1991. My name is Janet Stevens and I am an elected County Commissioner from Missoula County, Montana (which has a population of approximately 78,000). Our cities and counties across the United States are charged with the monumental task of disposing of about 1 ton of garbage annually for every man, woman, and child in the United States. All of this in the midst of State-imposed limits, uncertain Federal regulations, and legitimate environmental concerns. In Missoula, we have the distinction of also 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 of water supply. While Missoula's disposal system is privately operated, many of our cities and counties are the only source of disposal and face a suspicious and often hostile public who wants nothing more than to throw out the trash and have it disposed of out of their sight. The National Association of Counties has supported a multifaceted management system that includes recycling, incineration, and landfilling. 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 all three disposal options. The first priority of these three options is clearly source reduction and recycling. I support your efforts to encourage solid waste prevention through measures which reduce the amount of toxic solid waste disposal. It is clear that individual county efforts are not enough to make any significant impact on the huge amounts of garbage disposed of every day. Only a nationwide approach to reduction can make a serious dent in our attempt to limit waste. Industry should begin acting on its own to see that standards are developed for packaging and one-time consumer product use. If that doesn't work, the Federal Government should have the authority to develop those standards and make sure that industry complies. NACO also believes that the Federal Government must play a critical role in decreasing the toxicity of solid waste. The Federal Government can reduce these harmful agents through research, restrictions, and, in some cases, bans on toxins. Special deposits for hazardous waste products-from dry-cell batteries to major appliances and even contaminated soils that are polluting our water sources along the clark fork river in Montana—must be imposed so that permanent disposal occurs in an appropriate manner. All producers of such toxins must be held accountable. Labels alerting consumers to the dangers in their waste (perhaps a toxicity index) should be implemented. While we work to reduce the overall volume of solid waste, we must clearly make a concerted effort as a nation to recycle as much waste as is possible. What we're talking about is more than diverting a certain percentage of our trash from landfills and incinerators. We must begin to reuse these materials on a regular basis. Any mandate as to the amounts of materials to be pulled out of the waste stream must be accompanied by a program stimulating the reuse of marketable products made from these materials. I would, therefore, strongly oppose any attempts by either Congress or the Environmental Protection Agency to impose a subjective level of recycling on local governments. Even though establishing national recycling goals may be appropriate for the purpose of providing a way to measure our success, mandating a specific recycling percentage to be applied nationwide-with a tie to incinerator or landfill permits, solid waste plan approval, or any other enforcement mechanism-is not feasible. NACO suggests that statewide recycling goals would be more appropriate, given that the goals could then be framed to meet local conditions and account for market fluctuations, capacity, economic and other practical considerations. States, in consultation with local governments and private landfill operators, should be given the freedom to establish more aggressive goals based on their ability to implement integrated solid waste management plans appropriate for their State. There must still be the ability to have the flexibility to develop recycling rates based on local community conditions, even if that means a much lower rate for some areas. While flexibility is critical, the States' goals must ultimately be based on national goals in order for the overall recycling program's success because of the dependence upon Federal initiatives. Stable markets for recyclable material must be established with assurances that reliable prices will be paid. Missoula currently has two recycling projects in process. Both are conducted by private entities. One is the county's major solid waste disposal company and the other is a private non-profit recycling organization. While the non-profit group's efforts are meritorious and free of charge to the consumer, the fact is that the market price of recyclable materials has a significant impact on the success of its operation. The only income for this organization is the amount they earn from selling the recycled material. BFI, Inc., is trying the "blue bag" program in Missoula and has not been in operation long enough to know what impact it is having on solid waste reduction. BFI, Inc., is not profiting from their program. The money it receives from the sale of recyclables is given to the county for our community decay ordinance project, which promotes beautification of private properties in the county that are currently unsightly. Counties do not have the wherewithal to develop any method that would significantly impact the recycling market. The Federal Government must commit to: 1. A tough Federal procurement program that establishes price references for, and requires agencies and contractors to purchase, recycled goods; 2. Minimum recyclable content standards for such items as newspapers and glass; 3. A national system of taxes or fees on products which reflects disposal costs; 4. A national beverage container deposit/return program; 5. Assistance in the development of a reliable product labeling and coding system; 6. Technical assistance and information to local governments on recycling activities and markets. In addition, enactment of four statutes would significantly strengthen the recycling industry and reduce the volume of waste: 1. A national standard for re-usable packaging. 2. A national container deposit law. 3. National standards for minimizing packaging. 4. 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-such as Federal income tax credits for the construction of paper de-inking facilities. The Federal Government must also consider the feasibility of continuing tax policies like depletion allowances or revising these policies in favor of the use of virgin materials or the discouragement of the use of secondary materials. Cities and counties should not be required to separate out and collect unreasonable volumes of recyclables without the establishment of a market place to sell the collections, and the creation of new uses for these old materials which will put them back into the economy. Our experience has been that these markets do not appear over night simply because collections are being made. It is clear that at certain times the amount of recyclables collected has outstripped the need. Missoula is fairly new to the recycling effort. As I mentioned earlier, we have two programs operating within our city limits, which has a population of about 42,000. The blue bag program is city-wide and started about 4 months ago. The non-profit organization began their efforts over a year ago; they started out in a small area of the city and have expanded into 3 other neighborhoods. Both of these programs are strictly on a voluntary basis. I have already noted that the non-profit charges no fee for collection, but makes its income off selling the recycled material. It has been significantly impacted by the glut of recycled newspaper in particular. The number of purchasers has remained static nationally, as has their buying; but the supply has increased, which has made the price of newspaper decline. We do not currently have curb-side collection. In fact, there is a significant portion of our county that does not have any sort of pick-up service and must dispose of their trash on their own. Missoula is almost alone in its attempt to recycle in the State of Montana. Few other cities have any programs started at this time. About 6,000 tons of our waste ends up in the BFI landfill monthly. Missoula recycling, a for-profit business that buys recyclable materials, takes in about 340 tons of materials a month. We have no incineration process for waste disposal in our county except for that provided at our hospital for certain hospital waste. We are not a State that has a significant market for recyclable materials. Because many of our potential markets are hundreds of miles away, the market must be in place before any laws or epa regulations will accomplish the desired goals. Without market-driven recycling, mandatory separation could flood the supply side of the market to the point that separated material could not be disposed of. Storage of these materials (as has been suggested) could create significant health issues, fire hazards, and uncontrollable financial burdens on local governments. We should not have to meet the same recycling goals as some other areas that have made significant progress in their recycling efforts, such as Marion County, Oregon. Commissioner Randall Franke from Marion County, the Chairman of the National Association of Counties' Environment, Energy, and Land Use Steering Committee, States that his county has a population of 228,485 spread across 20 cities. Salem, OR, is the largest city with a population of 107,786. Commissioner Franke says that "Salem first began to collect recyclable materials in 1973. The program started with the collection of commercial office paper by local recycling firms. It expanded to include the curbside collection of newspaper in 1979, and residential one-a-month collection of newspaper, cardboard, tin cans, aluminum and glass in 1984. The following year, weekly collections were instituted. Marion County presently has curbside collection of recyclable materials in all of its twenty cities on the same day as regular garbage service." Oregon also statutorily requires cities over 4,000 to have at least once-a-month curbside collection of the principal recyclable materials. Because of the extreme disparity in programs from State to State and county to county, any nationally mandated rate will cause significant problems at the local level. These questions and concerns must be answered by Congress before any regulatory process is put into place nationwide. What kind of mandates will be made of communities like ours that currently do not provide any sort of public solid waste management? 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. There must be an established secondary market within a reasonable transportation distance which will pay for the collected materials at protected minimum prices. In summary, Montana has a great deal of inexpensive, isolated land. We are also a long way from most of the National markets for reprocessing of secondary materials. Both of these facts add up to very little incentive for people, businesses or government to invest in waste reduction or recycling. Montanans share a love for the quality of their environment and their interest in doing the right thing with solid waste is directly related to that concern for their surroundings. Our motivation to get involved in reducing waste and recycling comes, I believe, from a desire to keep Montana a beautiful and safe place to live. Therefore, Montanans are willing to invest in the future by supporting strong national regulations designed to reduce, re-use, and recycle. Because of the long distances recyclables need to be transported from Montana, reliable and economical markets must be established for all materials. Two things that are not a part of S. 976 that would foster stronger markets are: 1. National minimum recycled material content standards for manufactured goods. 2. A national surcharge on products produced with virgin materials. these steps would strengthen national markets for recyclables and the recycling industry and therefore would lead to a significant increase in the amount of recycling in Montana. Section 303 of S. 976 regarding rural recycling demonstration projects is very encouraging and something that would benefit Montana a great deal. However, it is my sense that with the many successful recycling and waste minimization programs that already exist for urban areas, resources might better be spent by simply publicizing those and investing more in rural demonstration projects. Much less is known about recycling and waste reduction in the less populated parts of the country. I believe that local and State solid waste plans must include programs for the separation and collection of recyclables in order to assure there will be a steady, high quality supply of secondary materials to be reprocessed. But these local governments must also have assurances that the Federal Government is committed to keeping the markets for these materials strong by mandating minimum recycled content standards for manufactured products. The guidelines and requirements for State plans seem very good except that with the rapidly changing nature of solid waste management, these plans should be updated and reviewed at least every four years. While we support recycling, we must recognize that it is not an inexpensive alternative to operating land fills or incinerators. Recycling costs as much as any other solid waste management alternative. Thank you for the opportunity to share with you my and NACO's thoughts on these very worthwhile amendments. I am happy to respond to any questions, Mr. Chairman, that you or the other Members of the committee may have. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. My name is Fred First, let me begin with some background on the State/EPA Committee, organized under the auspices of the National Governors' Association. It is composed of 15 state environmental agency directors that meet periodically with EPA Administrator Řeilly to discuss issues of mutual concern. Over the past 18 months, a subcommittee, which I chair, has dealt with issues identified as of particular concern in RCRA reauthorization. Last year, the State Directors developed positions on these The Subcommittee has not yet specifically addressed all the issues NATIONAL RECYCLING TARGETS AND STATE PLANS The State Directors believe that the nation would benefit from adopting, as an expression of our aspirations, some national goal for solid waste reduction and recycling efforts. The State Directors have adopted such a target: by 2000, a 50 to recycling by 2000) will convey the same message about 811 SW Sixth Avenue the importance of reduction and recycling activities in Portland, OR 97204-1390 the nation's solid waste management scheme. (503) 229-5696 The State Directors feel that reduction in disposal volumes is an appropriate measure of reduction/recycling effort. Goals calculated on waste generation data must be imputed from disposal volumes, estimates of recycling volumes and "estimates" of waste reduction. Data on disposal volumes represents the "bottom line" for measuring waste reduction and recycling success. The State Directors are concerned about how any national target for solid waste reduction and recycling will be used. The State 'Directors view 50% reduction in disposal volumes as a policy 'target for the nation as a whole, recognizing that some states, and some communities, can fairly be expected to exceed this goal While the expectations for others may reasonably be lower depending on such factors as the nature of the waste stream and ease of access to markets for recyclables. In particular, the State Directors are concerned about provisions in S. 976 that say: "At a minimum, the plan shall demonstrate the steps needed to While the bill does list factors that affect a state's measurable goals, such as rural population, it is important that the goal will be used, in some measure, as a basis for evaluation. Such provisions are especially troubling for the states that are predominantly rural, and are distant from recycling markets. requirements may cause states to focus on massaging the numbers, rather than devoting resources to reducing the amount of waste moving to landfills and incinerators. Such The inclusion of such a requirement in the state plan is also troubling because, in S. 976, approval of a state plan has been tied to authority to levy fees on interstate municipal solid waste shipments. The State Directors believe that fee authority should be granted independent of any plan review process. Under 8. 976, it is possible to envision a Catch-22 scenario where a rural state, possibly in the west: cannot demonstrate how it will meet these recycling goals to finds itself hosting a private landfill which is taking is denied the right to levy fees (and provide a direct economic incentive to the exporting state to reduce its waste and is thus denied the opportunity to earn revenue which 2 |