Page images

I knew that you would want to go into this matter very carefully with Mr. MacKenzie.

I would like the privilege, Mr. Chairman, of having Mr. Mackenzie respond at this point. Of course, as you hear his statement and have later colloquies, it could be determined more fully what his recommendations and thinking might be on this point.

Mr. MACKENZIE. There are several points, Senator Randolph, that I think are pertinent to your opening statements on this particular subject.

First, I think that the issuance of the Executive order by the President is a significant forward step in the posture of the Federal Government in providing leadership and following exemplary practices with respect to its own buildings and facilities as concerned with the control of air pollution.

There are problems attendant on this as are noted in the President's Executive order.

The standards which have been issued by reglation by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, are intended to expand on, by providing details, the policy which has been enunciated in the President's Executive order. We believe that by establishing these standards there will be a reasonable and orderly way forward for all of the Federal departments and agencies to proceed.

There are two types of installations affected here, namely those which are new, which have not yet been constructed, and to which the standards will apply immediately, all of the agencies are directed by the Executive order to make budgetary provision in their planning for air pollution control in such new Federal facilities and buildings.

With respect to existing installations, however, the magnitude of the problem to be dealt with has not been fully determined. There are many thousands of Federal buildings and facilities throughout the country ranging in size from the small village post office to large military bases.

To examine these in detail and determine the amount of remedial action that will be necessary to control pollution effectively from each location is a fair-sized chore. It is for this reason, and also for budgeting and scheduling of the expenditures that will be required, that à time schedule has been set up for doing the necessary evaluation work and reporting to the Bureau of the Budget as to the estimates and the scheduling of the work that will be necessary by each agency.

With respect to the problem of sulfur particularly, this has been a very troublesome problem not only to us but to many air control pollution agencies throughout the country.

The sulfur pollution problem in some sections of the country in our opinion has reached virtually a critical stage.

In my view, there are areas in the country in which I believe the sulfur pollution is actually dangerous to human health. On this account we have given the control of sulfurous pollution a high priority in our overall program, both with respect to research undertakings, and also in evaluation of the various steps that can be taken on an interim basis until we have better technical answers to deal with the problems.

There are a number of these things that can be done now, such as substitution of fuels having lower sulfur content, the use of very tall

[ocr errors][merged small]

stacks to improve dilution and dispersion of the combustion gases from large sources, and by planning new installations in areas where the pollution problem is not as critical as in some others.

These things we regard, however, only as temporary expedients. We do not know currently the most effective way in which to deal with this problem on a long-range basis.

There are attempts going forward through research to develop procedures by which sulfur can be removed from the fuels. Some of these are technically feasible at the present time, particularly with respect to petroleum fuels, but at a cost which has not been acceptable to many users, particularly in industry and elsewhere.

With respect to coal, the situation is less promising with regard to removal of the sulfur from the fuel. We do not have a good technology developed for this purpose as is the case with respect to oil, although work is still proceeding on this aspect of the problem, also.

Perhaps the most promising technical area for further development, particularly as related to the emission of sulfurous compounds by large fuel users, is concerned with the technology of removing sulfur compounds from the combustion gases. Here there have been developed on a laboratory scale and on a small pilot plant scale a number of processes that we think have real technical promise of application for removal of sulfur from the stack gases. This development work is being prosecuted both by public agencies and by private organizations. I am hopeful that, within perhaps the next 5 years, there will be improved tools that we will have available to deal with the problem by this route. Are there other questions, sir?

Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman, if you will permit me one additional question, I would appreciate it.

There is no more questioning that I desire on this point which flows from the impact of the Presidential directive.

Last December 14, Mr. Chairman, in company with Senator Harris, we conducted a hearing on air pollution in the area of Parkersburg and Marietta, Ohio, in the Ohio Valley region.

I found, at that time, that the problem was much more acute than
I had previously felt existed.

I know the chairman and the members of the subcommittee felt it as they have gone into the field.

In your statement today, which I have had the privilege of studying, you make reference to five abatement actions.

Mr. MACKENZIE. I believe there are a total of eight that are mentioned in the entire statement, sir.

Senator RANDOLPH. There are these actions that have been taken by the Secretary in five interstate areas. That is what I am really thinking of, eight in the five interstate areas.

Mr. Mackenzie, three of these are in the Ohio Valley, and they involve the State of West Virginia. We are intensely interested in what is being done.

We have in the State of West Virginia an air pollution control commission. Not all States have such commissions. So we are conscious at the State as well as the Federal level of this problem.

Would you desire to comment on the actions that have been taken, particularly in these interstate areas, that have also a bearing on the

[ocr errors]

State of West Virginia? I couple that with another thought: In the Ohio Valley, can you see the advisability of an interstate compact that might be effective for control of air pollution?

Mr. MACKENZIE. I wouldn't want to prejudge the recommendations that may result from actions that have been initiated, sir. Certainly, there are problems along the Ohio River Valley that affect at least three States: Ohio, West Virginia, and Kentucky.

The actions which have been undertaken have been as a result of preliminary evaluation and surveillance of the situation in each individual instance.

The data that have been accumulated from such surveillance have indicated to us that air pollution is arising in both States and is traveling across the State lines and may be presumed to be adversely affecting health and welfare across the State lines.

We are currently developing additional information. The first step in the abatement action, as you undoubtedly know, under the Clean Air Act, is to hold a consultation with the representatives of the affected States. These are currently being scheduled.

It may well be that a satisfactory schedule for dealing with the problem may be mutually agreed upon at such consultation. If so, it would be very pleasing to us to merely follow along and see how the schedule is being implemented.

If it should be necessary, however, to pursue further the abatement process as set up in the Clean Air Act, we would propose to do this, also.

The sources of pollution concerned in these areas are related primarily to relatively heavy industry, power generation, and so on.

The control of sources of pollution of this kind in general is practical. That is, the technical procedures are available to reduce polluting emissions, and we want to examine the situation in detail in cooperation with the States involved to see that the problem is receiving the appropriate attention and that the remedial actions are scheduled on a reasonable time basis.

Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Mackenzie, do you find that the States, thinking now particularly of West Virginia, Ohio, and Kentucky, are cooperating?

Mr. MACKENZIE. We have had no difficulty in effecting cooperation on this matter, sir.

Senator RANDOLPH. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful that you allowed me out of turn to discuss these matters with Mr. Mackenzie.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you, Senator Randolph.
You may proceed.
Mr. MACKENZIE. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I appreciate very greatly the opportunity to appear again before you.

I have a statement which is relatively long. For the convenience of the committee, if you would like, I would be glad to attempt to condense it to some degree and provide the complete statement for the record.

: 1

Senator MUSKIE. It will be done that way. Thank you. Mr. MACKENZIE. The adoption of the Clean Air Act in December 1963 and the enactment of major amendments to it in October 1965 gave the Federal Government a mandate to provide leadership and assistance in the national effort to control air pollution.

In the 214 years since the adoption of the Clean Air Act, far-reaching changes have taken place in the air

pollution activities of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; changes which constitute important steps toward the creation of a truly dynamic national program capable of meeting more effectively the threat of air pollution in all of the diverse ways in which it affects the lives and the well-being of the American people.

We now have an opportunity to begin reversing the rising trend of air pollution and to start reducing its impact on public health and the national welfare, provided that all who share in the responsibility for controlling air pollution accept their responsibilities.

One of the primary objectives of the Clean Air Act is to stimulate increased air pollution control activity at the State and local level of government. For the first time the Clean Air Act provided authority to award Federal funds directly to State and local agencies to assist them in dealing with community air pollution problems within their jurisdictions.

Under the provisions of the Clean Air Act, grants are now being made for projects for the development of new air pollution control programs,

the establishment of programs already authorized by local or State law, and the improvement of existing programs.

The response to this new Federal grant activity has indeed been heartening. In all parts of the country, State and local governments have chosen to increase their spending for air pollution programs in order to qualify for the Federal grants.

Thus, non-Federal contributions to governmental budgeting for air pollution activities have increased about 40 percent since the enactment of the Clean Air Act. Totally, including both Federal and nonFederal contributions, the funds available for State and local air pollution programs have increased by about 65 percent since the adoption of the Clean Air Act.

An increase of such magnitude, which has occurred within only 2 Tears of Federal grant stimulation, is unprecedented. Of the agencies that have received Federal grants under the Clean Air Act, 52 are developing new programs, another 18 are establishing programs which had already been legally authorized but not activated.

Thus, as a direct result of the Federal grants activity, efforts are now being made which, if fully successful, will bring a total of 70 new air pollution control programs into being.

In addition, 40 agencies have received grants to assist in the improvement of existing programs. However, I do not want to present to you an overly optimistic picture. Senator Mtskie. Before you get into that, do I understand from the

your testimony that you are about to skip that there are now 33 States that have air pollution control programs?

part of

Mr. MACKENZIE. Yes, sir.
Senator MUSKIE. And there were 17 before that?

Mr. MACKENZIE. The number of States with programs has significantly increased. A number of these, of course, are just beginning and one could not say that they have reached a truly effective stage of operation yet.

Senator MUSKIE. This is a judgment you may not be in a position to make, but are there areas where there is a significant air pollution problem where no programs have as yet been established ?

Mr. MACKENZIE. Yes, sir; there are.
Senator MUSKIE. Could you give us a list of those?

Mr. MACKENZIE. I don't know that I have a full list, but we have made estimates and I would be glad to assemble a list for the use of the committee if our resources will permit this.

Senator MUSKIE. And if we could also have a list of these States and communities that have programs now in being, it would be helpful.

Mr. MACKENZIE. We would be glad to provide this for the record. Senator MUSKIE. It will be included in the record.

(Subsequently, the following information was submitted :) LOCAL, STATE, AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENTAL AIR POLLUTION



The following lists roughly index the geographical occurrence of air pollution problems in the United States and the efforts being made to control these problems. In compiling the lists several criteria were used. First of all, it was generally assumed that cities with a population of 50,000 or more had an air pollution problem for the potential for one) that could best be controlled at the local level of government. Therefore, all cities in the United States with a population of 50.000 or more are listed with an indication of whether or not they are served by a minimum or better local air pollution control program. A minimum program is arbitrarily defined as one spending no less than $5,000 a year. Supplementing this list of cities is a tabulation of local government agencies currently receiving Federal matching grant support, the amounts of these grants, and the amounts of current non-Federal budgets.

Secondly, it was generally assumed that every State had smaller communities whose air pollution problems were serious enough to warrant control programs, but whose resources were not adequate to support the necessary effort. These conmunities, it was generally assumed, depend on State air pollution control programs. Therefore, all the States and the United States possessions are listed with in indication of whether or not they are served by a minimum or better State air pollution control program. A minimum program is again defined as one spending no less than $5,000 per year. Supplementing this list is a tabulation of State and possession agencies currently receiving Federal matching grant support, the amounts of these grants, and the amounts of current nonFederal budgets and pregrant non-Federal budgets.

« PreviousContinue »