PROBLEMS OF AIR POLLUTION IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TUESDAY, AUGUST 29, 1967 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON BUSINESS AND COMMERCE, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a.m., in room 6226, New Senate Office Building, Senator Joseph D. Tydings presiding. Present: Senators Tydings and Dominick. Also present: Chester H. Smith, staff director; Owen J. Malone, counsel; Howard A. Abrahams, assistant counsel; James S. Medill, assistant counsel; and Richard E. Judd, professional staff member. Senator TYDINGS. We will call to order a hearing before the Subcommittee on Business and Commerce of the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia. This is the second day of hearings on Senate bill 1941, a proposal to prevent, abate, and control air pollution in the District of Columbia. We will include in the hearing record at this time a letter from Mr. Richard C. Vierbuchen, vice president, marketing, Washington Gas Light Co., dated August 16, 1967, recommending that the essential and readily enforcible features of a model local air pollution control ordinance developed by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments be incorporated in S. 1941; A statement of the Washington Building Congress, Inc., dated August 1, 1967, commenting on air pollution and the action the construction industry is taking to reduce air pollution; A letter from Mr. O. Roy Chalk, president and chairman of the board, D. C. Transit System, Inc., dated August 4, 1967, endorsing S. 1941; A letter from Mr. James M. Windsor, executive vice president, Oil Heat Institute of Greater Washington, dated August 3, 1967, urging the adoption of a gradual sulfur reduction program to alleviate the air pollution problem in the District of Columbia; A letter from Mr. Cornelius Means, counsel, Potomac Electric Power Co., dated August 7, 1967, recommending certain proposed amendments to S. 1941; A statement of Mr. Stanley J. Asrael, president, Alexandria Scrap Corp., expounding on anticipated problems in the elimination of open burning insofar as it concerns the scrapping of old automobiles, and attached brochure entitled "Motor Vehicle Abandonment in U.S. Urban Areas"; A letter from Hon. George A. Avery, Chairman, Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia, dated August 28, 1967, advising that they are in accord with the objectives of S. 1941, but recommending that it be amended to impose upon the Public Service Commission specific responsibility for dealing with air pollution problems created by utility companies, and copy of Mr. Avery's speech before the Maryland-District of Columbia Utilities Association in April 1967. And a letter from the State of Maryland Department of Health dated August 16, 1967, expressing opposition to overly specific air pollution legislation. We will incorporate these exhibits in their entirety in the record at this point. (The material referred to follows:) Mr. CHESTER H. SMITH, WASHINGTON GAS LIGHT Co., Staff Director, Committee on the District of Columbia, DEAR MR. SMITH: We greatly appreciate your courtesy and consideration in inviting us to comment on S. 1941. Related comments, citing comparative data on sulfur pollution caused by several energy sources, was provided on March 15, 1967 in testimony of the undersigned before the Subcommittee on Business and Commerce of the Senate District Committee. At the 1966 National Conference on Air Pollution the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare pointed out the immediate and increasingly dangerous threat of air pollution to our health and welfare, and commented that "neither government nor industry has yet moved forward with the vigor and determination that this problem requires." We subscribe to this view, and the following observations and comments are offered for consideration in the spirit of moving ahead more quickly with establishment of specific and enforceable restrictions, without imposing unreasonable hardships on those responsible for the pollution. In an attempt to improve local air pollution control, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments after lengthy study and deliberation, participated in by representatives of the concerned jurisdictions-developed a Model Local Air Pollution Control Ordnance. This document was published in 1966, and since then it has been subjected to close study by the local jurisdictions concerned. From our informal contacts with the local jurisdictions, it appears that the model ordinance, in its essential features, can be put into effect without undue delay in spite of the fact that some hardships may be experienced by users and suppliers of coal and oil. However, provisions by the jurisdictions concerned to allow exemptions or partial exemptions (and their renewal as necessary) should prevent any serious hardships from occurring. Establishment of uniform air pollution control measures in the local area is a desirable thing, since it is obvious that: 1) air pollution ignores jurisdictional boundaries, and 2) meaningful, decisive action taken in the Metropolitan Washington Area will serve as a useful example to other metropolitan areas where adjacent jurisdictions exist. A typical local jurisdiction, Montgomery County, Maryland, already has adopted an air pollution code which is closely patterned after the COG model ordinance; this was done following public hearings on the subject. Also, the House Bill on this subject, H. R. 6981, closely follows the model ordinance. With the considerable background of study of this problem which already has been accomplished, it is our opinion that much valuable time will be saved in getting a useful air pollution control program in effect if the essential and readily enforceable features of the COG model ordinance are incorporated in S. 1941patterned generally after the specific prohibition of emissions contained in Sections 9 and 10 of H. R. 6981. By doing this, those who feel they cannot immediately and fully comply, without undue hardship, will be forced to reexamine their position and to present adequate justification for an exemption or partial exemption. Cordially. RICHARD C. Vierbuchen, WASHINGTON BUILDING CONGRESS, INC., STATEMENT OF THE WASHINGTON BUILDING CONGRESS ON THE SUBJECT OF AIR The Washington Building Congress, is the trade association representing the construction industry of the Metropolitan Washington area. Our membership of some 1600 business men and construction firms is vitally concerned with the increasing problem of air pollution. We have been requested to report on what action the construction industry is taking to reduce air pollution. It is our strong conviction that the construction industry, although never a major offender, has minimized its contribution through modern equipment and improved methods of demolition and construction. The majority of equipment now used is powered by electricity. The older gasoline and diesel fueled machinery is being phased out. It is true that dust and debris are created on the demolition site, but we have learned to control its escape into the air by constantly sprinkling the site. It has become a rarity for leftover wreckage to be eliminated by site burning. Rather, such debris is hauled away. Demolition and hauling at even large construction areas causes at most, only localized dust, never the posionous smoke and fumes that threatenes our health and darkens our atmosphere. Thus, it is our contention that it is not the construction industry that is creating or even compounding the problems of air pollution. It is the responsibility of the government and owners and management of the buildings we construct to control, and hopefully, eliminate the release of air pollutants. At the present time there are no adequate laws in the District of Columbia to control the noxious fumes that constantly pour from chimneys, incinerators and motor vehicles throughout the city. As long ago as 1935, Congress passed a Smoke Law for the District of Columbia and authorized the Commissioners to determine what density of smoke was to be used as a guage for violations. This was a step in the right direction but it did not go far enough. Bear in mind that in 1935 Washington had few high rise apartments, not too many large office buildings, little industry, and only a fraction of the automobile traffic now spewing forth choking fumes. Furthermore, the law was applicable only to visible smoke-it contained no provisions for control of fumes. From 1935 until 1961, in spite of the ever-increasing growth of Washington, no additional controls or regulations were passed to govern the burgeoning outlets of air pollutants. In 1961, the measurement level of smoke density, as set forth in the Ringelmann Chart, was changed-but still, in the face of a serious problem, the law had no teeth in it and no controls to govern exhaust fumes. One of the major contributing factors to our present air pollution problems is the obsolete and antiquated heating and incinerator systems in the older apartments and office buildings. In our slum areas, shameful as it may be, many of our citizens have only wood and coal burning stoves to use for cooking and heating which, naturally, leads to a heavy concentration of pollution. This leads us to another very important concern-the matter of health. Medical authorities are gravely concerned by the effect of air pollution on persons with respiratory diseases, and it is generally believed that such serious illnesses as cancer of the lungs, emphysema, and heart diseases are directly attributable to constant pollution of the air we breathe. Certainly all the above are dangerous hazards, but let us pinpoint one of the greatest contributors to air pollution problems the thousands of automobiles, trucks and buses operating in our area. Their combustion fumes are not only a threat to mankind, but also to animal and plant life. This brings us to another subject close to Washingtonians. Many thousands of dollars and countless hours of planning and design have gone into the White House beautification programs through the planting of ornamental plantlife along our city streets and in our parks. Then, thousands of dollars more are spent replacing these plants, shrubs and trees that are killed and diseased by the fumes from automotive engines and other air pollutants. A very definite solution to some of these problems will be brought about by the completion of the proposed subway system and it is hoped that this mode of transportation will eliminate to a degree some of the downtown automotive traffic. Gentlemen, no doubt we have digressed from the subject of what construction practices have contributed to the air pollution problem, but we emphasized these points because they more greatly contribute to air pollution than do construction methods and techniques used today. New and improved building materials and equipment now utilized in our industry have, to a large measure, eliminated the use of equipment-producing air pollutants. But let us assure you the construction industry readily recognizes the need for immediate and drastic legislation to do something NOW, and we pledge our wholehearted support to uphold any laws passed that will minimize this threat to our well-being and towards making our capital city the beautiful center of our country it should be. Hon. JOSEPH D. TYDINGS, Committee on The District of Columbia, D.C. TRANSIT SYSTEM, INC., MY DEAR SENATOR TYDINGS: D.C. Transit System, Inc., as you are aware, operates in excess of 1,100 diesel passenger buses in the Metropolitan Area of the District of Columbia and over the years has had its Engineering and Research & Development Departments working on programs for the purpose of diminishing and or eliminating air pollution in the District of Columbia. D.C. Transit System, Inc. endorses S. 1941 and assures you that it will continue to use all of its facilities toward the end that there shall be maintained that degree of purity of the air resources of the District of Columbia which will protect public health, general welfare and property. I strongly urge the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia, after the enactment of this legislation, that persons appointed to serve on the Air Pollution Control Advisory Council meet the qualifications and standards set forth in this legislation. Many worthless devices with exaggerated claims have appeared on the market and will continue to be offered to the public. There is no doubt that eventually a device and or devices will be perfected to control air pollution in the District of Columbia and we must be certain that the persons selected to serve on the Air Pollution Control Advisory Council are persons who not only have the experience required in matters of air pollution control, but that they have the ability, as well, to weed out the worthless devices. D.C. Transit System, Inc. is ready and willing to assist in the carrying out of the purposes for which this legislation is being enacted and most heartily supports the proposed legislation. Sincerely yours, O. ROY CHALK. OIL HEAT INSTITUTE OF GREATER WASHINGTON, Mr. CHESTER H. SMITH, DEAR MR. SMITH: Thank you very much for your letter and the two copies of S. 1941. As I told you by phone yesterday, our association is very interested in air pollution control legislation, and especially in the bills now being proposed for the District of Columbia by Senator Tydings and Congressman Gude. Our local fuel oil industry is not opposed to Air Pollution Control legislation-because we want clean air too. Our main concern is that the 1% sulphur limitation for all fuels as proposed in the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments' Model Air Pollution Control Ordinance-which is the bill that Congressman Gude is sponsoring, does not take into account economic considerations for consumers, nor does it give any consideration to the problems of supply, storage and distribution. With this in mind, the oil industry has proposed a sulphur reduction schedule to both Senator Tydings and Congressman Gude, calling for a gradual reduction over the next two years which would not be so precipitous, and which would have less financial impact on hospitals, apartment houses, office buildings, hotels, and other large buildings, including government installations. This schedule calls for limitations of 2 sulphur in residual fuels to be applicable by July 1, 1967 (now currently in effect on a voluntary basis by the Washington area oil industry), 1.5 sulphur limitation applicable by July 1, 1968, and 1.0% sulphur limitation applicable by July 1, 1969. If Congressman Gude were to include this schedule in H.R. 6981, we would prefer the Gude bill; but on the other hand, if a gradual sulphur reduction program |