Solid waste disposal is very much a Nevada neglected problem. There is no true program in the State and when a community has trouble, everyone rallies around, tries to solve the problem in the same manner as putting out a fire. Almost all of our communities would benefit by more attention to the programs as outlined in these various bills. The protection of Lake Tahoe requires the removal of solid wastes from this basin and hauling this garbage 50 miles. This is unsatisfactory and the planning boards of the five counties adjoining the lake are in a quandary as to disposal for these wastes. In a recent review with the Western Pacific Railroad Co., I was shocked to find that they had made studies indicating the hauling of solid wastes from the coast cities back into this area for disposal as a means of supplementing their income. This is a serious problem that needs attention, and I would hope that your committee can act favorably on a bill similar to S. 306 or H.R. 890. Very truly yours, W. W. WHITE, Chief, Bureau of Environmental Health. COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Hon. OREN HARRIS, Chairman, House Subcommittee on Public Health and Welfare, DEAR CONGRESSMAN HARRIS: This letter is written to your subcommittee in support of H.R. 890 (Solid Waste Disposal Act) and identical bills scheduled for hearings, Thursday, June 10, 1965, in Washington, D.C. Each day approximately 20,000 tons of refuse is produced in Los Angeles County alone. Nationally, an estimated 150 million tons must be handled and innocuously disposed of each year. This amount has doubled since World War II; predictions indicate that it could double again in the next 20 years. While progress is being made in many local areas on handling and disposing of refuse, little or nothing is being done on a national level or by the Federal Government. Much of the work that needs to be done lies in the field of research and development. Much of the work will require skilled technicians not generally available on a local basis. Much of the work will not be productive and will be lost; however, if sufficient effort is financed and put forth much can be saved by development of new and better techniques for collecting, transporting, and the ultimate disposal of our solid wastes. This research and development work is believed can best be encouraged, sponsored, and financed by the Federal Government. Ultimate implementation of the project can be carried out by the local authorities. On August 12, 1964, the subject of Federal sponsorship of research, technical and financial assistance with regard to the disposal of solid wastes as represented in H.R. 10804 and H.R. 11236 was discussed with the members of the boards of directors of the sanitation districts in Los Angeles County. After consideration of the matter the board of directors of County Sanitation District No. 2, acting upon the behalf of all the county sanitation districts of Los Angeles County, representing some 70 cities with a population in excess of 3 million, adopted a resolution to endorse, in principle, H.R. 10804 and H.R. 11236. Copies of this resolution were forwarded to the Honorable Kenneth A. Roberts, chairman of the House Subcommittee on Public Health and Safety, Washington, D.C., on August 18, 1964. Since the Solid Waste Disposal Act was not enacted into law by the 88th Congress but was subsequently amended and reintroduced in the 89th Congress by nine Congressmen-Roosevelt, Roybal, Kluczynski, Hawkins, Celler, Van Deerlin, Corman, Brown, and Dingell, favorable action by the subcommittee is again recommended. Yours very truly, JOHN D. PARKHURST, Chief Engineer and General Manager. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING H.R. 10804 AND H.R. 11236 Upon motion of Director Bond, seconded by Director Murray and unanimously carried, the following resolution was adopted: "Be it resolved, That the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 of Los Angeles County upon behalf of all the county sanitation districts of Los Angeles County, parties to the joint administration agreement, endorse, in principle, H.R. 10804 and H.R. 11236 to provide research, technical, and financial assistance with respect to the disposal of solid waste; be it further "Resolved, That the secretary of the district be directed to request the chairman of the House Committee on Public Health and Safety on behalf of the district to schedule public hearings in Los Angeles County on said bills and that testimony by the districts' staff at said committee hearings be invited and the secretary of this board of directors is instructed to notify the chairman of the House Committee on Public Health and Safety of the adoption of this resolution." STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of Los Angeles, 88: I, J. R. Foster, secretary of the board of directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 of Los Angeles County, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of excerpts of the minutes of the regular meeting of the board of directors of said district held August 12, 1964. [SEAL] J. R. FOSTER, Secretary. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Hon. OREN HARRIS, Chairman, House Subcommittee on Public Health and Welfare, DEAR MR. HARRIS: The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, on July 28, 1964, passed a resolution approving the current Federal Solid Waste Disposal Acts and authorized the county engineer to testify at hearings which might be held in the Los Angeles area. This letter is in response to your recent notice of a hearing to be held in Washington, D.C., on H.R. 890, and other identical bills. It is requested that this letter be made a part of the proceedings of your committee on June 10, 1965, and placed in the record. I will appear before your committee to further explain the importance of this legislation if desirable. With an increasing population and consequent absorption of marginal lands for commercial, industrial, and residential uses, it is now very difficult, if not impossible, to acquire sanitary landfill sites close to the metropolitan areas where the great majority of wastes originate. We estimate that the population of Los Angeles County will be about 9,500,000 in 1980, with a corresponding solid waste production of over 12 million tons per year. In 1960, we estimated the cost for collection and disposal of refuse in this county was over $100 million annually; this represents a per capita cost of nearly $17 per year. The costs for transportation and disposal are on the increase, and unless improved economical processes are developed, these costs will become greater. Our increasing volumes of solid waste must be hauled longer and longer distances. New Methods of disposal could halt this trend. The use of more efficient incinerators may become acceptable even though the cost of this method of disposal will be relatively high. The use of the available types of incinerators has been found to be both expensive and unacceptable under local air pollution control regulations. However, acceptable incineration will still leave us with the disposal of noncombustible wastes. Since it is becoming more and more difficult to establish refuse landfills convenient to production areas, it seems possible that refuse transfer stations, which have been found to be more practical in highly urbanized areas, might be one solution to this problem. Up to this time this method of disposal is extremely costly. However, well conceived and executed research could furnish some alternatives which are desperately needed. Such research should begin with a study of present disposal procedures; establishment of freight rates of common carriers for refuse; and as a result of these, the needs and feasibility of new methods should become more obvious. To summarize some of the areas in which research is required are: (1) The design and placement of sanitary landfills should be further investigated to order to utilize the most economical methods and to achieve the best uses of the sites when they are completed. (2) Methods of reducing costs of incineration and elimination of their air pollution potential could result in additional application of this method of disposal within metropolitan areas. (3) More efficient handling and loading methods at transfer stations, together with the development of improved method of transporting the waste should be undertaken including the use of hauling refuse by common carriers to distant disposal sites. Economic procedures for salvage of valuable byproducts at these stations is worthy of study. (4) Composting of rubbish is becoming more widespread; but additional research is needed to improve this method and to develop uses for the end product. Adequate research might develop improved methods of creating usable land by filling areas along or adjacent to ocean shores. The study of grinding solid waste for disposal to the sewer as is presently done with garbage, should be given further consideration. The development of central grinding stations, or even home units, could result from such research. These are some of the more obvious areas that could be studied with the funds made available by the Solid Waste Disposal Act. I am sure that out of this research would come additional methods and improvement of existing techniques which would save the citizens of this country many times the amount of the funds allocated. The needs of Los Angeles County are not exclusively ours. Similar problems plague all of the urban, as well as rural areas of this Nation. There is a vital need for research in this field and the need is immediate. Los Angeles County would be willing to cooperate in any way in research programs to determine ways to reduce waste disposal costs and to improved disposal methods. Very truly yours, JOHN A. LAMBIE, County Engineer. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT, Hon. OREN HARRIS, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Health and Welfare, Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: I have read with great interest and care the recent testimony provided to your subcommittee, by Mr. John J. Scott, chairman of the American Petroleum Institute Coordinating Committee on Air and Water Conservation. Because of the many alarming errors contained in that testimony, I am compelled to write you so that the record may be clear. A misstatement that is frequently made by witnesses for the petroleum industry (when they are offering testimony far from Los Angeles County) is the steps taken here to abate pollution from petroleum refineries and other similar source were foolish and failed to improve air quality. Mr. Scott, told your committee that, in Los Angeles County "refineries were summarily required to install very stringent controls. But after special refinery emissions control devices were installed, the city's smog problem remained as bad as ever *** the cost in the false start in Los Angeles was high * * * time was wasted while the community waited to see if the devices would work-time that could have been better spent trying to find the real cause of the pollution problem." This statement is totally false. The truth is, the Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District was formally created in late 1947. In April of 1948 its first prohibitions on air pollution emissions were enacted, and its control program was placed in force. Among the first targets for control were the emissions of sulfur dioxide arising from the uncontrollel operations of petroleum refineries, and the emissions of particulate material derived from a broad spectrum of industrial activities. Having opposed vigorously the adoption of the State legislation which created the Los Angeles Country Air Pollu tion Control District, it is not surprising that the petroleum industry viewed the activities of that district with some concern. The fact however is that, a reduction of 295 tons of sulfur dioxide per day from petroleum refining emissions, and a measure of control over particulate losses from other industrial sources, brought about a marked improvement in visibility conditions in Los Angeles County. For a period of time thereafter, visibility conditions were restored to the levels of before World War II, damage to growing field crops in the vicinity of the petroleum refineries ceased, and noxious refinery odors and unsightly plumes were virtually eliminated. While this control effort was going forward, the district was pursuing an aggressive research program which led, in 1950, to the discovery by Dr. Arie J. Haagen-Smit that certain kinds of hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen react with each other in the atmosphere to form a variety of compounds, and a variety of effects resembling the undesirable smog effects which occur in Los Angeles County. Armed with this research evidence, we proceeded on a program to control hydrocarbon emissions from not only petroleum refineries and industrial sources, but from automobiles as well. Our initial concern, in period 1951 to 1953, over the uncontrolled emissions of hydrocarbons from motor vehicles is now a matter of historic record and fact. Time was being wasted, not by the air pollution control district, but by those industries responsible for the emission into the Los Angeles atmosphere of hydrocarbons, sulfur oxides, and other problem-causing materials. While the quality of our atmosphere was declining as a result of pollution emissions from automobiles, petroleum refiners, and other industries, the associations and managerial personnel of these same industries were protesting to legislative bodies that more time should be devoted to research, that alternative control steps should be weighed, that the economic consequences of air pollution control on community life should be considered. Fortunately, in this State and in this county, those appeals fell on deaf ears. Our control program proceeded, with the result that, today, we are preventing more than 5,000 tons per day of noxious contaminants from entering the atmosphere of Los Angeles County. Without this extensive control, Los Angeles County would be virtually unhabitable on many days. In spite of the stringency of these controls, there has been no slowing of the growth trend in Los Angeles County, southern California, and indeed in the entire State of California. In this area, air pollution control has not killed the industrial goose that laid the golden egg; quite the contrary, air pollution control has made it possible for industry, and the population that sustains it, to live together and share a limited air supply. The second major error in Mr. Scott's testimony is the inference that the proposed Federal fuel specification represents a goal that is unobtainable. This is false. In 1958, rule 62 was adopted by the Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District. That rule prohibits the burning of any fuel in this basin containing more than one-half of 1 percent sulfur by weight. Rule 62 is effective during the summer months of the year, when adequate supplies of natural gas are available to fuel the entire community. In January 1964, the board of supervisors adopted rule 62.1 which bans the burning of these high sulfur fuels, during the colder months whenever adequate supplies of natural gas are available. These rules have been applied to a community that contains a population of nearly 7 million, with all of the industries, fossil fuel-fired generating plants, and other similar operations necessary to sustain a community of that size. Certainly, if we can live with a severe prohibition like this, a comparative handful of Federal facilities and installations will certainly have no difficulty in meeting the terms of the proposed Federal fuel restriction. It is my view, that the adoption of such a fuel specification by the Federal Government will provide the spur so sorely needed to motivate the petroleum industry to stop complaining about fuel restrictions and instead expend its time and money on development of reasonable, effective, and economical means for desulfurizing residual fuel oil. Without such a spur, in the absence of such a motivation, it is a certainty that the petroleum industry will continue to report to governmental bodies that sulfur limit restrictions on fuels are impossible to live with. The third major error committed by Mr. Scott is his suggestion that abatement of sulfur oxide emissions are not needed on a year-round basis in urban communities in the United States. In contrast to this statement by Mr. Scott, however, it is interesting that the U.S. Public Health Service has recommended to the Federal Power Commission (Transwestern Pipeline Company, et al., docket No. CP 63-204 et al.) that, to protect the public health, no community should permit average 24-hour sulfur dioxide values to exceed 0.10 parts per million for more than 1 day out of any 90-day period. This standard is being exceeded with increasing frequency throughout the United States. In 1963, New York exceeded the U.S. Public Health Service SO2 standards on 196 days, while Chicago exceeded the same standard 186 days. This fact was reported to the Federal Power Commission by the Western Oil & Gas Association in their opening brief, dated May 24, 1965, and should be available to Mr. Scott. This leads us to the fourth error by Mr. Scott. The petroleum industry would have your subcommittee believe that the sole objective of air pollution control should be to prevent the kind of catastrophic air pollution occurrence which has claimed thousands of lives in London, England, Donora, Pa., the Meuse Valley of Belgium, and several hundred lives recently in New York City. This kind of catastrophic recurrence is the acute episode which Mr. Scott's proposed air monitoring program allegedly would avert. His proposal totally ignores the link between long-term air pollution levels and chronic illness. This is a little like suggesting that the death of 60 bus passengers at one point on a highway is bad, but the death of a single pedestrian at each of the 1-mile markers along a 60-mile stretch of the highway is unimportant. The catastrophic air pollution disasters which have occurred throughout the world are dramatic and deserving of attention, but do not diminish the impact of the insidious, long-term exposures upon human health and happiness. The nondisastrous and chronic pollution occurrences should be today the greatest cause for concern throughout the United States. The final error by Mr. Scott is his suggestion that the construction of the kind of air monitoring and warning network he contemplates is quite simple and that means are readily at hand for creating such a system. The fact is that Los Angeles County today has the most extensive and complicated air monitoring network ever devised for any community. It is also one of the largest cost items in our budget, one which is more demanding of manpower than any other single activity, and one which despite all this, is inadequate to meet the air monitoring requirements of Mr. Scott's program. The capital costs, alone, of each of our air monitoring stations is in excess of $30,000. The manpower backup necessary to sustain each station in the field for 1 year is 3-man years and our current average payroll expense per employee exceeds $10,000. There are not enough people in the United States with the requisite technical training even to staff the kind of network that Mr. Scott proposes, much less the local financial capability to implement it. The County of Los Angeles has applauded the farsighted actions taken by the Congress in protecting the national community from the ravages of air pollution. The accomplishments of the Federal establishment have been due, in considerable measure, to the care with which Congress has focused responsibility for air pollution research and control matters on knowledgeable officials. To dilute that responsibility now to such an extent that, no one would be responsible for air pollution control would be to retrogress. The alleged improvement that Mr. Scott has suggested for H.R. 7429 would actually weaken that legislation, and was suggested by Mr. Scott for that very purpose. It is clearly Mr. Scott's intention not to promote air pollution control, but to impede it. The serious consequences that Mr. Scott sees in the Federal program amount to nothing more than inconvenience to the petroleum industry and the usual economic costs which are associated with most worthwhile public programs. In respect to economics, the sole question that is relevant to Congress is whether the benefits to be derived from control of air pollution are worth the cost. From my own experience in Los Angeles County, I assure you that the benefits of air pollution control are worth every penny. Very sincerely yours, S. SMITH GRISWOLD, STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Hon. OREN HARRIS, Chairman of House Subcommittee on Public Health and Welfare, DEAR CONGRESSMAN HARRIS: It is our understanding that your subcommittee on Public Health and Welfare will be conducting a hearing on June 10th on S. 306 and that this bill contains specific provisions for grants to States to survey |