Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

Senator RANDOLPH. On standards for emission, what is your time schedule?

Mr. TANZLER. Citation from the

Senator RANDOLPH. Yes, besides the limitation on fuel content that you have mentioned here.

Mr. TANZLER. What is our time schedule?

Mrs. ADAMS. Could I add something here? Some of our companies have worked out their own time schedules for installing different air pollution controls. There is one big company here that has a schedule that involves 4 years. I think it is only 3 more years now.

Mr. GODBOLD. Each company has presented to the authority their own individual plans for the future on what they are going to do to correct their air pollution. We are fixing to go into the same thing into water pollution. We are fixing to get our water pollution ordinance passed, and when we do each company, we will present to them, but as far as the city's schedule, that is something that I don't know what our schedule is.

But, Senator, I would like to say to you that in talking about the air pollution of the plant-and I would just like to add this one pointthat the thing the mayor was saying is that it is going to cost us $600,000 more a year to correct some of the air polluton of our electrical plant, and this is true, but this comes down to the fact of how much are we really dedicated to doing away with air pollution and what it is going to come down to when we decide to vote on this, Senator, is how can we ask industry to correct air pollution when we won't agree to spend the money to correct it ourselves, because industry keeps coming back to the city and saying to the city, "You are the worst contributor to air pollution. How can you ask us to do it if you are not willing to take the steps?" So I want to make that clear.

So I feel that we are going to have to spend that extra money to correct it if we are going to expect industry to correct theirs, too. Senator RANDOLPH. One further question; it is a technical question, and I want it phrased for the record.

Mr. Grundy, will you ask it in reference to the sulfur situation? Mr. GRUNDY. You mentioned that in your presentation that your regulations are written around sulfur content of fuel primarily. Yet, under Federal law the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare issued a document which is called, "Recommended Control Techniques for Sulphur Oxides." This document was published, I believe, in February of this year, and gives the current technology for controlling sulfur by other methods than the limitation of the sulfur content of fuels.

My question is, Do your regulations reflect these coming technologies and provide for alternatives in addition to the one that you have mentioned?

Mrs. ADAMS. That is what we were trying to work out in getting our equivalent to the sulfur content of the fuel to the 500 parts per million of sulfur dioxide coming out of the stack. This is what the electric authority said would be the same thing. It would also give them a chance to use either a different kind of fuel mixed in with the fuel or else have some kind of devices on the stacks.

Mr. GRUNDY. This is what your proposed amendment is?

Mrs. ADAMS. Well, that is what it was changed last Wednesday from, the limitation of the sulfur content of fuel oil to this.

Senator RANDOLPH. I think that is very progressive. Indeed I do.
Thank you Mrs. Adams.

(Subsequently the following information was submitted for the record :)

Mrs. MIMI ADAMS,

AUGUST 4, 1969.

Chairman, Jacksonville Air Pollution Control Board, Public Health Division, Air and Water Pollution Control, Jacksonville, Fla.

DEAR MRS. ADAMS: I wish to express my appreciation to you for your assistance during the Committee's recent hearings in Jacksonville on S. 2005, the Resource Recovery Act of 1969. Your testimony was very informative and helpful.

Your continuing efforts to enhance the quality of the environment is to be commended. I want to encourage you to continue your efforts and not to lose heart. We have a long way to go and cannot allow temporary defeats to discourage us in our efforts to achieve a liveable, healthy environment.

Enclosed is a copy of the hearing transcript of your testimony which is being prepared for publication. Your assistance in reviewing your presentation and, where appropriate, editing it for clarity would be appreciated.

In reviewing the transcript, additional questions have occurred which I would like to direct to you at this time:

1. We understand the city is considering regulations limiting the sulfur content of fuels in Jacksonville. Could you comment on the structure of the Jacksonville air pollution regulation and whether they provide for alternative emission control methods or a time schedule for compliance?

2. What procedures does the city now employ to finance sewers and sewage treatment plant facilities and what efforts are being initiated by the city to insure compliance with the state water quality standards, established pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act?

Your response by August 15, 1969, will allow us to meet our projected publication schedule.

I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to you and the many others who made our stay in Jacksonville pleasant. With kind regards,

Truly,

JENNINGS RANDOLPH, Chairman.

CONSOLIDATED CITY OF JACKSONVILLE,

August 15, 1969.

Chairman, Committee on Public Works,

Senator JENNINGS RANDOLPH,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR RANDOLPH: Thank you very much for your kind, encouraging letter of August 8. Unfortunately, I only received it last night as it was forwarded to me. My answer, therefore is late.

I have made changes in some of my off the cuff statements in order to clarify and am returning the transcript to you with my corrections. In answer to your questions

1. Could you comment on the structure of the Jacksonville air pollution regulation and whether it provides for alternative emission control methods or a time schedule for compliance?

Answer. Under separate cover I am having sent to you a copy of the amendment to Ordinance 68-16-40, which was recently passed by the City Council and signed into law by Mayor Tanzler. It is true that the city of Jacksonville was considering regulation of the sulfur content of fuel oil here. However, this was opposed by the Jacksonville Electric Authority and the oil companies which supply their fuel. The final amendment which was passed regulates only the emissions of sulfur dioxide from the stacks. A stack effluent SO, concentration of 750 ppm is permitted prior to September, 1970, after which it will be limited to 500 ppm. It is further written into the amendment that the term ppm SO, shall mean parts of sulphur dioxide per million parts of dry air, all by volume, with air volume corrected to 12% carbon dioxide content by volume at a temper

ature of 32° F. and a pressure of one atmosphere. Would it be possible for someone in Washington to send us information on whether there are any similar ordinances anywhere in the U.S. and whether this has been effective.

I would like to stress that it is my personal opinion that both types of laws are needed simultaneously, both limitations on the sulfur content of fuel and limitation on emissions of sulfur from stacks. This was brought out by Mr. Norman Cousins in 1966 during your hearings.

2. What procedure does the city now employ to finance sewers and sewage treatment plant facilities and what efforts are being initiated by the city to insure compliance with the state water quality standards, established pursuant to the Federal Water pollution Control Act?

Answer: I am chairman only of the Jacksonville Air Pollution Control Board, which has no jurisdiction over sewers and water. Revenue certificates supported by additional tax bonds will fund $40 million for water pollution abatement in an attempt to meet Federal Water Quality standards here. If you need more information on this, Mr. Robert Nord, director of water and sewers in Jacksonville City Hall, will be able to give you the answers needed.

I enjoyed seeing you while you were in Jacksonville, and hope you will come back soon. I shall let you know how our amendment works out, now that it is law. Unfortunately, the city Air Pollution Control Department has no instrument to measure the sulfur content in fuel oil, and no plans to acquire one. (Mr. Tom Ard, Director, said the price is about $600.) No industry in Jacksonville is to my knowledge installing devices to remove sulfur from the stacks at the present time. I would like to add my voice to those who say that if you are considering federal legislation on sulfur limitation, it would be helpful to have both laws limiting the sulfur content of fuel to be burned, and limitations on the sulfur in the emissions from the stacks. Therefore industry would need to comply, one way or another.

Good luck to you, Senator Randolph. We are lucky to have you as Chairman of the Committee on Public Works!

Sincerely,

Mrs. LEE ADAMS,

Chairman, Jacksonville Air Pollution Control Board.

Senator RANDOLPH. What do we have now in the way of further testimony?

Mr. TANZLER. Senator, with me is Robert Nord. He does not have a formal presentation, but he would like the opportunity to make a comment.

Senator RANDOLPH. Yes. Go ahead, Mr. Nord. You are in charge of water and sewers?

STATEMENT BY ROBERT NORD

Mr. NORD. Yes, sir. Mayor Tanzler's prepared statement adequately covers our program relative to elimination of pollution of the St. Johns River by the end of 1972.

The new water and sewer rates and charges that the mayor spoke of that went into effect on January 1, 1973, represent some $90 million of new capitalization that is available as local money. Of that some $50 million will be directed toward removing pollution from the St. Johns River in terms of interceptor sewers and sewage treatment plant. All of this money is eligible for the one-third Public Law 660 grant money; and, as the mayor pointed out, we have applied for some $15 million of Public Law 660 funds. This represents some 3 years of entire State funding under the present Federal programs. I just wanted to point that out, that our needs are immediately three times the State's level of funding.

Senator RANDOLPH. Mrs. Adams, of course, reinforced by your testimony, although not directly. You know, I was frightened, Mrs.

Adams, when you talked about the problem here of the replacement of those sewer lines. How much did you say?

Mrs. ADAMS. It wasn't Adams you are speaking of. I think it was Mayor Tanzler.

Senator RANDOLPH. Mayor, did you say that? How many miles?

Mr. TANZLER. One hundred and thirty miles, Senator, of these lines throughout the city of Jacksonville, the core city of Jacksonville, were put in during the WPA days and made out of concrete and they have collapsed.

Senator RANDOLPH. I remember.

Mr. TANZLER. That is just part of our problems, as I say, that we have inherited in this community.

Senator RANDOLPH. In other words, those lines are 30 years old or over, aren't they?

Mr. GODBOLD. Older than that.

Senator RANDOLPH. Older than that.

RAW SEWAGE DEPOSITED INTO ST. JOHNS RIVER

Mr. TANZLER. As I mentioned, we are in the process-we spent over $6 million in this direction already in the last 2 years and we have finally eliminated the first drop of raw sewage going into the St Johns River. But, nevertheless, the total cost of correcting the total picture is literally astronomical.

Senator RANDOLPH. Now, before you leave, Mr. Mayor, is raw sewage now going from the city of Jacksonville into the St. Johns River or into other bodies of water?

Mr. TANZLER. Yes, sir. We have been depositing over 15 million gallons a day in this beautiful St. Johns River, and it has been that way ever since I was a little child, I guess, in this community.

We have finally eliminated about three million of it with the first phase of a three-phase program. The second phase is that which is in the process now that I mentioned to you earlier and that Mr. Nord just mentioned. We have an FWPCA money grant application in to try to complete the next phase of it.

Senator RANDOLPH. I am not familiar with the river itself, and I don't want to pose as an expert but with this situation the fish life, if it were there, has been damaged. Is this correct?

Mr. TANZLER. No question about it.

Senator RANDOLPH. Also is it reasonable to assume that where people once could use it as a place to swim, now it would be a hazard to health? Is this correct?

Mr. TANZLER. No question of that either.

Senator RANDOLPH. And certainly in a sense it is a cesspool instead of a river, isn't it?

Mr. TANZLER. It is an open sewer in many instances. It is just an absolute disgrace; because, as you can see, it is a gorgeous river and it is something that most all of us have enjoyed all of our lives. I swam, I used to catch fish, right where I am living now and there is nothing left there but a few catfish now, I think, and it is a tragedy that we have allowed it to get to this point. And when we finally take steps to do something about it, everybody throws up their hands; not everyone, but some vocal minorities throw up their hands, and

Senator RANDOLPH. What would be the mileage that is polluted? What would be the length of that area that you would say has heavy pollution?

Mr. TANZLER. Bob says about 10. As you can see from behind you there, it doesn't go too far out, because it is concentrated right in this area, from just south of you here, between here and the Naval Air Station, where I suppose it begins with these subdivisions that are dumping, some of which have already been eliminated, but, nevertheness, it begins about there and flows north as the river does, and then we get into the industrial pollutions of over 90 millions of gallons additional being contributed by them.

Senator RANDOLPH. I want to mention this-you have used the words an "open sewer," "cesspool," as I have indicated-I want you to know that I am mindful of the situations in my own State of West Virginia, and every other Member of the Senate on this committee or subcommittee knows of the situations within his own State. So when we make reference here to your problem, we are not attempting to disparage. We are only saying that this is a problem and I am very happy to know you recognize it and you want to see something done about it. Is that right?

Mr. TANZLER. Senator, I am absolutely, and I know I am speaking for the rest of the council present here, dedicated to seeing to it that something will be done. We are going to solve it here. We may have to go through a recall election every 90 days, but we are going to do something about it. Come hell or high water, we are going to stop it.

Senator RANDOLPH. I am going to do something that perhaps I shouldn't do at this point.

Joe, you are a councilman-at-large?

Mr. CARLUCCI. Yes, sir.

Senator RANDOLPH. I call you Joe, if I may.

Mr. CARLUCCI. Yes, sir.

Senator RANDOLPH. I don't know how to pronounce your last name. I imagine you get all sorts of pronunciations.

Mr. CARLUCCI. They will never put that name on a bridge.

Senator RANDOLPH. Well, Joe, the mayor here, of course, works with the council. The council works with the mayor. You people recognize these deficiencies, as I understand it. Is that correct? Mr. CARLUCCI. Yes, sir.

Senator RANDOLPH. And you are working to do something about it?

Mr. CARLUCCI. We are going to do something about it.

Senator RANDOLPH. It is imperative that you do it. Is this correct? Mr. CARLUCCI. We have no choice, Senator, and the mayor has pretty well presented the picture. Mr. Nord gets a lot of browbeating because of the charges, but we are doing that which should have been done, many, many years ago and we will continue until we finish the job.

Senator RANDOLPH. Well, thank you very much. If I have today seemed to inject myself into a local situation, it is not meant in that manner. I think that when we have a forum of this type here and we have the funds that come from the Federal Government into the local government, that it is not only important; I think it is neces

« ForrigeFortsett »