Dear Congressman Greenwood:
I appreciate your past assurances to work with me to resolve Virginia-specific issues related to the Solid Waste Interstate Transportation Act of 2001, H.R. 1213, and I am writing today to tender my request of changes to the legislation, which are attached hereto.
First, I want to again commend you for your efforts to fashion comprehensive legislation and work for its passage. I look forward to continuing to work with you to advance legislation to stem the flow of out-of-State garbage into Virginia and Pennsylvania.
Attached are changes to the bill that my office has assembled working with parties interested in protecting Virginia's environment by reducing interstate waste imports. Some of the changes or additions are self-explanatory; for others we have provided background information that accompanies the requested changes.
I do want to highlight the major elements of the bill that we believe need alteration so that the Commonwealth can enact truly meaningful restrictions on out-of-State waste:
Permits - H.R. 1213 currently exempts landfills from state-imposed restrictions if their permits establish a higher limit or does 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, or from outside the state, and do not establish any limits. Moreover, Virginia permits do not expire, and there is no renewal process; in the Commonwealth, permits are periodically reviewed and/or amended. The peculiarities of Virginia's permitting process are such that H.R. 1213 would only apply to new landfills in Virginia; all existing landfills would be exempted from these requirements. We have consequently made several recommendations for sections related to the permitting process that would enable Virginia to cap volumes at existing landfills. It is imperative for Virginia to be able to enact percentage caps on existing facilities.
Host community agreements - currently the bill would allow state restrictions to be circumvented if a host community does not establish any limit on out-of-State waste, or if future host community agreements authorize specific levels of out-of-State waste. Fundamentally, I believe that states should be able to regulate host community agreements pertaining to interstate waste, in no small part because the waste traveling into and through Virginia adversely impacts many communities in the Commonwealth, not just the "host" community. Allowing the state restrictions to be circumvented via negotiated host community agreements significantly reduces the effectiveness of the bill.
State Waste Limitations Based Upon Calendar Year 1993 Importation Levels - One of the "mega-landfills" in Virginia received its greatest volume of out-of-State trash in calendar year 1993, so using 1993 levels as the maximum volume does not afford Virginia much protection. The Virginia statute that has been invalidated by the federal courts capped volumes at 1998 volumes. Allowing Virginia to choose a calendar year after 1993 as its maximum figure would give the Commonwealth the opportunity to use the 1998 volume level, which is a more effective limit for our state. I thus urge that states be able to cap waste levels at 1993 levels or any later year chosen by the state.
Types of Waste Governed by the Bill - Currently in Virginia, municipal solid waste is only a portion of the waste stream that is deposited in landfills. To the extent that only municipal solid waste imports are capped, it will only encourage more importation of waste substances that are not currently regulated by H.R. 1213, such as sewage sludge. I thus urge that the state volume restrictions include all waste currently deposited in existing landfills.
I believe that the above changes, in addition to the other important recommendations also contained in the attached document, are crucial to making the bill truly effective for limiting the amount of waste coming into the Commonwealth of Virginia. I urge that these changes be incorporated into the legislation when it is considered in committee. In the meantime, I know we will both continue to work to raise the profile of the interstate waste issue to ensure that legislation will be successfully considered in the 107th Congress.
Thank you again for your many efforts on this issue.
With kind regards, I remain
Jo Ann Davis
Member of Congress
This addition would ensure that all landfills would be included.
This would make a requirement, that could be imposed by the state, mandatory. In Virginia, the mega-landfills were portrayed as being created to meet Virginia's needs, yet they began importing at the first opportunity.
This is an additional public information item. In Virginia, host community agreements are negotiated behind closed doors, as contracts. The public only learns the details of the contracts after they are negotiated. This addition would allow for more public participation.
Striking the text above will enforce the public comment requirement in states where such requirements may be weak.
There are concerns about this exemption section, because often the process by which a facility is "determined" to be out of compliance with the law is very lengthy and tedious.
Striking this language could prevent a conflict with the Clean Air Act , which already requires emission sources over a certain amount to be regulated. The quantity of emissions from the mega-landfills is likely to trigger Clean Air Act regulation.
Without this change, waste handled through transfer stations may be incorrectly characterized as being generated within the state where the transfer station is located.
This language would be added to preclude last-minute changes in host community agreements designed to preempt the impact of this legislation. March 27th is, obviously, the date of introduction of H.R. 1213.
The Virginia statute that has been invalidated by the federal courts under the Commerce Clause capped volumes at 1998 levels. It should be noted that one of the "mega-landfills" in Virginia received its highest volume of out-of-State trash in 1993, so using the 1993 figures is not advantageous for Virginia. Allowing Virginia to choose a later year as its maximum figure gives the Commonwealth the opportunity to use the 1998 volume level, which is a more stringent cap. As may be the case with many states, Virginia does not have reliable information regarding waste disposal volumes and sources for 1993; Virginia only began collecting such information in 1997.
The requirement that the documentation be such "as would result in criminal penalties under State law in case of false or misleading information" is problematic, because Virginia offers criminal penalties only for knowingly offering wrongful information.
The "identity of the generator" and "date of shipment" are information that is not collected in Virginia.
This amendment would trigger the bill's protections upon the review (in Virginia, the reviews only occur every 10 years) or upon application by the permitee for expansion.
Again, because Virginia does not have a process for permit renewals, text needs to be added to allow for limits to be imposed when the permit is amended or reviewed. In addition, while it is clear some action would have to be taken by each state to implement these measures, they should be able to do so through either legislative or regulatory means. This language will support current state law and would be a trigger for existing Virginia facilities.
If this language is not added, virtually all the host community agreements in Virginia could be grandfathered.
Capping surcharges at $2 per ton may not fund the necessary environmental and safety functions necessitated by the imported municipal waste.
The added language would include municipalities' cost recovery levels.
If the language stricken above were to remain, then the Commonwealth of Virginia would be unlikely to receive any more revenue from its cost recovery surcharges. Some existing host agreements in Virginia require that if the waste company's fees to the state exceeded the amount of tipping fee revenue to the host community, then the host community would be liable for the balance.
For instance, Gloucester County, Virginia receives approximately $300,000 per year in cash benefits from the waste company. If the waste company's fees to the state exceed that amount, the remainder would be required to come from the taxpayers.
Municipal solid waste is only a portion of the waste stream that is deposited in landfills. Regulating only a small portion of waste would permit the purpose of the bill to be subverted. Waste companies could merely concentrate out-of-state waste shipments on substances exempted from this legislation.
Removing sludge from the definition of municipal solid waste in the bill is inadvisable, as it is a significant volume of out-of-State waste currently shipped into Virginia.
Currently, all Virginia host community agreements authorize importation of municipal solid waste, and all the landfills in Virginia incorporate the types of references that have been struck. Unless this section is amended in this way, all the landfills in Virginia will be grandfathered.
Vaughn Murphy
Legislative Counsel
Office of Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis
1123 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
202-225-4261
Last modified: 31 July 2001
http://www.actionpa.org/waste/hb1213amendments.html