ActionPA.org

A Pennsylvania-based research, organizing, and networking center for the grassroots environmental justice movement.

PA's "Right to Dump" Bill faces Floor Vote on Monday, Nov. 19th, 2001

>

Pennsylvania “Right-to-Dump” Bill faces Floor Vote on Monday, Nov. 19th, 2001

UPDATE: The good amendments to House Bill 1436 passed! The bill now goes to the Senate for approval. The Senate also has a bad bill that the wate industry is pushing – SB 814. These bills could be considered as soon as the first week of December. Check back in a couple days for more information.

ACT NOW!

  • Call your state representative immediately (leave a message on their Harrisburg office’s answering machine over the weekend) and ask that they support the Feese amendments (A4014, A4054 and A3941).
  • ASK THAT THEY VOTE FOR THE BILL ONLY IF IT’S AMENDED WITH THE FEESE AMENDMENTS.
  • Ask that they do NOT support any other amendments to the bill, as most other amendments are likely to make the bill worse (notable exceptions include amendments from Rep George on regulation of waste haulers and Amendment A4085, which would ban landfills from being built within 2500 feet of a state park).

If you’re not sure of who your state representative is, enter your zip code into Project Vote-Smart’s site.

House Bill 1436, known as the “Right-to-Dump” bill, pretends to address Pennsylvania’s waste importation crisis, while actually making it worse (see PA waste bill page for background).

On Monday, November 19th, 2001, the full Pennsylvania House of Representatives will be considering amendments to HB 1436 and is planning to vote on passing the bill, extra amendments or not.

Brett Feese, a Republican State Rep from Lycoming County, is proposing a series of amendments to HB 1436. In sum, these amendments represent mild, but significant improvements over the existing bill. The amendments are likely to have the support of pro-environment Democrats as well.

Why are these amendments so important?

  • With the Feese amendments, the bill will no longer force local governments to negotiate “agreements” with waste companies. (see the analysis below for more details on the Feese amendments)
  • The Feese amendments are worded so that they technically replace all of the existing language in HB 1436. Doing this (even though some of the existing language is being put back into the bill) makes all other amendments moot if the Feese amendments pass, since all other amendments will be amending an old bill and will no longer apply. Most of the other proposed amendments to HB 1436 are likely to make the bill even worse than it already is, and it is important to stop them. It is too late for additional amendments to be introduced at this point, so legislators will only have the opportunity to vote yes or no on the amendments and on the final bill.

The bills:

Comparison of HB1436 (as amended) to the proposed Feese Amendments

GOOD CHANGES:

  • Local governments would no longer be forced into agreements and are clearly given the ability to vote down an agreement that they decide to negotiate.
  • There are no longer restrictions on what can be in host municipal agreements.
  • Host municipality definition changed from “footprint” to better language (“permit area”)
  • “Liberally interpreted” language has been restored.
  • Language completely abolishing the Recycling Fund is gone.
  • A waste facility with a Host Municipal Agreement that hasn’t started taking waste must renegotiate their agreement.

BAD CHANGES:

  • Waste hauling regulations and traffic impact studies deleted.
  • Language requiring facilities to keep records on the names and addresses of haulers is gone.
  • Language limiting new Host Municipal Agreements to no more than 5 years is gone.
  • Language invalidating Host Municipal Agreements signed by convicted felons is gone.
  • Language on additional tipping fees based on total volume of waste disposed of in the state is gone.
  • Language in Section iii of “Contents of agreement” has been restored to the original “nuisances” language rather than the “threats to public health and safety” language in the amended version.

GOOD STUFF THAT HASN’T CHANGED:

  • The language referencing federal legislation is the same as the amended 1436 bill. It’s just rearranged and slightly reworded from “shall contain a provision” to “shall address the following… a statement….” Both end in “if Congress enacts a law that places restrictions on out-of-State waste, the host municipality may renegotiate its host municipality agreement in regard to out-of-State waste.”
  • Permit applications won’t be considered adminstratively complete without a Host Municipal Agreement.
  • Renegotiation of Host Municipal Agreements follow the same 2-5 year time limits (2 for those without existing agreements; 5 otherwise).
  • Host municipality definition is still expanded to include municipalities within 1/2 mile of the facility.
  • DEP “shall” reimburse local governments for negotiation costs if they ask for it.

BAD STUFF THAT HASN’T CHANGED:

  • Negotiations of Host Municipality Agreemtents still excempted from the Right-to-Know Act.
  • “Moratorium” is still short, weak and riddled with loopholes, causing it to make little to no difference.
  • Remaining capacity definition is still ridiculous (no accounting for rate or for how to calculate “remaining capacity” of incinerators)
  • Recycling fund would still be raided to cover local government’s costs of negotiating agreements.
  • The more limited public hearing requirements (fewer notices, shorter time period) which were amended into 1436 are retained, rather than the stronger, original language.
  • After the moratorium, no permit modification application will be accepted until the remaining disposal capacity FOR THE FACILITY is five years or less (like the exemption during the moratorium period, this is pretty meaningless and wouldn’t do much to limit expansions).
  • Local ordinances are still overridden, but only to the extent that any language in the Host Municipal Agreement contradicts existing local ordinances.
  • DEP is still given the authority to decide how to resolve conflicts between Host Municipal Agreements and DEP regs, by interpreting which are more strict.
Return to Waste Policy Project homepage

Last modified: 10 January 2002

http://actionpa.org/waste/nov2001alert.html