The State Directors believe that national goals for recycling and waste reduction are important, and that the federal government should be involved in a planning effort that parallels the state planning effort. The State Directors believe that there is a clear division of responsibility for achieving national municipal solid waste reduction and recycling goals. The State Directors would like to have EPA aggregate estimates of the waste reduction and recycling estimates that has been achieved and projected by the states, add to that total any further waste reduction/recycling that is expected as national policies are implemented, and then periodically report to Congress on the progress being made. The State Directors believe that this federal planning process Would allow EPA to be proactiva. If national goals are not projected to be met, EPA would be responsible for recommending additional policies or programs to meet nationals goals. This approach would keep responsibility for programs with the entity that has the authority to implement them. It would also give Congress a clear picture of the need for additional state or federal policies should the established goals not be met. RECYCLING CAPACITY AND THE STATE PLANNING PROCESS S. 976 creates a process for assessing municipal solid waste capacity similar to the Subtitle C Capacity Assurance Process for hazardous waste. It would involve an intricate accounting of projected waste volume, projected waste reduction, and existing and projected disposal and recycling capacity. It requires states to establish a process for siting and permitting both disposal and recycling facilities, and gives the state the authority to directly override local decisions. The State Directors believe it is important for EPA to keep the states focussed on reducing volumes of disposed wastes and managing the remainder safely, and that EPA assist the effort by providing a national data base of pertinent information. Complicated balancing of long-term forecasted volumes and Hypothetical capacity figures has, however, the potential to be a meaningless or even counterproductive exercise. The State Directors believe the approach in 8. 976 is contrary to the waste management hierarchy, in that it mandates additional disposal capacity rather than providing incentives for waste/reduction and recycling. The federal government should not mandate how state government relates to its counties, cities and ather political subdivisions with respect to solid waste management. The State Directors favor a requirement that states describe existing and anticipated solid waste disposal capacity, including efforts to site additional capacity. With respect to including recycling facilities in the capacity analysis, the State Directors have indicated that states should consider recycling facilities within their borders during the planning process, but that states should not be penalized for their inability to control the developing private market for recycling services. State Directors believe that the markets for recyclables is national in scope and that planning for selfsufficiency in recycling facilities is not appropriate. The State Directors have endorsed granting states the authority to levy fees on municipal solid waste imported into their states for disposal; this authority would be phased in over time. They believe that economic incentives provided by state fees on imported wastes will foster the appropriate combination of additional waste reduction and recycling activities and management capacity as needed in each state. RECYCLING AND THE STATE PERMITTING PROCESS ་ 6. 976 lays out extensive provisions for a system of permitting solid waste management facilities, a universe which it defines to include recycling facilities. The State Directors are likely to have the following concerns about this provisions. First, identifying recyclables as "solid waste" and recycling facilities as "solid waste management facilities" may give them a stigma that hampers their siting and expansion efforts, and may make the use of recyclable materials in place of virgin materials less desirable. In addition, the costs associated with regulation, transportation and the possible expansion of future liability to include these "wastes" may also reduce the financial benefit associated with using recyclables. Second, unlike solid waste disposal facilities, recycling facilities are in profit making industries where recycling is a means of providing raw material. such facilities include aluminum and ferrous metal smelters, newsprint manufacturers, and cardboard manufacturers. Environmental protection statutes are already in place to govern the operation of these facilities. Requiring detailed notification as is outlined in S. 976, and the possibility that a permit (including corrective action) may be required for a facility that uses recycled materials, may raise the cost associated with using recyclables to a prohibitive point. Further, 8. 976 allows states to exempt recycling facilities from permit requirements on a showing that permitting is not necessary to protect human health and the environment. This requirement for an exemption places the burden of proof on the state to take a facility out of the system. A state's finding for an exemption might be subject to challenge if the solid waste perzit requirement was seen as a regulatory opening that could be exploited by those concerned about other environmental or siting issues relating to the facility. Assuming that a permit were appropriately required for a facility such as a tire recycler or a composter, the permit fee system would create an economic disincentive to recycling. States are required to charge permit fees to cover the cost of the permit issuance, and so that in aggregate, the state program is receiving revenues of not less than $2 a ton. Fees are a useful economic incentive to encourage reductions in disposal volume. However, when placed on recycling, they, no doubt, will have the same effect - reducing the amount being recycled which is the opposite of what we want. This very broad definition of a solid waste management facility is not constrained in any way by the scale of an operation, including the amount of recycling materials that is being used. The notification requirements alone may create an unworkable burden on state resources, which would be exacerbated by the requirements for a state finding that a particular operation would not affect human health and the environment. APPROACHES TO MARKET DEVELOPMENT The State Directors support a strong federal role in procuring materials with recycled content. They support a federal price preference for these materials, such as is found in S. 976. The State Directors have not discussed the approach outlined in S. 976, Section 302, which would have EPA set specific recycling content goals for certain solid waste commodities. Thus, it is not possible to assess whether these are appropriate levels, given the amount of recycling involved, product requirements, etc. The State Directors have tended to want to allow the private sector to make product content decisions based on economic signals that accurately reflect the environmental consequences of their choice, and on the specific needs of the customer buying the product. The State Directors have tended to favor intervention after a voluntary industry effort has tried and failed to bring about the desired product changes. In such a situation, the state Directors do support requirements, with appropriate phase-in periods, that selected industries use inputs containing recycled materials, for example, as a means of ensuring markets for collected recyclables. The State Directors have expressed concern in the past on the related issues of Federal packaging standards. They felt caution should be used about giving EPA broad authority in this area. The State Directors support two alternatives as ways to accomplish recycling content levels: First, policies designed to ensure that product prices reflect the true cost of production, natural resource consumption and ultimate disposal, to level the playing field and thus, promote waste reduction and the use of recycled materials. Becond, policies designed to limit the overall use of virgin materials in the aggregate. Firms might be given quotas for the use of virgin materials, to use as they see fit or to sell on the ppen market. Thus, a company that needed to use virgin materials may bid for access to more materials, while another company may choose to limit virgin material use and develop alternative materials containing recycled goods. Such options provide an incentive to conserve the natural resource base, while providing industry with flexibility in where and how such shifts are to be made. In addition to the economic incentives provided by state import fees, true costing for disposal and use of virgin materials, the State Directors believe that the federal government has an Important role to play in: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. developing a cooperative approach to setting standards for durability and ease of recycling setting consistent standards for use of terms "recycled" and "recyclable" (this would help promote better consistency for recycled materials) tying product and packaging standards to procurement, developing a federal government waste reduction/recycling requiring EPA to assist state and local governments in how to creating an extensive federal effort in public education OVERVIEW OF STATE DIRECTORS' POSITION The State Directors have indicated that one of the key roles the federal government should play in municipal solid waste management is promoting waste reduction policies and fostering markets for recycled goods. 6 The states have taken the lead on recycling issues and their ability to be innovative and creative should be preserved by whatever federal action is taken. The State Directors believe that fees on interstate waste movements, not state planning, will provide the greatest impetus for waste reduction and recycling programs, and will encourage, as necessary, the siting of additional capacity. The State Directors are concerned about the workload implications and the stigma associated with classifying recyclables and recycling facilities as "solid waste management units." The provisions in S. 976 would spur recycling activities, but would do so in a way that is more cumbersome and requires more federal, state and private resources than are necessary to achieve the desired level of environmental benefit. Even as there is growing recognition of the usefulness of economic incentives as a means of ensuring environmental results, this process is heavily command-and-control oriented, with for instance, its requirements for detailed state plans, specified use of recyclable content in key commodities. Finally, I want to address an issue in my role as the Director of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality - not as a representative of the State Directors. I believe that one of the best methods available to increase recycling would be to adopt a National Bottle Bill. In 1972, Oregon became the first state to adopt a Bottle Bill. Only eight other states have followed our example. The Bottle Bill is extremely popular with the citizens of Oregon, who feel they actively doing something to protect the environment. The measure of the Bottle Bill's enormous success is indicated by the return rate of bottles which is currently 100 percent. (Although some of this number are probably stray bottles from neighboring states). The 3ottle Bill not only guarantees that cans, glass and plastic containers are recycled, it introduced each citizen to the concept of source separation and provided the basis for public participation in the expanded recycling opportunities that Oregon has put in place since then. ! I would be pleased to answer any questions the Subcommittee may have. |