[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 53 (Thursday, May 5, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 5, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
      INTRODUCTION OF THE SUPER- FUND RECYCLING EQUITY ACT OF 1994

                                 ______


                        HON. BLANCHE M. LAMBERT

                              of arkansas

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 5, 1994

  Ms. LAMBERT. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing, along with Mr. 
Upton, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Schaefer and Mr. Manton, the Superfund 
Recycling Equity Act of 1994. This legislation is intended to place 
traditional recyclable, or secondary, materials which are used as 
feedstocks in the manufacturing process on an equal footing with their 
virgin, or primary, materials counterparts. Traditional recyclables are 
made from paper, glass, plastic, metals, textiles, and rubber.
  This legislation has become necessary because of an unintended 
consequence of the Comprehensive Emergency Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act [CERCLA] or Superfund. Some courts have interpreted 
CERCLA to mean that the sale of certain traditional recyclable 
feedstocks is an arrangement for the treatment or disposal of a 
hazardous substance and, therefore, fully subject to Superfund 
liability. This sale of virgin material feedstocks sold for the same or 
similar purpose, understandably, should not be considered to be the 
arrangement for the disposal of a hazardous substance.
  There exists in law and legislative history no suggestion whatever 
that the Congress intended to impede recycling in America by providing 
a strong preference for the use of virgin materials through the 
Superfund liability scheme. But, that is precisely what has happened.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people and their elected leaders have 
insisted that the recycling rates in our country increase--not 
decrease. I am offering the Superfund Recycling Equity Act of 21994 to 
encourage more, not less, recycling. Intuitively, our citizens know 
that increased recycling means less use of natural resources, which 
both extends the life of those resources and minimizes any adverse 
environmental impacts of their exploitation.
  The use of recyclables is also of importance to the achievement of 
the goals of pollution prevention and waste minimization, which have 
taken on increased importance in the environmental debates of the past 
few years. For example, the use of recycled steel results in a 90 
percent savings in virgin material use, 40 percent reduction in water 
use, 76 percent reduction in water pollution and a 97 percent reduction 
in mining waste over the use of virgin ores. Recycling is also more 
energy efficient than the production of primary metals. As an 
illustration, using recycled materials in place of virgin materials 
results in tremendous energy savings: 95 percent for aluminum 
production, 75 percent for iron and steel, 64 percent for paper, and 80 
percent for plastics.
  Let me now address what my bill does--and does not--do. The Superfund 
Recycling Equity Act of 1994 acknowledges that the Congress did not 
intend to subject to Superfund liability those governmental or private 
entities who collect and process secondary materials for sale as 
feedstocks for manufacturing. This amendment removes from liability 
those who collect, process, and sell to manufacturers paper, glass, 
plastic, metal textiles, and rubber recyclables. My CERCLA amendment 
does not address chemical, solvent, sludge, or slag recycling. It 
addresses traditional recyclables in a CERCLA context only. I do not 
intend it to be viewed as a precedent for any other amendment to 
Superfund or to any other environmental statute, whatsoever.
  It should also be clearly understood that this bill addresses the 
product of recyclers--that is, the recyclables they sell which are 
utilized to make new products. This does not effect liability for 
contamination that is created at a facility owned or operated by a 
recycler. Neither does it affect liability related to any process 
wastes sent by a recycler for treatment or disposal. In order to assure 
that only bonafide recycling facilities benefit from this bill, I have 
established a number of tests by which liability relief will be denied 
to sham recyclers.
  Mr. Speaker, in developing this bill I have had the pleasure of 
working with Martin McCrory of the Natural Resources Defense Council 
[NRDC], Patricia Williams of the National Wildlife Federation, 
representatives from other environmental groups, as well as 
representatives of the traditional recycling industry, including Mark 
Reiter, Alex Echols, Tom Wolfe and Herschel Cutler from the Institute 
of Scrap Recycling Industries. I have also coordinated efforts with the 
staffs from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of 
Justice, and the Transportation and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee. I 
wish to thank them for their long and hard work in helping me to 
develop a bill which will provide more environmental protection to the 
American people than they are presently receiving under the current 
regulatory regime. Their support for this bill is testament to the 
consensus we have all achieved.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.

                          ____________________