brings an unusual expertise to the Q&A session in that he is both a scrap processor and an industrial consumer of scrap materials.

ISRI is a trade association representing 1,800 member firms who do business in over 5,000 recycling facilities, spanning the globe. ISRI members handle all the major recycled commodities—that is ferrous and non-ferrous metals, paper, glass, plastic, and textiles. ISRI member firms return over 90 million tons of secondary materials to the economy every year as specification feedstocks to replace virgin materials that otherwise would have been used.

ISRI members also represent all stages of material recovery, from collection through processing to final use in a new product. In the interest of time, Mr. Chairman, we will comment on only three sections of S. 976 which are particularly important. First, the regulatory recognition of a distinction between materials in the recycling process and waste materials destined for disposal; second, the provisions related to toxics use reduction; third, the provisions concerning the development of markets for recycled content goods. We will also make a brief comment on recycling goals.

First, recycling regulations. While ISRI would prefer a separate subtitle of RCRA for recycling, we salute the drafters of S. 976 for recognizing the need to distinguish secondary materials from waste. Under current law, recyclers are subject to the same regulatory regime as those who dispose of things. This has led to recycling facilities threatened with inappropriate and costly landfill requirements and could lead to recycling markets being balkanized by proposed restrictions on interstate and international transport of waste. Imagine the harm that would result when loads of aluminum beverage cans moving from Ohio to Virginia for remelting are stopped at the Virginia border and sent back as out of State waste. Obviously, such a result was not and is not desired, and was not and is not intended. Thus, ISRI suggests a series of definitions, which we have attached to our prepared statement.

ISRI believes that section 405 is a positive step toward a national regulatory policy for recycling, and that the regulatory concept in section 406 may also be a model to be considered for recycling of traditional commodities.

ISRI has long championed the concept of "design for recycling". and we appreciate the reference to that concept by the lady from Rhode Island-the concept to reduce the use of toxic and non-recyclable elements in the manufacture of products because these elements can make the recycling of such products costly, dangerous, or even impossible. It is clear that title II of S. 976 takes an important step in this direction by authorizing EPA to begin the enormous task of identifying the most significant toxics in manufacturing. We would, however, ask the committee to consider two modifications. First, amend section 204(b) to allow the Administrator to set standards related to toxic use affecting recycling as well as for disposal, as it now provides. Second, to extend the same provision to use of non-hazardous but non-recyclable materials.

In the area of market development, ISRI believes that the key to recovery of more materials from the current waste stream lies not in encouraging more collection and processing of secondary materials, but rather in the development of new markets. In addition to the excellent first steps provided in S. 976 dedicated to creating

such needed new and additional markets, ISRI suggests that a Federal agency be tasked with developing a database concerned with the technological feasibility of replacing virgin materials with secondary materials, toxic substances with non-toxic substances, and non-recyclable materials with recyclables.

Finally, we have two comments about recycling goals. Recycling goals are really separation and collection goals and deal only with the supply of material in the recycling process. There are creative supply-based ideas that deserve attention, such as the unit pricing system for disposal service as outlined a moment ago by the lady from Seattle. But whatever the supply-side undertaking, it is essential that it be linked clearly and precisely with demand incentives. Secondly, because the real issue is reduction of materials consigned to landfills or incinerators, and because imprecision is endemic to counting what is recycled, ISRI believes that a disposal minimization goal is both more accurate and would best measure progress toward attainment of disposal reduction. ISRI thus urges the subcommittee to seek a landfill/incinerator reduction goal, not a recycling goal, giving communities full range to seek source separation, reuse, and recycling as a total solution to the disposal problem. To use only a recycling goal misses the point that the goal is really less disposal.

To conclude, S. 976 has tremendous potential. By incorporating the modifications we detail in our written testimony, the bill could be of enormous benefit to legitimate recyclers and to the environment. It could help reduce toxic and non-recyclable inputs in finished goods, open new markets for recovered materials, and provide recycling with the recognition it has missed in RCRA to date. We at ISRI look forward to working with you to move this important bill through the legislative process.

Thank you very much.

Senator BAUCUS [RESUMING CHAIR]. Thank you very much, sir. Next, Allen Hershkowitz.

STATEMENT OF ALLEN HERSHKOWITZ, SENIOR SCIENTIST, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, NEW YORK, NY Mr. HERSHKOWITZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to be here. My name is Allen Hershkowitz and I am a Senior Scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council. I appreciate your invitation requesting our testimony on this most important solid waste management issue. My testimony is also offered in behalf of the National Audubon Society, the Sierra Club, Environmental Action, and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

Mr. Chairman, Senator Lieberman, Senator Chafee, we view these recycling hearings as a watershed in the history of solid waste management in the United States. At long last Congress is beginning to address American's decades old demand to recycle the resources comprising our municipal solid waste stream instead of landfilling it and incinerating them. For more than 20 years the environmental community and other constructive interests have argued for such sensible and crucial Federal requirements and for very good reasons:

Recycling saves energy;

ess;

Recycling conserves natural resources;

Recycling is the least polluting solid waste management proc

• Recycling will reduce our need for less desirable combustion units and landfilling practices; and

Recycling can also be a cost-effective life-cycle solid waste management strategy.

Last month, in introducing the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Amendments of 1991, you said it was time to put resource conservation back into RCRA. We applaud this objective and are certain that you recognize that recycling mandate is the resource conservation that RCRA now lacks.

Americans want a recycling mandate. A recent public opinion poll conducted for the Associated Press indicated that 86 percent of the American public supports "a requirement. . . [to] separate and recycle household items such as bottles, cans, and newspapers." However, despite this mandate and despite the environmental and economic benefits provided by recycling, more than 70 percent of all communities in this Nation do not require separation of household items such as bottles, cans, and newspapers. Not even one-seventh of the municipal solid waste generated in this country are recycled, 99 percent of all the plastics discarded in this country are not recycled, 99 percent of all the yard waste discarded in this country is not recycled, more than 70 percent of all the glass discarded in this country is not recycled, more than 70 percent of all the paper discarded in this country is not recycled.

In order to effectively reduce the adverse environmental impacts caused by our current waste management system and establish high volume recycling as a viable industry, the reauthorization of RCRA must do a number of things. It must mandate high volume diversion rates of waste materials to assure a steady, high quality supply for recycling. It must greatly expand the end markets for recycled materials via content standards for consumer goods, Federal procurement requirements, et cetera. It must encourage manufacturers to design for recycling and reduce in their product line the use of toxic materials that interfere with recycling. It must, perhaps above all, reduce our Nation's reliance on costly and controversial waste treatment and disposal technologies such as incinerators and landfills.

You will note from our fairly detailed section analysis of your amendments that our organizations endorse most of the objectives in the amendments of 1991. Nevertheless, we have considerable concerns about the amendments' efficacy to bring about these objectives. Will S. 976 firmly establish recycling in our economy? Will S. 976 reduce the risk for investors and Government planning agencies seeking the environmentally correct path of recycling? I can only give you an emphatic maybe, and, Mr. Chairman, that is not good enough.

The amendments provide only incentives for waste reduction and recycling and fall short of establishing a coherent recycling mandate sensitive to both supply and demand. An enforceable, coherent recycling mandate is essential to ending the garbage crisis.

There is a great national interest here-energy savings, resource conservation, pollution prevention, fiscal prudence. Localities and

industries should be assisted in furthering this national interest but they cannot be exempted from this obligation. If our current generation of public officials cannot live up to this obligation as a mandate for future generations they may be unsuited to guide our public affairs into the next decade. Perhaps it is time for us to recognize that public officials' jobs involve recognizing this obligation to recycle. If industries seek to shun its obligations to reduce and recycling the waste by-products derived from its consumer goods marketing, this Nation and future generations may no longer be able to afford such business practices.

We applaud your efforts and the efforts of your staff and look forward to working with you constructively as RCRA proceeds. Thank you.

Senator BAUCUs. Thank you very much, Mr. Hershkowitz.
Next, Jane Witheridge.

STATEMENT OF JANE WITHERIDGE, STAFF VICE PRESIDENT, RECYCLING AND FACILITY DEVELOPMENT, WASTE MANAGEMENT OF NORTH AMERICA, OAK BROOK, IL

MS. WITHERIDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. My name is Jane Witheridge and I currently oversee Waste Management of North America's recycling activities. I have been in the solid waste business for about 15 years and I've seen legislation really force the change of solid waste management, I think to its benefit.

By way of background, Waste Management of North America is the largest recycler in the country. It collects from over 3 million households, 15,000 commercial accounts, and last year alone we handled over one million tons of recyclables. Our financial commitment is not only expressed by the trucks that we have on the street and the processing centers that we own, but it is also expressed by our participation in three joint ventures which are dedicated to marketing materials; a joint venture with DuPont for plastic; American National Can for glass and cans; and one with Stone Container for paper fiber.

So S. 976 is of vital interest to us, and I think it couldn't come at a more opportune time. There are about three areas that I would like to highlight. The first one is, and I think it is simply stated, if you're not buying recycled materials you're not recycling. That goes not just for the consumer but it goes for the manufacturer as well. To focus mandates on collection without having some kind of encouragement for a recycled content relative to the manufactured product, I think, is a recipe for disaster. There needs to be a focus on the markets for recyclables because the economics are such that municipalities cannot afford to divert their budgetary monies from eduction, public health, safety, or welfare to a recycling program, or to compete with those programs in such as way that we are continuing to feed materials into a glutted marketplace.

The second issue is that consumers have curbside programs and they understand, I think, basically what they consider to be recyclable. They put out in the bin what is a recyclable material. But they have no mechanism for determining or going to the store to see what contains recycled content. I think the standards on what

you pull out of the waste stream and put into the marketplace is really very important, and one of the focuses that we would encourage in the bill.

I think the third thing that is important to us is designing for recyclability. I would like to take a moment to follow up on the point made by Ms. Durfee from Rhode Island, who showed you a plastic bottle, and explain to you a little bit more what a plastic bottle causes in the way of problems. This bottle is made of several components. The base cup is a high density polyethylene. The body of this particular bottle ends up being polyethylene terephthalate. The cap is, again, a different type of plastic, a polypropylene; and inside the cap there is again another type of liner. The label itself is again another type of plastic. When you have four or five different types of plastics; it becomes difficult to recycle. Now, the recycling for plastic is set up to handle this, but manufacturers could make this more difficult or they could make it easier. If the body of this bottle was something different, such as PVC, it could be more difficult to recycle. If the cap was aluminum or the label was aluminum, that would make it more difficult to recycle. Then again, if the base cup were eliminated and the whole body was PET, that would make it easier to recycle. So the issue of focusing manufacturers' responsibility in designing as opposed to the recycler having to separate out all these materials is very important.

With respect to specific questions on the bill, I guess the first one is will the bill spur additional collection activities. Where there is demand for recycled materials, I am confident that the collection will fall in place. The experiences of Waste Management is that 18 months ago we collected no plastic materials in the post-consumer marketplace and today we collect plastic from two-thirds of the households that we service. I do not believe that the collection infrastructure is now or will be an impediment to recycling.

Second, with respect to national goals, I think they are good. I think that complacency can be developed with respect to those goals and the question is not how much we can do but how we can do more.

With respect to the specifics of utilization and what is the right number for recovery utilization, I think you are going to hear a lot of different testimony about what is a good number, what is not. We would like to submit some information to you as a supplement to this testimony. But I encourage you to keep focusing on the need to have that material pulled through the marketplace.

Other ideas? I think that the international focus is a good one to keep the marketplace open. I would like to see some additional provisions relative to composting. That's a large portion in the waste stream and I think the bill should include it. And I think there could be some incentives, perhaps, given to the manufacturers, some on the carrot side as opposed to the stick relative to minimum content and utilization.

In summary, I think that you are to be congratulated for your efforts. I think the focus is right on target. Recycling is popular but it is something that must be more than just a fad. I think the bill focuses on the right aspects by striving to make it an economically sustainable activity.

Thank you.