V *
* ' United States Off ice of Solid Waste July 1982
* . Environmental Protection and Emergency Response SW-956
Agency /" ^ \ \
Solid Waste
A Study of State Fee Systems
for Hazardous Waste Management
Programs
-------
A Study of State Fee Systems For
Hazardous Waste Management Programs
This report (SW-956) was prepared by Fred C. Hart Associates,
Inc., Washington, D.C. under contract 68-01-5133. Publication
does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views
and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of commercial products constitute endorsement by the U.S.
Government.
An environmental protection publication (SW-956) in the solid
waste management series.
-0.5: Environmental Protection Agency
Salons Library (PH2J)
//West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
U.-S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1982
-------
-------
PREFACE
EPA's Office of Solid Waste decided in November, 1981 to undertake a
study to identify alternative methods (besides Federal and State general
revenues) that States are using to fund their waste management programs.
The report displays the results of the study done in close cooperation with
the several State associations listed in the acknowledgements section of
this report.
The use of general revenues to fund solid and hazardous waste manage-
ment programs is clearly the method that is currently preferred by the
States. Only three States were identified that are committed to not using
general revenues. This study's efforts, therefore, are intentionally
focused on the search for other funding alternatives that are being utilized
by the States. Examination of State laws and regulations reveals that "user
fees" is the only other method of funding that is currently being considered
by the States on any widespread basis. This report is accordingly a study
of State waste management programs that engage in the practice of charging
user fees.
Because considerable confusion often surrounds the question of just
what is a "user fee," it is important at the outset of this report to define
terms. This study deals primarily with State user fees that are assessed as
a part of State RCRA hazardous waste regulatory programs. This study does
not examine in detail alternative funding mechanisms for solid (e.g., muni-
cipal) waste regulatory programs. However, the solid waste fees in the
States of New Jersey, Wisconsin and Kentucky are briefly described in each
of the case studies on these States. This report also does not address the
several State "superfund" program fees that are currently being assessed to
pay for the costs of remedial action site clean-up and post-closure care.
It should also be kept in mind that the State RCRA programs are rela-
tively new programs and this includes their associated user fee systems.
The user fee approaches represented in this report should not be accepted
too quickly as representing the final decision of this subject by the State.
Many of the programs that were visited in the study had just recently
changed or were considering future changes. Some States indicated that if
federal grant funding decreased significantly they would need to rethink
their approach towards user fees. Like the rest of the State RCRA programs,
the user fee systems are changing. In sum, this report should be considered
only a "snapshot" of State user fees and not the final word of the subject.
It is important to understand what this report is intended to do and
what it does not do. Its primary goal is to foster an objective exchange of
accurate information between States concerning their experiences in the
pursuit, development and implementation of alternative funding methods for
State solid and hazardous waste regulatory programs. This report contains
the latest knowledge of State initiatives and experiences in the user fee
area. Its distribution to the States is intended to foster informed State
decision-making concerning the feasibility and development of alternative
funding mechanisms.
-------
It is important to understand that this report does not include en-
dorsements of any of the State alternative funding mechanisms presented.
The report also does not provide recommendations as to what constitutes a
"good" or a "bad" approach. In fact, States would be well advised to not
use any of the approaches described within this report without first care-
fully considering the State context in which any approach is currently being
implemented. Requesting funding for program support from the State fund
will continue to be the most feasible approach in many States. Some States
may decide it is simply not advantageous to establish or expand a State user
fee mechanism similar to ones described in this report. It is believed,
though, that this sharing of State experiences will be conducive towards
more informed State decision-making concerning the feasibility of funding
alternatives.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared by Fred C. Hart Associates for the State
Programs Branch of the Office of Solid Waste. The major effort by Fred C.
Hart Associates was conducted by Steven Albert.
This study was conducted under the overall direction of Dan Derkics,
Northern States Program Manager, Office of Solid Waste. Frank McAlister was
the EPA Project Officer on the contract. David O'Brien provided the day-to-
day technical assistance and guidance to the contractor in the conduct of
this study. Richard Hopen and Rick Rutherford of OSW assisted in the con-
duct of the New Jersey and California case studies, respectively. Norman
Willard, EPA Region I, conducted the administrative peer review of this
study for EPA.
We would like to especially thank the following persons and organiza-
tions for their invaluable help during the conduct of this study. In parti-
cular, their guidance and identifying the issues discussed in Chapter 3 must
be acknowledged:
o Mr. David Duncan of the Association of State and Territorial
Solid Waste Management Officials (who also served as an
additional administrative peer reviewer)
o Mr. Richard L. Hanneman of the National Solid Wastes
Management Association
o Mr. H. Lannier Hickman of the Governmental Refuse Collection
and Disposal Association
o Mr. Jonathan H. Steeler of the National Conference of State
Legislatures
Finally, we would like to thank the various officials in State govern-
ments who cooperated in this effort; particularly those visited during
investigation of the seven case studies. The contribution of these offi-
cials in providing or confirming the accuracy of the data presented in this
report is greatly appreciated.
-------
Table of Contents
Preface
Chapter I Executive Summary 1
Introduction 1
Status of State Hazardous Waste
Management Program Fee Implementation 1
Issues 2
Methodology 4
Chapter II Status of State Hazardous Waste 5
Management Program Fee Implementation
Introduction 5
Status of Fee Implementation 5
Types of Fees Implemented and Criteria Used 8
Chapter III Issues 17
Introduction 17
General Issues 17
Implementation Issues 24
Conclusions 30
Chapter IV Case Studies of Seven States Implementing
Hazardous Waste User Fees 31
Introduction 31
Case Study 1 - Ohio 32
Case Study 2 - Lousiana 36
Case Study 3 - Missouri 42
Case Study 4 - Kentucky 46
Case Study 5 - Wisconsin • 49
Case Study 6 - California 54
Case Study 7 - New Jersey 58
Bibliography 63
-------
Appendices
A - NGA/ASTSWMO Survey Questions A-l
B - NGA/ASTSWMO Cover Letter B-l
C - Correlation of Program Size to Fee
Implementation C-l
D - State Fee Mechanism Descriptions 0-1
Arkansas D-l
Hawaii D-3
Indiana D-4
Kansas D-5
Maryland D-7
Massachusetts 0-8
Michigan D-9
New Hampshire D-ll
Oregon D-12
Puerto Rico 0-13
Rhode Island " D-15
Tennessee D-16
West Virginia 0-18
E - State Solid and Hazardous Waste Agencies E-l
List of Tables
Table 1 - Status of Fee Initiatives 6
Table 2 - State Fee Revenues 7
Table 3 - Types of Hazardous Waste Management Program
Fees Currently Being Implemented by the States 9
Table 4 - Facility Fee Criteria 11
Table 5 - Transporter Fee Criteria 14
Table 6 - Generator Fee Criteria 15
Table C-l - Relative State Program Size C-l
List of Figures
Figure 1 General Issues Are Not Associated With
Specific Fee Mechanisms 18
Figure 2 Implementation Issues Are Associated With
Specific Fee Mechanisms 25
Figure 3 Wisconsin Solid Waste Program Fee Schedule 52
Figure C-l Correlation of Program Size to Fee
Implementation C-2
-------
Chapter I - Executive Summary
Introduction
This report presents a review of user fee mechanisms used by States to
fund their hazardous waste regulatory programs. It was prepared for the
Office of Solid Waste of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under
Contract 68-01-5133. The information in the report is based on a review of
State statutes and regulations, a "mail-out" to all the States, and case
study visits to seven States. Fred C. Hart Associates conducted this study
in cooperation with the Associations listed in the acknowledgements section
and under the direction of the Office of Solid Waste. This effort was
undertaken to determine which States have chosen to fund hazardous waste
programs by supplementing or replacing grants or general revenues with fees
levied on the regulated community. The focus of the report is on the State
hazardous waste permitting and inspection programs and not on State super-
fund programs (i.e. long-term care or emergency response).
The reports shows that twenty States actually have begun to implement
fee mechanism for their hazardous waste programs. Six more are in the
process of setting up systems. Another nine are either considering or
actively investigating the feasibility of a fee mechanism. User fees appear
to be a highly acceptable way for States to raise revenue for hazardous
waste programs. At the same time, the survey points up that 17 States have
no fees for their hazardous waste regulatory programs and show no desire to
implement them.
Status of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Fee Implementation
Study of the twenty States with fee systems now in place indicates that
"larger" States (i.e., States with the largest amount of hazardous waste
management activities) tend to implement hazardous waste program fees. Fees
are assessed on generators, transporters or facilities in these States.
o Collection Experience. States collect a wide range of fees.
As a percentage of program costs, the range is from insigni-
ficant amounts to virtually full program funding.
o Facility Fees. Ninety percent (18) of the twenty States
with fees assess facility fees. Six criteria are used to
segment facilities for the purpose of fee assessment:
Base Fees,
Commercial or On/Off-site Status,
Size,
Management Type,
Technology Type, and
Volume or Quantity.
Monitoring and surveillance fees are charged by four States
or 20% of the States with fees.
-1-
-------
Transporter Fees. Seventy percent (14) of the States with
fees assess transporter fees. These are generally charged as
base fees or per vehicle or in some combination.
Generator Fees. Twenty-five percent (5) of the States with
fees assess generator fees. There are three types of gener-
ator fees charged:
Registration,
Waste Generation Charge, and
Tipping Fees.
Issues
Two types of issues are identified in this report. General issues
address the State decision to use fees, their purpose, potential impacts on
State program goals and other matters not tied to specific fee mechanisms.
Implementation issues address the arguments for and against specific fee
mechanisms and their manner of implementation.
General Issues.
o Fee Purpose. Fees may be implemented to raise revenue to
offset program costs. Fees may also be assessed to influence
waste management practices.
o Impact on Program Enforcement. Fees can undermine enforce-
ment by encouraging midnight dumping, by shifting wastes out
of state, or by creating a conflict of interest on the part
of the regulatory agency. Fees may enhance enforcement by
weeding out less capitalized, often more poorly managed
facilities.
o Setting Fee Levels. There are two approaches to setting fee
levels. The "micro" approach determines costs for specific
services and uses these costs to determine fees. The "macro"
approach determines overall program costs and distributes
them in charges to the regulated community. Some States set
a percentage of these costs as the fee basis.
o Full or Partial Program Funding. All State programs with
fees currently receive substantial EPA grant funding. Thus,
no program solely funds all its activities with fees. But
some "fully funded" States offset through fees an amount at
least equal to its matching share of the Federal grant. Fees
in "partially funded" States offset less (and sometimes
insignificant) amounts of the matching share, for example, by
only collecting fees for specific services.
-2-
-------
o Fee Caps. Upper limits to fees may be set by statute.
Legislatures may wish to "cap" fees to control the State
agency or when the fee is considered a tax. Caps may have a
significant impact on the ability to revise the fee levels if
the revision requires statutory change.
o Cash Flow Considerations. The State may be interested in
setting up a fee that either smoothes out payment of fees
over time or clusters payments in one small time period.
Neither system seems to directly affect State agency opera-
tions or use of appropriated funds.
o Tying the Fee to Specific Services. Most fees are presently
tied to specific services, such as the permit application
fee. Generator taxes or tipping fees are less tied to speci-
fic services. The less direct the relationship, the more
complaints from industry concerning the equity of the mechan-
ism.
o Projecting Receipts. Care should be taken in projected fee
receipts. This is sometimes made difficult by policies that
exempt portions of the overall community from fees. Resource
recovery exemptions are a major cause of this problem.
Accordingly, fees can cause changes in waste management
practices in the State which skews projections. This is less
of a problem in states that only seek to recover the costs of
specific services and have programs augmented by general
revenues.
Implementation Issues.
o Equity. This issue arises when the State segments the
hazardous waste community in order to charge it different
fees. Specific equity concerns are raised when on-site vs.
off-site status, tonnage fees vs. surcharges, fixed fees vs.
degree of hazard, and fixed fee vs. percentage issues are
raised in the development of the fee mechanism.
0 Efficiency. This issue is raised when considering costs of
administering the fee mechanism. Different types of fees
impose different costs in collecting revenues and verifying
accuracy of fees paid. The ability to revise fee mechanisms
may also vary greatly from having to amend the statute to
including changes in the budgetary process. Some fee mechan-
isms encourage prompt payment, others- result in chronic late
payment. Certain fee mechanisms even enable some non-payment
by those against which a fee is actually levied.
o Public Participation. Some States utilize industry task
forces and workgroups to plan/develop/review fee mechanisms.
Others rely solely on the legislative or rulemaking processes
to get comment from the public and interested parties. There
is some concern that if the fees are determined to be taxes,
then a very lengthy public participation process will ensue.
-3-
-------
Methodology
This study was begun in December, 1981. The first step was to review
standard reference materials which compile State statutes and regulations.
This review focused on hazardous waste authorities but also included solid
waste, land use, siting and general environmental laws and regulations.
This was done to identify any fee mechanism that would be assessed on the
hazardous waste community and provided a first cut at identifying those
states levying fees.
The second step updated this material by reviewing State applications
for interim authorization submitted to the State Programs Branch of the
Office of Solid Waste, and the files of the National Solid Wastes Management
Association (NSWMA). This resulted in the identification of several more
statutes and regulations.
These data have been confirmed through a nationwide follow-up survey of
all of the States by the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste
Management Officials. This effort verified the previously collected data.
Finally, seven case studies were developed. Implementing States were
chosen on the basis of unique aspects of their fee systems and experience in
collecting significant fee revenues. These states were visited by either
the contractor or EPA personnel. Data were collected on the following
aspects of the fee programs in Ohio, Louisiana, Missouri, Kentucky,
Wisconsin, California and New Jersey:
o Enabling Authority,
o Program Description,
o Description of the Fee Mechanism,
o Background in Development of the Fee Mechanism,
o Administrative Experience, and
o Summary of Program Highlights.
-4-
-------
Chapter II - Status of State Hazardous Waste Program
Fee Implementation
Introduction
This chapter provides a national summary of the status of State imple-
mentation of user fee mechanisms as part of their hazardous waste management
regulatory control programs. It is divided into two sections: Section I
reports generally on the status of State fee mechanism implementation.
Section II provides a brief analysis of the types of hazardous waste fee
mechanisms now being implemented in the States and the criteria used for
setting fee levels. A detailed description of each State fee system is
provided in the Case Studies (Chapter IV) or in Appendix D.
Where possible the national summary data is presented in a tabular
format. This information should provide a useful perspective to State
decision-makers considering new fee mechanisms or modification of the exist-
ing mechanisms in their States. The tables emphasize the identity of all
fee types and their frequency of use in the States.
Status of Fee Implementation
(1) State Fee Initiatives. In addition to the review of State regu-
latory authorities and seven on-site State visits, data were solicited in a
March, 1982 survey of all the States by the National Governor's Association
(NGA) and the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management
Officials (ASTSWMO). Forty-six States and Territories responded to this
NGA/ASTSWMO survey. All States with hazardous waste fee systems also veri-
fied the information contained in Appendix D of this report. Table 1 is
based on the above data sources and provides a national summary of the
status of the development of State hazardous waste fee mechanisms.
As can be seen in Table 1, page 6, in the near future 26 States and
Territories will be using fees with their hazardous waste programs. Twenty
(20) States and Territories have fees in place. Six (6) are in the process
of developing fee programs or are actually drafting necessary regulations.
Another eleven (11) States are either considering (debating or thinking
about) fees or are actively investigating the feasibility of a fee system.
Seventeen (17) States do not have fee systems for their hazardous waste
regulatory programs and indicated (in. the NGA/ ASTSWMO survey) that they
would not be considered.
(2) State Fee Revenues. Data on fee revenues projected for FY82 are
presented in Table 2, page 7. It is clear from the data that fee revenues
represent widely varying percentages of hazardous waste management program
needs.
Three States collect sufficient revenues to fully recover their mat-
ching share of the Federal hazardous waste program grant. Three other
States collect very small or insignificant portions of their matching share.
-5-
-------
Table 1
STATUS OF FEE INITIATIVES
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Fee
Systems?
No
No
No data
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Comments
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
Revisions proposed New Mexico
Reg. being drafted New York
Under Consideration No. Carolina
System under dev. North Dakota
N. Marianas
System under dev. Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Under investigation Puerto Rico
Under consideration Rhode Island
Expansion under consid. So. Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Revisions underway Virgin Islands
Some fees to be phased out Washington
Under consideration W. Virginia
"Wisconsin
Wyoming
Fee
Systems? Comments
No Expect to
No Under investigation
No System under dev.
Yes
Yes
No System under dev.
No
No
No Under investigation
No
Yes
No
Yes
No System under dev.
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No Agency trying to get
authorization
No
No Under investigation
No data
No May consider next yr.
Yes
Yes
No
Source: NGA/ASTSWMO Survey (March 1982)
-6-
-------
Table 2
STATE FEE REVENUES
(As of April 1. 1982)
Arkanasas
California
Hawaii
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Missouri
New Hampshire
New Jersey
Ohio
Oregon
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
Tennessee
West Virginia
Wisconsin
FY 82 Hazardous Waste
Program Budget
Total
$ 347.669
7.686.012
97.500
1.172.587
504,100
872.883
2,000.000
564.000
1,547.000
2,277,664
797,082
531 ,000
1,981,929
3,123,540
599.285
720,302
271.884
1,839,000
792.000
1,055,300
•Data Not Available
State Share
$ 65.777
4,384.628
15.000
293.147
135,000
149.805
960,000
300.000
803,000
569,632
147,082
325,000
740.520
953.592
127.211
233,827
235,000
768,000
198,000
263.843
FY 82 RCRA Hazardous Waste Program Fees
Revenue
Collected
$ 20.000
4,384,628'
Very Minor
Not Collected Yet
80.000
87,000*
900,000
300,000
18,000
*
208.100
*
200.0003
558,000*
76,128
Insignificant
Not Collected Yet
495.0004
*
70,000s
As a % of
Total
Program Budget
6%
57
Very Minor
0
16
10
45
53
1
*
26
*
*
18
13
Insignificant
0
27
*
7
As a % of
State
Matching Share
30%
100
Very Minor
0
59
58
94
100
2
*
100
*
*
59
60
Insignificant
0
64
*
27
Notes
1 Agency budget proposed for next fiscal year includes expected fee revenue of $7.8 million. See Case Study.
2 Annualized estimate based on Case Study analysis.
Includes solid waste fee revenue.
No fees collected yet. This is the expected revenue for the fiscal year with collections starting in April 1982.
In FY 83 the portion funded by fees is expected to increase to 40% of total program funding.
5 No fees collected yet. Expected yearly hazardous waste revenues.
Sources: NGA/ASTSWMO Survey, March 1982
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Individual States
-7-
-------
With respect to total program costs, three States recover more than
50%. Seven States recover 10% or less of total program costs. Four States
had not collected any revenues as of April 1, 1982 though two were able to
provide revenue estimates for FY82.
(3) State Fee Implementation. Table 3, page 9 summarizes the types
of fee mechanisms that are in place in the twenty States that have fees.
The columns of the table describe the general types of fees being imple-
mented and each of them is discussed in more detail following the tables.
As displayed in the table, facility fees (the first 4 columns) are by
far the most popular with eighteen of the twenty States implementing them.
Fourteen States charge transporter fees. These fees include general charges
on a firm-by-firm basis as well as per vehicle charges. Twelve State pro-
grams charge permit renewal fees.* Five States directly charge generators
or charge generators a "tipping" fee collected by a facility operator and
forwarded to the State. Three States charge monitoring and surveillance
fees for inspections related to permit application reviews or related to an
on-going facility monitoring program. Three states charge other types of
fees.
It is important to note that no state charges all the fee types.
However, Arkansas assesses six fee types and Missouri and Puerto Rico assess
four each. The most common mixture of fee combinations (five states) is:
permit application, permit/license renewal and transporter fees.
Types of Fees Implemented and Criteria Used
(1) Facility Fees. Table 3 showed what types of fees are currently
being charged in the states. They were classified primarily according to
what portion of the regulated community is being assessed the fee. The
first 4 columns in Table 3 represent the types of state fees charged to
hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal (TSD) facilities and are
broadly described as follows:
o Permit Application/Facility Construction - The assessment and
collection of these fees are typically tied to the issuance
of State permitting/approval of TSD facilities. Conceptual-
ly, these fees can be seen to fully or partially reimburse
the State for costs incurred from services provided during
the permit review or construction approval process.
o Permit Modification Fee - As. the name suggests this type of
fee is assessed for modifications in the permit requested by
the permittee. The fee would fully or partially reimburse
the State for processing the modification.
*This number is somewhat misleading. Many states have annual permits and
therefore do not need to specify permit renewal fees.
-8-
-------
Table 3
TYPES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FEES
CURRENTLY BEING IMPLEMENTED BY THE STATES
State
1. Arkansas
2. California
3. Hawaii
4. Indiana
5. Kansas
6. Kentucky
7. Louisiana
8. Maryland
10. Michigan
11. Missouri
12. New Hampshire
13. New Jersey
14. Ohio
15. Oregon
16. Puerto Rico
17. Rhode Island
18. Tennessee
19. West Virginia
20. Wisconsin
FACILITY FEES
Permit
Permit Renewal
Application/ or Annual Permit Monitoring
Facility Operating Modification Surveillance
Construction Fees Fee Fee
X X X X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
XXX
X X
X X
X X
X X
18 12 3 4
•mANSPOMTEII
FEES
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
14
GENERATOR FEES
Waste
Tipping Generation
Fee Registration Fee
X
X
X X
X
3 1 1
OTHER
FEES
X
X
X
3
Source: Fred C. Hart Associates. June 1982
-9-
-------
o Renewal Fee or Annual Operating Fee - These fees reimburse
the State for activities associated with deciding to renew a
permit or reissue an operating license. They are usually set
lower than the permit application/facility construction fees.
o Monitoring/Surveillance Fee - These fees reimburse the State
for inspections or monitoring activities. They may be for
site evaluation prior to permit issuance or for compliance
monitoring.
The States are now using six criteria to establish the amount of fees
charged under the different types of facility fee mechanisms:
Base Fee,
Commercial or On/Off-Site Status,
Size,
Management Type,
Technical Type, and
Volume or Quantity.
Table 4, page 11 provides a tabulation of the usage of these fee-setting
criteria in the States that charge facility fees. The following discussion
describes each of these facility fee-setting criteria in more detail.
Base Fees. Twelve States charge a facility fee that is based on
this criterion. The fee itself may be called a permit application
fee (Maryland), site fees (Lousiana), filing fees (Puerto Rico) or
some other name. However, the fee levels established under this
criterion are minimum charges for permit application submittal.
All States utilizing a facility fee mechanism at least charge this
fee amount. It may be the only charge (Hawaii) or a base amount
which other charges based on other criteria are added (Louisiana
and Puerto Rico). No State uses the base fee and management type
criteria together.
Commercial or On/Off-Site Status. Seven States use this criter-
ion to establish fee levels. One approach is to define facilities
as either commercial or non-commercial. This allows the State to
make a distinction between generator-owned and commercial off-site
facilities. Generator-owned, off-site facilities which accept
wastes from other generators are considered commercial facilities.
Five States use the criterion in this manner. Another approach is
to define facilities as on-site or off-site. Three States use
this criterion in this fashion (Louisiana, Ohio, and Puerto Rico).
In States where surcharges are levied, such as Ohio, off-site
means commercial facilities only. This fee can only be levied at
facilities where the generators are charged a fee for waste dis-
posal. This would not happen at a generator-owned, off-site dis-
posal facility.
-10-
-------
Table 4
FACILITY FEE CRITERIA
State
1. Arkansas
2. Hawaii
3. Kansas
4. Kentucky
5. Louisiana
6. Maryland
7. Massachusetts
8. Michigan
9. Missouri
10. New Hampshire
11. New Jersey
12. Ohio
13. Oregon
14. Puerto Rico
15. Rhode Island
16. Tennessee
17. West Virginia
1 8. Wisconsin
Number Implementing
Base Fee
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
12
Commercial or
On/Off-Site
Status
X
K
X
X
X
X
6
Size
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
7
Management
Type
X
X
X
X
X
5
Technology
Type
X
X
X
X
X
X
6
Volume or
Quantity
X
X
X
3
Source: Fred C. Hart Associates, June 1982
-n-
-------
Size. This criterion is also used by seven States to establish
facility fee levels; primarily based on size in acres. New Jersey
and West Virginia define size based on "major" and "minor" facil-
ity classifications. West Virginia establishes fee levels for
both classifications and New Jersey assesses a receipts tax on
major facilities only. Louisiana uses the size criterion most
extensively, levying fees based on site size, numbers of facili-
ties, and volume of waste handled. Kentucky indirectly includes
the size criterion by requiring individual permits for each facil-
ity on the site.
Management Type. Five of the eighteen States with facility fees
use this criterion to establish the fee amount. This criterion
distinguishes facility fee levels by the broad "qualitative"
categories of: treatment, storage, disposal, and reuse/recycle.
Different states use one or up to all of the categories. The
storage category is more often exempted, the treatment category is
exempted less often. Land disposal is always used when only one
or a few categories are used. No State under this criterion
further subcategorizes fee assessments according to the specific
type of technology used at the facility. Again, no State uses
both the base fee and management type criteria.
Technology Type. Six States use this criterion in establishing
facility fee levels. It ties into the particular management
technology used at the facility: e.g., landfills, deep well in-
jection, land application, incineration, surface impoundment. It
is used together with the management criterion only in Ohio; there
it is set up to require only land disposal facility fees. State
fee levels established using this criterion are different for
landfills and deep wells. Michigan sets technology type fee
levels based on the types of waste emissions (air, surface water
or groundwater) expected. Puerto Rico utilizes this criterion the
most, distinguishing fee levels based on such technologies as
biological treatment, thermal treatment, pyrolysis and others. It
should be noted that together, management or technology type
criteria are used by eleven states. This makes segmentation by
the kind of waste management activity the second most prevalent
type of fee setting criterion.
Volume or Quantity. Three States use waste volume or quantity
for determining fee level. Michigan uses projected waste quanti-
ties, Louisiana uses actual quantities disposed and Puerto Rico
uses facility capacity to set some of their fees. Michigan and
Puerto Rico charge fees before facility operation, based on pro-
jections in facility plans. Louisiana uses actual disposal
records in establishing fee levels in the annual facility main-
tenance permit.
(2) Transporter Fees. Fourteen States levy fees on transporters.
This makes transporter fees the second most popular fee type. Four criteria
were identified:
-12-
-------
Base Fees;
Per Vehicle Fees;
Inspection; and
Quantity of Waste Transported.
Table 5, page 14, provides a tabulation of this data. The following discus-
sion provides more detail on the transporter fees criteria.
Per Vehicle Fees. Nine States utilize this criterion, making it
the most prevalent. Using this criterion, the State assesses a
charge on each vehicle used to transport hazardous waste. Six
States simply charge each available vehicle regardless of what
portion of the vehicle's annual load is hazardous waste. Two
States, Michigan and Missouri, have modified the criterion and
assess fees based on the effective number of vehicles in a trans-
porter's fleet that carry hazardous waste. In other words, if
one-half of a vehicle's annual load is hazardous waste, it is
counted as h vehicle in the fee assessment. These States' trans-
porter industries have significant numbers of large common carrier
fleets and hazardous waste transport is a small part of any one
vehicle's load over the year.
Base Fees. Eight States utilize this criterion. Base fees are
charged to each transportation firm and are independent of the
number of vehicles used. Five of the States, Arkansas, Kansas,
New Hampshire, Wisconsin and Puerto Rico use only this criterion.
Other Basis. Two States utilize other criteria to assess trans-
porter fees. Tennessee levies its fee on the quantity of wastes
carried by the transporter. California levies its fee for annual
inspections of vehicles which are required for certification.
Other Considerations. Transporter registration is not always
handled by the hazardous waste agency. It is often the responsi-
bility of the agency that normally handles vehicle registrations:
a Division of Motor Vehicles, or Public Safety or Public Utility
Commission. For example, California's Highway Patrol administers
that State's inspection fee.
(3) Generator Fees. The survey identified four States which utilize
generator fees: California, Kentucky, Missouri and Ohio. These States use
three different types of fees. Generator fee data appear in Table 6,
page 15.
Tipping Fees. Tipping fees are .charges assessed at the off-site
facility which are paid by the generator. The facility collects
the fees "as a trustee of the State" and forwards the receipts to
the State agency. In Ohio a surcharge is added onto the genera-
tor's bill. In California a charge is levied on the off-site
facility based on tonnage received, but the statute is clear that
it expects this to be passed on directly to the generator. Tip-
ping fees are very popular in solid waste programs but apparently
are not as popular in hazardous waste programs.
-13-
-------
Table 5
TRANSPORTER FEE CRITERIA
State
1. Arkansas
2. California
a Indiana
4. Kansas
5. Massachusetts
fx Michigan
7. Missouri
8. New Hampshire
9. New Jersey
10. Ohio
11. Puerto Rico
12. Rhode Island
13. Tennessee
14. Wisconsin
Number Implementing
Per Vehicle
Charge
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
9
Base Fee
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8
Other Basis
Inspection
Quantity of Waste
Transported
2
Source: Fred C. Hart Associates, June 1982
-14-
-------
Table 6
GENERATOR FEE CRITIERIA
State
1. California
2. Kentucky
3. Missouri
4. Ohio
Number Implementing
Tipping
Fee
X
X
X
3
Registration
X
1
Waste
Generation
Fee
X
1
Source: Fred C. Hart Associates, June 1982
-15-
-------
Registration Fees. Kentucky requires generators to pay an annual
registration fee based on the amount of hazardous waste to be
generated. Beside generating revenue, this type of charge can
provide reasonably accurate data on waste generation in a state.
Such information helps with receipt projections from other fees as
well as other aspects of the program.
Waste Generation Fee. This type of fee is a tax on hazardous
waste generation. It is assessed directly on the generator.
Missouri sets a one dollar per ton charge with a maximum annual
assessment of $10,000.
(4) Other Fees. Indiana and Puerto Rico assess other fees as well.
Indiana assesses a fee for training. Receipts are used to train local
government personnel in the skills and knowledge it is necessary to have
when a disposal facility is in the jursidiction. The training includes
emergency response, clean-up, safety considerations and other matters.
Puerto Rico charges fees for lost permits, duplicate permits, testing and
ownership transfer. Arkansas requires the use of State-issued manifest
forms for wastes managed within the State. A $2.00 fee per form is charged.
-16-
-------
Chapter III
Issues
Introduction
Two types of issues are identified in this report. General issues
address the State decision to use fees, their purpose, potential impacts on
State program goals and other matters not. tied to specific fee mechanisms.
Implementation issues address the arguments for and against specific fee
mechanisms and the manner of implementation of these mechanisms.
General Issues
This section introduces many of the factors that influence the decision
to utilize the fees approach in a State. The factors are not tied to speci-
fic types of fees (see Figure 1, page 18). This section does not provide a
model or guidance on how to go about making the fees/no-fees decision but
rather describes some of the broader policy issues that may impact such
decision-making (e.g., the purposes of fees in general). Knowledge of these
issues is also essential to get a better understanding of the policy deci-
sions and distinctions being drawn regarding the State fee mechanisms that
are reported in Chapter IV and in Appendix D.
(1) State Experience With Fees. An important factor in considering
the broad question of whether to use hazardous waste management fees is the
State's experience with other environmental fees. The question of whether
the hazardous waste program is the first environmental program to implement
a fee mechanism in the State appears to be significant. Based on a compari-
son with data presented in OSW's 1979 study entitled: "USER FEES: A State
Regulation Survey," approximately 75% of the 29 states represented in the
present report as developing hazardous waste fee mechanisms already had one
or more fees in air or water pollution control programs in 1979. This data
suggests that the existence of another environmental fee mechanism in the
State impacts favorably upon consideration of whether to develop hazardous
waste fees. This implies that it is important to take note of the State's
philosophy about and experience and knowledge with other fees (or lack of
it) during consideration of the question of hazardous waste management
program fees. For example, lack of State experience with fees in these
other programs might indicate a need for more careful study and the educa-
tion of key State decision-makers before a decision to develop hazardous
waste fees could be made.
(2) Fee Purpose. Two purposes for fee mechanisms were identified in
this study. One purpose is to provide funds for the regulatory program.
The second purpose is to implement policy or influence practices in the
regulated community.
-17-
-------
00
I
CO
(M
CO
o>
a
c
«
'3
o
I
U
•a
a
O
V)
-------
To Provide Funding. The most commonly understood purpose of a fee
approach is to provide revenues to the State program. When considering the
fees question a State must first address whether it should utilize them (and
to what level) to replace or supplement general revenue funding. In gen-
eral, the survey and case studies found that each State has its own philo-
sophy concerning the use of fees in the funding of its hazardous waste
program.
On one hand it can be argued that a hazardous waste program benefits
all of the State's citizens and industry and therefore all should pay for it
through appropriations from general fund revenues. This is a position that
has been argued in Texas, for example. The counter argument is "the pol-
luter should pay" and fees, therefore, should be assessed to recover the
cost of the program's" service to the regulated community. They further
point out that economic theory tells us that the cost of the fee will be
passed back to the consumer of the goods, the manufacturer of which gener-
ated the waste, and ultimately to consumers of his goods and services so
that all who benefit from the goods pay their shares. Each State has its
own philosophy on this matter.
Another funding purpose of a fee can be to gather revenues from hazard-
ous waste sources which are normally outside of the State's taxing author-
ity. Noting the highly transportable nature of hazardous waste, charging a
"tipping fee" (a charge assessed at the point of disposal) for out-of-state
wastes has been seen by States as a method to pass back to out-of-state
generators the State's costs for maintaining a regulatory program to control
those wastes.
This purpose of a fee mechanism was explained in recent testimony in
New Jersey for a tipping fee. Almost half (40%) of the solid and hazardous
waste disposed of in New Jersey is generated elsewhere and shipped into the
State for disposal. The State attempted to ban importation of wastes but
this ban was overturned by the Supreme Court. The purpose of a tipping fee
was therefore identified to fund that "portion" of the program regulating
the wastes of the out-of-state generators who do not contribute to the New
Jersey general fund through corporate taxes. The levying of tipping fees
was argued in this case as offering an appropriate mechanism to tax those
out-of-state generators whose wastes were controlled by the in-state regula-
tory program.
To Influence Waste Management Practices. Another major purpose of
levying fees is to stimulate certain directions and developments in waste
management practices and technologies. Imposition of fees can encourage
certain management practices. Through the levy of a smaller fee or no fee
at all, hazardous waste treatment or resource recovery practices can be made
more economically attractive in comparison to other management techniques
(e.g. disposal of hazardous waste in landfills) if these other practices are
charged a higher fee by the State. Missouri is an example of one of several
"fee States" not requiring a fee of hazardous waste resource recovery oper-
ations as an incentive to encourage such practices.
Other States appear to be exempting or charging lower fees to genera-
tors managing their own hazardous wastes on-site. One purpose of this fee
approach may be to encourage generators to assume full responsibility for
managing their own waste streams on-site.
-19-
-------
Conversely, another purpose of a fees approach can be to provide a
disincentive and thereby diminish certain hazardous waste management prac-
tices. Charging fees and setting them at high levels can make land disposal
of hazardous waste a much less attractive technology option in the State.
This is the approach being used in California. Fees might also provide a
sufficient disincentive to cause manufacturing processes to be changed so
that they reduce or eliminate the generation of the hazardous waste.
Careful consideration should be given to intentionally imposing a fee
mechanism in order to provide an incentive that would impact certain waste
management practices. It is possible that the use of fees could have unin-
tended effects. For example, a fee approach designed to encourage on-site
management (e.g., a high fee being charged to off-site commercial facili-
ties) might also cause an unintended impact on small businesses since they
often utilize the off-site commercial sites. Small business may not gener-
ate enough waste to economically manage the waste on-site.
The use of fees could also encourage a migration of wastes out of the
State to a non-fee State. Charging no fee might encourage the in-migration
of wastes from a neighboring fee State. At least one State was reported to
have withdrawn a proposed fee from consideration because of the disruptive
effects that were believed might result in the State's commercial hazardous
waste industry because of the expected out-migration of wastes to a non-fee
neighboring state.
One final cautionary remark should be made concerning the use of fees
as disincentives for certain hazardous waste management practices. Too
great a fee disincentive might eventually result in the relocation of in-
dustry to a non-fee State rather than an expected change in management
practices. The use of hazardous waste fees is too new to produce any evi-
dence of such decisions on the part of industry.
(3) Impacts on Program Enforcement. An important consideration with
fees is whether they are used to undermine or support the program's enforce-
ment process. There is a variety of opinion on this subject that should be
considered.
Officials in one State expressed concern that use of a fee mechanism
might work counter to a program's regulatory enforcement goals by encourag-
ing operators to find ways (both legal and illegal) to get out of the regu-
latory system to avoid the fees. Fees are accordingly seen as an additional
incentive for "midnight dumping." The only response to these concerns is
that the States with fees in place did not mention this result to be actual-
ly occurring.
Another consideration concerning a fee mechanism is how it may create a
conflict-of-interest for the enforcement program. Fees are argued by some
to undercut a program's independent regulatory role because the fees "pay
the salaries of the regulators," (i.e., the program may not be likely to
bite the hand that feeds it). The opposing view to these concerns is the
programs now charging fees do not receive the funds directly and still
remain accountable to the legislature.
-20-
-------
Finally, fees are also considered to be supportive of enforcement
purposes in some States. Industry spokesmen in one State expressed support
of the State's high fee levels as a screen to keep "unqualified operators
out of the business." This State's high permit fees for commercial facili-
ties are seen to assure that the only applicants that would apply for per-
mits in the State are those capable of paying the fee and meeting the regu-
latory requirements. The lower fees for on-site facilities are also seen to
be supportive of an enforcement stance that these facilities have caused few
"problems" in the past.
(4) Full or Partial Program Funding. An initial concern in imple-
menting a fee mechanism is whether to fully or partially fund the program
with them. Both options are now being utilized in the States. The partial
funding approach is currently being utilized by most States to simply sup-
plement the general revenue fund. While some States have a mandate to fully
fund their hazardous waste programs through fees, none of them currently
fund the total program using only fees because they continue to accept
federal program grants and, in some cases, use State general fund "seed"
money (see the Louisiana, California and Ohio case studies in this report).
As would be expected, fee levels are generally higher in these "fully funded
States" (i.e., those that fund the entire 25% Federal grant matching
requirement through fees) than partially funded ones.
States which only attempt to partially fund their program using fees
generally pick specific services be funded. The usual choice is the licen-
sing/registration or permit review function. Inspections are another popu-
lar choice, but these inspections are tied to permit issuance and not com-
pliance monitoring.
(5) Setting Fee Levels. Setting the fee level may be approached two
ways. There is the "micro" approach which seeks to get an accurate account-
ing of the level of effort necessary to carry out a specific activity
through tracking and auditing. 'This level of effort can be translated into
a cost. This cost can then become the fee value, or it can be added to
other costs which are to be recovered to determine the fee.
The second approach is a more global, "macro" approach. Here an
agency's history, estimates of program size, budget projections some similar
analysis leads to an overall program cost. The fee is determined by distri-
buting the cost among the regulated community.
The "micro" approach is usually used for partially funded programs,
though full program costs can be determined this way. The "macro" approach
appears to be used more frequently with fully funded programs, though it
could be applied to segments of the program.
(6) Fee Caps. Some states have bounded the funding purpose of the
fee by establishing a "cap" in the State statute which sets a limit upon the
fee levels that can be charged.
The use of caps, much like the issue of partial or full funding, is
largely a function of State philosophy and experience. Caps are used by the
legislature to keep control on the state agency. Inasmuch as fees are
perceived to be taxes, the legislature asserts this control as a matter its
-21-
-------
right to tax. The cap may also be a method to gain acceptance by industry.
This explicit assertion of legislative control and oversight may assuage
industry concerns of an overzealous State agency charging punitive fees.
The impact of caps can vary and is highly dependent on the type of fee
mechanism in the State. In a partially funded system there may be little
impact. If revenue needs begin to exceed the cap, the agency can request
increases from the general revenue fund in its budget submission. Or, the
State may choose to establish caps on some fees while others have none.
Missouri is an example of the latter approach. The State has caps on gener-
ator and transporter fees but can directly bill the permit applicant for
the time spent on engineering and geological review, often the most time-
consuming, and therefore most costly, part of the application review.
A fully funded State could face significant problems with a statutory
cap. A State agency may repeatedly have to go to the legislature for fee
increases. If legislative intent remains consistent, this may not be a big
problem. But, as noted above, no State is currently fully funding its
program with fees. If federal program grants decrease rapidly, such a State
agency fully funded by fees may have to return to the legislature much
sooner than either expected.
(7) Cash Flow Considerations. A common misconception about fees is
that they are used to directly fund State programs and provide an assured
source and continuous flow of funds to the State regulatory program. Also,
the purpose of fees is suspected to be attempts by the program to get around
the normal budget cycle. Fees are often outside the legislature's appropri-
ations process, i.e., an "off-budget" item.
Review of the administration of the fees the case study States has
shown this not to be a major consideration at the agency level. In no
States are the funds directly accessible for use. After collection and
processing, they are deposited into either the general revenue fund or a
special earmarked account. An agency simply draws down its appropriations
with no particular concern about the source.
The State, perhaps its treasury, may have specific needs or desires
regarding the flow of fee revenues. It was not voiced as a concern by
anyone in the hazardous waste agencies or legislatures that were contacted
for purposes of this report. It is not clear that this becomes an issue
even in "fully funded" fee States because, so far, these programs have had
federal program grants and general revenue seed money to augment the fees.
In practice, States with a monthly income from waste tonnage fees, such as
California, did not appear to face different cash flow problems than a
State, such as Wisconsin, that collects revenues at one time each year.
To understand the cash flow process of the fees it is important to know
that currently States apply the fee revenues to the agency budget in three
ways. One approach is to deposit the revenue into an earmarked fund and
draw it down in the current year. Fee revenues are then considered a part
of the current year operating revenues. Another approach, similar in appli-
cation, is to deposit the receipts in the general fund to offset current
appropriations. Finally, some States take no account of the fee projections
-22-
-------
in their budget. Revenue is deposited in the general fund. The previous
year's receipts are then used as an unofficial justification for budget
approval, but there is no explicit offset.
(8) Tying The Fee to Specific Services. The relationship between the
fee and the service it funds can be a major consideration in the examination
of a fee approach.
As shown in Chapter 2 of this report, the most utilized fee mechanism
is the permit/application fee. The States appear to accept this fee ap-
proach as off-setting some of the costs of running the permitting aspect of
the program. Less frequently used are tipping fees or waste generation
taxes. These mechanisms are not tied directly to an activity or service and
are met with stiffer industry opposition. This debate is going on in one
State now. Industry is fighting a surcharge because it feels that it is a
tax and not tied to specific State services. It feels it is the type of tax
that leads to a growing regulatory bureaucracy. Industry appears to be in
favor of establishing permit application fees. The State may reject the
application fee concept because adequate revenue may not be generated.
In considering a fee approach, a rule of thumb that can be followed is
that industry opposition to the fee appears to increase as the regulatory
services derived by the industry from fee payment become more difficult to
perceive. Such opposition may exist even though all fees may be deposited
in the general fund. This may be the major reason why hazardous waste fees
are often tied directly to program activities: to identify the fee as
paying for the service provided by the regulatory agency.
(9) Projecting Receipts. Obtaining accurate projections can be a
difficult business. As explained earlier, imposition of a fee might encour-
age more recycling or the migration of wastes out-of-state. Fee projections
based on waste generation estimates are therefore subject to change. An
accurate assessment of these affects needs to be factored into the projec-
tion. There are several sources of error which may lead to overestimating
receipts:
exclusion of "small" generators from hazardous waste regula-
tory controls;
resource recovery exemptions (applied to generators that ship
wastes to these facilities);
various facility exemptions;
hazardous waste "delisting" petitions (exclusion of certain
wastes at specific sites from regulation as hazardous waste);
non-payment due to loopholes; and
poor data.
Underestimating is not usually a problem. Also, as has been mentioned
previously, the projection problem is less critical for States that partial-
ly fund or that tie receipts to specific services. In these cases, the
general appropriation serves as a buffer.
-23-
-------
Revenue projections are the weakest for fees based on waste generation
rates or volumes. Few of the States have enough experience with fees to
have gone through enough iterations of projections to be comfortable that
they accurately know who pays and how much. Another potential problem with
projecting revenues from this kind of fee is that it is tied very closely to
a firm's output. That output may fluctuate significantly over the economy/
business cycle. A State must fund its program even in recession years when
receipts could decrease dramatically. The best advice to States just start-
ing out is to be conservative in its projection of revenues.
Implementation Issues
This section describes the factors that appear to guide the choice of
implementing different types of fee mechanisms. This section does not
provide a model fee system because, as was seen in the previous section,
States have different reasons for developing their fee mechanisms. This
section is intended to identify the issues and arguments that appear to
arise when setting up a fee mechanism (see Figure 2, page 25).
(1) Equity. A review of the case studies in Chapter IV and data
sheets in Appendix D show that there are many ways to segment the hazardous
waste community for purposes of fee assessment. First, of course, there are
generators, transporters and management facilities. But generators may be
in-state or out-of-state. Transporters may be contract carriers or owned by
the generator or facility. Waste may be handled on-site or off-site.
Facilities may be commercial or non-commercial. Facilities may treat,
store, dispose or combine activities. They may be large or small.
The States have attempted to characterize their hazardous waste commun-
ities in various ways in order to charge different fees to different seg-
ments. Whether a particular segment pays its fair share is an equity issue.
While every one can agree that, in theory, the various segments impose
different costs on the environment, the agency and the public, the actual
differentials are rarely agreed on easily.
Equity issues also arise when trying to determine the type of fee (ton-
nage charge vs. surcharge, for example). Here the debate focuses on the
fairness of the type of assessment (e.g., are large firms penalized or
subsidized?) and not as much on different fee assessments for the various
•industry segments. The following discussion highlights the equity arguments
used on both sides of several of the key fee distinctions.
When discussing issues of equity one must always keep the program
purpose in mind. The equity issue is" a primary concern if the goal is to
recover costs. In this case, an agency must make a good faith effort to set
fees that reflect costs as accurately as possible. If the fees are meant to
drive some policy or regulatory purpose, equity may be irrelevant. If the
State decides to discourage disposal, it may do so by placing a fee only on
disposal and exempting treatment, storage and recyling. It may charge fees
for all activities, but charge disposal facilities more. Equity in fee
levels is not the issue in this case, the purpose of the public policy is.
-24-
-------
2 *-
V)
CO
<
oil
CO
Ul Ul
DUI
CO U.
O
52 5
-I 0.
§ o
a. P
oc
a
jd S o
8 5 5,
-2
S E
s i
CM
Zu.
25
ZX
UJ l_
15
o
o
CO
00
Ul
3
52
O
5
z
Ul
S
Ul
_i
0.
5
U
Ul
0
u.
UL
Ul
**
A S
2 E
z >
e?
c
i 8
!3 ** •»
< °~
« "
'S s
£°
I
un
CM
i
— W • M V
a> e. M C a*
.£ u. > g u.
u. "
<2
S "2
I o 3
O
ai
CO
.2
'u
o
o
•o
u
=
O
Ui
-------
On-site vs. Off-site Facilities. This is by far the "hottest" topic
in any debate on fees. The case for classifying facilities by these two
types of categories is that off-site facilities are often more complex and
the need for transportation to the site increases the risk of spills or
accidents. It is also argued that the generator, by virtue of wanting to
stay in business, will not want to live with poor waste management at the
place of business and that unions, if they are present, would not allow poor
waste management either. Therefore, management on-site should be charged
less, as it will impose fewer costs on the State regulatory agency.
Those against this fee classification counter each of these arguments.
First it is argued that on-site facilities are often as complex as off-site
facilities. The simplest manufacturing facility often generates many
wastes. Transportation may be needed on-site to get from the waste genera-
tion point to the disposal site. In States that define any generator-owned
facility as "on-site," transportation risks are identical. Actually, here
the issue is usually commercial vs. noncommercial status with the former
type of site usually paying higher fees. Another argument is that higher
off-site fees cause a greater impact on small firms which are less likely to
manage their waste on-site. Opponents of this approach also point out that
only 2% of all hazardous shipments are "wastes" subject to EPA regulation
under RCRA with the rest being "hazardous materials" subject to regulation
by the Department of Transportation. In sum, it is argued, that the envi-
ronmental impacts and risks of management of hazardous wastes on-site and
off-site are identical.
On a more practical level, those in favor of different fee levels argue
that the inevitable public reaction to any off-site facility results in more
extensive permit reviews, more frequent and lengthier hearings, and more
opportunity for ensuing litigation. Proponents argue that these costs ought
to be recovered in higher fees. Those opposed may argue that off-site
facilities should not be burdened by paying for the public's fears, miscon-
ceptions, etc.
This issue may ultimately hinge on the relative political power of the
two sides. Generators are manufacturers: a source of significant tax rev-
enue and employment. The off-site commercial facility industry does not
have this leverage. Whatever the relative merits of the arguments above,
off-site facilities often pay more.
Tonnage Fees vs. Surcharge. Tonnage or volume fees are assessed on
either generators or facilities. Surcharges are assessed on facilities or
are collected by facilities from generators as part of the firm's normal
billing process. Surcharge receipts are forwarded to the appropriate State
agency. In general, the disposal industry prefers the tonnage or volume
charge. It is felt that this method more accurately captures the costs of
disposal. Surcharges are not preferred by industry based on the belief that
it stifles innovation: more expensive but environmentally safer management
methods are not undertaken because the surcharge makes their added cost to
generators too high; new processes become uneconomical.
Two reasons in favor of surcharges are offered. Administratively it is
easier to implement, both at the site and later for review or verification
of payment. Another argument that has been offered is that the surcharge in
-26-
-------
some ways incorporates the degree of hazard of the waste. Highly toxic
wastes, which are harder to handle and dispose of easily, would cost more.
Tonnage fees would discriminate unfavorably against high volume, low haz-
ardous waste.
Fixed Fees vs. Degree of Hazard. Presently, the predominant type of
charge is "fixed fees."These fees are assessments made regardless of the
type of waste (i.e. landfills are charged "x" no matter what wastes are
handled). In theory, everyone is in favor of a degree of hazard basis for
fees. In practice no one has agreed on an algorithm to assign wastes to a
hazard category and determine fees. California is the,only state actively
pursuing such a system. It is mandated by a recently enacted law. The
argument against instituting such a system is simply that no one is happy
with what's been proposed.
Fixed Fees vs. Percentage Fees. Simple fees based on a percentage of
unit of measure some (usually volume, weight or costs) are very popular as
assessments on generators for state "Superfunds." They also are often found
in statutorily set fees for the regulatory program. They have an advatange
of being simple, both in conception and in administration. However, it is
argued that such a system does not adequately account for the fixed costs to
the State agency at the low end of range of fees and may be punative to the
regulated community at the high end of the range. This was the finding in
Louisiana where a draft fee range based on a simple percentage was estimated
to vary from $30.00 to $200,000. Presumably this would be less of a problem
in States where the range of waste generation or facility sizes is not too
great.
(2) Efficiency. There are three aspects of efficiency that are
important: 1) the costs of administering the fee, both to the agency and to
the regulated community, 2) the effort required to revise the fee, and 3)
non-payment.
System Costs. Quantitative data on costs of administering fees were
not collected during the study as it is not readily available in the States.
Qualitative information was easy to come by. In general, that application
and registration fees appear to be the easiest to manage -- both for the
State agency and the firm. There is no figuring to be done by the firm and
no verification to be done by the agency. The number of payments are kept
to a minimum with annual permits/renewals having the most frequent payment
activity from this type of fee.
Administration of application fees that are based on facility size may
only be slightly more costly to both parties. Data supplied on the applica-
tion should be sufficient to determine, what fee level is required. Verifi-
cation of this data could be carried out under the usual site visit associ-
ated with application evaluation.
The more costly fees to administer are the monthly, quarterly or yearly
fees that are based on volumes generated or surcharges. These require more
extensive review by the State agency to verify that the fees submitted are
correct for the amount of waste handled. Within this category, one State
felt that surcharges were much easier to deal with than volume or tonnage
charges. The feeling appears to be that it is easier for the facility to
-27-
-------
add a surcharge to the bill than it is to figure out a tonnage fee inde-
pendent from the regular service charge and that it is easier for the agency
to monitor this. Obviously, the more transactions the more costly is the
system. Louisiana, which has an annual permit application system, requires
roughly % person-years of administrative effort annually. Wisconsin's
permit fee system, which processes one-half of its permits annually, falls
into this latter range as well. No data were available from States with a
monthly transaction.
A significant front-end administrative cost that needs to be considered
is training. Illinois, for example has spent a considerable amount of funds
to set up a computerized manifest system to track generator fees under their
State "Superfund." It has taken two years of hard work by personnel in the
State agency and in the regulated community to finally get the system run-
ning properly.
Ability to Revise. The ability to revise the fee levels, impose addi-
tional fees or drop existing fees may be an important consideration. In the
case studies, it seemed clear that fees under statutorily-set caps are the
most difficult to revise. In all cases, getting the system through the
legislature was seen to be very difficult and in no case did the State
officials contacted seem eager to deal with the fees issues again in the
legislative context.
Apparently, in States with a commitment to full funding through fees
and statutory caps, the legislature is more prepared to deal with the issue
on an ongoing basis as it is perceived to be a more crucial funding need of
the State agency. In States without the full funding commitment, fees are
not perceived to warrant such continuous legislative attention as the major
focus is on the funding from general revenue sources.
Some fee levels are established in State regulations and generally take
about 9 months to revise. Problems in revising fees can also arise because
the State's budget process takes place independent of either an agency's
rulemaking process or legislative amendment to the hazardous waste manage-
ment act (where statutorily-set fees are found). California, a State com-
mitted to full funding of its hazardous waste program throgh fees, is having
this problem now. Hearings have recently been held on proposed changes in
the fee levels (statutory changes are necessary) before the Department of
Health Services budget has been approved. Where rulemaking is necessary, as
in Louisiana, the debate would occur outside the legislature but still could
be a time-consuming process.
An efficient solution may be to tie the setting of the fee levels more
closely to the State budget process. -An agency could prepare its proposed
budget and include the fees necessary to finance it. Budget approval by the
legislature could include approval of the fee level. This approach has been
taken in Oregon and Tennessee. Each State's statute sets up a commission
whose mandate is to revise fee schedules on an annual basis. The marginal
effort of adding this step to the budget process appears to be significantly
less than pursuing fee changes independent of the budget cycle.
Non-payment. In all States non-payment of fees constitutes a viola-
tion of the hazardous waste statute and is subject to all administrative or
criminal remedies. In addition, a number of States charge late penalties to
-28-
-------
create an incentive to pay on time. This is still a problem. The fee
structure can play a major role in creating opportunities for late payment
or non-payment of fees.
Late payment is a particular problem when the fee system requires a
constant flow of funds from the payee to the agency. For example, off-site
facilities in Ohio must submit surcharge receipts on a monthly basis. They
have often been late with their payments. Apparently, the more frequent the
transaction, the greater the potential for late payment.
Non-payment is an even more serious problem. One State's fee system is
an example of how problems of non-payment can be built into the fee approach
taken. The State's statute sets a monthly cap on disposal fee assessments
of 2500 tons or $2500 (at $1.00/ton) for waste shipments off-site to be
disposed at commercial facilities. However, under the permit regulations,
generators can store an unlimited amount of wastes on-site for up to 3
months without needing to apply for a storage permit (and thus not pay the
State's permit fees). After accumulating these wastes for 3 months without
paying any fees, these generators can then ship all the wastes off-site for
disposal and pay only the $2,500 maximum monthly disposal fee. Thus, the
larger generator, who would have exceeded the land disposal fee cap every
month if he shipped wastes as they were produced, is able to store it on-
site and alter his shipment schedules to a quarterly basis to avoid the
State's permit fee and 8 of the monthly disposal fee assessments per year.
The larger generators using this method pay $10,000 per year instead of the
$30,000 that was expected. This calculated avoidance of fee payment on the
part of large generators has undermined agency's revenue projections. The
lesson learned here is the need to carefully craft fee assessments to be in
line with regulatory requirements to avoid fee non-payment.
The best way to ensure payment on time is to clearly tie the fee into
the schedule of some agency action. Application fees do this. The applica-
tion (license or registration) is simply not processed until the fee is
received. Inspection and monitoring fees can be handled in this way as
well. Problems of fee non-payment or late payment are more prevalent with
fees that are based on ongoing operations (surcharges, tipping fees, etc.).
It may also be a problem where the State issues multi-year permits but
expects an annual fee.
(3) Public Participation. An important consideration in the question
of deciding whether or not to impose a specific fee mechanism is the level
of public (including industry) involvement in the decision-making process.
The study found that industry input into this decision-making across
the nation is variable. It may mean, industry merely comments on proposed
fees as part of the normal rulemaking process, or testifying during the
legislative hearing process. On the other hand, it may mean industry repre-
sentatives participating on a task force or advisory group to provide advice
to the agency or serving in a review capacity. The impression gained has
been that more public involvement means less controversy in making decisions
about which fee mechanisms to implement or about setting fee levels.
-29-
-------
The proposed fee mechanisms may be reviewed on several levels. Beside
working with an advisory group, proposed fees may be reviewed by an inde-
pendent commission that has oversight responsibility for environmental
matters. The Louisiana fee mechanisms are subjected to two reviews and
legislative oversight, as well. A joint committee of the legislature re-
views all fee actions. Kentucky made extensive use of advisory committees
in establishing its solid waste fee approach.
Various States have raised concerns that fees, if treated as taxes, may
have to pass more rigorous hurdles. In California, Proposition 13 mandates
approval of new taxes by 2/3 of each house of the State legislature. In New
Jersey, new taxes must be approved by voter referendum. It is not clear at
this writing whether proposed fees in these States will have to go through
these processes, but other states which have similar tax-related require-
ments should be aware of the potential for such close review.
Conclusions
The disscussion of the issues above highlights one final point. All of
the issues are highly interrelated; decisions in one area greatly affect the
importance of the choices in other areas.
After deciding to use fees, perhaps the most important choice that the
State can make is whether to fully or partially off-set the program's costs.
The choice to be self-sufficient makes the decisions in other areas more
critical. Setting the rates, projecting receipts and developing an effi-
cient system will now impact heavily on the success of the fee mechanism.
In the development of a program fully funded by fees, the equity issue will
be raised by all segments of the hazardous waste community which, after all,
only want to be treated fairly.
These conclusions are not meant to dissuade States from attempting to
fully fund their programs. There are many benefits to such an approach,
just as there are benefits from a partially funded system. It is advisable,
however, to carefully consider all issues fully before deciding to implement
a fee system.
-30-
-------
Chapter IV
Case Studies of Seven States Implementing Hazardous Waste User Fees
Introduction
This chapter presents case studies of seven State hazardous waste fee
systems. Each State was visited by contractor or EPA staff in February or
March, 1982. The visits were to the State hazardous waste program offices
in:
Ohio Wisconsin
Louisiana California
Missouri New Jersey
Kentucky
These States were chosen based on the understanding that they had actually
implemented hazardous waste program fee mechanisms and had collected signi-
ficant revenues and because they were willing to share their experiences
with other states.
The information in each case study reflects the collection of data from
several sources, the most important of which include:
o Review of the State's hazardous waste management regulations
and statute.
o Visits to the State program offices and in some cases to key
legislative staff and industry spokespersons.
o Telephone contacts with legislative and industry representa-
tives in the state.
Also, each of the State programs and legislative contacts have been given
the opportunity to review a draft of the case study addressing their State.
-31-
-------
Case Study 1 - Ohio
Enabling Authority
Statute: Ohio Revised Code, Title 37, Health, Safety and Morals; Chapter
34 - Solid Waste Disposal.
Regulations: Ohio Administrative Code, Title 3745, Environmental Protection
Agency, Chapters 50-58, Hazardous Waste Management Regulations.
Program Description
Ohio's hazardous waste program fees are administered by the Division of
Hazardous Materials Management of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.
Additionally, the Ohio Public Utility Commission collects annual transporter
fees.
Ohio's hazardous waste management act establishes three types of fees.
All facilities are granted a three-year installation and operation permit
but pay an annual fee. The act then specifies two separate fees for haz-
ardous waste disposal. On-site disposers are assessed a set fee which is
prescribed in the statute. Off-site disposers assess generators a surcharge
on their payments to the facilities and pass the fee revenues on to Ohio
EPA.
The Ohio Public Utility Commission collects "base" and "per vehicle"
fees from transporters.
The current size of the fee program is:
Facility Permits 336
on-site 330
off-site 6 (four companies)
Transporters 389
Description of the Fee Mechanisms
The Ohio program has established the following fee types: permit
application fee, operation fee and transporter fee.
The Annual Installation and Operation Permit Fee is a permit applica-
tion fee which is capped by statute at $1500. Ohio EPA has set the fee at
this maximum level. Permits are issued for three years. The first fee
payment is upon application submittal. The subsequent payments are due on
the permit anniversary dates.
-32-
-------
The Off-Site Disposal Surcharge is a tipping fee assessed by the dis-
posal facility, "as a trustee for the state" on the generator. The sur-
charge is set equal to 6% of each charge for disposal made by the facility.
Surcharge revenues collected for the period 11/10/81 through 4/26/82 were
approximately $268,000. Two facilities account for about $250,000 or 93% of
all surcharges collected. Ohio EPA expects to collect $372,000 through June
30, 1982. Data do not exist at the state level on how much each generator
pays in surcharges. There is no way, therefore, to compare the range of
annual fees paid by generators who dispose off-site to the on-site disposal
fees.
The On-Site Disposal Fee is paid by generators that dispose of wastes
on-site. Ohio's definition of on-site, for fee purposes, means any gener-
ator-owned facility that disposes of only the generator's own wastes. The
fee level is based on a combined management/technology type criterion and a
size criterion:
Each disposal facility pays a base fee of $2000.
For each acre over five acres an additional charge of $400/
acre is assessed.
A deep well facility pays a flat fee of $5000.
Facilities which combine activities pay for each activity
(i.e. a small landfill plus deep well would pay $7000) but
the total fee may not exceed $10,000. This cap is set by
statute.
There is a 10% late payment charge.
On-site disposal fees have not yet been collected.
The Transporter Fee is collected by the Public Utility Commission
annually. The fee is comprised of a one time base fee and an annual per
vehicle charge:
The one time registration fee (base fee)is $25.
The annual fee (per-vehicle) is $3/power unit. [This fee
criterion distinguishes between the power (i.e. the "trac-
tor") and trailer units which are pulled by the tractors.
The number of trailers is not a factor in assessing the fee.]
Background in Development of the Fee Mechanism
Early during the development of the State's hazardous waste program the
Ohio legislature adopted the position that all State environmental programs
would be self-sufficient. Accordingly, two different fee mechanisms were
originally considered to separately but fully fund the state hazardous waste
regulatory program and a State "Superfund" to finance site clean-up.
-33-
-------
Consideration of the second fee mechanism (Superfund) was eventually
dropped due to an inability to raise a sufficient level of funds and indus-
try resistance to this approach. Ohio industry would have opposed the
"Superfund" in the legislature as they did not want to shoulder the costs of
reclaiming abandoned hazardous waste sites.
The legislative mandate for a self-sufficient state program is cur-
rently the major issue in the development and implementation of the Ohio
hazardous waste regulatory program. Although the State program immediately
began to investigate the feasibility of user fees as a funding source,
problems arose regarding the initial funding of the program. As the
October, 1981 deadline for issuing State permits approached, no independent
revenue source was established to pay for the program's front-end cost. The
legislature had expected the Ohio Water Development Authority to issue bonds
to pay for the hazardous waste program's costs during the period of transi-
tion over to an independent funding source (i.e. the fee mechanisms).
However, the Water Authority refused to issue bonds given the uncertain
funding status of the State's program. After much debate, the legislature
finally "advanced" $500,000 from the general fund for program start-up. The
fee program is expected to fund the program after this transition period.
An underlying policy objective of the fee system is to discourage
hazardous waste land disposal and deep well injection. Facility fees are
only charged for these activities. While drafting the statute, the legis-
^l~ature~^co7T5idered, and~ "then- dropped, -a- 4% surcharge-H>n hazardous- wastes
taken to treatment facilities. The fee mechanism has never been applied to
resource recovery facilities.
The surcharge has been a subject of some disagreement between industry
and the state. Industry is strongly in favor of a per volume criterion for
this tipping fee. It feels that this would more equitably distribute the
burden. State agency personnel, however, cited administrative ease as the
overriding factor which led to the surcharge. Given the agency's attitude
towards the surchage it would seem that the fixed fee for permit applica-
tions and on-site disposal appear to be "second choices." Preferred sur-
charges cannot be levied for on-site disposal where no service is paid for.
Administrative Experience
Ohio EPA is responsible for administering the application fee and the
on- and off-site disposal fees. The fee system has been in place for only a
short time, so there is not a long history of fee collection to review. In
fact, the agency has not collected from on-site disposers yet.
Surcharges are collected monthly. Three private companies and one
county landfill submit receipts for six permitted facilities (one firm owns
three facilities). Because of consistent late payments the agency is going
to extend the payment due date from 10 days to 45 days after the end of the
monthly period.
-34-
-------
Summary of Program Highlights
The Ohio fee mechanisms have been established under a strong
mandate of the state legislature which has specified fee levels or
has placed fee caps.
The Ohio EPA decided to assess a tipping fee based on a surcharge
for off-site disposal instead of a charge based on waste volume.
Ohio industry favors the per volume charge. The State agency
strongly believes that it is administratively simpler to use a
surcharge than a volume-based charge.
The level of fees for on- and off-site disposers are assessed
based on two separate criteria. This unusual approach was taken
because, while surcharges are preferred, they cannot be used for
on-site disposal where there is no charge for services.
The program suggested that the State fee mechanism's policy bias
against disposal probably has had little effect on encouraging a
shift in industry's management practice away from disposal towards
treatment. New financial liabilities imposed under RCRA and
CERCLA have probably had more of an effect on this shift.
-35-
-------
Case Study 2 - Louisiana
Enabling Authority
Statute: Louisiana Revised Statutes, Title 30, Chapter 11 Environmental
Affairs, Section 1065 B (LRS 30:10658)
Regulation: Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Section 5.2.10 A. & B."Fees
and Charges"
Program Description
The Hazardous Waste Management Division of Louisiana's Department of
Natural Resources administers two hazardous waste fees. Both are facility
fees and are set at levels to ensure full funding of the State's hazardous
waste management program (which at this point means fully funding the
State's grant matching requirement). Permits are issued for the life of the
facility as specified in the permit. There is a one time facility permit
application fee and an annual permit maintenance fee. Transporters are
regulated by the Department of Public Safety (DPS). Authority exists to
charge fees to hazardous waste transporters but no fees are currently being
implemented. However, DPS is looking into the possibility of charging
transporter fees.
Louisiana has approximately 950 hazardous waste generators. No small
generator exemptions have been made. About 250 firms have notified the
Department of Public Safety that they transport hazardous waste.
Louisiana has six off-site commercial facilities, three off-site non-
commercial facilities and approximately 100 on-site facilities.
Description of the Fee Mechanisms
The Application Fee is based on two criteria. There are charges to
each application using the base fee criterion. The State's process and plan
analysis and the management/financial analysis components fit this criter-
ion.
The remainder of the fee is based on a two tiered size measure. One
component assesses a fee per acre (up to 100 acres). The second assesses a
fee for each facility on the site. .That is, each pond, impoundment, or
incinerator is counted as an individual facility. The application schedule
is:
Process and plan analysis $1,000
Management/financial analysis 1,000
Site analysis (per acre up to 100 acres,
no additional charge above 100 acres) 250/acre
Facility analysis 500/facility
-36-
-------
The Annual Permit Maintenance Fee is made up of three components: a
site fee, facility fee and volume fee. The site fee utilizes the commercial
and on/off-site criterion. It segments facilities into three groups: 1)
on-site disposers, 2) off-site, non-commercial disposers, and 3) off-site
commercial disposers. Louisiana is the only state to make a three segment
distinction.
The remaining two components attempt to assess the fee by size. The
facility fee is a set charge per facility, as in the application fee. The
volume fee is based on actual tonnage disposed. The specific fee charges
are as follows:
Fee Per Site:
Off-site Disposer (Commercial) $25,000
Off-site Disposer (Non-commercial) 5,000
On-site Disposer 2,500
Fee Per Facility:
Standard for all disposers $ 1,500 ea.
(For each facility)
Fee Based on Volume:
Less than 1,000 tons $ 1,000
Less than 10,000 tons 2,000
Less than 100,000 tons 3,000
Less than 1,000,000 tons 4,000
More than 1,000,000 tons 5,000
Maximum fee (cut-off):
Off-site (commercial) $40,000
Off-site (non-commercial) 20,000
On-site 15,000
The following explanation is excerpted from material developed by the state
and distributed to facilities with fee obligations:
A base charge is made for each site to recover administra-
tive, i.e., annual compliance inspection scheduling, recordkeep-
ing, review of site records, quarterly report monitoring, emer-
gency response for on-site spills, and similar items. The charge
for off-site is higher since it is intended to recover the cost of
the manifest system and transportation spills, which are only
applicable in the case of off-site disposal. (Note: off-site
non-commercial sites are generator-owned.)
An additional charge is made for each facility on a site.
This charge is intended to cover the inspection, monitorng, etc.
which are required for each facility. The number of facilities is
covered on the application form.
-37-
-------
Finally, a charge is made for the tonnage disposed of (on a
sliding scale). The amount of the fee is intended to cover in-
creased cost of inspection and monitoring. Very high disposal
rates are either special wastes or injection wells which require
little additional monitoring with large increases in production.
The minimum annual fee for on-site is $5,000 and the maximum
could be set at $15,000 (the highest found is $13,500 by the
charges proposed). For off-site, non-commercial, the minimum fee
would be $7,500 and the maximum could be set at $20,000 (values
from $12,000 to $15,500 were estimated). Off-site, commercial,
would have a minimum annual fee of $27,500 and the maximum could
be set at $40,000 (values from $27,500 to $36,000 were estimated).
A ten percent (10%) per month late fee is charged.
Fee revenues for this year are expected to be roughly $900,000. The
Division's 1982-83 budget is approximately $2 million with a payroll close
to $1 million.
Background in Development of the Fee Mechanism
In retrospect, the development of the Louisiana fee system seems
straightforward and the inevitable result of basic State policies and statu-
tory and constitutional constraints. The State's hazardous waste management
act was passed in 1978. The fee system came out of the 1979 legislation
that created the Department of Natural Resources and consolidated environ-
mental programs under its roof.
A tax on generators was not constitutionally possible. In 1974 the new
State constitution did away with taxes for dedicated funds. The legislature
was not expected to put significant dollars into environmental programs,
and, therefore, facility fees were chosen as an alternative.
There was heavy public pressure at the time to institute a good haz-
ardous waste program. As a result, industry did not fight the system. With
the nation's fourth largest petrochemical industry, the State found a signi-
ficant number of reputable firms managing hazardous waste that were anxious
to distance themselves from the few disreputable ones. Industry also seemed
willing to pay for a good hazardous waste program with which they can work.
The difference between on-site and off-site and between commercial and
non-commercial off-site is based on the following considerations. On-site
facilities handled a very limited number of waste streams of well-known and
consistent characteristics. Also, the spillage and transportation problems
are minimal. Thus, the fee for supervision and control is set at a lower
rate. Off-site, but non-commercial, still handle limited streams of con-
sistent characteristics but do pose added program costs in operation of
manifest and emergency response systems. Thus, the site fee is higher. The
site fee for commercial facilities is set considerably higher because the
manifesting and emergency response problems are greater and, in addition,
the multiplicity of wastes and the considerable management problems they may
impose require more program effort.
-38-
-------
Finally, demanding the initial fee with the permit application is
looked on as a "good faith" gesture on the part of the facility to operate
in compliance with the regulations. It weeds out the less reputable firms.
The statute mandates that the full program be paid for by industry. At
the present time, fees levels are set to collect the difference between
program costs and EPA grant monies. It should be noted that the successful
passage of the fee system depended, in part, on DNR's agreement not to use
fee revenues for other programs or legal actions. As grant funds decrease
fees must be adjusted, as necessary, to pay the operating cost of the pro-
gram.
It is interesting to note that while the fee revenues are not used for
actual spill response cleanup or remedial activity, the management of these
activities is one use of the fee revenues (see page 40 for a discussion of
this use of the fees).
In drafting the fee structure, a straight "per tonnage" fee was in-
vestigated first. However, DNR calculations showed that this would have
resulted in a fee range of $30.00 to more than $200,000. The Division felt
that the low end didn't cover certain fixed costs and that the high end was
punitive. Consequently, the combined base fee plus size criteria fee was
developed.
Administrative Experience
The Hazardous Waste Management Division determines the fee level. The
Division determines the program costs and apportions it among the regulated
community. An advisory group set up by the regulations with major industry
input reviews the formula chosen. Once the Division determines the "final"
formula it is presented to the Environmental Control Commission and then to
the Joint Committee on Natural Resources of the legislature for approval.
The statute does not set a ceiling on fee levels. The Division has set
maximum fees in its regulation but this can be changed via the rulemaking
process with only acceptance from the legislature.
The Division sends out its own invoices. The tonnage fee is determined
from the quarterly reports submitted by the facilities. The money is sent
back to the Division for processing, after which it is sent over to the
State treasury and posted against an earmarked fund.
Transporters are regulated by the. Department of Public Safety. While
authority exists, there presently are no fees charged to transporters. Fees
for hazardous waste transporters are being investigated by DPS at this time.
While fee revenues are supposed to cover the costs identified above, it
was noted that they do not come close to covering the cost of permit issu-
ance if there is a lengthy process. In one case, the hearings alone took 20
days for a commercial off-site facility. These extra hearings costs cannot
be factored into the budget/revenue needs calculation due to the language of
-39-
-------
the regulations which call for costs to be "reasonably calculated to cover I
the cost of the program." There is no acceptable way to factor contingen-
cies (such as lengthy hearings or some public controversy) into the esti-
mated program costs.
Only one billing had gone out when the data were collected. Response
was good though there were problems with some of the assessments. Wastes
discharged through the SPDES System (State Pollution Discharge Elimination
System - a permit program delegated to the State under the Clean Water Act
to regulate discharges into surface waters) were inadvertantly included in
the figuring.
The Division is taking another look at the emergency response function
and the higher assessments on off-site facilities to cover it. As previ-
ously mentioned, the fees cover the management of emergency response: going
to the site and managing the disbursement of the state emergency fund (i.e.
overseeing contractor efforts). While the higher charge is supposed to
cover expected hazardous waste transportation incidents, many of the inci-
dents responded to, in fact, have been hazardous materials spills. The
Division plans to approach the legislature for general revenue funds for the
hazardous materials component of emergency response management.
The Division will raise fees as grant monies decline yet it realizes
that facilities are not an "infinitely deep pocket." The Division will
attempt to keep fees from being punitive. Generator fees were suggested as
a possible alternative. t
Summary of Program Highlights
o Full funding through industry fees is a statutory mandate.
o There is no statutory cap on fee levels. Instead, the regu-
lations set a maximum fee.
o Fees are set by determining revenue needs and allocating
among the regulated community (the "macro" approach).
o Facilities are segmented into three groups: on-site, and
commercial or non-commercial off-site facilities.
o Industry has input to development of the assessment formula
through an advisory group.
o The State's industry is skewed towards large, financially
secure firms with an ability to pay significant fees (one
state official stated that if the state had many small speci-
alty chemical processors, the fee system would have prob-
lems).
o The hazardous waste management industry feels the on-site/
off-site differential is too large but is constrained from
contesting this (or any other part of the program for that |
-40-
-------
matter) by intense public pressure. The industry maintains
that only 8-10% of the waste goes to off-site commerical
facilities.
Fee revenues cover emergency response "management." However,
the state may request general fund revenues for this purpose.
-41-
-------
Case Study 3 - Missouri
Enabling Authority
Statute: Missouri Hazardous Waste Management Law (MRS. Chap. 260, Environ-
mental Control, Section 350 et sec. - Hazardous Waste Management)
Regulation: Title 10 - Department of Natural Resources, Division 25 -
Hazardous Waste Management Commission.
Program Description
The Waste Management Program within the Department of Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Quality Administers the hazardous waste fees.
Generators of hazardous waste pay a fee based on the quantity of waste
generated. Generators are sent a billing annually. Transporters pay an
annual fee based on the number of vehicles. Facility owners pay permit
application and renewal fees. Permits are issued for up to five years but
the application fee is paid for every year of the life of the permit.
In addition, the statute requires that hazardous waste landfill opera-
tors collect on behalf of the state from each generator or transporter a tax
equal to 2% of the gross charges or fees charged for disposal of hazardous
waste at the landfill site.
Missouri's hazardous waste community is made up of:
Generators
Generators Paying Fee 143
Generators Exempt from Fees
(small quantity exemption)
Waste Oil Generators
Resource Recovery Exemptions
Total
Transporters . 275
Facilities
On-Site 121
Off-Site (including resource
recovery) 10
Total 131
-42-
4
-------
Description of the Fee Mechanism
A Waste Generation Fee paid by generators of $1 per metric ton of
hazardous waste generated. The statute puts a cap of $10,000 on the fee
that any one generator must pay. It is important to note that "generator"
is a corporate distinction. That is, a firm with eight plants generating
waste all over the state faces a maximum $10,000 fee and not $80,000.
Generators of less than 10 tons of waste per year and waste sent to certi-
fied resource recovery facilities are exempt. Fees are calculated based on
the expected volume of waste to be generated in the coming year and are due
on each January 1st. This year's collections total about $112,000 from the
generator fee as of March, 1982.
A Landfill Tax is assessed on generators that send their wastes to
landfills. Landfill operators collect a 2% tax based on the disposal char-
ges and forward the receipts to the Hazardous Waste Program. Fees based on
charges over each previous calendar year must be submitted by January 1st.
About $22,000 has been collected from the landfill tax as of March, 1982.
The Transporter Fee is a per vehicle charge. The statute sets a
maximum of $100per vehicle per year. Current regulations are based on
gross vehicle weights and vehicle equivalents for firms not exclusively in
the hazardous waste transportation business. A vehicle equivalent is the
portion of vehicles annual load devoted to hazardous waste. For example,
two vehicles which carry hazardous wastes 50% of the time equal one vehicle
equivalent. The fee schedule is:
For motor vehicles: $5-20/vehicle/year
For railroads: $25/vehicle equivalent/year
For other haulers: $25/vehicle equivalent/year
Two hundred seventy-five transporters have paid fees for hazardous
waste transportation. Approximately $12,600 has been collected in this
fiscal year so far.
Facility Fees are charged for applications and renewals. A technology
type criterion is used to set the fee levels with landfills singled out for
higher fees. All other types of facilities pay a smaller amount:
Application fee: Landfills $1000
All other facilities $500
Renewal fee: Landfills $1000
All other facilities $500
The fee levels are set in the statute.
In addition facilities are directly billed for engineering and geo-
logical analysis associated with the staff time assigned to the application
reviews. This assessment enables the Program to recoup what are often major
costs of permit issuance.
The State processed three landfill applications in the previous fiscal
year for $3000 revenue. No application fees have been collected this fiscal
year. Approximately $500 has been collected from applicants for geological
and technical review.
-43-
-------
Background i'n Development of the Fee Mechanism f
Missouri's hazardous waste law was initially enacted in 1977 and rules
and regulations implementing this law became effective in January of 1980.
The regulations set a July, 1980 compliance date. Generator fees were a
choice of the legislature for the major fee mechanism to meet the hazardous
waste program funding needs. Generators must register with the department
under Missouri regulations. Thus identified, sending invoices was perceived
to be a relatively simple matter.
The fees serve two purposes. The generator fee rule, as adopted by the
Hazardous Waste Management Commission is aimed at promoting resource re-
covery and discouraging hazardous waste disposal. Permit fees are set up to
potentially recover permit processing and review costs. Here too, though,
the differential rates for disposal and other facilities points up the
policy of the Commission of discouraging disposal. The transporter fee is
set up to recoup the costs of yearly registrations.
In the summer of 1980 the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) re-
ceived two applications for hazardous waste landfills. Public pressure
against these facilities become so intense that the governor called a spe-
cial session of the legislature to deal with the issue. The 2% landfill tax
and the previously discussed generator fee were two results of this session.
Administrative Experience I
The Hazardous Waste Program within DNR's Division of Environmental
Quality administers the fees. With the exception of the direct billing for
technical review services, fee levels are set or capped by statute. The
program sends out invoices and processes the receipts. The revenues are
then deposited into an earmarked fund.
The initial notice for the generator fee went out to 330 generators.
Roughly 140 actually paid. A few paid the $10,000 maximum. Roughly
$200,000 was originally expected from the generator fee. This estimate has
been revised downward to $160 - $180,000 based on the 7/80 - 6/81 rate.
A number of reasons were presented to explain this revenue shortfall.
First, successful "delisting" petitions (exclusion of certain wastes at
specific sites from regulation as hazardous waste) to the USEPA and have had
an effect. Second, more firms have chosen resource recovery than had been
expected. Third, some generators have since gone out of business. Fourth,
the initial registration data may have overstated the actual amount of waste
generated because accurate records weren't required previously of the
generators.
The fees collected are placed in the Hazardous Waste Fund. They are
used for the administrative costs of the program. The Program does not
segregate the individual fee incomes and apply them to specific Program
activities. A
-44-
-------
Summary of Program Highlights
One fee mechanism was set up to create disincentives for land
disposal and incentives for resource recovery as well as to
provide additional revenue to regulate such facilities under
the program.
Projecting generator fee revenues has been difficult due to
the impact of the incentives and disincentives in the fee
structure and other influences.
The statute puts caps on fees with the exception of direct
billing for technical and geological reviews.
The act (and, therefore, the fee system) is scheduled for
review in 1984 by the legislature. No revisions are expected
before then.
-45-
-------
Case Study 4 - Kentucky
Enabling Authority
Statute: Kentucky Revised Statutes, Chapter 224 - Environmental Protection
Regulation: Kentucky Administrative Rules 401, KAR2:080 Fees
Program Description
The Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection admin-
isters Kentucky's hazardous waste program and its associated fees.
The state charges two fees: a generator registration fee and a facil-
ity permit application fee. Generators notify the State of their hazardous
waste management activity annually. The state considers each hazardous
waste management activity at a site to be a facility and a separate applica-
tion is required for each. For example, one site has eight facilities.
Permits are issued for one year.
The regulated hazardous waste community consists of approximately:
214 generators, and
100 facilities,
5 landfills
95 treatment, storage or incineration facilities
Description of the Fee Mechanisms
The Generator Fee is an annual registration fee based on the quantity
of waste generated:
Quantity in tons Annual Fee
13.3-100 $200
101-300 $300
301-500 $400
501-or more . $500
The Permit Application Fee is charged to hazardous waste management
facilities. They receive a one year permit. The fee is based on a manage-
ment type criterion and a size criterion which captures the amount of activ-
ity by assessing the number of facilities per site. The fee schedule is:
Disposal facility - $5000
Treatment, incineration, storage facility - $1,000
-46-
-------
Each facility on the site requires a separate permit.
Permit modifications cost $100 for major modifications and $50 for
minor modifications.
In the first year (7/79-6/80) $11,850 was collected. In the second
year collections were up to $177,900. In this third year, through March,
$64,250 had been collected. This works out to a yearly rate of $87,000. The
reasons for the fluctuations could not be determined.
Background in Development of the Fee Mechanisms
The Kentucky program's original emphasis was in solid waste. The State
charges permit review/processing fees for five categories of landfills:
Contained Landfills: $800
Residual Landfills: 500
(case-by-case design)
Residential Landfill: 500
Inert Waste Landfill 200
Landfarms 500
Permit renewals and modifications are levied a $250 charge. These fees are
based on actual program records of past permit reviews. The fees accurately
reflect the costs of permit review and processing. This close tying of the
fee level to specific services was important in gaining industry acceptance
of the fees.
The State developed hazardous generator fees for the purpose of reme-
dial action cleanups following the revelation of the "Valley of the Drums"
in the national media. It became clear that the State had to explore fund-
ing alternatives for remedial action and hazardous waste management in
general. The general assessment, a per volume charge, for remedial response
has the explicit purpose of discouraging disposal and encouraging reuse. In
the push to develop the Superfund charge, it was decided to charge fees for
hazardous waste program. The State was already charging fees for its solid
waste program. The statutory authority for the hazardous waste management
program includes the assessment of application and registration fees.
Fees collected from generator registration and facility permits are to
cover the costs of review and verifying data. Site inspection in support of
permit review can be covered. Compliance monitoring and enforcement activi-
ties are not recoverable from fees.
The State expects to change its regulations to a one time generator
notification with a notification fee and an annual report processing fee.
The State also expects to go to a 10 year permit and a per-site permit
and fee (note this would not preclude a sliding fee schedule based on the
number of facilities as in Louisiana's program).
-47-
-------
Administrative Experience
The fee system is administered by the Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Protection. The agency collects and processess the fee
revenues as they are received with applications and notifications. The
money is deposited into the general fund and credited to DNREP in the
agency's budget process. Hazardous waste registration and permit applica-
tion fees have been collected for three years.
The fees are set by regulation. The agency had significant input from
industry in setting the fees. The agency can meet with an Advisory Group,
made up of manufacturers and the disposal community. This is done before
official filing of the proposed regulations. In addition, the Environmental
Quality Commission has oversight responsibility. It meets every 1-2 months.
Fees were collected for the permits-by-rule issued by the state after
receiving a facility's initial, non-technical application (analogous to
interim status conferred under the Federal RCRA program). This will be
credited toward the later in-depth, technical review.
The biggest problem with the fee system has become the setting of the
levels. The agency does not expect that the fee as established will meet
the costs of permit review, yet industry will only "accept" fees based on
actual costs. To address this, the agency is carefully monitoring the level
of effort currently being required to complete the in-depth review of the
technical portions of two applications. Both are for new facilities, an
incinerator and a storage facility. While the State can't legally charge
directly by the hour as Missouri can, (see the Missouri case study) it will
use this tracking mechanism to determine actual costs.
Summary of Program Highlights
o Fees cover notification processing and permit review.
o The agency is tracking review activities in effort to accur-
ately set a fee level that captures all relevant costs. This
approach to setting the fee levels was used to implement the
solid waste program fee mechanisms.
o Fees must be closely tied to the services rendered and accu-
rately reflect the costs of those services to gain industry
acceptance.
o Fee revenues are deposited into the General Revenue Fund and
"credited" to the agency during the budget appropriation
process.
-4.fi-
^" FRED C. HART ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
t
Case Study 5 - Wisconsin
Enabling Authority
Statute: Wisconsin Statutes Annotated, Chapter 144 - Water, Sewage, Refuse,
Mining and Air Pollution, Subchapter IV - Solid Waste, Hazardous Waste
and Refuse, Sections 144.43 through 144.48 and Sections 144.60 -
144.76.
Regulation: Wisconsin Administrative Code, Rules of the Department of
Natural Resources, Chapter 181 - Hazardous Waste Management (NR181).
Program Description
The Department of Natural Resources administers two hazardous waste
fees: a transporter registration fee and a facility permit application fee.
There are approximately 150-200 existing facilities in the state.
About 2/3 are on-site. Most are storage or treatment facilities. Two new
facilities have applied for permits. Licenses (i.e. permits) are issued in
a two step process. The applicant submits a feasibility report. After its
approval, an operating plan is submitted. Fees accompany both.
There are 826 solid and hazardous waste transporters. Many transporter
services appear to be tied either to generators or facilities.
There are approximately 1100 generators in the State. No licenses or
fees are required of them.
Description of the Fee Mechanism
The Facility Permit Application Fee is based on a combined management
and technology type criterion. The basic fee runs two years. The incre-
ments shown in the table are used to bring every permittee to the same
renewal date.
-49-
-------
The Transporter Fee is assessed on a per company basis. There are no
per-vehicle charges.
The fees are assessed according to the following table:
Facility Type
Transportation
Storage
Facilities
Landfills
Surface
Impoundments
[ncinerators
Treatment
Facilities
Jther
Closure Plans
License
Required
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Plan
Review
Req'd.
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Plan Review Fees
Feasibility Operation
— — --
100 100
1000 1000
500 500
300 300
500 500
500 500
200
License Fee Schedule
18-24
0-6 6-12 12-18 mos.
mos. mos. mos. & all
renws .
25.00 50.00 75.00 100.00
50 100 150 200
375 750 1125 1500
187.5 375 562.5 750
125 250 375 500
125 250 375 500
125 250 375 500
There is a 50% or minimum $150 late surcharge.
The license fee is prorated, as is the length of the initial license,
to bring all permits to the same anniversary date. The license period for
storage or treatment facilities, transportation services and incinerators
begin on October 1 of odd-numbered years. Permit renewals are issued for
two years.
DNR has been collecting roughly $245,000 per year from its all of its
solid waste fee mechanisms. Using this data, they estimate collecting an
additional $140,000 every two years from hazardous waste fees. This broken
down as follows:
Storage - $40,000
Treatment - 25,000
Landfills - 75,000
plus some plan review fees
DNR collected about $5,000 in late fees last year.
Background in Development of the Fee Mechanisms
A hazardous waste user fee bill was introduced in Wisconsin's legisla-
ture in 1976. A legislative study council was formed, the usual procedure,
to study the legislation. This council was composed of representatives from
-50-
-------
t
t
t
environmental groups, Wisconsin's Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and
industry. The council agreed upon and supported a final bill which was
signed into law in May, 1978. The final rules for the hazardous waste fee
schedule became effective in August, 1981.
Successful passage was laid to several causes. First, Wisconsin has a
history of user fees in environmental programs, notably in solid waste.
Second, industry did not feel that the fee levels were onerous. Third,
there was no problem of overlapping jurisdiction; DNR is the only agency
assessing a fee for this purpose.
The fee schedule for the State's solid waste program is shown in
Figure 3, page 52. The State uses two management type criteria (storage and
land disposal facilities) as well as a technology type classification. It
can be clearly seen how the hazardous waste program fee mechanisms borrowed
their structure from the solid waste program. There are two fees: one for
a feasibility report and one for an operating plan. Also, fees are prorated
by license period in order to bring all permits to the same anniversary
date.
The hazardous waste fees are to be used for the administration of the
program. There is no explicit mandate to fully fund the program. There are
no policy goals built into the fee structure. Differences in fees are due
to actual differences in costs of permit issuance.
Administrative Experience
The fee is administered by Wisconsin's DNR. Fees go to a district
office for preliminary review. From there they go to the central office and
then to the State treasury. The revenue is posted to a combined hazardous
and solid waste account.
The fee levels are set by regulation. The process of promulgating
regulations takes approximately 9 months. The license period for disposal
facilities begins October 1 of even-numbered years.
The State recognizes that there is overlap and some confusion regarding
solid and hazardous waste fees. Combined facilities pay only one fee:
whichever is larger.
DNR estimates that fees would have to increase ten-fold to fully fund
the program. This would be an unacceptable level to industry. Most facili-
ties were described as small. There are relatively few large firms that
could afford large fees.
Summary of State Highlights
o The State has a history of implementing user fees. The solid
waste program fees, in particular, have been successful.
o There is no duplication of jurisdiction in assessing fees.
DNR is the only agency assessing hazardous waste fees.
-51-
-------
Figure 3
WISCONSIN SOLID WASTE PROGRAM FEE SCHEDULE
1
MR
180
.07
.08
.09
.10
.11
.12
.13
.14
.17
.18
FACILITY TYPE
STORAGE FACILITIES
Containerized
Non-containerized
Collection & Transportation
Transfer Facilities
Processing Facilities'
Incinerators'
Air Curtain Destructors
LAND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
Landfill 0-50.000 yd*
Landfill 50.000-500,000 yd'*
Landfill > 500,000 yd»»
Surface Impoundments
Closure Plans
Land Spreading Facilities
Salvage Yards
Other
License
Required
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Plan Review
Necessary
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Plan Review Fees
Feasibility Operating
75. 75.
100.
200. 200.
200. 200.
125.
100. 100.
350. 350.
600. 600.
350. 350.
100.
100. 100.
100.
100. 100.
License Fee Schedule
Initial License Period
0-6 Mo. 6-12 Mo.
25. 50.
12.50 50.
25. 50.
75. 150.
75. 150.
25. 50.
37.50 75.
125. 250.
250. 500.
125. 250.
37.50 75.
37.50 75.
25. 50.
12-18 Mo.
>5.
37.50
75.
225.
225.
75.
112.50
375.
750.
375.
112.50
112.50
75.
18-24
Mo.
All 2-yr.
Renewals
100.
50.
100.
300.
300.
100.
150.
500.
1,000.
500.
ISO.
150.
100.
' If an applicant chooses not to submit a feasibility report for a processing facility or incinerator, but rather makes the initial submission the
plan of operation, the fee for review of the plan of operation shall be increased by the amount of the fee indicated under feasibility in this
table.
•Maximum Design Capacity
Source: Wisconsin Register, July 1981, No. 307
-52-
-------
The receipt is tied to an agency action, i.e. a permit is not
issued unless the fee is paid.
Permit issuance and, therefore, fee collections are staggered
on alternate years using a management type criterion.
Fee levels are set to minimize impacts on small firms, a
significant portion of the regulated community.
Fee levels necessary to fully fund the hazardous waste pro-
gram would be unacceptable to industry.
-53-
-------
Case Study 6 - California
Enabling Authority
Statute: California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5
Hazardous Waste Control. Assembly Bill No. 1012, an act to amend the
Vehicle Code relating to hazardous material.
Regulation: California Administrative Code, Title 22, Social Security,
Division 4, Environmental Health, Chapter 30 - Minimum Standards for
Management of Hazardous and Extremely Hazardous Wastes.
Program Description
The hazardous waste fees are administered by the Department of Health
Services (disposal fees) and by the Highway Patrol (transporter fees).
The disposal site fee is a monthly generator tipping fee. It is
charged to the facility owner and passed back to the generator.
Transporters are assessed an annual registration fee and an annual
inspection fee.
California's regulated community includes:
Facilities 895
Off-Site Storage 60
Off-Site Treatment 30
Off-Site Disposal 35
On-Site All Types 770
Transporters 2760
Generators 6366
Description of the Fee Mechanisms
The California program has established three types of hazardous waste
fees. A facility fee, a transporter registration fee and a transporter
inspection/certification fee.
The Disposal Fee is segmented by an on/off-site criterion. The off-
site fee is a essentially a generator tipping fee for land disposal. The
State explicitly expects the fee to be passed back to the generator. The
on-site disposal fee is a volume charge as well.
-54-
-------
Off-site disposal facilities must pay:
(1) One dollar for each load of hazardous waste, delivered
to hi IP other than by pipeline, which weighs one ton or less and
which he disposes of on land or applies to land.
(2) One dollar for each load or one dollar per ton, which-
ever is greater, for each load of hazardous waste, delivered other
than by pipeline, which weighs more than one ton and which is
disposed of on land or is applied to land.
(3) One dollar per ton for all hazardous waste delivered to
him by pipeline, based on the weight disposed of on land or ap-
plied to land.
No more than $2,500 need be paid the Department for any
amount of hazardous waste received from one specific site owned by
a specific producer of hazardous waste during one month.
For on-site disposal the facilities must pay a fee of one dollar per
ton to the Department for the first 2,500 tons of hazardous waste which he
disposes of, on, or into land, or applies to land in any one month. No more
than $2,500 need be paid the Department for any amount of hazardous waste
disposed of at one specific on-site hazardous waste facility in one month.
Roughly 80% of the generators are paying less than the .maximum $2,500 fee
each month. Disposal fee revenues for 1981-82 are estimated to be
$2,258,000.
The Transporter Registration Fee is a base fee plus a per vehicle
charge for firms over a certain size:
$50.00 to register the firm,
$15.00/vehicle if the company's gross annual revenues
exceed $35,000.
The Transporter Inspection Fee is a base fee of $50.00/company.
Background in Development of the Fee Mechanism
The State's position is that user fees on the regulated community are
the only equitable way to fund the hazardous waste program. California has
a statutory mandate that all hazardous waste management costs be covered by
fees paid by hazardous waste disposal facilities. The fees are deposited
into the Hazardous Waste Control Account in the State's General fund and
continuously appropriated to the Department of Health. The present fee
level has been constant for four years. Program growth has been funded by
increasing Federal program grants and increases in the tonnage of hazardous
wastes assessed the fees. Presently, with Federal grants and waste tonnage
decreasing, a need to significantly increase the fee revenues is recognized.
-55-
-------
The facility fee, set up as a tax on the volume of waste, met the
statutory mandate that generators fund the system. Thus, even though the
off-site facility pays the fee, it can easily be added to the generator's
bill as a surcharge. The original facility fee level was determined by the
Hazardous Waste Management Branch of the Department of Health Services.
Changes in the fee levels are made by rulemaking which is ordinarily a nine
month process.
The State is currently in the process of revising the fee system. The
initial proposal is calling for a four-fold increase in the tonnage fee to
cover the costs of a greatly expanded program. The new proposal is for a
$4.00 per ton fee with a 2500 ton cap. That is, only the first 2500 tons
would be subject to assessment. This would bring the maximum annual assess-
ment up to $120,000 from $30,000. The proposal for on-site disposers inad-
vertently left intact the $2500 monetary cap. The Department estimates this
will result in $130,000 less annual revenues. Instead of reproposing
changes to the State's regulations they are dealing with this problem in the
development of the fee system described in the next paragraph.
The Department has estimated that FY 1982-83 expenditures will be
$8.074 million. In testimony on the proposed $4 per ton charge revenues
were estimated as follows:
Tonnage Base -Seasonal Averages
Low Average = 178,000 tons/mo. (Fall/Winter)
High Average = 203,000 tons/mo. (Spring/Summer
7/1/82 - 8/15/82 -f
1.5 mo. x 203,000 tons x$1.00 = $ 300,000
8/15/82 - 6/30/83
10.5 mo. x 180,000 tons -f x $4.00 = $7,560.000
Total Fee Revenue $7,860,000
V There is a six week lag time in collection of fees
V Weighted average reduced by 6% to account for reduced cap
The proposal is meeting opposition from industry which feels that a
fixed tonnage fee is inequitable. The argument is that a fixed tonnage fee
penalizes low toxicity/high volume waste generators and subsidizes high
toxicity/low volume waste generators. • Industry wants a degree of hazard
approach similar to that used in California's Superfund structure. This
four-category structure was originally developed by the industry.
In early March, AB 1543 was signed into law requiring the Department to
adopt a fee system based on degree of hazard by January 1, 1983. Work on
this new system was to begin in May.
-56-
-------
Administrative Experience
Fees are being collected from 160 off-site and 693 on-site facilities.
Approximately 800 transporters paid fees last year. The number of trans-
porters fluctuates greatly around 800 from year to year.
At first, the Health and Safety Code required operators to send dis-
posal fees to the Department. Industry complained that enforcement of fee
collections has been minimal with the result being that compliers were
paying for the entire program. This poor collection experience led to a
statutory change in 1981 which empowered the Board of Equalization (the
State's "IRS") to collect the fees. Collections have since increased
60-90%.
The facility fees are deposited in the Hazardous Waste Control Account
in the General Fund and are continuously appropriated for expenditure to the
Department under mandate of law. Transporter fees are collected by the
Highway Control subsequent to an inspection which is conducted in conjunc-
tion with granting certification. They are assessed "for the privilege of
engaging in the business" (Section 25166 of the Act) and are charged for
administering that part of the program (Section 25167).
There have also been some problems with California's "Proposition 13."
It is being argued that the fees constitute a tax and therefore must be
legislatively approved by a 2/3 majority. It is not clear where this dis-
pute will end up as the hazardous waste statute is explicit about setting
fees to fully fund the program.
There is a loophole in the fee mechanism that some firms are using to
lower their assessments. Because the fee is a monthly charge on disposal, a
firm may store wastes on site for several months and eventually dispose of
the accumulated waste in one month. In this way there is no charge for
several months and then a maximum charge of only $2500 in the disposal
month.
Summary of Program Highlights
A major objective of the State's facility fee is to dis-
courage land disposal of hazardous waste.
Revenue needs, based on the approved budget, are apportioned
among sites to determine fee level (the "macro" approach
towards setting fee levels).
Fee system is to be based on degree of hazard by January
1983.
Fees are now collected by the State's tax collection agency
and not the hazardous waste agency. Collection efficiency
increased 60-90% with this change.
A monthly assessment, in conjunction with a cap, may enable
avoidance of some fees.
-57-
-------
Case Study 7 - New Jersey
Enabling Authority
New Jersey has four laws which require the collection of hazardous or
solid waste fees:
Statute:
(1) New Jersey Statutes Annotated, Title 13, Conservation and
Development - Parks and Reservations, Chapter IE - Solid
Waste Management (Section 18 establishes the collection of
fees).
(2) The New Jersey Recycling Act (PL 1981) Solid Waste Recycling
Tax (establishes the collection of a solid waste tipping fee
that is under litigation).
(3) The Sanitary Landfill Facility Closure and Contingency Fund
Act (establishes two solid waste disposal tipping fees, and
both are under litigation), one for closure and one for
"contingencies."
(4) The Major Hazardous Waste Facility Siting Act (establishes
the collection of 3 fees on "major" hazardous waste facili-
ties).
Regulation: The New Jersey Administrative Code, Title 7, Chapter 26, The
Solid Waste Management Rules, (Section 4.3 - 4.7 establishes the fee
schedules adopted under the Solid Waste Management Act).
Program Description
The Department of Environmental Protection administers the hazardous
and solid waste fees in New Jersey. The hazardous waste program is a subset
of the solid waste program. Specific hazardous waste program fees, there-
fore, are additional assessments under the State's solid waste fee schedule.
The State has 580 hazardous waste facilities as follows:
On-Site Off-Site
Treatment 31
Storage 318 5
Disposal 6
Treatment/Storage 193 7
Treatment/Disposal 2
Storage/Disposal 5
Treatment/Storage/Disposal 11 _2
Total 566 14
-58-
-------
There are approximately 590 transporters and 2865 generators. Genera-
tors must generate more than 100 kilograms per month to be Included in the
system.
Description of the Fee Mechanisms
Facility Fees are charged under the Solid Waste Management Act. The
State has three types of fees:
$50 annual registration fee (a base fee). It costs an addi-
tional $50 to transfer 1t.
Up to $500/quarter Inspection and regulation fee (a moni-
toring/surveillance fee with a legislative cap).
$500 engineering design review fee (an application fee).
The above fees are not charged to on-site hazardous waste facilities
but are charged to off-site hazardous waste facilities and all solid waste
facilities.
Transporter Fees are assessed annually. Transporter registration fees
are:
$20.00 per vehicle (solid waste)
$50.00 per vehicle (hazardous waste).
Other Fees. The recently-passed solid waste tipping fees are under
litigation. State fees under the Major Hazardous Waste Facility Siting Act
are not yet being implemented.
Total revenues collected from facility registration, Inspection and
engineering design fees under the solid waste management act:
FY 80 $248,593
FY 81 $211,285
Background in the Development of the Fee Mechanism
New Jersey began collecting solid waste fees under the Solid Waste
Management Act in 1974. The registration, inspection, and engineering
design review fees are defined in that law with a cap on the last two.
These are the only fees being collected by the State hazardous waste pro-
gram. The State is not attempting to fully fund its hazardous waste program
with these fees.
The Solid Waste Management Act enables fees for any service the
Department of Environmental Protection performs 1n connection with the Act.
Fees therefore can be tied to specific program activities such as permit
application review, inspections, etc. In 1974 the Department audited the
-59-
-------
types of services it provided to the solid waste industry. The fee types
chosen reflected some of the major services provided by the State (design
review, inspection/regulation, and registration). The variable quarterly
inspection fee was developed as a way to more realistically recoup the costs
of State services, especially in the case of larger facilities.
The New Jersey fee approach gradually evolved to its present form.
Fees for solid waste facilities were initially established in 1974. A few
interested members of the legislature were involved in drafting the original
fee levels. Because solid waste management had a low profile in the State,
the establishment of the original fee approach was not considered controver-
sial. These fees are now assessed against solid and hazardous waste facili-
ties except on-site hazardous waste facilities which do not pay the fee.
State officials visited expressed an interest in charging fees to waste
generators to get them to help pay for the program. The U.S. Supreme Court
ruled against New Jersey regarding their ban of shipments of waste into the
State, yet OEP estimates that 40% of the wastes disposed in New Jersey come
from out of state. These out-of-state generators do not contribute to the
general fund in New Jersey through regular channels of taxation. User fees
are being argued as a mechanism which could protect general revenues from
problems caused by out-of-state entities.
The State has two other broad initiatives in the area of fees that are
worthy of note: those enabled under the Major Hazardous Waste Facility
Siting Act and "tipping fees." The following discussion of these fee ap-
proaches provides an important background to the development of hazardous
waste fees in New Jersey In the future.
The Major Hazardous Waste Facility Siting Act. This law was passed on
January 1, 1982. The State fees enabled under the Act will be tied to State
services provided to "major" hazardous waste facilities. A major facility
is defined as having a 250,000 gallon capacity. There currently are approx-
imately 11 of them in New Jersey. These facilities are required to pay 5%
of their gross receipts from their previous year's sales to reimburse local
municipalities for the costs added to local services, including:
(1) extra police and fire costs made necessary by the major haz-
ardous waste facility;
(2) local inspection program costs incurred by local board of
health or county health department;
(3) road construction or repair costs; and
(4) other expenses directly related to the impact of the facility
on the municipality.
This 5% fee/tax is apparently being paid.
The Siting Act also provides authority to collect fees from major
facilities to recover the costs of weekly State inspections and the "reason-
able" costs in the review of applications. Also allowed is the reimburse-
ment of local government for the cost of their review of major facility
-60-
-------
applications (up to $15,000). All these fees are not yet being collected.
The State has appropriated $500,000 for the preparation and adoption of a
fee schedule which was proposed in State regulations but is not yet adopted.
State Tipping Fees. The first State tipping fee for municipal wastes
was instituted in 1976. The fee's major purpose was to have the facility
operator pass back the fee through the waste hauler to the generator. A
State court ruled that such automatic pass-through of fees was unconstitu-
tional under State law. The fee was terminated and the revenues collected
were returned.
The State legislature passed two laws containing three nore tipping
fees effective January 1, 1982:
(1) The Sanitary Landfill Facility Closure and Contingency Fund
Act established a 45$ per cubic yard fee for solid waste
disposed in landfills. Two thirds of the fee is to go to an
escrow fund to pay for the closure of the facility. One
third goes to the State Treasury into a contingency fund to
pay for "damages for property" caused by sanitary landfills
in general. The State Treasury Department collects this fee
which, in some ways, replaces the solid waste tipping fee
that was overruled by the courts in 1977.
(2) The New Jersey Recycling Act (PL 1981) Solid Waste Recycling
Tax requires a fee of $0.12 per cubic yard tipping fee ($.06
in 1986) be assessed at the landfill. The fees are placed in
a non-lapsing, revolving fund to be jointly administered for
the promotion of recycling by the Department and the State
Energy Agency. The fund will be used as follows:
o 45% for recycling grants to municipalities,
o at least 20% for loan guarantee and low interest
loans for recycling businesses and industries,
o not more than 10% for program funding and admini-
stration,
o not more than 10% for county and municipal admini-
stration expenses, and
o at least 15% for public information.
Litigation challenging these tipping fees is pending. The main ques-
tion at issue is whether out-of-state 'industries should pay fees for which
they claim they would not receive a benefit.
The State recently considered a 15
-------
enforcing both solid and hazardous waste activities. Opposition to using
the revenues for funding hazardous waste management controls prevented
passage.
Administrative Experience
When the State's tipping fee was in operation in 1976, daily record
books were kept at landfills. Each truck, its cubic yard capacity and its
license number was entered into the log. These records were subject to
inspections and the operators provided monthly totals and payments to the
Department.
In general, the DEP collects the facility-related fees. They are
recorded and then sent to the Treasury. The Agency cannot draw on these
funds directly because dedicated funds are not usually established as part
of the normal State budgetary process. DEP keeps an accounting of revenues
collected and uses these figures to support the program's budget requests.
Fee payments for operation and collection/hauler registration are due
on July 1 of each year. Using the previous year's fee statements, notices
are sent to all operators and haulers announcing the amount of fee payment
due in the next year. Following quarterly billing notices, landfills and
special waste facilities pay inspection and regulation fees before July 1,
October 1, January 1, and April 1 of each year. Landfills and special waste
facilities pay one-time engineering design review fees at the time they
submit their application.
Presently, fees are only payable by check to the Department. Check
amounts are logged-in, then the checks are transferred to the Treasurer to
be deposited in the general treasury. Information concerning fees is even-
tually included in the Department's computerized management information
system. The fee billing system will fully computerized in July, 1982.
Facilities which are late or refuse to pay the fees are subject to late
fees and penalties, respectively. Cases of nonpayment of fees are submitted
to the State Attorney General's Office for action if fees remain unpaid. It
is highly unlikely that a facility would be closed because of non-payment of
fees because facilities are public utilities and are perceived as fulfilling
a public need by staying open.
Summary of Program Highlights
o The State's fee system is to be fully computerized in July,
1982.
o The State's current purpose is to partially fund its haz-
ardous waste program with fees.
o The State currently charges quarterly inspection/regulation
fees.
o The State does not assess fees on on-site hazardous waste
facilities.
-62-
-------
Bibliography
California Department of Health Services, Hazardous Waste Management Branch.
Personal communicationwith HWMB personnel. March 1982.
Eigner, Joseph, President, Joseph Eigner Company, Inc. Personal communica-
tion. March 1982.
General Accounting Office, "Hazardous Waste Management Programs Will Not Be
Effective: Greater Efforts are Needed," CED-79-14. January 1979.
Hernandez, Manny, Louisiana State Representative. Personal communication.
March 1982.
Hoiman, Libby, Administrative Assistant to Ohio State Representative Thomas
Gllmartin. Personal communication. March 1982.
JRB Associates. Analysis of State Hazardous Waste User Fee Systems and
Recommendations for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. April, 1982.
Kentucky Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection,
Division of Hazardous Material and Waste Management. Personal communi-
cation with HMWMD personnel. March 1982.
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Office of Environmental Affairs,
Hazardous Waste Management Division. Personal communication with HWMD
personnel. March 1982.
Missouri Deparmtent of Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Quality.
Personal communication with DEQ personnel. March 1982.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Personal communication
with DEP personnel. March 1982.
O'Brien, D., User Fees: A State Regulation Survey. Office of Solid Waste,
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. August
1979.
Office of Solid Waste. Solid Waste User Fees: New Jersey Case Study.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
January 1980.
Office of Solid Waste. Solid Waste. User Fees: Wisconsin Case Study.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.
November 1979.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Land Pollution Control.
Personal communication with OLPC personnel. March 1982.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Waste Management,
Personal communication with BWM personnel. March 1982.
-63-
-------
APPENDIX A
NGA/ASTSWMO SURVEY QUESTIONS
-------
t
NGA/ASTSWMO SURVEY QUESTIONS
Permit/User Fees
13. Due to Federal budget cutbacks there is a greater interest in using
permit fees to cover the costs of regulatory activities. Does your
agency have authority to charge permit fees? If not, are there cur-
rently efforts underway to develop such authority?
14. Do you presently charge permitting or processing fees? If not, do
you plan to in the future? When?
IF YOU HAVE A FEE SYSTEM, PLEASE ANSWER QUESTIONS 15 and 16. IF YOU DO NOT,
PLEASE ISSUER QUESTION 17.
15. If you charge permit user fees:
a. What kind of fee do you charge (a one-time permit processing fee?
an annual inspection or operating fee? Please specify).
b. How long has the program been in place?
c. Who sets the fees?
d. On what are the fees based (size of the source? amount of emissions?)
e. Who collects the fees?
f. Where does the money go? (to the State general fund, .earmarkedrfund,
permitting agency, or. other).
g. What is the approximate annual income from the fees? As a percentage
of your operating budget? Is the income equal to what was expected?
h. Are the fees considered a part of your State appropriation?
i. . Is there a fee schedule? If so, please provide it.
j. How is collection enforced? Are there penalties?
k. Are the fees set to cover a portion of your administrative costs?
If so, what portion? (Processing, Appeals, Inspection, etc.)
1. How can your agency access the revenues (e.g., through the appro-
priations process or immediate, ongoing access)?
A-l
-------
1
16, The answers to these questions will be confidential. Please answer to the
best of your ability.
• a.. Past Alternatives: To your knowledge, what other funding alterna-
tives besides the present fee structure and general revenue receipts
have been considered, if any, to fund the hazardous waste program?
b. Future Options: Considering the decreasing Federal budget, what
additional funding sources appear feasible (such as new fees, in-
crease 1n the fee schedule, or increased general revenues)?
Carrying Capacity: How much of the costs of the hazardous waste
program could realistically be funded through the fees presently
in effect?
d. Support/Opposition: What constituency groups support and oppose
" the fees in the State? What arguments have been most persuasive
in support or opposition to the fees?
e. Followup: We would like to develop some activities as followup to
this questionnarie that would be useful to States with and without
fees. Besides supplying survey results, what activities would be
helpful to you now or would have been useful in the development of
your fee system (such as workshops, conference calls, or model regu-
lations)?
17. a. Has your agency ever considered proposing a fee system for the hazar-
dous waste program?
b. If so, what type of fees were considered?
c. Have you attempted to get legislative authority or otherwise imple-
. ment a fee system? If not, why not?
i
A-2
-------
d. If you tried to get such authority and did not succeed, what were
the reasons?
e. If EPA's funding of State program decreases, will the current level
of fundgin be ma intainted by the State? If so, how?
f. What do you believe are the institutional and political barriers to
instituting a fee system in the State?
-------
APPENDIX B
NGA/ASTSWMO COVER LETTER
-------
February 9, 1982 '
\crrhor. H Ucsencnuck. P£
, venrcnt
.JCCKM
jpc«cC-
•&CABDOFOCSCTO8S
A Coves •
Namwn H. Nosencfxjek. PI.
New York
Porfcer.
won.
Nearosta
f=r; Tower
Dear •
ASTSWMO and the National Governors' Association (NGA) are
conducting a survey of States to determine the Impact of Federal .
budget cuts on hazardous waste programs and the ability of States
to provide funds through fee systems. NGA will also survey the . •
Impact of the budget cuts on the air and water programs.. As part
of this effort, questionnaires for these three areas are being
sent to the Governors' offices to answer some questions and then
will be distributed to the Individual program directors. You
should be getting that survey soon. If you have not already. It
will be Identical to the attached one except for our additional
.questions on fee systems.
This information will be useful in knowing the changes in
program, implementation that the cuts will cause and helpful in
informing States of the status and potential of types of fee sys-
tems. While the cuts may not be as severe this year as mentioned
in some questions, your answers will be helpful in case of addi-
tional cuts in the future.
There are two parts to this survey. First, please complete
the questionnaire on the impact of the budget cuts and your fee
system. The information-on the fee system from Part D will give
us and other States a more complete picture of how your progam
operates, Its strengths and shortcomings, and your plans for the
future. Second, please review the attached summary sheet on user
fees in your State. This data is based on our knowledge of your
statutes and regulations and we would appreciate your confirming
.and correcting this information.
Please return the questionnaire to me by February 26. We
will complete the study in March and provide you with a copy of
the analysis then. Thank you for your help in this work.
Sincerely,
David Duncan
DD/mg
Enclosure
B-l
-------
ft
4UUTO
:soco-ior; o< Stole cnc ~e''-Tcr:ol 5c' 3 '.Yore Varoge^ier;: Cf*co-£
-i' ^nnCcciio! S'.«eei. I..". • -.vcsr. - j-c'. 3. C. 2-jC.O'".
February 9, 1982
NosercriuCic. P £
: *w York
• vuuionl
JOCkM.McMlon
Seoetary-Treosuer
menoe:.
Texos
HJv Coves •
^f J|-^-> |-LJ»<_J l_
V-WOnOmo
Dora A. Lozcrchk. P =.
Mesescpi
NcxncnH.Nosencnuek.PJ.
New York .
Dole W. Parser. PhD.
Uioh .
Moacew.Shei-
Dear
t
ASTSUNO and the National Governors' Association (NGA) are
conducting a survey of States to determine the impact of Federal
budget cuts on hazardous waste programs and the ability of States
to provide funds through fee systems. NGA will also survey the
impact of the budget cuts on the air and water prpgans. As part .
of this effort, questionnaires for these three areas are being sent
to the •Governors' offices to answer some questions and then will be
distributed to the individual program directors. You should be get-
ting that survey soon, if you have not. already. It will be identic;
to the attached one except for our additonal questions on fee systet
This information will be useful in knowing the changes in progi
implementation that the cuts will cause and helpful in informing
States of the status and potential of types of fee systems. While |
the cuts-may. not be as severe this year as mentioned-in some of thel
questions, your answers will be helpful in case of additional' cuts
in the future.
To our knowledge, your State has not instituted a.fee system ir
the hazardous waste program. If this is correct, question 17 is In-
tended to give us information about your experiences arid plans in th
area. If you do have a fee system, questions 15 and 16 will offer a
picture of the strengths and weaknesses of hazardous waste fee sys-
tems as well as States' plans in this area.
Please return the questionnaire to me by .February 26. We will
complete the study In March and provide you with a copy of_the anal-
ysis then. Thank you for your help in this work.
Sincerely,
David Duncan
DD/mg
Enclosure
B-2
-------
APPENDIX C
CORRELATION OF PROGRAM SIZE TO FEE IMPLEMENTATION
-------
Table C-1
RELATIVE STATE PROGRAM SIZE
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Somoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Dotrict of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
D
C
A
C
B
E
C
C
A
A
D
D
A
A
B
E
O
C
C
D
D
A
C
O
E
C
B
C
State
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
e\l •
NWW «Mflvy
New Mexico
New York
Northern Marianas
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
B
A
A
A
D
A
E
A
D
A
E
C
C
E
B
B
C
A
D
E
B
A
C
A
C
D
D
A
•Based on grant formula in 40CFR35.706(a):
40% — relative population
40% — relative amounts of hazardous waste generated
15% — relative number of generators
5% — relative land area
Programs range from A (the smallest) to E (the largest)
Source: ORIA. EPA - April 1980
C-1
-------
Figure C-1
CORRELATION OF PROGRAM SIZE TO FEE IMPLEMENTATION
Size Category
A
B
C
D
E
TOTAL
# in Category
16
7
14
12
7
56
# Implementing Fees
5
3
5
9
4
26
% Implementing Feet
31%
43%
36%
75%
57%
46%
Source: Fred C. Hart Associates, June 1982
C-2
-------
APPENDIX D
STATE FEE MECHANISM DESCRIPTIONS
This appendix contains brief descriptions of the remaining
thirteen States that have implemented fee systems for their
hazardous waste regulatory programs. These descriptions
complement the in-depth case studies provided for seven
States in Chapter IV.
-------
ARKANSAS
Authority
Statute: Arkansas Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1979 (Act 406 of
1979)
Regulation: Arkansas Hazardous Waste Management Code.
Government Entity Implementing the Program
Department of Pollution Control and Ecology
Description of User Fee
A permit fee is established for the construction and/or operation of a
hazardous waste management facility covering the active portions of the
facility. Commercial facilities are distinguished from non-commercial
facilities for fee schedules. Subcategories of fees are: 1) initial permit
application fee, 2) five-year permit renewal fee, and 3) annual permit
evaluation fee.
Each land farm or landfill within a facility identified above will be
assessed an additional fee for each acre (active portions).
Each storage vessel or containment basin 1000 gallons or more on a
facility identified above will be assessed an additional fee.
Owners of facilities that dispose of wastes from military explosives
and/or chemical agents will be assessed fees on a case-by-case basis.
Facility permit modification fees are charged. The basis of the fee is
a formula which considers the initial permit application fee, and the annual
operating capacity of the facility both proposed and actual.
On-site inspection costs are charged in advance when it is necessary to
maintain Department inspectors on the construction or operational site.
Transportation of hazardous waste must be permitted both as a business
and by each vehicle.
D-l
-------
Fee Schedule
a) Facility Permit
Commercial Non-Commercial
Category Facility Facility
Initial $5000 $1000
5 Yr. Renewal "
Annual evaluation " "
b) Land farm or landfill assessment (in addition to "a)" above)
1) Land farm waste from more than one generation $1000/yr/acre
2) Landfarm waste from only one generator $500/yr/acre
3) Landfill, commercial $5000/yr/acre
4) Landfill, non-commercial $1000/yr/acre
c) Storage vessel or containment basin (over 1000 gal)
$1/1000 gallons/each vessel
d) Wastes from military explosives and chemical agents will be deter-
mined on a case-by-case basis.
e) Permit modification based on the formula
Fee = F x (—3 2 -^—)
F = initial permit fee
Cx = annual operating capacity under existing permit
C2 = difference between proposed annual operating capacity
and Cj.
f) Inspection Costs are based on actual anticipated costs. Payments
are made quarterly.
g) Transportation fees are a base fee of $100 renewable every 5
years.
h) Manifests must be purchased from the State at a price of $2.00 per
manifest.
Impact/Intent for State Financing
The purpose of the facility fees is to recover the costs of processing
permit applications, on-site monitoring and certification of personnel. The
purpose of the transportation fees is to cover permit administrative costs
and the cost of the manifest system.
D-2
-------
HAWAII
Authority
Statute: Solid Waste Disposal Act, Chapter 184, Amended by Laws of
1979, Chapter 151.
Regulation: Solid Waste Regulations, Section 2(k)
Government Entity Implementing the Program
Department of Health
Description of User Fee
A one time filing fee for permit applications.
Fee Schedule
Currently $20 per application. It will soon be raised to $50.00.
Impact/Intent for State Financing
Fee revenues are supposed to cover processing of the application.
D-3
-------
INDIANA
Authority
State: Indiana Code, Title 13, Environment, Article 7 - Environmental
Management, Chapter 8.6 and 8.7.
Indiana Code Section 6-6, as amended by House Act No. 2025 sect. 2(a),
1981 Session.
Regulation: Stream Pollution Control Board Regulation SPC 17 - Indus-
trial Waste Hauler Permit Regulation.
Government Entity Implementing the Program
Environmental Management Board (except for the Stream Pollution Control
Board Regulation).
Description of User Fee
The Waste Hauler regulation establishes a transporter user fee. The
waste includes liquid waste incident to an industrial or commercial activ-
ity. On-site haulage is excluded.
A certificate of environmental compatability is necessary in order to
construct a hazardous waste facility. The applicant may have to pay an
annual fee to the hazardous waste training trust fund as determined by the
board.
Fee Schedule
The industrial waste hauler fee is set at $100 plus $10 for each addi-
tional vehicle application.
The annual fee for training is based on the estimated cost of the
education and training needed by the affected community.
Impact/Intent for State Financing
The waste hauler fee will be used to help defray the cost of admini-
stering the waste hauler program.
The training fee helps pay local health and public safety officials and
employees to be trained in order to provide emergency response service in
connection with transportation of hazardous wastes to, and treatment, stor-
age, and disposal of hazardous wastes at the proposed facility.
D-4
-------
KANSAS
Authority
Statute: Kansas Statutes Annotated, Title 65, Public Health.
Regulation: Kansas Administrative Regulation, Title 28 - Department of
Health and Environment, Article 29 - Solid Waste Management.
Government Entity Implementing the Program
Department of Health and Environment
Description of User Fee
The State fee system consists of fees for:
1) TSDF permits;
2) Transporter permits; and
3) Monitoring.
Fee Schedule
1) TSDF permit fees are established at $50/year
2) Transporter fees are established at $100/year
3) Annual Monitoring fees:
Storage facilities:
On-site $100 Off-site $500
Treatment facilities:
On-site $250 Off-Site $1000
Disposal facilities:
5
-------
Experience to Date With Program
Fees have raised approximately $80,000 per year
Other Factors/Future Plans
Fee revenues are currently deposited into the general fund.. This
session, the legislature will recommend that these revenues be earmarked for
the administrative costs of the state's hazardous waste program.
The original intent of the fees was never clarified. They were to have
been sufficient to reimburse costs to the State of monitoring hazardous
waste sites. There was widespread support for fees covering all administra-
tive costs of the hazardous waste program.
The Agency has received permission to change the fee structure from
per-ton or per-barrel charges to a flat fee for range of facilities. It is
in the process of making these changes. There is a legislative assumption
that industry will support some raise in fees. Fee receipts did not
meet projections for FY-80 or FY-81 by a wide margin.
D-6
-------
MARYLAND
Authority
Statute: Maryland Natural Resources Code, Title 3, Environmental
Programs, Subtitle 7 - Hazardous Waste Facility Siting Program.
Regulation:
o Code of Maryland Regulations, Title 10, Department of Health
and Mental Hygiene, Subtitle 51 - Disposal of Designated
Hazardous Substances (DHS).
o Code of Maryland Regulation, Title 14, Independent Agencies,
Subtitle 14 - Hazardous Waste Facilities Siting Board.
Government Entity Implementing the Program
Statute: Department of Natural Resources
Regulation: Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
Description of User Fee
The regulation Title 10 establishes a permit fee applicable to the
operation or maintenace of a TSD facility. Fees are based on acerage,
nature and quantity of wastes, potential threat, anticipated costs of moni-
toring and regulating, etc.
Title 14 of the Regulations sets an application fee for a TSDF.
Fee Schedule
The annual operation permit fee is $50 as a minimum. The application
fee is set at $10,000.
Impact/Intent for State Financing
The law says that the fees are to be used "... to recover the costs of
processing applications ad issuing certificates."
D-7
-------
MASSACHUSETTS
Authority
Statute: Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 21C and Chapter 21D.
Regulation: Code of Massachusetts Regulations, Title 315, Hazardous
Waste Board, Chapter 2 - Hazardous Waste Regulations.
Government Entity Implementing the Program
The Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
Description of User Fees
The Act requires a hazardous waste licensing program with fees for
transporters and fees for facility operators. Storage at the site of gener-
ation for 90 days or less need not be licensed according to the regulations.
It is also possible under Chapter 21D for a facility developer to be
charged additional reasonable fees as compensation to communities abutting a
proposed hazardous waste facility site.
Fee Schedule
Transporters shall pay an annual fee of $200 for each vehicle.
Facility operators will pay an annual fee of $100 for hazardous waste
licenses.
Impact/Intent for State Financing
The fees collected are for the purposes of administration and enforce-
ment. See also the community impact fees noted above.
Other Factors/Future Plans
The regulations implementing a new fee schedule for 1982 are expected
to be promulgated shortly. It will distinguish between transporters and
facilities. Facility fees will be based on capacity and whether it is an
on-site or off-site facility.
D-8
-------
MICHIGAN
Authority
Statute: Michigan Compiled Laws, Chapter 299 - Conservation -State
Department.
Regulation: Michigan Administrative Code, Rules of the Department of
Natural Resources, Environmental Services Division, R 299.6101 through
.7305 - Hazardous Waste Management.
Government Entity Implementing the Program
Department of Natural Resources
Description of User Fee
There are separate fees for:
1)
2)
3)
Fee Schedule
Disposal facility construction permit application
Disposal facility operating license application
Hazardous waste hauler
a) Business license application
b) Vehicle license application
dule:
The Construction Permit Fee is determined from the following fee sche-
(1) Site size
(2) Projected waste
volume per day
(a) Less than 5 acres
(b) 5 to 19 acres
(c) 20 to 79 acres
(d) 80 acres or more
Landfills and
inground disposal
and storage
$100.00
170.00
240.00
320.00
(a) Less than 50 cubic
yards or 10,000 gallons 60.00
(b) 50 to 100 cubic yards
or 10,000 to 20,000
gallons 80.00
(c) 101 to 700 cubic yards
or 20,000 to 140,000
gallons 100.00
(d) More than 700 cubic
yards or more than
140,000 gallons 130.00
Other treatment
and long-term
storage
$50.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
50.00
100.00
100.00
150.00
D-9
-------
Michigan (Continued)
(3) Hydrogeological
characteristics
(4) Type of
facility
(a) Natural clay
(b) Natural sand
(c) Compacted clay
(d) Artificially lined
(other materials)
(e) Any combination
of above
(f) Surface water on
site
Landfill
Incinerator
Other method of
disposal involving:
(a) Actual or potential
air emissions
(b) Surface water
discharge
(c) Placement of materials
into the land or
potential groundwater
discharge
40.00
60.00
70.00
100.00
100.00
9000.00
7200.00
75.00
7200.00 if none or 1 of
(a), (b), or (c) applies;
8100.00 if 2 of (a), (b)
or (c) apply;
9000.00 if (a), (b), and
(c) all apply.
The Operating License fee is set at $500.00. (renewal term unspeci-
fied)
The fee for hazardous waste hauler is $500.00 (renewal term unspeci-
fied).
The fee for vehicles is $200 for each waste-hauling portion of each
vehicle to be used for transporting hazardous waste. (renewal term un-
specified).
Impact/Intent for State Financing
The construction permit fee is based on the cost to the department of
reviewing the permit application. Fees are deposited in the general fund.
Although the intent of the other fees is not specified, it is assumed
that it is to help defray administrative expenses incident to reviewing and
issuing the permits. The fees are deposited to the state general fund.
Other Factors/Future Plans
The legislature recognizes that the fees are not sufficient to cover
all administrative costs. There is an intent to address this situation
during this session.
Earlier there was some commitment to establish a tonnage surcharge on
hazardous waste disposal. This would be used for administrative costs.
However, this was just at the discussion stage, with pressure not to imple-
ment it.
D-10
-------
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Authority
Statute: New Hampshire Revised Statutes, Chapters 147-A - Hazardous
Waste Management, 147-C - Hazardous Waste Facility Review.
Regulation: New Hampshire Rules (He-P 1905.09)
Government Entity Implementing the Program
Department of Health and Welfare, Bureau of Solid Waste Management.
Description of User Fee
The Act establishes separate fees for l)transporters, 2)facility
operators. Fees are paid for permits to transport wastes, and permits to
operate treatment, storage and disposal facilities.
Fee Schedule
A non-refundable fee is set by the regulation for each permit applica-
tion according to the following schedule:
Disposal and treatment - $1,000
Generator storage - $600
Storage other than generator - $800
The Act sets maximum operator permit and permit renewal fees at $1000.
The fee schedule is to be established by the Bureau on a sliding scale based
on the cost of processing applications. The term of the permit is 5 years.
The Act sets a transporter permit application fee of $50 per year.
Impact/Intent for State Financing
Operator permit fees shall be used by the Bureau for review of appli-
cations.
Transporter permit fees shall be used in processing transporter permit
applications.
D-n
-------
OREGON
Authority
Statute: Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 459, Solid Waste Control.
Regulation: Oregon Administrative Rules, Department of Environmental
Quality, Chapter 340, Division 62, Procedures for Licensing Hazardous Waste
Management Facilities.
Government Entity Implementing the Program
Department of Environmental Quality.
Description of User Fee
The law and regulation require that a non-refundable fee be paid for
each hazardous waste disposal site and a fee based on amounts disposed at
the disposal site. While a license is requied for a "collection site" and
for a "treatment site" there is no user fee for them. Nor is there any fee
applicable to a generator who treats or disposes of hazardous wastes on-
site.
Fee Schedule
The hazardous waste disposal fee is $5,000.
A compliance monitoring fee for storage and treatment facilities will
be implemented July 1, 1983.
Impact/Intent for State Financing
The non-refundable $5,000 fee for disposal sites is for administrative
expenses of the Department.
D-12
-------
PUERTO RICO
Authority
Statute: Solid Waste Management Authority Act, No. 70.
Regulations: Puerto Rico Hazardous and NonHazardous Solid Waste
Regulations, Part X, Rule 1001, 1002.
Government Entity Implementing Program
Environmental Quality Board
Description of User Fee
Fees are established for permit applications, renewals and modifica-
tions. In addition construction, and operation permits and ownership trans-
fers are subject to fees.
Fee Schedule
1. Filing Fee - $15.00
2. Permit Fee - Note: Permits for both construction and oper-
ation are assessed at 1.5 times the schedule
below.
Renewal fees are 65% of the applicable sche-
dule.
Schedule I: Land Disposal Facilities (landfill, landtreatment and
waste piles)
Site Size Hazardous Waste Fee
up to 20 acres $100.00
from 20 to 60 acres 200.00
from 60 to 100 acres 250.00
from 100 to 200 acres 300.00
additional 200 acres or fraction 150.00
Schedule II: Storage tanks,-surface impoundments:
Capacity in gallons
up to and excluding 4,000 gallons $100.00
from 4,001 to 10,000 150.00
from 10,001 to 40,000 200.00
from 40,001 to 100,000 250.00
from 100,001 to 500,000 300.00
from 500,001, to 1,000,000 400.00
from 1,000,001 to 1,500,000 " 450.00
from 1,500,001 to 2,000,000 500.00
additional 500,000 or fraction 100.00
-------
PUERTO RICO (Continued)
Schedule III: Processing and Treatment Facilities.
Incinerators, Thermal Treatment, Pyrolysis Plants. Any equipment
defined as an incinerator, thermal treatment or pyrolysis plant and
used primarily to dispose or treat combustible solid or hazardous waste
by wholly consuming the materials charged, leaving only ashes or
residues, shall be assessed a permit fee based on the following
schedule:
Type Hazardous Solid Waste
On-site $100.00
Central Plants 250.00
Treatment Facilities for Hazardous Solid Wastes (Biological,
Physical or Chemical Treatment).
Type Permit Fee
On-site $100.00
Central Facility 250.00
Schedule IV: Collection and Transportation Services for Solid Waste
and Hazardous Solid Wastes.
Type Permit Fee
Collection Services $100.00
Transporter of
Hazardous Solid Waste 250.00
Schedule V: Miscellaneous.
Any solid or hazardous waste treatment, storage or disposal
facility which could not be assessed by any of the preceding
schedules shall be assessed a permit fee of $250.00.
3. Fees for Transfers of Ownership or Change of Location: % of
applicable schedule.
4. Fees for Duplicate Permits: $10.00
5. Fees for Revisions: 1/8 of the applicable schedule.
6. Test Fees: Owner or operator must pay for the costs of com-
pliance monitoring testing as required..
impact/Intent for State Financing
The fees pay for the costs of the associated services.
D-14
-------
RHODE ISLAND
Authority
Statute: Rhode Island General Laws, Title 23, Health and Safety,
Chapter 19.1 - Hazardous Waste Management.
Regulation: Rhode Island Hazardous Waste Rules and Regulations.
(
Government Entity Implementing the Program
Department of Environmental Management
Description of User Fee
The Act authorizes the Director of the Department to establish applica-
tion and renewal fees for permits (not to exceed 5 years) for treatment,
storage, disposal facilities and for permits (not to exceed one year) for
transportation of hazardous wastes.
Fee Schedule
The fees established by the Director are $25 per vehicle and $1,000 per
hazardous waste management facility. Fee payment is to the Department.
Other expenses incurred in processing the permit will be charged the appli-
cant as determined by the Director not to exceed $10,000 per facility per
year.
Impact/Intent for State Financing
The permit fees shall pay the expenses reasonably incurred by the
Department for supplies, personnel, travel and other outlays in connection
with processing and issuing the permit.
D-15
-------
TENNESSEE
Authority
Statute: "Tennessee Hazardous Waste Management Act," Tennessee Code,
Title 53, Health and Safety, Chapter 63 - Hazardous Waste Management (TCA
53-6301 et. seq.)
Regulation: Regulations do not mention user fees. (Tenn. Dept. of
Public Health, Division of Solid Waste Management Rules, Chapter 1200 -
Hazardous Waste Management.)
Government Entity Implementing the Program
Division of Solid Waste Management
Bureau of Environmental Health Science
Tennessee Department of Public Health
Description of User Fee
There are three (3) kinds of fees:
(1) Application fees for permits to transport store, treat or dispose
of hazardous waste
(2) Annual maintenance fees from permitted transporters, storers,
treaters, and disposers, and
(3) Annual maintenance fees from generators who ship hazardous waste
off-site for storage, treatment or disposal.
Fee Schedule
The Act establishes maximum and minimum amounts and tasks a board to
establish a fee schedule. The State is in the process of developing a fee
system similar to the Arkansas system. An earlier tonnage fee that assessed
only commercial sites has been dropped.
The maximum amount of the permit application fee for storers, treaters,
or disposers shall not exeed $5,000.00 and for transporters shall not exceed
$100.00.
The maximum amount of the maintenance fees collected annually from any
permitted hazardous waste storage, treatment, or disposal facility shall not
exceed $10,000.00 and from any permitted transporters shall not exceed
$1,000.00. The minimum amount of the maintenance fee collected annually
from any permitted facility shall not be less than $100.00. The annual
maintenance fee collected from any permitted transporter shall not be less
than $25.00 and the amount shall be based on the quantity of hazardous waste
tranported.
The maintenance fee collected annually from generators who ship hazard-
ous waste off-site for storage, treatment, or disposal shall not exceed
$100.00 per generator.
D-16
-------
Tennessee (Continued)
Impact/Intent for State Financing
Expenditure of fees collected shall be restricted to operation of the
hazardous waste management program established pursuant to this Chapter 63.
D-17
-------
WEST VIRGINIA
Authority
Statute: West Virgnia Code, Chapter 20, Natural Resources, Article
5E - Hazardous Waste Management Act.
Regulation: West Virginia Regulations Chapter 20 -5E
Government Entity Implementing the Program
Department of Natural Resources
Description of User Fee
See Fee Schedule
Fee Schedule
For hazardous waste management facilities the schedule is:
(1) Commercial Facility
Initial Permit $10,000, Ten (10) year renewal $5,000
Annual evaluation 1,000
(2) Major Facility
Initial Permit $5,000, Ten (10) year renewal 1,000
Annual evaluation 500
(3) Minor Facility
Initial Permit $1,000, Ten (10) year renewal 500
Annual evaluation 100
Impact/Intent for State Financing
All permit application fees will be paid into the state treasury into
"The Hazardous Waste Management Fund" which is used to help defray the cost
of administering the Act.
D-18
-------
APPENDIX E
STATE SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE AGENCIES
-------
SW - 393
STATE SOLID WD HAZARDOUS WASTE AGENCIES
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
May 1982
ALABAMA
Alfred S. Chipley, Director
Division of Solid Waste Management
Department of Public Services
434 Monroe Street
Montgomery, Alabama 36130
CML (205) 832-6728
ALASKA
Stan Hungerford
Air & Solid Waste Management
Dept of Environmental Conservation
Pouch O
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Seattle FTS Operator 399-0150
CML (907) 465-2635
AMERICAN SAMOA.
Pati Faiai, Executive Secretary
Environmental Quality Commission
American Samoa Government
Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799
Overseas Opeartor
(Ccmnercial Call 633-1116)
Randy Morris, Deputy Director
Department of Public Works
Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799
AKC2PNA
Barry Abbott, Director
Department of Health Services
State Health Building, Roan 202
1740 West Adams St.
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
ETS 8-765-1130
CML (602) 255-1162
ARKANSAS
Jarrell Southall, Director
Department of Pollution
Control and Ecology
P.O. Box 9583
8001 National Dr.
Little Rock, Arkansas 72219
CML (501) 562-7444
Ed Davis, Energy Administrator
Bionass and Resource Recovery
Program
Department of Energy
Number 1 State Capitol Mall
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
CML (501) 371-1370
CALiroRTIA
Peter Rogers, Acting Chief
Hazardous Waste Management Branch
Department of Health Services
744 P Street
Sacramento, California 95814
FTS 8-552-2308
CML (916) 322-2308
COLORADO
Kenneth Waesche, Director
Waste Management Division
Colorado Department of Health
4210 E. llth Ave.
Denver, Colorado 80220
CML (303) 320-8333
E-l
-------
Orville Stoddard, Deputy Director
Waste Management Division
Colorado Department of Health
4210 East llth Ave.
Denver, Colorado 80220
CML (303) 320-8333
COMMONWEALTH OF NORTH MARIANA ISLANDS
George Chan, Administrator
Division of Environmental Quality
Department of Public Health and
Environmental Services
Ccrmonwealth of the North
Mariana Islands
Saipan, Mariana Islands 96950
Overseas Operator: 6984
Cable address: QDV. NMI Saipen
CONNECTICUT
Charles Kurker, Director
Solid Waste Management Unit
Department of Environmental Protection
State Office Building
165 Capitol Ave.
Hartford, Connecticut 06115
PTS 8-641-5712
CML (203) 566-5712
Stephen Hitchcock, Director
Hazardous Materials Management Unit
Department of Environmental Protection
State Office Building
165 Capitol Ave.
Hartford, Connecticut 06106
FTS 8-641-5712
CML (203) 566-5712
Patrick Bowe, Acting Chief
Hazardous Waste Section
Department of Environment Protection
State Office Building
165 Capitol Ave.
Hartford, Connecticut 06106
FTS 8-641-5869 or 5712
CML (203) 566-5712
Michael Cawley
Connecticut Resource Recovery
Authority
179 Allyn St. Suite 603
Professional Building
Hartford, Connecticut 06103
CML (203) 549-6390
DELAWARE
Kenneth R. Weiss, Supervisor/
Resource Engineer
Solid Waste Management Section
Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Control
Edward Tatnall Building
P.O. Box 14011. Room 203
Blue Hen Mall
Dover, Delaware 19901
CML (302) 736-4781
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Angelos Tatipros, Chief
Division of Pesticides and
Hazardous Materials
Department of Environmental Sciences
5000 Overlook Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20032
CML (202) 767-8181
FLORIDA
Robert W. McVety, Administrator
Solid Waste Section
Department of Environmental
Regulations
Twin Towers Office Building,
Room 421
2600 Blair Stone Rd.
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
CML (904) 488-0300
E-2
-------
GEORGIA
ILLINOIS
Moses N. McCall, III, Chief
Land Protection Branch
Environmental Protection Division
Department of Natural Resources
270 Washington St. S.W., Roan 822
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
CML (404) 656-2833
GUAM
James Branch, Deputy Administrator
EPA, Government of Guam
P.O. Box 2999
Agana, Guam 96910
Overseas Operator
(Conmercial Call 646-8863)
HAWAII
Melvin Koizumi, Deputy Director
Environmental Health Division
Department of Health
P.O. Box 3378
Honolulu, Hawaii 96801
California FTS Operator
8-556-0220
CML (808) 548-4139
Ralph Yukumoto
Environmental Health Division
Department of Health
P.O. Box 3378
Honolulu, Hawaii 96801
California ETS Operator
8-556-0220
CML (808) 548-6410
IDAH3
Robert Olson, Supervisor
Hazardous Materials Bureau
Department of Health and Welfare
State House
Boise, Idaho 83720
FTS 554-4064
CML (208) 334-4064
Robert Kuykendall, Director
Division of Land and Noise
Pollution Control
Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Rd. Roan A-104
Springfield, Illinois 62706
CML (217) 782-6760
FTS 8-956-6760
INDIANA
David Lamm, Director,
Land Pollution Control Division
State Board of Health
1330 West Michigan St. Room A-304
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206
CML (317) 633-0194
IOWA
Charles C. Miller, Director
Air and Land Quality Division
Department of Environmental
Quality
Henry A. Wallace Building
900 East Grand Street, 3rd floor
Des Moines, Iowa 50319
FTS 8-841-8853
CML (515) 281-8853
KANSAS
Howard Duncan, Director
Bureau of Environmental
San.
Department of Health and Envirconent
Forbes Field, Building 321
Topeka, Kansas 66620
CML (913) 862-9360, Ext. 290
E-3
-------
KENTUCKY
MARYLAND
Alex Barber, Director
Division of Waste Management
Bureau of Environmental Protection
Department for Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection
18 Reilly Rd.
Frankfort, Kentucy 40601
FTS 8-351-6716
CML (502) 564-6716
LOUISIANA
John Koury, Administrator,
Solid Waste Division
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 44396
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804
CML (504) 342-1227
Gerald D. Healy, Jr., Administrator
Hazardous Waste Division
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 44066
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804
FTS 8-687-0468
CML (504) 342-1227
MAINE
Steve Groves, Acting Chief
Bureau of Oil and Hazardous
Waste Materials
Dept. of Environmental Protection
State House — Station 17
Augusta, Maine 04333
FTS 8-868-2111
CML (207) 289-2111
Jack Krueger, Director
Licensing and Enforcement Division
Bureau of Oil and Haz. Waste Materials
Dept. of Environmental Protection
State House—Station 17
Augusta, Maine 04333
FTS 8-868-2591
CML (207) 289-2251
Bernard Bigham
Waste Management Administration
Department of Health and
Mental Hygiene
201 W. Preston Street, Room 212
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
CML (301) 383-5740
Fred Sachs, Chief
Hazardous Waste Division
Waste Management Administration
Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene
201 W. Preston Street
Baltimore, M.D. 21201
(301) 383-5743
Ronald Nelson, Director
Waste Management Administration
Office of Environmental Programs
Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene
201 West Preston Street
Room 212
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
CML (301) 383-3123
MASSACHUSETTS
John Shortsleeve, Director
Bureau of Solid Waste Disposal
Dept. of Environmental Management
Rxm 1905
Leverett Saltonstall Building
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02202
CML (617) 727-4293
E-4
-------
(Solid & Hazardous Waste Regulatory)
William Cass, Director
Division of Hazardous Waste
Department of Envirormental Quality
Engineering
1 Winter Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02110
CML (617) 292-5500
MICHIGAN
Gary Guenther, P.E., Chief
Envirormental Protection Bureau
Department of Natural Resources
Box 30028
Lansing, Michigan 48909
FTS 8-253-7919
CML (517) 373-7917
Fred Kellow, Division Chief
Resource Recovery Division
Department of Natural Resources
Westland Plaza
Lansing, Michigan 48909
CML (517) 373-0540
Allan Howard, Chief
Office of Hazardous Waste Management
Envirormental Services Division
Department of Natural Resources
Box 30028
Lansing, Michigan 48909
FTS 8-253-2730
CML (517) 373-2730
(Hazardous Waste, Liquid)
David Dennis, Chief
Oil & Hazardous Materials
Control Section
Water Quality Division
Dept. of Natural Resources
Box 30028
Lansing, Michigan 48909
CML (517) 373-2794
(Hazardous Waste, Toxic or
Critical Materials)
Delbert Rector, Chief
Envirormental Services Division
Dept. of Natural Resources
Box 30028
Lansing, Michigan 48909
FTS 8-253-3560
CML (517) 373-3560
John L. Hesse, Chief
Chemicals and Health Center
Michigan Dept. of Public Health
Box 30035
Lansing, Michigan 48909
CML (517) 373-8050
MINNESOTA
Dale L. Wikre, Director
Solid and Hazardous Waste Division
Pollution Control Agency
1935 West County Rd. B-2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
CML (612) 297-2735
MISSISSIPPI
Jack M. McMillan, Director
Division of Solid and Hazardous
Waste Management
Bureau of Pollution Control
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 10385
Jackson, Mississppi 39209
CML (601) 961-5171
MISSOURI
Dave Sedan, Ph. D.
Director, Waste Management
Program
Department of Natural Resources
State Office Building
P.O. Box 1368
Jefferson City, MO 65102
CML (314) 751-3241
E-5
-------
MONTANA
Duane L. Robertson, Chief
Solid Waste Management Bureau
Dept. of Health and Environmental
Sciences
Cogswell Bldg., Room A201
Helena, Montana 59602
PTS 8-587-2821
CML (406) 449-2821
NEBRASKA
Robert Vail, Chief
Water and Waste Management Division
Department of Environmental Control
State House Station
P.O. Box 94877
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509
PTS 8-541-2148
CML (402) 471-2186
NE/ADA
Lewis H. Dodgion, Administrator
Division of Environmental Protection
Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources
Capitol Complex
Carson City, Nevada 87901
PPS 8-470-5911
CML (702) 885-4670
Verne Rosse
Waste Management Program Director
Division of Environmental Protection
Dept. of Conservation and
Natural Resources
Capitol Complex
Carson City, Nevada -89701
CML (702) 885-4670
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Tom Sweeney, Chief
Bureau of Solid Waste
Department of Health and Welfare
Health and Welfare Building
Hazen Drive
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
CML (603) 271-4603
NEW JERSEY
Lino P. Pereira, Director
Solid Waste Administration
Division of Environmental Quality
Department of Environmental Protection
32 E. Hanover Street
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
PTS 8-567-9877 •
CML (609) 292-9877
NEW MEXICO
Jon Thompson, Chief
Community Support Services
Bureau
Environmental Improvement Division
N.M. Health & Environment Department
P.O. Box 968
Santa Pe, New Mexico 87504
PTS 8-476-5271 Ext. 282
CML (505) 457-5271 Ext. 282
Ray Sisneros, Program Manager
PEM Section, Community Services Bureau
Environmental Improvement Division
N.M. Health and Environment Department
P.O. Box 968
Santa Pe, New Mexico 87504
PTS &476-5271 Ext. 272
CML-(505) 827-5271 Ext. 272
-------
NEW TORK
OKLAHOMA
Norman H. Nosenchuck, Director
Division of Solid Waste
Department of Environmental
Conservation
50 Wolf Rd., Roan 209
Albany, New York 12233
FTS 8-567-3254
CML (518) 467-3254
NORTH CAROLINA
O.W. Strickland, Head
Solid & Hazardous Waste Management
Branch
Division of Health Services
Department of Human Resources
P.O. Box 2091
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
CML (919) 733-2178
NORTH DAKOTA
Jay Crawford, Director
Division of Environmental Waste Management
and Research .
Department of Health
1200 Missouri Ave., 3rd floor
Bismarck, North Dakota 58505
CML (701) 224-2366
OHIO
Donald E. Day, Chief
Office of Land Pollution Control
Environmental Protection Agency
P.O. Box 1049
Columbus, Ohio 43216
FTS 8-942-8934
CML (614) 466-8934
Chuck Wilheim, Chief
Office of Hazardous Material Mgmt.
Ohio EPA
P.O. Box 1049
Columbus, OH 43216
FTS 8-942-7220
CML (614) 466-7220
H.A. Caves, Chief
Industrial and Solid Waste
Services
Department of Health
P.O. Box 53551
1000 N.E. 10th St., Room 803
Oklahoma City, Ok. 73152
CML (405) 271-5338
OREGON
Ernest A. Schmidt, Administration
Solid Waste Management
Division
Department of Environmental
Quality
P.O. Box 1760
522 S.W. Fifth Ave.
Portland, Oregon 97207
PTS 8-424-5913
CML (503) 229-5913
PENNSYLVANIA
Donald A. Lazarchik
Bureau of Solid Waste Management
Department of Environmental
Resources
Fulton Building - 8th floor
P.O. Box 2063
Harrisburg, PA 17120
FTS 8-637-9870
CML (717) 787-7383
PUERTO RICO
Luis de la Cruz, Director
Solid, Toxics, & Hazardous
Waste Program
Envirormental Quality Board
P.O. Box 11488
Santurce, Puerto Rico 00910
D.C. FTS Operator 472-6620
CML (809) 725-8992
E-7
-------
RHDDE ISLAND
TENNESSEE
John S. Quinn, Jr., Chief
Solid Waste Management Program
Dept. of Environmental Management
204 Cannon Building
75 Davis St.
Providence, Rhode Island 02908
FTS 8-277-2797
CML (401) 277-2797
SOUTH CAROLINA
Hartsill W. Truesdale, Director
Bureau of Solid and Hazardous
Waste Management
Dept. of Health and Environmental
Control
J. Marion Simms Building
2600 Bull St.
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
CML (803) 758-5681
Robert £. Malpass, Chief
Bureau of Solid and Hazardous
Waste Management
S.C. Dept of Health and Environmental
Control
J. Marion Sinttis Building
2600 Bull St.
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
CML (803) 758-5681
SOUTH DAKOTA
Joel C. Smith, Director
Division of Environmental
Health
Department of Health
Joe Foss Building
Pierre, South Dakota 57501
CML (605) 773-3329
Tom Tiesler, Director
Division of Solid Waste Management
Bureau of Environmental
Services
Tennessee Department of Public Health
150 9th Ave, North
Nashville, Tennessee 37203
FTS 8-853-3424
CML (615) 741-3424
TEXAS
Jack Carmichael, Director
Bureau of Solid Waste Management
Texas Department of Health
1100 West 49th Street, T-602
Austin, Texas 78756
CML (512) 458-7271
Jay Snow, Chief
Industrial Solid Waste Section
Texas Department of Water Resources
1700 North Congress,
Room 237-1
P.O. Box 13087, Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
CML (512) 475-2041
UTAH
Dale Parker, Director
Bureau of Solid and Hazardous
Waste Management
Department of Health
P.O. Box 2500
150 West North Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah 84110
CML (801) 533-4145
E-8
-------
VERMONT
WEST VIRGINIA
Richard A. Valentinetti, Chief
Air and Solid Waste Programs
Agency of Environmental Conservation
State Office Building
P.O. Box 489
Montpelier, Vermont 05602
FTS 8-832-3395
CML (802) 828-3395
VIRGIN ISLM3DS
Francine Lang, Director
Division of Natural Resources
Management
Department of Conservation and
Cultural Affairs
P.O. Box 4340, Charlotte Amalie
St. Thonas, Virgin Islands 00801
D.C. Overseas Operator 472-6620
CML (809) 774-6420
VIRGINIA
William F. Gilley, Director
Division of Solid and Hazardous
Waste Management
Virginia Department of Health
Madison Building
109 Governor St.
Richmond, Virginia 23219
FTS 8-936-5271
CML (804) 786-5271
WASHINGTON
Earl Tower, Supervisor
Solid Waste Mgmt. Division
Department of Ecololgy
Olympia, Washington 98504
FTS 8-459-6317
CML (206) 753-6317
John Northeimer
Division of Natural Resources
Dept. of Natural Resources
1201 Greenbrier Street
East Charleston, West Virginia 25311
CML (304) 348-5935
WISCONSIN
Robert Krill, Director
Bureau of Solid Waste Management
Dept. of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, Wisconsin 53707
FTS 8-366-1327
CML (608) 266-1327
WVDMTNG
Charles Porter, Supervisor
Solid Waste Management Program
Dept of Environmental Quality
Equality State Bank Building
401 West 19th St.
Cheyenne, Wyoning 82002
FTS 8-328-7752
CML (307) 777-7752
Protection
E-9
, irary (p, .-
West Jackson Boutevaii
ago, li 60604.3590 '
F,
Ftoar
-------
------- |