June 28, 1967
Page 17658
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, on June 19, the distinguished Senator from New York [Mr. KENNEDY] made an excellent statement to the Citizens for Clean Air in New York on the need for air pollution control.
Senator KENNEDY has made a valuable contribution to this subject, especially at a time when the members of the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution are considering major Federal air pollution legislation.
I was particularly impressed by Senator KENNEDY’S emphasis on the expanded role which all three levels of government must play if we are to succeed in insuring the Nation a bountiful supply of healthful air.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator KENNEDY’S remarks be printed in the RECORD. I assure him that the subcommittee is looking forward to the proposals he will make in the form of legislation this year.
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT F. KENNEDY TO THE CITIZENS FOR CLEAN AIR
Last January, Secretary Gardner of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare convened an Interstate Air Pollution Abatement Conference to consider methods of reducing pollution in the atmosphere of the New York-New Jersey metropolitan region. That first session of the Conference was held in the wake of New York’s Thanksgiving pollution crisis, the first time that contamination reached a level requiring a first stage alert. The memory of that throat choking, eye watering alert was still very real to all those who experienced it. And the severe pollution of the winter months was still with us. In addressing the Conference, I said, "the time for studies is past, the time to apply what we already know is here. We all know that action is imperative and this Conference, therefore, must be an action conference."
It is now summer. Almost a half year has passed since the Conference was first convened. So I would like to take this opportunity in addressing the June Technical workshop of the Citizens for Clean Air to assess the results of the first sessions of this Conference, and to discuss various aspects of our pollution problem which require further action.
It is my impression that, with a few notable exceptions, we are just as close to an air pollution disaster as we were last Thanksgiving. Our pace is still one of business-as-usual and does not reflect a sense of urgency equal to a problem that now injures thousands, kills some, and could kill thousands. I find this complacency difficult to understand. Is it because responsibility is fragmented between governments at all levels? Or is it because we are unable to grasp the seriousness of the threat?
First. The first source of pollution I would like to discuss is sulfur dioxide. As I pointed out in January, sulfur dioxide is the major and most dangerous pollutant in New York’s air today. Sulfur dioxide and the trioxide it forms are produced by the burning of coal and oil containing sulfur. (And as Dr. Cassell of Mount Sinai School of Medicine pointed out to a Congressional Committee recently, sulfur dioxide and trioxide combined with a dust particle and moisture may become a tiny sulfuric acid manufacturing plant. This plant can be inhaled into our lungs. There can be no question that excessive sulfur dioxide in city air is a health hazard.)
New York’s houses, industry, electric generating stations, and apartment buildings are powered by oil and coal that contain sulfur. As a result, more than 1,600,000 tons of sulfur oxides pour into New York’s atmosphere each year. It was the rising level of sulfur dioxide that triggered last fall’s alert.
The need to reduce the amount of sulfur dioxide was recognized at the first session of the Conference. As a result, some regulations dealing with the larger sources of the pollutant were adopted. Adoption of these regulations presumably means that the Departments of Health of the States of New York and New Jersey have agreed to enforce them. But what in fact has happened?
Some utilities and some municipalities have made plans to reduce the amount of sulfur they emit. Con Ed, the region’s largest polluter, has agreed to shift to oil with 1 % or less sulfur content by October of this year. This change will reduce Con Ed’s sulfur oxide emissions – currently 789 tons per day – by 40%. Public Service has announced its intention to convert many of its older coal burning stations, with inefficient pollution control devices, to burn low sulfur oil. The City of Newark, under the aggressive leadership of Mayor Hugh Addonizio, has announced its intention to purchase low sulfur oil for its public facilities. The Humble Oil and Refining Company has stated it would convert its Bayway Refinery to the use of low sulfur oil and build a large blending plant to produce 1 % sulfur oil for Con Ed. And all Federal installations will meet the standard by October of this year. I commend these positive steps by both industry and government to meet the need for action.
But these steps are not enough – not nearly enough. As I pointed out last January, Con Ed could reduce the amount of sulfur dioxide it introduces into our atmosphere by 80 % rather than the 40 % it currently plans if it were to substitute Number 2 oil for the cheap Number 6 oil and high sulfur coal it now burns. And the cost of this step would be under $10 per household per year.
Similarly, by this October, Public Service of New Jersey will only have achieved 65 % of the levels required by the Conference.
And Public Service could further reduce its pollution by one-half if it shifted to low sulfur Number 2 oil.
We also find that only a few of the 1,400 municipal governments in the metropolitan area covered by the Abatement Conference have taken steps to adopt and enforce the sulfur restrictions adopted by the Conference. No New Jersey community has adopted regulations governing the amount of sulfur in fuel burned in apartment buildings and commercial or industrial establishments. And even New York City’s Local Law 14 will not achieve the sulfur reduction required for industry and housing until 1971.
It is particularly galling to find public agencies themselves violating their own air pollution regulations. Only this May, the Mayor’s Task Force on Air Pollution said of New York City, "the City continues to be the greatest single producer of air pollution. Whether with respect to its incinerators, the operation of its schools, hospitals, housing projects, and public buildings, its fleets of buses, sanitation trucks, fire trucks, emergency wagons, police cars, the City is still the worst violator of its own anti-pollution laws." It is hypocritical for New York City to enforce pollution regulations against industry and real estate owners when it has not cleaned its own house. We can and must insist that the City lead, rather than follow, in reducing the air pollution threat.
Second. The second major source of pollution is carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide from cars and trucks comprises roughly one-third of the pollution in New York City’s air. Although it currently is less of a threat to our health than sulfur oxides, the Public Health Service found that carbon monoxide reached dangerous concentrations in a number of areas in the City, such as tunnels or heavily traveled streets and highways. One area is in the vicinity of the George Washington Bridge Apartments which I visited this morning. These apartments are located directly over the Manhattan approaches to the George Washington Bridge where clouds of carbon monoxide and other car exhausts constantly billow up to poison the surrounding air. Residents of these buildings are continuously exposed to excessive levels of carbon monoxide, an exposure that can lead to decrease in mental acuity, creates cardiac symptoms in patients with heart disease, promotes fatigue, headaches, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, and can cause death.
The choice of this location for these apartments, astride one of the most heavily traveled highways in New York City, shows a total disregard for environmental factors on the part of our City planners. Immediate relief is needed for the residents of these apartments. I urge that Federal, State and City funds be used on a crash basis to build a vapor-proof barrier over the sections of this interstate highway that pass underneath these apartments.
But more than temporary measures are needed to deal with the threat of carbon monoxide.
Present Federal law requires that new cars, starting with the 1968 model year, be equipped with devices to substantially reduce the carbon monoxide in their exhaust. Tests in California show that unless these devices are maintained and inspected regularly, they rapidly become ineffective. Regular inspection is needed if these devices are to work. The 1967 Air Pollution Control bill now before the Senate would provide funds to the States to finance effective inspection and maintenance stations. It is imperative that we pass this bill if automobile pollution is to be controlled.
However, even an effective device to control car pollution on new cars coupled with regular inspection will only allow us to hold carbon monoxide pollution to its current levels, for it will take ten years or more to replace our existing stock of cars and by that time, there will be twice as many cars on the road as today. In addition, California air pollution officials have found that the devices designed to decrease the quantity of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons exhausted by cars actually increase the amount of nitric oxides in the exhausts, an equally dangerous pollutant. It is no wonder that California pollution official Frank Snead has suggested that all gasoline- powered cars be banned from California highways by 1980.
We need a strong Federal research and development program leading to the marketing of exhaust-free fuel cells and battery packs for automobiles. I, for one, do not believe that we can expect an automobile industry heavily committed to the gasoline engine to devote the necessary energy to the rapid development of an electrically or fuel-cell powered car unless there are strong pressures to do so. A Federally sponsored research and development program of the type proposed in Senator Magnuson’s bill, would provide that incentive. Passage of that bill is urgently needed if we are to effectively cope with the nation’s largest source of pollution. There also is no excuse for not constructing a Federal air pollution laboratory so that research in this field can receive the attention it needs.
We must take certain steps that will minimize the effects of car pollution on our cities. There is no better reason to vastly improve our urban mass transportation systems than pollution.
I suggested to Secretary Gardner in March that the air pollution Conference for the New York-New Jersey metropolitan area adopt a recommendation requiring the development of a regional transportation plan to reduce the amount of air pollution coming from automobiles. Such a plan might require that every auto entering the City pay a toll which reflects its contribution to the air pollution problem. And the plan could also identify those mass transportation efforts which should receive the highest priority in terms of their pollution potential. I again urge that the Conference consider such a recommendation.
I also believe that every relevant Executive Department must explore in detail the relation between their programs and air pollution. Can the Bureau of Roads evaluate the amount of air pollution from a new Federal highway in an urban area? Would the costs of air pollution control be significantly reduced by a greater use of mass transit? And should our cities have the choice of using Federal highway funds either for mass transportation or highways? The right answers to these questions, which are paramount to the quality of our environment will not come from bureaus and agencies focused on different problems and different constituencies. I, therefore, urge the creation at the Executive Office level, of an Office of Environmental Protection. This office would oversee all federal efforts in the area of air pollution, solid waste disposal, water pollution, other contaminants, and related science and technology. Without this coordination and emphasis at the top level of government, we cannot attack environmental problems in a comprehensive and cost-effective manner.
Third. The third source of pollution we must consider is particulate matter – the soot that befouls our windowsills, defaces our buildings, and darkens our skies. This soot comes from burning coal and oil, solid wastes, and uncontrolled open burning. In January, I urged the installation of electrostatic precipitators on New York City’s eleven municipal incinerators. Each one of these incinerators violates the City’s Air Pollution Code on stack emissions of dust, fly ash and other particulates. There has been some progress. The Department of Sanitation intends to improve two of its existing incinerators in the near future and will shortly close down one of its oldest, plants, the West 56th Street plant in Manhattan which we saw today.
But the City has not yet taken steps to correct the deficiencies in the other eight plants. There is no excuse for that delay.
In May, New York City began to enforce – in a hesitant and haphazard fashion – the provisions of Local Law 14 which requires that pollution controls be placed on the 17,000 apartment house incinerators. The City has offered to haul away trash from those apartments that cannot meet the necessary standards. But the City has not yet started the new South Bronx incinerator needed to handle the increased trash load. As a result, this trash is being used as landfill in valuable wetlands and parklands, such as Split Rock Park in the Bronx and Jamaica Bay in Queens. This is a shortsighted way to deal with our solid waste problems, especially when Federal funds are available to plan and construct incinerators.
New Jersey’s cities by and large use their solid wastes for needed land-fill and do not burn them in incinerators. But increasing population will soon cause them to turn to other methods of waste disposal. Every effort should be made to dispose of this waste in modern ways that do not produce pollution.
Industry is another major source of particulate pollution. A few plants in the New York-New Jersey region have installed precipitators and changed fuels in the last six months. But during our tour today, we saw countless belching stacks in the industrial complex stretching from the Jersey Meadows to the Arthur Kill. The time is past when industry can claim that controls are unreasonable and uneconomic. We look to industry for leadership, not foot dragging; for action, not reaction.
New York City’s Local Law 14 requires the licensing of manufacturing plants that emit air pollution, but similar controls have not been enacted in New Jersey or the other counties in the metropolitan region. Industry-wide emission control standards are needed not only in the New York-New Jersey metropolitan area but across the nation. An incentive of this kind would assure a minimum uniform improvement in controlling the noxious by-products of manufacture. And it would prevent air pollution regulations from causing flight of industry from one region to another. The Air Quality Act of 1967 now before the Senate would authorize the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare to establish such industry-wide standards. This legislation must be passed if we are to eliminate industrial air pollution.
And it is particularly discouraging to note that a Federal agency, the Corps of Engineers, is violating the ban on open burning by continuing to burn flotsam in the lower Bay. A Corps of Engineers barge was even found burning flotsam last Thanksgiving Day during the height of the pollution alert. Surely this flagrant abuse can be corrected by the Federal government.
Fourth. Another major barrier to controlling pollution lies in the area of manpower and training. The rapid expansion of air pollution controls has led to a shortage of adequately trained men. If we want personnel to implement our plans, we need to educate more young men and women in environmental studies. I propose that the Federal government establish a comprehensive recruitment and training program for pollution control officers. Such a program should include four-year scholarships for undergraduate work on environmental studies. And it would offer fellowships in advanced study for personnel already engaged in environmental control agencies. Such a program, similar to the Holloway Plan for naval officers, would cover tuition, room and board, and fees, and would require in return three years of service with local, state, or federal environmental protection agencies.
Graduate fellowships would enable personnel to increase their knowledge and skills with no loss of pay. Without a program of this type, we will not have the personnel to accomplish our goals, and I shall introduce legislation authorizing such a program in this Session of Congress.
Fifth. The fifth aspect of the pollution problem I would like to discuss is the proposed regional commission. I urged last January that New York and New Jersey establish an air pollution control district for the region. The Conference adopted this suggestion as a recommendation and both the New York and New Jersey State Legislatures have passed bills authorizing state participation in a Regional Air Quality Commission. I shall shortly join other members of the New York and New Jersey Congressional delegations in introducing legislation in Congress to authorize this interstate compact. And I shall urge my colleagues to approve it as quickly as possible.
However, I have some reservations about this compact. Interstate organizations tend to be log-rolling devices, only as strong as the weakest member. We can legitimately ask whether this organization will be willing to enforce in Jersey City, Passaic or White Plains, the same standards enforced in New York City. Our air pollution crisis will not tolerate delay in enforcement. For that reason, I urge Secretary Gardner to keep the Conference in session and to undertake any necessary enforcement actions that may be required until the Regional Air Quality Commission has clearly demonstrated that it can control air pollution in the 23 counties of the metropolitan area.
Sixth. The final issue I would like to discuss concerns the need for a Federal alert system. All of the air pollution control measures that I have been discussing take time – perhaps more time than we can afford. We have no assurance that New York, Philadelphia, or Chicago won’t experience an air pollution disaster this fall. In many cities we do not have the equipment necessary to know
when disaster conditions are reached. And in those that do, public officials hesitate to respond to the all too apparent alert conditions. In New York last Thanksgiving, for example, the alert was not called until severe conditions had existed for several days. While at St. Vincent’s Hospital today, I saw quite clearly the dramatic effect of this negligence in the record of significant increase of respiratory illnesses during the period of high air pollution.
I suggest that the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare establish air pollution alert stations in those major cities threatened by severe air pollution. Such a system would guarantee that adequate notice would be given when pollution begins to reach dangerous levels.
CONCLUSION
What is clearly needed in our attack on air pollution in the New York-New Jersey region, is redoubled efforts on the part of every local, state, and federal official. And they can be assisted by the active involvement of individuals and groups such as Citizens for Clean Air and the New York Business Council for Clean Air. For we have a choice. Do we want our cities to resemble the scene vividly described by F. Scott Fitzgerald after viewing the Flushing land fill:
"This is a valley of ashes, a fantastic farm where ashes grow like wheat into ridges and hills and grotesque gardens; where ashes take the form of houses and chimneys and rising smoke and, finally, with a transcendent effort, of men who move dimly and already crumbling through the powdery air."
Or do we want an urban society that can preserve the quality of its environment? We owe it to ourselves and to those who follow to make that choice with urgency and determination.