stone's purchase of these credits from them, and Goodyear might then use that money to further develop its recycling activities. Is that basically the way it works? Mr. TORRES. That is correct. That's just one option. Firestone has to meet the recycling content but it doesn't have to get into the buying of crumb rubber to put into their new tire production, they can simply buy the credits from Goodyear, as you indicated, to fulfill their requirement. So, again, what you have done is you have created a price for that commodity which was scrap heretofore and you have a new income stream and you're reducing the waste stream. Senator CHAFEE. It is my understanding that with the advent of the radial tires that, one, there is very little retreading done these days, except perhaps for some truck tires, and two, that so far anyway there is no way to use old tires in creating new tires. Mr. TORRES. But there are many different facets of what happens to an old tire. You don't have to obtain the rubber that's used there to create a new tire, as you indicated in some cases, you can't, but you can chop up the tire and you can use it for fuel, as it is used today. In the legislation, that receives a half credit. That receives not as high a credit as chopping up the tire and making it into powder again, but it receives a half credit. So that gets the tire out of the waste stream. Moreover, you can remove the radial metal strands that are in a old tire magnetically, that is being done, and that crumb rubber can be used for other purposes to create other things that are rubber content-floor mats, hoses, all forms of rubber produced items. Senator CHAFEE. We had some folks from California here from your Department of Transportation that are indicating that they've done some interesting work in using rubber mixing with asphalt to make roads. Your folks from California testified and were very encouraging. Mr. TORRES. This is correct, Senator Chafee. That is a good use for used tires, reducing it to a powder form, combining it with asphalt, with bituminous asphalt, to pave roads, to pave airstrips. Today, at this time, it is an expensive process but that is only because the process isn't refined. Once you start reducing tire piles by utilizing the tires for this process, you bring down the price of that operation. Senator CHAFEE. Well, thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator BAUCUs. Thank you very much, Senator Chafee. Senator DURENBERGER. Senator DURENBERGER. I have no questions. I compliment the Congressman. Mr. TORRES. Thank you. And I compliment you, too, for saying the audience was so young. [Laughter.] Senator DURENBERGER. You're in that category. Senator BAUCUS. Senator Lieberman. Senator LIEBERMAN. I have no questions. I wanted to thank the Congressman for his imaginative ideas. And I want to give some encouragement to Senator Durenberger. I think there may be two or three people out there that may be as old as you are. [Laughter.] Senator CHAFEE. I would just like to ask Senator Lieberman one quick question while we're on this subject of tires. Is that facility up and running yet in the eastern border of your State where they have got a mammoth tire burning plant? Senator LIEBERMAN. It is being tested but it is not up and running yet. I know that the wind blows over toward Rhode Island from there, so you have a particular- Senator CHAFEE. Well, we weren't very enthusiastic about it. Senator LIEBERMAN. I know. It is blowing that way right now. [Laughter.] Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman and member of the committee, if I could just indulge for one more second. All the items that you raised, Senator Chafee, the paving and the using of tires for that, or any process generates credits. Those credits have a monetary value and can be used by the manufacturers to offset their legislative demands. Senator BAUCUs. Might I inquire, are you aware of any other countries that have this credit trading system? Mr. TORRES. Yes, West Germany and France both have it. Senator BAUCUS. With the minimum content? Mr. TORRES. Yes, indeed. Senator BAUCUS. What percent? Mr. TORRES. I'm not sure of the percentage at this point, but I know that Senator BAUCUS. Well, we can find that out. I was just curious. Mr. TORRES. My staff tells me that in West Germany the recycling of oil is about at an 85 percent level. Senator BAUCUS. So there is a credit trading system with a minimum content requirement for both tires and used oil? Mr. TORRES. That's just oil. Senator BAUCUS. OK. Just oil? Mr. TORRES. At this point, just oil. Senator BAUCUs. Thank you very much for your contribution. Senator BAUCUS. OK. Next is a panel consisting of Janet Stevens, who is the county commissioner of Missoula County, Missoula, Montana; Louise Durfee, director of Department of Environmental Management, State of Rhode Island; Fred Hansen, director of Department of Environmental Quality, State of Oregon; Diana Gale, director of Solid Waste Utility of Seattle; and Steven Pollan, commissioner of Department of Sanitation, City of New York. Senator CHAFEE. Mr. Chairman, while they're getting in place, I know that you've got another appointment to take you away temporarily. I can be here for another hour, but I would hope that we could observe the five-minute rule. Senator BAUCUs. Yes, we plan to. I want to inform each witness that we will now operate under a five-minute rule. That is, when your testimony begins, a green light comes on; when there is 1 minute remaining, the amber light goes on; and when time is up, the red light will go on. OK. I first would like to introduce Commissioner Janet Stevens from Missoula County. Members of this committee and others in the room here should know that Missoula County is very unique. We have three county commissioners in Missoula County and all three are women and they are doing an excellent job. Janet has been the county commissioner for many, many years. She has come a long way, and I can personally testify that it is not easy to fly to and from Montana and Washington, D.C., and we're very happy to have Janet here. She also has been very active on this subject of recycling. And I might add, that Missoula County also has been in the forefront due in large respect to Janet's efforts. Janet, we're very happy to have you here. Please proceed. STATEMENT OF JANET STEVENS, COUNTY COMMISSIONER, MISSOULA COUNTY, MISSOULA, MT Ms. STEVENS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to testify on issues concerning municipal solid waste recycling contained in S. 976. My name is Janet Stevens and I am an elected county commissioner from Missoula County, Montana, which has a population of approximately 78,000. In Missoula, we also have the distinction of being a part of the largest Superfund site in the United States and are keenly aware of what improper disposal of solid waste can do to our sole source aquifer that's been federally designated. I would hate to see us wait 100 years until other kinds of solid waste create the same kind of problems that we face now with our Superfund site. The National Association of Counties has supported a multifaceted system that includes recycling. Because our counties' sizes, populations, geography, locations, and public versus private operations vary drastically, it is critical that any regulatory and statutory procedures allow flexibility at the local level for the development of these disposal options. Successful recycling is dependent upon stable markets for recyclable material that must be established with assurances that reliable prices will be paid. Counties do not have the wherewithal to develop any method that would significantly impact the recycling market. In order to spur efforts to collect and reuse recyclables, the Federal Government must commit to: One, a tough Federal procurement that establishes price references for and requires agencies and contractors to purchase recycled goods; Two, they must commit to minimum recyclable content standards for such items as newspapers and glass; Three, a national system of taxes or fees on products which reflects disposal costs; Four, a national beverage container deposit return program; Five, assistance in the development of a reliable product labeling and coding system; and Six, technical assistance and information to local governments on recycling activities and markets. In addition, a national standard for reusable packaging, national standards for minimizing packaging, and a national surcharge on products produced with virgin materials. Economic incentives may be appropriate to encourage development of the infrastructure needed to support expanded recycling activities and to ensure adequate capacity for secondary materials. The Federal Government must also consider the feasibility of continuing tax policies like depletion allowances or revising these policies which currently favor the use of virgin materials and discourage the use of secondary materials. There are questions and concerns that must be answered before Congress provides any regulatory process and puts that in place Nationwide. What kind of mandates will be made of communities like Missoula that currently do not provide any sort of public solid waste management? Our solid waste is purely a private industry in our county. Will we be forced to go into the business or will the regulations simply fall to those businesses and public entities that currently provide waste management? Montana's counties have been living under a citizen-established property tax freeze since 1986. Our funding in Missoula County is consistent with the level of funding provided to our residents in 1979. We can ill afford to set up an entirely new program at this time without substantial Federal assistance. There must be an established secondary market within a reasonable transportation distance which will pay for the collected materials at protected minimum prices. Section 303 of S. 976 regarding rural recycling demonstration projects is very encouraging and something that would benefit Montana and other rural communities as well. However, it is my sense that with the many successful recycling and waste minimization programs that already exist for urban areas, resources might be better spent by simply publicizing those and investing more in rural demonstration projects. Much less is known about recycling and waste reduction in less populated parts of the country. While we support recycling, we must recognize that it is not an inexpensive alternative to operating landfills and incinerators. Recycling costs as much as any other solid waste management alternative. Thank you for the opportunity to share with you my initial thoughts on these very worthwhile amendments, and I applaud your efforts at trying to deal with what I consider a crisis situation. I am happy to respond to any question. Senator BAUCUS. Thank you very much, Janet. Let's go down the table here. Fred, why don't you proceed. STATEMENT OF FRED HANSEN, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, STATE OF OREGON Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. For the record, Fred Hansen, Director of Oregon's Department of Environmental Quality. I appear here also in my capacity as Chair of the Task Force on RCRA Reauthorization that is the responsibility of the State Environmental Commissioners that meet with EPA under the auspice of the National Governors' Association. Let me stress at the beginning that although we have been building a consensus among all States, that individual States may on individual items have different views. I do not mean to imply that there is an absolute uniformity of all views on all issues. Let me stress to you if I may this morning five major points relative to S. 976. First off, we are supportive as a group of State environmental directors of the goal for a national recycling effort. Our goal has been a 50 percent reduction to be achieved by waste reduction as well as recycling. Our concern is being able to look at the amount that's actually disposed of, rather than the amount that's actually recycled. Because, clearly, if we're successful in our efforts at reducing the amount of waste produced, we have gone a long ways to being able to handle our solid waste problems. What we are particularly concerned about, however, in some of the planning requirement areas is that the national goals must, in fact, take into account-as Senator Durenberger referred to it-different areas across the Nation, particularly rural areas, whether they be in Montana or in Oregon or in other parts of the United States. The ability to levy a fee-that authority that would be granted in S. 976—is something that State Directors strongly support; that is the idea of being able to have importing States impose a fee on exporting States. Our goal is to be able to have that fee be ramped up over a period of time, 10 years in our recommendation, during which time it would allow exporting States the ability to either reach agreement with the importing States or to achieve disposal capacity within their States. However, what we are concerned about is that that authority not be tied to the planning efforts that are underway and mandated within S. 976. Let me give you an example. Take hypothetically a State in the rural area of the United States, in the west, where they could not demonstrate to EPA that they could meet some of the planning requirements related to the goal. That State may then not be able to levy a differential fee as provided for within the legislation. It, therefore, has a lower cost for disposal than other States; consequently, more waste would be flowing to that State and, at the same time, depriving that State of revenue that might be utilized to help encourage recycling efforts within that very State. Again, we believe that there is a very real need for a division between the Federal Government's role in planning and the States and local Governments. The States and local Governments have been and will continue to be, we believe, the leaders in solid waste management. What they need is assistance from the Federal Government to be able to accomplish that. And I'll come back to some specific areas where I think that can be accomplished. Let me turn briefly to recycling capacity and the State planning process. S. 976 creates a requirement that appears to be too close to the subtitle C Capacity Assurance Process for hazardous waste, which we think has not worked very well. What we would put in its place is not a demand to create more capacity, something that I think is in fact contrary to the hierarchy in solid waste management, but rather to use fees to create a marketplace that provides both a disincentive for exporting, by increasing the cost of throwing away garbage, as well as giving on the importing State a bene |