Developing Recycling Markets

"DEVELOPING RECYCLING MARKETS" TESTIMONY OF DANIEL J. WEISS WASHINGTON DIRECTOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PROGRAM SIERRA CLUB BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON BEHALF OF SIERRA CLUB CLEAN WATER ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND GREENPEACE NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL U.S. PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP JUNE 13,)1 9 9 On behalf of the 637,000 members of the Sierra Club, I am pleasecl to testify before the Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazarc'ous Materials. I am also testifying on behalf of: U.S. Public Interest Research Group (US PIRG), Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Ar-Lion, Greenpeace, and Clean Water Action. The House Committee on Energy and Commerce played a key role in the development and passage of the historic Clean Air Act of 1990. We hope that the Committee will provide similar leadership to craft comprehensive legislation to renew and strengthen the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) in the 102nd Congress. Congress has an unprecedented opportunity to end the garbage crisis by converting our "throw away" society into a recycling society. Congress must comprehensively address the crisis by shifting the focus of municipal solid waste (MSW) management programs from waste disposal to waste reduction. Millions of Americans are doing their part to slow the growing mountains of trash by recycling in one form or another. Ad hoc and community reduction and recycling programs are springing up across the nation. Unfortunately, these programs are severely handicapped by the lack of demand for the recyclable materials that they collect. These limited programs will never provide an adequate, predictable supply of materials to ensure manufacturers that they will have the secondary materials necessary to produce recycled products. And efforts to separate and collect recyclable materials are hampered by the lack of demand for these materials. Americans look to Congress to jump start the recycling economy by including mandatory diversion rates in RCRA to ensure adequate supplies of secondary materials. Congress must also amend RCRA to dramatically increase demand for recyclable materials by including mandatory utilization rates for postconsumer materials. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS To build the recycling economy, we strongly urge the Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials to include the following provisions in its comprehensive RCRA reauthorization bill. (See Attachment #1 for complete recommendations.) Mandate the high volume diversion of recyclable materials to ensure a steady, high quality supply of materials for recycling. Establish rates for the utilization of post-consumer materials in the manufacturing and packaging of consumer goods (commonly referred to as "minimum content standards"). 8 Establish a moratorium on the construction of new municipal solid waste (MSW) incinerators until the year 2000 to reduce the amount of recyclable and compostable materials wastefully burned by incinerators. 8 Eliminate the hazardous waste exemption for MSW incinerator ash, and classify and regulate it as a hazardous waste under Subtitle C of RCRA. Establish a fee on the use of virgin materials used in packaging and other consumer goods. 8 Adopt the "National Recycling Resource Act", H.R. 997, sponsored by Rep. Paul Henry, to establish a national beverage container deposit program, similar to those that are a tremendous success in nine states. 8 Require federal and state government agencies to purchase recycled products, and establish similar procurement criteria for federal contractors. Include the "Environmental Marketing Claims Act of 1991", H.R. 1408, sponsored by Rep. Gerry Sikorski, to prohibit misleading or deceptive environmental claims about products. THE GROWING GARBAGE CRISIS Every hour of every day, Americans use 2 . 5 million plastic bottles. Most of these will be thrown into the trash; landfills or incinerators are their final destination. Every day, the United States generates an average of four pounds of garbage for every man, woman, and child. Thirty years ago, we produced only two-thirds of what we produce two and half pounds per person today. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined that the MSW waste stream grew by 13 percent between 1986 and 1990. EPA projects that the average production of garbage per person will increase to four and half pounds per day by the year 2000. (See chart, attachment #2) Not only is our society producing more trash as our population grows, each person is throwing away more garbage too. -- THERE IS NO "AWAY"; GARBAGE DUMPING OR BURNING POSE ENVIRONMENTAL THREATS Unfortunately, current disposal methods are inadequate to handle the ever-growing mounds of garbage. Municipal landfills often contain hazardous waste from incinerator ash and other dangerous substances. These toxic chemicals -- including toxic 2 organic chemicals and heavy metals can leach out of the landfills and contaminate groundwater. In addition to the potential for contamination, cities are quickly running out space in existing landfills. EPA projects that one out of every three landfills will close by 1994. EPA estimates that four out of five landfills in operation in 1988 will be closed by the year 2008. Landfill space is running out. And the threat of future groundwater contamination makes it more difficult to site new landfills. Many local officials regard MSW incinerators as a panacea for the garbage crisis. The amount of garbage burned in incinerators more than doubled between 1985 and 1988. In fact, incinerators are a cure that may be worse than the disease. including Incinerators often release highly toxic substances from their stacks and in the ash. lead, mercury, and dioxin In addition, they waste energy compared to recycling (see below), and are a tremendous financial drain on already cash-strapped cities. They also generate large volumes of toxics-laden ash, which must be disposed of in landfills. Thus, incinerators force continued reliance on unsafe and overburdened landfills. These legitimate health, environmental, energy, and fiscal concerns strongly suggest that incinerators are not the solution to the growing garbage crisis. -- -- -- WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING ARE THE ONLY ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS TO GARBAGE CRISIS Clearly, the "throw away" technologies of the past -landfills and incinerators -- cannot stem the rising garbage tide. The root of this problem is the inefficient use of material resources. Recycling and materials use reduction are the only long term solutions to the garbage crisis which make environmental and economic sense. Recycling is the utilization of secondary materials by manufacturers to make consumer products and packaging. The degree of recycling can be judged by the amount of secondary (used) material used. Recycling and composting could help solve the garbage crisis by diverting recyclable materials away from landfills and incinerators, and towards reuse. In 1988, the United States recycled less than one out of every seven pounds of trash (13 percent, according to EPA). EPA also found that the U.S. burns more garbage per person per day than it recycles. The remaining three quarters of American trash is dumped in landfills. Despite this dismal national recycling record, some communities are successfully implementing recycling programs. Seattle, Washington, with a population of nearly 500,000 people, recycles more than one-third of its garbage. Seattle's 3 I goal is to recycle three fifths of its trash by 1998. Wellesley, Massachusetts, with 26,950 residents, recycles two out of every five pounds of its garbage. Wellesley intends to cut solid waste generation in half by recycling. Three of the top four recycling states Maine, Oregon, and Vermont -- have beverage container deposit laws to spur recycling. -- REDUCTION AND RECYCLING BENEFITS SOCIETY BY REDUCING POLLUTION SAVING ENERGY & Recycling and reduction provide many important benefits to society. In addition to reducing the amount of trash requiring disposal, recycling saves resources and energy, and reduces pollution. The extraction of virgin materials by the mining, timber, and petroleum industries produces vast amounts of air and water pollution. Increasing recycling and reduction would save our precious natural resources. If Americans recycled all of their Sunday newspapers, it would save a half a million trees a week. Recycling paper, plastic, glass, aluminum and other materials saves significant amounts of energy compared to burning these materials. The Natural Resources Defense Council estimates that recycling paper just once saves two times more energy than burning it. Burning plastic in incinerators produces only two thirds of the energy saved by recycling it. And burning glass and aluminum actually wastes energy because these materials absorb heat. Recycling these two materials would save huge amounts of energy. Recycling one aluminum can would save enough energy to keep a 100 watt light bulb burning for over three hours. (See Attachment # 3 for figures). ROADBLOCKS TO THE RECYCLING ECONOMY Reduction and recycling are the environmental and economic solutions to the garbage crisis. Nonetheless, only slightly more than one out every eight pounds of trash is recycled. Voluntary and community wide programs are important, but these efforts alone cannot solve the garbage crisis. City and state government officials are hesitant to launch secondary materials collection programs because they fear that industry will not purchase these materials once they are collected. The District of Columbia, for example, encountered insufficient demand for the recyclable newspaper it began collecting in October 1989. Most of the newspaper collected at curbside were stockpiled in a pit for about a year, instead of A being recycled back into new newspaper. The District was unable to find a steady buyer for its newspaper until it finally signed a five-year contract with a firm to purchase and recycle its collected newspaper. It is unclear what the District will do with its newspaper after the contract expires. Nationwide Rep. Richard Schulze (R-PA) estimated there are over one million tons of used newspaper stored in warehouses because there is a lack of demand for the product. Amendments to RCRA would prevent this situation from reoccurring in the District or in other cities. Plastic containers and other products could be recycled at a much higher rate, but there are not very many reprocessors because there is not a predictable, steady supply of plastic to recycle. The recycling infrastructure must be developed on both the demand and the supply side to increase reuse and decrease disposal. Manufacturers are hesitant to begin the production of products made of recycled or secondary materials because they fear there will not be a steady supply of these materials available for production. Manufacturers of corrugated boxboard could produce more boxboard from recycled paper if only they had a predictable, adequate supply of post-consumer waste paper. INCINERATORS HARM RECYCLING PROGRAMS Municipal solid waste incinerators pose a direct threat to the recycling economy because they compete with recycling programs for the same materials. Incinerators are financed, built, and operated to achieve a particular rate of trash combustion. Communities with incinerators cannot develop or implement recycling programs that reduce the flow of material to their incinerators below the required level. If their recycling programs are too successful, their incinerators would lose money, and the communities must make up the difference. In fact, many communities sign agreements with waste management companies that penalize them if they reduce their materials flow below the specified level. Warren County, New Jersey faces huge financial loses because it cannot provide enough materials to keep its incinerator profitable. In other words, building incinerators to burn garbage discourage these communities from initiating recycling programs. Garbaae magazine concurred with this assessment. "Efficient recycling of high energy-yielding garbage undercuts revenue for incinerators. Indeed, in southeastern Massachusetts, the 1900 ton-a-day incinerator is a big reason why recycling is almost nonexistent in the 32 communities served by Semass." --Garbase Magazine MarchIApril 1991 5 We strongly urge congress to call a time out on the construction of new MSW incinerators while the recycling infrastructure is developed. We can always build more incinerators later if they are still needed after comprehensive recycling and reduction programs are fully implemented. CONGRESS MUST STRENGTHEN RCRA TO BUILD RECYCLING ECONOMY, END GARBAGE CRISIS will recycling succeed or will W e are at a critical juncture it be the fad of the nineties? The federal government will make the difference. -- -- Steven M. Polan, Commissioner New York City Dept. of Sanitation Before the Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials April 24, 1991 a state or local recycling and infrastructure to save energy. Traditionally, solid waste management is responsibility. Nonetheless, only a national reduction program can establish the necessary end the garbage crisis, reduce pollution, and We urge the Subcommittee and full Committee to base its solid waste and recycling amendments to RCRA on the following principles. Congress must end the recycling paradox of unpredictable supply and limited demand for recyclable materials by mandatinq both diversion and utilization of secondary materials. (see below for details). Both measures are needed to terminate the "chicken and egg" dilemma thwarting the recycling economy. These provisions must be mandatory. Voluntary or local efforts are inadequate to provide the needed boost to recycling programs and production of goods with significant amounts of post-consumer materials. Federal recycling policy should be "materials neutral;" products with low recycling rates should not be favored over products with high rates (ie; there must be a level playing field for plastics [low rate] and glass [high rate]). EPA should have little or no flexibility to implement this law. The Bush Administration has a dismal record of killing or weakening key environmental regulations required by Federal law. Allowing the Administration to make policy decisions is tantamount to adopting the weakest standard possible, if EPA acts at all. 6 For example, the Council on Competitiveness, chaired by Vice President Quayle, killed EPA's proposal to ban lead acid batteries from MSW incinerators (batteries are a major source of toxic pollution when burned in incinerators). The Council also halted EPA's modest proposal to require 2 5 percent recycling by communities building new incinerators. States must retain the right to enact reduction and recycling laws stricter than federal statutes. MANDATORY DIVERSION OF RECYCLABLE MATERIALS NEEDED TO ENSURE SUPPLY A recent public opinion survey conducted for the Associated Press determined that barely one quarter of the respondents claimed that they live in communities that require the separation, collection, and recycling of household items, such as newspapers and bottles. Nearly three quarters of the respondents said that they live in communities without such programs. More than four out of five respondents from the latter group would J supvort a household materials. Only one in ten from the latter group would oppose such a program. (See attachment P4) In other words, an overwhelming majority of Americans would support mandatory diversion programs to collect recyclable materials. A program to separate and collect recyclable materials would produce a predictable supply of high quality materials for recycling. It would also greatly reduce the risks inherent in launching a recycling or reprocessing business. Manufacturers could reduce their reliance on virgin materials because there would be a dependable supply of secondary materials. To maximize the diversion of recyclable materials away from disposal and towards recycling, communities should be required to conduct and publish a "waste composition analysis" at least every five years. In addition, diversion requirements should be linked to the permitting of new and existing landfills and incinerators to ensure that these facilities are not burying or burning excessive amounts of recyclable materials. Finally, products should be designed to ease reuse or recycling. For instance, plastic laundry soap bottles should be made from one plastic resin, rather than from several types. Known toxic materials should be eliminated from consumer packaging. (Eight states enacted programs to accomplish this goal.) Beverage containers of specific sizes should meet standardized colors and forms so that other manufacturers can easily refill them. 7 State Deuosit Laws Are A Successful Diversion Proqram Some states and cities already have successful mandatory diversion programs. The most successful diversion programs are state beverage container deposit systems. The nine bottle bill states report that 80-95 percent of deposit containers are returned for recycling, thereby reducing their total solid waste stream by 5-8 percent. GAO determined that virtually all of the plastic and two thirds of the glass recycled in the U . S . was collected in the nine states. Special interest opponents of container deposit laws claim that these laws would interfere with emerging curbside collection programs. GAO found that "officials from most deposit law states believe that curbside and deposit systems are compatible, and all nine deposit law states have some type of curbside or other recycling program." It is indeed ironic that the very industries which developed and marketed throw away containers to the American people are suddenly concerned about recycling and the proliferation of garbage. Many communities are concerned about the potential cost of mandatory diversion programs, and we share this concern. GAO determined that one of the advantages of a deposit law is that "deposit systems' costs are borne primarily by the beverage industry and its consumers, whereas curbside program costs are borne by municipalities." GAO concluded that "a dual curbside/deposit system becomes most cost-effective for municipalities." Finally, there could be as much as $1 billion annually in unclaimed deposits which should be used to offset the costs of the rest of the collection system. In addition to unclaimed deposits, communities must have other resources to finance their diversion programs. Money from a virgin materials fee could be distributed to cities to help finance these programs. Industries which operate landfills and incinerators should pay permit fees which reflect the true cost to society of dumping or burning trash. These fees could also pay for diversion and recycling programs. MSW Incinerator Moratorium Would Free Funds for Diversion Proqrams A moratorium on the construction of new MSW incinerators should free millions of dollars in reduced capital and operating costs which could be used to develop and implement separation and collection programs. Incinerators are quite a financial drain on communities. The cost of the proposed incinerator in Montgomery 8 . County, Maryland ballooned from $180 million to well over $300 million. A comparison study conducted for New York state by Queens College determined that an intensive recycling program in East Hampton, New York would be nearly one-third cheaper than building an incinerator. Seattle financed its comprehensive recycling program with the funds which would have been sunk into an environmentally hazardous garbage incinerator. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MUST PLAY KEY ROLE IN BUILDING RECYCLING MARKETS "If market capacity is not adequately developed in a timely fashion, then much recovered material will not be used, and will have to be disposed of as waste." --Washington State Committee for Recycling Markets Report to the Legislature November 1990 "The federal government must help create markets through content standards, changes in economic incentives, and through its own purchasing power. --Victor A. Bell, Department of Environmental Management Rhode Island Before the Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials April 24, 1991 There is an emerging consensus among state and local officials that the federal government must play a much larger role in developing markets for recyclable materials. Without such market development, embryonic recycling programs will wither and die, and the garbage crisis will worsen. For instance, new markets for recyclable materials must nearly double between 1988 and 1995 in order for Washington state to meet its 50 percent recycling goal. Without additional new markets for recyclable materials, the Washington State Committee for Recycling Markets predicts a net INCREASE, rather than a decrease, in the amount of garbage requiring disposal between 1988 and 1995. Clearly, significant market development is needed to curtail the growing mounds of trash. Millions of Americans try to reduce their solid waste production, and many corporations attempt to increase their use of secondary materials. These efforts should be applauded. Nonetheless, we should not delude ourselves into believing that voluntary efforts alone can slow the trash flow. Despite voluntary efforts, EPA projects that there will be more trash and more trash per person thrown away by the end of the 9 decade. If voluntary efforts were adequate to address the problem, there would not be the great rush by multi-million dollar waste management companies to build new incinerators and landfills. For instance, the Wheelabrator Corporation is planning to build a new MSW incinerator in Lisbon, Connecticut based on the assumption that Connecticut's waste stream will continue to grow until at least the year 2010. Forward looking companies which produce the products which are used once and disposed of in landfills or incinerators, such as Ft. Howard and Jefferson Smurfit paper companies, recognize that the federal government must help create stable and predictable demand for secondary materials. We look to the Subcommittee to provide environmental leadership by adding provisions to RCRA to build these markets. Specifically, we strongly urge you to include the following provisions in RCRA legislation. __ Establish annual utilization rates for post-consumer materials, to be verified by materials use reporting requirements. Require federal and state governments, and government contractors, to buy recycled products. Regulate environmental claims by including the "Environmental Marketing Claims Act of 1991", H.R. 1408, sponsored by Rep. Gerry Sikorski, in the RCRA bill. MANDATORY UTILIZATION RATES/MINIMIJM CONTENT STANDARDS ESSENTIAL FOR THE RECYCLING ECONOMY Of these three recommendations, establishing mandatory utilization rates for post-consumer materials (commonly referred to as "minimum content standards") is by far the most essential step necessary to create markets for secondary materials, and to build the recycling economy. The bill must require the use of post-consumer materials because many pre-consumer materials are already used in new products, so there is limited additional benefit from mandating the reuse of pre-consumer materials. Demand for post-consumer materials would help stimulate the supply of these materials. The existing supply is inadequate to drive demand. Annual utilization rates for post-consumer materials must be set on a material by material basis for each production facility. These rates must be met annually, and verified by material use reporting requirements. Congress must include these utilization rates in the law because we cannot rely on the Bush Administration to adequately implement this vital program. 10 The utilization rate requirement gives firms flexibility to vary the rate of recycled content in their products, while ensuring that they use an adequate amount of recycled materials every year. This proposal would not attempt to define or mandate the post-consumer waste content of any particular product. The decisions about the exact recycled content of each product and package are left to the particular manufacturer. Rather, each manufacturer must use a certain percentage of secondary material, assuming that the material can be made available in a predictable amounts and uncontaminated form. The Prowosed Utilization Rates Are Technically Feasible #l. The specific utilization rates are included in attachment These rates were developed based on three factors: a steep increase in the reuse or recycling of secondary materials is necessary to build the recycling economy and solve the garbage crisis, and protect public health and the environment; industry experts’ assessment of the technical feasibility of meeting these rates, combined with existing or planned recycled products. These proposed rates must be compared to the extremely modest goals announced by various industries’ trade associations. In fact, some firms within these industries plan to recycle far more material than their trade association’s meager goal; and, the national interest in decreasing pollution and saving energy by reducing disposal and increasing recycling of materials. Utilization rate requirements must be extended to all materials to allow market competition to ultimately determine which materials are used. The bill must regulate all materials because unregulated materials would have an advantage over, which can be regulated materials. For example, glass infinitely re-used and plastics used for containers must both have utilization requirements. If there were only requirements for glass, it would favor a difficult to recycle material over a frequently recycled material. -- -- We expect that many firms which use extensive amounts of virgin materials in their products and packages will claim that these proposed materials utilization rates are not technically feasible. These may also repeatedly threaten that unemployment and economic disruption (or worse) will occur even if these . standards could be met. In other words, we expect many firms which use virgin materials and sell products in packages which waste virgin materials to oppose this comprehensive solution to the garbage crisis, even though it is strongly advocated by many state and local government officials -- the people responsible for disposing of solid waste generated by these recalcitrant 11 firms. In effect, the existing waste disposal system provides a huge public subsidy to the firms that produce waste. Firms have a legitimate concern about a reliable supply of secondary materials for recycling. The aforementioned mandatory diversion rates are essential to address this concern. Industry claims about the technical infeasability of these rates are misleading because many companies already make products using significant amounts of post-consumer materials. Establishing mandatory utilization rates would reward companies that are already using large amounts of post-consumer materials by giving them a jump on their competitors who are still producing environmentally wasteful products from virgin materials. Many Firms Produce Products Which Meet Content Standards There are a number of firms manufacturing products which meet or exceed the levels of post-consumer materials that we recommend Congress require by the end of the decade. We are confident that other American companies have the know how to meet these standards as well. Newspapers should, on average, contain 60 percent secondary fibers by 1997. The Chicauo Sun-Times and Denver Post use more than 60 percent post-consumer fibers in their newspapers. Plastic manufacturers would be required to achieve a fifty percent utilization rate of recycled resin (for each resin) by 1997. The Northwestern Bottle company claims to use up to 60 percent recycled content in its HDPE bottles. Plastipak has designed a 100 percent recycled plastic bottle made from postconsumer PET collected in bottle bill states. Procter and Gamble packages Spic and Span in these bottles. Printing and writing paper firms should achieve a 20 percent utilization rate by 1997, rising to 60,percent by the year 2007. Legal pads are made from 100 percent post consumer waste, and my testimony is printed on 100 percent post consumer waste copy paper. Enforcement of Utilization Standards Essential For Success Every federal environmental law includes important enforcement provisions to ensure compliance with the law. Without the threat of enforcement, companies have little incentive to comply with the law. And without compliance, there is no environmental protection. Strict enforcement of environmental laws reward the firms which comply with environmental requirements, while penalizing firms that do not meet them. Conversely, weak or no enforcement actually penalizes firms which are doing the right thing. Therefore, the RCRA bill must include enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance with 12 . recycled content standards. We propose a combination of incentives and sanctions to ensure compliance with the utilization rates. Tax incentives sensitive to amortization schedules should be considered for firms which install equipment to reprocess or recycle secondary materials. Investment tax credits and accelerated depreciation allowances could be granted to firms which recycle significant amounts of post-consumer materials. Japan established minimum atfloor@a prices for recycled products to help keep them profitable for their manufacturers. Firms that do not meet the utilization rate for a particular material could be precluded from using this material in its virgin form for packaging. There should also be "negative labeling" requirements so that consumers will know that particular products do not meet minimum federal recycled content requirements. Civil penalties could be levied for violations of the utilization standards, with criminal penalties for willful violations. The RCRA bill must include reporting requirements about virgin and secondary materials use so that the government and citizens have the information necessary to assess recycling efforts. Each facility must report the amount of virgin and secondary material used in a particular product and package. In order to assess the efficiency factors of various recycling technologies, facilities should report the percentage of pre and post consumer waste generated by the utilization" process. GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT WOULD HELP BUILD RECYCLING MARKETS "Recycling efforts will with a recycled content The federal government, products, must lead the not be successful long term if products are not purchased and used by consumers. as a major consumer of all types of way in this effort." -- Thomas Henderson Resource Recovery Office Broward County, Florida Before the Subcommittee on Transportation and and Hazardous Materials April 24, 1991 Government agencies and contractors purchase vast amounts of commodities made of virgin materials. The National Institute of Governmental Purchasing estimates that federal procurement is 78 percent of the Gross National Product (GNP), and state and local procurement is 12-13 percent of GNP. The Federal government purchases ten percent of all the paper in the United States. If the government directs its tremendous purchasing , power towards products made from post-consumer materials, the 13 production and marketing of these products would significantly increase. Section 6002 of RCRA governs government procurement of recycled products. Unfortunately, the federal procurement program has been plagued by delays, ineffective purchasing guidelines, and no enforcement. EPA did not comply with the requirements passed by Congress in 1976 until it lost a law suit in 1987. The government squandered the opportunity to significantly stimulate markets for recycled products through federal procurement. The RCRA bill should include provisions which would require federal and state agencies, and federal contractors, to procure products which are designed for maximum durability, reuse, and made from post-consumer recycled content which conform with aforementioned content standards. Sone recycled products should have a price preference to assist agencies with achieving this result. Congress should require EPA to overhaul current paper guidelines and publish guidelines for construction materials (including asphalt made with old tires), recycled plastic products, and compost made from source separated wastes. To put teeth into procurement, Congress must: require agencies to purchase products that meet specified minimum content standards specified in the aforementioned guidelines; provide price preferences (phased out over time) to insure bids for recycled goods are competitive; and, establish an enforcement mechanism for agencies and contractors that fail to comply with purchasing goals. Reporting and certification are important first steps towards enforcement of the procurement program. In addition, vendors must be required to report and certify the recycled content of items to be offered in bids to government agencies. EPA should be responsible for establishing any procurement requirements not already specified by Congress in the strengthened RCRA law. The Department of Commerce could help implement procurement provisions, but any environmental decisions should be left to the environmental agency rather than to the commerce agency. ENACT SIKORSKI ENVIRONMENTAL CLAIMS BILL TO ASSIST CONSUMERS, REWARD ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCTS The existing labeling requirements for ingredients and 14 nutrition enable consumers to make well informed dietary decisions when they purchase packaged food. Similarly, consumers should have information about the environmental effects of their purchases. Many companies have responded to the desire by consumers to purchase ttgreen*t products by advertising the environmental virtues of their products. Unfortunately, some companies are interested in the public relations value of environmental protection but do not make product or packaging changes, and resort to false or misleading labeling. Congress must prohibit deceptive recycling claims on product labels. All environmental claims should at least meet a clear set of verifiable definitions and standards set by Congress or EPA. For instance, foam cups made by the Dart Container Corporation bear labels which claim that they are "recyclable", even though foam recycling facilities do not exist in many places. The label also claims that the cups IfpreserveOur Trees and Forestsgt, which is technically accurate. It is deceptive, however, because it suggests that a product made from nonrenewable petroleum somehow benefits the environment. On May 22nd, a task force of state attorneys general from 11 states CA, FL, MA, MN, MO, NY, TN, TX, UT, WA, and WI -released "Green Report I I B g calling for strict, national standards for environmental claims about consumer products on labels and in advertising. - The "Environmental Marketing Claims Act of 1991", H.R. 1408, sponsored by Rep. Gerry Sikorski, would protect the public from false claims, and reward honest companies which produce truly "green1@ products by protecting them from competitors which make false claims. It would g require the federal government to directly evaluate claims and issue labels for products. We strongly urge the Subcommittee to include this bill in its comprehensive RCRA legislation. This bill would help build markets for truly recycled products because consumers would be protected from the false claims by firms manufacturing products mostly made from virgin materials. 15 Attachment #1 *CLEAN WATER ACTION*ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION*ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND* *FRIENDS OF THE EARTH*GREENPEACE*IZM WALTON LEAGUE* *NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CHURCHES*NATIONAL TOXICS CAMPAIGN* *NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL*U.S. PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP* *SOUTHWEST RESEARCH AND INFORMATION CENTER*SIERRA CLUB* *WESTERN ORGANIZATION OF RESOURCE COUNCILS* "END THE GARBAGE CRISIS BY MANDATING REUSE AND RECYCLING" SUMMARY The attached proposals represent the consensus positions of the national environmental community for reauthorization of Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). These proposed amendments would reorient solid waste policy towards w a s h reduction, and away from costly, controversial, and inherently unsafe disposal methods. These amendments would achieve these goals by mandating the diversion of each commodity in the waste stream, requiring minimum recycled content standards, establishing minimum packaging efficiency requirements, and requiring other measures to increase the supply and demand for recycled and recyclable materials and commodities. In addition, the proposal calls for a moratorium on the construction of new garbage incinerators : absolute until the vear 2000 and conditional thereafter - - so that the recycling infrastructure necessary for an environmentally sound, economically and energy efficient waste policy can be thoroughly developed. Millions of tons of valuable, domestically available resources contained in America's municipal waste stream are now routinely buried, burned or otherwise made unavailable for use by U . S . industries. Such mis-routing of valuable resources continues to cause environmental impacts of staggering proportions, and perpetuates an inefficient and excessive reliance on non-renewable virgin resources. Because of this "throw away" system", we are losing the opportunity to save millions of barrels of oil, conserve millions of tons of resources, and reduce by millions of tons annually the amount of pollutants (including greenhouse gases) spewed into our environment. At the same time we are wasting billions of dollars on inefficient municipal waste disposal programs that should be spent on enhancing the efficiency of U.S. industries. Fortunately, Congress has a historic opportunity to put resource conservation into the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Federal action to resolve our nation's solid waste crisis is long overdue. Substantial research of the problem points to a very clear solution: Each category of wastes in the municipal solid waste stream has a most environmentally benign treatment and disposal route. RCRA should be amended to require the efficient targeting of materials to their optimal disposal route by requiring the recycling of major waste categories. And it must assist as well in the reduction and development of markets for recycled products. To properly route waste materials to their most benign and efficient treatment or disposal technology, each material category must be in a form that can be separated from other, dissimilar materials. We must also reduce our nation's reliance on costly and controversial waste treatment and disposal technologies such as incinerators and landfills, rejected again and again in communities throughout the U.S. To encourage the transition to a less waste producing economy, we are united in calling for a moratorium in the construction of new municipal waste incinerators. These facilities are necessary only to the extent that designers of consumer products and packaging ignore the disposal impacts of their marketing, passing these off to municipal tax budgets and saddling public officials with controversy. The proposed moratorium would be absolute until the year 2000, s o as to provide a period of time duringwhich source reduction and recycling initiatives can be implemented, and reach fruition unhampered by debates over whether to use additional incineration. Following the year 2000, the moratorium wouldbe lifted only where conditions (described below) are met. These conditions are necessary to ensure the primacy - - IN PRACTICE - - of source reduction and recycling over incineration. Currently, one of the greatest obstacles to effective recycling in the U.S. is the composition of consumer products: very few are designed for re-use or recycling. Moreover, the manufacture and use of virtually all consumer products relies on the use of some (usually many) toxic or potentially toxic chemicals that hamper benign recycling or disposal. This too serves to perpetuate industrial inefficiencies and adds as well to the burdens borne by the taxpaying American consumer. Indeed, last year alone America consumed the equivalent of almost twice the amount of oil ever imported in a single year from Iraq and Kuwait combined just to produce packaging wastes. And then we paid again to send these largely non-recyclable wastes to landfills and incinerators. The proposals that follow are designed to help remedy these municipal solid waste problems. But if adopted these will not be adequate to the larger task at hand. Additional initiatives to reduce even greater hazardous discharges from our manufacturing sector requires reform of RCRA's Subtitle C and other Subtitles as well. As with the Subtitle D initiatives that follow, our recommendations for Subtitle Cwill emphasize pollution prevention (such as toxics use reduction and a ban or phase out of highly toxic or persistent chemicals) and a move away from costly and controversial end-of-the-pipe waste treatment and disposal technologies. We will submit to you our recommendations for these under a separate cover. As always, we look forward to meeting with you and your colleagues to design an optimal implementation strategy for the task at hand. .................................. (NOTE: What follows is not listed in priority order.) 1. Materials Use Reduction: Proposal to reduce the costs of disposing of packagingwastes and establish an efficiency requirement for a currently unregulated technology (packaging). 2 a. Establish Dackaging efficiencv standards: Effective January 1994, no consumer item shall be offered for sale or for promotional purposes by its manufacturer, distributor or retailer in the U.S. which includes less than 90% product or more than 10% packaging and packing material. [Exemptions] [The following shall be exempt] a. b. c. d. e. Consumer items with a code indicating that they were manufactured, distributed or offered for sale by a retailer prior 1 January 1994; Consumer items with refillable/reusable packaging; Consumer items with packages that serve as a storage container for non-depletable products between uses; Consumer items containing only empty pottery, glass or ceramic products: Consumer items with a total volume of packaging, packing material and product amounting to less than 16 square inches (3.5" x 1.5" x 3") 266 cc ( 9 cm x 3.8 cm x 7.7 cm); 2. Facilitate the recovery and re-use of bulky metallics. autos and beverage containers: Proposal to increase the recycling and re-use of large consumer items and beverage containers. a. Mandate a National "Take-it-Back" Program for all vendors of laree aDpliances and motorized vehicles of anv sort: Require that all retail establishments that market consumer appliances and motorized vehicles (autos, lawnmowers, snowmobiles, etc.) provide for the return of the items and direct these to recycling facilities. Disposal fees on the products may be collected in advance. b. Establish a national deDosit on all beveraee containers: Allow states to opt out of a national deposit program only if they are achieving an average 70% recovery rate for all their beverage containers, but otherwise require that this effective container recovery program be established nationally. c. Rewire that all beveraee containers of a specific size be of a standardized color and form: To facilitate refilling, mandate that all bottlers adopt the same type of 3 program now in place in Japan for at least 30% of their bottles. This will allow any bottler to refill bottles produced by another manufacturer because the size and shape of the container is standardized. 3 . Promote a reduction in the use of toxic or potentially toxic chemicals in consumer products: Proposal to assist the consumer in making environmentally favorable purchases and encourage manufacturers to reduce the use of toxic materials in their product lines: a. Reauire: owners and operators of solid waste management and disposal facilities such as landfills and incinerators [SIC Code 49531 to file annual reports with EPA and the States detailing point and non-point discharges to air, water (including stormwater) and land of the toxic chemicals listed under 40 C.F.R. Ch. 1 $ 372.65 In addition to the chemicals listed in this section, require reporting of environmental discharges of the following additional chemicals: dioxins, furans, polycyclic organic matter, products of incomplete combustion, benzo(a)pyrene and radionuclides; Require EPA to computerize this information in the Toxic Release Inventory, and make the information available to the public via computer telecommunications and other means. b. Reauire a household hazardous waste labelling uroeram: Mandate that shelf labels be posted in the immediate vicinity of hazardous products to warn of hazards and to suggest non-hazardous alternatives. c. Reauire toxics in consumer uroducts information reuortinr: Mandate that manufacturers report how much of any toxic or potentially toxic chemical is used in the manufacture or processing of consumer products or packaging. Indicate how much of these toxic chemicals wind up in consumer products. d. Reauire reductions in the use of toxics materials in consumer eoods; Adopt as Federal law the Coalition of Northeastern Governors model toxics reduction bill (now law in eight states) that bans the addition of lead, cadmium, mercury and hexavalent chromium to all consumer goods packaging. Require that the EPA set a time schedule for eliminating these problem metals from all durable consumer goods as well. Ban the use of mercury in all household batteries and latex paints, limit the use of volatile organics in paints and set a schedule for a phase out of chlorine bleaching in the pulp and paper industry. e. Reauire recvclable utilization reuortine: 4 Require all facilities that use materials in designated material categories in amounts in excess of 10.000 lbs. to annually file a materials use accounting report for each material category. The material use accounting report shall specify the total amount in pounds of each materials category used at the facility and the following components of use: i. ii. iii. the amount consumed in the production process; the amount shipped off-site in products, and; the amount shipped off-site as wastes. For the amount of each material category used, the manufacturer must distinguish what percentages of the materials used were derived from virgin, pre-consumer or post-consumer sources. 4 . Nurture End Markets for Recycled Materials: Proposal to address what is perhaps the most important requirement for successful recycling: market demand for recycled products. a. Establish a recycled materials content standards mandate in RCRA: POST CONSUMER CONTENT ONLY: Paper: News : Printing and writing: Linerboard: Boxboard: Tissue: Coated groundwood: Corrugating medium: Bleached kraft: Solid unbleached kraft: 60% by 1997; 20% by 1997; 40% by 2002; 60% by 2007; 50% by 1997; 80% by 1997; 100% by 1997; 50% by 1997 60% by 1997 20% by 1997; 40% by 2 0 0 2 ; 60% by 2007; 50% by 1997; For all plastics used in packaging and non-durable products: HDPE: PET: LDPE: PVC : Styrene: Polypropylene : 50% by 50% by 50% by 50% by 50% by 50% by 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 For all glass containers: For all steel containers: All aluminum: 50% by 1997 60% by 1997 60% by 1997 In addition to the plastic content standards described above the EPA should be required to establish content standards for less prominent plastic resins not listed here and new plastic products as they evolve. 5 b Reouire that consumer eoods uackaeine be made of recvcled materials: Effective January 1, 1996, all facilities that manufacture packaging, finished materials destinedto be used inpackaging, or disposable products must on an annual basis achieve no less than a 35% utilization rate by weight of post consumer materials for each designated material category used in such packaging, finished materials, and disposable products. Effective January 1, 2001, all facilities that manufacture packaging, finishedmaterials destined to be used inpackaging, or disposable products must on an annual basis achieve no less than a 50% utilization rate by weight of post consumer materials for each designated material category used in such packaging, finished materials, and disposable products. [Reusable packaging is exempt. Determination of compliance with this subsection shall be based on the information provided in annual material use accounting reports specified in section xx. The utilization amount is equal to the total amount of secondary material incorporated into the finished product. ] c. Establish a virpin materials tax; Require a $50 per ton fee on the use of all materials acquired (mined, harvested) from virgin sources that are used in the processing of raw materials or the manufacture of finished consumer goods, for a wide ranee of materials: Require that the federal government (or grant recipients) procure from all government contractors commodities designed for maximum durability, reuse and (post-consumer) recycled content (to conform with content standards proposed in 2a above). Also include procurement requirements for less toxic commodities. Include bi-annual reporting requirements which include information/specs on durability and recycled content. Establish price preferences assist in achieving the desired result. 5 . Regulate Environmental Claims: Proposal to protect environmental claims: the consumer from mis-leading or deceptive a. Reouire that all environmental labels be based on a set of clear and verifiable definitions and standards: (See, for example, S. 615 [Lautenberg’s labelling initiative]) 6 . Permitting and use of municipal solid waste management facilities, including landfills, incinerators and composting units: Proposal to: A. Assure the use of the most environmentally benign management technologies for all materials found in the municipal waste stream; B. Provide the material specific information necessary to properly assess the correct technology, size, cost and labor requirements appropriate to any treatment or disposal facilityunder consideration,and; 6 C . Assure that those most immediately affected by the siting of a facility approve its location. All existing landfills and incinerators must get their permits renewed by 1994. Moreover, no locality, state govement, authority or any other jurisdiction seeking to use, permit or renew a permit for a solid waste facility can do so unless it has met the following requirements: a. Reouire waste comuosition analyses: All localities must be required to publish waste a composition analysis at least once every five years. Such an analysis should be oriented towards identifying all materials in the municipal solid waste stream to maximize the diversion of materials for re-use, repair and recycling. No permit shall be issued for any solid waste landfill, incinerator, or composting unit prior to the issuance of a waste composition analysis. All permitting processes for the above mentioned facilities shall require that waste composition analyses be published and subject to public review. b. Mandate materials diversion for recvcline: Require that (a) each municipality in the state and (b) any other jurisdiction, government or authority organized for the purpose of constructing, operating or using a municipal solid waste landfill or incinerator) divert away fromsuch incinerator (includingawaste-to-energy landfill or incinerator: 65% of 65% of 80% of 50% of 90% of 10% of all all all all all all glass; papers; metals; plastics; yard wastes: food wastes; No permit shall be issued to any solid waste management system until: A. localities planning -to use such a facility have achieved the above diversion rates, and B. it can demonstrated that reliance on such a facility will not interfere with maintaining the diversion rates listed above : c. Mandate a uublic review and auuroval urocess for all waste manavement facilities : Require a full public participation process (hearings, community oversight boards, etc) to review any proposed facility. As part of the proces, the applicant must provide a technical assistance grant of $100,000to the local community group(s) reviewing the project proposal; Require that the local community must agree to host the facility. No facility can be sited in a community that does not want the facility; d. Mandate: that the proposed facility will not harm public health or the environment, including a demonstration that the facility will not increase the levels of pollutants in the food chain: e . Mandate: a demonstration that the full cost of the facility over its entire l i f e (including, but not limited to capital costs, debt service, liability 7 insurance, environmental remediation and lifetime operation and maintenance) will be less costly than alternative waste management strategies; f. Mandate: a demonstration that it is not feasible to manage by waste reduction, re-use, recycling or composting any waste stream proposed to be sent to a landfill or incinerator. 7 . Mandate a moratorium in the permitting, construction or expansion of garbage incinerators until the year 2000: Prohibit EPA from issuing any permit to construct any facility designed to combust municipal solidwaste (not includingmedical waste incinerators) until the year 2000. After the year 2000, no locality, state, authority o r other jurisdiction formed for the purpose of disposing of wastes can permit, construct or expand an incinerator unless 8 6a-6fabove are satisfied: 8 . Prohibit the incineration of unsuitable materials: Ban the incineration of at least the following materials and products which contribute to the volume and toxicity of air emissions and ash residue: -construction debris -household and lead acid batteries -PVC plastics andplastics containingmetals used as apigment, coloring agent or stabilizer, as labelled in sec. -yard wastes -tires -specified household hazardous wastes -consumer electronics 9. Enhance the management of incinerator ash: i . Regulate ash from existing incinerators as a hazardous waste under Subtitle C of RCRA; ii. iii The ash should be deposited in a monofill used only for incinerator ash; The monofill must meet minimal technical requirements for hazardous waste landfills (e.g., dduble composite liner systems with dual leachate collection systems); Existing facilities should comply with the above standards within three years; Prohibit any utilization of incinerator ash. iv . V. 10. Standardize waste management costing and capacity measurements: Establish nationally consistent costing criteria and guidelines. This should include a standard methodology for States to measure, by volume, 8 a, weight, and/or British thermal units, as appropriate, the waste management capacity of landfills, recycling facilities (including intermediate processing facilities for recyclable andend-usemanufacturing facilities), and incinerators: and criteria for assessing the life-cycle costs and costeffectiveness of recycling; incineration and landfilling, including,inter the costs of environmental remediation, capital costs, debt service, insurance liabilities, etc. 11. No Federal overrides: Provisions for any override of local zoning ordinances to site solid waste facilities must be avoided and would be unprecedented. 9 .~ ".._,~ ...J ..-... 1 The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act I."- 'bv-+v,v\ ' 6 .~, ~ ' ' , ' ' ' Why Congress Must Act Now very hour of every day, Ainericans use up 2.5 million plastic bottles - most of which w i l l be . . thrown into the trash. In just one 24-hour period, the United States generates an average of four pounds of garbage for every man, woman, and child. Over the course of a year, our nation produces a staggering 534 million tons of hazardous waste. And the problem i s getting worse by the minute. According to projections by the Environmental Protection Agency, the amount of garbage will rise substantially by the ye:^ 2000. The EPA also reports thiit we are generating hazardous waste at a Rite niorc than double that of a decade ago. These frowing mountains nf garbage and hnzirdouc \vuste are reaching crisis r proportions. Unless we act now to limit our production of waste. dispozal and cont;iniin;ition problems could soon mushroom out of control -. i 4 e ,. _c . . c . t \ . II I Up, U p how daily garbage generated per person is growing - But Not Away ion Dei As Americans generate more and more trash, disposal and contamination problems inctease as well. Instead of burning and burying -which carry substantial long-term risks i A Chance for Change Both garbage and hamrdous \v:istc have lons-l:isling d l c c t s . Wxte i s not elimin:itcd by "dispohal" in 3 I:indCill or I 3 z I - we must begin to reduce our production of gar. bageandhazardous waste. ous waste provisions of RCRA must be strengthened during the 102nd Congress, Reducing Waste: A Sierra Club Platform for Congress General recommendations Preserve the rightof states to enact waste laws stricter than federal statutes Dispose of waste close to its source of generation m Bolster the public's "right to know" about waste in their com'munities IEnd the unfair burden faced by minority and low-income communities in waste facility siting Give Native American tribes the authority to administer waste laws I Recycling Waste Faced with the vast quantities of $arbage generated by our "throwaway society," we have come to depend on inherentl y dangerous methods o f disposal. More and more cities dispose of their trash by burning i t in incinerators. But incinerators often release highly toxic substances -including lead. mercury, and dioxin -from their stacks and i n the leftover ash. This toxic ash i s often disposed of in unprotected landfills. Burying refuse i n landfills presents hazards o f its own. Material in municipal landfills contains hazardous waste from incinerator ash and. other dangerous substances. These toxics can leach out o f landfills and contaminate groundwater. A better way to handle waste i s to recycle it. Yet we recycle only one-tenth of the garbage we produce: the rate for plastic i s 1 percent. Our goal must be to divert a l l appropriate waste material from disposal and toward recycling. The collection of recyclable materials must be followed up by re-inserting them into the manufacturing process. Replacing virgin raw materials with secondary ones can produce significant energy savings. Recycling a single aluminum can. for example. can save enough electricity to run a T V for three hours. Increased recognition o f these economic advantages should encourage development of industrial markets for recyclables. Beyond that, we must actively develop markets for used niaterials by I N U I ~ ~ U Ithat ~ I ' I I products contain i\ specified percenrage o f recycled content. Government procurement of recycled-content poods would also help to stimulate these markets. . Solutions to our garbage crisis a moratorium on.the construction ofnew garbage incinerators Regulate garbage incinerator ash as a hazardous waste =Require maximum recycling of all material in the waste stream Implement "materials use reduction" (e.g., in packaging) Assist the development of markets for recycled products m Establish minimum recycled-content standards for paper, newspaper, plastics, and other materials I Strengthen environmental protection requirements for landfills Establish a national deposit system for beverage containers Solutions to our hazardous waste'crisis .'Place a moratorium on !he construction of new hazardous waste incinerators Implement toxics use reduction, including a ban or phase-out of the most harmful loxics, and the development of safe alternatives m Expand regulatory coverage of hazardous wastes and close loopholes I Significantly tighten regulation of the disposal of oil. gas, and mining wastes Strengthen regulation of disposal technologies, including underground injection wells and the burning of waste in industrial facilities IEnforce compliance by federal facilities with our waste laws by enacting the Mitchell and Eckart-Schaefer Federal Facilities Compliance bills IPlace Enforcing Tosics Laws llazardous waste generation by intlustry poses serious threats to tlie enviroiiment and public hexltli. Due IO unrcgulated or under-regulated disposnl metl~ods. toxic cheniiciils are routinely poisiiiiing our air. our water. iind our Innd. Hazardous uasle i s meant to he r e p I:itcd under RCRA. Yet many \V:I\IC~ kniiwn to he h;iz:iriliius are not trcalcd iis such under our federal waste law. Such loopholes must be closed. Also, producers o f oil. gas. and mining wastes must be made to dispose o f these wastes safely. Stricter regulation i s also needed for hazardous waste incineration and other disposal technologies. Many toxic components of hazardous waste are simply spewed into the air or concentrated in the bottom ash. The most c1imnion iorm o f I i i i ~ i i r d o i i ~ waste disposal. undergrnund dccpwell injectiiin. escapes a l l but (lie mo\t IiiarCiniil rcgul:ition. I n d u ~ ~ r ifix li l i t i c s iiru illso i pernii~~eil hurn toxic uiistes with l i t t l e to re:uI;i~io~i. The hest solution 111 1i:izardiiiis write diqm:il prohlclns i\ t o keep geiicr~t'ion and use ~i cheiiiiciils to : iiiinimuiii. toxic I Indu~try hiiilil he nude to dcvcliip :uid iniplciiicnt inie:iningiul plans to reduce depenilence on Ioxics. fi hon or pliaseiiut of Ihe m o s l il;ingernus suhst:inccs :uid llic development of safe alternatives iiiust be tlie comerstones of this effort. One way to guxmtee reductions in toxics use i s to strengthen the public's "right to know." The more we know about toxics gener:ition and use in our own communities. the more we tire able lo control c~iissioiis from nearby f;stories and waste disposal facilities. The federal gwernmcnt should he Ic:iiling the \ray i n toxic'\ use reduction :ind respiin>ihle waste ni;iii:yenicnt. Yet icdeml iiuclear \\ e:ipons p1:uits. ;iniong the iiiost flagrant \ k i l ~ i t o d tlic niitioii's r~ pollh:i/.iirdous w : w h , s . hilvc csc;~pr.d i\limcnk. 'I'Iie EPA xnd h e st:ites I i i u s i Ii:w ilic ;iuthorit? IO eniorce full coiiiplix i c e with U.S. U:ISIC I:nvs. Oiily hy streriyliening RCR,\ - the I