Mr. DOMINICK. I might just add that in terms of application, Mr. Chairman, the State of Alabama has had no money from the Federal Government for State program purposes, one of the few that have not engaged in this byplay with the Federal Government. They have a three-man operation in their State and they have one of the most effective State programs going because they have a good, enforceable permit system. Now we feel that that kind of regulatory mechanism is really what is going to force the application of good technology presently available, good management systems available, and we will give assistance to putting those in place, and at low cost to the community. Mr. ROGERS. I thought you said in Alabama they weren't picking up automobiles in the rural areas because it is too expensive. Mr. DOMINICK. I am not saying that all the problems have been solved. Mr. ROGERS. It is nice to talk about generalization, but you know you need research to achieve the latest technology. Now you can say you are going to let every little community do its own research, but you know how much research you would get done. Mr. DOMINICK. Communities or even States do the research. Mr. Symington. Mr. SYMINGTON. Just to follow on this discussion, Mr. Chairman, we are really talking about EPA's responsibility. We wouldn't have written that legislation if we thought some magical way a conglomerate of research around the country would achieve the objectives here. Getting back to that and my previous question concerning impoundments over the past 2 years and I believe your answer was none what I would like to know, and perhaps you could submit this for the record, of our fiscal 1972 appropriation, which was $35.6 millionand I believe the implication of the previous answer was that all of those moneys were spent. Is that correct? Mr. DOMINICK. Fiscal 1972 funds? I believe that is correct, Congressman. If it is not, let me correct it for the record. I don't have it in front of me. Mr. SYMINGTON. If you would. Not simply note that they were spent, but how they were spent. Mr. DOMINICK. Very well. Mr. SYMINGTON. Divided up according to the things done so that we will know what went into research. Please be as specific as you can because we are gathering the impression that you feel over the past couple of years you have done enough or you have contributed enough to the overall research effort in general solid waste disposal as distinct from hazardous to really the communities and bring them to the takeoff point in this area. We would like to be able to reassure ourselves that this is the case. Mr. DOMINICK. We would be happy to supply that. [The following information was received for the record:] FISCAL YEAR 1972 FUNDS FY 72 were no-year funds available until expended; not all FY 72 appropriated funds were obligated in that year: all will be spent (see attached table); 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. AREAS OF RESOURCE RECOVERY DEMONSTRATION INVESTMENT Concentrated RR&D investment: 1. Demonstrate res-recovery systems (and technology) where markets exist. Over 20 million of the 35.7 million dollars obligated during FY 72-73 was for resource recovery, primarily Section 208 grants. As stated before, we believe that these funds demonstrated all major options and combinations of recovery systems and subsystems. 2. Demonstrations of new and innovative managerial approaches to solid waste management. Roughly 3 million dollars has been spent on demonstrating the implementation of new solid waste systems This was done not through hardware oriented programs, but through a transfer of information. 3. Research to refine knowledge of, and develop operating procedures for sanitary landfills for hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. Roughly 3 million dollars effort was expended. 4. Research to stimulate the private sectors involvement in development of solid waste control technology to reduce environmental damage. Somewhat over 9 million dollars were expended in the following areas, Recovery and disposal processing equipment Sorting and classification of wastes Energy recovery Reduction systems 5. Research to enhance efficiency and productivity through development of information approximate cost 1 million Mr. DOMINICK. I might say that since the Resource Recovery Act was passed in 1970, there have been $85 million spent by the Federal Government in this area, and we think that we have made very substantial progress in bringing communities to the point where they can really apply this technology. That is not a small sum of money, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ROGERS. Well, I don't think that we have brought very many communities any place at all. You have sponsored about 20 projects? Mr. HALE. Twenty major technical assistance projects. Mr. ROGERS. Twenty assistance projects and six demonstration projects. Now I think what you have done in that area is good. But, as you say in your own report, it doesn't begin to solve the problem. Let me ask you just a few more questions on the problem of hazardous waste. How many tons of hazardous waste are there? What is projected? What is the estimate? Mr. DARNAY. The projected tonnage that requires improved management is 10 million tons of hazardous wastes. Mr. ROGERS. About 10 million? Mr. DARNAY. Yes, sir. Mr. ROGERS. How much nonhazardous solid waste? Mr. DARNAY. The total depends on what you put into it, but the total is 4.5 billion tons, of which 230 million are municipal, 140 are industrial, 1,700 are mineral, 1,740 are animal, and 640 million tons are crop wastes. Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. Is the hazardous waste tonnage growing? Mr. DARNAY. We have very good evidence that it is growing and it is growing in part because of the environmental pollution control effort of the Government, which is mandating the disposal of many things taken out of the air and the water are forcing their disposal on the land. We are shutting off the oceans as a dumping ground and dumping this material on the land. It is growing and we believe it is growing at a faster rate than the regular or ordinary solid waste is growing. However, it is difficult to put a number on it because you are dealing with a good many types of waste, showing up as gases, et cetera. Mr. ROGERS. Are there Federal laws governing disposal of liquids and wastes on the ground? Mr. DOMINICK. Not adequate we don't feel, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ROGERS. What about State laws? Mr. DOMINICK. Very spotty situation here particularly where you get into underground aquifers. Mr. ROGERS. How about underground disposal? Is there a hazard to drinking water from disposal of wastes underground? Mr. DOMINICK. We feel that there is a strong potential for this. We want to prevent it before we contaminate any of our major aquifers. Mr. ROGERS. What is the Government doing to bring about incentives for recycling as far as Government procurement programs? Have you been in touch with GSA? Have they responded? Mr. DOMINICK. They have responded. They have issued procurement standards for 72 classes of paper as of the present time, and they will be issuing more as we make additional recommendations to them. Mr. ROGERS. Does EPA use recylced paper? Mr. DOMINICK. It has negotiated, arduously I might say, with the Government Printing Office, and they have finally given us the goahead to use recylced paper on an experimental basis. I think we have as much difficulty with that group as the Congress does. Mr. ROGERS. I use recycled paper. What percentage of your paper use will be recycled? Mr. DARNAY. We have just recently been given permission to go ahead to explore. In the case of GSA, approximately half of the grades of paper that they use are technically capable of receiving secondary fiber. In the case of printing papers, that ratio should be the same or higher. Better than half of those papers will eventually probably contain recylced fiber, but this is too early in the analysis of the problem to be more precise. Mr. ROGERS. Has the agency contacted the ICC about discriminatory rates agaist recylced material? Mr. DOMINICK. We have. Mr. ROGERS. What response have you gotten? Mr. DOMINICK. We have participated with the Council on Environmental Quality in urging the ICC to address the threshold question. That is, are the rates discriminatory? I believe we have received assurances that they will attempt to do that within the next several years. Mr. ROGERS. Next several years? Mr. HALE. Well, the issue is clouded because there is a case before the Supreme Court which will be held tomorrow. It is a suit brought by SCRAP, a group of law students at George Washington University. Mr. ROGERS. Would you let us have a memo on this? Mr. HALE. We would. Mr. ROGERS. What response you have gotten from ICC? The committee might want to take this up with ICC. [The following information was received for the record:] SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES CONCERNING THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND FREIGHT RATES FOR SECONDARY MATERIALS COURT ACTION CONCERNING A 2.5 PERCENT SURCHARGE ON RAIL FREIGHT RATES On February 1, 1972, to offset alleged growing railroad operating deficits, the ICC approved an emergency 2.5% surcharge on all railroad freight rates. This increase was put into effect pending the approval of a general increase in railroad freight rates, which would average 4.1% and replace the emergency measure. A group of George Washington University law students calling themselves S.C.R.A.P. (Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures) took the ICC to court on both measures claiming that the rate increases perpetuated a discriminatory rate structure which was environmentally damaging. They also claimed that environmental impact statements had not been filed by the ICC in either rate increases and that this was a violation of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). On February 3, ICC and SCRAP agreed that SCRAP would withhold from seeking an injunction on the rate increases and ICC would issue a draft environmental statement in accordance with the provisions of NEPA. On March 6, the ICC issued its draft environmental statement which SCRAP, Council on Environmental Quality, and Environmental Protection Agency declared insufficient. As a result, on May 12, 1972, SCRAP took ICC to court to seek an injunction against both the proposed 4.1% rate increase and the 2.5% surcharge which is presently in force. A decision was handed down by a three-judge District of Columbia District Court in which an injunction was granted removing the 2.5% surcharge from all goods transported for purposes of recycling. The injunction took effect on July 15, 1972. The ICC appealed this decision to the Supreme Court and the court agreed to hear the case. Oral argument before the Supreme Court was heard on the 28th of February, 1973, and a decision is expected in several months. ICC ACTION CONCERNING A 4.1 PERCENT GENERAL INCREASE The same court which handed down the injunction on the 2.5% surcharge deferred action on the proposed 4.1% rate increase until a new environmental impact statement is filed by the ICC. The 4.1% increase was due to take effect on Nov. 30, 1972. On October 4th the ICC announced that it was approving a 2.5% increase in rates to take effect November 10th in lieu of the proposed 4.1% increase the railroads had requested. Not included in the order was the expected environmental impact statement and the Environmental Protection Agency and Council on Environmental Quality immediately criticized the action. As a result of this criticism, on November 8th the ICC amended its order to exclude secondary materials from the increase in rates. This extension will expire June 9, 1973 at which time the Commission will have to make a final decision. During this time the Commission will be investigating the environmental consequence of rate increases, and the Environmental Protection Agency has provided data and information for this purpose. EPA STUDY EPA is presently conducting a study of transportation rates for competing secondary and virgin materials. The objective of this study is to determine whether or not the current rate structure discriminates against secondary materials. The materials being studied are iron and steel, paper, aluminum, glass, and rubber and the study is attempting to compare the transportation charges levied against competing primary and secondary shippers. Once these charges are established, the costs to the railroads will then be determined in an attempt to account for any differential. Should the difference in charges be shown not to be cost based, then the claim of secondary shippers that they are being discriminated against would have some foundation. The effect of these transportation charges on the purchase price of the commodities involved will then be ascertained in an effort to predict the effect of transportation rates upon the selection of competing materials by user industries. In the course of this study, assistance has been provided to EPA by the ICC's Bureau of Economics. The output of the study will be valuable to the Commission in its own rate investigation. Results of the EPA study are expected by June 1973. Mr. ROGERS. What about labeling? Is FTC studying a plan to delete labeling requirements which make recycled products appear inferior? Have you been in touch with them? Mr. DARNAY. We have had a good many dealings with FTC on their labeling issues with regard to waste oil, et cetera. We have worked with them in preparing criteria for new designations for these materials, and we are still in the process of discussions with them and resolving some of the technical problems. We basically are trying to protect our interest, which is to create a more favorable climate for recylcing, and protecting their interest, which is to prevent defrauding of the consumer, and there are some real ticklish issues involved in trying to reach a resolution, but we are working actively with them. Mr. ROGERS. Let us also have a memo for the record on that and what response you are getting. [The following information was received for the record:] LABELING OF PRODUCTS CONTAINING RECYCLED MATERIALS-FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION The Environmental Protection Agency has been working with the Federal Trade Commission concerning the labeling of products containing recycled materials. The Commission is in the process of studying the impact with respect to case law and rules for "previous use" and "recycle" disclosure. The following labelling guides are presently being analyzed. Guide One.-That products made from recycled material with performance characteristics which are essentially comparable to those of products made from virgin material be treated as new and not be required to make a front-label "used" or "recycled" disclosure. It is further recommended that for products which have a descriptive listing of contents that the recycled components be specified as such in that listing. Guide Two.-That products made from recycled material whose performance characteristics are manifestly inferior to those associated with competing "new" products have their limitations clearly and conspicuously disclosed. Guide Three.-That a product which is previously used and is subject to limited or no reprocessing be labelled as "used" and should have this clearly and conspicuously disclosed. Guide Four.-That only those products containing certain minimum percentages of post-consumer waste be allowed to use the term "recycled" and/or the recycled logogram to describe their product. |