13. Mr. H. Van Fleet, Dutch Ministry for Environmental Protection, The Hague, The Netherlands, NRDC Recycling Workshop, Jan. 10, 1992, and; Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning and the Environment, Directorate for Waste, Ref.: DGM/A No.1700510 Re: Waste Policy, 19 Oct. 1990. Although the Dutch have a different implementation scheme than the FRG, in effect the outcome of both policies require utilization rates in excess of 60/%, although the Dutch apply that to a range of materials (29 in total) broader than that as yet defined in the FRG.

14. Mr. H. Van Fleet, Dutch Ministry for Environmental Protection, The Hague, The Netherlands, NRDC Recycling Workshop, Jan. 10, 1992.

15. Dr. Horst-Henning Wolf, Leiter, Projekt Recycling Fahrzeuge, BMW AG, Munich, Germany, NRDC Recycling Workshop, 9 January 1992.

16. Dr. Otto Kuby, Directeur, Comite Economique et Social des C.E., Brussels, Belgium, NRDC's Recycling Workshop, Jan. 6, 1992.

17. Dr. Otmar Tillmann, Technisches Marketing F & E Umwelt, Steinbeis Tewmming Papier GMBH & Co., Gemmrigheim, Germany, NRDC Recycling Workshop, 8 January 1992.

18. On this, of course, see U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, The Solid Waste Dilemma: An Agenda for Action, at P. 17 and passim, and; Hershkowitz and Salerni, op cit.

19. Public L. 92-513, Title V, Sec. 502, and; Public L. 94-163, Title III Sec. 301, Dec. 22, 1975.

20. For an elaboration of this see Hershkowitz, A. "Burning Trash: How it Could Work," Technology Review July, 1987.

21. The Solid Waste Dilemma: An Agenda for Action Washington, DC: U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste, February 1989, Appendix B "Other Contributions to the Waste Stream: MSW Combustion Ash," at P. B-5.

22. Hershkowitz, A. International Experiences in Solid Waste Management, contract prepared for U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, October, 1988, and; Hershkowitz, A. and Salerni, G. Garbage Management in Japan: Leading the Way, New York: INFORM, 1987.

23. Mr. David Sokol, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Ogden Projects, Speech before the Shearson Lehman Hutton Pollution Control Seminar, New York, December, 1987.

ENERGY SAVINGS & CO2 REDUCTIONS USING RECYCLED MATERIALS IN SELECTED MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

NET ENERGY
SAVINGS PER TON

ENERGY SAVINGS CALCULATED FOR FUEL MIX OF EACH
INDUSTRY PER TON OF RECYCLED MATERIAL

(TON

KCUB FT) LORS (TON

FEEDSTOCK

BENEFTRA IN PROCTN BTLA

TOM

ALUMINUM

196

37.2

6.47

1.54

4537

79.9

NA

NA

228

13.0

PAPER

20 9

4

0.304

0.152

131.4

3.01

..17.19

1.95°

45

48.3

-0.03

35

59.7

12.33

234

-0.129

-0.063

-55.3

-1.29

.427.01

2.91

51.3

GLASS

17.14

15.3

0.39

For further information contact Allen Hershkowitz or Jonathan Kimmelman at (212) 727-4479

INA

Not Applicable

Mr. SWIFT. Thank you very much, Allen. I'm sorry to have to hurry you.

Ms. Elizabeth Seiler.

STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH H.A. SEILER

MS. SEILER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning. I'm Elizabeth Seiler, director of environmental affairs for the Grocery Manufacturers of America. I'm going to briefly highlight some comments from my written testimony, which is submitted for the record.

We recognize the difficult process involved in putting together this proposal and greatly appreciate your ongoing willingness to listen to our concerns.

Let me begin by stating our member companies' strong support for reducing, reusing and recycling packaging. The impact of our voluntary effort is evidenced in an important new study just released by Franklin Associates. The study examines changing demographics and their influence on waste disposal. I would like to point out that Mike Levy of Franklin Associates is seated directly behind me should you have any specific questions on this study. We believe it has direct relevance to your efforts, so I would like to quickly highlight some of its findings.

Between 1972 and 1987, the U.S. population grew by 16 percent. I believe we can all agree that more people means more consumption and ultimately more waste. However, over that timeframe, total discards increased 28 percent.

There are some significant demographic changes which relate to this increase. The number of single households, for instance, grew 72 percent, and as a result, the number of major appliances disposed of, such as dishwashers, refrigerators and washing machines, grew by 74 percent. Home furnishing discards grew by 80 percent. Although food packaging has increased 7 percent by weight over that timeframe, on a per capita basis it has decreased 8 percent. This significant, voluntary reduction is the result of consumerdriven pressure to source reduce and to utilize recyclable packaging.

We believe the statistics demonstrate that the waste stream is changing and it is miltifaceted. For this reason alone, we believe that approaches which narrowly focus on one method of waste management-recycling-and on one component of the waste stream-packaging—will not serve, over the long term, to solve the waste management problem.

Even if we could recycle all packaging, two-thirds of the waste stream would still need to be managed. The need for new composting, incineration and landfill facilities simply cannot be ignored.

Now, moving specifically to the bill, we appreciate your attempt to add flexibility by adopting the multiple options approach. We believe, however, it does not take into account the vital role packaging materials play in protecting and transporting the Nation's grocery products.

Manufacturers choose packaging materials for as number of reasons, including the material's ability to assure food safety, product protection, durability, consumer appeal, and yes, of course, environ