MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE

As a

Perhaps no environmental issue we face today is of more concern to the American public than municipal solid waste. nation we generate about 180 million tons of solid waste each year; by the year 2000 we will generate 216 million tons per year if we continue business as usual. We are confronting how to handle this mountain of cans, bottles, leaves, old furniture, food waste, and newspapers. recycling laws and local recycling programs number in the thousands. We must make sure waste is handled safely and effectively through integrated solid waste management systems.

At least 40 states now have

Unfortunately, today many areas of our country face a crisis in their ability to manage their garbage. The siting of new replacement landfills is an extremely expensive and time consuming process. Local opposition to new landfill siting has led to a process that consumes six or more years, or in some cases results in a stalemate. This situation contributed directly to the movement of municipal solid waste to remote landfills, which often are in distant states. Consequently, interstate shipping of waste now serves to further compound siting problems, influence local opposition, and increase solid waste disposal costs.

From EPA's perspective, we believe that many citizens will not accept new disposal facilities in their communities unless they are assured of two things. First, only the disposal

capacity that is absolutely needed should be sited. This means

that to the extent possible materials should be diverted from the wastestream through cost-effective source reduction and

recycling. Second, landfills or combustors that are sited must

be designed and operated safely.

by us all. Everyone has a role.

These problems call for solutions that must be implemented State and local governments, business and industry, and individuals all must contribute to the resolution of this problem. Clearly, cost-effective recycling is an essential part of any solution. Citizens have shown, in all parts of the country, a strong willingness to recycle their own wastes. The number of curbside collection programs has nearly tripled over the past three years. Today, over 2700 communities have such programs. The Administration is encouraging this trend by actively pursuing a goal of reducing solid waste by 25% by the end of this year through source reduction and recycling. However, even with maximum recycling, we would continue, for the foreseeable future, to need incinerators and landfills to manage the remaining non-recyclable materials.

H.R. 3865, however, requires state, local, or regional planning authorities to ensure the diversion of recyclable materials and household hazardous waste from disposal in incinerators and composting facilities. Total elimination of these materials from the waste fed to incinerators and composting facilities is not technically feasible. Market-based approaches, such as full-cost/variable-rate pricing of solid waste disposal, are preferable for encouraging cost-effective waste minimization

and recycling.

The city of Seattle, Washington, for example,

established a unit-based pricing program. That is, the materials its citizens place at the curb for recycling are handled at no charge but households pay for each bag of waste that is destined for disposal. As a result, the total amount of solid waste generated per person dropped, and the amount recycled has risen dramatically. Today, over 38% of Seattle's waste is recycled. This shows how market forces can work to accomplish source reduction and recycling.

We believe that state and local communities' use of marketbased approaches such as the Seattle plan should be pursued aggressively. State solid waste management plans and local planning should contain these elements. Full-cost and variablerate pricing mechanisms send appropriate market signals to households, as prices are aligned to reflect the full cost of waste collection, management, and disposal, and are adjusted according to the weight or volume of garbage produced by each household.

The Federal government also is taking steps to improve these market forces. Federal procurement guidelines that give affirmative procurement programs preference to the purchase of materials made from recycled materials are making a difference. Industry is responding to government purchasing preferences by increasing investment in new mills and processes to turn discarded materials into new products. H.R. 3865 mandates a 10% price preference for Federal procurement of recycled products.

However, price preferences, such as those included in the bill, may be very difficult for governments to implement during this period of tight budgets. In addition, we believe the current approach of establishing minimum recycled content percentages in our bid specifications is a more effective approach that does not necessitate the use of price supports.

On October 31, 1991, the President signed Executive Order 12783 on Federal agency recycling. The Executive Order, which

EPA had the lead in developing, affects all Federal agencies and contains several requirements in addition to the affirmative procurement program for recycled materials and energy efficient products required by RCRA § 6002. The Executive Order assigns EPA and other agencies specific responsibilities, described below.

First, Federal agencies are required to set up recycling programs compatible with state and local requirements for all their operations and facilities. Any contractor operating a Government-owned or leased facility will also be required to operate similar recycling programs within the facility. This will involve any contract awarded more than 210 days after the effective date of the Order.

Second, Federal agencies are required to establish affirmative procurement programs focusing on those products for which EPA has already written procurement guidelines. EPA is available to provide assistance in this area. If an agency fails to establish its own program, it is required to adopt a program

provided by EPA. Within six months of the effective date of the Order, each agency is required to report to the EPA Administrator on the status of its procurement program. Within one year,

EPA is required to report to the President on the progress the

agencies are making.

Third, agencies are required to annually review the effectiveness of their procurement programs and report the findings to both EPA and the Office of Federal Procurement Policy.

Fourth, the EPA Administrator will designate a senior EPA official as the Federal Recycling Coordinator who will report annually (at budget submission time) to OMB on the progress that the Federal agencies are making in the recycling area. Each agency also is required to designate its own Recycling

Coordinator to manage and report on all recycling and procurement actions required by the Order.

Fifth, the Order establishes a Council on Federal Recycling and Procurement Policy to advise OMB on future initiatives, serve as an information clearinghouse, and provide guidance to the agencies on establishing, evaluating, and reporting on their recycling programs.

EPA, in concert with the FTC and Office of Consumer Affairs, is already working to harness the public interest in recycling by developing consistent national definitions for use in the marketing of consumer goods. For example, we recently issued a notice requesting comment on the use of the terms "recycled" and