FEDERAL FACILITIES

The committee may also want to consider the problem of solid waste generated by Federal installations and other direct Federal activities. In 1966 the President, by Executive order directed Federal agencies to control air pollution, Executive Order 11282, and water pollution, Executive Order 11288, caused by Federal activities. I suggest that the committee consider a similar mandate for good solid waste management practices, together with requirements for phased schedules to carry it out, by legislative action. The Federal Government clearly has a leadership responsibility here.

OVERVIEW FUNCTION

We are fortunate that this subcommittee has purview over all three of the principal environmental pollutions: those involved with air, water, and solid waste. This is, of course, not the case in the House of Representatives or in the executive branch.

Typically, responsibilities for control of the environmental pollutions along with the other environmental malfunctions-are fragmented among a multiplicity of resource-by-resource compartmented agencies and legislative committees at all governmental levels.

COSTS

We can agree that waste management should be viewed as an integral part of environmental management and not as an isolated function, and that all the costs of producing a livable environment should be weighted against all the benefits-or against costs of an "unlivable" environment. But government at all levels is not now well organized to do this kind of environmental analysis and evaluation.

For years scientists, conservationists, and students of public administration have discussed the increasing need for an "environmental overview" function. Provision of such a service appears to call for the designation or establishment of one point within Government where attempts, at least, can be made to see the total biophysical environment as a whole.

COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Current proposals along this line include title II of S. 2508, sponsored by Senators Jackson and Kuchel. The bill calls for establishment of a Council on Environmental Quality, analogous to the Council of Economic Advisors, in the Executive Office of the President.

It would provide two kinds of services: (1) data gathering and reporting and (2) analytical and evaluative services. Both kinds of services would help illuminate the alternatives for the public and for political leaders who must, increasingly, make decisions affecting environmental quality.

Another proposal was recently put forward by the House of Representatives' Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Development. It calls for a reorganization of the executive branch which would move the the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to the Department of the Interior, which already has water pollution control responsibilities.

The merits or demerits of this particular reorganization proposal aside, I am persuaded that we need a focal point for environmental policy overview at a very high level in the Government, separate from agencies with day-to-day operating responsibilities. My own preference would be to place this function in the Executive Office of the President.

POLICY

When I consider the unique jurisdiction of this subcommittee, embracing all three of the principal forms of environmental pollution, I wonder whether the time has not come to establish in the executive branch a focal point for policy overview, and for the reporting and evaluation functions, at least, for air and water pollution and solid waste management problems.

It seems to me that this could be not only a logical next step, but also a beginning toward an institution and a process that would provide broader environmental overview functions.

I respectfully suggest that the subcommittee consider taking this modest step and also consider locating such a function in the Executive Office of the President, where the Presidential perspective and the perspective of this committee may most readily be obtained.

Thank you very much.

SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL CRITERIA

Senator SPONG. Thank you very much, Mr. Train.

You have commented on the undesirability of presently selected landfill sites. Would you care to comment on the criteria that should be used to select landfill sites?

Mr. TRAIN. I think first as a practical matter, as I have commented, it seems very often that the sites selected by municipalities are those next to water. I could say first let's avoid water. Now that may not be a very scientific criteria but I think it is a good understandable one. It would avoid secondary-effect pollution and avoid shorelines and estuaries, just about the most productive acreage we have.

Secondly, I would think that criteria should be adopted which seek the minimum interference with other important uses of the given site such as agriculture, for the natural water cycle, for recreation, for wildlife, including fish and shell fish and waterfowl habitat, and for possible scientific study, among others. I think it is a matter of choices among alternatives. Some dry, flat sterile lands can actually be made more useful with alteration.

INCENTIVES

Senator SPONG. You suggest in your statement that federally assisted waste management activities provide incentives to be operated as part of an areawide system. Would you care to comment on incentives that might be appropriate or effective?

Mr. TRAIN. Well, the main incentive I suppose is money. The Federal carrot is one which Congress has learned to use, I think, with great effectiveness in environmental legislation-with respect to water quality and air quality. The pending legislation utilizing a matching grantin-aid approach would offer this same basic incentive.

On the other side of the coin from the incentive it seems to me are the requirements which the legislation can impose upon the States to qualify for the Federal grant in the first place.

I think that this legislation approaches this in a very sensible way initially by taking the incentive route.

Now perhaps these needs should be spelled out in a little more detail, by providing greater incentives for truly regional systems. But I think the basic incentive is going to be qualifying for the Federal grant-inaid; so we probably also should take the requirement or standards route on some aspects of this.

Senator SPONG. Your suggestion is probably akin to the regional highway plan that is hitherto going to require it.

Mr. TRAIN. Very much so.

Senator SPONG. You mention the need for incentives to stimulate the recycling of wastes. Would you comment further on the role of the Federal Government in this area?

Mr. TRAIN. That is becoming a little more complicated, a little more difficult. We probably need economic incentives. There certainly is the outright subsidy, not that the Federal Government can subsidize recycling throughout the country but certainly can subsidize demonstration projects as has been suggested here today by, I think, all witnesses, including myself.

Then on the other side of the coin there are tax incentives, and tax penalties as well as incentives. Perhaps on certain kinds of manufactured products which do not lend themselves for one reason or another to recycling, perhaps we should consider imposing penalty taxes upon such products, nondegradable tin cans, perhaps, or something of that sort. There can of course be tax credits such as are being discussed for waste treatment facilities. Those are among some of the incentives I think should be looked at.

Senator SPONG. Thank you very much, Mr. Train. We are appreciative of your testimony here this morning. Mr. TRAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator SPONG. Is Mr. Gridley here?

Mr. Gridley, I am going to recess the hearing for about 5 minutes and then we will proceed.

This subcommittee will take a recess.

STATEMENT OF JOHN C. GRIDLEY, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF CHEMUNG COUNTY, N.Y., REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES

Mr. GRIDLEY. Thank you very much.

Senator SPONG. We are very pleased to have you here this morning. Mr. GRIDLEY. It is our pleasure, Mr. Chairman.

My name is John Gridley, chairman of the Board of County Supervisors of Chemung County, N.Y.

I am testifying today on behalf of the National Association of Counties. It is the purpose of our testimony to relate those problems in the area of solid waste management systems which are proving to be most vexing to the local elected officials and to offer some suggestions as to how the situation could be improved through Federal action. We have been greatly aided in this effort as the result of a project our research foundation is currently carrying out in conjunction with the Public Health Service. I happen to have with me Patricia Mc

N

Donough and Bambridge Peterson who qualify as expert garbologists. The objectives of the project is to provide assistance to local governments, and particularly the local elected official in the solution of their solid waste problems. As a part of this project, members of the foundation's staff have visited approximately 60 solid waste management systems throughout the country. These programs were representative in their scope, degree of sophistication, geographical area, experience, political structure, and so forth.

FEDERAL ASSISTANCE

Unquestionably the point that was brought out by virtually everyone we spoke with was of the need for a Federal program of financial assistance to aid in the initiating, improving, or expanding of solid waste management systems. Of the 60 sites we visited, only a very few would have been at the stage of development they had reached had there not been some Federal assistance made available to them. These on-site visits have vividly substantiated the merit of the National Assoication of Counties' official policy on the subject which is as follows:

SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL

The National Association of Counties recognizes that solid waste disposal is a national problem contributing to both water and air pollution. On the Federal level, the National Association of Counties recommends initiation and acceleration of a natural research program to provide for improved and economic methods of solid waste collection, storage, processing, and disposal, including land re-use; to provide technical assistance to States; to provide financial assistance on a matching basis to assist in the establishment of demonstration projects; and to provide for training of professional and technical personnel. NACO further recommends the broadening and strengthening of the solid wastes disposal program by providing grant funds to local governments for developing, establishing, and maintaining such programs on a county-wide and multi-county basis.

RESEARCH

As has been the case with our local water and air pollution control programs, it is our view that increased emphasis must be given to research-research in the broadest sense of the word. Although all areas of research are in need of increased activity, it is our feeling that the problem of "collection" has been particularly neglected. This is especially important to the locally elected official in that the most expensive aspect of this problem is the actual collection and 75 percent of that cost is labor. No significant changes have been made in collection practices since the invention of the compactor truck.

Much, much more should be done. These efforts could include incentives to industry to develop new collection equipment, design competition for new systems to be tested at Federal installations, and demonstration grant money to local governments for unique equipment procurement.

PUBLIC AWARENESS AND ACCEPTANCE

Garbage is a very unattractive subject and people want to forget about it as soon as it is out of sight. Too often it has been felt that if the local garbage collection and disposal system is cheap, it's good. That explains to a great extent why we have approximately 200,000

open burning dumps throughout the country. Today as never before, the local elected official must carry out an extensive education campaign with the electorate as to the need for modern and effective solid waste management programs. Sometimes we have the dubious assistance of the burning dumps to aid us in this effort. However, it is a shame that we often must wait until we have such a crisis as Washington's own Kenilworth Dump before action is taken. Even our best laid plans are subject to public misunderstanding people on the whole want nothing to do with garbage disposal-new methods notwithstanding.

DEMONSTRATION

Congress could greatly assist by clarifying that demonstration funds may be used in part for public information programs. At present, there is confusion on this point. Some regional administrators allow the grant to cover such vital public information expenses; others do not. We think that an essential part of any undertaking is creating a climate of understanding. This is one of the purposes behind NACO's activity in this area. We think Congress should make clear that Federal funds will be available to cover legitimate expenses encountered at the local level in overcoming public apathy, and creating citizen support. Such support is necessary, vitally so we feel, to initiate and fund modern solid waste programs.

On the national level, an awareness program modeled after such successes as "Clean Water" and "Smokey the Bear" campaigns might well be considered. We are aware that the Department of the Interior has created "Johnny Horizon" as an antilitter campaign character to discourage littering of public lands, but this program is not broad enough. It has become apparent to us at the local level that we must create public awareness of the problem, public demand for high standards and public willingness to fund good programs. Such education could extend from the national level right down to the local level. Such an awareness program is particularly needed in ghetto areas and crowded urban slums. More frequent collection is needed there and public information on good sanitation habits and the direct relationship between solid waste storage and rats, fiies and disease, needs to be made available.

Probably one of the less appreciated aspects of our waste disposal programs relates to the collection employee himself-an aspect which, if it were better known, would contribute to increased public support for adequately funded programs.

A study of New York City collectors' injuries statistically demonstrates that waste collection is the most hazardous governmental operation next to tree topping (forestry). Most collectors are required to lift several tons of material daily. Finding men physically able to do such heavy work is difficult. Back injuries, hernias, accidental amputations are routine occupational hazards. Radical changes are needed. Perhaps as recruitment becomes even more difficult, we may have to do as Sweden has done-elevate waste management to a status position. Postal employees, who have relatively clean work, are provided uniforms and weather gear. Few collectors are provided uniforms, shower facilities, and the like.