Page images
PDF
EPUB

The precision of this still not widely know correlation suggests that there is no escape from "solve the problem of air pollution and the use of coal" or suffer the consequences, “illness or a loss of standard of living".

REFERENCES

Rand D Sources Sought for "Develop New Processes for Removal of Sulfur Oxides from Industrial Waste Grass" Comm. Bus. Daily, 5-16-67.

R. P. Hangebrauck and P. W. Spaite, 6th Ann. San. and Water Eng. Conf. '67.

J. H. Ludwig and P W. Spaite, Am. Inst. Chem. Eng., Dec. 4-8, 1966.

Proposal for Basic Studies on Coal Gasification and Sulfur Removal by Integral Systems, Scientific Res. Instruments Corp. to NCAPC, Aug. '68.

Public Health Service Contract No. PH 86-68–65.

Draft Paper "Studies on Coal Gasification I: Isothermal Desulfurization Experiments" May 17, 1968, for publication.

M. L. Vestal, Alan G. Day III, Judith Snyderman, and William H. Johnston, Studies on Coal Gasification II: Non-Isothermal Desulfurization Kinetics, draft for publication, May 30, 1968.

NCPC Newsletter, p. 4, Feb. 29, 1968.

William J. Sparks, Priestly Medal Address, C. and E. News, p. 110-, 4-19-65. Arnold C. Cooper, Harvard Business Review, 42, no. 3, 75-83, May-June '64. Chris Argyris, Organization and Innovation, Irwin and Dorsy, Illinios 1965. M. J. Klein, "Einstein" Physics Today, 38-44, Jan. 1965.

John R. Platt, Science, 146, 16 October, p347, 1964.

Hans Landsberg, Natural Resources for U.S. Growth, Hopkins, Baltimore '64. Robert H. Essenhigh, Mineral Industries, 32, no. 5, Feb. 1963.

M. A. Elliott, Conf. of Southern Res. Inst., Birmingham, 1961.

D. W. Van Krevelen, Coal, Elsevier, New York, 1961.

Peter Petrakis, Science, 22 Nov. 1963 under Letters.

L. S. Kubie, Int Sci. and Tech., June 1965, p75.

Arthur M. Squires, Chem. Eng. Prog. 62, no. 10, p74, Oct. '66; "Use of Calcined Dolemite to Desulfurize Fuels " 61-Amer. Chem. Soc.-69.

...

(Subsequent to the hearing, the following letters were received and ordered to be printed at this point:)

Subject: Solid waste disposal.

Senator EDMUND MUSKIE,

ANDOVER, MASS., May 25, 1968.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, Senate Committee on Public Works, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: I note that your Subcommittee is holding hearings on May 22, 23 and June 3, on "the concept of waste management to minimize environmental pollution with emphasis on the role of the Federal government in the development of adequate technology to insure the implementation of our environmental control programs," in connection with solid waste disposal.

The situation on solid waste is being actively considered in Massachusetts at the present time. I have embodied my thoughts on this matter in a letter I wrote to the Boston press, which was published in the "Boston Globe" and "Boston Herald-Traveler" in November, 1967.

As I am unable to attend your meetings in person, I enclose a copy of that letter for the consideration by your Subcommittee in its deliberations. You will note that it stresses reclamation, recovery, salvage or whatever one wishes to call it, instead of destruction or burial of the waste.

This is in accord with true conservation principles, and, as I see it, must be the eventual solution as we cannot continue to pollute our atmosphere by incineration, or use up our green areas by land fill operations.

I make no claim that my precise suggestions of my letter are the best ones; only I wish to direct attention to developing a satisfactory method of salvage of our waste, instead of destroying it. Respectfully submitted,

HAROLD R. RAFTON.

(NOTE. This letter was sent to the editor of the Boston Globe and to the editor of the Boston Herald Traveler.)

ANDOVER, MASS., November 1, 1967. DEAR SIR: According to press accounts, the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) issued its recommendation for handling the solid waste disposal

problem confronting our cities and towns. The MAPC would set up a "Solid Waste Disposal District," composed of 79 cities and towns, to operate a system of regional incinerators and sanitary land fills.

With all due respect to the MAPC and assuming that the press has correctly reported its recommendation, it appears that its plan is unimaginative, routine, and merely "more of the same," but on a larger scale. The plan would promote pollution of our air with incinerators, and would use up ever larger areas of land with land fill operations. In these days of anti-pollution efforts and conservation of our green areas, these methods are not in accord with the times, and another method must obviously be sought.

The disposal of municipal waste presents both a challenge and an opportunity. The challenge is to apply known chemicals, mechanical and metallurgical techniques to solve the problem. The opportunity will thus be given us to save and utilize, rather than destroy, the potentially valuable material in the solid waste. It is not economical to handle small tonnages for salvage; but when we learn that 79 eastern Massachusetts communities produce 9,000,000 pounds (4,500 tons) of rubbish a day, we realize that we have a tonnage which fully justifies salvage methods, rather than destructive ones, whether by burning or burial. Salvage recovers useful materials, conserves our natural resources instead of wasting them, and leaves for current disposal methods only the relatively minor portion of the rubbish which it may not be feasible to salvage.

My proposal calls for setting up at a central point, to which rubbish can be economically conveyed, a plant for separating the rubbish into its main constituents, and processing these separately for recovery. Initially the recovered constituents would be comparatively crude, but readily reusable. Later, as more refined techniques are introduced, the recovered constituents would be of a higher grade and more valuable.

An example of such a rough separation of the rubbish into its main constituents might be: first shunt aside big objects-metal, lumber, tires, etc. Then tear apart the remainder of the rubbish to relatively small pieces; remove the lighter portions, which would be chiefly shreded fibre-paper and cartons-and plastics, by an air blast; recover the metallic material magnetically, and the glass, bricks and cement by gravity settling.

The large objects could be handled separately, according to their nature. If the fibres and plastics could not be used jointly, the fibre could be separated from the plastics by water. The fibre could serve as a raw material for crude fibrous board. The plastics could be macerated with solvents to yield a crude extrudable plastic for many uses. The metal could be melted to crude pig iron. The glass, bricks and cement could be crushed to small size and used as a substitute for gravel as a fill or in road building.

This is merely a suggestion in broad terms, the details of which could be worked out. But all this is well within our present technical capacity, and there are numerous machines now available in mining and other bulk handling industries to process the rubbish as suggested. Indeed, similar rubbish disposal methods may already be in use elsewhere, which could be ascertained by a preliminary investigation.

Furthermore, the establishment of such a reclamation plant would set up a new industry with new opportunities for employment; and with the abundant raw materials available, might foster the building of local industries to utilize them. In this way, by applying conservation instead of pollution and destruction, we would convert a continuous outlay for rubbish disposal into a partially or wholly self-supporting project. And, at the same time, we would provide new jobs for which many persons in our unskilled labor pool might readily be trained.

I submit that this is the way our municipal waste disposal should be handled. I recommend that it be given careful consideration and investigation before large sums are spent for the polluting and land consuming methods recommended by the MAPC.

Very sincerely yours,

HAROLD R. RAFTON.

Senator SPONG. The hearings will now be recessed until further notice.

Thank you very much.

(Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.)

WASTE MANAGEMENT RESEARCH AND
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT

TUESDAY, JULY 9, 1968

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AIR AND WATER POLLUTION,
OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m., Senator William B. Spong, Jr., presiding.

Present: Senator Spong.

Also present: Richard B. Royce, chief clerk and staff director; Leon G. Billings and Richard D. Grundy, professional staff members.

OPENING STATEMENT BY SENATOR SPONG

Senator SPONG. The hearing will be in order.

Today the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution continues hearings on waste management research and environmental quality management.

Since the previous hearings the Senate Committee on Public Works has ordered reported S. 3201, which provides for a 1-year extension of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. This extension will provide sufficient time for completion of the comprehensive review of current solid waste disposal technology being undertaken by the President's Office of Science and Technology.

Federal laws relating to solid waste disposal, air and water pollution, have been enacted, but the interrelationship of these environmental problems remains to be defined.

A research strategy that emphasizes environmental quality management is needed if the goals defined by Congress are to be achieved. Successful implementation of these goals will require the development and improvement of pollution control technology.

There is a need for action by both Government and industry to insure the development of technically feasible and economically reasonable methods of pollution control. While there is potential for the development of new technologies on a Government-industry cooperative basis, at the same time there is a need for a more mutual understanding of the respective roles of Government and industry. These hearings, as with previous hearings, are intended to provide an initial look at current Federal research activities in waste management research. Testimony has been requested within a framework which emphasizes concepts of environmental quality management and the role of the Federal Government in the development of control

technology adequate to insure the implementation of pollution control legislation.

Is Dr. Ivan L. Bennett, Jr., here?

Dr. Bennett, we will hear from you at this time.

Dr. Bennett, we would be pleased to receive in its entirety the statement you have submitted, and you may testify from it in part or in any way you desire.

STATEMENT OF DR. IVAN L. BENNETT, JR., DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

Dr. BENNETT. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to appear before you again to discuss problems of restoring and preserving the quality of our environment. Through its many detailed hearings, field investigations, and thorough studies, this subcommittee has been instrumental in the identification and characterization of major environmental problems of our Nation and in bringing these problems into the forefront of public attention and concern.

LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY

The subcommittee also played a leading role in the development of the legislative authorities which established our national programs for abatement of water and air pollution and for solid waste management.

Additionally, I consider it fitting and proper to pay tribute to the subcommittee's exemplary acceptance of responsibility for the important function of legislative oversight. It is axiomatic, perhaps, that there should be regular, objective assessments of progress toward fulfillment of objectives in even the simplest, most straightforward programs which involve the expenditure of public funds, but mounting responsibilities, pressures generated by ephemeral crises, and the myriad unexpected but urgent trivia that regularly combined to make a shambles of each day's carefully overloaded schedule, invite, indeed, almost demand procrastination.

As a result, the axiom may go unheeded or be accorded no more than lipservice. Cumulative experience with pollution abatement makes it abundantly clear that eventual success in the ever growing and increasingly complex task of environmental control will be crucially dependent upon periodic reviews followed by any indicated readjustment of guidelines and goals or appropriate deletions, revisions, and realinements in action programs.

The best decisions in these matters are candid, informed judgments, anchored solidly in past experience and with an eye to the future. They are facilitated by transparency of planning, execution, and reporting so as to permit the sharp beam of constructive criticism to permeate.

EVALUATION

This subcommittee's willingness to undertake searching reevaluations of our national environmental programs, to refine or extend

authorizations for them, to broaden their coverages, and to introduce modifications that hold promise for improved effectiveness and greater efficiency has already established a fertile and creative cooperation in a common endeavor.

Consequently, Mr. Chairman, I welcome particularly this opportunity to participate in your examination of the overall requirements for research in this area, the scope and scale of Federal support for research, the means of assuring expeditious development of the technologies required to implement our control programs, and related

matters.

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Before addressing myself to the highly pertinent points suggested by the subcommittee as a framework for these hearings I wish to discuss briefly some of the characteristics of the overall problem of environmental deterioration in the United States in order to assure perspective in our examination of the role and responsibility of the Federal Government in research and development in this field.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

As the subcommittee knows, while waste management, or more precisely, waste mismanagement, is our major cause of pollution in terms of sheer size, it is by no means the only threat. There are many contaminants which arise from sources not directly related to waste disposal.

SYNTHETIC MATERIALS

The "age of chemistry" has led to the introduction into use of literally thousands of synthetic agents. Some of these are toxic; the effects of others are still uncertain. Nearly all are present in the environment only in very low concentrations.

Air, food, and water also contain numerous more familiar substances that, in high dosage, are well known to be acutely dangerous to man. Residues of pesticidal chemicals, gaseous hydrocarbons from the evaporation of gasoline, heavy metal residues, and carbon monoxide are examples. There is an urgent need for research on the effects of long-term exposure to small amounts of these materials, also.

As Dr. Paul Kotin, Director of the Division of Environmental Health Sciences of the National Institutes of Health has emphasized, research on problems of this type is an exceedingly complicated undertaking for at least three reasons (see "Proceedings of 1968 Symposium in Biology," North Carolina State University, Raleigh, 1968, p. 6):

1. The investigation is not directed to exposure to overwhelmingly concentrations of environmental agents producing immediate or short-term, easily detectable responses, but to low-level concentrations over a long period of time that may or may not produce adverse effects.

2. The biological end points cannot be defined in advance; in essence, the twofold problem is to determine whether a hazard exists and what its manifestations in the host may be.

3. The additive or synergistic effect of combinations of agents may produce significant harmful effects in practice that will be missed in controlled laboratory tests with single substances.

« PreviousContinue »