The U.S. aluminum ingot and semifabricated products industry is made up of: as estimated 525 plants; total employment exceeding 150,000; an estimated $50 billion in total assets; and An energy intense industry, it consumes annually an estimated: 635,000 billion BTU or about 68 percent STATEMENT OF CAN MANUFACTURERS INSTITUTE The Can Manufacturers Institute (CMI), the National trade association of the can manufacturing industry and its material suppliers, is committed to providing effective and market friendly solid waste management solutions. Although beverage, food and general line cans represent only 2.4 percent of potential solid waste, our industry works continually to reduce the number of our packages destined for disposal in landfills. Through consistent lightweighting (that is, reducing the amount of material used in the manufacture of a can) and high, increasing recycling rates, we have substantially reduced our portion of the municipal solid waste stream. OPPORTUNITY-TO-RECYCLE PROGRAMS CMI strongly supports the development and implementation of "Opportunity-toRecycle" programs by State and local governments. All communities should have the means to process recyclable materials diverted from the waste stream, either through curbside collection or drop-off recycling systems. To be truly effective, these programs should build upon the voluntary buy-back network established by the aluminum and can manufacturing_industries that now includes more than 10,000 market-driven recycling centers. These centers provide consumers with the option of redeeming their containers for scrap value and work to instill a national recycling ethic. It is through the existence of these recycling centers, along with other programs such as curbside recycling systems, that the aluminum beverage can has achieved a 63.6 percent recycling rate nationwide. The steel industry reports that the steel can is being recovered at a rate of 24.6 percent nationwide. "Opportunity-to-Recycle" programs should be developed, implemented, and managed by State and local governments through guidelines established by the Federal Government. Program components are likely to differ significantly from locality to locality because demographics, geographic location and markets are key variables in the creation of any viable, cost-effective program. Similarly, funding for recycling programs should be determined by the State rather than the Federal Government as program funding requirements will differ from State to State. CMI strongly believes, however, that States and the Federal Government should not impose arbitrary and/or punitive fees, taxes or deposits on individual packaging classifications. Such measures are ineffective because they target a single package or packaging group, without producing measurable reductions in solid waste, often in an effort to raise revenue for State programs. These types of "hidden taxes" are then passed on to the consumer in a regressive, inflationary manner without altering consumer purchasing behavior in favor of environmentally sound products. We strongly oppose such measures. CMI also believes that restrictive packaging measures are counterproductive and inefficient because they often target the most successfully recycled packages on the market today. For example, mandatory deposit measures, such as proposed national deposit measures, force consumers to pay a deposit-tax on beverage containers purchased at retail. The containers are redeemed at the store. This measure removes beverage containers from comprehensive community recycling programs and deprives those programs of the high revenue value such packaging, particularly aluminum cans, provide for cost effective solid waste management. It also requires consumers to-comply with multiple disposal systems. Forced deposit programs Jeopardize the viability of community recycling programs, confuse the consumer and blur the recycling ethic communities are attempting to instill in citizens. Forced deposits also penalize industries which already have achieved notable success in recycling their containers. CMI also is opposed to packaging advisory or review boards. Such bodies stifle innovation and the development of more environmentally sound packaging which meet the demands of product and food safety, convenience and recyclability. CMI strongly supports and encourages the reduction of waste disposed in landfills. We endorse the Federal requirement of a 25 percent reduction in waste disposed by 1995, and acknowledge the need to develop markets for recycled materials. Federal, State and local governments can lead the way by establishing procurement requirements for recycled products. Material industries should endeavor to provide adequate scrap values for their material to facilitate recycling. Reasonable and technically feasible recycled content goals are appropriate where needed to create markets for recycled materials. Recycled content laws are not required to induce the recycling of aluminum cans in as much as a competitive recycling market already exists. The aluminum can manufacturing industry now utilizes in excess of 50 percent post consumer recycled content in virtually every aluminum beverage can produced. The material suppliers of the steel can manufacturing industry currently utilize more than 10 percent post consumer recycled content in can sheet production. Other industries should be encouraged to utilize recycled material in the manufacturing process to spur the establishment of markets for the recycled materials. FEDERAL STANDARDS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CLAIMS ON LABELS The current awareness of environmental problems at all levels of government and among consumers has resulted in many "environmentally friendly labels" on packages. This in turn has led to a patchwork of legislation and State regulations defining terms used on environmental labels. Every State defines the terms differently which leads to a serious disruption in the flow of interstate commerce. CMI suggests that a Federal standard for environmental terms be established and that this standard preempt State and local regulations. Such an effort would avoid deceptive claims and provide consumer education. It would also foster efficient interstate trade as most industries calculate recycling rates solely on a national basis because both materials and packages are manufactured, shipped and marketed in many different States. CMI proposes that terms such as "recyclable", "recycled", and "degradable" be defined by the Federal Government for all packaging. We support the definition of "recyclable" as a package being recycled at a minimum rate of 25 percent nationwide and "recycled" as a package that contains a minimum of 25 percent recycled content, utilizing both postconsumer material and plant scrap, nationwide by the year 2000. In a related effort, CMI has joined ten other trade associations in petitioning the Federal Trade Commission to ban unsubstantiated or deceptive environmental marketing practices. REDUCTION OF TOXIC MATERIALS IN PACKAGING CMI also is concerned with the amount of toxic, heavy metals contained in packaging. We have worked closely with the Source Reduction Council (SRC) of the Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG) to develop model legislation regulating the use of lead, mercury, cadmium and hexavalent chromium. This model legislation has been enacted in several States, and is pending in several other State legislatures. We support the enactment of uniform national legislation by the Federal Government which should be tailored after the CONEG model legislation. We also believe that the need to add additional substances to the legislation should be carefully evaluated and no new substance should be added unless it is adopted through a scientifically valid risk assessment and made subject to full public rulemaking. CMI's members have been active in reducing in our packages all heavy metals which pose a danger to human health and the environment. As an example, over the past ten years the number of food cans manufactured with lead solder has been reduced voluntarily by more than 95 percent. CONCLUSION CMI believes that a variety of options will be necessary to meet the solid waste management challenges which lie ahead. CMI members are striving to be part of the solution to our nation's pressing solid waste management challenges and we believe that the adoption of these basic tenets will contribute significantly to the reduction of solid waste disposed in landfills. They will encourage industries to employ measures which ultimately will save landfill space as well as preserve our non-renewable natural resources. Additionally, the regulation of heavy metals in packaging will reduce the amount of toxic materials in groundwater and impose ambient air quality. However, it is important to note that regardless of industry efforts, consumer education and consumer recycling are key factors for any significant, measurable reduction in the amount of solid waste destined for landfills. PREPARED STATEMENT OF DANIEL J. WEISS On behalf of the 637,000 members of the Sierra Club, I am pleased to testify before the Subcommittee on Environmental Protection. I am also testifying on behalf of: U.S. Public Interest Research Group (US PIRG), Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund, National Wildlife Federation, Environmental Action, Creenpeace, and Clean Water Action. The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 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 Environmental Protection 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"). 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. 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. • Establish a national beverage container deposit program, similar to those that are a tremendous success in nine States. • 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", S. 615, sponsored by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, 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 and half pounds per person-two-thirds of what we produce 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 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. Incinerators often release highly toxic substances-including Lead, mercury, and dioxinfrom their stacks and in the ash. 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 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 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 |