sources of pollution are referred to the appropriate enforcement agency in the State in which the pollutant originates. The policy of the Interstate Sanitation Commission in implementing this legislation is to assist the States of New York and New Jersey by collecting information on air pollution, which is interstate in character, and by submitting data and reports to the commissioners of health in the two States.

The proposed activities of the commission on a long-term basis are as follows:


Investigate air pollution complaints that are believed to be interstate in nature which are caused by accidental or unusual conditions rather than by normal operation. An example would be an odor incident which requires immediate investigation and we would not be hampered by inability to cross State lines. If the polluter was near the State line and wind was in a direction away from the State, the local and State agency would have difficulty in determining the location of the source of the pollutant.

With our small staff, most of our investigations are limited to requests by existing agencies to check on pollution from sources due to normal operation, which is interstate in nature and outside their jurisdiction or to obtain substantiating data on interstate air pollution which originates from areas within their jurisdiction. Most of the sampling of the existing State agencies is set up for monitoring areas for long periods of time for background information, and the Interstate Sanitation Commission does not endeavor to do any of this type of sampling. Our investigations are for shorter periods of sampling to trace the source of air

pollutants which are interstate in nature. The commission uses any data and information of existing air pollution agencies before determining if additional sampling is necessary to trace sources of air pollutants.


The gathering of information on interstate problems from existing air pollution control agencies, industrial, public, and private organizations and persons for exchange and dissemination with and among interested persons or organizations, as requested.


Complaints of an alleged interstate character would be referred to the State commissioner of health, or someone designated by him in the State in which the air pollutants are located, along with such data and information as it may have obtained with respect to nature, characteristics, source, path, and effect of air pollutants.

Complaints of a local character (noninterstate) made to this commission from the general public would be referred to existing control agencies.


Any research undertaken will be limited in nature. Should it be determined that particular studies or research are needed on some interstate problem, which cannot be undertaken by one of the States, application would be made to the Public Health Service for a special grant to carry out the work needed. If the States determine there is research which might be more desirable for the commission to conduct than the two States, and Federal money is not available, the necessary appropriation will be requested to meet these needs.

The commission has an annual budget of $32,000, contrary to what has been stated here this morning. If this amount appears small, it must be remembered that the Interstate Sanitation Commission only supplements the work of the State and local agencies.

Senator MUSKIE. You are not really an operating agency in the field of air pollution; you are a study and referral agency?

Mr. GLENN. And investigative, too.
Senator MUSKIE. And investigative, too!
Dr. Corosi. We have investigative powers as well.

Senator MUSKIE. Does $32,000 cover your entire investigative activity?

Dr. Colosi. It does, as I will explain further on.

The activities of the commission on a short-term basis is a detailed study of sulfur dioxide and certain particulates in the Staten IslandNew Jersey area, which is now in progress. In the commission's study and 1958 report, “Smoke and Air Pollution," one of the major air pollution problems in this area was determined to be the transport of sulfur dioxide fumes across from New Jersey to Staten Island. This survey is making use of a Davis SO, analyzer, located in a mobile unit and several sequential samplers at fixed locations. This is supplemented with lead peroxide candles. Meteorological and plant pathological determinations also are being made in the area of study.

The commission has an advisory Committee on air pollution consisting of representatives from the State health departments, air pol. lution control boards and commissions, New York City Department of Air Pollution Control, and the Public Health Service.

From our previous appearances before your subcommittee and other congressional committees, our commission has favored Federal legis. lation which would provide for increased research and training activities in air and water pollution control. However, we have opposed enforcement procedures on the initiative of the Secretary of NEW without a request by one of the States. We believe that Public Law 88–206 will be of great value in expanding needed air pollution control activities. We recognize that the Federal Government would and should play a large role in pollution control. However, that role should not be permitted to grow to the point where it makes State initiative and responsibility disappear. There should continue to be a genuine division of labor between the Federal and State Governments.

Section 4 of Public Law 88-206, which was recently passed, provides for grants in support of State and interstate air pollution control programs. Such support will be very useful. In our water pollution control program, we at the Interstate Sanitation Commission have direct experience with program grants under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act which has made funds available through the Public Health Service. In recent years, these Federal grants have accounted for about one-third of our water pollution control budget, with the States of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut supplying the other two-thirds. This aid has been a factor in our active and effective water pollution control program.

In recent weeks, the commission's staff members have been quite active on the New York-New Jersey Cooperative Committee on Interstate Air Pollution with respect to two important activities:

(1) Drafting of a proposal for a comprehensive air pollution survey of the New York-New Jersey metropolitan area : The objective of this survey would be to develop information for establishing a unified air resource management program for this New York-New Jersey metropolitan area. The following agencies would participate in this survey: New Jersey State Department of Health (air sanitation program); New York State Air Pollution Control Board ; New York City Department of Air Pollution Control; Interstate Sanitation Commission (New York and New Jersey).

It is hoped that this much needed survey may be funded with a Federal grant under section 3, Public Law 88,206, so that funds would not have to be diverted from State control programs.

(2) Drafting of a proposal for a regional air pollution warning system: Monitoring stations established in the survey above would accelerate the implementation of this alert system and the same agencies listed under (1) would be participating as well as the Public Health Service and the U.S. Weather Bureau. The need of a warning system has been demonstrated by conditions during previous inversions in this area.

Activities in the commission's air pollution program are now underway. The cooperative and supplementary efforts of this commission with the other agencies will bring about å reduction in the interstate air pollution in the New York metropolitan area.

Thank you very much.

Senator Muskie. Thank you, Doctor. Would you agree, then, that the development of the regional approach to this problem has a high order of priority?

Dr. Colos. Yes, sir; I do.

Senator MUSKIE. In your water program you do have enforcement authority; am I correct?

Dr. Colosi. Yes, we have that."

Senator Muskie. Do you think that you would need, actually, similar authority in the air pollution part, or would the referral method suffice?

Dr. Corosi. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have profound faith in voluntary efforts, in voluntary agencies, but I think some agencies should have enforcement powers just in case they have to be used. Sometimes such powers will inspire voluntary efforts to become more effective.

Senator MUSKIE. So, you think that you may need eventually to have some enforcement authority?

Dr. Colosi. I would say yes, Mr. Chairman.

Senator MUSKIE. Are you as an agency, the Interstate Sanitation Commission as an agency, going to apply for program grants under the Clean Air Act? Do you plan to?

Dr. Colosi. We don't plan to apply, as far as we know; but on the program right now, we are just limited to just making studies when

[blocks in formation]

ever we get a complaint, and refer the findings to an existing enforcement agency.

We have an application for program grants. We may get to the point where enforcement powers will have to be also given to the commission.

Senator MUSKIE. How much is your request for program grants ?

Mr. Glenn. Well, we have only put in an application. The forms have not been prepared yet.

Senator MUSKIE. I see.

Mr. GLENN. But, we have at the present time a budget of $32,000 just for air pollution. So, it would be just according to what the rules would allow.

Senator MUSKIE. Have you decided yet what kind of additional activities you ought to undertake?

Mr. GLENN. Yes, we have made plans that way.
Senator MUSKIE. Would you like to spell those out now?

Mr. GLENN. Not right now. I could submit that along with this other information that you wanted.

Senator MUSKIE. Fine, thank you.
Thank you very much, Dr. Colosi and gentlemen.

(Subsequently the following communication, containing the requested information, was received :)


New York, N.Y., February 25, 1964. Senator EDMUND MUSKIE, Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, Committee on

Public Works, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR: Interstate Sanitation Commission wishes to thank you again for the opportunity to participate in the hearing of your subcommittee which was held on February 18, 1964, and to discuss our air pollution program.

We wish to submit the additional information which you requested at the hearing.

1. The commission received 45 complaints concerning air pollution during 1963 which were alleged to be interstate in character. All complaints were pertaining to industrial air pollutants. Fifteen were for objectional odors, 5 were for smoke, and 25 were irritants (ranging from slight nuisance to choking, eye watering, and difficulty to breathe). Each of these complaints were referred to the appropriate agency for necessary action with a minimum investigation by our small staff.

2. The commission has requested application forms when they become available so that a program grant may be requested under section 4 of Public Law 88–206. This would provide funds for expanding our existing program. This would make it possible to investigate complaints which are interstate in nature and to obtain data and information with respect to the nature and characteristics, source, path, and effect of the air pollutant before referring to the appropriate agency of the States which has enforcement power for abatement of the pollutant. In addition, the commission would increase and diversify field studies for point sources of pollution in areas where there are multiple sources of air pollutants.

In our statement we indicated that we are participating in the drafting of a proposal for a comprehensive air pollution survey in the New York-New Jersey metropolitan area with several agencies in this area. We hope that this survey may be funded with Federal grant under section 3 of Public Law 88–206, and this survey would not only develop information for establishing a unified air resource management program for this area but would also provide monitoring stations and necessary equipment for a regional air pollution warning system. We be lieve that the warning system is so necessary for this area that we would recommend to the other agencies that we should apply for program grant money for this purpose under section 4 if it is found that the comprehensive survey cannot

be funded 100 percent with the Federal grant under section 3 of the Public Law 88–206. This commission will be able to specify in more detail an expanded program with program grant funds as soon as it is determined if the comprehensive air pollution survey of this area becomes a reality.

We hope this provides the information you requested, and please let us know if we can be of any further assistance to your subcommittee. Sincerely yours,

Dr. NATALE COLOSI, Chairman. Senator MUSKIE. Our next witness is Dr. Leonard Greenburg. You may proceed, sir.



Dr. GREENBURG. Mr. Senator, I am very grateful for the opportunity to come here today-I was going to say "this morning"-today and appear before your committee, because I have been interested in this problem for some time and I was the first commissioner of air pollution control of the city of New York.

At the present time I am professor and chairman of the department of preventive medicine at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine here in New York City.

But, I spend a good deal of time on this problem in spite of the fact that I have no official capacity, except that I am a member of the State board, and I have been a member of the State board of air pollution control since it was set up, since the board was set up.

At the present time, my work with air pollution is chiefly on an investigative character on health effects of air pollution, and we published a number of papers along those lines. In fact, the last paper that we published was published in the Public Health Reports in December of 1963, and we have another interesting document coming out in one of the national journals in April of this year.

In thinking about this presentation, in answer to your committee's investigation, I wondered about what was the best thing to say here at a meeting in order to help the movement as much as I could.

It occurred to me that so many people who appear before your committee and who have appeared before your committee to speak about the broader aspects of the problem as it affects them in their official capacity, and the problem of getting funds, and so on, that I thought that I would just like to pinpoint one or two or three of the important problems, and then try to answer any questions which you or your associates might like to ask, because I think the questions which have been going on this morning were very interesting and very searching.

I am in a somewhat independent position, being a college professor now and not tied up strictly with a day-to-day enforcement agency, and I think that that helps a little bit.

At this time we need not elaborate on the effects of air pollution on health. This aspect of the problem has received a great deal of study and discussion during the past few years.

We are convinced that air pollution is a cause of ill health and death. In addition, air pollution constitutes a burden on the population in many other ways, a fact which requires no elaboration at this time.

« ForrigeFortsett »