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 in the 106th Congress appear to be dimming. Little action was taken on waste issues in the first session, and consensus regarding the need for legislation appears to be lacking. The 106th Congress inherited three solid waste issues from the 105th and earlier Congresses: interstate shipment of waste, the management of what are called “remediation wastes” from old hazardous waste sites, and implementation of the Basel Convention on Transboundary Movement of Waste. The 105th Congress adjourned without passing bills on these issues, although each was the subject of discussion. The first set of issues, whether state and local governments should be given authority to restrict the growing volume of out-of-state solid waste (the “interstate waste” issue) has been on the congressional agenda since the late 1980s. A related issue, whether state or local jurisdictions may designate where locally generated waste must be disposed (“flow control”) has more recently joined it. The Constitution’s interstate commerce clause generally prohibits both actions absent congressional authorization. Since the 101st Congress, both the House and Senate have passed legislation providing some such 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 A second solid waste issue that has been the subject of discussion is a proposal to exempt from hazardous waste management requirements certain low-risk wastes generated by remediation of old waste sites. Doing so would reduce the cost and increase the speed of site cleanups, without necessarily endangering the environment. There has been general support for such legislation from industry, environmental groups, states, the Administration, and several key Senators, but reaching agreement on the specifics of draft legislation has proven difficult. In the meantime, EPA has taken steps to lessen some of the most onerous regulatory requirements, reducing the need for legislation. A third issue that was considered a possible subject of legislation in the 106th Congress was implementation of the Basel Convention on Transboundary Movement of Waste. More than 130 countries have ratified this convention, which is intended to protect countries from receiving unwanted shipments of waste. The United States played a major role in the negotiation of the convention a decade ago, but has not passed legislation to implement it. Both the Administration and the committees of jurisdiction expressed interest in moving such legislation in the 106th Congress, but no legislation has been introduced. ˜ 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 7.0 8.0 6.0 5.5 6.0 5.3 4.5 3.4 4.0 3.2 3.1 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 Source: U.S. EPA CRS-2 1997 IB10002 04-27-00 Figure 3. Curbside Recycling Programs in the United States thousands 12.0 8.8 10.0 7.3 6.8 8.0 9.3 8.9 7.4 5.4 6.0 3.9 2.8 4.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 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 Landfill Criteria: Promulgated 10/9/91, with some subsequent modifications $330,000,000 location, design, and operating effective 10/9/93 for large landfills, 4/9/94 for others groundwater monitoring, and corrective action requirements phased in; final compliance 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 Landfill Criteria Promulgated 7/1/96; requirements $12,650,000 took effect 18 months to 2 years after 51,000,000 promulgation Clean Air Act, Section 111 Air Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Promulgated 3/12/96; effective immediately for new landfills Clean Air Act, Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Combustors (Incinerators): Sections 111 and 129 Promulgated 2/11/91; effective combustion practices, carbon 8/12/91 monoxide, dioxins/furans, particulates, acid gases, nitrogen oxides; applied only to combustors with capacity of 250 tons per day or more $94,000,000 $472,000,000 maximum achievable control technology for carbon monoxide, dioxins, particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, nitrogen oxides; applies to incinerators with capacity of 35 tons per day or more Originally promulgated 12/19/95; as $405,000,000 the result of a court decision, EPA repromulgated the standards for combustors with capacity >250 tons per day 8/25/97; regulations for smaller combustors were reproposed 8/30/99. Effective date of requirements varies. RCRA Sections 3001 - 3005 Management of Ash from Municipal Waste Combustors (Incinerators) not available Supreme Court ruled May 2, 1994, that ash was not exempt from 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 12873 and 13101; RCRA Section 6002 Federal Procurement of Recycled Products Procurement guidelines for paper, not available retread tires, used oil and insulation 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