Compared to the State level effort, which was authorized by the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 and initiated shortly thereafter, the local-regional planning grants were initiated in 1968 and 1969 as demonstration grants to evaluate the feasibility of such planning. The program was not begun on a full-scale basis until 1971, following authorization of such grants in the Resource Recovery Act of 1970. Ten new local-regional planning grants will be awarded in fiscal year 1973, bringing the total number of such grants funded by our solid waste program to 40. Approximately 25 plans supported by EPA will be completed by the end of fiscal year 1973. Aside from the problems of overgeneralization and abstraction which characterized many of these plans, the major difficulty was that too many of the plans never became operational. Once again, the problem of theory and know-how which is not being applied in a practical way. We have been attempting to focus local-regional planning on the real problem of environmentally offensive disposal practices and inefficient services, and specific solutions to those problems-implemented plans that will result in major environmental, institutional, managerial, and financial improvements. We are of the view that the Federal seed money in the planning area has provided the necessary first steps, which should now be followed by State, local and regional action. HAZARDOUS WASTES Our hazardous waste program is also new, having been authorized in 1970 in section 212 of the Resource Recovery Act. Initial efforts in this area have been directed to assembling the staff and organization to undertake an effective hazardous waste effort, and getting necessary studies underway to develop and prepare the report to the Congress mandated by section 212. As you know, we have requested additional time to complete this report. Initial delays stemmed from the difficulty in finding and recruiting the highly qualified experts we needed, as well as from problems with our first stage contracts, upon which much of the remainder of the work depended. I might say departing from the text here, that with regard to section 212 report, when Sandy Hale came in to take over the Office of Solid Waste Management programs we found that the initial planning for that effort was totally inadequate. The initial contracts that had been let to lay the groundwork for this effort were not productive. Therefore, we had to start over again from ground zero and as a result we did request of the Senate and I am surprised to find that that request was not made to your subcommittee as well, Mr. Chairman-but we did request a delay in the submission of that report until June of this year. We expect to meet that date. 1 am satisfied that this program is now on a firm footing and that the report now nearing completion will be of very high quality. We are now in the process of moving into several new program efforts, including initiation of a technical assistance program in the hazardous waste disposal technologies and institutional arrangements for handling such disposal. Our legislative proposal for hazardous waste management is a significant outgrowth of our activities and studies in this area. ANALYTICAL STUDIES A significant portion of our solid waste program is devoted to a wide range of in-depth studies and investigations relating to the adverse environmental effect of solid waste disposal and scientific and local ways to eliminate those effects, as well as operation and financing of solid waste systems. In the latter category, we are looking at such areas as the economics of solid waste management, optimum ways of financing solid waste systems, ways of increasing system productivity, various strategies for controlling the environmental impact of improper solid waste disposal. We are also examining the effect of pricing on waste generation, manpower needs and mechanisms for meeting those needs, and developing guidelines, model ways and ordinances for both individual components of solid waste systems and for systems in total. All of these studies have a twofold purpose. First, the results of these studies will be provided to the managers of local operating systems as a means of helping them overcome various operating problems of helping them improve their environmental and managerial performance. This is being actively done through publications, seminars, technical assistance, and the major technical assistance program mentioned previously. Second, the studies were necessary, in our view, for an assessment of various legislative strategies that might be pursued by Federal, State, and local governments to stimulate and sustain environmentally sound solid waste management practices in the United States. Now that many of our studies and analyses concerning municipal waste management problems are complete, we expect to devote increasing attention to the challenging problems of hazardous waste management. Our experience in the program has brought us to a new assessment of the needs and priorities in solid waste management. The fruits of that experience are reflected in "The Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1973," recently forwarded to the Congress. Although that proposal may appear to be a radical departure from present authority, we believe it is the natural outgrowth of Resource Recovery Act authorities and our experience under that act. We look forward to discussing that proposal with the committee in depth at later hearings. Thank you. Mr. ROGERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Dominick, for your state ment. Did you have any statement you wanted to make at this time, Mr. Hale? Mr. HALE. No, sir. Mr. ROGERS. Let me just ask a question and then I will pass it on. As I understand it as of this morning, you furnished to the committee the section 205 report? Mr. DOMINICK. That is correct. Mr. ROGERS. Is that to be an annual report? Mr. DOMINICK. The act, I believe, says that an annual report will be submitted and we intend to update that report with additional studies as they are available. Mr. ROGERS. It took 28 months to submit this first one, which is much longer than the 12 months anticipated by the Congress, so I would hope you feel that you can get on schedule now. Mr. DOMINICK. We do. Mr. ROGERS. And when will the 212 report be submitted? Mr. DOMINICK. We anticipate that around the first of July this year. Mr. ROGERS. Although as I understand it, you are submitting legislation concerning hazardous materials even before your report has been submitted. Is that correct? Mr. DOMINICK. The legislation has come up. The report will deal with the specifics of what we consider to be an appropriate Federal as well as State program for the designation of specific sites, for the designation of specific materials to go into those sites and for proper disposal and treatment practices for those materials. Mr. ROGERS. You don't think it would be helpful for us to have the report before we get into the legislation? Mr. DOMINICK. Well, we certainly think that the report will be a fundamental base for the legislatlon, yes; it will. Mr. ROGERS. All right. I would think it would be helpful if there is any way to speed that up. What about the section 210 report? Mr. DOMINICK. That report was submitted to the Congress in January of this year. Mr. ROGERS. In January of this year? Mr. DOMINICK. That is correct. Mr. ROGERS. All right. And when was the 205 report submitted to the Office of Management and Budget? Mr. DOMINICK. The 205 report was submitted to OMB in October of last year and OMB found itself in the midst of the budget cycle at the time. Personnel were not available to work on that report. We felt that the suggestion of OMB that it be reviewed by other Federal agencies was a legitimate suggestion. The report will have great significance to the practices and legislative submissions of other agencies. Therefore, we feel that the entire executive branch should have a look at the report. Second, I regret to say that OMB did not have the opportunity to complete its review of the report pending the submission of the President's Environmental Message. They got fairly well wrapped up in that task and it is only today that we are able to give you that report. Mr. ROGERS. I have a couple of other questions but I will pass for now. Mr. Preyer? Mr. PREYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I only have one question at this time until I catch up a little bit. Under your discussion of resource recovery you mention six grants for demonstration projects which you say demonstrate the basic alternatives available for resource recovery. Could you get us a general view of what these demonstration grants are pointing toward? One you mention here in San Diego, Calif. I wonder if the project we heard testimony about earlier about the burning of waste by jet power turned it into little charcoal bricks. Is this that project? Mr. DOMINICK. No, it is not, Mr. Preyer. The project that you mention is the so-called CPU 400 project which was one of the early efforts of the original Office of Solid Waste as it was called in HEW. That project has been funded thus far by the Government to a total of $5.8 million. We are not proposing further funding of that project at this time. I might review for you all however where we stand with respect to the demonstration of resource recovery systems. Four projects were funded in this fiscal year and I mentioned those in my testimony. In the State of Delaware, a composting project was funded. Other projects include a project in Baltimore, Md., to use a system called pyrolisis for the production of gas which in turn will be used to produce electricity or steam, a project at Lowell, Mass., which will be a continuation of the work that was initiated by the Bureau of Mines and has been picked up by EPA to recover the valuable remaining products, ferrous, nonferrous gas and other things from incinerator residue, which is the material that is left over after burning in an incinerator. The San Diego project that you mentioned is again a pyrolisis system, a very innovative system to use municipal solid waste through a pyrolytic unit to produce a hydrocarbon or basic oil residue. Additionally, we have in the resource recovery area three more projects not funded out of section 208. In St. Louis, Mo., we have a project which again is an energy recovery system. We have a program in Franklin, Ohio, which we mentioned in the testimony as being funded at $1.9 million, that is designed to extract valuable portions from the solid waste stream including paper, and ferrous and nonferrous and glass and then the CPU 400 project to which you alluded a moment ago. Finally, one additional on-going demonstration project which does not currently involve resource recovery per se, but easily could be modified to do so, and which has advanced the state of our knowledge is the THORAX project in Erie County, N. Y., funded at $1 million by the Government. The total of all of these projects that I have mentioned comes to $31.7 million of Federal investment thus far. Mr. PREYER. Well, the purpose of these, I gather, is to ultimately provide, as you put it, "for implementation and the operation of States and localities and private industries." In other words, to show results that would be available to them. Do any of them show promise of being near the stage where they are practical for States and localities to use? Can they be implemented or are we still in the theoretical stage? Mr. DOMINICK. Some of these projects are up and running right now, the foremost one being the St. Louis coal burner fire project, and we anticipate that others will be fully operational by 1976, such as the Baltimore project which will be a very large, expensive, and complex project. Therefore, the answer is both. We have some systems that are now demonstrated that if a city wished to move into that area they could do so. New York City has expressed a great deal of interest in the St. Louis type of project and other city managers are doing the same. Mr. PREYER. So if the city says, "We want to do something about solid waste. What can we do?", you do have some practical alternatives to offer them at this time. Mr. DOMINICK. We do, and that is really one of the primary purposes of our program, to make available through a technology transfer program the results of existing research and knowledge. Mr. PREYER. Thank you. I think at this time it may not be the right time to go into the details of all those since you have given us an overall picture. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ROGERS. Dr. Carter? Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is a very interesting report you have given us. Actually, what you are trying to do, what your department is trying to do, is to assist the States in making plans for solid waste disposal; is that correct? Mr. DOMINICK. That is one of the activities, Dr. Carter. Mr. CARTER. Really, your purpose is not to finance the whole solid waste disposal system throughout the United States; is that correct? Mr. DOMINICK. That is clearly correct. Mr. CARTER. Yes. Mr. ROGERS. If the gentleman will permit, I don't think the law gives you authority to do that, does it? Mr. DOMINICK. No, it doesn't. Mr. CARTER. I wanted to bring that up to make it quite clear. And in your work at the present time there are, let's see, 27 States which have plans; is that correct, or 37? Mr. DOMINICK. Thirty-seven States have completed the planning efforts mandated, voluntarily mandated, I might say, under the act. We anticipate that another 10 Mr. CARTER. Plans will be approved this year? Mr. DOMINICK. I think the total will come up to 47. Mr. HALE. Thirty-seven plans were completed as of the first of January this year. Another 10 will be completed as of the end of this calendar year. Mr. CARTER. Did you assist the city of Cleveland in its work? Mr. DOMINICK. No. The Office of Solid Waste Management programs did this work with the city of Cleveland. They went in with an interdisciplinary team, looked at their routing system and made suggestions on how they might save this money. It is really one of the signal succcesses of the program and lead to what we call major technical assistance for 20 other cities. Mr. CARTER. And by reason of that the city of Cleveland had a much more efficient solid waste disposal system, reduced its number of employees from 1,500 to 794 and its expenditure from $15 million to $8 million; is that correct? Mr. DOMINICK. That is right. Mr. CARTER. You are studying among other things recycling of solid waste I suppose? Mr. DOMINICK. Yes, we are. Mr. CARTER. And assisting the States in their studies. Do you find it rather difficult after you do recover certain substances, such as aluminum, to transport that at a cost no more than the new alloy or aluminum? Mr. DOMINICK. We find that freight rates both in interstate carriers and in international shipment can be one of the major deterrants to the use of secondary material. |