A statistical survey of National dump sites was made in 1972. Table 2 gives a state-by-state breakdown of the number of open dumps (unsanitary landfills are considered open dumps).

Question-14. "Have any funds been impounded in the last two fiscal years? If so, how much?"

No monies have been impounded through either of the past two fiscal years. FY 72 funds were no year funds available until expended; not all FY 72 appropriated funds were obligated in that year; all will be spent; none was impounded; the large carryover for RRD occurred mainly from the fact that $11.5 million of the appropriated funds for resource recovery grants was spent in FY 73.

Question-15. "How much has been given for resource recovery, i.e., for fiscal years 72 and 73, list the dollar amounts of grants for resource recovery." (1) Under Section 208 of the Act, we have approved four resource recovery demonstration grants for a total funding of $20.4 million. State of Delaware, $9 million (total $13.76 million). Baltimore, Maryland, $6 million (total $16.32 million). Lowell, Massachusetts, $2.4 million (total $3.18 million). San Diego, California, $2.96 million (total $4.01 million).

(a) Originally, $4 million in FY 1971 carryover funds were budgeted for Section 208, but these were not made available to us. FY 73 appropriations were $11.3 million.

1 1972 national dump site survey-does not include dumps on Federal lands.

NOTE. The number of dumps in the Nation [46 States as listed] was projected. This number is not the numerical sum of dumps listed for the States due to statistical procedures. The estimated number of dumps in the Nation [46 States]=17,339.

(b) There remain $6 million in unexpended FY 1973 appropriations.

(2) In addition to the above Section 208 demonstrations, we have three other ongoing resource recovery projects which we have funded on a grant or contract basis under Section 204 of the Act:

St. Louis, Missouri, $2.6 million (total $4.1 million).

Franklin, Ohio, $1.9 million (total $2.8 million).

CPU-400 (Menlo Park, Calif.) $5.8 million (total $7.3 million).

(3) Finally, one additional ongoing demonstration project does not currently involve resource recovery but easily could be modified to do so and has advanced the state of our knowledge of one promising energy recovery concept (pyrolysis): Torrax (Erie County, N. Y.) $1 million ($1.6 million).

The total Federal funds committed to the above projects is $31.7 million. The total investment represents a substantial commitment to development of resource recovery systems.

Question-16. "Please provide the same listing for grants given for construction projects? for R&D work on recovery techniques?"

This question is answered in the answer to Question 15.

Question 17. "Do you favor a ban on throw-away bottles? Do you favor mandatory deposits on all forms of beverage containers?"

The principal problem created by the nation's use of beverage containers is the aesthetic problem of littering. The State of Oregon has imposed a mandatory deposit on beverage containers. EPA is evaluating the effectiveness of this measure under a $50,000 grant to the State. At this time a judgment on the desirability of banning one-way beverage containers or instituting mandatory deposits elsewhere is premature and should await the evaluation of the effectiveness of measures that are already in force.

Question-18. "Do you favor a disposal tax on all automobile vehicles? What is your best estimate of the number of junk, abandoned vehicles each year?" The abandoned automobile problem is basically a problem of littering. Obsolete cars are abandoned at an estimated rate of 1.25 million a year. These must be picked up at public expense. The abandoned auto removal rate is not keeping up with the abandonment rate, with the consequence that today nearly 3 million abandoned cars lie uncollected; of these, 2 million are estimated to be in rural

areas.

A disposal tax on all automobiles imposed to provide financing for the pick-up of the small proportion of auto abandonments is one of several options for dealing with the problem. Such an approach is being tried in the State of Maryland, but the program is too new to predict effectiveness.

We view the problem as a state responsibility and have provided (elsewhere in the record) a model state law dealing with the issue.

Question-19. "How many states now have solid waste disposal laws?"

First of all, you should clarify whether you mean solid waste disposal laws or rules and regulations. All states have some laws regarding solid waste disposal. Not all states have rules and regulations governing solid waste disposal. In both situations, the comprehensiveness and the quality of the laws and/or rules and regulations vary from good to totally inadequate.

Table 3 gives the status of State solid waste laws and rules and regulations. The states that have check marks under laws are only those that have legislation that is considered somewhat comprehenswe and has been passed within the last three to five years.

"How many states have solid waste disposal permit systems?"

The attached table also lists those states that have permit systems for solid waste disposal.

TABLE 3.-STATE SOLID WASTE PROGRAMS

Total...

1. Alabama.. 2. Alaska.. 3. Arizona. 4. Arkansas. 5. California. 6. Colorado.

7. Connecticut.

8. Delaware..

9. District of Columbia.

10. Florida..

11. Georgia.

12. Hawaii.

13. Idaho.

14. Illinois.

15. Indiana.

16. lowa.

17. Kansas..
18. Kentucky..
19. Louisiana..

20. Maine..
21. Maryland..

22. Massachusetts.

23. Michigan.. 24. Minnesota. 25. Mississippi.

26. Missouri.

27. Montana.

28. Nebraska.

29. Nevada.

30. New Hampshire.

31. New Jersey.. 32. New Mexico. 33. New York.

34. North Carolina..

35. North Dakota..

36. Ohio.

37. Oklahoma.

38. Oregon..
39. Pennsylvania..
40. Rhode Island.
41. South Carolina.

42. South Dakota.

43. Tennessee. 44. Texas..

45. Utah.

46. Vermont..

47. Virginia.

48. Washington..

49. West Virginia.

50. Wisconsin..

51. Wyoming

52. American Samoa.

53. Guam..

51. Puerto Rico.

55. Trust Territory.

56. Virgin Islands.

Question. 20.-"What is the average hourly wage-nationwide-for collection workers?"

The following figures show national averages for unskilled workers (collectors) in solid waste management according to public and private sectors.1

1 Source: "Solid waste management manpower: profile and analysis". Executive Summary, Vol. I, September 11, 1972, prepared for EPA-OSWMP by Applied Management Sciences, Inc.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Heinz.

Mr. HEINZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Dominick, I was struck by the information you gave us that an automobile might be worth under good conditions $55 after someone has paid $2,000, $3,000, or $4,000 for it, if you happen to be so fortunate to buy one new.

I was wondering if your agency has looked into the effect of our tax system and our subsidy system in terms of pollution clean-up and the effects of that system on lowering the cost of virgin materials and creating a relatively lower market value for recycled materials. Do I make myself clear?

Mr. DOMINICK. Yes; you do. You are into an extremely complex area. In direct answer to your question, yes, we have looked into it. In the whole area of incentives for the utilization of secondary materials or disincentives for the utilization of primary or virgin materials, we have not completed our study.

We do feel that one of the difficult problems is that we are creating an incentive through the tax structure. There is a considerable amount of recycling going on at the present time.

To create any additional incentives such as

Mr. HEINZ. I haven't made myself clear. Let me interrupt. I am not talking about creating a tax incentive for recycling. I am talking about taking away some of the tax incentives or subsidies that we have to use virgin materials, which act as a disincentive to use recycled materials.

In other words, what I am saying is that the market value of recycled materials is necessarily kept low because the production process and acquisition of virgin materials is kept low by means of such traditional items as the fast writeoffs, depletion, subsidies from Government for pollution abatement, all of which may or may not be

wise.

The point is that we do subsidize, perhaps overly so and perhaps not, the production from virgin materials. This obviously has got to create a problem if we are going to market, without subsidies of some kind, the recycled products.

For instance, there are numerous methods, I suppose, that you might use to recognize, in the full cost of virgin materials, some of the environmental costs.

Have you given that any consideration?

Mr. DOMINICK. Well, to answer the last question first, yes. Internalization of environmental costs is going to become increasingly a fact of life. Air pollution, water pollution, and other regulatory mechanisms of the Federal-State governments come to bear.

Now, as to your general question about what should be done about depletion allowances, fast writeoffs for equipment and for capital gains on timber, et cetera, I agree with you. This is an extremely important area that needs to be looked at in the context of our total utilization of natural resources.

We have not made specific recommendations in this area. I think that the resource recovery report which came to Congress today, as well as the report of the National Materials Commission, should be studied by all of us to come up with a program that would be acceptable to the Congress and to the executive branch.

Mr. HEINZ. Do you anticipate giving any recommendations? Mr. DOMINICK. We are going to up-date the report that we submitted. Any recommendations, if they are forthcoming, will be in

context.

Mr. HEINZ. Who will make recommendations if you don't?

Mr. DOMINICK. Well, I feel that this is such a national problem and the scope of this problem goes far beyond just environmental concerns that it will be hard for me to volunteer the Environmental Protection Agency as the chief recommender in this area. I don't have a clear answer.

Mr. HEINZ. Would it be governmentally more feasible if the Department of Natural Resources was ultimately created? Would it be easier to get into difficult policy areas like this if the executive branch were encouraged by the Congress to create a larger body called the Department of Natural Resources?

Mr. DOMINICK. Well, it certainly would. The President has proposed that 2 years ago, and that proposal has not been acted upon by the Congress.

Mr. HEINZ. Thank you.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Hudnut?

Mr. HUDNUT. No questions.

Mr. ROGERS. Let me pursue environmental costs now. You say you don't think your agency ought to come up with any suggestions along this line?

Mr. DOMINICK. I am saying, Mr. Chairman, that when we get into the whole area of depletion allowances, capital gains treatment, and what not in dealing with a wide variety of the committees of the Congress, we are dealing with a wide variety of interests of other Federal agencies.

We are dealing with such fundamental questions as energy policy, national security policy. I don't believe that EPA per se can make ad hoc judgments in that regard.

Mr. ROGERS. Then you had better reread the law because we have. directed you to do it and we have directed you to do it in section 205 studies. I presume that is what you covered in this study.

Now let me just ask a question about this. Otherwise, there is no point in our going through this folderol of having reports, if you are not going to carry out the authority of the law and the directions of the Congress and just go off into some generalization about recycling and so forth.

Now, I believe Mr. Darnay had the responsibility of this section 205 report.

Mr. DARNAY. Yes.

Mr. ROGERS. Which has taken 28 months to submit to the Congress. It should have been done in 12, but, we won't pursue that further. I don't know. We may have to start putting penalties in the law on the Administrator to try to get him to obey the law.

Now, we could brush over these things, but I am afraid that Congress has too often allowed the executive branch to ignore the intent of the Congress in the actual provision of the law.

We expect everybody else in the country to obey the law. Why an executive agency should be exempt, I do not know. We may have to