|
Chairman Gillmor, members of the Committee, my name is Nicholas DiPasquale. I
am the Deputy Secretary of the Office of Air, Recycling and Radiation
Protection, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. I am here today
on behalf of Governor Edward Rendell and DEP Secretary Kathleen McGinty to talk
to you about an issue of great importance to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania -
interstate waste.
I want to thank Representative Greenwood for this opportunity to testify
before the committee today. I also want to thank the Representative for his
ongoing efforts in addressing the challenge that the interstate movement of
waste presents to each of us. We appreciate the efforts of Representative
Greenwood and look forward to working with him to keep this issue in the
forefront of public discussion.
States need the authority to implement reasonable controls on the amount of
out-of-state waste being imported into their jurisdiction and each state needs
to take responsibility in planning for the management of their Municipal Solid
Waste. Pennsylvania recognizes that only Congress has the authority to enable
States to regulate the interstate movement of waste. The United States Supreme
Court has made that clear. Congress must act for Pennsylvania and other States
to have the proper tools to manage the interstate movement of waste.
In the 1980s, Pennsylvania took the responsibility for the management of its
own waste by increasing environmentally sound permitted disposal capacity. Other
states have benefited from this. Pennsylvania believes that states should work
to manage their disposal needs within their own borders.
The Commonwealth has made efforts to improve the management and the safety of
the management of all waste present in Pennsylvania. The efforts to increase the
amount of recycling have been ongoing since 1988 and remain a high priority.
Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection has conducted safety
inspections, known as "Trashnets" in cooperation with surrounding
states in an effort to improve the condition and safe use of waste
transportation vehicles.
In addition, the Pennsylvania Legislature passed Act 90 last year, entitled
the "Waste Transportation Safety Act," in an effort to ensure the
responsible and safe transportation of municipal and industrial waste by
requiring written authorization from Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental
Protection for any vehicle disposing of waste in Pennsylvania. We have already
authorized over 26,000 waste vehicles under Act 90.
Any discussion of interstate waste at the federal level has merit and should
be supported. "The Solid Waste Interstate Transportation Act of 2003"
bill introduced by Representative Greenwood is a positive piece of federal
legislation to address this issue. However, as with any legislative proposal,
there are changes that would help address Pennsylvania issues.
As examples, there are two definitions to which we suggest minor adjustments
that are technical in nature. We offer these in the spirit of support for
Representative Greenwood's legislation.
First, an "affected local government" is defined as "… the
public body authorized by State law to plan for the management of municipal
solid waste …". In Pennsylvania, Act 101, the Municipal Waste Planning,
Recycling and Waste Reduction Act, requires counties to plan for the management
of municipal waste; therefore, the affected local government in Pennsylvania
would be the county, not the municipality.
This minor change would be helpful in Pennsylvania's varying levels of local
government, including county and municipal governments, can enter into host
community agreements. To address this issue, the term "affected local
government" needs to be broadly defined to include all levels of local
governments that execute host community agreements. This would enable host
municipalities, which bear most of the adverse impacts of a solid waste
facility, to have the decision-making power about the receipt of out-of-state
waste at the facility.
Second, the definition of "municipal solid waste" excludes
"recyclable materials," which are defined in the legislation as
"materials that are diverted, separated from, or separately managed from
materials otherwise destined for disposal as solid waste, by collecting,
sorting, or processing for use as raw materials or feedstocks in lieu of, or in
addition to, virgin materials, including petroleum, in the manufacture of usable
materials or products." The definition of "recyclable materials"
does not include the requirement that the material actually be recycled. The
definition only requires that the materials be separated at the curb or managed
separately from other waste destined for disposal. In order to align the
definition of "recyclable materials" with the Pennsylvania definition,
the federal definition should require that the materials actually be recycled.
The bill as proposed would establish a presumptive ban on the receipt and
disposal of out-of-state municipal solid waste at landfills and incinerators.
However, the legislation also specifies certain situations where the presumptive
ban would not apply, thereby allowing the receipt and disposal of out-of-state
waste at a facility. The presumptive ban would not apply in situations where
host community agreements, permits or contracts specifically authorize the
receipt of out of state waste.
The host community agreements would have to be with counties, but in
Pennsylvania, host community agreements are entered into with local communities.
Shifting the agreements could cause considerable concern to local communities
and other affected communities that currently receive revenues from the facility
to offset the inconveniences of hosting the facility. There are only a few
permits and contracts if any, that would meet the conditions for exemption as
currently drafted in the bill.
Regarding the establishment of out-of-state waste limits based upon 1995
levels, it should be noted that the definition for a "comprehensive
recycling program" is more encompassing and explicit than the recycling
program provisions established by Pennsylvania's Act 101 because the bill's
definition requires the generators of municipal solid waste to separate all of a
list of materials for recycling as a condition of disposing of the waste at
landfills or incinerators in the state.
Because Pennsylvania's recycling law requires only three materials from a
list of materials to be separated, it is questionable whether Pennsylvania would
be eligible to implement the freeze based upon 1995 waste levels.
Until federal legislation is passed, the Commonwealth will continue to pursue
the improvement of recycling programs, cooperation with other states, and the
improvement of safe management of waste. We would be happy to provide a more
detailed analysis with specific recommended amendments for your consideration.
We look forward to working with Representative Greenwood and other members of
Congress as this legislation moves forward.
Thank you.
|
