| Text of
Printed Hearing The Committee on Energy and Commerce W.J. "Billy" Tauzin, Chairman Perspectives on Interstate and International Shipments of Municipal Solid Waste. <DOC>
[107th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:74852.wais]
PERSPECTIVES ON INTERSTATE AND INTERNATIONAL SHIPMENTS OF MUNICIPAL
SOLID WASTE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
of the
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
AUGUST 1, 2001
__________
Serial No. 107-61
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
74-852 WASHINGTON : 2002
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana, Chairman
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
JOE BARTON, Texas HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
FRED UPTON, Michigan EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida RALPH M. HALL, Texas
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
CHRISTOPHER COX, California FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma BART GORDON, Tennessee
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
GREG GANSKE, Iowa ANNA G. ESHOO, California
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia BART STUPAK, Michigan
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois TOM SAWYER, Ohio
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona GENE GREEN, Texas
CHARLES ``CHIP'' PICKERING, Mississippi KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
VITO FOSSELLA, New York TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
ROY BLUNT, Missouri DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
TOM DAVIS, Virginia THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
ED BRYANT, Tennessee BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland LOIS CAPPS, California
STEVE BUYER, Indiana MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Louisiana
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire JANE HARMAN, California
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
MARY BONO, California
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
LEE TERRY, Nebraska
David V. Marventano, Staff Director
James D. Barnette, General Counsel
Reid P.F. Stuntz, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
______
Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio, Chairman
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
GREG GANSKE, Iowa SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois GENE GREEN, Texas
(Vice Chairman) KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
VITO FOSSELLA, New York BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland LOIS CAPPS, California
STEVE BUYER, Indiana MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California JANE HARMAN, California
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
MARY BONO, California JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
GREG WALDEN, Oregon (Ex Officio)
LEE TERRY, Nebraska
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana
(Ex Officio)
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
Testimony of:
Berlekamp, Timothy B., Director, Recycling Division of
Mahoning County, Ohio...................................... 94
Bonior, Hon. David E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan.......................................... 53
Davis, Hon. Jo Ann, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Virginia.......................................... 54
Harding, Russell J., Director, Department of Environmental
Quality, State of Michigan................................. 67
Hess, David E., Secretary, Department of Environmental
Protection, State of Pennsylvania.......................... 58
Jones, Christopher, Director, Environmental Protection
Agency, State of Ohio...................................... 62
Kanjorski, Hon. Paul E., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Pennsylvania.................................. 47
Kaplan, Lori, Commissioner, Department of Environmental
Management, State of Indiana............................... 70
Lhota, Joseph J., Deputy Mayor, City of New York............. 74
Moran, Hon. James P., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Virginia.......................................... 49
Parker, Bruce, President and CEO, National Solid Waste
Management Association..................................... 86
Rogers, Ervin, Chairman, Board of Supervisors, Gloucester,
Virginia................................................... 91
Rogers, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan.......................................... 42
Woodham, Thomas, Vice Chairman, Lee County, South Carolina... 97
Material submitted for the record by:
Fasulo, Joseph E., General Manager,, Allied Waste, letter
dated August 9, 2001, enclosing material for the record.... 105
O'Conner, James E., President and Chief Executive Officer,
Republic Services, Inc., letter dated August 14, 2001,
enclosing material for the record.......................... 114
Skinner, Thomas V., Director, Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency, letter dated July 31, 2001, enclosing a
statement for the record................................... 117
(iii)
PERSPECTIVES ON INTERSTATE AND INTERNATIONAL SHIPMENTS OF MUNICIPAL
SOLID WASTE
----------
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 1, 2001
House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Subcommittee on Environment and
Hazardous Materials,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Paul E. Gillmor
(chairman) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Gillmor, Greenwood,
Shimkus, Fossella, Buyer, Bass, Pallone, Towns, McCarthy,
Barrett, Luther, Doyle, and Dingell (ex officio).
Staff present: Amit Sachdev, majority counsel; Jerry Couri,
policy coordinator; Hollyn Kidd, legislative clerk; and Dick
Frandsen, minority counsel.
Mr. Gillmor. We have had a quorum check in, so we will call
the committee to order and proceed. And today our subcommittee
will consider the issue of interstate and international
shipment and disposal of municipal solid waste. This issue has
bedeviled Congress for the last decade as Members of Congress
from exporting States have fought to retain the status quo, and
States involuntarily receiving waste have sought change.
The alignment of members on this issue in the past has
reflected geography rather than ideological split between
Republicans and Democrats. If former speaker Tip O'Neill's
famous quotation about all politics being local needs any
illustration, this issue is it.
Congress first started delving into this issue almost 15
years ago after the Supreme Court struck down restrictions of
the interstate shipment of waste in Philadelphia v. New Jersey.
The Court found that a ban on out-of-State waste was a
regulation of commerce which violated the Commerce Clause of
our Federal Constitution. While some of our witnesses here
today disagree with that ruling, and similar rulings which have
been made by lower courts, I believe it is warranted to explore
the movements of solid waste between States and countries and
see if congressional action is needed.
Presently, States are important 32 million tons of waste,
or well over 14 percent of all waste generated in the United
States. The amount of these types of shipments has been growing
rapidly. They are 13 percent higher than they were only 2 years
ago and more than twice what was being imported for disposal as
recently as 1993. My own State of Ohio has seen an increase of
imports over the past decade with the most recent figure
showing a 700,000 ton increase in waste imports over the last 2
years alone.
With the trend showing this much waste being carried on
taxpayer financed roads from State to State, we need to ensure
safe transportation of waste, adequate capacity for local,
regional, and national needs and environmental protections that
ensure the groundwater and soil are protected from leaching
trash.
Before I came to Congress 12 years ago, when I was a member
of the Ohio State legislature, I was involved in the passage of
what was the most forward-looking waste disposal law at that
time. And I personally feel that each town and State needs to
develop a comprehensive solid waste management plan and take
responsibility for handling the trash that is generated inside
its borders.
As a net importer of solid waste, Ohioans have resented
being dumped on by entities who not only did not build their
own landfills but don't have to live with the consequences.
However, I also recognize that we have to be realistic about
geography and the demographics of many places that do not have
the land mass available to exercise the type of solid waste
management that is commensurate to its population. These places
should not be shut down if they are making reasonable attempts
to responsibly address their disposal needs. In fact, many of
these States import as well as export a sizable amount of
waste. In addition, I think it is important that towns that
want out-of-State waste should not be excluded from getting it.
In some cases, the current law has had the undesirable
effect of rewarding the environmentally irresponsible--those
who do not make the commitment to handle their waste--and it
can also punish the environmentally responsible who do make the
commitment to handle their own waste only to see their
facilities filled from out-of-State waste. Many people have
characterized this debate as NIMBY or ``Not in my backyard.'' I
have sometimes called it NIMBY YIMBY, or ``Mine in my backyard,
yours in your backyard.''
But, essentially, the tension here is not over State or
international borders; it is whether within the universe of
trash disposal market forces lead to the type of choices that
will benefit our constituents in the long run. And rarely do we
in Congress get to make decisions that are ordinarily reserved
for city council and county boards. I believe that today's
witnesses will help us survey the issues from the public and
private perspectives, as well as identify certain places in
legislation that can either be helpful or hurtful in creating a
safe, efficient, environmentally responsible, and cost-
effective solid waste disposal system in our country. And I
want to thank our witnesses for coming.
I would also like to ask unanimous consent that all members
have five legislative days to submit opening statements for the
record, and I would like to recognize our distinguished ranking
member of the committee, Mr. Pallone of New Jersey, for a
statement.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing on interstate waste, which is a very important issue
for this subcommittee. I understand the chairman's desire to
proceed expeditiously with this hearing, but I already
mentioned to him, and I did want to mention now, that members
should have witnesses' testimony 48 hours in advance of the
hearing so that we can adequately prepare. And I know the
chairman, himself, only received the testimony last night, but
in the future I hope that we can do better.
Since I came to Congress in the 1980's, Congress has
considered, but not enacted, numerous bills that would allow
States to impose restrictions on interstate waste shipments, a
step the Constitution prohibits in the absence of congressional
authorization. Over this period, there has been a continuing
interest in knowing how much waste is being shipped across
State lines for disposal and what States might be affected by
proposed legislation. Hopefully, in today's hearing, we will be
able to shed some light on these questions.
The difficulty in this debate, however, comes from a lack
of information. Not all States require reporting of waste
imports, and very few track exports, so the available data are
incomplete and in some cases represent estimates rather than
actual measurements. We do, however, know that the total
interstate waste shipments continue to rise due to the closure
of older local landfills and the increasing consolidation of
the waste management industry. In the last 5 years alone,
reported imports have more than doubled, from 14.5 million tons
in 1993 to 32 million tons in the year 2000.
Everyone creates trash, and we need an efficient,
equitable, environmentally sound way to expose of it--I should
say to dispose of it. Whether you are in the Northeast, the
Midwest, the Southeast or the Pacific Coast region, waste
shipments inevitably have become an issue. My home State of New
Jersey has not been absent from the debate. As a matter of
fact, it was a case against our State, the city of Philadelphia
v. New Jersey, that prompted the legal rulings which clarified
Congress' need to act in the area of interstate waste.
For the third year in a row, New Jersey is on the list of
major importers with 836,154 tons of municipal solid waste
imports in 1999. New Jersey is still a major exporter of waste
as well. Estimates show that MSW exports totaled more than 4
million tons in 2000. But the absence of flow control has led
waste-to-energy facilities in New Jersey to search for ways to
replace local waste now being disposed elsewhere, and as a
result, large amounts of waste are entering New Jersey from New
York.
As previously stated, the movement of waste also represents
the growing regionalization and consolidation of the waste
industry. In 1999, the 3 largest firms, Waste Management,
Allied Waste, and Republic Services, accounted for 81 percent
of total revenues of the industry's 100 largest firms. These
large firms offer integrated waste services, from collection to
transfer station to disposal site, in many locations. Often
they ship waste to their own disposal facility across a border
rather than dispose of it in an in-State facility owned by a
rival. As small landfills continue to close, the number of U.S.
landfills have declined 51 percent between 1993 and 1999, and
this trend toward regionalization and consolidation is likely
to continue. The amount of waste being shipped across State
lines for disposal may rise in the process.
Again, it is for these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I believe it
is important that Congress pursue a legislative solution. I
know that our colleagues on the panel are here because they
have various bills in that regard. And when we return in
September, obviously, I think we need to move on some of this
legislation. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses. And
thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gillmor. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Indiana for an opening statement.
Mr. Buyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank my
colleagues for coming to testify. I hold here in my hand a
bumper sticker. It says, ``Indiana, the Landfill State.'' It is
really the sentiments as Michigan receiving Canada trash or
Ohio receiving New Jersey trash, Pennsylvania, Virginia.
Everybody wants to send their trash somewhere else except, I
guess, in their backyard, as the chairman had said.
Small towns in my home State and like yours have been
overtaken by thousands of tractor trailers loaded with out-of-
State municipal waste. In 1996, at its peak, the State of
Indiana received in excess of 1.8 million tons of trash from
other States. My district--actually, it was within 4 miles of
my childhood home, across the Tippecanoe River, Liberty
Township, there is a mountain in the middle of the plains of
Indiana, and it is packed with Chicago trash. Now, I don't mind
Chicago coming and bringing their commerce and coming to our
lakes, but you know what? Don't leave your trash; take it back
with you. Especially, I don't mind if you come and camp, then
we will take care of your trash. But don't send all your trash
from Chicago to Indiana.
While the situation has improved somewhat in terms of
volume, the idea that my State or any State should be the
dumping grounds of another State's trash is, I find,
objectionable. The State of Indiana has acted responsibly to
manage trash generated within our State. We created solid waste
districts, and we are trying to manage and be responsible in
how we handle the solid waste. It makes it very difficult when,
in Indiana, we try to act responsibly but other States that
have not taken the initiatives just dump it upon us. I find
that also objectionable.
The Supreme Court has ruled that trash is a commodity
subject to the Commerce Clause and because it can be shipped
across State lines unimpeded by the interest of the receiving
State to provide for the safekeeping of its own environment.
This view is very frustrating for the importing States. No one
here would take their trash and dump it in their neighbor's
yard, but this is exactly what is happening to Indiana,
Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and others.
Imported trash creates environmental problems, safety
problems, community developmental difficulties. States should
have some ability to address these needs without running afoul
of the Commerce Clause which is why I have co-sponsored Mr.
Greenwood's bill. This bill would give the State of Indiana and
other States the tools it needs to ensure that its environment
is not just spoiled by the actions of other States that are not
acting responsibly. The idea to give importing States some
tools to address these issues is not a new one. In fact, in the
103d Congress, the Congress passed such legislation by an
overwhelming vote of 368 to 55. I also recall how painful it
was in 1996. Senator Dan Coates was the leader of this issue in
the Senate. It passed the House, it went to the Commerce
Committee, and I recall standing in the basement of the Capitol
before the Commerce Committee in 1996 when it was my own
congressman, John Meyers of Indiana, in the Energy and Water
Appropriations Subcommittee, that killed the legislation, and I
have never forgotten that.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that you granted
my request and invited the commissioner of the Indiana
Department of Environmental Management to present testimony
here today. Ms. Lori Kaplan and I have discussed the issue in
the past, and I know the subcommittee will greatly appreciate
the views she presents on behalf of Indiana. And I welcome my
colleague's testimony and yield back my time.
Mr. Gillmor. The gentleman yields back. We have been joined
by the distinguished ranking member of the full committee, the
gentleman from Michigan, who is recognized for an openings
statement.
Mr. Dingell. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And I appreciate this
hearing and commend you for conducting it. I also welcome our
panel and others who will be here to testify on this very
important question. I want to welcome this legislative hearing,
and I want to express my pleasure that it will focus this
subcommittee and this committee's attention on three pieces of
legislation designed to provide our communities and States
relief from unwanted imports of municipal solid waste.
In 1994, this committee and the House of Representatives,
on a broadly bipartisan basis, passed interstate waste
legislation which was the predecessor to H.R. 1213. The broad
support for such legislation was demonstrated by a vote in
favor of 368 to 55. The inability of our localities and States
to protect themselves from unwanted waste has become clear
after the Supreme Court's 1992 decision in the case of Fort
Gratiot Sanitary Landfill v. Michigan Department of Natural
Resources--a matter of irritation for both myself and Mr.
Bonior.
Since then, for almost a decade, State after State in all
areas of this country have searched for a constitutional means
to control shipments of solid waste from other States and
countries. The result of this effort has been costly and
unproductive litigation. State laws have been repeatedly struck
down by the courts, because under the Commerce Clause of the
Constitution, only Congress has the authority to grant States
and local jurisdictions the right to regulate waste imports
into those jurisdictions. The recent opinion of the Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals striking down Virginia's law is but
the latest example.
Action by this committee and this Congress is long overdue.
While this committee has failed to act for the past 6 years,
the problem has worsened in Michigan and in almost every other
State. In the 1-year period from 1999 to 2000, total imports
into Michigan increased by 1 million tons of unwanted waste.
Out-of-State imports now represent almost 20 percent of all
trash disposed of in Michigan. Slightly less than one-half of
the imports come from Canada. And I might note that there is
very little control over what is in that waste and whether it
is ordinary waste or whether it constitutes hazardous waste or
just what. Nationwide, waste imports have more than doubled
since 1993.
There has been a dramatic consolidation within the waste
management industry. According to Congressional Research
Services, the three top firms account for 80 percent of the
revenues. In addition to filling precious landfill capacity,
the thousands upon thousands of truckloads of out-of-State and
Canadian waste add to the already congested highways in
Michigan and other States, spur concerns over traffic safety,
create wear and tear on the roads, pollute our air, threaten
our environment, and outrage our citizens.
Our citizens and communities demand control over imported
garbage. For the past 6 years bipartisan supporters of H.R.
1213, including Governors and local officials from many States,
have been seeking action by this Congress and by this
committee. I would ask unanimous consent at this point that
their correspondence be included in the hearing record at this
point.
Mr. Gillmor. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4852.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4852.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4852.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4852.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4852.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4852.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4852.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4852.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4852.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4852.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4852.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4852.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4852.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4852.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4852.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4852.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4852.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4852.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4852.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4852.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4852.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4852.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4852.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4852.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4852.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4852.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4852.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4852.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4852.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4852.030
Mr. Dingell. While the scheduling of this hearing
unfortunately competes with floor action on the committee's
energy bill, which I must attend to, I want to commend you, Mr.
Chairman, and I want to commend the subcommittee and the
ranking member for addressing this issue. It is enormously
important, not only to the environment but to our citizens. I
look forward to action on these bills when Congress returns
after the August recess. I thank all the witnesses at the table
for their participation and assistance, and I thank you for
holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gillmor. The gentleman from New Hampshire.
Mr. Bass. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
holding this hearing. It is interesting to see that almost
every State is an importer of solid waste. It is hard to find
the ones that are exporters. Obviously, they exist. My home
State of New Hampshire imports close to half a million tons of
solid waste from other States and perhaps from Canada each
year, so I will particularly interested and sensitive to the
issues that are involved here. They are problems that are not
going to go away, and I think this committee ought to face them
head on and make a determination as to where we are going to
go. I appreciate the chairman's holding the hearing, and I look
forward to the testimony.
Mr. Gillmor. The gentlelady from Missouri.
Ms. McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I do not have remarks this
morning. Kansas is working cooperatively with Missouri on the
western side of the State and with Illinois and Missouri on the
eastern side of the State. We seem to have good regional
cooperation. I do have a concern about the caps issue. I look
forward to the testimony of the witnesses, and I am glad that
they are here. And I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Gillmor. The gentlelady yields back. The gentleman from
Illinois, the vice chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Shimkus.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, will be
brief. I want to welcome my colleagues here. Very interesting
issue. My particular part of the world has Illinois being third
largest exporter of solid waste but being the fifth largest
importer of solid waste.
Of course, we know Chicago exports a lot, but I border the St.
Louis Metropolitan Area where we receive a lot of St. Louis
Metropolitan trash.
So I am betwixt and between and befuddled, and I look
forward to the hearing as we move this legislation forward.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gillmor. The gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. Luther. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief as
well out of respect for our distinguished panel here today.
The issue of interstate transportation of solid waste is a
major issue which warrants the attention of our committee.
Today, States are virtually helpless in dealing with the
increasing problem of their landfills being filled or quickly
filling to capacity. However, Mr. Chairman, I do want to share
with you one concern I have, which is that the scope of this
hearing does not deal with what may very well be at the heart
of this problem; that is, we simply generate too much waste and
have too little land. Authorizing States to impose importation
bans will do little, if anything, to solve this basic
fundamental problem.
As such, Mr. Chairman, I hope that in future hearings we
can deliberate on alternative means of grappling with the
creation, transportation, and disposal of solid waste. For
instance, Mr. Greenwood's flow control bill, H.R. 1214, which
is not the subject of this hearing, is very worthy of the
subcommittee's attention, as are other solid waste measures,
such as the promotion of recycling and the moderation of waste
generation.
So those conclude my comments, and I look forward to the
testimony. Mr. Chairman, thank you again for holding this
hearing.
Mr. Gillmor. The chairman now recognizes for an opening
statement the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Greenwood, who
has been a leader in dealing with this issue and is the
principal sponsor of one of the subject to this hearing. Mr.
Greenwood.
Mr. Greenwood. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and than you
so much for holding this hearing, and I am not going to be
brief, because I have been waiting for this hearing for a
while, and I am going to plague you with the full 5-minute
version.
Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling this hearing
on the prospectives on interstate and international shipments
of municipal solid waste. The influx of municipal waste into
Pennsylvania continues to escalate, and Pennsylvania continues
to be the largest importer of municipal waste in the country--a
dubious honor Pennsylvania wants very much to relinquish. But
the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken, and Pennsylvania and no
other State will have the ability to control waste crossing
State borders until Congress grants States that authority. That
is why I, joined by many of my colleagues, introduced H.R.
1213, the Solid Waste Interstate Transportation Act of 2001.
Legislation on the interstate shipment of interstate waste
has been introduced in every Congress since the 100th. My
involvement began 8 years ago tomorrow when, as a freshman
Member of Congress, I joined other Members in the introduction
of H.R. 4779, which would allow States and local governments to
regulate the transport of municipal solid waste. That
legislation passed the House. It was held up in the Senate by
one lone Senator. Unfortunately, we haven't come that close to
enacting interstate waste legislation since that Congress, but
I am hopeful that will change in this Congress.
There is some industry sentiment that we should leave the
waste market open and let the free enterprise system work. I
can tell you that Pennsylvania tried that approach and it did
not work. In 1986, Pennsylvania exported--in 1986, Pennsylvania
exported 3 million tons of municipal waste. In 1988,
Pennsylvania did the responsible thing: Reenacted legislation
requiring counties to plan for the management and disposal of
municipal waste and instituted a mandatory recycling program.
As a member of the Pennsylvania State senate at that time, I
played an active role in the development of that legislation.
Pennsylvania successfully fought the NIMBY syndrome, and over
the next several years sited a number of new facilities.
By 1993, Pennsylvania exported only about 800,000 tons of
waste, but our reward for creating additional capacity for
ourselves was that we were now importing almost 4 million tons
of municipal waste. By 1995, that figure grew to almost 5.2
million tons, and by 2000, the State received 9.8 million tons
of municipal waste from other States. That figure represents 40
percent of all of the municipal waste disposed in our State and
almost 30 percent of the national total interstate shipments.
Pennsylvania exports only about 500,000 tons of municipal
waste, and about 75 percent of that waste goes to a facility
that happens to be located near the Pennsylvania/Ohio border.
The problem is that other States have not acted as
responsibly. Instead about 20 other States send their waste to
Pennsylvania. Our neighbor to the north, New York, continues to
be the largest exporter of waste to Pennsylvania. In 2000,
almost half of the out-of-State municipal waste disposed in
Pennsylvania came from New York. Despite the already large
amount, waste exporters from New York are expected to grow--
waste exports are expected to grow even further with the
closure this past March of New York's Fresh Kills Landfill, the
City's last disposal facility.
Without the ability to exert some control over the amount
of out-of-State waste coming into Pennsylvania, the facilities
we have permitted will fill to capacity, and that simply is not
fair. Even when solid waste is landfilled or incinerated using
state-of-the-art technology, there are environmental costs and
risks associated with disposal. Additional truck traffic, air
and water quality concerns, and changes in the landscape make
disposal facilities unwanted neighbors in all communities.
Every State should take the responsibility to dispose of its
trash using the best available technology. No State should be
able to avoid this responsibility, and no State should bear
more than its fair share of the burden unless it chooses to.
We will stand the best chance of moving forward with waste
reduction, recycling, and environmentally sound technology when
all States are stakeholders in the outcome. The solution is for
other States to site facilities within their own borders. As
long as States can continue to export unlimited waste to other
States, they will have no incentive to site facilities. And I
might add, until H.R. 1213 is scheduled for markup, States like
New York have no incentive to come to the table in attempt to
reach some type of compromise with the big impacted States like
Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan.
I look forward to hearing from the panel of our colleagues,
each with a special interest in this issue. I am pleased to
welcome my colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Kanjorski, who
shares my concern about Pennsylvania's problem, and I
appreciate my friend, Congresswoman Davis' interest in 1213. We
have already discussed some changes she would like to see in
the bill to address specific problems in her home State of
Virginia, and I look forward to continuing to work with her to
address her concerns. I also look forward to hearing from the
heads of the environmental agencies in four of the impacted
States, and I would like to thank them for working with us in
the development of H.R. 1213.
I would especially like to take the opportunity to welcome
Dave Hess who was appointed Pennsylvania secretary of
Environmental Protection by Governor Ridge in March of this
year. I have known David for a number of years. He served as
the director of the Environment and Energy Committee in the
Pennsylvania senate while I served in the senate. And he has
served in several positions at the DEP. I can't think of anyone
more worthy of Governor Ridge's appointment to that position.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for scheduling this
hearing, and just as I thank you today for holding the hearing,
I am going to be consistently urging you to schedule H.R. 1213
for subcommittee consideration. States like Pennsylvania and
Ohio have suffered long enough. I look forward to working with
you to provide States the relief they want and we need. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gillmor. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Towns.
Mr. Towns. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding
this hearing. I hope that by the end of this hearing many of my
distinguished colleagues will agree with me. I also hope that
today's hearing will clarify many of the misunderstandings
about the relationship between municipal solid waste exporters
and municipal solid waste importers. I know that this issue has
been a popular one for many, many years, but too often the
arguments are framed in the context of a zero sum game. For
example, people say, ``New York is dumping on blah, blah, blah,
blah, blah, blah.'' Translation: ``New York is sending its
garbage to our State, and we have no say in the process, and we
derive no benefits from it.'' Well, while this may sound good
and be an easy argument to make, but it is not true. The fact
of the matter, as my friend and the honorable first deputy
mayor of the city of New York will testify to later, as a part
of New York City's plan to close Fresh Kills Landfill, New York
City is required to enter into host community agreements with
the importing community before a single ton of MSW is moved.
In addition, these host communities' agreements call for
fees to be paid to the host community. These fees can often
make a significant difference to communities providing funding
for a variety of services and amenities that would not
otherwise be affordable. Also increased environmental standards
at landfill facilities have increased the cost of landfills
significantly and resulted in the closing of numerous small
facilities. This change in the industry has created more of a
regional approach to waste management and placed increasing
pressures on landfills to attract additional customers to make
their landfills more financial viable.
The fact that these landfills are receiving out-of-State
MSW has no doubt played a significant part in their ability to
keep their tipping fees low and save their communities
significant amounts of money. Today, we will hear some
remarkable claims, protectionist fears, and other misguided but
well-intentioned efforts to change the marketplace after
numerous companies have made long-term financial plans based on
the current competitive market system. I urge my colleagues to
take a very serious look at this and to avoid the temptation to
throw large urban communities into chaotic situations as they
desperately try to replace well thought-out solid waste
management plans based on current systems.
On that note, Mr. Chairman, I yield back, and I am anxious
and eager to listen to the testimony coming from the witnesses.
We have a distinguished panel before us.
Mr. Gillmor. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from
New York, Mr. Fossella.
Mr. Fossella. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me echo and
agree with my good friend from New York, Mr. Towns. I agree
with much of what he said, particularly the ``blah, blah, blah,
blah, blah, blah.''
I think, in all seriousness, this is an important issue,
and I know it is important for a lot of folks, not only on this
committee but of this panel and others who will testify,
including, as Mr. Towns said, the first deputy mayor, Joe
Lhota, who is going to articulate, I think real well, that we
need to strike the right balance. And I know my good friend,
Mr. Greenwood, acknowledged the closing of the Fresh Kills
Landfill, which is an important step because it was an
environmental nightmare, an unlined landfill in the city of New
York, and we did the right thing by closing it, in large credit
to folks like Mayor Guliani and Governor Pataki.
Having said that, going forward, I think we need to look at
the other side of this equation, and that is that garbage is
generated by human beings, and it needs to go somewhere. And
that as far as New York City is concerned and New York State,
it is not going anywhere that it is not wanted by a local
community. And those communities are accepting it willingly in
environmentally safe landfills or resource recovery facilities,
incinerators or whatever you want to call them. And to them it
is a business arrangement. It is the free flow of goods across
the interstate highway system. It means jobs; it is a tax base.
I don't know of any situation, for example, that the city
of New York has entered into over the years where the local
community has not been willing to accept the garbage willingly.
In fact--and I hope Mr. Lhota mentions it later--I would be
curious to know how many local communities have willingly
offered to accept, for example, New York City's garbage above
and beyond what we have done. One community, maybe 15, 12, I
don't know, have responded to the RFPs.
I think it would be a mistake if we move down the road to
limit a State's ability to send goods across the highway
system, for example, or the river, because you begin to slide
down the old slippery slope of limiting other goods that can
flow freely across the States. I don't want to take away from
the deep concern that a lot of members have about trying to
limit garbage coming into their districts. I think that
argument is subordinate to the overall one that Congress should
not override or make null and void the agreements of
municipalities that willingly accept our garbage.
And, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to this distinguished
panel, as well as others, but I just think, as I say, there is
another side to this argument. New York is not alone. Many
States in this country export garbage, and when Congress steps
in to try to limit those States' ability to do so--if they want
to enter into voluntary agreements or a regional approach,
fine; I think that is a healthy thing. But if Congress is going
to step in and limit those States' ability to export garbage, I
think they are going to have unintended consequences, and a lot
of folks are going to wake up and realize it is going to be a
big mistake. So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. Gillmor. The gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Every freshman
legislator probably at every level knows the importance of
making the argument in favor of a level playing field. And
probably nowhere is that more vivid than this discussion,
because rather than level playing fields what we have right now
are really unlevel garbage dumps throughout the country. And
that is why those of us who come from States that are importers
of garbage view this as such an unfair issue. It is interesting
for me to hear my colleagues, and I think this is obviously not
a partisan issue; it is really an issue of whether your State
is an importer or an exporter of garbage.
What concerns me, again coming from a State that is an
importing State, is the perception in Wisconsin is that we, as
a State, have developed a very good recycling law, one of the
more progressive laws in the country, encouraging consumers and
businesses to recycle. Some of the States from which we import
garbage have chosen not to take that route and have not passed
laws that encourage recycling, and in some instances have
actually closed down recycling facilities.
I think what this committee and this Congress has to do is
focus on that issue to make sure that States are not given a
pass where they decide that the easier course of action is
simply to export garbage rather than to work responsibly.
Because at the end of the day, the garbage is either going to
be put in a landfill or it is going to be recycled. And if we
are concerned about that, I think we have to do more for
recycling.
So I hope that that is part of the focus of this hearing. I
certainly agree with the gentlemen and the gentlewomen from
Pennsylvania who have been leading this charge that we should
move forward on H.R. 1213, and I hope that the Chair will
consider that bill for a markup as well. And I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. Gillmor. The gentleman yields back. If there are no
further opening statement, I would like to call our first
panel. Our first panel is made up of five Members of Congress
who have a special interest in this legislation. The
distinguished group includes Representative Mike Rogers, who
has introduced H.R. 1927 to place limits on waste coming into
the United States from Canada. Next we have Representative Paul
Kanjorski of Pennsylvania, who has authored H.R. 667, also the
subject of our hearing. Panel also includes Representative Jim
Moran of Virginia and Dave Bonior of Michigan. And we have
Representative Jo Ann Davis who has put in a great deal of
effort in this subject over the last couple of months.
I would like to welcome you all to the committee, and the
Chair would propose that we will start on the Chair's left and
proceed down the line. If any of the members have a need to
depart earlier, we will be happy to change that schedule.
Representative Rogers.
STATEMENTS OF HON. MIKE ROGERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN; HON. PAUL E. KANJORSKI, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA; HON.
JAMES P. MORAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
VIRGINIA; HON. DAVID E. BONIOR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN; AND HON. JO ANN DAVIS, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
Mr. Mike Rogers. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and
distinguished members. I appreciate Mr. Greenwood's efforts
over the years. In trying to tackle this difficult issue, I
have co-sponsored your bill as well and do believe this is a
serious issue. But to my friends from New York, Mr. Fossella
and Mr. Towns, I think have articulated why 8 years later we
are still debating the flow of interstate trash in America.
There are more export States by net than there are import
States by net. That poses a problem in the debate in ideology.
With that in mind, we have a problem in Michigan and a
serious problem that is only going to get worse in the very
near future. I have some great friends to the north, in Canada.
I appreciate the import of their beer, their hockey players. I
do not appreciate the import of their dirty diapers and
Canadian bacon scraps. And we are getting a ton of it
literally, Mr. Chairman.
You know, we are a water State; we are very porous. The
aquifers run from stem to stern in Michigan. So siting
landfills is a difficult challenge for us. Our DEQ Director is
here today and is going to explain what Michigan goes through.
And we have taken the steps early on to be aggressive in
meeting our needs for landfill space. We have about 15 years of
landfill space, and we take into consideration, obviously, all
the siting requirements that go with it. Many of you have
mentioned it: traffic problems, site source pollution, we have
talked about aquifers and watershed and all of the things that
affect it when you site these individual places. And Canada,
unfortunately, has not stepped up to that plate.
And the problem they pose is this: Just in the last year
alone there has been an 80 percent increase--80 percent
increase--in the amount of trash flowing from Canada to the
United States, specifically Michigan. We went from a 15-year
supply of landfill space that is likely to get cut in half. And
here is the dangerous part of that: In 2003, Toronto, who is
the largest producer of exports to Michigan, is closing both of
its landfills. After 2003, they will have no landfill space
capacity, and we know where that trash is coming. It is coming
to Michigan.
What we have done is developed a bill that is pretty
narrowly crafted. It is crafted with NAFTA in mind, with GATT
in mind, with the Basil Convention in mind. And in each one of
those agreements, every nation that signed understood that
there were environmental and conservation issues that needed to
be dealt with by every nation individually. I don't think
anyone in good conscience can argue that siting a landfill,
accepting trash does not have an environmental or a
conservation impact on your State and our communities. We think
that we have cleared those hurdles in both NAFTA, GATT, and the
Basil Convention even though we have not officially signed on--
the Senate has not confirmed that convention.
We had a case in Michigan recently, Mr. Chairman, involving
a landfill, where Canada sends a great deal of trash, and the
case was settled in 1997. It was found that a high percentage
of PCBs, which is prohibited from being dumped in our
landfills, were present in the trash that was being delivered,
as well as cemetery waste, which included, ``soiled coffins.''
Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, I don't even want to know what
soiled coffins are, but we were getting a bunch of them. It was
creating a significant problem. That landfill was actually
fined through a court case by one of our environmental groups
there about $114,000 for its PCB problems and this cemetery
waste, including soiled coffins.
The problem is there is no good way to inspect the trash
that comes in from Canada. There is no good way. Our Governor
at one time proposed putting border inspectors on the borders
trying to inspect trash coming in. It is almost impossible to
do it. What this bill does, very narrowly, is say, ``Look, we
are going to give the States the ability to regulate, if not
prohibit, the trash coming in from foreign nations.'' Mr.
Chairman, you have trash coming into Ohio from the Virgin
Islands. Washington State takes Canadian trash and gets a bunch
of it. New York, actually, one of the large exporters, gets
Canadian trash.
We have got our own problems and our own difficulties here
in America to try to work out our differences about who should
take our neighbors' trash. What we are saying is let us have a
little reasonableness here and allow these States to tell
places like Canada, ``No.'' And we can do it. BANCORP v. Board
of Governors, Mr. Chairman, very clearly states that Congress
has the ability to give the States this authority. We ought to
do it; we can do it now. Let us continue the debate on Mr.
Greenwood's bill, but let us save Michigan 4.2 million cubic
yards of trash every year. Thank you, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Mike Rogers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mike Rogers, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Michigan
Chairman Gillmor, Ranking Member Pallone, and Subcommittee Members,
I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the issue of municipal
solid waste and its treatment by federal and state governments. I
understand it has been several years since a congressional committee
has taken a close look at what is an increasing problem for state
governments--handling the often large volume of trash imports coming
across their borders.
Mr. Chairman, as you and your subcommittee colleagues are aware, I
have introduced bipartisan legislation this session designed to give
states the tools to address the tidal wave of foreign trash crashing
against their borders. First, I will describe the problems associated
with the increase in foreign waste imports in the State of Michigan.
Second, I will describe attempts by state officials to combat those
problems. Third, I will discuss H.R. 1927, legislation I have sponsored
to give states the authority to prohibit or restrict the importation of
foreign municipal waste consistent with judicial and constitutional
precedent. Lastly, I will discuss the international law implications of
my proposal.
i. the problem in michigan
A. Dramatic Increase in Importation of Canadian Municipal Waste
Michigan's importation of municipal waste from Canada has been a
growing problem in my state for a number of years as the amount of
trash imported from Canada increases almost exponentially. In 1999,
more than two million cubic yards of foreign municipal waste was
imported to the State of Michigan from our Canadian neighbors. Last
year, that number grew to 4.2 million cubic yards--an increase of 80
percent. Today, nearly 45 percent of the municipal waste imported to
Michigan originates in Canada.
The situation is especially acute in a number of the counties I
represent in Michigan's Eighth Congressional District. For example, 100
percent of Genessee County's municipal waste imports come from Canada,
as do nearly all of Washtenaw County's imports, and garbage imported to
Oakland County accounts for almost half of its imported waste.
Michigan's ability to meet its own landfall disposal needs is
seriously compromised by the dramatic increase in Canadian municipal
waste imports. Based on current usage statistics, it is estimated that
Michigan holds capacity for 15-17 years of disposal in its landfills.
However, with the dramatic increase in the importation of municipal
waste, Michigan's current capacity could be filled in less than 10
years.
While Michigan has done an excellent job planning for its waste
disposal needs, our neighbors in the Canadian Province of Ontario have
not. Ontario's waste shipments to Michigan and other states are growing
as the Toronto area closes its two remaining landfills. At the
beginning of 1999, Toronto area municipalities were managing about 2.8
million tons of waste annually, of which about 350,000 tons were
shipped to Michigan. However, according to the Congressional Research
Service, by 2003, there will be virtually no local disposal capacity.
Barring unforeseen developments, most of this waste is expected to be
sent to Michigan for disposal.
B. Environmental Impact of Increased Waste Importation
In addition to rapidly depleting the State of Michigan's landfill
capacity, a number of environmental concerns are implicated by Canadian
municipal waste imports.
One, Canadian trash does not have to meet the same environmental
requirements imposed upon municipal waste created within Michigan's own
borders. In fact, the Public Interest Research Group in Michigan filed
a lawsuit against the City of Toronto for sending municipal waste to
Michigan that was contaminated with PCB's, which subsequently leaked
into our groundwater supply.
Two, Michigan is the only state in the Union to have a ten-cent
deposit on many beverage containers. Michigan has placed a high
priority on recycling and in turn, these items are noticeably absent
from many of Michigan's landfills. However, landfills that accept
Canadian municipal waste may have significant amounts of these items
that would have been recycled in Michigan. In short, Michigan's
recycling efforts are being undermined.
Three, with Michigan's landfill disposal capacity rapidly dwindling
due to increased foreign imports, action will be needed to address the
state's future disposal needs. Siting new landfills requires
significant green space that would otherwise not have to be developed.
At a time when many in Congress, and in our state legislatures, are
attempting to preserve green spaces and rural areas, siting new
landfills to accommodate foreign waste is completely contrary to that
goal.
Lastly, in addition to the problems associated with creating more
landfills, such as leakage into groundwater, noise pollution, and foul
odors, the increased importation of waste creates indirect problems.
One concern often voiced by my constituents and other Michigan citizens
is the heavy truck traffic associated with increased Canadian imports.
In fact, the Mayor of Windsor, Ontario has publicly stated his concern
over the damage the large volume of garbage trucks are doing to his
region's highway infrastructure.
Led by Governor John Engler and the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality, we have done a good job of planning a long-term,
environmental strategy for waste disposal in Michigan. However,
disposing of another nation's waste was not a part of that plan. In
fact, without action in the United States Congress, policymakers in
states like Michigan are essentially unable to plan accordingly.
C. Other States
Evidence is growing that other states are not immune from the
problems of foreign municipal waste imports. Fifteen percent of New
York and Washington states' imports originate in Canada. Furthermore
Mr. Chairman, your home State of Ohio receives imports from the Virgin
Islands, while New Mexico and Texas receive municipal waste imports
from Mexico.
I do not testify today to sound an alarm, but the fact is that
other states are anticipating similar problems with respect to trash
importation. The fear is that should Michigan's efforts to restrict
foreign trash imports succeed, states such as Pennsylvania could be
next. Pennsylvania, like Michigan, has kept costs for waste disposal
fairly low.
It is exactly those states with sound planning and low disposal
costs that the Province of Ontario finds so appealing. As stated
earlier, whether the result of poor municipal planning or simply a
``not in my backyard'' position, the City of Toronto is not taking
necessary action to meet its municipal waste disposal demands. I
believe that states that have acted responsibly in planning for waste
disposal should not be forced to have such planning upended by a
foreign body, which is why Congress should give the States some
flexibility in controlling foreign waste imports.
ii. legislative action
A. State Attempts to Address International Waste Issues
Mr. Chairman, like yourself and many of our congressional
colleagues, I had the honor of serving in the state legislature prior
to my service in Congress. During my service in the Michigan Senate, we
recognized the problems associated with the influx of foreign and out-
of-state municipal waste and sought numerous legislative solutions.
For example, Michigan adopted legislation that allowed individual
counties to make their landfills off-limits to municipal waste from
other states or nations. Unfortunately, as you will likely hear from
Michigan's Director of Environmental Quality on the next panel, this
legislation was ruled unconstitutional by the courts. In striking down
Michigan's law, the courts followed the landmark City of Philadelphia
v. New Jersey decision in which the Supreme Court struck down a New
Jersey statute prohibiting the importation of most out-of-state waste.
While efforts continue under Michigan's capitol dome in Lansing to
restrict Canadian municipal waste, these efforts will be extremely
difficult without support from Washington, D.C. For example, Michigan
State Senator Ken DeBeaussaert has sponsored legislation to ban
beverage containers in Michigan landfills. As described earlier,
Michigan has a very successful deposit program on beverage containers
and the state's enactment of such legislation would provide a
significant hurdle for Canadian trash imports to meet. Though the
feasibility of this legislation deserves further debate, its pursuit
clearly demonstrates the desire of state policymakers to regulate
foreign municipal waste and gain some amount of control over waste
flowing across their borders.
As a former state senator, I understand that Michigan and other
state governments know what is best for their citizens when it comes to
trash imports, but are unequipped to deal with the problem absent
congressional action. Under H.R. 1927, the Solid Waste International
Transportation Act, if a state chooses to import trash from Canada or
any nation, they certainly have that choice. And if the individuals
elected to represent our constituents in various state legislatures
want to restrict or limit the influx of foreign waste, my legislation
allows them that option as well. The bottom line is empowering states
to make their own decisions.
iii. h.r. 1927, the solid waste international transportation act
A. Legislative Intent and Constitutional Concerns
As states have attempted to regulate waste imports, the federal
courts have declared these state restrictions unconstitutional. If
states are to have such authority, congressional action is required.
Given these constitutional difficulties faced by state legislatures and
governors in addressing foreign waste, I introduced H.R. 1927, which
gives states the authority to prohibit or restrict the importation of
foreign trash or waste consistent with judicial and constitutional
precedent. This bipartisan legislation amends the Solid Waste Disposal
Act to provide the necessary express statutory command with respect to
foreign municipal waste.
As discussed earlier, the 1978 City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey
decision struck down a state statute that prohibited the importation of
most out-of-state municipal waste partially on the basis that the
Federal Solid Waste Disposal Act, had ``no clear and manifest purpose
of Congress to pre-empt the entire field of interstate waste, either by
express statutory command, or by implicit legislative design.'' The
Solid Waste International Transportation Act amends existing federal
law to provide that express statutory command.
Additionally, in Northeast Bancorp v. Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System the Supreme Court said ``when Congress so
chooses, state actions which it plainly authorizes are invulnerable to
constitutional attack under the Commerce Clause.'' H.R. 1927 would be a
plain authorization of a state's authority to prohibit or limit
incoming foreign municipal waste.
B. International Legal Concerns
In the debate amongst the varying approaches to solving the
international and interstate waste issue, much is made of international
trade agreements implicated by allowing state governments the authority
to regulate foreign municipal waste. I welcome the opportunity to
address this issue. At the onset it is crucial to note that there is no
existing legal precedent explicitly prohibiting the aim of H.R. 1927--
giving states the authority to limit or prohibit the importation of
foreign waste. The fact is that without congressional action, our
states will never even have the opportunity to tackle the issue in a
manner consistent with international trade law.
For example, numerous commentators claim the North America Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA) proscribes Congress from granting states the
authority provided under H.R. 1927. I respectfully disagree. First, it
is clear that nothing in my legislation violates the principles of
NAFTA as it only gives the states an opportunity to regulate foreign
waste. The ball is then in the state's court--so to speak--in that it
provides states the opportunity to craft reasonable limits consistent
with international law.
Under Article 2101 of NAFTA, which incorporates the General
Exceptions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Article
XX and its interpretive notes, the United States, a State, or locality
can place environmental-based restrictions on trade if ``necessary to
protect human, animal or plant life, or health.'' Once Congress grants
states the authority under H.R. 1927 consistent with our Constitution,
the states would have an opportunity to approve legislation consistent
with the NAFTA exception.
For example, if a state decides to forbid disposal within its
borders of any municipal waste containing PCBs because of the
environmental hazards associated with its contamination of groundwater,
I would strenuously argue that such a state law would pass
international muster based on the recognized environmental health
exception. We should not simply foreclose the option for the states to
make innovative policy and legal arguments based on their state's
individual needs. It is possible some states' arguments won't meet
international law scrutiny and will be shot down, but it is just as
likely some will survive. The irrefutable fact is that this is an area
of unsettled law and there is no reason Congress should not give the
states a chance to define that law and legislate in the best interests
of their constituents within the environmental health exception to
NAFTA.
In addition to environmental measures, another murky area of
international law is the definitional treatment of solid municipal
waste. For example, I have been advised by international and domestic
legal counselors that for NAFTA provisions to apply, the item in
question must be defined as a ``good.'' While some may claim municipal
waste is a good, the issue remains unsettled, and states would have the
ability to argue that the distinctive characteristics of municipal
waste do not rise to the level of a ``good.'' A good is something that
upon trade, value can be added to or derived from. By definition,
foreign solid municipal waste is only coming into a state for disposal.
This is very different from all other types of waste, such as hazardous
or industrial-grade waste, which must be processed.
C. Legislative Environment
As I stated during my introductory remarks, I am very pleased that
for the first time in several years, Congress is showing a willingness
to tackle the trash issue head-on. The fact that the Subcommittee has
three different proposals before it today underscores the urgency for
congressional action.
While my legislation only addresses the issue of foreign municipal
waste, I am certainly cognizant of the ever-present difficulties
surrounding the treatment of interstate waste. In fact, I applaud the
efforts of my colleagues to address that difficult issue and have
joined as a cosponsor to Congressman Greenwood's legislation, H.R.
1213, to give states and municipalities more control over interstate
waste. However, given the sensitive political and policy implications
of interstate waste, I believe Congress may be more successful in
coming to agreement on the foreign waste issue. H.R. 1927 attempts to
peal off a small, but significant, part of giving states more control
over the flow of waste into their borders.
Again, I thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify and
would welcome any questions.
Mr. Gillmor. Mr. Kanjorski.
STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL E. KANJORSKI
Mr. Kanjorski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I make the
observation the reason Canada can't handle that waste is it is
not large enough.
Mr. Chairman, on my way down here today, one of my staff
members called attention to one of the famous holidays in
Pennsylvania--Groundhog Day--and a famous movie was made after
that. And that is every morning you wake up, you relive the
entire circumstance. For the last 12 years, I have been on this
issue introducing legislation, and every time the committee
does something it reminds me of Groundhog Day. I hope we move
off that. And regardless of what we do or what this committee
recommends, I sponsor it. I am the sponsor of a particular
piece of legislation that is rather simply crafted after the
low-level radiation legislation. And it basically says every
State has the responsibility of taking care of its own trash,
but it can enter into voluntary compacts with neighboring
States or other States to handle trash in a voluntary compact
way. That handles everybody's problems.
Clearly, I represent a district in the State of
Pennsylvania, and when you listen to the numbers of what we do,
in the year 2000, 9.8 million tons of municipal waste and 2.5
million tons of non-hazardous waste from other States. That is
an increase of 2 million tons in 1 year. Forty-two percent of
the total waste disposed of in Pennsylvania comes from other
States. We love to be first and big and important, but we
really don't want that importance, Mr. Chairman. And I have
listened to the testimony of my friend Mr. Towns, the other
members of New York. Look, this should not be a war between the
States. This is a very practical problem.
And one of the reasons Pennsylvania gets disadvantaged is,
unlike other States, we have 2,500 municipalities, 90 percent
of which are under 3,000 in population. And when a State like
New York comes in and dangles incredible payments of non-taxes,
subsidies, and everything else, surely these States--or these
municipalities are tempted to take this agreement. This is a
State issue. All of the people of Pennsylvania are interested
in what is placed in Pennsylvania, regardless of where it is
placed. And so should the State of New York be that interested,
and so should the people of the United States be interested.
When we are dealing with municipal waste we are not dealing
with a commodity that disappears. Basically, we are the
stewards of this land, but the future generations will use this
land, and we have to make good policy decisions that will
affect well on the environment that they inherit and the lives
and the quality of their lives as they inherit it. And what we
do with municipal waste will compound that very problem.
You know, I would suggest, in listening to some of the
statements of the members, if we were to allow communities to
decide whether they could take nuclear waste in this society, I
can find a lot of poor communities who would opt to take
nuclear waste. Would we, in the individual States, want to
accept that? Would the country, as a whole, accept that as good
public policy? Clearly not.
Mr. Chairman, I brought an example of something today.
Municipal waste not only fouls the water, not only contaminates
the air, but it also kills people. I have a photo I want to
show you, and I will cover up Mr. Rogers here for a moment so
that you can see it. This is a picture of Monroe County,
Pennsylvania, the heart of the Poconos. This is where so many
of the good people from New York and New Jersey come over to
visit Pennsylvania and recreate. But on 81 a trash truck
overturned in January and squashed two Pennsylvanians. That is
not an unusual sight in Pennsylvania. These trucks run up and
down this highway every day.
And what did we find as a result of that? Pennsylvania and
the Governor--and I compliment them--put into effect Operation
Clean Sweep. They went in to inspect these trucks, and they
found hundreds of unsafe trucks. One-third of them had to be
taken off the road. They had useless breaks, cracked frames,
and were operating grossly overweight. Operators were arrested
for drunk driving and driving with suspended licenses. Now that
is not the responsible actions of out-of-State people.
What waste has become is out of sight, out of mind culture.
You don't see, it is covered, it disappears into the land, and
a result a lot of people don't want to and feel no
responsibility to take the responsibility for it. Pennsylvania
should be complimented, Mr. Chairman. It has one of the most
advanced recycling and disposal systems in this country, but as
a result we have been punished. And it is time that we reward
responsible States and not punish them, and give these States
the ability to control the importation of waste through any of
the bills that are pending before this committee. I sponsor
them all, I support them all, but let us move on. We must
protect the environment, promote local control, promote
responsible waste management, but most of all protect the
health and safety of our constituents. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Paul E. Kanjorski follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul E. Kanjorski, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Pennsylvania
Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity to testify before you on
an issue that has long been of particular concern to me and the
citizens of Pennsylvania that I represent; the issue of interstate
shipment of municipal solid waste. I commend you, the ranking member,
and the committee for your leadership in reviewing a practice that
threatens our environment and our public health and safety.
Since the late 1980s the tonnage of interstate trash imports in
several states across the nation has risen dramatically. In response, I
have reintroduced legislation that would allow states with
comprehensive management plans for the disposal of all waste generated
within their own borders to limit the importation of out-of-state
trash, and to form voluntary regional compacts with other states to
import or export their trash. In fact, this bill, H.R. 667, the Solid
Waste Compact Act, was the first bill to address this important issue
in the 107th Congress. Additionally, I am an original cosponsor of
other legislation we will discuss today, H.R. 1213, the Solid Waste
Interstate Transportation Act, and H.R. 1927, the Solid Waste
International Transportation Act.
Total interstate waste shipments continue to increase as older
local landfills close and the waste management industry consolidates.
My state of Pennsylvania is forced to accept more garbage from other
states than any other state in the nation, by far. In 2000,
Pennsylvania imported 9.8 million tons of municipal solid waste and 2.5
million tons of other non-hazardous waste from other states, an
increase of almost 2 million tons from the 10.4 million tons of out of
state trash imported the previous year. In 1999, out-of-state trash
made up 42.8% of the annual total waste disposal in my state. This past
year, 20 other states reported increased imports of out-of-state trash.
Besides Pennsylvania, states such as Virginia, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana,
Illinois, Wisconsin, and Oregon share these concerns and each import
over a million tons of out-of-state trash annually. Further, New
Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Kentucky, South Carolina, Georgia, and
Nevada, each import over a half million tons of out-of-state trash
annually.
From my perspective, the legislation offered by my colleagues and
me is an attempt to put into action two important ideals that are often
talked about in Washington--protecting the environment and promoting
local control. It would protect the environment by limiting the current
practice of transporting garbage hundreds of extra miles from the
source, which increases air pollution. It would promote local control
by giving states, which already have the duty to ensure that solid
waste is disposed of properly, the right to determine whether to accept
the waste from other states and nations.
This legislation is all the more crucial in light of the tragic
loss of two lives in a recent collision in my district with a truck
carrying out-of-state trash. My district includes part of Monroe
County, Pennsylvania, where two people were killed last January on
Interstate 80 when a truck carrying out-of-state garbage lost control
and crashed into their cars. The driver, who was headed for the
Keystone Sanitary Landfill near Scranton, Pennsylvania, walked away
with minor injuries and was charged with two counts of homicide by
vehicle and two counts of involuntary manslaughter.
In May 2001, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and the
Pennsylvania State Police launched ``Operation Clean Sweep''--surprise
trash truck inspections at every landfill, major incinerator, and at
checkpoints along the Pennsylvania Turnpike and other interstate
highways. What this major enforcement action discovered were hundreds
of unsafe trash trucks--86% of the trash trucks had safety and
environmental violations and more than one-third were taken off the
road. Vehicles hauling waste into Pennsylvania were found to have two
of six brakes working, cracked frames, and operating overweight by
30,000 to 40,000 pounds. Additionally, operators were arrested for
driving while intoxicated and with suspended licenses. This is a clear
sign that far too many trash haulers disregard state safety and
environmental regulations, which can lead to accidents like the tragedy
on Interstate 80 last January.
The practice of shipping municipal solid waste thousands of miles
from its source, to be discarded across state and national boundaries,
has created an ``out of sight, out of mind'' culture. Because many
communities do not experience the effects of their waste, there is no
incentive to implement waste management plans. Efforts to take
responsibility for local waste by establishing waste prevention
initiatives, recycling programs, and increased landfill and incinerator
capacity wane as trash trucks roll out of town. Further, manufacturers
lack encouragement to consider the waste management implications of
their products. Products continue to be designed and packaged without
regard to their volume, toxicity or recyclability.
Mr. Chairman, Pennsylvania and other states have taken
responsibility for waste by increasing recycling and landfill capacity
and should be rewarded, not punished, for taking this responsibility.
We should work to give states the ability to control the importation of
waste so we can protect our environment, promote local control, promote
waste management initiatives, and protect the health and safety of our
constituents. I again thank you for the opportunity to speak before you
on an issue that badly needs to be addressed.
Mr. Gillmor. The gentleman, Mr. Moran.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES P. MORAN
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for the
opportunity to testify in favor of these bills that would
regulate solid waste, particularly the Greenwood-Dingell bill.
I hope we can move promptly on this legislation that would
grant States that authority. While the circumstances in
Virginia, Pennsylvania, and other States may be very different,
we are in agreement on the absolute need for a Federal remedy.
Some States, like the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, have acted
responsibly, planned ahead, permitted landfills to address
their residents' long-term solid waste disposal needs. But,
unfortunately, Pennsylvania's prudent efforts to create new
waste disposal capacity for its municipalities were undermined
by interstate waste haulers who took advantage of the new
capacity to ship solid waste into the State. In the case of
Pennsylvania, no good deed appears to have gone unpunished.
In the case of Virginia, a different story is emerging.
Unlike Pennsylvania, some government officials within Virginia
viewed out-of-State as an economic bonanza and encouraged
development of these landfills. Since the early 1990's, there
has been a cooperative relationship between interstate waste
shippers and State and some local officials that is credited
with producing seven mega landfills. An eighth is now in
operation and a ninth under consideration.
These mega landfills have been built and designed to
receive more than 2,000 tons of trash every day. To put these
mega landfills in perspective, the one in Sussex County, when
completed, will be 550 feet tall, the height of the Washington
Monument; it will cover 3 square miles, or the area of roughly
1,000 football fields; it will be the single largest geographic
feature on the entire coastal plain of Virginia.
Trash trucks hauling this waste present an additional
transportation hazard. In just 5 short years, Virginia doubled
the volume of waste it imports. Today, more than 140,000 trash
trucks and scores of rail cars haul municipal waste,
incinerator ash, and sewage sludge into Virginia each year.
Last year, Virginia imported 3,900,000 tons of solid waste,
ranking it the second largest solid waste importer. To
achieving this ranking waste haulers overwhelmed local roads
with trucks, generating noise, dust, and debris 24 hours a day.
Even more troubling, these permits were granted even though
the State admits it doesn't have the resources to conduct
onsite inspections. A 1998 investigative report of the
Washington Post uncovered very troubling findings that showed
that the landfills have received medical waste, radioactive
material, and industrial solvents and pesticides. Given the
large volume of waste and very lax oversight, there is every
opportunity for waste haulers to mix household garbage with
more toxic or hazardous waste.
In the instance of Virginia, we need Federal legislation to
help Virginia pursue a more responsible course. The proposals
pending before this committee are appropriate and timely.
Unfortunately, in Virginia's case, they don't go far enough.
Virginia needs the tools and the authority to revisit existing
agreements that were written and approve to specifically
accommodate out-of-State trash. I commend my colleague,
Congresswoman Davis, for identifying four changes that we need
in the legislation.
We need to give a State like Virginia the authority to
impose some type of cap on existing facilities. Shockingly,
Virginia doesn't impose any time limit on its permits. They
don't expire and aren't subject to any renewal process, so they
can go on forever. The States should be given some power to
regulate host community agreements since the impact of waste
brought into a State affects more than just the host community.
States should be given much greater flexibility to select the
year they establish for the cap. For example, in 1993, that was
the year that the highest volume of out-of-State trash came in.
Finally, States should be given the authority to regulate all
types of solid waste. A high volume of waste imported into
Virginia is municipal sludge that isn't covered by the pending
legislation.
There is also growing concern that the financial assurance
requirements required by Federal law can be circumvented, and
they are not worth the paper they are printed on. Some private
landfill operators in Virginia are self-insured, creating an
easy loophole that could limit their future liability to cover
closure and any long-term maintenance costs. If they are
shielded from future costs, they have no incentive to police
the waste that they are now receiving.
From an economic perspective, the only way the cost of
large volumes of trash traveling such great distances is
justified is if the full cost, or really the full liability
created by these mega landfills is deferred into the future. As
long as disposal remains cheap, safer but more expensive
disposal options won't be pursued.
Likewise, these cheap mega landfills undermine local
recycling and waste minimization efforts. They have undermined
efforts in Northern Virginia, for example, in my district to
manage municipal waste through incineration. A diversion of
locally generated solid waste from Alexandria and Fairfax
incinerators to the big mega landfills that are so much cheaper
force the private operator of these incinerators to burn
industrial waste to maintain a minimum volume of trash that
they needed for the necessary cash-flow. Restricting out-of-
State trash would restore the waste volumes of trash these
incinerators need to avoid burning industrial waste. Giving the
States more power to regulate this waste forces us to confront,
not defer, these long-term costs.
There is no easy solution, and States must be responsible
partners. But the measures pending before this subcommittee do
offer a start on the road to a more comprehensive solution. I
congratulate the sponsors of the legislation and urge that we
move it along as quickly as possible. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Hon. James P. Moran follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. James P. Moran, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Virginia
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify at today's
hearing on ``Perspectives on Interstate and International Shipments of
Municipal Solid Waste.''
I applaud you for conducting this hearing and urge you to move
promptly on legislation that would grant states the authority to
regulate out-of-state trash. While the circumstances in Virginia,
Pennsylvania, and other states may be very different, we are in
agreement on the need for a federal remedy. Some states like the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have acted responsibly, planned ahead, and
permitted landfills to address their residents' long-term solid waste
disposal needs. Unfortunately, Pennsylvania's prudent efforts to create
new waste disposal capacity for its municipalities have been undermined
by interstate waste haulers who have taken advantage of this new
capacity to ship solid waste into the state. In the case of
Pennsylvania, no good deed appears to have gone unpunished.
In the case of Virginia, a different story is emerging. Unlike
Pennsylvania, some government officials within Virginia viewed out-of-
state trash as an economic bonanza and encouraged development of these
landfills. Since the early 1990s, there has been a cooperative
relationship between interstate waste shippers and some state and local
officials that is credited with producing seven mega-landfills. An
eighth is now in operation and a ninth under consideration. These mega-
landfills have been built and designed to receive more than 2,000 tons
of trash each day. To put these mega-landfills in perspective, the one
in Sussex County, when completed will be 550 feet tall, the height of
the Washington Monument; cover 3 square miles or the area of roughly
1,000 football fields; and be the single largest geographic feature on
the coastal plain of Virginia.
In five short years between 1993-1998, Virginia doubled the volume
of waste it imports. Today more than 140,000 trash trucks and scores of
rail cars haul municipal waste, incinerator ash, and sewage sludge into
Virginia each year. Last year, Virginia imported 3.9 million tons of
solid waste, ranking it the second largest solid waste importer. In
achieving this ranking, waste haulers have overwhelmed local roads with
trucks, generating noise, dust, and debris 24 hours a day.
Even more troubling, these permits were granted even though the
state admits it does not have the resources to conduct on site
inspections of all this waste. A 1998 investigative report published in
the Washington Post uncovered some troubling findings that showed some
of these landfills had received medical waste, radioactive material and
industrial solvents and pesticides. Given the large volume of waste and
lax oversight, there is every opportunity for waste haulers to mix
household garbage with more toxic or hazardous waste.
In the instance of Virginia, we need federal legislation to help
the Commonwealth pursue a more responsible course. I urge you now to
help Virginia by enacting legislation granting states the power to
regulate interstate trash. The proposals pending before this committee
are both appropriate and timely. Unfortunately, in Virginia's case,
they may not go far enough. Virginia needs the tools and the authority
to revisit existing agreements that were written and approved to
specifically accommodate out-of-state trash. I commend my Virginia
colleague, Rep. Jo Ann Davis, for identifying four changes that would
address Virginia's unique situation:
1) We need to give Virginia the authority to impose some type of cap on
existing facilities. Shockingly, Virginia does not impose any
time limit on its permits. They do not expire and are not
subject to any renewal process;
2) The states should be given some power to regulate host community
agreements since the impact of waste brought into a state
affects more than just the host community;
3) States should also be given greater flexibility to select the year
they use to establish the base for capping out-of-state waste.
Using 1993 as the base year would have little impact on
controlling future waste at some of these landfills in
Virginia, since one of the mega-landfills in Virginia received
its highest volume of out-of-state trash in 1993; and,
4) Finally, states should be granted the authority to regulate all
types of solid waste. A high volume of waste imported into
Virginia is municipal sludge that is not covered by pending
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, accommodating these concerns would be very helpful in
addressing Virginia's burgeoning waste management problem.
If we do not give the states the authority and provide Virginia
with an opportunity to make amends for is past shortcomings, I fear we
will be forced to revisit this issue again in the future. As you know,
municipal solid waste landfills across the country are already a
growing public policy concern. The environmental threat posed by these
local landfills, however, will dwarf those created at mega-landfills
given their sheer magnitude in size and volume of waste. Already,
preliminary groundwater testing at several of these mega-landfills has
found elevated levels of metals raising questions about the reliability
of these ``high-tech'' liners designed to prevent leaks. In addition,
there is growing concern that the financial assurancy requirements,
required by federal law, may be circumvented and not worth the paper
they are printed on. Some private landfill operators in Virginia are
self-insured creating an easy loophole that could limit their future
liability to cover closure and long-term maintenance costs required. If
they are shielded from future costs, they have no incentive to police
the waste they now receive.
From an economic perspective, the only way the cost of large
volumes of trash traveling such great a distance from its source can be
justified is if the full cost, or really the full liability created by
these mega-landfills, is deferred into the future. As long as disposal
remains cheap, safer but more expensive disposal options will not be
pursued. Likewise, cheap mega-landfills undermine local recycling and
waste minimization efforts. These cheap landfills have also undermined
attempts in Northern Virginia to manage municipal waste through
incineration. Diversion of locally-generated solid waste from the
Alexandria and Fairfax incinerators to these mega-landfills has forced
the private operator of these two incinerators to burn hazardous waste
to maintain a minimum volume of trash needed to maintain the cash flow.
Restricting out-of-state trash, would restore the waste volumes of
trash these incinerators need to avoid burning hazardous wastes.
Giving the states more power to regulate this waste forces us to
confront, not defer these long-term costs. There are no easy solutions,
and states must be a responsible partners. But, the measures pending
before this subcommittee offer a start on the road to a more
comprehensive solution.
Thank you.
Mr. Gillmor. Thank you, Mr. Moran.
The Minority Whip of the House, Mr. Bonior.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID E. BONIOR
Mr. Bonior. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
the opportunity to address you and the committee this morning.
I am pleased to be here. I want to commend you and Mr. Pallone
for the opportunity to speak, and also to thank Mr. Greenwood
and Mr. Doyle and Mr. Dingell for their leadership on this
committee.
I am not going to repeat much of what is said, and it was
said very well by my colleagues on this panel and others who
have spoken before me, particularly the situation in Michigan.
Just to recap, I have been working on this issue with many of
you now for 10 years. The original case that came before the
Supreme Court came out of Fort Gratiot Township in my
congressional district. We, as Mr. Greenwood said, back in 1994
were successful in passing a bill we put together in the House.
It failed in the U.S. Senate on the last day after we thought
it was going to go to the President for his signature. It has
become a more serious issue each and every year, and I think
the testimony of Mr. Moran and Mr. Kanjorski, we have just
heard, shows how out of control this issue has become.
Let me just say this: In Michigan, we have trucks coming
over the Ambassador Bridge, which is from Windsor, Ontario into
Detroit, and the Blue Water Bridge, which is from Sarnia into
Port Huron in my district. Every 5 to 10 minutes, there is a
garbage truck that comes across that bridge to dump garbage
into our State. Last year alone, over 1.2 million tons of
Canadian trash were dumped into Michigan, 80 percent more than
the year before. We rank No. 3 in the country for trash
imports, with over 2.8 million tons of municipal waste crossing
our borders from other States and from Canada.
So we are tired of this. And we are tired of the fact that
we have made efforts to control our solid waste disposal in a
manner that addresses our environmental concerns in our own
State. For instance, we are one of the first States in the
Union to establish a deposit on cans and bottles. We did that
when I was back in the legislature in 19, I believe 74, if I
recall correctly. We have taken action on polychlorinated
biphenyls, PCBs. I authored that legislation when I was there
back in 1974 that prohibits the sale, manufacture, and use of
this chemical. Now we are finding, according to my colleague,
Mr. Rogers, that this is coming back into our State via Canada
and the trucks that are dumping their garbage into our State.
This is not acceptable; we want it changed. We are trying to be
responsible in our own community. We hope others would be in
theirs.
We need to move on the legislation that is before us today
and the others that have been suggested here this morning. And
I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that you would proceed in the days
and weeks ahead, especially when we return from the recess, to
process this legislation so that the full House can express its
concern again. I thank you for the time, and I wish you well.
Thank you for your own personal concern on this in Ohio.
[The prepared statement of Hon. David E. Bonior follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. David E. Bonior, Democratic Whip
I am pleased to be here today with my colleagues and to testify in
support of the Solid Waste Interstate Transportation Act, H.R. 1213. I
wish to commend Representatives Greenwood, Doyle and Dingell for their
leadership on this important issue. I also want to thank Chairman
Gillmor and Ranking Member Pallone for holding toady's hearing.
We have been working on this issue for a number of years now, and
it is as important to Michigan families today as it was 10 years ago.
Our local communities need to have the ability to make their own solid
waste disposal decisions. Those of us in Michigan have done a lot to
reduce the amount of trash we throw away by establishing community
recycling programs. Because we are making responsible solid waste
disposal decisions, it is particularly frustrating that we have been
forced to accept trash from communities who have been less responsible.
Our local governments need to have the ability to ban Canadian and out-
of-state waste from their borders.
In order to ensure the authority of local communities to make their
own solid waste disposal decisions, the U.S. Congress needs to enact
legislation. That is why I am a cosponsor of bipartisan legislation,
H.R. 1213, to give our communities the ability to say no to Canadian
and out-of-state trash. We should pass this bill this year to stop our
communities from becoming a ``dumping ground'' for those less
responsible.
As an example of just how important it is to enact this
legislation, let me briefly describe what is currently going on in
Michigan. Right now, day after day--every five to ten minutes--there
are trucks coming over Michigan bridges from Canada dumping trash into
our state. Last year alone, over 1.2 million tons of Canadian trash
were dumped in Michigan--80% more than the year before. Michigan also
ranks number three in the country for trash imports, with over 2.8
million tons of municipal solid waste crossing our borders from other
states and Canada.
All of us in Michigan are tired of driving along our highways and
watching garbage fall off of these trash trucks. Even more troubling,
earlier this year a Sanilac County man died after being hit by a
Canadian garbage truck.This trash trafficking needs to stop once and
for all. In 1992, the Supreme Court ruled that trash is commerce and
can only be regulated by an act of Congress. This decision was based on
the Fort Gratiot case, which is based on a landfill in my district.
Since 1991, I have been working with various members of this
Committee to allow local communities to ban out-of-state or Canadian
waste. In 1994, we managed to pass our bill in the House only to have
it blocked in the Senate in the final days of session.
Now we come before the Environmental and Hazardous Materials
Subcommittee again to move forward our bill. Our bill places a
presumptive ban on out-of-state and out-of-country waste, and it gives
the power to lift the ban to local units of government. It is time for
our local communities to have control over the trash being dumped in
their backyards.
The Chairman of the House Commerce Committee has said moving our
bill is a ``high priority'' for his committee this year. In the days,
weeks and months ahead, I hope to work with the Chairman and Ranking
Member John Dingell to see that our bill becomes the law of the land.
Our local communities should not be dumping grounds for other
people's trash.
Mr. Gillmor. Thank you, Mr. Bonior.
The gentlelady from Virginia.
STATEMENT OF HON. JO ANN DAVIS
Ms. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of this
committee, for holding this hearing today on interstate waste.
I assure you it is a very important issue and a worthy topic
for the subcommittee to address. I would like to also say thank
you to Mr. Greenwood for agreeing to work with me on the
possible changes to his legislation to protect the Commonwealth
of Virginia.
The importation of interstate waste is a critical issue
facing Virginia's citizens, and the issue disproportionately
affects the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Fourth Circuit Court
of Appeals recently ruled, as has been said today, that
Virginia does not have authority to limit the trash crossing
its borders. As you know, since waste transportation is deemed
interstate commerce, it falls under Congress' authority, and
congressional action is needed and can only be done with your
help, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, this is not a Republican or a Democrat issue;
it is a Virginia quality of life issue that transcends party
lines. Constituents in my district are tired of dirty trash
trucks shedding litter along the sides of the road and clogging
routes that were not built for such large vehicle traffic. In
the year 2000, Virginia received 3.9 million tons of garbage
from outside this State--the second highest amount in the
Nation. Being the second largest importer of trash in the
Nation is not consistent with our image and vision for
Virginia.
As we all know, Congressman Greenwood has introduced H.R.
1213 to address this issue of interstate waste, however
adjustments will be required in this bill to ensure that
Virginia is not harmed. If Virginia does not benefit from
Federal legislation that the other States will, this puts us at
a tremendous disadvantage and makes the Commonwealth vulnerable
to receiving even more out-of-State waste.
I propose the following changes. First, ensuring that
Virginia can impose volume caps on existing landfills. H.R.
1213 currently exempts landfills from State-imposed
restrictions if their permits establish a higher limit or do
not establish any limit on the amount of out-of-State waste.
Most permits in Virginia currently State that landfills can
take waste from any source and do not establish any limits.
Similarly, H.R. 1213 allows State restrictions to be
circumvented if a host community, in its so-called host
community agreement with the landfill operators, does not
establish any limit on out-of-State waste, or if the future
host community agreements authorize specific levels of out-of-
State waste. Waste traveling into and through Virginia impacts
many more communities than the host community, so State
regulation is appropriate under these circumstances.
H.R. 1213 would currently allow States to cap out-of-State
trash at 1993 volumes. And as my colleague, Mr. Moran, said,
the Charles City landfill received its greatest volume of out-
of-State trash in calendar year 1993. Virginia would not be
provided much protection by this provision. The bill would be
improved by allowing States to choose a calendar year, from
1993 to present, as representing its volume cap so that each
State would individually be able to determine which year they
wanted to use.
Finally, H.R. 1213 only regulates the flow of municipal
solid waste. The bill, I believe, should also include other
disposable waste substances, such as sewage sludge or
commercial waste. If substances such as sludge are excluded
from the bill's coverage, it will only increase the levels that
Virginia will receive.
I urge the subcommittee to take up Mr. Greenwood's bill
this year, and I just as strongly urge that these
recommendations be incorporated into a manager's amendment
before H.R. 1213 is marked up by the committee. Without these
necessary changes, the bill will largely be ineffective for
Virginia and could possibly even negatively impact our State.
Before I close, I would like to publicly acknowledge the
assistance my office has received on this issue from Campaign
Virginia, a citizens environmental group dedicated to stemming
the flood of out-of-State garbage into Virginia. The transport
of interstate waste into Virginia is an issue that we must be
able to control, and I urge that the committee address this
issue very soon. I thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and
appreciate all your help.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Jo Ann Davis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jo Ann Davis, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Virginia
Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, thank you for holding
this hearing today on interstate waste, and I assure you that this is a
very important and worthy topic for the subcommittee to address.
The importation of interstate waste is a critical issue facing
Virginia's citizens, and the issue disproportionately affects the
Commonwealth of Virginia. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently
ruled that Virginia does not have authority to limit the trash crossing
its borders. As you know, since waste transportation is deemed
interstate commerce it falls under Congress' authority and
congressional action is needed.
Mr. Chairman, this is not a Republican or Democrat issue--it is a
Virginia quality of life issue that transcends party lines.
Constituents in my district are tired of dirty trash trucks shedding
litter along the sides of the roads, and clogging routes that were not
built for such large vehicle traffic.
In the year 2000, Virginia received 3.9 million tons of garbage
from outside the state, the second-highest amount in the nation. Being
the second largest importer of trash in the nation is not consistent
with my image and vision of Virginia.
As we all know, Congressman Greenwood has introduced H.R. 1213 to
address the issue of interstate waste, however, adjustments will be
required in this bill to ensure that Virginia is not harmed. If
Virginia does not benefit from federal legislation that other states
do, this puts us at a tremendous disadvantage and make the Commonwealth
vulnerable to receiving even more out-of-state waste. I propose the
following changes:
First, ensuring that Virginia can impose volume caps on existing
landfills. H.R. 1213 currently exempts landfills from state-imposed
restrictions if their permits establish a higher limit or do not
establish any limit on the amount of out-of-State waste received at the
facility annually. Most permits in Virginia currently state that
landfills can take waste from any source and do not establish any
limits.
Similarly, H.R. 1213 allows state restrictions to be circumvented
if a host community, in its so-called host community agreement with the
landfill operators, does not establish any limit on out-of-state waste,
or if future host community agreements authorize specific levels of
out-of-state waste. Waste traveling into and through Virginia impacts
many more communities than the ``host'' community, so state regulation
is appropriate under these circumstances.
H.R. 1213 would currently allow states to cap out-of-state trash at
1993 volumes. The Charles City landfill received its greatest volume of
out-of-state trash in calendar year 1993, so Virginia is not provided
much protection by this provision. The bill would be improved by
allowing states to choose a calendar year from 1993 to the present as
representing its volume cap.
Finally, H.R. 1213 only regulates the flow of municipal solid
waste. The bill should also include other exportable waste substances
such as sewage sludge or commercial waste. If substances such as sludge
are excluded from the bill's coverage, it will only increase the levels
that Virginia will receive.
I urge the subcommittee to take up Mr. Greenwood's bill this year,
and I just as strongly urge that these recommendations be incorporated
into a manager's amendment before H.R.1213 is marked up in committee.
Without these necessary changes, the bill will be largely ineffective
for Virginia, and possibly negatively impact the Commonwealth.
Before I close, I would like to publicly acknowledge the assistance
my office has received on this issue from Campaign Virginia, a
citizens' environmental group dedicated to stemming the flood of out-
of-state garbage into Virginia. The transport of interstate waste into
Virginia is an issue that we must be able to control, and I urge that
the subcommittee address this issue very soon.
Mr. Gillmor. Thank you very much. Are there any questions
of the panel? If there are no questions, I want to thank our--
--
Mr. Greenwood. Mr. Chairman----
Mr. Gillmor. Yes.
Mr. Greenwood. [continuing] just a statement.
Mr. Gillmor. Mr. Greenwood.
Mr. Greenwood. Thank you all for your really excellent
statements. It occurred to me, listening to Mr. Moran's
testimony, that some observers from a faraway star system could
someday see these great eight landfill pyramids in Virginia and
conclude that there is no intelligent life on Earth.
Mr. Moran. And they might be right sometimes, but thank you
for that observation, Mr. Greenwood.
Mr. Gillmor. Once again, I want to thank the panel, and we
hope to see some activity here in the future that would be to
your liking.
At this point, we will dismiss panel and call up panel two.
Members of this panel are Chris Jones, director of the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency; Russell Harding, director of
the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality; David Hess,
secretary of Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental
Protection; Lori Kaplan, commissioner for the Indiana
Department of Environmental Management, and Joseph Lhota,
deputy mayor of New York City.
And as the panel takes their places, I want to make special
mention of Chris Jones, who back a long time ago, when I was
president of the Ohio senate, was one of our crackerjack
staffers, did a great job there, and has now risen to the
position of director of EPA, and I want to welcome you
particularly. And I want to call on Mr. Greenwood.
Mr. Greenwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. An issue that I
have been working on almost as long as this one is juvenile
justice authorization, and it is being marked up in a few
minutes in the Education Committee, so I am going to have to,
unfortunately, leave for a bit. And I thank the chairman for
indulging me by having me have the honor of introducing the
Honorable David Hess, who I referenced in my statement, and now
heads the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.
David and I are old friends from way, way back when he was a
staffer in the State senate. I think Senator Santorum was a
staffer in the State senate at the same time. And so our
staffers climb to great heights in short periods of time.
But I welcome David, congratulate you on your appointment
and look forward to your testimony. And I apologize to the rest
of the panelists that after Mr. Hess' testimony I am going to
have to depart for a little bit. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gillmor. I want to thank all the panelists for being
here. We do have copies of your testimony, and each of you have
5 minutes to summarize your testimony before we begin with
questions.
Mr. Hess.
STATEMENTS OF DAVID E. HESS, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA; CHRISTOPHER
JONES, DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, STATE OF
OHIO; RUSSELL J. HARDING, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY, STATE OF MICHIGAN; LORI KAPLAN, COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, STATE OF INDIANA; AND
JOSEPH J. LHOTA, DEPUTY MAYOR, CITY OF NEW YORK
Mr. Hess. Chairman Gillmor, thank you very much, members of
the committee. My name is David Hess. I am secretary of the
Department of Environmental Protection. And courtesy of the
great introduction Congressman Greenwood gave me, I think I
will ask for a raise when I get back to Harrisburg.
It is a pleasure to be here on behalf of Governor Tom Ridge
and also members of our general assembly. We have a very simple
message, and that is, ``Don't dump on Pennsylvania.'' We need
Federal legislation now that gives the right to decide if they
want to accept garbage from other States for disposal. I think
the issue is very simple, and several members touched on it in
their opening statements. The Supreme Court says communities
don't have the right to decide whether they want out-of-State
garbage or not. They said Congress could give them that right,
and that is why we are here.
We very much appreciate the efforts of Chairman Gillmor and
Ranking Member Pallone for scheduling this hearing and for the
work that Congressman Greenwood has done and Senator Specter
and Senator Santorum and our entire delegation on this issue.
As many of you know, Governor Tom Ridge has been very active in
lobbying Congress, including members of this committee on this
issue, as was the late Governor Robert P. Casey before him.
In each of the last three legislative sessions, our general
assembly passed resolutions urging Congress to act on this
issue, and I am very pleased today to be able to introduce Pat
Henderson, who is from Senator Mary Jo White's office, and also
Richard Fox, who is from Senator Musto's office, both
representing the Senate Environmental Resources Committee here
today.
What we would like in Federal legislation, again, is I
think very simple. We would like the ability of communities,
again, with all due respect to the congressman from Fresh
Kills, to decide their own fate. We would like a freeze on
waste imports and to ratchet down the amount of waste that can
be accepted by landfills. And I think Congressman Greenwood's
bill, also a bill introduced by Senator Specter, incorporates
the provisions that Pennsylvania supports.
These tools are needed because some States have found it
easier to dump on their neighbors than to develop their own
disposal facilities. And as, again, other speakers have said,
Pennsylvania included, is a really a victim of our success in
the area of waste management and recycling. And I think,
ironically, on one issue, a lack of Federal legislation has
also hampered the ability of some States like New Jersey to
keep waste in their own State, because they have waste
facilities they need to maintain.
The simple tools we are asking for will enable States and
communities to act responsibly to manage their own waste. As
was mentioned before, Fresh Kills Landfill is closing. Eleven
thousand five hundred tons of trash is trying to find a home in
the States of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Virginia.
In May of this year, DEP, the Pennsylvania State Police,
and other agencies conducted an unprecedented operation to
inspect trash trucks in Pennsylvania, called Operation Clean
Sweep. We conducted over 40,000 inspections over an 8-day
period in Pennsylvania at every single landfill. What we found,
in a word, was frightening. Eighty-six percent of those trucks
had safety violations. The State police pulled 849 trucks off
the highway as unsafe or pulled the drivers out of their cabs
because they had DUI violations or CDL licenses that were
expired. These hazards are real to our communities, and we are
doing all we can to deal with them in Pennsylvania, but,
frankly, we need to get to the root of the problem. And the
root of the problem is adequate Federal legislation to deal
with this issue.
Right now in Pennsylvania, we have 25 applications pending
for new or expanded landfills. That is 71 million tons of
capacity. If that was devoted only to waste from Pennsylvania,
that would last us more than 7 years on top of the already 12
years worth of capacity we have right now. We clearly have an
overcapacity of waste disposal facilities in Pennsylvania.
Our democracy is built on the foundation of empowering
people to make choices. It is also built on fairness. Our
communities now have no voice in deciding whether millions of
tons of garbage come to them for disposal from other States. It
is unfair, again, for States like Pennsylvania to shoulder this
burden. We are not asking to build a fence around our borders.
In fact, we did a survey in 1999 that showed that 22 percent of
the communities that have landfills right now would accept out-
of-State waste. That is not what we are asking. We are not
asking to turn back waste trucks. All we are doing is asking
for the freedom to make a choice, and we are not even asking
Congress for any money.
Again, we appreciate the opportunity, and, again, Mr.
Chairman, we appreciate the fact that you set up the hearing
today. This is a critical issue for us, and we hope that the
committee acts shortly on this issue. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of David E. Hess follows:]
Prepared Statement of David E. Hess, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department
of Environmental Protection
Chairman Gillmor, members of the Committee, my name is David Hess
and I am the Secretary of Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental
Protection.
I am here today on behalf of Gov. Tom Ridge and members of the
Pennsylvania General Assembly to give you one simple message--Don't
dump on Pennsylvania.
We need federal legislation now giving communities the right to
decide if they want to accept garbage from other states for disposal.
The issue is simple--the U.S. Supreme Court says communities don't
have the right to decide whether they want out-of-state garbage or not.
They said only Congress can grant that right and that's why we're here.
We very much appreciate the efforts of Chairman Gillmor and Ranking
Member Mr. Pallone for scheduling this hearing and that of Congressman
Greenwood and Senators Specter and Santorum and our entire
Congressional Delegation for their continuing efforts to push for
federal legislation in this area.
Over the last six years Gov. Ridge has personally visited many
members of Congress, including members of this Committee, to urge
passage of interstate waste legislation. And before him, the late Gov.
Robert P. Casey carried the same message.
My predecessor James Seif appeared before this very committee two
years ago asking for your action and met with many members to educate
them on this issue.
In each of the last three legislative sessions, members of our
General Assembly have overwhelmingly passed resolutions urging Congress
to act on interstate waste legislation.
Today I'd like to recognize the presence of Richard Fox
representing Sen. Ray Musto, Democratic Chairman of our Senate
Environmental Resources and Energy Committee and Patrick Henderson,
representing Sen. Mary Jo White, the Majority Chairman of the
Committee.
We Pennsylvanians are nothing if not persistent, because we believe
passing legislation giving states and communities a voice on waste
imports is the right thing to do.
Specifically, Pennsylvania is seeking federal legislation on
interstate waste that includes these basic provisions:
1. Giving communities the ability to allow the disposal of imported
waste through host community agreements, which would address
concerns like operating hours, truck traffic, noise, and litter
before permits are issued;
2. Imposing a freeze on waste imports immediately with a predictable
schedule for reducing imports over time;
3. Allowing states to impose a percentage cap on the amount of imported
waste that a new facility could receive;
4. Allowing states to consider in-state capacity as part of the
permitting process;
5. Allowing communities to adopt waste flow control ordinances to
protect existing bond debt.
Bills introduced by Congressman Greenwood--H.R.1213 and Senator
Specter--S. 1194--incorporate provisions that Pennsylvania supports.
These tools are needed because some states have found it easier to
dump on their neighbors than to develop disposal facilities and
recycling programs to handle the waste they generate.
In many ways, Pennsylvania has been a victim of our own success.
Pennsylvania has required our counties to plan for how they will
dispose of the waste they generate over the next ten years, put in
place the nation's toughest environmental standards for landfills and
built the largest curbside recycling program in the country.
Because Pennsylvania has successfully built a waste disposal and
recycling system, other states feel they can come in and take advantage
of it, and there's nothing to stop them.
Ironically, the lack of federal legislation has also hampered other
states, like New Jersey, who do want to keep waste in their state, but
can't because they can't control where their waste goes for disposal.
Reasonable restrictions on imported waste shipments like the ones
we're asking for will not ban all imports as some have said. In fact,
in 1999 Pennsylvania did a survey of communities hosting landfills and
found that 20% have, and would, agree to accept waste imports for a
variety of reasons.
The simple tools we are asking for will enable states and
communities to act responsibly to manage their own waste and limit
unwanted waste imports from other states.
The need for federal legislation is now more urgent.
In March, Fresh Kills Landfill serving New York City closed--
forcing the city to find new disposal sites for an additional 4.7
million tons of garbage a year. They are shipping 11,500 tons of trash
a day outside the city to landfills and incinerators in Pennsylvania,
New Jersey, and Virginia.
Much of this garbage moves by truck along our Interstate highways
causing serious safety and environmental problems for the states
involved.
In May of this year, Pennsylvania conducted ``Operation Clean
Sweep,'' an unprecedented effort to put State Police and environmental
inspectors at each of the landfills and resource recovery facilities in
the Commonwealth over an eight-day period.
The results we found were, in a word, frightening.
We inspected more than 40,000 trucks and cited waste haulers for
over 11,000 safety and environmental violations.
The Pennsylvania State Police found 86 percent of the trucks they
inspected had one or more safety violations and they took 849 trucks or
drivers out of service for being unsafe.
One driver showed up at 6:00 a.m. on a Monday morning drunk.
We've also had citizens killed and seriously injured by trash
trucks, most recently in Northumberland County along I-78.
As the fines and penalties from ``Operation Clean Sweep'' continue
to pile up, we also continued our regular truck inspections. As
recently as last week, six more inspection sites resulted in more
violations.
The hazards of unsafe trash trucks are real for our communities and
we're doing everything we can to enforce our safety and environmental
laws, but frankly we need to get to the root of the problem that only
federal legislation can solve.
We are also doing all we can within the current law to improve our
waste management programs.
Gov. Ridge issued an executive order that directs DEP to actively
involve communities early in landfill permit decisions, and to take a
detailed look at truck traffic and other community impacts.
We also passed new regulations requiring applicants for new
landfill capacity to prove the potential benefits of those facilities
out weigh harms to the environment and to the community.
Landfill applicants are also prohibited from applying for new
landfill capacity until they have five years or fewer of capacity left.
Gov. Ridge is the first governor to propose legislation that
includes a two-year moratorium on issuing permits for new or expanded
landfills, new tools to crack down on unsafe trash trucks and giving
communities more say in resolving local issues with landfills through
host community agreements.
But Pennsylvania cannot address the issue of waste imports without
federal legislation.
In our offices, we have 25 applications for new or expanded
landfills that will add 71.5 million more tons and years of new waste
disposal capacity in Pennsylvania.
If the additional capacity were devoted only to the waste
Pennsylvania generates, it would last us 7.24 years. This is on top of
the 12 years of capacity we have right now.
Our democracy is built on the foundation of empowering people to
make choices. It is also built on fairness.
Our communities now have no voice in deciding whether millions of
tons of garbage come to them for disposal from other states.
In it is unfair that states like Pennsylvania that have made the
hard choices to build waste facilities and recycling programs, have to
make room for other states that have not.
We are not asking to build a fence around our borders to turn back
every waste truck or to turn our backs on the legitimate needs of our
neighbors.
We're not asking for any money.
We are asking Congress to give states and communities a voice so we
can limit unwanted garbage imports into our state. With appropriate
federal legislation, states will be provided the tools needed to begin
addressing the current inequities.
Again, thank you for an opportunity to address this critical issue.
We look forward to working with Congress to address this important
issue and to developing a consensus that will benefit all states and
communities.
Mr. Gillmor. Thank you, Mr. Hess. Because Mr. Greenwood has
to depart, we will divert from our normal order of procedure,
and permit Mr. Greenwood to question Mr. Hess.
Mr. Greenwood. I don't know if you have had a chance,
David, to look at some of the issues that Virginia has asked us
to take a look at, but do you see any difficulty in making--if
you have; if you haven't, that is fine; we can talk about it
later--but if you have had an opportunity to look at those
issues, do you see any difficulty incorporating the concerns a
State like Virginia has with my legislation that would pose
additional problems for Pennsylvania?
Mr. Hess. I think in terms of having a little flexibility
to choose the date, I think that probably would be a good
addition. Flexibility is always important, so I think on that
particular issue I think that would probably strengthen the
bill.
Mr. Greenwood. And I will be brief. Mr. Fossella is not
with us here, but one of the points that he made is that these
municipalities in Pennsylvania have a choice. They can either
accept this waste from a State like his or not. Perhaps you
could just describe for the other members of the committee here
what that really means in a place like, for instance, where I
come from, in a place like little Tullytown Burrow can accept
waste, but the trucks cross many municipal boundaries and drive
through many townships and create dust and pollution and noise
and all of the rest. And the smell, the air quality issues
certainly are not isolated. The water quality issues are not
isolated to a particular municipality. So I think we need to
debunk this notion that somehow no one is harmed if the
residents of one little tiny municipality want to receive trash
from out of State.
Mr. Hess. I think there is two points I would make very
quickly. One point is the agreements they are talking about are
not agreements between, say, a New York City and Old Forge
Burrow in northeast Pennsylvania. They are with a waste
management company and a community. And in many cases, those
kinds of agreements were made years and years and years ago, at
least in Pennsylvania's case, and they really have no
opportunity to either update or change those agreements. So
they have been effectively locked in. And that is really one
point.
I think the second point is, as you mentioned, there are
impacts that go beyond the host community itself, and
Pennsylvania, again, as Congressman Kanjorski said, we have
2,600 municipalities, some of them very tiny, and it can be
that certainly there are agreements. And as I said before, 22
percent of those folks surveyed, those communities surveyed,
would accept waste. But now they are not given a choice, either
because they have old agreements that they can't now change or
they weren't party to some of these agreements in the first
place.
Mr. Greenwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the interest of
time, I will yield back.
Mr. Gillmor. Thank you.
Director Jones from Ohio.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER JONES
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it was a lot
easier, I am sure David would agree, to be a staff person than
to be the head of the agency, but I, too, want to thank you for
having these hearings and to Congressman Greenwood for his
efforts on behalf of this legislation. And I will have a more
detailed statement for the record.
I want to talk about Ohio's experience, because I watch
Pennsylvania, and am reminded that statement earlier today,
``No good deed going unpunished.'' As you know, we have some
experience in Ohio. Between 1986 and 1989, out-of-State waste
disposed in Ohio increased from about 33,000 tons a year, which
was less than 1 percent of our total disposal, to 3.7 million
tons, which was 20 percent of our total disposal. We have
decreased significantly from the 1989 levels, but as you
mentioned, Mr. Chairman, you were the president of the senate
at the time, we passed a very progressive bill, house bill 592
in Ohio, and we took a proactive step. We set up responsible
management of waste disposal in Ohio. We assured ourselves at
the time we had less than 9 years of capacity. We now have over
20 years of capacity. We haven't sat still in the 13 years
since that bill passed. We have amended 18 times to take
account to the changing circumstances.
There are issues that cause us to need this legislation.
The discussion earlier about the level playing ground, there
isn't one. We have no ability, we have no authority to control
the imports. We, in Ohio, have done I think a very good job of
regulating landfills, of managing solid waste disposal, of
establishing recycling goals, aggressive recycling goals that
are being met throughout the State. We have a statewide
management plan that people have to conform to. So we have
taken those steps, the fundamental purpose of which is to
support our own solid waste management system in the State of
Ohio.
Part of that includes both exports and imports, and I would
like to echo what David said. This is not about putting up a
fence, but this is about giving the States the ability to
responsibly manage imports and exports of solid waste. We are
having problems in Ohio, because people perceive that these
landfills are being built for the sole purpose of servicing
out-of-State waste. And that takes the decisionmaking out of
the thoughtful, engineered management decisions and into the
emotion, and it is very difficult to argue with that emotion,
because it is based on fundamental facts that those people live
with on a daily basis.
Why do we look to this legislation and the need for this
legislation? As I said, we have been proactive, and we have
managed well. We think we have, actually, more than twice the
permitted landfill capacity that Pennsylvania and Virginia
have, and we have tried to compare--we have 1999 numbers for
Ohio but 1997 for the other States. But we have permitted 453
million tons of capacity for municipal solid waste in Ohio
compared to about 200 million tons for Pennsylvania and
Virginia. The possibly more significant fact is that the two
landfills in Ohio that take the most out-of-State waste
currently have enough remaining capacity between them for
around 65 million tons of waste. We have relatively low tipping
fees. According to the best data we have, and this is a spot
fee so there is probably contract prices lower, our tipping fee
is at least $9 lower than Virginia's and $19 lower than
Pennsylvania.
What we have to look at is the total cost to dispose of
waste in Ohio, which is a function of both our tipping fees and
the transportation costs. And good for us but bad for us,
Northeast Ohio is served by a number of high quality east-west
interstate highways. They provide relatively direct access from
the east coast, and we have seen disposal from at least 11
different east coast States, so it is clear to us that
transportation costs are not going to prohibit--are not going
to be cost prohibitive for people to import waste.
Right now, the level of waste imports into Ohio are not a
concern. Well, they are not an immediate concern. But because
of our capacity, which is currently, on the current levels, 21
years, and the relatively low tipping fees, our proximity to
the east coast, and our experience, going from less than 1
percent of our total disposal to over 20 percent of our
disposal being imports in 2 years, we remain concerned that we
are vulnerable to the good fortune that Pennsylvania has
enjoyed. There were proactive, they planned, they are paying a
price. We don't want to pay that price, and we are concerned
that we don't have the tools. This legislation gives us those
tools.
I want to thank the chairman for the hearing and Mr.
Greenwood for his legislation.
[The prepared statement of Christopher Jones follows:]
Prepared Statement of Christopher Jones, Director, Ohio EPA
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:
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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.
Mr. Gillmor. Mr. Harding.
STATEMENT OF RUSSELL J. HARDING
Mr. Harding. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Indeed, it is a
pleasure to be here, and members of the committee, to talk
about an issue that is absolutely vital to Michigan: The
importation and export of solid waste.
As you know, in Michigan, we are a steward of a natural
resource of nearly 20 percent of the world's fresh water and
the Great Lakes that surround our State. Consequently, we have
enacted very tough landfill standards in our State, some of the
most restrictive in the country. In terms of technology
requirements, we also have a very comprehensive planning
statute that requires each county to provide for 15 years of
capacity. Those plans must be reviewed and approved by my
agency according to State statute. They are tough requirements.
We have done that in our State to ensure that we can manage
this issue satisfactorily within the State.
Our concern hasn't been as much export and import from the
surrounding States. That is certainly, I think, as Chris just
mentioned, a concern. We are very concerned, though, of what is
happening versus Canada and our State in terms of this issue.
This really caught by great surprise. We visited extensively
with Toronto and Canadian officials. They have admitted to us
that it would be cheaper to dispose of their solid waste in
Canada, but they have decided instead, for political
expediency, to send it to Michigan. And now the 19 million tons
that we take care of in Michigan annually, 1.5 of that is from
Canada alone. The other landfills will be closing in Canada. We
expect that will increase dramatically, as I think was
mentioned by a member of the prior panel. There certainly is no
land shortage in Canada, but they do not want to deal with this
issue.
We have seen the increase is now about 20 percent of all
the solid waste we are dealing with, as I said, comes from
other States and Canada. We are diligent--a point I wanted to
hit on a little bit, I think it is been talked about, is we are
very diligent on attempting to inspect those trucks as they
come either through Detroit or Port Huron, across the bridges
into our State. That is a very, very logistically difficult
task to undertake. And we have used sophisticated means. The
logistics of it are very difficult. We certainly can't restrict
traffic and cause backups at the border, the international
borders. We also inspect at landfills. But it is very, very
difficult to do that, and we find when we do the inspections
that we, indeed, have at times what we consider to be hazardous
materials, even radioactive materials mixed in. We have no
ability to do a whole lot about that except try to turn the
truck back at that point, and that becomes a problem in itself.
We also are experiencing about 65 trucks per day from
Toronto alone. It is estimated that we have about 130 a day
from Canada. As we struggle--and I know this committee has been
concerned and working on energy issues--as we struggle with
clean air issues, this has a big impact on our State. These
things are important, and we try to deal with them regionally
and across the country.
I have heard discussed a little bit individual community
host agreements with companies, and I agree with Mr. Hess. That
I believe is a statewide issue. We certainly allow that. That
is between individual host communities and landfill--or excuse
me, in waste companies. We don't think that should be
prohibited, but we do think it needs to be restricted to
reflect statewide concerns. Trash move between counties, it
moves throughout the State. There are a number of issues that
have an impact that go way beyond local.
The Governor has been very concerned and working on this
with Congress since 1992. I know it has been covered adequately
that certainly the State has come to the conclusion that we do
not have the authority in our State to address this issue. It
will take active legislation to be passed by Congress to deal
with it. In the Engler administration, the State of Michigan,
we support open markets. I certainly agree with our colleagues
from New York. I think open markets work. They should be
supported. We are only advocating some compromise here.
We are not saying that we believe we ought to restrict and
put up barriers at the State lines. We don't think that is
appropriate. Michigan exports waste; we export more hazardous
waste than we import. We think it is important that free flow
of commerce continue, but I believe Mr. Greenwood has a very
good start here on a solution that indeed is a compromise. It
allows these things to occur, allows free commerce to occur.
But it does set some standards that allow States to address
some of the key components.
And I can tell you from a political standpoint in our
State, our citizens just cannot understand why Congress hasn't
resolved this issue. They see Congress dealing with a whole
array of issues across a spectrum that affects citizens' lives
every day, but yet this issue doesn't seem to be able to be
dealt with. It is causing increased consternation in our State.
We continually see our State legislature attempting to pass
legislation that we know does not pass legal muster. We have
not supported that legislation. We have done tough thing
politically. Governor Engler hasn't supported legislation he
knows that is unconstitutional.
So I guess our plea, again, is we really need your help. We
appreciate Representative Mike Rogers taking the leadership
from our State on this issue. We really need some help from
Congress here. We are just asking for some compromise
legislation, and we stand willing to work with our partners
from the Northeast to secure that. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Russell J. Harding follows:]
Prepared Statement of Russell J. Harding, Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality
Good afternoon, I am Russell J. Harding, Director of the Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality. The Department is Michigan's
environmental regulatory agency, responsible for the air, water
quality, wetlands, waste management, and environmental cleanup
programs.
I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity today to
discuss legislation that would be effective for managing the interstate
transfer of solid waste. In 1992, the United States Supreme Court
ruled, in the matter of Fort Gratiot Sanitary Landfill v. Michigan
Department of Natural Resources et al. (1992 Fort Gratiot decision),
that provisions of Michigan's Solid Waste Management Act, which allowed
counties to impose restrictions on the importation of solid waste from
other states and countries through their Solid Waste Management Plans,
violated the United States Constitution and were not enforceable. The
United States Constitution's Commerce Clause reserves, to the United
States Congress, the authority to regulate commerce between the states
and with foreign countries. The Courts have long recognized the so-
called ``dormant'' nature of the Commerce Clause as prohibiting states
from such areas of regulation unless authorized by Congress. As a
result, while movement of waste between Michigan counties is still
regulated by state law, we are unable to restrict imports of solid
waste from outside of the state.
Solid waste import data has been collected by the Department on a
Fiscal Year (FY) basis since FY 1996. Data from these reports indicate
an increase in the level of imports over the last five years. Based on
data collected for the past five FYs, there has been an overall
increase of 18 percent in the amount of solid waste being generated in
Michigan. However, imports of waste from Canada and other states rose
by 41 percent during this same time period.
Out-of-state and Canadian waste being disposed of in Michigan is
equivalent to approximately 20 percent of the solid waste stream that
is generated annually in Michigan. As a result, for every five years of
disposal of this volume of out-of-state waste, Michigan is losing a
full year of landfill capacity. Total out-of-state imports of waste
into Michigan landfills rose from 6,349,695 cubic yards during the 1999
reporting period to 9,373,115 cubic yards in FY 2000, an increase of
46.7 percent. The largest individual source of waste imports continues
to be from Canada, with total reported imports to landfills of
4,216,814 cubic yards, up 1,874,023 cubic yards or 80 percent from the
1999 FY. This increased amount of waste imports also means there is an
increased amount of truck traffic on Michigan roads. Truck traffic
continues to be a growing concern because there are currently an
estimated 65 trucks per day from Toronto alone and an estimated 110-130
trucks per day in total from Canada. As the amount of truck traffic
increases, the dangers associated with this increased truck traffic
also continues to rise. While wastes have been received from a number
of states, most of the out-of-state waste that is not imported from
Canada, comes from those states immediately adjacent to Michigan; Ohio,
Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana. Michigan does not collect data on
waste exports; however, contacts with neighboring states indicate that
Michigan exports only very limited quantities of solid waste.
A particular concern to Michigan is the fact that our Canadian
neighbors are foregoing more cost-effective disposal options that are
available to them within their own country in favor of transporting
their solid waste into Michigan. This was particularly noteworthy in
Toronto's decision to forego the proposal to utilize the Adam's Mine
site in Kirkland Lake. This site presented several advantages including
(1) providing for the long-term disposal needs of Canadian residents;
(2) offering economic benefits for Canada, including retention of jobs
in Ontario; and (3) use of railroad lines, which are a safer and more
efficient means of waste transportation compared to roads. In addition,
higher costs for disposal in Michigan would intensify the challenges
that already exist for Toronto's city budget.
Since the 1992 Fort Gratiot decision, Governor John Engler has
worked on a cooperative basis with other states and with the Congress
to seek a balanced and comprehensive legislative remedy to this issue.
In addition, on May 28, 1999, Governor Engler took action to further
evaluate how Michigan can best address the issue of regulating imports
of solid waste from other states and countries by establishing the
Michigan Solid Waste Importation Task Force (Task Force). The Task
Force was created to examine trends, causes, and consequences of out-
of-state waste imports and to develop recommendations to address this
issue. Outcomes identified in the Task Force's final report, which were
based on data only through 1998, include:
<bullet> If imports were to remain at then current levels, which were
increasing between FYs 1997 and 1998 at a rate of .3 percent,
their impact on available disposal capacity would continue to
be minimal.
<bullet> Solid waste imports show a continuing trend to increase and
recent figures show the rate of increase is growing
significantly, as shown in more recent data which indicate
between FYs 1999 and 2000, imports are now increasing at a rate
of 32 percent.
<bullet> Losing capacity at significantly increased rates undermines
long-term comprehensive solid waste management planning
conducted by Michigan communities.
<bullet> Continuing increases in imports will hinder growth of
recycling in Michigan.
<bullet> State legislation that will actually limit waste imports will
likely not withstand constitutional challenge, and state
legislative approaches that will withstand constitutional
challenge are not likely to be effective at limiting imports.
<bullet> All state level efforts attempted in other states to control
waste imports have been found unconstitutional because Congress
has not enacted laws to grant states the authority to regulate
this area of commerce.
It is clear that the only sure remedy to withstand legal challenge
is one based on authority granted to states by Congress; and most court
decisions have made clear that Congress has this authority.
Since the 1992 Fort Gratiot decision, the Michigan Legislature has
proposed several bills seeking to restrict imports of out-of-state
solid waste. These bills have generally followed two approaches. One is
to impose an outright ban. Similar laws enacted in other states have
been uniformly struck down as unconstitutional. The other is to
prohibit imports from jurisdictions whose disposal bans are less
stringent than Michigan's. Based on the Fort Gratiot decision and
subsequent Supreme Court decisions, it is clear that absent federal
legislation authorizing states to restrict imports/exports of out-of-
state waste, such state laws would not withstand legal scrutiny.
Michigan strongly supports HR 1213. We believe that this bill, if
enacted, would provide Michigan and other states the tools needed to
restrict out-of-state waste imports in a manner that would be the most
effective approach for managing environmental impacts from waste
imports.
While Michigan's preference remains HR 1213, we understand that HR
667 has also been introduced to provide states with the ability to
prohibit waste imports provided that their state plan has been
approved. Prohibitions may not be the best approach to this issue.
Recently, Congressman Mike Rogers has introduced legislation, HR
1927, which would give states the authority to prohibit or limit
foreign municipal solid waste. The Department is pleased Congressman
Rogers has recognized this as a serious issue and has joined our
efforts to enact federal legislation to give states control over
municipal solid waste crossing their borders. Although HR 1927 differs
somewhat from other bills that Governor Engler supports, such as HR
1213 introduced by Congressman Jim Greenwood (R-PA), HR 1927 sends a
strong message and would give Michigan the authority and flexibility to
address waste coming from Canada. As a new member of Congress,
Congressman Rogers' active involvement in getting the U.S. House of
Representatives to move forward on solid waste legislation is extremely
welcome, and can only help ensure that we get the strongest possible
legislation out of the Congress and to the President's desk.
We believe that the balanced regulation of interstate waste will
prove to be an effective means of maintaining disposal capacity created
by Michigan's communities and intended for Michigan's citizens,
protecting Michigan's natural resources, and alleviating inadvertent
disposal of wastes that are not permitted in Michigan landfills as a
result of regulatory differences between United States and Canadian
law. As previously mentioned, we believe giving states reasonable
authority to restrict out-of-state waste imports is the most effective
approach for managing environmental impacts from waste imports that
will withstand legal challenge while minimizing disruptions to
appropriate waste disposal markets.
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide this testimony. At
this time, states have very limited ability to regulate imports of out-
of-state solid waste; however, it is possible for federal legislation
to create a balance between the communities' plans for their long-term
disposal needs and the needs of private waste disposal firms to operate
profitably, to compete fairly with each other, and to honor existing
contractual relationships. Michigan welcomes the opportunity to provide
assistance to this committee in developing legislation which would give
states the ability to impose reasonable regulation of waste imports
while recognizing existing waste management relationships and the needs
of the waste disposal industry and waste generators to operate
effectively. At this time, I would be pleased to answer any questions
you may have.
Mr. Gillmor. Commissioner Kaplan.
STATEMENT OF LORI F. KAPLAN
Ms. Kaplan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of
the subcommittee. I am Lori Kaplan. I am the commissioner of
the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, and I
appreciate the invitation to appear before you this morning to
speak on the legislation that is under consideration.
I also would like to take the opportunity to thank the
entire Indiana delegation who has stood united through the
years to support efforts to control out-of-State waste into the
State of Indiana. And, in particular, I would like to thank
Congressman Buyer, new member to this subcommittee, who has
helped lead the bipartisan effort along with Congressman Pete
Visclosky on this matter.
I would like to give you a little bit of history from
Indiana to paint the picture, if you will. We have been one of
the leading States as far as receipt of imports of out-of-State
waste throughout the past decade or more. In 1996, we did
receive 1.8 million tons of out-of-State waste. We were on an
upward trend at that point. It continued to go up until 1998
when we received 2.7 million tons of out-of-State waste. I am
happy to report that we are now on a slight downward trend.
This last year we received 1.6 million tons of out-of-State
waste. However, that still kept us ranked sixth of all States
in receipt of out-of-State waste, and it also comprised 20
percent of all waste disposed of at municipal solid waste
facilities at Indiana landfills.
During the last year, the bulk of the out-of-State waste
was received by adjacent States--or from adjacent States.
However, that has not always been true. It is not that long ago
that we were the recipient of many tons of waste from east
coast States. This last year we did not receive any long-haul
shipments of municipal solid waste to our landfills from east
coast States, but as we all know, change can occur rapidly in
the waste industry, and this also pertains to out-of-State
waste. Governor Frank O'Bannon and myself are primarily
interested in obtaining the tools that the administration and
local officials can use to have control of the volume of out-
of-State we receive, and our primary goal is to protect our
State's disposal capacity and also protect and preserve our
natural resources.
As you have heard from my colleagues, I would also stand in
agreement. We are not advocating a total prohibition on imports
or exports of out-of-State waste. There are times when it
certainly is the most logistical and economical way in which to
deal with it. However, there do need to be local controls for
the sake of reliability so that we can predict what our
capacities are and what our needs are going to be.
Right now, in Indiana, we have 17 years of capacity in our
current landfills. If we continue to receive wastes at the
level we did in the year 2000, we would reduce that capacity by
3 years. Should we revert back to 1998 levels when we were
receiving 2.7 million tons of waste, we would lose 8 years off
of our current capacity. If we had some type of controls in
place where we could predict what the incoming waste would be
from other States, we could plan better.
Like our other States, we have also had several attempts
through our State legislature, enacting laws to use reasonable,
sensible ways in which to have some control over the influx of
out-of-State waste. Of course, the Federal courts found those
statutes to be unconstitutional and recognized the need for
Federal legislation that would assist at the local level.
We do stand, the State of Indiana, in support of 1213 filed
by Mr. Greenwood and find many provisions in that that would be
very beneficial to the State of Indiana as well as other
States. Particularly, we do still have a law on the books in
Indiana that requires a needs assessment before a new landfill
or an expansion can be permitted, where we take into account
regional and local need. Twelve-thirteen would authorize that.
It has not yet been challenged in our courts, and we are not
sure it would withstand a constitutional challenge.
We also have had incidents in the past of receipt of waste
from Canada. In 1991, we received 15,000 tons of waste from
Canada. It is not currently an issue, but it certainly could
arise again, especially as we hear Canada's efforts to
eliminate their own facilities.
In conclusion, I recognize that members of the committee do
need to take into consideration the needs and concerns of all
50 States, as well as the private sector when contemplating
something very important that would impact the Commerce Clause,
as this would. However, I hope that you will agree that there
are benefits to some local authority, local controls so that we
can all best manage our waste and our resources that we have
available.
So I would like to thank you for your time and for the
invitation to appear here today. And at the conclusion, I would
be happy to assist in any answering any questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Lori F. Kaplan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Lori F. Kaplan, Commissioner, Indiana
Department of Environmental Management
introductory remarks
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am
pleased to testify on pending legislation that would vest states and
local governments with the authority to control shipments of out-of-
state municipal solid waste (MSW). As members of the subcommittee may
know, Indiana's elected state officials and federal representatives
have long been concerned that our state's efforts to manage the
disposal of our solid waste, as required under federal law, are
threatened by unconstrained flows of garbage from other states. I
therefore appreciate the opportunity to offer comments on behalf of the
State of Indiana on three bills, H.R.667, H.R.1213, and H.R. 1927,
which were recently introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives to
address this issue.
There continues to be a necessity for legislation that would give
the states some ability to control the influx of out-of-state waste.
Shipments of interstate municipal solid waste continue to rise
nationally, and so does public concern. A recent Congressional Research
Service report on interstate waste shipments noted that imports have
more than doubled from 14.5 million tons in 1993 to 32 million tons in
2000, a 120% increase over 7 years. In Indiana, 1998 was a peak year
for disposal of out-of-state waste. In that year, almost 2.2 million
tons of out-of-state municipal solid waste was disposed of at our MSW
facilities, which are mostly landfills. Those 2.2 million tons of out-
of-state waste represented 30% of the total amount of waste disposed of
at our state's MSW facilities. Adding construction and demolition (C&D)
debris and special waste, which are recorded separately, a total of 2.7
million tons of out-of-state waste was disposed of at Indiana MSW
disposal sites in 1998--enough to cover two lanes of Interstate 95 from
Washington, D.C. to Richmond, Virginia and back again with 10 feet of
garbage. Since 1998 there has been a 40% drop in the amount of out-of-
state municipal solid waste disposed of in Indiana. While this is
certainly a good trend, waste imports remain very high and it is not a
trend that can be guaranteed. The sporadic nature of waste flows could
just as easily result in a significant increase in out-of-state waste
next year.
Almost all of Indiana's out-of-state waste currently comes from
neighboring states, with most shipments originating at transfer
stations in the Chicago area and going to landfills in the northern
portion of the state. A number of years ago, Indiana was deluged with
garbage shipments from New Jersey and New York. However, through
aggressive enforcement of state regulations concerning the types of
waste allowed in landfills, negotiated agreements between Indiana and
those two states, and the closure of several Indiana landfills
receiving out-of-state waste, the flow was dramatically reduced. In
fact, last year, no long-haul shipments of municipal solid waste from
the East Coast were sent to any Indiana landfills.
While this situation could change, especially with the closure of
the Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island in New York, Governor Frank
O'Bannon and I are chiefly concerned with ensuring that our
administration and local officials gain the ability to control the
overall amount of out-of-state waste shipments. Our primary goal is to
protect our state's disposal capacity and natural resources; the origin
of out-of-state shipments is not important.
At the present time, Indiana has approximately 17 years of in-state
capacity based on current disposal rates, and the state's 61 solid
waste management districts are working hard to reduce waste disposal.
Indiana's efforts to manage in-state disposal capacity needs could
easily be frustrated by an influx of out-of-state waste which could
readily exhaust landfill capacity that has been saved through local
recycling and waste reduction efforts. At the current rate of out-of-
state waste shipments into Indiana, the capacity of our landfills could
be reduced by three years. If Indiana was receiving out-of-state waste
today at the 1998 rate, capacity would be reduced by eight years--
almost one half of current projected capacity. It becomes difficult to
make the case for waste reduction in Indiana as other states' garbage
flows freely across our borders.
When, in 1990, out-of-state waste became an issue of public concern
in Indiana, our state legislature passed several laws to protect our
citizens against the unregulated importation of trash. These laws
included a higher tipping fee for out-of-state waste and a requirement
that out-of-state shipments be certified as not containing hazardous or
infectious waste. A federal judge ruled that these laws violated the
Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution and struck these
provisions down.
A year later, in 1991, additional regulatory provisions were
passed, including a ban on the hauling of food and other products in a
vehicle also used to haul solid waste and an identification sticker for
vehicles transporting waste into Indiana. These too were ruled
unconstitutional.
Today, we still have a law in place from 1990 that requires
applicants for new landfills or expansions to demonstrate that there is
a local or regional need for additional capacity. This ``needs''
statute has been used to deny permits on several occasions, but there
is great concern that this law too will not withstand court challenge
without federal legislative action.
After listening to today's testimony, I urge you to act to address
this issue in a manner that carefully balances the concerns of state
and local officials, the importance of protecting our natural
resources, and the legitimate business interests of the waste industry.
Congress could have and should have acted on this issue years ago when
two former members of Congress from Indiana--Senator Dan Coats and
Congressman Phil Sharp--labored long and hard to pass legislation.
Indiana's current congressional delegation has demonstrated a united
support for enacting a federal interstate waste law. In the House,
Congressman Steve Buyer, a new member of this subcommittee, and
Congressman Pete Visclosky, have helped to lead this bipartisan effort
the last several years.
h.r. 1213, the ``solid waste interstate transportation act of 2001''
I believe that H.R. 1213, introduced by Congressman Jim Greenwood,
represents a measured approach to providing states and localities with
tools to limit but not eliminate out-of-state waste shipments.
There are five separate provisions within H.R. 1213 that Indiana
could utilize today. The first is the presumptive ban that does not
allow landfills to accept out-of-state waste unless authorized through
a local host agreement, state permit, or an existing contract. The
second is the authorization of a state to limit out-of-state waste
amounts based on receipts in 1993. The third and most important of the
provisions for Indiana is the recognition of the ``Needs Law'' that
Indiana has used with some limited success but which is subject to
challenge. The fourth provision provides that out-of-state waste can
comprise, at a minimum, 20% of a state's total MSW. And the last
provision is the ability for state's to impose a cost recovery
surcharge on out-of-state waste to recoup the expenditure of tax
dollars incurred as a result of the receipt of out-of-state waste.
Taken together, the provisions of H.R. 1213 do not eliminate
altogether out-of-state waste shipments, which would be neither prudent
nor necessary. They do, however, provide a mix of public notice
requirements that will ensure public input in states' waste management
programs and controls which can prevent unwanted floods of out-of-state
trash.
h.r. 1927, the ``solid waste international transportation act of 2001''
This legislation, introduced by Congressman Mike Rogers, is limited
to dealing with solid waste originating from outside the United States.
While such waste is not currently being disposed of in Indiana there
have been periods of time in the past when Indiana received a
significant number of shipments of solid waste from Canada.
Specifically in 1991 Indiana received nearly 15,000 tons of solid waste
from Canada. Due to the potential for importation of waste from Canada
in the future and the impact such importation would have on landfill
capacity, the State of Indiana supports the general concept of H.R.
1927. However, it is expected that H.R. 1213 would achieve the same
goals without leading to a challenge under an international trade
agreement as solid waste from both inside and outside the country would
be subject to the same requirements.
h.r. 667, the ``solid waste compact act''
This legislation, introduced by Congressman Paul Kanjorski,
provides states the broad discretion to prohibit disposal of out-of-
state waste provided the state has an approved State Plan under the
federal regulations. While this legislation certainly provides states
with the greatest flexibility in preventing out-of-state waste disposal
it also provides the greatest potential for abuse of such authority.
The legislation would allow a state to apply the prohibition statewide
or to a specific landfill or incinerator. Such an approach does not
recognize regional flows of solid waste, and while the greatest concern
has been expressed relative to the import of waste into a state, every
state also has communities near its borders which ship waste to a
nearby landfill or incinerator in an adjoining state. For example, last
year Indiana generated and disposed of over 6.2 million tons of solid
waste within its borders. Indiana shipped less than 5% of that amount
to surrounding states. It is expected that if H.R. 667 were enacted, a
significant amount of negotiation between states would likely occur to
develop interstate compacts relative to solid waste imports and
exports. For Indiana significant staff resources would be required to
negotiate with our four contiguous sister states. By comparison H.R.
1213 provides adequate guidance in the controls and limitations that
may be used to restrict out-of-state waste so that interstate compacts
would not be necessary.
conclusion
I appreciate the interest of Chairman Gillmor and other
subcommittee members in convening today's hearing and hope this is only
a first step leading to enactment of legislation. Repeated and
strenuous efforts to negotiate a settlement between major importing and
exporting states--most recently involving Indiana, Michigan, New
Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia two years ago--have
failed to produce any meaningful solution.
I recognize that this subcommittee must weigh the interests and
concerns of all 50 states and the private sector when considering a
matter involving interstate commerce. On this issue, however, I am
hopeful that you and your colleagues will agree that states should be
allowed to exercise a reasonable set of controls to protect their
natural resources and solid waste disposal capacity, and ensure public
support for their own waste reduction efforts. Governor O'Bannon and I
believe Congress should not indefinitely delay legislative action.
Thank you again for allowing me to share the State of Indiana's
concerns about this important public policy matter.
Mr. Gillmor. Thank you.
Mr. Lhota.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH J. LHOTA
Mr. Lhota. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee. My name is Joseph Lhota, and I am deputy mayor
for Operations for the city of New York. Among my
responsibilities is ensuring the environmentally safe and
economically sound management of the city's municipal solid
waste. I implemented Mayor Guliani's plan to close the city's
municipal landfill at Fresh Kills on Staten Island, and we
closed it earlier this year. On behalf of the mayor, I
appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the pending
interstate waste measures--bills that would have profoundly
adverse effect on the city's day-to-day operations.
Mayor Guliani, Governor Pataki, and New York legislature
agreed in 1996 to close Fresh Kills by December 31, 2001. I
might add--and it is not in my prepared remarks--that this was
done due to a lawsuit brought by then city councilman, Veto
Fossella, to which the elected officials in New York State all
responded. It is important that the subcommittee recognize from
the outset that the Giuliani administration has shut down this
facility responsibly and appropriately, with due consideration,
we believe, for the States and their communities that have
chosen to accept the city's municipal solid waste.
As I said, we closed the facility on March 22 of this year.
And we require that all the municipal solid waste be disposed
of in communities that expressly choose to accept our trash
through valid and legally binding host community agreements.
Since our plan mandates that the city can only export to
willing, local jurisdictions, the Giuliani administration does
not see the need for this legislation to require New York City
to do what it already requires of itself.
In exporting its residential waste, the city is exercising
nothing more than the right in the U.S. Constitution that is
extended to cities and States nationwide: Responsible,
efficient, and environmentally sound solid waste management
through the heavily regulated and highly competitive private
sector. Municipal solid waste shipments have long been upheld
by the courts as a commodity in interstate commerce, and over
the years communities have relied on the certainty that these
decisions provide in protecting the long-term, free market
plans to manage municipal solid waste. This is especially
important in a landscape where the more rigorous environmental
protections required under subtitle D of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act.
Although the closure of Fresh Kills affects only the city's
residential waste, the private market has been, and continues
to be, essential to the management of that waste as it is has
been to the disposal of the city's commercial waste. For years,
almost 40 years, the city's commercial businesses have relied
on private haulers to export waste from New York. For many
communities and States, municipal solid waste disposal fees are
an important revenue stream. I believe that each locality has a
right to accept or reject the disposal of solid waste, not by
Federal legislation but by locally decided host community
agreements.
The fact is that the city, in securing contracts for waste
disposal exclusively at host community agreement sites, has
furthered a partnership that benefits importer States and
exporters alike. As the Nation's largest and most densely
populated city of 8 million people--comprised of three islands
and a peninsula--the ability to send waste to newer, more
advanced regional facilities located outside the city's
boundaries is imperative.
For those localities that have opted to import our waste,
the revenue generated through host community fees, licensing
fees, and taxes has substantially enhanced their local economy,
improved area infrastructure, paid for school construction,
paved roads, and assisted host communities in meeting there own
waste management needs. Clearly, there are many other
jurisdictions nationwide that share New York's approach, since
42 States import and 46 States, as well as the District of
Columbia, export municipal solid waste.
For New York City and its businesses, it selects to handle
municipal solid waste disposal. Certainty and the long-term
security of waste management arrangements are fundamental to
making the city a viable place to live and work. Once
negotiated, any disruption to the contracts and agreements
providing the city's waste disposal framework could interfere
in its day-to-day operations.
This is why the city enthusiastically supports in importing
community's right to negotiate a host community agreement most
suited to its particular needs and to spell out in detail all
of the provisions that make waste disposal from out-of-State
acceptable to that locality. Conversely, the city will rely on
private sector bidding to select the most competitive prices
for disposal. Once formally agreed to, however, these
agreements and contracts must be inviolate in order to preserve
the mutual interests of both importers and exporters.
The city, the largest consumer market in the Nation, is not
solely dependent on exporting municipal solid waste through
private disposal markets. It currently runs one of the most
ambitious recycling programs in the Nation. It is the only
large city in America that requires 100 percent of its
households to recycle, including multi-family dwellings. And
recovers a higher percentage of household waste than any other
large city in this country. The city currently maintains a
combined residential and residential recycling rate of 58.9
percent.
Despite the city's best waste reduction and recycling
efforts, however, the city will still need to dispose of a
substantial amount of its waste outside of its boundaries. I am
confident that the capacity, the market, and the desire to
accommodate the city's waste at out-of-State disposal sites
will exist in the foreseeable future. To that end, Fresh Kills
was closed by relying on free market, private sector solutions
predicated on the contractual strength of host community
agreements.
On behalf of mayor and the city council, I thank the
subcommittee and underscore the city's in addressing Congress'
concerns regarding the transport of interstate waste. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Joseph J. Lhota follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joseph J. Lhota, Deputy Mayor for Operations for
the City of New York
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Joseph
Lhota, and I am New York City's Deputy Mayor for Operations. Among my
responsibilities is ensuring the environmentally safe and economically
sound management of the City's municipal solid waste (MSW). I
implemented Mayor Giuliani's plan to close the City's last remaining
municipal landfill at Fresh Kills. On behalf of the Mayor, I appreciate
the opportunity to testify today on pending interstate waste measures--
bills that could have a profoundly adverse effect on the City's day-to-
day operations.
Mayor Giuliani and Governor Pataki agreed in 1996 to close Fresh
Kills landfill by December 31, 2001, and this decision was the City's
first step toward embarking on a new, environmentally sound course in
the management of its solid waste. It is important that the
Subcommittee recognize from the outset that the Giuliani Administration
has shut down this facility responsibly and appropriately, with due
consideration for the states and their communities that have chosen to
accept the City's MSW. On March 22nd the City sent its last shipment of
garbage to Fresh Kills, completing a five-phase program, initiated in
July of 1997, requiring that all its MSW be disposed of in communities
that expressly choose to accept it through valid, legally-binding Host
Community Agreements. Since this plan mandates that the City only
export to willing jurisdictions, the Giuliani administration does not
see a need for legislation to require New York City to do that which it
already requires of itself.
In exporting its residential waste, the City is exercising nothing
more than the right the Constitution extends to cities and states
nationwide--responsible, efficient, and environmentally-sound solid
waste management through heavily-regulated and highly competitive
private sector businesses. MSW shipments have long been upheld by the
courts as a commodity in interstate commerce, and over the years
communities have relied on the certainty these decisions provide for
protecting long-term, free market plans to manage solid waste. This is
especially important in a landscape where the more rigorous
environmental protections required under Subtitle D of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) have compelled communities to
close smaller landfills for the alternative of larger, costlier, state-
of-the-art, regional facilities that comply with the law. In this
context, the right to transport solid waste across state lines
complements the basic reality that different regions have varying
disposal capacities irrespective of state lines. Areas such as New York
City and Chicago, lacking adequate space for landfills and/or
prohibited from waste incineration, may be located closer to better and
more cost-effective facilities in other states. These facilities need
the additional waste generated elsewhere to pay for part of the
increased cost of RCRA compliance.
Although the closure of Fresh Kills affects only the City's
residential waste, the private market is as essential to the management
of that waste as it is to disposing of the City's commercial waste. For
years the City's businesses have relied on private haulers to export
waste from New York. For many communities and states, MSW disposable
fees are an important revenue stream. The City believes that each
locality has the right to accept or reject the disposal of solid
waste--not by federal legislation, but by locally decided Host
Community Agreements.
The fact is that the City, in securing contracts for waste disposal
exclusively at Host Community Agreement sites, has furthered a
partnership that benefits importer and exporter alike. As the nation's
largest and most densely-populated city of eight million people--
comprised of three islands and a peninsula--the ability to send waste
to newer, more advanced regional facilities located outside the City's
boundaries acknowledges the very environmental, demographic, and
geographical realities that made closing Fresh Kills necessary. For
those localities that have opted to import our waste, the revenue
generated through host fees, licensing fees, and taxes has
substantially enhanced the local economy, improved area infrastructure,
paid for school construction, paved roads, and assisted host
communities in meeting there own waste management needs. Clearly, there
are many other jurisdictions nationwide that share New York's approach,
since 42 states import and 46 states and Washington, DC, export
municipal solid waste.
For the City and the businesses it selects to handle MSW disposal,
certainty and the long-term security of waste management arrangements
are fundamental to making New York a viable place to live and work.
Once negotiated, any disruption to the contracts and agreements
providing the City's waste disposal framework could interfere with its
day-to-day operations. This is why the City enthusiastically supports
the importing community's right to negotiate a Host Community Agreement
most suited to its particular needs, and to spell out in detail all of
the provisions that make waste disposal from out-of-state acceptable to
that locality. Conversely, the City will rely on private sector bidding
to select the most competitive price for disposal. Once formally agreed
to, however, these agreements and contracts must be inviolate in order
to preserve the mutual interests of both importers and exporters.
In that regard, the City has not pre-determined where its municipal
solid waste will be disposed. Instead, it has put into place measures
that ensure each bidder has all of the requisite environmental permits,
along with a Host Community Agreement that verifies the receiving
jurisdiction's approval of the disposal facility and its acceptance of
the imported waste with applicable fees. Furthermore, the existing
authority that states have in permitting solid waste facilities in
accordance with their own regulatory mandates, zoning ordinances, and
land use provisions, suggests even less cause for federal intervention
through legislation to restrict exports.
In closing Fresh Kills landfill, the City looked to the private
sector and the competitive free market to shape the future availability
of disposal sites. In July of 1997, when the City began the first phase
of diverting waste from the landfill, The New York Times reported that
New Jersey and Connecticut officials were ready to welcome New York's
waste because it made ``good economic sense.'' Robert E. Wright,
president of the Connecticut Resource Recovery Authority, which
oversees and is part owner of that state's incinerators, told the
press, ``I guess we probably have a more favorable eye on New York than
some more distant states.'' Of some jurisdictions The Times reported
further, ``In New Jersey, where counties have spent millions of dollars
to build incinerators, local officials generally are eager for any
guaranteed flow of trash. If anything, imported garbage at a plant like
the Newark incinerator is more desirable than the local trash because
the city gets a 10 percent share of the fee charged.''
The City, the largest consumer market in the nation, is not solely
dependent on exporting MSW through private disposal markets to close
Fresh Kills. It currently runs one of the most ambitious recycling
programs in the nation, and is the only large city in America that
requires 100 percent of its households to recycle--including multi-
family dwelling residents--and recovers a higher percentage of
household waste than any other large city in the country. The Giuliani
Administration plans to do even more. In the recently adopted City
budget, the Mayor has included over $12 million additional dollars for
the ongoing expansion of the City's recycling programs, including new
materials, increased education and outreach, furthering compliance, new
equipment for improving efficiency, increased enforcement, and
residential backyard composting. The City currently maintains a
combined residential and community recycling rate of 58.9 percent.
Moreover, the Mayor's long-standing directive to all City agencies to
reduce workplace waste and establish accountability measures for waste
reduction have further reduced daily tonnage.
The City's residents are huge consumers of goods manufactured in
and shipped from other states, and the waste generated by packaging
materials is significant. For that reason, the Mayor supports federal
legislation that would limit packaging or require manufacturers to use
some percentage of recycled content in packaging material. Such
requirements would have a tremendous--and measurable--effect on the
quantity of exported solid waste. Despite the City's best waste
reduction and recycling efforts, however, the City will still need to
dispose of a substantial amount of its waste outside its boundaries. I
am confident that the capacity, the market, and the desire to
accommodate the City's waste at out-of-state disposal sites will exist
in the foreseeable future. To that end, the Giuliani administration has
successfully closed Fresh Kills by relying on free market, private
sector solutions predicated on the strength of Host Community
Agreements.
On behalf of Mayor Giuliani, I thank the Subcommittee, and
underscore the City's interest in addressing Congress' concerns
regarding the interstate transport of municipal solid waste.
Mr. Gillmor. Thank you, Mayor, and we will now proceed to
questions of the panel. Let me start with a question for
Director Jones. You mentioned in your testimony that Ohio has
taken steps to ensure that it has the landfill capacity it
needs. Could you elaborate on how that relates to the need for
this legislation?
Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, it really is a question of
fairness. I think, as has been mentioned before, and why we
have watched Pennsylvania very closely, we have taken the steps
to address a capacity need. We had limited capacity in the late
eighties. We got comprehensive legislation in place to address
that. We have put a tremendous amount of time, energy, effort,
and cost into planning, into management. We now have the third
revision to our statewide management plan out for public
comment. And at least as a result--part as a result of all that
effort, we have got our capacity established for the next 20
years, and we all know how difficult it is to site a landfill.
And the fairness comes into it to the extent that we should not
have to try to anticipate some unreasonably high level of
imports that we can't plan for nor can we control.
And we are--I think it has been emphasized several times,
we are not saying we don't want any. We actually export a
million tons and import more than that. So we are not saying
don't do it, but we are saying give us the ability to control
it as a matter of fairness and encourage other States to take
the same steps. When you close Fresh Kills, obviously you are
going to have to replace that capacity. We are suggesting maybe
replace it in New York as opposed to Ohio. And I think that
that is what we are talking about. It is the unfairness of
trying to anticipate an unreasonable amount of out-of-State
waste imported to the State of Ohio.
Mr. Gillmor. Director, what would be the effect, in your
opinion, if Federal out-of-State--or Federal legislation on
out-of-State waste is not enacted?
Mr. Jones. Well, we have started to see some of the
impacts, because, again, our landfills in Northeast Ohio are
right now applying for increased capacity. And as I mentioned
in my testimony, we have the benefit of very good interstates--
east-west interstates that meet in Northeast Ohio. And with the
trend over the last 4 years being increased imports, we expect
that is going to continue. And because of that, the opposition
to siting landfills, other landfills in the State of Ohio will
increase. We have had a number of bills introduced in the
general assembly to put a flat moratorium on any new landfills
in the State, and we have to be able to plan for the future, to
site landfills.
We take the position that because--I was told when I was
appointed, ``The natural resources guy, that is the good guy.
They do lakes and parks and fish. You are the bad guy; you site
landfills.'' And that is--I think we all have that experience.
Putting a landfill in is a difficult thing to do. When the
percentage is you are putting a landfill near me to handle
waste from 500 miles away? It becomes next to impossible to do
that in a thoughtful manner. And so my concern is we are going
to have 12 years of effort putting in place a very strong
management go down the drain because of something we have no
control over. The ability that this legislation gives us to
control some of that out-of-State waste, I think, will allow us
to argue back, ``No, our siting criteria and good and positive,
and they will allow us to address these issues.''
Mr. Gillmor. Thank you. Just a quick question, Mayor Lhota.
You talked about the closing of Fresh Kills and the requirement
that the waste be disposed of in communities with a host
community agreement. Of the host community agreements you have,
how many of them are proportionally in communities in New York
State?
Mr. Lhota. Mr. Chairman, to my knowledge, of the 25 hose
community agreements we have, none of them are in New York
State. They were competitively--the city of New York
competitively bid out, under our procurements requirements. As
we phased in the closure of Fresh Kills, we advertised
nationally, working with the private sector, and received bids
back. And we, obviously, under our requirements, also went for
the least costly bids. I don't know the answer to the question
how many we received from New York State, but I do know that
none of the ones that we have entered into--we have entered
into 19. Six are currently under what we call vendex review,
what is called our procurement process. All of them, all 25 are
outside the State of New York.
Mr. Gillmor. Thank you. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr.
Pallone.
Mr. Pallone. Just following up on that, has the State of
New York or New York City undertaken any actions to provide
disposal capacity for New York City trash within the State of
New York?
Mr. Lhota. Mr. Pallone, I can only speak for the city of
New York. I have had numerous meetings with the commissioner of
Environmental Conservation in New York State discussing this
issue, but I don't know specifically what they have done. And I
apologize that I don't have an answer for you.
Mr. Pallone. Is there--I will ask some of the other State
witnesses, have you engaged in good faith negotiations with New
York to come up with a compromise? And if so, what was the
outcome of those negotiations, if anybody else wants to
respond, for those who are taking trash from New York?
Mr. Hess. Mr. Pallone, I believe it was about 2 years ago
there were some serious efforts underway to negotiate with New
York City, but unfortunately that ultimately fell apart.
Mr. Pallone. You wanted to say something? Go ahead. Okay. I
guess then it is your position--I guess you have already stated
it, but it is obvious after these few questions here--that
unless this committee or the Congress acts, there is no real
prospect for relief from unwanted out-of-State trash?
Mr. Jones. Mr. Pallone, I came from the attorney general's
office. I was in environmental enforcement, so I think my
background tells me there have been enough lawsuits, there have
been enough attempts at the State level to impose restrictions
that have been stricken down by the courts that I think we
know, as Russ says, the legislation won't go anywhere. The
courts have been clear that the Congress has to act to give us
these tools for us to manage waste in our States.
Mr. Pallone. And because of those rulings, any effort to
compromise and negotiate anything basically has no teeth, and
you can't get anybody to agree on anything.
Mr. Jones. It becomes very difficult.
Mr. Pallone. Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Harding.
Mr. Harding. Yes. In our State, the Governor--actually,
some of the folks in the legislature that proposed these laws,
he put them on a task force, and they came back after studying
it, and said, ``Congress has to solve it.''
Mr. Pallone. Okay. I wanted to ask--I have a concern over
the fact that recycling and waste reduction efforts are not
working as well as I would like them to. And I just wondered if
there is any effect from out-of-State imports on the
willingness of your States' citizens' participation, for
example, in waste reduction or recycling programs? Does that
impact or in any way related to the fact that it is becoming
more difficult to do waste reduction or get citizens involved
in recycling? Anybody who would like to answer that.
Ms. Kaplan. Thank you. Obviously--and I was remiss in not
stating in my testimony--that we do have solid waste districts
that cover just about our entire State. And the main goal of
those solid waste districts is to divert waste from our
landfills through reuse, recycling, and reduction. And,
obviously, all capacity gained as a result of that, if it is
lost to out-of-State waste, becomes self-defeating, and it is
hard to continue to motivate the population to do that. We have
opted to do it, at this point in time, in Indiana on a
voluntary basis. But what is the incentive if it does not gain
anything for them?
Mr. Pallone. So you think it has an impact, and it may
contribute to less citizen involvement.
Ms. Kaplan. I think that that is a real concern.
Mr. Pallone. Anyone else want to comment on that? Mr.
Harding?
Mr. Harding. Well, I would say I would agree. I think that
largely we have some market problems of recycling, and that is
a heavy part of it, but I think a proposed solution here could
provide an incentive for the State to get into more mandated
recycling, even with some of the market problems, to
participate in having more control over the destiny of our
waste. Without that, there is not a lot of political will.
Mr. Pallone. Go ahead, Mr. Jones.
Mr. Jones. One of the things that we have done as a part of
our statewide management plan, we set recycling goals, and for
approval, each of the solid waste management districts has to
have a plan in place that meets that goal for their district
before they can get their plan approved. So we have taken the
steps that we can, but as has been mentioned, it is almost a
self-defeating proposition. And given the effort that it takes,
really, to get recycling done, it is hard to convince
management districts you need to make this huge effort if all
you are going to do is create space for out-of-State waste.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gillmor. Thank you very much. Let me say, the bells
indicate we have three votes in the House. We have got about
maybe 10 minutes more of questioning. We are trying to wrap up
questions of this panel, and if we are able to, then we can
recess and do the next panel at 1 o'clock. The gentleman, Mr.
Buyer.
Mr. Buyer. Thank you. I have just a series of questions. To
the gentleman from New York, are there environmental laws or
regulations in the State of New York that restrict your ability
to enter into these agreements with anyone from your State? I
mean I don't understand why you have got to have these
agreements with other people and not your State. So hold that
thought.
To Ms. Kaplan, my question to you is that in your testimony
you indicate that the volume of out-of-State has decreased
somewhat in the last 2 years. While I am pleased to see that, I
would like to know what you attribute to this reduction.
Also, Ms. Kaplan, it appears clear that legislation, such
as H.R. 1927, providing authority for States to prohibit
incoming shipments of foreign solid waste would run afoul with
existing international agreements, such as the provisions under
NAFTA and the principal bilateral agreement negotiated between
the United States and Canada covering such waste shipments. The
Governor of Indiana, Governor Frank O'Bannon, and lieutenant
Governor are also, like myself, supporters of NAFTA. In your
testimony, you allude to these concerns with Mr. Rogers'
legislation. I would like for you to elaborate.
Also in your testimony, you note that H.R. 1213 might be a
more effective way to achieve the same goals. Because H.R. 1213
provides similar authorities to restrict, via cap or freeze, et
cetera, incoming out-of-State municipal solid waste, whether
foreign or domestic. Would those provisions also likely run
afoul with existing international trade agreements?
Ms. Kaplan. Would you like me to go first? First of all, as
far as the decrease of out-of-State waste in Indiana, in
reviewing that and trying to determine what the reason for that
would be, one is that we had been receiving a larger amount of
waste from the Chicago area, and there have been additional
facilities opened up or expanded in that area, so less has been
exported from Chicago to Indiana.
Also, in prior years, as I had indicated, we did receive a
great deal of waste from east coast States. There has been a
lot of work between representatives of those States and
negotiations. And I believe through those efforts the east
coast waste is not currently coming to Indiana. So I think
those are two of the main reasons.
One of the things that we have talked about today is the
unpredictability of the travels of out-of-State waste and where
it ends up. So while we are seeing a downward, it could turn
around again.
In my written testimony, we did state a preference by the
State of Indiana for H.R. 1213. Many provisions in that that
would benefit the State. There was some concern, although I
will say that there was not extensive analysis, on the impact
on international trade agreements. However, it appears that
1213 would cover the international waste concerns that we had,
and we, therefore, endorse that piece of legislation.
Mr. Lhota. In response to your question, there are, to my
knowledge, no statute, rules, regulations pertaining toward
waste going from New York City to somewhere else in New York
State. The reason why none of it has gone to New York State is
purely economic. The city of New York puts out bids, and has
over the last 4\1/2\ years nationwide, and advertises. We then
look at what is the least expensive route to disposal of a
city's trash. And in that process, jurisdictions outside the
State of New York have been less expensive.
Mr. Pallone. Let me ask this: Would the State of New York
permit a landfill within 3 miles of the Hudson River, Upstate
New York?
Mr. Lhota. I can't--I do not know.
Mr. Pallone. Because that is where it happens in Indiana.
It is within a few miles of the Tippecanoe River where I grew
up, and the Chicago trash gets dumped right in there. So if you
have got a State like New York who says, ``No, you can't put it
within so many miles of a particular river or stream,'' that is
fine, that is your business. But then you don't care if you
want to send that trash to somebody else. That is what makes it
pretty insensitive from the views of the importing States. That
is why I am just curious whether you have particular
regulations, environmental compliance that forces you to put it
out onto other States?
Mr. Lhota. I don't know the specifics of to be able to
answer your question, sir, I am sorry.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Mr. Gillmor. We have about 5 minutes before the vote. We
will go to Mr. Towns for questions. Then we will break, and we
will reconvene at 1 and finish this panel and do the next
panel. Mr. Towns.
Mr. Towns. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me just
sort of make certain that something is clear here. That there
is an RFP that goes out and people bid, and then based on the
lowest bidder in all of that, that is what really happens to
the--where it ends up. And these contracts are monitored, as I
understand it. Is that correct?
Mr. Lhota. That is correct.
Mr. Towns. So if there was a lowest bidder in New York and
it was the best deal, you would have to contract with that
person in New York.
Mr. Lhota. We would.
Mr. Towns. So I want to make that very clear. How does the
mayor's long-term plan for waste disposal place a greater
emphasis on barge and rail shipment of export rather than
trucking?
Mr. Lhota. The long-term export plan relies exclusively on
barge and rail to mitigate the negative impact of the amount of
trucks that are put onto the roads, both as various different
State commissioners have testified prior to my testimony of the
negative impact of the number of trucks on the roads. I tend to
agree and have met with the private sector, those people that
we have contracted with, and said it is very important that
their trucks be up--there be no violations.
As the secretary from--or the commissioner from the
Pennsylvania and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, immediately
after he began his program met with the private sector to say,
``Look, it is very important, just as the city of New York
gives violations to truckers whose trucks are not up to
snuff.'' We give them violations. That is the right of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It is very important that we
respect the rights of these other States when it comes to
trucking. The long-term plan, however, involves no trucking. It
will be almost 90 percent by rail--basically 100 percent by
rail; the rest by barge.
Mr. Towns. Mr. Chairman, I know we have a vote on, so let
me, first of all, thank you very much for allowing me to ask
some questions. Also to say to you, Deputy Mayor, that really I
appreciate the effort that you have done in terms of dealing
with these contracts in local jurisdictions. These are people
that have agreed to accept. It is not something that anyone is
forcing them to do, and I think that that needs to be made
clear. This is an agreement, and that based on the agreement
this is the way it ends up there. It is not that New York is
riding around in a helicopter dropping the garbage out in
different locations, and I think that needs to be made clear.
I mean the way--so you are talking about legislation, but I
think we need to look at what we are dealing with here. If
there is an area that is saying that ``We would like to bid for
this,'' and you pay me a fee for it, I think we have to be
careful how we move here, Mr. Chairman. I know some folks are
anxious and eager to dump on New York, but I think maybe we
need to find another way to do it. Thank you.
Mr. Gillmor. That would make the New York the dumpee
instead of the dumper, right?
The committee stands in recess until 1 o'clock.
[Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to
reconvene at 1 p.m., the same day.]
Mr. Gillmor. The subcommittee will come to order, and we
will resume panel two and complete our round of questioning.
The gentleman from New York, Mr. Fossella.
Mr. Fossella. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, again. Just, again,
to put some perspective back into this, I know some of the
panelists were concerned, and it seemed as if New York was the
only issue. However, according to Congressional Research
Service, Pennsylvania exports more than 553,000 tons of
garbage. The folks from Ohio might be upset, because 77 percent
of that goes to Ohio. Virginia exports about 150,000 tons. Ohio
exports over a million tons, primarily to Michigan.
And I guess what I am just aiming at--adding that as a
purpose to demonstrate that this happens all the time--Michigan
to Ohio, Pennsylvania to Ohio, Ohio to Michigan. So I just
don't want to make it seem like New York or people in New York
are the only ones that generate garbage and need to do
something about it. Not to suggest that what you have been
trying to do is unreasonable or in your State's best interest,
but I think it is a level of perspective that is warranted in
this debate.
I have got a question here. Accordingly, Mr. Jones, you
mention in your testimony that Ohio receives 380,000 tons of
waste from Pennsylvania and that Pennsylvania has been one of
the top exporting States to Ohio over the past 5 years. And Mr.
Hess, in his testimony, says, ``Some States have found it
easier to dump on their neighbors than to develop disposal
facilities and recycling programs to handle the waste they
generate.'' Do you believe this is the case with Pennsylvania
or does it only underscore that waste is shipped interstate for
economic and geographic reasons, not because some States are
irresponsible?
And last, I think it was a reasonable and legitimate
concern, and I ask this of all of you--in particular let me,
one, commend Mr. Lhota, because closing the Fresh Kills
Landfill was a monumental task, and he really needs to be
credited a great deal for doing that, because he has worked
hard, and the people of New York, in particular Staten Island,
should be grateful.
But Mr. Lhota, I know we have concerns about the haulers
and truckers, which is a reasonable safety concern. So I am
curious to hear not only from you but from others of what steps
and measures are being taken to address the safety of those
haulers that transport waste across State lines.
Mr. Lhota. Mr. Fossella, I will be very brief, because I
think the commissioners from the other States should address
this issue. But immediately upon the beginning or the
commencement of Operation Clean Sweep, which is, I believe, the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's program--is that what it is
called Clean Sweep? I met with the industry--representatives of
the industry to say that it is an important thing that the
trucks all be properly registered and be safe and be sound. Not
all of the trucks that were stopped in Pennsylvania came
through with trash from New York City, but you shouldn't be
able to distinguish one from another. Those trucks need to
drive safe and soundly. Just as I am responsible for enforcing
the laws of the city of New York, they are responsible for
enforcing the laws in their jurisdictions in this particular
State. So what I did immediately upon recognition that some of
these trucks being used were not up to snuff, met with the
industry to say, ``You have got to get your act together. This
is a very important thing to do.''
Mr. Fossella. Thank you.
Mr. Jones. I think I would respond in a couple ways to your
question. First, you compare the 380,000 tons from the entire
State of Pennsylvania to the 333,000 tons from the city of New
York, and that is why I pay attention to New York City. It is
24 percent of all out-of-State waste receipts are from one
city. So that causes me to pay attention to it. We consider,
essentially, the western two-thirds of the State of
Pennsylvania to be short haul, and I think we have all talked
about the fact that we don't object to imports. We all import
and export. I think all of these States do that. The
particularly troubling part of it is the long haul, and when 24
percent of the out-of-State waste comes from one city, and it
is a long-haul city, I have to pay attention to that. But I
think more importantly both Pennsylvania and Ohio have been
very proactive. For Ohio, literally over a decade ago, we
started the process of comprehensive planning and management
for waste disposal, and very purposefully and deliberately
increased our capacity statewide.
And I think the concern I have is that it hasn't been a
secret for a long time that Fresh Kills was closing, and I
think the testimony this morning was that 25 host community
agreements are all outside the State of New York. And our
concern is New York needs to address its major problem--I mean
closing that much capacity is a problem they have to address--
and it shouldn't be addressed simply by disposing out of State.
We think it is appropriate to look in-State as well, just as
Ohio and Pennsylvania have done in order to address the
problem.
Mr. Hess. Mr. Chairman, if I might briefly address this
issue. I think, too, it is also a matter of scale. Half a
million tons a year is a far cry from the 9.8 million tons a
year we get from out of State. I would also say, just to echo
what Chris said, it is a lot different when States are making
an effort. But when it is clearly the case that New York is not
making any effort to develop capacity, that does raise the
fairness issue.
On the truck safety issue, we thought it was fairly ironic,
and I do welcome the efforts of the city of New York to police
the trucks coming into Pennsylvania, the odd situation was that
the top three trucking companies--the three trucking companies
with the most violations were the biggest companies--Waste
Management, Gephardt Trucking, and BFI in our 40,000
inspections. They had the most problems. It wasn't the little
guys that typically some people may think have the problems. It
was the big guys, and unfortunately those guys are involved in
long-haul hauling of trash. And, again, I welcome whatever the
city of New York can do to police it from their end, because it
is a critical public safety issue.
Mr. Gillmor. Do you have additional questions, Vito?
Mr. Fossella. More of just a statement. I think--I would
hope New York does--the State of New York does take measures,
and I know they have been meeting over the last several years
to try to develop a plan. So to say they haven't been taking
any steps, I think, is unfair and just not accurate. Now, are
we satisfied what they have done? That is a matter of
disagreement, but to say they haven't done anything I think is
unfair.
All I want to suggest is somehow it seems okay, and I am
not criticizing the States and the gentleman and the ladies up
here at all, because they have a very serious job, a very heavy
responsibility, and I am sure they do it all, and they take
their jobs very seriously, but they address their municipal
solid waste, residential garbage, if you will, by entering into
agreements with surrounding States. And New York does the same.
I just want to make sure everyone is aware that what is good
for the goose is good for the gander. Now, you may argue over
the volume and the amounts, and that is a matter of criticism
that you can lobby, but every State--well, not every State--but
a lot of States do it, millions of tons every day go across our
highways from State to State. And just to label New York, paint
it in the corner, I think is unfair.
Mr. Gillmor. That will conclude this panel. I would ask the
panel as some members of the committee have indicated they had
some additional questions they may want to submit to you in
writing, and we would appreciate it if you could respond to
those. And thank you very much for being here. Very helpful.
We will call panel three, which is our final panel. It is
comprised of Bruce Parker of the National Solid Waste
Management Association; Ervin Rogers, the chairman of the board
of supervisors in Gloucester, Virginia; Mr. Tim Berlekamp,
director of the Mahoning County, Ohio Recycling Division, who
has the distinction of being from the same home county as the
chairman, which is a little place, so you don't often find two
of us together at the same time; Mr. Thomas Woodham, vice
chairman of Lee County, South Carolina Council in Bishopville,
South Carolina.
Gentlemen, we have your testimony, and if you would take 5
minutes to summarize your presentation before we move to
questions. I want to thank you all for coming, and we will
begin with Mr. Parker. And I also apologize for the wait until
we got to this panel, but some of these things are beyond our
control.
Mr. Parker.
STATEMENTS OF BRUCE PARKER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL SOLID
WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION; ERVIN ROGERS, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS, GLOUCESTER, VIRGINIA; TIMOTHY B. BERLEKAMP,
DIRECTOR, RECYCLING DIVISION OF MAHONING COUNTY, OHIO; AND
THOMAS WOODHAM, VICE CHAIRMAN, LEE COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA
Mr. Parker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear me? Good.
My name is Bruce Parker, and I am the executive vice president
of the National Solid Waste Management Association. NWSWMA
represents the private sector waste services industry. Our
members operate in all 50 States.
The message that I want to leave you with is simply this:
Restricted borders have no legitimate role in managing
municipal solid waste or any other commodity, for that matter,
in our economy. They make neither economic nor environmental
sense. They are contrary to the trend toward bigger, better
disposal facilities and to the trend toward more innovative,
flexible waste management technologies and practices. For these
reasons, NWSMA members are opposed to H.R. 1213 on principle,
as well as for other reasons set forth in the detailed analysis
as an attachment of this statement.
In spite of all the impassioned language you have heard
denouncing interstate movement of waste, the reality is simple:
Most States export and import garbage, and none are harmed in
the process. If you look to that chart right there, that map,
that dramatically depicts, on a national basis, what basically
is a very intricate and extensive web of transactions, mostly
between contiguous States and involving both imports and
exports. In fact, according to the Congressional Research
Service's recent update on interstate movements, 46 States
exported MSW and 42 States imported solid waste. Only one
State, Hawaii, neither imported nor exported. Twenty-four
States and the District of Columbia and the Province of Ontario
exported more than 100,000 tons last year, and 28 States
imported more than 100,000 tons. Fifteen of these States
imported and exported more than 100,000 tons.
The point I think is that, like recyclables, raw materials,
finished products, other goods, solid waste does not recognize
State lines as it moves through commerce. The trash from the
District of Columbia or Maryland is no different than the trash
from New Jersey or California or Ohio.
Now, what really explains this tremendous web of
transactions that is on that chart? The answer, I think, is
this: In 1990, America had nearly 10,000 disposal facilities;
today we have less than 2,600. This dramatic change resulted as
small landfills closed under the Federal Resource Conservation
Act, subtitle D, and in response to State requirements for
tougher environmental protection and financial assurance, both
of which substantially increased development costs,
construction costs, operating and maintenance costs of these
facilities. The CRS report notes, as someone else testified
earlier, that the number of landfills declined 51 percent
between 1993 and 1999. Incidentally, RCRA and the role of the
States in fostering larger regional facilities was a matter of
national policy, I may add.
Bigger, better, more environmentally protected disposal
facilities were, or said differently, regional facilities
serving communities in waste sheds were constructed out of
necessity and in anticipation of receiving sufficient volume of
waste, both within and outside the host State, to generate
revenues to recoup these development costs as well as a
reasonable return on investment. The development of regional
landfills was not only entirely consistent with all applicable
laws, but as just stated, they were responsible to and promoted
by Federal and State policy as the best solution to the need
for economical and environmentally protected disposal of MSW.
Solid waste moves across State lines not only because many
out-of-State landfills are closer to communities than those in
their own State, such as in the Chicago Collar County area that
sends waste to Wisconsin as well as to Indiana. But many
communities, in fact, actually invite waste in. They invite
waste in, because they look upon disposal as just another type
of an investor activity that provides a source for jobs and
income. These communities benefit from significant
contributions to the local fiscal through host fees, property
taxes, and business license fees. These communities have built
schools, they have built other public facilities, they have
hired teachers, they have hired policemen and firemen as a
result of these host community payments.
Significantly, this issue of interstate disposal is not a
public versus private issue, as so many issues are. The Solid
Waste Association in North America, the acronym is SWANA, which
represents our counterpart, the public sector of solid waste
managers, is a officially on record of supporting the free
movement of solid waste across jurisdictional boundaries. They
know, as we do, that restricting the movement of interstate
waste will increase disposal requests for local communities and
be a tax increase on their residents.
Let me also address for a moment, if I may, and very
briefly, H.R. 1927, the bill sponsored by Representative
Rogers. H.R. 1927 is aimed at restricting Canadian garbage.
This bill, on its face, would violate the North American Free
Trade Agreement, which prohibits unilateral attempts to
discriminate against trade between any of the three NAFTA
countries. And I think it is also emphasized by some of the
questions of earlier panelists. In addition, the U.S. exports
increasing amounts of hazardous waste to Canadian disposal
facilities. If our borders are closed to Canadian solid waste,
why can't Canada shuts its borders to hazardous waste
originating in Michigan, Pennsylvania or other States?
In conclusion, I appreciate the opportunity to testify. My
formal remarks are concluded, and I would be happy to answer
any questions that you should have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Bruce Parker follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bruce Parker, Executive Vice President, National
Solid Wastes Management Association
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the private sector solid waste
management industry, I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on
proposed interstate waste legislation. I am Bruce Parker, Executive
Vice President of the National Solid Wastes Management Association
(NSWMA). NSWMA represents private sector companies that collect and
process recyclables, own and operate compost facilities and collect and
dispose of municipal solid waste. NSWMA members operate in all fifty
states.
The solid waste industry is a $43 billion industry that employs
more than 350,000 workers. We are proud of the job we do and proud of
the contribution our companies and their employees make in protecting
the public health and the environment. America has a solid waste
management system that is the envy of the world because of our ability
to guarantee quick and efficient collection and disposal of trash in a
manner that fully conforms with state and Federal waste management laws
and regulations.
Our members provide solid waste management services in a heavily
regulated and highly competitive business environment. Like all
businesses, we are keenly interested in proposals, such as restrictions
on the interstate movement of MSW, that would change that regulatory or
competitive environment, increase the cost of waste disposal and
threaten the value of investments and plans we have made in reliance on
the existing law.
The message I want to leave with you is this: restricted borders
have no legitimate place in managing trash or any other product in our
economy. They do not make economic or environmental sense. They are
contrary to the concept of open borders; contrary to the evolution to
bigger, better, more environmentally sound disposal facilities;
contrary to our desire to keep disposal costs for taxpayers low, and
contrary to the trend toward more innovative, flexible, waste
management facilities.
In the balance of this statement, I will share with you our reasons
for concern and opposition to H.R. 1213, the ``Solid Waste Interstate
Transportation of 2001'', H.R. 1214, the ``Municipal Solid Waste Flow
Control Act of 2001'' and H.R. 1927, the ``Solid Waste International
Transportation Act of 2001''. I will discuss the background and context
as we see it, and the flaws in the proposed legislation. In particular,
detailed comments on H.R. 1213 are set forth in an attachment to this
statement.
the scope of interstate movements
Interstate waste shipments are a normal part of commerce. In spite
of all the impassioned language you have heard from a few states
denouncing garbage that moves across state lines, the reality is
simple: most states import and export garbage and none are harmed in
the process.
According to ``Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste: 2001
Update'', which was released by the Congressional Research Service
(CRS) in mid-July, 30 million tons of MSW crosses state borders. This
equals approximately 13% of the garbage generated in the United States
and about 18% of the garbage disposed of in the United States.
These shipments form a complex web of transactions that often
involve exchanges between two contiguous states in which each state
both exports and imports MSW. In fact, the vast majority of MSW, more
than 80%, goes to a disposal facility in a neighboring state. According
to the CRS report, 24 states, the District of Columbia and the province
of Ontario exported more than 100,000 tons of solid waste last year. At
the same time, 28 states imported more than 100,000 tons. Fifteen
states imported and exported more than 100,000 tons.
The CRS report documents interstate movements of MSW involving 49
of the 50 states. Forty-six states, the District of Columbia and one
Canadian province export and 42 states import. Attached is a map
showing the movement of solid waste among the states based on the data
in the CRS report.
Moreover, while some states are the biggest exporters based on
tonnage, several small states and the District of Columbia are highly
dependent on waste exports. In addition to Washington, DC, which
exports all of its MSW, Maryland, New Jersey and Vermont export the
highest percentage of solid waste. The reality is that MSW moves across
state lines as a normal and necessary part of an environmentally
protective and cost effective solid waste management system. Like
recyclables, raw materials and finished products, solid waste does not
recognize state lines as it moves through commerce.
CRS cites a number of reasons for interstate movements. These
include enhanced disposal regulations and the subsequent decline in
facilities. In addition, CRS notes that in larger states ``there are
sometimes differences in available disposal capacity in different
regions with the state. Areas without capacity may be closer to
landfills (or may at least find cheaper disposal options) in other
states.''
the role of regional landfills
The CRS report notes that the number of landfills in the US
declined by 51% between 1993 and 1999 as small landfills closed in
response to the increased costs of construction and operation under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle D and state
requirements for more stringent environmental protection and financial
assurance. The number of landfills in the early 1990s was nearly 10,000
while today there are about 2,600 and the total number continues to
decline as small landfills close, and communities in ``wastesheds''
turn to state-of-the-art regional landfills that provide safe,
environmentally protective, affordable disposal.
Construction and operation of such facilities, of course, requires
a substantial financial investment. By necessity, regional landfills
have been designed in anticipation of receiving a sufficient volume of
waste from the wasteshed, both within and outside the host State, to
generate revenues to recoup those costs and provide a reasonable return
on investment.
It was widely recognized that the costs to most communities of
Subtitle D compliant ``local'' landfills were prohibitive. The
development of regional landfills was not only entirely consistent with
all applicable law, it was viewed and promoted by Federal and State
officials and policy as the best solution to the need for economic and
environmentally protective disposal of MSW.
These regional landfills provide safe and affordable disposal as
well as significant contributions to the local economy through host
fees, property taxes, and business license fees. Additional
contributions to the communities include free waste disposal and
recycling services, and in some cases assumption of the costs of
closing their substandard local landfills. These revenues and services
enable the host communities to improve and maintain infrastructure and
public services that would otherwise not be feasible.
both the public and the private sectors oppose interstate restrictions
NSWMA is not alone in opposing restrictions on interstate waste.
The Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA), which represents
public sector solid waste managers, also opposes these restrictions. At
its mid-year meeting last summer, SWANA's International Board of
Directors voted unanimously to approve a policy statement that supports
``the free trans-boundary movement of solid waste''.
Public sector waste managers and private sector waste management
companies agree that they can't do their job and protect the public
health and the environment while having their hands tied by artificial
restrictions based on state lines.
host communities benefit
MSW also moves across state lines because some communities invite
it in. Many communities view waste disposal as just another type of
industrial activity, as a source of jobs and income. As noted above,
these communities agree to host landfills and in exchange receive
benefits, which are often called host community fees, that help build
schools, buy fire trucks and police cars, and hire teachers, firemen
and policemen and keep the local tax base lower.
the broader context
The proposed legislation before you would radically disrupt and
transform the situation I have described. For that reason, as well as
the precedential nature of some of the provisions, let me suggest that
you consider those bills in a broader context.
The applicability of the Commerce Clause to the disposal of out-of-
State waste is well established by a long line of U.S. Supreme Court
decisions spanning more than a quarter of a century. As you probably
know, the original decision protected Pennsylvania's right to export
its garbage to a neighboring state. The Court has consistently
invalidated such restrictions in the absence of Federal legislation
authorizing them.
Throughout this period, private sector companies did what
businesses do: they made plans, invested, wrote contracts, and marketed
their products and services in reliance on the rules which clearly
protected disposal of out-of-State MSW from restrictions based solely
upon its place of origin.
In this fundamental sense, the interstate commerce in waste
services is like any other business, and proposed legislation to
restrict it should be evaluated in the broader context of how you would
view it if its principles and provisions were made applicable to other
goods and services, rather than just garbage.
Consider, for example, parking lots. Suppose a State or local
government sought Federal legislation authorizing it to ban, limit, or
charge a differential fee for parking by out-of-State cars at privately
owned lots or garages, arguing that they were using spaces needed for
in-State cars, and that the congestion they caused was interfering with
urban planning, etc. Or suppose they asked for authority to tell
privately owned nursing homes or hospitals that they couldn't treat
out-of-State patients because of the need to reserve the space,
specialized equipment, and skilled personnel to meet the needs of their
own citizens. Similar examples can easily be identified--commercial
office space for out-of-State businesses, physicians and dentists in
private practice treating out-of-State patients, even food or drug
stores selling to out-of-State customers.
I would hope that in all of these cases, you would respond to the
proponents of such legislation by asking a number of questions before
proceeding to support the restrictions: What kind of restrictions do
you want? Are they all really necessary? Can you meet your objectives
with less damaging and disruptive means? What about existing
investments that were made in reliance on the ability to serve out-of-
State people? What about contracts that have been executed to provide
that service? Would authorizing or imposing such restrictions be an
unfunded mandate on the private sector providing those services, or on
the public sector outside the State that is relying on them? Would such
restrictions result in the diminution of the value of property
purchased in reliance on an out-of-State market, and thereby constitute
a ``taking''? Will the restrictions be workable and predictable? I
respectfully suggest that you ask the same questions about the proposed
legislation involving restrictions on interstate msw.
the proposed legislation
The proposed legislation before you (H.R. 1213, H.R. 1214 and H.R.
1927) fail to protect host agreements, investments or contracts. None
of the bills preserves an opportunity to enter and grow in a market
that demands economic and protective waste disposal. And none of the
bills provides predictability about the rules that will apply to
interstate shipments of waste. The array of discretionary authorities
for Governors to ban, freeze, cap, and impose fees, and then change
their minds -over and over again, promises to result in chaos and a
totally unpredictable and unreliable market and waste disposal
infrastructure. In the worst case, hasty state action to ban or limit
imports could lead to a public health crisis in exporting states if
their garbage has no where to go. As noted earlier, attached to this
statement is a detailed analysis of the many flaws that I see in the
provisions of H.R. 1213.
Finally, let me comment briefly on H.R. 1214, which would restore
flow control authority, and on H.R. 1927, which would allow states to
prohibit the importation of MSW form Canada and Mexico, signatories
with the United States to the North American Free Trade Agreement.
flow control
NSWMA opposes restoration of flow control because it's too late to
put Humpty Dumpty back together again. In the 7 years since the Carbone
decision, landfills and transfer stations have been constructed, trucks
have been bought, people have been hired, contracts have been written,
and both the consumers and providers of waste services have experienced
the benefits of a competitive market. These investments and
arrangements cannot be undone, nor should they be. The facilities that
benefited from an uncompetitive monopolization of local solid waste
management have learned to compete in a free market. They have become
more efficient and competitive as a result of the rigors of the free
market system. Why would anyone want to replace a competitive system
with uncompetitive monopolies?
prohibiting the importation of canadian waste violates nafta
H.R. 1927, the Solid Waste International Transportation Act of
2001, would allow states to ban solid waste from other countries. This
legislation is aimed directly at Canadian exports. As such, it is
inconsistent with the national treatment requirement of the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which provides that Mexico,
Canada and the United States must treat goods from one another in. a
manner that is no less favorable than that accorded to domestically
produced like products. This requirement of national treatment extends
to states.
MSW may not be everyone's favorite commodity, but it is protected
by the same free trade provisions that protect paper and cars and
television sets. If we could close our borders to Canadian solid waste,
what would prevent Canada from closing its borders to American
hazardous waste? American exports of hazardous waste to Canadian
disposal facilities have increased dramatically over the last five
years. If Michigan can ban Canadian MSW, should not the Canadians be
allowed to ban Michigan hazardous waste?
conclusion
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That concludes my statement.
Mr. Gillmor. Thank you, Mr. Parker.
Mr. Rogers.
STATEMENT OF ERVIN ROGERS
Mr. Ervin Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman,
members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to
address you today concerning the legislation before you at this
time. I currently serve Gloucester County, Virginia as chairman
of the board of supervisors. I am here today to express my
views not those of the board, though I would like to leave with
you a resolution passed by the board supporting State Senator
Billing's legislation known as the Solid Waste Management Act
of 1999 giving the State of Virginia some control over the
amount of waste imported from out of State. My intent here is
to show you from the public record what the board's attitude
was concerning controls on import of out-of-State waste.
I would also like to leave with you a resolution passed by
the Gloucester Republican Committee supporting previous House
bill, H.R. 1190, also putting controls on out-of-State waste.
Again, I hope to show you from the public record that at least
one faction of the community supported controls on out-of-State
waste. It is my opinion that the majority of the County of
Gloucester supports local and State controls on the import of
out-of-State waste, but these two resolutions are the only
proof from public record I could acquire on short notice.
During my time to address you today, I would like to
present some information concerning the mega landfill located
in Gloucester County, Virginia. I want to include information
concerning our contract with Waste Management, some history
about how the facility came to be built, some input on how the
community has been affected by the landfill, and finally give
you a brief statement of my position concerning the legislation
before this subcommittee.
Before I get started, I would like to take a moment to give
you some insight in how I became interested in local politics.
I entered local politics in 1992 over the board's desire to
build a mega landfill in Gloucester. I was a principal leader
in the fight against the facility. I attended board meetings
for 2 years before the contract between Gloucester County and
Waste Management was signed and for another 4 years before
being elected to the board. I also attended Planning Commission
Meetings for 4 years prior to serving on the board. After the
contract was signed I was concerned about where county
leadership was taking the county. I sought out the Planning
Commission to help me with these concerns. I found that this
commission and its staff was forward thinking with only the
best interest of the county in mind. My current position on the
landfill in Gloucester is to make the best out of the contract
without increase daily tonnage.
With your permission, I would like to continue by stating
some facts about Gloucester's contract with Waste Management.
Gloucester owns the mega facility and has contracted with Waste
Management to operate it. The facility was purchased with money
donated to the county for that purpose by Waste Management--
around $2 million. The contract states that if for any reason
Gloucester terminates the contract, the county will reimburse
all money invested in the facility by Waste Management,
including this $2 million. The contract is for 20 years, and
Waste Management has the right to renew. The county cannot deny
them renewal.
Waste Management must dispose of Gloucester's solid waste
for 20 years, even if they walk away from the facility. Waste
Management is allowed to dispose of 2,000 tons a day in the
facility, including the tonnage from the county. Gloucester
County gets 50 cents a ton up to a certain tonnage, then $1 a
ton tipping fees. Estimated income for next year is $375,681.
We also get an inspection fee of $56,522 and an implementation
fee of $91,371, for a total of $523,574.
Primary benefit to Gloucester County is deferred cost for
county waste disposal. The landfill should have a life
expectancy of 47 years at a rate of 2,000 tons a day. The
facility occupies 500 acres and will rise to 300 feet. In the
year 2000, Waste Management's figures stated that the facility
brought in 519,532.7 tons. And in-State tonnage was 184,094.2
tons. Out-of-State tonnage was 335,438.5 tons, or 64.5 percent
of the facility's capacity used in 2000 came from out-of-State.
Now I would like to address some history concerning the
implementation of this facility. The contract was signed in
1992; the facility went into operation in 1995. The decision by
the board of supervisors to bring a commercial landfill to
Gloucester County was by a vote of 4 to 3. The community showed
up at board meetings at a rate of about 250 people for 2 years
to show their disfavor with the board's position. Eight
thousand names were collected on a petition against bringing
such a facility to Gloucester County and presented to the
board.
After the contract was signed, a movement took place to
remove four supervisors that voted for this contract from
office on the grounds of malfeasance. The required number of
signatures were collected to bring this issue to court. In the
case of the at-large supervisor, this amounted to 1,681
registered voter signatures. The case was dismissed due to a
technicality.
All four board members that supported the landfill were
removed from office in their next bid for re-election. One had
been in office for 28 years and was defeated by the first woman
elected to the Gloucester Board of Supervisors, a 32-year-old
teacher's aide. Another had been on the board for 16 years and
was defeated by a margin of approximately 2 to 1. Another had
been on the board for 12 years and another for 4 years. This
supervisor finished fourth in a four-way race.
One was defeated within 1 year of the contract signing and
the other three were defeated 2 years after the signing. The
citizens of Gloucester County had long memories concerning this
issue. Two board members that did not support the landfill are
still on the board; the other ran successfully for re-election
one more time and then retired. I currently fill his seat. I
represent the district where this facility exists.
I personally was told by a Waste Management representative,
in a private conversation, that New York solid waste would
never be disposed of in Gloucester County, that this facility
would be only a regional landfill. The landfill is still a
volatile issue in Gloucester county.
How has this facility affected county? The landfill has
been operating since 1995. Nearly all citizens that lived on
the perimeter of the landfill have sold their homes and
property to Waste Management and moved. The community has been
inconvenienced by traffic, noise, odor, and litter. There have
been a couple of engineering mistakes that have caused
prolonged problems with large volumes of escaping gas--one
lasted for a period of nearly 6 months. Medical waste has been
found on the property a couple of times. Erosion has caused
problems with adjoining property.
The facility manager has been successful with an extensive
public relations campaign. He is active with the chamber of
commerce and has made numerous donations to public service
organizations. He lives in James City County. I consider this
man a friend. We don't often agree on matters concerning the
facility, but have learned to work together, sometimes coming
to an agreement, sometimes not.
It is my opinion that landfills are a necessary evil but a
threat to the environment. No engineering solution that is
composed of a man-made material can last forever. A State
should only have landfill capacity that allows it to manage
solid waste in a manner that is acceptable to its citizens.
Without the capability to manage the amount of out-of-State
waste brought into a State, no meaningful solid waste disposal
strategy can be developed by a State or local government.
Without the ability to develop such a strategy, a State can
have nothing to say about the environmental risk that is being
imposed on its citizens and natural resources by the disposal
of solid waste within its boundaries.
Waste disposal companies and counties that have become
dependent, for whatever reason, on solid waste tipping fees
will control all of this. For this reason, I support the
Greenwood bill and the changes proposed by Representative
Davis. Giving States the ability to set caps on the percentage
of solid waste imported from out of State in existing
facilities is paramount to allowing States to manage solid
waste in a meaningful way. Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Gillmor. Thank you, Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Berlekamp.
STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY B. BERLEKAMP
Mr. Berlekamp. I would like to begin by changing my written
testimony from ``Good morning, Mr. Chairman'' to ``Good
afternoon, Mr. Chairman and subcommittee members.'' My name is
Tim Berlekamp. I am the director of the Recycling Division in
Mahoning County, which used to be the Mahoning County Solid
Waste Management. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on
H.R. 1213 in its current state. I would like to say that I
agree in principle with this legislation, but I am a bit
concerned with its grandfathering issues.
I would first like to describe the condition of my current
county. Mahoning County is located on the Ohio-Pennsylvania
border. We have three active private sector landfills, of which
one of them is the largest in the State of Ohio and responsible
for at least one-third to one-half of the imported out-of-State
waste. This particular landfill also has a current host
agreement with the Board of County Commissioners, the Recycling
Division, the Health District, Poland Township, which is the
host community township for this landfill.
This agreement was first executed in 1990, shortly after
the passage of house bill 592, which I think you are
endearingly responsible for, Mr. Chairman, and we appreciate
that in the State of Ohio. I would like to also clarify there
are no host agreements with the other two active landfills at
this time, but their import of out-of-State waste is
insignificant to the 500,000 to 700,000 tons a year from BFI/
Carbon Line.
I took my position as the director of Mahoning County in
February 1999, so I can only comment on previous negotiations
through historical records and discussions with those present
at the time. We have, however, in the last 2 months
renegotiated agreement at this particular facility for an
additional 500 tons of long-haul waste. to clarify the
difference between long haul and local waste, there is a 150-
mile radius within that facility. Anything outside of that 150
miles we consider as long haul.
I need to note that the original agreement was amended four
times prior to this one, and I bring that point to surface in
order to show that a good host agreement is able to be amended
with the changing conditions of the time.
I have two major issues I would like to present to the
subcommittee. The first is the strength of a good public/
private sector relationship accomplished through constructive
and professional negotiations. Mahoning County has benefited
from BFI/Allied, not only through the revenues legislated by
house bill 592 but also by the negotiated conditions allowing
BFI/Allied to receive out-of-State waste and benefits to the
local communities, such as water lines, waste-water treatment
plants, road maintenance, sidewalks, ball fields, and free
waste disposal for affected citizens, which are just a few of
these.
We are also the only county in the State of Ohio that
receives free curbside recycling and continues to enjoy a good
dialog with BFI/Allied as conditions change and needs arise. I
must emphasize, however, I do not believe that this
relationship would have accrued without the anticipated passage
of house bill 592, and for this reason, I believe legislation
like H.R. 1213 is necessary.
The landfill had been operated several years before 592
with little or no benefits realized to our community. The need
for legislation requiring operators and local communities to
negotiate their fate is definitely required. This issue is
perhaps one where the private sector and I would disagree since
their optimum position would be there are no barriers to the
flow of interstate waste.
During my years as a public servant, six of which were as a
county commissioner, I never remember a time when any private
sector entity approached me and asked me to negotiate a
relationship which would impact their operation unless it was
for a tax abatement or monetary incentive that would enhance
their operation. For this reason, I believe that the principles
of H.R. 1213 are a good one.
The second issue I would like to address would be the
intent of H.R. 1213 to ensure local control. I feel that the
bill restricts or limits, through definitions and exceptions,
the grandfathering of many good current host agreements within
the State of Ohio. An example is the definition of ``affected
local government'' as ``The public body authorized by State law
to plan for the management of municipal solid waste, a majority
of the members which are elected officials, for the area in
which a landfill or incinerator is located or proposed to be
located.''
Now the following explanation is rather complicated, so I
am going to move through it a little bit slowly. In Ohio, the
State law requires a Policy Committee to be developed to make
the planning environment for the area which it affects. That
planning body is made up of a county commissioner or his
designee, the mayor of the largest metropolitan area or his
designee--he or she--a township trustee, and the board of
health director. Those four then appoint three ad hoc committee
members, of which two represent the citizenry and one
represents an industrial representative. As you can clearly
see, there are only three elected officials on a body of seven,
and therefore the definition of effected local government may
contradict what Ohio has done.
But I go on to say that once they have developed a plan
that plan must be ratified by a unanimous vote of the Board of
Commissioners, by the unanimous vote of the largest
metropolitan area, and by at least 60 percent of the population
of the area of which it affects. I think that is a very
positive affirmative action process, which then fulfills the
intent of the author of this legislation.
In summary, I would like to emphasize one major point:
Local control of State waste issues is imperative. Another tool
for meeting such fundamental local control responsibility is
flow control authority, and I urge this subcommittee to take
consideration of H.R. 1214 in the near future. I believe we
have come a long way from the local community dumps many of us
remember, including yourself, Mr. Chairman, on the banks of the
Sandusky River in Old Fort, Ohio. And I believe that our
private sector partners in this effort have worked diligently
to communicate and cooperate when required. This solid waste
playing field must always have two teams and a fair set of
rules to ensure the most economical, environmentally sound and
professional service to our constituents. Thank you all for
your time, and I would be happy to answer any questions upon
the completion of this testimony.
[The prepared statement of Timothy B. Berlekamp follows:]
Prepared Statement of Timothy B. Berlekamp, Director, Recycling
Division of Mahoning County
Good morning Chairman Gillmor and members of this subcommittee. My
name is Tim Berlekamp, and I am the Director of the Recycling Division
of Mahoning County, a.k.a. Mahoning County Solid Waste Management
District. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on HR 1213 in its
current state. I would like to say that I agree in principle with this
legislation but I am concerned with some of the provisions and
definitions related to the grandfathering of current host agreements.
I would like first to describe my county's situation. Mahoning
County is located on the Ohio-Pennsylvania border. We have three active
private sector landfills and two closed ones. The largest of the active
landfills is Carbon Limestone that is operated by BFI/Allied and is
located directly on the border between Pennsylvania and Ohio. This
particular landfill is also one of the largest in the State of Ohio and
is responsible for approximately one third of the out-of-state waste
received within the state. There currently exists a host community
agreement between BFI/Allied and the Board of Commissioners, the
Recycling Division, Poland Township, the township in which the landfill
is located, and the local health department. This agreement was first
executed in June of 1990 shortly after the passage of HB 592, Ohio's
first and only comprehensive solid waste management legislation. HB 592
was passed June 24, 1988. I believe that you are very familiar with
this legislation, Mr. Chairman. I would also like to clarify the fact
that there is no county host agreement with the other two landfills,
one of which is operated by Waste Management and the other privately
owned by Ms. Joanne Douglas and her family.
I took my position as Director in Mahoning County in February,
1999, so I can only comment on previous negotiations through historical
records and discussions with those present at the time. We have,
however, just recently negotiated an addendum to the original agreement
allowing a 500-ton per day increase in long haul waste. For agreement
purposes, we consider anything outside of a 150-mile radius as long
haul. I need to note here that the original agreement has been amended
through negotiations four previous times, so this addendum would make
the fifth. I make this point to illustrate the ability of concerned
entities to adapt their agreements to changing conditions. This is the
power of good host community arrangements.
I have two major issues I would like to present to this
Subcommittee. The first is the strength of a good public/private sector
relationship accomplished through constructive and professional
negotiations. Mahoning County has benefited from BFI/Allied not only
through the revenues legislated by HB 592 but also by negotiated
conditions allowing BFI/Allied to receive out-of-state waste. Such
benefits as water lines, a waste-water treatment plant, road
maintenance and free waste disposal to affected citizens are just a
few. We are the only county within the state of Ohio that receives free
curbside recycling and continues to enjoy a working dialog with BFI/
Allied as conditions change and needs arise. I must emphasize, however,
I do not believe that this relationship would have accrued without the
anticipated passage of HB 592, and for this reason, I believe
legislation like HR 1213 is necessary. The landfill had operated
several years prior HB 592 with little or no benefits realized by our
community. The need for legislation requiring operators and local
communities to negotiate their fate is definitely required. This issue
is perhaps one where the private sector and I would disagree since
their optimum position would be no barriers to the flow of interstate
waste. During my years as a public servant, six of which were as a
county commissioner, I never remember a time when any private sector
entity approached me and asked for a negotiated relationship which
would impact their operation unless it was for a tax incentive to
enhance their operation. For this reason alone, I believe that the
principle of HR 1213 is a good one.
The second issue I would like to address would be the intent of HR
1213 to ensure local control. I feel that the bill restricts or limits,
through definitions and exceptions, the grandfathering of many good
current host agreements within the state of Ohio. An example is the
definition of ``affected local government'' as ``(A) the public body
authorized by State law to plan for the management of municipal solid
waste, a majority of the members of which are elected officials, for
the area in which a landfill or incinerator is located or proposed to
be located.''
I would like to refer to my own division. In order to have an
approved plan which drives the negotiation process, a Policy Committee
made up of a County Commissioner or his/her designee, a Township
Trustee, the Mayor of the largest metropolitan area within the county
or his/her designee, the Director of the local health district, two
citizen representatives and one representative from an industrial
generator must develop and write a comprehensive solid waste plan for
the division. Once that plan has been written, it must be ratified by a
unanimous vote of the Board of Commissioners, and affirmative votes by
the largest metropolitan area and at least 60% of the population of the
county represented by the townships, incorporated villages and other
cities. I believe that you would agree that this process clearly
represents the public will, but it would not meet HR 1213's narrow
definition of ``affected local government.''
In summary, I would like to emphasize one major point. Local
control of solid waste issues is imperative. Another tool for meeting
such fundamental local government responsibility is flow control
authority. I urge the subcommittee to take up consideration of HR 1214
in the near future.
I believe we have come a long way from the local community dumps
many of us can remember, including yourself, Mr. Chairman on the banks
of the Sandusky River in Old Fort, Ohio. And I believe that our private
sector partners in this effort have worked diligently to communicate
and cooperate when required. This solid waste playing field must always
have two teams and a fair set of rules to ensure the most economical,
environmentally sound and professional service to our constituents.
Thank you all for your time and I would be happy to answer any
questions you may have of me.
Mr. Gillmor. Thank you very much.
Mr. Woodham.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS WOODHAM
Mr. Woodham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to be here
this afternoon. As you stated, my name is Thomas Woodham. I am
vice chairman of Lee County Council at Bishopville, South
Carolina. A little history about Lee County: We are located 60
miles east of Columbia off Interstate 20. We are in the PD
region of South Carolina. We are a rural agriculture community.
We are approximately 20,000 to 21,000 people. Our two largest
employers, which closed about 4 years ago, were textile plants.
Our county budget is around $8 million; our local school
funding is $4.2 million. Our tax is $25,000.
When I first got elected in 1988, one of the first issues
before me was the solid waste disposal. The county landfill was
filling, which at that time was unlined hole in the ground that
we were covering on a random basis, and I am not very proud of
that. We attempted to site a new landfill with DHEC, which is a
State controlling agency. We had six or sever sites rejected.
At that time, we knew we were not going to be able to get--meet
the new regulations for an unlined facility.
We began negotiations with a waste firm to take control of
our existing landfill and build a new subtitle D facility in
Lee County. We reached an agreement and a contract for
services. The company agreed to close out our old landfill with
test wells. Lee County waste was accepted at no cost to Lee
County residents. Any out-of-county waste Lee County received a
tipping fee. At that time, we had no out-of-State waste. After
a few years of operation and the council planning for the
future of Lee County, the council revisited our contract with
Allied Waste and negotiated receiving out-of-State waste.
Some of the benefits. Well, Allied Waste has been--No. 1,
they have been a real good neighbor. We have an environmentally
safe facility, reduced to eliminated costs for waste disposal
in Lee County. Last year, we put $1.2 million in non-tax
revenue in that $8 million budget. They have got 80 jobs out at
the landfill; they are the largest taxpayer in Lee County.
Closure and monitoring of the county's old landfill saved us
approximately $1 million.
Control of our tax rates with growth in services, and
examples of that, we just built a new $17 million high school
in Lee County. The Sheriff's budget has gone from $300,000 to
$1 million a year. Instead of about 9 years ago we were buying
used patrol cars for North Carolina, we are rotating five new
ones in each year. We built a new judicial center for
magistrate court and the Sheriff's Department--$1.3 million. It
is paid for. We have got a new emergency rural fire and
disaster preparedness building.
Regional jail--we have gone into a regional jail agreement
with our neighbor county, Sumter County. Our buying costs of
$700,000, that money is already set aside in our budget. Last
year we brought enhanced 911 center online--complete new
department for Lee County with approximately 12 employees. The
year we brought it online we cut the millage in Lee County. We
have gone from rescue squad that was all volunteer to a
countywide EMS which is a mix of paid and volunteers. We were
putting in about $10,000 a year, and now it is up to a $300,000
budget. This year we bought three new ambulances at $80,000
apiece and three new fire trucks at a $140,000 apiece,
completely upgrading our emergency response capabilities. We
don't have a hospital in Lee County.
We upgraded our pay scales in order to get quality
employees for quality results. We support our employees with
continued education. At the current time, we are also building
10 recycling centers around the county for waste collection. We
used to have about 120 sites that we picked up. Four of those
are completed, and four more are coming online this year. The
landfill has agreed to take over the hauling inside of the
county from these locations.
With the money that we feel we are going to save on the
hauling, we are beginning a rocking program for our dirt roads.
We have got 400 miles of dirt roads in Lee County. We are
upgrading our county buildings--the courthouse, the library,
rural fire stations, Council on Aging Ag Center. Public Works
has gotten two new motor graders, $170,000 apiece. Dump trucks,
we have done a lot. Working with the city of Bishopville to
upgrade our water and sewer and an infrastructure for
industrial recruitment has been our No. 1 task.
We have gotten two new industries in the last 3 years. We
have upgraded our old industrial park, paved the roads,
drainage, lighting, we have got a 40,000 square foot spec
building sitting on that site. We have also acquired 220 acres
beside Interstate 20, on the other side of the county, and we
have got curb and gutter with the retention ponds, water and
sewer, 250,000-gallon water tank, substation, all the amenities
you need in order to recruit industry.
We completely rebuilt our rail system in Lee County,
because we have got about 30,000 tons a month that comes in by
rail. We have increased our local funding to public education
by 60 percent in the last 5 years, and I think that is the most
important thing we have done. Working with adult education in
the tech school for job training and continued education we
hope to have a satellite campus for the tech school in Lee
County in the near future. We know we have got to have an
educated work force for future industry in Lee County.
The members of Lee County Council and I realize that 1 day
the facility will close. Our plan is to upgrade education,
emergency service, police protection, quality of life, and the
ability to bring industry into Lee County. That is our future.
As much as I hate to say it, it is all about money. Without the
ability to negotiate our contract, knowing what our needs are,
establishing a good working relationship and trust with the
landfill operators, State inspection of the facility and
monitoring, I hope you understand why Lee County supports out-
of-State waste. Waste is a dirty word to some, but managed
properly it can be a tremendous asset.
[The prepared statement of Thomas Woodham follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas Woodham, Vice Chairman of the Lee County,
South Carolina Council
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Thomas
Woodham and I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the
movement of municipal solid waste between states. As a long time member
of the Lee County Council I experienced first hand the closure of our
substandard facility and the development of a Subtitle D facility to
replace our old landfill.
Lee County is a poor, rural, agricultural community. As such many
agricultural by-products such as animal wastes, pesticides and other
agricultural by-products were disposed of in our landfill. A few years
ago, the State of South Carolina told us we had an environmentally
unsafe landfill and that we would have to close it. We made seven
proposals to develop a new landfill, but each one was rejected by the
state. At this time a private waste company approached us and offered
to build and manage a waste facility in our county. We accepted their
offer and the Lee County Landfill was developed with the state's
blessing. Today our landfill takes in 2,500 tons of waste both from
within our borders and outside our state borders. The landfill is
inspected several times a month by state authorities and has never been
found to pose any danger to the surrounding environment.
The benefits we have received from this arrangement with the
private waste company include $1,000,000 in savings on the closure
costs associated with our old landfill, free disposal for the county, a
rebuilt rail line and more than $1,000,000 annually in host fees. The
$1,000,000 in host fees we receive represents roughly one-eighth of our
annual budget. We have invested these host fees in a new high school
and new industrial park. Our objective is simple, reinvest the revenues
generated by the landfill in projects designed to improve our
infrastructure and thereby better position Lee County to attract new
businesses long after the landfill has reached capacity and closed.
Once the landfill is closed we plan on turning it into a 1,500 acre
park for the citizens of Lee County to enjoy for years to come.
Without the revenues generated by this landfill, Lee County would
not be able to develop the infrastructure necessary to attract new
business in the future because there is a very limited tax base and no
reason to believe that would change on its own. The landfill has been a
savior for the county from a revenue perspective and every member of
our county council is pleased with the arrangement we have with the
private waste company. All told the savings we realized in the closing
of the old landfill and free disposal and the host fees we receive from
the facility will put tens of millions of dollars into our county
coffers by the time the landfill reaches capacity. We would not have
been able to generate similar revenues without the Lee County Landfill
and the fees we receive from accepting out-of-state waste.
On behalf of Lee County, I would like to thank the Committee for
letting me share our views with you. I would be happy to answer any
questions.
Mr. Gillmor. Thank you very much, Mr. Woodham, and we will
proceed to questions. I wanted to ask you, Mr. Parker, in your
statement, you talked about the legislation, if it passed,
could result in a diminution of the property value and
constitutionally constitute a taking. You want to elaborate on
that a little bit? What would be the property that would be
diminished in value, and what would be taken from
constitutional----
Mr. Parker. This is from my written testimony?
Mr. Gillmor. Yes.
Mr. Parker. Yes. If you look at the structure of the bill,
it is very disingenuous, because it basically starts off with a
presumptive ban, which says nothing can come in. And then it
allows waste to come in the various facilities based upon
certain conditions. You have to have a host community
agreement, you have to have a contract, you have to have a
permit. And then it puts conditions on those conditions to
quality for exemptions, to qualify to be exempted from the 1993
base year level that the State can impose as the freeze, for
the 20 percent restriction that the State can impose in terms
of limiting out-of-State wastes that come in. It goes on and
on.
My members have made significant capital investment based
upon existing law at the time. They have made business plans,
pursuant to the Constitution of the United States for publicly
traded companies as well as for private companies that we
represent, to build landfills to comply with Federal and State
law--bigger, better, better engineered.
If in fact this legislation were enacted, I believe that
there would be some serious questions of whether it doesn't
violate the constitutional prohibition against taking. I would
also add that this an area of law which is very fluent and
dynamic. Indeed, just 2 weeks ago, the United States Supreme
Court decided a case called Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, where
the Supreme Court allowed taking claim to be filed,
notwithstanding the fact that this gentleman who wanted to
develop some land on the coast knew ahead of time that there
were restrictions on that development. So I am suggesting that
I think there are some serious takings questions, and I would
be prepared, not today, to develop those more fully.
Mr. Gillmor. Thank you. Let me ask Mr. Berlekamp, this is
an area that is not directly related but somewhat related to
the legislation we are dealing with today on interstate waste.
But that is the matter of flow control. Do you have any
comments on why you think flow control is important and how it
might relate to the problem of interstate waste?
Mr. Berlekamp. Mr. Chairman, I think it goes more to the
root of local control than just flow control. I think that the
issue that stands before us today is that this is a diverse and
fluid environment that both public and private sector operate
within. And, historically, we have known, and flow control has
been on the table for years and years and years, that public
sector goes forward not only like private sector, which private
sector having an integrated system has the ability most of the
time to flow control to its own facilities automatically. Most
public sector facilities are not totally integrated and put up
capacity and incinerators to ensure disposal capacity for
public sector citizens, and are caught short once that bondage
is put out.
So I think serious consideration, which I think you are
well aware in Ohio, which I think is really an optimum State in
this. And I am proud of being from Ohio and what we have in
solid waste management. I believe our director emphasized that
also, that the courts in Ohio have upheld flow control within
the State boundaries but has not restricted interstate
commerce, and I believe that is really an ultimate position to
be in as a State.
I believe we have taken a positive step forward in the
State of Ohio to look futuristic to control even the out-of-
State waste issues through this local contract. So I believe
flow control is but one tool, and I think that it is important
tool and should be available to those that want to exercise it.
Mr. Gillmor. Thank you. Let me ask Mr. Woodham, does your
facility have a host community agreement?
Mr. Woodham. Yes.
Mr. Gillmor. Since you do, and H.R. 1213 would continue
allow you to receive imports of out-of-State waste, do you
think that under those circumstances H.R. 1213 is a bad
situation for you in your particular instance?
Mr. Woodham. I would hate to have restrictions. I feel like
we have done a real good job in Lee County of putting together
our contract and our situation with the landfill. Just as was
stated earlier, I believe, where it is hard to go back and
renegotiate, we just renegotiated with them to take over the
hauling within the boundaries of Lee County, which is going to
save us approximately, we estimate, around $300,000 a year. We
feel like if we have--and I think that statement was made
earlier--if we can maintain and keep a good working
relationship with the landfill in the county, we can continue
to make changes as we see. We know it is a bottom line issue
with them, but we have had nothing but good praise for Allied
Waste.
Mr. Gillmor. The gentleman from New Jersey?
Mr. Pallone. Mr. Woodham, did you mention what the volume
of tons was permitted at the landfill or how much comes from
out of State or where it comes from? Did you get into that? If
not, would you tell us?
Mr. Woodham. All right. Would you repeat that, I am sorry?
Mr. Pallone. Well, in other words, what is the volume
permitted at the landfill, and does it come from out of State
and where does it come from?
Mr. Woodham. Well, our volumes are dictated by the Solid
Waste Disposal Act in the State of South Carolina. I think
there is a total tonnage, and I think it is around a million
tons per fiscal year that is allowed to go into that facility.
So the State of South Carolina does have caps on how much can
go in. It might be 1.3 million I believe is the total. As I
stated, they completely rebuilt the rail system in Lee County,
and----
Mr. Pallone. No, I mean but does it come from out of State
or where does it come from?
Mr. Woodham. I would say we have gotten approximately
three-fifths comes from out of State.
Mr. Pallone. And all over the place or----
Mr. Woodham. Well, it is coming in by rail, I think, from
the Northeast, and we have got North Carolina; it is coming
from there. And then the other waste is coming from throughout
the State of South Carolina.
Mr. Pallone. Okay. Well, again, I have to say I mean I--
obviously, each town does what it wants, but--or each county,
but my own experience--I mean my district--well, first of all,
I should say New Jersey has more superfund and hazardous waste
sites than any other State. And my district has more than any
other district in the State. And we have got landfills for
municipal garbage that years ago New Jersey used to take all
this stuff, mostly from New York. And the problems that have
existed ever since they have been closed is just incredible. I
mean I have probably spent a good percentage of my time down
here and back home trying to figure out what to do.
And so I mean I am always worried that even though it
sounds very good now, what happens later when it closes? And I
think you addressed the fact--I think you mentioned, Mr.
Woodham, what procedures exist for closure and cleanup in the
future or the size of the bond, financial bond. You mentioned
that, I think, right?
Mr. Woodham. Well, there is--the State requires the
closure. You have to have the closure planned and everything in
place, and then there is a fiscal responsibility as far as the
bond, and it takes----
Mr. Pallone. And where was that? Did you mention the
financial bond or what?
Mr. Woodham. No, I don't think I did.
Mr. Pallone. And I was going to ask the same question of
everybody else. In other words, if you would--you know, the
amount of the financial bond that would ensure the proper
closure and what plans are in place for the future in terms of
any environmental contamination. I would ask Mr. Rogers that or
anybody else who wanted to answer that as it applies to them.
Mr. Woodham can start on that.
Mr. Woodham. We don't--I did not list that. But one thing
that I have noticed that was brought to our attention earlier,
we have a real good water source in Lee County, so everyone was
extremely concerned about groundwater contamination. One thing
that we picked up at the facility got online you have what is
called an upstream and a downstream well. And on an inspection
on an upstream well, there were some high Ph contents. And what
they found out was they owned the land around the landfill.
They were renting it to farmers, and they were putting in too
much when they were liming the soil, so they got in touch with
them and made sure that they were liming the land when they
shouldn't be. We picked that up on the upstream side. We went
on the downstream side and checked the wells there; we didn't
have the problem. So we had a benefit there. We found out we
are farmers. We are not doing what they should have been doing.
So I would say that was a benefit for us right there.
Mr. Pallone. If each of you could just tell me what the
amount of the financial bond is to ensure proper closure of the
landfill or landfills and address any future environmental
contamination. If you don't have it, if you can't tell me now,
maybe you can get it to us in writing. But I would like to hear
from some of you. Maybe you don't have the specific figure
about the financial bond, but could you get back to us with
that in writing?
Mr. Ervin Rogers. I will have to do it from memory, but
what I remember about the contract is that as a facility grows
there is a certain amount of money set aside to cover closure,
up to $10 million. And as I recall, the cap of the bond is--or
the money set aside for closure is $10 million. There has
always been questions as to whether $10 million would be
adequate for closure or to cover any kind of environmental
contamination that might occur.
Mr. Parker. Thank you, Mr. Pallone. I don't operate a
landfill, but I am a lawyer--a reformed lawyer; I don't
practice anymore.
Mr. Pallone. Reformed lawyer?
Mr. Parker. Right. But I was general counsel of this
organization, so I was fairly active when the financial
insurance regulations were passed, so I would just add the
following: That the financial insurance regulations, which is
part of 258 of the subtitle D regulations, require every
facility to insure for both closure and post-closure care for
30 years. And as I understand it, there is no set amount. It
depends upon a formula that every landfill has to determine.
Some landfills have more of a financial insurance than the
other, based upon the size, the air space, what is left. But on
a regular basis, these facility owners and operators are
required to update their financial assurance and notify the
region or U.S. EPA.
I would also like to say with regard to New Jersey, and I
understand New Jersey has had horrendous superfund problems,
and correct me if I am wrong--you certainly know better than I
do--but I think New Jersey is not atypical of many States. The
problems in New Jersey with the landfills were their earlier
pre-subtitle D facilities that were co-disposal facilities that
there were no records on.
Mr. Pallone. Well, there is no question that the situation
has changed, and a lot of them existed at a time when there was
almost no environmental protection taking place. But we still
have some that were strictly municipal garbage that are causing
problems too, so it is not that they were all hazardous waste
sites. Many of them were supposedly just municipal. But, no, I
understand. I mean maybe our problems are different, but I am
just using it as a word of caution for the future. Did you want
to say something, Mr. Berlekamp?
Mr. Berlekamp. Yes. Through the Chair, Congressman Pallone.
Ohio is very much the same way, and our director is here if he
disagrees with this. But it is based on size, capacity. It is
not a set figure. It depends on the size of the facility. You
do have the 30 years. We did close a landfill under the current
law in my old district for waste management, and like they
said, any time within that 30 years if there is an
environmental impact, it re-triggers another 30 years. So by
the time you get through this process, I don't know if I will
live through the time at any of these landfills. But we run
into the problem we have run out of security, and that is the
same guarantee as life is, I think.
I mean I have got two landfills in my current environment
that the owners--it was an old strip mine county, and so they
dumped trash in the strip mines, and then they walked away from
it, and we don't know what is in there at this point in time,
and the landowners have died. And so who is responsible at this
point in time? We know what the law says, but is it real in
recuperating it? That becomes the real question on down through
the 30 years and the 30 years. Who is going to stand up to it?
So I think every effort has been made very honestly between
public and private to put much assurance on that closure as
they can, but there is no guarantees in life.
Mr. Pallone. A real concern, too, would be--I know the time
is out--that you have a small county or, I guess, Mr. Woodham
said, what, 22,000 people, and then a big mega landfill. And
then what happens, obviously, he is confident that they are
doing what they have to do, but you always worry about what the
consequences are, if there is a huge cleanup operation that is
necessary. But you said you were going to get back to us with
whatever the financial bond is. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gillmor. There being no further questions, I want to
thank the witnesses from panel three for being here. We
appreciate your experience and your insight. And I also want to
recognize the extra efforts that some of you have made to be
here today. We very much appreciate that.
At this point, I would like to ask unanimous consent that
the hearing record remain open for written questions to all of
the panelists for 10 days, as well as for member statements.
There being objection, so ordered, and the hearing is
concluded.
[Whereupon, at 2:01 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4852.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4852.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4852.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4852.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4852.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4852.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4852.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4852.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4852.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4852.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4852.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4852.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4852.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4852.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4852.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4852.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4852.047
The
Committee on Energy and Commerce |