Mr. HASTINGS. Will there be any value in such a demonstration grant, and, if so, in my district? Mr. HALE. Let me reply to two aspects. Mr. CARTER. On that very thing, if I may interrupt. I have had salvage companies who wanted contracts with the Government for removal of these hulks for much less than the $55 which you say they would get from them. Actually, they would like to see legislation whereby they could be paid $25 or so, which would certainly be acceptable to them. Evidently, they think they can make a profit at it. Thank you, Mr. Hastings. Mr. HASTINGS. I, for some time, have felt that there should be something done to encourage probably a quasi-public/private agency to be able to operate the center of operations in a huge, rural, geographical area to take care of that kind of junk. You mentioned getting it out of a gully. We are also looking hopefully to the future so that that junk doesn't go into a gully. I would like to see a recommendation on that if possible. I feel that a recommendation for some sort of demonstration project along those lines would, in fact, answer the question. Mr. HALE. Well, the problem is that the economics vary widely by State. We have, in fact, gone beyond just putting that in terms of recommendations. We have actually formulated that through the Council on States Governments. Also two or three States have moved very, very successfully. These include in terms of picking up abandoned automobiles, West Virginia, and the State of Minnesota in terms of actually subsidizing automobile pickup in the rural areas where the transportation costs may be prohibitive for a private individual to do that on his own. Mr. HASTINGS. My problem is that I can recall in the 1963 New York State Legislature we were talking about various plans similar to this, and here in 1973 it doesn't seem, at least to me, that we have accomplished a great deal along those lines. I have a couple of other questions. Do you favor the simple 1-year extension as proposed in legislation before us? Mr. DOMINICK. Yes. We feel that if the Congress is unable to address the legislation that has been proposed by the administration in the short time that we have, a simple 1-year extension is appropriate. Mr. HASTINGS. What legislation proposed by the administration? Mr. DOMINICK. We have proposed legislation to take the place of the Resource Recovery Act of 1970, which expires in June. Now, your subcommittee, for instance, is going to be tied up with a number of difficult and controversial issues and it probably will not be able to act on that legislation between now and June. Mr. HASTINGS. It is a matter of pragmatics to give the subcommittee the opportunity to look at the administration's proposal. You then would favor this extension? Mr. DOMINICK. That is correct. Mr. HASTINGS. Do you agree with the levels that are included? Mr. DOMINICK. The authorizations are not changed from last year. We will inevitably get into that serious area of disagreement between the executive branch and the Congress on what funding should be provided in fiscal 1974. Mr. HASTINGS. How much of the funding was actually accomplished in fiscal 1973? Mr. DOMINICK. In fiscal 1973, $36.7 million was appropriated. Mr. DOMINICK. All of that will be spent with the exception of $6 million appropriated in the section 208 resource recovery demonstration area. We had requested of the Appropriations Committee a reprograming of that $6 million. That request has just been denied and we are sixes and sevens on that particular problem at the moment. Mr. HASTINGS. What does the budget anticipate for fiscal 1974? Mr. DOMINICK. The budget request of the President for fiscal year 1974 is for $6 million. Mr. HASTINGS. Would that relate to the administration proposal for substitute legislation? Mr. DOMINICK. The budget request anticipates the legislation that was sent up. However, if there are additional activities which have to be undertaken when legislation is finally passed, we will, of course, make additional requests to the Office of Management and Budget. Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you very much. No more questions. Mr. ROGERS. Are you saying you are planning to come in with a supplemental if we pass your proposed new legislation? Mr. DOMINICK. I am saying, Mr. Chairman, that it is, of course, very difficult to predict the makeup of that legislation right now. Mr. ROGERS. Assume that it is what you are proposing. Suppose the Congress passes what you propose. Will it be anticipated then that you will come in with a supplemental request? Mr. DOMINICK. We feel that probably, if it passes just as we proposed, we will be able to accomplish the purpose of the legislation under the present budget. Mr. ROGERS. $6 million? Mr. DOMINICK. That is correct. Mr. ROGERS. What are you going to do? Repeal all the provisions of what we are presently doing? Mr. DOMINICK. Which legislation? Mr. ROGERS. You said that this hazardous material proposal would come in and take the place of present legislation. Mr. DOMINICK. That is correct. Mr. ROGERS. I am saying Mr. DOMINICK. I am speaking of the administration's bill. Mr. ROGERS. Yes. So you will abolish present programs in effect and begin a $6 million operation on hazardous waste. Mr. DOMINICK. There are some programs that we will clearly discontinue and there are others that we would redirect and there are still others that would be entirely new under the legislation proposal. Mr. ROGERS. All right. Mr. Symington. Mr. SYMINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Dominick, we are awaiting a report, aren't we, from the National Commission on Materials Policy due in June, which would essentially be a report and recommendations for national resource recovery policy? Is that so? Mr. DOMINICK. I believe that is so, Congressman. The National Materials Commission has issued a preliminary to the report. I saw it in the press accounts about 2 weeks ago. Mr. SYMINGTON. Was this used as a basis for the legislation you are submitting to us? Mr. DOMINICK. No. We have reviewed that report and it was not directly relevant to the legislation that has been submitted. Mr. SYMINGTON. You mean they could come up with a policy on resource recovery which would not be relevant to the legislation we have received from you? Mr. DOMINICK. Well, we have not filed a final report. I am saying that the initial efforts of that Commission are familiar to us. We have staff people working on the Commission, so we have taken into account those efforts in the legislative submission that has been made by the administration. Mr. SYMINGTON. You don't expect any real distinctions between the preliminary and the final report or any new infomation or any fresh approaches between now and June so that you feel perfectly confident in submitting a bill without waiting for the final report? Mr. DOMINICK. No. I don't think that I could answer that affirmatively. We do have a bill before the Congress. There are other things that have to come to the Congress such as the 212 report that the chairman mentioned. I think when the Congress finds the time, hopefully soon, to investigate this entire area that all of the reports available should be part of that investigation. The National Commission report hopefully will be up by that time. Mr. SYMINGTON. In other words, we should read the report in light of our consideration of your legislation, but it is more necessary for us to do so than for you before preparing the bill? Mr. DOMINICK. We were obligated to prepare a bill to include in the President's message in January and February of this year. If there is updating of that bill in light of the Commission's studies, we will certainly be prepared to do that updating and discuss it with the relevant committees of the Congress. Mr. SYMINGTON. You were obligated by whom to prepare this bill? Mr. DOMINICK. Well, we felt that there was a necessity to put before the Congress a legislative proposal to take the palce of an act which is expiring in June. Mr. SYMINGTON. How many moneys or funds have been impounded in the last 2 fiscal years, do you know, relevant to this effort? Mr. DOMINICK. In the solid waste program generally? There has been no impoundment per se. As I mentioned, there are $6 million of 1973 appropriations which we had planned to redirect to other areas, and that request has been denied by the Appropriations Committee, so there is still going to have to be further discussion on that point. Mr. SYMINGTON. Dr. Carter mentioned the efforts of private firms to deal with junk autos. It is our information that private companies are taking over trash disposal generally in a number of major cities. Are you aware of the percentage or the number of them which have taken advantage of these private initiatives? Mr. DOMINICK. Yes; we are. We think we have a pretty good fix on the trends in this area generally. Mr. Hale can speak to that. I might say that the studies that have been presented to me have shown that in the main, where a city has gone to private collection and disposal, they have done so at considerable savings to the citizens in that community. Mr. Hale? Mr. HALE. Yes, sir. We have just completed a study of the entire private sector in solid waste management which indicated that the percentage share of specifically residential collection was substantially higher than we had ever believed before. We knew that it accounted for most of commercial and industrial collection, as it does for over 90 percent. We also found that it accounted for just over 50 percent of residential collection, private versus public. We also found it moving increasingly into the disposal area. I think it has got some inherent benefits where it is properly controlled by public bodies. First of all, is it able to get around a lot of financing problems, raise capital money itself? By levying a user charge, again amortizing that investment over some period of years, the municipality does not have to make the initial investment. Second, I think that the private sector is better able to bring a number of municipalities together into what would be the equivalent of a regional disposal facility. If can do that much easier than one of those municipalities probably can. Finally, I would cíte evidence that we feel quite strongly is true, that they are more inclined to innovate. I will take one specific example that occurs in Congressman Roger's home district at Pompano Beach. The private sector was literally the first to take one of our demonstrations of Madison, Wis., using mill solid waste and given the particular problems and particularly the high water table, to go ahead and take that technology and use it themselves. They have now constructed and are operating purely privately a mill solid waste facility which is one of the best in the country. Mr. SYMINGTON. You didn't mention labor costs in this They would not appear to be relevant to you. Mr. HALE. We have just completed again a survey of that. In fact we have an ongoing study looking at productivity generally. We have found that, while productivity varies widely within the private sector the same way it does within the public agencies, on the whole the private sector is substantially more productive, particularly in collection, which results in a reduction of costs. Mr. SYMINGTON. First, Mr. Chairman, before I come to my final questions, I would like to ask if I may submit other questions for written response. Mr. ROGERS. Certainly. [See p. 34.] Mr. SYMINGTON. There has been considerable discussion of your efforts to provide demonstrations that others can use. What efforts do you make to see that others use them and what success have you had? How do you translate these demonstrations into active adoption by the various sectors of the country? Mr. HALE. Well, we have had for a substantial portion of time a very active technical information program working through the regions, trying to get information disseminated through the State agencies. Mr. SYMINGTON. What is your budget on that? Mr. HALE. I cannot tell you specifically what the budget is. It is not terribly high, simply because it is not a very costly thing to do. We feel that it is more than adequate, however. Mr. SYMINGTON. You feel that your demonstrations are being picked up with sufficient alacrity by the national community that there is nothing further that needs to be done? Mr. HALE. I think what I would say is that we don't feel that that is a budgetary problem. Because of the slowness in picking up those demonstrations, we have been led to really look very hard at how we distribute that information, and that is what has led us to look at other vehicles for doing that, particularly the National League of Cities and other groups that really direct their efforts toward different local people than we have been directing our efforts toward in the past. We think that it will be much more successful. That will be one of our highest priorities over the next 6 months. Mr. SYMINGTON. One other question, Mr. Chairman. You mentioned on page 4 of your statement, Mr. Dominick, that when the six grant demonstrations are completed, et cetera-when will that be? Is there a deadline there? Mr. DOMINICK. The latest time for full operation of the most complex will probably be in 1976. As I mentioned earlier, there are several that are either operational now, such as the St. Louis Union Electric proposal project-or will soon be operational-so we anticipate 1976 to be the end date for all of these. Mr. SYMINGTON. Thank you. [The following questions and answers were submitted for the record:] QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY CONGRESSMAN JAMES W. SYMINGTON, AND EPA's ANSWERS Question.-1. "Please list (a) Congressional authorization, (b) Congressional appropriation, (c) Administration budget request, (d) actual obligations and outlays for each of the following Fiscal Years-Fiscal Year 1970 through 1973." (See Table 1-attached.) Question.-2. "What is the current personnel size of the Office of Solid Waste?" As of March 1: Allocated Positions 318 On Board Strength_ 310 Question.-3. "What is the number of professional staff in your Office of Solid Waste? the number of GS-11 level?" Total number of professionals_- 232 Above GS-11 1.. 181 1 This figure includes 43 commissioned officers whose ranks would equate to GS-12 and above. |