United States Office of Water &
Environmental Protection Waste Management SW -796
Agency Washington D.C. 20460 September 1979
Solid Waste
<>EPA Status of State Programs
for Hazardous and Solid Waste
Management:
1978
-------
STATUS OF STATE PROGRAMS
FOR HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT: 1978
This report (SW-796) was prepared under
contract for the Office of Solid Waste
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1979
-------
This report was prepared by Versar, Inc. of Springfield, VA under
contract no. 68-01-4767.
An environmental protection publication (SW-796) in the solid waste
management series. Mention of commercial products does not constitute
endorsement by the U.S. Government. Editing and technical content of this
report were the responsibilities of the State Program and Resource Recovery
Division of the Office of Solid Waste.
Single copies of this publication are available from Solid Waste
Information, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH 45268.
-------
CONTENTS
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
Introduction 3
II. HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS 5
State Hazardous Waste Legislative Data 6
Scope of Effort 6
Current Status of State Legislation and Regulations .... 7
Enabling legislation 7
Regulations 7
Specific Legislative Provisions 9
State Hazardous Waste Activities 16
III. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS 19
General Requirements 19
Identification of Regions and Agencies 21
Identification of Regional Boundaries 21
for Development of the State Plan 21
for Hazardous Waste Programs 22
for Resource Recovery 22
for Substate Implementation 22
Identification of Agencies , 22
Lead Agency Identification 25
Agencies for Distribution of 4008 Funds 26
Fiscal Trends 26
Personnel 29
Solid Waste Disposal Programs 30
Regulatory Povrers 30
Solid Waste Disposal Standards 31
Definitions 31
Wetlands 34
Floodplains 37
Critical Habitat 38
Sole Source Aquifers 39
Surface Water 39
Ground Water 40
Air 42
Land Application 44
Disease Vectors 47
Gas 49
Fires 51
Bird Hazards to Aircraft 51
Access 52
iii
-------
CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
Surveillance and Assessment 54
Inspection 54
Monitoring 54
Permits 55
Enforcement 56
Open Dump Inventory 57
Resource Conservation and Recovery 59
Facility Planning 62
Coordination 64
Public Participation 65
IV. OPPORTUNITIES FOR INFORMATION SHARING 67
V. ISSUES FOR FUTURE ATTENTION 69
REFERENCES 71
IV
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Ground water: key regulatory provisions of 50 States. ... 41
2 States having prohibitions against land application of
solid waste 46
3 Provisions for vector control at disposal facilities ... 43
4 Regulatory provisions of States with authority to control
gas emissions at disposal facilities 50
5 Number of States with provisions to control access .... 53
v
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 States Chosen for Legislative Analysis 6
2 Status of State Hazardous Waste Management Enabling
Legislation 8
3 Status of State Hazardous Waste Management Regulations. . 8
4 Status of Recordkeeping Requirements in State
Hazardous Waste Management 9
5 Status of Reporting Requirements in State Hazardous
Waste Management 10
6 Status of Manifest Requirements in State Hazardous
Waste Management 10
7 Status of Permit Requirements in State Hazardous
Waste Management Legislation 11
8 Status of Monitoring Requirements in State Hazardous
Waste Management 12
9 Status of Inspect and Sample Requirements in State
Hazardous Waste Management 12
10 Status of Enforcement Provisions in State Hazardous
Waste Management Legislation 13
11 Provisions for "Perpetual Care" of Hazardous Waste
Management Facilities 14
12 State Definitions of "Hazardous Waste" 14
13 Designated Lead Hazardous Waste Management Agency in
State 15
14 Summary of Provisions in Hazardous Waste Management
Enabling Legislation 17
15 Summary of Provisions in Hazardous Waste Management
Rules and Regulations 18
vi
-------
TABLES
(continued)
Number Page
16 Regional Boundary Identifications for Planning and
Development of State Solid Waste Management Plan ... 23
17 Regional Boundary Identifications for Hazardous Waste
Programs and Resource Recovery and Conservation
Programs 24
18 Assessment of Expenditure of FY 78 Solid Waste Grant
Funds 28
19 Analysis: RCRA Definition of Solid Waste 33
20 State Solid Waste Definitions 35
21 Specific Statutory Authority over Siting in a Wetland . . 36
22 Distance Requirements to Maximum Ground Water Level ... 36
23 Statutory Authority to Restrict Siting in a
Floodplain 37
24 Floodplain Siting Prohibitions 38
25 Conditions for Siting in a Floodplain 38
26 Provisions for Minimum Distance between Waste and
Surface Water 40
27 Requirements for Minimum Distance between Waste and
Ground Water Table 43
28 Requirements for Minimum Distance between Waste
and Wells 43
29 Specific Authority to Restrict Land Application of
Solid Waste at Certain Locations 44
30 Specific Regulatory Provisions for Land Application
of Solid Waste 45
Vll
-------
TABLES
(continued)
Number Page
31 Prohibition of Landspreading of Solid Waste 45
32 Periodic Application of Cover Required to Control
Vectors 47
33 Specific Requirements for Gas Venting 49
34 Provisions for Gas Monitoring 51
35 Provisions to Control Bird Hazards at a Disposal
Facility 52
36 Authority to Monitor for Gas or Ground Water 55
37 Authority to Require Monitoring for Gas or Ground
Water , 55
38 Number of States with Resource Recovery Studies 61
39 Number of States with Resource Recovery Projects .... 62
Vlll
-------
SECTION I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA)l aims to
improve solid waste management and promote more efficient use of natural
resources by assisting State and sub-State governments with financial
and technical support toward these goals. Subtitle C of RCRA sets forth
policies to regulate hazardous wastes and Subtitle D sets forth
policies for overall solid waste management.
Versar analyzed laws and regulations of 25 States with relation to the
proposed Federal requirements for State hazardous waste programs. The 25 States
selected represent either the top hazardous waste generating States or those
States with well established hazardous waste management activities. The
analysis indicated the following: (1) States define hazardous waste in
varied ways; (2) In most cases, the States have enabling legislation and
regulations in place or in draft form which address requirements for recordkeeping,
reporting, permits, and inspection and sampling; (3) Most States were found
to have enabling legislation which addresses monitoring requirements and
contains enforcement provisions, but some did not have regulations proposed
or in place to implement the legislation; (4) Enabling legislation and
regulations appeared to be lacking mostly in the areas of manifest systems
and closure and post-closure requirements for hazardous waste facilities;
(5) States are currently upgrading their legislative and regulatory bases
for hazardous waste management.
Versar's coverage of State solid waste management programs was aimed
at all 56 States and territories, and although data for all was not
consistently available, sane conclusions could be drawn: (1) All States
have at least begun the Regional and Agency Identification process which is
the initial step toward the development of State solid waste management
1 Annual State Report 1978
-------
plans tinder RCRA; (2) Legislative and regulatory analyses showed that (a)
all States studied have statutory authority to regulate facility siting
and operations in relation to protection of ground water, surface water
and air quality; (b) nearly all States have statutory authority to oontol
disease vectors and fires at disposal facilities; (c) more than half of
the States have statutory authority to regulate facility siting in
floodplains and to regulate landspreading operations; (3) Resource
conservation and recovery projects are gaining momentum in the majority
of States; (4) Some aspects of facility planning and coordination among
overlapping programs have yet to be satisfactorily worked out in the
States; and (5) Public participation in various facets of solid waste
management is increasing.
Annual State Report 1978
-------
INTPDDUCTICN
This report summarizes State solid waste legislation and program
activities concerning hazardous waste, non-hazardous waste, and resource
recovery through the year 1978. The information provides the beginning of
a framework for an analysis of State programs in the years following
enactment of RCRA. Section II focuses on the aspects of hazardous waste
management (HWM) which are relevant to State requirements for authorization
under Subtitle C of RCRA. The sequence of subjects in Section III follows
the proposed Guidelines for Development and Implementation of State Solid Waste
Management Plans (40 CFR Part 256).2 Data for this report were acquired
from several sources:
• Published State laws on solid waste, water, air, and administrative
procedure were abstracted to develop the legislative review included
here.
• Data on State program expenditures and activities were obtained
from information forwarded by Regional and State solid waste
agencies to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in
December 1978. At that time EPA requested an assessment from the
States and territories regarding their expenditures and activities
in FY78 (October 1977 through September 1978) and projected budget
needs for FY79-83 (5-year plans). Fifty States and two territories
responded in varying degrees of detail. The majority of responses
to the FY78 Assessments request were broken down into subcategories
corresponding to the major areas of activity supported by the EPA
grants for FY78:
- State Plans and Programs which covered activities for the
development of the State plan and ongoing State solid waste
activities which were not covered in the following specific
categories.
- Regional and Agency Identification which is mandated by RQRA
and the State planning guidelines as an initial step in developing
a State plan.
Annual State Report 1978
-------
- Open Dump Inventory which is required by RCRA. and must be
done by any State which uses RCRA Subtitle D grant monies.
Federal funding of 100 percent may be granted for this
activity.
- Hazardous Waste Program mandated by RCRA Subtitle C.
- Pass-through to sub State entities which enables local solid waste
agencies to use Federal funds.
• Additional facts concerning current State practices were acquired
from visits to State solid waste agencies for discussions of
technical aspects of land disposal control.
Although these sources provided some information in most relevant
subject areas, additional data are required to provide a firm understanding
of State capabilities and needs. This report, therefore, is by no means
a complete analysis of State solid waste management.
Annual State Report 1978
-------
SECTION II
HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS
Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
addresses hazardous waste management and requires the promulgation by
EPA of regulations establishing standards for identification or listing
of hazardous wastes (section 3001), for hazardous waste generators (section
3002), transporters (section 3003), and for operators of hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (section 3004). Such standards
are to include specific requirements respecting recordkeeping practices,
submission of reports, provisions for facility monitoring and inspections,
and use of a waste tracking (manifest) system to ensure that all
transported hazardous wastes are destined for treatment, storage, or
disposal at permitted facilities. Section 3005 of the Act requires
regulations establishing a facility permit system and includes permit
application, issuance and revocation provisions.
Section 3006 of the Act provides that the State, in lieu of the Federal
EPA, may administer and enforce the hazardous waste management regulatory
program established pursuant to Subtitle C if it has the necessary resources
and statutory and regulatory control to qualify for authorization of its
program. On February 1, 1978 EPA published preliminary authorization
guidelines3 pursuant to Section 3006 (40 CFR, Part 250, Subpart F) which
describe the statutory authority and regulatory program the State must
possess. A State seeking authorization under section 3006(b) must demonstrate
statutory authority and have published regulations covering the Section 3001
through 3005 requirements referenced above, and such control must extend to
both on-site (at the site of generation) and off-site hazardous waste
management practices, including surveillance and inspection processes and the
power to institute enforcement proceedings against violators. A State may
seek interim authorization of up to two years' duration if the State already
had a hazardous waste program in effect prior to 90 days after promulgation
of regulations under RCRA Sections 3002 through 3005. The State program
must also be substantially equivalent to the Federal. In addition, Section 3009
5 Annual State Report 1978
-------
of the Act prohibits States from imposing any requirement which is "less
stringent" than EPA1s regulations under Subtitle C. EPA proposed regulations
under Subtitle C section 3003 on April 28, 1978, ** and under Subtitle
C sections 3001, 3002, and 3004 on December 18, 1978.s
STATE HAZARDOUS WASTE LEGISLATIVE DATA
Scope of Effort
The hazardous waste legislation of 25 States was analyzed for the
purposes of this section of the report. Twenty-five States were chosen
which represent either the top hazardous waste generating States or those
States with well-established regulation of hazardous waste management activities
(Table 1). Many of the 25 States meet both criteria.
TABLE 1
SPATES CHOSEN FOR HWM LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS
(By EPA Region)
Region
I
II
III
IV
V
State
Mass achuse tts
Rhode Island
New Jersey
New York
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Alabama
Florida
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Illinois
Indiana
Region
V
(cont1 d)
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
State
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohi n
Wisconsin
Louisiana
Texas
Kansas
Missouri
None
Arizona
California
Oregon
Washington
* Hazardous waste management
Annual State Report 1978
-------
For sane States in which enabling legislation but no supporting
regulations were found, it could not be determined whether such regulations
were not yet in existence or simply not accessible to Versar. It is also
possible that in some instances in which certain regulatory provisions appear
to be lacking, coverage might nonetheless exist in solid waste regulations.
Current Status of State Legislation and Regulations
Two basic categories of materials were analyzed for each State:
(1) enabling legislation - typically an act or law which gives a particular
State agency the authority to promulgate specific rules and regulations
governing hazardous waste practices in the State; and (2) the specific rules
and regulations established pursuant to the enabling law or laws.
Enabling legislation—Enabling hazardous waste legislation generally
is in the form of a relatively new and comprehensive hazardous waste law
or a recently amended solid waste or general pollution control law or act
(Table 2). Seven of the 25 States have enabling legislation enacted in 1978;
eight have 1977 enabling legislation; four have legislation passed in 1976
(the year RCRA was enacted); and six of the 25 States presently have relevant
enabling legislation that pre-dates RCRA.
Of the six States with pre-1976 enabling legislation, five are currently
drafting legislation or planning to adopt HWM enabling legislation in fiscal
year 1979, while one State plans to amend its SWM enabling act once final
Subtitle C rules are published.
Regulations—The status of hazardous waste regulations varies from State
to State (Table 3). Many States have yet to develop specific hazardous
waste regulations and continue to regulate such activities via special
provisions in existing general solid waste management rules and regulations.
Annual State Report 1978
-------
TABLE 2
STATUS OF STATE HWM* ENABLING LEGISLATION
Date and Type of Legislation No. of States
1978 HWM law or act 51"
1978 amendment to existing SWM* or
general enabling legislation 2
1977 HWM law or act 3
1977 amendment to existing HWM
enabling legislation 2
1977 amendment to existing SWM or
general enabling legislation 3
1976 HWM law or act 2
1976 amendment to existing SWM or
general enabling legislation 2
pre-1976 SWM or general enabling
legislation 6
* HWM = hazardous waste management; SWM = solid waste management.
t Includes one Industrial HWM Act.
TABLE 3
STATUS OF STATE HWM* REGULATIONS
Date and Type of Regulations No. of States
1978 HWM regulations 2
1978 amended SWM* regulations 2
1977 HWM regulations 2
1977 amended SViM regulations 3
1976 HWM regulations 1
1976 amended SWM regulations 3
1976 SWM regulations 2
pre-1976 HWM regulations 1
pre-1976 SWM or industrial regulations 9
* HWM = Hazardous waste management; SWM = Solid waste management.
8 Annual State Report 1978
-------
Nine of the 25 States have drafted hazardous waste management rules or
regulations that are awaiting anticipated adoption by the State legislature.
Two States are currently drafting hazardous waste regulations and three
States plan to promulgate specific rules or regulations once the proposed
Subtitle C rules are made final.
Specific Legislative Provisions
Tables 4 through 10 that follow include summary analyses for the 25
States of specific legislative provisions presently found in State hazardous
waste laws and regulations. The specific categories represent those
legislative elements required of States seeking authorization under
section 3006 of the Act as previously described. Generators, transporters,
and owners or operators of hazardous waste management facilities are
required to keep records of the hazardous wastes involved in their
operations for three years. These records will form the bases for reports
which will be sent to the State hazardous waste agency. Legislative and
regulatory coverage of these requirements is in effect for a majority of
the 25 States (Tables 4 and 5). Generators of hazardous wastes will have
to provide a written manifest or statement which accompanies the waste
during transport from generation to final disposal. A copy of the manifest
must be sent back to the generator. States are in the process of adding
this requirement to their laws and regulations (Table 6) .
TABLE 4
STATUS OF RECOKDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS IN STATE HWM*
Coverage No. of States
provisions in enabling legislation 16
no provisions in reviewed legislation 9
specific requirements in existing regulations 14
specific requirements in draft regulations 4
no requirements in reviewed regulations 7
* Hazardous waste management
9 Annual State Report 1978
-------
TABLE 5
STATUS OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS IN STATE HWM*
Legislative Coverage No. of States
provisions in enabling legislation 18
no provisions in reviewed legislation 7
specific requirements in existing
regulations 16
specific requirements in draft regulations 4
no requirements in reviewed regulations 5
* Hazardous waste management
TABLE 6
STATUS OF MANIFEST REQUIREMENTS IN STATE HWM*
Coverage No. of States
specific requirements in existing
regulations 9
provisions currently in draft or proposed
legislation only 5
provisions currently in enabling
legislation only 8
no manifest provisions in reviewed
legislation 3
* Hazardous waste management
10 Annual State Report 1978
-------
RCRA regulations still to be promulgated require that a facility
which treats, stores, or disposes of hazardous waste must have a permit.
All 25 States examined provide for some form of permitting. (Table 7)
TABLE 7
STATUS OF PERMIT REQUIREMENTS IN STATE HWM* LEGISLATION
Coverage No. of States
en-site vs. off-site facility distinction
exists in legislation 6
no on-site vs. off-site distinction
(except for manifest requirements) 19
permit or licensing requirements exist
in regulations
permit or licensing requirements exist
in enabling legislation only
* Hazardous waste management.
t Of these 24 States, 11 have special permit provisions in
SWM regulations only.
The proposed Federal hazardous waste regulations require ground water
and leachate monitoring for landfills and surface iinpoundments of hazardous
wastes. Thus, in order for a State to have standards at least as
stringent as the Federal, the State must be able to require monitoring
under its own laws and regulations (Table 8).
Additional requirements for State hazardous waste management authorization
include State power to conduct inspections and collect samples at facilities
handling, processing, or disposing of hazardous wastes. All 25 States
analyzed were found to have the authority in their enabling laws but not
all had translated that authority into specific regulatory requirements
(Table 9). A State seeking authorization must also be able to enforce its
rules. Power to enforce was specifically granted by 23 States in enabling
11 Annual State Report 1978
-------
laws, but only 12 had clearly defined penalties and procedures in existing
or draft regulations (Table 10). Versar did not analyze specific enforcement
procedures or penalties in sufficient detail to permit a further breakdown
of these items here.
TABLE 8
STATUS OF MONITORING REQUIREMENTS IN STATE HWM*
Coverage No. of States
provisions in existing enabling legislation 20
no enabling provisions in reviewed legislation 5
specific requirements in existing regulations 10
specific requirements in draft regulations 2
no requirements in reviewed regulations 13
* Hazardous waste management
TABLE 9
STATUS OF INSPECT AND SAMPLE REQUIREMENTS IN STATE HWM*
Coverage No. of States
departmental authority to inspect and
sample granted in enabling legislation 25
specific inspect and sample requirements in
existing regulations 15
specific requirements in draft regulations 3
no requirements in reviewed regulations 7
* Hazardous waste management
12 Annual State Report 1978
-------
TABLE 10
STATUS OF ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS IN STATE HWM* LEGISLATION
Coverage No. of States
provisions in enabling legislation 23
no provisions in reviewed legislation 2
specific penalties or general provisions in
existing regulations 9
provisions in draft regulations 3
no provisions in reviewed regulations 13
* Hazardous waste management.
The Section 3004 proposed hazardous waste regulations5 include
requirements addressing financial assurance for facility closure and post-
closure monitoring and maintenance. Several States have such regulations
in existing or draft legislation (Table 11) providing for long term
trust funds to assure proper facility closure and continued protection
of the surrounding environment, especially ground water resources. The
State's legal definition of "hazardous waste" (Table 12) and designated
lead HWM agency (Table 13) are two additional items which are pertinent
to this analysis.
13 Annual State Report 1978
-------
TABLE 11
PROVISIONS FOR LONG TERM CARE OF HWM* FACILITIES
Coverage No. of States
specific closure provisions (including
monitoring requirements and financial
arrangements) in existing HWM
regulations 2
specific provisions in existing SWM
regulations 2
specific provisions in draft HWM
regulations 3
specific provisions in enabling legislation only 6
general post-closure provisions in SWM
regulations 4
no provisions in reviewed materials 8
* HWM= Hazardous waste management; SWM = Solid waste management.
TABLE 12
STATE DEFINITIONS OF "HAZARDOUS WASTE"
language equivalent to RCRA* definition 14 States
not equivalent 11 States
* The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.
14 Annual State Report 1978
-------
TABLE 13
DESIGNATED LEAD HWM* AGENCY IN STATE
Name or Type of Agency No. of States
Board or Department of Health 6
Board or Department of Health and Environment 2
Department of Natural Resources 5
Water Resources Agency 2
Department of Environmental Resources 1
Department of Ecology 1
Department of Environmental Conservation 1
Department of Environmental Management 1
Department of Environmental Quality 1
Department of Environmental Protection 1
Department of Environmental Regulation 1
State EPA 2
Pollution Control Agency 1
Department of Human Resources I
* Hazardous waste management.
t In one State HWM responsibilities are shared:
Health department handles municipal hazardous wastes;
Water Resources handles industrial wastes.
Railroad Commission handles oil, gas, and special wastes.
15 Annual State Report 1978
-------
The two final tables of this section present matrices which summarize
pertinent legislative provisions in the 25 States' current hazardous waste
laws (Table 14) and regulations (Table 15).
Eight of the 25 States have recent enabling legislation that provides
for adoption of specific hazardous waste rules or regulations. This implies
regulatory coverage under existing solid waste management rules or regulations
until the hazardous waste rules are adopted. These solid waste regulations
are not included in the summary analysis in Table 15.
It should be emphasized that the data presented in these summary
analyses cannot adequately reflect all the specific and varied regulatory
approaches and hazardous waste management strategies that the individual
States are adopting to fulfill the mandates of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act.
STATE HAZARDOUS WASTE ACTIVITIES
Versar's source materials for hazardous waste activities were published
information in news media and the FY78 Assessments*. Information used
in this section is fron only the selected 25 States. Because of the limited
access to data, the numbers of States reported as engaging in certain
activities do not represent the total picture.
Information about training specifically for hazardous waste programs
is almost non-existent. Many States report holding workshops or classes
to train municipal landfill operators, with some States providing certification
for those completing the course.
Surveillance activities are ongoing, but few of the 25 States chosen
reported specific data in this area. Five of the 25 States are monitoring
some parameters relative to land disposal of hazardous wastes, ranging from
radiation to off-site surface water and on-site ground water.
Two of the 25 States report that they are engaged in litigation over
operating violations at hazardous waste facilities.
* See page 3.
16 Annual State Report 1978
-------
B
H
g
en M oj
H^inoo^c^ |u
1 .5
(o &>
4J (d
msq.SAS in CNJ H ro O >-i
* $
• -^ D
4-> CH O
Swd)
S Q) >
ro
W M
Q)
E-1 EH CO Q
(O
1"1
KN *rH
c -
8 B-S^
IBS?
M
N
(0
17 Annual State Report 1978
-------
loadsui
UBQ-SAg
O "~l "H rH rH
in
I— I
UISQ-S/S
4Tuned
6upccq.Tuciw
O O CM
w r-
H
&
W
R-Sfl
O O ro (0 H _.
c
.3
13
sag
rH -P Q
fO fd tL
oJ ^ I
i i 8 s
C5 O &H EH
fO ^
O
S
H
18
Annual State Report 1978
-------
SECTION III
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
Section 4002 (b) of RCRA directs EPA to set forth guidelines for
State solid waste management plans and to suggest methods for States to
use in achieving the objectives of RCRA Section 4001. Guidelines for
Development and Implementation of State Solid Waste Management Plans
(the Guidelines) were proposed on August 28, 1978. They contain requirements
which a State plan must address for the State to be eligible for Federal
funding under Subtitle D of RCRA. The planning guidelines also include
recommendations for meeting the requirements for State plans. Because
State approaches to solid waste management vary widely, the guidelines
specify that "any process which complies with the requirements of ...
[the] guidelines will be acceptable to EPA for purposes of approval of
the State plan."
The Guidelines require the State plan to address a broad spectrum of
solid wastes and the various aspects of solid waste management. Subpart A
of the Guidelines lists the following major requirements for an approvable
State plan: (1) identification of the responsibilities for State and sub-
State authorities in development and implementation of the plan;
(2) identification of the means of distribution of Federal funds for the
planning and implementation process; (3) provisions detailing the
management of solid waste through resource recovery or environmentally
sound disposal, including the closing and upgrading of open dumps and the
prohibition of new open dumps; (4) the means to establish regulations
which will insure the above goals through setting proper standards and
enforcement procedures; (5) a plan for removal of long-term contract
prohibitions affecting resource recovery. The Guidelines also contain
requirements for coordination of solid waste management with other programs
and for public participation in the solid waste program. These aspects of
19 Annual State Report 1978
-------
solid waste management are of primary importance in any analysis of State
programs. All States are active in at least some areas relating to these
requirements.
In reviewing State solid waste management programs, legislation from
50 States, the District of Columbia, and the Territories of Puerto Rico
and the Virgin Islands was investigated. Enabling legislation and regulations
fron Samoa, the Nortnern Marianas, and Guam were not available.
Versar analyzed enabling legislation of 53 States and Territories to
determine how many States have legislation similar to requirements for State
solid waste management plans. The following information was obtained:
(1) legislation in 36 States provides that a State solid waste management
plan must be developed; (2) requirements for coordination between agencies
with impact on solid waste management exist in 38 States; (3) prohibition
against "open dumps" exist in 18 States; (4) disposal in "sanitary
landfills" is required by 38 States; the last two provisions both apply
in 14 States. It should be noted that the definition of the terms "open dumps"
and "sanitary landfill" do not usually coincide with the Federal definition
in the proposed Federal criteria for classification of disposal facilities.
Versar also found that it is a statement of policy in 26 States to promote
resource recovery and that 14 States specifically allow local governments
to enter into long-term contracts.
Compliance schedules for upgrading facilities are used in 33 States,
and in 17 States the solid waste agency can directly order the cessation of
activities at a non-complying facility without initiating court action for
the order.
This brief overview suggests that a number of States have a good
legislative base for the development of plans in conformance with the
Guidelines. For those States, most of the required additional control
mechanisms can be achieved by regulatory development or establishment of
more precise procedures rather than by new legislation.
20 Annual State Report 1978
-------
IEENTIFICATION OF REGIONS AND AGENCIES
Identification of Regional Boundaries
Section 4006 of RCRA mandates the identification of State regions
which have common solid waste management problems and which are appropriate
units for the planning of regional solid waste management services. Formal
designation of agency responsibilities in development and implementation
of State solid waste management plans is also required. To assist in
this effort, EPA issued the Guidelines for Identification of Regions and
Agencies for Solid Waste Management (40 CRF 255) .5 Criteria for the
designation of planning regions include: historically cooperative regions,
locations and sizes which permit resource recovery and conservation, waste
volumes and types, environmental factors, and possible coordination with
other programs.
Section 4006 of the Act requires the Governor of each State to consult
with local elected officials before identifying regions. Such consultation
was interpreted in the Guidelines [255.21(a) and (b)] to include the
following steps by the Governor or the lead State Agency: (1) preliminary
identification of regions, (2) official notification of all local elected
officials of this proposal, and (3) solicitation of local comments on the
proposed designations.
Regional Boundaries for Development of the State Plan—
The figures presented in this section represent totals Versar has
collected using information received from EPA and communications with
States and regional offices. All of the States have made some boundary
identifications, and as anticipated and allowed for in the Guidelines, the
designations have varied. The Governors did not create new boundaries;
previously established planning entities, e.g., Councils of Government,
State planning districts, counties and local jurisdictions were named.
In Region I (New England) some States identified the boundaries of local
governments, in accordance with their strong home-rule tradition. Some small
population States identified the entire State. Some States are working on
interstate plans. Representatives of the Indian Nations were invited to
participate in certain States' plans, but all declined.
21 Annual State Report 1978
-------
It is of interest that sane Governors have made boundary identifications
for solid waste management, while other designations have been made for
planning purposes. Versar analyzed the boundaries made for both planning
purposes and development of the State Solid Waste Management Plan (Table
16).
Regional Boundaries for Hazardous Waste Programs—
In a detailed review of boundary identifications for specific waste
streams, Versar has established that 33 of the 56 States and Territories
have identified their State boundaries as a single region for hazardous waste
planning and development programs. The State of Florida has shared the
responsibility by identifying the State and regions as boundaries for
hazardous waste. For 22 States, Versar found no separate regional
identification which specifically addresses hazardous waste. (Table 17)
Regional Boundaries for Resource Recovery—
Versar has found that 33 States have identified some boundaries
for planning and implementation of the resource conservation and recovery
portions of the State plan.
Twenty-two of the States and Territories surveyed have not addressed
the issue of boundary identifications for resource recovery activities as
a separate issue.
Boundary Identifications for Sub-State Implementation—
Boundary identifications for sub-State planning and implementation
have been completed in 44 of the 56 States and Territories. Of the
remaining 12 States, three have identified boundaries on an interim basis
and six have indicated the process is not corplete. Versar did not have
information for three.
Identification of Agencies
Section 4006 of the Act requires each State, together with local elected
officials, to identify jointly (1) an agency to develop the State plan,
(2) one or more agencies to implement the plan, and (3) the solid waste
management functions that will be planned for and carried out by State,
regional or local governments.
22 Annual State Report 1978
-------
TABLE 16
REGIONAL BOUNDAKy XDENTIFICSVriCNS FCR PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT OF STATE SCUD HASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
::owa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
t|taasachuse'tts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Chio
Qklahona
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islam's
State
Boundary
/
y
/
J
J
j
j
j
j
/
/
/
f
j
j
/
y
/
y
y
y
j
j
j
j
j
/
/
/
/
/
y
. y
y
j
y
/
/
/
/
/
/
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
j
Regional
Boundary
y *
y
y
y t
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y +
y t
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y t
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
Each
County
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
Counties
and Cities
y
y
y t
y
y
Process
Incomplete
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
* Check in more than one column indicates joint identification
t Interim designation
23
Annual State Report 1978
-------
TABLE 17
REGIONAL BOUNDARY llJUJTlt'lCATIONS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS
AND RESOURCE RECOVERY AND CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Oil ifomia
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Northern Marianas
Virgin Islands
Hazardous Waste Programs
State-wide
« *
_
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
—
/
/
—
—
—
/
—~
/
V
/
~
/
/
—
—
/
/
/
V
/
— ~
/
V
—
—
/
V1
—
/
—
—
—
/
~
/
—
—
/
~~
/
Other
Regions
Resource Recovery and
Conservation Programs
State-wide
__ 1,
__
—
—
Incor
/
/
/
Implenen
/
Irrolemeri
—
—
—
Incot
~~
V
Inplenen
—
—
—
/
—
—
Other
axmties-Cities
plete
bounties
t RCRAt
Counties
Reoions
t HCRA
clete
Local
Heaions
Reoicns
t RCRA
pjunties-cities
liL^lBllBlC HJKA
~~
/
/
/
Inccrt
—
—
—
—
—
/
/
—
—
/
Local
Regions-Counties
Dlete
Local
Reaions
No Information Av* ** labls
" \ \ <
* Dashes indicate that subject boundary identifications have not been addressed
t Specific wording used by State in the formal statement of identification.
24
Annual State Report 1978
-------
The Guidelines for the Identification of Regions and Agencies
reconnended procedures to identify agencies and responsibilities. They
recommended (§255.23) that the Governor of each State designate a lead
State Agency to manage the process of making identifications and follow
established notification procedures within the State to ensure that all
local governments and affected agencies be involved. Specifically, the
Governor was to:
1. Notify local elected officials and other interested groups of
the purpose and schedule of the identification process.
2. Solicit nominations of agencies.
3. Hold public meetings, where necessary.
In accordance with the identification guidelines, the States took the
following steps:
1. All local governments and other interested groups were informed of
the identification procedures being used in the States. At the same time,
preliminary recommendations for agency identifications which had been
developed at State-level meetings were presented to local governments.
2. The States solicited nominations for planning and implementation
agencies from local officials. Five States nailed questionnaires to gather
opinions of local officials.
3. Public meetings and hearings were held to develop State and local
consensus.
4. The identifications were formalized by legislative resolution or
executive order.
Lead Agency Identification—
In all States a lead agency has been identified to be responsible for
the development of the State plan, the implementation of the Act, or in
some instances, to be responsible for solid waste planning.
A lead agency for hazardous waste management has been selected and
designated in 35 of the States and Territories.
25 Annual State Report 1978
-------
State agencies have been designated as lead agencies for resource
conservation and recovery in 17 States, while municipal or regional
entities have been assigned this responsibility in 18 States.
Agencies for Distribution of 4008 Funds—
Based on the limited amount of available information, it appears that
most States have not yet developed a system for distributing Federal funds
that will satisfy RCKA requirements. This situation reflects two things:
(1) at present, States are placing a higher priority on activities related
to overall State planning and implementation rather than on sub-State
activities, and (2) EPA is discouraging States from passing through
Subtitle D funds to sub-State and local agencies because Federal funds
are limited.
Fiscal Trends—In FY78 approximately $14.3 million was awarded to
States under the authorization of PCRA. A myriad of activities resulted
from these Federal grants and additional efforts are ongoing from State-
generated funds. FY78 spending in all the major RCRA-funded categories was
below the level planned for various reasons:
• For many States the grant process took longer than anticipated
and resulted in award delays of as much as nine months into FY78.
• The Criteria for Sanitary Landfills, required by RCRA Section 4004,
have not been promulgated, delaying the start of the open dump
inventory.
• Expenditures had been planned for review of existing State legislation
and development of revised State laws and regulations to correspond to
the Federal law and regulations. Some of these expenditures are being
delayed until the hazardous waste rules are promulgated and the guidelines.
for procurement of items containing recovered materials are issued.
26 Annual State Report 1978
-------
Of the 52 States and Territories which responded to the EPA FY78
Assessment request, seven did not report their numbers in sufficient detail
to be included in the analysis of subpart expenditures (Table 18) .* The
following 11 States are those not included in the FY78 budget figures:
American Samoa New Mexico
Colorado Northern Marinanas
District of Columbia Pennsylvania
Guam Tennessee
Kansas Virginia
Minnesota
In addition, several uncertainties developed because of variations
in State reporting. Some States differentiated between direct and indirect
costs; others did not. Seme States inferred subpart amounts rather than
directly reporting them. Sometimes State and Federal funds were combined in
the amounts reported. These differences resulted in the cumulative subpart
totals being considerably lower than total Federal grant allotment for FY78.
Because direct access to detailed State budget data was not possible
for this report, a combination of several information sources was investigated
in an effort to produce an accurate profile of total State spending in solid
waste management. FY78 Assessment information was analyzed but no comprehensive
picture of State solid waste budgets emerged because the focus of that
information was Federal grant monies and State amounts were only optionally
reported. Also, the categories of expenditures reported directly corresponded
to those for which Federal funding had been awarded and did not include all
solid waste management activities undertaken with State funds. An attempt
was made to correlate the above dLnformation with 1975 Census data7 and
with the January 1979 Waste Age survey data,8 but this proved unworkable
because those data had been requested under different conditions and for
different purposes. Activities within the Census budget categories of
"solid waste management" or "land quality control" are so varied that
comparison or combination of separately-acquired data is not meaningful.
* See page 3.
27 Annual State Report 1978
-------
TABLE 18
ASSESSMENT OF EXPENDITURE OF FY 78 SOLID WASTE GRANT FUNDS
(SUMMARY OF 45 STATES)
Category
State Plans and Programs
Regional and Agency Identification
Open Dump Inventory
Hazardous Waste Programs
Pass-through to Sub-state Entities
Total
Planned
$3,775,985
405,225
3,454,004
2,709,149
999,400
$11,343,763
Actual
$3,060,778
343,409
1,293,284
2,091,012
1,427,200
$8,215,683
State solid waste management sometimes includes the collection of
residential refuse and of litter from the highways. The number of personnel
required for that service is approximately three times the number involved
in all the other solid waste management activities combined; therefore a
State which performs these services will operate with a much higher budget
than one which does not if other factors are equal. Comparison of a State
which has public collection and disposal with a State which encourages
private operators to perform this service results in a misleading contrast
in State expenditures. Similarly, in some States enforcement of disposal
regulations is handled by the local health departments rather than by the
environmental or solid waste agency* Cost comparisons here are again
misleading.
To overcome the inconsistencies of heterogeneous data and to provide
a true description of State fiscal programs and trends in solid waste
management, a comprehensive investigation should be made through
State budget offices. The ensuing analysis would be able to link the
28 Annual State Report 1978
-------
solid waste budget of each State to its own particular regulatory program
and its own distinctive problems.
Personnel—A meaningful analysis of State personnel status is another
fruitful subject for transfer of information, and it must also be linked to
the particular needs and characteristics of a State's solid waste program.
Unfortunately, the insufficiency of personnel data for this report severely
limited the usefulness of information obtained.
Sources of personnel data included visits to State offices in relation to
the open dump inventory, FY78 Assessment submittals to EPA, and the
January 1979 Waste Age survey. As in the case of the preceding fiscal
analysis, a synthesis of this information was attempted but little correlation
was found. The only solid correlation was in the types of professional
people employed by State solid waste offices. Professional disciplines
of solid waste personnel in State headquarters offices found in order of
decreasing numbers were: engineers, sanitarians, geologists or hydrologists,
planners.
The reason for the difficulty in data correlation again appears to be
inconsistent interpretations of who is included in "solid waste personnel"
at the State level.
Sometimes personnel from related environmental offices are used by a
solid waste office on an as-needed basis - e.g., geologists for the
evaluation of permit applications in regard to siting requirements. Unless
this fact is explained when staff numbers are submitted for use in a survey,
the data appear to be contradictory- Often local government agencies
perform inspections of landfills and review permits, e.g., where county
health departments are in charge of enforcement activities. This may
provide less stringent control over operations but effectively increases
the manpower available for field work.
Waste Age magazine reports total State solid waste personnel at
approximately 1,300 people. This figure is up from an estimated 1,000
reported by EPA in August of 1978.9
State visits and five-year plan information received by EPA offer
seme indication of current and future trends in State hiring. Many States
29 Annual State Report 1978
-------
are hiring personnel whose efforts will be directed toward special areas
such as hazardous wastes, resource recovery, the open dump inventory, and
training of disposal facility operators. Planners and public participation
coordinators are being included frequently in future State budgets. Outside
contractors and consultants are also being used by some States, especially
for preparation of State plans and resource recovery projects. Use of
non-governmental contractors has long been a viable option in State solid
waste collection and disposal and now appears to be gaining acceptance and
proving to be cost-effective for planning purposes also.
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAMS
Regulatory Powers
Subpart C of the State Planning Guidelines reflects the KCKA mandate
that a State seeking to qualify for Federal funds under that law must
dispose of wastes in an "environmentally sound" manner. Subpart C requires
that State disposal standards be equivalent to or more stringent than the
RCRA Section 4004 Classification Criteria being developed by EPA. For
purposes of this document, the Criteria proposed as of February 6, 1978,10
were used as a point of departure for a detailed analysis of State legislation
and regulations for solid waste disposal. (This analysis did not include
any "evaluation" of State programs as to equivalence with Federal standards.)
Because the Federal rules are not final as of this writing, this analysis
includes legislative provisions commonly encountered in State laws, some
of which are not part of the February 6 proposed Federal standards. This
report reflects the December 1978 status of State solid waste legislation
and regulations in categories broadly corresponding to anticipated areas
of Federal concern.
It is useful to note here that State legal authority is usually of two
types: enabling and regulatory. Enabling legislation spells out the needs
and goals of the State and creates or designates an agency as having
certain duties and powers, usually including the power to make specific
rules for attaining the goals already mentioned. Once broad enabling
authority has been given to an agency, a number of rules are developed by
the agency. The rules or regulations are usually very specific and can
30 Annual State Report 1978
-------
be considered to circumscribe the powers of the agency as well as to define
more clearly the acceptable or required actions of the party regulated.
It is often argued in court that an agency whose powers and duties are
legislatively specified in great detail does not possess any related
powers because the very absence of those related powers in a legislative
mandate implies that the framers of the law did not intend that they be
incorporated by rule.
Conversely, some laws are broadly drawn with their creators anticipating
greater specificity through the regulatory process. Likewise, regulations
may be broadly or finely drawn, with those more loosely drawn depending
upon greater exercise of discretion in the process of enforcement. Possibly
these interpretations explain why some States which are very active in solid
waste management are operating under very loosely-defined rules. Ch the
face of it, an analysis of existing State legislation seems to indicate
a lack of authority in some areas with respect to anticipated Federal
requirements for participation in the KCRA programs; however, actual
practices in the States often show a different picture. This is because many
State programs are active in areas covered by general authorities through
the permit process.
It must also be recognized that many State solid waste agencies may be
able to exert control not explicitly provided for in their laws through
a synthesis of actions in cooperation with other State programs. Such
actions are not only State-specific but often vary with the situation and
depend on interpretation by agency policy makers. This method of operating
was outside of Versar's ability to predict; hence, our strictly letter-of-
the-law approach.
Solid Waste Disposal Standards
Definitions—
Any review of State legislation in solid waste management must be
coupled with an understanding of what the State means by "solid waste."
Although that phrase may seem uncomplicated, a variety of definitions exists.
31 Annual State Report 1978
-------
The Federal definition as stated in KCRA says:
" The term 'solid waste' means any garbage, refuse, sludge from a
waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution
control facility and other discarded material, including solid,
liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous material resulting from
industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, and
from community activities, but does not include solid or dissolved
material in domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved materials in
irrigation return flows or industrial discharges which are point
sources subject to permits under Section 402 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended (86 Stat. 880), or source, special
nuclear, or by-product material as defined by the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended (68 Stat. 923)" (Table 19).
Many States pattern their solid waste definitions after the Federal
definition in that they list waste characteristics, indicate which sources
of waste are covered, and identify certain specific wastes which are to be
included and those which are to be excluded. For example, the following
parameters are mentioned in States' definitions:
• waste characteristics such as "non-free-flowing, unwanted,
putrescible";
• types of sources whose wastes are subject to State control such as
"residential, commercial, industrial";
• specific wastes which are to be included or excluded from control
under that particular solid waste law or regulation such as "sludge,
manures and scrap for resale."
Inclusion of hazardous wastes under the rules governing solid wastes
seems to be indicated in a variety of ways and is sometimes apparently
up to the discretion of the regulating agency. Eleven States specifically
include hazardous waste in their solid waste definition, 18 do not, but
mention it within the law or regulation, thereby inferring its inclusion
as "solid waste." Eleven do neither of the above and seem to leave the
question for case-by-case handling. The 12 States which specifically
exclude hazardous wastes in their solid waste regulations have separate
32 Annual State Report 1978
-------
TABLE 19
ANALYSIS: RCRA DEFINITION OF SOLID WASTE
Waste Characteristics
Specifically included:
• Discarded
• Solid
• Semisolid
• Liquid
• Contained gaseous
Inclusion inferred:
• Hazardous
Waste Streams
Specifically included:
• Industrial
• Comiercial
• Conmunity
• Agricultural
• Mining
Specific Wastes
Included:
• Garbage
• Rubbish
• Pollution residue
• Treated sludge
Excluded:
• Solids in domestic sewage
• Controlled point source discharges
• Controlled radioactive waste
33 Annual State Report 1978
-------
laws or regulations governing hazardous or "special" wastes. States which
either specifically or by inference include hazardous waste in their
control of solid waste often dispose of it on the same site as non-hazardous
waste. However, the hazardous waste may require a special permit or written
approval from the regulatory agency in addition to the approval required for
the disposal of non-hazardous waste.
This analysis indicates overall what types of solid waste are of most
concern in State programs, but this overview does not reflect the distinctive
approaches which States use to accomplish their purposes (Table 20). For
example, some States define solid waste in a word or two, such as "refuse"
or "discarded materials." Others are very specific, with a lengthy definition
and actual examples of wastes controlled. Specific wording or lack of it,
however, is no indication of the effectiveness of State programs. States
whose laws and rules are drawn broadly, as well as those having detailed
laws and regulations, can exercise strong control if that is their goal.
Wetlands—Twenty-six of the 53 States and Territories analyzed have
specific statutory authority to restrict disposal facility siting in a
wetland (Table 21). Versar considered a State to have this authority if the
State law or regulation specifically said "wetland," "marsh," "bog," etc.
State authority to protect "waters of the State" was not included here
unless the State definition of "waters" specified "marshes/" "bogs," etc.
In actual practice a State could, and many do, restrict siting in wetlands
by using the "distance from water" requirements of many State solid waste
disposal regulations, but these speculative interpretations were not used
in Versar's analysis.
Of the 26 States having specific wetlands authority, 15 allow siting
in a wetland only if special written authorization is obtained in addition
to that normally required for the siting of a disposal facility within the
State in general. Five of these 15 States require an NPDES permit under the
Clean Water Act (CWA) 11 (An additional 27 States administer the NPDES
program but do not apply it to solid waste disposal facilities.) Two
States require CWA Section 404 permits and eight more States require other
written permission. This may include approval from the Army Corps of
Engineers or a statement within a solid waste agency permit that special
34 Annual State Report 1978
-------
g
S
-------
TABLE 21
SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORITY OVER
IN A WETLAND
Number of States
Can restrict 26
Do not address 27
No information 3
Total 56
construction or operating practices must be followed because the facility is
in a wetland.
Of the 26 States having wetlands authority, 20 require for wetlands
protection that certain minimum vertical distances be maintained between
the waste and the yearly maximum water level at the site (Table 22).
TABLE 22
MINIMUM DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN WASTE AND
MAXIMUM WATER LEVEL FOR WETLANDS DISPOSAL
Number of States
2-4 feet* 5
4-6 feet 12
10 feet 1
Site specific 2
No mention _6_
Total 26
* Use of metric units is inappropriate because these are quoted from
regulatory wording.
36 Annual State Report 1978
-------
Floodplains—Thirty-two of the 53 States and Territories analyzed were
found to have specific statutory authority to restrict disposal facility
siting in a floodplain (Table 23). Versar considered a State to have
authority to restrict siting in a floodplain only if the term "floodplain"
or "flocdway" or "flood" was used in the law. It can be argued that a State
can use a distance requirement between facility and surface water to
accorplish the same end in many cases. This interpretation of the regulations
was not in keeping with a literal analysis, however, and was not used here.
TABLE 23
STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO RESTRICT SITING
IN A FLOODPIAIN
Number of States
Can restrict 32
Not addressed 21
No Information _3_
Total 56
Of the 32 States with specific floodplain siting authority, 21 define
the flood frequency but 11 do not. Of the 21 definitions, 19 refer to
a 100-year frequency and two refer to a 50-year frequency. Thirteen of the
32 States specifically state that the siting of a disposal facility in a
floodplain is prohibited. Five of these 13 States offer no alternative,
but eight of them allow the prohibition to be overridden if special permit
authorization is obtained. An additional 16 States identify the conditions
under which siting will be allowed. Three States do not include these
details in their regulations (Table 24).
Twenty-four of the 32 regulating States identify conditions under
which siting is allowed (Table 25). Eighteen States of the 32 regulating
do allow siting in a floodplain provided some special written authorization
is acquired. Two of these 18 also require concurrence of another agency
and an additional two allow floodplain siting with concurrence of another
agency but no special permit.
37 Annual State Report 1978
-------
TABLE 24
FLOODPIAIN SITING PROHIBITIONS
Number of States
Prohibit unequivocally 5
Prohibit unless certain conditions are met 8
Allow if certain conditions are met 16
Not specific __3_
Total 32
TABLE 25
CONDITIONS FOR SITING IN A FLOODPIAIN
Number of States
State permit alone 6*
Concurrence of non-solid waste agency 2
Permit plus agency concurrence 2*
Facility protected from inundation 4
Permit plus protection 10*
Total 24
* Written authorization required specifying permission to site in flocdplain.
Some judgment was required in equating legislative statements with
Versar's categories for allowing siting, but key words could be matched
in most instances.
Critical Habitat—Under the Federal Endangered Species Act,12 a State
may enter into a cooperative agreement with the Secretary of the Interior
if the State has an "adequate and active program" for the preservation of
endangered species. A State having this agreement in effect is eligible
38 Annual State Report 1978
-------
for Federal grant monies to assist their development of State programs to
protect endangered species. Cooperative agreements with 22 States are
currently in effect. Even under these agreements, however, the Federal
government retains enforcement authority for the provisions of the Act,
including its effects on facility siting.
Sole source aquifers—The Safe Drinking Water Act13 provides for the
protection of aquifers which are the only source of driving water for
cortnunities around them. The EPA can designate such areas as "Sole Source
Aquifers" and then has authority to review projects and prevent development
which would adversely affect that water supply. The States of Texas,
California, Idaho and New York contain Federally-designated sole source
aquifers.
Some States also designate certain aquifers as requiring special
protection, but most states do not specifically address sole source
aquifers in their regulations. Aquifer protection is attained through site-
specific rulings under ground water or general water regulations.
Surface water—For this analysis, regulations were considered to mean
only what was strictly stated and no inferences were made. Of the 53
States' laws and regulations analyzed, all 53 had specific statutory
authority to restrict placing of solid waste into surface water. Thirty-one
States make a somewhat general statement about not causing pollution of
surface waters. Six of these and an additional four States say that
surface water quality must not be reduced below established standards.
Five of the 31 States and another seven States say that no waste may
drain into or come in contact with surface water. Seventeen of the 31
States and an additional 14 say that drainage or runoff must be controlled.
A total of 31 State regulations contain the last provision and within this
set, five States add that surface water percolation into the waste must be
minimized. Nine States require that a facility be designed and operated
to minimize contact of solid waste with surface water.
Twelve States specify minimum allowable distances from waste to
surface water (Table 26).
39 Annual State Report 1978
-------
TABLE 26
PROVISIONS FOR MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN
WASTE AND SUREACE WATER
Number of States
60 feet*
100 feet
200 feet
300 feet
500 feet
>1,000 feet
Site specific
Total
1
1
3
1
1
4
JL
12
* Metric units inappropriate here because of specific wording of State
regulations.
Ground water—Versar considered a State to have specific authority
to restrict placing of solid waste into ground water if the law was stated
in that way or if it stated that wastes may not be placed in any "waters
of the state" which were specifically defined to include ground water. All
53 States and Territories investigated were found to have specific statutory
authority to restrict placement of solid wastes relative to ground water.
The three most cannon provisions found, singly or in canbination,
in the regulations of 51 States were as follows: (1) wastes must be deposited
so that ground water pollution does not result, (2) waste must be deposited so
as not to cone in contact with ground water, (3) the facility must be
designed and operated to protect ground water (Figure 1). The remaining
two States of the 53 examined stated that "waste must be deposited so as
not to reduce ground water quality below established standards." This
provision was found in eight more States in various combinations with the
three provisions enumerated above.
40 Annual State Report 1978
-------
Hi
in
u.
O
cc
D.
>•
CC
O
Z5
O
IU
cc
>-
UJ
cc
IU
1
O
cc
C5
cc
41
Annual State Report 1978
-------
Of the 10 States which specify that ground water quality must not
be reduced below established standards, only two States specify numerical
standards for ground water. An additional seven States specify standards
and nine more imply them by their regulatory definitions of "State waters".
One of the 10 States requires the sampling and recording of "baseline
conditions" at a disposal facility. Five of the 10 and an additional nine
States have officially classified their ground water.
Twsnty-nine States specified a minimum distance between waste and
ground water, but the distances varied and 20 of them did not consider
the physical characteristics of the separating soil or rock (Table 27).
Thirteen of the 29 and two other States also specify minimum distance
requirements to wells (Table 28).
Thirty States require ground water monitoring of the site as deemed
necessary by the permitting agency and seven of the 30 require ground water
monitoring at new sites. Twenty-four States specifically mention leachate
in their regulations, either that migration must be controlled (12 States),
that collection and treatment is required (17 States), or both. Seven
States specifically require liners, four of them only on a site-specific
basis. Five States mentioned long-term care in terms of prediction of
leachate migration, monitoring, or contingency planning.
Air—Fifty-three States and Territories whose laws were examined were
found to have the specific statutory authority to restrict open burning.
Fifty-one States and Territories regulate air emissions from certain
facilities but seldom specifically address disposal facilities in these
regulations except for incinerators or resource recovery facilities. Many
States prohibit open burning at disposal facilities and also specify
certain waste types which may not be burned anywhere. Thirty-one States
specifically prohibit the open burning of refuse or garbage.
Fifty-one States and Territories prohibit open burning but allow
exceptions under emergency situations or if the enforcement authority
grants a special permit. Many States exempt on-site burning of residential
waste at residential cotplexes with four or fewer units. Some States also
exempt sites which serve small populations.
42 Annual State Report 1978
-------
TABLE 27
REQUIREMENTS FOR MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN
WASTE AND GROUND WATER TABLE
Number of States
2-4 feet* 9
5 feet 11
6-10 feet 2
10 feet 1
Site specific _6_
Total 29
* Metric units are not appropriate because the regulations specify
distances in English units.
TABLE 28
REQUIREMENTS FOR MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN WASTE AND WELLS
Number of States
200 feet* 2
400-500 feet 3
1,000 feet 5
1,500 feet 1
Site specific _4_
Total 15
* Metric units are not appropriate because the regulations specify
distances in English units.
43 Annual State Report 1978
-------
Thirty-nine States allow open burning, usually accompanied by a
permit, under specified conditions such as for disease control of plants
or animals, as a method of clearing brush or road-building debris, and in
situations where no feasible disposal alternative exists.
Land application—Regulating the land application of solid waste is a
very complex process and can relate to many different situations. Many
regulations which specify control of land application of solid waste are
intended to apply to landfills rather than to spreading on land for
beneficial purposes. These regulations were included in the analysis
because, taken literally, it could not be said that they did not apply.
Many general purpose landfills do accept sewage sludge, usually stabilized
or dewatered.
Thirty-four States have specific authority to restrict land application
of solid waste at certain locations (Table 29).
All of the 34 States specify one or both of the following: (1) special
written authorization in addition to the ordinary disposal permit,
(2) particular cover requirements for land application in addition to the
requirements for land burial or landfilling of solid waste (Table 30).
TABLE 29
SPECIFIC AUTHORITY TO RESTRICT LAND APPLICATION
OF SOLID TAIASTE AT CERTAIN LOCATIONS
Number of States
At landfill or disposal facility 23
On land used for food crops 7
State agency directs case-by-case _4
Total 34
44 Annual State Report 1978
-------
TABLE 30
SPECIFIC EEGUIATORY PROVISIONS FOR LAND APPLICATION
OF SOLID WASTE
Number of States
Special permit 5
Cover specifications 19
Permit plus cover specifications 10_
Total 34
Eleven States prohibit landspreading in their regulations subject to
location constraints (Table 31), and certain prohibitory qualifications are
common to a number of States (Figure 2).
A few States specify very detailed requirements as to distances from
water, bedrock and places of habitation. There does not appear to be a
trend among States as to standards which are widely accepted. Many States
have published detailed guidelines for sludge disposal which are not part
of this analysis.
TABLE 31
PROHIBITION OF LANDSPREADING OF SOLID WASTE
Number of States
Located on cropland 8
Located on frozen or saturated ground 2
Located on cropland and frozen or
saturated ground 1
Total 11
45 Annual State Report 1978
-------
I
a
o
o
p
3
o
!
t-
CA
z
<
<
£
o
EC
a.
u
>
X
v>
tr
w
46
State Report 1978
-------
Disease vectors—-Fifty-one States and Territories of the 53 analyzed
were found to have specific authority to control vectors. A State was
considered to have this authority if the meaning of the legislation or
regulation equalled the meaning of vector control, e.g., if the word
"vector" was not used, but "insects and rodents" were specified, or the
law referred to "living creatures capable of transmitting disease" (Figure
3).
Forty-nine States and Territories of the 53 examined specified
periodic cover as the means to control vectors and 43 of the 49 mentioned
daily cover, usually combined with intermediate and final cover (Table 32).
Exemptions to the daily cover requirement were found in 29 States, and
are granted to landfills in the following situations:
• Weather conditions are too severe to cover.
• Sane States with severe winter weather consider compaction more
important than cover;
• The population is so sparse and location of site so isolated as
to make daily cover not iitportant or impracticable;
• The sites do not accept putrescible or hazardous wastes.
TABLE 32
PERIODIC APPLICATION OF COVER REQUIRED
TO CONTROL VECTORS
Number of States
No further detail specified 5
As deemed necessary by agency 1
Daily 1
Daily plus final 14
Daily plus intermediate plus final 27
Intermediate plus final _!_
Total 49
47 Annual State Report 1978
-------
48
Annual State Report 1978
-------
Gas—Regulations for gas emissions from new facilities often differ
from those for existing sites. This is reflected in the tabulations
wherever possible. These results reflect only legislation and regulations,
not guidelines or State procedures unless they are also specified in
formal regulations. "Gas" in relation to landfills is usually not further
qualified, e.g., "explosive" or "toxic," so a breakdown was not possible
in this analysis.
Twenty-six States have specific authority to control gas emissions at
land disposal facilities. Twenty of these States require control of gases
to prevent certain specific problems at the site (Figure 4).
Of the nine States with authority to prevent gas from reaching the
lower explosive limit, six specify that the requirement relates to facility
structures, one requires it in the soil at the facility boundary, and two
do not specify a location.
Eighteen States require some type of gas venting (Table 33).
TABLE 33
SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR GAS VENTING
Number of States
At all sites generating decomposition
gases 4
Site-specific requirements 8
Site-specific requirements and at all sites
generating decomposition gases 4
At completed waste cells _2
Total 18
Twelve States require gas monitoring under varying conditions (Table
34).
49 Annual State Report 1978
-------
JS
i
I
v>
O
cc
u
O
cc
O
<
z
Ul
V)
u.
O
V)
§<*
co !£
> fc
O -i
cc 5
t <
>- u.
S J
2 <
I- to
< O
-i a.
CC M
3 co
2 i
U. UJ
50
Annxial State Report 1978
-------
TABLE 34
PROVISIONS FOR GAS MONITORING
Number of States
At all sites 1
At all new sites 1
As deemed necessary 8
At all new sites and as deemed necessary
at existing sites 1
For methane _1
Total 12
Fires—A State was considered to have specific statutory authority to
control fires at a land disposal facility only if it was so stated in the
law. This was a provision separate from the control of "hot loads" or
restrictions against open burning.
Forty-six States have this authority to control fires at land disposal
facilities. The specific means authorized by regulations include a variety
of methods ranging from general "adequate protection" to mention of local
fire departments. The most commonly-found stipulations, in order of
decreasing frequency, are: (1) cover, (2) "suitable measures to prevent and
control fires", (3) adequate fire-fighting equipment to be available,
(4) arrangements to be made with the fire protection agency, (5) water
supply or earth stockpile at each site.
Bird hazards to aircraft—Versar considered a State to have specific
authority to control birds at land disposal facilities if "birds" were
addressed in the regulations even though sometimes appearing as a "vector".
If, however, the definition of vector did not include birds (e.g., insects
and rodents), a State was not considered to have restrictive authority over
birds through that provision. There appears to be a trend in new legislation
51 Annual State Report 1978
-------
and regulations to include a requirement for FAA review or approval of a new
site prior to issuance of permit by the solM waste agency.
Twenty States of the 53 examined have specific authority to control
birds at a land disposal facility (Table 35). Some approach the solution
by seeking to affect the birds and some approach it by focusing on the
location of the facility. Nine States specifically refer to bird hazards
to aircraft.
TABLE 35
PROVISIONS TO CONTROL BIRD HAZARDS
AT A DISPOSAL FACILITY
Number of States
Unspecified controls 5
"Suitable measures" 6
Most comply with FAA order 4
Facilities prohibited within certain
distance of airports* 3
Facilities prohibited where a hazard
to aircraft exists _2_ t
Total 20
* Distances are equal to those in FAA Order 5200.5.
t One State of the two also has distance requirements in regulations.
Access—A State was considered to have authority to control access to
a facility if it was specifically stated in the legislation or regulation.
Fifty States have specific authority to control access to land disposal
facilities (Figure 5). Additionally, 42 of 53 States and Territories
analyzed have a requirement to provide all-weather access roads to the
facility.
52 Annual State Report 1978
-------
o
le
o t
o
oc
o
e
w
O
oc
o.
£
u.
O
EC
UJ
ffi
O
53
Annual State Report 1978
-------
Surveillance and Assessment—
Inspection—The requirements under 256.20 (b) of the proposed State
Planning Guidelines include surveillance capabilities necessary to detect
adverse environmental effects from solid waste disposal facilities. The
requirements also stipulate that these capabilities shall include access for
inspection and monitoring b^ regulatory officials and the authority to
establish operator monitoring and reporting requirements.
Forty-nine of the 53 States and Territories reviewed have the statutory
right of access for inspection. Inspection authority is vested with local
agencies in the other four States.
Monitoring—In reviewing the legislation, regulations, and practices
pertaining to monitoring, Versar found that very few States have granted
specific authority "to monitor" to their solid waste agency (Table 36), but
many States have legislation and regulations which call for "monitoring as
deemed necessary by the Department" (Table 37). With the legal right to
monitor at disposal facilities, State solid waste personnel have control
over the actual placement of equipment and the number of samples taken.
State personnel can also determine the level of laboratory controls for
their own program.
The authority to require monitoring implies that the action of
monitoring would be taken by someone other than the regulatory agency -
most probably the site operator, who would then send a report or sample
to the regulatory agency for review.
The most cannon wording of legislation requires operator rather than
regulatory agency monitoring. Of 19 States which do not address monitoring
in their legislation, six require "control of gas on-site" and one requires
"venting of gas as deemed necessary".
It is important to note that in practice several States make site-
specific requirements which include monitoring wells, etc., even though
they lack the specific wording in the regulations. Frequently this is
accomplished through the permit process. Some State regulatory agencies
can accomplish this control through enabling legislation which gives
broad authority to control nuisances or health hazards.
54 Annual State Report 1978
-------
TABLE 36
AUTHDKETY TO MONITOR FOR GAS OR GROUND WATER
Number of States
State has authority to monitor ground water:
• at existing sites 1
• at new sites 7
State has authority to monitor gas:
• at existing sites 1
• at new sites 2
TABLE 37
AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE MONITORING FOR GAS OR GROUND WATER
Number of States
State requires monitoring as deemed
necessary by the department:
• for ground water and gas 8
• for ground water only 22
• for gas only 3
• type of monitoring unspecified 1
State legislation or regulations do not
address monitoring 19
No information _3_
TOTAL 56
Permits—The requirements under 256-20 (d) of the proposed Guidelines call
for regulatory powers that shall make use of a permit or registration program
which ensures that the establishment of new open dumps is prohibited. Of the
53 States and Territories that were reviewed, 46 have a permit or registration
system which is operated by the State (or Territory). Six of the other seven
States - Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire and Utah - issue
"certificates of approval or disapproval", jointly sharing responsibility of
55 Annual State Report 1978
-------
the approval process with county and other local authorities. In the State
of Washington, local governments are authorized to issue permits for sites
in that State.
An aspect of State solid waste control which the permit system has
not traditionally covered is that of disposal of industrial solid wastes
on the generator's own land. The number of existing on-site industrial
disposal areas greatly exceeds the combined totals of municipal and off-
site industrial disposal facilities and must be addressed under RCRA.
In Versar's review of industrial on-site disposal facilities, it was
ascertained that three States have exempted solid waste disposal on a
person's own land and that States' definition of "person" includes firms
and industries. Two other States allow industries to apply for certificates
of exemption from the standard permit procedure for the disposal of specific
wastes. These five States do have limited authority over industrial sites
to ensure that a public health hazard is not created. These States are also
currently active in promoting changes in their legislation to grant them
full authority over industrial disposal practices. Versar found 45 States
in which on-site disposal may be regulated if the law is interpreted
broadly. However, the actual enforcement ability of many of those States
is uncertain.
Enforcement—Section 256.20 (e) of the proposed Guidelines calls for
administrative and judicial enforcement capabilities, including enforceable
orders, fines and other administrative procedures, as necessary to achieve
compliance with standards. The enforcement capabilities are to ensure
expeditious closure or upgrading of the facility in a manner so as to
minimize or bring under control adverse environmental or health effects.
Versar has determined that the statutory authority to enforce regulations
has been granted to State authorities for 49 of the 53 States and Territories
reviewed. The county, city, or jurisdictional board of health has been given
enforcement (as well as permitting authority) for solid waste disposal sites
in four States or Territories.
56 Annual State Report 1978
-------
On the basis of very limited access to 36 State solid waste management
agencies, Versar was able to obtain seme information on State due process
problems. Twenty-four of these 36 States have a department due process
procedure which effectively utilizes compliance schedules. Of these 24
States, 13 have been able to achieve compliance without going to court in
most cases.
There are some problems commonly encountered in enforcement of State
solid waste standards. Enforcement at publicly-owned and operated sites
is difficult. In addition to the difficulties faced in procecuting public
operations, problems arise if the site, whether public or private, is the
only disposal facility nearby to which the waste may go. Difficulties
are also encountered in areas where local jurisdictional authority takes
precedence over State authority, as when new sites are sought which must
conform to local zoning laws. When local agencies perform inspections for
violations, the result may be uneven enforcement of State rules.
Open Dump Inventory
The following information is based on data obtained from the five year
plans submitted by 45 States to EPA in January 1979,* and from personal
communications with State and Regional offices concerning State viewpoints
about the RCRA Open Dump Inventory.
According to the proposed State Planning Guidelines, each State is
required, in its plan, to provide for the classification of disposal
facilities, and to provide this information to EPA to be published in the
inventory of open dumps.
Recognizing that large numbers of disposal facilities exist and that
proper conduct of the inventory requires time for careful investigation
and documentation, the State Planning Guidelines call for a "time phasing
of the inventory". The Guidelines state in reference to this time phasing
that: "The determination of priorities for the classification of disposal
facilities shall be based upon: (1) The potential health and environmental
impact of the solid waste or disposal facility; (2) The availability of
State regulatory and enforcement powers; and (3) The availability of
* See page 3.
57 Annual State Report 1978
-------
Federal and State resources for this purpose" (Section 256.22). In
keeping with this mandate, most States plan to concentrate on different
waste streams in succeeding years, usually beginning with facilities
for residential and commercial type wastes (referred to as "municipal
waste facilities".) Closure and upgrading of those sites classified as
open dumps require identifying alternatives available for wastes to be
diverted from a closed site. Some State laws require the State agency to
provide an alternative means of disposal before ordering an operating
facility to close.
In FY78, most States began laying the groundwork for the Inventory
in various ways. Many States are seeking out unknown dumps through following
up on citizen complaints or by aerial photography. Most States are
participating in the Surface Impoundments Assessment being conducted by
the EPA Office of Drinking Water under authority of the Safe Drinking
Water Act13 and many plan to use the results of that survey as a first
step in the Classification process. Some States devised inspection forms
to reflect the anticipated 4004 Criteria and the States' own particular
regulatory situation. They also made plans for sharing of enforcement
responsibilities between two or more State agencies, hiring and training
staff, and evaluating existing State authorities or regulations.
State five-year projections reveal the intention to vigorously begin
the open dump inventory in 1979. State involvement in the inventory of
municipal waste sites will peak during FY80-81. FY81-83 will be characterized
by a gradual decrease and leveling off of open dump inventory activities
with regard to municipal waste sites.
The State projections indicate that most industrial waste sites will
not be included in the open dump inventory until near the end of the period
covered by the five-year plans. This would seem to be due to a concentration
of State effort on municipal waste facilities during the earlier part of
the five-year plan period.
Agricultural and mining waste sites are largely unaddressed by the
States at present. However, about one-fourth report the intention to
include these sites among their open dump inventory priorities.
58 Annual State Report 1978
-------
Sludge disposal sites will be included in the Open Dump Inventory
programs of at least a third of the States during the five-year plan
period. This figure may be low because in seme States sludge will be
handled by agencies other than the solid waste management agencies, and
information from these agencies was not available. Another reason for the
apparent lew level of State involvement with sludge is that many States
will include it under other areas; i.e., municipal or industrial wastes.
State legislative or regulatory enforcement powers also can affect
the inventory time phasing. Some States have power to issue cease and desist
orders, place seals on equipment, or otherwise directly cause a facility to
cease operation. Most States can revoke permits and levy fines, but must
go through the courts to actually force a shutdown of the facility.
States considering closure of specific sites will have to take into
account many factors, including: remaining site life, the availability of
alternate sites, and the likelihood and extent of continued environmental
degradation.
States considering closure of specific sites will have to take into
account many factors, including: the climate of cooperation between site
owners or operators and the State enforcement agency, the volume available
at alternate sites, and the cost of upgrading.
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY
The requirements of Subpart D of the proposed State planning guidelines
relate to RCRA Sections 4003 (2) and (6), and 6002 and refer to general resource
recovery policy and strategy, State prohibitions against long-term contracts,
and the establishment of State procurement policies to encourage resource
recovery. The last item may be delayed until Federal procurement guidelines
are established.
In order to set the stage for a State plan which fulfills these
requirements, State laws and regulations must be reviewed to determine where
the long-term contract prohibitions exist. Ideally, the most attractive
climate for development of a resource recovery facility would be that of a
State whose law specifically provides either (1) that no governments within
59 Annual State Report 1978
-------
the State may prohibit long-term contracts or (2) that resource recovery
projects are exempt from any long-term contract prohibitions which might
otherwise exist within the State. These provisions would be more
encouraging to resource recovery development than simply an absence of
prohibitions.
The sources for this study include published environmental legislation
and regulations, an EPA study of State resource recovery activities in 1978,
and information submitted to EPA for special needs, such as the FY78
Assessments* and applications for urban grants under RCRA. These sources
provided an incomplete picture of resource recovery activity for at least
two reasons: (1) An analysis of State environmental legislation may not
disclose general constraints on the conduct of business within a State
because an administrative rule that is to be applied to all State entities
may not be repeated within the statutes or rules of a particular agency.
The last factor precludes any statement here about the number of States
which do prohibit long-term contracts; (2) Information directed toward
filling special needs was often inadequate as a measure of total resource
recovery in the State.
Many related subjects are mentioned in Subpart D of the Guidelines as
recommended and are in fact preliminary to the achievement of the
achievement of the required goals. Several States are already working in
the areas of legislative review and revision, market feasibility studies,
recycling assistance, and information gathering for possible waste exchange
efforts.
Four States indicated that their Attorney General's office did review
State laws for "resource recovery impediments". Three of those States found
no impediments. Versar's review of previously-mentioned sources revealed
14 States whose legislation specifically allows long-term contracts for
resource recovery. In three additional States local governments are
prohibited from disallowing the execution of long-term contracts. In
another three States resource recovery projects are exempt from the
requirements of split-bidding or acceptance of the lowest bidder. Two more
States have specific tax exemptions for resource recovery facilities.
* See page 3.
60 Annual State Report 1978
-------
In addition to these administrative powers or privileges, some
legislation concerning resource recovery projects has been recently
enacted. Eleven States have passed litter laws relating to resource
recovery, and in nine more States laws such as these are pending.
Seven States have passed laws which support resource recovery as a
preferred alternative for the disposal of solid waste and in three more
States these laws are pending.
Resource recovery projects themselves are numerous and varied. The
most widely implemented activity is recycling, with projects in 27
States and recycling feasibility being studied in another two States.
Newspaper or office paper recycling is being practiced in 13 States,
some times by regulatory mandate but usually voluntarily. Next in
popularity is the recycling of waste oil in eight States. In three States
each the following items are being recycled: aluminum, iron and steel,
abandoned autos, and rubber or tires. In eight of the 27 States more than
one of the above materials are recycled, and most States contain multiple
projects within their boundaries.
Twenty-seven States are conducting resource recovery planning studies
(Table 38).
TABLE 38
NUMBER OF STATES WITH RESOURCE RECOVERY STUDIES
Number of States
Market studies 13
Refuse-to-energy studies 4
Energy from methane 1
Paper recycling 2
Project feasibility 4
Unspecified project studies _3_
Total reported 27
61 Annual State Report 1978
-------
Twenty-one States reported to EPA that resource recovery projects are
ongoing in their areas (Table 39).
TABLE 39
NUMBER OF STATES WITH RESOURCE RECOVERY PROJECTS
Number of States
Unspecified operations 2
Seeking contractor 2
Refuse-derived fuel project 4
Waste exchange 5
Source separation R
Total reported 21
Sharing the experience learned in these endeavors provides a valuable
service to other States, Regions, and the general public. This information
nay be contained in succeeding reports in this series.
FACILITY PLANNING
Subpart E of the State planning guidelines requires a State to include
in its plan provisions for adequate facilities and practices necessary for
environmentally sound reuse or disposal of solid waste. The provisions are
required for both hazardous and non-hazardous solid waste management.
The Federal Government assists the States in providing for resource
recovery and disposal with technical assistance programs, funding, and
guidance for environmentally sound disposal. With sufficient funding, most
technical disposal problems can be solved, but the political problems of
siting are not so directly solved. The public is becoming wary of safety
and aesthetic assurances from government and industry which have not always
held true in the past. The public is also extremely sensitive to the
possibility that property values may fall if a site is located nearby, or
62 Annual State Report 1978
-------
that trucks will be passing through residential reighborhoods causing
safety and noise problems.
In an attempt to assess and solve the problem of siting, EPA has
asked for State information on siting experiences which were encountered
within the last two years. Because the objections to siting of hazardous
facilities are similar but even more pronounced than those for non-hazardous
facilities, the information request was aimed at hazardous waste facility
siting. Returns from the above exercise are not yet complete, but they
suggest some solutions and show some similarity in defining the problems.
Some States suggest public education programs, but only one of the
States offering that idea has successfully sited a hazardous (chemical)
waste disposal facility in the last two years. One State suggests that a
State publicize any available positive news of sites in order to build
up public confidence.
As would be expected, locating hazardous waste facilities near
residential areas encounters strong opposition. Several States indicate that
less opposition was encountered to sites located within industrially-zoned
areas or near the large hazardous waste generators than in outlying areas
remote from most people. With new Federal public participation requirements
and increasing publicity concerning the safety of waste disposal, the
old adage "out of sight, out of mind" no longer applies. Although fewer
people will feel their property values are affected in non-residential areas,
often public interest groups will add their weight to the opposition.
Most States did not advocate Federal involvement in siting for a State;
however, a few States favored locating hazardous waste disposal facilities
on Federal lands for the use of a number of States within the surrounding
area. Another suggestion was for establishment of a Federal facility as
an operating model of good management to instill public confidence in the
feasibility of acceptable hazardous waste disposal facilities.
One idea that might only apply to municipal non-hazardous facilities
is to request and plan for only a short-lived facility of perhaps five
63 Annual State Report 1978
-------
years and to turn it thereafter into a recreational area. Citizens who
lived near could expect to benefit from this facility within a reasonable
period of time. This approach has proved successful in some States.
Extrapolating the results of information submitted to EPA from 29
States in relation to budget needs, Versar arrived at a rough average of
over 400 municipal sites per State. This figure is near to Waste Age's
estittated total for 45 States of more than 14,000 sites not including pits,
ponds, and lagoons. Projections indicate that a large percentage of these
sites will be filled within a few years and many of the unauthorized sites
must be closed under new comprehensive State legislation. The need for new
sites is unquestionable.
COORDINATICN
Subpart F of the Guidelines for State solid waste management plans
requires coordination of solid waste management with other environmental
programs in the State and particularly with water quality management
activities. In addition, Subpart F requires "where practicable" that the
State program coordinate with other Federal environmental programs in the
State, including those of EPA, Department of the Interior, Department of
Commerce, et al.
Information available to Versar was obtained from State laws and
regulations and Versar's State visits concerning inventory matters.
These sources largely dealt with coordination from the State's
viewpoint and focused on related activities of agencies within the State
whose regulatory authority overlapped the authority of the solid waste
agency. In some States, written agreements delineate responsibility
differentiation and coordination where such are not clearly indicated in
the written regulations. Generally there is a Department of Solid Waste
Management which coordinates the review and approval procedure for solid
waste disposal permits. Less frequently, the Department of Health is the
permitting agency. Regulations are sometimes set by the State solid waste
agency but inspection and enforcement of the rules is carried out by local
health departments according to State legislative mandate.
64 Annual State Report 1978
-------
In eight States a disposal facility must secure approval of the State
water agency as well as the solid waste enforcement agency in order to
obtain a permit to operate. Some States may permit new sites in areas of
their State which lack zoning laws but in most instances, States require
concurrence of local governments for facility permits within the local
jurisdiction. For certain site-specific conditions, some States require
special concurrence. Three States specify that a Federal agency must
concur, e.g., the Federal Aviation Administration must sometimes approve
permit issuance if location of the facility indicates that bird hazards to
aircraft may exist.
EPA encourages coordinated Federal fund requests for all State
programs under the Federal Office of Water and Waste Management. These
EPA/State agreements will be used for FY80 grant allocations.
A comprehensive overview of the coordinated activities of State solid
waste management can be obtained only through direct canmunication with the
EPA regional offices or States themselves because actual practices reveal
more cooperation than just the minimum written into the laws or rules.
PUBLIC PAPTICIPATICN
The Guidelines for State Solid Waste Plans, Subpart G, address
requirements for public participation in State and substate plans, the
State's annual work program, State regulatory development, and the permitting
of facilities.
States are generally required to make public proposed legislation and
this is being carried out in accordance with State requirements. The
increased sensitivity of the public to the problems of waste disposal has
created a climate conducive to legislative change in many States. Certainly
the problems are being discussed and solutions are being sought.
The beginning of the State planning effort under ECRA is the Eegional
and Agency Identification process and public participation in relation to
that is reviewed earlier in this report. Under Identification of Regions
and Agencies, Versar outlined the several approaches the States have used
to involve the public in the identification process.
65 Annual State Report 1978
-------
EPA requires that there be public participation in the development of
annual State work programs under RCRA. Versar could not obtain sufficient
information regarding how this process is actually carried out by the
individual States.
Although in 1978 most States were not required by their laws to do
more than make an unobtrusive announcement, many agencies were choosing
to hold hearings or public meetings for permit applications and siting
deliberations.
66 Annual State Report 1978
-------
SECTION IV
OPPORTUNITIES FOR INFORMATION SHARING
State projects and research in many areas of solid waste management
should enable all states to improve their programs if the knowledge gained
in one state is shared with others. A number of general areas of state
activity stand out as promising:
Legislative or regulatory development:
• Procurement specification review for state use of recycled paper
in Oklahoma.
• Repeal of waste importation law in Maine.
• Provision for post-closure care of facilities in Wisconsin,
Tennessee and Idaho.
Regulations or guideline development for handling of special waste
types:
• Sludge and septage in Missouri and Washington.
• Pesticides in Mississippi and Arizona.
• Metal plating wastes in Mississippi.
Technical projects:
• Gas studies
- methane generation in Montana and South Carolina.
- methane control in Colorado.
• Leachate
- monitoring research programs in Tennessee, New York, Puerto Rico, and
South Carolina.
- monitoring migration from closed sites in Illinois.
67 Annual State Report 1978
-------
• Geological assessments
- of possible new sites in Connecticut and Puerto Rico.
- of problem sites in Indiana.
• Training or certification of facility operators in Vermont, Arkansas,
Connecticut, Montana, Texas, New York, and Tennessee.
• Recycling
- paper in Tennessee, Indiana, and Montana.
- abandoned auto scrap in Pennsylvania and North Dakota.
- source separation or waste reduction systems in Nebraska and
Puerto Rico (industrial).
• Interstate cooperation between Mcntana and Idaho for hazardous waste
disposal.
Studies:
• Markets for recovered materials in Utah.
• Hazardous waste disposal in Utah and Minnesota.
• Pollution control residuals in Massachusetts.
• Refuse-derived fuel in Kansas, Washington, and Texas.
Success in public education/information should also be shared. Cases
where public opposition to siting was overcome should be studied to see what
positive approaches were used to gain public acceptance. To increase public
participation in regulatory review and increase public information, many
States employed innovative use of media, such as slides, film, newsletters,
and videotape. Oregon's League of Women Voters, under a special Federal
grant, sponsored the "Wasteland Express", a two-day bus tour of State
landfills during which 30 volunteers saw first-hand the conditions existing
in the State.
68 Annual State Report 1978
-------
SECTION V
ISSUES FOR FUTURE ATTENTION
Sons issues facing State agencies became evident during Versar's
analysis of the information received:
• A serious issue facing many States is the need for providing new
disposal capacity for sites which have reached full capacity or which are
unable to meet State standards. Sortie State laws require the facility
owners or operators to show that alternatives exist before the facility is
allowed to close even if it has attained its planned life span. Some
State laws provide that an alternative should exist before the agency
brings enforcement action against a violating facility.
• Complicating this requirement is the current reluctance of the
public to accept new disposal facilities. EPA's initiation of a public
education campaign with the work of several public interest organizations
is aimed at alleviating this problem.
• The lack of clear and specific authority to regulate on-site
industrial disposal may cause enforcement problems in many States.*
• Enforcement approaches vary. Of 36 State replies to enforcement
questions, 13 indicated they regularly achieve results by a combination
of administrative due process procedures and compliance schedules, without
going to court. Eleven of the States with due process procedures and
compliance schedules go to court regularly. Twelve States reported
difficulty in enforcement because of local governmental jurisdiction or
public ownership of facilities.
"See Page 56.
69 Annual State Report 1978
-------
• Coordination for field work in the actual site classifications during
the inventory will have to be developed. In many States the county
sanitarians perform routine solid waste disposal site inspections along with
other types of health agency functions.
• In some States routine inspections are not part of the State program,
which requires only an original registration and inspection process and then
responds to complaints as needed. Increased staffing or help from other
State agencies will be required in those States for conducting the inventory.
70 Annual State Report 1978
-------
REFERENCES
1. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; Public Law 94-580,
94th Congress S.2150, October 21, 1976. As amended by the Quiet
Coimrunities Act of 1978. Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1978.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. State Solid Waste Management
Plans - Proposed Guidelines for Development and Implementation.
Federal Register. 43 (167):38534-38546. August 28, 1978. 13 p.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. State Hazardous Waste Programs
- Proposed Guidelines. Federal Register. 43 (22):4366-4373.
February 1, 1978. 8 p.
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Standards Applicable to
Transporters of Hazardous Wastes. Federal Register. 43(83):18506-
18512. Friday, April 28, 1978. 7 p.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hazardous Waste - Proposed
Guidelines and Regulations and Proposed Identification and Listing.
Federal Register 43 (243): 58946-59028. December 18, 1978. 82 p.
6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Identification of Regions and
Agencies for Solid Waste Management. Interim Guidelines. Federal
Register 42(94); 24926-24930. May 16, 1977. 5 p.
7. U.S. Department of Commerce. Environmental Quality Control.
Government Finances: Fiscal Years 1974-75. State and Local Government
Special Studies No. 83. Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1977. 33 p.
8. 1979 Landfill Practices Survey. Waste Age, 10 (1), 45-51, January 1979.
9. Office of Solid Waste Management. Solid Waste Facts. Environmental
Protection Publication SW-694. Washington, D.C., U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1978, 18 p.
10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Solid Waste Disposal Facilities.
Proposed Classification Criteria Federal Register. 43 (25): 4942-4955.
February 6, 1978.
11. Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Public Law 92-500, 92nd Congress,
October 18, 1972. Amended by Public Law 95-217, 95th Congress, December
28, 1977. Washington, D.C., Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. 1978.
12. Endangered Species Act, Public Law 93-523, 93rd Congress, December 28,
1973. Amended by Public Law 94-32, June 30, 1976; Public Law 94-359,
July 12, 1976; Public Law 95-212, December 19, 1977; and Public Law
95-632, November 10, 1978. Washington, D.C., Bureau of National Affairs,
Inc., 1978.
71 Annual State Report 1978
-------
13. Safe Drinking Water Act. Public Law 93-523, 93rd Congress, December
17, 1974. Amended by Public Law 95-190, 95th Congress, November 16,
1977. Washington, D.C., Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., 1978.
ya 1848
SW-796
72 Annual State Report 1978
4 U. S. GOVERNMENT PWNTING OFFICE : 1979 630-633/2632
-------
EPA REGIONS
U.S. EPA, Region 1
Solid Waste Program
John F. Kennedy Bldg.
Boston, MA 02203
617-223-5775
U.S. EPA, Region 2
Solid Waste Section
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10007
212-264-0503
U.S. EPA, Region 3
Solid Waste Program
6th and Walnut Sts.
Philadelphia, PA 19106
215-597-9377
U.S. EPA, Region 4
Solid Waste Program
345 Courtland St., N.E.
Altanta, GA 30308
404-881-3016
U.S. EPA, Region 5
Solid Waste Program
230 South Dearborn St.
Chicago, IL 60604
312-353-2197
U.S. EPA, Region 6
Solid Waste Section
1201 Elm St.
Dallas, TX 75270
214-767-2734
U.S. EPA, Region 7
Solid Waste Section
1735 Baltimore Ave.
Kansas City, MO 64108
816-374-3307
U.S. EPA, Region 8
Solid Waste Section
1860 Lincoln St.
Denver, CO 80295
303-837-2221
U.S. EPA, Region 9
Solid Waste Program
215 Fremont St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-556-4606
U.S. EPA, Region 10
Solid Waste Program
1200 6th Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
206-442-1260
-------
------- |