PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALLEN HERSHKOWITZ, PH.D.

I. INTRODUCTION

My name is Allen Hershkowitz and I am a Senior Scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). I appreciate your invitation requesting NRDC's testimony on this most important solid waste management issue. As you know, NRDC is a national non-profit environmental organization supported by more than 180,000 members and contributors dedicated to conservation of our natural resources and protection of public health. For the past two decades, NRDC's staff lawyers and scientists have actively sought enactment and effective implementation of Federal and State laws and regulations to ensure that the discharge, management and disposal of all wastes generated in the U.S. and abroad do not threaten the public health or the environment, especially through contamination of groundwater, air and food.

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

Recycling is the least polluting solid waste treatment process;

Recycling will enhance combustion practices, reduce the need for new incineration units and, in fact, provide new incineration capacity at the least cost and; • Recycling preserves landfill space:

Recycling is the most 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 into RCRA. We applaud this objective and are certain you recognize that recycling is the resource conservation RCRA now lacks.

II. AMERICANS WANT A MANDATE REQUIRING RECYCLING.

A recent public opinion poll indicated that 86 percent of the American public supports "a requirement [to] separate and recycle household items such as bottles, cans and newspapers." This represents a consensus exceeding our Nation's recent and extraordinarily strong support for military activity in the Persian Gulf. 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 wastes generated in the U.S. are recycled. Those communities that do recycle are greatly hampered by the absence of regulations at the Federal level that can reduce the risks inherent in this industry, especially requirements to increase both the supply of and the demand for recyclable and recycled products.

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 re-authorization of RCRA must:

⚫ mandate high volume diversion of waste materials to assure a steady, high quality supply of for recycling;

greatly expand the end markets for recycled materials via content standards for consumer goods, Federal procurement requirements, etc.;

⚫ encourage manufacturers to reduce in their product lines the use of toxic materials that interfere with recycling;

• reduce our nation's reliance on costly and controversial waste treatment and disposal technologies such as incinerators and landfills by, at least, mandating a moratorium in the permitting, construction or expansion of new garbage incinerators;

prohibit the incineration of unsuitable materials;

• eliminate the hazardous waste exemption for incinerator ash and regulate it under subtitle C;

• avoid provisions for any override of local zoning ordinances to site solid waste facilities;

assist the consumer in making environmentally favorable purchases by prohibiting mis-leading or deceptive environmental claims;

assure that State planning requirements require the use of the most environmentally benign management technologies for all materials found in the municipal waste stream;

provide the material specific information necessary to properly assess the correct technology, size, cost and labor requirements appropriate to any treatment or disposal facility under consideration by, at least, standardizing waste management costing and capacity measurements

• assure that those most immediately affected by the siting of a facility approve its location

• reduce the costs of disposing of packaging wastes and establish an efficiency requirement for a currently unregulated technology (packaging).

III. THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1991: SECTION ANALYSIS FOR TITLES III AND IV

You will note from the analysis that follows that NRDC endorses most of the objectives in the Amendments of 1991. Nevertheless, we have considerable concerns about the Amendments efficacy to bring about these objectives. Indeed, as written we do not believe the Amendments' generally laudable objectives will be realized unless substantial modifications are made to this Bill. The Amendments provide only incentives for waste reduction and recycling and fall short of establishing a recycling mandate. An enforceable recycling mandate is essential to ending the garbage crisis.

IV. TITLE III-RECYCLING

Sec. 301. National Recycling Goal.

Section Objective: To provide non-mandatory incentives for waste reduction and recycling, without establishing a mandate. These Amendments must include an enforceable recycling mandate:

Assessment: [@ Sec. 6005.] from what baseline year are the Amendments calculating these goals? With EPA data showing a waste stream growing at 1.5 percent/ year, and assuming a baseline year of 1991, the 10 percent reduction goal is not even a "no net increase," [which was adopted, e.g., by the Coalition of Northeastern Governors Source Reduction Council]. Such an unambitious and unenforceable goal cannot assure us that we will reduce by even one unit the amount of waste treatment or disposal technologies. Nor can we expect even one pound less of waste to be generated as well because of this policy (whether on a per capita basis or in the aggregate) which will offer municipalities no financial relief from a growing waste stream.

[@ Sec. 6006. (a)] the Amendments leave the supply of recycling materials, (via a diversion mandate) unpredictable. This is perhaps the single most crucial legislative requirement necessary to build a recycling industry and markets and, more importantly, manage solid wastes. The Amendments would have the Administrator take 24 months to establish something that, at least, hearings could establish conclusively. The Amendments establish no national deposit system for all beverage containers. This is a popular, highly effective least-cost collection program.

[@ Sec. 6006. (b)] recovery and utilization are grouped together in such a way as to make distinguishing the policy requirements extremely difficult. Recovery is something done at the generator end [supply] while utilization is something done by the end-user [demand]. Utilization is the amount of recycled materials actually incorporated into new finished products. Thus, "the minimum recovery and utilization is too ambiguous to result in significant recycling increases. It is unclear who bears responsibility to implement this requirement. If, as seems likely, the Amendments refer here to content standards here, where does post-consumer content requirements come in to play?

rate

[@ Sec. 6006 (c)] as written, implementation of both diversion and content standards (supply and demand, the essentials of recycling) is left unpredictable and unenforceable. Reporting requirements for materials utilization is too limited. What is the basis for offering a credit system at this time? We Propose: [@ Sec. 6005.] mandate that EPA promulgate and implement rules to achieve a 40 percent MSW reduction within ten years. [§ 4003(a)(5)(D)] becomes unnecessary with this requirement. Mandate a diversion requirement upwards of 60 percent by commodity. (If @ § 4003(a)(5)A) a demonstration is required of the steps needed to achieve the recycling "goals" pursuant to § 6005, why aren't the "goals" at § 6005 a requirement?) The absence of a diversion mandate in these Amendments are their most substantial defect. By not requiring diversion these Amendments preclude a shift from a waste-treatment system to a recycling system. These Amendments are not environ

mentally protective without high volume diversion mandates. Require that (a) each municipality in the State and (b) any other jurisdiction, government or authority organized for the purpose of constructing, operating or using a municipal solid waste landfill or incinerator (including a waste-to-energy incinerator) divert away from such landfill or incinerator: 65 percent of all glass; 65 percent of all papers; 80 percent of all metals; 50 percent of all plastics; 90 percent of all yard wastes; 10 percent of all food wastes;

To facilitate achieving these diversion levels, establish a national deposit system on all beverage containers.

Require that no permit shall be issued to any solid waste management system until: A. localities planning to use such a facility have achieved the above diversion rates, and B. it can demonstrated that reliance on such a facility will not interfere with maintaining the diversion rates listed above;

[@ Sec. 6006 (a)] any needed refinements by the administrator to statutory mandates can and should be required within 6 months to enhance market developments and solid waste planning programs.

[@ Sec. 6006. (b)] if the Amendments are here referring to content standards then delete references to "recovery" since these are confusing. The higher the content standards that are required the more likely that industry will step in and assist with diversion/collection and in this way alleviate some of the financial burden municipalities must bear.

Establish a recycled materials content standards mandate in RCRA for:

In addition to the plastic content standards described above the EPA should be required to establish content standards for less prominent plastic resins not listed here and new plastic products as they evolve. Promulgate reporting requirements to evaluate attainment of the required utilization rates for each facility, after broadening the utilization reporting requirement.

[@ Sec. 6006 (c)] tie diversion requirements to the ability of States to issue permits for incinerators and landfills [as we specified above in our proposals re: § 6005]. Utilization can be ascertained from the reporting requirements outlined [@ § 6006. (b)(4)(A)]. Delete references to recycling credit system until we know more about possible implementation scenarios.

Sec. 303. Rural Recycling Demonstration Programs and Collection of Secondary Materials.

Section Objective: To assure that the Amendments account for differences [collection programs, markets, waste characteristics. etc.] between rural and urban areas. We endorse the idea that regional, etc. differences need to be accounted for but (a) we are not certain that distinguishing between rural and urban is sufficient or adequately flexible and (B) we are convinced that variances from any recycling mandate be allowed only if the life-cycle economics of collection and marketing is uneconomical.

Assessment: Although demonstration projects could be useful to identify emerging or innovative recycling options, no community should be categorically exempt from the basic waste management truism principal each category of wastes has a most environmentally desirable route. Allow life-cycle costing criteria to modify that environmental reality if a recycling mandate is not economical.

[@ § 6007. (e)] collection programs are not tied to diversion for recycling. Collection programs for batteries, tires and used oil are all too vague to be effective.

We propose: This Section should be delated as written. Instead, require a life-cycle costing analysis for any jurisdiction (urban or rural) seeking a variance from the diversion mandate outlined above. That is, require that a standardized accounting procedure shows how much it will cost to take XX tons of XXX materials every day for 20 years to a recycling program vs. taking those same XX tons of XXX materials to an incinerator or landfill every day for 20 years [you might do this via the standardized accounting procedure similar to the one already prepared for the EPA by Temple Barker and Sloan as a background document to Agenda for Action. This is attached as an appendix to this document]. The major caveat here is that environmental impacts need to be fully and accurately quantified, including energy savings, pollution reduction, resource conservation etc., which are all favorable to recycling. [@ § 6007. (e)] our proposal @ § 6005 re: diversion makes this Section unnecessary except for oil, batteries and tires. For these, incorporate Sen. Chaffee's tire initiative here S1038, the used oil proposal offered by NRDC et al, and mandate diversion or both household and lead acid batteries from both incinerators and landfills.

Sec. 304. Federal Procurement of Recycled Materials.

Section Objective: The Federal Government should assist in making the demand for recycled materials more predictable and stable through its own purchases and through any other purchases it might influence. We endorse this objective.

Assessment: This is among the more effective amendments in the bill. Purchasing goals are correctly assigned, although as written these goals might be construed as a cap. The price preferences are helpful. However, according to the National Institute of Governmental Purchasing, State and Federal Government purchases represent 20-21 percent of the GNP, of which 12-13 percent derives from State government spending. Consequently, the Amendments will affect only a percentage of these procurement requirements. For this reason this initiative will more effectively achieve our shared objective by broadening all procurement obligations to the State level as well. And for this reason as well the purchasing obligations should be enhanced somewhat. The promotion of composting markets is good, but the use of unsuitable, mixed MSW to make compost is not prohibited. It should be.

We Propose: [@ § 6002 (a)] broaden all procurement obligations to the State level. [@ § 6002 (c)(4)(A)] increase purchasing requirements to 35 percent of the amount spent by the procuring agency. [@ § 6002(e)(2)] accelerate guidelines time-frame for composting and tires procurement, and prohibit the use by any government agency of compost made from mixed MSW. [@ § 6002(j)] USDA should use compost made only from yard wastes, food or items specifically designed to be composted and which have been given EPA certification as a non-contaminating compostable material. Throughout, the government should also be encouraged to purchase re-usable materials.

Sec. 305. Market Development.

Section Objective: To reduce the risks recycling is subject to because of an unpredictable and adversely biased market. We endorse this objective.

Assessment: Not much is offered here that will give any entrepreneur, investor, municipal official, etc., any sense that this market is being effectively stimulated. We Propose: There are many financial mechanisms that can be used to enhance the recycling industries need for diversion and demand. A secondary materials market should be established for plastics, paper, yard wastes, etc. as COMEX commodities [if pork bellies qualify, why not these materials?]. More frequent reports on commodities' prices (at least weekly, though daily is used for most everything else

44-079 0-91--4

on the COMEX). The Dept. of Commerce needs to report more frequently about its efforts [since it was egregiously remiss in it's previous RCRA obligation]. Consider use of the tax code e.g. accelerated depreciation, ITCs, rebates. Calculate and assess fees on the use of virgin materials to correct environmental imbalances between use of virgin materials and recycling which now subsidize against recycling. Correct subsidies [energy and timber] that work against recycling. Other market development items worthy of inclusion or consideration here and passim include:

• Enhance the avoided cost ratio: issue environmentally protective planning and design criteria for waste treatment and disposal technologies;

• Advance Disposal Fees;

• Unit cost pricing;

• Establish a market climate [low risk] conducive to using tax-exempt municipal bonds, establishing authorities, etc.;

• Promote recycling franchises.

Sec. 306. Federal Contracts.

Section Objective: The Federal Government should assist in making the demand for recycled materials more predictable and stable through its own purchases and through any other purchases it might influence. This Section also proposes to reduce waste at Federal agencies. We endorse both of these objectives.

Assessment: Most of the purchasing power held by government is in the hands of States and localities. However, as written this Section is limited to only Federal contracts. Certification that recycled materials are not available might unacceptably be established because the recyclables are being mis-routed to incinerators and landfills.

[@ § 6009] the "5 percent" requirement is much too stringent a requirement. It would mean no one could petition an agency to switch from disposable batteries to rechargeable ones, from disposable cups to mugs, from disposable shipping cartons or pallets to reusable ones etc., etc.

We Propose: Broaden the requirements in this Section to include State and local governments as well. Preclude the use of single-use items in all Federal, State and local food service establishments. Preclude certification that recyclables are not available if availability is limited by mis-routing of recyclables to incinerators or landfills. Lower the petition option to 1 percent [only one hundred insightful Federal employees are needed to get a waste phase out!]. Make certain the costing requirement as a petition condition is an equipment/agency life-cycle assessment. Allow for an appeal of agency denial for all waste reduction petitions. Consider financial/career incentives for Federal employees that successfully identify a waste reducing option.

V. TITLE IV-WASTE AND SECONDARY MATERIALS MANAGEMENT

Sec. 402. State and Regional Planning.

Section Objective: To promote coherent State and locally implemented solid waste planning; to prohibit reliance on obsolete/illegal waste disposal facilities; to increase our nation's reliance on recycling; to assist in the development of new waste treatment facilities; to stabilize and reduce the amount of MSŴ transported across State boundaries. Assuming that proper planning requirements are put in place to assure that all facility planning that takes place is oriented towards least impact waste reduction and recycling, we endorse all of these objectives.

Assessment and What We Propose: The provisions necessary to assure that waste reduction and recycling is prioritized are lacking from this Section and, indeed, this Section seems designed to encourage facility siting to the detriment of these objectives. As now written, this Section does not effectively enforce reliance on the top rungs of the solid waste management hierarchy.

[@ § 4003(a)(3)] minimum planning period of ten years could work against recycling in the short term. Consider an initial minimum period of five years with five year revisions thereafter.

[@ § 4003(a)(4)(A)] this is among the most important provisions in all the amendments offered since it requires an identification of the waste stream composition. Composition analyses serve as the basis for efficient materials routing and facilities planning. Specific in requirements must be added so that solid waste planners actually perform composition analyses rather than imprecise waste characteristic studies that identify only "municipal wastes, C & Ď, industrial wastes" etc. In [@ § 4003(a)(5)(A)] the steps needed to achieve the recycling "goals" pursuant to § 6005 must be demonstrated. Achieving the goals in § 6005 should also be required. [@ § 4003(a)(5)(C)] identifies all the recyclable or problem materials in the waste stream, but the State or relevant planning agency must only "consider" diversion or sepa