Mr. ROGERS. With a budget of $6 million, what reduction in personnel will come about?

Mr. DOMINICK. It is assumed that the personnel will be reduced to 120 by the end of fiscal year 1974.

Mr. ROGERS. 120. Does the $6 million budget include personnel as well?

Mr. DOMINICK. It does.

Mr. ROGERS. How much of your proposed budget of $6 million is taken up with personnel needs?

Mr. HALE. Roughly $2 million.

Mr. ROGERS. $2 million? You hire 120 people with $2 million?
Mr. HALE. Yes.

Mr. ROGERS. So that gives you $4 million to operate out of the $35.6 million that you have in your present budget. How much of your present budget is going to personnel presently?

Mr. HALE. I cannot answer that question.

Mr. ROGERS. $6 million?

Mr. DOMINICK. We will supply that for the record.

Mr. ROGERS. Would you think that would be about right?

Mr. DOMINICK. That is a good enough guess. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROGERS. How many professional people would you have in the

120?

Mr. HALE. We expect well over 75 percent.

Mr. ROGERS. So there would be a reduction in clerical staff?
Mr. HALE. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROGERS. How many projects will you be supporting in the 1974 budget?

Mr. HALE. That is premised on continuation of all of our existing demonstration projects, completion of all State planning activities through completion of the basic State plan, the continuation of all of our local and regional plans.

Mr. ROGERS. In other words, there are no new projects? Is that what you are telling me?

Mr. HALE. We haven't determined how many new projects.
Mr. ROGERS. Do you have any money left?

Mr. DOMINICK. There will be new activities.

Mr. ROGERS. What?

Mr. DOMINICK. In the area of technical assistance.

Mr. ROGERS. What new activities? Technical teams?

Mr. DOMINICK. That is correct.

Mr. ROGERS. What new activities?

Mr. DOMINICK. There will be the addressal of new systems to new cities.

Mr. ROGERS. What new cities? What new systems? You have already done your research. You are not doing any new research. You haven't told me what new projects you have.

Mr. DOMINICK. If there is a necessity to apply the results of new studies that are just now coming through, that will be done through the technical assistance.

Mr. ROGERS. You are doing that presently, so there isn't any new activity, is there?

Mr. DOMINICK. I apologize, Mr. Chairman. I take away the word "new".

Mr. ROGERS. In other words, you are going to continue technical advice.

Mr. DOMINICK. That is correct.

Mr. ROGERS. All right. What else?

Mr. DOMINICK. Under the proposal

Mr. ROGERS. Any new research projects?

Mr. DOMINICK. There will be a good deal of research done leading to the formulation of standards and guidelines for the disposal of hazardous waste.

Mr. ROGERS. What new research projects will be funded and at what level of funding?

Mr. DOMINICK. That has not yet been determined.

Mr. ROGERS. How much money will you have available? What part of the $6 million will you need to continue the projects that you are presently funding to complete them?

Mr. HALE. All of those programs have been funded out of this fiscal year's budget.

Mr. ROGERS. There will be no money in that $6 million that will go to continuation of present projects?

Mr. HALE. All of those present projects will be funded out of existing money through the completion. In addition, out of the $6 million, roughly $2.2 million on the same number of personnel in research.

Mr. ROGERS. In your own shop?

Mr. HALE. That is the Office of Research and Monitoring.

Mr. DOMINICK. In EPA.

Mr. ROGERS. Do they work out of the Cincinnati laboratory?
Mr. HALE. They do.

Mr. ROGERS. So you have got $2 million there for your research. Mr. DOMINICK. We have generally set aside $2.2 million for research.

Mr. ROGERS. Does that include salaries?

Mr. HALE. That does.

Mr. ROGERS. How much of the $2.2 million is salary?

Mr. HALE. Well under $500,000.

Mr. ROGERS. So you have got about $1.7 million for actual research projects. What will that research be directed to?

Mr. DOMINICK. As I mentioned, it will be directed to the establishment of standards and guidelines for the disposal and treatment of hazardous waste.

Mr. ROGERS. Standards and guidelines, but no new technology for the treatment of waste.

Mr. DOMINICK. There may well be some demonstration on a selected project basis of technologies for such treatment or disposal of hazardous wastes.

Mr. ROGERS. I am not talking about demonstrations. I am talking about research, new ideas. How can we reduce the costs? You know you are directed in this bill to do research, to find some answers. That is what the Federal Government is trying to do. Then, when you have that research, you put on some demonstration projects. That is the intention of the law, and I don't think you have grasped that.

I think you have just done a few demonstration projects, but I don't see you continuing research with this budget.

Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. Chairman, we feel that research, if it is needed, and there are

Mr. ROGERS. Obviously it is because we cannot compete with virgin materials. They say the cost of recycling is still too expensive. Mr. DOMINICK. Now you are switching thoughts for a minute. Mr. ROGERS. I am interested in the entire subject. I am not switching any thoughts.

Mr. DOMINICK. Research is needed.

Mr. ROGERS. Well, of course.

Mr. DOMINICK. Research is needed into the subject of the nature of hazardous materials, the transport of those hazardous materials, be they in underground aquifers, be they in landfills, be they in other kinds of land sites; and into the effectiveness of technology, available technology to control those hazardous materials through incineration systems or what not.

There will clearly be research done in the program in those kinds of activities.

Mr. ROGERS. In hazardous materials?

Mr. DOMINICK. That is correct.

Mr. ROGERS. How to handle them?

Mr. DOMINICK. That is correct.

Mr. ROGERS. And that is in the $1.7 million?

Mr. DOMINICK. That is correct.

Mr. ROGERS. Now I am talking also about research in how to handle the real problem that every community faces, that every individual family faces. Getting rid of solid waste.

Now, what research is going to be done on that?

Mr. DOMINICK. We feel that much of that problem is now solvable with existing technology. We feel that landfill practices are sufficiently well known. We feel that the main problem facing the country today is to put that existing technology to work.

We feel that the imposition of State programs to require strong regulatory aspects and to require, perhaps by permit or other mechanism, the use of landfills in an acceptable manner by localities is the most pressing need that we have today.

Mr. ROGERS. You know a lot of communities have run out of places for landfill. They are having it transported away in railroad cars. A lot of people don't want landfills, so we gave you the authority to do the research to get the answers.

It is my understanding your agency now feels you don't need to do any more research. You have set up what? Six research projects and demonstration projects? You want the communities to look at those and solve their problems. We don't need further advanced technology even though we cannot compete with virgin materials yet. We haven't got a really efficient way, according to this report, to make it pay, to handle and to recycle the waste, and we can't create the market because the cost is still too much. Well, I would think that would be the basis for saying we really do need some research. You tell me that the solid waste is growing and then you come up with a budget of $6 million with no research on that problem at all; instead, you are going to look at hazardous waste.

Is that the position of the agency?

Mr. DOMINICK. That may be one point of view. I think there are going to be lots of points of view expressed on this, Mr. Chairman.

I think it is unfair, however, to say that, because we have a real problem, a problem that is national in scope, a problem that is growing, that necessarily the Federal Government is the only entity of government that can solve that problem.

Mr. ROGERS. I didn't say that.

Mr. DOMINICK. I think that

Mr. ROGERS. Nor does this legislation say that.

Mr. DOMINICK [continuing]. We have also got to be careful that we don't say that the expenditure of Federal moneys should be directly commensurate with the total cost to the Nation in the collection and disposal of solid waste.

The argument has been made many times that there is a water pollution problem, that x millions of dollars are being spent, that the solid waste problem is again costing millions, that, therefore, the Federal Government ought to move into that area and assume those responsibilities. We just don't agree with that.

Now, as to these very good questions that you are asking about research, we feel that most of the technology that can be demonstrated successfully and by "successfully" I mean in terms of both technical viability and commercial viability-that that technology will be demonstrated by the systems that we have awarded grants to here in the past several years.

Now, if there are other systems that require Federal investment because of their high risk nature, and if these systems look sufficiently attractive as an additional answer to some of these solid waste problems that are being faced by the communities, we will certainly keep abreast of that state of the art development and be prepared to enter in where necessary, but we feel at this particular stage of the game that this represents a realistic effort and description of the kind of effort that the Federal Government will employ in this area.

Mr. ROGERS. I understand your thinking, but the Congress has not directed you to take that step as yet. Now I might say that we are very ored to have the chairman of the full committee with us.

Chairman STAGGERS. I have just come up to sit in. Thank you very kindly, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROGERS. What we are saying is that we have a problem and that we have directed research to solve the problem. You are telling us you think you have done all the research necessary and you are just going to tell the communities to do it themselves, that the Federal Government has no further responsibility except for hazardous materials.

Now that is not realistic. The Congress has said we think it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to encourage and participate in programs of research to solve the problem.

Now you are telling us you don't agree with the law. Evidently, I guess you are going to come in and propose a repeal, and have only hazardous materials. Is that the basic thrust of the new proposal? Mr. DOMINICK. That is the basic thrust of the new proposal. Mr. ROGERS. That is what I was afraid of.

Mr. DOMINICK. I don't disagree with this present law. We feel that we have implemented the present law. We have applied ourselves to the mandates of the Congress and we have produced, in terms of those things that have reasonable success of being demonstrated at the least cost to the Government and to the taxpayer.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Dominick, are you telling me that EPA is saying that it thinks we have developed our technology to the highest level? Mr. DOMINICK. Heavens, no.

Mr. ROGERS. Then why don't you proceed with some research programs then? That is the point I am trying to make.

Mr. DOMINICK. Have we developed technology to its highest level, Mr. Chairman? We have not done that in any field of social endeavor. Mr. ROGERS. That is why we need continued research, isn't it? Mr. DOMINICK. We very well could.

Mr. ROGERS. You are not proposing any new research except for hazardous material?

Mr. DOMINICK. We think that where we are going to get the highest payoff in strict budget circumstances, which this administration is facing at the moment

Mr. ROGERS. The Congress is, too, I might add.

Mr. DOMINICK [continuing]. Is in the area of hazardous waste. At the same time, we feel that there can be payoff by making available to communities through the technology transfer program that we have talked about the benefit of the existing state of the art.

Mr. ROGERS. Dr. Carter.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman? Thank you for yielding.

Actually, you would have us benefit from the research that we have already done-is that correct?

Mr. DOMINICK. That is correct.

Mr. CARTER. And there has been considerable work in the universities of this country; is that not true?

Mr. DOMINICK. That is true.

Mr. CARTER. You have shown quite a bit of knowledge since I have questioned you on recycling of materials and cost of doing this, for instance in the recycling of paper. You have shown that it can be profitable if a plant has as much as 300 tons a day of used material and that glass perhaps is a marginal substance and perhaps can be recycled with a little more work.

Really private institutions and universities in our country are vitally interested in these subjects, are they not?

Mr. DOMINICK. They are.

Mr. CARTER. And are doing a great deal of research along this line. You think that, if we apply the fruits of this knowledge that has already been gathered, it will be a great step forward; is that correct? Mr. DOMINICK. I do.

Mr. CARTER. All right, sir. There is such a thing as compaction. We have these compactors now which are very helpful. We are proceeding. We have many, many research projects going on right now, haven't we? Studies in other areas. Billions each year are going to research in other fields.

Mr. DOMINICK. Yes.

Mr. CARTER. Sometimes we can study a problem to death. We have so many studies on different things and we wind up without accomplishing anything. If we let the private sector do a lot of this work, as they are doing now, that might well be better for us; is that correct?

Mr. DOMINICK. We believe that that is fundamentally correct. Mr. CARTER. Thank you.