RCRA Section 6002 - 25 years

The Unfulfilled Promise

Testimony Submitted to the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee

Hearing on the Progress of National Recycling Efforts

July 11, 2002

Fran McPoland

Federal Environmental Executive 1994-2000

Chair, White House Task Force on Recycling 1998-2000

 

My name is Fran McPoland, and from 1994 until 2000, I was honored to serve my country as this nation’s first Federal Environmental Executive, and later also as Chair of the White House Task Force on Recycling.  It is in light of those experiences and the insights gained in implementing Section 6002 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act that I am pleased to submit these comments for the record. 

 

As the Federal Environmental Executive I was directly responsible for the implementation of Executive Order 12873, and subsequently, Executive Order 13101 which provided additional requirements implementing the broad intent of RCRA Section 6002. I was also the principal author of Executive Order 13101 which aims at increasing compliance with overall government environmental procurement programs.  Because of these experiences I believe I bring to this hearing the unique perspective of having been on the front lines of “Greening” Federal procurement.

 

I believe the core question before this committee is whether RCRA Section 6002 has been a success or a failure.  And why?  The answer to the first question is a qualified yes.  The provision has been successful in a number of areas and has not been successful in others.  The answer to the second question is more complicated and I believe this committee needs to understand that the successes that we had are not likely to be easily replicated across a broad swath of product categories.

 

What did Congress intend to accomplish with the drafting of RCRA Section 6002?

 

In reading the language of the law and the report, it is clear that Congress considered recycling to be a critical part of the Nation’s waste management hierarchy and that the Federal government, through its procurement actions would be key to steering materials away from disposal by providing a robust end-market for products made from such materials.  Clearly Congress intended that the federal government would use it’s purchasing powers to move recycled products through the system.  In effect, to ‘pull’ products back into useful commerce and away from the landfills and the incinerators.

Has RCRA 6002 been successful?

 

As I noted in my summary, in my view the answer is mixed.  Congress directed EPA to determine if there were products containing recovered materials that the federal government could buy and to develop specifications calling for recycled content in those products.  EPA, as you well know, got off to a very slow start.  From the time the law was passed in 1976 until 1988 there were only 5 products designated (and that was only as a result of a lawsuit brought against the Agency by the Natural Resources Defense Council and others).  After 1988, EPA didn’t designate a single product until 1993, when Executive Order 12873, directed both that the process be streamlined and that EPA meet a schedule established in that Order.  After that things picked up dramatically so that by 2000 more than 50 products had been designated.

 

The most dramatic success of the statutory provision and the far reaching actions of the Clinton-Gore Administration in implementing Congress’s intent was in the area of copier paper.[1]  To understand that success, it helps to realize both how much of an improvement was made in a relatively short time and to understand the unique features of that product which may temper our natural enthusiasm for trying to transfer that success to other products.

 

First, how far did we get in expanding the use of post-consumer recycled content copier paper?  Up through 1992, the federal government was buying only 12% of the quantity of its paper with recycled content –  and the post-consumer waste content of that paper was only 10%.  By the end of 1998, we had achieved a government-wide compliance rate of 98% of our copy paper was 30% post-consumer paper.  That constitutes a 2,450% improvement.

 

There were a number of factors which contributed to that success - unfortunately, some of these factors may not be reproducible for other commodities.  First of all, paper is the very life-blood of the federal government.  It has been for years, and despite the electronic communications revolution, and the anticipated “paperless office”, there has been no appreciable drop-off in the federal governments’ use of paper.  Because of the critical day-to-day importance of paper to the operation of the government, and because procurement of nearly all paper occurs through centralized procurement agencies such as GSA and GPO – the number of “points of control” for achieving the Presidential mandates in Executive Orders 12873 and 13101 was minimal.  However, very few items are bought through centralized procurement systems anymore.  With the dramatic decentralization of government procurement authority and growth of virtually uncontrolled use of government credit cards,[2] replicating the paper success across the board would be impossible, especially since OMB has consistently resisted efforts to require the banks which issue the credit cards under contract to the government to report on transactions at the level of specificity needed to ensure compliance with buy recycled efforts.  Because the vast majority of the copy paper is purchased through GSA and GPO we were able to carefully track, and report to the Congress on our progress in increasing government purchasing.  OMB, however, continues to oppose essential reporting tracking on credit card purchases. Since public funds are being expended it seems implausible that OMB is not interested in whether those funds are being obligated in ways that comply with the law.  Until tracking and reporting is required, voluntary compliance without oversight is doomed to fail.  There is a saying in management that sums it up: “What gets measured gets done.”

 

A clear example of this was at the Department of Energy under Secretary O’Leary who had established a 100% compliance goal with RCRA Sections 6002 in her performance agreement with the President.  DOE measured and rapidly improved its performance dramatically in the following years.

 

Another reason that our experience with copier paper is not replicable is that EPA tends to ignore how the government purchases products when it sets CPG Guidelines.  The clearest example of this is the CPG required product,‘cement containing fly ash’.  The government really doesn’t buy much ‘cement’ as a single line item - we buy buildings and parking lots.  And, unless language is put into the appropriate contracts for these construction projects and some mechanism is found to track compliance - this CPG item will continue to be ignored.  The same can be said for the other construction products in the CPG like paint, wallboard, insulation, etc.

 

The fact that getting to 100% for all commodities is not feasible should, however, not deter us from maximizing our efforts to increase the governmental purchasing of recycled content and environmentally preferred products.  Why?  I believe there are some very sound reasons for maintaining and increasing our focus on promoting procurement of recycled content and environmentally preferable products.  This envisions: 1) energy/environmental economics; 2) Promoting technical change/leadership/markets.

 

First, the quantifiable multi-media environmental life-cycle benefits of making products from post-consumer recycled materials and other Environmentally Preferable Products are enormous.  The environmental benefits of federal purchasing of just recycled content copier paper within the RCRA 6002 program as compared to buying that same quantity of paper made from virgin fiber are summarized in the following list:

 

            450,000 - 500,000 fewer trees cut down annually

            14% reduction in greenhouse gasses and air emissions

            13% reduction in solid waste generation and water pollution

            12% reduction in energy used to produce paper

            16,000 tons of carbon absorbed by trees left remaining standing

 

But it is not just environmental and energy benefits which this program delivers - it has become a major force in our economy.  Hundreds of industries, large and small, new and old, have come to rely on recovered materials as a major source of their production inputs.  Work done by my staff at the White House Task Force on Recycling reveals that fully 67% of the steel produced in the United States and  55% of the aluminum cans produced were recovered from the waste stream.  EPA projects that only the part of the market dealing with the recovery of recycled materials will be a $5.2 billion industry by 2005 – not to mention the direct energy and production cost savings of using recycled vs. virgin raw materials.

 

Without Demand There is No Need For Supply

 

What these statistics show is that the widespread success of the collection of recyclable materials at the curbside has formed a vast supply chain of highly processed materials, and that supply has been successfully married to effective demand in a significant and growing portion of American industry.

 

Unfortunately, some of the most difficult and potentially damaging elements of the waste stream specifically intend to be captured by the RCRA Section 6002 program have not found the demand the Congress promised and which is necessary for reducing the environmental damage from these materials and  returning these wastes to products in useful commerce.

 

Exhibits 1 in the list of where we have largely failed is the federal government’s failure to live up to its promise of 25 years ago to buy re-refined motor oil and retread tires.  The American people were appropriately outraged in 1989 when the Exxon Valdez released 11 million gallons of oil into the Alaskan waters.  In that same year, more than 190 million gallons of used oil were improperly disposed of by “do-it-yourself” engine oil changers - nearly the equivalent of sixteen Valdez spills.  When you add in additional sources of improper used oil disposal it adds up to about 35 Exxon Valdez spills!  Much of this could be recovered and recycled if there was demand.

 

Why do we not recover and recycle the oil?  Simply put, it’s not worth our while to do so because there is not much of a market for it.  With no market, who wants the hassle of collecting it?  At the end of 1992 we were buying ½ of 1% of the governments’ lubricating oil needs with re-refined oil made from collected used oil.  By the end of 1997 we had increased that to a still abysmal 12%.  I suppose I could say that during my tenure, we managed to increase procurement by 2,480%, but the fact would remain that we are simply not getting the job done to get these waste streams out of the environment and back into useful commerce.  The same story applies to retread tires.  The Federal government’s procurement of tires and oil is not executed exclusively through limited control channels like paper, but the number of control points is relatively small and the Federal government’s leverage is large.  With the will to do so, GSA and DOD could change the situation overnight.  For example, they could write contracts requiring that cars sold or leased to the Federal government come equipped with retread tires and re-refined oil - - just as we did with seatbelts in the 1960's.

 

In 1976 the Congress attempted to forge a new direction in national waste management priorities — by not merely enshrining recycling in a higher place in the hierarchy but by taking steps to ensure the success of recycling by providing a stable source of demand for products made with collected materials.  While the Congress’ insight on this matter was remarkable perhaps it should have foreseen recalcitrance on the part of the Federal bureaucracy.

 

Another factor in the success of post-consumer content copier paper was the decision on the part of GSA to discontinue sales of virgin copy paper.  GSA didn’t do this voluntarily, they didn’t do it happily, and, although it was a success - they have no plans to do it again with any other products they sell or manage.

 

Why is it that, like an “adult” providing a cigarettes to children, GSA is allowed to continue to sell non-recycled products to government users - when recycled products are readily available, are cost competitive and of excellent quality?  Why is it that GSA won’t even list the CPG compliant products first on the web site?

 

To use Federal “demand pull” to successfully form a commercial marketplace for collected materials, a lot of very different strings have to pull forward at the same rate and force to not imbalance the underlying markets.  Like the reins of a team of horses used to pull a sleigh, the strings to be carefully manipulated, in my view, include:

 

            Excellent information on the sources which can supply recycled content products.

            Support by the purchasing agencies — including EPA setting an example.  This support must be both top-down and bottom-up to be truly successful.

            Provision of quality products at reasonable, although not necessarily equal or lower prices.

            Incentives for Agency compliance (or disincentives for non-compliance!)

            Program management, with Reporting and Congressional oversight.

 

Mr. Chairman, it has been 25 years since this law was passed and more than 10 years since Congress held any hearings on the implementation of this law.  I applaud this committee for holding this hearing today and strongly urge you to continue these efforts.

 

 

 


[1]      The term “copier paper” is used to denote all wrapped ream paper, for use in copiers, personal and network printers, and other general office use.

[2]      Tens of thousands of government purchase credits cards have been issued to government workers with purchase authority of a maximum of $2,500 for each transaction.