June 30,1976
Page 21417
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the committee has worked for many months, in fact years, to produce this legislation. This bill represents a modest and useful expansion of the Federal program.
The Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 and the Resource Recovery Act of 1970 provided a legislative basis to begin tackling the Nation's solid waste management problems. These problems continue to grow.
Many rural communities have had difficulty finding economical ways of disposing of the wastes they generate. I am pleased that the committee adopted my proposal to give assistance to such communities. Many of the large recycling systems are not economical for such communities, and many of the past practices of open dumping and burning are now disallowed. This legislation authorizes grants of up to 75 percent of the cost of projects to eliminate such practices. The bill provides a $50 million authorization for grants to communities with population of 5,000 or less or counties with population of 10,000 or less or those who have less than 20 persons per square mile.
This is the kind of provision that can provide assistance to solve problems that are typical for many of the small towns in my State of Maine. Many communities have placed open dumps too close to water, and under State law, are now being required to move to other sites and establish sanitary landfills.
Other communities will have to close open burning dumps in order to comply with State clean air regulations, and with Federal clean air law. Some communities have dumped solid wastes over vertical slopes that have up to a 40-foot face. For appropriate environmental protection, these steep slopes will have to be covered and new sites will need to be developed. The State may choose to use the assistance provided under this new grant program to either buy or contract for equipment which can be used to cover these environmental sores.
Many small towns in Maine and elsewhere in the country will be hard pressed to find the money to purchase equipment necessary to create and operate landfills. The assistance provided in the rural community grant program under S. 2150 could aid this effort.
Some communities may be able to join together to run a common landfill by using transfer stations and collection equipment. The assistance available under this new section can be a useful stimulus to the development of such systems.
In Maine, regulations went into effect February 1 of this year which will cause many communities to stop open burning and to move dumps from areas that now pollute the water, create smoke, and breed rats. The funds in this program will need to be targeted on the hardship cases — decisions that the State will play the key role in determining.
In Maine over 100 towns have had hearings on the need to close the existing open dump operated by the community. A new landfill must be created at a site that will not create water pollution and using techniques that will not create smoke and odor problems. Some of these changes will need to occur in order to meet State regulations, and some are needed to meet the requirements of Federal environmental laws. The availability of Federal financing can be a useful assistance in gaining the support and cooperation of communities that are badly in need of resources.
The programs provided by S. 2150 are needed to assist in controlling the problems associated with solid waste disposal and with the ever-growing consumption of resources that is occurring.
Total municipal solid waste in the United States is growing at a rate of 8 percent. Hazardous wastes are being dumped at a rate of 650 million wet tons annually. An EPA task force has estimated that wet sludge and wastes from industrial processing and water treatment may increase from 6.6 billion wet tons per year to 9.8 billion wet tons per year by the year 1985. The high cost of municipal solid waste programs has caused these problems to gain high priority attention from municipal officials.
The country will have difficulty solving the problems of rapid resource depletion and disposal of solid wastes unless firm action is taken to reduce the amount of waste that is generated. We must also pursue policies which recycle resources once they have been placed in use. This bill represents a balanced approach between programs to manage disposal and reuse of wastes and proposals to reduce the consumption of resources.
This legislation contains an evenhanded approach to the question of resource conservation versus recycling. Both programs are to be pursued with equal emphasis by the Environmental Protection Agency during implementation of the programs under this act.
In the area of solid waste disposal, the dumping of hazardous wastes creates the greatest environmental damage. S. 2150 establishes a regulatory program to eliminate the disposal of hazardous wastes and to allow wastes containing such materials to be disposed of only in quantities and at sites that are not harmful. This approach "closes the loop" for the disposal of such materials into air, water or on the land. Congress has enacted strict controls on the disposal of hazardous wastes in air and water. This legislation brings land disposal under environmental control.
One particular item in this bill requires further explanation. Section 209(e) places restrictions on any EPA official, acting in official capacity, to disallow lobbying State or local governments on specific legislative proposals being considered by those governments for resource conservation or resource recovery. This restriction applies only to this kind of specific lobbying. It does not apply to any other activity, such as general speeches or advice expressed while giving assistance on technical matters.
If this bill becomes law this year, then a supplemental appropriations could be approved to fund the new program. The Public Works Committee report of march 15 to the Budget Committee recommended $15 million for new programs under this legislation in fiscal year 1977. If provided, this would be within the First Concurrent Resolution targets, since the Public Works Committee has already indicated that it would limit the waste treatment construction grant program for water pollution control to $5 billion, which is $1 billion below the assumption contained in the Budget Resolution. Since these programs come from the same functional category, the $1 billion reduction should provide room for increase in solid waste programs. These totals will need to be examined carefully when that supplemental is considered later this year.
Solid waste disposal problems continue to grow. Our legislative response to those problems must anticipate these conditions and act to reverse them. The legislation before us is a modest and needed effort in that direction, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. President, rejection of the Hatfield amendment should in no way prejudice EPA's ongoing programs to develop solid waste management programs which may include resource conservation – source reduction programs.
EPA currently has regulations which require deposits on beverage containers sold at Federal facilities. These regulations are new. We are still learning from them. They will continue in effect even without the Hatfield amendment so we can have a real test of the impact and implication of the kind of proposal without the amendment.
At the same time opportunities for States to choose the best kind of solid waste management program is preserved. EPA can provide information on alternatives including source reduction. While EPA cannot lobby in State and local legislatures for one program over another it certainly can and should provide balanced factual materials on the costs and benefits of various alternatives.