tion to get newspaper publishers in the Northeastern States to agree to use newsprint with 40 percent post-consumer material by the year 2000. We believe that the minimum contents levels proposed for other commodities in the proposed amendments are achievable as well.

We also applaud the emphasis in the proposed amendments on Federal procurement of recyclable products.

Section 303 of the bill recognizes that model programs are one of the best ways of measuring recycling progress and to disseminate effective programs.

There is a crying need for pilot programs and peer match. Peer match means that active recyclers share their experience with their peers, mostly local recycling officials.

We might also suggest additional recommendations for your consideration to increase recycling. I would hope that the committee would consider economic incentives or disincentives requiring industry to design for recycling, mandating labeling standards, and standardizing recycling terms.

With regard to design for recycling, it is increasingly clear that we can no longer afford to make products that cost more to dispose of than any benefit that they might have provided. Designing for recycling would include such measures as:

Standardization of resins. For example, if all yogurt containers were made from the same resin, those containers could be more easily included in a collection program.

PVC bottles look so much like polyethylene PET bottles that they are continually mixed in our recycling programs. A tiny amount of PVC will contaminate a load of PET bottles, rendering an entire batch of resin unusable.

If directory publishers were required to use a different type of glue in their bindings, recycling of phone books would be possible. I would urge that the Federal Government set national labeling standards consistent with those of the State of Rhode Island and the Northeast Recycling Council. Rhode Island, working in concert with the northeast States, has promulgated the first regulations governing the use of recycling symbol and the term "recyclable,' 'recyclable content," and "reusable."

In conclusion, I would just like to say that we have had a very strong business recycling program in the State and it works.

The State of Rhode Island strongly supports title III of the RCRA Amendments of 1991 and we hope that Congress considers the suggestions that we have made in our written and in our oral presentation today.

Thank you.

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you very much.

A general drift through all of your testimony is a concern about adequate centers for markets for recyclables. As I hear you, I sense your concern that perhaps the bill is not strong enough in that direction. I think theoretically that's accurate, that is the more that there is a higher percent in an earlier period in time of recyclable content the more there is a minimum content standard, the more there is going to be a market. The real question though is what should those rates be? What makes sense here? Based upon your experience, can you advise us either what process we undertake to

try to determine those rates or, if you have a good solid feel for it, what you think it perhaps should be if you think they are too low in this bill.

Would anybody proceed that wishes to on that. Fred, I see you nodding your head a little bit.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not going to be able to answer your direct question, but let me speak to the pieces of it. First off, the State directors believe that the place to begin is not with minimum content standards but to be able to begin with true costing of products that utilize virgin material that could potentially utilize post-consumer

Senator BAUCUs. What do you mean by "true costing"?

Mr. HANSEN. By true costing I mean the costs of the extraction of the material-whether it be timber harvesting, mineral, and so on-the cost of disposal, the cost of being able to recreate products from the disposed material. If one looks at that true costing and, in fact, puts in place tax policy or incentives, one will find that recyclable materials will have a marketplace drive beyond the issue of minimum content.

Senator BAUCUS. How are those costs determined? Who determines them?

Mr. HANSEN. We would suggest that the Congress direct EPA to develop that and recommend back to you that true costing. We believe that is the only way to be able to get into account what those costs are going to be so that you can, in fact, make determinations about whether minimum content makes sense at 5 percent, 20 percent, or 50 percent when you know what those costs are.

Senator BAUCUS. So that this process leads to a minimum content requirement?

Mr. HANSEN. We would then believe that once that is in place that voluntarily people will be making choices based on economics. Lastly, if that fails, that minimum content standards may be put into effect.

Senator BAUCUS. Mr. Polan.

Mr. POLAN. People are making choices on economics right now and the result is that we have not seen a sufficient demand for the recyclables which several of the local programs represented at the table can collect right now.

I don't think either I or other local officials who are in the collection business have the greatest expertise in telling this committee what the minimum content for a particular material should be. I concur with the gentleman on my left, that it should be economicsdriven.

What I am concerned about in terms of the way the bill is structured is that you have two different kinds of proposals in there. One is a national minimum recovery and utilization rate which, if not achieved, would then trigger minimum content. How the minimum content might be developed is the precise question you are raising. But I am concerned that it will never be triggered because the National minimum recovery and reutilization rate will prove too cumbersome for EPA to administer. I think that's something we should take a look at.

Senator BAUCUs. If that goal of say of 40 percent is not achieved, then, according to the bill, EPA is required to develop a minimum content provision.

Mr. POLAN. I understand the objective and I endorse it. I question how EPA will ever be able to make that determination.

Senator BAUCUs. Under the bill, each manufacturer has to, on an annual basis, indicate the percent of its product that is used as recyclable materials. So EPA will then know at the end of the year for each industry.

Mr. POLAN. Right. I know. It sounds elegant. I am just concerned that

Senator BAUCUs. What's a better alternative in your view?

Mr. POLAN. Well, the better alternative I believe is going directly to minimum content.

Senator BAUCUS. By-pass the▬▬

Mr. POLAN. Correct. And the precise percentage should be determined either out of the expertise that is presented to you through these hearings or, alternatively, through economic analysis——

Senator BAUCUS. What do you say to the paper company that says, OK, we're in favor of all this; however, we have got some mills up in some part of the country just established and different mills are in different stages of modernization in putting de-inking facilities and so forth, so it just doesn't make sense to require all paper have exact same content. There should be an average. That's what they say, there should be an average.

Mr. POLAN. On the paper side, it should be done at the newspaper level. As we've done in New York State through a voluntary approach-and it could be done on a mandatory basis as wellnewspapers themselves are required to have minimum content in what they buy. So they buy from both sectors but there is some encouragement for them to buy newsprint with recycled content. Senator BAUCUs. Well, my time is up. We'll explore this further later.

Senator CHAFEE.

Senator CHAFEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

A couple of quick questions. Ms. Gale, first of all, you stress a lot economic incentives in your statement and you talk about a "pay as you throw" program. I think that has tremendous potential here. Have you seen evidence that people are buying goods that they won't have to throw away? In other words, do they consider the disposal problems? And secondly, do you see any increase in roadside dumping if there is a charge to get rid of a battery or a tire, for example. I think in our State we do see people just go out in the countryside and throw it in some country lane somewhere; tires, for example, we've had a lot of problems with that.

Ms. GALE. Two questions. First, in terms of can we measure behaviors. I think it is very hard to measure the behaviors and we actually have a staff paper coming out in another couple of weeks on how we're going to measure the behaviors. Mostly, we're going to try to measure behavior through a series of annual surveys. Our first survey is going to be done this summer. We see anecdotal changes in behavior in the types of products people buy in the grocery store and the kind of products they buy in paper product stores. But at this point, I don't have a good way to measure it.

Now, what I can measure is the fact that the per household tonnage or poundage has gone down in the City of Seattle. Much of that is being diverted into yard waste separation programs or into recycling.

Senator CHAFEE. I have very little time here, so make your answers brief if you could. What about the problem of roadside dumping?

Ms. GALE. It has been slightly increased but not significantly. Senator CHAFEE. I see. Mr. Hansen, you have a bottle bill in your State which I presume you make a deposit and then you take the bottle back to the grocery store, supermarket, wherever it is, and then it goes back. Whereas, in our State we don't have that because the recycling of the aluminum cans is one of the most—and probably one of the few-profitable items through our recycling that we do with our municipal waste. Do you understand the point I'm making? In other words, the cans are collected by the municipality and go into this State recycling plant and absent those cans we would have a very difficult job getting any income for our recycling plant. Does that give you problems?

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, Senator Chafee, from our perspective, it is always going to be the issue that you face when you cream the most profitable product out of the recycling efforts. From our perspective, we are still able, in the grouping of recycled materials, make those marginally profitable right now given the low market recycling rates even though aluminum is outside of that. We do have, which I think is a distinction, a 95-plus percent recovery on all aluminum cans.

Senator CHAFEE. Yes, there is no question that the economics work there. You can just see it from anecdotal evidence. In the States that have recycling, you never see a can thrown away; they are picked up by eager youngsters or eager adults, one or the other, and recycled.

Ms. Durfee, I was stunned by your statement about the danger that the PVC bottles do. There's an exhibit. And the bad performers of that being Evian water bottles.

Mr. DURFEE. Right. This is the offending bottle which causes the resin to have black spots.

Senator CHAFEE. Why don't all of the bottle manufacturers use the same?

Mr. DURFEE. That is what we are suggesting is that perhaps a mandated design standard would help reduce the expense of collection and make it more effective.

Senator CHAFEE. Your phone book illustration, is the only problem the glue?

Mr. DURFEE. That is my understanding, Senator.

Senator CHAFEE. Everybody agree with that? Mr. Hansen.
Mr. HANSEN. Yes, sir.

Senator CHAFEE. I thought there was metal in it through the staples that hold it. But it is glue that holds it together. Well, it would seem to me that the total phone books must add tremendously to the solid waste disposal problems since it is non-recyclable, so far anyway.

OK. I think you've all been good. The principal thrust that you've made, as I understand your testimony, and if you agree with

this, first, that the Federal Government should be involved in efforts for source reduction, and secondly, that the Federal Government should be involved to a greater degree than this legislation provides for the creation of markets for the recyclables. Is that it? Do you agree with that, Ms. Stevens?

MS. STEVENS. Yes, I do.

Senator CHAFEE. OK, fine. Thank you very much. My time is up. Senator BAUCUs. Thank you, Senator.

Senator LIEBERMAN.

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Polan, you talked about the problem of the cost of collection. You are all experts here and what you do is you collect; you are on the supply side of it. Could you develop that a little bit more. What's the problem? Is it just because you've got a budget problem and this is an incremental cost, or is there something that we ought to be doing to try to help you reduce the cost of collection? Mr. POLAN. Well, the costs of collection are basically driven by the manpower necessary out on the street. To the extent that you offer a curbside source separated program, as we are doing in New York, then you have to put out more trucks, more manpower to collect the same amount of the waste stream. It is more inefficient, obviously, than collecting it altogether. The other alternative is collecting it altogether and processing it at the other end. Locally mandated collection programs have had an adverse impact in our ability to negotiate the kind of labor agreements that are necessary to make the program as efficient as possible.

Senator LIEBERMAN. Could you explain it in a little more detail. Mr. POLAN. Well, if the organized workforce knows that the locality is obligated to collect in separate trucks, in other words, is obligated to have a source separated program, it gives labor representatives some additional leverage in the discussions necessary to effectuate the program and as a consequence drives the costs up. Senator LIEBERMAN. How about the hardware that you need to do this extra work? I have seen some funny looking trucks coming around various places to collect. Is that a substantial additional cost? Is work being done to reduce that cost?

Mr. POLAN. First of all, one obviously needs a larger fleet of vehicles. The second question is whether you can use your standard, traditional vehicle, which we are doing in New York because we have yet to see a truck which meets our particular needs. There are a host of developments in the vehicle manufacturing sector to develop alternative trucks that might be able to collect recyclables more efficiently. We're not there yet, but the industry is moving. Senator LIEBERMAN. I would invite comments from any of the members of the panel on this question of the costs that the local/ regional/State Governments face in collecting recyclable goods and how you're dealing with that.

Ms. GALE. In Seattle, we were able to bring out costs down significantly by moving garbage collection to the curb and moving to one-man trucks. Because we have recycled

Senator LIEBERMAN. How does that work?

Ms. GALE. They are side-loader trucks and one person basically runs down the street in neighborhood-type streets and they can pick up 600 to 800 stops a day. That isn't expensive. Now if you

44-079 0-91--2