RESEARCH NEEDS Some general observations regarding the problems of waste management and the needs of research are indicated. While there is a need for improvement in technology and for new procedures, there also appears to be an equal, if not greater, need for mobilization of currently available capabilities, in a systematic manner. It appears, as has been suggested by a number of other observers including some of the members of this panel-that we do have a reservoir of professional expertise currently available, which perhaps needs better direction and mobilization of effort. There is a distinct possibility that improvements in methodology, based on refinements of existing technology, coupled with administrative innovations, will produce meaningful, immediate results. Concurrently with this effort, the necessary research, development, test and evaluation programs can and should be undertaken in a coordinated manner. It is our view that the primary Federal effort should continue to be under the leadership of the agencies as provided for in the air quality and water quality and related acts. NEW TECHNOLOGIES As has been suggested in a number of reports to the Congress and to the President, the feasibility of testing of new procedures and equipment at Defense installations does exist. Obviously, the funding for such projects must be the responsibility of the primary mission agency, with operational and experimental support expenses being reimbursed to the military department or agency. The Department of Defense stands ready to participate in a cooperative manner in any such programs which can be undertaken without adverse effect on our basic mission. CONCLUSION In conclusion, based on our experiences, it appears that there is no single solution to the specific solid-waste problem, or the general question of waste-management research. We will continue vigorously to conduct our existing programs to cooperate with the other Federal agencies who have the primary mission in waste management and pollution control, and to adapt to the changing needs and capabilities of the future. I await your questions, sir. PANEL OF PREVIOUS WITNESSES SOLICITED RESEARCH Senator RANDOLPH. Thank you, Colonel. Colonel Meyer, the Defense Department has established procedures whereby you ask independent organizations to work on research programs and proposals. Do you think these procedures can be adapted to research and development programs connected with environmental efforts in pollution control? Colonel MEYER. Yes, sir, I do. As a matter of fact, in some of our programs we do this. As we have pointed out, under our systems management approach, we require consideration of the problems, of the effects of possible environmental pollutants in the development of the system. There are two approaches to this problem: One is to require the prime contractor or the prime systems manager to include a proposal for how he is going to approach the problem. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL The other one is in certain nonsystems oriented efforts; you go out to several known capable organizations and ask them to come back to you with a proposal as to how they would approach the solution of the problem, not how they are going to solve the problem. This is what we call the request-for-proposal approach. This has been used in a number of areas. As a matter of fact, in our testimony on the Navy's waste vessel pollution problem, they went to several-and I have one of the Navy representatives here if you want more details on it; he can provide it now or later for the record-we went to several different agencies, organizations, industrial firms, and said, "How would you attack the problem?" not "What is the solution?" Then you review this and determine which of these looks promising and initiate your research program in that manner. So, it does have application. Now, there is another one. Of course, this happens all the time. You may have someone come to you with several unsolicited proposals in this area, and you may then, out of this, decide you want to go out with the formalized request for proposal. Now, my colleague, Dr. Weinberger, has said that some of the negative aspects of federally supported industrial research exist in this area because you do not have some of the problems of commercial enterprise and propriety. But I do believe this system can be adapted to the problems of waste management. Senator RANDOLPH. Thank you, Colonel Meyer. We have had your thinking, Dr. Middleton, in part, on this subject. Would there be others of you gentlemen who sit at the table who wish to address yourself to this subject? Dr. MIDDLETON. I would only like to reiterate how important it is, Senator, to use the RFP system. This is one way to obtain innovation which is very greatly needed in all research areas. It is one way of introducing industrial interests into the waste management program. They never thought of themselves having expertise in the area. Senator RANDOLPH. Thank you very much. SYSTEMS APPROACH There have been discussions before this subcommittee on the need for a systems analysis approach to research in environmental pollution control. Do you believe that this is applicable to current research programs or problems? Colonel MEYER. Senator, as you are well aware, there is a difference between systems analysis and systems management. People do get rather confused sometimes on this issue just as they get confused on the issue of cost effectiveness versus the cost-benefit relationship. I do believe that we have a very broad problem here. The problem relates to the allocation of resources for the various elements of the environment that we are concerned with. Now, I think from my viewpoint in the Defense Department I have to look at air, water pollution, solid waste management, noise, and radiation as a total entity. Some of my colleagues who are specifically mission-oriented have to look at these things, too, but they still have to keep in front of them their central responsibility given to them by the Congress. So, what we are really talking about is a total environmental system in which there are subsystems. This is the problem, Senator Randolph, that I think we need to address a lot more attention to either on a mutual ad hoc basis among the mission agencies and agencies such as the Defense Department which have such a big issue in this or on some organizational basis, or within some sort of formalized arrangement, such as the Committee on Environmental Quality, OST. The DOD is certainly not the one to make a firm recommendation on this and I would defer to the others. I do think that the systems analysis approach is needed as long as we keep in mind that these are subsystems. I hope I have answered your question adequately. COORDINATION I wonder if there is any continuing dialog between the departments or agencies, represented here today, on this matter? I know there is certainly no, let us say, opposition, but can there be a closer liaison? Colonel MEYER. Sir, I think we have a continuing dialog on interface problems among our agencies. I believe that my colleagues and associates here would agree with me that there is a continuing dialog at the working level and at the senior administrative level. As you also may know, I mentioned in this testimony the President does have through the Office of Science and Technology a Committee on Environmental Quality which the Department representative designated by the Secretaries are participating in this sort of dialog. Probably what we are doing is evolving into this. LEGISLATIVE NEEDS Senator RANDOLPH. You mentioned, Colonel Meyer, the intent of the Congress that is being carried out by individuals like yourself. The Congress must address itself to this continuing problem and the associated policy needs. I am wondering if it would be proper to give Congress an indication of the future consideration that must be addressed if we are to maximize progress toward what I consider to be a very necessary national policy toward environmental pollution control. Colonel MEYER. Sir, I would have to defer such a question to the primary mission agencies such as HEW and Interior. The Department 95-825-68-16 of Defense primary mission, as you know, is the defense of the Nation, although our concern for protection of the environment is inherent therein. I really don't feel it appropriate for me to answer that question, sir. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Senator RANDOLPH. Some of you other gentlemen may wish to talk about the need for environmental quality management. I just wondered if you thought there might be in the natural sequence, now, for Congress to follow in that area. This is a proper question for you to talk to, if you care to. We have taken certain steps, but what do you see as the necessary next steps in the sequence, let us say? Dr. MIDDLETON. The rather imaginative view that is presented in the Air Quality Act now obliges the Federal Establishment, if I may use that word, to react. Even though the air pollution problem is the responsibility of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, its solution cannot be done singly or solely by this Department; it requires the deep involvement of many other departments. I think our sulfur oxide program that I mentioned as an example in my testimony before you, Senator Randolph, was an attempt to show how a single agency with an appropriate leadership can bring together the forces to bear on a particular problem involving the Federal Establishment. SYSTEMS ANALYSIS May I pay a debt of gratitude to the Department of Defense because of their necessity to employ systems analysis and systems approaches to problems in such massive amounts for they have in fact taught industry. They have cultivated systems analysis as an industrial enterprise so that now when we in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare need the systematic approach involving systems analysis we have the skilled technician available on a hire-basis, thanks to the Department of Defense's earlier interest. So that any mission-oriented group just takes for granted that systems analysis, like engineering, is an integral tool; it is not the only tool, but it is a very essential one. FEDERAL ROLE To the question, how can the Federal Establishment work better together: I think it depends really upon a lead department role and leadership in the area of the mission; it is up to the individual department to see to it that the needed resources are brought together. In those areas where it is difficult, as I think Dr. Bennett has told you, the Office of Science and Technology has the capability of bringing the agencies together. There exists a mechanism that has been very fruitful to us in hastening the day of implementing the myriad provisions of the Air Quality Act. Senator RANDOLPH. The Congress has, as you know, laid down certain time schedules for pollution control programs? These schedules are in response not just to industry or the Government, but to a social concept. The question is: Do we have the research policies now defined so that these technologies will fall in place with these time schedules, or will we have to adjust and readjust them? What is your feeling? RESEARCH POLICY Dr. MIDDLETON. I think the research policy matter is one that is understood. I think the time schedule that Congress has imposed will hasten the agencies joining hands to try to meet the deadline. Some of these may be very short. I think the concept of involving the private sector is the only solution to meeting the deadlines that are imposed because all of this knowledge is not resident in the Federal Establishment. It is often extended outside and this is the combination that will perhaps make possible the meeting of the deadlines that you suggest. Research policy within the Federal Establishment is rather clear, I think. When it comes to the need to develop availability of lowsulfur fuels, when it comes to the point of what kinds of petroleum are needed for heat and for power generation, what kinds of gasoline are best used in the motor vehicles from a pollution point of view, we look to the Department of the Interior for advice and assistance in dealing with the problem of the quality of that particular raw resource as it impinges upon air quality. When it comes to some of the examples that Colonel Meyer gave you regarding the Navy's installation and using refuse as a source of energy, we are well acquainted with this and we use this as a springboard to see that it is the more widely used. These kinds of things, the deadlines Congress has suggested, impose on the mission-oriented responsible agency the need to use the existing systems of collaboration and cooperation. Senator RANDOLPH. As we think of this social problem and this need, we are agreed that there is some flexibility that must be applied to the development of control technologies; is this correct? Dr. MIDDLETON. There is a need for flexibility. I would say we are talking about multiple ways of doing things. Senator RANDOLPH. Yes. Dr. MIDDLETON. As Dr. Weinberger was telling you earlier, the ways to control water pollution are fairly well known. They are fairly well known but which system is used in a particular case depends on exactly what is required, and that is why I think we need more control technology so we may have a greater number of tools to use. That is why I think flexibility is useful. Industrial enterprise often has a biased point of view which can bring forward a particularly useful example which may have important application in the areas of control technology in which they normally don't deal. Senator RANDOLPH. Doctor, I won't quibble over your choice of words. I am not certain that it is a biased point of view. I think it is the point of view with which they are familiar. I think that if I speak out on a question, or a colleague speaks out on a question that because we have areas of disagreement that either of us are biased. But we are only speaking from a certain point of view, or a certain viewpoint. What is your comment? |