5. The Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Man's The short-term effects of allowing the aforementioned rates to remain as they presently stand may not be substantial; it is, in the long run, through the cumulative exportation of virgin metal instead of scrap metal, that the possible adverse environmental impacts may come about. The persons who will pay the long-term environmental costs are those who enjoy our nation's natural beauty. In addition, consumers of metal may suffer financial costs, for as our mineral resources are depleted the cost of virgin metal will certainly increase. In the long run, it is quite possible that we all will suffer from continued decimation of our mineral resources unless strict controls are enacted and enforced. On the other hand, an equalizing of the rates, or lowering of the scrap metal rates below those on virgin metal may enhance the quality of the environment in the long run. By protecting and preserving our nation's mineral resources now, systematic methods for use of the resources may be developed in order that both industry and the public may enjoy beneficial use of the resources for years to come. Equally important, our solid wastes, along with solid waste management costs, may be reduced. 6. Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Which May Be Involved in the Present Rate Schedule If the aforementioned rates are maintained as they presently stand, the ensuing probability of continued export of virgin metal where scrap metal could be used instead may cause irreversible and irretrievable losses to the national mineral resources. Unlike other natural resources which may be replacable to a degree, it is far more difficult, if not impossible, to replace minerals. However, if the rates on scrap metal are equalized to, or set at a lower level than the rates on virgin metal, exporters may be discouraged from causing such irreversible or irretrievable drains on our mineral resources and may be encouraged instead to use recycled and recyclable materials. Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of NEPA, the Commission is making this draft environmental impact statement available to the public by publication, in the Federal Register of Notice of the availability thereof. The Commission invites the comments of all public and private groups and individuals. A suggested form for such comments is for interested parties to include in their statements an explanation of their respective environmental positions, specifying their disagreements with, additions to, and comments on the issues raised by this draft statement. An original and fifteen (15) copies of such comments shall be submitted to the Commission, as well as five (5) copies to the Council on Environmental Quality, ten (10) copies to the Environmental Protection Agency, and ten (10) copies to the Department of Commerce, Office of Export Controls. Comments may be filed on or before January 4 1974. By the Commission. (SEAL) Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Wingerter, you will perhaps want to introduce your associates, then proceed as you desire. We will not interrupt. STATEMENT OF EUGENE J. WINGERTER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SOLID WASTES MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, ACCOMPANIED BY: TED FLOOD, VICE PRESIDENT, MARKETING, BROWNING FERRIS INDUSTRIES, INC., HOUSTON, TEX.; HAROLD GERSHOWITZ, PRESIDENT, WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC., OAK BROOK, ILL.; SAMUEL HALE, JR., VICE PRESIDENT, MARKETING, SCA SERVICES, INC., BOSTON, MASS. Mr. WINGERTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to be here this morning. I am Eugene J. Wingerter, executive director of the National Solid Wastes Management Association, Washington, D.C., representing the waste collection, processing, and disposal industry. I would like to introduce the gentlemen who are with me and who are representatives of my industry. On my left is Ted Flood, vice president, Marketing, Browning Ferris Industries, Inc., Houston, Tex. On my right is Harold Gershowitz, president, Waste Management, Inc., Oak Brook, Ill. On my extreme right, Mr. Samuel Hale, Jr., vice president, Marketing, SCA Services, Inc., Boston, Mass. He was the former director of the solid waste program in EPA from 1971 until 1973. These gentlemen represent the leading firms in the industry extensively engaged in waste disposal and resource recovery services in leading cities throughout the country. We are here today to express our support for the proposed Federal program outlined in S. 3560. However, we are seriously concerned that some provisions in this legislation will severely discourage the commitment and substantial involvement of private industry that currently exists in the waste management and resource recovery fields. We wish to offer the committee for its consideration, recommendations that we believe will intensify and increase the extensive publicprivate partnership that exists in this national program. Following my statement on behalf of the association, these gentlemen will be pleased to answer questions of the committee regarding the services and plans of the industry as they relate to this proposed legislation. Throughout the United States, the collection, disposal, processing and recycling of wastes is predominately a function of private enterprise. According to a recent EPA survey, the private waste service industry handles 73 percent of the Nation's solid wastes including over 50 percent of the residential wastes and 93 percent of commercial and industrial wastes. This involves the collection of 700,000 tons of wastes each day in cities of all sizes and in virtually every sector of commerce and industry. Some 10,000 private organizations, ranging from several thousand small specialized waste service firms to large national publicly owned corporations comprise this industry, many of which recover and process paper, metals and other secondary materials from commercial and industrial wastes. Since the Congress considered the Resource Recovery Act of 1970, there have been a number of events in our economy which have begun to expand the levels of resource recovery including the conversion of wastes into energy sources. This expansion in resource recovery is a direct result of the current shortage of virgin materials and their escalating market value, as well as the widespread awareness by both Government and industry of the urgent need for alternative sources of raw materials and energy. In spite of this new recognition of resource and energy conservation policy, there are still major institutional and economic barriers which constrain current recycling initiatives and which must be reconciled to achieve accelerated growth in markets for recycled materials on a long term and continuing basis. The recent reports to the Congress under sections 205 and 212 of the Resource Recovery Act of 1970 identify the alternative policy choices available in formulating a Federal waste management and resource recovery program. The legal complexities, as well as the social-economic impact of these policy choices have not been fully evaluated at this time. Therefore, speculative departures in Federal policy where the environmental and economic results are unpredictable are, in our opinion, premature at this time. For these reasons, we find S. 3560, Solid Waste Utilization Act of 1974, to be a more effective and practical Federal program over the other proposals (S. 1086, S. 5277, S. 3549, and S. 3723) being considered by the committee at this time. I will, therefore, address my remarks and recommendations to S. 3560 and will refer to these other proposals where they complement the policy and programs of this legislation. The frequent fluctuations in market demand and value for scrap paper, metals, glass, and textiles which have historically plagued this field have been the primary factors restricting the volumes of wastes which could be economically recovered. Within the past 2 years, however, market demand and value for mixed waste paper, corrugated paper, newsprint, and scrap metals have expanded to a level where it has now become economically feasible to consider large-scale processing and recovery programs designed to recover massive volumes of waste materials and energy on a continuous basis. The facilities that are being constructed to process and recover these large volumes of wastes require a corresponding large capital investment and technological undertaking. The representatives of the industry with me today are prepared to describe for the committee the technology and facilities available to meet this demand, as well as the industry's plans for new and expanded programs directed to the recovery of municipal wastes and the conversion of municipal refuse into energy sources. It is important, however, to recognize that to date the primary sources of secondary materials have been commercial and industrial wastes. The reason being that volumes of these wastes are more than sufficient to meet current market demand for secondary materials. These wastes are also generally of a higher quality and more readily accessible than materials found in household refuse. Therefore, until market demand exceeds the current supply of secondary materials readily available from commercial and industrial wastes, it will continue to be more difficult to undertake the extensive and costly processing necessary to recover paper and metals from household wastes on a national basis. It is also important to recognize that the entire economic picture for recovering household or municipal wastes is changing. The widespread search for new energy sources combined with the escalating costs for conventional fuels have focused national attention on the use of refuse as a supplementary fuel in power generation and also the potential recovery of steam and methane gas from refuse. New facilities which are designed to process and recover massive volumes of materials, as well as substantial amounts of energy from all types of solid wastes in over 70 major cities are presently being planned, built, or studied. Current and projected levels of demand and market value for secondary materials and energy will ultimately determine which of these projects will succeed. A program for accelerated construction of these facilities, whether through Federal loans and subsidies or otherwise, is premature and could result in the generation of enormous inventories of secondary materials without any assurance of a corresponding increase in market. demand, as well as substantial increases in the costs of managing wastes in those communities where demand does not justify recovery. There is a substantial risk that an excessive imbalance between supply and demand will severely distort market value for secondary materials, with the end result that the entire process becomes uneconomical and dependent upon continuous Federal subsidies. Finally, it is important to realize that all of the current and proposed resource and energy recovery programs designed for municipal wastes at this time still entail considerable technological uncertainties. Some may fail, some will succeed and most will probably undergo substantial modification. Widespread subsidy of these programs until this technology is more well defined is premature. We believe the program reflected in S. 3560 requiring the establishment of Federal standards and guidelines for disposal, technical assistance to State and local government, establishment and support of State and regional planning functions, and Federal procurement policy for encouraging expanded use of recycled materials are positive initiatives which would serve a vital role in the Federal waste management and resource recovery program. We are, however, most concerned with some of the provisions which, in our opinion, create discriminatory and inequitable policy toward private industry. The recommendations we are presenting for consideration by the committee, we believe, would alleviate this discriminatory situation and better assure fulfillment of the goals of this legislation. 40-687 O 74 pt. 3 15 |