STATE-BY-STATE IMPORT/EXPORT OF MSW (1989 Importing and Exporting Exporting Only No Activity PREPARED STATEMENT OF SCOTT ELDER Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Scott Elder and I am here representing the Northern Plains Resource Council, a Montana grassroots citizens' organization. I would like to relay to you the concerns of the citizens of "Big Sky Country" regarding the interstate transportation of garbage, also known as municipal solid waste. I am here to tell you that RCRA currently, and S. 976 as introduced, do not provide the protection to citizens of rural and less populous States that it should. All States must have the basic right to say no to garbage and waste from other States. S. 976 is a start but it does not go far enough. I am a grounds keeper by profession, and I care for the lawn and ornamental plants at the Veterans Administration Hospital in Miles City Montana. Until one year ago, I had little involvement in the political system, but a proposal for a one point six million ton per year megadump in my county changed all that. The people in my community were horrified by this proposal. The clean water and wide open spaces that provide pleasure and livelihoods in tourism, hunting and fishing were threatened. The clean groundwater sources that are essential to a cattle industry that earned Miles City the nickname Cowtown U.S.A. were at risk. Citizens acted quickly and strongly to voice their opposition to the scheme, but in a short time their vision broadened to an awareness of the National waste crisis. A recycling group was formed to improve local recycling. And Custer Resource Alliance, of which I am chair, formed to work in the political arena. Over the last year, our organization has helped the Montana legislature craft a package of bills that address not only our concern about imported waste, but also to put Montana on track to reducing and managing our own wastes. This legislation, signed by our governor, has begun to implement many positive approaches to managing and reducing waste. Some of these approaches are very similar to what Congress is considering. I'm sharing this story to assure you that Montana is committed to planning and managing its own wastes, at the same time that we are doing everything within our rights to avoid having to import garbage from out of State. We are willing to do our best to pull our weight, but we do not intend to become a cheap dumping ground. This brings us to the crux of a critical issue of this bill. We will never make the transition from a wasteful society to a conserving one when States are allowed to dump on other States to rid themselves of their wastes. Waste must be reduced to a minimum and managed as close to the source as possible. Further, 5. 976 does not provide sufficient economic incentives to accomplish this. We Montanans have demonstrated a belief in the responsibility to plan and the right to ban. While we understand the complex issues involved and the many divergent interests that must be satisfied, it is simply unethical for one State to demand that another State take on the risks and hazards of its waste without the receiving State's consent. To link planning and banning sets conditions on what should be an unconditional right, and weakens the right. We cannot support such a linkage. It appears that this approach is designed to use the right to ban imports as a lever to force good waste planning on otherwise unwilling States. We are concerned that this may be a misreading of the situation. In the case of Montana, we have demonstrated the willingness to plan. However, our resources are limited and the challenges of complying with the proposed requirements present more difficulties for us than more densely populated States. High recycling rates and state-of-the-art landfills both become difficult and expensive when small towns spread over long distances try to achieve the necessary economies of scale. A lack of financial and technical resources could result in rural and disadvantaged States being denied the right to ban garbage imports. Under this scenario neither fairness nor waste reduction or environmental protection goals would be served. Our objections to linking planning and banning do not in any way lessen our support for the role of the Federal Government in requiring or enforcing the plans and their implementation. Planning requirements could be linked to the right to export or to receiving Federal support money. Other incentives to comply could be offered. We also believe that if the true costs of products, including the cost of disposal were factored into the price of products, our waste stream could be greatly reduced at the front end, possibly eliminating the need to export waste. If the right to ban unconditionally is granted, other issues such as what is a fair share to export and how much States should be allowed to charge contiguous and non-contiguous States become irrelevant. Under a right to ban situation the burden will be on exporting States to provide sufficient incentives and assurances for States to voluntarily accept their garbage. An uncapped free market would allow States flexibility in making mutually acceptable deals. We are patient people, but sincere progress toward waste reduction and an end to forced acceptance of other people's trash must begin today. I would also like to submit for the record, testimony from Edna Carpenter on behalf of the Western Organization of Resource Councils and from Mary Harding, on behalf of Dakota Rural Action of South Dakota. PREPARED STATEMENT OF LEE FISHER, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF OHIO I want to thank Senator Howard Metzenbaum for his invitation to present testimony to this distinguished committee. I regret that I was not able to appear in person before this committee, but appreciate the opportunity to provide input regarding discussions about the mounting problem of interstate solid waste management, and about S. 976 specifically. My keen interest regarding this subject is evidenced, in part, by testimony I provided to a Small Business Subcommittee panel chaired by Congressman Dennis Eckart. In addition, testimony on this same subject was presented by my Environmental Enforcement Section Chief, Dennis Muchnicki, earlier this year before Congressman Al Swift's Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials. BACKGROUND I believe that a key concept in the success of any environmental program is to anticipate and prevent, rather than to merely react and rely on cleanups after the fact. I strongly believe that the thrust of any effort to control interstate waste must first emphasize waste reduction, then recycling and finally, only as a last resort, should landfills or incineration even be considered. With regard to interstate solid waste transportation, we must maintain the progress in waste management already evident in the implementation of Ohio's H.B. 592, and encourage Congress to authorize States to limit or ban the indiscriminate importation of waste from States which have irresponsibly neglected their own waste disposal needs. With regard to S. 976, I am most impressed with Sec. 4003(a) of the bill which establishes exceptionally complete minimum requirements for each State's ten-year waste management plan. These provisions require that all conceivable facets of waste management be addressed including: reuse, recycling, siting, capacity assurance, minimization, reduction, creation and stimulation of markets for recyclables, betterment of technology and adherence to a waste management hierarchy. Recent Ohio Environmental Protection Agency data establishes the importance of each of these waste management criteria, and the great need to ensure that States are afforded every legal tool necessary to continue efforts to control the generation and disposal of solid waste. landfills. In 1989, we had 172 landfills, and we expect to have less than 130 by the end of 1991. Of the 88 counties in Ohio, 28 now have no landfills, and approximately 35 have less than five years of capacity remaining. Overall, Ohio has less than 6.8 years capacity for solid waste disposal. Ohio is willing to accept responsibility for the disposal of its own waste, and is simply asking that other States be required to likewise acknowledge their fair share of this national problem. As I will discuss more fully later, congressional authorization of waste by State enforcement and regulatory measures will go a long way toward effective solid waste management. OHIO'S SOLID WASTE REFORM ACT (H.B. 592) Any discussion of my position on interstate transportation of solid waste must begin with the most definitive law in Ohio on this subject. That law is known as H.B. 592. With regard to H.B. 592, Ohio's 1988 solid waste reform act, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency data suggests that progress is indeed being made, particularly at the solid waste management district level. Ohio's 88 counties are organized into 48 solid waste management districts. These districts, under the provisions of H.B. 592, are to prepare a ten-year plan for the management and control of solid waste generated within or brought into the district. These plans must include a number of specific items including the amount and types of waste expected to be generated over the ten-year period, projections for population growth, plans for recycling, reuse and minimization, programs for the in |