I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
9°3R81003
The RCRA Subtitle D Program
in U.S. EPA Region HI
A History and Prognosis
EPA Contract No. 68-01-6003
August 1981
U.S. EPA Region III
Regional Center for Environmeatal
Information
1650 Arch Street (3PM52)
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Prepared for:
Air and Hazardous Materials Division
Hazardous Materials, Toxics
and Pesticides Branch
U.S. EPA Region III
Sixth and Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
Prepared by:
JRB Associates
8400 VVestpark Drive
McLean, Virginia 22102
HWTIC
TD
195
.W295
R37
1981
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The RCRA Subtitle D Program
in U.S. EPA Region III
A History and Prognosis
EPA Contract No. 68-01-6003
August 1981
U.S. EPA Region III
K^ional Center for Environmental
Information
IC50 Arch Street (3PM52)
PiJiladelphia, PA 19103
o
\
RegionaK enter foi 1 miromncnla! Inlorm
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
2.0
3.0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.1 The Federal Subtitle D Program
1.2 The Region III Subtitle D Program
1.3 Summary of Findings and Conclusions
1.4 Organization of This Paper
History, Current Status, and Projections of
Subtitle D Implementation in the States • . <
2.1 Delaware
2.2 District of Columbia
2.3 Maryland
2.4 Pennsylvania
2.5 Virginia
2.6 West Virginia
Conclusions
1-1
1-2
1-4
1-6
. . .2-1
2-1
2-5
2-9
2-13
2-18
2-22
. 3-1
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
I
I
I
• Figure 1: Subtitle D State Plan Status 1-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ay
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Federal role in the Subtitle D program mandated by the Federal
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) will be largely
discontinued in FY82 through the elimination of Federal funding for State
programs and severe cutbacks in EPA resources for solid waste. In the
past five years, state and Federal solid waste management activities ini-
tiated by Subtitle D of RCRA have resulted in significant improvements
in the level of solid waste management in most of the Region III states.
Through the provision of Subtitle D grant money, grant oversight, solid
waste management plan review and comment, program guidance and technical
assistance, EPA has played an important part in the development of compre-
hensive state solid waste management programs for Pennsylvania, Maryland,
Delaware, West Virginia, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. However,
the future of these state programs is in doubt. The premature removal
of Federal support for state programs has left the states in Region III
at various levels of program development and self-sufficiency. While
some state programs have sufficient state support to carry out RCRA activ-
ities to completion and to implement measures developed in their state
plan, other state programs in the Region will not have sufficient resources
to complete adequate state plans, much less implement those plans. The
purpose of this paper is to discuss the development and current status of
the state programs in the Region, and to project the effect of the end of
the solid waste grant program on state programs.
1.1 THE FEDERAL SUBTITLE D PROGRAM
The Federal Subtitle D program authorized by RCRA focuses on two
programs for improving solid waste management practices at the local level:
• the State Planning Program, and
• the Open Dump Inventory.
Subtitle D provides for grants in support of states which choose to develop
state plans in accordance with guidelines developed by EPA. Through this
planning program, Congress intended to insure that the states developed
solid waste programs, which would protect human health and the environment
in the future, under Federal guidance. This guidance would be provided
through technical assistance, financial assistance, project oversight,
interstate coordination, and information dissemination.
1-1
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Open Dump Inventory was initiated to address existing disposal
facilities which threatened human health and the environment. The pro-
gram requires the states to inventory solid waste facilities in their
state, and either close or develop compliance schedules to upgrade those
facilities classified as open dumps.
To carry out this program and guide the activities of the states,
EPA Headquarters developed guidelines for the preparation of State Solid
Waste Management Plans and the Criteria for the Classification of Solid
Waste Disposal Facilities. These regulations, developed in accordance
with the requirements of RCRA, outline the minimum standards acceptable
for State Plans to satisfy RCRA, and the standards to be used in evalu-
ating facilities for the Open Dump Inventory.
The Federal program provided for grants to the states for preparation
of State Plans and performance of the Open Dump Inventory. These grants
were administered through the Regional offices. Additionally, RCRA
provided for technical assistance in solid waste management and resource
recovery to state and local governments through the Technical Assistance
Panels program. This program provided assistance, through the Regional
offices, to eligible governments by providing the use of EPA personnel,
expert consultants, and peer matches in resolving problems in solid waste
management.
1.2 THE REGION III SUBTITLE D PROGRAM
The Subtitle D program administered by EPA Region III involves the
interaction of regional, state, and contractor personnel in a dynamic
planning process.
The Subtitle D program is currently administered by the Hazardous
Materials Section, Hazardous Materials, Toxics and Pesticides Branch,
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, in Region III. A RCRA State
Coordinator has been designated for each state in the Region, whose
responsibilities include working with the states in the development of
their Subtitle D programs, reviewing State Plans, and serving as the
liaison between the states and the Region III office. Further, the
Section is divided into two teams, each with specific responsibilities
in RCRA program oversight.
1-2
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
There are four major elements which are included in the range of services
provided by Region III:
• Subtitle D Grants program,
• Technical Assistance Panels program,
• State Plan and Open Dump Inventory (GDI) oversight, and
• Coordination and Information Dissemination.
Each of these services is discussed in more detail below.
The solid waste state grants program in the Region was initiated through
the provision of funds, as mandated by the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965,
and other general solid waste technical assistance and guidance. Following
the passage of RCRA in 1976, the program increased in structure and scope.
As mandated by RCRA, each state was allocated a "not to exceed" grant based
upon a formula which considered population, waste generation, and state
acreage. These funds were provided to the Regions to be passed through to
the states. Through fiscal year guidance documents provided to the Regions
and to the states, the states determined which of a series of activities
they wished to undertake in exchange for all or part of the grant money. In
addition, each state is required to address two key Subtitle D activities:
(1) the development of a comprehensive solid waste management plan consistent
with Federal guidelines, and (2) the conduct of the Open Dump Inventory (ODI)
for the purpose of identifying and correcting indiscriminate waste disposal
practices. In Region III, each state has always requested the maximum amount
of its available Subtitle D grant.
In support of these Subtitle D program efforts, RCRA also created the
Technical Assistance Panels program. These panels are composed of experts
in waste management, including peer matches and consultants, whose services
the Region has provided to numerous state and local governments in the 2^ year
history of the program. Access to this program has been provided to local
governments with a variety of waste management problems, but has been most
significant with respect to State Solid Waste Management Plan development
in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the State of West Virginia, where
state resources and/or expertise have not been sufficient to properly address
all planning issues in a timely manner.
1-3
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
State planning and ODI activities have proceeded at varied paces
over the past several years, with Region III providing guidance, review,
and comment on state efforts to fulfill the conditions of their grants.
Figure 1 shows the current status of State Plan activities in each of
the Region III states. Originially, State Plans were to have been sub-
mitted by January 31, 1981, but due to conflicting demands placed on
State Directors reflecting a shifting of program emphasis to Subtitle C
activities, deadlines for all the states have been delayed, as indicated.
Even though Subtitle D funding is expected to be eliminated, Region III
still anticipates that all of the states in the Region will receive plan
approval during FY82, although due to funding reductions plans are not
expected to be as comprehensive in scope as previously planned. The
Region III states completed their scheduled Open Dump Inventory evalu-
ations for FY80; those classified as open dumps were included on the list
published in the Federal Register during May, 1981. Second year (FY81)
listings will be optional, at the discretion of the individual states.
Other Subtitle D support functions the Region has provided include
the coordination of the various state Subtitle D programs, pass-through
of relevant information from EPA Headquarters to the states, and sharing
useful information and techniques developed in one state with the others
in the region. One of the most useful exercises has been the quarterly
meeting of State Solid Waste Directors held in Philadelphia. This meeting
has served as a forum for information exchange, constructive program
criticism, and problem resolution.
1.3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The states in Region III vary greatly in size, population, economic
strength, and resources available for state programs. State solid waste
programs have historically reflected this diversity in Region III,
covering a range of program development stages at the time of the enact-
ment of RCRA. Although none of the states in the Region had a state
program of sufficient sophistication prior to 1976 to meet Congress'
goals under RCRA, several states had relatively advanced programs requiring
few alterations. Others in the Region have had further to go to meet RCRA
objectives.
1-4
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
p
01 O rH p
D Z Cfl C
Cfl rH O "03
S CO P-r-i
> P_ C
< O C- 0)
PH S-I K t
W Q
o.
<
CO 13
01 O)
4J -H
Cfl > 01
0) rJ 0) 4-1
4J O Pi P
Cfl C- 0)
4-1 S-I rH g
co o cfl e
0 P 0
P -HCJ
M fl-i
5; CO -O
rl "^ ^
P r*
. CU *(H
2 1 o
BOOI
r^j ^ ^
h^
CO 01
0) 4-1 p
4-1 C- Cfl
Cfl O rH
4-1 T3 P-i
eo <;
"C
*> Q)
o ,2 4-J
•H S cfl
r— 1 4_)
rO ^P CO
3 *"•
^ "££
TO
ffi
01 01 "O
- 4-1 01
P P -0
O O> S-l
•H g ca
00 g 5
0) 0 M
pi u o
P^
rH T3
Cfl 4-1 0)
P 4J >
O CO -H
•H i-i 01
4J C 0
P-i 01
O Pi
01
4J
Cfl
4J
CO
CM
OC
S-I
Cfl
3
r-l
rP
01
f=-
00
J-i
o>
f
o
0)
Q
i — i
00
r4
0)
^Q
0)
4-1
P-
0)
CO
1— (
00
)-J
01
o
o
o
r— I
oo
^>-
i-i
j
i™^
ON
•*
OO
r— 1
00
4-1
CO
3
6C
^
CM
i — t
OO
0)
C
3
1-5
VO
cfl
•H
P
•H
cc
r-l
•H
^>
4-1
01
0)
s
oo
0)
p
r-}
CM
OC
1
CM
00
rH
•H
M
<£
CM
00
fj
rJ
Cfl
01
rH
3
0)
rC
O
in
0
12
oo
^
0)
g
s
o
z
r-H
r— 1
OO
(J
0)
n
e
0)
4-1
P.
C1J
CO
o
CO
00
rH
*IZ
"
Q4
*•**
CN
00
L?
cfl
0)
CM
OO
r*"i
r-J
P
Cfl
f-J
r— 4
OO
rJ
0)
o
4-1
O
0
01
rH
3
T3
01
r^
a
CO
0
^
z
0)
o
z
1
f
cfl
-a
•H C
P
•H
OT
}L|
•H
>
cfl
rH
r*"i
r4
CO
S
CN
00
^
rJ
Cfl
3
rJ
-Q
0)
fn
CM
00
^
J-
cfl
3
cfl
i — i
OO
t-t
01
^
1
4-1
a
0)
CO
r-H
OO
r-l
,0
0)
O
Z
0
CO
0)
rH
3
0)
rC
O
CO
o
z
r— 1
00
r-l
0)
Q
4J
O
C
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The states in Region III have responded to Federal guidance and
financial support for solid waste management activities. Planning,
enforcement, and regulation development activities have all improved
in the states, although most of the states have not been as responsive
to RCRA initiatives as Congress had envisioned in setting a schedule
for RCRA implementation. In evaluating state performance in meeting
RCRA objectives, it is important to note that state solid waste agencies
must be responsive to the political environment in which they exist and,
therefore, must take local conditions into account when trying to imple-
ment a Federal program initiative. Given the constraints of limited
state resources, enabling legislation, and the level of program develop-
ment prior to RCRA, most states in Region III have made significant
progress in improving the overall level of solid waste management
practices in their respective states.
Termination of Federal support for state solid waste programs will
seriously affect the states in Region III. At least one state in the
Region relied on the grant program for 50 percent of the entire state
solid waste program budget. Unless state governments are able to make
up the lost funds, most state programs in Region III are unlikely to
meet the Congressional aims put forth in RCRA. For several of the more
heavily dependent states, termination of these funds will probably mean
that much of the progress made to date will be lost, as state plan
objectives are unable to be met and enforcement activities decline due
to budgetary measures.
1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THIS PAPER
This paper will examine in greater detail the Subtitle D program
in each of the Region III states, and where and how this program can be
expected to change or continue in FY82 and beyond. Specifically, these
issues will be addressed in the following sections:
• Section 2: History, Current Status, and Projections of
Subtitle D Implementation in Region III States
• Section 3: Conclusions
1-6
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.0 HISTORY, CURRENT STATUS, AND PROJECTIONS
OF SUBTITLE D IMPLEMENTATION IN THE STATES
This section traces the evolution of state solid waste management and
Subtitle D programs in Region III. For each state, several phases of the
development of Subtitle D programs are described, including:
• the pre-RCRA period of solid waste management
• the 1976 to present state Subtitle D program development period
• the projected continuation of the Subtitle D program under
conditions of restricted financial resources.
In these discussions, the successes and failures of the states in meeting
the goals of RCRA to date, and the probable future success or failure of
the state programs in carrying out their remaining RCRA Subtitle D activities
to completion, are described.
2.1 DELAWARE
2.1.1 Delaware's Pre-RCRA Solid Waste Program
Until the early 1970's, solid waste disposal in Delaware was regulated
solely under provisions of the State Sanitary Code. The Bureau of Environ-
mental Health carried out the regulatory provisions of the Code, which
included regulating activities at landfills along with other public health
measures. Regulatory efforts generally focused on control of open burning
and disease vectors at dump sites, and paid no attention to disposal
operation effects on groundwater and surface waters.
Events at the Llangollen landfill altered this regulatory stance
in 1973. This landfill, which served New Castle County from 1960 to
1968, was found to be contaminating the underlying Potomac aquifer. The
water supply for much of New Castle County was taken from this aquifer, and
one of the major pumping fields was located near to, and down gradient from,
the Llangollen landfill. The contamination problem focused a great deal of
public interest on solid waste disposal, and the Delaware General Assembly
responded by including a solid waste facility regulatory and permit program
in the Delaware Environmental Protection Act of 1973. This statute gave
the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC)
responsibility for solid waste management and authorized the development and
2-1
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
implementation of regulations governing construction, operation, and
monitoring of landfills. DNREC adopted its Solid Waste Disposal Regu-
lation in 1974. The regulation established engineering and hydrological
standards for landfills, basically requiring a liner and cap to reduce
infiltration and contain leachate. Existing facilities were given two
years to comply with the regulation.
In 1975, the State took a major step towards consolidated waste
management when the formation of the Delaware Solid Waste Authority was
authorized by the adoption of Chapter 64 of the Delaware Code. The
Authority was mandated to develop and operate regional solid waste disposal
and resource recovery facilities for municipal wastes; was authorized to
direct all collected residential solid wastes to facilities designated by
the Authority; and was granted other powers necessary to establish a
centralized waste system, including the licensing and regulation of waste
haulers.
2.1.2 1976-1981 Subtitle D Program Development
DNREC was actively permitting solid waste facilities under its 1974
solid waste regulation in 1976. Although most facilities in the State
operated under permitted status, several in the southern counties never
attained permitted status, primarily due to age and low remaining capacity.
These county-run facilities were supervised by DNREC, through facility
monitoring and written orders, to minimize environmental damage through
the end of their life.
In addition to these county landfills which handled municipal solid
waste, certain other landfills were allowed to operate without permits.
These landfills were exempted from permit requirements under a regulatory
provision for "inert approvals." Generally, they handled only demolition
wastes, fly ash, and water treatment sludges. These wastes were considered
inert by DNREC because leachate generated from them exhibited contaminant
levels considered by DNREC to be "low,1'generally ten times the drinkingwater
standards. These inert approvals are a serious deficiency in the program,
given current information on the hazards of open dumping water treatment
sludges and fly ash, which generally have high heavy metal concentrations.
2-2
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
By 1977 all Department permits for solid waste disposal facilities
required their operators to install groundwater monitoring systems and
report the results of groundwater sample analysis to the Department, with
the intent of determining the impact of landfills on groundwater. DNREC
also has conducted its own groundwater tests of these landfills to determine
compliance with the Delaware Solid Waste Disposal Regulation. By 1978 the
Department began requiring implementation of the engineering standards
contained in the Solid Waste Disposal Regulation. These standards,
including the use of liners, gas venting systems, leachate collection and
treatment systems, and daily and final cover, were established to prevent
the migration of landfill leachate into the groundwater, and to minimize
other environmental impacts.
DNREC addressed planning for the preparation of its State Subtitle D
Plan and carrying out the Open Dump Inventory for the first time in its
1978 RCRA grant application. In 1979, the State started State Plan develop-
ment and preparations for actually carrying out the Open Dump Inventory.
In January, 1980, the Department hired a person to carry out inspections
for the Open Dump Inventory. As a result of Open Dump Inventory activities
in 1980, the Department classified Sussex County Landfill #3 at Angola and
the Pigeon Point Landfill in New Castle County as open dumps. Recently,
however, the Department had requested that these classifications be post-
poned since DNREC did not believe it had sufficient statutory authority to
make these classifications on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Region Ill's Regional Counsel disagreed with this evaluation of the Delaware
Statutes, and determined that they do provide sufficient statutory author-
ity to make these classifications. On the basis of that opinion, DNREC did
formally classify the Angola landfill as an open dump for inclusion in the
list of open dumps. The Pigeon Point landfill was upgraded and has been
delisted.
DNREC completed its draft State Plan for submission to EPA Region III
and submitted it on January 29, 1981. The plan addressed solid and
hazardous waste, the permitting program and Open Dump Inventory, and solid
waste facility planning and resource recovery.
An additional RCRA activity in Delaware during this period was the
study and implementation of remedial actions for groundwater contamination
at the Llangollen landfill. This activity, partially funded by EPA
2-3
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Headquarters under Subtitle H of RCRA, resulted in the development of a leach-
ate interceptor system of groundwater withdrawal wells, located between the
landfill and the nearby water supply pumping field. The dilute leachate
collected is currently discharged, untreated, into a nearby creek.
The Solid Waste Authority actively initiated planning and project
development to meet its mandate during this period. Under Authority
licensing regulations, adopted in 1979, haulers have been licensed in all
three counties. The authority has most vigoursly pursued providing for
long-term disposal of wastes from New Castle County, where the overwhelming
majority of the State's waste is generated. The Authority prepared extensive
feasibility studies on the development of a resource recovery facility for
New Castle County, and in 1979 broke ground on the construction of such a
facility at Pigeon Point. In Kent County, the next most populous, the
Authority has purchased and contracted out operation of a Central Solid
Waste Facility at Sandtown. The facility is the first land disposal facility
in the State designed and constructed to meet DNREC regulations.
2.1.3 Current Status of the State Program and Projections for Future
Completion of Subtitle D Activities
The Department plans to inventory six additional facilities by the
end of FY81. DNREC currently believes itself to have limited statutory
authority in classifying and developing compliance schedules for open dumps,
and is currently active in seeking amendments to the Delaware Environ-
mental Protection Act which would give DNREC the powers necessary to assume
full responsibility for all RCRA activities at the State level. It is hoped
that these amendments will be passed during the 1981 General Assembly, which
would allow DNREC to develop its upgraded solid waste regulations in 1981.
DNREC intends to adopt EPA1s 4004 criteria. The Department is considering
other regulatory changes to be made between 1981 and 1983, concerning
detailed specifications for engineering standards, revised definitions of
inert, industrial, and solid wastes, and detailed standards for landspreading
of municipal waste water treatment sludges.
2-4
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Delaware has submitted its State Plan for EPA comment and, based upon
the relatively minor nature of required revisions, expects to sumbit their
adopted State Plan for EPA approval by the end of FY81. DNREC has a limited
solid waste staff, which has particularly been evidenced in the development
of the State Plan, a document severly limited in scope when compared with
EPA guidelines. However, without further Federal support, personnel will
not be available at the State level to improve upon the content of the plan.
The DNREC staff has attempted, to the extent possible considering its limited
resources, to develop a document consistent with EPA goals.
Delaware has relied heavily on EPA funding to develop its State Plan
and initiate its inventory of open dumps. Personnel have been hired to
carry out these activities under the State's Subtitle D grant. DNREC is
unsure of its ability to meet even the limited objectives developed in the
plan without Federal assistance. Solid waste activities without Federal
funding will be cut back to DNREC's permitting role. Development of new
regulations consistent with EPA's criteria, and classification of open dumps,
will probably be halted. This represents a real loss since DNREC has
scheduled approximately half of its landfill evaluations, and part or all
of 55 surface impoundment evaluations, for FY83 and '84. Due to its limited
resources, DNREC has completed only two evaluations to date.
Additionally, DNREC studies for developing sludge application guide-
lines are jeopardized. DNREC considers the development of these guidelines
a high priority, given current sludge disposal problems in the State.
2.2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
2.2.1 District of Columbia's Pre-RCRA Solid Waste Program
The District of Columbia has historically looked upon solid waste
management from the perspective of a municipal government. As such, the
District's primary concern has been to carry out the service delivery
function, providing collection and disposal services for residents. Second-
arily, the District has carried out local regulatory functions, such as
licensing and inspecting private haulers. Landfills in the District have
generally been operated by the District government; for this reason, the
exercise of state regulatory powers, such as the development of regulations
2-5
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
for landfills to protect public health and the environment, have generally
been of minor concern. As owner and operator of all of the substantial
landfills in the District, the District government has maintained and
operated its landfills in a manner it believed to be consistent with the
protection of public health. The development of specific regulations
would have left the District in the awkward position of regulating its
own facilities.
As a provider of services, the District has planned solid waste
activities since the 1950's. Such planning has generally been involved
with the specifics of operating a municipal collection and disposal system,
such as delineating equipment and landfill requirements, determining collection
routes, and evaluating resource recovery potential. These plans have not
been of the comprehensive nature required by RCRA.
The District has historically disposed of its wastes through inciner-
ation and landfilling. Generally, incinerators have been located within
the District, while landfills have been located in adjacent political
jurisdictions, and were, therefore, subject to regulations of other states.
Solid waste regulations of the Disctict have restricted open burning and
required permits for landfill operation since the 1960's.
The District government provides collection service for all three or
less unit residential buildings. Larger residential buildings and commercial
establishments are required to have refuse removed, generally through
contract services provided by private haulers. Federal installations
generally have had refuse removed for disposal, although dumps for brush
and other land clearing debris have occasionally been operated at Federal
facilities in the past.
2.2.2 1976 - 1981 Subtitle D Program Development
From 1976 to 1977, the District's Department of Environmental Services
developed a comprehensive description and evaluation of its solid waste
functions, providing the first overall picture of its service network. This
evaluation was prepared as a means towards planning future methods for
providing collection and disposal services. However, it did not meet the
needs of RCRA in outlining regulatory policy.
2-6
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Department of Environmental Services solid waste section's role
as provider of services has resulted in the development of a large staff.
However, most of this staff is involved in the physical aspects of waste
management - collection, landfill operation, and street cleaning. These
operations require a significant expenditure of Washington's resources.
Staff and funding has not been available to carry out regulatory and
planning functions of the comprehensive nature envisioned in RCRA.
Funding through the RCRA grant program has allowed the District to
initiate the development of planning and regulatory capabilities required
under RCRA. The Department of Environmental Services utilized its grant
to establish its hazardous waste and solid waste planning program, using money to
fund a staff (one person) responsible for both activities. Staff activity has
focussed on enacting the District' s hazarouus waste program as EPA developed Federal
guidelines, and secondarily, has carried out Subtitle D activities as necessary. The
District completed its Open Dump Inventory, in which the three existing sites in the
District were evaluated according to the Federal criteria. The District does not
have landfill regulations equivalent to the Federal criteria in place at this time.
This may be a moot point since the District currently prohibits the development
of any landfills within the District. However, it is possible that this
policy could be reversed, and for this reason development of equivalent
regulations may be desireable. The District planned to enact the Federal
criteria by adoption, but it is not clear at this point that such adoption
is allowable. The District has preferred to focus its limited RCRA
implementation resources on more pressing matters, particularly hazardous
waste problems.
The Department of Environmental Services has initiated the preparation
of a Subtitle D plan but has not completed any sections of the plan to date.
Unresolved issues regarding hazardous waste and sludge, and lack of resources,
have delayed plan development. A major problem facing the District to be
addressed in the Plan is the short- and long-term disposal of sludge from the
Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant. The regional nature of this plant,
which treats wastewater from the District, Maryland, and Virginia, has made
the sludge disposal issue a controversial part of regional politics, a
condition exacerbated by the lack of sludge disposal capacity within the
2-7
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
District itself. Sludge is currently disposed of on a shared basis in
surrounding political jurisdictions, most of which do not have suitable
disposal facilities for the large volume of sludge generated. The Depart-
ment of Environmental Services is investigating, under an Urban Policy
Grant and a Clean Water Act 201 Grant, the feasibility of establishing a
large, scale sludge/municipal solid waste co-disposal facility within the
Disctict. The development of this grant has required a great deal of time
due to the need to meet the application requirements of both the Urban
Policy and Construction Grants programs.
The Department of Environmental Services believes that the completed
Subtitle D Plan would be more meaningful if the resolution of the sludge
issue, at least for the shott-term, can be included. Therefore, they
have focussed their resources in the interim on completing the Subtitle C
portion of the plan, developing a hazardous waste program capable of receiving
interim authorization. The Department's entire staff for preparing Subtitle C
and D plans and regulations consists of one person, funded under the District's
RCRA grant, whose time has been devoted to Subtitle C issues pending
resolution of the sludge question.
2.2.3 Current Status of the State Program and Projections for Future
Completion of Subtitle D Activities
The District has completed its Open Dump Inventory, has permitting
authority, and does not have legal obstacles to the District government
entering into long-term contracts. In these areas, the District's Subtitle
D program satisfied Federal objectives.
The District does not have a solid waste management plan, nor have
drafts of the plan been prepared. Work on the plan has been fragmentary to
date. Current work on the plan has been suspended, pending resolution of
the sludge management issue, and staff time has been directed towards
completion of the District's interim authorization package under Subtitle
C. If the sludge issue is not resolved prior to the deadline for solid
waste plan submission, the Plan will probably give the alternatives for
sludge disposal under consideration at that time. The District does intend
to present a State Plan, but will probably not have sufficient resources
after FY81 to accomplish this task, in a manner consistent with EPA guidance.
2-8
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The District had originally planned to complete all Subtitle D
activities by FY82 and to terminate its Subtitle D program at that time.
The District did not foresee the development of objectives in its State
Plan which would require ongoing efforts outside its normal collection
and disposal services. This, coupled with the reliance of the District
on Federal funding for carrying out Subtitle D activities, makes it
unlikely that any activities left undone when Federal funding is terminated
will be satisfactorily completed. This includes development of the State
Plan and of regulations equivalent to RCRA.
Regulatory programs in the District are of uncertain status at this
time. The District government is contemplating the establishment of a
Department of Regulatory Affairs, under which all regulatory programs,
including RCRA Subtitle C and D, would be consolidated, removing C and D
responsibilities from the Department of Environmental Services. In such
an event, the future of the Subtitle D program after FY81 will be even
more uncertain. If this event does not transpire, District personnel
assigned to hazardous waste work would probably be available on a very
limited basis to handle some Subtitle D problems. However, completion of
the State Plan or of the solid waste regulation would probably be outside
of the limited scope of such involvement. Solid waste programs in Washington
after the end of FY81 will continue along the lines of a municipal or city
approach to solid waste management, operating or overseeing collection and
disposal systems, regardless of the status of the Subtitle D program in
regards to overall completion of goals.
2.3 MARYLAND
2.3.1 Maryland's Pre-RCRA State Solid Waste Program
Maryland's first real involvement in solid waste management commenced
in 1914 with the enactment of legislation which established a permitting
system for disposal facilities. In 1916, the State Department of Health
issued the first landfill permits under this landmark legislation. These
permits, although advanced for their time, were extremely permissive by
today's standards and allowed virtually uncontrolled pollution of air (open
burning), groundwater, and surface water, by open dumping operations.
2-9
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
As awareness of the importance of solid waste disposal as an environ-
mental and public health problem increased, the state program expanded to
provide more regulatory control. In 1966, the Department of Health created
a separate Division of Solid Waste. At that time, the Division's first
priority was to replace the State's 127 open, burning dumps with sanitary
landfills. Landfills were inspected and required to cease open burning and
comply with additional requirements if they were to continue operation.
Although still not at a level consistent with today's standards, these
regulations provided some control over the most egregious solid waste land-
filling problems, although effects on groundwater and surface water were
not considered.
In 1970, water and sewer legislation existing at the time was amended
to require that counties formulate solid waste management plans by 1974,
and keep them updated thereafter. Also in 1970, sewage sludge was added to
the waste types the Department of Health was empowered to permit under the
original 1914 legislation.
2.3.2 1976 - 1981 Subtitle D Program Development
The record of Maryland's Subtitle D activities begins, ironically, with
the 1976 passage of the State's first hazardous waste law. Based on its
experience in permitting industrial wastewater discharges under the NPDES
program, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) received authority for imple-
menting the new law and promulgated regulations in 1977. Based in turn on
this investment of responsibility, the Department of Natural Resources was
selected later in 1977, over the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH),
as the State RCRA lead agency. Thus, while DHMH retained state responsibility
for sludge disposal and solid waste landfill permitting, DNR expanded its
operation to cover solid waste management through implementation of Subtitle
D of RCRA, This division of responsibility in solid waste management, and
in other environmental areas, between the Department of Natural Resourses and
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, led to problems in coordination of
environmental control activities. This problem was addressed in 1979 through
the consolidation of all state environmental activities into a new Office of
Environmental Programs within the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.
2-10
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Maryland was slow to initiate its Subtitle D program. Existing staff
was not sufficient to carry out the Solid Waste Division's normal functions
and Subtitle D activities at the time that Federal grants were made avail-
able to the State. DHMH had difficulty acquiring staff to carry out Sub-
title D activities, even though Federal funding was available to do so,
due to the State Personnel Department's skepticism regarding the longevity
of Federal funding programs. DHMH eventually was able to hire a planner to
carry out State planning for both Subtitle C and D.
It has been only in the last 12 to 18 months that the Department has
been active in conducting the Open Dump Inventory. Additional personnel
were hired using grant dollars to carry out this inventory work. State per-
sonnel have visited all of the 65-70 municipal landfill sites in the state,
although evaluations are not complete, and exclude groundwater, gas, and bird
hazard evaluations. Most of the Section 4004 criteria are covered by exist-
ing Maryland regulations except for bird hazard. However, the State has
problems concerning the location of tests consistent with 4004 to determine
compliance with groundwater and gas standards (e.g., waste boundary or
property boundary), due to restrictions in state law regarding property and
entry rights.
2.3.3 Current Status of the State Program and Projections for Future
Completion of Subtitle D Activities
Maryland plans to complete its Open Dump Inventory for municipal land-
fills by the end of FY81. This will involve completing the evaluation of the
approximately 70 identified sites for all criteria except bird hazard. Sites
have been ranked for evaluation according to EPA criteria. At the present
time, 2 sites have been submitted for inclusion in the list of open dumps, and
have been issued compliance schedules. Evaluations of industrial landfills,
private landfills, and surface impoundments have not been initiated at this
time. Evaluation of municipal landfills has been given priority by the
Department, while the inventorying of these privately-owned facilities had
been scheduled for later in the implementation period.
The State's Subtitle D Solid Waste Management Plan is significantly
behind schedule. No progress was made on the Plan from June to September,
1980, since the principal author had to be reassigned to work on the State's
2-11
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
application for Subtitle C Interim Authorization. As a result, new staff
have had to be hired and oriented. Work is just now resuming on the plan,
and a complete plan has not been finished in even a preliminary draft form.
Only fragmentary, handwritten sections of the plan have been drafted to
date. These were not available for review at the time of preparation of
this paper.
Prospects for the State in completing the Open Dump Inventory for
facilities other than municipal sanitary landfills are not good. The
State will not be able to inventory any of these facilities prior to the
cut-off of Federal funding, and resources are not available within the
State for inventorying these facilities at the accelerated rate needed
to inventory all the sites in the foreseeable future. Activities in
this area will probably be limited to the worst offenders as made known to
DHMH and as resources are available. Additionally, Maryland does not intend
to develop regulations fully equivalent to the RCRA Section 4004 criteria at
this time: a regulation for bird hazard will not be developed, and monitor-
ing points for groundwater and methane will not be equivalent to those in
RCRA Section 4004.
Maryland does plan to complete its State Solid Waste Management Plan.
An evaluation of the adequacy of this plan in regards to EPA guidelines
is impossible at this time due to the unavailability of a. completed draft.
The Department of Health and Mental Hygiene has identified objectives to be expressed
in the plan, but is doubtful of its ability to implement programs to meet
these objectives in the absence of Federal funding. Maryland desires EPA
review and comment on the plan, but would not seek EPA approval due to
budgetary restrictions which will limit their ability to respond to EPA
comments and the belief that State resources will not be available to
meet ambitious programmatic goals such as those outlined in the EPA guide-
lines. The Department will generally continue to carry out its permitting
and inspection roles as funded by the State. Personnel hired under Sub-
title D grant dollars will be transferred to the Subtitle C program as
appropriate.
2-12
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
2.4 PENNSYLVANIA
2.4.1 Pennsylvania's Pre-RCRA Solid Waste Program
At the State level, the government of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
has been involved in solid waste management since 1929. The Administrative
Code adopted in that year assigned the Commonwealth's Health Department, as
part of its broad public health responsibilities, the responsibility to
abate nuisances which could affect public health arising from improper
solid waste practices. The vague nature of this grant of responsibility
did not provide the Health Department with the mandate necessary to compre-
hensively manage solid waste, nor was improper solid waste management generally
considered a serious threat to public health at that time. Staff for handling
solid waste problems was limited and Department resources were targeted toward
more pressing public health problems.
As knowledge of the adverse effects of improper solid waste disposal
on public health developed, the Health Department expanded its efforts in
this area. In the early 1960's, Department staff began inspecting the
State's landfills. In 1965, the Health Department received a grant from
the Federal government to do a statewide survey of solid waste management
in the Commonwealth. The results of this survey and increased knowledge
of solid waste problems led to the development and adoption of the Pennsyl-
vania Solid Waste Management Act of 1968 (Act 241).
The Act greatly expanded the legal authority of the Health Department
for overseeing solid waste management practices in the Commonwealth. The
Act required solid waste facilities to receive Health Department permits;
authorized the Department to develop regulations governing solid waste
facilities, inspect facilities, and initiate prosecution for violations;
required municipalities with population densities greater that 300 people
per square mile to prepare solid waste plans by 1971; and established the
Solid Waste Advisory Committee to the Governor.
The Health Department's Solid Waste Section developed regulations for
sanitary landfills based upon this statutory authority. The Department's
regulatory program was oriented towards protection of ground and surface
2-13
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
water resources, and State requirements in these areas, similar to those
in the Federal criteria, predated RCRA.
At the municipal level, approximately 1000 municipalities were required
to provide plans based upon the requirements of the Act. The majority of
these municipalities authorized their county governments to prepare their
management plan, adopting the plan by resolution. This gave the county
plans the appearance that they applied to entire counties, when in fact
they only applied to municipalities required to plan under the Act. These
municipalities represent only four percent of the land area of the Common-
wealth; thus, for the overwhelming majority of the land area of the
Commonwealth, coherent solid waste planning did not exist.
The Department provided both technical and financial assistance to
local governments for plan preparation. Grants of up to 50 percent of
eligible costs were made, totaling more than $2 million. However, the
plans developed have varied greatly, in quality and degree of comprehen-
siveness, in general being inadequate due to lack of local expertise and
interest on the part of local officials.
In 1971, responsibility for regulating solid wastes and otherwise
carrying out the provisions of the Solid Waste Management Act of 1968 were
transferred to the newly-created Department of Environmental Resources (DER),
Division of Solid Waste Management. The Division established seven regional
offices, usually with one person in each region. The regional personnel
inspected facilities in their respective regions and provided technical
information for facility owners and operators.
In 1976, the Commonwealth passed the Solid Waste Resource Recovery
Development Act to encourage resource recovery activities in the State.
The Act was designed to provide a state loan program to resource recovery
projects, but the loan program was not funded. In 1976, the program was
changed to provide grants instead of loans, and a total of $4 million has
been provided for grants through two separate fundings.
2-14
-------
2.4.2 1976 - 1981 Subtitle D Program Development
In response to Federal requirements under RCRA, and utilizing financial
and technical assistance from EPA, the State has expanded its solid waste
program over the last five years. A separate hazardous waste program has
been developed within the Division of Solid Waste Management, authorized by
the new Solid Waste Management Act of 1980 (Act 97), and the Division, with
a staff of over 100 by 1979, was upgraded to a Bureau within DER. The new
Act, developed largely in response to RCRA, expands DER's authority and
strengthens enforcement capabilities on solid waste issues, and addresses
the development of a hazardous waste regulatory and facility siting program.
Regional staffs have been enlarged to as many as 15 persons, whose
responsibilities include both solid and hazardous waste activities. Regional
and headquarters inspectors have been responsible for carrying out the RCRA
mandated Open Dump Inventory. Through their past activities, DER was aware
of the locations of the majority of open dumps in the Commonwealth. However,
attempts to close such facilities had been limited due to difficulty in
obtaining adequate legal resources from the Commonwealth's Attorney General's
Office. The provision of Federal criteria for evaluating open dumps, of
Federal money for carrying out the Open Dump Inventory, and of the mechanism
of compliance schedules for achieving site upgrading, has been invaluable to
the State in addressing the open dump problem. Using Federal guidance
provided by the Subtitle D program, DER has upgraded its regulations to be
substantially equivalent to EPA's for most of the RCRA Section 4004 criteria,
and through the authority of Act 97, will have the authority and enforcement
capabilities to issue compliance schedules
The Commonwealth plans to evaluate 400 identified solid waste landfills
under the inventory. Seventy facilities were evaluated in FY80, of which
25 were determined to be open dumps and issued compliance schedules. In FY81,
DER plans to evaluate an additional 140 sites. The evaluation of these open
dumps has been made possible largely due to the availability of grant dollars
from EPA.
Pennsylvania has prepared a draft State Plan in accordance with Subtitle
D, utilizing financial and technical support provided by EPA Region III. The
Commonwealth has been active in statewide solid waste planning since 1970;
2-15
-------
however, the plan developed in response to Subtitle D is the most comprehen-
sive plan prepared to date. The Plan presents a historical review of solid
waste management in Pennsylvania; details legislative, regulatory, and
administrative frameworks for solid waste management; discusses resource
recovery and state and local planning; presents a summary of the current
solid waste situation in each of the seven regions of the State, including
current practices planning, activities, and solid waste problems; and
presents recommendations. Recommendations made are of limited scope due
to the degree of autonomy granted municipalities under State law. DER has
little authority to interfere with local solid waste planning prerogatives,
due to State law, other than to regulate facilities. Therefore, objectives
identified for the State in the plan are general in nature and limited by
the need for voluntary cooperation by local governments. Additionally, the
provision of authority for solid waste planning in the state at the municipal,
county, and State levels , has presented problems in terms of the continuity of
plans prepared at the various levels. Still ? the State plan is comprehensive
in its scope, as compared to previous plans for Pennsylvania, and corresponds
fairly well with EPA guidelines . EPA Region III provided technical assistance
in developing the summaries of solid waste activities in the Regions , as well as
providing financial support for the two planners who prepared the plan at DER.
The planning process has helped DER focuj its efforts on problem areas
so as to maximize benefits from the use of state resources. For example,
preparation of regional data for inclusion in the Plan highlighted the need
for improving the quality and consistency of local plans. DER has developed
an approach toward reaching this goal, involving the development of modules
for use by local officials in assessing their solid waste situation. These
modules are designed to inform local officials, who normally have no training
in solid waste, on solid waste problems, and allow them to assess, through
relatively simple criteria, their solid waste situation; e.g., the suitability
of developing a small modular incinerator with heat recovery versus developing
a new landfill to address a shortfall in disposal capacity. EPA Region III
is providing assistance to DER, through the Technical Assistance Panels
program, in developing these modules.
2-16
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.4.3 Current Status of the State Program and Projections for Future
Completion of Subtitle D Activities
Pennsylvania is currently revising its State Plan to reflect EPA comments.
Specifically, although the draft Plan presented recommendations for the state
program over the 5-year planning period, no plans or milestones were presented
for carrying out these recommendations. Additionally, DER authority with
respect to closing and upgrading open dumps, and prohibiting the establishment
of new open dumps, was not presented in sufficient detail. Appendices
dealing with plans for meeting objectives, and DER's statutory authority, are
being developed for inclusion in the Plan. DER expects to complete plan
4
revision and present the Plan to EPA for full plan approval before the end
of FY81. If that goal is met, the State will have met EPA Subtitle D
planning requirements prior to the end of EPA funding. If not DER is
required to complete a State plan by Act 97 and will probably revise the
Plan again so as to receive EPA approval. DER strongly desires to receive
EPA approval of the State Plan.
DER's solid waste regulations have provisions equivalent to some, but
not all, of EPA's RCRA Section 4004 criteria. DER intends to develop pro-
visions equivalent to the Federal criteria for those areas where existing
state regulations are deficient. However, there is a question as to whether
or not DER is authorized to regulate bird hazards and endangered species as
specified in the RCRA Section 4004 criteria. Current regulations are also
not equivalent in the areas of methane gas and sludges applied to food chain
crops.
DER is carrying out its FY81 Open Dump Inventory activities and expects
to complete the scheduled 140 sites. By end of FY81, 210 of the originally
proposed 400 sites should have been evaluated for inclusion in the inventory.
DER plans to continue an open dump inventory using state funds once Federal
funds are exhausted. However, the inventory would proceed at a slower pace,
and facilities would not be submitted for publication in the list of open
dumps.
DER has used excess funds from existing Subtitle D grants for
FY79 and FY80 to develop a computerized data base on solid and hazardous
waste activities throughout the State. DER feels that this expenditure of
grant dollars has been the most effective way of using these "rollover"
2-17
-------
dollars to carry out the intent of RCRA, since it has provided the State
with the means of tracking and regulating solid and hazardous waste activities
in the State for long after the Subtitle D program's scheduled phase-out.
The State expects to complete use of technical assistance from Region III
for developing modules for local governments by the end of FY81. Assistance
to local governments faced with solid waste problems through the Technical
Assistance Panels program has been helpful to DER in the past in that
localities have been able to develop better local plans which presented
realistic goals for facility implementation, DER believes such help to be
extremely useful in enabling local governments to carry out solid waste
activities in a manner reflecting the intent of RCRA, particularly since
the lack of ability to properly plan at the local level is a major problem
in the State.
Projecting future Subtitle D activities, the State will complete its
State Plan and will continue inventorying open dumps. Although not in DER's
budget for FY82, DER expects to continue Subtitle D activities, including
implementation of programs to meet objectives identified in the plan, and
is expecting to receive renewed funding for solid waste from the legis-
lature in 1983. DER runs a large solid and hazardous waste program, which
should be able to meet most Subtitle D goals, albeit at a slower pace,
without further Federal funding.
2.5 VIRGINIA
2.5.1 Virginia's Pre-RCRA State Solid Waste Program
Prior to 1970, responsibility for solid waste management in Virginia
was left primarily to the cities and counties, with assistance from the
Commonwealth through planning grants provided by the Federal Public Health
Service. Virginia first focused serious attention on solid waste manage-
ment with the passage in 1970 of Title 32 of the Code of Virginia. This
legislation provided the State Health Department with the authority to
regulate solid and hazardous waste disposal and required the cities and
counties of the State to plan for and provide solid waste disposal facilities.
2-18
-------
In 1971, the State Health Department promulgated regulations governing
solid waste disposal which are still in force today. These regulations
established a permit system for solid waste disposal facilities, with
provisions for permit application, approval, denial, compliance schedules
and withdrawal. Under the regulations, open dumping or dumping in State
waters is forbidden, while approved facilities include properly sited,
designed, and operated sanitary landfills, incinerators, and any other
"new and unique" methods which will not degrade the environment or cause
risks to public health and safety.
The 1971 State Department of Health regulations define proper siting
and design of sanitary landfills through provisions dealing with
adequate landfill size, all-weather access roads, cover availability and
quality, and prevention of ground and surface water pollution. Land-
fill operational requirements deal with equipment availability and daily
operations; cover frequency and thickness; and control of burning, litter,
dust, scavenging, pests, animal grazing, and hazardous waste. Incinerator
requirements in the regulations cover designer credentials and review of
plans and specifications, compliance with applicable air and water pollution
regulations, disposal of residue, operator training, and control of
hazardous waste. Finally, the regulations stated that hazardous waste
"shall be disposed of in a manner approved by the Health Commissioner."
The primary intent and effect of these initial regulations was to
eliminate or control open dumping. At the time of promulgation, the Health
Department had identified approximately 8000 open dumps receiving any and
all waste types. Under these same regulations, the State has successfully
curbed open dumping and consolidated the number of disposal facilities down
to an estimated 300 larger or regional landfills. These remaining
facilities taken as a whole, however, presented a broad range of design
and operational quality, and consequently a range of potential risk to the
environment and public health.
Solid waste management authority in Virginia is also derived from the
State Water Control Board's regulation of water, wastewater, and industrial
treatment sludges, and of groundwater quality; the State Air Pollution
2-19
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Control Board's regulation of emissions from stationary sources, including
incinerators and sanitary landfills; and the Division of Mined Land
Reclamation's regulation of refuse disposal associated with the mining
indus try.
2.5.2 1976 - 1981 Subtitle D Program Development
In attempting to fulfill Subtitle D, Section 4008 of RCRA, the Division
of Solid and Hazardous Waste Management of the State Department of Health
used EPA Subtitle D grant money to prepare a statewide Solid Waste Management
Plan. The Plan was adopted by the State Board of Health May 24, 1979, and
became effective October 15, 1979.
The Plan provided for the development of a statewide waste management
system through designation of the 22 Regional Planning Districts in the
state as substate agencies responsible for solid waste planning and disposal.
Cities and counties within each council area are responsible for approving
council plans and implementation.
The Plan provided numerous goals for the State in solid waste management,
including goals in waste reduction, resource recovery, regional planning,
and inventorying open dumps. However, it was prepared prior to the
development of EPA guidelines for State plans, and, although an extensive
plan, it is being revised to better follow EPA guidance.
In February, 1979, the General Assembly enacted the recodified version
of the Virginia Health Code, and in so doing, upgraded the status of solid
waste management in the Code. The new legislation contains several major
provisions relating to non-hazardous solid waste management, including:
• expansion of the Department of Health's regulatory authority
over solid waste
• designation of the Department as the agency responsible for
setting up a permitting system for solid waste disposal
facilities, and granting of the authority to revoke or place
conditions on permits in cases where facilities pose risks
to public health or the environment
• prohibition of open dumping and granting of authority to the
Department to place a disposal site on a schedule for either
closing or upgrading
2-20
-------
• designation of the Department as the agency responsible for
setting regional boundaries, considering certain factors, for
solid waste management
• provision of civil penalities of up to $5,000 for violations
of the Department's regulation
The Department initiated the development of new regulations, based on
this law, which will be substantially equivalent to the 4004 criteria.
Additionally, the state began evaluating municipal landfills for
inclusion in the Open Dump Inventory. There are currently 300 landfills
in the State of various quality, some of which the Department believes
qualify as open dumps, although generally these facilities meet the existing
State regulations. Certain parts of the state pose difficult problems for
sanitary landfills in terms of soils, geology, and the availability of
proper cover material. Facilities in these areas generally try to meet
State standards, but do fall short in some instances.
2.5.3 Current Status of the State Program and Projections for Future
Completion of Subtitle D Activities
At the present time, the Department of Health is writing regulations
to implement the solid waste management portions of the legislation enacted
in 1979. It is anticipated that the regulations will be promulgated by
August of this year. These regulations should bring the State regulations
into equivalency with the Federal regulations.
Since the State's original solid waste management plan was adopted
prior to publication of EPA's Subtitle D state planning guidelines, a
contractor is currently revising the Plan to ensure EPA approval. The
precise date of its anticipated adoption is unknown, and will depend on
when the next State Board of Health meeting is held.
If both the new regulations and the revised Plan for solid waste
management are in place by the end of FY81, then it can be concluded that
Virginia will have made substantial progress towards the development of a
Subtitle D program conforming with EPA's guidelines. It is also accurate
to conclude that the Subtitle D state planning money granted to Virginia
played a significant, if not critical, role in allowing the Commonwealth to
achieve the progress noted above.
2-21
-------
In the event Subtitle D funds allocated for state planning are
exhausted before completion of the Plan, the State would not continue work
on the Plan. In such an instance, the State would submit the Plan to EPA,
as it stood, for review and comments, but would not submit it for the purpose
of approval. (Since Virginia is a Commonwealth, the Department of Health
interprets its role as most appropriately being that of the "regulator"
while local government's role is most appropriately that of the "implementer.")
The Department expects to continue the inventory of solid waste disposal
facilities. In proceeding into FY82 the Health Department expects to complete
the landfills inventory in-house and contract out up to $200,000 for an
inventory of surface impoundments.
Finally, the Department has allocated up to $200,000 for the development
of regional solid waste management plans under contract to each of the
State's 22 Regional Planning Districts (RPD). This effort has been delayed,
however, due to confusion among the RPD's about the intended purpose for the
contracts. (According to a Department spokesman, the RPD's see the contracts
more as grants, and the Department fears this indicates that the RPD's will
use the money to maintain a staff which otherwise will have to be eliminated
given recent reductions in their usual sources of on-going support.)
Generally, Virginia has sufficient resources to carry out Subtitle D
activities to what the State considers an acceptable conclusion. The
Department has funds available to carry out programs to meet goals identified
in the Plan, regardless of whether the plan receives approval. State regu-
lations will be substantially equivalent to the Federal criteria, and the
State will continue inventorying open dumps along the lines of these
regulations. Additionally, the State has the authority to issue compliance
schedules to facilities as necessary to upgrade identified open dumps.
2.6 WEST VIRGINIA
2.6.1 West Virginia' Pre-RCRA Solid Waste Program
As a predominantly rural state, West Virginia has historically managed
solid wastes at the municipal or individual level. No governmental entity
in the state is required to provide collection or disposal services, although
2-22
-------
counties and municipalities may provide such services if they so desire.
Generally, wastes have been managed at point of generation, through open
dumping on unused land or open burning, or have been disposed in small
municipal or private open dumps, where open burning was practiced up until
the early 1970's.
The geology and demography of West Virginia pose serious obstacles to
comprehensive solid waste management. The rugged Karst terrain, steep
slopes, and lack of clays make it difficult to develop large landfills.
Additionally, the dispersed nature of the population makes collection
economically unattractive due to high cost of service and the relatively
low income of the populace.
The State Department of Health has been responsible for overseeing
sanitary landfill operations, initially under nuisance provisions under
public health laws, and more recently under explicit statutory provisions.
Generally, the Department has only acted on cases presenting an immediate
threat to public health due to lack of personnel and financial resources,
public and government apathy, and the lack of explicit regulations. An
initial set of regulations were developed in 1967, but the Health Department
experienced difficulties, due to the problems described above, in enforcing
even these minimal standards.
The Health Department received a grant from the U.S. Public Health
Service in 1970 to develop a solid waste survey and prepare a State Solid
Waste Plan. The results of the survey indicated an appallingly low level
of solid waste management. Collection services were available to only
55 percent of the population. Of 293 disposal sites surveyed, 242 were
open, burning dumps. Only seven qualified as sanitary landfills under the
then existing, rather lax, regulations. These regulations required some
protection of ground and surface water (although monitoring was not required)
limitation of access, availability of fire control equipment, application
of daily cover, and special handling of sludges and septic tank pumpings.
Although the regulations themselves were fairly extensive, enforcement of
such regulations was virtually impossible due to the limited resources of
the Health Department.
2-23
-------
In addition to the problems posed by those publicly and privately
operated disposal facilities, the State faced serious problems with open
burning and/or dumping at point of generation (usually farm or rural
homesites), and promiscuous roadside dumping. State surveys conducted
since 1970 have indicated the continued prevalence of this promiscuous
dumping which has resulted in the creation of hundreds of these road or
stream-side dumps.
In the period from 1970 to 1976, little was done to address these
problems. Due to lack of resources and committment by the state's elected
government, the Health Department was only able to address those facilities
which posed the greatest threat to public health. Open burning was greatly
diminished at public and private facilities, but in other areas only
minimal improvement was realized.
2.6.2 1976 - 1981 Subtitle D Program Development
West Virginia has made slow but signigicant progress in solid waste
management since 1976. Through increased staffing (to six full-time
personnel), made possible by their EPA grant, the State has been able to:
• upgrade its regulations to meet the Federal criteria (several
regulations still in draft phase),
• inventory 30 disposal sites for compliance,
• attempt the development of a comprehensive State Plan for the
first time in the State's history.
These activities have been carried out in addition to the Department's day-
to-day functions in answering citizens' complaints and responding to emergency
situations, which occur quite frequently.
In 1977, the legislature authorized the development of the West Virginia
Resource Recovery Solid Waste Disposal Authority. This Authority was
developed to plan solid waste activities, assist communities, and implement
resource recovery and solid waste disposal facilities in the state. Funds
have been provided through the State's Subtitle D grant to support the
activities of the Authority. Additionally, the Authority is evaluating
the feasibility of developing a waste-to-energy facility in West Virginia
under an Urban Policy Grant.
2-24
-------
The Health Department is the designated agency for the development
of the State The Department's solid waste staff is small and primarily
operations-oriented, with little experience in planning. EPA Region III is
providing additional assistance, through the Technical Assistance Panels
program, to the Health Department, so as to enable the Department to prepare
a plan consistent with EPA guidelines.
The State has continued to face a critical shortage of landfill capacity.
Of for the Open Dump Inventory, 25 were classified as
open dumps and placed on compliance schedules. Most facilities in the state
are near capacity. At least 20 new landfills and 12 transfer stations
will be needed to provide adequate disposal capacity.
2.6.3 Current Status and Projections for Future Completion of Subtitle D
Activities
The Health Department has completed the evaluation of 30 facilities for
the Open Dump Inventory and intends to evaluate an additional 32 facilities
by the end of FY82. Of the first 30 facilities, 25 were classified as open
dumps. The facilities evaluated were generally the largest and best run
in the state; therefore, an even higher proportion of open dumps would be
expected in the 32 currently under evaluation.
Completion of the evaluation for the 32 sites would bring the number
of facilities evaluated to 62. There are approximately 200 publicly and
privately operated landfills in the state, of which only 70 operate under
Health Department permits. Clearly, the inventory work completed by end
of FY81 will fall far short of meeting EPA goals for the life of the
program, having evaluated approximately one-third of the existing landfill
facilities and no surface impoundments.
The original draft State plan has been completely rewritten to more
accurately reflect EPA guidance on State plans. A draft more consistent with
EPA guidance, but narrowly conceived in light of the magnitude of West Vir-
ginia's solid waste problem, was presented at public hearings in July, 1981.
As a result of comments received, an Interim Solid Waste Advisory Committee,
2-25
-------
Composed of representatives of involved state agencies, and public and econ-
omic interest groups, was formed to assist in revision of the plan. Addition-
ally, EPA Region III provided contractor assistance, through the Technical
Assistance Panels program, to the Health Department for plan revision. As
now conceived, the plan will provide broader goals for the state and outline
a comprehensive solid waste program, consistent with EPA guidance, to be
acted upon by the state legislature, involved state agencies, and the public.
West Virginia plans to continue the Open Dump Inventory beyond FY81,
although without Federal funding ODI activities will probably be significant-
ly curtailed. The Department of Health believes the inventory has been very
beneficial in attacking the massive open dumping in the state. Compliance
schedules will be issued and names sent to EPA for listing.
Cessation of Federal funding at this point will severely effect the
West Virginia solid waste program. The Solid Waste Division currently
receives 50 percent of its limited resources through the Federal grants
program. Without these grants, the State will not be able to implement
the programs outlined in its draft State plan for meeting solid waste goals.
Promiscuous and open dumping will probably continue indefinately in the
State without the support needed to address issues of sufficient landfill
capacity and increased collection system participation.
2-26
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.0 CONCLUSIONS
EPA Region III is made up of states spanning a wide range of demographic,
geologic, and economic conditions. The level of development of solid waste
management in the different states reflects this diversity. The larger, more
highly developed and populated states in the Region had significant solid
waste programs for many years predating RCRA. The smaller and more
economically depressed states have had only minimal state solid waste
programs which were able to address only the most basic solid waste issues,
such as prohibition of open burning, prior to RCRA. In almost all states
in the Region, statewide waste planning to ensure adequate disposal of
wastes was rudimentary at best and non-existent at worst.
The RCRA Subtitle D program, through Federal funding and EPA guidance,
provided the states their first opportunity to plan solid waste activities
comprehensively at the state level. Additionally, through the Criteria for
the Classification of Land Disposal Facilities, EPA provided the states with
a state-of-the-art paradigm for regulating solid waste disposal facilities.
The development of regulations for sanitary landfills, of the level presented
in the RCRA Section 4004 criteria, was beyond the technical capabilities of
several of the states in the Region without such assistance.
Although slow to respond at the start to the Federal initiative presented
in Subtitle D, state programs have, with the help of Federal grants, gained
momentum in Subtitle D program development over the last two years. Many
states are nearing completion of their state plans, which represents sub-
stantial progress in light of the general lack of data on solid waste in
the states at the start of plan development. The states are actively carrying
out their inventory of solid waste disposal facilities. Some states are
near completion, while most are less than 50 percent complete. The number
of open dumps in states such as West Virginia indicates the size of the
inventory task in some parts of the Region. Additionally, all the states
in the Region have utilized the guidance of the RCRA Section 4004 Criteria
to upgrade their regulations, albeit not all to full equivalency with the
Federal regulations.
Generally, the Region III Subtitle D program has been successful in
raising the level of solid waste management practiced in the Region III
3-1
-------
states. Success in reaching the overall goals of Subtitle D varies among
the states, and none has fully reached the objectives. In considering
the progress of individual states in the Region, it must be noted that some
states have had a considerably greater distance to go than others in
attempting to reach Subtitle D objectives. However, all the states have
utilized Federal guidance and grant dollars to improve their programs in
accordance with Subtitle D.
In accordance with the diverse level of state program development in
the Region, the termination of Federal support will have different levels
of impact on the states in the Region. States with large, well developed
programs, such as Pennsylvania and Virginia, will probably continue on to
improve their state programs and meet plan objectives until they are roughly
equivalent to the state program envisioned by Congress in Subtitle D. States
with smaller, but still effective, programs, such as Maryland, will probably
hold their ground at the level they are currently at, with possible improve-
ments as they move slowly towards meeting the objectives outlined in their
plans as resources become available. Thus , they will not readily meet the level of
environmental protection sought in RCRA. For the states with the smallest
programs which have relied heavily on EPA for basic funding support, such
as West Virginia, termination of funds will be disastrous. In all probability,
the state programs will shrink, promiscuous and open dumping will continue,
and the state planning program will have made little impact. This presents
serious ramifications for the overall environmental quality in these states,
and for the successful implementation of other environmental programs which
are related to the Subtitle D program, such as the Subtitle C Hazardous
Waste Program and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
3-2
------- |