| |
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
committee. My name is Chris Jones and I am Director of the Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency (Ohio EPA). I appreciate the opportunity to be with you this
morning to provide you with an overview and historical perspective of the
interstate waste issue from Ohio’s vantage point. I would also like to speak
to several provisions of H.R. 1213 sponsored by Congressman Greenwood and
others, that would provide Ohio with many of the tools we need to help us
address the interstate waste issue in the future.
As we all know, the transportation and disposal
of solid waste across state lines has been a controversial issue for over a
decade, and Ohio has not been spared the controversy. The receipt of waste
shipments from outside of Ohio first became a serious concern to the State
during the late 1980's, when over a short period of time waste imports increased
dramatically. From 1986 to 1989, out-of-state waste disposed in Ohio increased
from approximately 33,000 tons, representing less than 1% of total disposal, to
3,700,000 tons, representing 20% of the total disposal. Although waste imports
have decreased significantly from the 1989 levels, we have seen increases in the
last four years and continue to be aware of the possibility of increased waste
receipts from other states at any time. We would note the following reasons for
our concern over out-of-state waste:
-
With the passage of
Ohio’s comprehensive solid waste law, H.B. 592, in 1988, Ohio took a
proactive step to responsibly manage Ohio’s waste by assuring in-state
disposal capacity, at state of the art facilities, for solid waste generated
in Ohio, and setting state recycling goals. It is only fair that other
states take the steps necessary to responsibly manage their own waste,
instead of relying on exporting their waste outside of their borders.
-
It is difficult or
impossible for state and local inspectors to verify that hazardous or
untreated infectious waste has not been included in solid waste shipments
that are shredded or heavily compacted before being shipped long distances.
-
Citizen opposition
to landfills that are perceived as servicing primarily out-of-state waste
hinders the siting of facilities needed to provide disposal capacity for
Ohio’s waste.
-
Citizens are
reluctant to reduce or recycle waste when they believe their efforts will
only serve to make room for trash from other states.
Recent Out-of-State Waste Receipts and Trends
In 1999 (most recent complete data
available), Ohio received 1.5 million tons of out-of-state waste, representing
about 7% of total waste disposed. This is a slight increase from the previous
three years, when imports have ranged from 1.2 to 1.5 million tons, representing
6 to 7% of total disposal. Although we don’t have Ohio’s export data yet for
2000, we know that waste imports increased again last year, up to approximately
1.8 million tons, making this the fourth year in a row that imports have
increased.
Ohio imported the largest amount of waste from
New York in 1999, at 476,046 tons (31% of the total), while 380,785 tons were
received from Pennsylvania (25% of the total), and 149,810 tons were received
from New Jersey (10% of the total). Over the last five years, imports from these
three states have accounted for 65% to 74%
of the total amount of out-of-state disposal in
Ohio. New York and Pennsylvania have been the top two states exporting waste to
Ohio over this period of time.
In 1997, Ohio EPA performed a detailed analysis
of the origin of out-of-state waste disposed in Ohio, yielding interesting
results. For purposes of reporting, Ohio EPA has generally considered waste
originating from contiguous states and the western two-thirds of Pennsylvania to
be "short-haul", and waste originating from the eastern one-third of
Pennsylvania and non-contiguous states to be "long haul." Using these
definitions, 59% of out-of-state waste received in 1997 would be considered
long-haul. And virtually all of Pennsylvania ’s waste would be considered
short-haul.
A more detailed examination of out-of-state waste
just from New York is also interesting. Out of the total of 469,869 tons of
waste received from New York, fully 333,607 tons (71%) was received from the New
York City area. The tonnage received from New York City also accounted for 24%
of all out-of-state waste disposed in Ohio in 1997, the single largest source of
out-of-state waste in Ohio. This total could be even higher, since we don’t
know the exact origin of a significant amount of waste coming from New York. In
other words, an additional 135,869 tons of waste which we know came from
"other New York sources" represents both waste from identified places
outside of New York City, and waste from New York for which the county of origin
was not specified.
Landfills Receiving Out-of-State Waste
Over the past several years, the vast majority of
waste imports have been received by two landfills: BFI Carbon Limestone in
Mahoning County, and AWS American Landfill in Stark County. In 1999, Carbon
Limestone received 49% of the out-of-state waste disposed in Ohio. American
Landfill received 16% of the out-of-state waste disposed in Ohio. These two
landfills also received the largest amount of long-haul waste in the state.
Based on previous years data, we would expect that these two facilities received
at least 90% of all long-haul waste.
Ohio Waste Exports
It should also be noted that Ohio has exported
significant amounts of waste over the last several years. In 1999, Ohio exported
1,039,876 tons of waste making Ohio a net importer of 485,769 tons of waste.
1999 is the first year that Ohio has recorded waste exports of over one million
tons. Ohio waste exports have actually been on the rise over the last several
years, increasing from an estimated 270,000 tons in 1992.
However, I would note that these export increases
should be viewed with some caution. Until recently, it was difficult or
impossible to get accurate data from adjacent states regarding receipt of waste
from Ohio. Therefore, it is difficult to tell whether the increases in Ohio
exports is due to an actual increase in exports or simply better access to data.
In general, the export numbers we have been able to obtain indicate that most of
Ohio’s exports, approximately 65% or more, go to Michigan and Kentucky.
Ohio’s Vulnerability to Out-of-State Waste
Several factors contribute to Ohio’s
vulnerability to out-of-state waste. The factor that brought this issue once
again to the forefront is the closure of New York City’s Fresh Kills Landfill
which handled 3.5 million tons of garbage annually. Historic waste flow patterns
would indicate that Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio would eventually be the
most likely recipients of this waste. Despite Virginia and Pennsylvania’s
higher overall import levels than Ohio’s, and Pennsylvania’s closer
proximity to New York, there are at least three reasons why Ohio appears to be
vulnerable to increased receipts of waste from New York City waste as well.
First, we believe Ohio has more permitted
landfill capacity than Pennsylvania or Virginia at the present time. In 1999
Ohio had around 453 million tons of permitted municipal waste landfill capacity,
whereas Pennsylvania and Virginia both reported around 200 million tons of
capacity (based on the "Mid-Atlantic States Municipal Waste Matrix"
published in 1999). For Ohio, this equates to about 22 years of capacity at
current disposal rates. If all pending landfill permit applications are
ultimately approved, Ohio could have over 30 years of capacity.
More important than capacity, in our estimation,
are Ohio’s relatively low tipping fees. According to the best data available,
Ohio’s average tipping fee appears to be at least nine dollars per ton lower
than Virginia, and nineteen dollars lower than Pennsylvania (based on the
"Mid-Atlantic States Municipal Waste Matrix" published in 1999).
|
|
New York |
Pennsylvania |
Virginia |
Ohio |
|
Average Tipping Fee |
$60.00 |
$49.00 |
$39.00 |
$29.50 |
This information should be considered with
several qualifications. First, although New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia have
reported this information, the source of their information is unclear. We do not
know whether this is a calculated average, or an educated guess on their part.
Second, although Ohio’s average is calculated from information provided by
landfills to Ohio EPA, the tipping fee reported to us is the posted "spot
rate," which will be higher than what would be negotiated for in a
contract. Our estimation of the average "contract" tipping fee in Ohio
would be closer to $20.00 a ton.
Finally, Ohio’s vulnerability to out-of-state
waste is dependant on the total cost to dispose of waste in Ohio, which
is a function of both Ohio’s tipping fees and the cost to transport the
waste into the State. Unfortunately, we have no specific data to help us
understand transportation costs at this time. However, we can make certain
observations. First, northeast Ohio is serviced by a number of high-quality,
east-west interstate highways, providing relatively direct routes from the east
coast into the State. Second, as we observe the receipt of waste from at least
eleven different east coast states, it is clear that transportation of waste
into Ohio from the eastern U.S. is not cost prohibitive. The important
point is that the flow of waste is dependent on a combination of both tipping
fees and transportation costs. Transportation costs are dependent, at
least in part, on roads that are adequate to handle waste-hauling truck traffic,
as opposed to "as the crow flies" distances between the origin of
waste and the nearest available landfill.
Ohio EPA’s Position on Provisions of H.B. 1213
Although current levels of waste imports into
Ohio are not an immediate concern, due to our permitted capacity which will
currently last over 21 years, relatively low tipping fees, and proximity to the
east coast, Ohio remains vulnerable to increases in the future. Accordingly, we
strongly support mechanisms to protect the State from unreasonable future
increases in out-of-state waste. From our perspective, this is the most
important of all the out-of-state waste issues and one which we believe is
addressed through the provisions of H.R. 1213. I would like to briefly discuss
our thoughts on some of the concepts contained in H.R. 1213.
Presumptive Ban
We believe our goal of having the ability to
control future increases in out-of-state waste will be met in large part by the
presumptive ban that prohibits the receipt of out-of-state municipal solid waste
at all existing facilities unless they meet one of the a number of
criteria, including "host community agreements," new or existing.
We support the exceptions to the ban as outlined
in the bill. We would note, however, that the term "host community
agreement" is defined in such a way that in Ohio, it will apply only to
agreements between facilities and solid waste management districts. It will not
apply to agreements between facilities and local municipal or township
governments, which is what we would commonly consider to be a "host
community agreement". The result, for Ohio, is that SWMDs will have clear
and exclusive authority to allow receipt of out-of-state waste via host
community agreements.
Freeze Authority
This provision allows a state to freeze the level
of out-of-state waste received at a solid waste landfill or incinerator at 1993
levels. Twenty landfills received out-of-state waste in 1993, and fifteen of
them are still open.
Permit Caps
This provision allows a state to pass a law
setting a percentage limit on the amount of out-of-state waste that new
facilities or expanded facilities could receive. Limitation would apply to all
new or expanded facilities, and the limit could be no lower than 20%. This is
another option to the states which we believe could prove to be helpful to Ohio
in the future, though not to a great extent at this time.
Cost-Recovery Surcharge on Out-of-State Waste
HR 1213 allows states to impose a $2.00 per ton
surcharge on out-of-state waste to recover costs incurred associated with the
processing or disposal of out-of-state waste. While utilizing this provision
seems appealing, I cannot tell you today that Ohio will take advantage of this
funding option. As Ohio currently assesses a state fee of $1.75 per ton to all
waste, not just out-of-state waste, I would not expect that we would be able to
justify an additional $2.00/ton for waste coming from other states, especially
our border states.
Annual Report
The legislation requires that the owner/operator
of each landfill receiving out of state waste shall submit a report to the
appropriate Governor indicating the amount of out of state waste that that
facility received during that year. Ideally, Ohio would like to see an
additional requirement included in this bill for waste haulers to accurately
report to receiving facilities the state and county of origin and the type of
waste (i.e. C&DD, MSW, industrial) being disposed. Such a requirement would
then extend to the facilities to accurately record the same information and
include that in the report to the Governor as well.
In closing, I would like to applaud the efforts
of Congressman Greenwood for his steadfast efforts to develop legislation to
assist those states who are feeling the threat of increased out-of-state waste
shipments. Speaking only for Ohio, HR 1213 will provide our state with the tools
we need to help protect us in the future against what we perceive to be a strong
potential for increased shipments of long-haul out of state waste across our
borders. I would also like to thank Congressman Gillmor, hailing from Ohio, for
holding hearings on this issue and for inviting me to participate today. Again,
I appreciate the opportunity to testify on this issue and would be happy to
provide any additional information the committee may need as you continue to
deliberate this important issue.
|
|
