FEDERAL INSTALLATIONS We would like to make a suggestion with regard to something which, to communities attempting a solid waste disposal program, has become a very frustrating problem. We refer to the large amounts of solid waste which are often produced and disposed of by Federal agencies themselves, particularly military bases. They produce such wastes as shell casings, garbage, waste oil, and other chemicals, and even radioactive material. An example of the frustrations on the part of local officials as to Federal installations polluting their counties is exemplified by the case of Weber County, Utah. That county and its neighboring counties have been trying to eliminate all open burning dumps, and for the most part have been successful. But the military base located there continues to burn large amounts of waste daily. I don't think we need to cite similar examples-there are all too many. We think the seriousness of the national solid waste problem justifies the need for cooperation by the Federal Government itself. We suggest a provision similar to the one contained in Sec. 111 (a) of Public Law 90-148, the Air Quality Act of 1967, be incorporated in any law pertaining to solid waste management. The following language might be appropriate: It is hereby declared to be the intent of Congress that any Federal department or agency having jurisdiction over any building, installation, or other property shall, to the greatest extent practicable and consistent with the interests of the United States and within available appropriations, cooperate with the Department of Health, Education and Welfare and with any local solid waste management agency in the management of solid waste in a manner consistent with State and local regulations. TRAINING NEEDS One of the most commonly heard local recommendations derived from our site survey was the need for better and more efficient training programs. No matter how efficient a waste disposal operation may be conceived on paper, it won't run itself; nor will it operate efficiently without consistent and competent supervision at all levels. Personnel are hard to obtain and hard to keep in this vital public service area. A sound staffing and personnel system with sound training is necessary if a waste management program is to be effective. Comprehensive Federal and State training programs could be extremely significant in overcoming some of the personnel barriers which now face local governments. Modern waste management is a new and fast developing field. Thus, it is particularly important that local personnel be given the opportunities of adequate training and periodic exposure to new and improved techniques in waste management. FEDERAL LANDS NACO has long been an advocate of obtaining the greatest utilization possible from federally owned lands. There are many areas in our country wherein making available Federal lands to be used as sanitary landfills could greatly facilitate an effective solid waste program. Although there have been instances of Federal lands being used for sanitary landfills, unfortunately, Federal policy is not clearly established on the subject. Apparently the decision is left to the discretion 95-825-68- -12 of the Federal officials at the local level. We feel that with adequate controls and safeguards, a great deal of benefit could be had by making certain Federal lands available for sanitary landfills with the condition they would be restored to their original condition, or to a condition consistent with their planned use. CONSOLIDATED ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PROGRAM Congress should give serious consideration to an eventual consolidation of the present Federal air, water, and solid waste programs. As with many other categorized Federal grants, these programs often overlap at the local level. An overall environmental health program should enable these now separate programs to mesh better at the local and Federal levels. Clean air and clean water are certainly related problems to solid waste disposal. In fact, cleaning up our air and water often intensifies the problem of what to do with solid waste. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS With regard to intergovernmental cooperation problems, we should like to cite another example of how we think the Federal Government could assist us at the local level. We refer to the problem of using special authorities rather than general purpose units of government or combinations to carry out governmental programs. We strongly urge that any legislation on solid waste include the proposals embodied in section 402 of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act which would result in the favoring of general units of local government vis-a-vis special districts. There exists a real danger in not involving the local government officials in programs stimulated by Federal funds. Our goals should be to increase the responsibility and initiative of our general purpose units of local government and to strengthen intergovernmental cooperation by encouraging area wide relationships among these local governments. We believe that waste disposal programs should foster this local cooperation and not stifle and hinder the development of the respective local governments by encouraging and imposing special districts or authorities other than those whose governing officials are appointed by and responsible to the elected officials. SUMMARY 1. The National Association of Counties wholeheartedly supports the principle of extension of the solid waste program and especially the solid waste construction legislation, S. 1646. 2. The law should make clear that demonstration programs should include funds for public information activity. Such activity is urgently needed. 3. There is apparently a great deal of uncertainty as to the availability of various lands to be used for sanitary landfill operations where such would be consistent with the longrun use of the land. Additionally it would be helpful for the open space program to clarify that land to be used for recreation purposes could be utilized in an interim period for a sanitary landfill operation. 4. Federal installations should be compelled to comply with Federal standards and State and local solid waste ordinances. 5. One of the recurring needs brought out by those programs which were more advanced, was for establishment of more training programs for personnel comparable to what we now have for water and air pollution. 6. We would strongly urge that the principles embodied in section 402 of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act regarding special districts be included in any solid waste management legislation. 7. Increased technological research is needed to find safe economical disposal methods for new materials. 8. Money is needed to stimulate the construction of carefully designed processing and disposal facilities. The Public Health Service estimates that over 200,000 open and burning dumps exist today. These dumps must be replaced by safe disposal methods. Senator SPONG. Thank you very much, Mr. Gridley. That gong signified the beginning of our session, and we are not allowed to continue these hearings except by unanimous consent while the Senate is in session. I have four questions here which the staff will submit to you and we would very much appreciate having your answers submitted to us. Let me thank you for your testimony here this morning. Mr. GRIDLEY. Thank you very much. We are very glad to give the answers. (The questions posed by Senator Spong and the response by Mr. Gridley are as follows:) FEDERAL LANDS You suggest that Federal lands be used as solid waste disposal sites, could you explain further why Federal public lands would provide more suitable disposal sites than other public lands? In many of our countries, especially in the Western states well over 70% of the local jurisdiction is in federal public lands. For example, Maricopa County, Arizona, a rather large county, would like to use some federal lands for solid waste disposal sites because there are no suitable solid waste disposal sites in the non-federal land areas of the county. In addition, tourists visiting federal public lands such as national parks create considerable solid wastes, and in many cases this waste ends up along roadside dumps. PUBLIC RELATIONS You suggest that Federal funds be used in part for vital public relation expenses. Is it your opinion that adequate public relations would create sufficient public awareness as to support adequate local funding of solid waste programs? Yes, I believe if Federal Funds were used in part for public relations that the public would get a much better understanding of what solid waste management really is. For instance, most people believe that a sanitary landfill is the same as a dump. Thus, even the local community which runs a true sanitary landfill operation often experiences public opposition based on misunderstanding. If federal funds could be used to tell the story of why garbage, trash, rubbish, and all other general wastes must be properly buried on a daily basis then I don't think there would be as much opposition. It is in the public's interest that the communities' solid waste be disposed of properly or else there will be health problems caused by rats and flies. I think if the need for solid waste management is presented more strongly as a health problem, they will support and fund better programs at the local level. AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY In your opinion are there methods of solid waste disposal currently available that are adequate to meet needs in this area if employed? Not really. Some communities are having serious problems in finding solid waste disposal sanitary landfill sites, because there is a lack of land. In short, many of the current solid waste disposal sites are simply dumps. Communities need federal assistance to buy land and equipment and construct and operate incinerators and sanitary landfill disposal sites in order to have a satisfactory solid waste management system. Washington, D.C., currently uses open trucks to collect solid waste. They also collect garbage and trash by a separate operation even though both go to the same disposal facilities. This is inadequate and expensive. For many years the District of Columbia has requested additional monies from Congress. Each year it has not been funded adequately to purchase enough compaction collection trucks, and there also was great difficulty in early 1968, in trying to close the Kenilworth dump. There are all too many cities and counties with solid waste management systems that are similar to Washington, D.C., in that they are mismanaged due to lack of money for land, equipment and personnel. TRAINING NEEDS You mention the inability to find sufficient trained personnel. In your opinion could presently unemployed members of our society be adequately trained to work in this area? Yes, I believe many unemployed members of our society can be trained to collect garbage, clean up open dumps, sewage and pick up the litter on streets and public highways. I would like to point out, Allegany County, Maryland, as an example of where the county health department has successfully trained and employed welfare recipients to clean up 76 open dumps, and at the sanitary landfill to weigh-in solid waste collection vehicles on a portable scale and record the weight on a computer print out card. The job potential in solid waste management is open and developing. However, only a few people are needed for each site so it is not a panacea for the unemployment problem. Senator SPONG. The hearings are recessed until 9:30 tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the subcommittee recessed to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, July 10, 1968.) WASTE MANAGEMENT RESEARCH AND WEDNESDAY, JULY 10, 1968 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AIR AND WATER POLLUTION Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 9:50 a.m., in room 4200, New Senate Office Building, Senator Jennings Randolph presiding. Present: Senator Randolph. Staff present: Richard D. Grundy, professional staff member. OPENING STATEMENT BY SENATOR RANDOLPH Senator RANDOLPH. Good morning, ladies and gentleman. Today we continue hearings of the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution on waste management research and, also, the environmental quality management aspects of this subject. Witnesses have testified on the concepts of waste management and they have emphasized the need for environmental quality in our social structure. This objective is not going to be achieved today or tomorrow; it will, of necessity, require a long-term commitment which will be participated in as a partnership between industry and Government Government and industry-because neither should be a senior or a junior partner. We must attract to this commitment the full resources of the scientific and engineering communities with motivation for adequate research and for adequate development and, of course, for adequate demonstration of control technology. There will be of necessity, I am sure, the need for research strategies, using that word advisedly, as we carry forward research programs in environmental quality management. There will be a need for definition of the problem areas, and the knowns and unknowns. And, there will be a need to define research in terms of manageable units that will fall within the framework of research responsibility and authorities. Today, we, of necessity, must think in terms of the problems that face us now. There are environmental quality objectives which can be achieved, and we must learn to work together to bring these goals into focus. In April of this year some members of the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution visited the Turkey Point power plant site of the Florida Power & Light Co. I was present at that time and sensed, |