Page images
PDF
EPUB

the Petroleum Packaging Committee have grave doubts that modified 18 gauge drums would conserve energy or money. In fact, limited usage of 20/18 gauge drums

versus 18 guage shows very little difference in cost per drum and a very substantial increase in total cost when reconditioning is considered.

The other opinion of SSCI's appearance in your office was that they only wished to indicate the creation of a new container which was 20 gauge through out and that some of the present users of drums might find a use for this type container.

Mr. Arthur Nides was contacted by telephone by two of our members during the meeting and he explained the latter interpretation was intended. Were this the case, it would be all together commendable since it might serve well as a one trip sale and would not be subjected to reuse.

If SSCI expressed the latter development to be their reason for seeing you, then one might question why detailed changes to current specifications for standard 55-gallon drums were included in their agenda.

I believe this letter reflects the actual reaction which occured in the Petroleum Packaging Committee meeting on February 25, 1974.

Respectfully yours,

CJH:br

bcc: Mr. L. J. Osborne Mr. J. A. Osborn

Mr. J. W. Jackson

Mr. Dave Darling
Mr. Andrew Grant

bcc: LL

Carl J. Hansen, Chairman
Petroleum Packaging Committee

[blocks in formation]

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, litter on our streets and highways, and in our parks and recreation areas, in our countryside, is of national concern. In response, several States have passed legislation concerning this public-arousing problem, legislation directed at beverage containers-beer and soft drink containers, bottles, and cans.

The concept of "throwaway"-"use and discard"-has now been extended to 55-gallon steel drums. In effect, the steel drum manufacturing industry has created a 55-gallon beer can and the cost of disposal has been transferred from the private or industrial waste disposal cycle to potentially public, solid waste disposal systems.

Since its formation in 1963, the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution has received extensive testimony and considerable information concerning the potential environmental problems associated with solid waste disposal. The culmination of this effort was the enactment of the Resource Recovery Act of 1970. I had the responsibility to chair the Senate-House conference on this needed legislation.

During these hearings, a great deal of emphasis was placed on the recycling of containers and, especially, the land pollution and esthetic problems caused by the increased use of throwaway beer cans and soft drink bottles. Another major area of discussion was the problem of abandoned automobile hulks, which are not only a menace to the beauty of our countrysides, but also are a waste of natural resources.

The concept of reuse received little emphasis during those hearings; most of the expert witnesses presented testimony on how recycling could be employed to accomplish major gains in the fight against pollution. Yet the concept of reuse, whether encouraged by public policy through the establishment of disincentives, as proposed by Senators NELSON and JAVITS, or by production controls, was not fully explored. The idea of disincentives, as was pointed out at that time, would naturally require action by the Senate Finance Committee. That does not, however, preclude a proper discussion of disincentives before the proper environmental committees of the Congress so that they can acquire the background they need to carry out their responsibilities.

During the next 2 years, the Public Works Committee will initiate hearings that will shape future public policy regarding the reuse and recovery of resources. It is my purpose at this time to call attention to the fact that a complete review and analysis will be made in these hearings of the potential for reuse of products and containers as a means for conserving our disappearing natural resources, as well as a means for effective environmental quality management.

One facet of the reuse concept was alluded to in my prefacing remarks. In 1970 the committee received a letter from the National Barrel and Drum Association-NBADA-a trade association with over 150 members who operate plants that clean 55-gallon steel drums so that they may be reused over and over again-volume IV, beginning at page 2125. In its letter, the association commented that it is, after all, "a service industry; it does not manufacture new drums, it has no voice in the policymaking of those who do. It exists only to receive the used drum and to prepare it for reuse."

The drum reconditioning industry had its real growth during a period of national awareness of the dangers of destroying our natural resources. During World War II, and the Korean war, the War Production Board and the National Production Authority issued rules that made it impossible to buy new drums unless the user had made every effort to use already manufactured drums until their useful life had been exhausted. Only then could he buy new drums.

Now, we have come full cycle. The new steel drum manufacturing industry has moved into the production of nonreturnable steel drums that have limited reuse capability. I must question the implication of this practice for resource conservation and, even more specifically, its consistency with the aims and objectives of the public policy enunciated in the Resource Recovery Act of 1970.

In the New York Times, on January 2, 1971, there was a story from Anchorage, Alaska, that started out as follows:

In Alaska the main litter problem is not empty beer cans but discarded oil drums. At Barrow on the Arctic coast, about 48,000 of the metal barrels are scattered about the tundra. In the winter, these barrels are frozen into the soll or ponds and covered with snow. In the summer, the tundra thaws to a soggy consistency that makes it impracti

[blocks in formation]

This is the "environmental decade" and the drum reconditioner satisfies an important environmental function. When drums are left to rot, they contain residue of acid, paint, or chemical, which ultimately are released into the environment. The drum reconditioner performs the first step in abating this potential environmental problem when he cleans the residue out of used drums. At that time, he collects the residue and sludge deposits in the drum and disposes of it in accordance with developing environmental practices.

The traditional standard 18-gage steel drum can be reused over and over again for as many as 10 or 15 times. A lighter weight, 20/18-gage drum can usually be reconditioned two or three times. However, a lighter-weight, new-type drum, known as 24-gage or Monostress, has now been put on the market as an intended "throw-away" or a "single use" drum. After one use, it has no further functional value. If society is lucky, these drums will end up in a scrap yard where they can be recycled, but even then the disposal cost must be borne by the taxpayer.

At other times, however, it may very well end up as an unsightly 55-gallon blot on our Nation's countryside.

I have used the analysis of the steel drum to illustrate the need for the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution to take a close look at the concept of reuse, both as it relates to the conservation of our national resources and as a valuable tool for enlarging the effort to protect the world in which we live.

Prior to hearings next year, the Public Works Committee intends to review business practices which encourage singleuse consumer products such as the steel drum. The committee also will provide for Federal guidelines which will serve as disincentives to such practices in order that the public interest can best be served.

Just imagine, if you can, a six-pack of 55-gallon "throw-away" cans.

[graphic][merged small][merged small]

Congressional Record

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 924 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION

WASHINGTON, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1971

House of Representatives

No. 163

THROWAWAY STEEL BARRELS ADD ronmental eyesore. The Chicago Sun

TO SOLID WASTE POLLUTION

HON. ABNER J. MIKVA

OF ILLINOIS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, November 1, 1971 Mr. MIKVA. Mr. Speaker, numerous proposals have been introduced for the purpose of taxing one-way or "throwaway" containers. These proposals are in response to a problem that has increased in recent years, and has constituted one of the most important sources of solid waste pollution today. Society has grown accustomed to the luxury of "throwaway" containers, and finds it difficult to move back to containers that can be returned in order to be reused.

After introducing H.R. 6975, which was directed toward the use of returnable and nonreturnable beverage containers, I became aware of another type of one-time container which poses an equal obstacle to our efforts to clean up the environment: The steel barrel.

Fifty-five gallon oil drums are a serious litter problem. Over a year ago, the New York Times carried a story entitled "Oil Drums Litter Coast in Alaska," pointing out that 48,000 metal barrels were lying about in the tundra. In the winter, they freeze into the earth. Each spring, the earth thaws and thousands of drums settle into the soggy countryside. As they rust and decompose, they create a long term health hazard as well as an envi

Times recently carried a dramatic pic-
ture of rusting oil drums creating a sim-
ilar eyesore in the Little Calumet River
in Illinois. These stories, and others like
them, have begun to make the public
more aware of the pollution problem in-
volved in the disposal of the millions of
drums that enter the market each year
for industrial use.

One organization makes recycling and
reusing barrels its business. The National
Barrel & Drum Association-Nabada-
represents over 150 drum reconditioners
throughout the United States. Recently,
representatives of the association have
brought to my attention the parallel be-
tween reusable beverage containers and
reusable oil drums.

Proposed legislation has been directed primarily toward encouraging the use of returnable soft drink bottles. But consideration has not been given to returnable steel drums. The normal commercial 55gallon steel drum is made of 18-gage metal. Technically, this means that its sidewalls have a nominal thickness of 0.0478 inch, and a minimum wall thickness of 0.0428 inch. These drums are used throughout industry and once used, they are picked up by the reconditioners who clean them and make them available for reuse. The average 18-gage steel drum, according to those in the reconditioning business, makes an average of 10 cycles through the reconditioner.

The steel industry has seen fit to introduce a lighter weight 20/18 gage

drum. These drums are thinner, and can only be used two or three times before being discarded. Even then, they have less scrap value than the heavier version, and are less likely to be melted down for further recycling. Recently an even lighter drum has been developed which cannot be reused at all, and is discarded after its first use.

It is readily apparent that the utilization of these lighter weight drums produce an increased burden on our environment. Such lightweight drums are discarded and left to become a burden on society. Cost figures show that the slight saving in buying the lightweight drums is more than offset when the barrel's shorter life is taken into account. Reconditioners readily purchase and redeliver the 18-gage drums, whereas the lighter weight varieties pile up in the backyards of factories, without value, creating an enormous disposal problem.

No one stands to gain from the use of these lightweight drums, except the manufacturers who obviously profit from their planned obsolescence. I, therefore, intend to amend H.R. 6975 in order to provide financial incentives, comparable to those applied to soft drink containers, to promote the use of returnable steel barrels. It is my hope that Congress will give prompt consideration to such legislative efforts which will help stem the tide of increasing solid waste pollution generated by the use of throwaway containers of all kinds.

Mark O. Hatfield

Sign In

Can the American people reverse the drift toward a Throwaway Society? Throwaway containers littering the roadside should be repugnant reminders of how little society cares about wanton depletion of its energy resources or helping curtail the overwhelming solid waste/litter problem. The beverage container area provides a challenge to reject the throwaway ethic spawned by the idolatry of technology. The problem is definable in scope. It can be examined and more importantly--it can be solved.

The people of Oregon have responded enthusiastically to this challenge, and the opportunity now exists for the rest of the country to do the same. One year ago the Oregon Legislature picked out an identifiable segment of the "make it, use it, discard it" attitudenonreturnable beverage containers-and banned their sale in Oregon. No flip-top snap-tab cans, no throwaway bottles, a deposit required on all bottled and non-tab canned beverages. The Oregon law has cut litter drastically and saved energy. Because of its success, national legislation is pending in Congress to implement a national "bottle bill."

A national ban on the sale of nonreturnable beverage containers would help reverse the counterecological trends that have paralleled the technology explosion of the past two decades. Our increased reliance on technology has been displacing products and processes that fit in with the cycles of nature. To rescue nature, we then have had to apply "environmental technology" in place of natural processes. This displacement and duplication is a crippling economic handicap. Ecological cycles should actually supplement our energy supply, and it is tragic that we have allowed the relationship to be turned around. Beverage packaging is only one example of this pattern. The handling of sewage is another.

In the case of sewage, much energy is currently going into developing technologies to protect lakes, rivers and oceans from the wastes dumped into them. These wastes, however, are themselves rich sources of chemical energy capable of being recycled into the farmlands from which the nutrients came. They could replace much of the fertilizer now produced from fossil fuels and eliminate the need for energy-expensive tertiary sewage treatment.

Mark Hatfield, Republican senator from Oregon, is sponsor of a bill pending in the Senate to ban the sale of nonreturnable beverage containers nationwide.

Waste Equals a Mass of Energy

A similar attitude is reflected by recent ads in which large bottle and can manufacturers encourage recycling their throwaways, although the increased energy use should be obvious. In fact, one study shows it takes over three times the energy to bottle a gallon of beer in throwaway containers than in returnable ones. Still, modern man appears to believe it is better to "solve" the problem by energy-expensive recycling rather than avoiding it by using returnable containers to begin with.

The national energy savings from banning throwaways would be substantial. An environmental group in Washington has calculated the savings to equal the electrical needs of 9.1 million Americans for one year, or the gasoline for 1.5 million cars averaging 10 mpg to travel 10,000 miles, or the natural gas to heat 2 million three-bedroom homes for eight months.

Each time an empty beer can or soft drink bottle is thrown away, the energy used in its manufacture also is discarded. In fact, the energy waste is so great that throwing away a 12-ounce aluminum beverage can is like throwing it away half full of gasoline-the equivalent of energy used in its production.

While saving energy offers an au courant impetus for banning throwaways, the dramatic reduction in litter in Oregon provides another reason. Some 90 million beverage containers will be produced this year-some 450 per person-and most of that total will be thrown away. Even putting aside the ethics of a Throwaway Society for the moment, the solid waste problem of disposing of these cans and bottles is staggering. Also, as supermarket dollars buy less and less, consumers should remember they are paying a "throwaway tax," sometimes as much as 25 percent more than for returnable containers. While the consumer pays only a fraction of the returnable container cost, the throwaway purchaser pays the entire cost. Added to this is a disposal cost, and sometimes a roadside litter cleanup cost.

While we are the enemy today, we can be part of the solution tomorrow. To do less than solve this problem would be to submit to the tyranny of technology. To solve the problems caused by throwaway beverage containers would be to signal that society can place critical values-ethical and econom ic-in their proper perspective. The American people must reject the flip-top snap-tab Throwaway Society, and banning nonreturnable beverage containers is a needed first step.

[blocks in formation]

FIRST REFORT TO CONGRESS:

RESOURCE RECOVERY AND SOURCE REDUCTION

TABLE 5

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT COMPARISON FOR 1,000 TONS OF STEEL PRODUCT*

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

*Source: Midwest Research Institute, Economic studies in support of policy formation on resource recovery. Unpublished report to the Council on Environmental Quality, 1972.

+ Negative number represents a decrease in that category resulting from recycling.

« PreviousContinue »