Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

I would just, before I read this statement, like to point out a couple of high points, or perhaps it would be better to let those go until later. In this statement, which is very brief, I wanted to point out a couple of important and pressing problems.

I think that at the present time there is a lack of utilization of control devices. This lack, I believe, is to be ascribed to two basic reasons:

In the first place, we lack the know-how to build efficient and dependable control equipment for certain processes; and, two, when efficient control equipment is available, it is often not installed and not used. This is due frequently to high cost, and sometimes to a lack of enforcement power by the official agency.

Now, so far as the control devices are concerned, even at this time, some at least 6 or possibly 7 years after the automobile problem was first given such wide attention in Los Angeles, we still do not have a device with which to control the tailpipe gases of an automobile.

Los Angeles has spent a great deal of money on this. The control district in Los Angeles has been one of the most active districts in the whole United States, and probably the most active.

The State of California, the Los Angeles Control District, and the Public Health Service have been working on this problem for a long time and, together, they have spent a great deal of money. By “a great deal,” I mean something of the order of $2 or $3 or $4 million. And, still, we don't have a control device for the tailpipe of the automobile.

This, I hope, will be achieved in the not-too-distant future. At that time, when it is achieved, then it will be possible to control one important part of the total problem of air pollution.

Now, I was asked about this when I was commissioner, and I said that I did not think that there was much use in the city of New York trying to get a little money together to work on this problem. And I said that the reason that I feel that way is because Los Angeles has had a head start on us by several years, and they spent a great deal of money, and we cannot possibly catch up with them or help them in the problem.

“So," I said, “Let us wait until Los Angeles solves its problem, the city of Los Angeles, the Public Health Service, and the State of California, and then we will put it into effect immediately," and this was the plan that I had envisioned when I was commissioner.

I don't mean to minimize what they have done out there. Rather, I want to congratulate them for their strenuous efforts in this matter. But, still, we don't have an answer. This shows how long it may take to come up with some of these answers that we are interested in.

I would like to speak for a few minutes on the problem of waste disposal. This has been mentioned by Commissioner Kandle this morning and by several others, but I would like to emphasize it.

Between the natural rate of population increase in the United States and the expanding cities, the decreasing rural areas, what was once countryside has often become an aggregate of towns which are coalescing.

Even last week the New York Times told the story of the problem in Dutchess County, where the development of a factory complex has radically altered the living problem in that area. This trend is taking place all over the United States, and we should recognize and realize what problems it is bringing about.

I would like to speak, in that connection, with reference to the refuse disposal problem. In our American culture, the amount of refuse, garbage, and waste paper per person, on the average, is enormous. The annual rate of the refuse of New York City is slightly less than 5 million tons per year, a weight approximately equivalent to 1,000 to 1,200 pounds per person per year. To this, must be added about 600,000 tons of combustible construction waste, scrap lumber, and so on.

When I was commissioner this was a big headache, because when we tried to do something about this scrap lumber we could not find any place to burn it under satisfactory conditions. We tried various resources to see if we could not chop it up into small pieces and burn it in the city incinerator, and this did not become feasible.

In past years it was the practice to bury a lot of this waste, lumber and all

. But this practice is coming to an end because land for refuse burial is not readily available, and as time goes on there will be less and less of it.

I appreciate the fact that the figures for New York are exceedingly large, but this problem is also true of smaller communities. Only in the last couple of weeks has this broken out in the paper. Here is a story of two towns in Long Island.

This is a February 14 issue of the New York Times (indicating) where it points out that the “North Shore Boston tea party staged to protest an incinerator plant on Long Island,” with interesting photographs of what they are doing out there. I can leave you these for the record if you would like to have them.

Interestingly enough, the Fort Salonga Association on Long Island wrote me a letter, because I happen to have a little land out there. We have sold our houses, but we still have some land. We are a member of this association, and they are now going to the State board of air pollution to complain about the town of Huntington, which has an incinerator right on the border between Huntington and Fort Salonga, and their problem, they feel, is insurmountable under the present conditions.

Then, in looking over my old files, I found a clip from the Wall Street Journal of October 1961, where the cities' rubbish woes grow as volume rises. “Dumping Sites Fill Up.” And here is a long story about cities all over the United States where the problem of refuse disposal has become acute.

It seems to me that the thing to do is to anticipate this important problem and try to do something about it. The fact of the matter is that we don't know how to build a satisfactory large-size incinerator for town refuse that will not pollute the area around it.

It seems to me that here is where some agency—and I believe this agency to be the U.S. Public Health Service-where experimental work on a practical scale is needed in order to come up with controls, techniques and controls, which can be passed out to communities all over the United States to aid them in this difficult problem.

If we turn from communities of this type to New York City, we find that there are at least 15,000—and, I believe, more like 20,000— incinerators in apartment houses in New York City.

According to the law in New York City, every apartment house containing 4 stores or more in height, if I remember correctly, and containing 12 or more apartments, has to be provided with an incinerator to burn up the refuse.

This would be very good if we knew how to build one of these incinerators. But, we don't know how to build these properly, and the result is that much of this smoke that you see in this picture here (indicating) is due to incinerators which are burning all around this area.

Just imagine 15,000 localized bonfires in a city like New York, without adequate control and designed in such a way that, once the fire is going on and somebody drops a bottle or a bundle of newspapers in the chute from the fourth or the eighth story, it goes down to the fire box, hits the charred papers, and these charred papers go right up the flue and go out into the neighborhood.

This is not imagination; this is the fact. You can put your automobile on any city block in New York where they have incinerators, and the next morning it will be full all over with charred paper.

And the snow comes out in New York the same way. When we have a snow storm here, the next morning the snow is black due to incinerator discharges for the most part.

I say that here is another area where the Public Health Service should help, by working on the technicalities of this problem and trying to come up with an answer.

When I was commissioner of air pollution control we got some money from the Public Health Service to study this problem. Over a period of 3 years, we spent $75,000 that they gave us in conjunction with the New York University School of Engineering, and in spite of the fact that we spent 3 years studying this problem, we did not come up with an answer which I considered satisfactory, and I don't think that the present commissioner of air pollution control in New York considers it satisfactory, either.

All this means is that this problem of incinerators is shaping up very much like the problem of the exhaust pipe on automobiles. It needs more time; it needs more study; it needs more money thrown into the project in order to come up with an answer.

Now, in addition to this, to these problems, is the problem of heating devices. In a city like New York there is a tremendous amount of heavy fuel oil burned each year. It is true that there is a lot of coal burned here and a good deal of gas. But the fuel oil consumption is increasing all of the time.

In general, this is No. 6 fuel oil, heavy, residual fuel oil. In order to burn properly, this has to be kept hot. It has to be heated before it is blown under the boiler, and it has to be maintained under proper conditions by means of controls so that it doesn't produce smoke. The air-fuel ratio has to be maintained at a proper level.

These things work fairly well in the middle of the winter, fairly well. Some of them work badly; some of them work very well.

But, in the spring, when the heat is on very intermittently, and in the fall, when the heat is on only intermittently, these devices usually produce a good deal of smoke and pollute the atmosphere. More study should be devoted to this particular part of our problem. It is only by doing this that we will come up with some kind of controls that will help us to avoid pollution of the air.

You will note that in both of these instances I have turned back to the ultimate source of pollution: the incinerator, the individual incinerator, the individual community incinerator, the boiler for keeping apartment houses warn, and so on.

I do this for one reason: We have had a lot of discussion this morning about control agencies, but, when you come down to it, the source of pollution is in the individual device, and in order to effect control we have got to wrestle with the individual device that makes the pollution.

Let me put it another way. If every device in New York were controlled, and every device in the State of New Jersey were controlled, and every device west of the State of New Jersey were controlled, there would be no interstate problem of air pollution.

You come down to the individual source of pollution, and this is where we have to get our good work, it seems to me.

The reason that we have not achieved this is manifold. We don't have these devices in many cases. We don't know enough about the technique. And we have to spend time and money to learn this. We have to know how to write regulations, and we have to know how to write a basic law. If the basic law is not sound and the regulations are not sound, then no commissioner in this world can enforce the regulations.

If you tried to enforce regulations in New York City that are not absolutely sound and tight and legalproof, lawyers will trip you up and throw you out of court. As commissioner, many times we brought people into court and unsympathetic magistrates did not help us enforce the law.

Finally, there is a question of money. I want to make one suggestion to your committee, if I may, Senator Muskie, and that is this: That if any money is given out by any agency, a State agency for matching funds to help the city, or the Federal agency to help the State and to help the city, then I would like to see something written in there which said that: “We are giving you these matching funds, but they will be withdrawn if you cut down your own funds in this program."

In other words, if a city is spending a half-million dollars, and some agency, Federal or State, gives them another half-million, that the receipt of that second half-million from the Federal Government or the State government is only contingent on the maintenance of that money by the local authority, because I am afraid-and without citing cases, which I cannot do at this time I am afraid that in some cases when an agency gets money from the Federal Government they cut back on the expenditure of their own funds, and in that way the program does not advance.

Now, I don't remember how this is written into the Clean Air Act, but certainly, this is one point which I believe should get consideration.

Finally, I would think that the work of this committee should be of great value all around. I think that this is a very important stage in the education of Government officials and the public, and it is a very advanced look by the Federal Government at the problem of advanced health, and I think if we can only stick to this program that in the years to come we will see our way out of this very difficult and harassing problem.

Thank you very much.
Senator MUSKIE. Thank you for your statement, Doctor.

Your prepared statement will appear in the record at this point, even though you appear to have covered every major point on it.

(The statement is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF DR. LEONARD GREENBURG Mr. Chairman, my name is Leonard Greenburg. I am professor of prerentive and environmental medicine at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York City. I was originally trained as an engineer and received the degree of C.E. in sanitary engineering at the Columbia University School of Mines, Engineering & Chemistry in 1915. Subsequently, at Yale University, I received the degree of Ph. D. in public health and later the M.D. degree.

In 1952 I was appointed the first commissioner of air pollution control of New York City. I have been a member of the New York State Board of Air Pollution Control since the inception of the State board.

The statement which I desire to make will be very brief. 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.

I would like to confine my remarks to a discussion of what I believe to be among the most important and pressing needs and essential steps in the air pollution control program.

I believe that at this time there is a lack of utilization of adequate control devices. This lack may be ascribed to two reasons: (1) We lack the know-how to build efficient and dependable control equipment for certain processes, and (2) when efficient control equipment is available, it is often not installed and used. This is due to high cost and to a lack of enforcement power by the official agency.

CONTROL DEVICES-THE AUTOMOBILE EXHAUST It is well known that at this very moment we do not possess approved control devices for the automobile exhaust tailpipe. True, the Los Angeles Control District, the State of California, and the U.S. Public Health Service have been working on this problem for a long time and at great cost, nevertheless, we still do not have an approved device for controlling the hydrocarbon vapors discharged in the automobile exhaust gas stream. Hopefully this will be achieved in the not too distant future. Then, and only then, will it be possible to control one important portion of the total problem.

In citing the automobile exhaust gas control problem I do not wish to minimize what has been accomplished, but on the contrary, I desire to emphasize the difficulty of the technical problems in the air pollution field.

WASTE DISPOSAL-PAPER, GARBAGE, AND REFUSE The natural rate of increase of the population of the United States is well documented and is now a matter of common knowledge. Our cities are expanding and our rural areas are shrinking, becoming urban and rapidly losing population to the urban areas. What was once suburban countryside has often become an aggregate of towns which are coalescing and becoming small and moderate sized cities. Only last week the New York Times told the story of the problems of Dutchess County where the development of a factory complex has radically altered the living problem in that area. This trend is taking place all over the United States.

It is unnecessary to recount the many problems which owe their origin to the increased density of population of our cities. I would like to mention one, namely, that of refuse disposal. In our American culture the amount of refuse, garbage, and wastepaper per person is (on the average) very large. The annual weight of the refuse of New York City is slightly less than 5 million tons, a weight approximately equivalent to 1,000 to 1,200 pounds per person per year. To this must be added about 600,000 tons of combustible construction waste per year.

« ForrigeFortsett »