March of 1967. It was in the spring of 1967 that Ideal Cement built or installed their equipment in Seattle. Missouri Portland knew of that equipment; they knew it is good equipment. They have known of this good, effective equipment for two and a half years. Now, to my way of thinking, variances that are extended over that period of time from March of 1967 down to now, October of 1969, are grossly overindulgent. I don't want to put them out of business, but I don't want to put people in hospitals, either, by permitting Missouri Portland to say, "Well, we are still studying it, still having draftsmen work on it, still having engineers give us their thoughts." I don't think the administration in St. Louis County has condoned this or encouraged this. I am not alleging fault with respect to you or your air commission, but I think somebody has been taken in by Missouri Portland on this. The expertise was and is available and the equipment was and is available. The foot dragging on the part of Missouri Portland has just gone on far too long. It is not that you are happy about it.

I know that it is an agony to you to receive those complaints, as I believe you do almost daily, from the people in Bellefontaine neighbors area. No one in politics likes to hear complaints from people. I know I don't and I know you don't. The variance procedure, when the company is making its ultimate best efforts is one thing. But when a company takes two and a half years to come up with equipment that other companies already have in place and in operation, that is an entirely different thing.

Mr. Roos. I would agree with you completely inasmuch as you did recognize the fact, though, that we, as a government, are limited by the provisions of the law in these things and I hope you will recognize that there has been absolutely no foot dragging by the officials of St. Louis County. This law didn't go into effect until 1967 and you just can't, in this day and age, regardless of how strong government gets, go in and lock the door, if they are provided with this. I agree they should have started on this long before. We had no legal means where we could enforce it up until 1967, and I can assure you and the people that live out there, we are not going to have one moment's delay in seeing that they work under the provisions of the law that protect them as well as our citizens.

Senator EAGLETON. I appreciate that.

Mr. James H. Bogle, chairman, Missouri Air Conservation Commission, and if he wishes to come up, Mr. Harvey Shell, acting executive director, Mr. Bogle, you and your associates can proceed in any manner you so desire.

STATEMENT OF JAMES H. BOGLE, CHAIRMAN, ST. LOUIS, MO., AIR CONSERVATION COMMISSION, JEFFERSON CITY, MO.

Mr. BOGLE. The first thing I would like to do is correct a little misconception that has been here on the stage for the past 3 hours, and that is that Missouri does not have air quality standards. Under the able leadership of Louis C. Green, Missouri adopted air quality standards and they became effective March 24, 1967. We were gratified when, in the spirit of cooperation, the State of Illinois decided to adopt standards which were just about the same as ours. We learned from the Health, Education and Welfare people that they would rather we hold hearings. Therefore, we have set down for hearing

November 12 standards which are about the same as what we already had and they are considered stringent.

Senator EAGLETON. There are other States that have moved a little more speedily in this area of regional standard setting including the State of Illinois. The Illinois standards are already on file with Secretary Finch. Missouri's are not as yet on file. You, in a casual way, said you decided Missouri was going to hold a public hearing almost as if you were doing the public a big favor. The law requires you to hold a public hearing.

Mr. BOGLE. We didn't know that until later.

Senator EAGLETON. You are not doing the public any favor by condescending to a public hearing which the law requires. Please begin your statement.

Mr. BOGLE. The Air Conservation Commission adopted air quality standards and regulations for the Missouri part of the St. Louis met ropolitan area, comprised of St. Louis, St. Louis County, St. Charles County, and Jefferson County, which became effective March 24, 1967. Following that, St. Louis and St. Louis County passed control ordinances compatible with the State regulations and were granted exemptions to control themselves in accordance with the Missouri Air Conservation law, St. Louis and St. Louis County on September 27, 1967. Since that time much has been done to reduce emissions on the Missouri side. High sulfur coal control has been delayed until this winter by a lawsuit filed by Peabody Coal Co. against the Air Conservation Commission, St. Louis and St. Louis County. A motion by Peabody to enjoin the regulation of the sulfur content of coal this winter was denied by Judge James T. Riley, in Cole County, Mo., September 22, 1969. The trial is set for December 2-9, 1969.

On March 5, 1968, the St. Louis Air Pollution Technical Coordinating Committee was formed whose members are the directors of the air pollution control agencies of St. Louis, St. Louis County, Mo. and Ill. During the August air pollution episode this organization, with the help of the entire technical staff of the Missouri Air Conservation Commission, was in the St. Louis area taking readings to study with the idea of developing an emergency plan pending real air pollution control. Since then a voluntary plan has been adopted which relies entirely on polluter cooperation.

In a situation such as this the Federal Air Shed idea is good for long-range control and is in the process of being implemented. The Air Conservation Commission is to hold a public hearing November 12, 1969, on ambient air quality standards for particulate matter and oxides of sulfur. This is our part at this stage to apply the Air Quality Act of 1967. We understand Illinois has adopted its standards, so this phase should be accomplished soon.

We are including with this statement 10 copies of the Missouri Air Conservation law, 10 copies of the air quality standards and air pollu tion control regulation for the St. Louis metropolitan area and 10 copies of an article by E. F. Porter, Jr. which appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch October 12, 1969.

Senator EAGLETON. Those will be made part of the record and will appear in the appendix.

(See app. page 173 for Porter article, page 176 for Conservation Law, and page 192 for regulations for St. Louis area.)

Mr. BOYLE. Mr. Harvey Shell, acting executive secretary of the Air Conservation Commission will now tell you Missouri's part in emergency plan formulation.

STATEMENT OF HARVEY SHELL, ACTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MISSOURI AIR CONSERVATION COMMISSION, JEFFERSON CITY, MO.

Mr. SHELL. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, my name is Harvey D. Shell. I am acting executive secretary of the Missouri Air Conservation Commission in Jefferson City. I am a member of the air pollution technical coordinating committee of the St. Louis region. During the high air pollution potential of August 25-28, 1969, the staff of the Air Conservation Commission was dispatched to St. Charles, Mo., and Crystal City, Mo., to set up sampling stations. I went to city hall in St. Louis, which was the control headquarters during that 4-day period. Around the clock sampling was performed and the values phoned into headquarters every 2 hours. There were about 20 stations set up throughout the St. Louis metropolitan area in all jurisdictions involved. The high air pollution potential was ended at about noon on August 28, 1969, and immediate evaluation of the data was begun. A detailed report has been prepared which I would like at this time to submit for the record. The report concluded that the predominant problem during the recent air pollution potential was the violation or near violation of the ambient air quality standards for Missouri and Illinois. The ambient air quality standards dictate the levels, above which air is considered undesirable, and unhealthful, if sustained. However, hazardous levels were not reached during the 4day period.

Reduction of pollutants through rigorous emission regulations enforced throughout the year, not just during an air pollution potential, is considered to be the most expedient means of solution. The committee did not presume that air stagnation would not occur in the future in such a way that alert conditions would not exist and does not discount the desirability of an alert plan. It has, in fact, adopted an interim plan for dealing with episodes and is working on a comprehensive plan for dealing with such in the future. I would like, at this time, to submit for the record a copy of the interim plan adopted by the committee and sanctioned by both the Illinois Air Pollution Control Board and the Missouri Air Conservation Commission.

The air pollution technical coordinating committee is by far the best and most logical group for dealing with an alert plan as well as the many other facets of regional air pollution control. It is the only regional group which by the nature of its membership, has experience, responsibility, expertise, and the enforcement capability required to clean the air in St. Louis.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL F. KICKHAM, MEMBER, MISSOURI AIR CONSERVATION COMMISSION, FLORISSANT, MO

Mr. MICHAEL KICKHAM. My name is Michael Kickham. I am a member of the Missouri Air Conservation Commission and formerly city councilman of the city of Florissant, which is the largest city in St. Louis County, and the direct problem, as far as air pollution is

concerned, that I would like to bring to the committee's attention, is the problem in St. Louis County, and particularly the industrial area of St. Louis County, with the emissions from the large amount of automobiles that travel to and from, particularly the Florissant area and to the Hazelwood and McDonnell complex. It may be of interest to the committee to note that here is bus service from he inner-city for the underprivileged to this industrial area, but there is not one bus that operates between the largest community in St. Louis County or any means of transportation, I might say, between the city of Florissant and any of the industrial complexes of Ford, LincolnMercury, McDonnell Aircraft, General Motors, the Kroger plant, and the other growing industries that have moved into the area surrounding the Lindbergh-Hazelwood-Florissant industrial complex.

If one would just but think back to the time when you were Attorney General and used to visit the Florissant area and we were a sleepy little community on Highway 140, with very little traffic problems, to the present day, we have widened Highway 140 to a now eight-lane highway, we have installed the Highway 240-270 complex, and to come out of your home in the Florissant area to what used to be an occasional car is now an occasional chance to get into traffic.

Recently, 140 was widened again, and it is now to the point where one person to a car, takes approximately 20 minutes to drive the 1 mile between Florissant city limits to the airport. I think some plans should be put forth for the possible inclusion of some type of bus or mass transportation system in order to clear up this great amount of air pollution emanating from the single-passenger automobile.

The answer, I would admit I do not have, but I do think that some form of mass transportation in the county would be greatly helpful at this time.

Thank you, Senator.

Senator EAGLETON. Very good. I couldn't agree with you more that mass transit, although it isn't a direct issue before this committee at this time, is related to any ultimate resolution of the air pollution problem. We keep putting more cars on the inadequate highways of St. Louis County. The minute we build one, it is overused. There is a direct causal relationship between automobiles and air pollution and I think you pointed it out well. I will ask these questions and either one of you gentlemen may answer. Mr. Bogle or Mr. Shell. What is the current budget of the Missouri Air Conservation Commission? Mr. BOGLE. $295,000.

Senator EAGLETON. That is the budget you are working on now? Mr. BOGLE. Current year.

Senator EAGLETON. How does that compare with last year's budget? Mr. BOGLE. It was $226,000 last year.

Senator EAGLETON. What percentage of that would be Federal funds? Mr. BOGLE. Let's see, which year?

Senator EAGLETON. Take the current year, $295,000.

Mr. BOGLE. $295,000. Well, we would have to subtract; I have here $126,000 State.

Senator EAGLETON. 126 State. Then 160-some-odd, 1969 Federal. Eliminating stenographers and clerical personnel, how many qualified professional men and women can you place in the field under this budget?

Mr. BOGLE, We have 14 in the field.

Senator EAGLETON. Is there a major endeavor outside the limits of the city of St. Louis, St. Louis County, wherein there are local air pollution control officials? Are you using your men, say, in Jefferson County, St. Charles, contiguous areas, but not in the St. Louis City and St. Louis County areas?

Mr. BOGLE. That's correct.

Senator EAGLETON. What was your budget request, do you recall that?

Mr. BOGLE. You mean for this year?

Senator EAGLETON. For this year, yes.

Mr. BOGLE. $406,000.

Senator EAGLETON. You requested $406,000 including the Federal percentage?

Mr. SHELL. That's correct.

Senator EAGLETON. You were appropriated $295,000. All right. Now, I asked, Mr. Bogle, some questions of Dr. Yoder, your counterpart in Illinois, and I address myself to section 106 of the 1967 Air Quality Act. Illinois did not apply under that. It takes a joint application, so I take it Missouri didn't apply, either?

Mr. BOGLE. NO, Missouri hasn't.

Senator EAGLETON. Looking prospectively down the road to a time 6 months or so from now, when you will have the onerous task of developing an implementation plan, have you considered applying under section 106 for Federal funding at that time?

Mr. BOGLE. Well, I will have to admit I am not familiar with it. Senator EAGLETON. How about you, Mr. Shell?

Mr. SHELL. We have not applied on the Missouri side because we feel we have a very good plan agency here and, also, we have had samplings taken for the past several years. Missouri, of course, has regulations which already apply to this area. We had considered this more strongly on the Kansas City side because we think that we need more money there for planning than we do here. This doesn't say that we may not apply later.

Senator EAGLETON. Well, you know, I consider this to be most unusual. I read in the press that Missouri is in need of money and short of public funds. Here is 100 percent Federal financing and you think you could sort of use it over on the western side of the State, but you don't see any need for it over here on the eastern side.

Mr. SHELL. I don't say we don't see a need. I say up until now we have not applied for it on this side. We considered it more strongly on the other side than we have here.

Senator EAGLETON. The purpose of section 106 is to require close, harmonious cooperation between the jurisdictions divided by State boundaries. The price the various States of the region pay for getting the money is cooperation. Maybe that is too high a price to pay.

Mr. SHELL. That certainly isn't. We feel we have regulations which, of course, we will want to review when we start preparing our implementation plan. We are continuing working on a comprehensive alert plan, required as part of the implementation plan. We are well down the road on what we have here and intend to cooperate with Illinois as much as possible. That is why we haven't pushed for those funds on this side as much as we have over on the other side. We do have numbers that back us up in what we are trying to do, but I might say we do need funds, also, on the out-state areas of Missouri, not just in Kansas