tional Communicable Disease Center in May of this year took the position that 'Dr. Maxcy's comments are as valid today as they were in 1946.'" I do not think this subcommittee has seen that document. Dr. EDWARDS. I would be willing to provide it for the record. Mr. REUSS. Do you have that now? Dr. EDWARDS. Yes. Mr. REUSS. Without objection, we will have a copy made of this for our record and give you back Dr. EDWARDS. You may keep that. Mr. REUSS. Without objection, this will be made part of the record. [The May 4, 1970, letter-from Dr. James O. Mason for Dr. David J. Sencer, Assistant Surgeon General/Director, National Communicable Disease Center, to Dr. Albert C. Kolbye-follows:] DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, Date: May 4, 1970 PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, HEALTH SERVICES AND MENTAL HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, Subject: Statement on Railroad Car Sanitation To: Dr. ALBERT C. KOLBYE Deputy Director, Bureau of Foods, Pesticides and Product Safety, Food and Drug Administration (Through Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration; Surgeon General, Public Health Service; Administrator, Health Services and Mental Health Administration). 1. You have asked NCDC to prepare a statement on railroad car sanitation. The statement follows: "We are in essential agreement that a potential health hazard exists whenever human excreta are deposited above ground. There is a theoretical risk of transmission of salmonellosis, shigellosis or possibly other enteric diseases by means of direct contact or through the vector of flies to persons who work on the railroad rights-of-way or reside near the tracks. There is also the possible transmission of hookworm infection to barefooted children who play on or near the same areas. Additionally, domestic animals can become infected with salmonella and subsequently transmit the infection to humans. There is also the potential problem of the contamination of water supplies by sewage drainage by any of the bacterial or viral enteric disease agents. The fact that outbreaks of these diseases have not been documented may be due to the obvious difficulty of tracing such outbreaks to these sources. "You may be aware of the excellent study of Dr. Kenneth F. Maxcy conducted in 1946 when railway passenger travel was near its peak. He concluded in a paper entitled 'An Inquiry into the Public Health Hazard of Sewage Disposal from Railway Conveyances' that 'It can, therefore, be stated with reasonable assurance that information at present available fails to establish the existence of a public health menace resulting from the method of disposal of fecal wastes employed by railways, This by no means proves the negative-that such a menace does not exist.' Dr. Maxcy's comments are as valid today as they were in 1946." 2. We believe the practice referred to to be poor public health practice, but would caution against attempting to overcapitalize on the epidemic potential. That potential is slight. JAMES O. MASON, for DAVID J. SENCER, M.D., Director, National Commmunicable Disease Center. Mr. VANDER JAGT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to return to page 3. Your conclusion, as I understand it, is that there is no scientific evidence linking the discharge of raw human waste by railroads with the spread of communicable diseases. You do not therefore conclude that you do not have the authority to regulate the discharge of raw human waste by the railroads, do you? Dr. EDWARDS. No, we believe we have the authority. Mr. VANDER JAGT. There is no question in your mind that you do have the authority? Dr. EDWARDS. In our judgment, we are moving in that direction. Mr. VANDER JAGT. In fact, you suggest publishing in the Federal Register a notice of a proposed rule that railroad passenger cars, locomotives and cabooses constructed after December 1971 be fitted with full retention facilities. Why do you wait until 1971? Is not that in essence saying to the railroad: "Go ahead for the next year and a half and manufacture all the new units that you want without concern about dumping raw human waste"? Dr. EDWARDS. I certainly appreciate your concern for an effective date of December 1971. We used that date at this point in time because we are not certain whether adequate facilities are available or will be available to outfit the new equipment that is being manufactured. Mr. VANDER JAGT. As a result of these hearings or other evidence that could be submitted to you, you could be convinced that the facilities are readily available. Would you have any hesitation in moving up the date? Dr. EDWARDS. If they are readily available, I think the date should be very definitely moved up. Mr. VANDER JAGT. And there is no question in your mind that you have the authority to do so? Dr. EDWARDS. Yes; we are pursuing along with that thought in mind. Mr. VANDER JAGT. As a matter of fact, section 72.154 (a) of the Code of Federal Regulations says: There shall be no discharge of excrement, garbage, wastewater or other polluting material from any land conveyance while such conveyance is passing over areas designated by the Surgeon General. That would cover the railroads right now; would it not? Dr. EDWARDS. Right. Mr. VANDER JAGT. Is my understanding correct, that even though that regulation is on the books, neither the Surgeon General nor anybody else has designated any areas where it cannot be dumped while it is moving? Dr. EDWARDS. I am not certain that I understand your question. Mr. VANDER JAGT. As I understand the regulation, it says: "No moving railroad vehicle can be permitted to dump raw sewage from a moving vehicle in areas designated by the Surgeon General where this shall not take place." Is my understanding correct, that neither the Surgeon General nor any other governmental body has designated any such area, so that as the law now stands, there is complete freedom to dump from a moving vehicle wherever the railroad might want to do so? Dr. EDWARDS. Except as we mentioned, in stations Mr. VANDER JAGT. "At outside stations and car servicing areas." Dr. EDWARDS. I think in general your statement is correct. Mr. VANDER JAGT. So that a train could be going through the heart of Chicago or New York, and there is no regulation, even though you have the authority, that would prevent the dumping of wastes? Dr. EDWARDS. There are local regulations, but I am not certain whether or not the Federal Public Health Service has developed any such regulations. Mr. VANDER JAGT. Have you studied, Dr. Edwards, or has anyone in FDA studied, the magnitude of the problem that we are talking about? For example, one group has estimated that the dumping of raw human sewage from the engines and the cabooses of freight trains alone amounts to 50 million pounds a year of raw sewage dumped on the tracks. I think an HEW study puts the figure somewhere around 25 million pounds. Is anyone in a position to comment on the magnitude of the problem? Dr. EDWARDS. Would you like to comment on that, Dr. Kolbye? Dr. KOLBYE. I just want to say that those figures would not surprise me. I do not know the specific figures, but I think that is in the general ball park. Mr. VANDER JAGT. You would not be surprised by a study that said the dumping of raw human sewage from engines and cabooses of freight trains alone amounts to as much as 50 million pounds a year? Dr. KOLBYE. Again I am not familiar with the figures specifically. As to whether I would be surprised, I believe it is a high figure. Mr. VANDER JAGT. You would not be prepared to rule out the possibility that that figure can be substantiated? Dr. KOLBYE. That is right. Mr. VANDER JAGT. And you would not challenge too vehemently an estimate that would put it between 25 and 50 million pounds a year? Dr. KOLBYE. No. Mr. VANDER JAGT. In fact, you would not be at all surprised with a figure that was put that way; would you? Dr. KOLBYE. Yes. Mr. VANDER JAGT. Did you answer "Yes"? Dr. KOLBYE. Yes. Mr. REUSS. Mr. Hicks? Mr. HICKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for my earlier outburst. Mr. REUSS. Not at all. Mr. HICKS. I want to make clear my feeling that this hearing is not one that this committee should be concerned with. I think, if it is anything, it is wasting our time on problems that not at all as serious as many we could be concerned with. Mr. REUSS. If we could deal with that point, I think the gentleman. has a good sense of proportion, and I would point out that this is one morning's hearing. We do not intend to pursue the matter indefinitely. Mr. HICKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Edwards, while I know that you are not an expert on all the pollution problems that the railroads may have, do you have any thought at all as to the totality of areas where they are involved in pollution in one way or another and how this particular aspect would compare with other aspects, where the railroad industry contributes to environmental pollution? Dr. EDWARDS. Do you mean air or noise pollution? Mr. HICKS. Air, noise, weeds, the way that they maintain their property. Dr. EDWARDS. No, I cannot speak specifically to that question. I certainly feel that this is no greater problem, in terms of the total environmental pollution problem of the railroads than, for instance, the air pollution problem that is created by the diesel equipment for one thing. Mr. HICKS. Assuming only a limited number of dollars to attack any problem-and I got this idea from reading a statement that one of the railroad people was going to put in-where should it better be spent: On fixing up passenger equipment, serving a declining segment of the public, or should it be spent in other areas, such as air pollution, and I do not know how many others? Further, I certainly would concur wholeheartedly with the idea that new equipment-whether it is started tomorrow, if the regulation could be made that soon-should be just the same as buses and airplanes. They ought not to discharge this material, if for no other reason that it is unsightly and malodorous. and a number of other words that we could use. When we talk in terms of going back and retrofitting thousands of pieces of equipment, and considering the cost that is involved, considering how that money might better be utilized in some other manner, it seems to me we are belaboring an issue that really is not that important. Dr. EDWARDS. I certainly cannot speak to the degree of pollution that each of these particular problems create. I think, though, that your point is a good one, and it is a point on which we have had considerable discussion with both the Department of Transportation and the ICC, in terms of developing our own priorities to deal with an industry that obviously has, at this point in time, limited resources. Mr. HICKS. Those are all the questions I have, Mr. Chairman. Mr. GUDE. I would just make a comment, Mr. Chairman. My concern is that we will be burdening municipal waste facilities, some of which are already overtaxed. In fact, I am certain there are some rural and small town areas which have no municipal waste treatment facilities at all. We must consider self-contained units on trains which would provide for treatment and disposal of waste. Otherwise, we are not facing up to the problem realistically. We are just moving it from one place to the other. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. REUSS. Mr. Wright. Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer to page 2 of Dr. Edwards' statement. In the second paragraph of your statement as contained on that page, you refer to certain disease dangers, potential in the current practice, such as hookworm, salmonella and others. Then, in the next paragraph, you make reference to the Maxcy study, which you characterize as having concluded that: "It can, therefore, be stated with reasonable assurance that information at present fails to establish the existence of a public health menace, ***". After that, you cite the statement of the National Communicable Disease Center, in May of this year, as somewhat concurring Dr. Maxcy's statement, saying: "Dr. Maxcy's comments are as valid today as they were in 1946." I am looking at a copy of the memorandum of May 4, 1970, by the National Communicable Disease Center. I think perhaps the essential point in that statement appears at the beginning of the statement. It says: "We are in essential agreement that a potential health hazard exists whenever human excrement is deposited above ground." It goes on to mention in some detail the various dangers, salmonella, and others, the transmission of hookworm to barefooted children, the possibility that domestic animals can become infected and transmit disease to humans, the potential of contaminating waterpipes by sewage drainage and so forth. Thereafter it makes reference to the Maxcy conclusions of 1946, but immediately prior to the statement that Dr. Maxey's comments were as valid as they were then, it quotes Dr. Maxcy saying: "This by no means proves the negative-that such a menace does not exist." You would certainly say, I am sure, that it would be desirable for some form of treatment to be provided, rather than for this waste matter to be dumped on tracks? Dr. EDWARDS. Absolutely. Mr. WRIGHT. Further along in your statement on page 6, you estimate the cost for retrofitting to full retention in railroad conveyances at more than $42 million. Are you familiar with a device perfected by Dr. Blankenship, who will be one of our witnesses today? Dr. EDWARDS. No, I am not. Mr. WRIGHT. Are you, Dr. Kolbye? Dr. KOLBYE. Not by the name of Dr. Blankenship. I am not sure what device you are talking about. Mr. WRIGHT. You are not aware of what he has proposed? Dr. KOLBYE. No, sir, I am not. Mr. WRIGHT. Your agency has made no investigation on it? Dr. EDWARDS. No, not by that name. Dr. KOLBYE. I do not know which device you are talking about. Is it possible to be more descriptive? Mr. WRIGHT. I suspect that he will be quite descriptive. Therefore, you would have no way of arriving at an estimate as to what the cost might be for the installation of the system which he proposes? Dr. KOLBYE. No. Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you very much. Mr. VANDER JAGT. Dr. Edwards, I want to assure you that the committee is aware of the complexity and magnitude of your total efforts and that this is something that has to fit into the total picture. I also am aware of the complexity of regulations and proposed solutions. For one thing, there are all different kinds of railroad cars that we are talking about. The new ones to be manufactured; the ones that are already running; the longhauls; the shorthauls; the wreck trains on which a crew lives basically for 24 hours; and also commuter trains. We have some commuter trains. There are many in larger metropolitan areas, where the density of population is the greatest, and the possibility of the spread of communicable diseases is the greatest, and some of these commuter trains have runs of only 28-minute duration. In looking at your proposed solution of the three steps that you are going to take, has anyone given any consideration to a very simple regulation that would cover many of our high density areas or on commuter trains of, say, running no longer than 20 minutes' duration, that there 50-146-70—2 |