97006: Solid Waste Issues in the 105th Congress

James E. McCarthy
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division

December 23, 1998

CONTENTS

SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Trends in Municipal Solid Waste Management
The Federal Role in MSW Management
Interstate Shipment of Waste
Legislative Issues

Should Congress Grant States the Authority to Limit Out-of-State Waste?
Should States and Localities Be Allowed to Control the Flow of Privately Collected Waste?
Remediation Waste
Underground Storage Tanks
Other Tax Issues

LEGISLATION
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
FOR ADDITIONAL READING

SUMMARY

The 105^th Congress adjourned without passing any legislation affecting solid waste management. Changes to the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) cleanup program and bills to exempt from hazardous waste management requirements certain wastes generated by remediation of old waste sites had been considered possible until late in the second session. The House passed changes to the LUST program (H.R. 688) on April 23, 1997. A comparable Senate bill (S. 555) was ordered reported, amended, September 23, 1998; but it never came to the floor.

Legislation affecting remediation waste was considered possible because of the interest of key Senators and the support in principle of most affected interests. On September 3, 1998, however, Senators Lott, Chafee, and Smith announced that efforts to enact such legislation would have to wait until next year.

A third issue that might have been subject to legislation -- whether states and local governments should be given authority to restrict interstate commerce by limiting solid waste imports or by designating where locally generated waste must be disposed ("flow control") -- was the subject of at least 10 bills. Except for a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing, March 18, 1997, however, there was no committee action.

Solid waste issues were a major public concern for much of the last decade. Since 1988, more than two-thirds of the nation's municipal landfills have closed, and there has been substantial public interest in the incineration, recycling, and waste transport programs that have helped take their place.

The lead role in solid waste management is played by state and local governments. They decide how waste will be managed and set standards for the resulting facilities. Nevertheless, the federal government has played an increasing role in solid waste management, setting minimum national standards for landfills and incinerators under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and Clean Air Act, and promoting recycling through the use of federal procurement policy.

Federal court rulings have also had a profound impact on waste management programs. In a series of cases, the courts have held that shipments of waste are protected under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. With few exceptions, a state may not prohibit waste imports or impose fees on out-of-state waste, nor may it designate where privately collected waste must be disposed. These decisions have had a broad impact on state and local ability to plan the future management of solid waste and to finance existing waste management programs.

In overturning interstate waste and flow control laws, the courts have made clear that the Constitution does not prevent Congress itself from restricting commerce or from authorizing states or local governments to do so. What is prohibited is state or local action in the absence of congressional authorization. Bills introduced in this (and earlier) Congresses would have provided that authority under specified conditions.

MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

On October 21, Congress adjourned without taking action on amendments to the nation's solid waste laws.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS

Trends in Municipal Solid Waste Management

Solid waste management has been a major public concern over much of the last decade, as local governments and private firms throughout the nation have upgraded waste management programs and facilities and dealt with myriad public pressures over waste issues.

Since the mid-1980s, the nation has experienced revolutionary changes in how it manages municipal solid waste. Almost three-quarters of the nation's municipal landfills have closed (Figure 1), as regulations governing land disposal have tightened. Many land disposal facilities have been replaced by waste-to-energy plants (Figure 2), which increased their capacity to manage waste tenfold during the 1980s and early '90s, and now manage 17% of the nation's municipal solid waste (MSW). But the growth of waste-to-energy has now itself stalled due to increased costs and environmental concerns. In the last 10 years, recycling and composting have been the fastest growing methods of waste management, accounting for 27% of waste management in 1996, up from 10% in 1986. Nearly 9,000 local governments have begun curbside collection of recyclable materials (Figure 3), and 3,500 have composting programs for yard waste.

Implementation of these changes resulted in a substantial increase in the cost of waste management during the 1980s. More recently, however, in most areas of the country, the cost of waste disposal has declined. The main reason for this has been the construction of huge regional landfills that enjoy economies of scale and contribute to a glut of disposal capacity in many areas.

In most areas of the country, the lead role in transforming solid waste management has been played by state and local governments. State and local governments generally decide how waste will be managed -- whether by landfill, incineration, recycling, composting, waste reduction, or a combination thereof. States set standards for the resulting facilities. And funding for MSW programs comes overwhelmingly from state and local sources.

Private waste management firms have also been active players, often under contract or franchise agreements with local governments, or in response to state mandates. Private firms manage most of the "commercial" waste (waste generated by stores, office buildings, apartment houses, and institutions), which comprises about 40% of what is called MSW. They also increasingly collect and manage residential waste, which comprises the remaining 60% of MSW.

The Federal Role in MSW Management

While state, local, and private initiatives have played the key role in transforming MSW management, the federal government has also played an important role in municipal solid waste management in recent years, setting minimum national landfill standards under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), setting incinerator and landfill emission standards under the Clean Air Act, and promoting recycling through the use of federal procurement policy. These regulatory actions are summarized in the table, which shows both currently implemented and pending regulations affecting MSW management.

Interstate Shipment of Waste

Federal court rulings have also had a profound impact on local waste management programs. In a series of cases, including three Supreme Court decisions since 1992, federal courts have held that shipments of waste are protected under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. As a result, state and local governments may not prohibit private landfills from accepting waste from out-of-state, nor may they impose fees on waste disposal that discriminate on the basis of origin.

Table 1. Federal Regulations on Solid Waste Management

Interstate shipment of waste has become more common in recent years. The reasons include local shortages of disposal capacity, particularly in the Northeast and on the West Coast; a national trend toward larger regional disposal facilities; regional differences in the cost of disposal; and the vertical integration and consolidation of the waste management industry. Vertically integrated firms offer full service waste management, from collection to transfer station to disposal. Increasingly, they ship waste to their own disposal site, even though that may be across a border, rather than dispose of it at an in-state facility owned by a rival. (For a further discussion of these factors, including state-by-state information on exports and imports, see CRS Report 98-689 ENR, Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste: 1998 Update.)

Since 1996, developments in New York City have provoked renewed interest in interstate waste issues. On May 29, 1996, Governor George Pataki of New York and Mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York City announced an agreement that will close New York City's one remaining landfill, Fresh Kills, in the year 2001. The city was sending 13,200 tons of waste per day to the landfill at the time of the decision, and there is little or no capacity in state to replace it upon its closure. A later report by a task force established to consider implementation issues recommended that the city begin exporting waste in 1997. As a result, the city began exporting 1,800 tons per day in July, 1997. In October 1997, the city accepted proposals from firms interested in managing the remaining 11,000 tons per day, most of which are expected to rely heavily on shipment to out-of-state facilities. The first of these contracts, for 2,400 tons per day, was awarded September 17, 1998; most of the waste is expected to be shipped to Virginia under this contract.

As a result of increased shipments, some of the states with adequate disposal capacity, or available land, have been groping for ways to limit or prevent it being used for disposal by others. Numerous methods have been tried, including moratoria on the construction of new landfills, fees on the disposal of out-of-state waste, bans on disposal of out-of-area waste, and various planning and capacity assurance requirements. As noted, however, many of these measures have been struck down under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution, and others may be if and when they are reviewed by courts.

Legislative Issues

Should Congress Grant States the Authority to Limit Out-of-State Waste?

While the states may be prevented from regulating interstate commerce, the Constitution (in Article I, Section 8) expressly gives the power to regulate commerce to the Congress. This power can be used directly by the federal government or it can be used to authorize state and local governments to restrict interstate commerce under specified conditions.

The latter approach is the principle behind legislation that has been considered in each of the last four Congresses. In general, such legislation would give states or local governments the authority to restrict imports of out-of-state waste, but would protect existing exporters by grandfathering the level of out-of-state shipments received in each state in a specified year prior to the date of enactment. The bills would provide some future relief to importing states by allowing them to gradually ratchet down imports in future years.

Despite many common features in interstate waste bills, there have been some key differences in the House and Senate approaches to such legislation. These differences, combined with the conflicting interests of state and local governments and the opposition of some elements of the waste management industry, have kept the Congress from reaching agreement. Differences have included the role of state and local governments: in bills that have passed the Senate, local governments could request the Governor to restrict imports, but could not take action themselves; in bills passing the House, local governments played the central role, deciding whether or not to allow new interstate waste shipments at local facilities. A second basic difference has concerned the structure of the authority: House versions of legislation have generally contained a "presumptive ban" on new interstate waste shipments that would prevent new shipments unless the affected government in the receiving area gave permission; in bills passing the Senate, new waste shipments would have been allowed unless the Governor took action to stop them.

In the 105th Congress, Senators Conrad, Baucus, Robb, and Coats introduced interstate waste legislation (S. 384, S. 443, S. 448, and S. 463, respectively), and there were five House bills, H.R. 942 (Franks), H.R. 1346 (Gilchrest), H.R. 1358 (Buyer), H.R. 2654 (Greenwood), and H.R. 4475 (Klink). The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing on the issue March 18, 1997. In addition, the Chairman of that committee, Senator Chafee, circulated a draft bill for comment. Its interstate waste provisions were nearly identical to a bill that passed the Senate in the 104th Congress. While this bill was not introduced, on June 18, 1998, Senator Dan Coats offered similar language (S.Amdt. 2716) as an amendment to the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act (S. 2138). After an hour of debate, the amendment was withdrawn without being voted on. The House took no action at all on interstate waste issues in the 105^th Congress.

Should States and Localities Be Allowed to Control the Flow of Privately Collected Waste?

Whether state and local governments can designate where privately collected waste must be disposed (through what are called "flow control" laws) has also been the subject of court challenges. In May 1994, in the case of C & A Carbone v. Clarkstown, the Supreme Court held that flow control also violates the interstate commerce clause.

According to EPA, 39 states and the District of Columbia have enacted flow control laws or provide for it indirectly through home rule or planning authority. Since 1980, about $10 billion in municipal bonds have been issued to pay for the construction of solid waste facilities. In many of these cases, flow control authority was used to guarantee the investment. Flow control also has benefitted recycling facilities in cases where recycling is financed by fees collected at designated incinerators or landfills. In the process, however, it creates a monopoly and prohibits facilities outside the jurisdiction from offering competitive services.

In the wake of the Carbone decision, at least 18 bond issues valued at $2 billion have been downgraded by the rating services, some to a level below investment grade. In these and perhaps other cases, local governments have responded by cutting tipping (disposal) fees to remain competitive, raising revenues from new taxes or fees, and cutting elements of their solid waste programs. No local government has defaulted on a solid waste bond issue, but there has been a difficult adjustment in some cases. As a result, the National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors and many individual local governments have strongly advocated the restoration of flow control authority.

New Jersey has been at the center of much of the discussion on flow control. In the 1980s, New Jersey developed a statewide system of flow control to support the construction of waste management facilities that would replace existing substandard landfills and eventually control exports of waste to other states. On July 15, 1996, however, a federal District Court, relying on the Carbone decision, overturned the state's flow control requirements in the case of Atlantic Coast Demolition & Recycling Inc. v. Atlantic County. The county and state exhausted their appeals in October 1997. Without flow control, a large amount of New Jersey's waste may leave the state because of cheaper disposal elsewhere. Whether this will affect congressional interest in flow control and interstate waste issues remains to be seen.

Minnesota is another state that relied heavily on flow control until the courts overturned county ordinances in the early '90s. In March 1996, a federal court took an additional step in the dismantling of flow control, ruling in favor of a group of 12 waste haulers and processors who claimed that a county could be held liable for damages resulting from its enforcement of a flow control ordinance (Ben Oehrleins, Inc. v. Hennepin County). Later that year, a jury implementing the judge's ruling awarded three of the plaintiffs $7.1 million as compensation for the higher costs they were forced to pay as a result of the county's flow control scheme. The case raised further concerns among local governments concerning the consequences of the loss of flow control authority.

As in the case of waste import restrictions, Congress can authorize the use of flow control, using its authority under the commerce clause. Most bills addressing this subject would grandfather flow control arrangements at facilities designated as of May 15, 1994 (the day prior to the Supreme Court decision), with the authority expiring at the end of the useful life of a designated facility or the completion of the schedule for payment of the facility's capital costs. Flow control arrangements might also be grandfathered in cases where they supported recycling programs.

In the 105^th Congress, four bills, H.R. 943 (Franks), H.R. 4635 (Minge), S. 443 (Baucus), and S. 899 (Dodd), addressed flow control. No action was taken on any of these bills.

Remediation Waste

Over the past several years, both the Administration and leaders of the relevant congressional subcommittees have expressed support for amendments that might improve RCRA by removing certain high-cost, low-benefit requirements. One goal of such legislation would be to speed cleanup of hazardous waste sites by exempting low-risk wastes at cleanup sites (termed "remediation waste") from hazardous waste management standards.

The issue is whether low-risk remediation waste needs to be subjected to the full set of requirements for hazardous waste generated by current industrial operations. In October 1997, Senators Lott, Chafee, and Smith announced release of a GAO report which concluded that three requirements in particular (land disposal restrictions, minimum technological requirements for treatment of the waste, and requirements for permits) may be unduly stringent for a significant portion of remediation waste. The requirements increase the time required for cleanups and add as much as $2.1 billion annually to cleanup costs.

After release of the GAO report, Senator Lott circulated a draft bill for comment, EPA released a set of principles that it would like to see in remediation waste legislation, and there was discussions among House and Senate staff and interested parties concerning the content of draft legislation. While there is general support for such legislation from industry, environmental groups, states, and the Administration, there were several issues under discussion, including the definition of remediation waste, the treatment standards to be applied, whether some kind of modified permit would be required, the degree of public participation to be required in developing remedial action plans, and the respective roles of EPA and state environmental agencies.

Despite much discussion of draft legislation, no bills were introduced on the subject in the 105^th Congress. With limited time remaining, on September 3, 1998, Senators Lott, Chafee, and Smith announced that efforts to enact such legislation would have to wait until next year.

Underground Storage Tanks

In the 1980s, Congress amended RCRA to create a regulatory program for underground storage tanks. In addition, a trust fund was established to assist EPA and the states in ensuring the cleanup of contamination caused by leaking underground tanks. Roughly $1.9 billion has been collected for this trust fund through taxes on gasoline and other motor fuels (The taxing authority expired in December 1995, but was reinstated by P.L. 105-34, signed August 5, 1997). Through FY1998, only 40% of this money ($716 million) had been appropriated. About $1.2 billion remains in the fund, of which $65 million was appropriated for FY1998.

The states also have trust funds, which provide roughly $1.3 billion per year for underground storage tank cleanup. Unlike the federal fund, many of the state funds are used to reimburse tank owners for cleanup costs. Reimbursement claims against these state funds reached $2.3 billion in 1997; 18 state funds have claims exceeding balances.

To provide additional resources to the states, legislation was introduced (and passed the House) in both the 104^th and 105^th Congress that would have broadened the allowable uses of federal trust fund money, including allowing states to use the funds to reimburse financially distressed owners and operators for cleanup costs. The bill would also have required that at least 85% of appropriations from the fund go to the states. The 105^th Congress' bill, H.R. 688 (Schaefer), was reported April 17, 1997 (H.Rept. 105-58), and passed the House April 23, 1997. A companion bill, S. 555 (Allard), was introduced in the Senate April 10, 1997, and reported, amended, by the Environment and Public Works Committee (S.Rept. 105-360) October 1. Like its House counterpart, the bill would have broadened allowable uses of the Fund, but it would have required EPA to distribute to the states only 80% of appropriations. The Senate did not act on the reported bill.

These storage tank bills were opposed by EPA, which argued that using trust fund money to reimburse financially solvent owners would reduce the number of cleanups accomplished. The Agency has also objected to the 85% allotment requirement; on average, it argues, it already meets an 85% requirement, but it prefers to retain the flexibility to adjust over time to changes in appropriated funding. State and industry representatives supported the measures. (For additional information, see CRS Report 97-471, Leaking Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Issues.)

Other Tax Issues

Since 1980, Section 29 of the Internal Revenue Code has provided tax credits to producers of biofuels, a category that includes methane captured from landfills. According to EPA, there are 150 operating landfill gas-to-energy projects in the United States, with more than 150 additional projects planned. The number has grown rapidly, in part because of regulations promulgated March 12, 1996, under the Clean Air Act, requiring large landfills to capture and burn the gas that they generate. Combustion may be accomplished simply by flaring the gas, or the gas can be captured and used to produce useful energy. The latter approach is often more costly; as a result, solid waste officials argue that making energy recovery projects economically viable depends in many cases on the availability of tax credits.

Section 29 credits, which are adjusted annually, amount to about $1.00 per million Btu of gas produced (or roughly one cent per kilowatt-hour of electricity). The credits will apply to production of gas through the year 2007. To qualify, a landfill has to sign a construction contract and place the project in service by specified dates. These dates have been modified four times since the credits were established.

In the 104th Congress, provisions to extend the dates were enacted as part of the minimum wage bill, signed by the President August 20, 1996 (P.L. 104-188). The enacted provisions extended the placed-in-service date to June 30, 1998, and the contract-signed date to December 31, 1996.

Affected landfills and energy companies have argued for further extensions to both the placed-in-service and contract-signed dates. However, the President, in his FY1998 budget submission, proposed rolling back the placed-in-service date to June 30, 1997, a move the Treasury estimated would have raised $476 million in tax revenues. Neither the House nor the Senate Reconciliation bills (H.R. 2014 / S. 949) contained modifications to the Section 29 dates. As a result, the dates remain as enacted in 1996.

LEGISLATION

Note: The principal federal law governing management of solid and hazardous waste is the Solid Waste Disposal Act. This law has been amended on eight occasions since its passage in 1965. The 1976 amendments, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), were so comprehensive that the act has generally been referred to as RCRA since that time. This issue brief follows that convention, referring to RCRA, when the correct reference should be to the Solid Waste Disposal Act.

H.R. 316 (Solomon)
Hazardous Waste Recycling Tax Credit Act of 1997. Provides a tax credit of two cents per pound for the recycling of hazardous waste. Introduced January 7, 1997; referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

H.R. 360 (Towns)
Waste Export and Import Prohibition Act. Amends the Solid Waste Disposal Act to prohibit the international export and import of certain solid waste. Introduced January 7, 1997; referred to Committee on Commerce.

H.R. 398 (Bilirakis)
Amends the Solid Waste Disposal Act to exempt pesticide rinse water degradation systems from hazardous waste permit requirements. Introduced January 9, 1997; referred to Committee on Commerce.

H.R. 688 (Schaefer)
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund Amendments Act of 1997. Amends RCRA to require at least 85% of appropriations from the Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund to be distributed to states for corrective action and enforcement of Subtitle I of the Act. Introduced February 11, 1997; referred to Committees on Commerce and on Ways and Means. Approved by Commerce Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials, March 20, 1997. Reported by Commerce Committee, April 17, 1997 (H.Rept. 105-58). Discharged from Committee on Ways and Means, April 17, 1997. Passed House, amended, April 23, 1997. Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works, April 24, 1997

H.R. 843 (Ford)
Amends RCRA to prohibit the location of solid waste and hazardous waste facilities near residential, day care, church, and school properties. Introduced February 26, 1997; referred to Committee on Commerce.

H.R. 942 (Franks)
Amends RCRA to provide authority for states to limit the interstate transport of municipal solid waste. Introduced March 5, 1997; referred to Committee on Commerce.

H.R. 943 (Franks)
Amends RCRA to provide authority for states to use flow control. Introduced March 5, 1997; referred to Committee on Commerce.

H.R. 1041 (P. Kennedy)
Amends RCRA to provide grants to states to stabilize and remove large tire piles near drinking water sources and sensitive populations. Introduced March 12, 1997; referred to Committee on Commerce.

H.R. 1078 (Rivers)
Requires the EPA Administrator to prescribe a rule that prohibits the importation for disposal of PCBs at concentrations of 50 parts per billion or greater. Introduced March 13, 1997; referred to Committee on Commerce.

H.R. 1199 (Souder)
Common Sense Hazardous Waste Facilities Siting and Permitting Act of 1997. Amends RCRA to require criteria imposing restrictions on siting hazardous waste management facilities within specified distances of densely populated areas, schools, churches, day care centers, and drinking or irrigation water sources, or based on environmental red-lining. Sets minimum standards for state and local siting procedures. Introduced March 20, 1997; referred to Committee on Commerce.

H.R. 1346 (Gilchrest)
State and Local Government Interstate Waste Control Act of 1997. Amends RCRA to provide congressional authorization for restrictions on receipt of out-of-state waste. Introduced April 16, 1997; referred to Committee on Commerce.

H.R. 1358 (Buyer)
Interstate Transportation of Municipal Solid Waste Act. Amends RCRA to permit a Governor if requested by an affected local government to limit the disposal of out-of-state municipal solid waste in the Governor's state. Allows restrictions on permits for new landfills and incinerators to restrict import of out-of-state waste. Introduced April 17, 1997; referred to Committee on Commerce.

H.R. 1393 (Rivers)
Amends the Toxic Substances Control Act to establish requirements regarding approval of facilities for the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Introduced April 17, 1997; referred to Committee on Commerce.

H.R. 1586 (Rivers)
National Beverage Container Reuse and Recycling Act of 1997. Similar to S. 215. Introduced May 13, 1997; referred to Committee on Commerce.

H.R. 2102 (Talent)
Amends RCRA to repeal the sunset of the EPA Office of Ombudsman. Introduced June 26, 1997; referred to Committee on Commerce.

H.R. 2654 (Greenwood)
Amends RCRA to permit states and political subdivisions to control the disposal of out-of-state municipal solid waste within their borders. Introduced October 9, 1997; referred to Committee on Commerce.

H.R. 2910 (Pallone)
Mercury Environmental Risk and Comprehensive Utilization Reduction Initiative. Amends RCRA to establish a deposit-refund system for recovery and recycling of alkaline and lead-acid batteries and to prohibit their disposal. Prohibits the use of mercury in packaging and packaging components. Requires state solid waste plans to provide for recycling of mercury-containing items, including batteries, fluorescent lamps, electrical switches, and thermostats. Other provisions requiring actions to control mercury under the Clean Air Act, under the pesticide program, and by the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Defense. Introduced November 7, 1997; referred to Committees on Commerce and on Agriculture.

H.R. 2980 (Allen)
National Beverage Container Recycling Initiative Act. Requires a refund value for certain beverage containers and provides resources for state pollution prevention and recycling programs. Introduced November 9, 1997; referred to Committee on Commerce.

H.R. 3791 (Allen)
Omnibus Mercury Emissions Reduction Act of 1998. Same as S. 1915. Introduced May 5, 1998; referred to Committee on Commerce.

H.R. 4475 (Klink)
Authorizes Governors to limit the quantity of out-of-state waste received for disposal at landfills and incinerators in their state. Introduced August 6, 1998; referred to Committee on Commerce.

H.R. 4635 (Minge)
Authorizes states and political subdivisions to control the management of municipal solid waste generated within their jurisdictions and exempts them from civil liability with respect to their enforcement of flow control ordinances prior to the Carbone decision. Introduced September 25, 1998; referred to Committee on Commerce.

H.Res. 119 (Farr)
Provides for the mandatory implementation of the Office Waste Recycling Program in the House of Representatives. Introduced April 16, 1997; referred to Committee on House Oversight.

S. 215 (Jeffords)
National Beverage Container Reuse and Recycling Act of 1997. Amends RCRA to require a refund value of 10 cents for beverage containers, with unclaimed deposits to be used for state pollution prevention and recycling programs. Introduced January 28, 1997; referred to Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

S. 384 (Conrad)
Amends RCRA to allow states to regulate the disposal of municipal solid waste generated outside the state. Introduced February 28, 1997; referred to Committee on Environment and Public Works.

S. 443 (Baucus)
State and Local Government Interstate Waste Control Act of 1997. Authorizes state restrictions on import of municipal solid waste and flow control. Introduced March 14, 1997; referred to Committee on Environment and Public Works.

S. 444 (Chafee)
Imposes a tax of 50 cents per tire on the importation and manufacture of tires to be deposited in a Tire Recycling, Abatement, and Disposal Trust Fund. Introduced March 14, 1997; referred to Committee on Finance.

S. 445 (Chafee)
Waste Tire Recycling, Abatement, and Disposal Act of 1997. Amends RCRA to prohibit the disposal of whole tires in landfills, set requirements for the management of tire piles, provide for state programs for scrap tire management, and authorize grants for state tire abatement programs. Introduced March 14, 1997; referred to Committee on Environment and Public Works.

S. 448 (Robb)
Local Government Interstate Waste Control Act. Authorizes local governments and Governors to restrict receipt of out-of-state municipal solid waste. Introduced March 17, 1996; referred to Committee on Environment and Public Works.

S. 463 (Coats)
Amends RCRA to permit a Governor to limit the disposal of out-of-state solid waste in the Governor's state. Introduced March 18, 1997; referred to Committee on Environment and Public Works.

S. 555 (Allard)
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund Amendments Act of 1997. Amends RCRA to require that at least 85% of funds appropriated to EPA from the LUST Trust Fund be distributed to states. Introduced April 10, 1997; referred to Committee on Environment and Public Works. Ordered reported, amended, September 23, 1998.

S. 899 (Dodd)
Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1997. Amends RCRA to allow state and local governments to exercise flow control. Introduced June 12, 1997; referred to Committee on Environment and Public Works.

S. 1915 (Leahy)
Omnibus Mercury Emissions Reduction Act of 1998. Amends the Clean Air Act to require new standards for mercury emissions from solid waste and medical waste incineration units. Introduced April 2, 1998; referred to Committee on Environment and Public Works.

CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Environment and Public Works. Transportation and Flow Control of Solid Waste. March 18, 1997.