🚀 go-pugleaf

HOW GOVERNMENT BUILDING CODES AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS
DISCOURAGE RECYCLING

by Alexander Volokh
Reason Foundation Policy Study #202
Project Director: Lynn Scarlett

Part 3 of a Series on
*Recycling and Deregulation: Opportunities for Market Development*

available from the Reason Foundation, 310-391-2245

This message contains:
	1. Press release for Policy Study #202
	2. Executive summary for Policy Study #202
	3. Preface to the *Recycling and Deregulation* series

------------------------------

1. PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Richard Phillips, 310-391-2245

GOVERNMENT BUILDING CODES, CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS DISCOURAGE RECYCLING

Rely on Performance Measures, Not Mandates, Says Study

March 25, 1996 -- LOS ANGELES, Calif.  Government building codes, 
construction standards, and procurement guidelines may discourage the use 
of recycled materials in homes, buildings, roads, and office supplies, 
according to the study *How Government Building Codes and Construction 
Standards Discourage Recycling*, released today by the Los Angeles-based 
Reason Foundation.

According to Alexander Volokh, environmental policy analyst at the Reason 
Foundation and author of the study, part of the problem is industry 
standard-setting organizations like the American Society for Testing and 
Materials (ASTM) or the American Association of State Highway and 
Transportation Officials (AASHTO), which write standards that sometimes 
shut out recycled materials from consideration.

"Drainage pipes made of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) can be made with 
up to 50% recycled content -- and considering how much drainage pipe we 
use, this isn't small potatoes," says Volokh.  "But state and local 
governments won't buy pipes unless they've been okayed by the ASTM or 
AASHTO."

"HDPE pipes and promising new construction materials such as plastic 
lumber are not widely used -- in part because the ASTM has been slow in 
drawing up testing standards," says Volokh.  "The ASTM can take up to 10 
years to develop a testing standard for a new material.  The problem 
isn't that such organizations exist; rather, the problem is that when 
governments rely on them these standards become mandatory, not voluntary."

The study also argues that governments themselves often enforce 
restrictive regulations that discourage the use of recycled materials.  
The ThermaLock Block manufactured by ThermaLock Products of Buffalo, New 
York, which is made of a thick layer of molded plastic between two layers 
of concrete, is one example of a new and potentially useful 
recycled-content building material.  But according to the study, building 
codes, which are generally enforced on the local level, are often wedded 
to traditional materials and processes, and make it difficult for 
innovative building materials to be used in construction.  The same is 
true for roadway construction standards, which either discourage the use 
of recycled materials or require them (as with the recent federal highway 
rubber mandate), but rarely specify how the roads should perform.

The study recommends reforming the rules and restrictions that govern the 
procurement process.  Recommendations include adopting more reasonable 
costing techniques, eliminating "useless and counterproductive 
distinctions" (i.e., pre-consumer vs. post-consumer paper), and adopting 
performance standards rather than requiring that materials have 
"irrelevant characteristics," such as color or thickness.

According to the study, when different types of plastics are blended 
together, they usually become a shade of olive green.  Recycled 
commingled plastic is difficult to color.  But in Lansing, Michigan, for 
example, trash bags must be a light mint green, and many trash can 
specifications nationwide require white or yellow cans.  Brightness 
requirements have also led to ridiculous situations like that of Paper 
Service Ltd. of Hinsdale, New Hampshire, which couldn't sell its toilet 
paper to the state government because it wasn't bright enough.

According to Volokh, "Government procurement agencies should scrutinize 
their procurement specifications to see whether they're using irrational 
or non-performance-related criteria to buy the products they need.  We 
should require performance standards whenever possible instead of 
dictating what a product must be made of."

"If there was ever a time for governments to coddle recyclers, that time 
is past," says Volokh.  "Instead, governments should draw up performance 
standards wherever possible for everything they buy, and local building 
code offices should establish clearer and more predictable approval 
procedures that are more open to innovative technologies."

*How Government Building Codes and Construction Standards Discourage 
Recycling* is the third study in a series to be released by the Reason 
Foundation on the regulatory barriers to recycling.  Related studies on 
the issue of recycling include *The FDA vs. Recycling?: Has Food 
Packaging Law Gone Too Far?* and *Recycling Hazardous Waste: How RCRA Has 
Recyclers Running Around in CERCLAs*.  Copies are available for $15 (plus 
$1.50 s/h) each and may be obtained by calling the Reason Foundation at 
310-391-2245.

The Reason Foundation is a national public-policy research organization 
with a practical, market-based approach and an outside-Washington 
perspective.  Founded in 1978 and based in Los Angeles, Calif., the 
Reason Foundation has earned a reputation for sound economic research and 
a how-to approach that benefits policy makers and elected officials who 
require practical solutions.

------------------------------

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Why doesn't everyone use recycled materials?  In many areas, recycling is 
a relatively new technology, and the companies that use the technology 
tend to be fairly small.  Many people don't know about the full range of 
products made with recycled material, and education is costly.  This is 
especially the case with plastics.  The basic problem is one that is 
common to many new technologies -- the world as we know it came to be in 
an earlier time, before current recycling opportunities became 
commonplace.  Where recycling technology is relatively new, it has to 
overcome many institutionalized barriers to change.

Part of the problem is that potential end-users rely on industry 
standard-setting organizations, like the American Society for Testing and 
Materials (ASTM) or the American Association of State Highway and 
Transportation Officials (AASHTO), which write standards that sometimes 
shut out recycled materials.

	* Plastic lumber, a promising construction material, isn't 
	  generally being purchased -- in part because the ASTM has been
	  slow in drawing up testing standards; 

	* The ASTM and AASHTO haven't advanced standards for drainage 
	  pipes made of recycled PVC or HDPE, because of infighting between
	  different industry groups. 

The problem isn't that such organizations exist; these organizations 
serve a useful purpose in developing standards and performance tests.  
Rather, the problem is that when governments rely on them, the standards 
often become mandatory, not voluntary.  Another part of the problem is 
that governments themselves sometimes enforce restrictive regulations 
that shut out recycled materials:

	* Building codes, which are generally enforced on the local 
	  level, are very conservative and make it difficult for innovative
	  building materials to be used in construction; 

	* Highway construction standards are wedded to specific 
	  materials, methods, and industrial processes -- sometimes
	  mandating materials (as with a recent recycled rubber mandate) and
	  sometimes prohibiting them.  This makes innovation difficult in
	  highway technology, even when such innovation would improve the
	  performance of roadways. 

Yet another part of the problem is that government procurement agencies 
can inadvertently or subtly discriminate against recycled materials, 
through such methods as:

	* The arcane rules of government bidding processes;

	* The somewhat arbitrary distinction between pre-consumer and 
	  post-consumer recycled materials;

	* Color and thickness requirements, and other conditions that are 
	  unrelated to performance;

	* Materials requirements, for instance in the purchasing of 
	  carpets or composts.

One theme runs through this array of government practices.  *Governments 
often don't rely on measures of performance*.  In the past, specifying 
materials or methods may have been the best proxy for performance one 
could find; when performance is difficult to measure, "doing it the way 
we've always done it" may have had some justification.  Whatever the 
explanation, it's time for governments to move toward performance 
standards and away from specifying particular materials.

The question "Why doesn't everyone use recycled materials?" is, in a 
sense, as ridiculous a question as "Why doesn't everyone make things out 
of steel?"  The physics and chemistry of recycling are complicated; there 
are lots of different processes which have lots of different effects, and 
it would be dangerous to draw blanket conclusions like "We should always 
use recycled materials" or "We should never use recycled materials."  The 
honest answer is to admit that optimal levels of recycled material usage 
will vary by situation.  Unless we adopt performance standards wherever 
possible, we can never know what those levels are, much less reach them.  
Many promising products are being discriminated against today because a 
performance standard isn't in place.

	* Governments shouldn't always rely on industry standards.  In 
	  areas like plastic lumber or drainage pipe, when the ASTM or
	  AASHTO don't have standards for a possibly good product, it may
	  make sense for governments to draw up their own performance
	  standards, allowing companies to submit performance data from
	  approved testing labs. 

	* Local building code offices, highway departments, and such 
	  agencies should establish clearer and more predictable approval
	  procedures that are more open to innovative technologies.  They
	  should rely less on materials and methods specifications, and use
	  performance standards whenever possible. 

	* Government procurement agencies should scrutinize their 
	  procurement specifications to see whether they're using irrational
	  or non-performance-related criteria to buy the products they need. 
	  President Clinton's 1993 Executive Order on recycled procurement
	  has reformed and will continue to reform government procurement,
	  though it treats recycling too much as an end in itself.  More
	  should be done to require performance standards whenever possible
	  instead of dictating what a product must be made of.

------------------------------

3. PREFACE TO THE SERIES, *RECYCLING AND DEREGULATION: OPPORTUNITIES FOR 
MARKET DEVELOPMENT*

Spurred on in the late 1980s by fears of an impending "landfill crisis," 
state legislators found a ready remedy in recycling laws.  Prompted by 
these new state law, local governments put in place over 7,000 curbside 
recycling programs that began collecting tons of bottles, cans, jars, 
newspapers, and whatnot.  In short order, the legislative refrain moved 
from "Recycle now" to "We need markets."  Legislators moved to calibrate 
recycling supply and demand with a host of proposed regulations -- 
recycled content mandates, manufacturer "take-back" requirements, 
government procurement preferences, and various subsidies.  Whatever the 
reason, deregulation as a way to expand recycling markets was virtually 
ignored.

This is unfortunate.  Shorn of all its ideological trappings, recycling 
is essentially a process of innovation.  Like electricity, cars, and 
computers, new recycling technologies must overcome a lot of 
institutionalized barriers to change.  Many obvious regulatory barriers 
have been removed, but many still remain.  Sometimes, these barriers are 
subtly hidden, disguised as unnecessary procurement standards or 
superfluous safety regulations.  Sometimes, they're unintended side 
effects of unrelated legislation.  But regulatory barriers do exist, and 
their elimination or modification ought to be the starting place for 
trying to enhance recycling markets.

It's time for a change of paradigm.  For years, environmental policy has 
been run on a philosophy of "environment good, industry bad."  But this 
philosophy can't adequately deal with the reality of recycling -- which
blends environment with industry.

This policy series, *Recycling and Deregulation: Opportunities for Market 
Development*, will cover the following areas:

	* The use of recycled materials in food packaging, and why FDA 
	  regulations and other laws, originally enacted to protect the
	  public health, can inhibit recycling; 

	* The recycling of hazardous wastes, and why some hazardous waste 
	  regulations, instead of protecting the environiment, discourage
	  the safe reuse of hazardous products, like lead batteries and used
	  oil; 

	* The transport of solid waste, and developments to watch out for 
	  that could limit the supply of recyclables by discouraging their
	  transportation; 

	* The scrap tire management problem, and how some state efforts 
	  to prevent tires piling up in garbage dumps are counterproductive; 

	* Recycling building materials, and how building codes 
	  unnecessarily prohibit their use;

	* How industry standards groups, which governments rely on in 
	  their procurement practices, can discourage the use of recycled
	  materials in products like plastic lumber and drainage pipes; and,

	* How government procurement agencies and miscellaneous other 
	  government bureaus, through superfluous regulation, stifle the 
	  development of innovative recycling technologies.

------------------------------

END