HOUSE BILL REPORT
HB 1671
BYRepresentatives Sprenkle, D. Sommers, Basich, Pruitt, Braddock, Appelwick, Ebersole, Walker, Phillips, Brekke, Rust, May, R. Fisher, Valle, Nelson, Rasmussen, Rector, Spanel, Todd and R. King
Providing major solid waste reform.
House Committe on Environmental Affairs
Majority Report: The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass. (9)
Signed by Representatives Rust, Chair; Valle, Vice Chair; Brekke, Fisher, Fraser, Phillips, Pruitt, Sprenkle and Walker.
Minority Report: Do not pass. (2)
Signed by Representatives D. Sommers, Ranking Republican Member and Van Luven.
House Staff:Rick Anderson (786-7114)
Rereferred House Committee on Appropriations
Majority Report: The substitute bill by Committee on Environmental Affairs as amended by Committee on Appropriations be substituted therefor and the substitute bill as amended do pass. (25)
Signed by Representatives Locke, Chair; Grant, Vice Chair; H. Sommers, Vice Chair; Silver, Ranking Minority Member; Belcher, Bowman, Braddock, Brekke, Bristow, Brough, Dorn, Ebersole, Ferguson, Hine, Holland, May, McLean, Peery, Rust, Sayan, Spanel, Sprenkle, Valle, Wang and Wineberry.
Minority Report: Do not pass. (1)
Signed by Representative Padden.
House Staff: Nancy Stevenson (786-7136)
AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS MARCH 5, 1989
BACKGROUND:
During the past two years several states across the nation have begun to experience a "solid waste crisis." The crisis is characterized by a shortage of landfill space combined with overwhelming public reaction against proposed solutions such as building new landfills or mass burn incinerators.
Some areas within the state may be on the verge of their own solid waste crisis. Many of the 78 solid waste landfills operating in the state are nearing capacity. In addition, many of these landfills may have serious environmental problems. Eight solid waste landfills are currently on the federal Superfund list and the state Superfund program will likely identify several others. Collectively, these cleanups will cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
In 1987, the Joint Select Committee for Preferred Solid Waste Management was created to recommend strategies to manage waste in an environmentally acceptable and cost-effective manner. The committee's efforts have focused on the development of a system to separate various components of the waste stream, such as paper, metals, glass, and yard waste, and to manage them using a variety of "integrated" practices. These practices include recycling, composting, incineration, and landfilling. By separating the various components of the waste stream at the place where they are generated, each component can then be managed in a way that will extract its highest economic value while minimizing adverse environmental impacts.
Another focus of the committee has been to identify ways in which the counties' authority to implement these practices can be increased. Under current law, counties have much less authority to manage solid waste than do cities.
SUMMARY:
SUBSTITUTE BILL: Findings: The new solid waste management priorities are based upon waste reduction and source separation. After waste reduction and source separation, the following priorities apply: 1) recycling, 2) incineration of source separated wastes, 3) processing mixed waste for composting or incineration, and 4) incineration or landfilling of mixed waste.
A statewide goal of 50 percent recycling is established.
Definitions: "Recyclable materials" are defined to distinguish "recyclables" from "garbage." "Solid waste" is defined to include both "garbage" and "recyclable materials."
Service Levels: Local governments are required to revise their solid waste plan by including a "waste reduction and recycling element." This plan revision is to specify how source separation programs will be implemented locally. The plan revisions will be reviewed by the Department of Ecology. Ecology has 60 days to review the revisions. If Ecology does not approve the plan revisions, they must specify why they were not approved. Administrative law judges will hear appeals from local governments on Ecology plan decisions.
Local governments are grouped into four classes for the purpose of determining planning timelines. Class 1 areas are the urban areas of: Spokane, Snohomish, King, Pierce, Thurston, and Kitsap Counties. Class 2 areas are the urban areas in western Washington, except for those in class 1. Class 3 areas are the urban areas of eastern Washington, except for Spokane. Class 4 areas are all areas designated as rural.
Class 1 areas must submit their plan revisions to Ecology by July 1, 1991. The due dates for the remaining class 2, 3, and 4 are successively staggered in 6 month increments.
All urban areas in the state are to begin providing the "primary" level of service within a year of the time that their plan revisions are due. All rural areas shall provide the "threshold" level of service. Local governments shall designate urban and rural areas using the U.S. Census definitions as guidelines. (According to the guidelines, urban areas are cities with a population of 17,500 or more, and densely settled city/unincorporated areas with a combined population of 50,000 or more).
Primary level services include programs to: 1) collect, at the residence, newspaper, glass, tin and aluminum cans, and mixed waste paper, if suitable markets for waste paper exist; 2) divert yard waste from disposal facilities; 3) collect source separated waste at non-residential sites; 4) process mixed wastes, if certain conditions apply, and 5) educate citizens about recycling.
A local government may use an alternative to curbside collection of recyclables if it can prove that the alternative has equivalent participation and recovery rates.
Threshold level services include programs to: 1) collect recyclables and yard waste at drop-off and buy-back centers, 2) collect recyclables at certain commercial sites, and 3) educate citizens about recycling.
Collection and Management Authority: The Utilities and Transportation Commission, (UTC), is directed to grant a permit to collect recyclables to all applicants that meet minimum safety and insurance requirements. All existing waste haulers automatically receive a permit. County governments are given the optional authority to contract with, and regulate, the collection of recyclables. If a county decides to regulate the collection of recyclables, it may contract with any recycler or waste hauler having the required permit. If a county declines to exercise this option, recyclables will be collected by the existing waste hauler under the regulation of the UTC.
Refuse collection companies are required to provide consolidated billing for garbage and recycling collection services. Recycling companies are authorized to collect and transport recyclables from recycling centers and, upon mutual agreement, from collectors or generators of recyclables. Cities and counties may impose a fee on the service of garbage collection for the purpose of reducing the cost of collecting recyclable materials.
Enforcement Authority: The Institute for Public Policy is to conduct a study to evaluate the roles and responsibilities of state and local entities in enforcing solid waste regulations.
Local health jurisdictions are authorized to give any part of its enforcement authority to the department of ecology if approved by the legislative authority of a city and/or county.
Planning: The Department of Ecology is required to monitor the amount and types of waste generated, and to evaluate the programs to collect source separated materials by local governments. Companies engaging in recycling or garbage collection are required to provide waste stream data to Ecology.
Local governments are required to assess how the local solid waste management plan will affect costs to ratepayers. The UTC is directed to review local solid waste management plans and advise Ecology on the plans impact on ratepayers. The UTC is also directed to design rate structures to encourage recycling over garbage disposal.
Automotive Batteries: It is unlawful to dispose of automotive batteries in landfills or incinerators. Retail establishments selling batteries are required to accept used batteries from their customers purchasing new batteries in a one to one exchange. Battery wholesalers are required to accept batteries from retail customers in a one to one exchange. Battery retailers are required to add five dollars to the price of a battery if the customer does not return a used battery for exchange. Provisions are made to suspend the requirements on battery retailers and wholesalers if the market price of lead, the principle component of batteries, drops below a specified value.
Incinerators: An incinerator burning medical waste must operate in such a manner that the combustible portion of the medical waste is completely reduced to ash.
Local governments are prohibited from constructing a facility to incinerate mixed wastes unless the source separation requirements of this bill have been met. Local governments that have already contracted for such a facility are exempt. Ecology may grant waivers.
Product Packaging/Education: An environmental awards program is amended to include awards for product packaging. A product packaging task force is created to recommend standards to the awards committee for "environmental packaging," and to develop an action plan for reducing and recycling product packaging waste.
Local Government Restrictions: Beginning July 1, 1989, the state will preempt local government's authority to impose certain bans or taxes on products or product packaging. The state will have exclusive authority to ban or tax certain products or product packaging for two years, after which time state preemption is terminated.
Local governments are prohibited from requiring retail businesses to site recycling facilities on or near their establishments as a condition of doing business.
Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs: Ecology and the Department of General Administration are required to develop a model state waste reduction and recycling program. All state agencies are required to implement the plan. Ecology is also directed to develop a competitive awards program within public schools for waste reduction and recycling. Ecology is directed to coordinate the efforts of state and local agencies developing educational materials on waste reduction and recycling.
Local governments may develop policies to preferentially purchase products made of recyclable materials.
Market Development: Local governments may develop policies to preferentially purchase products made of recyclable materials.
Local governments may receive funds from the Community Economic Revitalization Board to build public infrastructure facilities for the purpose of encouraging private development of facilities to process recyclable materials.
A committee is established within the Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED) to make recommendations on creating markets for recyclable materials. The committee will be staffed by DTED and Ecology and will be terminated in November of 1990.
Ecology is required to determine the feasibility of composting and intensive waste diversion programs by funding local government demonstration projects. Ecology is also directed to evaluate paint recycling and uses for mixed waste paper in the pulp and paper industry. The State Energy Office is required to determine the feasibility of burning mixed paper and plastics for energy recovery.
Operator Certification: Operators of solid waste incinerators and landfills are required to employ certified operators by January 1, 1992. Ecology is directed to create an advisory committee to develop a process to certify operators. Penalties for non-compliance are established.
Revenues: A 1 percent state tax is imposed on the charges made for refuse collection services. All refuse, including recyclable materials collected curbside, are assessed the tax. Revenues, estimated at $6 million per biennium, are deposited in the state solid waste management account and are to be used for technical assistance to local governments, grants for composting, waste diversion, and public education programs.
Local governments may impose an additional 2 percent tax on charges made for refuse collection services. The tax becomes mandatory when local governments submit revisions to their comprehensive solid waste management plans to DOE. Revenues, estimated at $12 million dollars per biennium, are deposited in a local solid waste account and are to be used for implementing the source separation requirements of the act. Local governments may reduce the surcharge if they can demonstrate that sufficient expenditures have been made on these requirements.
Prevailing Wages: Companies that provide curbside collection service of recyclable materials are required to pay prevailing wages.
Utilities and Transportation Commission: The UTC is to consider certain expenses incurred by refuse collection companies as normal operating expenses (i.e. "pass-throughs"), for purposes of rate-making. The UTC is permitted to grant refuse collection companies an interim rate before making a final decision about rates. The UTC is to conduct a study and make recommendations on the appropriate regulatory structure for the collection of solid waste by January, 1990. The regulatory fee imposed by the UTC on refuse collection companies is increased from 0.8 percent to 1 percent.
Problem Waste Study: Ecology is to determine the best available practices for the management of problem wastes. The study will include an analysis of toxic materials in landfills, incinerator ash, and air emissions.
Joint Select Committee: The expiration date of the Joint Select Committee for Preferred Solid Waste Management is extended from July of 1989 to July of 1991.
SUBSTITUTE BILL COMPARED TO ORIGINAL: The substitute changes the solid waste management priorities by establishing waste reduction and source separation as the basic management strategies, followed by 1) recycling, 2) incineration of source separated waste, 3) processing of mixed waste, and 4) landfilling or incineration of mixed waste. A statewide goal of 50 percent recycling is added. A process is established for local governments to appeal Ecology decisions on their local solid waste plans.
The substitute changes a number of provisions relating to service levels for urban and rural areas. Local governments must provide for two levels of service; the original bill required three levels. Deadlines for submitting the plans are extended by phasing them over an 18 month period beginning in July, 1991. The original bill required submittal of all plans by January 2, 1991. Local governments are also given more authority to designate what level of service to provide in an area, and to determine services for yard waste collection.
The substitute adds a number of provisions to the bill, including: 1) establishing a statewide goal of 50 percent recycling; 2) creating an appeals mechanism for local governments dissatisfied with Ecology plan decisions; 3) requiring that incinerators thoroughly burn medical wastes; 4) prohibiting local governments from constructing incinerators if they have not implemented their service level requirements; 5) preempting local government's authority to ban or tax certain products, or to require citing of a recycling facility at or near a retail business; 6) directing the UTC to consider a number of expenses as "pass-throughs" for rate-making purposes, to grant interim rates to refuse collection companies, and to conduct a study recommending the appropriate regulatory structure for solid waste collection; 7) requiring companies collecting curbside recyclables to pay prevailing wages; 8) directing Ecology to study "problem wastes;" and 9) creating a committee to make recommendations on developing markets for recyclable materials.
The substitute deletes two funding provisions found in the original bill. These are: the $5 per ton tax on waste disposed at landfills and incinerators, and $9.2 million dollars of Referendum 39 funds.
CHANGES PROPOSED BY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS: The amendments grant local governments greater flexibility to determine the level of source separation and recycling services provided by: (1) allowing them to determine if an area receives an "urban" or a "rural" level of service; (2) increasing the amount of time they have to submit plans; (3) reducing and reorganizing how local governments are grouped into classes for deadline purposes; and (4) allowing them to determine which recyclable materials are collected.
The Utilities and Transportation Commission is directed to choose either a recycler or hauler to provide the service of collecting recyclable materials, if a county chooses not to contract for the transportation of recyclable materials.
A solid waste incinerator cannot be permitted unless it is consistent with the local solid waste plan and it does not conflict with waste reduction and recycling programs. The substitute bill prohibited incinerators until a waste reduction and recycling program had been implemented.
The rate of the state tax on charges made for refuse collection services is increased from 1.0 percent to 1.2 percent. Collection of recyclable materials is excluded from the base of the tax. A lid is imposed on the amount of the monthly collection charge that is subject to the tax, and residents not receiving refuse collection services are excluded from taxation on minimum monthly charges. The state tax is terminated July 1, 1993.
The 2 percent local option refuse collection tax is eliminated.
Appropriation: (Environmental Affairs) $150,000 is appropriated to the State Energy Office for a study on burning mixed waste paper and plastics for energy recovery.
$1.2 million is appropriated to Ecology for technical assistance to local governments. $2.3 million is appropriated to Ecology for grants to fund local government programs for composting, waste diversion, public education and disposable diaper recycling.
(Appropriations) The appropriations to the Department of Ecology and State Energy Office are deleted.
Revenue: This bill has revenue impact.
Fiscal Note: Requested March 1, 1989.
House Committee ‑ Testified For: (Environmental Affairs) Lew Holcomb, Recycling Association; Rick Sternoff, Pacific Iron and Metal; Robert Davis, Fibres International; John Kramp, Sno-King Recycling; Ray Hoffman, Washington Citizens for Recycling; AWC; Cynthia Stewart, King County; Rod Hansen, King County; Randy Scott, WSA Co.; Diana Gale; Michell Nangle, King County ASWA; Bill Alkire, WA Department of Ecology; Jan Gee, WA Retail Association; Commissioner Pardini, Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission; Gabriella Uhler-Hetner, Alliance for Solid Waste Alternatives and Washington Toxics Coalition; Bruce Wishart, Sierra Club; Betty Tabbutt, WEC; Mark Teasforth, Karen Peebles, Walter Heaton, Citizens for Clean Air.
(Appropriations) Bill Alkire, Department of Ecology; Lew Holcomb, Washington Recycling Association; Ian MacGowen, Fibres International; Jan Gee, Washington Retail Association; Jim Metcalf, Association of Counties.
House Committee - Testified Against: (Environmental Affairs) Kathleen Collins, AWC; George Cvitanich, Washington Waste Management Association.
(Appropriations) Kathleen Collins, Association of Washington Cities; John Paul Jones III, and Gordon Walgren, Washington Waste Management Association.
House Committee - Testimony For: (Environmental Affairs) Major solid waste reform is needed. Mixed waste disposal has resulted in contaminated landfills requiring millions to cleanup. A system of source separation of waste is necessary to capture the resource and energy value of our waste and to avoid future landfill cleanups. The public wants to recycle, local governments should provide convenient and uniform services. Allowing recycling companies to compete with refuse collection companies will provide better service at lower cost than will state regulation. Counties should have the same right as cities to manage its waste stream.
(Appropriations) Curbside collection of recyclable materials is more convenient and more effective than drop-off and buy-back centers. The state, not local government, is the appropriate entity to impose taxes and bans on these products having a potentially adverse impact on local disposal practices because local governments cannot control consumer's choice of products.
House Committee - Testimony Against: (Environmental Affairs) Local governments, not the state, should make the decisions about what level of recycling service to provide, and how to provide it. The collection of recyclable materials should not be competitively bid; the existing infrastructure of refuse collection companies is best suited to collect recyclables at curbside. The state does not need the revenue from a $5 per ton disposal tax or from Referendum 39 bond issues. The state should put more emphasis on market development activities.
(Appropriations) Local governments need flexibility to determine what kind of recycling service to provide in order to keep recycling costs from being too high. Deregulating the collection of solid waste will result in duplication of capital invested in collection equipment. Cities do not support a local option tax on garbage collection because they currently have unlimited utility taxing authority. Counties do not support using the local option tax as a punitive measure. The state tax penalizes cities that have already raised their rates to pay for recycling. For this reason, there should be a lid on the amount of each customer's bill that the tax will apply to.