Page images
PDF
EPUB

have to realize that we are at that point where we have to decide what EPA programs we are going to continue.

If we adequately address ourselves to the longer term issues as we attempt to develop a National Materials Policy, I would be in agreement with you, and I so said on May 31. It is because of my concern which I share with you or you with me that, frankly, I created this Panel on Materials Policy rather than just to handle this subject matter with the bills and other input, simply as a solid waste management

issue.

I think you realized it goes beyond that and, certainly, during the next few years, I am certain that members of this committee-I know that I should want to confer with you, and counsel with Dr. Boyd as we move beyond whatever we do in response to an immediate challenge. We have the concern now for solid waste management. I think we have that. Then we must later think in terms of a National Materials Policy. We never had any fuels and energy policy in this country and, year after year, we knew it should come into being. At least there were those who kept urging it, but it was not established. There were moneys for pilot projects, Mr. Klaff, a certain amount for experimentation and demonstration. Then it stopped in the 1950's, and now we find ourselves with an embargo on the shipments of oil. It is an indication that we so often act after the fact rather than before the fact in this country as to policies which we think are important. We don't set them in a solid straitjacket of cement in administrative law. I do hope that we can have your counsel which we know will be helpful. Do you agree there are two separate issues?

Mr. KLAFF. Yes, at the same time that you take care of the temporary measures, you must build toward a self-sufficiency for this Nation.

Senator RANDOLPH. That is correct.

Mr. KLAFF. This is what we have tried to say to the Congress in our report. We asked for a self-sufficiency if we can obtain it, but we must strive for it. I grant you that there are momentarily issues that must be answered.

Senator RANDOLPH. Yes, the generation of the huge tonnages?

Mr. KLAFF. Yes, by the same token, I do want to make clear that we shouldn't lose our road if we accomplish the temporary items and then lose the road on the permanent self-sufficiency; we must have that.

Senator RANDOLPH. Thank you very much.

[On August 22, 1973, the National Commission on Materials Policy transmitted to the Congress letters it had received from various industrial firms regarding the problems they are facing due to the shortage of energy producing materials. Those letters may be found at the end of today's proceedings, p. 1027.]

STATEMENT OF RICHARD L. LESHER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL CENTER FOR RESOURCE RECOVERY, ACCOMPANIED BY WADE ST. CLAIR, DIRECTOR OF INFORMATION

Dr. LESHER. My name is Richard Lesher. I am president of the National Center for Resource Recovery. I have with me Mr. Wade St. Clair, who is Director of Information.

Mr. CUTLER. I have a board meeting in Toronto this afternoon. There is a plane at noontime. Might I be excused to catch a noontime plane? Senator RANDOLPH. Yes.

[Brief recess.]

Senator RANDOLPH. Thank you for your testimony, Dr. Cutler. Dr. Lesher, tell me something about the Center. You just do it as you please.

Dr. LESHER. We are pleased to be here and have an opportunity to discuss the various bills under consideration. In addition to telling you something about our organization, I would like to tell you a little about our assessment of the solid waste management practices currently, with special attention on important recent developments and briefly state some predictions about developments of the next few years.

I feel this essential background is necessary in order to properly assess public policy needs. As recently as a year ago, there was nearly universal doubt that resource recovery would ever become widespread and, while those attitudes are rapidly changing because of the rapid progress of recent months, there still exists a great deal of mythology and misinformation.

Incidentally, we use the terms "resource recovery" to include recycling of used materials back into the manufacture of similar or identical new materials as well as to include the process of conversion into other resources.

[ocr errors]

For example, processing ferrous scrap into new steel is an example of recycling while conversion of contaminated organic matter into compost or fuel would be included in the term "resource recovery.' The National Center for Resource Recovery was formed in October of 1970. The Center had its origin in the early meetings of the National Industrial Pollution Control Council, which was formed by President Nixon to charge individual industries to identify and solve environmental problems faced by each industry.

[graphic][subsumed][subsumed]

Air and water pollution were prime targets, and some very substantive progress was made by the actions of the various subcouncils. Solid waste, though, was a different, and in many more ways, a more difficult problem, particularly with municipal trash and garbage.

It was recognized that the multiplicity of problems went beyond the capability of any single entity of Government or industry to solve. A multidisciplinary, multiteam approach is required.

By tradition, this waste has been the domain of the communities that generate it. But because of increasing volume, rising costs, and the environmental ill-effects that result when waste is improperly handled, it was obvious that the cities needed help.

Leaders in industry were convinced they could assist with many of the management tools and technology so successfully demonstrated in our manufacturing, marketing and distribution system.

It was the intention to apply a systems approach to upgrade archaic waste management because it was realized that in our trash heaps are potential values that might be reclaimed for new and productive use. I might add that this assessment was made at a time before shortages of materials and fossil fuels were prevalent.

As a result, 12 industries and 2 unions formed the National Center. There are now 17 industries and 3 unions represented on the Board. The charge of this nonprofit research organization is to work with Government organizations at all levels and with the private sector in seeking solutions to municipal solid waste management problems.

[graphic]

The first undertaking of the Center, in the spring and summer of 1971 was a preliminary assessment of the State of the practice of solid waste management and the emerging technology, in order to identify national needs and services that the Center might perform.

Municipal solid waste is an unbelievable mixture of the "leavings" of human activity. If you examine the municipal waste stream, you will find paper, glass, ferrous metals, food wastes, plastic wastes, rubber, nonferrous metals, demolition debris, and other miscellaneous materials.

[graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed]

These wastes represent underutilized resources. If only there were some way to unscramble the egg and to extract clean fractions into usable raw materials.

In 1971, the vast majority of American cities were putting this material into open dumps where they pollute the air and the ground water and constitute health hazards.

[graphic]

Senator RANDOLPH. Do we still have that in the District of Columbia?

Dr. LESHER. No, sir, we do not. I will cover the District of Columbia specifically. You have a well-managed solid waste system in the District of Columbia with a demonstration program which is moving toward a full system for resource recovery.

I will touch upon that and invite this committee to be our guest at this local demonstration.

Some 80 percent of our cities are still practicing open dumping despite the fact that it was against the law in most States.

Senator RANDOLPH. What about West Virginia?

Dr. LESHER. I expect a very large number of small and mediumsized towns practice open dumping.

Senator RANDOLPH. What about Texas?

Dr. LESHER. I think that is true there and throughout the rest of the country. The single biggest solid waste challenge is to close the dumps. This action not only would end the pollution associated with dumping, but it would force the city up the cost curve and the technology curve and make resource recovery a much more competitive alternative.

It is our judgment that S. 3560 would provide very effective mechanisms for accomplishing these objectives and we, therefore, strongly support these provisions of this bill. This is by far the number one priority and we congratulate you for your leadership in this area.

[graphic]

In 1971, some 300 large-scale municipal incinerators were in operation and three-quarters of these could not meet air pollution standards. Worse yet, virtually all of them were wasting a very valuable enegry

Overall, 90 percent of our cities could not meet the then existing standards and I fear that this number has not gone down as much as we had hoped.

« PreviousContinue »