July 31, 1970
Page 26698
TRIBUTE TO SENATOR MUSKIE AND SENATOR RANDOLPH FOR RESOURCE RECOVERY ACT OF 1970
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, as the Senate considers this highly important measure it should have the benefit of the thoughts and remarks of the two Members of this body who have provided the outstanding leadership that has been vital to this aspect of our environmental campaign. I refer, of course, to Senators ED MUSKIE of Maine and JENNINGS RANDOLPH of West Virginia.
By necessity, both Senators are occupied on business away from the Chamber this morning. They have prepared statements, however, which address every feature of the Resource Recovery Act with great depth and understanding. In summing it up, I note that Senator MUSKIE says:
The intent of this bill is to stimulate the development of resource recovery methods which will provide for the more economic use of wastes.
That is truly a worthy goal, and, it must be said, that when achieved – when we solve the problems created by residue, by unusable byproducts, by litter and by all the useless materials that clutter our lives – it will have been because of the efforts of men like ED MUSKIE and JENNINGS RANDOLPH. The Senate is deeply grateful.
I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that these excellent statements of Senator MUSKIE and Senator RANDOLPH on this measure, along with certain attachments be printed at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
STATEMENT BY SENATOR EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AIR AND WATER POLLUTION
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, today the Senate considers the Resource Recovery Act of 1970, S. 2005. This bill marks a major new Federal commitment to recycling of materials and energy as an alternative to the wasteful and often environmentally damaging solid waste disposal practices of the past.
Solid waste is the residue of production and consumption – a by-product of air and water pollution control – the litter that people promiscuously discard on the countryside – the "unusable" over-burden of mining operations and the inedible remainder of agricultural production.
Solid waste falls into two categories: (1) planned disposal materials which are part of the Nation's production and consumption patterns, and (2) resources which have no known or economic use. In both instances solid waste is almost always a resource which, with ingenuity, can be used and re-used.
This Nation has always enjoyed resource abundance and has acted as though that abundance would last forever. Studies prepared for the Senate Committee on Public Works, testimony before the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, and information generally available suggest that anticipation of continued resource abundance is not only unwise – it is folly.
Our resources fall in three categories – renewable, nonrenewable, and recoverable. Many, including forest and agricultural resources, are renewable resources. Nonrenewable (energy) resources produce only small amounts of solid waste while contributing substantially to air and water pollution problems if uncontrolled. Recoverable resources are those which maintain useful physical or chemical properties throughout their process of use and therefore can be continuously recycled in the production-consumption process.
And the nation has no choice. Consumption increases at a greater rate than population growth. Exhaustion of the Nation's resource base is a very real possibity. Already some industries see recycled waste as a more economic source of materials than primary sources.
But this recognition has neither reversed the trend toward greater waste generation nor reduced the burden on communities and other units of government which have assumed, albeit unwillingly, in some cases, the task of waste disposal.
Community waste disposal has, for centuries, been solved by a simple method – combustion. Open burning dumps in less urban areas and huge incinerators in major communities have provided major sources of stench and air pollution.
Today few communities are allowed the luxury of simple waste combustion. Most areas of the nation have turned to sanitary landfills (most of which are not at all sanitary) and "clean" incinerators (many of which are not at all clean). In both cases a solid waste problem is solved, but often air and water pollution problems result, and resources are always wasted.
This legislation is designed to develop systems which will change the present method of dealing with solid waste problems of communities, of farms, and of industries. The intent of this bill is to stimulate the development of resource recovery methods which will provide for more economic use of wastes.
The bill would authorize intensified research and demonstration of methods to improve collection and transportation of wastes, and development of environmentally safe methods to dispose of non-reusable waste residues. In those cases where wastes are too toxic for traditional disposal methods, the bill would authorize a study of the development of national toxic waste disposal sites. And, for those wastes which can be converted to energy, the bill would authorize development of efficiency energy conversion units.
The Committee carefully evaluated the desirability of legislation to provide direct financial assistance to communities to construct solid waste disposal facilities. This provision, included in S. 2005 as originally introduced, was rejected for three reasons: (1) construction grants at this time could lock in existing conventional technology, (2) even clean incinerators and sanitary landfills would not conserve resources, and (3) a large Federal grant authorization program at this time might retard present community efforts unless appropriations kept pace with authorizations, which is not likely.
As the reported bill clearly reflects, there is an urgent need to redirect the thrust of waste management from disposal to the maximum recovery of reusable materials and energy. The authorization of a construction grant program at this time could result in a massive commitment to presently available technology oriented towards disposal. To avoid stimulating investment in inadequate technology, the Committee has substituted a systems demonstration provision for the proposed construction grant provision.
Consistent with the judgment that the Nation cannot afford merely to dispose of the tremendous volume of material that is generated by an industrial and consuming society, especially in urban concentrations, and recognizing further that a great deal of research has been done on resources recovery, the Committee has substituted for the construction grant proposal a new program of grants to municipalities to achieve demonstration of resources recovery systems on an areawide basis. This program is designed to stimulate, in the shortest time, the development of systems designed to manage growing volumes of community wastes and achieve maximum recovery of materials and energy from such wastes.
Throughout the hearings on resources recovery, testimony was received describing various technologies and systems to achieve resources recovery. The Committee believes it is urgent national policy to move these proposals into actual application and operation in as many different areas, from large metropolitan complexes to smaller communities, as necessary to demonstrate demonstrative innovation and responsive resources recovery systems. Such systems can then be applied, as appropriate, to all areas of the country in which similar problems exist.
The program would provide 75 percent Federal assistance to develop and construct advanced systems of resources recovery in various categories of communities established by the Secretary in order to demonstrate systems applicable in different urban and rural conditions.
It is the Committee's intent that the program authorized shall be one which will, in many respects, parallel the type of research and development procurement conducted by the Department of Defense and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in the sense that the Secretary is authorized to promulgate regulations describing the categories of systems for which applications will be received, specifying that such applications are to be received by a certain date and further establishing guidelines for review of such applications.
Grants are to be awarded only to those applications which the Secretary finds to be clearly superior with respect to the system of resource recovery proposed, the economics of the system, and the potential for general application for solution of the myriad of waste problems. It should be emphasized that the selection procedure thereby established is not competition-based strictly upon low cost, but rather is competition to stimulate innovative systems, which recover the maximum amount of materials and energy.
The Committee looks upon the proposed demonstration grant program as a method of stimulating not just the development of technology, and its areawide application, but it will also cause communities to study their own circumstances with respect to waste management. Through such studies, communities will be able to provide better public service to their citizens in the future and be in a position to apply systems that are developed pursuant to these demonstration grants, as they become available. The Committee hopes that communities will take immediate advantage of this program, and seeks to encourage that result by Section 207 (a) (3) of the reported bill, which would authorize Federal assistance to develop proposals for resource recovery demonstration grants for submission to the Secretary.
The Committee believes that future Federal financial assistance to communities for construction of facilities may be necessary. Demonstration systems developed pursuant to this act will provide guidance as to what kinds of construction should be assisted, what recovery techniques will be most economical, and what collection innovations will most effectively reduce the cost of waste handling.
Further, other studies authorized by this bill will provide insights into methods to reduce the production of waste in packaging in manufacturing of goods, design of vehicles and other consumer goods which are discarded after use.
This provision in Title III of the bill would require a study of recommended incentives and disincentives (including grant programs) to accelerate recycling, with special emphasis in motor vehicle hulks, and on examination of the necessity and method of imposing disposal charges on vehicles, was well as on packaging, containers, and other manufactured goods. The latter concept, proposed by Senator Nelson, would require the imposition of disposal charges on products reflecting the cost of final disposal, the value of recoverable components of the item, and any social costs associated with noncycling or uncontrolled disposal of such goods.
Senator Nelson's proposal, as well as Senator Javits' amendment, which would have imposed a fee on motor vehicles sufficient to cover the cost of disposal of vehicle hulks, were of great interest to the Committee. However, both the Nelson and Javits legislation would require consideration by the Senate Committees on Finance and Commerce prior to enactment. It was the conclusion of the Committee that these two proposals should be referred to these Committees for comment and later action. This action of the Committee on Public Works should not be interpreted as rejection of the concepts included in S. 3665 and amendment 705. Evidence presented at the hearings suggests that some products will require disposal charges in order to assure orderly marketing and recovery. Identification of the specific amount of any charge and the manner in which it might be levied is, however, beyond the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Public Works.
The study required by this section should include a discussion of the above question in order that the appropriate congressional committees can carry out their responsibilities.
Also, the study of disposal charges and other incentives to accelerate recycling of motor vehicles and other products should include careful examination of the system recommended by Leonard S. Wegman which would require the imposition of a flat fee on all waste produced, with the revenue to be used to finance waste disposal and recovery facilities. This is a concept which might subsequently be demonstrated under Section 204 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
Legislation offered by Senator Gurney in Committee to establish a program of financial assistance to dispose of motor vehicles was not included in this bill because little evidence was available in the hearing record to substantiate the need for direct grants to the States to dispose of abandoned cars. Approximately 1 million motor vehicles are abandoned each year, amounting to 1 to 2 million tons of waste. Since urban waste amounts to approximately 180 million tons annually, abandoned motor vehicles comprise only 0.6 to 1.1 percent of the Nation's urban solid waste problem. The Committee was concerned that the Federal costs of a grant program would be borne by the general taxpayers, without transferring the costs of disposal to the vehicle owners who are responsible for creating this form of waste.
The Committee on Public Works sees merit in the proposals by Senators Javits and Gurney on solutions to the growing problem of abandoned motor vehicle hulks. Therefore, in order to more fully explore this particular aspect of solid waste, the Subcommittee will hold hearings, August 18 and 19 on Senator Javits' and Senator Gurney's legislation.
At these hearings, the Subcommittee will invite the views of the Administration, the Council of State Governments, the Automobile Manufacturer's Association. and the Institute of Scrap Iron and Steel, as well as other interested parties. This will allow the Subcommittee to examine in greater detail the questions raised above.
A study under title III of the bill, proposed by Senator Eagleton will examine the interrelationship between efforts to encourage recycling and a broad range of public policies, including subsidies, percentage depletion allowances, capital gains treatment, and other inducements to the exploitation of raw materials. The study will indicate how such policies might be altered to encourage, rather than discourage, the recycling of materials and recovery of energy.
This bill expands the planning grant programs presently contained in the Solid Waste Disposal Act, including as eligible recipients municipalities, intermunicipal agencies, and metropolitan councils of governments. Also it increases the Federal share from 50 percent to 66⅔ percent for single State or municipality planning units and 75 percent for multi-jurisdictional interstate or intermunicipal planning areas.
New planning activities are embraced in this bill: developing proposals for demonstration resource recovery systems to be funded under this Act, and planning programs for the removal and processing of abandoned motor vehicle hulks.
The bill contains an amended form of the training grant program proposed by Senator Javits in Amendment Number 652. This provides grants for training personnel in the design, operation, and maintenance or resource recovery and solid waste disposal facilities. It also authorizes a study of the need for additional trained personnel and obstacles to employment or occupational advancement in the solid waste field.
Title II of the bill is the National Materials Policy Act, which Senator Boggs proposed in Amendment Number 153. This title creates a National Commission on Materials Policy, which would report within two years on future materials requirements and means for the extraction, development and use of materials susceptible to recycling or nonpolluting disposal.
S. 2005, as reported, would authorize $309.5 million over four years in specific program authorizations and such additional sums as may be necessary for administrative expenses and the other programs in the Act. This open-ended authorization is estimated to require about $114 million total over the four fiscal years.
Of the $309.5 million in specified authorizations, $2 million is authorized for the National Commission on Materials Policy under title II and $2 million for the two year resource recovery investigations carried out under title III.
Out of the balance, demonstration grants for resource recovery systems would receive $20 million in fiscal year 1971, $30 million in fiscal year 1972, $50 million in fiscal year 1973, and $55 million in fiscal year 1974, for a total of $155 million.
The research program under the Act, expanded to emphasize recycling, would receive $31.5 million in fiscal year 1971, $40.5 million in fiscal year 1972, $40 million in fiscal year 1973, and $38.5 million in fiscal year 1974, for a total of $150.5 million.
This compares to an authorization in existing law of $32 million for fiscal year 1970, primarily for research, planning grants, and administrative expenses. The House-passed bill, H.R. 11833, authorizes for all programs $100.5 million in fiscal year 1971, $172 million in fiscal year 1972, and $238.5 million in fiscal year 1973, a total of $511 million for the three year authorization period.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
TITLE I. RESOURCES RECOVERY
Section 202 (findings and purpose).
New language is added describing the purposes of the Act, to emphasize recycling, local planning, and training functions.
Section 203 (definitions).
The Department of Interior's responsibility under existing law for disposal of mineral solid waste is eliminated, and HEW assumes complete authority. Several new definitions are added, including municipality, inter-municipal agency, recovered resources and resource recovery systems, to which other provisions of this Act are keyed.
Section 204 (research).
This section adds new language to the ongoing research program, shifting the emphasis from disposal to recycling and adding instructions to investigate the public health and welfare effects of solid waste.
Section 204(d) authorizes annual research appropriations of $31.5 million, $40.5 million, $40 million, and $38.5 million through fiscal 1974.
Section 205 (new-grant limitations).
This section provides that no grant under any program of the Solid Waste Act can be made to a profit-making organization. Note that Section 204(b) presently allows research contracts with such an organization.
Section 206 (interstate cooperation). Unchanged (renumbered).
Section 207 (regional and local planning grants).
This replaces 50 percent State grants for planning activities with 66⅔ percent grants for single municipalities and States, and 75 percent grants for planning solid waste programs in an area of more than one municipality or State.
The grants may be used for (1) making surveys of solid waste problems, (2) preparing solid waste disposal plans for the area (especially those emphasizing recycling), (3) developing proposals for
Section 208 demonstration system grants, and (4) preparing plans for collecting and recovering abandoned motor vehicle hulks.
Section 209 (new – demonstration grants for resource recovery systems).
This section provides for grants to varying sizes of communities to demonstrate resource recovery systems. These systems have to be area-wide, reflecting a variety of solid waste problems (including those of smaller towns and rural areas). A system must be consistent with plans developed in accordance with Section 207(b) (2) and with Section 209 guidelines. A proposal for a system grant must also provide assurance than an equitable means exists for distributing the costs amount the users of the system.
The bill authorizes annual appropriations of $20 million, $30 million, $50 million and $55 million through Fiscal Year 1974.
Section 209 (new – recommended guidelines).
This section directs the Secretary to prepare guidelines on solid waste management practices for circulation to State and local governments. These guidelines are advisory except when such State or locality applies for a demonstration grant under Section 208. This section also requires the Secretary to recommend model codes and ordinances, and to issue technical information on solid waste and resource recovery methods to solid waste agencies, and includes authority to transport models to various communities and funding of on-site review of solid waste disposal and resource recovery facilities by solid waste personnel.
Section 210 (new – training grants).
This section provides training grants to assist in the development of personnel trained in the design, operation and maintenance of solid waste disposal and recovery equipment and systems.
Section 210(d) directs a study within one year on the need for additional trained personnel and obstacles to employment or occupational advancement.
The Bureau of Solid Waste Management estimates the cost of this section to be about $8 million a year, but the bill provides no specific authorization.
Section 211 (new – cooperation by all Federal agencies in the control of solid waste pollution).
This section requires Federal installations and federally licensed activities to meet solid waste guidelines of Section 209. This would include ocean dumping activities licensed by the Corps of Engineers.
Section 212 (new – national disposal sites study).
This section authorizes a two-year study to create a system of national disposal sites for hazardous materials.
Section 213-215. Unchanged (renumbered).
Section 216 (appropriations).
This section authorizes "such sums as may be necessary", excluding the funds specifically provided for (1) research, and (2) resource recovery system demonstration grants. These two specific authorizations provide for fiscal 1971 a $51.5 million authorization, fiscal 1972 a $70.5 million authorization, fiscal 1973 a $90 million authorization, and fiscal 1974 a $93.5 million authorization.
TITLE II (NATIONAL COMMISSION ON MATERIALS POLICY)
This title creates a Commission to develop a national materials policy. In developing this policy the Commission would study materials requirements (national and international), the relationship of materials policy to population and environmental quality; means for utilizing more materials "which are susceptible to recycling, reuse, or self-destruction"; and general ways to improve or coordinate knowledge of materials usage. The commission would be required to report by June 30, 1973, with an authorization of $2,000,000.
TITLE III (RESOURCE RECOVERY STUDY) This title places special emphasis on the policy implications of a change from disposal to resource recovery. It authorizes a two-year study of issues in resource recovery, including means of recovering materials and energy; examination of the economic impact of recovered resources; changes in production and packaging practices (including disposal charges) to reduce wastes; efficient solid waste facilities utilization; the use of Federal procurement to develop market demand for recovered resources; and incentives and disincentives to recycling (including tax policies).
STATEMENT BY SENATOR JENNINGS RANDOLPH,
CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 launched a new program to develop efficient means of collecting and disposing of the millions of tons of solid wastes generated by our society each year. Although considerable progress was made in State and local planning under the 1965 act toward solutions of the solid wastes problems facing our country, it was apparent as early as 1967 that additional efforts were needed.
President Johnson, in his conservation message of March 11, 1968, called for a comprehensive review of current solid waste disposal technology by the Director of the Office of Science and Technology working with the appropriate Cabinet officers. This review was to consider two key problems: first, how to lower the present high costs of solid waste disposal, and second, how to improve and strengthen Government-wide research and development in this field.
In order to facilitate this study and to further action on the problem, the Congress provided a 1-year extension of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
The Office of Science and Technology Task Force was chaired by Professor Rolf Eliassen of Stanford University. The Task Force report was entitled, "Solid Waste Management,'' and was released by the Office of Science and Technology on October 1, 1969.
Concurrently, a study was undertaken by the Ad Hoc Committee on Solid Waste Management for the National Academy of Engineering. The Committee's chairman was Donald N. Frey, president of the General Cable Corporation and its report was entitled, "Policies for Solid Waste Management."
Both of these reports stress the magnitude and crisis proportions of solid waste disposal problem facing the United States.
The average amount of solid waste actually collected in this country is over 5.3 pounds per person per day, or more than 190 millions tons per year. There are estimates that this will increase to 8 pounds per person per day of 1980. And this doesn't include industrial wastes amounting to another 3 pounds per person per day.
Presently, the Nation spends an estimated $4.5 billion a year to handle and dispose of this material from which, practically speaking, we do not recover anything of useful value.
As a matter of fact, in almost every area, the present methods of handling and disposing of solid waste are polluting our environment.
The problem in the District of Columbia is not greatly different from that which is being experienced in cities and urban areas throughout the Nation. Here, for instance, we are producing 875,000 tons of solid waste per year – an increase from 650,000 tons in 1965.
The problem, however, involves more than just dealing with large quantities of solid wastes.
There is a long association between health hazards and inadequate collection and disposal of solid wastes.
For example, studies have demonstrated the relationship between poorly managed solid waste during collection, transport, and disposal operations and more than 22 diseases transmitted by cockroaches, rats; and flies. In the last 15 years in the District of Columbia alone, the number of reported rat bites has been approximately 750, and 290 of these occurred in infants less than 2 years of age, and 151 in infants under 1 year of age.
In testimony, Dr. Paul Comely, President of the American Public Health Association, discussed the adequacy of collection in the inner city and the implication of accumulating trash and garbage:
"It appears to me that in this country we have a great deal more concern about animals than we do about human beings.
"For instance, the standards for milk in this country, throughout the States, have requirements about the barns in which the milk cows shall live. They have standards as to the surroundings of these barns, and if one goes to any of these places, one never sees garbage and trash around these barns.
"Now if this is good for cattle it is good for the inner city person. It is interesting also that we have a Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in this country on a volunteer basis. But I would like to suggest that we should have a society for the prevention of cruelty to infants and children; let us be humane to human beings, and why should children be bitten by rats?"
The health of all our people is intimately connected with the home and its surroundings. External improvement around the home and neighborhood are more important in improving the quality of our lives than any other single factor.
Solutions to the solid wastes problems facing this Nation will require the full application of all knowedge and expertise of the public, private, and academic sectors of our economy. The Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 provided for research and demonstration of new and improved methods for solid waste collection, transport, recovery and reuse, and disposal.
Additional research is needed on methods for financing solid waste management systems and operating such systems efficiently and economically. Data are needed regarding the interrelationships of regional economics and amounts of solid wastes generated, the economics of large scale solid waste management systems, and the economics of those technologies now available or under development.
Methods must also be developed to reduce these growing volumes of wastes. Today, it is a staggering 5.3 pounds for each American every day of the year, and by 1980 it will be 8 pounds of waste a day. Studies indicate that the cost of removing these wastes are growing even faster.
The packaging and other container industries are accelerating the problem. In 1966, discarded packaging materials represented 13.3 percent of the 350 million tons of residential, commercial, and industrial waste generated in the United States.
Glass and metal package containers amount to 90 percent of typical municipal incinerator residues.
The American consumer and taxpayer could not only help relieve the problem, but could save himself money in the process. It is estimated that in 1970 if all soft drinks were purchased in returnable, money-back containers, American consumers could have saved an estimated $650,000,000. This was the cost for the convenience of using throw-away containers.
There is considerable potential for metal and mineral recovery and reuse from incinerator residues. Significant progress has been made in this regard by the College Park Metallurgy Research Center of the University of Maryland at College Park. Residue samples can be processed at a rate of approximately 1,000 pounds per hour. The process involves a series of mechanical operations including shredding, screening, grinding, and magnetic separation. The products are a metallic iron concentrate, a clean non-ferrous metal composite, clean fine glass fractions, and a fine carbonaceous ash tailing. Processes of this type hold significant potential for resource recovery and reuse and should be demonstrated as full scale operations.
Long-term solutions must rely on recycling; immediate improvements can be made in such subsystems as collection, transportation, processing (including separation and incineration), and salvage or disposal. The hearing record of our Public Works Committee reflects a significant potential. Solid wastes management must be approached systematically while increasing the options available to local and regional governments in planning, designing, and operating solid waste management systems.
The Resource Recovery Act of 1970, reported by the Committee on Public Works, provides a mechanism for the expeditious development of these options. The bill represents extensive deliberations by the members of the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution chaired by Senator Edmund S. Muskie and by the full Committee on Public Works. The bill reflects our understanding of the solid waste management problem facing us today, and in the future. I am pleased to have had an opportunity to contribute to its formulation.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, the Resource Recovery Act of 1970, S. 2005, which extends for 4 years and amends the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965, represents a significant step in the continuing effort to improve the quality of our environment. I am glad to support the bill, and urge its adoption by the Senate.
The Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution of the Public Works Committee, on which I serve, became aware very early in its consideration of air and water pollution problems that both were closely related to the problems of solid waste disposal. For example, open dump burning and inadequate incineration increase air pollution. Similarly, the filling of wetlands and dumping of solid waste in open water causes water pollution. Moreover, it has become increasingly clear that the concept of waste is environmentally unsound. We recognize now that wastes might better be considered as resources, diffuse and diverse though they may be – resources for which recovery techniques must be developed so that they may be returned to the flow of materials.
Automobile hulks, one-way glass bottles, aluminum cans, paper, and discarded packaging – all have received much attention by the public and during the hearings of the committee. The quantities of material that we are wasting, literally, is a concern not only in terms of air, water and land pollution, and degradation of the environment, but also in terms of resource depletion.
When we consider also our growing population and capacity for consumption, it becomes clear that our policy for the future must be to move from disposal of waste to the recovery and re-cycling of materials and energy. The Resource Recovery Act of 1970 has as its objective the establishment of procedures which will encourage such a shift from disposal to recovery, necessary to an environmentally sound society.
In extending the research section, section 204 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, S. 2005 gives new emphasis to the development of resource recovery techniques. Much work has already been done, and we hope that with the funds and authority provided by this act fully integrated recovery systems will be developed. Section 204 is provided with a specific authorization for appropriations of $31.5 million this fiscal year, and a total of $119 million during the following 3 fiscal years.
In a new section 208, specifically designed to speed the development of and put into operation new resource recovery systems, the committee bill provides a demonstration program to be carried out through grants to State, interstate, municipal or intermunicipal agencies for up to 75 percent of the design, construction, and first-year operation cost of integrated recovery systems. It authorizes $20 million for such grants during this fiscal year, increasing to $55 million by fiscal 1974.
In addition to these two major sections, the measure we have recommended to the Senate addresses several other problems of waste materials management and recovery. It would continue, as section 207, the authorization of planning grants to State, interstate, municipal, and intermunicipal agencies increasing the Federal share from a 50 percent to 66⅔ percent, or to 75 percent in the case of interstate and intermunicipal grants.
The committee had before it, in S. 2005 as originally introduced, a full construction grant program for solid waste treatment and disposal. The administration testified in opposition to the construction grant provision, giving two principal reasons, both of which were recognized by the committee. First, a construction grant program at this time could result in investment in inadequate or outmoded systems, particularly in view of the fact that this act intends to redirect efforts in materials use management from disposal to recovery. Second, authorization of a massive Federal construction grant program would be inappropriate at this time of fiscal constraint.
Following generally the pattern of air and water pollution legislation, the committee bill, while recognizing fundamental differences between those programs and the problems of materials management, has proposed in section 209 the development of guidelines for solid waste recovery, collection, separation, and disposal systems. We believe the application of Federal research and experience in establishing such guidelines will help to develop better management systems in communities and States, and to assure that their systems meet public health and environmental requirements.
The bill, in a new section 212 of the act, requires a study of the need for establishment of a national system for the disposal of hazardous wastes. A report is to be made to the Congress within 2 years. We would hope that the study may show how radioactive, biological, and highly toxic chemical wastes can be handled with minimum environmental damage and maximum protection of public health and safety.
The committee adopted an amendment offered by Senator JAVITS and others, providing training grant assistance to State and municipal agencies, educational institutions, and other private organizations to meet the growing manpower demands in the field of materials management and recovery. The provision, which will become section 210 of the act, is similar to that offered by Senator SCOTT and adopted earlier this year as part of the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970.
Based again on the experience gained in the air and water pollution control areas, the subcommittee concluded that the activities of the Federal Government often contribute to solid waste problems. Consistent with the air and water legislation and the President's executive order in March, new section 211 requires Federal agencies to comply with the guidelines to be developed under section 209. This mandate is applied also to activities for which the Federal Government issues any license or permit for the disposal of solid waste, as well as to activities conducted on Federal property under contract or lease to private organizations.
Title II of the bill incorporates an amendment, introduced last year by Senator BOGGS, to establish a Commission on National Materials Policy. He had earlier asked the Library of Congress to examine materials policy as it relates to solid waste disposal and environmental quality. Senator BOGGS' request was met by an ad hoc committee in which the Library of Congress joined with the National Academy of Sciences, and which issued two reports, both of which have been printed as documents of the Senate Committee on Public Works. The principal recommendation was that a Commission on National Materials Policy be established to carry forward the work begun earlier by the Paley Commission during the Eisenhower administration. The committee received favorable testimony on this proposal, and we look forward to the results of the study of the Commission and its recommendations.
Mr. President, the Committee on Public Works has been engaged for a number of years in the effort to control the wasteful and discarded by-products of our industrial, largely urban, consuming society – which have been too long ignored and which are now the subject of widespread interest and intense concern. The committee is continuing its intensive work in the field, and will soon report to the Senate major proposals in the areas of air pollution, water pollution, and other environmental concerns. Our interest in improving the quality of life is constantly before us also in our consideration of highway, economic development, water resource, and nearly all other legislation that comes before the committee. We work together on these matters. As I have often done before, I call attention to the devotion of the chairman of the full committee, Senator RANDOLPH, and to the leadership and informed labor of the subcommittee chairman, Senator MUSKIE, in this important and challenging field. The ranking minority member of the Air and Water Pollution Subcommittee, Senator BOGGS, who gives this work such faithful attention, continues to contribute to every measure developed by the subcommittee, as does Senator BAKER in the most creative way. I can think of no member of the committee who has not had a part in this work, and we hope it will be productive and help meet the pressing problems of our time.
The bill before the Senate, the Resources Recovery Act of 1970, is important legislation. I strongly endorse it. It proposes to improve significantly the means available to address the problems of materials use, recovery and disposal. I urge its adoption by the Senate.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, I wish to express my full support for S. 2005. The distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution (Mr. MUSKIE), the chairman of the Committee on Public Works (Mr. RANDOLPH), and the ranking Republican member of the committee (Mr. COOPER) have stated clearly the great need for this legislation. I associate myself with their views.
This legislation accelerates our national effort to recycle wastes – to utilize our dumps and our garbage cans productively, so that we can reuse our material wealth, not discard it. The finite supply of materials necessitates that the United States move aggressively to increase the reuse of our wastes. Recycling will lessen the pollution of the environment and help to sustain our economic growth.
President Nixon, in his environmental message earlier this year, made this observation:
As we look toward the long-range future – to 1980, 2000 and beyond – recycling of materials will become increasingly necessary not only for waste disposal but also to conserve resources.
The President's words are ones that chart a wise course for the future. Several sections of this legislation that will prove effective as stimulants to the recycling of wastes. Section 207, dealing with planning grants, will encourage the States and communities to look to recycling. Many States have already received grants to make general planning surveys for that State. Planning should also be encouraged on a local and regional basis, whether intrastate or interstate. This legislation gives that encouragement.
It should be noted, Mr. President, that my own State of Delaware has moved aggressively toward recycling. Governor Peterson recently signed legislation that will lead to the construction of a plant that will daily recover from 500 tons of solid wastes and 70 tons of sewage sludge reusable steel, copper, chemicals, and other materials and convert the residue into productive compost.
That tonnage represents about half the wastes generated daily in our State's most populated county, New Castle County. To give my colleagues a further look at this important proposal, I ask unanimous consent that a newspaper article about the plant be printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered. (See exhibit 1.)
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, programs such as the Delaware project would be eligible for support under this bill's demonstration grant proposals of section 208. It authorizes funds for the construction of facilities that will convert solid wastes into reusable material. The legislation authorizes 75-percent grants for such projects as a method for demonstrating their feasibility and economy. Such demonstrations must be encouraged. This legislation gives that encouragement.
Numerous other important proposals are incorporated within this legislation. It authorizes the preparation of solid waste disposal guidelines, on an advisory basis. The legislation, however, requires that Federal facilities comply with these guidelines, a provision that is essential. The Government must set a positive example in solid waste control and pollution abatement.
Training grants will be available under this bill to insure that we have the personnel available to design, operate, and maintain facilities that will process solid wastes. The bill authorizes a study of national disposal sites for hazardous materials, and another study, under title III, of the question of resource recovery and new methods to encourage recycling of materials.
My colleagues on the committee have evaluated in detail these aspects of the legislation. I support their views. Rather than go over these points again, I would like to direct attention of my colleagues to title II, as I submitted the amendment that led to the inclusion of title II. The amendment, No. 153, was offered with the consponsorship of several of our distinguished colleagues. Mr. BAKER, Mr. BAYH, Mr. COOPER, Mr. EAGLETON, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. MONTOYA, Mr. MUSKIE, Mr. PEARSON, Mr. RANDOLPH, and Mr. SPONG.
The title authorizes creation of a seven-member National Commission on Materials Policy to undertake a full study of the materials process: selection, extraction, processing, use, disposal, and reuse.
By mid-1973, the Commission will report to the President and the Congress on its conclusions and recommendations for creation of a national materials policy, as well as proposals for implementing such a policy.
This is a subject of great significance. Materials and the processing of materials are the basic source of the pollution to our environment. If we are to enhance our environment, a policy on the utilization of materials must be considered.
Our concept appoved by the committee foresees an examination by the Commission of several key points. One would be an evaluation of current and projected domestic demands for materials. Economic factors affecting materials selection would be an aspect of this study.
The Commission would also study the relationship between demand for materials and questions of population growth, seeking to identify how this relationship affects foreseeable supplies and the enhancement of the environment.
An important area of enquiry would be methods for enhancing the coordination and cooperation among Federal departments and agencies in relation to materials demand, use, and study. This should be a major topic for study, as nearly every agency of Government has a materials-related function, either in research, planning, pollution control, standards, or supply.
Another point should be an examination of the feasibility and desirability of creating – or fostering the creation of – computer inventories of national and international materials supplies and requirements.
The involvement of our subcommittee with this subject dates to 1955, when the first Federal solid waste legislation was adopted. Since that date, the Committee on Public Works has been the recipient of two informative studies on the subject of materials policy. One was titled, "Availability, Utilization, and Salvage of Industrial Materials." The other was called "Toward a National Materials Policy."
This second study, released last year, came to this conclusion:
It is of the utmost importance that, from the initial stages of production of materials through their ultimate use and disposal, we conduct our operations and activities in such a way as to minimize pollution of air and water to avoid despoilation of the environment, both physical and biological.
It was suggested in this study that we can catch a lot of problems of environmental degradation before they occur if our Nation takes a hard look at our materials requirements and use. That is what the Committee on Public Works envisions in supporting the amendment to create a National Commission on Materials Policy. A Commission study and report seeking to identify and analyze the factors affecting the materials flow would include a suggested path for the United States to follow toward a national policy on materials, and how that policy might be implemented.
The committee also evaluated the question of what type of governmental unit should conduct such a study on the need for a national materials policy. After careful evaluation, we rejected the view that the study should be undertaken by an existing unit of Government. Among their tasks, the members of the Commission will be looking critically at existing organizational arrangements in matters related to materials policy. Therefore, we believe it appropriate that the evaluation and study should not become a function of an existing agency. An independent commission, we found, would be best able to examine effectively the full breadth of materials policy questions, then to chart a policy on materials that would be implemented on a continuing basis by an existing agency of Government.
In addition, an evaluation of materials policy should properly be undertaken by experts from inside and outside the Federal Government. This would guarantee the broadest possible scope and study, which is vital if this study is to prove meaningful.
The Commission would, in effect, serve as the foundation upon which to raise the structure of a coordinated materials policy for our Nation.
The Director of the U.S. Geological Survey recently expressed a sentiment that I believe serves as an excellent summation of the need for a national policy for materials – not just minerals or energy or timber. I would like to share Dr. Pecora's words with my colleagues. He said:
If we must, therefore, take from the earth to provide for ourselves, we must employ value judgment and trade-off concepts in deciding how much to take from our environment, where to take it, and how to leave it in the taking and using.
That is a persuasive argument for title II, as indeed it is for this entire legislation. I urge its adoption by the Senate.
Mr. President, I wish to commend all the members of the committee for their work in connection with this legislation. Also, I wish to thank the members of the committee staff for their efforts over many months during hearings and the markup of this legislation.
EXHIBIT 1
[From the Wilmington (Del.) Evening Journal, June 23, 1970]
STATE SELECTS HERCULES WASTE RECYCLING DESIGN
Hercules, Inc., will design and probably build and operate a solid-waste recycling plant in New Castle County which, the company claims, will pay for its operation through sale of reclaimed materials.
Gov. Russell W. Peterson announced he had selected Hercules' proposal as he signed House Bill 822 yesterday appropritating $1 million for design and engineering of the plant.
The plant, billed as the first in the world to reclaim all waste materials fed into it, would handle 500 tons of domestic and industrial waste and 70 tons of wet sewage sludge a day, or nearly half the solid waste generated in New Castle County.
The next step will be contract negotiations between Hercules and the state to iron out details concerning what exactly the state wants from Hercules in the way of design work. A Hercules official said these negotiations would probably be completed in from three to six weeks.
Construction and operation of the plant would require more negotiations – as well as more money. These negotiations would involve New Castle County government and, if hoped-for federal funds are available, the federal government.
Cost of the plant from initial design to start of operations would be about $10 million, according to John N. Sherman, director of advanced programs for Hercules' chemical propulsion division, which submitted the proposal.
Design of the plant allows for eventual doubling of capacity through expansion. After an initial shakedown phase, money realized from the sale of recycled waste products would pay the operating expenses of the plant, according to the Hercules proposal.
Members of the Governor's Committee on Solid Waste said that similar plants may be built in the Dover and Georgetown areas at a later date.
A bill to provide federal aid for pilot waste recycling projects is now being prepared by the U.S. Senate Committee on Public Works, of which Sen, J. Caleb Boggs, R-Del., is the ranking minority member.
The committee hopes to have the bill on the Senate floor for action next month. Delaware hopes to get some of that money to help finance the plant.
State Rep. Robert J. Berndt, R-Hillcrest, who sponsored the bill to fund design work and chaired the governor's committee, said a site for the plant must be chosen soon because Hercules designs will depend on the nature of the site.
The Hercules proposal included a completion schedule for the plant of 22 months from the date of site selection, barring unforeseen obstacles and assuming full financing of the project.
Committee members present when Peterson signed H.B. 822 were Berndt, George Dutcher, New Castle County public works director; Richard Weldon of Bear; Arthur W. Dobberstein of Dover; State Sen. J. Donald Isaacs, R-Townsend; and Rep. R. Glen Mears Sr., D-Seaford.
Berndt said the selection narrowed to Hercules from nine firms which filed proposals. Some withdrew their plans, he said.
Berndt said Hercules was chosen because "They have the talent to do it; they're way out in front of everybody else." He said the firm also has markets for the byproducts.
The proposed plant, designed to be operated by about 50 employes, is to have three major elements.
The first is a digester system for converting organic waste materials to a high quality humus product free from disease-producing organisms. A similar plant in San Juan, Puerto Rico, is currently processing 300 tons a day.
The second is the application of pyrolysis techniques – subjecting organic materials in a contained-pressure vessel to high temperatures – for the controlled decomposition of organic solid wastes such as rubber and plastics.
The third is a residue separation system for the inorganic residue separated from the digester discharge. The separation of metals, glass and grit will be accomplished through a series of screeners, gravity tables and other equipment.
Hercules adapted the systems design knowledge of its chemical propulsion division to come up with its plan. Parts of the system designed by Hercules were the result of Hercules research, while other parts are patented products of other companies.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 2005, the Resource Recovery Act of 1970. In his message on the environment, President Nixon stated:
If we are ever truly to gain control of the problem (solid wastes) our goal must be to reduce the volume of wastes and the difficulty of their disposal, and to encourage their constructive re-use.
S. 2005, a product of the joint efforts of the administration and the Air and Water Pollution Subcommittee of the Senate Public Works Committee, was written to achieve that goal. This legislation will effectively improve our national effort to reduce land pollution by recovering the enormous quantity of trash that is littering the landscape and straining the facilities of municipal governments.
There is one section of the bill that is particularly significant. That is section 207, which provides planning grants to governmental agencies at the State, local, and regional levels. Existing planning grants, on a 50-50 matching basis, provide States with financial assistance for surveys of local practices and problems, as well as funds for developing programs to solve solid waste management problems.
The new language approved by the committee would increase the Federal share of planning costs to 66⅔ percent for a State or a single municipality, and provide 75 percent support when two or more jurisdictions join to attack their mutual solid waste problems.
Economies can be achieved by increasing the size of resource recovery programs. Thus, a multiple-jurisdiction incentive should encourage communities to join with neighboring communities to meet the problem on a regional basis, and thus over the long run reduce costs.
The grants, I might add, would be available for any of four activities. One involves surveys of solid waste management practices and programs in an area, similar to existing law. A second authorizes grants for developing and revising plans for recycling and recovery of wastes. This emphasis is new and essential. The third provision would help to finance the development of proposals for resource recovery systems. The fourth area for which grants would be made available to State and local jurisdictions would be for planning programs for the removal and processing of abandoned motor vehicle hulks.
Section 207 planning grants for State, local, and regional agencies are of particular importance to Kansas. The 1970 Kansas Legislature passed the "Solid Waste Control Act" which makes it imperative that every city and county in Kansas begin at once to develop a workable plan for the regulation of solid waste collection, storage, transportation, processing, and disposal.
Unfortunately, the Kansas Legislature did not provide the funds necessary to assist local government in developing their master plan. Section 207 provides authority for the Congress to appropriate funds which will allow local governments in Kansas and throughout the Nation to develop an organized and comprehensive approach to solid waste management.
I strongly recommend passage of S. 2005.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the committee amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed.
The title was amended, so as to read: A bill to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act in order to provide financial assistance for the construction of solid waste disposal facilities, to improve research programs pursuant to such act, to establish a National Committee on Materials Policy, and for other purposes.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, I move that the vote by which the bill was passed be reconsidered.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I move that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.