2 1 ing June 30, 1973, and not to exceed $76,000,000 for the 2 fiscal year ending June 30, 1974." 3 (b) Paragraph (3) of subsection (a) of section 216 of 4 the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended (84 Stat. 1234), 5 is amended to read as follows: 6 "(3) There are authorized to be appropriated to the 7 Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to 8 carry out section 208 of this Act not to exceed $80,000,000 9 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, not to exceed 10 $140,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, and 11 not to exceed $140,000,000 for the fiscal year ending 12 June 30, 1974.". 13 (c) Subsection (b) of section 216 of the Solid Waste 14 Disposal Act, as amended (84 Stat. 1234), is amended by 15 striking “and not to exceed $22,500,000 for the fiscal year 16 ending June 30, 1973." and inserting in lieu thereof ", not 17 to exceed $22,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 18 1973, and not to exceed $22,500,000 for the fiscal year 19 ending June 30, 1974.". 20 SEC. 2. (a) Subsection (c) of section 104 of the Clean 21 Air Act, as amended (84 Stat. 1709), is amended by strik22 ing "and $150,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 23 1973." and inserting in lieu thereof ", $150,000,000 for the 24 fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, and $150,000,000 for the 25 fiscal year ending June 30, 1974.". 3 1 (b) Subsection (i) of section 212 of the Clean Air Act, 5 (c) Section 316 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (84 Passed the Senate January 26, 1973. Attest: FRANCIS R. VALEO, Secretary. Washington, D.C., March 9, 1973. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Hon. HARLEY O. STAGGERS, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request for the comments of the Environmental Protection Agency on H.R. 4306, "To extend the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, and the Clean Air Act, as amended for one year." We recommend that the bill be enacted. On Monday, February 26, 1973, David D. Dominick, Assistant Administrator for Categorical Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, testified before your Subcommittee on Public Health and the Environment on the matter of extending the Solid Waste Disposal Act and on February 28, I testified before the same Subcommittee on the Clean Air Act extension. The statements Mr. Dominick and I made articulated our position on the extension proposed by H.R. 4306. Sincerely yours, WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS, Administrator. Mr. ROGERS. Our witness today is Hon. David D. Dominick, Assistant Administrator for Categorical Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, and he has with him Hon. Samuel Hale, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste Management of the Environmental Protection Agency and also Mr. Arsen Darnay, who I think is the author of a report that has just been submitted. Mr. DOMINICK. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ROGERS. Gentlemen, we welcome you to the committee We are pleased to receive your testimony, and, then, the committee has a number of questions. STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID D. DOMINICK, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR CATEGORICAL PROGRAMS, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; ACCOMPANIED BY SAMUEL HALE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT; AND ARSEN DARNAY, DIRECTOR, RESOURCE RECOVERY DIVISION, SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it is a pleasure to appear before this distinguished subcommittee to discuss H.R. 4292, a 1-year extension of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, and to briefly survey for you some of the highlights of our Solid Waste program. As you know, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency has forwarded to the Congress a legislative proposal, "The Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1973," in accordance with the President's Natural Resources and Environmental State of the Union Message. That proposal is intended as a successor to the Solid Waste Disposal Act and we would hope that it be given thorough consideration at the earliest possible moment. However, we are aware of the demands on the Congress and, particularly, on this committee, which may well prevent final congressional action on the Hazardous Waste Management Act proposal until some time later in the session. H.R. 4292 would continue the Solid Waste Disposal Act's authorities through fiscal year 1974 at the current fiscal year levels. If it should appear now that the Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1973 will not be considered prior to the expiration of the present Solid Waste Disposal Act, we recommend that H.R. 4292 be favorably considered and enacted. With the enactment of H. R. 4292, we will be able to complete many of our objectives under that authority. Mr. Chairman, I would like to report to the committee on progress we have made in our Solid Waste program and describe some of the problems we have faced and some of the things we have learned. I think it is fair to say that we have learned a lot in the 2 years since the enactment of the Resource Recovery Act of 1970. We now have a much clearer idea of the scope of the problem, of the benefits and viability of alternative solutions to problems associated with solid waste management. We have the experience that comes from having studied and demonstrated a variety of techniques, systems, technologies, and institutional arrangements in an effort to find the best answers to the questions of solid waste management. We have this experience, knowledge, and awareness as a result of the authorities in the Resource Recovery Act of 1970, for which we all have this committee to thank, for its major role in fashioning this legislation. I would now like to describe some of the highlights of the program: Our program thrusts have been divided into six major categories: resource recovery, major technical assistance, systems demonstrations, planning, hazardous wastes, and analytical studies. Some of these activities will be completed, some will be continued, and others redirected as I will describe in connection with each of these areas. RESOURCE RECOVERY Our resource recovery program is composed of two major components: Demonstrations and a wide variety of analytical studies and investigations. The purpose of our demonstration program is not only to demonstrate resource recovery technologies but also to show that such technologies present viable solid waste management alternatives. The Agency now has six grants for resource recovery demonstrations: Franklin, Ohio, Union Power in St. Louis, Baltimore, Md., Lowell, Mass., San Diego, Calif., and the State of Delaware. These six projects demonstrate the basic alternatives available for resource recovery. When they are completed we will have a spectrum available for examination and implementation at the option of the States and localities and private industry. The analytical studies and investigations component of our resource recovery effort, authorized by section 205 of the Resource Recovery Act, is an equally important part of our program. Studies in this area were designed to explore such issues as market constraints in the resource recovery area, the impact of existing laws on resource recovery and markets, the environmental impact of virgin materials as compared to recovered waste materials, the impact of increased resource recovery on energy consumption, imports, and water needs; assess the relative economic position of recovered waste materials when placed in competition with virgin materials, and explore means of reducing the amount of wastes that must be collected and disposed of. MAJOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Major technical assistance refers to a program effort designed to apply in a practical way the technology and know-how we already have. Upon request from local governmental jurisdictions, and in cooperation with solid waste agencies wherever possible, the solid waste program sends out a team representing several disciplines, including engineering, operations research, finance and management, to study and recommend solutions to problems being faced by individual jurisdictions in any or all parts of their total system (for example, disposal, equipment procedure, financing, manpower utilization, and so forth). These teams provide tools to local officials and work withnot for those officials to resolve these problems. An excellent example of the success of this effort was our experience in the city of Cleveland. In 1969, the city of Cleveland was spending approximately $15 million to provide solid waste municipal services to its citizens and employing almost 1,500 persons to man its collection system. By utilizing modern management techniques and making a commitment to improved management and efficiency, Cleveland today is spending right at $8 million and employing only 794 persons on its collection crews. In implementing these changes, Cleveland has not reduced the quality of its services and is in the process of implementing an environmentally sound disposal operation. It has served as a model for our 20 major technical assistance projects completed or scheduled for fiscal year 1973. That is by June 30 of this year. When these projects are completed we believe they will amply demonstrate a wide variety of cost-saving, environmentally sound waste management techniques. 93-217 O-73-2 SYSTEMS DEMONSTRATIONS Systems demonstrations represent an effort to implement, through demonstration grants, new, improved and innovative institutional arrangements for managing a jurisdiction's solid waste responsibilities. At the local level, such arrangements include self-financed regional disposal authorities, creation of a public utility-type organization to handle both collection and disposal, rail-hauling of wastes from one jurisdiction to another, and so forth. The purpose of these grants is to implement in a given situation our best knowledge about how to organize, finance, equip, manage, and control total solid waste systems. At the State level we are attempting to demonstrate the efficacy of different approaches that might be pursued by State level governments in helping resolve many of the problems being faced by their constituent localities, particularly different types of standards and enforcement programs. In our view, these demonstrations have provided a great deal of information highly significant to all States as they move into solid waste management. EPA's role in these demonstrations is to help applicants assess and design alternative institutional and organizational arrangements, then provide limited front-end money to get the arrangement started, evaluate the project once operational, and make the results known to other jurisdictions and parties. We do not assume full financial responsibility for either startup or operating costs once the system is underway. Although the focus of these grants is on institutional structures and not on new technology, the use of new technology is frequently a part of the way the new organization handles its various tasks. As a result, we also obtain technological demonstration and evaluation within the context of these grants. Current plans call for the completion of system demonstration projects by the end of fiscal year 1974. PLANNING Grants for State level planning and for local-regional planning are provided under section 207 of the Resource Recovery Act. The purpose of the State level effort is to enable State agencies to conduct systematic investigations on solid waste problems and prepare comprenensive plans designed to overcome those problems. Current indications are that 35 States will complete their plans by the end of fiscal year 1973 and that 12 more will complete their plans by the end of fiscal year 1974. Thirty-four States will receive financial support for planning in fiscal year 1973. Although there are several significant exceptions, many of the State planning efforts have been of only limited value. Some of the plans, for example, have been much too general, often stressing abstract computer-type models and not the development of sound State level efforts that can actually be implemented. We are attempting to correct this situation by focusing remaining planning efforts on the issue of statewide standards and enforcement for disposal operations. The planning program has played an important role establishing, starting at ground zero in many cases, initial statewide approaches and moving States to look at the solid waste field in a systematic way for the first time. |