and (a) 
and (b) of sub-section 3.03 of this section shall be used 
as a guide in the enforcemenc of Section 4 of this regu- 
lation . 
Section 4. Control and Prohibiti on of Flv Ash. 

No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit "flv 
ash caused by the coT-.bustion of fuel to be discnarped 
froiT': any stack or chinney into the open air in excess 
of the quantity set forth in the followinp table: 

4.01. Existing Fuel Burninr Equipment - (In existence on 

the effective date of this regulation). 

Heat Input In .'-'illion Maxinun Allowable Emissions 

British Thermal Units of Fly Ash in ^ounds Per Million 
Per Hour British Thermal Units Input 

Per iiour 

10 0.75 

20 0.64 

30 0.58 

4 0.54 

50 0.51 

70 0.47 

100 0.43 

200 0.37 

300 0.33 

4 0.31 

500 . 30 

700 0.27 

1000 £ above 0.25 



286 



Adm. Reg. 16-2C Sec. '♦.02 

Series II 



U,02. !Iew Fuel Burning Equipment - 

Heat Input In Million Maximum Allowable Emission 
British Thermal Units Of Fly Ash In Pounds Per Million 
Per Hour British Thermal Units Input 

Per Hour 

10 0.56 

20 0.U8 

30 0.k3 

HO O.UO 

SO 0.38 

70 0.35 

100 0.33 

200 0.28 

300 0.25 

t»00 0.23 

500 0.22 

700 0.20 

1000 £ above 0.19 

For a heat content between any tv;o consecutive heat 
contents stated in this table, the fly ash limitation 
shall be as determined by interpolation. For the pur- 
poses hereof, the heat input shall be the aggregate heat 
content, based on the higher heating value, of all fuels 
whose products of combustion pass through such stack or 
chimney. This is defined as follows: 



287 



Adr. Reg. lG-23 Sec. ^.02 (a) 

Series II 



(a) When two or nore fuel-burnini^ units are connected 
to a single stack, the corr.^ined heat input of all units 
co-nnected to the stack shall be used to determine the 
allowable emission fron the stack. 

(b) '.'hen the discharge from a single unit of combust- 
ion equipment is discharged to the open air through two or 
more stacks, the total heat input to the combustion equip- 
ment shall be used to determine the allowable emission 
from the unit of combustion equipment. 

(c) No person shall circumvent this regulation by 
acding additional stacks to existing fuel burning equip- 
ment . 

U.03. The Commission shall give consideration to the use of 
'"super-high" dispersion stacks in addition to the emission 
limitations detailed in this section of the regulation. 
For the purposes of this regulation, a "super-high" stack 
is defined as one naving sufficient height and/or exit 
velocity to assure piercinp of inversion layers. 
Section 5. Registration. 

5.01. Persons burnir.g fuel, whose proJucts of combustion are 
discharged into tnc open air from a stack or chirn^v, shall 
register with the >.'est Virginia Air Pollution Control Con- 
r-.ission ir.forrr.at ion for each stack or chi'-in-?-/ relatin? to 
place, type of faol burned, heat in fuel burned, quantitv 
of fuel buri.ea per hour, description of combustion equip- 
ment, period of operation, hei?ht and size of outlet, and 



288 



Adm. Reg. 16-20 Sec. 5.02 

Series II 

description of dust-removal equipnent, on forms provided 
for that purpose by the Cofimission. 

5.02. Such infornation shall be submitted to the '.'est Vir- 
ginia Air Pollution Control Commission in the case of 
existinf installations within 45 days from the effective 
d.ite of this regulation and in the case of new or altered 
installations, within 30 days after beinf placed in service. 
Fror.i tire to time, additional reports concerning t]iese 
items may be requested by the Coum.ission. 
Section 6. Reports. 

G.Ol. At such reasonable times as the Commission may require, 
the owner of fuel burning equipment may be requested to 
conduct or have conducted stack tests to determine the dust 
loadinr in flue gas when the Commission has reason to believe 
that this regulation is Deing violated. Such tests shall 
be conducted in such manner as the Commission may specify 
and be filed on the forms and in the manner acceptable to 
the Commission. The Commission may at its option witness 
or conduct such stack tests. 

6.02. Tl>e operators of fuel burning equipment shall submit 
data on the fuel used in such equipnent. Such data shall 
be reported in the manner the Commission may specify not 
to exceed one report per month. Such reports must be filed 
within 15 days of the end of the established reporting 
period and will include, but not necessarily be limited 
to content such as ash, sulfur, moisture, volatile matter, 
quantities, British Thermal Units value, etc., but not 
including fuel price. 



289 



Adn. Reg. 16-20 Sec. 6.03 

Series II 



6.03. When products or by-products of a manufacturing process 
are used as a fuel, the British Themal Units value, sulfur, 
metals, volatile halogens, and ash content of such materials, 
as well as the quantities used shall be reported. 
Section 7. Variance . 

7.01. Where emission sources in existence prior to the adopt- 
ion of this regulation do not meet the particulate matter 
emission limitations noted above, then an acceptable program 
to meet the emission linitations shall be developed and 
offered to the Commission by the person owning the equip- 
ment causing the emission. This program shall be submitted 
upon the request of and within such time as shall be fixed 
by the Conmission, and after said program has been approved 
by the Commission, the owner of the equipment causing the 
emission shall not be in violation of this regulation so 
long as the propram is observed. 

7.02. Due to unavoidable malfunctions of equipment, emissions 
exceeding those provided for in this regul<^tion may be 
permitted by the Connission for periods not to exceed 10 
days upon specific '=!pplicat ion to the Comr.''Gsion. Such 
application shall be made within 24 hours of the malfunction 
or i.'ithin such other time period as the Commission nay 
specify. In cases of r.njor equipment failure, additional 
tire periods may be granted by the Ccirr.ission provided a 
corrective proprai. has been submitted by the operator and 
approved by the Commission. 



290 



Adm. Re^. 16-20 
Series II 



Sec. 8 



Section 3. E xenptions . 

8.01. All residential fuel burninc, equipment as well as 
fuel burnin;^ equipment used solely for heatin^ apartment 
buildings up to and includinfr six (5) apartments, shall 
be exempt from this reH;ulation. 

8.02. All fuel burnin;' equipment havina a heat input under 
10 million British Thermal Units per hour will be exempt 
from Section 4 and Section 5 of this regulation. 

Section ^. E ffective Date. 

Ret^ulation II shall become effective April U, 1GR5. 



The foregoinE is a true and correct copv of the '.'est 
Virtrinia Air "ollutic-. Control Commission Peculation II as adopted 
on the 17th cav of February, 1965. 




Carl G. oeard, II 
Secretarv 

'.lest Virginia Air Pollution Control 

Commission 



291 



WEST VIRGINIA ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS 
Air Pollution Control Conunission 

Chapter 16-20 
Series III 
(1966) 



Subject: Regulation III - To Prevent and Control Air Pollution 
From the Operation of Hot Mix Asphalt Plants. 

Section 1. Definitions. 



1.01. "Air Pollution", 'statutory air pollution' shall have the 
meaning ascribed to it in Section Two of Chapter Sixteen, 
Article Twenty of the Code of West Virginia, as amended. 

1.02. "Commission" shall mean the West Virginia Air Pollution 
Control Commission. 

1.03. "Person" shall mean any and all persons, natural or arti- 
ficial, including any municipal, public or private corporation 
organized or existing under the law of this or any other state 
or county and any firm, partnership, or association of whatever 
nature. 

1.0*4. "Fuel Burning Equipment" shall mean and include any 

chamber, apparatus, device, mechanism, stack or structure 
used in the process of burning fuel or other combustible 
material for the primary purpose of producing heat for direct 
heat transfer as applied to an asphaltic hot mix plant exclud- 
ing internal combustion engines. 

1.05. "Fuel" shall mean a fuel such as gas or liquid fuel which 
is fired in fuel burning equipment. When solid fuels are sub- 
stituted for or used in conjunction with either of the above 
fuels, the same regulation will apply. 



292 



Adm. Reg. 13-20 Sec. 1.06 

Series III 



1.06. "Plant" shall mean an 'asphaltic hot mix plant' which 
shall mean and include all the equipment utilized in the 
manufacture of asphaltic hot mix concrete, such as burner, 
drier, elevators, screens, mixer, weighing equipment, bins, 
air pollution control equipment, etc. 

1.07. "Air Pollution Control Equipment" is defined as: 

(a) Primary collection - That equipment such as cyclones 
or multicyclones incorporated for the collection of fine 
particulate material generated and emitted principally from 
the drying operation and from which all collected material 
may or may not be reinjected into the main aggregate flow. 

(b) Secondary collection - That equipment such as multi- 
cyclones, scrubbers, bag filters, and electrostatic percipita- 
tors incorporated for the collection of that particulate material 
not collected by the primary collection equipment and from 
which such collected material may or may not be reinjected 

into the main aggregate flow. 

1.08. "Smoke" shall mean small gasborne and airborne particles 
arising from a process of combustion in sufficient numbers to 
be visible. 

1.09. , "Ringelmann Smoke Chart" shall be the Ringelmann's Scale 
for Grading the Density of Smoke published by the U. S. 
Bureau of Mines as information circular 7718, August, 1955, 
or any chart, recorder, indicator, or device which is a 
standardized method for the measurement of smoke density which 
ia approved by the Commission as the equivalent of said 
Ringelmann Scale. 



293 



Adm. Reg. 16-20 Sec. 1.10 

Series III 



1.10. "New Equipment" shall mean all asphaltic hot mix plants 
installed after the effective date of this regulation. 

1.11. "Fugitive Dust" shall mean any and all particulate matter 
generated by the operation of an asphalt mix plant which, if 
not confined, would be emitted directly to the atmosphere 
from points other than the stack outlet. 

1.12. "Fugitive Dust Control System" shall mean any equipment or 
method used to confine, collect, and dispose of fugitive dust, 
including hoods, bins, duct work, fans, air pollution control 
equipment, etc. 

Other words and phrases used in this Regulation, unless 
otherwise indicated, shall have the meaning ascribed to them 
in Section Two of Chapter Sixteen, Article Twenty of the Code 
of West Virginia, 1931, as amended. 
Section 2. Emission of Smoke Prohibited and Standards of Measurement. 

2.01. No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit emission of 
smoke into the open air from any fuel burning equipment which is 
as dark or darker in shade or appearance as that designated as 
No. 1 on the Ringelmann Smoke Chart. 

2.02. The provisions of Sub-Section 2.01 of this Section shall 
not apply to smoke emitted during the starting operation the 
shade or appearance of which is less than No. 3 of the Ringel- 
mann Smoke Chart for a period or periods aggregating no more 
than u minutes per start-up. 

2.03. The equivalent opacity of those Ringelmann numbers in 
Sub-Section 2.01 and Sub-Section 2.02 of this Section shall 
be used as a guide in the enforcement of Section 3 of this 
Regulation . 



294 



Adn. R«f. 16-20 S«e. 3 

Strits III 



Section 3. Control and Prohibition of Partlculaf Emi8»len. 

3.01. No ptrson shAll causa , suffar, allow or pax^lt partleulata 

amiasion from a plant Into tha opan air in axcass of tha 

quantity as listad in tha following tabla: 

Aggregate Process Rate Stack Emission Rate 

Pounds Per Hour Pounds Per Hour 

10,000 10 

20,000 16 

30,000 22 

U0,000 28 

50,000 31 

100,000 33 

200,000 37 

300,000 "to 

MOO, 000 «»3 

500,000 U? 

600,000 & above SO 

For a process weight between any two consecutive process 

weights stated in this table, the emission limitation shall ba^ 

determined by interpolation. 

3.02. In the case of more than one stack to a hot mix asphalt 
plant, the emission limitation of Sub-Section 3.01 of this 
Section will be based on the total emission from all stacks. 

3.03. No parson shall cause, suffer, allow or permit a plant to 
operate that is not equipped with a fugitive dust control 
system. This system shall be operated and maintained in such 
a manner as to prevent the emission of particulate material 
from any point other than the stack outlet. 

3.0'*. The owner or operator of the plant shall maintain dust 
control of tha plant premises and plant owned, leased, or 
controlled access roads by paving, oil treatment, or other 
suitable measures. Good operating practices shall be 
observed in relation to stockpiling, screen changing, and 



295 



Adm. R«g. 16-20 Sec, 3. OH 

Strlas III 



general maintenance to prevent dust generation and atmospheric 
entrainment. Good operating practices, including water 
spraying or other suitable measures, shall be employed to 
minimize dust generation and atmospheric entrainment when 
hot bins are pulled. 
Section H. Registration. 

U.Ol. Within thirty (30) days after the effective date of this 
regulation, all persons operating asphalt mix plants within 
the state shall have registered with the Commission on forros 
to be made available by the Commission, the name of the person, 
company or corporation operating the plant, the address, loca- 
tion, county, ownership (lessee 5 lessor), the principal 
officer of the company, and any other such reasonable informa- 
tion as the Commission may require including but not necessarily 
limited to capacity of the plant, type of fuel used, plant 
operating schedule, description of rotary drier, height and 
size of stack and description of dust control equipment. 
u,02. When such plants are modified by changes in burner design, 
heating fuel, fan capacity, drier design, air pollution control 
equipment, or like changes which significantly effect the 
emission characteristics of the plants then they shall be 
re-registered with the Commission defining those changes with- 
in thirty (30) days after being placed in operation. 



296 



Adm. Reg. 16-20 Sec. 5 

Series III 



Section S. Permits. 

5.01. Plants in existence on the effective date of this regula- 
tion will be granted a temporary operating permit. These 
permits will be valid for as long as the Commission shall 
designate. When control programs are completed that meet the 
requirements of this regulation, these temporary permits will 
be replaced with annual operating permits. 

5.02. Plants in existence on the effective date of this regula- 
tion will be granted an operating permit provided they meet 
and maintain the requirements as set forth in this regulation. 
These permits will be valid for one calendar year and must be 
renewed annually. Any plant failing to maintain these require' 
ments shall, at the discretion of the Commission, have their 
operating permit revoked. 

5.03. When permits are revoked, the Commission will consider 
reissuing permits when such changes as necessary to meet the 
requirements of this regulation are made by the owner or 
operator of the plants. 

5.0U. Ten (10) days prior to the operation of a new or relocated 
plant, application must be made to the Commission for a 
permit. Such application shall be made on forms to be made 
available by the Commission and in the manner acceptable to 
the Commission. Plants that meet the requirements of this 
regulation will be issued an annual permit for operation by 
the Commission. 

5.05. Plants operating without a permit will be in violation of 
this regulation. 



297 



Adm. Reg. 16-2 Sec. 6 

Series III 



Section 6. Reports. 

6.01. When the Commission has reason to believe that the provi- 
sions of this regulation are being violated, the owner of 
the plant shall permit the Commission to conduct such stack 
tests as necessary to determine the dust loading in the 
exhaust gases. The operator will provide all the sampling 
connections and sampling ports to be located in such manner 
as the Commission may require, power for test equipment and 

the required safety equipment such as the necessary scaffolding, 
railings, ladders, etc., to comply with generally accepted 
good safety practices. 

6.02. At such time as the Commission may request, the operator 

of the plant will submit data on type, sizing, and quantity of 
the aggregate used and the hours of operation. 
Section 7. Variance. 

7,01. Inhere plants in existence prior to the adoption of this 

regulation do not meet the particulate matter emission limita- 
tions noted above, then an acceptable control program to meet 
the emission limitations shall be developed and offered to the 
Commission by the person owning the plant causing the emission. 
This control program shall be submitted upon the request of 
and within such time as shall be fixed by the Commission, and 
after said program has been approved by the Commission, the 
owner or operator of the equipment causing the emission shall 
not be in violation of this regulation so long as the program 
is observed. 



298 



Adn, Rag. 16>20 Sec. 7.02 

Saries T"'"^ 



7,02. Due to unavoidable malfunctions of equipment, emissions 
exceeding ''liose provided for in this regulation may be 
permitted by the Commission for periods not to exceed 2 days 
upon specific application to the Commission. Such application 
shall be made within 2U hours of the malfunction or within 
■uoh other time period as the Commission may specify. When 
parts are not available for repair the Commission may grant 
an extenelon of time for a period longer than 2 days, but 
not to exceed 10 days. 
Section •• Effeotive D«t«. 

Regulation ZIZ ehall beeesM effeotive October 1, 1966. 



The foregoing ii • true end correct copy of the Weet Virginia 
Air Pollution Control Commiteion Regulation III ae adopted on the 22nd 
day of August* 1966. 



gy^^^ 



Carl G. Beard, ZZ 
Secretary 

Weet Virginia Air Pollution Control 

Commission 



299 



WEST VIRGINIA ADMINISTRATI VL REGULATIONS 
Air Pollution Control Commission 

Chapter 16-20 
Series IV 
(1967) 



Subject: Regulation IV - To Prevent and Control the Discharge 
of Air Pollutants Into the Open Air Which Causes or 
Contributes to an Objectionable Odor or Odors. 

Section 1. Definitions. 



1.01. "Air Pollutants" shall mean solids, liquids, or 
gases which, if discharged into the air, will result 
in a statutory air pollution. 

1.02. "Air Pollution", 'statutory air pollution' shall have 
the meaning ascribed to it in Chapter Sixteen, Article 
Twenty, Section Two of the Code of West Virginia, as 
amended. 

1.03. "Commission" shall mean the West Virginia Air Pol- 
lution Control Commission. 

l.OU. "Person" shall mean any and all persons, natural or 
artificial, including any municipal, public or private 
corporation organized or existing under the laws of this 
or any other state or county, and amy firm, partnership, 
or association of whatever nature. 

1.05. "Odor" shall mean a sensation resulting from stimu- 
lation of the human sense of smell. 



300 



Adm. Reg. 16-20 Sec. 1.06 

Series IV 



1.06. "Objectionable Odor" - In addition to odors 
generally recognized as baing objectionable, an 
odor shall be deemed objectionable when in the 
opinion of a duly authorized representative of 
the Air Pollution Control Conunission, based upon 
his investigations or his investigations and com- 
plaints, such odor is objectionable. 

1.07. "Duly Authorized Representative" shall mean the 
Director or such other agent or employee of the 
Commission who by virtue of special training and/or 
experience is qualified to make determinations 
relative to this regulation. 

Other words and phrases used in this Regulation, 
unless otherwise indicated, shall have the meaning 
ascribed to them in Chapter Sixteen, Article Twenty, 
Section Two of the Code of West Virginia, 1931, as 
amended. 
Section 2. Objectionable Odor Prohibited. 

2.01. No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit 
the discharge of air pollutants which cause or 
contribute to an objectionable odor at any location 
occupied by the public. 



301 



Adm. Reg. 16-20 Sec. 2.02 

Series IV 



2.02. The Barnebey-Cheney Scentometer or any other 

instrument, device, or technique designated by the 
Commission may be used as a guide in the enforcement 
of the regulation and may be used in the determina- 
tion of the objectionability of an odor. 
Section 3. Accidental and Other Infrequent Emissions, Reporting. 

3.01. Accidental and other infrequent discharges which 
cause or contribute to objectionable odors will be 
considered on an individual basis and shall be reported 
by the person responsible therefor to the Commission in 
the manner to be prescribed by the Commission. 
Section •♦. Notice of Violation. 

U.Ol. No person shall be considered in violation of this 
regulation unless notified that he is discharging em 
air pollutant or air pollutants which causes or contri- 
butes to an objectionable odor. 

•4.02. Notification as herein required shall be by regis- 
tered or certified letter of notice sent to the person 
at his last known address which notice shall set forth 
the nature of the violation and inquire such person to 
submit a control program within such reasonable time 
as the Commission shall specify. 



302 



Adm. Reg. 16-20 Sec. 14 . 3 

Series IV 



i».03. The provisions of this section shall not apply to 
persons operating a control program approved pursuant 
to Section 5 of this regulation. 
Section 5. Variance. 

5.01. When a process or operation results in the dis- 
charge of an air pollutant or pollutants which causes 
or contributes to an objectionable odor, an acceptable 
control program shall be developed and offered to the 
Conunission by the person responsible for the discharge 
of such air pollutant or pollutants. This control 
program shall be submitted in the manner prescribed 

by the Commission and within such time as shall be 
fixed by the Commission. If such a control program 
has been approved by the Commission by the issuance 
of a variance, the person responsible for said dis- 
charge shall not be considered to be in violation of 
this regulation in connection with said discharge so 
long as the program is observed. 

5.02. The Director may permit, under emergency circum- 
stances, the discharge of air pollutants which causes 
or contributes to an objectionable odor under specific 
conditions for specific time periods. Any person who 



303 



Adm. Reg. 16-20 Sec. 5.02 

Series IV 



desires such a variance shall make application 
to the Director in the manner to be prescribed by 
the Director. 
Section 6. Exemptions. 

6.01. This regulation shall not apply to the following 
sources of objectionable odor until such time as 
feasible control methods are developed: 

(a) Internal combustion engines. 

(b) Normal and necessary operations associated 
with the production of agricultural products 
grown on the premises or livestock, dogs, 
oats, and poultz^ grown on the premises. 

Section 7. Effective Date. 

Regulation IV shall become effective October 1, 1967. 

The foregoing is a true and correct copy of the West 
Virginia Air Pollution Control Commission Regulation IV as 
adopted on the 17th day of August, 1967, 




Carl G. Beard, II 
Secretary 

West Virginia Air Pollution Control 
Commission. 



304 



WEST VIRGINIA ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS 
Air Pollution Control Conunission 

Chapter 16-20 

Series V 

(1968) 



Subject: Regulation V - To Prevent and Control Air Pollution From 

the Operation of Coal Preparation Plants and Coal Handling 
Operations. 



Section 1. Definitions. 

1.01. "Air Pollution", 'statutory air pollution' shall have the 
meaning ascribed to it in Chapter Sixteen, Article Twenty, 
Section Two of the Code of West Virginia, as amended. 

1.02. "Commission" shall mean the West Virginia Air Pollution 
Control Commission. 

1.03. "Person" shall mean any and all persons, natural or 
artificial, including any municipal, public or private corpo- 
ration organized or existing under the law of this or any 
other state or county and any firm, partnership, or associa- 
tion of whatever nature. 

1.04. "Handling Operation" shall meem eund include but not be 
limited to all coal grinding, crushing, picking, screening, 
conveying, storing, and stockpiling operations associated 
with the transport, production, or preparation of coal or 
coal refuse, excluding coal washing, drying, or air separa- 
tion operations. 

1.05. "Coal Preparation" shall mean and include but not be 
limited to all coal washing, drying or air separation 
operations used for the purpose of preparing the product 
for marketing. 



305 



Adn. Reg. 16-?; Sec. 1.06 

Series V 



1.06. "Plant" shall mean and include all equipment and grounds 
utilized in an integral complex for coal preparation and 
associated handling. 

1.07. "Fuel" shall mean a fuel such as a solid, gaseous or 
liquid fuel which is fired in fuel burning equipment. 

1.08. "Fuel Burning Equipment" shall mean and include any 
chamber, apparatus, device, mechanism, stack or structure 
used in the process of burning fuel for the primary purpose 
of producing heat for a thermal drier. 

1.09. "Thermal Drier" shall mean a device using fuel burning 
equipment for the primary purpose of reducing the moisture 
content of coal. 

1.10. "Air Table" shall mean a device using a gaseous separat- 
ing media for the primary purpose of improving the product 
quality. 

1.11. "Air Pollution Control Equipment" shall mean any equip- 
ment used for collecting gasborne particulate matter for the 
purpose of preventing or reducing particulate emissions into 
the open air. 

1.12. "Standard Cubic Foot" - One cubic foot of dry gas, measured 
at standard conditions of 60°F and 29.92 inches of mercury 
column. 

1.13. "Stack" - For the purpose of this Regulation shall mean 
but not be limited to any duct, control equipment exhaust, 
or similar apparatus, which vents gases containing particu- 
late matter into the open air. 



306 



Adra. Reg. 16-20 Sec. l.lu 

Series V 



I.IU. "Particulate Matter" shall mean any material except 
uncombined water, that exists in a finely divided form as 
a liquid or solid. 

1.15. "Smoke" shall meeui small gasborne and airborne particles 
emitted from a stack in sufficient numbers to be visible. 

1.16. "Ringelmann Smoke Chart" - Shall be the Ringelmann's 
Scale for Grading the Density of Smoke published by the U. S. 
Bureau of Mines as information circular 7718, August, 1955, 
or any chart, recorder, indicator, device, or method which is 
a standardized method for the measurement of smoke density 
which is approved by the Commission as the equivalent of 
said Ringelmann Scale. 

1.17. "Fugitive Dust" - Shall mean any and all particulate 
matter generated, which, if not confined, would be emitted 
directly into the open air from points other than a stack 
outlet. 

1.18. "Fugitive Dust Control System" - Shall mefui euiy equip- 
ment or method used to confine, collect, and dispose of 
fugitive dust, including but not limited to hoods, bins, 
duct work, fans, and air pollution control equipment. 

Other words euid phrases used in this Regulation, unless 
otherwise indicated, shall have the meaning ascribed to them 
in Chapter Sixteen, Article Twenty, Section Two of the Code 
of West Virginia, 1931, as amended. 



307 



Adm. Reg. 16-20 Sec. 2 

Series V 



Section 2. Lmission of Smoke Prohibited and Standards of 
Measurement . 

2.01. No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit emission 
of smoke into the open air from any stack which is as dark 
or darker in shade or appearance as that designated as No. 1 
on the Ringelmann Smoke Chart. 

2.02. The provisions of Sub-Section 2.01 of this Section shall 
not apply to smoke, the shade or appearance of which is less 
than No. 3 on the Ringelmann Smoke Chart for a period or 
periods aggregating no more than 5 minutes in any 60-minute 
period during operation. 

2.03. The provisions of Sub-Section 2.01 and 2.02 of this 
Section shall not apply to smoke, the shade or appearance 
of which is less than No. 3 on the Ringelmann Smoke Chart 
for a period of up to 8 minutes in any operating day for 
the purposes of building a fire of operating quality in 
the fuel burning equipment of a thermal drier. 

2.01*. The equivalent opacity of those Ringelmann numbers in 
Sub-Section 2.01 and Sub-Section 2.02 of this Section shall 
be used as a guide in the enforcement of Section 3 and 
Section u of this Regulation. 

2.05. No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit emission 
of smoke into the open air from any fugitive dust control 
system which is as dark or darker in shade or appearance 
as that designated as No. 1 on the Ringelmann Smoke Chart 
or the equivalent opacity of this Ringelmann number. 



308 



AdD. Reg. 16-20 
Series V 



Sec. 



Section 3. Control and Prohibition of Particulate Emissions From 
Coal Thermal Drying Operations of a Coal Preparation 
Plant. 

No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit particu- 
late matter to be vented into the open air from any thermal 
drier exhaust in excess of the following limitations: 

3.01. Until September 2, 1971, thermal driers installed on or 
before March 1, 1970, shall not emit more than 0.15 grains 
of particulate matter per st«undard cubic foot of exhaust 
gas. 

3.02. After September 1, 1971, thermal driers installed on or 
before March 1, 1970, shall not exceed the emission limita- 
tions of the following table : 



Total Plant Volumetric 
Flow Rate 

(Standard Cubic Feet 

Per Minute) 

120,000 or less 

172,000 

2U5,000 

351,000 

500,000 I above 



Maximum Allowable 
Particulate Loading Per Driei 

(Grains Per Standard 
Cubic Foot) 

0.12 

0.11 

0.10 

0.09 

0.08 



3.03. Thermal driers installed after March 1, 1970, shall not 
exceed the emission limitations of the following table: 



309 



Adm. Reg. 16-2U Sec. 3.03 

Series V 



Total Plant Volumetric Maximum Allowable 

Flow Rate Particulate Loadinp, Per Drier 

(Standard Cubic Feet (Grains Per Standard 
Per Minute) Cubic Foot) 

75,000 or less 0.10 

111,000 0.09 

163,000 0.08 

240,000 6 above 0.07 

3.04. For the volumetric flow rate between any two consecutive 
volumetric flow rates stated in Sub-Section 3.02 and Sub- 
Section 3.03, limitations shall be as determined by linear 
interpolation. For the purpose hereof, the total volumetric 
flow rate shall be the total standard cubic feet of dry gas 
passed through all thermal driers at one plant location. This 
value shall be determined by methods which are acceptable to 
the Commission. 

3.05. When modifications are made to plants after March 1, 1970, 
that result in a significant increase in the total gas volume 
passing through a thermal drier, said drier(s) will be subject 
to the emission limitations of Sub-Section 3.0 3 even though 
such modifications do not include the installation of a new 
thermal drier(s). 

3.06. No person shall circumvent this Regulation by adding 
additional gas to any drier exhaust or group of drier exhausts 
for the purpose of reducing the grain loading. 

3.07. No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit the exhaust 
gases from a thermal drier to be vented into the open air at 
an altitude of less than 80 leet above the foundation grade 



310 



Adm. Reg. 16-20 • Sec. 3.07 

Series V 



of the structure containing the drier or less than 10 feet 
above the top of said structure or any adjacent structure, 
whichever is greater. 

In determining the desirable height of the above stack, 
due consideration shall be given to the local topography, 
meteorology, the location of nearby dwellings and public 
roads, and the stack emission rate. 
3.08. Any stack venting thermal drier exhaust gases into the 
open air shall contain flow straightening devices or a 
vertical run of sufficient length to establish flow patterns 
consistent with acceptable stack sampling procedures. 

Section k. Control and Prohibition of Particulate Emissions From 
an Air Table Operation of a Coal Preparation Plant. 
U.Ol. No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit particu- 
late matter to be vented into the open air from any air 
table exhaust in excess of 0.05 grains per standard cubic 
foot of exhaust gases. 

4.02. No person shall circumvent this Regulation by adding 
additional gas to smy air table exhaust or group of air 
table exhausts for the purpose of reducing the grain loading. 

4.03. Any stack venting air table exhaust gases into the open 
air shall contain flow straightening devices or a vertical 
run of sufficient length to establish flow patterns consisten 
with acceptable stack sampling procedures. 



311 



Adm. keg. lfa-20 Sec. b 

Series V 



i.ection b. Control and Prohibition of Fugitive Dust Emissions From 
Coal Handling Operations and Preparation Plants. 

b.Ol. No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit a plant 
or handling operation to operate that is not equipped with a 
fugitive dust control system. This system shall be operated 
cind maintained in such a manner as to minimize the emission 
of particulate matter into the open air. 

b.02. The owner or operator of the plant or handling operation 
shall maintain dust control of the premises and owned, leased, 
or controlled access roads by paving, or other suitable 
measures. Good operating practices shall be observed in 
relation to stockpiling, car loading, breaking, screening, 
and general maintenance to minimize dust generation and 
atmospheric entrainment. 

Section 6. Registration. 

6.01. Within thirty (30) days after the effective date of this 
Regulation, all persons owning and/or operating coal prepara- 
tion plants within the State shall have registered with the 
Commission on forms to be made available by the Commission, 
the name of the person, company or corporation operating the 
plant, the address, location, county, ownership (lessee 6 
lessor), the principal officer of the company, and any other 
such reasonable information as the Commission may require, 
including, but not necessarily limited to, capacity of the 



312 



Adm. Reg. 16-20 Sec. 6.01 

Series V 



plant, type of fuel used, plant operating schedule, descrip- 
tion and capacities of thennal driers and air tiibles , height 
and size of stacks and air pollution control equipment. 

6.02. Persons operating registered plants which are to be modi- I 
fied by changes in fuel burning equipment, fuel, f^m capacity, 
drier design, air pollution control equipment, air tables, 
stacks or like changes which could significantly affect the 
emission characteristics of the plants shall file with the 
Commission those proposed changes not less than thirty (30) 
days before such changes are made. 

6.03. Within thirty (30) days after the completion of the 
modifications as filed under Sub-Section 6.02, the operator 
shall register such chemges with the Commission on forms to 
be made available by the Commission. 

6.0U. Not later than sixty (50) days prior to operation, new 
plants shall be registered by the owner and/or operator of 
such pleuits. Such registration shall be made on forms to be 
made available by the Commission and will include the name 
of the person, company, or ownership (lessee & lessor), the 
principal officer of the company, and any other such reason- 
able information as the Commission may require including, but 
not necessarily limited to, data on the capacity of the plamt, 
type of fuel to be used, description and capacities of thermal 
driers and air tables, height and size of stacks and descrip- 
tion of air pollution control equipment. 



313 



'.,<• f I «TI V 



jfC 



tion 7. Permits. 



7.01. I'lants in existence on the effective date of this Pegula- 
tion will be granted temporary operating pemiits subject to 
compliance with Sub-oection 6.01. These permits will De valid 
for as long as the Commission shall designate. VOien it is 
determined by the Commission that a plant meets the require- 
ments of this Regulation, the temporary permit will be 
replaced with an operating permit. 

7.02. Any plant failing to maintain the requirements of this 
Regulation shall, at the discretion of the Commission, have 
the permit revoked. 

7.03. When permits are revoked, the Commission will reissue 
permits when such changes as necessary to meet the require- 
ments of this Regulation are made. 

7.0U. New plants will be granted temporary operating permits 
provided they comply with Sub-Section 6.0U. 

7.05. Subject to the provisions of Sub-Section 6.01, plants 
operating without a permit will be in violation of this 
Regulation. 

7.06. The possession of a permit by any person shall in no way 
relieve the holder thereof of his obligation to comply with 
the provisions of this Regulation. 

Section 8. Reports and Testing. 

8.01. At such reasonable times as the Director may designate, 
the operator of a coal preparation plant may be required to 
conduct or have conducted stack tests to determine the dust 



314 



Adm. Reg! 16-20 Sec. 8.01 

Series V 



loading in exhaust gases when the Director has reason to 
believe that the stack emission limitation is being violated. 
Such tests shall be conducted in such manner as the Director 
may specify and be filed on forms, and in a mamner, acceptable 
to the Director. The Director, or his duly authorized repre- 
sentative, may at his option witness or conduct such stack 
tests. Should the Director exercise his option to conduct 
such tests, the operator will provide all the necessary sam- 
pling connections and sampling ports to be located in such 
manner as the Director may require, power for test equipment, 
and the required safety equipment such as scaffolding, rail- 
ings, ladders, etc., to comply with generally accepted good 
safety practices. 
8.02. The Director, or his duly authorized representative, may 
conduct such other tests as he may deem necessary to evaluate 
air pollution emissions other than those noted in Sub-Section 
8.01. 

Section 9. Variance. 



9.01. If a plant operating under a temporary permit does not 
meet the requirements of this Regulation, the operator of 
the plant shall develop and submit to the Commission an 
acceptable control program to meet these requirements. 
This control program shall be submitted upon the request 
of and within such time as shall be fixed by the Commission, 
and after said program has been approved by the Commission, 
the owner or operator of the plant will not be in violation 
of this Regulation as long as said program is observed. 



315 



Aum. Hep,. 16-20 
^Je^ies V 



jec. 9.02 



9.02. iJue to unavoidable malfunctions of equipment or non- 
availability of repair parts, emissions exceeding those 
provided for in this Regulation may be permitted by the 
Commission upon specific application to the Commission. 
Such application shall be made within 2u hours of the mal- 
function or within such other time pei'iod as the Commission 
may specify. 

Section 10. Effective Date. 



Regulation V shall become effective September 1, 1968. 

The foregoing is a true and correct copy of the West Virginia 
Air Pollution Control Commission Regulation V as adopted on the 
11th day of July, 1968. 




Carl G. Beard, II 
Secretary 

West Virginia Air Pollution Control 
Commission 



316 



WEST VIRGINIA ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS 
Air Pollution Control Commission 

Chapter 16-20 
Series VI 
(1969) 



Subject: Regulation VI - To Prevent and Control Air Pollution From 
Combustion of Refuse. 

Section 1. Intent and Purpose. 

1.01. Neither compliance with the provisions of this Regulation 
nor the absence of specific language to cover particular situ- 
ations constitutes approval or implies consent or condonement 
of any emission which is released in any locality in such man- 
ner or amount as to cause or contribute to undesirable levels 
of air contaminants. Neither does it exempt nor excuse anyone 
from complying with other applicable laws, ordinances, regula- 
tions or orders of governmental entities having jurisdiction. 

1.02. All persons engaged in any form of combustion of refuse 
shall give careful consideration to the effects of the resul- 
tant emissions on the air quality of the area(s) affected by 
such burning. Important considerations include but are not 
limited to the location and time of burning, the type of mate- 
rial being burned and the potential emissions and the prevail- 
ing meteorological conditions. Persons failing to give due 
consideration to these factors will be in violation of this 
Regulation. 



317 



Adm. Reg. 16-20 Sec. 1.03 

Series VI 



1.03. It is the intent of the Commission that all incorporated 
areas and other local governmental entities prohibit open 
burning and develop alternative methods for disposal of waste 
material. If such action is not taken in any air basin, air 
quality control region or other such areas as the Commission 
may designate, then such action may be taken by the Commission 
to insure compliance with air quality standards . 

Section 2. Definitions. 



2.01. "Air Pollution", 'statutory air pollution' shall have the 
meaning ascribed to it in Chapter Sixteen, Article Twenty, 
Section Two, of the Code of West Virginia, as amended. 

2.02. "Commission" shall mean the West Virginia Air Pollution 
Control Commission. 

2.03. "Person" shall mean any and all persons, natural or arti- 
ficial, including any municipal, public or private corporation 
organized or existing under the law of this or any other state 
or county, and any firm, partnership or association of what- 
ever nature. 

2.04. "Particulate Matter" shall mean any material, except 
uncombined water, that exists in a finely divided form as 
a liquid or solid. 

2.05. "Smoke" shall mean small gasborne and airborne particles 
emitted as the result of the combustion of refuse in suffi- 
cient numbers to be visible. 



318 



Adm. Reg. 16-20 Sec. 2.06 

Series VI 



2.06. "Ringelmann Smoke Chart" shall mean the Ringelmann's 
Scale for Grading the Density of Smoke, published by the 
U. S. Bureau of Mines, or any chart, recorder, indicator, 
device or method which is a standardized method for the 
measurement of smoke density and is approved by the Com- 
mission as the equivalent of said Ringelmann Chart. 

2.07. "Air Pollution Control Equipment" shall mean any equip- 
ment used for collecting or converting gasborne particulate 
or gaseous materials for the purpose of preventing or reduc- 
ing emission of these materials into the open air. 

2.08. "Incineration" shall mean the destruction of combustible 
refuse by burning in a furnace designed for that purpose. 
For the purposes of this Regulation, the destruction of any 
combustible liquid or gaseous material by burning in a flare/ 
flare stack shall be considered incineration. 

2.09. "Incinerator" shall mean any device used to accomplish 
incineration. 

2.10. "Flare", 'flare stack' shall mean and include a combustion 
source normally comprised of but not limited to a length of 
stack or pipe which has an attached burner mechanism designed 
to destroy liquid or gaseous material with an open or semi- 
enclosed flame. 

2.11. "Open Burning" shall mean the combustion of refuse whereby 
the gaseous products of combustion are not conveyed through 
man-made means from one point to another and are discharged 
directly to the open air. 



319 



Adm. Reg. 16-20 Sec. 2.12 

Series VI 



2.12. "Refuse" shall mean the useless and/or unwanted or dis- 
carded solid, liquid and/or gaseous waste materials resulting 
from community, commercial, industrial or citizen activities. 

2.13. "Construction and Demolition Wastes" shall mean combustible 
waste building materials and rubble resulting from construction, 
remodeling, repair and demolition operations on houses, com- 
mercial buildings, pavements and other structures. 

2.m. "Incinerator Capacity" shall be the manufacturer's or 
designer's guaranteed maximum charging rate or such other 
rate as may be determined by the Director in accordance with 
good engineering practices. In case of conflict the determina- 
tion by the Director shall govern. For the purposes of this 
Regulation the total of the capacities of all furnaces within 
one system shall be considered as the "incinerator capacity". 

Other words and phrases used in this Regulation, unless 
otherwise indicated, shall have the meaning ascribed to them 
in Chapter Sixteen, Article Twenty, Section Two, of the Code 
of West Virginia, 1931, as amended. 

Section 3. Open Burning Prohibited. 
3.01. General Provisions 

The open burning of refuse for the purpose of volume 
reduction, elimination or product recovery by any person, 
firm, corporation, association or public agency is prohibited 
except for the following exemptions: 



320 



Adm. Reg. 16-20 Sec. 3.01 

Series VI 



(a) Vegetation grovm on the premises of a home or farm, 
provided that there is compliance with the provisions of 
Sub-Section 1.02, and the health, safety, comfort and 
property of persons are protected from the effects of 
such burning. 

(b) Fires set for the purpose of bona fide instruction 
emd training of public and industrial employees in the 
methods of fighting fires, provided that approval to 
conduct such burning is received from the Director or 
his duly authorized representative. 

(c) Open burning of construction and demolition wastes, 
provided that all the following conditions are met: 

(1) There is no practical alternate method for 
the disposal of the material to be burned; 

(2) The health, safety, comfort and property of 
persons are protected from the effects of 
such burning; 

(3) Such burning shall not be conducted for 
salvage purposes; and, 

(H) In non-rural areas approval to conduct such 
burning is received from the Director or his 
duly authorized representative. 

(d) Backyard open burning for the reduction of refuse pro- 
duced on the premises as long as the amount does not exceed 
that weight normally produced by the everyday living habits 
of one (1) family, until such families are serviced by a 
municipal or private refuse collection service. 



321 



Adm. Reg. 16-20 Sec. 3.02 

Series VI 



3.02. The exemptions listed in Sub-Section 3.01 are subject 
to the following stipulation: 

Upon notification by the Director, no person shall cause, 
suffer, allow or permit any form of open burning during exist- 
ing or predicted periods of atmospheric stagnation. Notifica- 
tion shall be made by such means as the Director may deem 
necessary and feasible. 

Section t . Emission Standards for Incinerators and Incineration. 

U.Ol. Unless authorized by the Commission, no person shall cause, 
suffer, allow or permit particulate matter to be discharged 
from an incinerator into the open air in excess of the quan- 
tity determined by use of the following formula: 

Emissions (Ib/hr) = F x Incinerator Capacity (tons/hr) 
where the Factor, F, is as indicated in Table I below: 

Table I: Factor, F, for Determining Maximum Allowable 
Particulate Emissions 

Incinerator Capacity F Factor 

A. 200 Ibs/hr or less 8.25 

B. More than 200 Ibs/hr but 

less than 15,000 Ibs/hr 5.U3 

C. 15,000 Ibs/hr or greater 2.72 



322 



Adm. Reg. 16-20 Sec. 4.02 

Series VI 



4.02. Emission of Visible Particulate Matter 

No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit emission 
of smoke into the atmosphere from any incinerator which is as 
dark or darker in shade or appearance than that designated as 
No. 1 on the Ringelmann Smoke Chart or the equivalent opacity 
of this Ringelmann number. 

4.03. The provisions of Sub-Section 4.02 shall not apply to 
smoke, the shade or appearance of which is less than No. 2 
on the Ringelmann Smoke Chart or the equivalent opacity of 
this Ringelmann number, for a period or periods aggregating 
no more than eight (8) minutes per start-up, or six (6) 
minutes in any 60-minute period for stoking operations. 

4.04. No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit the emis- 
sion of particles of unburned or partially burned refuse or 
ash from any incinerator which are large enough to be individ- 
ually distinguished in the open air. 

4.05. Incinerators, including all associated equipment and 
grounds, shall be designed, operated and maintained so as 
to prevent the emission of objectionable odors. 

4.06. Incineration of Residues and Hazardous Materials 

Persons responsible for the incineration of hazardous 
materials such as insecticides, empty insecticide containers, 
toxic materials, certain chemical residues, explosives, used 
bandages and other medical wastes, pathological wastes, human 
and animal remains and other like materials shall give the 



323 



Adm. Reg. 16-20 Sec. 4.06 

Series VI 



utmost care and consideration to the potential harmful effects 
of the emissions resulting from such activities. Evaluation 
of these facilities as to adequacy, efficiency and emission 
potential will be made on an individual basis by the Commis- 
sion working in conjunction with other appropriate governmental 
agencies . 

Section 5 . Registration. 

5.01. Registration of Existing Incinerators 

Within sixty (60) days after the effective date of this 
Regulation, all persons owning, operating or constructing in- 
cinerators within the State shall register with the Commission 
on forms to be made available by the Commission. The Director 
may require any such reasonable information as he may specify. 

5.02. Registration of New Incinerators 

New incinerators shall be considered duly registered when 
the owner and/or operator thereof has received from the Director 
written approval of the plans and specifications submitted, 
pursuant to the requirements of Section 6 . 

5.03. Registration of Incinerator Modifications 

When incinerators are to be modified by changes in charg- 
ing method, auxiliary fuel, air pollution control equipment or 
like changes which significantly affect the emission charac- 
teristics of the incinerator, such proposed changes shall be 
registered with the Commission no later than thirty (30) days 
prior to their being made. 



324 



Adm. Reg. 16-20 Sec. 6 

Series VI 



Section 6. New Incinerator Plan Review. 

Plans and specifications for proposed incinerators are 
to be submitted to the Director at least sixty (60) days 
prior to construction for review and approval. These plans 
and specifications shall include any such reasonable infor- 
mation as the Director may specify. 

Section 7. Reports and Testing. 

7.01. At such reasonable times as the Director may designate, 
the operator of an incinerator may be required to conduct or 
have conducted stack tests to determine the dust loading in 
exhaust gases, when the Director has reason to believe that 
the stack emission limitation is being violated. Such tests 
shall be conducted in such manner as the Director may specify 
and be filed on forms and in a manner acceptable to the Direc- 
tor. The Director, or his duly authorized representative, may 
at his option witness or conduct such stack tests. Should the 
Director exercise his option to conduct such tests, the opera- 
tor will provide all the necessary sampling connections and 
sampling ports to be located in such manner as the Director 
may require, power for test equipment and the required safety 
equipment such as scaffolding, railings and ladders to comply 
with generally accepted good safety practices. 

7.02. The Director, or his duly authorized representative, may 
conduct such other tests as he may deem necessary to evaluate 
air pollution emissions other than those noted above. 



325 



Adm. Reg. 16-20 Sec. 8 

Series VI 



Section 8 . Variances, 



8.01. If it can be demonstrated to the Commission that the dis- 
posal of certain materials by any method other than burning 
leads to ground water contamination, then the person respon- 
sible for the disposal of such materials shall submit to the 
Commission within sixty (60) days a program leading to the 
construction of a suitable incinerator. If such program is 
accepted by the Commission, the person shall not be in viola- 
tion as long as the program is observed. 

8.02. Due to unavoidable malfunctions of equipment and/or non- 
availability of repair parts, emissions exceeding those pro- 
vided for in this Regulation may be permitted by the Director. 
Application for such variance shall be made within 24 hours of 
the malfunction or within such time period as the Director may 
specify. These variances shall be valid for such time periods 
as the Director may specify. 

8.03. Control Program Variance 

The owner or operator of an incinerator or an open burn- 
ing operation in existence on the effective date of this Regu- 
lation that does not meet the Regulation requirements shall 
submit a control program to the Commission. This program shall 
be submitted upon the request of and within such time as shall 
be fixed by the Commission, and after said program has been 
approved by the Commission, the owner or operator of such in- 
cinerator or open burning operation shall not be in violation 
of this Regulation so long as the program is observed. 



326 



Adm. Reg. 16-20 
Series VI 



Sec. 



Section 9 . Effective Date. 

Regulation VI shall become effective September 1, 1969 



The foregoing is a true and correct copy of the West Virginia 
Air Pollution Control Commission Regulation VI as adopted on the 
22nd day of July, 1969. 




W<.r;<^ 



Carl G. Beard, II 
Secretary 

West Virginia Air Pollution Control 
Commission 



VVEST VIRGINIA ADMINISTRATIVE REGULAilONS 
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISSION 



REGULATION VII 

"To Prevent and Control Particulate Air 
Pollution From Manufacturing Process 
Operations . " 



Public hearing will be held on this 
Regulation Thursday, April 3, at 10:00 
a.m. , House of Delegates Chamber, State 
Capitol Building, Charleston, Uest 
Virginia . 

^^^f^^ u^ • ■ ^ !^'-^ ^ ^^^'^ f^'* f-'' '^"^ '1 - ^ n ^' n^nr,^. 

(327) 



328 



PROPOSLD REGULATIOH 

WEST VIRGINIA ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS 

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISSION 

Subject: REGULATION VII - To Prevent and Control Particulate Air 
Pollution From Manufacturing Process Operations. 

Section 1. Definitions . 

1.01. "Air Pollution", 'statutory air pollution' shall have 
the meaning ascribed to it in Section Two of Chapter Sixteen, 
Article Twenty of the Code of VJest Virginia, as amended. 

1.02. "Commission'' shall mean the West Virginia Air Pollution 
Control Comiuission. 

1.03. "Person'' shall mean any and all persons, natural or 
artificial, including any municipal, public or private 
corporation organized or existing under the law of this or 
any other state or county and any firm, partnership i or 
association of whatever nature. 

1.04. "Particulate Matter'' shall mean any material, except 
uncombined vjater, that exists in a finely divided form as 
a liquid or solid. 

1.05. '"Smoke" shall mean small gasborne and airborne particulate 
matter emitted from a stack or other aperture in sufficient 
numbers to be visible. 

1.06. ''Ringelmann Smoke Chart'' shall be the Ringelmann's 
Scale for Grading the Density of Smoke published by the U. S. 
Bureau of tiines or any chart, recorder, indicator, or device 
which is a standardized method for the measurement of smoke 
density which is approved by the Commission as the equivalent 
of said Ringelmann Scale. 



329 



PROPOSED REGULATION 

1.07. "Fugitive Dust" shall mean any and all particulate 
matter generated by any manufacturing process which, if 
not confined, would be emitted directly into the open air 
from points other than a stack outlet. 

1.08. ''Fugitive Dust Control System" shall mean any equip- 
ment or method used to confine, collect, and dispose of 
fugitive dust, including, but not limited to, hoods, bins, 
duct work, fans, and air pollution control equipment. 

1.09. "Fuel'' - Shall mean any form of combustible matter that 
is used as a source of heat - solid, liquid, vapor, or gas. 

1.10. "Air Pollution Control Equipment" shall mean any equip- 
ment used for collecting or converting smoke and/or parti- 
culate matter for the purpose of preventing or reducing 
emission of these materials into the open air. 

1.11. "Standard Conditions" - Shall mean for the purposes of 
this Regulation a temperature of 60°F and a pressure of 
29.92 inches of mercury column. 

1.12. "Stack'' - Shall mo -in for the purpcS'-s of this R^gulcition, bu' 
not be limited to, any duct, control equipment exhaust, or 
similar apparatus, which is designed to vent gases containing 
particulate matter into the open air. 

1.13. "Plant'' - Shall mean and include all equipment, grounds, 
source operations, and any manufacturing process(es) utilized 
in an integral complex. 

I.IU. ''Manufacturing Process'^ - Shall mean any action, operation 
or treatment en.bracing chemical, industrial, or manufacturing 
efforts, and employing, for example, heat treating furnaces. 



330 



PROPOSED REGULATION 

by-product coke plants, core-baking ovens, mixing kettles, 
cupolas, blast furnaces, open hearth furnaces, heating 
and reheating furnaces, puddling furnaces, sintering plants, 
electric steel furnaces, ferrous and non-ferrous foundries, 
kilns, stills, driers, crushers, grinders, roasters, and 
equipment used in connection therewith, and all other methods 
or forms of manufacturing or processing that may emit smoke, 
particulate matter, or gaseous matter. 

1.15. "Process VJeight'' - Shall mean that total weight of all 
materials introduced into a source operation, excluding solid, 
liquid, and gaseous fuels used solely as fuels, and excluding 
air introduced for purposes of combustion. 

1.16. "Process Weight Rate'' - Shall mean a rate established 
as follows: 

(a) For continuous or long-run steady-state source oper- 
ations, the total process weight for the entire period of 
continuous operation or for a typical portion thereof, divided 
by the number of hours of such period or portion thereof. 

(b) For cyclical or batch unit operations, or unit 
processes, the total process weight for a period that covers 
a complete operation or an integral number of cycles, divided 
by tfie hours of actual process operation during such a period. 

Where the nature of any process or operation or the 
design of any equipment is such as to permit more than one 
interpretation of this definition, the interpretation that 
results in the minimum value for allowable emission shall 
apply. 



331 



f milium \^imi!muMh • 

PROPOSED REGULATION 

1.17. ''Physical Change'' - Shall mean for the purposes of this 
Regulation, any change in a substance which does not change 
the properties of the substance. Such changes include but 
are not limited to crushing, grinding, drying, change of 
state and sizing. 

1.18. '^Chemical Change" - Shall mean for the purposes of this 
Regulation, any change in a substance which does change the 
properties of the substance and by v;hich a new substance is 
formed. 

1.19. "Source Operation" - Shall mean the last operation in 
a manufacturing process preceding the emission of air con- 
taminant which operation (a) results in the separation of 
the air contaminant fromi the process materials or in the 
conversion of the process n;aterials into air contaminants; 
and (b) is not an air pollution abatement operation. 

1.20. ''A Duplicate Source Operation'' - Shall mean any combina- 
tion of tv;o or more individual source operations of any size 
that have the same nomenclature, either form.erly adopted and/ 
or comir.only sanctioned by usage such as but not limited to 
two or miore rotary driers, basic oxygen furnaces, or electric 
arc furnaces contained in the same plant. 

1.21. "Source Operation Type" -shall mean' a categorization 
established as follov7s : 

(a) Type 'a' - Shall mean any manufacturing process 
sourc.:, operation in which materials of any origin undergo 
physical changes and/or calcination except as noted in 
Type 'c' below. 



332 



PROPOSED REGULATION 

(b) Type 'b' - Shall mean any metallurgical manufac- 
turing process source operation. 

(c) Type 'c' - Shall mean any existing wet cement 
manufacturing process source operation which is used for 
the primary purpose of calcination. 

(d) Type 'd' - Shall mean any manufacturing process 
source operation in which materials of any origin undergo 
a chemical change (except calcination) . 

Where the nature of any process or operation or the 
design of any equipment is such as to permit more than one 
interpretation of source operation type, the interpretation 
of the Commission shall apply. 

Other words and phrases used in this Regulation, unless 
otherwise indicated, shall have the meaning ascribed to them 
in Section Two of Chapter Sixteen, Article Twenty of the Code 
of West Virginia, as amended. 
Section 2. Emission of Smoke Prohibited and Standards of Heasure^- 
ments . 
2.01. No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit emission 
of smoke into the open air from any process source operation 
which is darker in shade or appearance than that designated 
as No. 1 on the Ringelmann Smoke Chart or the equivalent 
opacity of this Ringelmann number, except as noted in Sub- 
Sections 2.02, 2.03, and 2. OH. 






nno 



333 



PROPOSED REGULATION 

2.02. The provisions of Sub-Section 2.01 of this Section shall 
not apply to smoke emitted from any process source operation 
which is less than No. 2 on the Ringelmann Smoke Chart or the 
equivalent opacity of this Ringelmann number for any period or 
periods aggregating no more than five (5) minutes of any sixty 
(60) minute period. 

2.03. The provisions of Sub-Sections 2.01 and 2.02 of this 
Section shall not apply to smoke emitted during the charging 
or pushing operation of a by-product coke production facility 
the shade or appearance of which is no darker than No. 2 on 
the Ringelmann Smoke Chart or the equivalent opacity of this 
Ringelmann number for a period or periods aggregating no more 
than 30 seconds per charge or push. 

2.0U. No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit emission of 
smoke into the open air from any enclosed storage structure 
associated with any manufacturing process. 
Section 3 . Control and Prohibition of Particulate Emissions by 
Weight From Manufacturing Process Source Operations . 

3.01. No person shall cause, suffer, allov; or permit particulate 
matter to be vented into the open air from any type source opera- 
tion or duplicate source operation, or from all air pollution 
control equipment installed on any type source operation or 
duplicate source operation in excess of the quantity specified 
under the appropriate source operation type in the following 
table: 



334 



PROPOSED REGULATION 



. — , 


Operating Source Operation 


Maximum Allowable Total S 


tack 


or Total Duplicate Source 


Emission Rate in Pounds ? 


er 


Operation Process Weight 


Hour For The Appropriate 


Pro- 


Rate in Pounds Per Hour^ 


cess, Weight and Source Co 
Type^ 


sration 








Type 'a' 


Typt; 'b' 


Type 'c' 


Type 'd'2 

















2,500 


3 


3 


9 


0.22 


5,000 


5 


5 


13 


1.39 


10,000 


10 


10 


19 


1.84 


20,000 


16 


16 


26 


4.00 


30,000 


22 


22 


32 


6.15 


40,000 


28 


28 


36 


8.31 


50,000 


31 


31 


40 


10.46 


100,000 


33 


33 


54 


21.24 


200,000 


37 


37 


70 


21.24 


300,000 


40 


40 


80 


21.24 


400,000 


43 


45 


88 


21.24 


500,000 


47 


53 


94 


21.24 


600,000 


50 


62 


99 


21.24 


700,000 


50 


71 


99 


21.24 


800,000 


50 


79 


99 


21.24 


900,000 


50 


88 


99 


21.24 


1,800,000 and above 


50 

t 


176 


99 


21.24 



For a process weight between any two consecutive 
process weights stated in this table, the emission 
limitation shall be determined by linear interpolation. 

Type 'd' source operation stack emission rates do not 
apply to MINERAL ACIDS. Sec Sub-Section 3.02. 

3.02. Mineral acids shall not be released from any Type 'd' 
source operation oi"* duplicate source operation or frcr.i all air 
pollution control equipment installed on any Type 'd' scarce 
cp'^rati.cr. cr duplicate ccurcc cperation ir. cxccsc cf the quanti- 
ty given in the following table: 



335 



PROPOSED REGULATION 





Mineral Acid 


Allov;able Stack Gas 
Concentration in 
Milligrams Per Dry 
Cubic Meter at Stan- 
dard Conditions from 
Source Operations or 
Duplicate Source Oper- 
ations in Existence on 
the Effective Date of 
this Regulation 


Allowable Stack Gas 
Concentration in 
Milligrams Per Dry 
Cubic Meter at Stan- 
dard Conditions fron: 
Source Operations or 
Duplicate Source Op- 
erations Installed 
After the Effective 
Date of this Regula- 
tion 




Sulfuric Acid Mist 

Nitric Acid Mist 
and/or Vapor 

riy'drochlcric' Acid ■ Mist 

and/or Vapor 

Phosphoric Acid Mist 
and /or Vapor 


70 

140 

420 

6 


35 

70 

210 

3 



3.03. Where more than one source operation or combinations 
thereof, which are part of a duplicate source operation, are 
vented through separate stacks, the allov;able stack emission 
rates for the separate stacks shall be determined by the 
follov;ing formula: 

R_ 



R, ^3 



VJhere: R is the allowable stack emission rate for the 

s 

separate stack venting the source operations in question 
R^ is the total allowable emission rate for the 
duplicate sourcv; operation 

Wg is the operating process weight rate for the 
source operation(s) vented through the separate stack 
W^ is the total operating process weight rate for the 
duplicate source cpi_ration 



336 



PROPOSED REGULATION 

3. 04. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to the 
cokinp of coal. 

3.05. For a period of years, provisions of this Section 

shall not apply to process source operations existing on the 
effective date of this Regulation vith process weights of 

Ibs/hr or more, provided that the following requirenents 

are met and maintained: 

(1) The actual pollutant emissions from such process 
source operations do not exceed the allowable 
emissions specified in Sub-Sections 3.01 and 3.02, 
by more than 2 percent; and 

(2) Smoke emitted into the open air from, anv such 
process source operation is not as dark or 
darker in shade or appearance than that designated 
as No. 1 on the Ringelmann Smoke Chart or the 
equivalent opacitv of this Ringelnann num,ber. 

3.06 Any stack serving anv process source operation or air 
pollution control equipment on any process source operation 
shall contain flow straightening devices or a vertical run 
oT'suf f icient length to establish flow patterns consistent 
V7ith acceptable stack sampling procedures. 

3.07. Potential Hazardous Material Fm.issions 

Persons responsible for manufacturing process source 
operations from which hazardous particulate material may 
be ep-iitted such as but not limited to lead, arsenic, 
beryllium, and other such materials shall give the utmost 



337 



PROPOSED P.EGUL^.TION 

care and consideration to the potential harmful effects of 
the emissions resulting from such activities. Evaluations 
of these facilities as to adequacy, efficiencv and emission 
Dotential vill be made on an individual hasis by the Commis- 
sion working in conjunction vith other aupropriate govern- 
mental agencies. 

Section U. Control of Fugitive Dust . 

4.01. No person shall cause, suffer, allov; or permit any 
manufacturing process to ooerate that is not equipped with 
a fugitive dust control system. This system, shall be 
operated and maintained in such a manner as to minimize the 
emission of fugitive dust. 

4.02. The owner or operator of a Dlant shall maintain dust 
control of the plant promises and plant owned, leased, or 
controlled access roads by naving, oil treatment, or other 
suitable m.easures. Good ©Derating practices shall be observed 
in relation to stockpiling and general maintenance to prevent 
dust generation and atmoscheric entrainm.ent . 

Section 5. Registration 

5.01. V/ithin thirty (30) days after the effective date of 
this Regulation all persons owning and/or operating existing 
manufacturing process source operations shall have registered 
such source operations with the Commission. The information 
required for registration shall be determined by the Director, 
and shall be provided in the m.anner specified by the Director. 



338 



PROPOSED REGULATION 

5.02. The ov/ner and/or operator of ranuf acturing process 
source operations that are under construction or on which 
construction is initiated within thirty (30) days after 
the effective date of this Peculation shall register such 
process sources within this thirty (30) day oeriod. 

5.03. After the owner and/or o-oerator shall register 

new process source operations with the Director at least 
thirty (30) days prior to construction. 

5.04. Persons owning and/or operating registered manufacturing 
process source operations w'^^ich are to be modified by changes 
which could significantly affect the emission characteristics 
of the source operations shall register with the Dit^ector 
those proposed changes not less than thirty (30) davs before 
such changes are made. 

Section 6. Reports and Testing. 

6.01. At such reasonable times as the Director may designate, 
the operator of any manufacturing process source operation 
may be required to conduct or have conducted stack tests to 
determine tlie dust loading in exhaust rases when the Director 
has reason to believe that the stack emission limitation(s) 
is/are being violated. Such tests shall bo conducted in 
such manner as the Director may specify and be filed on 
forms and in a m.anner acceptable to the Director. The 
Director, or his duly authorized representative, may at his 
option witness or conduct such stack tests. Should tne 
Director exercise his option to conduct such tests, the 



339 



PROPOSED REGULATION 

operator vrill provide all the necessary samDlin.f; connect:.ons 
and sarrpling ports to be located in such manner as the Direc- 
tor may require, power fer test equipment, and the required 
safety equipment such as scaffolding, railings, and ladders 
to ci^mply v.'ith generally accepted pood safety practices. 
6.02. The Director, or his duly authorized representative, may 
conduct such other tests as he m.ay deem, necessary to evaluate 
air pollution emissions other than those noted in Sections 2 
and 3. 

Section 7. Variance . 

7.01. In the event that process equipm.ent or operations in 
existence prior to the adoption of this Regulation do r.ot 
meet the em.ission limitations, an acceptable program shall 
bo developed and offered to the Conm.ission by the person 
responsible for the installation. This pro.eram shall be 
submitted upon the request of and within such tim.e as shall 
be fixed by the Conm.ission. Once this program has been 
approved by the Commission, the ovner, and/or operator of 
such installation shall not be in violation of this Rcrulation 
so long as the approved or am.ended program is observed. 

7.02. Due to unavoidable malfunction of equipment, emissions 
exceeding those pi-'ovided for in this Regulation m.ay be per- 
mitted by the Commission for periods not to exceed in days 
..^-« ^^^^^r-^ 3pi^i -1* r^p^-^ ri-n to thr PnT^m i q R T on . Fuch aP'.'l3Ca- 
tion shall be made within 2U hours of the malfunction. Tn 



340 



PROPOSFD REGUI^.TION 

cases of major equinment failure, additional time periods may 
be granted by the Commission provided a corrective program 
has been submitted by the owner or operator and aonroved by 
the Comm.ission. 

Section 8. Exemptions . 

8.01. Provisions of this Regulation shall not apply to parti- 
culate emissions regulated by Regulations II, III, V, and 'VI, ' 
or to internal combustion engines, aircraft, and air entrained 
particulate matter from public or private carriers. 

Section 9. Fffoctive Date 

Regulation VII shall become effective . 



341 

Senator Eagleton. Senator Randolph's third question : 

You are a member of the Manpower Development Advisory Com- 
mittee of the National Air Pollution Control Administration. 

You have stated that there is a need for specialists at all levels, tech- 
nicians, professional, and research expert. 

You have also stated that all manpower studies to date underestimate 
this need. 

Please supply the committee with an evaluation of the specific man- 
power needs to implement the air quality programs at a Federal, State, 
and local level. 

Mr. LiNSKY. I will do my best. It will be to some extent a para- 
phrase of a manjwwer study which is being completed by the Federal 
Government. 

I will supply additional information as it has come to me. 

Senator Eaoleton. I will add onto that question, if it is possible, 
tliat we should be supplied with not only what the manpower needs or 
shortages are, but also any recommendations you might have as to how 
those needs or shortages could be corrected. 

Mr. LixsKY. Right. 

Senator Eagleton. Finally, and this is in the nature of policy and 
I won't try to pin you down to any one particular cause or any one 
particular bill, but generally what value, if any, do you see in having 
public participation in this pollution process, whether it be establish- 
ing standards, setting hearings, limitation plan hearings, criteria? 

Do you view with dismay or with encouragement the participation of 
the public at these various levels of decision ? 

Mr. LiNSKY. I guess I can sum it up by saying thank God, at last. 

Senator Eagleton. Would you please make it abundantly clear for 
the printed record. 

(The information subsequently furnished follows:) 

Manpowe^k Questions Answered 

At present, it is estimated that about 20,000 man-years are being employed in 
major industries with air pollution troubles. 

Federal, state and local positions for control agencies are estimated to be 
about 4.000 at present. 

This 5 to 1 ratio is about the ratio one would expect to be continued when the 
public agencies double or triple their staffs to 8,000, 10.000. or 12,000. The indus- 
try manpower, directly employed and also those working for consultants will 
probably increa.se to 40,000, .50,000, or 60,000 man years to do the actual control 
and corrective work that is reviewed and spurred by the control agencies. 

On-the-job or after-hours training of people hired for such work will fill some 
unknown percentage of these needs— perhaps 30% overall. These people as well 
as their "trainers" and the rest of the people who are needed will be educated 
and trained before they start on their specialty jobs. 

Technicians can be trained in two (2) year community colleges and in com- 
mercial trade schools, such as those who turn out many electronics technicians. 

Others will need special courses during their regular four (4) year college 
courses with summer school special courses to accelerate the manpower supply 
work. 

Still others, including the true practicing professionals, the teachers and pro- 
fessors, and the research si)ecialists who will help uncover new knowledge to do 
more, easier, must receive graduate training with financial support. 

The present system of direct Federal support training can be enlarged. In 
addition, a "pool" of trained manpower can be arranged for, as it has been in the 
past for air pollution control and other program.s. The Federal government can 
take the initiative of directly employing newly trained people and placing them 
with public control agencies until the State or local agency can work out its 



342 |l 

personnel procedures, especially the merit civil service procedures that are estab- 
lished, properly, to assure that only fully qualified persons are employed in career 
specialist positions. 

Mr. LiNSKY. For the printed record, I fully support the heaviest 
participation and, therefore, learnintr and knowledge by nonprofes- 
sionals in the decision-setting process lor air pollution control. 

Senator Eagleton. And would that include even participation of the 
public in .the enforcement mechanism ? 

Mr. LiNSKY. Yes: and let me elaborate, if I may. The public has 
always participated in the enforcement, both at official and at unofficial 
needle levels. 

I will illustrate that by saying there tend to be three reasons why 
you don't get a complaint in an official control agency. 

One is that everything is fine, there is no need for a complaint. 

Second, a feeling of helplessness, "Wliy fight city hall ? Why tell 
him ? There will be nothing done anyway." 

And the third, "There is no need to tell him. He is doing extremely 
well and I can help him by applying some direct pressure and grape- 
vine support." 

The citizen activity was illustrated in Los Angeles when they passed 
their ban on open burning in backyard incinerators at homes. This 
was in 1957. The agency had planned and had thought and had hired 
a lot of inspectors and supervisors to do that extra policing. 

In the view of some of us professionals, they were not going to need 
these people. In fact, they would be able to reduce their existing staff 
because the citizens would i^olice each other in an informal, across- 
the-fence, needling basis. Once having put their own stake in the ^ame, 
as having stopped something by having their little backyard incinera- 
tor sitting out as a flower pot, they were now in a position to say, 
"How about Joe? Let's clean him up, too. How is he getting away 
with it?" 

They served as volunteer reporters and enforcers. 

Senator Eagleton. Thank you very much, Professor. 

The "Lynch Linsky" picture will be made part of the record. 

(The following photograph, taken by Joe Rosenthal, March 6, 1958, 
appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle:) 



343 




Senator Eagletox. That concludes this morning's hearings of the 
subcommittee. 

There will be hearings tomorrow on the same subject matter com- 
mencing at 9 :30 a.m. 

(Whereupon, at 11 :10 a.m. the subcommittee recessed, to reconvon.' 
at 9 :30 a.m., Thursday, Marcli 19, 1970.) 

[Appendix to Part 1 follows] 



APPENDIX— Part 1 

The materials which follow are answers supplied by the Depart- 
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare to questions supplied by 
the subcommittee through Chairman Muskie. (See p. 193 for 
reference.) 

AIR QUALITY CRITERIA 

Question 1. Since enactment of the Air Quality Act of 1967, air 
quality cnteria have been issued for particulate matter, sulfur oxides, 
hydrocarbons, photochemical oxidants, and carbon monoxide. What 
factors have contributed to the delay in issuing other air quality 
critena and what are the priorities and time schedules for issuance 
of additional criteria? 

Answer. The National Air Pollution Control Administration's 
schedule for the issuance of air quality criteria is based on a num- 
ber of factors, including the relative magnitude and extent of emis- 
sions of the various air pollutants, the availability of methods of 
measuring emissions and ambient air levels, and the adequacy of ex- 
isting scientific data on health and welfare effects. Thus, the air qual- 
ity criteria documents already issued cover five pollutants which ac- 
count for a major share of community air pollution problems and 
which have been the subjects of extensive research over a period of 
several years. The following schedule reflects current planning for 
the issuance of additional air quality criteria documents : 

Pollutants : Year 

Fluorides, lead, nitrogen oxides, and polynuelear organics 1971 

Asbestos, beryllium, chlorine gas, hydrogen chloride, and odors 1972 

Arsenic, cadmium, copper, manganese, nickel, vanadium, and zinc 1973 

Barium, boron, chromium, mercury, and selenium 1974 

Pesticides and radioactive substances 1975 

Air quality criteria for nitrogen oxides originally had been sched- 
uled for issuance in 1970 ; issuance was postponed for 1 year because 
of the need for additional data on the health effects of nitrogen oxides 
and on the quantitative relationship between nitrogen oxides and 
photocliemical oxidants in the ambient air. This postponement has 
been the only significant departure from earlier scheduling of the 
issuance of air quality criteria documents. 

Question 2. Please descrihe the m^ganization and membership of 
the ad- hoc committees which have participated in the develojmient of 
air quality criteria. 

Ansioer. There has been substantial participation in the develop- 
ment of air quality criteria by non-Government scientists as well as 
by Government scientists from agencies other than the National Air 
Pollution Control Administration. The National Air Quality Criteria 
Advisory Committee participates on a continuing basis in the devel- 
opment of air quality criteria documents. A great many non-Govern- 
ment experts who are not members of the Advisory Committee also 

(345) 



346 

participate as contributors to, and reviewers of, specific portions of 
criteria documents; ^-enerally, they participate as individual con- 
sultants rather than as members of committees. In addition, organi- 
zations such as the State of California Department of Public Health 
have been involved in air quality criteria development under contract 
with the National Air Pollution Control Admini.stration. A complete 
list of Advisory Committee members, Federal agency re])resentatives, 
and non-Government scientists who have participated in this work 
appears in eacli air quality criteria document. 

Question 3. Please indicate the annual expenditures on air quality 
arttena related research since enactment of the Clean Air Act of 
1963 in the following areas : 

Nitrogen dioxide. 
Nitrogen dioxide and ozone. 
Oxidants. 

Particulate matter. 
Carbon monoxide. 
Behavioral toxicology. 
Epidemiologic studie.s. 
Vegetation effects. 
Effects on materials. 
Socioeconomic effects. 
Otlier. 

Ansioer. The initial response to this question contained data for 
the National Air Pollution Control Administration's in-house and 
contract research on the effects of various types and combinations 
of air pollutants. The following tables provide corresponding infor- 
mation on NAPCA's research grants program. 

EXPENDITURES FOR AIR QUALITY CRITERIA RELATED RESEARCH NAPCA RESEARCH GRANTS 

Pollutants 
Type of research Particu- Other In com- 

lates SOx CO NOx Oxidants pollutants' binatlon Total 

Fiscal Year 1965 

Behavioral toxicology $51,775 $51,775 

Other toxicology $46,599 $19,141 _ 13,104 78,844 

Epidemiology 366,605 366,605 

Clinical 94,468 213,435 $30,556 $30,316 $22,304 257,219 648,298 

Vegetation 40,646 108,392 91,902 85,458 263,470 589,868 

Materials. 



Socioeconomic . .. 












118,017 . 






118,017 




















Total 


181,713 


340, 968 


30, 556 


122,218 


107,762 


1,070,190 . 






1,583,407 


Fiscal Year 1970 
Behavioral toxicology 




















Other toxicology 


75,787 








22, 558 








98, 345 


Epidemiology 








86,412 
168,861 . 

490, 023 


$27, 099 

40,392" 
31,019 


113,511 


Clinical 


1,831 


109, 300 
220,955 . 
i;555 . 


51,981 


261, 546 
86,319 


49,585 


593,519 


Vegetation... 


35,134 


922,408 


Materials 

Socioeconomic 




32, 574 



Total.. . 112,752 331,810 51,981 347,865 72,143 745,296 98,510 1,760,357 

FISCAL YEAR 1969 ~ 

Behavioral toxicology 8,706 ..... 384 9,090 

Other toxicology 70,219 . 37,154 36,913 144,286 

Epidemiology . . 77,055 77,055 

Clinical 92,122 102,906 39,069 374,569 176,434 785,100 

Vegetation 29,293 96,060 72,296 118,193 431,377 68,543 815,762 

Materials.. 11,719 . . 20,640 25,399 57,758 

Socioeconomic 92,169 92,169 

Total _ 200,340 210,685 39,069 446,865 155,347 834,972 93,942 1,981,220 



347 

EXPENDITURES FOR AIR QUALITY CRITERIA RELATED RESEARCH NAPCA RESEARCH GRANTS-Continued 



Type of research 


Particu- 
lates 


SOx 


CO 


NOx 


Oxidants 


Other 
pollutants I 


Pollutants 
in com- 
bination 


Total 


FISCAL YEAR 1968 
Behavioral toxicology 












$40,892 . 
12,500 

113,731 . 

117,055 . 

482, 567 
26, 160 
19, 509 




$40 892 


Other toxicology 


...$108,791 










$19,254 


140,545 


Epidemiology... 










113,731 


Clinical 


... 111,157 


$124,942 

101,226 

21,206 


$51,716 $312,081 
149,717 






716 951 


Vegetation.. 

Materials 


... 45,081 


$150, 846 
19, 339 


19, 509 
54,410 
17,906 


948, 946 
121,115 


Socioeconomic 








37,415 
















Total 


... 265,029 


247, 374 


51,716 


461, 798 


170,185 


812,414 


111,079 


2,119,595 


FISCAL YEAR 1967 
Behavioral toxicology 












60,481 . 

17,531 
239,295 . 
177,337 
479,706 . 

26, 160 

69,230 




60,481 


Other toxicology. 

Epidemiology 


... 58,154 










18. 664 


94, 349 
239, 295 


Clinical 


118,280 


203, 481 
147,744 . 
22,455 . 


6,052 


212,427 
108,961 




10,000 


727,577 


Vegetation 


... 36,158 


129, 904 
13, 928 


902, 473 


Materials 




10, 080 
16,275 


72,623 


Socioeconomic. .. , . 






85, 405 
















Total 


... 212,592 


373, 680 


6,052 


321,388 


143, 832 


1, 069, 740 


55,019 


2, 182, 303 


FISCAL YEAR 1966 
Behavioral toxicology. 












53,556 . 

8,560 . 

132, 000 . 

223,680 . 

305,504 . 

34,560 . 

25,689 . 




53, 556 


Other toxicology 


... 48,790 


24, 490 










81,840 


Epidemiology 










132, 000 


Clinical 


182, 884 


226, 346 
37,801 


45, 207 


29, 746 
95, 456 


18,834 
97,341 
14, 405 




726, 697 


Vegetation 

Materials 


... 31,329 




567, 431 






48, 965 


Socioeconomic 




37,560 








63, 249 
















Total 


... 263,003 


326, 197 


45, 207 


125, 202 


130, 580 


783,549 . 




1,673,738 









1 Expenditures for projects wfhich involved studies of the effects of more than 1 pollutant but not their combined effects 
are included under other pollutants. 

Question 4- Please justify the reported $3 million reduction for fiscal 
1971 in research on health and economic effects of air pollution. 

Answer. No such reduction is contemplated. The following figures 
show amounts budgeted for these activities in fiscal 1970 and 1971: 





1970 


1971 


Division of Health Effects Research 


$3,977,000 


3,977,000 


Division of Economic Effects Research 


2,082,000 


2, 085, 000 









Question 5. What specific steps have been taken by the National Air 
Pollution Control Administixition to coordinate health effects re- 
search loith the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences? 

Answer. The National Air Pollution Control Administration 
(XAPCA) has maintained active liaison with the National Institute 
of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) ever since the latter 
organization was created. NAPCA and NIEHS annually exchange 
project-planning information in order to eliminate duplication of 
effort. All air quality criteria documents and NAPCA research posi- 
tion papers are sent to NIEHS for review. NAPCA*s Office of Re- 
search Grants maintains contact with NIEHS relative to the review 
of research grant applications. In June 1969, when NIEHS held a 
planning conference in Corvallis, Oreg., NAPCA was represented by 

43-166 O — TO-^t. 1 23 



348 

the Directxn- of Biirenn of Criteria and Standards and the Director 
of the Division of Health Effects Research. NAPCA is reg^ilarly rep- 
resented by the Director of the Bureau of Criteria and Standards at 
meetings of the Environmental Health Sciences Advisory Commit- 
tee, the primary advisory group for NIEHS. In December 1969, 
NAPCA and NIEHS held a joint information exchange meeting m 
order to reinforce coordination of research of mutual interest to the 
two organizations. In addition, NAPCA has submitted to NIEHS a 
list of projects concerning the health effects of air pollution which 
NAPCA is unable to initiate at this time but which would be appro- 
priate to the mission of NIEHS. Finally, on the working level, there 
is continuing informal coordination between NAPCA and NIEHS 
scientists concerning research of mutual interests. 

Question 6. What research hm been initiated to obtain information 
on the long-term effects of contaminants and combinations of con- 
taminants? 

Answer. NAPCA's health effects research program includes many 
projects designed to identify the effects of long-term exposure to low 
levels of air pollutants and combinations of pollutants. These projects 
include both laboratory and field studies. 

The following is a list of current field studies ; it should be noted 
that field studies generally reflect the effects of combinations of pol- 
lutants, because, even though one pollutant may predominate m the 
study area, others will be present. 

1. The relationship between nitrogen oxides and acute and chronic 

respiratory disease. 

2. The presence of polychlorinated biphenyl compounds m human 

plasma and ambient air in two cities. 

3. The relationship between air pollution in the area of residence 
of persons in Chicago and chronic respiratory disease. 

4. The relationship between trace metals in hair, blood, and urme 
among military recmits categorized by air pollution levels at residence 
prior to recruitment. 

5. Health effects of exposure to lead, arsenic, and cadmium. 

6. Blood pressure, cholesterol, and cadmium relationships in fami- 
lies highly exposed to cadmium. 

7. Lead and mercury threshold studies for hematological effects. 

8. Trace metal patterns and polychlorinated bi])henyl residues m 
hair, blood, urine, bone, and soft tissue, as related to chronic obstruc- 
tive lung disease, lung cancer, stroke, and myocardial infarction. 

9. Lead exposure study in seven cities to determine if there has been 
an increase in the body burden of lead since the three-city study was 
completed in 1962. 

10. Trace metals in the sputum in patients with chronic respiratory 

disease. 

11. The relationship between occupation and residence histories of 
lung cancer decedents to determine if a relationship exists with air 
pollution. 

12. Health effects surveillance studies. 

Laboratory studies include a study of tlie effects of chronic exposure 
to raw or irradiated automobile exhaust, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, 
or combinations of these materials: relationship of nitrogen oxides to 



349 

occurrence of emphysema in primates ; effect of long-term exposure to 
sulfur dioxide and particulate matter in varying concentrations on 
aninijil pulmonary function : the inununological and biochemical char- 
acterization of lung surfactant with regard to chronic respiratory 
disease and air pollution; and a review of research data relating 
chronic, low-level carbon monoxide exix)sure to altered cellular metab- 
olism and resultant decrements in human physical and behavioral 
performance. 

Question 7. What research is NAPCA conducting or supporting on 
carcinogenic and mutagenic e/ffecfs of contaminants and comh'nmtlons 
of contaminants? 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Answer. — It would appear from epidemiological data that there is 
a strong possibility that air pollutants are contributing to the inci- 
dence of cancer, notably of the bronchial-pulmonary variety. 

The preponderance of lung cancer in urban, as compared to rural, 
areas is well documented; furthermore, it is equally well known that a 
number of specific carcinogens and many substances capable of enhanc- 
ing carcinogenic effects are present in urban air at many times their 
concentrations in rural air. 

Accordingly, it is appropriate that biological research be conducted, 
as part of NAPCA's air quality criteria development program, to 
determine the role that air pollutants may be playing in the occurrence 
of cancer of the lung and related anatomical regions. The task of 
determining the contributions of air pollutants as direct inducers, 
co-factors, or passive carriers requires studes of quantitative inhala- 
tion models in whole animals and other biological systems. Some 
of the possibilities by which air pollutants might induce cancer are 
listed below. 

1. Specific carcinogenic effect of ])olycyclic hydrocarbons. 

2. Cocarcinogenic effect of irritant <rases, such as sulfur dioxide, 
ozone, et cetera, in conjunction with polycyclic hydrocarbons or other 
carcinogens. 

3. Enhancing effect of particulate material, such as fly ash, on which 
carcinoa:ens from the air or other sources might be absorbed. Such 
particulate material consists of carbon, silica, iron. etc. 

4. Specific biolosfical effects on anticarcinogenic induced enzyme 
systems produced through organo complexes from trace metals; e.g., 
effect of nickel on benzopvrene hydroxylase. 

5. Specific additive effect of a given carcinogen from the air super- 
imposed on similar carcinogen from industrial or personal source; e.g.. 
RAP (benz-a-pyrene) from cigarette smoke and BAP from air. 

6. Specific carcinogen from air reacting Avith carrier from other 
source; e.g., BAP from community air pollution reacting with asbestos 
from an industrial source. 

7. Interaction of carcinogenic air pollutants with tumor-inducing 

viruses. 

II. CFRREXT STATT'S OF RESEARCH 

.1. General 

Considerable information is already on hand from the work of 
Sawicki and others on the chemistry of hydrocarbon carcinogens con- 



350 

tained in polluted air and Hueper and others on biological evaluation 
of hydrocarbons through skin painting and percutaneous application 
to adult mice with whole organic extract and various subfractions. 
Epstein's work with paramecia, supported by NAPCA, has shown 
that presumptively carcinogenic activity resides in a number of speci- 
fic fractions of air extract and that crude organic fractions from vari- 
ous cities differ markedly in effect. It is of interest that where mate- 
rial from the same cities Avas used, Epstein, through subcutaneous in- 
jection of newborn mice, and Hueper et al. through percutaneous and 
subcutaneous inoculation of adult mice, obtained comparable quan- 
titative results. Studies currently are being conducted to evaluate the 
related potency of various hydrocarbon subfractions in neonatal mice. 

The influence of particulate matter in conjunction with hydrocar- 
bon carcinogens, as demonstrated by Pylev for a combination of car- 
bon. DMBA (dimethylbenzanthracene), and BAP, and by Saffiotti 
et al. for a combination of hematite and BAP, has been of great in- 
terest. The latter has been an extremely successful model and would 
appear to hold the greatest promise of any developed so far for 
adaptability to an inhalation system. 

The enhancing effect of irritant gases recently has been demon- 
strated by the work of Laskin et al. with respect to sulfur dioxide and 
BAP inhalation. 

Preliminary work reported by Dixon et al. suggests that trace metals 
alter the activity of benzopyrene hydroxylase enzyme, and Gross has 
shown that nickel apparently potentiates the activity of asbestos in 
eliciting lung tumors in animals. Also, retrospective epidemiologic 
data stronffly support the view that an interaction occurs between fib- 
ers and tobacco smoke, with smokers having 82 times the risk of non- 
smokers. 

Currently, NAPCA scientists are carrying on research in which 
massive amounts of benzene soluble extracts of particulate matter 
are being accumulated for direct operations in biologic carcinoge- 
nicity studies. This material is now being incorporated with partic- 
ulate material of the proper size for airway deposition of aerosols 
in inhalation studies. Direct tracheal instillation of this and other 
particulate material, in the manner of SafRotti and Shubik, will com- 
mence shortly for the purpose of obtaining detailed background in- 
formation before inhalation work is attempted. This material also 
will be tested in conjunction with BAP and certain other pure chem- 
ical material likely to be biologically active in this system, that is, 
trace metals. Studies will be carried out on such matters as toxicity 
to the macrophage, alteration of lysozomal enzyme activity, elicita- 
tion of hyperplasia, metaplasia, or malignant transformation in in 
vitro systems. 

In preliminary work in intact animals, particulate material con- 
taining hydrocarbon carcinogens will be intratracheally instilled into 
hamsters and inoculated into other a])propriate biological systems. 
The animals will be examined for evidence of precancerous changes 
as well as for eventual development of definitive tumors. 

In the meantime, work will be underway on the physical aspects 
of aerosol production and characterization and on basic animal ex- 
l)osure for the purpose of studying deposition, clearance, and so forth 



351 

before exposure of animals to carcinogenic agents by ventilation is 
begun. 

After preliminary work is completed, aerosol exposure to actual 
carcinogens will commence. 

B. Specific research 
1. Contracts 

{a) A contract (CPA 22-69-21) was let last year and is continuing 
this year to provide realistic material for biological testing in the 
direct operations portion of this program. This consists of the fol- 
lowing phases: 

Phase 1. Procurement of massive amounts of airborne particulate 
matter and extraction of the crude organic or benzene soluble por- 
tions. 

Phase 2. Preparation of particles incorporating hematice, nickel, 
or other metallic substances with {a) crude organic extract in suit- 
able form for eventual aerosolization or other use in animals, and 
( h ) benzopyrene. 

Phase 3. Fractitionation and subfractionation of another portion of 
the crude organic extract for specific biologic carcinogenicity test- 
ing. 

The first phase of this contract is now completed, and the con- 
tractor is ready to supply material. Exploratory work is underway 
on the second phase, and materials will be ready shortly. Phase 3 
will be started soon and should be finished during the current fis- 
cal vear. 

(h) Now underway, under a XAPCA contract (PH 86-66-169). is 
a project to determine the carcinogenicity and mutagenicity of specific 
fractions of crude organic extract derived from airborne particular 
matter. Specific fractions will be tested for carcinogenicity; subcutan- 
eous injection of newborn mice will be used as the experimental system. 
Specific fractions will be injected into pregnant niice to determine 
mutagenicity by observing the occurrence of dominant lethal genes. 
Examination for evidence of mutations in mold culture will also be 
undertaken. 

3. Direct operations 
The work will consist of two phases which will proceed simultane- 
ously : Program of tumorigenesis in animals and program to detect the 
influence of various air pollutants on lung defensive systems against 
carcinogens. 

Phase 1. Cancer induction phase 

This work will begin with a study of the Saffiotti and Shubik model 
for the production of lung cancer in hamsters through the use of var- 
ious combinations of pure chemical and pollutant material collected 
from the air. The objectives of this study are : 

(a) Determine if BAP may be replaced by materials collected 
from the air. 

(b) Determine if hematite may be replaced by airborne par- 
ticulate matter. 

(c) Determine if the model can be enhanced by airborne cof ac- 
tors, that is, nickel. 

id) Determine if airborne oraanic material may be additive to 
BAP. 



352 

This work will require repeated intertracheal instillation of carcino- 
genic and additive material into a large number of hamsters. It will 
form the basis for inhalation work, which will follow. 

Animals that have received carcinogens and respective controls will 
be sacrificed at various times for study of pathologj^, macrophage func- 
tion, RNA, DNA turnover, and so forth. The remaining animals will 
be reserved and held for approximately 1 year, at which time they will 
be sacrificed and subjected to detailed search for the presence of tumors 
and classification of the histologic type. 

Phase 2. Defensive Tnechanisms phase 

This w^ork will involve studies of the behavior of known carcinogens 
Avithin the lung and in vitro and the influence of various cofactors. In 
vivo and in vitro studies of alveolar macrophages will be carried out to 
assay their handling' of BAP by means of phagocytosis, transport, and 
detoxification. The mfluence of exposure to hematite, trace metals, air- 
borne particulate matter, and air pollutant gases on the ability of 
macrophages to handle BAP will be determined. The in vivo portion of 
this work will consist of exposure and study of hamsters. 

Search for alteration of number, phagocytic ability, lysosomal en- 
zyme activity, and so forth, of alveolar macrophages will be pursued 
by washout methods. The retention and movement of BAP, as influ- 
enced by hematite, nickel, and other cofactors, will be studied by radio- 
label BAP by means of pulmonary lavage, whole lung studies, and 
so forth. Efforts will be made to identify methods of studying how 
suppression of macrophage formation by colchicine or immune reac- 
tion affects the handling of hydrocarbon carcinogens. The influence of 
exposure of hamsters to pollutant gases will be studied through the 
use of the above system. In vitro studies employing surviving cultures 
of rabbit macrophages in giant roller tubes will be carried out. Induc- 
tion of benzopyrene hydroxylase and its alteration by various co- 
factors, notably nickel, will be studied: Exposure of the surviving 
tissue culture cells to various air pollutant gases to determine the 
influence of these factors on enzyme induction will also be carried out 
in roller tubes. 

3. C oUdboratire program 

The Ministry of the Interior, Federal Republic of Germany, has 
asked the T'nited States to collaborate in developing a German cancer 
research program under the auspices of the pending United States- 
German natural resources program. 

In addition, there is a cooperative Public Law 480 project (No. 05- 
301-3) with the State Institute of Hygiene, Department of Communal 
Hygiene, Poland, entitled "Estimation and efl^ects of carcinogenic ma- 
terial in airborne particulate matter collected in 10 selected cities in 
Poland.*" 



CONTROL TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

Question 1. What specific contracts and grants were awarded under 
section 104- for the following categories? 
Control of sulfur oxides pollution: 
Removal of sulfur from coal. 
Removal of sulfur from fuel oil. 
Removal of sulfur from flue gas. 
New process development. 
Control of nitrogen oxides pollution. 
Control of particulate pollution. 
('Ontrol of pollution, from, specific industries. 
Control of pollution from solid waste disposal. 
Control device improvement studies. 
Control of automotive emissions. 
Alternatives to tlie internal cornbustion engine. 
Answer. Attached is a list of contracts and interagency transfers 
under section lO-t through June 30, 1969. No grants were awarded 
under section 104 during this period. 

With regard to both this question and the next one, it should be 
noted that NAPCA is not supporting research and development relat- 
ing to removal of sulfur from fuel oil, since adequate technology for 
this purpose already exists. It should also be noted that research and 
development activities relating to control of air pollution from solid 
waste disposal are conducted primarily under the Solid Waste Disposal 
Act rather than under the Clean Air Act. 

NAPCA CONTRACTS UNDER SEC. 104 (THROUGH JUNE 30, 1969) 
I. CONTROL OF SULFUR OXIDE POLLUTION 

Name of firm Title of project Amount 

A. REMOVAL OF SULFUR PROM COAL 

Battelle Memorial I nstitute Fuel availability-cost model study J143, 280 

Bituminous Coal Research Evaluation of coal cleaning methods and techniques for re- 47,333 

moval of pyrific sulfur from fine size coal. 

General Technologies Corp Solvent-refined coal cost study 38,272 

University of Illinois Sampling and evaluation of coal mines in Illinois by the III!- 73,595 

nois Geological Survey. 
Interagency transfers: 

Bureau of Mines Removal of pyritefrom coal by tabling - 46,000 

Do Removal of pyritefrom coal in a Humphrey Spiral — .- 50,000 

Do - Occurrence and removal of pyritic sulfur from American coals. 125,000 

Do.. Availability of low-sulfur coals -- 340,000 

B. REMOVAL OF SULFUR FROM FUEL OIL 

(353) 



354 

NAPCA CONTRACTS UNDER SEC. 104 (THROUGH JUNE 30, 1969)— Continued 



Name of firm Title of project Amount 



$184,765 


231,000 


257, 900 
128,080 


891,145 


116,125 


147.121 


484, 248 


8,676 


81,519 


67,200 


23, 000 


58, 888 


69, 320 



C. REIVIOVAL OF SULFUR FROM FLUE GAS 

Aerojet-General Applicability of aqueous solutions for the development of new 

processes for removing sulfur dioxide from flue gases. 

Allied Chemical -. - Applicability of reduction to sulfur techniques to the develop- 
ment of new processes for removing sulfur dioxide from 
flue gases. 

Babcock & Wilcox - Aqueousslurry scrubbing of sulfur dioxide from flue gases — 

Battelle Memorial Institute. - . Study of reaction kinetics of limestone-dolomite with sulfur 

dioxide in a dispersed solid contactor. 

Bechtel Corp - Prototype study of limestone scrubbers for SO2 dust removal 

systems. 

Ford Motor Corp Applicability of inorganic solids other than oxides to the de- 

velopment of new processes for removing SO from flue 
gases. 

Mine safety Applicability of inorganic liquids to the development of new 

processes for removing sulfur dioxide from flue gases. 

North American Rockwell Corp Development of molten carbonate process for removal of 

sulfur dioxide from powerplant stack gases. 

Peabody Coal.. Moving grate furnace study of limestone for control of sulfur 

oxides. 

Radian Corp Theoretical description of the limestone injection-wet scrub- 
bing process for SO; removal. 

Research-Cottrell, Inc Particulates collection study-Tennessee Valley Authority dry 

limestone tests. 

Stone & Webster -- Development of the Stone & Webster ionics sulfur dioxide 

removal and recovery process. 

TRW Corp Applicability of organic solids to the development of new 

techniques for removing oxides of sulfur from flue gases. 

University of Illinois - Study of petrographic and mineralogical characteristics of 

carbonate rocks related to sulfur oxide sorption in flue 
gases. 

West Virginia University Experimental investigation of the penetration and dispersion 31,033 

phenomena in the limestone injection method. 

Interagency Transfers: . , ,. _, , ^ j ^u ■ mn nnn 

Tennessee Valley Authority Effect of physical properties of limestone, dolomite, and their 100,000 

derivatives on the kinetics of reaction with SO;. 

Do Unit full-scale evaluation-dry limestone injection process for 700,000 

SO" removal from powerplant stack gases. 

Do Conceptualdesign and cost study of sulfur oxide removal from 225,000 

powerplant stack gas. ,^„ „„„ 

Do --- Pilot plant study of ammonia scrubbing of powerplant stack 138,000 

gases. 

Bureau of Mines Evaluation of processes for removal of 80= from flue gas '"'5^9 

Do Regenerative kinetics of alkalized alumina 40,000 

Do._ - - Mechanisms and kinetics of alkalized alumina process for SO2 30,000 

removal. 

Do Study of sorption of SO2 from smelter gases by alkalized 100,000 

alumina. 

Do -. . Preparation of an improved catalyst for alkalized alumina 35,000 

Do Process development for sulfur dioxide removal from flue gas. 300, 000 

Do_ Evaluation of metal oxides as sorbents for SO2 in powerplant 40, 000 

flue gases. 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory Studies and causes of comminution of alkalized alumina 29,000 

D. NEW PROCESS DEVELOPMENT 

Aerojet General Systems evaluation of refuse as a low sulfur fuel ^'^c'Vm 

Chemical Construction High sulfur combuster study .. ----- 21°' °0J 

United Aircraft Technological and economic feasibility study of advanced 292, bb4 

power cycles and methods of producing nonpolluting duels. 

Interagency transfers: ,„ ... . ,,, „.. 

Argonne National Laboratories Reduction of atmospheric pollution by application of fluidized /!b/,uuu 

bed combustion. 
Office of Coal Research Pope, Evans, Characterization and control of air pollutants from an i ndus- 62,500 
Robbins. trial fluidized-bed combustion unit. 

E. OTHER 

General technology Infrared spectroscopic study of gas solid interactions -?|'nnc 

Walden Research Systematic study of air pollution from fossil-fuel combustion 241,906 

equipment. 

Interagency transfers: icn nnn 

Brooknaven National Laboratory Atmospheric sulfur pollutions on'nnn 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory Elevated plume study ^ o nnn 

Tennessee Valley Authority White pine ramets tor large power plants emissions study r,?,'nnn 

Tennessee Valley Authority Full-scale field study of inversion break-up at large power- 30,ouu 

plants. 



355 



NAPCA CONTRACTS UNDER SEC. 104 (THROUGH JUNE 30, 1969)-Conlinued 
II. CONTROL OF NITROGEN OXIDES POLLUTION 



Name of firm 




Title of project 


Amount 


Esso Research & Eneineerine . 




Systems study of nitrogen oxides control methods for station- 


$28, 584 






ary sources. 






III. 


CONTROL OF PARTICULATE POLLUTION 





Midwest Research Institute.. Particulate pollutant system study $249,500 

Southern Research Electrostatic precipitator systems study 289, 277 

Walter C. McCrone... Standard manual methods for particulate measurements for 203,000 

fossil-fuel combustion sources. 

IV. CONTROL OF POLLUTION FROM SPECIFIC INDUSTRIES 

Batelle Memorial Institute Systems analysis study of the integrated iron and steel $75,790 

industry. 
Chemical Construction Engineering analysis of emissions control technology for sul- 69,660 

furic acid manufacturing process. 
A. T. Kearney, Co .- System analysis of emissions and emissions control in the iron 264,356 

foundry industry. 

A. C. McKee. Systems analysis study of the smelting Industry. 12, 100 

Stanford Research I nstifute Pnotochemlcai reactivities of organic solvents 94, 760 

Stanford Research Institute... Feasibility study of new S0= control process applied to smelter 35,000 

and other low emission sources. 



V. CONTROL OF POLLUTION FROM SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL 
VI. CONTROL DEVICE IMPROVEMENT STUDIES 



BeIco Pollution Control Pulsed power supply for electrostatic precipitators $20, 255 

Interagency transfers: Atomic Energy Com- Technology to control air pollution from stationary sources 120,000 

mission: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 



VII. CONTROL OF AUTOMOTIVE EMISSIONS 



Automotive Research Association Engine deterioration and exhaust emissions ^^^'^l 

The Marquardt Co Continuous flow combustion systems study 96,683 

The Dow Chemical Co Effects of fuel additives on characteristics of emissions in 104,000 

auto exhaust. 

Esso Research and Engineering Co... Control of NOx in auto exhaust l°>]°^ 

General Research Corp.... Model study of characteristics of photochemical reaction in 56,485 

Los Angeles basin. 

International Telephone & Telegraph Re- Development of particulate emission control techniques for 96,058 

search Institute. spark ignition engines. u . .. u . j « nnn 

Illinois Institute of Technology Chemical species in diesel engine exhaust and exhaust odors. ^3, ouu 

Arthur D. Little, Inc Diesel odor composition and identification I'lln 

Olson Laboratories, Inc Emissions from 2-cycle IC engines .t'ola 

Consolidated Engineering Technology Corp... Substitute fuels (methanol) -- ,c'acc 

Scott Research Laboratories, Inc Passenger car refueling losses -- ,n'nnn 

Federal Aviation Administration. Visual appearance of jet aircraft smoke and test cell measure- ^U, uuu 

ments. . -^. 

Scott Research Laboratories, Inc Exhaust emissions from reciprocating aircraft powerplants.. °j'°5n 

Stanford Research Institute Catalytic control of exhaust emissions from Otto cycle engines. ;5'^*" 

Systems Development Corp 5-city survey - J.l'li, 

TRW, Inc Surveillance, inspection, maintenance procedures ^45, 5J4 

Interagency transfers: , , ■ » .■ c nnn 

Atomic Energy Commission AEC-NAPCA cooperative study of gas-aerosol interactions.... .J.OOO 

Bureau of Mines Characteristics of photochemical reactivity of vehicular emis- 165, uuo 

sions 

Do Composition, smoke, and odor of diesel combustion products. 160, 000 

Do Interactions between fuel composition and vehicle emissions. . 139, 000 

National A'eronautics and' S'pace A'dmin- Development of thermal reactors for control of hydrocarbon 300, 000 
istration, and carbon monoxide in motor vehicle exhaust. 

Do - Power information center support (2 years) , ?, nnn 

U.S. Army Tank Automotive Command.. Analysis of exhaust emissions from diesel cycle engines...... 11, uuu 

Do Technical feasibility of controlling motor vehicle emissions b7, UUU 

by use of the Ford stratified charge process. 



VIII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE 



Thermo-Electron Corp Conceptual design of Rankine cycle propulsion system ^Hi'iU, 

Atomic Energy Commission: Argonne Na- Status of high-energy battery developments au.uuu 

tlonal Laboratory. 



356 

NAPCA CONTRACTS UNDER SEC. 104 (THROUGH JUNE 30, 1969)-Continued 

IX. Other 

Name of firm Title of project Amount 

Battelle Memorial Institute Combustion research study $157,600 

Ernst & Ernst,- Analytic studies in air pollution control 71,510 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Research and development engineering services 105,370 

Research Triangle Institute Ozone chemiluminescent study 103, 278 

Thermo-Systems,.lnC-.. Development of a transducer for continuous measurement of 46,363 

aerosol mass concentration of air pollution aerosols using a 

quartz-crystal oscillator. 

TRW, I nc Systems analysis program 390, 200 

Walden Research Standard chemical methods for sampling and analysis of 198,330 

gaseous pollutants from the combustion of fossil fuels. 
Interagency Transfers: 

Atomic Energy Commission: Argonne Chicago air pollution system model... 150,000 

National Laboratory. 
Bureau of Mines Pollution by chlorine in coal, and flame characteristics causing 50,000 

air pollution. 

Question '2. How many contracts and grants have heen awarded since 
July ./, 1969, under section lOI^f For what purpose? In ivhat ainountsf 

Answer. Attached is a list of contracts, interagency transfers, and 
grants under section 104 since July 1, 1969. To show the purposes, the 
projects are classified under the same headings used in the preceding 
question. It should be emphasized that the list includes only contracts, 
grants, and interagency transfers actually awarded through May 7, 
1970. As of that date, many other contracts were in various stages 
of development; included among them were several relating to the 
development of alternatives to the internal combustion engine. 

NAPCA CONTRACTS AND INTERAGENCY TRANSFERS UNDER SECTION 104 (JULY 1, 1969, THROUGH MAY 7, 1970) 
Name of firm Title of project Amount 

I. CONTROL OF SULFUR OXIDE POLLUTION 

A. Removal of sulfer from coal: 

Bituminous Coal Research, Inc An evaluation of coal cleaning methods and techniques for $40,000 

removal of pyritic sulfur from fine size coal. 

Harvard University ._ Computer mapping of coal reserves by sulfer level 69, 858 

Interagency transfers: 

Bureau of Mines Availability of low(-sulfur fuels 400,000 

U.S. Air Force, Hanson Field, 

Mass A system engineering study of deep-cleaned coal 140,000 

Bureau of Mines Coal cleaning projects 485, 000 

B. Removal of sulfur from fuel oil: 

C. Removal of sulfur from flue gas: 

Radian Corp A study of the limestone injection v/et scrubbing process 141,415 

TRW, Inc.. Holographic determination of injected limestone distribution 84,500 

in unit of the Shawnee Powerplant. 

Tyco Laboratories, Inc Feasibility of oxidizing SO2 in pow/erplant flue gases to sulfuric 64,966 

acid. 
Interagency Transfers 

Tennessee Valley Authority Full scale evaluation of the dry limestone injection process... 840,000 

Do Pilot plant study of ammonia scrubbing of powerplant stack 350,000 

gases. 

Bureau of Mines Evaluation of metal oxides as sorbents for SO2 in powerplant 100,000 

flue gases. 

D. New process development: 

Pope, Evans & Robbins... Characterization and control of air pollutants from a fluidized- 245, 450 

bed combustion unit. 
Westinghouse Electric Corp Evaluation of the fluidized-bed combustion process 344,487 

Interagency Transfers 

Atomic Energy Commission Argonne 

National Laboratory Study of fluidized-bed combustion 33, 000 

Bureau of Mines Fluidized-bed combustion as a means of reducing air 205,000 

pollution. 

Office of Coal Research Characterization and control of air pollutants from a fluidized- 20,500 

bed combustion unit. 



357 

NAPCA CONTRACTS AND INTERAGENCY TRANSFERS UNDER SECTION 104 (JULY 1, 1969, THROUGH MAY 7, 1970)— 

Continued 



Name of firm Title of project Amount 

E. Other: 

Scientific Research I nstruments Sulfur behavior and sequestering of sulfur toinpounds during $164, 330 

coal carbonization, gasification, and combustion. 

General Technologies Corp... Infrared spectroscopic study of gas-solid interactions 36,000 

Interagency transfers: 

Environmental Science Services Meteorological support to the large power plant effluent study 200,000 
Administration. at Indiana, Pa. 

Tennessee Valley Authority Conceptual design and economic evaluation studies of SO2 225,000 

control processes. 

Do Full scale field study of inversion breakup at large powrer plants. 40, 000 

II. CONTROL OF NITROGEN OXIDE 
POLLUTION 

Esso Research and Engineering Co Systems study of nitrogen oxides control methods for sta- 53,534 

tionary sources. 
III. CONTROL OF PARTICULATE 
POLLUTION 

Thermo-Systems, Inc Continuous particulate monitors for fossil fuel combustion 194,500 

sources. 

IV. CONTROL OF POLLUTION FROM 

SPECIFIC INDUSTRIES 

A. T. Kearney & Co Systems analysis of emissions and emissions control in the 5,000 

iron foundry industry. 

Stanford Research Institute Feasibility study of new SO2 control process applied to smelter 2,408 

and other low emission sources. 

V. CONTROL OF POLLUTION FROM 

SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL 

VI. CONTROL DEVICE, TECHNIQUE EVAL- 
UATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT STUDIES 

VII. CONTROL OF AUTOMOTIVE 
EMISSIONS 

Optimizer Control Corp Optimizer ignition control system 23,000 

North American Rockwell Corp... Development of particulate emission control techniques for 31,355 

spark-ignition engines. 

Southwest Research Institute Investigation of diesel powered vehicle odor and smoke 104, 024 

Battelie Memorial Institute A laboratory study of the influence of fuel atomization, 79,000 

vaporization, and mixing processes in pollutant emissions 
from motor vehicle powerpiants. 

Charles G. Roberts & Son Evaluation of Charles G. Roberts emissions control system... 14,677 

Olson Laboratories, Inc Study of emissions from 2-cycle internal combustion engine.. 961 

Automotive Research Assoc. Inc Study of relationship of engine deterioration to exhaust 9,791 

emissions. 

Systems Development Corp Conduct a survey of driving patterns in 5 cities relative to 36,480 

auto air pollution. 
Interagency transfers: 

Commerce Technical Advisory Board Panel on automotive fuels and air pollution— Costs of elim- 13,400 

inating lead from gasoline. 
U.S. Army Tank Automotive Command.. Exhaust emission evaluation of a Ford combustion process 50,000 

engine. 

Atomic Energy Commission Argonne The fate of CO in the atmosphere 40,000 

National Laboratory. 

Bureau of Mines Products of combustion of distillate fuels for motive power... 185,000 

Bureau of Mines Interaction between fuel compositions and engine factors 145,000 

influencing exhaust emissions. 
Federal Aviation Administration Reduction of nitrogren oxides emissions from aircraft 50,000 

VIII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE INTERNAL 
COMBUSTION ENGINE 

Interagency transfers: Atomic Energy Com- Status of high energy battery developments 50,000 

mission Argonne Nat'l Laboratory. 

IX. OTHER 

Travelers Research Corp A study of indoor-outdoor air pollutant relationships 12,063 

Scott Research Laboratories, Inc Atmospheric reaction studies in the Los Angeles Basin....... H'^ll, 

Research Triangle Institute Chemi uminescent ozone meter for continuous air monitoring 23,640 

project. 

Barringer Research Ltd : Test program of optical measurements of SO2 and NO2 ,•;;« 

Louisiana State University.. _. A specific method for the determination of ozone in the atmos- 1,430 

phere. 
California Department of Health... Performance evaluation procedures for continuous atmos- 
pheric analyzer - 60, Oil 

Copley International Corp Studies to assess the social and economic impact of odors, 

national survey of the odor problem 9. 567 

Southwest Research Institute . . Development and implementation of an operational system tor 

evaluating and collaboratively testing methods recom- 
mended for air pollution measurements 241, 900 



358 

NAPCA CONTRACTS AND INTERAGENCY TRANSFERS UNDER SECTION 104 (JULY 1, 1969, THROUGH MAY 7, 1970)- 

Continued 

Name of firm Title of project Amount 



Ernst & Ernst Analytic studies in air pollution $31,425, 

Interagency transfers: . , . , . , , 

Characteristics and photochemical reactivity of fuel compo- 

Bureau of IVIines -- nents and combustion products 180,000 

Study of the feasibility of the use of permeation tubes for gas 

National Bureau of Standards.. analyses standards 12,000 

Environmental Science Services Admin- 

jstration Spectroscopic characteristics of pollution gases 60,000 

Development of bioassay methods to measure effects of air 

Agricultural Research Service. pollution on vegetation ^^P'^^^ 

Forest Service Air pollution effects on forest trees of the eastern United States. 25, 000 



'NAPCA survey and demonstration grants under section 104, J'^^^V i> 1969 through 

May 8, 1970 

I. Control of sulfur oxide polluton : 

A. Removal of sulfur from coal : 

New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology $40, 966 

"Extent and availability of low-sulfur coal." 

Utah geological and mining survey 88,500 

"Extent and availability of low-sulfur coal." 

Questions. A 5-year {ff^call 968-72) research and development pro- 
grain tvas developed hy the Stanford, Research Institute for NAPCA. 
What were: (a) the recommended total and annual expenditures for 
this program; (h) the actual and estimated expenditures; and (c) 
the expenditures recommended hy the National Academy of Sciences? 

Answer. The 5-year plan cited in the question is for research and 
development relating to the prevention and control of sulfur oxides 
pollution from stationary sources. It was developed by the Stanford 
Research Institute under a contract with the National Air Pollution 
Control Administration and was completed in April 1968. The contrac- 
tor did not make any recommendations as to expenditures ; rather, the 
purpose of the contract was to assemble all available information on 
Federal agencies' plans for research and development relating directly 
and indirectly to the prevention and control of sulfur oxides pollu- 
tion. In addition to the National Air Pollution Control Administra- 
tion, the agencies included in the contractor's survey were the Bureau 
of Mines and Office of Coal Research of the Department of the In- 
terior, Tennessee Valley Authority, Federal Power Commission, and 
Environmental Science Services Administration of the Department 
of Commerce. 

The projected total of expenditures by Federal agencies during 
fiscal 1968-72 was $392,544,000. Annual totals were as follows : 

Fiscal year : Amount 

1968 $26, 587, 000 

1969 88, 293, 000 

1970 100, 466, 000 

1971 93, 634, 000 

1972 83, 564, 000 



359 

Estimated Federal expenditures are as follows : 

Fiscal year : Amount 

1968 $24, 050, 000 

1969 26, 100,000 

1970 32, 000, 000 

1971 C) 

1972 (') 

^ Not available. 

The National Academy of Sciences (National Academy of Engi- 
neering) did not recommend a level of expenditures. 



AUTOMOTIVE EMISSION CONTROL 

QueHtion 1. What has been the level of funding for motor vehicle pol- 
lutioii control resedirh (Did flerelopmeiif and vduit are the estimated 
expe)uliture>^ for -fiscal yearn 1971 to 1973 i* 

Answer. The following- table shows actual obligations in fiscal 1968 
and 1969 and estimated oblig-ations for fiscal 197()-78. The fijrnre 
for fiscal 1970 is based on actnal appi-o])riations, while that fo7' fiscal 
1971 is based on the bnd^et estimate to tlie Congress. Estimates for fis- 
cal 1972 and 1973 are derived from lonjr-ranoe plannino; allocations (as 
explained in response from lono-range planning allocations (as ex- 
plained in response to question 2 on governmental expenditures). 

Fiscal year: Amount 

1!M!8 .$l.nO0, 000 

l!)l») 3, 4!I0, (too 

1!>70 7, 021, 000 

1971 13, Hm, 000 

11>72 20, .",00, 000 

11>73 26, 400, 000 

The above figures include estimated obligations not only for research 
and development but also for the clean car incentive program (de- 
scribed in response to next question) . 

Quest/on '2. What Hpecvfic program efforts are being made to develop 
alternatives to the intenud combustion engine^' 

Answer. The National Air Pollution Control Administration has 
developed a 6-year plan for Federal research and development relat- 
ing to the prevention and control of motor vehicle pollution. A brief 
description of the plan is attached. The following table shows esti- 
mated fiscal 1970-71 funding of the National Air Pollution Control 
Administration's activities i-ehiting to the development of alternatives 
to the internal combustion engine. Estimated funding of the clean car 
incentive program also is shown in the table; a description of this 
program is attached. 

Fiscal years 

1970 1971 

I. Research and development; 

A. Rankine cycle engines: 

1. First-generation prototype organic fluid reciprocating powerplant: 

Phases II and III $420,000 $800,000 

2. Rankine water-based reciprocating powerplant 800, 000 

3. Rankine organic turbine 800, 000 

4. Other, including supporting components research (Includes syn- 

thesis of alternative working fluids)_ . ^ 800, 000 200, 000 

B. Hybrid power systems: 

1. Heat engine/flywhee 160,000 500,000 

2. Heat engine/battery . .. 225,000 800,000 

C. Turbine power systems (emissions and materials development research). 185, 000 700, 000 

D. Supporting combustion studies.. 359,000 600,000 

E. Electrical power systems (high-temperature alkali metal batteries) 250, 000 600, 000 

F. Program direction and program planning studies 101,000 200,000 

Total research and development 2,500,000 6,000,000 

II. Clean-car incentive program 250,000 4,800,000 

Total 2,750,000 10,800,000 

(360) 



361 

Kationai> Air Pollution Control Adminkstratiox Motor 
Vehicle Research and Development Plan* 

The National Air Pollution Control Administration (NAPCA) has 
developed, a 6-year plan (fiscal 1970-75) for Federal reseaich and 
development relating to the prevention and control of motor vehicle 
pollution. Included in the plan are the current and i)rojected future 
motoi- vehicle research and development activities of XAPC^V and 
several other Federal agencies, includinjr the Department of Trans- 
portation, Defense, and the Interior, the General Services Administra- 
tion, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the 
Atomic Energy Commission. 

Totally, Federal expenditures of $89.1 million aie contemplated; 
of this sum, at least $7.8 million would be in funding by agencies other 
than NAPCA. 

Expenditures by agencies other than NAPCA actually may be 
greater than $7.8 million, since the plan, in its curi-ent form, reflects 
the Department of Transportation's projected activities only through 
fiscal 1970; information on future activities has not been made avail- 
able to NAPCA. 

There are three majoi- elements to the plan : Research and develop- 
ment relating to contiol of emissions from conventional motor vehi- 
cles; development of unconventional, low-pollution motor vehicles; 
and necessjiry supporting research. Following is a brief description of 
each element; figures in parentheses indicate projected Federal ex- 
penditures during the fiscal 1970-75 jjeriod : 

1. Conreiitional motor veMdeH {$25.5 milUon). — Research and de- 
velopment aimed at pioviding new and improved techniques for con- 
trolling emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, 
and particulate mattei- (including lead) fi'oni gasoline-fueled engines; 
and nitrogen oxides, smoke, and odors from diesel engines. AVork re- 
lating to abatement of aire la It emissions also is included. 

2. Uncoi}ve/ntio)iaJ motor vehicles ($4^5.4 million). — Efforts to de- 
velop commercially acceptable, low-emission alternatives to the inter- 
nal combustion engine. The major emphasis will be in the area of heat 
engines, particularly the Rankine-cycle (steam) engine, but also in- 
cluding the Brayton-cycle (gas turbine) and Stirling-cycle engine. 
Also included will l>e efforts to develop prototypes of electrical engines 
and to explore the potential of hybrid systems (combinations of two 
engine systems). 

3. Supporting renearch {$1S.2 million). — This encompasses research 
in areas that have a bearing on motor vehicle pollution and its preven- 
tion and control. Among them are atmospheiic chemistry, development 
of needed instrumentation and sami)ling techniques, transportation 
planning and urban design in relation to air quality, and fundamental 
combustion research. 

Clean Car Incentive Program 

The Department of Health, Pklucation, and Welfare has estimated 
that passenger care capable of meeting tlie following emission goals 

•This Is a plan developed by NAPCA ; it is being reviewed by the Council on Environ- 
mental Quality. 



362 

must be available by 1!)S() if the Nation is to make continued progress 
in abating the problem of motor vehicle pollution : 

Gratnx 
per mile 

Hydrocarbons 0. 25 

Carbon monoxide 4. 7 

NitrosPii <ixides 0. 4 

Particulate matter 0. 03 

If passenoei- cars propelled by internal combustion engines cannot 
meet these goals, alternati\e propulsion systems will have to be avail- 
able. Translating such new technology froui the design and prototype 
stages into practical application is likely to take some yeai'S. Accord- 
ingly, the necessary research and development must get underway 
innnediately. 

The Federal clean air incentive ]:>rogram is intended to stimulate 
private-sector efforts in this field. To the extent that motor vehicles 
developed through this program are pui'chased in quantity by govern- 
mental agencies, such procurement could be expected to stinnilate and 
lead to mass production. 

In addition to being capable of meeting the above exhaust emission 
goals, cars nuist also meet ijerfoi'mance, safety, durability, reliability, 
maintenance, and ser\icing specifications in order to be eligible for 
entry into the clean car program. 

The program is designed in three i)hases intended to pi'ovide grad- 
uated financial incentixes to piivate developers and to permit selection 
of those low-pollntion passenger cars most likely to be siiitable.for 
aeneral use: 

1. Prototype ])hase. The developer of a veliicle snbmits techni- 
cal data to the National Air Pollution Control Administration 
(NAIXW). NAPCW will evaluate the data and, if testing of the 
vehicle seems warranted, will mulertake such testing. 

•2. Demonstration })hase. NAI*CA will purchase 10 models of the 
vehicle for testing in \arions climates and under various operating 
conditions for at least (> months. 

;]. Fleet testing. Substantial numbers of the vehicle would l)e 
tested for 1 to 2 years nnder actual operating conditions. To be 
eligible for fleet testing, a \ehicle nuist be, in all resjiects, a pas- 
senger cai- suitable for the uses ordinarilv made of such cars. 



to 



'>^^ 



Question 3. What data is <i raihihle on com plUince a^ith aato ewhsion. 
stand (ti(h aftei' stdc by certified cehicJes^ Please provide tins data for 
the recoid. 

Answer. Data on the question of whether motor vehicles in the hands 
of the i)ublic meet the P^ederal standards that were api)licable to them 
at the time of their original sale have been develo))ed through the 
National Air Pollution Control Administration's studies of rental car 
fleets and the National Air Pollution Control Aduiinistration's sup- 
ported studies by the California Air Eesources Board. 

The first surveillance chita on cars subject to the Federal standards, 
from the California surveillance program, were re])orted in the sum- 
mer of IDGH. Since the cars were less than a year old, their .")(),( )()()- mile 
emission rates had to be extra jjolated from measurements of their low 
mileage rates. ( Department of Health, P^ducation, and Welfare regu- 
lations provide that the a\erage emissions of test \ehicles at 5(),()()() 
miles must be within the standards with normal maintenance.) The 
calculations showed that, on the average, the cars complied with the 



363 

Federal hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emission standards. A 
comparison of these data on 1968 vehicles with data on 1966-67 ve- 
hicles equipped to meet the same standards in California showed that 
the emission control performance of the 1968 vehicles was considerably 
improved over that of the 1966-67 vehicles. 

Subsequent reports from the California surveillance program indi- 
cated that, through the spring of 1969, average emissions from 1968 
vehicles, again extrapolated to 50,000 miles were slightly higher than 
the Federal standard for hydrocarbons and at or below the standard 
for carbon monoxide. By the winter of 1969, these surveillance data 
indicated that, on the average, hydrocarbon emissions of 1968 cars ex- 
trapolated to 50,000 miles were running about 20-percent above the 
standard, and carbon monoxide emissions were about 8 percent above 
the standard. Reports received in 1970 show hydrocarbon emissions 
exceeding the standard by 25 percent and carbon monoxide by about 
10 percent, again extrapolated to 50,000 miles. 

The results of the California surveillance program have been pub- 
lished regularly in the California Air Resources Board Bulletin, and 
a status report was published in the Journal of the Air Pollution Con- 
trol Association in April 1969. The published data confimis the state- 
ment made in the JAPCA report that "emsision tests on thousands of 
vehicles with exhaust controls in public use indicate that both emission 
levels and deterioration are higher than on the proving ground." 

The rental car study was initiated by the National Air Pollution 
Control Administration in the spring of 1968 with two rental car com- 
panies in Los Angeles and two companies in Detroit agreeing to pe- 
riodically furnish 1968 and 1969 model cars for testing. This study 
was scheduled to run from March 1968 through November 1969. A 
tabulation of the data collected from March 1968 through April 1969 
w^as completed in August 1969. Based upon the incomplete data then 
available, slightly more than one-half of the cars tested failed to meet 
the Federal exhaust standards for hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide 
emissions. A preliminary analysis of more complete data from the 
study, prepared in November 1969 (copy attached), shows that, on the 
average, hydrocarbon emissions from a sample population of 431 
domestic cars were running about equal to the Federal standard, and 
carbon monoxide emissions were slightly lower than the Federal stand- 
ard at mileage accumulations from 3,500 to 26,000 miles. 

The more complete data confirm that slightly more than one-half of 
the cars tested failed to meet either the hydrocarbon or the carbon 
monoxide standard. For one model, more than 80 percent of the cars 
tested failed one or more tests. Due to the small number of cars, these 
emission data were not extrapolated to 50,000 miles ; however, on the 
basis of the California data one would expect that the emissions would 
tend to increase to some extent with increased mileage accumulations. 
The rental car data are undergoing further analysis to attempt to de- 
termine the factors that contributed to the observed emission levels. 

The apparent failure of many individual oars to meet the Federal 
standards under conditions of actual use is a matter of great concern to 
the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Current pro- 
cedures call for testing of prototype vehicles representative of a class 
of engine-transmission-control system combinations and the issuance 
of a certificate of conformity with the standards to cover all vehicles 
within that class, of substantially the same construction, manufactured 
throughout the model year. 



364 

There are three possible reasons for cars in use failing to perform at 
the level of the prototype or test vehicles : 

1. The durability test procedures prescribed in the regulations 
may be inadequate to test the true durability characteristics of 
emission control system ; ^ 

2. The prototype or test cars may receive special handling or 
not be truly representative of the production model cars which are 
deemed to be of substantially the same construction ; or 

3. Operating and maintenance practices in the hands of the 
public may cause deterioration in the performance of the vehicle's 
control system. 

The remedies to the potential causes for failure of cars to perform as 
expected are both administrative and legislative. The National Air 
Pollution Control Administration is now in the process of developing, 
for publication in the Federal Register, a revised test procedure to be 
followed by the manufacturers in submitting 1972 model year auto- 
mobiles for certification. These revised procedures will (a) measure 
the actual mass of j^ollution emitted from each test car rather than cal- 
culate it; (b) better reflect urban driving habits ; (c) require that each 
test car meet the applicable standard; (d) revise the durability test 
procedure to more accurately reflect actual operating conditions ; and 
(e) require the manufacturer to make available to the National Air 
Pollution Control Administration test cars to be under the control of 
the Federal Government in accumulating the requisite mileage. These 
procedural revisions will reduce the present degree of uncertainty as to 
whether prototype cars themselves can meet the 50,000-mile emission 
standards. 

Since each certificate of conformity issued to the manufacturer un- 
der section 206(a) of the act may be issued "upon such terms * * * as 
(the Secretary) may provide," it is arguable that the certificate could 
be conditioned so as to require that production vehicles covered by the 
certificate be tested at time of manufacture for compliance with the 
emission standards, and that their noncompliance result in revoca- 
tion of the certificate and/or other sanctions. Section 206(b), however, 
extends a presumption of conformity with the standards to eveiy ve- 
hicle "* * * which is in all material respects substantially the same 
construction as the (certified) test vehicle * * *." This language makes 
questionable the conditioning of a certificate upon the performance of 
production vehicles insofar as they qualify as being "substantially the 
same" as the prototypes tested. 

The Congress has been asked to clarify the Department of Health, 
Education, and Welfare's authority by amending section 206 to ex- 
pressly authorize revocation of certificates of conformity if production 
vehicles do not meet the Federal standards. We have also requested 
that the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare be explicitly 
authorized to test, or require manufacturers to test, vehicles at the end 
of production lines. 



365 

Interim Report — Rental Car Surveillance Program, March 1968 
TO Novt;mber 1969, by Di\t[sion of Motor Vehicle Pollution Con- 
trol, Bureau of Abatement and Control, National Air Pollu- 
tion Control Administration 

THE rental car EXHAUST EMISSION SURVILLANCE PROGRiVM 

Introduction 

This is an interim report on the rental car motor vehicle exhaust 
emission surveillance program conducted by the Inspection and Sur- 
veillance Branch of the Division of Motor Vehicle Pollution Control. 

As of November 12, 1969, 600 exhaust emission tests representing 26 
different engine-transmission combinations have been performed at 
the Los Angeles, Calif., and Ypsilanti, Mich., test facilities. The pur- 
pose of these tests is to provide background information necessary to 
efficiently plan surveillance programs on privately owned vehicles and 
to give the DMVPC some indication of whether or not vehicles in gen- 
eral use are emitting pollutants at a higher level than that at which 
they were certified to meet. 

Vehicles for this program were obtained from the Hertz and Air- 
ways rental companies in Los Angeles and Hertz and Avis in Detroit. 
Wlien interpreting data from these vehicles it must be kept in mind 
that these vehicles generally differ from normal owner-driven ve- 
hicles by the care which they are driven, the maintenance they receive, 
and the type and rate of mileage accumulated. Since the effects of these 
parameters on motor vehicle emissions are not known with certainty, 
one should avoid unqualified generalization of these data to vehicles 
driven by the motoring public at large. Nonetheless, the data generated 
by this program provides important information on the effectiveness 
of air pollution control devices operating in vehicles driven under 
conditions quite different than those under which certification vehicles 
are driven. 

//. Program operation 

This program was initiated in March of 1968 and is scheduled to 
end in December of 1969. A final report., including a detailed evalua- 
tion of this program, will be issued in the spring of 1970. At the onset 
of the program it was intended to start with a basic fleet of 138 1968- 
model vehicles would be retested at 3,000- to 4,000-mile intervals 
throughout the life of the various contracts. These vehicles were chosen 
so as to represent many of the high-production vehicles sold in the 
United States. 

Within a short period of time, however, it was found that the rental 
companies could not deliver the vehicles at the required inten-als for 
repetitive testing. In addition, policy changes at the rental companies 
resulted in the retention of most rental vehicles for less than 1 year 
of operation, thereby eliminating any possibility of obtaining large 
samples of vehicles with more than 20,000 accumulated miles. Hence 
it was necessary to reorganize the program to reflect nonrepetitive test- 
ing of vehicles and the inclusion of low milage, 1969-model vehicles 
in the test fleet. 

All vehicles, except Volkswagens, were equipped with automatic 
transmissions and all vehicles except Cadillacs had engine modifica- 



366 

tion emission control systems. The Cadillacs used an air injection 
emission control system. 

All vehicles were tested by the standard Federal seven-mode, seven- 
cycle cold start test procedure as described in the Federal Register, 
volume 31, No. 51, part II, para^aph 85.70-85.83, inclusive. In addi- 
tion, if it was found that a vehicle was not within the manufacturer's 
specifications by d=75 r.p.m. or ±2° basic timing, these items were 
reset to specifications and the vehicle was hot cycle tested (two addi- 
tional seven-mode cycles) for hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide 
(CO), and carbon dioxide (COa). The purpose of these additional 
cycles was to ascertain the effect, if any, of minor engine adjustment 
on vehicle exhaust emissions. Analysis of these data will appear in 
the final report on the contract rental program. 

For data analysis purposes all test results for a manufacturer were 
grouped and analyzed by engine displacement, even if the same dis- 
placement was used in a variety of body styles. Henc^, all tests on Ford 
Motor Co. 302 c.i.d. engine were lumped together even though the 
last fleet for this engine included a mix of Mercurv Coufrars. Ford 
Galaxies, and Ford Mustangs. Similarly, data on Chrysler Motor 
Corp.'s 318 c.i.d. engine was obtained by testing both Plymouths and 
Dodges. 

All engines of a given displacement used in this study constituted 
a homogeneous population in that only one version of a given engine 
displacement was tested. Hence, even though Ford Motor Co.'s 390 
c.i.d. engine comes in both a two barrel and a four barrel carbureted 
version, all test data are from the two barrel model (see table 1). 

The only exception to the rule whereby all data for a given manu- 
facturer is segregated by displacement, occurred in the analysis of 
data from General Motors Corp.'s 350 c.i.d. engine. The 350 c.i.d. 
engines used by GM's Buick, Chevrolet, Oldsmobile, and Pontiac 
divisions were significantly dissimilar in design so as to warrant a 
separate analysis for each of the division's engines. 

Except for the Chevrolet 327 c.i.d. engine, 1969 versions of the 
engines tested differ little from 1968 versions of the same displace- 
ment. Hence, except for the Chevrolet 327 c.i.d. engine, data from 
1968 and 1969 vehicles were combined. 

/// Test results 

Test results are grouped and analyzed by engine displacement, as 
explained above. Of the 26 engine displacements included in the test 
program, only 12 contain data from 15 or more complete exhaust 
emission tests. Data from the remaining 14 engine displacement groups 
will not be treated in this interim report, but will be included in the 
final reports of the 1968-69 rental vehicle surveillance program. These 
14 displacements are listed in appendix A. 

A siunmary of test results is given in table I for those 12 engine dis- 
placement groups which contain data from 15 or more exhaust emission 
tests. This table includes all tests performed on vehicles of a given 
displacement regardless of accumulated mileage. 

A similar analysis of data is given in table II, but all tests performed 
on vehicles with less than 3,500 accumulated miles have been elimi- 
nated. This was done for two reasons. First, because low mileage tests 



367 

tend to bias a data sample, as explained earlier. Second, because low 
mileage tests were performed on vehicles from some displacement 
groups, but not others. Hence, their elimination tends to normalize 
the average odometer readings for each engine displacement group, 
making comparisons of emission data between displacement groups 
more meaningful. 

For convenience in data presentation, the column headings in tables 
I and II are abbreviated and explained below. 

Column A "Engine*' : This column gives the manufacturer and the 
cubic inch displacement of the engine tested. In the case of General 
Motors Corp., engines are listed by automotive divisions within the 
General Motors family. If more than one version of an engine displace- 
ment is manufactured, the carburetion and compression ratio of the 
version tested is listed. 

Column B "No. of Cars Tested": This column gives the number 
of vehicles of each displacement tested. Each car was tested once only. 

Column C "Avg. Odo." This column lists the average odometer 
reading for vehicles of a given displacement at the time o;f test. 

Columns D and E "Avg. of Min. 3 Odo." and "Avg. of Max. 3 Odo." : 
These columns give the averages of the three lowest and three highest 
test odometer readings for vehicles of a given displacement. This gives 
information as to the mileage range of veliicles tested. 

Column F "Avg. Emissions": This coliunn displays the average 
seven-cycle composite emissions for HC and CO. 

Column G "95 percent Conf . Interval" : This column lists the 90- 
percent confidence interval for the "average emissions" given in col- 
mnn F. 

Column H "Percent Vehicles Failing HC, CO, Both, Either": This 
column gives the percentage of test vehicles failing the Federal emis- 
sion standards for HC, CO, both HC and CO, and either HC or CO. 

Table III is a listing of the sales figures for the 12 different engines 
listed in tables I and II. These figures were taken from the various 
manufacturers' applications for certification and show the projected 
new car engine sales of all engines which are similar to those tested 
in the rental car program. An engine is considered similar to a rental 
car test engine if its displacementj carburetion, compression ratio, and 
emission control system are identical to that of the corresponding en- 
gine in the test program. As can be seen from the totals at the bottom 
of table III, these 12 engines represent approximately 40 percent of 
new engine sales in this country during the 1968 and 1969 model years. 
The 14 engines listed in appendix A of this report represent an addi- 
tional 10 percent of engine sales, bringing to slightly over 50 percent 
the percentage of new car sales represented in this test program. 

An explanation of the column headings used in table III is as 
follows : 

Column marked "Sales" : This column gives the projected new car 
sales of engines similar to the engine specified in the column marked 
"Engine". 

Column marked "Percent Manufacture Sales" : This column lists the 
approximate percentage of the manufacturer's total engine produc- 
tion represented by the engine given in the left hand column. The 
manufacturer's total engine production includes all engines for which 
Federal certification was requested. 



368 

Column marked "Percent Total National Sales" : This column gives 
the approximate percentage of new car engine sales in this counti-y 
represented by the engines used in the test program. The national new 
oar engine sales includes the sales figures of both foreign and domestic 
engines. 

IV. CoTwhisions 

As mentioned in the introduction to this interim report, the purpose 
of this program was to gather information on the effectiveness of air 
pollution control devices operating on vehicles driven under condi- 
tions quite different than those under Avhich certification vehicles are 
driven. For these data the following conclusions can be drawn: 

( 1 ) Many vehicles in rental car fleet type of operation are pro- 
ducing exhaust emissions at a higher level than that which they 
were certified to meet. 

(2) Average levels of exhaust emission vary considerably not 
only between engines produced by different automotive manu- 
facturers, but between different engines produced by the same 
manufacturer. 

APPENDIX A.— ENGINE-DISPLACEMENT GROUPS WITH LESS THAN 15 TESTS AS OF NOV. 12, 1969 

Engine cubic- 
incn displace- 
Manufacturer ment Number of tests 

Ford Motor Co 

Chevrolet 

American Motors Corp 

Chevrolet 

Oldsmobile 

Ford Motor Co 

Chrysler Corp 

Ford Motor Co... 

Do 

Chrysler Corp 

Oldsmobile 

Ford Motor Co 

Do 

Cadillac 



200 


11 


230 


5 


343 


12 


350 


4 


350 


4 


351 


13 


383 


7 


428 


4 


429 


8 


440 


3 


455 


8 


460 


8 


462 


5 


472 


8 



369 



o 

CO 



o 
o 



CO 



o 



0£ 

o 



o ^ 

O CJ 



o 
a: 

C9 



o 



0. 

to 



< 

I 

>- 



CO 

<: 



< 



CO 



S c 



a. 
o 



"t= C ^ *" 

O C Q) OiJ3 



O O) oo 

a> E oj.E 

2 P S w 

h- C O /u 



POCT> OO ^ CO un ^^ ^^ CM ^ 00 CM 

—•CO •— «tomcNjr*.c^LO(0^-ro 



<E 



M" o 

TO oS ••<-' 

Se 






00 



ror^ to 1^ "^ a» p- 00 ^ i« o> CT» 

o* o o o o o o o o o o o 

-H-H ■+^■t^-H-t^-H-H-H-H-H-H 



^H^ coooa)^o<-*^ooa-)a) 
»^J1 ,_«ro'— «CNiLncsi^-t"-«.— tco 

-H-H -H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H 



CO o) o> o o^ 5? 00 to ^*J "^ *^ f** 

,1 s: o fo ^^ o .^a- r^ ID in ^a- ^^ 



cnen o CT) ID p«» ,^ a> a> oo CO '-' 

_ in co^^ocsjcooocNi-— «r»>.r>. 

CSiCM CNjCOfOCNJcOCsJCNJCNi^HCO 



O M to CT> CSJ O •— » CT> CNi oo ^- tn 

r-cn csj CO oo ^-^ ro (T> CO --< o ^^ 

^^S »-< CSJ CsJ CM CM CM CM -^ -H ^^ 



^OO^00iD«e*-tDOP0 

fom':j"cnoocM':a'OOir)m 



.-»to ^ 



eoo -H Tj- m a> ^a- o CO -^ CM CM 
roM CTJ CD to r^ ^3" CO CM CD a> in 
^CM O^ CT) O 0> 0> a> CO to 'd- --* 



S"csr ^o oor^a><oin CT> 



i£>0^ 



CM «i mmo co^oocMin co-^ 
eoS icr ^ ^ ^ 'fl- ^ "^ CM CM CO 









^ o S 



I ■ • 

L. I- U. 

u u o 

^H m in 

0O9> 9> 



•COTS 



CM^ « CJ 



U CJ U 
Ol CM O 

oooa> 

CM COCO 

odd 
ooo 

o o o . 
ooo. 



1 


1 1 1 I i 
1 1 1 1 1 
1 1 ) 1 1 










k. 


o" ! • ■ 


u 


«=>=?:;: 


o 


^a> • > • 








• ; t 1 1 


■a 


.QJ3 ' ' ' 


^ 


^■c^ss ; 


CM 


^X^^-q 




ooj^JcM^a-'- : 



OCMCM _ 

ro CO coO 



(J o 



-D"0-0 
OOO 



> 01 W . > CO 



<oo u-u. 



> > > — 

(U a> a> c 
.c-c jc o 
OCJOO. 



CIS 

o o 



370 



o 

uj 

I- 
< 



o 
u 



o 
m 

oi 






CO 



o 

CO 

I- 
co 

UJ 

►- 

CO 

(- 

CO 



O 



O 



R - 



0OO0C3O0OO000 

-H■+^-H-H-+^-H-^^-H■n■t^■H-H 



-H-t^-H■+^-H-H^^-t^-H-H-H•t^ 









o 

a: 
a 



o 



a. 

CO 



J 

a: 
< 



CO 

< 

I 






<0 •— fv .— 

DO 3 C-o 

> ra o 
< E 

-^fo *:- w> 
o aj oo 
a> E oj.E 

"lis 

<E 

a> ^ 
DO <o 
Sa 



<-3 

o 

I" 



CSiCSICNJCOCOCMCOCslCstCNJ.^rO 



^cotooicsio^i— «a»oooo^-ir> 
r*.coCNjcooOt— •rOCT>oo>— 'O.— « 



CT»cn<x>OCNjoo»— »eNi<— tr^oco 
CO to CO ^~ CO ^" in CD rn to CO ir>" 



ir>CMCMO>cor^tD<ococsnor*- 

to cg"oo •— «" o csTcNj" to r*r«— «" r^-T o 



_* J3 J3 O ,^ C 
3 J3 J=c " 



tnoo 

(N— ■ • 
CM CO ^ 

cid." 

o o oo 
OOcvJ 



■"en 

, ■'cgcsi -- 

;«M - -— -! 



■^ o o d 



~ - O ^^N 

o Or^ r^p 
OOOcsjc 
CO roc 



^ — 
..a 

tOCNJ 



; ej <jO^ 



: o o o ^j_r*J'< 

■^^ ^i ^ <u a> (u 
- o o o ji: ^ jr 



. w t: « oj 

> O O-C-C 

.li.U.UO 



, > > >'-='-^ 



>'— 

f o 
OO. 






o o 



371 



TABLE III.— DOMESTIC SALES OF ENGINES LISTED IN TABLES I AND II 





1968 model year 




1969 model year 




Engine 


Sales 


Percent 
manufac- 
turers 
sales 


Percent 
total 

national 
sales 


Sales 


Percent 
manufac- 
turers 
sales 


Percent 
total 

national 
sales 


At«C;298CID 


34, 000 


12 

24 
21 

18 
6 

(') 
3.1 
5.3 

12 
19 
17 
73 


0.3 

3.8 
3.3 

8.7 
2.9 

(0 
1.5 
2.6 

3.1 
5.1 
4.5 
3.0 


60, 000 

554, 000 
281, 300 

250, 000 
(') 
550, 000 
189, 000 
154.000 

796, 800 
491,800 
369, 000 


20 

26 
25 

5 

(') 

12 
4.1 
3.4 

(') 

30 
18 
75 


6 


Chrysler Corp.: 

318 CID 


419,000 


5 6 


225 CID 


364,000 


3.9 


General Motors: 

Chevrolet 307 CID 


947,700 


2.5 


Chevrolet 327 CID (1968 .. 


320, 400 


(') 


Chevrolet, 327 CID (1969)1 

Pontiac 350 CID 


(') 

161,100 


5.1 

1.9 


Pontiac 400 CID 


278,900 


1.6 


Ford Motor Co.: 

289 CID 


.. 335,453 


(0 


302 CID 


554,000 


8.1 


390CID 


493,112 


5.0 


Volkswagen, 91.6 CID 


329,000 


3.7 








Total 






38.6 .. 






38.5 











1 Not manufactured. 

Question Jf. What is the estimated effect of this failure to continue 
to coTnply with automotive emission stmulards on projected air pollu- 
tion levels of carhon monovdde^ hydrocarbons^ and photochemical 
oxidants? 

Answer. Starting in 1968 the Federal Government established limits 
for the carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons emitted from motor ve- 
hicles. The long-term goal of these emission standards, which apply to 
new motor vehicles, is to restrict and reduce the magnitude of such 
emissions. The overall purpose of this program is to provide the Na- 
tion's citizens with an air quality which will be satisfactory for the 
protection of the Nation's health and welfare. 

The present mechanism for determining whether new motor vehicles 
will meet the standards is a prototype motor vehicle emission and dura- 
bility testing program. After 50,000 miles, the average prototype ve- 
hicle must conform to the Federal emission standards applicable to 
each model year. In 1968 and 1969 the exhaust emission standards re- 
quired a 72-percent reduction in hydrocarbons and a 56-percent re- 
duction in carbon monoxide. In 1970, the standards called for further 
reductions. Additional reductions are required by the 1975 proposed 
standards and by the 1980 goals proposed by the Department of 
Health, Education, and Welfare. 

Given a knowledge of the emission rates for uncontrolled vehicles 
and for the controlled prototype fleets, plus the predicted growth in 
number of vehicles, it becomes possible to project the effects of the 
Federal mobile emission standard program on total national exhaust 
emissions of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. Air quality is a com- 
plex function of total emissions; therefore, changes in total emission 
values may be assumed to be representative of the changes in air quality 
in large metropolitan regions. 

The effect of each phase of the Federal mcibile emission control pro- 
gram is illustrated by the curv^es labeled A in the accompanying 
figures. Three cases are considered. Figures I and II represent the 
projected effect of imposition of the 1968 and 1970 exhaust emission 



372 

standards. Figures III and IV show the additional effect of the 19Y5 
proposed standards, while figures V and VI show the additional ex- 
pected effect of the 1980 proposed goals. The curves labeled "A" thus 
represent the relative changes in expected air quality, as projected 
from present and proposed Federal emission standards for exhust 
emissions of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons and from test data 
on prototype vehicles. The 1990 values of curve A in figures V and VI 
appear at this time to represent acceptable air quality goals consistent 
with present knowledge of health and welfare effects. 

For some time, it has been apparent that a discrepancy exists be- 
tween the average emission rates of the prototype fleet and the average 
emission rates of the production fleet in the hands of the public. Al- 
though the prototype fleet meets the Federal standards at 50,000 miles, 
emissions from the production fleet, extrapolated to 50,000 miles, ex- 
ceed the Federal standards. A considerable quantity of information 
relative to the emission rates of the production fleet has been generated 
by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Calculations using 
the CARB averaged and sales-weighted data result in the curves 
labeled B in the attached figures. The differences between curves A 
and B represent the effect of noncompliance of the production fleet. 
The production fleet data indicate that air quality in 1985 will be 
25 percent higher in hydrocarbons and 13 percent higher in carbon 
monoxide than it would have been if there were no discrepancy in 
emission rates. Oxidant concentrations are approximately a direct func- 
tion of hydrocarbon concentrations, as indicated in the "Air Quality 
Criteria for Hydrocarbons." Thus, the oxidant levels in 1985 will also 
be approximately 25 percent higher. This analysis is based on data 
gathered from 1968 and 1969 model year cars. To the extent that pro- 
duction fleet performance can be made to approximate prototype 
emissions more closely, in 1970 and later model years, the discrepancies 
in the projected curves can be reduced. 



373 



X 
u) 

■go 
«> 



^j 

oj O 
U i-, 

•a 
o 

-H 
i-l .H 

E 
•o w 

o 

CO XI 

01 « 

r-( O 

o 

<4-l V4 

o -o 

4-> 

o • 

«> CO 

<»-4 • 

>« 3 

i-H 

♦J o 
<J *J 

0) 

•t-. c 
o o 
Kl 






4> 


o 




«> 






p-H 


«) 




<M 


o 

c 




«) 


rt 


• 


?: 


P-H 


4) 


*-' 


• H 


O 


o 


lU 


(—4 


4-> 


> 


Uh 


o 


1-. 




»-. 


3 


q 


p- 


fA 


o 

•H 


c 


c 


4-» 


o 


o 


O 

3 


•n 


T) 


-n 


V 


i> 


o 


(/) 


lA 


ii 


<« 


ca 


ex 


CQ 


m 





< CO 




-KDEBT 



;a5T 



-OeB"! 



-SZBT 



-OZRT 



• G9BT 



•09jBT 



CD 



LD 



^ 



nj 



o 



CO 



LD 



ru 



o 



SNDBdVDDdDAH JD aV3A dBd GNQl NDinnil^ 



374 





tn 




s 




OS 


•g 


w 






> 


<-• 




c 
o 


3 
Q 


•H 
VI 
U) 

• H 


as 


.§ 


H 


•-H 


= 


OS 


o 


u 


u 


a> •« 


T3 




V 


in 


LU 


c 




o 


O 


• H 


1^ 


w 


o> 


V) 


rH 


-H 




E 


•o 


w 


c 




n) 


o 




•o 


00 


•H 


o 


X 


C7> 


o 


»-4 


c 




o 


IH S 


o 






c 


VI 


o 


<-• J3 


O 


M 


<u 


ca 


<M 


u 


M-l 




V 


• 




w 


•o 




V 


3 


4J 




o 


rH 


lU 


cj 


•■-> tJ 


o 


O 


M 


IJ 


o. 






c 




o 


KH 




HH 




u 




^ 




3 




oe 




-PGST 



■^BBT 



-DBBX 



;/GT 



-D^BT 



59BT. 



LP 



O 
LD 



\P> 



<-) 


LTl 


O 


LT! 


O 


m 


o 


LTl 


■^ 


•^ 


m 


rn 


nj 


lU 



Ln 



in 



■D9GT 
O 



3aiXDNQn NQB^VD JD yV3A a3d SNDl NDinniH 



375 



-tCESI 



UD 



n 

u c 

0} o 

•a xt 

<u ^ 

u. n) 
u 

o o 

1^ u 

•-I X 

X 

c • 

o) W 

00 3 
vO 

O* t-H 

«4-l O 

O JJ 

m C 

<-> o 
u 

4) U) 
0) 



V CO 



.-•5 

4-> lU 



V) 



o 



I 



o 



•r-i to 

O r^ 

U Oi . 

O. t-l x 

V 

13 > 

• V 

M O tJ 

"-I a, 3 

JZ 



o 

u 

3 



•H C -H 

u. c3 ^ 



♦J <*-! 

(U o 
4) 

f-H 0) 

c 

X.-I 

<-> -H 

o u 
<J > 

O IH 

^c 3 
Q< lA 

C C 

o o 

4) lU 

cd n 



< CQ 




'■pr-,T 



■aSBT 



■SZBT 



-OZBT 



-S3ST 



-09BT 



QD 



^ 



nj 



CD 



LD 



nj 



SNDBaVDDaDAH dD yV3A a3d 5ND1 NDIIHIH 



376 



« < 



in 






•O 


E 




U 


o 




« 


^1 




•a 


tn 




c 






Rl 


U) 




«-> 


e 




CO 


o 

•rt 




e 


in 




o 


Ul 




•H 


•H 




<n 


e 




VI 


w 




•H 






E 


v 




U T3 






•H 




.-t 


X 




(S 


o 




^ 


C 




4) 


o 




•o S 




lU 






u. 


c 
o 




o 


J3 




1^ 


^ 




Ol 


01 




l-l 


U 




"O 


• 




c 


w 




nj 


=j 




CO 






\0 


.— 1 




Ol 


nJ 




•H 


♦J 

o 




<M 


4-> 




O 


e 




W 


o 




^ 






o 


<n 


• 


O T3 


*J 


<W 


^ 


U) 


M-l 


rt 


3 


D 


•a 


rt 


•a 




•5 


4) 


4-> 


Ul 


♦J 


« 




o 




o 


D 


lO 


.-H 


•r-\ 


t^ 


o 


o 


o» 


H 


fH 


»-H 


J5 


a, 




4> 




•o > 




4> 




• 


(/I 


Sk 


> 


O 


tJ 


»-( 


P. 3 




o 


Q 


o 


K 




(4 


&.♦-> 


r3 




J= 


bflTJ 


60 


•H 


u 


:3 



«J <u 




u 


O 




«> 






<1H 


o 

c 




u 


OS 


• 


& 






4J 


■l-l 


4> 


O 


<u 


.-1 


4J 


> •*^ 


O 


U 




^ 


3 


C 


P< 


V) 


o 


c 


c 


*-• 


o 


o 


u 

3 


•O T3 -O 


V 


a> 


O 


VI 


VI 


M 


n) 


cl 


Q. 


CQ 


CQ 






-PG6T 



5BBT 



■DBBT 



;^BT 



-OZBT 



-39BT 



-D3BT 



ffi 



CD m CD i_n 

LU Ln LTl -^ 



in 
m 



O Ul 

en ru 



C5 LD 



Ul 



o 



3niXDNDlA| NOaaVD JD yV3A a3d 5ND1 NDinniH 



377 




SNDBaVJDaDAH JD aV3A a3d 5ND1 NDinHIH 



378 



in 






•O 






u 






0) 












§ 






*i 






in 






G 






o 






•r< 






V) 






U) 






•H 


, 


• 


E 


CO 


♦J 


(U 




in 

3 


r-4 


p 


rt 


OS 




X 


K 


fH 


^ 


a> 


.« 


lU 


•^ 


4J 




o 


O 


lU 


UU 


4J 


I-I 
o 


o 


C 


•H 


r- 


oji 


o> 




o 


r-l 


i-i 


> 


•o 


cd 


X 


s 


o 


4J 


o 


3 






Q 


00 


o 




vO 


00 


4J 


o> 


CTl 


J5 


rH 


1— ) 


DO 


«H 


<u 


J 


O X 






tJ 


B 


W) 




O 


•M 


•o 


U 


O 


c 


IH 


0) 


1« 




«H 




V) 


«M 


<K 


c 


u 


w 


o 




t3 


• H 


•a 


K< 


in 


u 


n) 


in 


'P 


•O 


■ H 


o 


§ 


M 


•r^ 


^ 




O 


in 


o 


U 




T3 


Du 


lo 


•H 




r^ 


X 




Ol 


o 


■ 


•-H 


c 


»-« 




o 


> 




s: 


<0 


in 


e 


u 


o 


o 


3 


a<j3 


t>0 


o 


u 


•H 


^ 


t« 


u. 


0.0 



tn 

03 



o 



4-> <H 




« O 




« 




^ o 




M-l (J 




C 




<u <a 


■ 


&;:: 


♦J 
O 


4-> -H 


at 


O U 


1— 1 


♦J > 


IH 


O ^1 




Vi 3 


c 




GBGT 



-SBGT 



DBGT 



;ZGT 



DZGT 



■596T 



-D9GT 



in 
ru 



o 
nj 



LD 



o 



in 



m o m Q LP Q 
LT) LP ^ "^ m m 

BDIXDNDH NDSaVD JD aV3A d3d 5ND1 NDIHnih 



o 



379 

Question 5. To ivliut extent have States applied for the ttoo-thirds 
grants fon' developing emission device inspection programs authorized 
in section 209? Please indicate the States to which grants have been 
made and the amount of each^ if any? 

Answer, No applications for grants under section 209 have been 
submitted. Under other provisions of the Clean Air Act, a demon- 
stration grant has been made to the State of New Jersey to support the 
development of emission testing procedures suitable for inspection 
programs. Attached is a description of this project and a summary of 
the progress to date. 

DEMONSTRATION PROJECT 

Project title. — New Jersey Motor Vehicle Emission Inspection 
Project. 

Agency. — State of New Jersey, Department of Public Health, Di- 
vision of Clean Air and Water (Richard J. Sullivan, Director) . 

Grant data. — Federal funds provided, $813,581. 





Period 




Budget 




Grant No. 


Federal 


Local 


Total 


67A-3301D 

68B-3301D.... 

68B-3301D 


-_ _ Dec. 6, 1966 to July 31, 1967 

Aug. 1, 1967 to June 30, 1968 

July 1, 1968 to June 30, 1970 


$235, 300 
174, 000 
404, 281 


$78, 434 

58, 012 

139, 513 


$313,734 
232, 012 
543, 794 


Total 


813, 581 


275,959 


1, 089, 540 









PROJECT ELEMENTS 

(1) Evaluation of the feasibility of enforcing motor vehicle pollu- 
tion control requirements by tests at the established State motor vehicle 
safety inspection stations. 

(2) The procurement and evaluation of low-cost meters and smoke 
guides for on-the-road measurement of smoke from diesel-powered 
vehicles. 

(3) Development of an exhaust emission testing procedure and test- 
ing system for rapid emission tests in a safety lane. 

(4) The installation and testing in six pilot locations in New Jersey 
motor vehicle inspection lanes and also m the State's motor vehicle 
laboratory, of a prototype system developed under this project for the 
purpose of demonstrating the practicability of the system under actual 
operational conditions, and to develop data for the establishment of 
legal standards. 

(5) The construction of a mobile unit equipped with a prototype 
system to demonstrate its use at schools for mechanics, to test vehicles 
at automobile dealer showrooms and for related educational and sur- 
veillance purposes. 

(6) Evaluation of the effectiveness of engine maintenance pro- 
cedures recommended by the automotive service industry on vehicles 
which fail to meet hypothetical New Jersey standards when tested 
in the pilot safety inspection lanes. Results will be measured on ef- 
fectiveness of work performed at {a) diagnostic tune-up centers, (b) 
new car dealers and \c) routine service stations and garages. 

43-166 O— '70— iot. 1^ ^25 



380 



PROGRESS 



(1) Testing cycle and equipment to perform inspection lane testing 
have been developed. The test takes 90 seconds. During the coming 
year, results of this quick test will be compared with results of seven- 
mode cycle test currently used to determine compliance with Federal 
standards. 

(2) A diagnostic clinic has been constructed anl will be operational 
later this month. Motorists whose vehicles fail the 90-second test will 
be invited to have their vehicles adjusted and retested. Results will 
assist the State in determining whether to develop courses on emission 
control systems for auto mechanics throughout the State. 

Question 6. S. 3^66 wiould increase penalties under section 205 froTn 
$1,000 to $10 WO. To what extent ha've penalties been assessed under 
the existing provisions? How rrvany times? Against whom? 

Answer. Thus far, no penalties have been assessed under section 
205. In one case, however, a permanent injunction was obtained to 
prevent illegal importation of new motor vehicles. This case, United 
States of America v. Felix A. Chapa, d/h/a Arlington Gars., was suc- 
cessfully concluded in November 1969 in the U.S. District Court for 
the Eastern District of Virginia. 



STANDARDS AND ENFORCEMENT 

Question 1. What is the current status of the designation of the first 
57 air quality control regions., the filing of letters of intent, and the 
establishment of standards and implementation plans? 

Answer. The attached table summarizes the status of these activities. 



381 



as 
< 

ae 
< 



CO 

>- 



o 

s 

OQ 

I 



< 
_i 

O 

t- 
q: 

•a: 
a. 

o 
z 
< 

a 

X 

o 

3 



o 

u. 

e/j 

o 

< 
o 
z 
< 
t- 
00 

o 



< 
_l 

LlI 

a: 

z 
o 

I- 
< 
S 
on 
o 



o 
o 

LLl 

q: 

_i 
o 
a: 

h- 
Z 
O 

o 



< 

< 
O 







-^oo 






S<^<<-^cO(y3ooOooz<ZQOQ(^J5(/,<J5: 






^ d I O^ CT> O^ ^ 
to (O I CO CO <^ CO 
0> CT> ' CTl O^ 0> C^ 









'c — .ii>-- 
^ TO <2 £ 

>Sbz: 



cocOcoto^cocDcDcococOcor-cocococOcDcor-^r^cDco^r^ 



iE^™^3i?™3^jS^ SrS u cj o o oT o S = o 5 a> ™ 
S^S.^^SS<^S^(^iZ00Z0(^0™™ZQQS 



^ CO « o .— ■; 

! >>« ra'g £ : 

-co — I > ™ o ' 

- O) OJ V 






-.CO , 



' o> o> CT> 

1 to (^<0 
' Ol CT> 0> 



-^<-^ 



ra = o 



0> 1 ^CT>0 
iO > r^ CD %D 
9) ' 0> O) O^ 



ro ^ 



r^'"<er r-. to" 
« ^ <-> 1;; 

flj O Q) ™ 

qzqS 



91 0> O^ ^ 

to to tor- 

CT^ O O^ O^ 



= "5- 



CO 



oo 



■ M 

c o c 



o CD ;= -^ J 



TO ^ TO ^3 — r- TO TO 



OO 



: = SO. 



I "" O TO- 

o ^ > c^ *" - 
- C > CO C 



: TO 



dJ «— ro;^ ™ o TO 



■° -■££ TO TO 5 - 



2 3 

o< 



OO 



to (O to 
oi o^ o> 



(O to 



O^ CTl CTi 

cri o^ o^ 



O^ CT> CT) 
to tO(0 
91 CT> 0> 



CT) Cn CTl O^ 

to to to CO 

CT> CT> CT> CT> 



CT10> 

toco 

CT>CT> 



^ ^ rC u-To^^ csToJ" ^co^ 'O^ T^<jS<n oo'toooto i£^ *o 



CIO 
tOr^ 



^ > 



lit 



CT>0O o^ 
to (OtO 
0> O^ CT> 






to <o 



O) O) o o^ o^ 

to to to to to 

O^ O^ CTl CT> CT> 



a> 3 o 
Q<0 



o> c^ o^ 

to to to 

O O^ Ol 



& OO ct o 
a» 3 0} V 
oo<ooc:i 

^ CT> o> o> 

to to (O to 

9) O) O^ O) 



OQ 



to to 



Q< 



to to 
o> o> 



CT> CT* w> o> CT>cnCT> CTJCTi ajtr>wj(j»<ji ._^wjw' 'i:"'^^"!: "IIZ^ ~ . ~ . 



3 

< 



o» o CT> 



3 au 

o 

GO 



< 



O O) ^ 

3Q^ 
oooooo 

(OtO CO 
O d O) 



> > u 

O O (U 

3^Q 



^ a> 0} od 3 



ZS< ^s== 



00 a> 
to to 
en CT> 



si 



coco 
£T>er> 



o 



o 

a 
>■ 

s 

a> 



.= "-o^ 






O) O) O) 

to to to 

O) Ol o^ 



CT) 0> O^ 0> 

to to to to 

O) 9) O O) 



004J 

3 U 

<o 



to to 



00 



to to 



c5 S'^S CM ^ CSI r-. 



oS< 



ss = = 






u u 

00 



TO TO 3 o <j .t: p S 






E 

s 

TO 
I—. 



Q-ic/) 



coo 



TO^.-= = TO 

^cjo.aQ:a£ 



a> TO TO 

acQX 



-ScJg TO= S-O 
X— — w 0)0 TOJ= 



382 



< 



3 



m 

I 



< 

o 
z 
< 



X 

o 



o 

V) 

o 

< 
o 

< 



< 
-J 

UJ 

a: 

z 
o 

»- 



o 

Ixl 



o 
a: 



O 
u 



c 

a: 

< 

< 
a. 
o 

< 



WT3 



3=^ 



ooo 

CT> o> OT 






.:z -c ^ -t ^ 



Q. 

= o o 



O) to 
(O «] 

M to 



2 5 o - .2 -r: 



(/) C (Q cu). 









iSi-<o5k-_iu.02°i 



<1> {g X 



oooo iOa> lOO 
r^r^r^r^ 'Grig 'td 



n (Q nj ■ 



1<Q 



;<< 



to to f*^ 



0> OT CT> CT> Q> 
(O <0 CD CO <0 

^H ,»H r-4 «— t ^-< 

> > > d J 

o o o a» a> 



< 






O^ CT) 0> 0» 
CO to to (O 



o u u a> 

OOOO 



^ C TO 

U- -ff Qfi 



C3 


o 


ooo 


tM 


un 


— TusrC 
cocmUh 


O. 

< 






o 
a> 


<3 


OOO 


c> 


in 


^■2~ 


a. 
< 




ss< 



ousto 
allas- 
an An 
irmin, 
oledo 


0? 


IQCOODI- 


to 



5 ™ ■= = 

•S — Q. „ 

o < S CL 



< 



^ ^ 5 ™ •^ 
OQZSOO 



E 
o ra 



"o 



. o ^ TO 3C <rt "O 
• = i. S 5. TO TO 
■ ■— 5 is S X > •- 

>TOQ}TO^g)a>0 



a> 



o 

TO TO M 

3raa,™a,a,(uo-TOOo >-i2 
:SzSzH-Z3S2S(^S< 



r5°= 

<U O) 3 

>za. 



o 



=