HOUSE BILL REPORT

HB 2369

BYRepresentatives Rust, D. Sommers, Brekke, Smith, Phillips, Chandler, Nelson, G. Fisher, Sprenkle, Fraser, Pruitt, Valle, Betrozoff, Rector, Spanel and May

Planning for hazardous waste management.

House Committe on Environmental Affairs

Majority Report:  The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass.  (8)

      Signed by Rust, Chair; Valle, Vice Chair; Brekke, G. Fisher, Fraser, Phillips, Pruitt and Sprenkle.

Minority Report:  Do not pass.  (3)

      Signed by Representatives D. Sommers, Ranking Republican Member; Schoon and Walker.

House Staff:Harry Reinert (786-7110)

AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS

FEBRUARY 1, 1990

BACKGROUND:

The Legislature has directed that the state policy towards hazardous waste requires responsible management of hazardous wastes and the availability of environmentally sound facilities.

In 1983, the Legislature enacted a measure which established priorities for the management and regulation of hazardous wastes. Waste reduction is the first priority in the management of hazardous waste.  The remaining priorities, in descending order, are waste recycling, treatment, incineration, solidification or stabilization, and landfill.

The Legislature has directed the Department of Ecology to conduct a study of the best management practices for different categories of waste under the statutory priorities.  The study was due to be completed by July, 1986, and rules adopted by July, 1987.  The solid waste advisory committee was directed to report to the Legislature by January, 1988, on policy options to reduce the production of hazardous wastes.  The studies must be updated every five years.

In 1984, the Legislature imposed a temporary ban on the disposal of dangerous wastes at commercial land disposal facilities unless the department had completed the best management practices study for the category of waste to be disposed or the department had adopted final rules allowing for land disposal of that particular waste.

In 1985, the Legislature directed the department to prepare a hazardous waste management plan.  The plan was to be completed by 1987.  The current schedule being followed by the department calls for completion of the management plan in mid 1991. The plan must include an inventory of existing capacity to manage hazardous wastes, a forecast of future waste generation, a description of the best management practices study, siting criteria and policies, and a public involvement process. The siting criteria were originally due to be completed in 1986. The date for completion of the siting criteria has been reset by the Legislature to May 30, 1990.

The Department of Ecology is the state agency with authority to issue permits for hazardous waste management facilities.  The Legislature has directed the department to adopt rules allowing for expeditious issuance of permits consistent with the requirements of state and federal law.

SUMMARY:

SUBSTITUTE BILL:  The legislative policy on the management of hazardous waste includes an emphasis on reducing the use of hazardous substances and on waste reduction.

The completion date of the state hazardous waste management plan is changed from June 30, 1987, to June 30, 1991.  The forecast of future hazardous waste generation shall take into account the hazardous waste management priorities and the potential for reduction in the quantity of hazardous wastes generated.  The plan shall also include a forecast of the need for future treatment and incineration facilities and recycling opportunities.

In developing the plan, the department shall estimate the need for landfill and incineration capacity for hazardous wastes generated in the Pacific Northwest.

The department may issue a permit for a hazardous waste incineration facility only if the department determines the facility is needed.  Permits shall be issued only for facilities sized to meet the needed capacity.  The determination of need shall be based on the best information available at the time the department issues the permit.

SUBSTITUTE BILL COMPARED TO ORIGINAL:  The substitute does not contain a provision establishing a goal of reducing waste generation by 50 percent.  The substitute deletes a provision in the original bill which prohibited the issuance of a permit for a hazardous waste incinerator or disposal facility until the hazardous waste management plan is completed.  The substitute deletes a provision prohibiting issuance of a permit for a hazardous waste incinerator until the Environmental Protection Agency adopts final rules on incinerators.

The substitute does not require community support for a project to be an element of the needs analysis to be conducted by the Department of Ecology.  The substitute also modifies the grounds on which the question of need is analyzed by the department by applying the analysis only to incinerator facilities.  The analysis is required to be based only on the best information available at the time the permit is issued.

Fiscal Note:      Requested February 1, 1990.

Effective Date:The bill contains an emergency clause and takes effect immediately.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:    Liz Tennant, Seattle Audubon Society; Ken Murphy, Hazardous Waste Committee, Washington Farm Bureau; Carol Dansereau, Washington Toxics Coalition; Gale Gfeller; Rosalind Olson; and John Harder, Washington Association of Wheat Growers.

House Committee - Testified Against:      Jim Boldt, Rabanco; Dr. Jerry Smedes, Rabanco; and Denny Eliason, ECOS.

House Committee - Testimony For:    (ORIGINAL BILL)  The bill will provide for an ordered process of establishing state policy for management of hazardous waste before permits for incinerators and disposal facilities are issued.  The bill also recognizes waste reduction as the most important method of reducing hazardous waste management problems.  The bill also assures that the facilities that are constructed are sized to meet the state's and region's needs.

House Committee - Testimony Against:      (ORIGINAL BILL)  The moratorium in the bill may cause the loss of federal funds.  The bill will result in further delays in the development of needed facilities.  The bill unfairly adds requirements and burdens on those who have permit applications pending with the state.