the manner in which the Public Health Service has promptly processed grant applications after consultation with States.

The rapid application of Federal grant funds to State and local programs, together with the matching amounts provided by the grantee agencies, reflects an important increase in the total national public control effort-approxmiately a 40-percent increase over the previous year. This is significant evidence of a good start on the spreading blight and menace of air pollution.

Nevertheless, the Federal authorization is inadequate to take full advantage of the deep and active interest of the cities and States of this country to move ahead more rapidly in their air pollution efforts. We understand that in fiscal year 1965, however, there will be applications for grants amounting to about $400,000 in excess of the funds available. The fund authorization will not permit the award of any additional grants for project applications submitted in 1966. This deficiency is due to the 20-percent limitation on funds for grants. This provision is causing serious difficulties and should be removed. The annual process of appropriation by the Congress, we believe, provides a suitable mechanism for considering the amounts needed for grants.

There is another problem connected with the present grant authorization. It does not provide for program maintenance type of financial assistance. We urge that careful consideration be given to setting up a means whereby grant funds would be available to States, on a continuing basis, after they have reached an adequate program level. This is not possible now because Federal funds are used only to match "new money."

The formation of oxides of sulfur from fuels has been and continues to be one of the principal air contaminants. The conference supports any effort to develop improved low-cost methods for reducing emissions of the oxides of sulfur from combustion of fuels.

The ultimate disposal of solid wastes is an ever-increasing problem in our country. We recognize that many current solid waste disposal practices present major public health problems, including a substantial contribution to air pollution.

Information is not available to indicate what the national needs are, nor are comprehensive plans yet developed on which to base a sound solution to the problem.

We also note with considerable concern that the State agencies would have no role in the administration of the construction grants program as proposed in S. 306. In view of these factors, and the overall needs with regard to the national problem of solid wastes disposal, the conference believes that the initial authorizations provided by Federal legislation should include a comprehensive approach, including research and development, technical assistance, and planning, and that as construction grants may be provided, that they be administered through the States.

In addition to current proposals before the Congress, the conference urges that consideration be given to providing Federal financial support on a continuing and a cost-sharing basis, and in a manner which will assure that the States can provide an adequate level of leadership and technical assistance to further the control of air pollution by local government.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before your committee to present the views of the Conference of State Sanitary Engineers. We hope that you will find our comments helpful, and that you will give them favorable consideration.

Mr. Chairman, I have with me a statement from William A. Munroe, chairman of the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators, relative to S. 306 which with your permission I would like to present for the record.

Senator MUSKIE. Fine. It will be included in the record.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM A. MUNROE, CHAIRMAN, STATE AND TERRITORIAL AIR POLLUTION PROGRAM ADMINISTRATORS (STAPPA)

SUMMARY

1. STAPPA supports efforts to develop and improve low-cost methods for reducing emissions of oxides of sulfur from combustion of fuels.

2. STAPPA supports the establishment of a Federal Air Pollution Control Laboratory.

3. STAPPA recognizes the need for and urges accelerated efforts to solve the automotive air pollution problem, but, for reasons herein, finds that national standards should not be adopted by Federal law and that blanket nationwide control on new cars is premature.

4. STAPPA is keenly aware of the air pollution potential of solid waste disposal but urges an attack on the solid waste problem over a much broader base than air pollution alone.

With respect to automotive air pollution, STAPPA notes that the problem is associated, for the most part, with urban areas, is influenced by meteorology. and that motor vehicle emissions vary with driving patterns, fuel and engine conditions and other variables. Thus, its severity or importance varies significantly from place to place within any State and nationally. Under these circumstances, there is no general agreement at this time among the States on the validity of the proposed standards.

In spite of the nonuniformity in the problem geographically, STAPPA recognizes that the best ultimate solution may be through built-in methods or devices at the factory even though it will result in uniformity nationally at added expenses to purchasers of new automobiles, including those in areas where the problem is not significant.

In recognition of the ultimate need for solution at the point of manufacture, the need for effective inspection programs, and improvement in traffic flow, STAPPA concurs in principle with the four conclusions in the report by the Secretary of HEW to the Congress on automotive air pollution received by Congress January 15, 1965.

STAPPA concurs in the need for emission standards in order to accomplish the ultimate implementation but it opposes inclusion of specific values in the Federal law. It prefers authorization to the Secretary of HEW for the timely adoption and publication of standards, if finally found necessary, in order to facilitate the utilization of growing technical knowledge and better meet the practical problems of administering a program of such broad scope.

In view of the present state of technical knowledge and methods, STAPPA emphasizes that effective application in the next several years will be dependent upon effective and costly inspection programs. To accomplish this nationally will be difficult if not impossible. Effective inspection will not be established in States where the problem is only moderate or of lesser degree and it is, therefore, imperative that the applied methods or devices will, as a minimum, not result in undue damage or cost as the result of lack of inspection and proper maintenance. Large-scale road testing of developing methods and devices is therefore needed and this might well be done on the Federal fleet of automobiles and/or in cooperation with the several States now regulating automotive emissions.

Unless evidence is now at hand supporting the practicality of national application without nationwide inspection programs, the proposed effective date in S. 306 is premature.

HEW, however, should be directed to expedite the efforts toward attaining improved methods which will be sufficiently economical and maintenance-free as to make general application by the auto industry practical without dependency on large-scale inspection programs by the States. In the meantime, the States seriously plagued with the problem must decide on the merits of applying present technology and may very well need Federal support to establish inspection programs.

Failure of an effort of such magnitude because of premature blanket application on a national basis could reflect adversely on the total air pollution control activity at all levels and particularly the Federal.

STAPPA supports accelerated research programs relating to hydrocarbon emissions from the evaporation of gasoline in carburetors and fuel tanks and the emissions of oxides of nitrogen and aldehydes from gasoline- or dieselpowered vehicles, but suggests that the present provisions of the Clean Air Act already would encompass this activity.

With respect to solid waste disposal, STAPPA finds that the problems associated with solid waste disposal are of growing significance, include many factors affecting the environment other than air pollution, but that there is not, at this time, adequate evaluations of its scope, practical application of controls, nor the needs nationally.

Waste disposal operations have a significant potential for air pollution where incineration or open burning is practiced or where poor operations permit excessive odor or windblown debris and dust. The problems associated with solid waste disposal, however, are much broader than just air pollution, and, insofar as the environment is concerned, may include general sanitary conditions, water pollution, insect and rodent problems, and general nuisance. Notwithstanding the importance of the air pollution potential, including its urgency in some areas, STAPPA finds that the total problem of waste disposal should be attacked on a much broader base.

STAPPA therefore recommends separate Federal legislation dealing with the total problem and Federal programs that will

1. Coordinate Federal programs supporting solid-waste disposal activity. 2. Assist the States in developing an accurate inventory of the problem and the needs.

3. Develop and demonstrate new and improved methods of solid-waste collection, handling, and disposal through cooperative programs with the States.

4. Generate needed trained professionals and technical personnel that can manage the problem at the State and local level.

5. Provide, as the need indicates, a program of matching grants for construction of suitable waste disposal facilities which will

(a) Function through a program whereby the State agency will have a strong voice in the approval of construction grants such that the needs throughout the State are best recognized and;

(b) Be based on approval criteria including factors involving air pollution but not to the exclusion of the other important environmental problems.

STAPPA also notes that any combustion processes adds some additional burden to the atmosphere and urges that in research, developmental, demonstration, and grant programs proper attention be given to improved noncombustion methods of solid waste disposal.

In addition to the current proposals before Congress, STAPPA urges that the program grants authority be extended beyond arbitrary time limits, as is now the case, and that consideration be given to continuing cost-sharing support to State and local government through maintenance grants. It believes that, because of the variation in the problem throughout the country and the traditional State-local relationships, the best role that the State can plan in many instances is that of strong leadership in the development and improvement of local and regional control programs and, therefore, enforcement authority at the State level should not necessarily be a condition of grants for State programs.

Senator MUSKIE. We thank you very much, Mr. Cary, for your very good statement, and for your suggestions for improvements in the bill.

Mr. CARY. I would like to make one personal observation, if I could.

In the discussions concerning sulfur dioxides and their impact on the health of people, I am afraid that many of us have been, and probably I am as guilty as any, of fractionating the environment and trying to determine what effect each little portion has on the individual, and have not considered fully the problems that relate to the individual in his total environment.

I think that Dr. Greenburg's statement is very illustrative of the fact that this is a broad problem, and that air pollution is one of the facets of the total environment of man, and that it is very difficult. to isolate one element in that program and say that this element has this specific effect.

We may be able statistically to get some information by taking the differences between the conditions as they prevail on the west coast and on the east coast, and determining what those differences are, but there are also differences of climate, there are differences of many other things in the environment that affect man, too.

We need to consider man in the total environment.

Senator MUSKIE. I think that is a valid point to make. Thank you very much.

Mr. CARY. Thank you. It was a pleasure to be here.

Senator MUSKIE. We have one more witness who is unscheduled, but who is here with a statement, and we will be delighted to hear from him.

Mr. Bernard T. Holland, commissioner of the Department of Public Utilities of the City of St. Paul, Minn.

STATEMENT OF BERNARD T. HOLLAND, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES, CITY OF ST. PAUL, MINN.; ACCOMPANIED BY EUGENE V. AVERY, CHIEF ENGINEER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. Chairman, members of the Special Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Bernard T. Holland. I am commissioner of public utilities in St. Paul and, as part of this assignment, one of my duties is chief air pollution abatement officer for the city.

I am here in this capacity, and also as a member and official representative of the City Council of St. Paul, to speak in support of the bill, S. 306, specifically section 2 thereof, concerning solid waste disposal facilities.

We are very appreciative, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity and privilege of appearing here before you on this matter, which is so important to all of us.

This is a broad city problem, transcending departmental boundaries, and with me here today, also at the request of the city council, is Mr. Eugene V. Avery, chief engineer of the department of public works, who is also chairman of our interdepartmental technical committee, to which the council has referred the solid waste disposal problem, as well as certain other problems.

The council has, after careful consideration, concluded that section 2 of the proposed bill does directly concern a problem which St. Paul faces. Implementation of the bill could, through the granting of financial aid, greatly assist, and move forward in time, a better solution to the solid waste disposal problem than we now have.

We have prepared a written statement entitled "Refuse Disposal in St. Paul," which we would like to present to you. However, knowing your limitations of time, I will not attempt to read it now, unless you would wish me to. I had planned simply to introduce it for the record.

The statement outlines the characteristics of the situation in St. Paul, and has attached to it a copy of the unanimous resolution of the council endorsing S. 306.

I have also with me to introduce for your record and study a report entitled "St. Paul Refuse Disposal Area," which presents several undesirable health and environmental aspects of our present solid-waste disposal system.

This report was prepared by Dr. Harold J. Paulus, of the University of Minnesota, and an eminent authority in the field of air pollution. The information contained in this report supports a conclusion that major changes are needed in our disposal system.

Our technical committee is now proceeding with development of the program and planning of the facilities necessary to carry out these changes. Financing of the proper facilities will be difficult, however, and progress probably would be delayed unless additional sources of funds become available.

Section 2 of S. 306 would be of great assistance in solving this problem. The city of St. Paul has taken steps to insure the availability of up to $2 million in local funds, to be used in the event S. 306 becomes law.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, we feel that section 2 of S. 306 will provide effective assistance toward the abatement of air pollution problems in the disposal of solid-waste materials, and urge its

passage.

Thank you very much.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much, Mr. Holland.

The documents you have submitted will be included in the record. (Documents referred to follow :)

REPORT ON ST. PAUL REFUSE DISPOSAL AREA, BY HAROLD J. PAULUS, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

Following a request from the Department of Public Utilities of the City of St. Paul, Minn., a study was made of the refuse disposal practices at the Pig's Eye land fill site. The objective of the study was to evaluate only the current and potential air pollution problem and not the sanitary conditions of the disposal operations. Visits to the area were made on the afternoons of March 9 and March 24, 1965, accompanied by Mr. William Cockrell of the St. Paul Utilities Department. On both days samples of airborne particulates and gases emanating from the combustion of refuse on the dumping sites were collected. The samples were analyzed in the laboratories of the School of Public Health, University of Minnesota.

SITUATION

A schematic diagram of the sections of the dump receiving different classes of refuse at the time of the visits is shown in figure 1. The three active disposal areas are designated as areas A, B, and C in the figure. In area A (burning dump), most of the refuse was from building demolition which was