Solid Waste Issues in the 106th Congress

Solid Waste Issues in the 106th Congress

Order Code IB10002
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Solid Waste Issues in the 106th Congress
Updated April 27, 2000
James E. McCarthy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

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?
Should Remediation Waste Be Exempt from Hazardous Waste Regulation?
Should the United States Implement the Basel Convention on International Movement
of Waste?
LEGISLATION
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
FOR ADDITIONAL READING

IB10002
04-27-00
Solid Waste Issues in the 106th Congress
SUMMARY
The prospects for solid waste legislation
A second solid waste issue that has been
in the 106th Congress appear to be dimming.
the subject of discussion is a proposal to
Little action was taken on waste issues in the
exempt from hazardous waste management
first session, and consensus regarding the need
requirements certain low-risk wastes generated
for legislation appears to be lacking.
by remediation of old waste sites. Doing so
would reduce the cost and increase the speed
The 106th Congress inherited three solid
of site cleanups, without necessarily
waste issues from the 105th and earlier
endangering the environment. There has been
Congresses: interstate shipment of waste, the
general support for such legislation from
management of what are called “remediation
industry, environmental groups, states, the
wastes” from old hazardous waste sites, and
Administration, and several key Senators, but
implementation of the Basel Convention on
reaching agreement on the specifics of draft
Transboundary Movement of Waste. The
legislation has proven difficult. In the
105th Congress adjourned without passing bills
meantime, EPA has taken steps to lessen some
on these issues, although each was the subject
of the most onerous regulatory requirements,
of discussion.
reducing the need for legislation.
The first set of issues, whether state and
A third issue that was considered a
local governments should be given authority to
possible subject of legislation in the 106th
restrict the growing volume of out-of-state
Congress was implementation of the Basel
solid waste (the “interstate waste” issue) has
Convention on Transboundary Movement of
been on the congressional agenda since the late
Waste. More than 130 countries have ratified
1980s. A related issue, whether state or local
this convention, which is intended to protect
jurisdictions may designate where locally
countries from receiving unwanted shipments
generated waste must be disposed (“flow
of waste. The United States played a major
control”) has more recently joined it. The
role in the negotiation of the convention a
Constitution’s interstate commerce clause
decade ago, but has not passed legislation to
generally prohibits both actions absent
implement it. Both the Administration and the
congressional authorization. Since the 101st
committees of jurisdiction expressed interest in
Congress, both the House and Senate have
moving such legislation in the 106th Congress,
passed legislation providing some such
but no legislation has been introduced.
authority, but lack of agreement on specific
provisions has prevented enactment.
Continued growth in interstate waste
shipments, the financial troubles faced by local
governments in the absence of flow control,
and the impending closure of New York City’s
Fresh Kills landfill (for many years, the world’s
largest) have combined to spur congressional
interest.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

IB10002
04-27-00
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
As of late April, seven bills had been submitted to allow states and local governments
authority to restrict interstate shipments of municipal solid waste. The Senate Environment
and Public Works Committee held a hearing on the subject June 17, 1999, but no further
action has been taken.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Trends in Municipal Solid Waste Management
Solid waste management was a major public concern over much of the last decade, as
local governments and private firms throughout the nation 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
28% of waste management in 1997, up from 10% in 1986. More than 9,300 local
governments have begun curbside collection of recyclable materials (Figure 3), and 3,800
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. At the same time, a series of court cases has dismantled restrictions
on interstate commerce in waste, increasing competition among service providers and
lowering prices.
In most areas of the country, the lead role in transforming solid waste management has
been played by state and local governments and the private sector. 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, apart-
CRS-1

IB10002
04-27-00
Figure 1. Municipal Solid Waste Landfills in the United States
thousands
10.0
9.0
8.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.5
5.3
6.0
4.5
3.4
3.2
3.1
4.0
2.5
2.3
2.0
0.0
1984
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Source: U.S. EPA and Biocycle Magazine
Figure 2. Municipal Solid Waste Managed at Waste-to-Energy Plants
millions of tons
36.7
40.0
29.5
30.0
20.0
7.5
10.0
2.5
0.0
1980
1985
1990
1997
Source: U.S. EPA
CRS-2

IB10002
04-27-00
Figure 3. Curbside Recycling Programs in the United States
thousands
12.0
9.3
10.0
8.8
8.9
7.3
7.4
8.0
6.8
5.4
6.0
3.9
4.0
2.8
1.5
1.0
2.0
0.0
1989
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Source: Biocycle Magazine
ment 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 the last decade, 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 Table 1.
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 land-
CRS-3

IB10002
04-27-00
Table 1. Federal Regulations on Solid Waste Management
Authority
Regulation
Status
EPA Annual
Cost Estimate
RCRA Subtitle D
Municipal Solid Waste
Promulgated 10/9/91, with some
$330,000,000
Landfill Criteria:
subsequent modifications
location, design, and operating
effective 10/9/93 for large landfills,
4/9/94 for others
groundwater monitoring, and
requirements phased in; final com-
corrective action
pliance deadline 10/9/97
closure and post-closure care
effective 10/9/93 for large landfills,
4/9/94 for others
financial assurance criteria
effective 4/97
RCRA Subtitle D
Non-Municipal Solid Waste
Promulgated 7/1/96; requirements
$12,650,000 -
Landfill Criteria
took effect 18 months to 2 years after 51,000,000
promulgation
Clean Air Act,
Air Emissions from Municipal
Promulgated 3/12/96; effective
$94,000,000
Section 111
Solid Waste Landfills
immediately for new landfills
Clean Air Act,
Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Combustors (Incinerators):
Sections 111 and 129
combustion practices, carbon
Promulgated 2/11/91; effective
$472,000,000
monoxide, dioxins/furans,
8/12/91
particulates, acid gases, nitrogen
oxides; applied only to combustors
with capacity of 250 tons per day or
more
maximum achievable control
Originally promulgated 12/19/95; as
$405,000,000
technology for carbon monoxide,
the result of a court decision, EPA
dioxins, particulate matter, cad-
repromulgated the standards for
mium, lead, mercury, sulfur diox-
combustors with capacity >250 tons
ide, hydrogen chloride, nitrogen
per day 8/25/97; regulations for
oxides; applies to incinerators with
smaller combustors were reproposed
capacity of 35 tons per day or more
8/30/99. Effective date of
requirements varies.
RCRA Sections
Management of Ash from Munici-
Supreme Court ruled May 2, 1994,
not available
3001 - 3005
pal Waste Combustors (Incinera-
that ash was not exempt from
tors)
hazardous waste management
regulations, despite EPA guidance to
the contrary. Hazardous waste
testing and management regulations
were promulgated 5/19/80, with
many subsequent amendments.
Executive Orders
Federal Procurement of Recycled
Procurement guidelines for paper,
not available
12873 and 13101;
Products
retread tires, used oil and insulation
RCRA Section 6002
materials took effect in 1988.
Executive Orders 12873 (10/20/93)
and 13101 (9/14/98) strengthened
paper requirements. EPA designated
an additional 19 recycled content
product categories for procurement
preferences 5/1/95; 12 product
categories were added 11/13/97; and
19 more were proposed for addition
8/26/98.
CRS-4

IB10002
04-27-00
fills from accepting waste from out-of-state, nor may they impose fees on waste disposal that
discriminate on the basis of origin.
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 RL30409, Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid
Waste: 2000 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, and an additional 2,500 tons per day
in October 1998. In November, 1999, over the protests of local officials on the receiving
end, the city began shipping an additional 3,200 tons of waste per day to two transfer stations
in New Jersey.
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, limits on daily disposal, 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 five 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
CRS-5

IB10002
04-27-00
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. (For a further discussion of issues, see
CRS Report RS20106, Interstate Waste Transport: Legislative Issues.)
As of April 24, 2000, seven bills (H.R. 378, H.R. 379, H.R. 891, H.R. 1190, S. 533, S.
663, and S. 872) had been introduced to address interstate waste issues in the 106th Congress;
none had been acted on. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held a
hearing on S. 533 and S. 872, June 17, 1999.
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 provided 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 was
financed by fees collected at designated incinerators or landfills. In the process, however, it
created a monopoly and prohibited facilities outside the jurisdiction from offering competitive
services.
In the wake of the Carbone decision, at least 18 bond issues valued at $2 billion were
downgraded by the rating services, some to a level below investment grade. In these and
other cases, local governments 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 defaulted on a solid waste bond issue, but there was 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.
CRS-6

IB10002
04-27-00
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 has begun to leave the state because of cheaper disposal elsewhere.
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 that have addressed 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. In some bills, flow control arrangements would also be grandfathered
in cases where they supported recycling programs.
As of April 24, three bills addressing flow control had been introduced in the 106th
Congress: S. 663, S. 872, and H.R. 1270. No action has been taken on these bills.
Should Remediation Waste Be Exempt from Hazardous Waste Regulation?
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 (NH) 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
were discussions among House and Senate staff and interested parties concerning the content
of draft legislation. While there has been 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 105th Congress. With limited time remaining in the second session, on September 3, 1998,
Senators Lott, Chafee, and Smith announced that efforts to enact such legislation would have
CRS-7

IB10002
04-27-00
to wait until the 106th Congress. Subsequently, on November 30, 1998, EPA promulgated
a rule (the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule, or HWIR rule, for media) that exempted
most remediation waste from land disposal and permit requirements; and in a February 17,
1999 statement to the press, an EPA official was quoted as saying that the Agency would
“withhold judgment” on the need for legislation while working on a settlement to litigation
filed by two environmental groups and a trade association representing the hazardous waste
treatment industry.
Thus, the momentum for congressional action on the issue subsided. As of April 24,
2000, no bills had been introduced on this subject in the Senate. In the House, Representative
Oxley introduced H.R. 2718 on August 5, 1999. The bill would authorize EPA to establish
separate requirements for remediation waste and would authorize state remediation waste
programs. No action has been taken on the bill.
Should the United States Implement the Basel Convention on International
Movement of Waste?
Concerned about the potential impacts of exporting hazardous waste to countries that
may not be able to assure environmentally sound management, 116 countries agreed to the
Basel Convention on the Control of the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and
Their Disposal in March 1989. The United States played a key role in developing the
Convention, and the United States signed it in 1990, but ratification would require
implementing legislation, which the Congress has not passed. Such legislation has not been
considered since 1992.
At present, more than 130 countries have ratified the Convention, including Canada,
Mexico, Japan, and the countries of the European Union. Countries that are not parties to
the Convention, such as the United States, cannot trade waste with those that have ratified
unless they negotiate bilateral agreements that provide equivalent protections. (The United
States has bilateral agreements with Canada and Mexico, which have traditionally been our
largest waste trade partners, and two less significant partners, Costa Rica and Malaysia. The
United States also has an agreement that allows trade in recyclable wastes with members of
the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.) Nevertheless, failure to
ratify the Basel Convention limits access to international markets for U.S. recycling,
reclamation, and waste management companies. The State Department also notes that failure
to ratify weakens the U.S. bargaining position in other environmental negotiations.
As a result, the Administration renewed its interest in seeing implementing legislation
adopted, and at the outset of the 106th Congress, both the House Commerce and Senate
Environment and Public Works Committees were believed to be interested in addressing the
matter. While most interested parties now back some form of implementation, the biggest
issue initially would be whether Congress should consider only the original 1989 Convention
or should also ratify and implement a 1995 amendment that (if ratified by three quarters of
the Parties) would ban the export of hazardous waste from developed to developing
countries, even for wastes destined for recovery and recycling. The Administration is
believed to be leaning toward the ban amendment, but significant opposition from segments
of industry might be expected if the amendment were submitted for ratification.
CRS-8

IB10002
04-27-00
Legislation to implement Basel would also have to provide EPA additional authority in
a number of respects. Defining the limits of that authority and the procedural safeguards
accompanying it might present numerous issues. To implement the Convention, legislation
must include: the authority to prevent waste export if the Agency determines that the waste
will not be managed in an environmentally sound manner; the obligation to reimport waste
shipped illegally or not managed in an environmentally sound manner; controls on shipment
of municipal solid waste and MSW combustion ash; and authority to control imports as well
as exports of waste. All of these are currently lacking in RCRA.
A particular challenge might be how to expand authority over international transfer of
waste without at the same time burdening domestic commerce in such waste. The Basel
Convention, for example, covers more hazardous wastes than are identified by RCRA, and
while industry is generally believed to be supportive of Basel implementation, industry and
the Congress would be unlikely to support broad expansion of EPA's regulatory authority
over wastes managed within the United States as part of the package. (For additional
information on the Basel Convention, see CRS Report 98-638, Waste Trade and the Basel
Convention: Background and Update.)
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. 79 (Bilirakis)
Amends RCRA to exempt pesticide rinse water degradation systems from hazardous
waste permit requirements. Introduced January 6, 1999; referred to Committee on
Commerce.
H.R. 286 (Sweeney)
Hazardous Waste Recycling Tax Credit Act of 1999. Provides a tax credit of two cents
per pound for the recycling of hazardous waste. Introduced January 6, 1999; referred to
Committee on Ways and Means.
H.R. 378 (Gillmor)
Amends RCRA to authorize states to ban, regulate, or collect fees on import of solid
waste from other states. Authorizes interstate compacts for solid waste management.
Introduced January 19, 1999; referred to Committee on Commerce.
H.R. 379 (Gillmor)
Amends RCRA to permit states to prohibit disposal of solid waste imported from outside
the United States unless authorized by a host community agreement. Introduced January 19,
1999; referred to Committee on Commerce.
CRS-9

IB10002
04-27-00
H.R. 778 (Andrews)
Authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to require the use of recycled materials in the
construction of federal-aid highway projects. Introduced February 23, 1999; referred to
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
H.R. 779 (Andrews)
Requires that 10% of a state's allocation under the Surface Transportation Program
must be used for the purchase of recycled materials. Introduced February 23, 1999; referred
to Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
H.R. 891 (Kanjorski)
Solid Waste Compact Act. Amends RCRA to allow states whose state solid waste
management plans have been approved by EPA to prohibit the importation of solid waste
from outside the State. Introduced March 2, 1999; referred to Committee on Commerce.
H.R. 1190 (Greenwood)
Solid Waste Interstate Transportation and Local Authority Act of 1999. Amends RCRA
to establish a presumptive ban on importation of out-of-state municipal solid waste unless
such importation is authorized by a host community agreement or grandfathered, and to
authorize state and local flow control. Introduced March 18, 1999; referred to Committee
on Commerce.
H.R. 1270 (Minge)
Taxpayer Relief Through Municipal Waste Control Act of 1999. Amends RCRA to
authorize flow control of municipal solid waste and to exempt states and their political
subdivisions from civil liability with respect to the passage, implementation, and enforcement
of flow control ordinances. Introduced March 24, 1999; referred to Committee on
Commerce.
H.R. 2407 (Rivers)
Amends the Toxic Substances Control Act to establish requirements regarding the
approval of facilities for the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Introduced August
2, 1999; referred to Committee on Commerce.
H.R. 2676 (Rivers)
National Beverage Container Reuse and Recycling Act of 1999. Amends the Solid
Waste Disposal Act to require a refund value for beverage containers and to provide
resources for State pollution prevention and recycling programs. Introduced August 2, 1999;
referred to Committee on Commerce.
H.R. 2718 (Oxley)
Brownfields Remediation Waste Act. Amends the Solid Waste Disposal Act to provide
for the management of remediation waste at brownfields and other remediation sites.
Introduced August 5, 1999; referred to Committee on Commerce.
H.R. 3093 (Franks)
Amends RCRA to prevent the release of hazardous waste due to flooding. Introduced
October 18, 1999; referred to Committees on Commerce and on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
CRS-10

IB10002
04-27-00
H.R. 3656 (Bilirakis)
Amends RCRA to reauthorize EPA's Office of Ombudsman. Introduced February 15,
2000; referred to Committee on Commerce.

H.R. 3798 (Forbes)
Amends RCRA to accelerate the cleanup of MTBE released from leaking underground
storage tanks, among other purposes. Introduced March 1, 2000; referred to Committee on
Commerce.
S. 267 (Feinstein)
Amends RCRA to direct the Administrator of EPA to give highest priority to releases
of petroleum into drinking water in issuing corrective action orders under the underground
storage tank response program. Introduced January 20, 1999; referred to Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
S. 533 (Robb)
Interstate Transportation of Municipal Solid Waste Control Act of 1999. Amends RCRA
to authorize local governments and Governors to restrict receipt of out-of-state municipal
solid waste. Introduced March 4, 1999; referred to Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
S. 663 (Specter)
Solid Waste Interstate Transportation and Local Authority Act of 1999. Amends RCRA
to impose certain limitations on the receipt of out-of-state municipal solid waste and to
authorize state and local controls over the flow of municipal solid waste. Identical to H.R.
1190. Introduced March 18, 1999; referred to Committee on Environment and Public Works.
S. 859 (Jeffords)
National Beverage Container Reuse and Recycling Act of 1999. Amends RCRA to
require a refund value for beverage containers and to provide resources for State pollution
prevention and recycling programs. Introduced April 22, 1999; referred to Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
S. 872 (Voinovich)
Municipal Solid Waste Interstate Transportation and Local Authority Act of 1999.
Amends RCRA to allow states and local governments to impose limits on the receipt of
out-of-State municipal solid waste and to authorize state and local flow control. Introduced
April 22, 1999; referred to Committee on Environment and Public Works. Hearing
scheduled June 17, 1999.
S. 1763 (Allard)
Amends RCRA to reauthorize EPA's Office of Ombudsman. Introduced October 21,
1999; referred to Committee on Environment and Public Works.
CRS-11

IB10002
04-27-00
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Environment and Public Works. Municipal Solid
Waste and Flow Control. June 17, 1999.
-----. Transportation and Flow Control of Solid Waste. S. Hrg. 105-72. March 18, 1997.
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
U.S. General Accounting Office. Remediation Waste Requirements Can Increase the Time
and Cost of Cleanups. October 1997. 24 p. GAO/RCED-98-4.
CRS Report 98-689. Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste: 2000 Update, by James
E. McCarthy. January 19, 2000. 18 p.
CRS Report RS20106, Interstate Waste Transport: Legislative Issues, by James E.
McCarthy. Updated June 16, 1999. 6 p.
CRS Report 98-638. Waste Trade and the Basel Convention: Background and Update, by
Mary E. Tiemann. December 30, 1998. 6 p.
CRS-12