RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BAKER

GENERAL QUESTIONS

Question 1. The testimony received by the Committee has indicated that "source reduction" by itself, would not be the most economical answer to the solid waste problem. Nor would recycling, which probably would work only in the larger metropolitan areas, prove to be a total answer. We need a balance between the two. But what is the nature of that balance? How can we build it into legislation in a reasonable and realistic way? How can we encourage both recycling, where it is effective and economical, and source reduction where that is the only practical alternative?

Answer. Both resource recovery and source reduction can be encouraged simultaneously. The first priority should be to encourage reduction in waste generation at the source as this would be clearly preferable from an environmental and resource conservation point of view. However, source reduction is not applicable to some products for technical reasons and may not be desirable in some instances for administrative or equity reasons. Therefore, source reduction can only be viewed as a partial approach to the solid waste problem.

After source reduction, the recovery of resources from the remaining part of the waste stream should be encouraged. Whenever the economics are favorable, materials should be directly recovered as materials. The remainder of the waste stream should then be converted to energy. Whatever residue exists at the end of this process should be disposed of in an environmentally acceptable manner. Materials recovery can take place for some materials (such as newspapers, corrugated boxes, office papers and others) through separation from other wastes at the point of generation, followed by separate collection for recycling. Such procedures could be implemented in both large and small communities. Energy recovery (and materials recovery from mixed wastes) requires large-scale processing facilities and, therefore, is most economical in densely populated areas. In summary, the goal of any resource recovery legislation should be to encourage the sequence of source reduction followed by materials recovery followed by energy recovery followed by environmentally acceptable disposal. This would maximize resource conservation benefits while minimizing potential adverse environmental effects.

Question 2. Toward the bottom of page 5, of your testimony, you make this statement: "While these guidelines will only be mandatory for Federal facilities, we believe they represent a minimum standard of control and should have broad applicability for all facilities." Why should Federal facilities only have to meet guidelines that represent a minimum achievement?

Answer. Section 211 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Recovery Act requires all Federal facilities to comply with guidelines for "solid waste recovery, collection, separation and disposal systems" issued by the Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Section 209 of that Act. Such guidelines would only be advisory to States and local communities, but we would hope that such governmental entities might take the initiative and adopt these recommended guidelines for their own operations. In this light, the guidelines must be broad enough to apply to solid waste and resource recovery programs across the Nation and in this regard, are termed "minimum". Communities are encouraged to go beyond these "minimum" guidelines and adopt additional control measures geared to local conditiors.

The term "minimum" is not meant to imply any lessening of public health or environmental concern, but rather a level of control consistent with the protection of these values. The term "minimum achievement", therefore, would appear to be a somewhat misleading characterization of what the guidelines for Federal facilities represent.

Question 3. I recognize the great value of recovering energy from municipal refuse and other wastes. This is to be commended. But we have had testimony in

these hearings that there is actually a greater overall energy savings when used paper is recycled into paper, rather than burned for energy. Do you have any figures on that trade-off?

Answer. The energy-saving benefits of recycling paper back into paper are roughly equivalent to the energy which can be directly obtained from burning the paper. Approximate data are as follows:

Btu content of 1 ton of paper burned to produce energy.

Average Btu savings of manufacture of 1 ton of paper from recycled

versus virgin fiber1.

14, 000, 000

14, 600, 000

However, when paper is recycled into paper it can still be converted to energy at a later time. Thus, the total energy savings obtainable from recycling paper are maximized when paper is first recycled back into paper.

Question 4. What is EPA's evaluation of the Oregon experience in "source reduction"?

Answer. Oregon's “Bottle Bill”, was signed into law in June 1971. It became effective on October 1, 1972. The law requires a minimum 2-cent refund on "certified" containers of beer, malt beverages, and carbonated soft drinks, and a 5-cent refund on the return of all other beverage containers. Certified containers are defined as containers that are used by, and that will be accepted for reuse by, more than one manufacturer. In addition, the law prohibits the sale of the flip-top or pull-tab beverage container.

Since the enactment of the law and its implementation, the State of Oregon has reported that the mandatory deposit program has resulted in decreases in beverage container litter of from 75 to 85 percent. Container return rates are estimated by the State at from 90 to 95 percent, and a significant shift away from the use of throw-away cans and bottles has been observed. At the present time, over 90 percent of all containers in the State are refillable bottles, whereas before the law took effect, only an estimated 50 percent were refillable.

Extrapolating these findings to the Nation as a whole, in our view, enactment of a mandatory deposit program would be likely to result in similar decreases in beverage container litter, reduction in the solid waste stream of from 5-6 million tons, and an energy saving of an estimated 194 million Btu's of energy annually. These are significant source reduction and environmental benefits.

Question 5. What has been done to improve Federal purchasing of recycled materials?

Answer. EPA has encouraged and promoted the voluntary purchasing program of the General Services Administration as described in "The Second Report to Congress on Resource Recovery and Source Reduction" (p. 25). We have also recommended in our proposed "Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1973" that EPA, in consultation with other appropriate Federal agencies, should identify products which can utilize significant quantities of secondary materials and should issue guidelines with respect to the inclusion of such secondary materials to the maximum extent practicable in products procured by the Federal Government.

6. 3277

Question 6. What is your view on the need for the resource recovery institutes that would be established under Section 226?

Answer. While EPA fully concurs in the need for research, development and demonstration of systems and facilities, the training of State and local government officials in "design, financing, construction, management, operation and maintenance of systems and facilities," and the dissemination of information to interested persons in government and the general public, we believe that this can be done more effectively, less expensively, and with less duplication of effort if it is done by the Federal government rather than by institutes in each State. Moreover, the Federal government already has a program in these areas.

With regard to training government officials, S. 3277 would appear to discourage the potential contribution of private industry, which has demonstrated a desire and capability to implement and operate systems. This provision seems to preclude the possibility that many communities may conclude that the private sector

1 The energy savings varies depending on the paper product being manufactured. This reflects a simple average of 4 major products. The savings reflect gross energy savings. Fossil fuel derived energy savings would be less than this amount because of the energy generated from process wastes in some processes utilizing virgin fiber.

can develop, manage, and operate systems better than the public sector. In our view, encouragement of a strong resource recovery industry is essential to increasing the options for the Nation's communities in resource recovery.

Question 7. Section 5 authorizes up to $300,000,000 in loans to assist small business in improving their resource recovery. Would such a loan program prove beneficial? If not, why not? Is the $300,000,000 figure excessive or insufficient? Answer. We concur that the installation of resource recovery systems does entail risks, and that with the present tight money market, there have been some difficulties encountered in obtaining financing. However, we question whether expanding the scope of the Small Business Administration Act to provide loans to small business concerns for additions or improvements in energy and resource recovery equipment or facilities would be the most effective or most efficient means of removing or minimizing the risks involved.

8. 3549

Question 8. Section 104 (b) (5) authorizes grants for construction of demonstration projects by either public or private agencies. What is your opinion on the need for this provision? Should private sources be permitted to compete for such grants?

Answer. This section, in large part, would continue the demonstration provisions of the existing Act which have been used successfully in the past and which are necessary to test in a practical way new technologies as they are developed. In the past, however, private profit-making agencies have not been recipients of such grants, rather the contracting mechanism has been traditionally employed to enable officials to monitor the progress of the contractor and to ensure that the end product fulfills the terms of the contract agreement. We would not favor a change in this procedure for private sources.

Question 9. Section 106 (c) places major program reliance on a single state agency. By contrast, S. 3560 places reliance on regional planning groups. Which approach would be preferred by EPA?

Answer. Generally speaking, we favor the regional planning concept. Solid waste management operations frequently involve regional processing, resource recovery, and regional disposal systems which are needed to achieve the economies-of-scale necessary to provide the facilities necessary beyond those capabilities of the local governments, particularly those of the older, crowded, center cities. Regional planning groups can often provide the framework and guidance needed for the agencies responsible for the operation of the solid waste management systems at the local government level.

However, we believe such planning should be done by a State agency which has the authority to both implement and enforce such plans under State law. One problem we have identified during our experience under the Solid Waste Disposal Act is that regional planning efforts frequently cannot be directly implemented because the planning agencies involved often do not have authority to implement their plans and place them into operation. Of course the State agency can delegate the planning function to another group or groups, but the basic authority for planning should not be separated organizationally from the powers of enforcement and implementation.

In this connection, S. 3560 would appear to establish a large-scale regional planning exercise which may be duplicative of planning already done by the States under the Solid Waste Disposal Act or their own individual authorities. We believe some measure of additional planning may in fact be needed, but should be done selectively and with some flexibility built into the system.

Question 10. Section 106(c)(3)(G) requires that states prohibit all open dumps that are "deemed by the State to be environmentally unsound to a significant degree" within seven years after planning approval. Is the quoted language a fair test? Will it accomplish anything? Is seven years too long or too short?

Answer. Significant environmental damage can be caused by an open dump if the site is located in soils which are poor attenuators of leachate or near groundwaters which are used either for drinking or industrial purposes. In these cases, the sites should be closed as soon as possible and certainly within one year. S. 3549 places priority on dump closure in SMSA's of over 200,000 population. However, fully 96 percent of the rural population of the United States depends on groundwater for drinking supplies. This would indicate that population alone is not a sufficient indicator or priority in dump closure programs.

With regard to dump closure in general, it is interesting to note that practically every State in the Nation has legislation which prohibits open dumping. Furthermore, 70 to 80 percent have permit programs for landfill. However, only two to three States are pursuing an aggressive policy of dump closure. There are a number of reasons for this situation: insufficient staff at the State level to undertake closing actions; reluctance on the part of local officials to depart from traditionally accepted practices; or there is no apparent alternative to the existing dump. Closure may be the least satisfactory alternative if alternative enforcement remedies are available. These would include fining, punishment, and ultimately take-over. Consistent use of these actions would result in the operating authority for solid waste disposal being maintained while a variety of actions could be taken against management to prevent pollution.

Question 11. Section 103 authorized low-interest loans for construction of resource recovery systems. What is your estimate of the demand for such loans? How much will the forgiveness feature in Subsection (b) (3) cost the Federal government? What is your estimate of the need of the grant program established under Section 107? Which approach is preferable to EPA?

Answer. It is extremely difficult to estimate the demand for Federal loans without knowing how the program would be administered, i.e., what criteria would serve as the basis for decisions to award loans. Present capital markets make loans only when satisfied of the technical and economic viability of the proposed recovery project. We believe any Federal loan program should be required to scrutinize projects in the same way.

If one makes the assumption that all probable resource recovery activities which EPA roughly estimates will take place by 1985 were financed with Federal loans, then the demand in 1974 dollars would be about $800,000,000 (40 plants at $20,000,000 each). The availability of a three percent loan could encourage additional projects above this level.

The forgiveness feature would result in forgiveness of at least 80 percent of the repayments on the loans, thus making the loan largely into a grant. In our view, therefore, it would be undesirable for such a program to have a forgiveness feature.

With regard to Section 107, we believe that demonstration grant authority is more desirable than guaranteed loans.

Question 12. Section 110(b) (1) requires the use of recycled paper by all Federal agencies and "public and private agencies, individuals, and organizations who contract with the Federal government." What impact would such a provision have, in view of the fact that nearly all businesses do some type of contract work with the Federal government? Is such a provision needed?

Answer. The direct purchases of non-defense products by the Federal government account for less than two percent of the total national product purchases for most products. The extent to which this would be expanded if private organizations contracting with the Federal government were included is unknown. However, we do know that the task of making determinations as to the suitability of literally thousands of products for Federal contractors would be so burdensome both technically and administratively as to be self-defeating. We do concur that it is important that the Federal government show leadership in this area which can be followed by the private sector.

We believe that at a minimum Federal agencies should be required to purchase products containing recycled materials at the maximum levels feasible within the quality and cost constraints under which they now operate. EPA has authority under Sections 209 and 211 of the Resource Recovery Act of 1970 to establish resource recovery guidelines and has requested more explicit authority to set such guidelines in the proposed "Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1973."

Question 13. Section 111 would grant EPA authority to set packaging standards. Under the language, as currently drafted, what types of packages do you anticipate would be regulated? Under what terms would EPA favor packaging controls?

Answer. EPA is currently analyzing all major products in the solid waste stream in order to establish the relative susceptibility of each product to a product standard. We expect the results of this study to be available by mid-1975.

Under the present language of the bill, we would envision possible product standards along the lines of requirements for reuse, extended lifetimes, or decreased resource intensivity of a particular product. However, we would favor