STATEMENT OF MRS. MIMI ADAMS Mrs. ADAMS. Thank you, Senator Randolph, members of the staff. All across America, cities are having difficulties coping with air pol lution problems because of the many sociopolitical and economic involvements inherent in the problem of pollution. Because today you are here with us in Jacksonville, I would like to give you a summary of how these factors combine to give Jacksonville, the "world's largest free city," such a large problem in regard to air pollution control. AIR POLLUTION Three groups connected with our city are seriously involved with the air pollution problem here-the Jacksonville Port Authority, the Jacksonville Electric Authority and the Jacksonville Air Pollution Control Board. Somehow the fourth group, the city government itself, must cope with the charges that the city is the biggest offender in regard to air pollution. These charges result: (1) Because of our outmoded and dirty incinerator, which you mentioned, Senator Randolph, in addition to sanitary land fills; and (2) Because of the way our electric powerplant system, the second largest municipally owned powerplant system in the United States, has been operated for many years. Electricity for the people of Jacksonville and environs is produced by three generating stations. All of these are located so that their effluence affects large masses of our people. Every day these powerplants emit into the air of Jacksonville about 147,000 pounds of sulfur dioxide in addition to other air pollutants. Our powerplant system is expected to double in 5 years. This naturally will double the air pollution unless remedial steps are taken. Sulfuric acid mist In our unique climate, sulfur dioxide oxides rapidly into sulfuric acid mist. This happens because of the intense sunlight, the moist air, and the presence of catalysts in our air which speed the conversion of sulfur dioxide into sulfuric acid mist. This probably accounts for the fact that the levels of SO2 in our ambient air register lower than would seem logical, while at the same time we have the highest corrosion rate of any city tested in the United States except Sulfur City, Tex. It has been proved that our corrosion is due to air pollution and not to the salt air 20 miles away. In addition we are subject to frequent inversions during all times of the year. These trap the air pollutants near ground level where our people breathe. The Jacksonville Air Pollution Control Board is aware of the effect of these facts upon the health and pocketbooks of the citizens of Jacksonville. It is expensive in many ways for an individual to live in such a polluted atmosphere. We talk about the cost of pollution control, but I would like to bring that out. And in many instances, our highest pollution levels are in poverty areas. JACKSONVILLE PORT AUTHORITY Another side of the picture is presented by the Jacksonville Port Authority. Development of the port here is their primary goal. Cer tainly the location of much heavy industry here is part of their plan for the future. Over $8 million has been requested from the Federal Government to deepen the Jacksonville Harbor to 38 feet. The economic justification for this, in the presentation to Congress, has been the transportation of sufficient quantities of fuel oil by tanker. Any plan for using fuel for power production in the city electric generating plants was restricted to fuel which was transported by ship. Nuclear power and natural gas produce far less air pollution. But they cannot be transported easily by ship, and plans for their use were abandoned time and time again. It is the hoped for $8 million plus from the Federal Government which has limited the choice of fuel for our powerplants to No. 6 residual fuel oil. This year we are paying oil companies over $11 million for 11/2-percent sulfur content fuel oil. As the regulation now reads, it is possible for the Jacksonville Electric Authority to accept shipment of higher sulfur content fuel oil, but they just pay less for it. AMENDMENT TO LOCAL ORDINANCE The Air Pollution Control Board last week recommended the adoption of an amendment to local ordinance 68-16-40 to provide for the enforcement of restriction on the burning of higher than 1-percent sulfur content fuel oil by 1970. This ordinance has been on our books for about 3 years, but without the teeth to enforce it. Hopefully council will recommend further restriction to 0.5-percent and 0.3-percent sulfur content fuel oil burning in the future as has been done in other localities. However, the Jacksonville Electric Authority has already proposed doing away with measuring the sulfur content of fuel and using the measurements of 750 parts per million and 500 parts per million SO2 from the stacks. The City Council Public Health Committee showed great interest and support for their original proposed amendment and scheduled a public hearing on it for June 25. Possibly, because of the hearings today and this Wednesday, certain facts will become clear to the people of Jacksonville. Certainly no one would dream of asking the citizens of our city to eat rotten meat in order to secure funds from Congress to deepen the Jacksonville Harbor. Is it any more logical to ask them to breathe harmful air in order to get funds from the Federal Government to deepen the harbor? If we are prevented from using nuclear power or natural gas to produce power for electricity, our only present alternative is low sulful content fuel oil. References to converting the powerplants to natural gas have been made throughout the years, only to be dropped again when the people accepted promises for action and became complacent. JACKSONVILLE ELECTRIC AUTHORITY The Jacksonville Electric Authority presents yet another side of the picture. They have just been granted about $74,000 in Federal funds for an experiment on removing sulfur from one of the stacks at one of the powerplants. We applaud and commend both those responsible for the experiment and those responsible for the granting of the Federal funds for this purpose. However, we must point out that this is still in the experimental stage and that years may elapse before such devices can be put on all the existing stacks of the city electric powerplants. Am I going too fast for you? Senator RANDOLPH. No. I'm listening very carefully. Mrs. ADAMS. We received an estimate of $15 million from the Jacksonville Electric Authority for putting these devices on all the existing stacks of the city electric powerplants. When our electric power system doubles as is expected in 5 years, this estimate for devices for sulfur removal from the stacks of the Jacksonville powerplant system reaches an estimated $30 million. Where is the Jacksonville Electric Authority going to get $30 million, no matter how well it does subsequently in the chemical business? They plan to sell the sulfur. The Jacksonville Electric Authority seems to have financial problems. Under present regulations, the city government of Jacksonville is able to appropriate 30 percent of the gross revenues of the municipal electric department. To the best of our knowledge, this is more than the amount that must be relinquished to any other city in the United States by other municipally owned electric systems. The average is less than 10 percent including taxes and total contribution. Until we have good solutions to these problems, we must burn 1 percent and less sulfur content oil. The city itself is responsible for about 80 percent of the sulfur dioxide pollution in Jacksonville. If it does not cope with its own air pollution, the city air pollution control department is forced into a most hypocritical position of issuing citations to offenders, while at the same time remaining the greatest offender in town. It is very difficult for the department to be effective in such a vulnerable position. And this department should be effective because we are an industrial city with many industries such as paper mills and fertilizer production. Therefore, the Jacksonville Air Pollution Control Board is much encouraged by the good reception its original proposed amendment to city ordinance 68-16-40 received in our council's Public Health Committee. Members of this committee proved that they should be called statesmen, not politicians, because they stood up for the health needs. of our people for cleaner air and because they did this knowing that difficulty might ensue with one of the powerful lobbies in the State. Our population owes it to itself to become enlightened on such issues as air pollution so that at election time such men of courage will fill the positions of leadership in our Government. If these positions are filled by the puppets of selfish lobbies, our country shall return to the dark ages under an ever-increasing shroud of smog. We commend your interest in this urgent problem of the cities and of setting up programs such as this one today. THREE GREAT NEEDS There are three great needs to be realized before our cities can make significant steps to turn back the tide of air pollution-an enlightened public, responsibile city government, and help from the Federal Government. We have only a limited amount of air around our planetcomparable, one hears, to our world as is the skin of an apple to the size of the fruit itself. We must all work together for survival to insure that mankind itself does not become another vanishing species. Thank you, gentlemen, for the great privilege of appearing before your committee. Senator RANDOLPH. Thank you very much. This is not a disturbance. This is just approval. [Applause.] Mrs. Adams, you asked if you were reading too rapidly. Mrs. ADAMS. I know, I was trying to get finished. Senator RANDOLPH. And I said I was listening very intently. More than this, I want you to know I was paying attention. Mrs. ADAMS. I could tell you were, sir. Senator RANDOLPH. That is what is needed. AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE I wonder, Mr. Mayor, when Mrs. Adams commented on the ordinance I believe that is 68-16-40. Mrs. ADAMS. Yes, sir. I gave full 10 copies for the record. Mrs. ADAMS. There has been a suggested change in the amended ordinance 68-16-40-I don't have copies here this would provide for restriction not on the sulfur content of fuel oil. It would instead set limits on the amount of SO2 that is emitted from the stacks. I was reading Mr. Norman Cousins' presentation, from your hearings in 1966, and he had said that possibly localities should have both, both a sulfur content law and a limit on sulfur emissions from the stacks. This all just came up last Wednesday and we haven't really looked at it. Impact Senator RANDOLPH. Mayor, what would be the impact of the amendment to that ordinance? Mr. TANZLER. The amendment to the ordinance? Senator RANDOLPH. Isn't that what it is? Mr. CARLUCCI. Yes. That is right. Senator RANDOLPH. Walter, is that correct? Mr. DICKINSON. Yes. As I understand it, this is before our committee now. If I can, Mr. Mayor, we spend about $15 million a year for fuel costs for the electric authority. This amendment to bring it down a half percent from 112 percent to an acceptable rate of 1 percent of sulfur oxide will cost the city of Jacksonville approximately $600,000 per year more. Mr. TANZLER. I didn't know what you meant when you said amendment. I didn't know whether this was actually an amendment to it. I think the figure, in all due deference, Walter-but the figure I had was about $10 to $12 million, or closer to $12 million, in fuel oil cost per year to the electric authority at the present time; and this use of this 1 percent sulfur content fuel would add $1.5 million in cost to the overall fuel bill, the operational costs to the electric authority. Part of the problems, Senator, that Mrs. Adams referred to is the fact that this government-this is another inheritance problem that we have this government has historically subsisted off of the authorized participation in the profits from the operation of the revenues of the electric authority itself. The city was authorized by the legis lature to take as much as one-third of the profits for the operation of government. In the past we have done that. This government for the first time has tried to reduce feeding off of itself, so to speak, or off a hidden tax, or whatever you wish, by cutting back from that one-third. We have done so for the first time in this last budget and intend to, hopefully, be able to do the same thing once more. The electric authority situation is that they have a tremendous need for capital expansion. Because of this unruly and unreasonable and unfair, and all the other adjectives you would like, system of the city government actually taking these funds, withholding from them, funds that they need to expand and improve equipment and so forth, realistic operation has not occurred, the additional funds needed to bring the fuel oil down to an acceptable level, in other words, the additional million or million and a half, as the case may be, would further curtail the available total for capital expansion. At the same time, for every million and a half that is made available to the electric authority, once more the Government has to tighten its belt. This in a time when there is, when-we are all the way back to our backbone and I don't know where the additional tightening is going to come from. I am presenting both sides of the problem. The electric authority says, "We've got to have this money. We can't even give you what you had last year. We want to give you $14 million instead of $18 million," and the Government-we are faced with trying to provide these (other services and improve present services. I just think that it would be a real Herculean task if we were to restrict ourselves to the same thing that we received last year and let the increase in the services provide a greater revenue and thus a smaller percentage for the city. So these are the problems. Unfortunately we have subsisted off of these electric revenues in the past. While I am in total agreement with Mrs. Adams' position and the amendment, if it is an amendment, of that part actually pending before the city council at the present time, I know exactly what the electric authority's position is, because we have already had meetings on this subject. As I say, we want to restrict ourselves to $18 million per year, which would cut us back to the 26 percent area. At the same time they say, "We can't afford that. We need to cut you down to $14 million," because we must prepare for this increased load and we are almost to the maximum as far as kilowatt-hours that are being produced now and this $1.5 million would be an added expense to them. Also, when the electric authority took over this government, we tried to equalize our rates countrywide. They had to reduce the electric rates in the county down to the level of the electric rates in the city, which was almost a 10-percent reduction in county rates, which cost the electric authority an additional $4 million. So as we adjust this very complicated jigsaw puzzle of the two governments, the merger of two corporations, in trying to resolve all of these problems, I would say that the electric authority is right, that certainly Mrs. Adams is 100 percent right, and I know that the council would like to pass the ordinance. I am sort of in that position of saying "that is my position and I will not equivocate, because they're all right." How are we going to accomplish? TIME SCHEDULE OF EMISSION STANDARDS Senator RANDOLPH. Do you have any alternate emission standards or regulations that you think of? |