EPA/530/SW-158
JUNE 1975
«c*»*
Ajfe
Jfflir^lBll wH _ ._
-------
-------
STATE ACTIVITIES IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT, 1974
This report (SW-158) was compiled
by RALPH J. BLACK
of the Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1975
-------
-------
INTRODUCTORY NOTE
Most of the State programs in solid waste management originated
only within the past decade, under the stimuli of Federal planning grants
and technical assistance authorized by the Solid Waste Disposal Act of
1965. The programs at this time are generally limited in staffing and
scope of activity, although many have taken major strides, particularly
in improving land disposal practices. To obtain an overview of the status
of the State programs, EPA's Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
asked each State agency to prepare a brief report covering their 1974
activities. These reports are reproduced here as received for staff
informational use.
iii
-------
CONTENTS
State Solid Waste Management Agencies vii
State Solid Waste Management Program Status Reports
Alabama 1
Alaska 7
Arizona 12
Arkansas 17
California 23
Colorado 29
Connecticut 33
Delaware 40
District of Columbia Not Received
Florida 45
Georgia Not Received
Territory of Guam Not Received
Hawaii Not Received
Idaho 50
Illinois Not Received
Indiana 53
Iowa Not Received
Kansas 57
Kentucky 59
Louisiana Not Received
Maine Not Received
Maryland 63
-------
Massachusetts 67
Michigan 69
Minnesota 74
Mississippi 90
Missouri 94
Montana 98
Nebraska 104
Nevada 108
New Hampshire 110
New Jersey 112
New Mexico 115
New York 119
North Carolina 126
North Dakota 130
Ohio 135
Oklahoma Not Received
Oregon 138
Pennsylvania 142
Puerto Rico 148
Rhode Island 159
South Carolina 164
South Dakota 168
Tennessee 172
Texas 177
Utah 182
-------
Vermont 185
Virginia 187
U.S. Virgin Islands Not Received
Washington 192
West Virginia 203
Wisconsin Not Received
Wyoming 211
vi
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A6ENCY
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
Washington, D. C. 20460
State Solid Waste Management Agencies
May 1975
Alabama
Alfred S. Chipley, Director
Division of Solid Waste
and Vector Control
State Department of Public Health
State Office Building
Montgomery, Alabama 36104
FTS-(205) 534-7700
832-6728
Alaska
Lance Elphic
Solid Waste Program Coordinator
Dept. of Environmental Conservation
State of Alaska
Pouch 0
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Seattle FTS-(206) 442-0111
(907) 586-6721
American Samoa
M. J. Flanagan
Department of Public Works
Government of American Samoa
Pago Pago, American Samoa
Overseas Operator (Commercial Call)
Arizona
John H. Beck
Division of Sanitation
Environmental Health Services
Arizona State Dept. of Health
1740 W. Adams Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85017
(602) 271-4641 (Direct Dial)
Arkansas
Ray Hightower, Chief
Division of Solid Waste
Arkansas Dept. of Pollution Control
& Ecology
P.O. Box 9583
8001 National Drive
Little Rock, Arkansas 72209
FTS-(501) 378-5011
371-1701
CALIFORNIA
Dr. Harvey Collins
Chief, Hazardous Waste Mgmt. Prograrr
Vector Control Bureau
State Department of Public Health
744 P Street
Sacramento, California 95814
FTS-(916) 449-2000
322-2337
Albert A. Marino, Executive Director
California State Solid Waste Mgmt. Board
Room 1335, Resources Building
1416 9th Street
Sacramento, California 95814
FTS-(916) 449-2000
322-3330
Colorado
Orville F. Stoddard
State Dept. of Health
4210 East Eleventh Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220
FTS-(303) 837-0111
388-6111 Ext. 323
vi i
-------
Connecticut
Joseph L. Boren, Director
Solid Waste "Management Programs
Department of Environmental Protection
State of Connecticut
State Office Building, Room 248
Hartford, Connecticut 06115
(203) 566-3672 (Direct Dial)
Del aware
Pat Canzano, Chief. Solid Waste Section
Delaware Dept. of Natural Resources
& Environmental Control
Edward Tatnall Building
Dover, Delaware 19901
(302) 678-4781
District of Columbia
Herbert L. Tucker, Director
Solid Waste Administration
Department of Environmental Sciences
415 12th Street, N.W., Room 307
Washington, D. C. 20004
(202) 629-4581 (Direct Dial)
Guam
Dr. O./V. Natarajan, Administrator
Guam", EPA
P.O. Box 2999
Agana, Guam 96910
Overseas Operator (Commercial call)
749-2486
Hawaii
Dr. James R. Kumagai, Director
State Department of Health
P.O. Box 3378
Honolulu, Hawaii 96801
Calif. FTS-(415) 556-0220
(808) 548-2811 Ext. 521
Idaho
N. Ed Barker, Chief
Solid Waste Management Section
Environmental Services Division
Idaho Dept. of Env. & Comm. Services
State House
Boise, Idaho 83720
(208) 384-2390 (Direct Dial)
Florida
Peter P. Baljet
Executive Director
Department of Pollution Control
2562 Executive Center Circle, East
Montgomery Building
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Attention: Mr. J. Benton Druse
FTS-(904) 969-4211
488-1.345
Georgia
Moses N. McCall 111, Director
Solid Waste Section
Environmental Protection Division
Department of Natural Resources
270 Washington Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
(404) 656-2833 (Direct Dial)
111inois
Jack Moore
t)ivision ot Land Pollution Control
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Drive
Springfield, Illinois 62706
(217) 782-6760 (Direct Dial)
Indiana
Brian Opel
Chief, Solid Waste Section
Division of Sanitary Engineering
Indiana State Board of Health
1330 West Michigan Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46207
(317) 633-4393 (Direct Dial)
-------
Iowa
Pete Ham!in
Acting Director
Land Quality Division
Department of Environmental Quality
3920 Delaware Avenue
P.O. Box 3326
Des Moines, Iowa 50319
FTS-(515) 284-4000
265-8134
Kansas
Charles H. Linn, Chief
Solid Waste Section
Kansas Qepartment of Health
_ & Environment „„„„
Topeka, Kansas 66620
(913) 296-3821 (Direct Dial)
Kentucky
Samuel N. Johnson, Jr., Director
Division of Solid Waste
State Dept. for Natural Resources
and Environmental Protection
275 East Main Street
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
(502) 564-6716 (Direct Dial)
Mary!and
Walter A. Miles, Acting Chief
Division of Solid waste
Maryland State Dept. of Health
and Mental Hygiene
201 West Preston Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
(301) 383-2770/1/2
Massachusetts
Alden Cousins, Director
Bureau of Solid Waste Disposal
Massachusetts Dept. of Public Works
100 Nashua Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02114
FTS-(617) 223-2100
'727-4293
Michigan
Fred Kellow, Chief
Solid Waste Management Division
Environmental Protection Branch
Department of Natural Resources
3500 Logan Street
Lansing, Michigan 48914
(517) 373-6620
Minnesota
Louisiana Robert A. Silvagni, Director
G Roy Hayes Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Louisiana Health & Social J1^510" °J SolidnWa^teD 0
Rehabilitation Services Administration 1935 West County Road, B-2
State Office Building ScTU^l^o13 55113
P.O. Box 60630 FTS-(612) 725-4242
New Orleans, Louisiana 70160 296-7315
(504) 527-5123
Mississippi
Jack McMillan, Director
Maine Division of Solid Waste Management
TtonTTd Dearborn, Chief M.and.Ve(?tor Control
Division of Solid Waste Management Nisssissippi State B°ar °
Dept. of Environmental Protection P-°; Box ],(00. . . __„_
State House Jackson, Mississippi 39205
Augusta, Maine 04330 FTS-(601) 969-4211
FJS-(207) 622-6171 ' 354-6616
289-2963
-------
Missouri
Robert M. Robinson, Director
Solid Waste Management Bureau
Department of Natural Resources
2511 Industrial Drive
P.O. Box 570
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
FTS-(816) 374-7000
(314) 751-2815
NOTE: Address all mail to:
P.O. Box 1368
State Office Building
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
Montana
Terrence D. Carmody. Chief
Solid Waste Management Bureau
Montana State Department of
Health and Environmental Sciences
1424 9th Avenue
Helena, Montana 59601
(406) 449-2821 (Direct Dial)
Nebraska
Maurice W. Sheil, Chief-
Division of Solid Waste
Department of Environmental Control
State House Station, Box 94653
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509
FTS-(402) 475-2611
471-2186
Nevada
H. LaVerne Rosse
State Department of Health & Welfare
1209 Johnson Street
Carson City, Nevada 89701
FTS- (702) 784-5911
885-4670
New Hampshire
Thomas L. Sweeney
Solid Waste Management
Food & Chemistry'Services
Division of Public Health Services
Department of Health & Welfare
Hazen Drive
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
FTS-(603) 669-7011
271-2747
New Jersey
Bernhardt V. Lind, Acting Chief
Bureau of Solid Waste Management
Division of Environmental Protection
P.O. Box 1390
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
(609) 292-7645 (Direct Dial)
New Nexico
Bryan E. Miller, Chief
Environmental Improvement Agency
General Sanitation Division, Room 517
P.O. Box 2348, P.E.R.A. Building
New York
William G. Bentley, Director
Division of Solid Waste Management
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12201
(518) 457-6603 (Direct Dial)
North Carolina
Sidney H. Usry, Branch Head
Solid Waste and Vector Control Branch
Department of Human Resources
Division of Health Services
P.O. Box 2091
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
FTS-(919) 755-4020
829-2178
North Dakota
Ravmond Rolshoven, Assistant Director
Division of Water Supply and
Pollution Control—State Capital
State Department ot Heaitn
Bismark, North Dakota 58501
FTS-(701) 225-4011
224-2386
-------
Ohio
t\bf Waste Management
&. Engineering
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
P.O. Box 1049
Columbus, Ohio 43216
(614)466-7220 (Direct Dial)
Oklahoma
Calvin T. Grant, Chief
Sanitation Service
State Department of Health
10th & Stonewall
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105
FTS-(405) 231-4011
271-5216
Oregon
Ernest A. Schmidt, Director
Solid Waste Management Division
Oregon State Department of
Environmental Quality
1234 S.W. Morrison Street
Portland, Oregon 97201
(503) 229-5696 (Direct Dial)
Pennsylvania ,
William C. Bucciarelli, Director
Division of Solid Waste Management
Dept. of Environmental" Resources
8th Floor Fulton Building
P.O. Box 2063
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
(717) 787-7381 (Direct Dial)
Puerto Rico
Santos Rohena
Environmental Quality Board
Office of the Governor
Box 11488
Santurce, Puerto Rico 00910
D.C. FTS-(202) 917-1221
(809) 725-5140 Ext. 226
Rhpde^Island
John Quinn, Jr., Chief
Division of Solid Waste Management
State Health Department
204 Health Building
Davis Street
Providence, Rhode Island 02908
FTS-(401) 528-1000
277-2808
South Carolina
H. Gerald Edwards,P.E., Director
Solid Waste Management Division
Dept. of Health and Environmental Control
J. Marion Sims Building
2600 Bull'Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
FTS-(803) 765-5011
758-5681
South Dakota
Lyie Randon
Division of Solid Waste and Land
Management
South Dakota Department of Environmental
Protection
Office Building No. 2
Pierre, South Dakota 57501
(605) 224-3351
Tennessee
Tom Tiesler, Director
Division of Sanitation and
Solid Waste Management
Bureau of Environmental Health Services
State Dept. of Public Health
Capitol Hill Bldg., Ste. 320
Nashville, Tennessee 37219
(615) 741-3424
Texas **
David Houston, Chief
Environmental Development Program
State Department of Health
1100 West 49th Street
Austin, Texas 78756
(512) 397-5721, Ext. 258
(Direct Dial) £ . ,
** see next page for Industrial
Waste and Agricultural Waste
Disposal for State of Texas.
-------
Trust Territories
Nachsa Siren, Chief
Department of Health Services
Office of High Commission
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands
Saipan, Marianas 96950
Overseas Operator (Commercial Call)
Washington
AveryN. Wells
Division Chief
Solid Waste & Resource Recovery Division
Department of Ecology
Ulympia, Washington 98501
(206) 753-6883 (Direct Dial)
Utah.
Dale Parker.,. Chief _
General Sanitation Section
Utah State Division of Health
44 Medical Drive
Salt Lake City, Utah 84113
FTS-(801) 524-5500
328-6163
Vermont
Richard Valentinetti
Air & Solid Waste Programs
Protection Division
Agency of Environmental-Conservation
P.O. Box 489
Montpelier, Vermont 05602
(802) 828-3395 (Direct Dial)
Virgin Islands
Louis Olive, P.E., Assistant Dir.
Division of Utilities and Sanitation
Department of Public Works
Government of the Virgin Islands
Charlotte Amalie
St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00801
(809) 774-7970
West Virginia
Dale Parsons Director
Solid Waste Program
State Department of Health
1800 Washington Street, E.
Charleston, West Virginia 25305
(304) 348-2987
Wisconsin
John J. Reinhardt, Chief
Solid Waste Management Section
Division of tnvironmental Protection
Department of Natural Resources
Box 450
Madison, Wisconsin 53701
(608) 266-0158 (Direct Dial)
Wyomi ng
Charles Porter, SW Program Supervisor
Wyoming Department of Environmental
Quality
State Office Building West
Cheyenne, Wyoming 8200*
(307) 777-7391 (Direct Dial)
Virginia
R. E. Dorer, Director
Bureau of Solid Waste & Vector Control
Virginia State Department of Health
Room 209, 401-A Colley Avenue
Norfolk, Virginia 23507
FTS-(804) 441-6000
627-4511
Texas
Industrial Waste & Agricultural Disposal
Robert G. Fleming
Division of General Operations
Texas Water Quality Board
P.O. Box 13246
Austin, Texas 78711
(512) 47.5-2651
-------
SUMMARY OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
MAMMA
October 31, 1974
(Format as suggested by OSWMP)
A. LAND DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE
State Legislation, Policy, ••'and Program
The Alabama Solid Waste Disposal Act was" enacted in 1969 and amended in
1971. Standards for disposal of solid wastes and rules and regulations for
solid waste management have been adopted. Also, rules and regulations for
the disposal of pesticides, pesticide containers, and other toxic chemical
wastes have been adopted Jointly with the Alabama Department of Agriculture
and Industries. The law requires each county and municipal government to
either jointly or severally provide for both the collection and health
approved disposal of solid wastes.
a. Sites proposed by private or public agencies for use as a sanitary
landfill are referred by the Division of Solid Waste to the Alabama Geologi-
cal Survey for an evaluation of their geologic and hydrologic status. Soil
borings, where required by the Survey, are provided by the applying agency.
In consideration of the geologist's findings, the Division of Solid Waste
makes a judgement as to the feasibility and acceptability of the site for
disposal of the wastes proposed. Professional engineering design for sani-
tary landfills is recommended but not required unless specific site operational
problems are involved or the site is planned for hazardous waste disposal.
Water well monitoring is also recommended, but not required for sanitary
landfills unless specific potential operational problems or problem wastes
are involved.
-------
b. The disposal of normal dewatered sludges from wastewater treatment
plants and the like is permitted at most sanitary landfills. Animal feedlot
wan tea are normally handled by lagoons or land placement as approved by the
Alabama Water Improvement Commission. Septic tank pumpings are permitted by
some municipalities at certain manhole openings; some landfills provide
diked drying beds for management of these wastes.
c. There is an approximate total of 143 active solid waste land dispo-
sal sites now recognized.
Of this total, those remaining as open dumps (some 15) and most of those
rated as sub-standard landfill operations (some 18) are considered to present
problems with leachate.
Of the present 110 nites operating as state approved sanitary landfills,
possibly 30 to 40 percent may show evidence of intermittent leachate during
periods of heavy rains, with less than 10 percent presenting potential
"problems".
Only one site, an old and presently unused landfill, has a leachate
collection facility, with the leachate disposed of in a sewage treatment
facility.
d. There are 110 land disposal sites presently operating as state
approved sanitary landfills. These landfills serve approximately 89% of the
state's urban and rural population.
There are an unknown number of lagoons and temporary storage areas for
toxic or potentially toxic wastes.
We have one state approved private industrial landfill disposal site
for pesticides and like chemicals. We have had special geological investi-
gations which resulted in some nine presently active public sanitary landfills
at which limited quantities of toxic wastes may be disposed.
-------
e. Our average landfill serves a population of less than 30,000 people,
or approximately 30,000 tons (60,000 cu. yds.) of waste per year. We have
almost no data on the expected life (ultimate capacity) of specific landfills.
We are concerned about frequently made statements to the effect that, "Sani-
tary landfills serving municipalities will be filled in an average of less
than five years". This is often interpreted to mean that after five years
some means other than landfilling will be necessary. Landfills will always
be needed, even with maximum application of source reduction, resource
recovery, and the like. We estimate that total expansion of our present
landfills for one year will require about 4,100 acre-feet of space. At an
average landfill depth of 12 feet, this will require less than 0.6 square
mile of land.
f. No state land use plan has been fully developed. It is expected
that solid waste management will be a factor in such a plan.
B. ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES
The state and local departments of health are jointly held responsible
for the enforcement of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. State action is nor-
mally taken against counties, municipalities or industries which fail to or
unduly delay the implementation of acceptable solid waste management. Local
departments may act in cases involving local persons or businesses. The
State Office of the Attorney General or County District Attorneys are the
legal arms of the health department.
During the past 12 months, 38 administrative warnings have been issued
by the Division of Solid Waste & Vector Control setting time limits for the
correction of various infractions. At the present time, legal action is
pending against one county, and a legal warning has been issued to another.
-------
Numerous local court cases have been successfully brought against individual
persons for illegal dumping, or failing to either subscribe to an available
service or otherwise properly manage their solid waste.
C. SOURCE REDUCTION AND RESOURCE RECOVERY
Recycling centers are active either part or full time in most major
towns and cities, and some 60 firms within the state receive some form of
waste products for recycling. There is no State Legislation presently
directly affecting this, and no state funds are available.
Some regional planning agencies are working on plans for resource recovery
and legislation for source reduction is under consideration. There are no
specific laws presently directed to benefiting resource recovery efforts.
D. HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
Pesticide use, sales and transportation are controlled under laws adminis-
tered by the Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries. This Depart-
ment, along with the State Department of Public Health, have jointly adopted
rules and regulations to control the land disposal of pesticides, pesticide
containers, and other toxic chemical wastes.
Control of radiological wastes is under the State Department of Public
Health, Division of Radiological Health.
Disposal of liquid wastes is under the control of the Alabama Water
Improvement Commission.
E. PUBLIC AFFAIRS
The Division of Solid Waste and Vector Control frequently participates
in, and sometimes initiates,, training and informational seminars and meetings
concerning solid waste management. The division works closely with other
-------
5
agencies such as the Alabama Water Improvement Commission, the Air Pollution
Control Commission, the Office of the Attorney General, the Department of
Agriculture and Industries, the Alabama Environmental Quality Association,
and others.
F. CRITICAL AREAS FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
The Office of Solid Waste Management Programs can best assist the state
as a technical assistance and information reservoir, particularly in the
areas of hazardous waste management, resource recovery and source reduction.
-------
T3
C
•o
C
O
O * Q.
>- 1/1 O
III
C
o
"8 S
> i/i
s-s
2
8.
h.
s
>- m
S 1
s §.
o
Q.
a c
« 3
>, o
O O
1!
00 00
§ s
o £
u 2-
00
1 I
- 2.
Ill
1/1 ° «
*? §
•o " o.
c
I
n
T:
c
c
o
a.
o
Q.
"2
+->
n
u g
a « S
•E § .E
s 3 §
i>-14- »4_
-O O O
oo
= -o c
C 4J O
•o re '*=
C 1-. U
re o ~
•o re *-
o» +•> c
> •" 3
O u_ O
S. o »
**-g
>- O N
P 'E
T3
OJ
re
c«
v oi
- « >-
C C ^3
O 3
1 8-g
i. K ^
o- -.
re s: .«
« ^ ^3
re ^o
•£ ^
O 01
H- oo
Q. >
ix
•o ^
c o
to o.
CO ft i
W C >,
••-I 3 4J
c c
CO 0) 3
co u o
CO U
•O «-f
01 O
01 CM
tn •
•
=5 £
•o i>
ro ">
r- 2J
m in
-o
o
_c
I/)
o
c
c
o
a
o
•a
>.
L_
ra
'E
s
I
•o
T3
C
-------
STATE OF ALASKA
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Land Disposal of Solid Waste
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation has the primary
responsibility for the promulgation and enforcement of regulations
setting standards for the prevention and abatement of all water, land, sub-
surface land and air pollution. The Department is authorized to adopt
regulations for the collection and disposal of garbage, refuse and other
discarded solid materials from industrial, commercial, agricultural and
community activities or operations. These regulations became effective
on July 19, 1973, and are presently being implemented through the use
of a permit system.
The State's Solid Waste Management Regulations prohibit any person from
establishing, modifying, or operating a solid waste disposal facility without
a permit. To obtain the permit, it is necessary for an applicant to submit
the following data:
1. A topographic map or aerial photograph clearly marking the
boundary of the disposal site and showing all pertinent features such as
buildings, surface water diversions, fences, access roads, wells within
one-quarter mile of the site and sign locations;
2. Data on ground water depth and direction of movement relative
to populated areas and a description of soil characteristics in the disposal
area.
3. A narrative report describing operating procedures including
the hours and days the site is open to public use, burning policy, duty
schedule for site attendants, frequency of cover material application, an
estimate of the population .and the area served, wastes quantities received,
emergency operating procedures and available operating equipment;
4. A certificate of compliance with local ordinances and zoning
requirements.
By evaluating the data submitted with the permit application (often an on
site survey is also necessary) it is possible for the Department to deter-
mine, fairly accurately whether the proposed disposal site will contribute
to ground or surface water pollution. If such a possibility exists, the land-
fill application may be denied and the applicant required to amend his propos-
al making provisions for leachate collection or treatment as necessary.
In addition to plan review of permit applications, the solid waste management
regulations contain several operating requirements designed to protect the
ground and surface waters of the State. They read as follows:
-------
8
1. The disposal of putrescible waste in areas subject to permafrost
or leachate generation is restricted and shall be allowed only in conjunction
With special procedures approved by the Department;
2. Solid waste shall be deposited in a manner to prevent waste
materials, leachate or eroded soil particles from entering the waters of
the State;
3. A minimum separation of two feet shall be maintained between
putrescible solid waste and the anticipated high groundwater table. Non
putrescible and non-water soluble materials such as brick, stone, concrete
and similar materials may be deposited below the anticipated high ground-
water table if such deposition will result in a nuisance free operation and
no pollution to the groundwaters;
4. Surface water drainage from areas outside a landfill shall
not be allowed to flow over or through a landfill.
When these regulations are used in conjunction with the plan review and
permit program, new landfills should protect the ground and surface
waters of the State.
By the definition in Alaska's regulations, landfills are authorized to
accept dewatered sewage sludge but septic tank pumpings and wet sludges
are not permitted for disposal. Animal feedlot waste is, for all practical
purposes, non-existent and does not present a problem. Septic tank pump-
ings are normally disposed of through the use of sewage treatment plants
when available or lagoons. The problem of septic tank pumpings disposal
is handled through the Department's wastewater section.
Alaska has approximately 200 solid waste disposal facilities used by incor-
porated communities and villages. However, this number would be nearly
double if all the small promiscuous dump sites in the State were included.
While leachate is known to exist in many of the landfills within the State, it is
considered to be a problem in only 12 of these landfills. At the present
time three landfills have monitoring wells, and two landfills have leachate
collection and treatment facilities in operation.
The State has issued 42 permits for landfills or incinerator-landfill facil-
ities. Data compiled for the State solid waste management plan shows that
approximately 30 percent of the State's population is served by approved
sites. This figure is expected to rise to approximately 50 percent by next
summer when the City of Anchorage landfill will be operated in compliance
with State regulations. The State presently does not have any sites approved
for the acceptance of hazardous/toxic waste.
The State does not have data regarding the ultimate capacity of landfills.
To date, solid waste management has not been a significant factor in State
land use planning. However, land use planning is expected to play a
bigger role in the near future and solid waste management will likely be
included in this planning function.
-------
9
Enforcement Procedures
Enforcement procedures are initiated through the issuance of a notice of
violation when solid waste management practices are being conducted
contrary to State regulations. The notice of violation cites the appropriate
statute or regulation that is being violated, describes the violation and
requires the violator to submit a report to the Department within a specified
time detailing the corrective actions planned. If no action is taken by the
violator to correct the problem, he is given two additional notices with all
correspondence being sent by registered mail with return receipts requested.
If no action has been taken following the third notice, the case is referred to
the Attorney General's office for prosecution. Action is taken either on a
civil or criminal basis depending on the nature of the violation. During the
past 12 months, 3 solid waste management cases have been referred to the
Attorney General's office for settlement. The first two were settled out-of-
court and the third case is still pending.
Source reduction and Resource Recovery
The Department encourages resource and energy recovery from solid waste
and defines a reclamation facility as a facility in which solid waste is stored,
dismantled or reprocessed to recover salvagable materials for purposes of
sale or reuse. Any person wishing to operate a reclamation facility must
submit an application and obtain a permit from the Department prior to
operating the facility.
Regional solid waste management programs are encouraged by the Department
and are authorized by State Statute. This authority is given to organized
boroughs, which are a form of regional government. To date, 4 boroughs
are operating complete area-wide or regional solid waste management programs
and 2 others are providing solid waste service to a portion of their incor-
porated area.
While the Department supports local and regional solid waste management
authorities, there is no State funding available to these governments.
Although the Department supports local and regional solid waste man-
agement authorities through technical assistance and training programs,
there is no State money available to fund these programs. It is hoped that
a. revenue sharing bill will be passed in the near future which will provide
monetary resources for those programs approved by the Department.
Resource recovery planning is being conducted by the State and the Greater
Anchorage Area Borough as part of their comprehensive solid waste man-
agement plans. However, the Department normally recommends energy
recovery rather than resource recovery so that heat and power may be
recovered from the combustion of solid waste. In a cold weather state
such as Alaska, the recovery of valuable Btu's for heat and power is very
practical.
-------
10
The State Solid Waste Management Plan recommendations include the
development of a State government purchasing policy, whereby items
manufactured from recycled materials would be given preference over
virgin materials when these commodities are at least equal in quality,
availability, and price. To date, there have been no source reduction
programs initiated in the State.
Hazardous Waste Management
The Department of Environmental Conservation has the statutory authority
to set policy and regulate the transportation, processing and disposal of
hazardous and toxic waste material. The State Solid Waste Management
Regulations specify that permittees operating solid waste disposal facilities
shall obtain specific Departmental approval for the processing and disposal
of all hazardous wastes. Hazardous wastes are defined as those wastes
which are capable of causing injury, disease or impairment of health or
property damage, including but not limited to poisions, pesticides, acids,
caustics, infectious or pathological wastes, radioactive materials, explosive
materials and oil and petroleum products. Although the Department does
have full control over disposition of toxic and hazardous materials, this
problem is still relatively minor.
An in depth survey has not been conducted to identify and classify the toxic
and hazardous wastes disposed of in Alaska. However, in the absence of
major processing industries and chemical manufacturers, toxic and haz-
ardous wastes are not a significant problem at this time. Pesticide residues
and petroleum wastes represent the items generally requiring special disposal
care. Highly toxic pesticides are seldom used and most chemical applications
are restricted to the relatively non-toxic malathion; 2,4-D and rotenone
formulations. Alaska's agriculture industry is small and most pesticides are
applied by government agencies, which generally follow the Department's
recommendations for application and residual disposal. It is generally assumed
that waste oil is the most significant hazardous waste problem in the State.
Public Affairs
A major portion of the Department's Solid Waste Management program consists
of providing technical assistance and public information to the State's cit-
izens and communities. The solid waste management staff provides assistance
in revising existing programs and makes recommendations on techniques and
methods that might be incorporated in new systems. Staff members inspect
proposed disposal sites to determine their acceptability from an environmental
stand point and make recommendations on how sites may be improved to meet
environmental management objectives.
The Department has the latest information in the form of publications and
brochures available on operating techniques and new innovations as well
as equipment selection and performance. The Department also has eight
16mm films and one filmstrip, which may be borrowed.
-------
11
The Department also sponsors periodic training courses, which have
included a rural transfer system seminar and a landfill operators work-
shop. These training courses have been conducted on an annual basis
and are open to all individuals interested in solid waste management.
Presentations are given by Departmental staff with assistance from knowl-
edgeable guest speakers.
In addition, the staff maintains a prepared slide presentation, which
is given upon request to various public gatherings. This slide pres-
entation depicts Alaska's problems, present solid waste disposal
techniques, both acceptable and unacceptable, and shows recommended
operating practices for the various geographic regions within the State.
The Department makes maximum utilization of the news media to obtain the
fullest possible public support on all environmental issues. As such, the
Department has very good working relations with the press and is able to
make its programs well known to the various public interest groups and
conservation societies, thereby extending our effectiveness.
Suggested Federal Assistance
The federal government could be of greatest assistance to the State of
Alaska by realizing that "blanket regulations" written for the whole country
do not necessarily apply in their entirety to the State of Alaska. By making
this realization, it would be possible to more fully implement the State's
program, which advocates incineration rather than the development of
sanitary landfills.
The federal government could also develop increased technical assistance
programs, to aid in the presentation of training courses. The development
of a program whereby federal employees could be assigned to the State to
work directly with the state solid waste management programs would also
be helpful. In this manner it is felt that both the State and federal government
would benefit by becoming more fully cognizant of each others problems.
-------
12
SUMMARY OF ARIZONA'S SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Arizona's primary statutory authority dealing with land disposal of
solid waste are found in Arizona Revised Statute 9-441f requiring the
incorporated cities and towns, and the counties, to provide dumping
grounds; and A.R.S. 3^-136 G 10., giving the Arizona Department of
Health Services the authority to promulgate and adopt rules and regu-
lations for solid waste storage, collection, transportation, processing
and disposal. In addition, the Department administers a Water Pollution
Control Act that includes prohibiting pollution of the State's water
through improper solid waste disposal, and an Air Pollution Control Act
in which the open burning of solid waste is prohibited.
The rules and regulations adopted pursuant to A.R.S. 3&-13& G 10*
are administered by the Bureau of Sanitation, Division of Environmental
•*
Health Services. Regulation 2-4-4-2 requires Departmental approval'for
any method of solid waste disposal prior to the start of operation. Cur-
rent policy is to have plans submitted to the Bureau for approval. The
Bureau reviews the plans to ensure that they are geologically and hydro-
logically acceptable, and that the operation plan is adequate.
The Bureau does not have a classification system for landfills
according to the types of waste that are accepted. The majority are,
however, designed to accept municipal and construction debris types of
waste only. Of the 73 approved sanitary landfill operations in this
State, 58 are small, one-man trench operations with an ultimate capacity
of less than 150,000 tons; 6 would probably be in the 150,000 to 500,000
-------
13
ton range, and 9 with an ultimate capacity greater than 500,000 tons.
Some of the larger landfills have made provisions to accept limited
quantities of industrial types of waste. However, if the waste is of
a toxic or hazardous nature, it is usually required to be rendered
harmless prior to disposal. The authority for this request comes from
the Department's Regulation 2-4-1.3 D.
The Bureau is not aware of any landfills where leachate has become
a problem. There are no monitoring wells or collection arid treatment
facilities in existance, or even planned for in the near future. The
Bureau of Water Quality Control is developing a groundwater monitoring
program and, depending largely upon what their data reveals, the require-
ments for leachate control will be changed.
Special types of waste, including medical waste, sludge from waste-
water treatment plants, septic tanks and feedlots, are not prohibited
from landfills. There is a long-standing Department regulation providing
for specially designated areas that can accept septic tank pumpings.
Enforcement procedures available to the Department include filing .
misdemeanor charges in the justice courts of the county where the vio-
lation occurs. A second option is the issuance of a Cease and Desist
Order for violation of the Department's rules and regulations and a
third is to issue an Order of Abatement for violation of Air Quality
Control regulations. In these cases, the offending party can request
a hearing. Then, if the operation continues to be in violation, an
injunction is sought in Superior Court.
Another control or regulatory procedure the Bureau uses is withholding
approval for plans. Under a subdivision plan review program, provisions
must be made to ensure proper solid waste disposal. The only acceptable
land disposal method that the Bureau will accept is sanitary landfill.
-------
14
The Bureau also reviews these plans to determine if an approved
•collection service is provided. If not, then self-haul is allowed only
if the subdivision is located within 5 miles of an approved disposal site.
Governmental resource recovery programs have not been developed to
a great extent in Arizona. The State does not have specific legislation
or programs to require resource recovery, although the Bureau encourages
and supports existing local programs. The only legislation that supports
resource recovery is A.R.S. 9-1221., which provides for the formation
of corporations for the purpose of issuing bonds and applying the pro-
ceeds to construct or finance pollution control facilities.
The City of Phoenix is seriously considering an energy recovery
facility. Other cities in the Metropolitan Phoenix area are experimenting
with source reduction by realigning collection routes. Commercial
establishments with high wastepaper content are collected separately,
which then can be sold to scrap paper dealers. The City of Casa Grande
has initiated separate collection of newspapers for residential collection.
Primarily, resource recovery is conducted by private industry and sup- .
ported by civic groups and service organizations.
Because the Department is responsible for the regulation of sewerage
systems and solid waste management, the regulation of hazardous wastes
is also assumed and, in some instances, implied. The Arizona Atomic
Energy Commission has jurisdictional authority over radioactive materials,
but other than that, there is no comprehensive hazardous waste act placing
responsibility with any single agency. The Department is preparing a
hazardous waste bill to submit to the State's 32nd Legislature this year
(Spring, 1975) giving the Department specific responsibility for hazardous
waste management.
-------
15
Currently, if an industry i.s generating hazardous wastes, they
usually have to make arrangements for hauling the materials to a Class 1
site in another state. Occasionally, the need arises to dispose of
small quantities of hazardous wastes. In these cases, the Bureau tries
to find an acceptable solution within the State, otherwise these small
quantities also will have to be shipped out of state.
The Bureau is in the process of surveying Arizona manufacturing
industries for quantities and characteristics of their waste materials.
TVJO hundred industries, representing each major Standard Industrial
Classification group between 19 and 39, have been surveyed. A listing
of the waste has been prepared. The remaining 1,200 industries will
be surveyed within the next two years and a final report will be pre-
pared at that time.
There is a limited technical assistance program available to help
local governments in the preparation or evaluation of solid waste
management systems and plans. Sanitary Landfill Site Selection and
Development Guidelines and an Engineering Bulletin for operation of
a sanitary landfill have been prepared. The Bureau has conducted an
8-week training program for landfill operators and is developing a
similar program for collection personnel.
Both technical £nd general information on solid waste management is
prepared and distributed to the general public. Requests for speakers
and programs are most always fulfilled. The Bureau works directly with
the Advisory Commission on Arizona Environment and local governmental
associations, such as the Association of Counties, the League of Arizona
Cities and Towns, and other agencies, especially on matters concerning
legislation. Whenever the Bureau is conducting some phase of a program
that effects a particular industry, their representative association is
contacted.
-------
16
The most critical area of federal assistance required in Arizona is,
of course, of the financial nature. The small communities and rural
counties are in particular need of money to help in construction and
possible operation of solid waste systems. Next priority is in
hazardous waste management, particularly as it is related to land dis-
posal. There is a great need for more technical information on pro-
cedures for handling and disposal of these types of waste. Undoubtedly,
what would be of great assistance is a listing of the types of services
or programs that E.P.A makes available to the states.
Prepared By:
Barry Abbott, Manager
Solid Waste Section
Bureau of Sanitation
Division of Emrironmnnta] Health Services
Arizona Department of Health Services
-------
17
STATE OF ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENT OF POLLUTION CONTROL & ECOLOGY
Report on Solid Waste Management Activities
November, 1974
The Arkansas Solid Waste Management Act of 1971 is "An
Act Relating to Solid Waste Disposal, Defining Terms; Granting
Authority for the Adoption of Municipal and County Solid Waste
Management Systems; Requiring Permits for Disposal Systems;
Empowering the Arkansas Pollution Control Commission to Administer
and Enforce the Act and to Adopt Rules and Regulations; Outlining
the Powers and Duties of the Commission; Providing Remedies and
Prescribing Penalties for Violations; Providing for Severability;
and Declaring an Emergency."
The Arkansas Solid Waste Disposal Code was adopted in 1973
pursuant to the Solid Waste Management Act of 1971, and contains
rules and regulations concerning the permitting and operation of
solid waste disposal facilities and storage, handling, collection
and transportation of solid wastes.
The Solid Waste Control Division of the Department of
Pollution Control & Ecology presently consists of four field
inspectors and a division head. The Division has available to
them secretarial help and a Department staff geologist on a part
time basis.
A. Land Disposal of_ Sol id Waste
1. The Arkansas Solid Waste Management Act and Solid
Waste Disposal Code requires that all solid waste disposal sites
be permitted through the Department of Pollution Control.
An application for site approval, containing all the basic
information necessary for evaluation of the operation and the
-------
18
physical characteristics of the site must first be submitted to
the Department's Solid Waste Control Division (forms are made
available). The Department geologist may be called in to perform
a geological reconnaissance of the site to determine the surface
or sub-surface water pollution potential. Based on the informa-
tion gained, the Department may make specific engineering
requirements concerning the planning and design of the sanitary
landfill to reduce or eliminate water pollution problems.
After approval of the site for use as a sanitary landfill,
the applicant must submit detailed engineering plans produced by
a registered professional engineer. These plans are subject to
staff review and if considered adequate, the application is
referred to the Pollution Control Commission for final approval
to issue a permit.
After a sanitary landfill is permitted, it is the respon-
sibility of the Division to conduct periodic inspections of the
operation to determine compliance. If major compliance problems
occur that cannot be resolved through Division or Department
level action, legal action may be taken.
2. Section 6(f)(8) of the Solid Waste Disposal Code
states "Sewage solids or liquids, septic tank pumpings, and
other liquids, semi-liquids, or hazardous substances (including
but not limited to oil sludges; dye concentrates; pathological,
infectious and biological wastes; radioactive material; waste
chemicals; highly flammable or volatile substances; unexpended
pesticide containers; pesticides; raw animal manure and explosives)
shall not be discharged to a sanitary landfill until written
-------
19
approval has been obtained from the Department. Special
provisions may vary from site to site depending upon local
conditions, and wi11 be specified in the approval letter."
The burden of proof that there will be no water pollution
potential resulting from disposal of such wastes may be upon
the party requesting approval.
3. There are presently 45 permitted sanitary land-
fills and six permitted municipal solid waste incinerators
operating within the state.
Though leachate has been reported at most of the landfills
at one time or another, only about five sites could be con-
sidered as having a problem of great concern ^nd two other
permitted sites have been closed due to, at least in part,
leachate problems.
Presently no monitoring wells have been required to be
placed at any permitted sanitary landfill.
Of the permitted sanitary landfills that have a leachate
problem, only one operation has been ordered to monitor leachate
and runoff water and dispose of the water in a permitted sewer
system whenever conditions reached a level that required treat-
ment before discharge.
4. Of the 45 operating permitted sanitary landfills,
35 serve city and county residents totaling approximately 30%
of the state population. (About 4% of the state population is
served by permitted incinerators.) The remaining permitted sites
serve private concerns such as industries.
-------
20
Presently there are no sites permitted specifically for
the purpose of disposal of hazardous/toxic wastes, though
approval has been given for a few landfills to accept small
quantities of certain of these wastes.
5. There are only four sanitary landfills operating
in the state with an estimated total capacity large enough to
fall into the 150,000 to 500,000 ton category.
6. Solid waste management is not a factor in State
land use planning since no land use planning legislation has
been passed.
B. Enforcement Procedures
Every effort, within reason, is made on the Division or
Department level to bring violators into compliance with existing
Acts, rules or regulations. If compliance is not gained, the
Pollution Control Commission may issue a compliance order or
legal action may be brought against the violator in the form of
a civil suit filed by attorneys retained by the Department for
this purpose.
In the past 12 months, one permit has been revoked and one
suspended through Commission orders.
Several Department level compliance hearings with city and
county officials concerning disposal facilities were held.
Compliance was gained in several of these cases and one suit is
pending.
Seven law suits have been filed against city and private
operators of non-complying disposal sites in the past 12 months
with only two being tried to date. Of these two suits tried,
-------
6JL
one was against a large city and the other a small city,
resulting in little action against the latter.
C. Source Reduction and^ Resource Recovery
The state has passed no legislation affecting resource
recovery.
The Department of Pollution Control & Ecology actively
encourages county, municipal, civic and private organizations
to get involved and develop resource recovery programs. There
are no state funds available to assist such programs.
The Department has contracted with Midwest Research
Institute to conduct a study of agricultural and industrial
wastes generated within the state. One purpose of this study
is to determine the feasibility of recycling of these wastes.
D. Hazardous Waste Management
The only state regulations concerning hazardous waste
management are in the Arkansas Solid Waste Disposal Code
(Section 6(f)(8) quoted earlier) and the Arkansas Water Quality
Standards Regulation No. 2, Section 5(k) limiting the concentra-
tions of such wastes in receiving waters of this state.
E. Public Affairs
Information on solid waste control in Arkansas is dissemi-
nated in the form of speeches, news releases, films, slide
presentations and literature by the Public Information Office
and Department staff. Professional and civic organizations,
schools of all levels, news media, trade journals and the general
public are recipients of this material.
-------
The Department cooperates with organizations, such as the
League of Women Voters and other government agencies, to
educate the public in matters of solid waste management. This
is achieved through seminars, training programs and television
and radio broadcasts.
Copies of state laws and regulations concerning solid waste
are mailed to affected parties, such as county judges, and are
available to anyone upon request. The public also has access
to transcripts of public hearings, annual reports and The Monitor,
a monthly newsletter -- all dealing with pollution control in
Arkansas,
-------
23
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—HEALTH AND WELFARE AGENCY
RONALD REAGAN, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
714-744 P STREET
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814
!5 '•! 13/iff 75
January 13, 1975
Mr. Charles T. Bourns
Hazardous Materials Branch
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
100 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Dear Mr. Bourns:
This letter is in response to your request of December 12, 1974, for
information regarding California's Hazardous Waste Management Program.
This Department was assigned the responsibility of developing a
hazardous waste management program by Assembly Bill 598, 1972 Legis-
lative Session, now Section 25100 et seq., Health and Safety Code.
The law requires the Department to adopt regulations for the handling,
processing and disposal of hazardous and extremely hazardous wastes to
protect against hazards to the public health, domestic livestock and
wildlife.
In addition.to requiring the adoption of hazardous waste regulations,
the law required the Department to: (1) establish procedures for
evaluation and coordination of research and development regarding
methods of hazardous waste handling and disposal; and to conduct
appropriate studies relating to hazardous wastes; (2) maintain a
technical reference center on hazardous waste disposal, recycling
practices, and related information for public and private use;
(3) render technical assistance to state and local agencies in the
planning and operation of hazardous waste programs; and (4) provide
for appropriate surveillance of hazardous waste processing and disposal
practices in the state. The bill further established a seven-member
technical advisory committee, composed of cross-sectional representation,
to be utilized by the Department in developing the program.
In response to the mandates of AB 598, interim regulations were developed,
presented at public hearings, and subsequently adopted on July 2, 1974.
The additional tasks noted above (1-4) are in various stages of develop-
ment and the adoption of more comprehensive regulations is scheduled for
early 1975.
The Regional Water Quality Control Boards are authorized to adopt water
quality control plans, prescribe waste discharge requirements, and to
perform other functions concerning water quality control within their
respective regions subject to the State Water Resources Control Board
review or approval. The State Board licenses liquid waste haulers and
-------
24
Mr. Charles T. Bourns January 13, 1975
requires the liquid waste be disposed of in accordance with regulations
adopted by the regional board and on a site approved by the regional
board.
The Department of Health has adopted the State Water Resources Control
Board's California Liquid Waste Hauler Record to serve as the manifest
pursuant to Section 25162 of the Health and Safety Code. The producer
of a hazardous waste, whether liquid, solid, sludge, or other must
initiate and properly identify said waste, disclosing the nature of the
hazard associated with it, whether toxic, flammable, etc., and the type
and composition of the waste. The transporter and disposal site operator
are also responsible to complete portions of said manifest.
No state-wide surveys have been conducted to determine the amount of
hazardous wastes being generated. It is estimated, however, that
between 1 and 2 million tons are generated annually.
If additional information is required, please feel free to call at
your convenience.
Sincerely,
Richard F. Peters, Chief
VECTOR CONTROL SECTION
^^^^l/l^L^t^ -/•*>
/Tfarvey F.(p6llins, P
)llins, Ph.D., P.E.
Supervising Engineer
Waste Management Unit
HFCrgd
-------
25
TO: GOVERNOR EDMUND G. BROWN, JR.
AND MEMBERS OF THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE
We are pleased to submit to you this first annual report of the State Solid
Waste Management Board. This report represents an accounting of the Board's
legislative mandates, achievements and future objectives, and covers the
period from the Board's organization in May 1973 through December 1974.
We are proud that in the 20 months since the initial organizational meeting
of the State Solid Waste Management Board, we have met the legislative
mandates requiring the formulation of a comprehensive State Solid Waste
Management Policy and State Solid Waste Resource Recovery Program. The
complete State program is summarized in the attached report and includes
the legislatively mandated statewide Solid Vfaste Management Policy and
Minimum Standards; Guidelines for Solid Waste Management Plans; a Resource
Recovery Program; a Litter Management Report; and results from a study of
financing needs and alternatives for local government solid waste disposal
facilities.
With these policy and planning activities completed, the Board will now
enter the implementation phase, which is aimed towards upgrading existing
local solid waste management operations for the protection of public health,
enhancement of the environment, and the preservation of natural resources.
Also involved is the encouragement for the acceleration of the recovery of
materials and energy from the solid waste stream.
Our proposed 1975-76 budget is designed to implement a significant part of
the State Solid Waste Management and Resource Recovery Program. The past
period completes the Board's initial program planning phase. It is now clear
that the implementation of a strong Solid Waste Management and Resource
-------
Recovery Program for California requires assignment of additional legislative
authority to the Board. The specific required authorities are outlined on
pages and of this report. More specific information on additional
legislative needs is contained in the adopted Resource Recovery Program and
in the Litter Management Report.
There are difficulties ahead in implementing a strong Resource Recovery
Program. However, the continuing economic and balance of trade concerns at
the National and State level emphasizes the need for conserving our non-
renewable natural resources by recovering usable materials and energy from
the waste stream. Fruition of the Board's programs and policies will place
California among the nations leaders in innovative and effective statewide
solid waste management and resource recovery activities. In undertaking these
future tasks we anxiously look forward to assisting local governments wnicft
have the prime responsibility for developing and implementing an environmentally
sound solid waste management plan based on the Board's policies and standards.
These legislatively mandated programs and policies were due by January 1, 1975.
The Board has successfully accomplished these mandates, and is confident that
the legislative intent to improve the environment by fostering the utilization
of waste for energy and recycling of materials contained therein has been given
prime importance and direction. The Board is also confident that the State
Minimum Standards will upgrade the conventional collection and disposal
operations so as to better protect the public health, as well as the land,
air, water and aesthetic amenities of the State. Summaries of these documents
will be forwarded to all members of the legislature in the near future.
Respectfully submitted,
Alfred M. Dias
Chairman
-------
27
1973-74 HIGHLIGHTS
o Appointment of the State Solid Waste Management Board by the Governor,
Senate and the Assembly.
o Appointment of the 25 member Solid Waste Management and Resource Recovery
Advisory Council by the Governor.
o Appointment of a Board Executiv; Officer, recruitment of staff and
formulation of operating procedures.
O Adoption of Guidelines for the Preparation of County Solid Waste Manage-
raont Plans in both narrative and codified forms.
o Conducted by the staff, a series of statewide workshops to assist the
counties in the development of their solid waste management plans.
O Preparation of the Litter Management Report by the Advisory Council and
adoption by the Board.
o Preparation by the Advisory Council of an Agricultural Wastes Report,
which was approved by the Board. Appointment by the Board of a special
agricultural waste committee to study the management and reutilization of
agricultural wastes.
o Development by the Advisory Council of a Resource Recovery Program which
was revised after public hearings, and then adopted by the Board.
o Establishment of a public information program, including newsletters,
news releases, technical bulletins, displays at the state fair, and guest
speakers at public and professional meetings.
O Adoption of the State Policy and Minimum Statewide Standards which were
developed with the assistance of the Advisory Council, followed by
extensive public review including statewide public hearings.
-------
28
o Holding of a "waste to energy" fact finding meeting to help define the
problems involved in utilizing technology for energy conversion in
California.
o Sponsoring of successful legislation (SB 1797 of 1974) which gives the
Board authority to control proposed new waste disposal facilities in
California to assure conformance with locally developed solid waste
management plans.
o Provision, by Board staff, of technical assistance to local governments
in the review of local solid waste management operations and plans, and
to other state and federal agencies regarding solid waste aspects of
proposed private and public projects and developments.
-------
29
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS
Colorado Department of Health
November 1974
A. STATE LEGISLATION
In 1971, the Colorado General Assembly amended the State Act of 1967
providing for regulatory control of disposal sites and facilities. This
legislation sets forth minimum standards for all disposal sites and
facilities and requires the submission of an engineering report and opera-
tion plan on all new sites and facilities. The Department is required
to promulgate rules and regulations pertinent to engineering design and
operating criteria.
(a) The engineering report design criteria are objectively stated
requiring the applicant to submit information describing methods
for keeping surface and ground water out of the landfill. The
report and plan must contain engineering, geological, hydrological
and operational data required by Department regulations. The
plan review is coordinated with air and water quality control
divisions.
(b) The processing and disposal of sewage sludge and septic tank
pumpings are covered in proposed amendments to the Department
Regulations. These amendments were presented for public comment
and are being redrafted for submission to the Board of Health.
Surface drainage from animal feed lots must not violate State
water quality standards. Animal waste received at landfill sites
must be disposed of in accordance with minimum standards. Animal
waste discharged on the land and used as fertilizer are not reg-
ulated other than by laws pertaining to nuisances.
(c) Currently the total number of disposal sites in Colorado is 254.
Two sites in the Denver Metropolitan Area were suspected of
causing water pollution. One is located near the South Platte
River and the other near Clear Creek, a stream tributary to the
South Platte. Surface and ground monitoring data did not in-
dicate a violation of existing stream quality standards. The site
near Clear Creek was a. demonstration project to evaluate the
effectiveness of natural barriers in preventing water pollution.
The operation plan considered hydrological, geological, topographic
and climatological data. To date, leachate has not caused a
violation of surface or ground water quality standards. Technical
reports have been compiled on both sites.
-------
Page 2
30
(d) All of the 254 sites have "Certificates of Designation"
issued by appropriate County Commissioners. They also
have authority to withdraw certificates for non compli-
ance after reasonable notice and public hearing. Approx-
imately 45% of the States population is served by sites
that comply with Department regulations. None of the de-
signated sites have been approved for disposal of hazardous/
toxic waste disposal.
(e) This Department keeps no records of site capacity.
(f) Site selection and development of solid waste disposal
sites may be designated to be an activity of state interest
in local governments according to our Land Use Act. If
this is done, then solid waste management becomes a sig-
nificant factor in land use planning. The legislation also
requires solid waste disposal sites to be protected from
flooding.
B. ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDORSS
Department policy requires all solid waste disposal sites to be inspected
by the district engineer at least once a year. If the site is not in com-
pliance with the State Act and Department Regulations the inspecting engineer
explains to the site operator and officials what is required to bring the
site into compliance. If an agreement is reached and the site shows im-
provement when it is rechecked a short time later, no further action is
taken as the site is being brought into compliance. If no agreement can be
reached or if dn reinspection, the site shows no improvement, the district
engineer prepares a letter for the signature of Dr. Dreyfus, Executive Director
of the Health Department to the county commissioners specifically requiring
the site be brought into compliance. If on reinspection the site shows improve-
ment, no further action is required. Otherwise, a "Cease & Desist" order is
sent if the site is considered a public nuisance. "Cease & Desist" orders
were sent in period 12-1-73 and 11-30-74. The Certificate of Designation can
also be revoked by the county commissioners or by a district court for non-
compliance with Department regulations.
C. SOURCE REDUCTION AND RESOURCE RECOVERY
Current state legislation enables regional solid waste management or
resource recovery authorities by intergovernmental agreement. A proposal
to enable the formation of an Urban Service Authority in the Denver Metropoli-
tan Region was placed on the ballot in 1973 but defeated by the electorate.
Resource recovery planning is being initiated through the Denver Regional
Council of Governments. A task force comprised of public officials and
representatives of industry and this Department prepared a report and obtained
financial support to investigate alternative resource recovery systems. State
funds are not available to local government or private industry involved in
resource recovery. There are not tax laws or purchasing policies beneficial
to resource recovery.
-------
Page 3
31
In 1972, a bill was introduced requiring all bottles and cans containing
beer or soft drinks be recycled. It did not pass. The present State Act
allows for separation of material for salvage at designated sites provided
It does not interfere with the landfill operation. Proposed amendments
to Department regulations provide for planning of resource recovery operations
at designated sites.
Other groups promoting resource recovery in Colorado are Keep Colorado
Beautiful, Denver Regional Council of Governments, Columbine Glass, Adolph'
Coors Company, Colorado Fuel and Iron Company and Friedman Paper Company.
These agencies and companies are actively promoting resource recovery of
specific materials. In addition, Keep Colorado Beautiful maintains a list
of companies in the Denver Metro area who buy or accept various components
of solid waste. Coors recently completed a study on pryolysis of solid waste
from the Denver Metro area to produce a fuel gas.
D. HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
The proposed amendments to the Department Regulations contain a section
on disposal of hazardous waste. Engineering design and operating criteria
are described and an engineering report and operation plan for each waste
considered hazardous or toxic is required. Colorado's hazardous waste
survey is the initial step in development of a State hazardous waste manage-
ment plan.
E. PUBLIC AFFAIRS
This Department, in cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency
and local Health Departments,, conducts regional training programs through-
out the State. Additionally, this Department sponsored three Statewide solid
waste workshops. These workshops were cosponsored by EPA, Division of
Local Governments, and the National Solid Waste Management Association.
Operator training is provided at designated sites for operating personnel.
Public meetings are held to inform and instruct county commissioners and
municipal officials concerning metnods of obtaining and maintaining compli-
ance with minimum standards.
Each of the 63 counties are urged to develop and implement countywide
plans. These are coordinated with planning activities of the 13 management
and planning regions designated by the Governor. To date, 7 of the 13
regions have developed regional Solid Waste Management Plans and 12 of the
63 counties are implementing countywide systems.
F. CRITICAL NEEDS FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
There is a need for continued Federal support of State projects which in -
elude conducting surveys, planning, training, providing technical assistance
and public information and conducting demonstration projects.
-------
Page A
32
Federal guidelines and technical assistance programs provide valuable
assistance to State and local entities as they evaluate alternatives for
processing, resource recovery and disposal. These should be continued with
emphasis on hazardous and special waste processing and disposal problems.
Additional incentives, other than enforcement, are needed to promote
resource recovery, hazardous/toxic waste management and maintain compliance
with sanitary landfill requirements. Smaller communities (less than
5*000 population) have difficulty obtaining compliance and need additional
incentive.
Orville F. Stoddard, P.E.
Director Solid Waste
Management Projects
-------
INTRODUCTION
Conneotioxit'9 solid waste management program seeks to solve, on a statewide,
total eyatom coordinated basis, the age-old problem of waste disposal. The
State's problem is augmented by Connecticut's density of population; by the small
land area available for use in waste disposal; by the necessity to conserve and
protect existing threatened land, air and water resources; by the people's
propensity to produce a high-per-capita volume of wastes because, they live in
a highly developed urban- industrial society -with its characteristic high volume
of waste production; and by the strong undercurrent of environmentalism and
protectionism that has developed during the last three or four years, within
the State.
The existing arrangements whereby solid wastes are disposed of eithor locally
or on a proprietary basis by burying in dumps or landfills or by burning in
incinerators and then landfilling the residue, have failed to dispose of waster
without excessive adverse environmental impact or the loss of potentially valuable-
resources. These problems and processes have thus become a major focus of
governmental effort to reduce pollution and improve the Slate's phy&ical pnvironiiumt
— air, water and land. The urgency toward "a better way" has been primary in
the State's requirement for statewide solid waste management planning with the
accent on resources recovery; the environmental concern haa militated for a
more intensified enforcement effort aimed at curbing pollution and footorir^;
tetter management and disposal of wastes. These requirements have eavoed inniortait
jroblems in program development, goal-Dotting, staff utilization and
j cJ^.u'^c'] in the Federal Goveiirr.enL and many other
civ iron j""tal concern has foster. )d no'-/ 01 revinrl or
rcueruiiient administrative agencies, Connecticut ost-ibj.iyh"l a nj'.< . M'i -j •!
for the environment — the Department of Environmental l^otec+inn — in 1'^(
A Solid Waste Management Unit was set up within the Environmental ru'-ili f.y
of that Department. The problems and difficulties involved in er;tabl-;nhjri;
required new program emphasis on solid waste management in a sil.antion cha
by the formation of a new departmsnt with many new programs, new or T.IT! •/.,-> I
forms and units, and new policies, processes and procedures, con bo ruj.U.y
imagined.
The Department was faced with a statutory requirement for long-ra^1 co71, • li.-ru;'.
nolid waute management planning. The infant, fragmented solid waul a :r-<-n.<';--i-i?">
program was, by virtue of its function, to have predominating progrT.! T":>r-n.,"r! i '> r
in this planning area. Existing difficulties and problems in tr:iT \r[(
in the overcll programming reqaiirnrcnt a ncc-d for vaa-cly improvoJ 'v-jt.Lvi.io'- .!••
11*3 ar^a of standard--setting, r< ,'\'Jabiou, onfovcement, grj-rtfi-in-L'1'.'., c -• ,. ,.•> •.-'
' r.d mrsnaF-^imt. Not only wna thu need grc ",t for pro '/id in;-; r.;iptL)"rr, ' i !\
l,,r,,';-ranr,; tlnnning effort and inc n1o,tevr,de rcD^ir-c^s Teovurv .i,. • I .•• . ,< - •
rror/i'nm it f irocast, hut y]ao, tii.,L>f E'JIO 1 'adiii.o:i;al pro ,i?u STJ : .:. •\;^lidi'ty on I,H. ;- . -.n
It \;a(3 for tiia ir"prnvi ,j nt of thin aJ-o-ipinl i ,iiv-! ; f ':i i Li i i
it ion i 3r I'Gdoral ."'id w/^a r.aiie urJ for1 wh\..h a d- HOP-' tr? Mot. ,"':'''-'' •''
-------
34
The problems described in oversimplified form above were not only considered as
problems but as opportunities.
The difficulties inherent in mounting a new program in a new major agency vero
countered by such opportunities as could be seen in not having to make ohangfB
in established programs where a regulated clientele had a vested interest, and in
not having to contend with an entrenched bureaucracy having a stake in maintaining
the status quo.
The need to respond rapidly to local emergencies and long standing problems of
considerable urgency created pressures on staff and slender resources but, at
the same time, created pressures for improved planning and •orogram performance
that augured well for reforms.
The long-range planning requirement, which created problems by causing a severe
drawdown on available resources of staff time and talent, also acted importantly
to set a major statewide goal. This goal-setting drew the individual goala of
an otherwise fragmented program into harmony around a common objective, creating
a program energy that xvas not there, before. Thus, a most important requirement
the setting of a common goal — was accomplished.
The problems of program startup have been mentioned, above. The Department of
Health had produced a major issuance in the 1971 Solid Waste Management Plan, but
this was designed for Health Department administration. The new program's
reGourcfs wore fragmented and too weak to work the plan. A professional'staff,
pulled tofxther from sovo^al different programs, struggled to develop purpose
L'.iJi IH^OJ.'"lilp. The pa.orrp'n':? pull.:-/ briTs '.ra.3 not clearly deflnod; r^rulad.r-ns wore
iiujc-.io.Lrpi -*^ or iuwOiuP? c LJ, frcrn v^ r.;vir on rental rlarjuj^jiai , nLrcrvoub fimu'if,
thi "bncji, T ^£Tcna demurs''n VT..U Lh,j uuldino requiremsrd j .(o'c v>i;^-r. ar'l 'iir r^rca i-,nce«
E-bSiistanee covoi^d s'ich iii-j-ttciw au fc,ivin£ advice io Icc^i *. ~v> L.viir
LcUid-use policies ani criteria governing thft grimt-in-c'il •pj'o'r'"-'i weco
in the process of being shaped. In effect, each program element hid itc ova
goals and objectives; there was too little cohesiveneos of purpose.
However, there was the requirement in Public Act SU^j 1971 » for Lho
of a long-range, statewide solid waste management plan. \Jhen the Dspartmaut
took action to" develop such a. plan through the issuance of a requ^st-i'&r-proDootd
seeking the assistance of private-soctor capability, the soriouaneoo of ILc--
Department's intent to do something about solid waste management on a statcw.ttlo
basis began to take effect. The individual and inconclusive goals and objectives'
of the various operating elrmentn of the solid waste program began to be pullod
in -the direction of the . long-range planning effort. Administrative efforts ber'\a
to be attiuiod moro closely to then current ideas as to how the long-rcinc6 plan
was expected to develop.
goal of statewide cyu turns design to effect resources recovery, whioli was
tJ.n central objective of tho long-range planning effort as early aa Augast oi
1972, bewail to shape thu Department's administrative program.
Tliat goal was:
To achieve statewide solid waute disposal with maximum
resource recovery nt the lowest equitable coat,
connidering the nood to minimize envii^onmontal dobifc
nad avoid imprudont land u.ce, ^and tho desirability of
-------
35
maximizing economic "benefits and utilising private
sector management , manufacturing and marketing
ca,pabilityt without appreciable disbenefit from any
loos or erosion of political or governmental status.
Land Disposal of Solid Waste
New solid waste disposal areas are issued permits upon beginning operationa. The
State recognizes leachate as being a natural by-produot of breakdown processes
associated with municipal wastes. Therefore, the most critical aspect of new
solid waste disposal areas is its location within the natural resource system.
The State attempts to insure that leachate production is minimized resulting in
a positive ecological impact on the environment. This is accomplished by.
l) Regulation of textural quality of cover material used in solid waste
disposal areas, and regulated volumes for sufficient cover.
2) Promotion, through State and local regulations, of good drainage facilities
for finished landfills where leachate may be incorporated into subsurface
groundwater systems.
3) Finally, we propose a stabilization of graded areas with a good vegetative
cover. This, of course, allows for runoff and evapotranspiration instead
of percolation into groundwaters .
There are over eighty municipal sewage treatment plants in the Stato of
Connecticut. Using a variety of wthoris of disposal, the Btate copes vita the
Vaobleiua of reuidue diupoa;il. HLviigo mterials have been (successfully utilized
along with sandy material as a final cover on many largo solid waste disposal
areas throughout Connecticut.
Manure from animal feed lots as a resource -and not a solid waste r,nd ia iljorot'c_'e
used as a fertilizer. Septic tank pumpinga produce sludgo material that now illy,
in Connecticut, is dewatered due to large particles with a variety of properticn.
Currently in the State, there exist lUU private and municipal solid waste disposal
arean in use. Moderate to severe leachate problems exist in approximately
70 of these facilities and 12 of the total number have' monitoring wolls. Tloni
of the facilities are equipped with leachate collection and treatment fr..ci] itien.
Guidelines that will require permitting for all solid waste disposal aroan ia tii'.>
future have been proposed but have yet to be implemented. Some of the ±aoilitit.o
for solid waste disposal are permitted at present and some are not. This iltate
has no approved sites for hazardous ot toxic waste disposal.
The capacity of the ll|lj facilities in Connecticut is variable. Approximately
5>0 solid waste disposal facilities have a capacity between 100,000 and ^'00,000
tons. About 20 facilities have a capacity of more than $00,000 tons and 7S> f'^lli-
with less than 1^0,000 ton capacity.
The over-riding truth when considering landfill as a means of solid
.ia that all landfills, regardless of construction and operation techniques,
dirchsrgo oome polluted water (leachate). This will continue to diccharr-!
the decay process is complete. The production of leachata is a natural .by-
of aolid Viauto decomposition and ia therefore part of any operation,
-------
36
Given these facts and recognizing1 that disposal areas are absolutely necessary,
the Department of Environmental Protection is in business of approving disposal
axoas that have controlled discharges. The basic overall philoisopliv i- to
minimize tha quantity of leachate discharged and to maximize the natural treatment
end dilution of that leachate. Therefore, the location oi a disposal area in
relation to existing and potential groundwater and surface water uses is
critical. The hydrological setting of land in Connecticut varies greatly from
place to place. Specifically in relation to solid waste disposal, 1 he ideal
Setting for land disposal would be in a thick (greater than 1$ feet) unsaturated
and free draining soil section with a simple unconfined groundwater oyotem discharging
directly to an adjacent or nearby surface water body. This surface water body, -
in addition, should be relatively large and free flush. The setting where
these characteristics can be found together are most concentrated in the large
central Connecticut valley, near many of Connecticut's major rivers, and near
Long Island Sound. This leaves large portions of Connecticut, primarily the
northeast and northwest thirds, with few or no settings suitable for solid waste
disposal. It is not that Connecticut doesn't have enough suitable sitea, it
is that their distribution is not equal. Therefore, to dispose of solid waste
in the most environmentally sound manner, one must establish sites in a suitable
geologic setting that can service entire regions that may not have a suitable
Betting. This argument in conjunction with the economic arguments for
regionalization, are the prime reason that the Connecticut solid waste program
has taken such a strong regional stand.
Enforcement Prooedurea
TLo initial step in the State Bolid Waste Enforcement program is the ioauanod o.C
a aioticu of violation. Notice of -violation includes a Bp^eif iop.tion oi' the
ytatutory or regulatory violation observed and a timo period within which to
correct the violation.
If a violation is not corrected then further enforcement procedures ioay Vo
instituted. Such further enforcement procedures are tied to the Connecticut
Administrative Procedure Act. This provides for the issuance of ordara l>y the
Commissioner with right for administrative appeal. Administrative appeala tnken
from orders are adversarial public hearings. Following a proposed decioJon by a
Hearing Examiner and a final decision by the Commissioner, there in also provided
opportunity for judicial review. This judicial review is to be based upon the
standard type of review courts have over administrative agencies (i.e., the
court is not to substitute ito judgement for the agency's).
In cases where the Commissioner's order is not complied with and an administrative
appeal has not been sought, referrals are made to the Attorney Genaral who then
seeks enforcement of the order through court proceedings.
One should note that the Commissioner is empowered to assess civil penal tics for
violation of the statutes he enforces.
The civil penalty statute is Public Act 73~665 and is now being implemented for
the Air Compliance Unit. Implementation of a civil penalty program for violc.tiur.
of nolid vraate statutea and regulations will await*, successful operation oi tuo
Air Compliance civil penalty program.
-------
37
In the pant twelve months, 39 orders have been issued by the Commissioner; aaven
of these have been appealed. These appealed cases are now in various stages ol'
the hearing1 process; seven referrals have been made to the Attorney Go.wal,
In most cnnea, notices of violation alone are sufficient to obtain compliance
with Department standards.
Although the Commissioner is empowered by statute to order municipalities into
compliance, in most instances, the Department has attempted to avoid putting the
State and local governments in an immediate adversary position. Rather than
issue an order immediately, the Department, -after inspection, informs
municipalities of deficiencies and then seeks to work out a Consent Agreement
which both the State and the municipality can live with. These Agreements note '
the deficiencies or violations noted and setforth a mutually agreed upon schedule
for correcting the situation. The Department has met with fairly good success
in this approach. This process actually accomplished two things. First it
alerted municipalities to deficiencies in their solid waste management techniques
Secondly, it opened needed channels of communication between the Department and
various municipalities. '
In cases where Consent Agreements could not be negotiated, the Department did '
issue Orders. It should be noted, however, that the city or town involved was
already well aware of its problems before it received an Order.
Source Red-notion and Resource Recovery
Thj Stnta cf Connecticut's current legislation incorporates Public Act 8l|5 which
o'-sl: iildc.li.-,> a statewide prog-ran for solid waste management through local and,
i'-!aU: ,";c\'e-muinnts ord the ivjparlmcnt of Environmental Protection. Along with
rubl.ie /let 8I-)5>, #'12-6l\6 hasj Leon enacted creating the Connecticut Resources
Recovery Authority. The CRRA, which is in operation, is implementing the
regional resources recovery programs and policies, aa outlined in the Conner* tioo,t
State Solid Waste Management Plan.
Under Public Act 8U5>, the State has made available 1)4.2 million dollars for
funding to municipalities in need of solid waste disposal area aid. This funding
allows for purchases of equipment, buildings and engineering studies. More
specifically, Public Act 81|5> is broken down into four major funding sections;
the first of which allows for 100% funding for demonstration resources recovery
systems or improved solid waste facilities including planning, design and
construction of an improved solid waste facility. Secondly, a section on plan
preparation is incorporated into 81|5 allowing for 10% funding per town with a
maximum of ?0;o allowed. A third section allows for funding toward purchases of
equipment or construction of buildings in conjunction with a sanitary landfill.
Under this section 25% for the first town with 10% for each additional town in
available up to 6(J}o maximum for the total grant. An extra 5% ia allotted for
handling of bulky waste. A fourth section of Public Act 8U5 grants money to
municipalities or regional authorities which, after July 1,-1969, rebuilds,
reconstructs or constructs a volume reduction plant. The first town is allotted
with 10% additional funding per extra town with a maximum of 65% allowed.
At preoent, there are no tax laws or purchasing policies that are beneficial
to resource recovery efforts. Surveys have been made concerning source reduction
and enorcy recovery, but a program has yet to be established by State or local
-------
38
governments. The proposed legislative action concerning resource reduction has
been defeated at present.
Hazardous Waste Management
Connecticut is a highly industrialized state which has about 6000 industrial plants.
It has been estimated that approximately 330,000 tona of liquid and semi-liquid
industrial wastes are generated in Connecticut each year. These wastes are a
complex array of substances ranging in form from pure liquid to thick, oily metal
bearing sludges. Included amongst these wastes are hazardous and toxic materials.
which, if not properly handled, could result in serious injury to people and
contamination of our natural resources. There are also solid industrial wastes
which could have these same results. The following are a few examples which can
be cited:
In one case, magnesium powder had "been deposited by one industry and the bulldozer
operator was not warned about its flammable characteristics. The operator
proceeded to spread the materials, as required, prior to covering. Sufficient
heat was generated during this operation to ignite the powder and flames
enveloped the bulldozer. Fortunately, the operator escaped with minor injuries
because he waa in a partially closed cab and the flames died down fairly
quickly.
In another case» deposit of flyash from a power plant formed leachate which
contaminated a swimming area in a summer camp in Waterford.
In Gouthington, Connecticut, an industry contaminated ground waters and its own
wells by depositing into the ground wastes remaining from a solvent recovery
process. This method of disposal also caused an air pollution problem in th<3
area as a result of evaporation of the solvents in the residue sludges.
In addition to chemical wastes, the liquid wastes generated, contain about
19,000,000 gallons of oil. Although it has been estimated that about 6$% of
this oil is collected, cleaned and reused for burning or road oil, only Vj>% is
sent to a re-refiner and about 20% is dumped in sewers, at solid waste disposal
areas or in the ground. Our major problems are related to this latter figure
(20$). These estimates were made as a result of discussions with manufacturing
companies as well as waste oil collectors and reprocessors. The bulk of this
oil is generated in the following areas: Hartford, Bridgeport, Waterbury,
New Haven, New Britain and Middletown.
Beryllium is a toxic waste produced by some Connecticut industries. It roquirea
special treatment to properly dispose of it. Although radiological wastea are
produced in Connecticut, their disposal is carefully monitored and does not appoar
to be a problem in Connecticut. Veay little information is presently available
in "the- files of the Department of Environmental Protection on the number,
and location of private areas used for disposal of hazardous wastes •
13 also needed on the precautions that must be taken to dispose of those
and the potential for reclaiming or recycling them.
Since staff in the Department's Water Compliance unit have done work with 'Lh
tranaport and dicposal of .Industrial wastea, the Solid Waste unit hnn ('o/olu
with them a detailed approach to obtaining reliable information on tha lypn.,
quant it ie a, present methods of disposal, location of disposal areas r.ml pci'-
-------
39
of generation of carefully selected hazardous wastes. When these wastes havw
bf>en properly inventoried, regulations will be drafted and recommended for
adoption by the Department. They will give the Department the airth-.--' »,y needoq.
for properly controlling the transportation, processing and disposal of
industrial wastes. Emphasis has been placed on reclaiming ae much as possible
and minimizing the quantity to be wasted.
When it is found that methods of disposal are being used which may 1 e dangerous
to employees or to the public or may result in degradation of the quality of our
natural resources, the Department takes whatever steps are necessary to have
disposal methods converted to safe and sanitary methods that will minimize
environmental degradation.
Under certain circumstances, if hazardous wastes are handled properly, the
Department of Environmental Protection will give permits for land disposal of
such wastes. At present, there are limited regulations governing the generation
of hazardous wastes with the exception of radio-active materials which are
governed by federal agencies. Metallic oxidea and hydrous metallic oxides have
heavy restrictions placed upon them concerning land disposal. General Electric
in conjunction with the Department of Environmental Protection has conducted a
survey concerning hazardous waste volumes. Liquid waste haulers are required
to register quantities and qualities quarterly with Hazardous Wastes and Water
Compliance units of DEP.
TVhl _3o_Af f airn
'!'«'• belli Vrsie Manp,»c:nont Unit, of the Department of Environmental Protection has
\ax.L.na t:o"iA,cs of from which teclinical assistance to the public is available*
/ii cxLcnnive library on solid waste information is available through DEP'for
interested groups.
The State feels that by proper permitting and regulating, it can reduce the
problems associated with solid wastes. Technical experts and then inputs ore
utilized to the fullest extent possible in determining whether or not a nolid
disposal site ia meeting the needs of the State properly. The judicious use of
monies, both state and local, aids in the generation of total efficiency in
solid waste management. The continued formation of regional refuse plans, the*
appropriation of grant funds to municipalities, and an applied program of
hazardous and industrial wastes management all combine to reduce the problems
of solid waste management in the State of Connecticut.
-------
40
State of Delaware
Solid Waste Management
A. AGENCY
The exclusive authority for solid waste management in the State is vested
in the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control under the
guidance of the Honorable John C. Bryson, Secretary. Within the Department of
Natural Resources and Environmental Control are several divisions each of which
has its unique responsibilities. The Division of Environmental Control, under
the direction of Mr. N. C. Vasuki, is charged with the responsibility of regulating
all solid waste management activities in the State. These activities include
collection, storage, transportation, processing and disposal of all solid wastes.
The Solid Waste Office, currently within the' Air Resources Section, is responsible
for performing the daily business of the agency and implementing and enforcing
regulations. This office also serves as the single point contact with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. Cur-
rently, this office is staffed by one senior level engineer, one junior level
engineer and one secretary.
B. AUTHORITY
Title 7, Delaware Code, Chapter 60, provides the Secretary of the Department
cf Natural Resources and Environmental Control with the sole authority for solid
waste management in the State. This law became effective on July 17, 1973 and
requires that permits be issued for all activities relative to solid waste management
in the State. Further, the Department has the authority to develop regulations
which are necessary to implement the provisions of the law. The Secretary also
has the authority under this law to develop and implement a state-wide solid waste
management plan after the Governor's adoption.
C. REGULATIONS
In August, 1974 the Secretary of the Department cf Natural Resources and Environ-
mental Control adopted the "Delaware Solid Waste Disposal Regulation." This regula-
tion replaced the former solid waste disposal regulation, entitled State Sanitary
Code, Part 38. The newly adopted regulation includes major requirements for
sanitary and industrial landfills such as:
(1) A leachate collection, treatment and disposal system,
(2) The incorporation of impermeable membranes in the design of
leachate collection systems and landfill sites,
(3) Methods of venting decomposition gases and
(4) Monitoring of groundwater quality and decomposition gases.
'These changes are consistent with the final federal guidelines promulgated in the
Federal Register, Wednesday, August 14, 1974, Volume 39, Number 158, Part III.
New state regulations governing the storage, collection and transportation of
solid wastes are currently being developed.
-------
41
-2-
D. LAND DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE
The primary method of solid waste disposal utilized in the state is the
landfill. In accordance with the "Delaware Solid Waste Disposal Regulation,"
the landfills in Delaware will be upgraded to the status of sanitary landfills.
However, they will also be required to install leachate collection and treatment
controls to prevent long-term water pollution problems. For example, in New
Castle County, the leachate from a terminated landfill (3 yrs.), Llangollen
Landfill, has contaminated a major groundwater supply (aquifer). This landfill
was operated by New Castle County, which projects expenditures in excess of $26
million in an attempt to rectify the aquifer. Also, landfills generate decomposition
gases, such as methane, which are explosive and may be monitored and vented to
eliminate underground fires in the landfills. Unfortunately, landfills waste our
land resources and are not amenable to handling the growing quantities of industrial
wastes and sludges resulting from air and water pollution control systems or the
process industries.
EPA REQUESTED INFORMATION
a. The Delaware Solid Waste Disposal Regulation includes the following design
criteria to minimize the potential for surface or subsurface water pollution:
(1) a leachate collection, treatment and disposal system
(2) impermeable liners for disposal areas and leachate collection
systems
(3) monitoring wells to detect changes in groundwater quality
b. The state is investigating methods of recycling sewage sludge through
efforts such as the state recycling project, known as the Delaware Reclamation
Project, (DRP). Also, the state is currently cooperating with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and the City of Wilmington, Delaware in a project to recycle
digested sewage sludge by land application.. /The objective of the project is to
utilize the fertilizer value and soil conditioning properties of the sewage sludge
to reclaim dredge spoils.
c. Total number of solid waste land disposal facilities now in use: 39
number where leachate is a known problem: 3
number with monitoring wells: 9
number with leachate collection and treatment facilities: 1
(under construction)
number of.such facilities at which leachate has been
produced: 1
d. Number of land disposal sites with State permit/license/approval: 39
estimated percent of State population served by approved
sites: 85
number of State approved sites for hazardous/toxic waste
disposal: 0
e. Number of sites with ultimate capacity of: (Use density of 1000
Ibs/cu yd)
less than 150,000 tons: unknown
between 150,000 and 500,000 tons: unknown
-------
42
-3-
More than 500,000 tons: at least 2
f. Solid Waste management is considered in State land use planning; 7 Del.
Code, 60 requires all permit applicants to submit documentation that the
appropriate zoning or planning commission approved the land use for landfill
purposes.
E. ENFORCEMENT
Delaware's Environmental Protection Act, 7 Del. C. 60, provides civil and
criminal penalties for violations of the Act, promulgated regulations or permit
conditions. The Secretary may seek a preliminary or permanent injunction or
temporary restraining order in the Court of Chancery, if the violation has been
completed and there is a substantial likelihood that it will reoccur. The
Secretary may also issue a cease and desist order to any person violating any
rule, regulation, order, permit condition or provision of the Act. The Secretary
issued the Department's first cease and desist order in February, 1974 to stop
the disposal of solid waste in an industrial landfill, which was burning
uncontrolled. The Department extinguished the surface landfill fire over a two
day period of continuous effort. The cease and desist order was lifted after
the landfill owner submitted plans of operation to preclude such future incidents,
agreed to reimburse the Department for all reasonable costs it incurred in
extinguishing the fire and the subsurface fire was completely extinguished
(about 2 week period).
Within the Division of Environmental Control is an enforcement group con-
sisting of six (6) Environmental Protection Officers (EPO). The EPO is respon-
sible for investigating complaints concerning air and water pollution or improper
solid waste disposal. The EPO also performs routine inspections of facilities
having permits to determine whether the facility is operating in violation of
the permit conditions. In'all cases, the EPO has the authority to enter $
premises for purposes of conducting an investigation to determine whether the
provisions of any air, water or solid waste regulation are being compromised.
Also, he assists the solid waste engineer and legal counsel in the preparation of
court cases which may result from violations detected during field investigations.
F. SOURCE REDUCTION AND RESOURCE RECOVERY
The State of Delaware recognizes the need for future alternatives to solid
waste disposal. Delaware strongly believes in the concept of reclamation and
recycling. In October, 1972 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Solid Waste Management Programs awarded a $9 million grant to the State of Delaware
to be used for the completion of the Delaware Reclamation Project (DRP). Delaware
applied for this grant and it was the largest of a total of four which were
awarded on the basis of extremely keen national competition.
The objective of the Delaware Reclamation Project is to demonstrate the
total reclamation concept, and the associated economics. The scope includes
design, construction, operation and product sales. Delaware will attempt'to
demonstrate that recycling can be done on a commercial scale. Sufficient quantities
-------
43
of reclaimed products will be generated which will allow a true assessment of the
markets for these materials. The products will include humus (compost), solid
fuel, fuel gas, ferrous and non-ferrous metals, glass, paper and carbon. Also,
EPA has required the state to demonstrate the use of shredded air classified
solid waste (solid fuel) as a supplemental fuel for steam-electric oil fired
utility boilers.
The initial plant capacity will be 500 tons/day of unsegregated mixed refuse
with 230 tons/day of 8% solids digested sewage sludge. The long range design
capacity of the plant is a nominal 1000 tons/day of mixed refuse and up to U60
tons/day of sewage sludge. A unique feature of the Delaware Reclamation Project
is the process capability to simultaneously dispose and reclaim as marketable
products refuse and sewage sludge. In October, 1972, the President signed into
law the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (P.L. 92-532), which
places restrictions on the dumping of solid wastes into the ocean. Therefore,
Delaware will offer a viable, land based sewage sludge disposal system as an
alternative to ocean dumping. Hopefully, the DRP will be the first of other
innovative systems for recycling our growing wastes.
EPA REQUESTED INFORMATION
a. Delaware has no regional resource recovery authorities. Presently
the state is pursuing solid waste resource recovery in its effort to complete
the Delaware Reclamation Project.
b. The Delaware Department of Community Affairs and Economic Development
has the authority to issue industrial bonds to local government and/or private
industry for solid waste management systems including resource recovery.
c. Resource Recovery planning is primarily being conducted at the state
level.
d. Presently there are no state tax laws that would benefit resource recovery
efforts. With respect to purchase policies, the state has investigated the
use of recycled paper in state offices. Also, the state is presently participating
in an effort to recycle paper wastes generated during the daily operations of the
state offices.
e. There are no state or local government programs regarding source reduction
of solid wastes. However, there has been legilsation drafted regarding ,non-
returnable beverage containers.
G. HAZARDOUS WASTE_ MANAGEMENT
a. The Delaware Solid Waste Disposal Regulation has provisions for dealing
with hazardous, toxic, industrial or chemical wastes. However, Delaware does not
have any landfills for disposing of hazardous wastes. Hazardous wastes are dealt
with on an individual basis and generally are chemically/physically processed in
a licensed facility out of state.
b. Presently, the state has no reliable estimates of the quantities of such
wastes generated in the state. However, the state will attempt to gen«=rat" ~l
date, hopefully, under a Hazardous Waste Management Planning Grant from Lr/'..
-------
44
-5-
Shortly, the state will submit an application for this grant to the EPA.
H. PUBLIC AFFAIRS
The state is keenly aware of the need to interact with the public. In the
development of the Solid Waste Disposal Regulation, the Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Control held a series of workshops with representatives
of civic groups, consulting engineering firms, local government, industry and
landfill operators. These workshops were used to review drafts of the proposed
regulation for comments and ultimately the state generated a regulation which
included considerable input from the public. With respect to technical informa-
tion, the state continuously disseminates information, such as EPA's "Operation
Responsible," on solid waste management activities. The Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Control maintains a telephone "Hot Line" which the
public can dial each day for news of the most recent developments, such as
enforcement activities and the adoption of new regulations. The Solid Waste
Office has also cooperated with the EPA Region III Office and held a training
course for sanitary landfill operators earlier in the year.
I. CRITICAL AREA FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
Critical areas in solid waste management which require federal assistance
include:
(1) Demonstration grants to assist the states in the design, construction
and operation of comprehensive hazardous solid waste disposal facilities which
include a combination of chemical/physical processing systems complemented by
landfill with resource recovery potential.
(2) Demonstration or research -grants to assist the states in projects to
characterize leachate generation and develop models for prediction including gas
kinetics, complemented by leachate rectification systems.
(3) Grant funds to assist states in developing and implementing statewide
solid waste resource recovery programs.
-------
45
STATE OF FLORIDA
SOLID WASTE PROGRAM
A. LAND DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE
Describe State legislation, policy and program pertaining to:
a. Design criteria and State Review procedures utilized to
minimize the possibility of underground and surface water
pollution from new sanitary land fills.
A soils study and a hydrological report are prerequisites to
permitting a new site as are the standard criteria listed in
the solid waste rule.
b. Processing and disposal of sludge from municipal wastewater
treatment plants, animal feed lot waste, and septic tank
pumpings, including the utilization thereof.
Sewage sludge after partial dewatering is disposed of by land
spreading as a general method. The few sludge incinerators
in the state are not operating because of high cost.
Animal feedlot waste, depending on the size of the operation
is either land spread or treated in anaerobic lagoons.
Septic tank pumpings, where facilities have been provided
are disposed of in sewage treatment plants. The majority how-
ever is disposed of in sanitary land fills.
Experiments are being conducted utilizing a series of shallow
trenches tapering to grade, dumping in the deepend, allowing
the waste to settle for 24 hours and then covering. At
sites handling a large number of tank trucks per day mixing
the waste at the face of the fill, as some advocate, has
not proven satisfactory.
c. Total number of solid waste land disposal facilities now
in use: 498
Number where leachate is a known problem:
Number with monitoring wells:
Number with leachate collection and treatment
facilities:
Number of such facilities at which leachate
has been produced:
Staff time has not been available to assemble this data
although it is included in the land disposal site data
forms.
-------
46
d. Number of land disposal sites with State permit. 135
Estimated percent of state population served
by approved sites. 31 %
Number of State approved sites for hazardous/
toxic waste disposal. 0
e. Number of sites with ultimate capacity of
less than 150,CGC tons. 300 (Estimated)
Between 150,000 and 500,OOC tons. 180
More ti-an 500,CCC tons. 20
f. Is solid waste management a significant factor in State land
use planning?
Yes - the State division of Planning's Bureau of Land Planning
has frequently conferred with us in their land use planning
activities.
B. ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES
Briefly describe your State's enforcement procedures including
administrative and judicial remedies available and enforcement
actions taken during the past 12 months.
There is an enforcement coordinator in each of our six regions
plus a headquarters staff of engineers and attorneys. Violations
noted by field inspections or complaints from the public are
initially handled by the Regional enforcement personnel. Depending
on the severity of the violation, a letter of warning or letter
of notice may be issued. If results are not thus obtained or
violations persist, then a pre-enforcement case summary is
prepared and an administrative notice and order for corrective
action is served. If this action does not result in compliance
then civil proceedings are undertaken and penalties sought which
could result in fines of up to $10,000 per day per violation.
Number of Letters of Notices. 67
Number of Warning Notices. 19
Number of Pre-enforcement Summary. 21
Number of Notices and orders. 6
Number of cases settled without court action i.e.,
satisfactory compliance schedule. 8
Number of Suits filed. 3
Number of Suits settled. 3
-------
4V
C. SOURCE REDUCTION AND RESOURCE RECOVERY
What is the current State legislation, policy, and program
affecting resource recovery:
a. Are regional solid waste management or resource recovery
recovery authorities allowed and how many have been
created?
Such authorities can be formed by passage of so
called local bills. Three counties have created such
authorities. Note: the passage of the Florida Resource
Recovery and Management Act as of July 1, 1974 will
accelerate this activity.
b. What type of State funding is available for local government
and/or private industry involved in resource recovery?
None.
c. Is resource recovery planning being conducted at the State
or local level?
State.
d. Are there any State tax laws or purchasing policies
that may be beneficial to resource recovery efforts?
Yes - the aforementioned Act provides that the State
Public Service Commissioners shall establish rates for
all railroads and common carriers that do not discriminate
against the transport of solid waste, recovered resources
or recycled materials and whenever practicable provide
an incentive for resource recovery and recycling. It
further provides that reduced rates may be granted for
such materials.
e. Has the State or any local government initiated any
program in source reduction (e.g. beverage container or
packaging) or energy recovery?
Bade County has a pending referendum for the approval
of a deposit on all beverage containers.
Are there any pending or proposed legislative actions, studies or
programs in resource recovery or source reduction?
Yes - Bade County is awaiting bids of RFP's for a turn
key resource recovery solid waste facility.
The city of Tallahassee has had a feasibility study
made to heat and cool the State Capitol buildings, Florida
State and Florida A & M Universities similar to the Nashville
project.
Several plans are in the making for resource recovery
tape systems.
-------
D. HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
a. Describe the existing State legislation, policy, program
and agency (ies) involved in the control of the generation,
transport, processing and/or land disposal of hazardous,
toxic, industrial and/or chemical waste.
No actual legislation, but the Department's rule stipulates
that such wastes shall, at the owners expense, be rendered
sare and sanitary prior to delivery to the disposal facility.
Specific problems are handled on a case by case basis. A
recent staff addition is being groomed to become a hazardous
waste specialist.
The State Department of Agriculture controls the types
of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides that can be used in
the State. The Division of Health licenses all pesticide
applicators.
b. Have any surveys been conducted or estimates of such waste
quantities been made?
The University of Florida has recently conducted a
survey on nonindustrial toxic and hazardous wastes under
an EPA grant. Reports are not yet available.
Surveys will be conducted as staff time permits.
£ • ZliMiIL. AFFAIRS
Describe your program in public affairs, technical information
-ic tivi ties, and the public and private interest groups in the
State that you interact with.
The solid waste planning staff has established rapport with
politically oriented organizations such as Florida League of
Cities, State Association of County Commissioners, APWA and
others to the end that solid waste subjects are included in their
• convention programs.
The solid waste planning staff has established a SWIRS Jr.
to provide technical information to field staff and local
communities. In addition a film library is in active use by
field staff and local groups.
F. CRITICAL AREAS FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
Brie-fly describe those areas where the Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs could (this line was cut off - but it is
assumed to be - could "more effectively support State Solid
Waste efforts.")
}. in the hazardous waste area it would be helpful if the
construction of the National disposal site, scheduled for
Alachua County, Florida, would be expedited. This would
obviate the necessity for shipping such materials out of
the State for disposal until the State could develop
regional
-------
49
2. Also in the hazardous waste area, EPA should develop a
design and provide funding for the establishment of regional
hazardous waste disposal sites within the State.
3. Low per capita income counties and cities particularly in
rural areas need Federal assistance to plan for and implement
solid waste management systems.
4. There is a need for concise reference books on collection,
disposal and resource recovery similar to the two books
published by APWA instead of a proliferation of booklets
and bulletins now being supplied by EPA. In fact a joint
venture to that end between EPA and APWA might be desirable.
5. The disposal of sewage sludge, septic tank pumpings, and
water treatment plant sludge is presently a controversial
subject. The development of proven methods and guidelines
would be welcomed by most States.
-------
50
STATEHOUSE, BOISE, 83720
October 30, 1974
STATE OF IDAHO
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
James A. Hax. director
S
-------
51
Land Disposal (Cont.) 10/30/74
4. Number of land disposal sites with state approval 50
Estimated percent of state population served by approval sites
85%
Number of state approved sites for hazardous/toxic waste
disposal 1
5. Number of sites with ultimate capacity of
Less than 150,000 tons 47
Between 150,000 and 500,000 tons 3
More than 500,000 tons 0
6. Solid waste is a significant factor in state land use planning.
B. ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES
Violation of the State Environmental Regulations can result in
either civil penalties up to $1000 or criminal misdemeanor penalties
up to $300 per offense. No legal action has been initiated in the
past 12 months. In three instances legal action has been threatened
unless compliance with the Idaho Solid Waste Management Regulations
and Standards was realized.
C. SOURCE REDUCTION AND RESOURCE RECOVERY
At the present time there are no state laws supporting or
requiring source reduction. As stated previously, the counties are
responsible for establishing, maintaining and operating solid waste
management systems including resource recovery systems. However,
due to adverse economics and a lack of secondary material markets
within the state, recycling is not a viable alternative in Idaho at
the present time. There are local voluntary recycling centers in
the large cities. However, for the most part, these are not supported
by municipal, county, or state funds.
An Interim Legislative Committee is currently investigating the
solid waste problem in Idaho including resource recovery. The committee
will make a recommendation to the Idaho legislature convening in
January, 1975.
D. HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
The State Department of Transportation in conjunction with its
Federal counterpart regulate transportation of hazardous materials.
The State Department of Agriculture regulates the application
of pesticides on farm land. This constitutes the largest quantity of
hazardous material in Idaho.
The Department of Health and Welfare, Environmental Services
Division controls the disposal of hazardous materials by the Conditional
Use Permit (CUP) provisions of the Idaho Solid Waste Management Regula-
tions and Standards. One state approved site is currently operated
-------
52
Hazardous Waste (Cont.) 10/30/74
under the terms of a CUP for disposal of pesticides and pesticide
containers. Disposal of other types of materials requires approval
from the Department of Health and Welfare, Environmental Services
Division.
The Idaho Industrial Solid Waste Survey Report included a short
section of hazardous wastes reported by those industries surveyed.
No reliable volumes were available, only types of materials.
E. PUBLIC AFFAIRS
One person is assigned the responsibility of public education
for all of the environmental programs for the Environmental Services
Division. Technical articles are formulated and routed through the
public relations personnel. The Department interacts with local
governments quite extensively due to the nature of the Idaho law.
F. CRITICAL AREAS FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
Comprehensive source reduction, reuse and recycling, in this
preferential order, obviously offer the only long-range solutions to
the solid waste problem. These programs are absolutely necessary if
we are to conserve our natural resources in the form of energy and
materials. However, due to the manufacturing and marketing character-
istics inherent to the United States, it is not logical for 50 states
to develop legislation to promote these programs. Many companies
manufacture in one plant at one location and market to the entire
nation. The industries cannot be expected to meet the requirements
of 50 different statutes. Therefore, this type of legislation should
be developed at the national level. The states definitely need
Federal assistance for the passage of national laws.
-------
53
Indiana Solid Waste Management Report
A. Land Disposal of Solid Waste
1. All refuse processing and disposal facilities (including sanitary
landfills) must be approved by the Stream Pollution Control Board
and Indiana State Board of Health. Permits are issued for construction
and operation of sanitary landfill sites. SPC-18, Solid Waste Managment
Permit Regulation outlines specific design criteria which includes:
a. Maps showing surface water courses, drainage tiles, gas and
oil wells.
b. Geological cross-sectional drawings of the legal section or
sections from the plat book within which the proposed landfill site
is located, showing types of materials from the ground surface
down to and including bedrock, depth to water table and present
and final topographies: one north-south and one east-west
drawing must be submitted.
c. Reports of soils, ground water and geology, including the following:
1. Soil borings, number to be determined through consultation
with Solid Warte Management Section; taken to a depth of at
least 20 feet below the lowest level of proposed excavation
or refuse filling operation or to bedrock, whichever is
shallower.
2. Logs of borings are to include particle size distribution for
entire boring indicating zones of saturation and measured
water level immediately after boring is made and after 2U hours.
3- Samples from the borings are to be tested for permeability,
compactability and ion exchange properties of the subsurface
materials for those strata which are essential to the design
of the landfill.
U. Boring information for all walls located within •£• mile of the
proposed site which have been recorded with the Department of
Natural Resources.
5- A soils map and related descriptive data as published by the
Soil Conservation Service.
d. Where specified, ground water monitoring wells shall be established
around the perimeter of the landfill site.
2. Septic tank pumpings are generally directed to municipal sewage
treatment facilities. In some cases it may be spread on farm land
and disced under. Sludge from municipal wastewater plants is spread
on farmland except during periods of inclement weather when it may
go to s sanitary landfill site temporarily. Requestr for disposal of
liauid, semi-liquid and hazardour waster at sanitary landfill sites
-------
Indiana Solid Waste Management Report
are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The disposal of animal feedlot
waste is on farmland.
3. a. Total number of solid waste land disposal facilities now in
use 181
b. Number where leachate is known problem _ 45
c. Number with monitoring wells _ 15
d. Number with leachate collection and treatment 6
e. Number of such facilities at which leachate has been
produced _ 181
k. a. Number of land disposal sites with state permit
b. Percent of state population served by approved site 83
c. Number of state approved sites for hazardous/toxic
waste disposal _ 12
^•liquid, semi-liquid and hazardous wastes are approved on a
case-by-case basis. There are no sites approved exclusively for
hazardous or toxic waste disposal.
5. a. Number of sites with ultimate capacity of:
less than 150,000 tons 6l
between 150,000 and 500,000 tons 100
more than 500,000 tons 20
6. Solid waste management is not as yet a significant factor in state
land use planning. The emphasis and publicity placed on solid waste
disposal facilities is quickly however, arousing the public ire
and demands for more adequate local planning and control procedures.
B. Enforcement Procedures
There are several enforcement modes available and becoming available under
SPC - 18, Refuse Disposal Act, and Environmental Management Act.
a. Mandatory relief through the Attorney General's Office in any court
of competent jurisdiction.
b. Administrative hearing before Stream Pollution Control Board, violation
of Board order in any court of competent jurisdiction through Attorney
General.
-------
55
- 3 -
Indiana Solid Waste Management Report
c. Administrative hearing before the Environmental Management Board,
violation of Board order in any court of competent jurisdiction through
Attorney General. Civil penalties provided by Environmental
Management Act.
d. Mandatory relief through local prosecutor and health department in
court of competent jurisdiction.
During the past year two cases were referred to the Attorney General's
Office for action.
C. Source Reduction and Resource Recovery
1. Regional solid waste management or resource recovery authorities
are allowed by several Indiana statutes. To date none have been
created.
2. There is no state funding available for local government and/or
private industry involved in resource recovery.
3. Resource recovery planning is being conducted at the state level and
encouraged locally. There are several local planning efforts being
conducted.
H. To date, there are no state laws or purchasing policies that may be
beneficial to resource recovery efforts.
5- There are no state programs aimed at source reduction or energy
recovery. SCA operates a plant in Fort Wayne, Indiana geared to
"cubette" refuse for fuel use.
There is proposed a request from the Environmental Management Board
to the legislature for funds to develop a state wide solid waste management
plan to include resource recovery and regionalization.
A partial list of those organizations supporting a resource recovery/
regionalization effort are: Indiana Manufacturers Association, Indiana
Farm Bureau Inc., U. S. Brewers Association, Indiana Division;Indiana
Petroleum Co ncil, Environmental Quality Control Inc., Indiana Retail
Grocers Association, Izaak Walton League of America, Indiana Division:
Indiana Conservation Council, League of Women Voters, Indiana Audubon Society,
Indiana State Chamber of Commerce and various state and local governmental
agencies.
D. Hazardous Waste Management
1. The Indiana State Board of Health and the Pesticide Review Board
are presently involved with hazardous waste management.
-------
56
Indiana Solid Waste Management Report
SPC-18 the Solid Waste Permit Regulation administered by the Solid-
Waste Management Section controls final disposal of hazardous wastes.
Hazardous wastes, for purposes of definition, includes liquid, semi-
liquids, sludges less than 30$ solids, pesticides and their containers,
raw animal manure, septic tank pumpings, explosives, pathological and
radioactive wastes and raw or digested sewage sludge.
Requests for disposal of hazardous wastes at land disposal sites
are reviewed on a case by case basis and for a specific site. There are
several sites in the state approved for disposal of hazardous wastes.
The Industrial Waste Section, Division of Water Pollution Control
has proposed SPC-17, an Industrial Waste Haulers Permit regulation.
This proposed regulation, rfhich is presently under revision after public
hearings,will control the transport and land disposal of hazardous or
industrial wastes.
2. At present, an in-house survey is being conducted to estimate the
industries involved and quantities of hazardous wastes produced and
disposed of.
E. Public Affairs
At present there is no structured public affairs program or section.
Public information programs are an on-going portion of the present solid
waste management program. Each staff member meets periodically with county
commissioners, county councils, health departments, mayors, town boards,
environmental groups and planning agencies.
Operator training courses and one day seminars were presented during the
past year.
F. Critical Areas for Federal Assistance
1. Provide greater assistance and incentives for regionslization of
solid waste management activities.
2. Develop guidelines for regional solid waste planning.
3. Assist and provide guidance in the development of operator certification
programs.
k. Provide construction of planning grant funds for regional solid waste
management activities.
5. Provide more adequate technical information.
6. Provide hazardous waste management supportive activities.
11/8/7U
-------
State of**arisas
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT
Topeka, Kansas
SOLID WASTE PROGRAM
November 1974
A. The State of Kansas required each county in the state to prepare and
implement a comprehensive solid waste management plan, which addresses
itself to all aspects of solid waste management. These plans were to
have been completed by July 1, 1974, and of this date all except three
have been reviewed and approved by the Department. The pattern of the
county programs calls for county government to assume responsibility
for disposal operations. The manner in which this is accomplished varies
from county operation of new facilities, operation of existing city
facilities by the county or city, and privately owned and operated
facilities.
State law requires that all land disposal sites in the state must have
a permit from the Department not later than June 30, 1976.
The Department requires operators of all new sites opened in the state
must have development and operational plans approved prior to beginning
operation.
Kansas has prepared design and operational guidelines which all persons
operating sanitary landfills must follow when applying for permits to
operate sites. (Copies available on request.)
Kansas does not encourage the use of sanitary landfills for the disposal
of municipal wastewater treatment sludges. We feel that the operational
problems encountered are so disruptive as to make the community landfill
almost unworkable. In most situations spreading of sludges and feedlot
wastes on agricultural land is the practice most often followed. Some
communities are proposing landfills exclusively for dewatered wastewater
sludges.
At the present time, there are some 300 land disposal sites in use. At
the conclusion of the permit program, this number is expected to be
reduced to 125 to 140 sites (slightly more than one site per county).
At the present time, there are no serious leachate problems at permitted
sites. The known problems are occurring at sites that were not designed
or those that were improperly covered and closed out. There are 33 sites
with monitoring wells (wells are not required at all sites). The need
for wells is determined by a geological evaluation of the site.
As of this date, 62 sites have been approved by the Department. Those
sites serve about 70 percent of the state's population.
Solid waste disposal has not played a significant role in land use planning
in our state.
over
-------
58
B. The state's enforcement role in enforcement of solid waste management
matters is outlined by statute. Departmental order - injunction and
mandamus would be appropriate remedies to be used in solid waste manage-
ment matters. No criminal penalties are involved except in the case of
littering.
C. No formalized state policy regarding resource recovery has been institu-
ted. All local plans were to consider resource recovery as a part of
the local program. This has not proven to be a productive approach.
At the present, no legislative proposals have been proposed which address
themselves to resource recovery matters.
D. The Solid Waste Management Act is sufficiently strong to enable control
of all wastes determined to be hazardous. At the present time, a study
is underway to determine the amount of regulation necessary to deal with
those problems identified.
Staff has been employed and should begin work fay December 1, 1974.
E. The Solid Waste Management Act established solid waste planning in each
county in the state. Membership consists of elected and appointed pub-
lic officials and representatives of the public-at-large. This group
serves as a forum for bringing together those interested in solid waste
management. The Department has sponsored a series of seminars on solid
waste collection safety and sanitary landfill design and practice.
F. It would seem to be most helpful if a series of actual case studies, with
the solutions proposed, and the success of the methods employed, could „
be prepared and circulated. Much of the materials produced by the various
studies is of academic interest but quite difficult to put into practice
and certainly doesn't reach down to the levels of people with operating
problems. Kansas is most grateful for the technical information available
from the OSWMP. I think most would agree that the depth of involvement
of OSWMP in state activities is "just about right." Any attempt to
impose national solid waste standards would undoubtedly result in hinder-
ing rather than helping state programs. Federal financial support to
states should be held to an absolute minimum required to support person-
nel on a matching basis.
JP
-------
59
KENTUCKY
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
INTRODUCTION:
The 1972 Extra Ordinary Session of the Kentucky General Assembly
and pertinent Executive Orders pertaining to the Reorganization of State
Government created the Kentucky Department for Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection. This cabinet level department has two (2)
bureaus - Land Resources and Environmental Quality, each bureau is headed
by a commissioner. The Bureau of Environmental Quality is composed of
five (5) divisions: Water Quality; Air Pollution; Solid Waste; Sanitary
Engineering; and Plumbing. (See Departmental organization chart-Figure I)
The Division of Solid Waste has three (3) programs - Field; Training
and Hazardous Waste; and Planning and Technical Assistance. Present staff-
ing includes twenty (20) professional positions and seven (7) clerical
positions (See Division organization chart-Figure II). The budget for
FY 75 is $443,000 allocated among the three (3) programs in the following
amounts: $273,751 Field Enforcement; $74,529 Training and Hazardous Waste;
and $94,720 Planning and Technical Assistance. During FY 75 there are
NO active Federal grants, however, the state agency is acting as a sub-
grantee for two (2) MDTA projects.
LAND DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE:
Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) Chapter 224 is the legislative authority
setting forth the solid waste management intent to ... "provide for the
disposal of solid waste in a manner that will protect the public health and
welfare, prevent the spread of disease and creation of nuisance, conserve
our natural resources and enhance the beauty and quality of our environment."
~"—>
In order to carry out the function stipulated in this legislative
directive an administrative regulation has been promulgated to prescribe
requirements for the construction and operation of land disposal sites.
Major points, regarding the creation, regulation and closure of a disposal
facility, outlined in the administrative regulation are: application content;
design criteria; engineering plans and specifications; permit-issuance, con-
ditions, termination and renewal; site operation inspection, and closure.
Engineering plan reviews for disposal sites are a joint effort of the
Bureau of Environmental Quality, Division of Solid Waste and Division of
Water Quality. This measure is the first assurance of minizing the possibility
of underground and surface water pollution. Further, soil analyses are re-
quired in order to reasonably assure that leachate will not contaminate ground
water or streams. Areas having exposed or shallow bedrock are restricted for
disposal site purposes unless a safe ^vertical distance can be provided between
solid waste and bedrock. No disposal site shall be located in a five (5) year
flood plain. Those disposal sites located within a one-hundred (100) year
flood plain shall be protected by impervious dikes.
-------
60
Disposal of sludge from municipal wastewater treatment plants is
permitted by the Division of Solid Waste under an OTHER METHODS PERMIT.
This type disposal does not require daily cover, however, such a site must
meet requirements for intermediate and final cover that will support ve-
getation. However, special limitations for the operation of such a dis-
posal site shall be in writing and treated as a part of such permit. The
moisture content of the sludge at the time of disposal shall not exceed
more than fifteen percent (15%) moisture.
Although Kentucky is a predominately rural state, agricultural waste,
such as, animal feedlot waste does not fall under the regulatory jurisdiction
of the Division of Solid Waste and such waste CANNOT be disposed of in a
land disposal facility. The Division of Livestock Sanitation, Department
of Agriculture of the Development Cabinet has the responsibility for animal
feedlot waste.
The disposal of septic tank pumpings is under the regulatory jurisdiction
of the Department for Human Resources, Bureau of Health Services, Office of
Consumer Health Protection. Such waste CANNOT be disposed of in a land dis-
posal facility.
As of November 1, 1974, there were one-hundred fifty-eight (158) land
disposal sites that hold a permit from the Bureau of Environmental Quality,
Division of Solid Waste. These land disposal sites are classified by types
and numbers as follows: 123 sanitary (receiving residential and commercial
waste); 23 industrial (receiving industrial by-product waste only) and 12
OTHER METHOD OPERATIONS (receiving special limitation types of waste, e.g.
wastewater treatment plant sludge, etc.). In the one-hundred and twenty
(120) counties of the Commonwealth, twenty-four (24) counties do not have
a permitted land disposal site, while the urban-industrialized ateas of the
state have more than one site in each of the classification types. In order
to be consistent with Area Development District planning efforts, as well as
solid waste regional field office jurisdictions, sites have been identified
by classification by area development district as shown in Figure III.
Based on a density of 1,000 pounds per cubic yard, the aforementioned
123 land disposal sites have an ultimate capacity as follows: 51 sites less
than 150,000 tons, 56 sites between 150,000 and 500,000 tons, and 16 sites
more than 500,000 tons of waste.
Of the 158 permitted land disposal sites, 38 have had identifiable leachate
problems at some time. These problems are attributable to improper operation
and/or the failure to utilize proper construction techniques. At 26 of these
sites, leachate problems are being experienced in varying degrees. There are
NO leachate monitoring wells under the jurisdiction of the Division of Solid
Waste.
Over one-million and nine-hundred-thousand (1,900,000) persons or sixty
percent (60%) of the Commonwealth's population is served by an approved dis-
posal site. It should be noted many_of these sites have a moderate to short
life expectancy. For example, at the present time, in an urban-industrialized
area of the state, the composite life of land disposal sites is calculated to
be approximately four (4) years. In view of these conditions, coupled with
other influencing factors, solid waste management WILL BE significant in state
land use planning. The 1974 General Assembly passed H.B. 462 which created
a Land Use Planning Council.
Page 2
-------
ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES:
The Kentucky Division of Solid Waste participated in a. Federal grant
in the amount of $30,000 during FY 74. The objective of this grant was
the closure of forty-two (42) open dumps. Results were as follows: Twenty-
four (24) dumps closed, four (4) dumps converted to landfills, while four-
teen (14) dumps have actions pending. These results were achieved by one-
hundred eighteen (118) inspections and/or meetings on the forty-two (42)
enforcement cases. These actions resulted in sixty-six percent (667.) of
the forty-two (42) dumps being closed.
SOURCE REDUCTION AND RESOURCE RECOVERY;
There is NO state legislation governing source reduction and resource
recovery. The bottle bill introduced to the last session of the Kentucky
General Assembly was unsuccessful. Regional solid waste management and/or
resource recovery authorities ARE NOT prohibitive in Kentucky, however,
since there is not any state funding available for this effort it is con-
ducted on a patriotic basis by civic groups and concerned citizens.
Resource recovery efforts are being conducted in the state through
the efforts of local planning groups, such as the area development district.
Also, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is considering a proposal to
build and operate a solid waste processing plant that could service twenty-
one (21) counties in the south-western portion of the Commonwealth. This
plant would have the capacity of handling 1,000 tons of solid waste per day.
The waste would be ground and separated into its various component parts.
Materials such as ferrous metals, aluminum, glass, etc., would be recovered
and sold and the combustible portion would be pelletized and burned, along
with coal, as fuel in one of the Kentucky TVA power installations.
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT;
The 1974 Kentucky General Assembly enacted KRS 224.890 which provides
that no person engaged in collection, hauling and disposal of hazardous
wastes on a seasonal or continuing basis shall dump at any permitted or
unpermitted disposal facility without first obtaining a permit from the
Department for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection. In addition,
the Commissioner (Bureau of Environmental Quality) may require licensing
of a hauler of any substance which poses a threat or hazard to the environ-
ment and public health. This legislative enactment became effective July 1, 1974.
Hazardous waste as used in the legislation is defined as "Any substance
or combination of substances, the depositions of which may create a threat to
public health or to animal and aquatic life forms."
It is felt the provisions of KRS 224 cover the transportation, processing
and dumping (disposal) of hazardous waste. Generation of hazardous waste is
not regulated in Kentucky, as this would entail specifying the products a
company could manufacture and the production process they must utilize.
With regard to Hazardous Waste Survey results, a questionnaire was for-
warded to approximately one-hundred seventy (170) selected industries. This
survey was designed to identify the type or kind of hazardous waste generated,
volume of waste, collector (name and address) and the disposal site receiving
such waste. Many of these selected industries have replied and approximately
Page 3
-------
62
forty (40) collectors and haulers have been identified. Each of these
will be forwarded an application form for a permit to transport hazardous
waste.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS;
The public affairs program for the Division of Solid Waste has the
able assistance of William D. Holland, Federal Assignee for Kentucky. How-
ever, there is still the apathy of public officials as they deal with solid
waste management, largely due to the fact, in most areas, rural as well as
urban, residential as well as commercial and/or industrial, the public official
still leaves solid waste as the UNPLANNED pollution. Areas are eager for
development, therefore, they plan for sewer, water, streets and electricity
but in most instances, the forgotten element is solid waste.
Technical assistance functions for the Division of Solid Waste are
conducted for all fifteen (15) Area Development Districts and local juris-
dictions - counties and cities. These activities include conducting studies
for collection and disposal, providing cost analyses, reviewing and commenting
on solid waste management plans and conducting special waste studies in areas
such as school and hospital wastes.
There is an interaction of both public and private interest groups with
regard to the Division of Solid Waste as it is the responsibility of all three
(3) programs of the Division to coordinate efforts with public officials, in-
dustrial leaders and their respective counterparts to strengthen the solid waste
management of the Commonwealth.
CRITICAL AREAS FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE:
The Kentucky Division of Solid Waste feels there still exists a basic
need in most states for the type of training of their personnel that had been
provided in the training courses which in the past were offered in Cincinnati.
A situation needing Federal assistance, we feel, is in the area of construction
grants to under-priviledged, poverty stricken, rural communities such as drama-
tized by the Appalachian regional health demonstration in solid waste. These
areas with their depressed economy are unable to come up with the capital neces-
sary to purchase the equipment, land and land improvements necessary for a sani-
tary landfill, and/or a collection system.
Page 4
-------
63
PRESENT STATUS
of
MARYLAND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
November 13, 1974
The following is a brief discussion of the current status of solid waste management
in Maryland. This report has been prepared at the request of OSWMP for the November
14 - 15 EPA - NSWMA Conference in San Francisco. The format used is that suggested by
OSWMP.
A. LAND DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE
a. Solid Waste Disposal is regulated by Article 43, Sections 394, 394A, and
3943 of the Annotated Code of Maryland. Section 394 says that a State Health
Department permit is required for "a refuse disposal system for public use." It
further requires complete plans and specifications together with such information
as the State Health Department may require. In 1969, the Division of Solid Waste
Control drew up and began to utilize guidelines entitled "Sanitary Landfill Pro-
cedures for Approval." These Procedures spelled out that information to be in-
cluded in the detailed engineering plans and specifications such as:
(1) The location, depth, and type of underground water sources within
the sub-drainage basin in which the property is located.
(2) The location of nearby streams.
(3) Methods of prevention of pollution of surface and subsurface waters.
(4) Analyses of soil samples collected from various places and at various
depths at the proposed site.
(5) A piezometric map showing the seasonal high water table.
(6) The type and depth to bedrock.
The Division of Solid Waste Control has employed one qualified groundwater hydrologist
holding a Ph.D in Geology to submit geologic opinions on proposed land disposal sites.
-------
64
-2-
Opinions are also sought from geologists representing the Water Resources AJministraUion -r.-
the Maryland Geological Survey, both at the time of the preliminary examination of the
site and upon review of final plans. Monitoring wells are required.
b. The 1974 session of the State Legislature passed an amendment to the existing
permitting statute to provide that no person shall collect, transport, process
nor handle sewage sludge without first having received a permit from the State
Department of Health. The Division of Solid Waste is presently drafting regula-
tions for the implementation of this statute. The Division is also permitting
sites. Because of personnel problems this program will not be implemented on a
statewide basis until mid-1975 at the earliest. T0 date, we have restricted sludge
to public lands that will not be used for food-chain crops because we do not know
how to deal with the zinc-cadmium problem.
Maryland does not regulate animal feedlot waste at present* Septic tank
pumpers are regulated by county health departments.
c. Maryland now has some 88 land disposal sites in use. I am presently unable
to say at how many leachate is a known problem, because I do not know the criteria
utilized in defining what is a problem. Several of our twenty remaining small open
dumps are on wetland and do have some leachate migrating to surface waters. Two
permitted sanitary landfills cause significant iron and chloride change in streams
flowing through them. We have monitored groundwater around our permitted sanitary
landfills for five years and have no known groundwater change. Twenty-three sites
have monitoring wells. One site has a leachate collection system. Forty sites
have sediment control ponds where leachate could be treated or spray irrigated if
necessary. It has been our experience that most sites that are operated with the
area method to considerably higher elevations than the surrounding ground surface
will produce some minor quantities of leachate if slopes develop gullies that
-------
65
.,3-.
expose refuse. This surface leaching tends to dry up with proper grading and
stabilization.
d. Forty-three sanitary landfills presently operate under State Permit.
These permitted sites serve approximately 75% of the State's population. At
the present time, Maryland does not specifically classify certain landfills as
approved for hazardous wastes. We do specify that certain landfills shall not
accept hazardous wastes.
e. Capacity of sites is as follows:
Less than 150,000 tons - 12_
Between 150,000 and 500,000 tons - 22_
More than 500,000 - 54_
B. ENFORCEMENT ACTION
Enforcement action could be taken by State Board Order, revocation of permit,
or injunction. The Division has closed three sites by Order and one by injunction
in 1974.
C. RESOURCE RECOVERY
Regional authorities are permitted for resource recovery but none have been
created to date. The Maryland Environmental Service has participated in funding
two major resource recovery projects. Resource recovery planning is being con-
ducted at both State and local levels. One community has passed returnable con-
tainer legislation, but has been unable to implement same because of court action.
Bottle bills have been proposed in the State Legislature for the past three years
but have failed. Major resource recovery projects are being planned for three
counties in Maryland at present.
D. HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
The Division of Solid Waste Control is presently completing a study of sources
and types of industrial hazardous wastes in Maryland. There is at present little
-------
66
-4-
specific regulation of hazardous wastes with the exception of pathological
wastes from hospitals and nursing homes.
E. PUBLIC AFFAIRS
The Division frequently furnishes speakers for Civic or Technical Organiza-
tions. A newsletter is being planned for January - 1975.
F. CRITICAL AREAS FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
OSWMP can be of considerable help to Maryland with Grant assistance and
*
and technical advice in setting up a hazardous waste program. Hazardous Wastes
Guidelines would be very helpful.
-------
67
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has a statewide Solid Waste
Management Plan calling for regionalization and resource recovery
where economically feasible. At present the Commonwealth through
its Bureau of Solid Waste Disposal of the Department of Public
Works is implementing the first regional facility. A brief description
Of the implementation process followst
The communities of Lawrence, Andover, North Andover, Ilethuon
and Haverhill have spent the past several years in a joint effort
to find a common solution to their solid waste disposal needs. Through
elected representatives to the Greater Lawrence Solid Waste Committee
(GLSWC) and with the assistance of the Commonwealth's Bureau of
Solid Waste Disposal (BSWD), the communities have been exploring and
reviewing numerous alternatives. Aware of an increasing national
interest in recovery of valuable resources in solid waste, the communiUes
have elected to participate in a Regional Resource Recovery Solid
Waste Processing Facility, which will be capable of processing all
municipal and industrial waste generated within the communities.
Plans for the facility have been progressing rapidly. A site
in the City of Haverhill has been selected, and a request for proposals
(RFP) has been designed, and will be issued shortly. The RPP will
'solicit proposals from industry for the design, construction and
operation of tho facility. Prcrcsals will bo evaluated nnd a contractor
selected through a proems of co.apetitivo .negotiation.
The facility will bo privately operated on Commonv'-citth-owued
property. Refuse will be aggregated at transfer stati cuo (or -where
most economical, refuse'will be transported directly), anr1 hauler!
to the facility for processing. The recoverable portion of tho refuse1
will be marketed and the remaining unrecoverable residue will b^
landfilled in a Commonwealth-owned and privately operated sanitary
landfill. The communities will be charged a fee per ton of refuse
based upon the cost of processing and reduced by the incoming revenue
from the marketable products,
Location
Representatives of the GLSWC and BSWD have evaluated several
potential sites in the Greater Lawrence area for construction of thn
facility. After a thorough examination and evaluation, a -12 arrc
parcel in the "NecK" area of Haverhill was selected by GT.GWC and Jky-.'!
and approved by the City of Haverhill. This location was chorcn duo
to its accesibility from nearby major highways and general auit^bijity.
-------
Status
68
On behalf of the communities, BSWD is issuing a Request for
Proposals for the design, construction and operation of the facility.
Proposals will be evaluated by the communities (through their repre-
sentatives to the GLSWC), BSWD, and the MITRE Corporation. Seletftlor
of a contractor will be made in the Spring of 1975, and the facility
is expected to be operational in 1978.
Recognizing that a facility capable of accepting refuse from
a larger region than the five original communities would benefit
all the communities utilizing it, the GLSWC and BSWD are asking
contractors who bid for the design and construction to indicate
specifically what these economies are.
The Commonwealth intends to continue implementation of regional
solid waste facilities with maximum feasible resource recovery in
other areas of the State. Work continues with local and regional
officials throughout the State to develop the cooperative regional
climate necessary for the success of a voluntary regional program*
-------
69
EPA State Report Summary
Solid Waste Disposal in Michigan
November 1974
A. Land Disposal of Solid Waste
Michigan has made available as of January 10, 1974, to local government,
planners, consultant engineers and private refuse operators, geologic and
hydrologic guidelines for evaluating sanitary landfill sites. These
guidelines are designed to:
1. Aid those searching for landfill sites by providing a basis for
comparison of the relative merits of various potential sites.
2. Provide a basis for evaluating the suitability of selected
sites in their natural condition with respect to potential
hazards to surface and ground water environments.
3. Determine if the proposed site could be used for a landfill in
its natural condition without engineering improvements.
The guidelines discuss surface drainage and topography and with appropriate
sketches indicate minimum isolation distances both vertically and
laterally from refuse to ground and surface water for typical geologic
formations.
A brief discussion of cover material and considerations necessary relative
to site development when favorable geologic conditions are not available
are included.
All new sites are reviewed by a member of the state staff and with very
few exceptions by a department geologist who determines details concerning
the site geology that will have to be submitted before site approval can
be obtained. Generally this data is submitted prior to any design work
on the site.
The disposal of wastewater sludge does not, by statute, fall under the
authority of the Solid Waste Management Division per se. The rules
however do provide the responsibility for specific approval for the
acceptance of the material in a landfill operation. Under this authority
we require that sludge of any kind be dewatered to the point that it
will not release any fluid under the normal operating pressures of
landfill equipment.
As we do not have large animal feed lots our problems in this area are
very minimal. There is at present no specific licensure of these
operations however they are controlled through the general powers of our
Water Resources and Air Pollution Control Commissions. Consideration is
being given to specific authority in this area but such has not progressed
to date.
The septic tank cleaners and liquid industrial waste haulers are controlled
by separate state statutes and disposal sites for these facilities are
approved by a division within the Department. These haulers are not
permitted to discharge in a licensed landfill and are required to utilize
only approved disposal areas. With reference to sewage treatment plant
-------
70
wastes the Department now requires plant proposals to include all details
on transportation and final disposal of sludge, if such is not handled in
the confines of the plant. Some municipal sludge is being used on farm
lands as a soil conditioner and a recent court decision permitted the
continuance of this process in a contested case. Septic tank cleaners
are now required to utilize sewage treatment facilities if a contract for
a specific service is within 15 miles of a municipal sewage treatment
plant. When not available, land disposal in an approved area is permitted.
Michigan's present enforcement program relies on local health department
participation. There are areas in the state where their involvement has
been very minimal which has resulted in a request this year for a certifi-
cation program for their continued involvement. I mention this, for it
has been relatively impossible for the Division's limited staff of sur-
veillance people--? in number—to adequately survey all operating areas
in the state. In view of this I hesitate referring to numbers even though
I feel our figures for the metropolitan counties are fairly accurate.
With these constraints:
No. of refuse landfills in use - 700
No. where leachate is a known problem - 9
No. with monitor wells - 8
No. of leachate collection and treatment facilities - 4
No. of such facilities at which leachate has been produced - 2
No. of land disposal sites licensed - 488
Percentage of population served by approved facilities - 50%+
No. of state approved sites for hazardous/toxic waste disposal - generally 3
The disposal of all toxic and hazardous waste must be specifically
approved by the local health department or the Solid Waste
Management Division.
Local solid waste management plans are just being submitted that will
contain total designated land for landfills. The Division has not developed
this data.
The state land use plan for Michigan is in the process of being developed.
We do envision some real problems in the necessary considerations which will
have to be given solid waste management in view of the vested zoning
interests. In the initial assignment it is anticipated that somewhere
near 40,000 acres will have to be set aside for solid waste management.
The classification program developed for the state land use plan does
stipulate a critical area approach. This considers solid waste management
as a minor land use but a major controversial issue and will share identi-
fication with such items as flood plains and public utilities. During the
next year the land use plan process will be developing the criteria for
critical area land use.
- 2 -
-------
71
B. Enforcement Procedures
The Department's enforcement procedures are established by the solid
waste act and the administrative procedures act. In general we have
injunctive powers but have considered this only on rare occasions.
With the Department's Commission being very sensitive to the need for
public exposure of issues and a complete understanding of the issues
between the Department and the operator, we do follow with some success
the informal hearing approach between the parties. The operator is made
aware of the violations and is permitted to comment with counsel if he
desires. Generally the informal hearing results in the development of
mutually agreeable solutions to the problems with a time table for
correction.
Continued violations would then result in action by the Department to
either deny a license or revoke a license. This is done with notice and
an offer of a hearing upon request of the operator. A request for a
hearing will result in a contested case hearing before a hearing examiner.
This case is then conducted as a legal hearing with each side represented
by legal counsel. The hearing officer, upon completion of testimony,
then develops his decision and recommendation to the Director. The
Director then determines the course of action. If his decision is in
favor of the Department the operator may file an appeal with the circuit
court.
One other approach that has been used quite successfully to close operations
that are in non-compliance without legal basis, or in other words have
not formally applied for a license, is to develop a formal cease and
desist order signed by the Director. Should this process not achieve the
desired results the matter is then referred to the Attorney General for
action. We have had no reason to date to follow through on failure to
comply to the Director's orders. There are a few pending actions which
may necessitate further action shortly.
We have this year conducted contested hearings requested by local govern-
ment and citizen groups in reference to action by the Department in
issuing a license to a disposal facility. Thus far the Department's
action has been upheld. We anticipate the frequency of such hearings
will increase.
The hearings conducted for the past year have been as follows:
Informal hearings - 45
Contested Case hearings - 5
C. Source Reduction and Resource Recovery
Resource recovery facilities have been developed, with one exception, on
only a small scale. The Huron Valley resource recovery facility in the
Detroit area has put together a very extensive program of metal recycling.
Their operation presently includes the processing of junk cars into its
many components—aluminum, copper, brass, stainless steel, ferrous metals,
zinc and rubber. They also process data processing equipment, electronic
- 3 -
-------
72
devices, motors, waste products from auto crushers and have again begun
the salvage of metals from two of our authority incinerators.
Under Michigan statutes it is possible to develop an authority for solid
waste that can encompass many units of local government. We have three
authorities that service about 350,000 people each and each involve
seven through 14 local units of government. A number of small authorities
are in operation with others being considered.
At the present time state funding is not available for local government
and/or private industry involved in resource recovery. Proposed legisla-
tion does deal to a degree with this aspect.
There is some reference to resource recovery planning at the local
level in the high population density areas, with reference to the
consideration of a total resource recovery system. At the present time
Ingham County and Grand Traverse County are considering a pyrolysis
type facility. Under proposed legislation the state would be required
to develop a state plan with specific direction toward resource recovery.
There are not at the present time any state laws relating to purchasing
policies of recycled materials. The state purchasing office however
has developed a policy concerning the purchasing of a certain percentage
of paper made from recycled waste paper.
There have been a number of bills introduced in the legislature on beverage
containers, however at this point none have received sufficient support
to be passed. There has been very little effort on the part of local
government to adopt beverage container or packaging controls based
probably more on the inability to enforce such legislation rather than
a lack of desire. We expect in Michigan that efforts will continue to
develop legislation on beverage containers. To date there has been no
legislation proposed forcing the use of energy recovery systems in solid
waste management at either the state or local governmental level.
The legislature at the present time is considering Senate Bill No. 946
which will establish a resource recovery commission designed to provide
some significant responsibility in the area of resource recovery.
The bill establishes a necessity to work closely with private enterprise
in the promotion, development and construction of recovery facilities
and provides a penalty for areas that do not implement their solid
waste plans within an established time frame. The bill does provide
latitude for financing but does not permit the state to operate a facility.
All operations in which the agency would be involved would be through a
contractual arrangement with local government and any combination thereof
and private enterprise. Details of the bill should be available sometime
after the first of the year.
The State Chamber of Commerce has been actively engaged in promoting
resource recovery and many of the environmental groups have shown a real
interest in this approach.
- 4 -
-------
73
D. Hazardous Waste Management
Existing state legislation involving hazardous waste is controlled by the
Department of Natural Resources in the area of transportation, processing,
and disposal. The program is based in two separate divisions within
the Department of Natural Resources depending on the nature of the
material. Liquids are controlled under one statute and solids under
another. These comments do not include discussions concerning the
levels of material discharges in municipal and industrial sewage treat-
ment plants. This of course is done under that particular control program.
At the present time very minimal survey work has been conducted on hazardous
waste quantities from the standpoint of solids. We expect to carry on this
program during the next year, along with activities involving our appointed
hazardous waste committee which includes representatives of industry, local
government, public health, and staff.
E. Public Affairs
The Division participates in many meetings throughout the state to discuss
the solid waste management aspects of planning, and implementation.
Much of the consultation activities performed are with local governmental
agencies, private enterprise and consulting engineers. We have no
activities with a specific public or private interest group but deal with
many organizations including the Michigan Municipal League, Michigan
Townships Association, county commissioners, and numerous environmental
groups located throughout the state.
- 5 -
-------
74
MINNESOTA SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT REPORT
MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
Solid Waste Division
St. Paul, Minnesota
-------
75
TABLE OP CONTENTS
1. Introduction 2
2. Preface M
3. Land Disposal of Solid Waste 5,6,7
4. Agricultural Wastes 7,8
5. Source Reduction 10
6. Resource Recovery 10
7. Hazardous Waste Management 11,12,13
8. Public Affairs It,15
-------
76
Introduction
Critical Areas for Federal Assistance
1. The continued absence of federal financial assistance In the form
of EPA program grants In the area of solid waste management Is putting
an unreasonable burden on state program budgets, having the effect; of
putting Minnesota and other state solid waste management programs at a
virtual standstill, outside of possible hazardous waste planning grant
programs.
In the past, the availability of these grants and our utilization
of them in a number of our programs and services, (many of which owed
their existence to program grants), strengthened and materially aided
the development and diversity of our entire program. Therefore, we
attach the highest priority to the reinstatement and renewal of the
program as we plan and develop for the future. It is extremely important
that the federal government revive some arrangement whereby financial
assistance may be granted to states that have delayed or postponed vital
solid waste programs.
2. Hazardous Waste Management, Waste Sludge Disposal, and Resource
Recovery are three (3) major solid waste management programs in Minnesota
that deserve a high budget priority on the federal level.
3. EPA office of Solid Waste Management Program research staffing
should be Increased to address the urgent solid waste management
problems of (a) analyzing leachate treatment systems for sanitary land-
fills and (b) maximizing the effectiveness and efficiency of solid
waste collection systems.
-------
77
4. Fed-.ral EPA technical assistance programs are imperative for the
effectiveness of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Solid Waste
Management Program.
-------
7fl
Pre face
In 1970, Minnesota spent $62 million to collect, transport and
dispose of 2.11 million tons of refuse. Assuming no growth in peculation
or Inflation, Minnesota will spend approximately $111 million in 1980
to handle 5.5 million tons of municipal solid waste.
Prior to 1969, there was no real control over solid waste
management in Minnesota. The .location and number of dumps, the types
and quantities of solid waste generated throughout the state were all
unknown. Refuse collection was uncontrolled and in some areas not
available to the residents. The problems of solid waste management
rested solely with local governing bodies.
The 1967 State Legislature placed the authority for regulating
the management of solid waste with the Pollution Control Agency. A solid
waste management plan for Minnesota was prepared and approved by the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Prom these planning directives, state solid waste
regulations were developed and adopted by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency for control of the storage, collection, transportation
and disposal of solid waste, including agricultural wastes and
abandoned motor vehicles.
The state solid waste management program consists of a number of
goals and objectives. The following discussion outlines the objectives
and the degree of success in achieving each.
-------
79
MINNESOTA SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT REPORT
Land Disposal of Solid Waste
The State's solid waste regulations require that a sanitary
landfill be located, designed and operated in such a way that the quality
of the State's surface and underground waters are protected. Surface
waters are protected primarily by the prohibition of sanitary landfills
within specified distances of lakes, streams, flood plains and wetlands.
Groundwater protection is provided in several ways, the most important
of which is the initial hydrogeologic investigations required at any
site being considered for a sanitary landfill facility. By determining
in these investigations, the bedrock characteristics, soil types,
depth and flow direction of groundwater, the landfill may be designed
so the optimum practical groundwater protection may be provided.
Depending on site characteristics, the hydrogeological liner may be
required for a liner leachate collection system.
In addition to the general sanitary landfill operational require-
ments that serve to minimize the amount of moisture entering the fill
area, Minnesota also now requires that every permitted sanitary
landfill have an approved monitoring system designed to detect early
signs of leachate generation. jn most cases, the monitoring system
consists of a series of groundwater wells, but at sites where the
groundwater is relatively deep, in lieu of groundwater wells, pressure
vacuum lysimeters are installed directly beneath the refuse. Soil
moisture samples from the lysimeter are then periodically analyzed to
check for vertical migration of leachate toward the zone of saturation.
Prom a recent inventory of municipal sewage treatment plants, it
was determined that about 70$ of the plants dispose of xvaste sludge
by land spreading. To date, no specific permit procedure has been
-------
established to regulate the disposal of municipal sludge. Sludges from
industrial wastesrater treatment plants and other process sludges are
currently being disposed of in a variety of techniques such as
landfilling, lagooning, and land spreading. Amounts of these types of
sludges are relatively small compared to municipal sources. It Is
expected volumes will Increase significantly as more stringent v/aser
pollution control facilities are constructed.
During the past year, an inventory and analysis at the state's
solid waste land disposal facilities revealed the following information:
1. Total number of solid waste land disposal facilities
now In use 525
(400 unpermitted dumps and 125 sanitary and demolition
landfills)
2. Number where leachate generation has been observed.10
3. Number with monitoring wells ; 100
4. Number T-rith leachate collection and treatment
facilities 2
5. Number of such facilities at which leachate has
been produced, 1
6. Number of land disposal sites with state permit/license/
approval - 125
(sanitary and demolition landfills only)
7. Estimated percent of state population served by
approved sites 90*+
8. Number of state approved sites for hazardous/toxic
waste disposal 2
-------
9. Number of sites with ultimate capacity of:
Less than 150,000 tons 32
Between 150,000 and 500,0^0 tons UK
More than 500 ,000 tons 3^
The fields of solid v/aste management and land use planning are
closely related at the county and state level. A state permit for a
solid waste disposal facility is valid only if all other necessary
governmental approvals have been obtained. Therefore, even if a state
permit has been issued, the site must be properly zoned before
construction and operation of the solid waste disposal facility begins.
The state regulation prohibiting sanitary landfills within floodplain
areas are based on the defining of floodplain areas through the state/
county floodplain zoning program.
At the state level, the state solid waste regulations are
structured according to statex-flde floodplain and shoreland management
policy, the state policy on conservation of wetlands. The state's
solid waste management orogram also complies with Minnesota's policy
of designation of critical areas in the state where development is
controlled.
Agricultural Hastes
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency regulations for the Control of
Wastes from Livestock Feedlots, Poultry Lots and Other Animal Lots
were adopted on April 16, 1971, in compliance with Laws 19^9,
Chapter 1045 (codified as Minnesota Statutes, Section 116.07, Subd. 2
and 4). Because it was recognized that animal manure is a resource
to be utilized as a fertiliser and soil conditioner rather than a
waste, regulations were developed under the Solid V/aste Statutes with
the Intent of promoting utilization of the material.
-------
82
Minnesota contains approximately 106,000 confined animal facilities
(as defined by Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Regulations). It is
estimated that about 50,000 of these may need modification to lessen
pollution to surface waters of Minnesota. Over 3,000 permits have been
issued to date.
Minnesota Laws 1973* Chapter 573, authorized the Agency to adcot
rules governing the processing of animal facility permits by the
county government. On January 12, 197^, Regulations for the Processing
of Peedlot Permits by the Counties and the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency were adopted allowing the counties to process feedlot permits
in cooperation with the Agency. Twenty-four (2*!) out of 87 counties
have entered into the permit processing program thus far.
Under Minnesota Regulations, the Agency staff has developed a
program to 1) correct existing pollution problems and 2) also prevent
new animal facilities from causing a pollution problem. Existing
pollution problems are being handled on a complaint basis. The
program in Minnesota,-tfhieh requires the farmer to evaluate his
operation at times of investment, is more managed as an educational
tool which can assist the farmer in his operation and which, in the long
run, may save him money. Permits are required when the applicant is:
starting new operations
expanding existing operations
modifying operation
change ownership.
A 10!? state income tax credit is available to farmers for eligible
pollution control devices and equipment used to correct a pollution
problem.
-------
Enforcement Procedures
There exist several administrative and/or legal actions availible
by statute to the Agency by which it can provide for the continuance,
closing, and/or revocation of an Agency permitted solid waste facility.
These actions are:
1) Administrative hearing before the Minnesota Pollution Ccntrol
Agency Board t.o oitain cazjipli,an,ce ,«lth annli.c.able solid w.asJt?
regulations (order to show cause).
2) Declaration of Agency Board Emergency Powers to close facility.
3) Administrative hearing to revoke Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency facility permit.
4) Injunctive relief through the Attorney General's office in
any court of competent Jurisdiction.
5) Initiation or Agency Board administrative procedure
(stipulation agreement).
6) Issuance of an Agency Board Administrative Order.
7) Enforcement of local solid waste regulations by local units of
government (county, municipality).
While actions 2 and 3 can provide for a fairly expeditious closing
of a facility, it should be noted that a public hearing to revoke the
permit would be required in either of these actions if the permittee
would not surrender the permit voluntarily or was not ordered to do so
by the courts. In an emergency situation, a solid waste facility may
be closed or an operation suspended immediately where there is a finding
that there is imminent danger to the health and welfare of the people
of the state as a result of the pollution of the air, land, or water.
-------
During the past year, administrative and Judicial remedies avail-
able and. enforcement actions taken during the past months consiscca of
the following:
1) Judicial relief to close two (2) dumps
2) Court orders to close (stipulation) 150 dumps
3) Order to Show Cause - one (1) sanitary landfill (upgraded
operation, to conform with condition of permit).
Source Reduction
A major consideration in solid waste management is source reduction
which is one of our most Important goals in Minnesota. Section 6 of
Chapter 116P, Minnesota Statutes (Supp. 1973), which became effective
on May 25, 1973, directs the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to review
new or revised packages or containers sold at retail in Minnesota to
disposal problem or be Inconsistent with the environmental oolicles of
the state. If the Agency decides that a particular package or container
creates a problem, the Agency may, after holding public hearings, issue
an order prohibiting the sale of the package or container in the
state. The prohibition remains in effect until the last day of the
next following legislative session unless extended by action of the
legislature. Section 6 of Chapter 116? also requires that the Agency
must adopt guidelines Identifying the types of new or revised packaging
subject to its review, and this has been accomplished.
Resource Recovery
Regional planning, cooperative studies, and approaches are encouraged
and can be accomplished through legal inter-county arrangements. Minneso
Laws 1973, Chapter 7*»8 provides a $1.5 million grant-ln-aid program
(matching grants) and authorizes the Agency to establish a statewide
-------
H5
program to promote resource conservation and recycling. Immediate pro.*e<
priorities fall under four (*0 headings:
1. To design programs for the encouragement of solid materials
conservation and the reduction of environmental impact from
solid waste. In 1971, the legislature initiated a state-
funded project to reimburse counties for the inventory and
collection of abandoned motor vehicles. To date, over
75»000 abandoned motor vehicles have been moved to market
under the state subsidy program. The number of vehicles
moved to market under this program has recently decreased
due to the availability of higher prices for scrap iron.
This factor has resulted in a lessening need for
subsidization.
2. To create public education programs to point out the
importance of conserving resources and reducing waste.
3. To prepare studies which analyze potential martkets for
recycling materials and programs to encourage market
demand for these materials.
4. To promote feasibility studies including demonstration
projects for recovery systems and facilities.
Hazardous Waste Management
The State of Minnesota has adopted comprehensive legislation for
hazardous waste management. The legislation will lead to the
following regulatory agency responsibilities:
1. Metropolitan Counties
a. Prepare a county or multi-county hazardous waste
management plan. This plan must include an identifi-
-------
H6
cation of potential generators, categories and quanti-
ties' of hazardous waste, generated within the county
planning area.
b. Adopt ordinances relative to hazardous waste generation,
licenses, license fees, classification, labeling,
transportation, treatment/disposal facilities consistent
with hazardous waste rules and regulations and nodal
ordinances and guidelines proposed by the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency.
c. Review and issue hazardous waste generator licenses.
d. Review and issue licenses for hazardous waste treatment/
disposal facilities.
2, Regional Planning Agency
a. Review and approve county hazardous waste management plans.
ordinances, and license procedures.
b. Prepare a Regional Hazardous Waste Management Plan
Including the designation of the hazardous waste treatment/
disposal facilities to serve the region.
%
c. Prepare an annual Inventory of the quantities, categories,
and disposal locations of hazardous waste generated In
the region.
3. State Pollution Control Agency
a. Review and approve county and regional hazardous waste
management plans, ordinances, licensing procedures and
Inventories.
b. Develop a statewide hazardous waste management plan
detailing the location of hazardous waste treatment/
disposal facilities and temporary storage sites through-
out the state and the need for interstate transportation
-------
87
of hazardous waste. The statewide hazardous spill con-
tingency plan will also be integrated into this state
plan.
c. Promulgate statewide hazardous waste rules and regulations
including provisions for the classification, identifica-
tion, labeling, temporary storage, collection, handling,
transportation, treatment, and disposal of hazardous
waste, and develop model ordinances for use by the
counties.
d. Reviev; the hazardous, waste generator license before
Issuance by the county generator licensing agency and
exercise veto power if the license violates state
hazardous waste rules and regulations. Depending on
staff limitation, the state nay only review major
hazardous waste generator licenses.
e. Provide technical assistance to the counties, regional
planning agencies, and generators. Incorporate
training courses relating to hazardous waste
classification, labeling, handling, storage, and
transportation into the solid waste operator training
program.
f. Issue hazardous waste treatment/disposal site operating
facility permits and review and periodically check the
monitoring results supplied by the hazardous waste
treatment/disposal facilities.
g. Conduct an annual inventory of hazardous waste
quantities generated throughout the state.
-------
88
4. State-Public Service Co-.-.isslon
a. Incorporate a hazardous waste transportation licensing
systen into the existing hazardous materials transporta-
tion licensing procedures using the technical assistance
of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Federal
Department of Transportation.
b. Enforce the hazardous waste transportation license
through existing public service commission transportation
enforcement procedures.
A generation study has been completed for the metropolitan area
including the amounts and kinds of hazardous wastes generated. The
report developed waste generation data and concluded that approximately
38,000 tons of potentially hazardous waste (non-oil) and approximately
32,500 tons of waste oil are generated each year in the eight (3)
county study area.
Public Affairs
Public information programs are an on-going portion of the present
Solid Waste Management Progran. The Division's Solid Waste
Management Seminar is presented on an annual basis with various topics
and emphasis areas. An animal facilities pollution control seminar
is also presented regularly throughout the state. In addition,
regional solid waste seminars for county solid vraste officers are
presented once or titfice a year and resource recovery seminars are
periodically scheduled. The Division regularly distributes brochures
and manuals in such areas as solid waste management, sanitary landfill
operation, animal waste, and inter-governmental cooperation. Frequent
use is made of the Division's quarterly newsletter which is widely
distributed. Within the Division, opportunities are available for all
staff members to devote some portion of their time to the training
-------
89
progran, to attend meetings to educate themselves as members of the
Solid Waste Division, and to serve as speakers to civic, citizen,
and government groups. As a further goal, the Division seeks to
continually improve and do more In the public information area.
-------
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
IN
MISSISSIPPI
\ l»«»M»Lu"T eCNTON lrifMM\ ALCORN*fri'sH^t
V\ L J h jMIMC^?
I I [ V"™^ /
! I
SANITARY LANDFILLS
\\\ COUNTY-WIDE SYSTEMS
-------
91
MISSISSIPPI'S SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1974 authorizes the State
Board of Health to exercise such supervision over restrictions,
equipment, methodology, and personnel in the management of solid
waste as may be necessary to enforce sanitary requirements, and
the State Board of Health shall adopt such rules and regulations
as may be needed to specify methodology and procedures to meet the
requirements of the Act.
All proposed sanitary landfill sites must be approved by the
State Board of Health. On-site inspections are made and careful
attention is given to underlying soil and hydrogeological conditions,
cover materials, and the types of solid waste that will be placed in
the fill. Soil Scientists with the U. S. Soil Conservation Service
and Mississippi Geological Survey personnel advise the Board of Health
on each site.
Sludge from waste water treatment plants and septic tank pumpings
are disposed of in sanitary landfills. Animal waste is scattered over
fields or treated in lagoons.
There are 54 sanitary landfills in Mississippi handling approximately
52 percent of the waste generated. None of the landfills have exterior
leachate problems, but no monitoring wells have been installed to
determine groundwater contamination.
All of the above-mentioned sites are approved sites and are
suitable disposal sites for some hazardous waste materials. A
hazardous waste disposal site is presently being developed in Mississippi
and will handle most of the chemical waste generated in the northeastern
part of the state.
-------
9
o
Detail studies are made of each site to determine the suitability
of the site, the life of the site, how it will affect the surrounding
community, and the best use of the site after it is filled.
Enforcement procedures in the solid waste management program
have taken a new approach. It has been demonstrated that cooperation
can be obtained without court action. Therefore, no court action has
been taken in the past 12 months in Mississippi to bring about
compliance.
There have been no source reduction programs in Mississippi and
only small resource recovery programs, except in recycling automobiles.
Approximately 800 automobiles are recycled each day. Construction
steel is being made from most of the metal. A survey shows that an
excess of 85 percent of the interstate highway system in Mississippi
was constructed with steel recycled from junked automobiles.
The Tennessee Valley Authority is involved in planning a system
/
of resource recovery and energy recovery that will handle the waste
from 30 of the northeastern counties of the state, which represents 39
percent of waste in Mississippi.
Studies are being conducted in other parts of the state to
establish large recycling programs, but no specific plans have been
developed.
The proper management of hazardous waste is included in the
Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1974 which designates the State Board of
Health as the enforcement agency.
The Division of Solid Waste Management places land disposal sites
as the first priority and hazardous wastes as the second priority.
- 2 -
-------
93
Toxic, explosive, bioaccumulative, pathogenic, and other
such substances have been neglected for too long. Work is being
done in exploring management of residual flows to determine the
source, amount, and nature of hazardous materials. In addition,
procedures are being studied on how best to handle hazardous wastes
in a safe, environmentally-sound manner which protects the public
health. A test site is being constructed to demonstrate the feasibility
of disposing of chemical waste by landfill.
The hazardous wastes program includes work being done in the
following major areas:
1. Hazardous waste survey.
2. Defining hazardous waste.
3. Hazardous waste technology investigation.
4. Hazardous waste management (regulatory) procedures.
The entire solid waste program in Mississippi operates through an
extensive public relations program. All civic organizations, associations,
and local community groups are used to promote solid waste management
programs.
Assistance is needed from the Environmental Protection Agency in
research and technical assistance.
- 3 -
-------
94
THE MISSOURI SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
(Prepared for the November 14-15, 1974 EPA-NSWMA Conference In San Francisco)
INTRODUCTION
In accordance with state reorganization, the Missouri Solid Waste Manage-
ment Program was housed within the Department of Natural Resources,
effective July 1, 1974. The reorganization has effectively combined the
air, water, solid waste and land reclamation programs into the Division
of Environmental Quality within the Department of Natural Resources.
The address to the new department is Post Office Box 1368, Jefferson
City, Missouri 65101.
The Solid Waste Management Program operates under the provisions of the
Solid Waste Management Law enacted in 1972. The program has four basic
activities which are (1) planning and evaluation, (2) technical services,
(3) information and training, and (4) enforcement. The program has a
budgeted staff of 13, which does not include regional office personnel
of the Division of Environmental Quality which conducts the major portion
of the solid waste field activities.
The following portions of this summary report shall be outlined as suggested
in the E.P.A. request:
A. Land Disposal of Solid Waste
The Missouri Solid Waste Management Law requires the operator of a
solid waste processing facility or disposal area to obtain an operat-
ing permit from the Department. Rules and regulations for the design
and operation of sanitary landfills, demolition landfills and processing
facilities were developed and adopted in the fall of 1973. The law
and the regulations require the submission of engineering data and
plans for the design of landfills and processing facilities. The
regulations include criteria for the protection of ground and surface
waters from existing and new landfills. The Division of Environmental
Quality utilizes the services of a sister division within the Depart-
ment, the Division of Research and Technical Information (formerly
Office of State Geologist), to provide preliminary evaluation of pro-
posed landfill sites prior to development of detailed engineering
plans. This preliminary evaluation of proposed landfill sites has
been successful in eliminating most sites with undesirable hydro-
geological conditions from further consideration of exploration,
design, development and use.
-------
95
The disposal of municipal and ina strial sludges, hazardous and
toxic wastes, septic tank pumpings, and other special wastes are
permitted at a sanitary landfill only if special design idata and
consideration is provided in the engineering design plans. The
criteria used to determine whether such wastes can be accepted
include the geology and hydrology of the site, the chemical and
biological characteristics of the wastes, quantities of waste,
and the safety of personnel. A provision of the Missouri Solid
Waste Law permits the disposal of feedlot waste on land without
a permit provided a public nuisance or health hazard is not
created.
There are presently approximately 361 land disposal sites operat-
ing in the state compared to 490 in 1971. There are 52 landfills
which have engineering plans approved, and an additional 33 sets
of engineering plans have been submitted for approval. The 52
approved landfills serve approximately 60 percent of the state's
population. Only one of the approved land disposal sites has a
permit to receive most hazardous and toxic waste, however, pre-
liminary engineering plans are under consideration for several
additional sites.
Any problems with leachate from land disposal sites can be directly
contributed to improper design or poor operation. Twelve landfill
sites in the state have been known to have more than minor problems
with leachate generation. Most of the problems with leachate have
been corrected and several sites have been closed. The required
engineering design plans must give consideration to leachate
collection and treatment facilities. Twelve of the existing or
proposed land disposal sites have provisions for collection and
treatment of leachate, and eight of the sites have provisions for
monitoring wells. Monitoring wells and leachate collection and
treatment are required on an individual site basis as needed.
B. Enforcement Procedures
The State Solid Waste Management Law provides the Department with
two methods of judicial remedy - injunctive relief and a misdemeanor
charge for violation of the law or regulations. The Department has
the authority to issue orders for correction of violations of the
law or regulations. To date, court action has not been instituted
for violation of the law or any regulations. However, investigative
reports and department orders have been issued to obtain correction
of violations and closure of open dumps. Approximately 120 open
dumps have closed through voluntary action and education efforts
during the past year.
-------
es
C. Source Reduction and Resource Recovery
The Missouri Solid Waste Management Program has provided technical
assistance to regional planning commissions, counties and cities to
help them develop and implement efficient and sanitary solid waste
management systems, including resource recovery. Sixteen of the
state's 20 regional planning commissions have developed a solid
waste management plan. One regional plan provides for implementa-
tion of a regional energy recovery system within five years.
Several of the larger cities have under active study the use of
solid waste for energy recovery.
Regional solid waste authorities are not specifically provided for
in State Statutes, however, cities and counties have in at least
six areas formed a not-for-profit corporation to cooperatively
operate or contract for solid waste collection and/or disposal
services.
The State Environmental Improvement Authority has issued tax-free
bonds to partially fund the construction of a 70 million dollar
regional solid waste energy recovery system to be owned and operated
by a private utility company. Other than the State Environmental
Improvement Authority, the state has no solid waste funding avail-
able to local government or private industry. To date the Authority's
bonds are of no advantage to local government because they can issue
their own tax-free bonds.
The St. Louis City - Union Electric Company energy recovery demonstra-
tion project supported by E.P.A. is the only major resource recovery
project in the state. One city (approximately 47,000 population)
operates a separate collection system for newspapers.
Various types of beverage container legislation have been soundly
defeated by the legislature during the past three years.
D. Hazardous Waste Management
The Missouri Solid Waste Law and Regulations require that a land
disposal site must have an operating permit with specific provision
in the engineering design plans in order to legally accept and dis-
pose of hazardous and toxic waste. There are no controls on the
generation and transport of hazardous waste. The Division of
Environmental Quality does operate a "pollution spill" program
related primarily to water pollution control.
A state hazardous waste survey is scheduled for implementation
during this fiscal year as soon as qualified personnel can be
employed.
-------
97
E. Public Affairs
The Solid Waste Management Program recently completed a two year
solid waste training project funded by an E.P.A. grant. Forty-
three training courses were conducted with a total of 1697 persons
attending. The staff routinely makes solid waste presentations
before organizational groups and local government officials to
promote improvement in solid waste management. Slide presentations
and Informational materials, such as dump closing procedures, model
ordinances, model contracts for collection service, and planning
guidelines, have been developed and used throughout the state.
The training courses and technical information provided by the
state have assisted 75 cities during the past year to upgrade
their residential collection service. There are now 165 cities
in the state that have adequate solid waste ordinances and provide
collection service to all households by contract or municipal
operation.
F. Critical Areas for Federal Assistance
The following are the areas where O.S.W.M.P. could best assist solid
waste management in Missouri:
1. Public information efforts should be directed toward the
inefficiency that exists in most solid waste management
systems. This problem could be related to the energy and
economic problems our country faces. Emphasize the fact that
we have the technology to environmentally dispose of solid
waste rather than trying to scare the public with the horrors
of leachate.
2, Expand the existing technical assistance program so that
each regional office has expertise in the major areas of
collection, disposal, resource recovery and hazardous waste.
The hazardous waste research efforts need to be advanced as
rapidly as possible.
3. Any funding considerations by the federal government should
be limited to research, demonstration of new technology,
state program support and low interest loans for resource
and energy recovery projects and regional or area-wide solid
.waste management systems.
-------
98
MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Environmental Sciences Division
Solid Waste Management Bureau
Helena, Montana 59601
EPA-NSWMA CONFERENCE
San Francisco, November 14-15, 1974
MONTANA'S SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Montana has made great strides In solid waste management In recent years. The
major part of the state's population Is now served by proper landfill disposal opera-
tions; a statewide junk vehicle disposal program Is removing these unsightly relics
from the landscape, with recycling of the scrap metal; and a program Is now being
Implemented for the safe land disposal of hazardous wastes. Future endeavors should
include greater efforts In source reduction and resource recovery in the state. The
Solid Waste Management Bureau is encouraging legislation for funding a feasibility
study In the next year to determine the relative merits of various resource recovery
plans and their applicability to our state.
A. LAND DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE
Design Criteria and State Review Procedures
In 1967 the sanitary landfill program began when an initial survey was undertaken
to determine the status of solid waste practices In the state of Montana. The Montana
Legislature passed basic legislation on solid waste management In 1965. This was
amended in 1969; additional legislation enacted in 1969 (Eefuse Disposal District Laa)
made it possible for a county or counties, or a portion of one or more counties, to
work together to develop refuse disposal plans.
The Solid Waste Management Bureau provides technical assistance to responsible
officials in county and city government in the development of land disposal sites.
Training programs are provided to equipment operators and landfill supervisors. Any
new landfill must have Bureau approval of the site location before the county can
Issue a permit for its operation. Bureau approval is dependent on the results of
required analyses, Including soil analysis, depth to normal groundwater, historical
high for groundwater, groundwater quality data, path of groundwater flow, and location
of all public or private wells within 1,000 feet of the proposed site. Soils charac-
teristics Include soil composition, depth to bedrock, maximum elevation or depth of
groundwater saturation, and complete data on permeability.
Rule I6-2.I4(2)-SI4IOO, Refuse Disposal Areas, was adopted May 24, 1974. The
purpose of the rule was to set forth sanitary standards for refuse disposal apeas
and waste management. The rule sets forth waste classifications, site classifications,
specifications for waste disposal sites, site selection, operation and maintenance and
permit requirements. The wastes and sites are classified Class I, II, and Ml, with
Group I wastes being the most hazardous set by the Environmental Protection Agency,
and the Group III the most Inert and least hazardous solid wastes. A Class I site
may accept all types of wastes (I, II, or III), while a Class II can accept Group II
and III wastes, and a Class III site may accept only Group III wastes. At this time
new landfill sites are being classified according to this system. Class I designation
requires a complete In-depth soil analysis conducted by an expert (geologist, hydrolo-
gist, etc.), usually from the State Soil Conservation Service.
-------
Waste Water Treatment Plants, Animal Feedlot Waste, Septic Tank Pumpings
Current legislation, policy and program criteria that pertain to municipal
waste treatment plants, animal feedlot wastes, and septic tank pumpings are admin-
istered by the Water Quality Bureau of the State Department of Health and Environ-
mental Sciences, in cooperation with the Solid Waste Management Bureau. Many Montana
communities have lagoons, with no resultant sludge disposal problems, while others
use primary and secondary clarlfiers followed by digestion, thickening, dewatering,
heat treatment, and disposal of the dried remains In a sanitary landfill.
Animal feedlot waste is being controlled statewide under the state water pollu-
tion laws and rules. The Solid Waste Management Bureau works diligently with the
Water Quality Bureau to maintain proper disposal of these wastes.
Septic tank pumpings are a major concern In many communities. The Environmental
Services Bureau, in cooperation with the Solid Waste Management Bureau, administers
the law. Local health officers review all septfc tank pumpers' qualifications before
licensing occurs,and are responsible for enforcement of the legal requirements.
Primary disposal of septic tank waste is into sanitary sewers; if this method cannot
be used, the wastes must be dumped at designated areas for drying, or disposed of
in designated pits at approved landfill sites.
Land Disposal Facilities Summary
Since 1970 when there were only ten acceptable landfill operations in the state of
Montana, we have progressed to 65 approved operations to date. However, 64 sites still
exist which are not acceptable, due to open burning of refuse in the dump site. These
are mostly in the smaller communities.
Leachate is not a chronic problem In Montana, as It is in states where the annual
rainfall is high. We have few dump sites at this time that have water problems;
where water problems do occur, they are usually due to high groundwater rather than
to water moving down through the waste cells. We have had little need to use well
monitoring or leachate collection and treatment.
Approved Land Disposal Facilities Summary
The 65 approved landfill operations serve 77 percent of the state's population.
The 64 non-approved disposal operations point out the problems Involved in proper refuse
disposal In rural Montana. The small communities face considerable economic problems
In trying to develop individual community landfill facilities, and the great distances
between towns hinder cooperative disposal efforts.
Of the 30 most recently established landfill sites, 90 percent have received
approval letters from this office. Few of the presently operating landfills (14?) have
had soil evaluations conducted, as the rules requiring this have been in effect only
since May of this year.
Thirty solid waste disposal sites are being screened for hazardous waste disposal.
Rigid Class I requirements are maintained when selecting these sites. The sites will
be under surveillance, as well as rigid operation and maintenance practices., Even-
tually, we would like to establish one site per county for hazardous waste disposal;
however, this may be difficult in low population areas of the state.
Site Capacity Surmary
The ultimate capacities of land disposal sites can be estimated by assuming an
average refuse depth of 10 feet within landfill trenches and an average refuse density
of 1,000 pounds per cubic yard. The following Is an approximate breakdown of the
-------
100 3.
ultimate capacities of the state's landfills:
Capacity less than 150,000 tons , . 40 sites
Capacity between 150,000 and 500,000 tans . . , 20 sites
Capacity mope than 500,000 tons 5 sites
Refuse Sites and Land Use Planning
Montana does not have a statewide land use planning program at the present time.
The record of city-county planning boards In obtaining and allocating land for solid
waste disposal has not been good. The Solid Waste Management Bureau is working to
encourage planning entities within the state to Include refuse disposal as an impor-
tant factor in long-range land use planning.
B. ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES
Solid waste management Is regulated by statutes and by rules. If a waste handling
facility is violating a statute, the Information is turned over to the department
legal unit, which in turn files the necessary complaints or injunctions, if a rule
is violated, the offending party Is notified and given a reasonable period of time to
correct the deficiency. The offender then has two choices: (I) ignore the notice and
have charges filed against him in court, or (2) appeal to the State Board of Health
and Environmental Sciences for a variance from the particular rule Involved. The
Board can grant the variance or deny it, in which case the offender must either comply
or seek relief in court (same as option 1).
In the past twelve months, 39 enforcement actions have been taken, all of which
involved the statewide junk vehicle program. In each Instance, the violation Involved
a person operating a motor vehicle wrecking facility without the required state license.
C. SOURCE REDUCTION AND RESOURCE RECOVERY
A program for the recovery of scrap metal from junk vehicles is based upon the
Junk Vehicle Disposal Law, passed by the 1973 Montana Legislature. The law became
effective July I, 1973. It calls for mandatory action on the part of the county
commissioners to establish free vehicle graveyards for the citizens of the county, as
we I-1 as clean-up of junk vehicles that litter the area.
Also required by the statute are the annual licensing of all motor vehicle wrecking
facilities and the shielding of all wrecking facilities from public view. Junk ve-
hicles in non-wrecking yard locations must also be screened from public view. All of
these requirements are now being implemented. Private wrecking facilities have a
deadline of May 4, 1975 to accomplish the shielding of their facilities.
The total program under this act is making good progress. All 56 counties of the
state have established free vehicle graveyards for their citizens, and clean-up opera-
tions are in progress. A great deal of action on the part of private motor vehicle
wrecking facility operators will be necessary for the shielding requirements to be
met by the deadline date.
Regional Solid Waste Management Authorities
Under the 1969 Refuse Disposal District Law, districts can be formed by any
number of counties or a portion of a county to handle their solid waste disposal. To
date, 17 operations have been established under this authority.
-------
101
State Funding in Resource Recovery
The Junk Vehicle Disposal Program Is financed entirely by user fees collected
when a vehicle owner buys his annual license or when he applies for a title for his
car or the transfer of a title on a used car. A one dollar fee is levied on the
annual license renewal and four dollars on each title transfer. These funds are
deposited in the state general fund and earmarked for use in the Junk Vehicle Disposal
Program.
A substantial portion of these funds is returned to the county, based upon the
number of vehicles registered In the county, to enable the county to run Its program
as previously described. The funds retained by the state are used for administrative
costs and subsidizing the private car crushing firm to flatten and transport the
junk vehicles to a processing plant.
At the time this legislation was enacted, the low price of scrap metal made
the subsidy payment necessary in order to have the junk vehicles removed. Now,
with higher scrap metal prices, the car crushing firms are able to pay the state an
amount per ton, based on the distance to the processing plant. The fee schedule
comes under annual review by the Legislature, and our feeling is that the fees will
be reduced.
Pespupce Recovery Planning
The above-mentioned law on junk vehicle disposal is being implemented, as indi-
cated, on a cooperative basis.
A staff person of the Solid Waste Management Bureau, with the approval of the
Governor's Office, has initiated a collection system whereby all recyclable paper
used in state government offices is separated, stored, and sold to paper salvagers.
This operation is just getting into gear.
PiarchaBing Policies Aiding Resource Pecoveiy
The Purchasing Bureau of the State of Montana has made it possible for all state
agencies to specify recycled paper in their orders, to the extent that such paper is
available. Some agencies have requested the use of recycled paper entirely on some
orders, especially for letterhead paper, envelopes and text paper.
Source Reduction and Energy Recovery Programs
Montana presently has no program of source reduction. A bill similar to the
Oregon Bottle Bill was Introduced, but was defeated by the Montana Legislature in
1973. That bill was not promoted by the state, and was effectively opposed by
representatives of the American Brewers Association.
One Montana city has purchased a pulverizer to process its garbage before it Is
landffiled. Scrap metal is separated and recovered In this operation. They have
reported a sale of scrap metal, extracted during a three-month period, for $37,000.
Pending Legislation
Legislation is being prepared to introduce to the 1975 Legislature, which would
make state funds available to do limited but adequate studies In portions of the
state (probably on a matching basis with local communities) to determine the feasi-
bility of the recovery of raw materials and/or energy from the general solid waste
stream in the state or any area of the state.
-------
Other Groups Promoting Resource Recovery
A group known as the South Central Montana Development Federation, a federally
funded organization involving eleven Montana counties, has done a comparative study
to determine the relative costs to those counties with individual county landfill
operations, as opposed to cooperative area-wide efforts, This same organization now
has a grant application pending to finance a study of the effectiveness of the use
of organic portions of solid waste to help reclaim land that has been disrupted by
strip mining. The areas in question are in the Colstrip, Montana area.
Private enterprise recycling operations, based upon citizen initiative in
delivering recyclable items, such as bottles, newsprint, IBM cards, and steel and
aluminum cans, have been set up In seven of the larger Montana cities. We do not
have information on the volume of business which these centers have been doing.
D. HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
Existing State Hazardous Waste Legislation and Programs
At present, Montana does not have a uniform hazardous waste management act among
its statutory codes. Efforts to control hazardous materials and wastes have been
directed along the lines of safe transportation, emergency response, and disposal.
These responsibilities are divided among different state agencies or may be an inter-
agency responsibility in character. For example, the U.S. Department of Transportation
and our state counterpart, the Department of Public Service Regulation, regulate the
inter- and Intra-state transportation of hazardous materials. The Department of Health
and Environmental Sciences has for a long time been responsive to hazardous materials
problems which sporadically surface in Montana.
The Solid Waste Management Bureau leases a munitions bunker from the Glasgow
Air Force Base for the safe storage of hazardous wastes* We have an accumulative
92,000 pounds of dry pesticide chemical waste and 14,000 gallons of liquid pesticide
chemical waste stored in the bunker to date. Other hazardous wastes are accepted
upon request from citizens and local and state government agencies. Transportation
costs are generally incurred by the person requesting disposal. The collection pro-
gram is a cooperative program among the Montana Department of Fish and Game, the
Montana Department of Agriculture, and the Montana Department of Health and Environmental
Sciences.
The Solid Waste Management Bureau is currently in the process of securing a
parcel of Bureau of Land Management property to serve as a specially designated
hazardous waste disposal site for Montana. This site is located in close proximity
to the Glasgow Air Force Base hazardous waste storage facility,, The site will addi-
tionally serve as the scene for a twenty-month $150,000 Environmental Protection Agency
contract to demonstrate a statewide collection, transportation, and disposal program
for waste pesticides and spent pesticide containers. Special soil biodegradation
studies will be conducted at the site, as well as trench landfilling and chemical treat-
ment of highly persistent pesticides and other hazardous wastes. Rules adopted in
May 1974 to the Department's solid waste law provide for the classification of landfills
as to the, type of wastes they accept, based upon soils, hydrologic and geologic
criteria. The Solid Waste Management Bureau has established December 31, 1975 as
the projected date for completion of landfill classification. Under these rules,
certain hazardous waste volumes may be disposed of in Class I sanitary landfills. An
application for a permit to dispose of hazardous wastes must be made with the Solid
Waste Management Bureau, If an excess of 100 pounds or 50 gallons of active hazardous
waste ingredient are to be disposed. The waste material must be disposed of according
to the recommendations of the Department, based upon reviev. * the application.
-------
1U3
Hazardous Waste Surveys
The Solid Waste Management Bureau Is developing a statewide hazardous waste
survey to document and assess the effect of hazardous waste handling and disposal
on public health and the environment In Montana. This survey will document industries
In Montana generating hazardous wastes, the types of wastes they generate, their
amounts, and present disposal methods. From this survey will be determined the form
and extent of hazardous waste management program needs in Montana and the extent of
legislation needed to implement the program. The Bureau is planning to Initiate the
survey before the first of the year, and it Is anticipated that the survey will
continue for a period of one year.
E. PUBLIC AFFAIRS
One man is employed for public relations activities for the Solid Waste Manage-
ment Bureau. The major duties of this position Include: educational classes for
grade school through college level students, presentations to many different youth
groups, programs for service organizations and professional groups, and audio-visual
programs and news articles developed and distributed to the news media. Whenever
new legislation is being sought, a concerted effort Is made to distribute information
through many different techniques to the public; when a city or county shows an
Interest In developing a new solid waste system, the public relations employee, If
requested, goes Into the local area to help inform the public.
Technical Information activities performed by the Solid Waste Management Bureau
Include: distribution of materials such as laws, rules, educational materials, forms;
conducting training sessions; development of alternative solid waste management plans
for any city or county requesting same; and field Investigations of city and county
disposal operations, along with advice on correct operational procedures.
F. CRITICAL AREAS FOP FEVEEAl ASSISTANCE
In Montana at this time the greatest need for federal assistance is in the develop-
ment of suitable solid waste management programs for small communities, along with
funding the planning and Initial capital outlay for resource recovery systems.
-------
104
STATE OF NEBRASKA
ACTIVITIES IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
Reports to the EPA-NSWMA Conference
November 14, 15, 1974
San Francisco, California
-------
1U5
A. LAND DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE
The existing State legislation and policy requires
new land disposal sites to be approved or licensed. A
community must submit information to the Department of
Environmental Control indicating the location in regard
to the flood plain, distance to groundwater table,
distance to the nearest domestic or municipal wells,
and surface water drainage facilities. These submissions
are verified by the planning section of the Solid Waste
Division of DEC.
Regarding disposal of sludge from waste water
treatment plants, feedlot wastes, and septic tank
pumpings, it is the policy to recommend disposal on
non-food producing agricultural land. However, it is
not required by rules and regulations.
Leachate is not considered to be a major problem in
Nebraska, unless the site has been located in the flood
plain, in groundwater, or improper surface water drainage
has been provided. For the most part, Nebraska's average
rainfall is below the evaporation rate. This reduces the
leachate problem to minor proportions.
The State has approximately 350 approved and 53
licensed land disposal sites. Nine of the licensed sites
are considered sanitary landfills. Seventeen sites in
Nebraska are considered acceptable to receive hazardous
wastes.
-------
106
B. ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES
The Solid Waste Division is required by law to
attempt voluntary compliance with the rules and
regulations. If voluntary compliance fails, an
administrative hearing is held. A hearing officer,
after hearing the evidence, renders a decision. This
decision may be appealed by either the State or the
defendant. Cases may also be filed in district court.
C. SOURCE REDUCTION AND RESOURCE RECOVERY
Nebraska provides only technical assistance to
resource recovery projects.
It is the intent of the Solid Waste Division to
determine markets, buyer requirements, and provide
greater emphasis on recycling and resource recovery
during this fiscal year.
The Governor's Council on Keep Nebraska Beautiful
and Keep Omaha Beautiful are the major supporters of
recycling efforts in the State. Several communities
are sponsoring selective recycling projects.
D. HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
The Solid Waste Division has applied for and has
been given an EPA grant for a hazardous waste study.
This study is now being started and should be concluded
in fiscal year 1976.
E. PUBLIC AFFAIRS
One and two day seminars are conducted every two
months to provide information to site operators,
-------
107
managers, and public officials. Also, the surveillance
and enforcement section provides operational information
during each site inspection. Division personnel also
appear at public hearings, governmental meetings, and
other public gatherings to provide information
regarding solid waste management.
F. CRITICAL AREAS FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
Federal legislation should be directed to resource
recovery incentives, such as comparable freight rates
for recovered materials, allow the reuse of material
in original or secondary products, tax writeoffs equal
to virgin material uses, and assistance to land disposal
in the form of grants or guaranteed loans.
It would be of benefit to Nebraska if demonstration
projects would be directed to communities or areas of
20,000 population.
-------
108
STATE OF NEVADA
BUREAU OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM REPORT
A. Land Disposal of Solid Waste
1. State statutes supplemented by the regulations provide for the
responsibility and control of solid waste systems. By regulation
each proposed disposal site must meet requirements which will prevent
or minimize underground and surface water pollution. Due to the
arid climate, percolative water is negligible. High ground water
areas and areas subject to flooding are prohibited from use as dis-
posal sites.
2. Plans for the processing and disposal of sludge from municipal
wastewater treatment plants, animal feedlot wastes, and septic tank
pumpings, including the utilization thereof, are required to be
submitted and approved by the State's solid waste and water pollu-
tion programs. Such disposal plans must meet regulatory requirements
preventing water pollution.
3. Nevada has 123 land disposal facilities now in use, none of which
are known to have a leachate problem. One hazardous waste site
has monitoring wells. There are no leachate collection and
treatment facilities.
4. There are 19 land disposal sites that are considered to have State
approval. These sites serve 90% of the State's population. There
are 4 pesticide container disposal sites and 1 hazardous waste
disposal site which are State approved.
5. The ultimate capacities of the disposal sites are unknown. Site
availability is not a problem in Nevada.
6. Solid waste management is not a significant factor in the State's
land use planning efforts.
B. Enforcement Procedures
State statutes provide for fines to be levied if local entities don't
comply with regulations established to control solid waste management.
The statutes also provide injunctive relief provisions. Five citations
have been issued for open burning dumps.
-------
109
C. Source Reduction and Resource Recovery
One of the statutory policies of the State concerning solid waste is
to conserve natural resources.
1. Regional solid waste management authorities are allowed. Six are
recognized and four have completed local pilans.
2. No State funding is available for resource recovery.
3. Resource recovery planning is proceeding at both the State and
two local levels.
4. There are no State tax laws and purchasing policies that are beneficial
to resource recovery efforts.
5. Clark County and private concerns in Washoe County have established
resource recovery stations in Las Vegas and Reno. There has been
legislative bills introduced recently to require a 5 cent deposit
on beverage containers.
D. Hazardous Waste Management
1. Hazardous wastes are governed by the State's solid waste management
statutes. Hazardous wastes are included in the definition of solid
waste. The Department of Agriculture controls pesticides and the
disposal of containers.
2. A survey is presently being conducted to determine the hazardous
wastes being generated in the State.
E. Public Affairs
The Bureau provides technical information and planning assistance to
local entities in solid waste management.
F. Critical Areas for Federal Assistance
The principle problem that Nevada's rural communities have concerning
solid waste management is acquisition of equipment to collect and to
dispose of solid waste. These rural communities do not have the
population or tax base to be able to purchase such equipment. If
surplus equipment and/or grants for purchase and operation thereof
were available rural disposal problems would be solved.
(This report was prepared following the suggested state report outline).
-------
no
STATUS OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
IN NEW HAMPSHIRE - 1974
A. Land Disposal of Solid Waste
1. New Hampshire laws require every municipality to provide and maintain
a sanitary disposal facility for refuse, garbage, manure and putrescible
matter. These sites must be approved by the Division of Public Health.
The towns must provide initially a backhoe for digging test pits to obtain
the potential of the site. If the test \its prove favorable the .towns are
required to have deep test borings. The reasons for the pits and borings
is to determine seasonal high water table and depth to ledge and/or hardpan.
New Hampshire has a 61 minimum depth to ground water, 10* to ledge and 100
feet to surface waters. All of these vary with the type of soil present.
2. -There-are approximately 180 .sites now in use in New Hampshire. Only one
has a known leachate problem, but many other old—sites are believed to have
a problem with leachate. We have 3 sites with monitoring wells and more
towns are being required to install them to try to obtain information on
leachate problems. None of the sites in New Hampshire have leachate collection
and treatment facilities.
3. All but one site has a State approval. However, some of these are very
old standards and would-not meet new criteria.. These sites service approximately
60-65 percent of the states population. There are no sites approved specifically
for toxic or hazardous wastes.
4. Solid waste management is a factor in land use management and the legislative
committee assigned to studying the problem has had several discussions with the
solid waste management staff regarding this problem.
B. Enforcement Procedures
Enforcement has been minimal due to the small staff. The usual procedure
includes an on-site review, a written order is issued including what must be done
to alleviate the problem and by what time it must be accomplished. If the desired
corrections are not made, the Division of Public Health can go in and clean up the
problem and charge the offender for the costs or in some cases can take the individual
to court. The few enforcement actions taken have all been settled out of court.
C. Source Reduction and Resource Recovery
There is no state legislation at this time regarding source reduction and
resource recovery. However, legislation will be introduced in the 1975 legislative
session to bring these under the control of the Division of Public Health. Also,
at present the policy is to encourage any efforts being made in this field. It is
hoped that funding might become available in 1975 to encourage source reduction
and resource recovery. No funding is available at this time.
Several small towns have initiated recycling projects but only one is in
full operation. This is the Town of Nottingham which has mandatory source separation
of glass, paper, metal and other. The other is reduced in an incinerator and the.
residue landfilled.
-------
Ill
One group putting a lot of emphasis on recycling is the New Hampshire
Cooperative Extension Service. They provide a valuable service to the munici-
palities with questions regarding recycling to include costs, markets, and
condition of material to be shipped.
D. Hazardous Waste Management
At present no specific legislation has been adopted regarding hazardous
wastes. However, a survey is expected to be conducted in the near future in con-
junction with an industrial waste survey in an attempt to understand what the size
of the problem is in New Hampshire.
E. Public Affairs
There is no formal public affairs program as such. However, the existing -
staff has met with a number of municipal organizations and interested groups ex-
plaining the laws, rules and regulations and alternatives to the solid waste problem.
F. Critical Areas for Federal Assistance
The two most important areas where the federal program cou^d assist is
with (1) technical assistance especially in the hazardous/toxic waste field and
in general solid waste problems and (2) with funding to the state agencies to
help them improve their programs. Many of the State programs are small and a
realistic approach to solving the problem is almost impossible.
Prepared by
Thomas L. Sweeney
Bureau of Solid Waste Management
Division of Public Health Services
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
-------
112
NEW JERSEY STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
BUREAU OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
NOVEMBER N & 15, 1974
SAN FRANCISCO
DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE'
.
Ae" design' criteria for land disposal of solid waste in the State of New Jersey is
leased* upon a double standard - one standard for new facilities and one for existing
^facilities. In 1970, the Department of Environmental Protection was charged by
'.statute to. register and evaluate all solid waste facilities. Each existing landfill
was registered and requested to submit an engineering design. Because of the great
. number,. of engineering designs which came into the Department, a considerable delay
frswa4-encounter^"l.i.n-completing the processing of all engineering designs for existing
:^fa'c,;ilH1^;; • All new landfills are required to have an "impervious liner" (1 x 10-7
^cm/sec, jnaxirouTn permeability). Dikes with clay cores and/or ditches with impervious
j,l iners^are required to protect the surface waters. Leachate. collection and treatment
"systems*~are required. Monitoring wells are required at all new sites with sampling
^^Jh^grbunrfg^aiEr to be done bottHytht* landfill operator and the Department of^~
Envlronmentai;Pr¥tection. Analyses. are. made for those determinations included irr"tne"
r Potabl e Water £6jinda rds . Separate^standards both for old and new landfills are used
dependent upon^Bie type of solid anrt/gy~3'Tquid waste being disposed. The standard^.
f or chemical wastes is more stringent than that for municipal garbage which is more
stringent than that for demolition garbage*. (
At the present time, there are a total of 348 solid waste land disposal facilities
including a number of compost facilities for the disposal of leaves and tree parts.
There are.^307 sanitary landfills registered with the Department. Seventeen of these
'^presently 'have monitoring wells. An additional 78 have been identified as requiring
* landfills are known to have a leachate problem. At the present
jaf) j tary ]arKifin with a leachate collection and treatment facility.
All 348 solid waste facilities are registered
operating legally. One hundred seventy .-eight of these
igns' completely reviewed. It is estimated that 50 percent
pujiaiibn 5s served by facilities which are both registered and have
designs, „ There are 14 facilities which are registered to receive
wastes, 8 of which are land disposal sites. The balance are
proceslfrfg plants.4 Of the 348 facilities', 240 have an ultimate capacity of less than
150,000 tons. Forty-seven have an ultimate capacity of between 150,000 and 500,000
tons, and 61 facilities have an ultimate capacity of more than 500,000 tons.
Solid waste management presently is not a significant-factor in State land use planning.
Howeye ^because of the Wetlands Act and the Coastal Area Facilities Review Act (CAFRA)
.-^tetesyasala^SiBsie ffla^aj^t^bj^^T^^^^^gi^^^dfitabJfi area ~p£Jjew Jersey ,
hsnce, for future siting, solid waste management must consider ^these prohibited areas.
ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES
. -. --- .
A. Notice of Prosecution, a Departmental Order, or Registration Revocation or Suspension
are the administrative enforcement actions available to the Bureau of Solid Waste
Management. The Notice of Prosecution indicates that a violation of the Bureau's
' 9"_J1 .1 J
-------
113
regulations has occurred. The Notice of Prosecution constitutes an offer by the
Department to compromise its claim for the maximum penalties ($1,000 per day for
each violation) 'through payment of the~specified settlement-^um. The settlement
sum Ts predetermined by a Penalty and Rebate Guide found in the Administrative
Procedures of the Bureau. Should the settlement sum not be paid, the matter is
referred to the Office of the Attorney General for prosecution. A Departmental
Order also indicates that a violation of the Bureau's regulations has occurred
and orders correction of the violation within a reasonable period of time.
Revocation or suspension of registration can occur when the registrant has:
(a) violated any provision of the Solid Waste Management Act of 1970 or any rule,
regulation, or administrative order promulgated under that Act; (b) violated any
provision of any laws related to pollution of the waters, air and/or surfaces of
the State; (c) refused or failed to comply with any lawful order of the Department.
A notice of intent to revoke is issued and a hearing must be held prior to the
actual revocation or suspension of registration. In most cases, a compromise is
reached prior to the revocation or suspension.
The Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection may institute an
action or proceeding in the Superior Court for injunctive and other relief, including
the appointment of a receiver for any solid waste disposal operation, which is
established or^q^erated in violatior^f—yje Solid Waste, Management Act, or any__cp_d_e,
rule or regulation promulgated pursuant fo* the' Solid Waste Management Act. ~-"-~^
In the past yeaj^r the Bureau has issiied,_9JL Not ices of Prosecution, 48 Departmental
Orders and 22 Notices of Intents to Revoke Registration. The -Bureau has also
collected $59,295 in penalties and initiated 3 court action in the past year.
SOURCE REDUCTION AND RESOURCE RECOVERY.
Counties themselves, incinerator authorities, solid waste authorities and a number of
other regional governmental and quasi governmental agencies are allowed by law to
provide regional solutions to the solid waste problem. Thus far, two solid waste
authorities and two regional improvement authorities have been active in the solid
waste field in New Jersey. At the present time, there is no State funding available
for resource recovery, and resource recovery planning is now just beginning in the
State. There are no State tax laws or purchasing policies that may be beneficial to
resource recovery at present, but tax incentives and disincentives and changes in
purchasing policies. are now undergoing serious consideration. Most communities in
New Jersey have, either through the local government, or through the community service
organizations made "recycling centers" available to their citizens. Separate collection,
by the municipality, of certain recyclables is available in some 20 New Jersey
municipalities. The City of Long Branch, for example, pays its citizens for the
return of recyclables to the City's recycling center.
Major legislation is" now pending which would provide for regional planning and mandate
._
~
legislation providing for local recycling grants , several- bott I e b~i 1 Is" , mandatory
source separation of specific recyclables, etc. Both the legislature and the
administration are studying alternative approaches to statewide resource recovery
and major legislation is expected before the end of the year.
- 2 -
-------
114
ffi&RDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
JJ74,,,. the Department of Environmental Protection promulgated new ruTes
in'deregulations governing, amoncTother tTffrigs, the~coTTection, haulage and dis~pd~sal
zairdpus wastes. These new rules and regulations place the responsibility for
jpjjjrdpjjs wastes upon the generator or owner, the collector/hauler and the
^SjS^fability operator. It specifies a communication between all three parties
** Department of Environmental Protection as to the quantity and special handling
jf^toi assure safe transportation and disposal. The generator is responsible
nsl) the Bureau of Solid Waste Management with a list of all such waste disposed
ifji['the State, the method of handling, the carriers and the consignee. The
,»„• if.facility operator must furnish information as to the quantity and type of
^a'z|ird"pusVaste received, the method of disposal and the location where disposed or
,'sVbre"d;*which must be exact enough to permit recovery of the material if so desired. .
^Beginning"on March 15, 1975, no solid waste facility shall accept or receive for
;gispos|K,6fl or,Jn the lands of New Jersey any hazardous waste or bulk liquid' unless
-•ft^t^^s,*-^ ^s Tnstalled a facility for the interception, collection and treatment
generated at the facility. Monitoring wells are also required.
JTfie Oejpartment^h rough the use of - conferences , talks and other types of meetings
jcondjJct%_£Ute^^3f fairs and technical: Information activities. The Department,
='itTirpug|cdfs;:;^^iG Information Of fJcjejjUblishes fromjtime "to time articles of-d«terest
to those" concerned with solid waste management. All files and records of the Bureau
of Solid Waste Management are open to the public for inspection upon request. The
Bureau of Solid Waste Management's Technical Services Section meets with landfill
operators and their engineers as well as municipal government and county officials
and ^renders technical assistance through these means.
TRITICAt? AREASlFOR > E DERAL ASS I STANCE'
t ~
The following 8 activities by the Office of Solid Wa%te Management Programs would
*be very desirable for the State of New Jersey.
- ~-.» .v i,,- "•* -J&K^.^.'.- J
"*•
for the disposal facilities for chemical and hazardous
2j Develop^ireatment and processing systems for chemical and hazardous wastes.
3. Establish and develop processes for the treatment of leachate from landfills.
I
4. Establish standards for leachate to determine when it needs treatment and when
it can be discharged into streams, sewage plants or others.
ss istance f er4«acfca*e; treatment .-faci H-ti-es **-
6. Federal law requiring solid waste recycling and resource and energy recovery.
'
7. Set up funding mechanism, similar to Highway Funding, for recycling and
resource and energy recovery facilities.
.8*' ^ Establish and develop processes and standards for recycling and resource
*ind energy recovery.
- 3 -
-------
115
&
N.
-------
lib
B. ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES
As stated in Section A. the statewide regulations were adopted in April of 1974.
It will be noted in reading the regulations that July 1, 1975, is the cut off date
for compliance. Therefore, enforcement actions have not taken place in the past
twelve months, but a great deal of effort has been spent in working with the
counties and communities in New Mexico in preparing for the implementation dates.
C. SOURCE REDUCTION AND RESOURCE RECOVERY
At this time there are no resource recovery authorities in New Mexico. However,
such authorities would not be discouraged. Also at this time, there is no state
funding available for local government in this area.
However, a great deal of interest has been expressed in this area and it is
anticipated that legislate,. „;*."; uc mlroduced in the next legislative session
pertaining to this topic.
D. HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
There is presently no specific act or regulation that deals solely with hazardous
waste management. However, when reviewing State Environmental Regulations in total,
it is found that Air Pollution Regulations, Water and Liquid Waste Regulations and
Solid Waste Regulations do deal with many toxic or hazardous components. The New
Mexico Environmental Improvement Agency's Toxic Chemicals Section is prepared to
write such a regulation, if it is required by federal mandate.
E. PUBLIC AFFAIRS
The Solid Waste Section of the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Agency has
an extensive statewide Solid Waste Training Program, which devotes a great deal of
time to public education and public relations. Members of the section are actively
-------
117
working with public and private interested groups. The section provides technical
assistance upon request on a statewide basis.
F. CRITICAL AREAS FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
New Mexico has repeatedly informed EPA of the need for construction grants.
Since New Mexico is approximately 60% Federal land, it has been extremely difficult
for many of our communities and counties to fund adequate Solid Waste Management
Programs without financial assistance.
We feel that the Federal Government should continue to strongly support and
fund State Solid Waste Management Training Programs.
New Mexico would support technical assistance from EPA provided however that
assistance is competent and available when needed.
New MeAiuu aiiu auyycioi mao Lm 3'uunyi.y uuns luei the differences that exist
throughout the United States when developing Solid Waste Regulations or guidelines.
New Mexico, which is the fifth largest state in the nation, and yet only has a
population of approximately one million, certainly does not have the same solid
waste management problems as New York or New Jersey. New Mexico strongly urges
that EPA consult with Solid Waste Management personnel in our state before further
EPA hazardous waste disposal recommendations are made, which would, or could, affect
the state. It was noted in reading EPA's hazardous waste proposal to Congress, that
New Mexico was chosen as one of the locations for hazardous waste storage and treat-
ment sites. To our knowledge no one within New Mexico Environmental Improvement
Agency, and particularly the Solid Waste Management Section, had been contacted
prior to EPA's report.
-------
lid
New Mexico would oppose any EPA Regulation that would place hazardous waste
disposal sites in states primarily because a state has.a large land mass and is
sparsely populated. New Mexico, which is not a large producer of hazardous waste,
would not want to become a dump ground for other area's hazardous waste just
because of the availability of land. We would suggest to EPA that storage and
treatment facilities be located as closely as possible to the point of generation
of hazardous waste.
-------
JL.L
9
STATE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STATUS
NEW YORK STATE
November 1, 1974
PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
New York State has maintained a broad solid waste management
program effort for the past ten years. The program is oriented toward
the following objectives;
1) Achieve and maintain effective disposal of all solid
wastes.
2) Achieve and maintain efficient management of all solid
wastes.
3) Achieve optimum utilization of resources through
recovery, recycling and reuse techniques and
applicable source reduction methods.
Appraisal of the effectiveness of New York's solid waste
management program is best accomplished through evaluation of program
activities and accomplishments as related to each of the three major
objectives of the program. In such an evaluation, it should be
recognized that although substantially complete accomplishment of the
three objectives will probably be in sequential order, the activities
related to all objectives are being conducted concurrently.
FIRST GOAL - EFFECTIVE DISPOSAL
There has been significant long-term accomplishment; more than
50 percent reduction in the number of refuse disposal areas in the State
since 1964. Almost 1700 open dumps were in existence at the time that
State Sanitary Code Regulations became effective in 1963. Currently
there are approximately 800 disposal sites and 53 percent are in full
compliance with existing State regulations.
The enforcement posture of DEC has been strengthened with the
enactment of Chapter 399 of the Laws of 1973. Until this legislation
was passed, regulatory control was primarily limited to refuse disposal
areas. A new legal base is now in existence for regulatory control of
all solid waste management facilities, effective September 1, 1973. This
enabling legislation authorizes DEC to:
-------
120
Promulgate regulations governing the construction and
operation of all solid waste management facilities.
Provide technical assistance to municipalities.
Cooperate with local, state, interstate and federal
agencies to improve solid waste management practices.
Rules and regulations to administer the new Solid Waste Manage-
ment Act are now being finalized; a dual permit system will be initiated
and an operator' certification program will be established.
An innovative approach to enforcement of State regulations has
been taken through the use of Conservation Officers for making routine
inspections of refuse disposal areas. Conservation Officers have State
Police powers and the periodic appearance of uniformed officers at refuse
disposal facilities has a cathartic effect on the improvement of sub-
standard operations. Although full use of the Conservation Officers has
not yet been extended to all nine regions of the State, experience thus
far indicates that the benefits are appreciable. Coordination of Conserva-
tion Officer activities and solid waste program staff activities is of
great importance, since periodic engineering evaluation of every refuse
disposal facility is vital.
A program to register septic tank cleaners and industrial
waste collectors became operative in 1972 and approximately 800 operators
are now registered. There has been a marked reduction in unauthorized
dumping of collected wastes and more aggressive enforcement is now. being
undertaken. Use of Conservation Officers is also paying dividends in this
portion of the program.
J3ECOND GOAL - EFFICIENT MANAGEMENT
The main focus of this goal is the development of local and
regional solid waste management systems that operate efficiently and
economically,, The State program has provided substantial assistance in
overcoming planning inadequacies- of the past. Comprehensive planning
studies financed by the State since 1966 have established a framework
for local decisions and action to consolidate service facilities that can
achieve economies of scale at the same time that operations are upgraded
to a higher performance level. Since 1966, 36 counties and the City of
New York have received assistance under this program. The total cost of
these projects is $3.56 million, including $530,000 federal funds, and
coverage is 92 percent of the State's population. Comprehensive planning
studies initiated at local expense have been conducted in 14 additional
counties; nine of these counties received federal financial assistance
for the planning projects. No comprehensive planning activity has been
conducted yet in seven rural counties, but studies will be initiated soon.
Comprehensive planning projects initiated prior to 1971 focused
primarily upon the development of economical disposal systems. With recog-
nition of resource recovery as an emerging technology, the scope of
planning projects funded since 1971 has been expanded to explore the
potential of recovering resources from solid wastes generated within each
new study area. Previously completed studies are being updated to reflect
resource recovery potential <,
- 2 -
-------
121
The effectiveness of any planning assistance program must be
measured in terms of implementation. It should be recognized, however,
that implementation is fostered by an effective environment program, by
financial assistance to help meet the cost of improvements, and by
developing an atmosphere of support in the public and local government
sectors. These three elements were somewhat limited until 1973. Despite
these limitations there has been noticeable progress. At the beginning
of this year 71 multi-municipal disposal facilities were operating in the
State, serving 392 municipalities (26 percent of all cities, towns and
villages in the State). Projects being actively pursued now in 18 areas
of the State include more than 400 additional municipalities. When these
new facilities become operational, 53 percent of the municipalities will
be served by intergovernmental systems.
An essential element in the establishment of efficient manage-
ment systems is the development of operator skills so that facilities
can function at satisfactory performance levels<, Solid waste training
activities have been conducted in New York State since 1964, but the
level of activities increased considerably in 1969. The award of a
training grant from OSWMP in 1971 allowed even more expanded coverage.
During the last year, 12 training courses were presented and 456 operators
and local officials became better equipped with the technical background
necessary for proper utilization of equipment and facilities. Training
activities during the past two years have covered sanitary landfill design
and operation, incineration and resource recovery.
THIRD GOAL - OPTIMUM UTILIZATION OF RESOURCES
The emphasis of this goal is on the recovery and reuse of
resources now wasted and the reduction of quantities of wastes generated.
Until 1972, activities had been limited primarily to the promotion of
resource recovery practices and the evaluation of new technology. Two
factors have had significant impact on stimulating substantial progress
toward this objective: staff expansion to focus solely on resource
recovery and implementation of New York's Environmental Quality Bond Act.
The Bureau of Solid Waste Management has been reorganized into
a new Division of Solid Waste Management. The Division now consists of
two bureaus: The Bureau of Facility Design and Operation, and the Bureau
of Resource Recovery. Most of the previous functions of the solid waste
program are carried out by the Bureau of Facility Design and Operation.
The new Bureau of Resource Recovery consists of two sections. The first
of these, the Resource Recovery Technology Section has the following
functional responsibilities:
1) Evaluation of systems and equipment for recovery of
resources from solid waste.
2) Monitor performance of demonstration systems.
3) Technical assistance to local government in facility
selection or operation,,
4) Administration of construction grant program authorized
by the Environmental Quality Bond Act of 1972„
- 3 -
-------
122
5) Review and approval of plans for new or modified
facilities.
Recognizing the importance of economics and markets for
recovered or converted resources, a Market Analysis and Development
Section has also been established. This new unit has the following
functional responsibilities:
1) Conduct studies to determine market potentials for
recovered or converted resources.
2) Promote and develop new markets for recovered resources.
3) Coordinate resource recovery efforts with industry.
4) Monitor existing resource recovery practices.
5) Evaluate and propose incentives & legislation to
enhance recovery of resources.
6) Promote resource recovery and recycling practices in
governmental agencies.
In 1972, the New York State Legislature authorized a $1<,15
billion bond issue for environmental improvements in the State. The
Bond Act provides $175 million for solid waste management projects.
Construction grants are authorized to be made to municipal corporations"
for up to 50 percent of the cost of resource recovery projects and up
to 25 percent of the cost of equipment for disposal projects. The Bond
Act received widespread public support and was favored in a statewide
referendum by a margin of greater than two to one.
The Legislature has allocated $3,500,000 of the $175 million
for solid waste disposal projects, of which approximately $1.8 million
has already been spent. These monies are serving as a catalyst to
foster regionalization of solid waste management programs. This is
resulting in the elimination of many substandard and inefficient
disposal areas and in the creation of larger, consolidated disposal
facilities which can be incorporated into resource recovery systems
.in the future.
The major thrust of the solid waste management portion of
the Environmental Quality Bond Act, however, is directed toward the
establishment of operative resource recovery facilities. Funds totaling
$107,688,000 have already been appropriated by the State Legislature to
implement 17 municipal resource recovery projects. With these funds
the State is helping the municipalities to achieve a smooth conversion
to a new technological and institutional approach to solid waste manage-
ment.
One area where the Division of Solid Waste Management has
made progress during the past two years is the return of completed
disposal areas to productive use. The Division's landscape architect
worked with 31 municipalities to develop ultimate use plans for completed
disposal sites. This'is an important activity since most of the 800
- 4 -
-------
123
existing refuse disposal areas were initiated with little consideration
for site use after termination of disposal operations. Several hundred
sites phased out during the past several years are currently unused,
serving only to remind the public of past inadequacies„ Elimination
of these scars on the landscape will not only restore unused areas
to productive municipal use, but will begin to place emphasis upon the
positive aspects of environmentally sound disposal practices.
WGW/kah/10.1.74
-------
Pog*6S
124
NYS Environment
October!. 1974
Solid Waste Management
Projects Summary
LOCATION
c— at)
V — Vill*(r
T — Town
Albany County
Albany (C)
AUegany County
Broome County
Cattaragus County
Chautauqua County
Chemung County
Chenango County
Clinton County
Columbia County
Cortland County
Delaware County
Dutchess County
Poughkeepsie Area
Erie County
Kssex County
North Elba IT), Saranac Lake (V),
(Also serving Franklin County)
Franklin County
Fulton County
Genesee County
Greene County
Hamilton County
Herkimer County
Little Falls (C)
Webb IT)
Jefferson County
Lewis County
Livingston County
Madison County
Monroe County
Montgomery County
Nassau County
Hempstead (T)
North Hempstead (Ti
Oyster Bay (Ti
Garden City (V)
Niagara County
Oneida County
Southwest Oneida SWD
Onondaga County
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOND ACT
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND DISPOSAL IMPROVEMENT
COMPREHENSIVE
PLANNING c. „
STATUS rrojrrt.ll) llon.-ye.rl
Update Completed
Completed - 1973
Completed - 1967
Completed - 1969
Update - underway
Completed - 1971
Completed - 1970
Completed - 1971
None
Completed - 1974
Update - underway
Completed - 1974
Completed - 1972
Completed - 1972
None
, Completed - 1974
Completed - 1971
Completed - 1974
None
• None
Completed - 196!)
Completed - 1972
Completed - 1974
Completed - 1974
Completed - 1971
Updated - 1973
Completed - 1971
Completed - 1971
Completed - 1972
Update - underway
Completed'- 1971
1974
Regional Resource Recovery System -
material recovery and fuel preparation
County-wide Management System
County-wide Management System
Regional Management System -
ferrous metal recovery
County-wide Management System -
ferrous metal recovery and fuel preparation
County-wide Management System -
ferrous metal recovery *
County-wide Management System -
with materials recovery
County-wide Management System -
ferrous metal recovery
County-wide Management System
Regional Management System -
fuel gas recovery
Regional Management System
Regional Management System
Disposal System
County-wide Management System
County-wide Management System -
materials recovery and fuel preparation
County-wide management System
Regional Management System -
materials and energy recovery
Regional Management Svstem -
ferrous metals recover* '
Regional Management Svstem -
ferrous metals recovers "and leaf composting
Leaf Composting Program
County-wide Management System
Regional Management System
Regional Management System •
ferrous metals recovery
180.000
42,000
87,500
60,000
52,000
180,000
202.0011
90,000
45,000
42,000
40,000
150,000
7,700
11,000
6,000
45,270
600.000
45,000
600,000
150,000
260,000
90,000
234.000
3,000
114,400
30,000
360.000
182.001)
IRR)
ID)
(D)
(RRl
ID)
(RR)
(D)
(RR)
(RR)
(RRl
(D)
IRR)
(D)
(Dl
(D)
(D)
(RR)
(D)
(RR)
(RR)
(Di
(RR)
(Di
ID)
(D)
(D)
(RR)
Suit Aid
Share
t 2.942.000
117,125
76,000
450.000
14,250
4,670,000
80,750
2,000,000
150,000
270.000
126,250
4,772,000
15,500
4,250
17,250
117,000
9,000,000
67.857
15,000.001)
4,000.000
158.200
875.000
491,000
16.0011
257,500
25.815
2.060.000
1,108.111
(RR)
(D)
(RR)
(Di
(RR)
(D)
(RR)
(RR)
(RR)
(D)
(RR)
(D)
(D)
(D)
ID)
(RR)
(D)
(RRl
(RRl
(D)
(RRl
(D)
(Dl
(Dl
(D)
iRR)
(Di
tit Wjw* itlhir rittnmnatlin in .VcM- Yurk Slutr hut f pMnfil lofrtbrr in mii/li-
mirniVl/'l/ i\*trttii. MI » rvvitt of rtvnmmentliitioni from cvmprrhrnwe
idjn/tuta */ii«/«'*. 77i«
-------
S
LOCATION
T — T.'mT
Ontario County
Orange County
Orleans County
Oswogo Counly
(Hsego County
Richfield (T>
Putnam County
Renssela«r County
Troy (C)
dockland County
St. Lawrence County
Saratoga County
Schenectady County
Niskayuna (Ti
Schohane Countv
Cobleskill (T)
Schuyler County
Seneca County
Steuben County
Bath (Ti
Suffolk County
Brookhaven •
Sullivan County
Tioga County
Tompkins County
Ulster County
Wawarsing IT)
\\arren t ounlv
Washington County
Granville (Vi
Wayne Countv
Arcadia (T)
Galen IT)
Williamson 'T)
Westchester County
Mount Vemon (Ci
Wyoming Count>
Yates County
New York CH.V •
COMPRKHENSIVE
PLAYM.VG
STATUS
Completed - 1974
Completed - 1971
Completed - 1974
Completed - 1971
Underway
Completed - 1966
Update Completed - 1974
Completed - 1973
Completed - 1974
Update Completed - 1974
Update Completed - 197-1
None
None
Completed - 1974
Completed - 1973
Completed • 1969
(T's)
Completed - 1974
None
Update - underway
Completed - 1970
Completed - 1971
( omplvled - 1971
Update Completed - 1974
Update Completed - 1974
Study Proposed
Completed - 1974
Carl 1 - Completed - 1969
Part II - Completed • 1972
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOND ACT
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND DISPOSAL IMPROVEMENT
Project. HI
County-wide Management System
County-wide Management System
County-wide Management System
Regional Management System
Disposal System
Disposal System
Regional Management System
Disposal System
Regional Management System
Regional Management System
Regional Management System
energy recovery
Interim Disposal System
Regional Management System
Regional Management System
materials recovery
Regional Management System
County-wide Management System
Disposal System
Disposal System
Disposal System
Regional Management System
Disposal System
County-wide Management System
materials and energy recoverv
Fuel Gas Recovery
Count >\ude Management System
Metals Recovery and Fuel
Preparation • 2 projects
Capacity
Mom-year)
32,400
78,000
88,000
3,500
48.880
50,000
4,000
7,800
312,000
26,300
900,000
250,000
20,000
120,000
30,000
60,000
40,000
18,000
5,000
16,000
7,0011
44,000
1.040,000
75,000
20.000
1.800,000
(D)
(D)
(D)
(D)
(D)
(D)
(Di
(D)
(D>
(Dl
(RR)
(D)
(Dl
(RR)
(D)
(D)
(D)
(D)
(D)
(D)
ID)
(D)
IRR)
IRR)
(Dl
(RRI
Suit Aid
Sharr
22.390
134,000
194,750
9,869
45,500
38,750
10,000
10,557
316,000
30,300
30,500,000
72,000
22,500
1,999,000
31,300
23,700
14,929
17.900
7,625
27,050
13,01)0
14,750
6,000,000
. 2.000,000
22,613
21,000,000
(D)
(D)
(D)
(D)
ID)
(D)
(D)
(D)
(D)
ID)
(RR)
(D)
(D)
(RR)
(D)
(D)
(D)
ID)
(D)
(D)
(D)
(D)
(RR)
(RRi
(D)
(RR)
lil,inniti
mi
nmiinilni in Vn- York SlMlf hat r piinni Inprlhrr in mitlti-
'""i." ", """''' "/ "rommrarfiiliMn fram ramprrhmire
>. naif li-li'il nrfimh a />«rnW living ivflfriiag H/inlii-ttiuiu
mat ti unttrr tltr r.ni'irtminfntal Ditjtli/t HrmA Jj~i
....", iiM.ii ,ir i>nii * ituniti I .., „ „,
>lit ti under ttii' r.nrir
-------
126
North Carolina Solid Waste Management Program
As Described by Suggested Format
A. Land Disposal of Solid Waste
1. Each site proposed for a sanitary landfill operation is visited and
given a preliminary above ground check for pros and cons of a probable
operation. This preliminary investigation is performed by field per-
sonnel who are the same personnel who will be inspecting the operations
on that site upon implementation- North Carolina presently has seven
of these persons working on a regional basis.
Where sites are proposed on marginal or questionable land, these sites
are turned down without further investigation. Sites receiving a
favorable preliminary review are required to provide aerial photos or
maps showing the topography and land use of the site surroundings for
at least one-fourth mile. Soil types and the presence of water and/or
rock are required to be identified in the zone ten feet below the pro-
posed excavations and at the site's lowest elevation. The location of
the borings or probes for representative samples is determined and
agreed upon at the time of the preliminary investigation. Upon receipt
of the subsurface information provided by the borings, a determination
of a suitable separation distance between solid waste deposits and the
site's ground water table is made. Thus separation is the primary mode
of ground water protection. Also during the review process, site infor-
mation is forwarded to the Department of Natural and Economic Resources'
Ground Water and Surface Water Quality Divisions for comments.
The operational plans for new sanitary landfill sites are required to
show proposed fill heights, finished and intermediate contours, access
road location and resulting surface water drainage patterns. Locating
landfills in flood plains is prohibited. Pushing waste into drainage-
ways is prohibited and this requirement is usually satisfied by a
combination of buffer zone and landfill diking. Diking material, most
always earth, provides added protection to the streams and a suitable
medium for establishing landfill vegetation for erosion control.
2. The processing and disposal of municipal sludges are not a part of
North Carolina's Solid Waste Program. On isolated occasions sludges
from drying beds have been permitted on completed landfill areas as
a soil conditioner. The rate of application was commensurate with
natural fertilizer requirements for vegetative growth. Sludges and
slurries are prohibited on approved sanitary landfill sites and their
disposition is the responsibility of the N. C. Department of Natural
and Economic Resources.
3. North Carolina now has 169 solid waste land disposal facilities in use.
Broken down categorically, there are 98 approved sites under county
jurisdiction; 38 approved sites under municipal jurisdiction; 11 ap-
proved sites for individual industries, usually on their own property;
and 22 sites operating under county or municipal jurisdiction and in
the process of updating plans and procedures for compliance.
-------
127
Leachate is not a recurring problem at these sites. Leachate control
is one of the violations checked during the site inspection and cor-
rective steps are required immediately when found to be a problem. Seven
sites have monitoring wells. There are no land disposal sites in North
Carolina with leachate collection and treatment facilities.
4. One hundred thirty-six sites are approved to receive conventional solid
waste. Eleven individual sites are approved to receive industrial
solid waste. There are no approved sites for hazardous/toxic waste
disposal.
5. Ultimate capacity:
Less than 150,000 tons: 79
Between 150,000 and 500,000 tons: 44
More than 500,000 tons: 13
Acreage of 22 sites in upgrading status not available for above compu-
tation.
6. Solid Waste Management is usually included in overall land use planning
meetings and documents, but is not a significant factor due to its
adaptability to existing land classifications and zoning requirements.
B. Enforcement procedures
The enforcement of the Division of Health Services "Rules and Regulations
Providing Standards for Solid Waste Disposal" is carried out by personnel
of the Solid Waste & Vector Control Branch of the Division of Health Ser-
vices, Department of Human Resources.
All approved solid waste disposal sites are inspected at least quarterly.
An inspection sheet designed after the requirements of Section XI, Opera-
tional Requirements for a Sanitary Landfill, Division of Health Services
"Rules and Regulations Providing Standards for Solid Waste Disposal" is
used. A copy of each inspection report is provided the operational agency
and violations are recorded on a visible file card system in the central
office in Raleigh. If a site continues to violate the same items, a
meeting is held with the operational agency to seek compliance. If com-
pliance cannot be secured, then after due notice the records are placed
with the Attorney General's office for appropriate action. The General
Statutes of North Carolina provide a fine or an injunction for relief.
During the past 12 months, the records on five different sites have been
turned over to the Attorney General and after conferences with the opera-
tional agency, the Attorney General and this office, compliance was secured
in all but one site and action is now pending in the courts on that site.
C. Source Reduction and Resource Recovery
1. Resource Recovery is being studied and investigated by a Resource Re-
covery Study Commission. The Commission consists of persons appointed
-------
128
by the N« C. General Assembly and interested in Resource Recovery poten-
tial in North Carolina. This Commission is to report its findings
at the next session of the General Assembly convening in February 1975.
5. Source reduction on the local level has been primarily on a voluntary
basis involving both private and public sectors, but without overall
guidance from any state agency.
Promotion of Resource Recovery by any one group has been limited. The
N. C. League of Women Voters has probably had more visible promotion
of Resource Recovery than any other group.
D. Hazardous Waste Management
1. State legislation for the control of hazardous, toxic, industrial and/or
chemical waste does not exist. The solid waste program has been re-
quested on occasion to evaluate borderline hazardous waste for possible
inclusion into conventional landfills. This area needs study and a
request for assistance in surveying and evaluating the overall hazardous
waste problem is being made to E.P.A.
2. A survey of suspected generators of hazardous waste was made in Mecklen-
burg County. While a number of the industries involved are making an
honest effort to control their waste stream in an acceptable manner,
there are some sludge problems that do not have a solution at this
time. On-site storage is limited and assistance is needed on these
problems.
E. Public Affairs
In the period from early 1970 through July 1974, many meetings were
held with County Commissioners since the North Carolina Program en-
couraged County involvement for more economical disposal systems.
Prior to enactment of legislation and the passing of solid waste
regulations, there were 479 land disposal sites which were mostly
dumps. This number has been reduced to the above referenced number
of operating sites. Assistance was sought and was provided by the
N. C. League of Municipalities, the N. C. Association of County Com-
missioners, local Health Departments, local government, the private
sector, and N. C. residents. Efforts to keep these groups informed
of progress being made was realized through educational and informa-
tive meetings held across the State during the implementing period.
The North Carolina Solid Waste Management Plan has been recently
published. This plan presents the problems of solid waste management
as they existed in 1967 and 1968 when the State solid waste survey
was made. It outlines the progress made through June 1973. It also
gives the objectives and operating plan for the Solid Waste Manage-
ment Program through fiscal year 1977-78.
F. As referenced above, assistance is needed and is being sought in the area
of hazardous solid waste management. Sludges, being created by on-site
waste water treatment systems at industrial locations are not suitable
for conventional landfilling. Being limited in staff and lack of tech-
-------
nical knowledge of potential problems concerning disposal of these materials
have hampered any concerted efforts to attack and to seek solutions of this
growing problem. As mentioned earlier, on-site storage is limited and it
is suspected that disposal of some of these materials is carried out in a
less than acceptable manner.
November, 1974
-------
130
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
SOLID WASTE STATUS REPORT
The North Dakota State Department of Health was designated as the
State agency responsible for solid waste activities by the Governor of
North Dakota, January 24, 1966. The Department had been active in
solid waste management for many years prior to this official designation..
A study of ways to improve disposal of solid wastes was conceived
in 1947 and resulted in a successful project in 1949 showing that sanitary
landfilling could be feasible in northern climatical conditions. The project
was the result of cooperation between the North Dakota Water and Sewage Works
Conference, the United States Public Health Service, the Federal Security
Agency, and the North Dakota State Department of Health. A report, titled
"The Sanitary Landfill in Northern States," was published. Since that time
solid waste management in the State has improved.
The Solid Waste Management Regulations of the State of North
Dakota, were approved by the Attorney General, February 17, 1970, and adopted
by the North Dakota State Health Council on May 7, 1970, established minimum
standards for solid waste storage, collection and disposal. The Air Pollution
Control Regulations of the State of North Dakota, were approved by the Attorney
General, May 1, 1970, and by the North Dakota State Health Council, May 7, 1970.
The effective date of air pollution regulations was July 1, 1970, and basically,
prohibits the open burning of refuse. The 42nd Legislative Assembly for the State
of North Dakota, passed Senate Bill #2398 which has been effective since 1971.
This bill enables the Boards of County Commissioners to establish a fee system
or special assessment method for repayment for services rendered.
The North Dakota Solid Waste Management Plan was completed by the
Department in July of 1971, and was approved by Governor William L. Guy in
October of 1971. This plan is being implemented.
The North Dakota State Department of Health has prepared enabling
legislation with specific solid waste authorization for the consideration
of 44th Legislative Assembly of the State of North Dakota which will convene
in January of 1975. This legislation has been modeled after the Council of
State Governments recommended form.
According to the 1970 Federal Census, there were 617,761 residents
of the State of North Dakota. The State has an area of 70,665 square miles
and averages 210 miles north to south and approximately 350 miles east to west.
North Dakota is basically an agricultural state ranking high in the production
of hard spring wheat, durum wheat, flax, barley, and rye. The local service
industries consist mainly of providing goods and services to farmers, ranchers
and residents of the State. Potatoes and sugar beets are a major crop in the
eastern portion of the State. The western portion of the State is utilized
primarily for grazing land by the livestock industry. There are 359 incorporated
communities in the State of North Dakota with only eight communities having
a population over 10,000.
-------
131
The climatological conditions during the winter months cause extreme
problems in conducting sanitary landfill operations. It is not uncommon to
have temperatures of 40 degrees below zero farenheidt. The average number
of days with zero or below is 53. Understandably, this causes extreme
difficulty in maintaining a workable stockpile of material. Various methods
have been tried to maintain a stockpile, but success has been very limited.
Precipitation is not normally a significant problem as total precipitation
varies from approximately 15 inches in the southwest corner to approximately
19 inches in the northeasterly corner.
Communities with a population under 10,000 people appear to be
p ''inp a somewhat higher cost for solid waste collection and disposal in
t, * State of North Dakota. The Department has encouraged cooperation between
communities and between counties and communities to establish area-wide
or county-wide solid waste management systems to establish a broader
population base. County-wide or area-wide systems which collect the refuse
and haul it to an already established landfill site appear to be the most
feasible. This type of system precludes the need for establishment of
a new disposal site as well as the purchasing of additional equipment and
related operation and maintenance costs. The major hurdle to overcome is
to obtain cooperation between communities to help each other resolve a common
problem.
Many of the local and State-elected officials in North Dakota do not
believe that solid wastes are a major problem. These people will have to be
informed of the magnitude of the situation and shown proper methods for
resolving the problem. The vast majority of the smaller communities are
hard-pressed to raise the necessary finances to conduct a proper sanitary
landfill. Therefore, progress at the smaller community level will be very
minimal until adequate funding sources can be located or until these communities
can dispose of their wastes in a county or area landfill. The Department is
planning an educational program to inform citizen groups, elected officials
of cities and counties of the need for adequate solid waste management. The
Environmental Protection Agency has provided a planning grant to the Depart-
ment in the amount of $33,000 for this program. At this time, the primary
emphasis will be on audio-visual slide presentation.
A. LAND DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE
a. At the present time, there is no State Legislation or regulations
governing design criteria and State review procedures to control surface and
ground water contamination from sanitary landfills. This Department is encour-
aging all communities to submit the legal description of the property proposed
as a sanitary landfill to this Department. This Department then contacts the
North Dakota Geological Survey and requests their evaluation of the potential
problems should a landfill be installed at this site. Their review is primarily
based upon the geological records which they have. Contingent upon the avail-
ability of personnel, equipment, and time, the North Dakota Geological Survey
will test drill proposed sites where additional information is required. This
Department may inspect the site after the geological survey evaluation has been
received and reviewed by this Department.
-------
132
b. The waste stablization pond treatment system is used by practically
all of North Dakota's communites for wastewater treatment. Only two communites
are involved with sludge disposal from municipal wastewater treatment plants.
The larger community utilizes the sludge for fill purposes on the disposal site,
for fertilizer, and can be available to farmers if they haul the sludge themselves.
Occasionally, there will be an excess and this is hauled to the community's
landfill. The smaller community is hauling all of the sludge to the landfill.
The regulations for the control of pollution from certain livestock enterprises
require that animal wastes from such facilities be disposed of on the land in
an acceptable manner. The septic tank regulations require that the pumpings
not be disposed of on the surface of the ground within 1,000 feet of any residence
or public road, not in an area which could endanger the purity of surface or
ground water, not in an area where domestic livestock .would have contact, not
be placed upon gardens growing vegetables to be used for human consumption, or
on fields used for pasturing of livestock, and shall not be discharged into a
municipal sewer system unless such permission has been obtained from proper
City Officials. The septic tank pumpings may be disposed of by spreading on
the land or by burying in such places and in such a manner that will not violate
any of the above conditions.
c. At the present time, there are approximately 360 Solid Waste Disposal
Facilities in use. Monitoring wells have been installed at one site as part
of an evaluation study. There are no known sites where leachate is a proven
problem and therefore, no leachate collection and treatment facilities.
d. The North Dakota Solid Waste Management Regulations have been
promulgated under the broad powers of the North Dakota State Department of
Health and no permit or license is currently required. It is estimated that
61% of the State population is served by adequate Solid Waste Disposal facilities.
There are no State approved sites for hazardous or toxic waste disposal.
e. This Department estimates that there are 334 sites with an ultimate
capacity of less than 150,000 tons. Further, there are 17 sites with a
capacity between 150,000 and 500,000 tons, and 9 sites with a capacity in
excess of 500,000 tons.
f. At this point in time, solid waste management has not been a sign-
ificant factor in Land Use Planning in North Dakota.
B. ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES
The North Dakota State Department of Health follows the State's
Administrative Practices Act with regard to enforcement procedures. The
Department conducts inspections of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities. Should
an inspection reveal a continued uncorrected violation of the regulations,
the Department would issue a Notice of Violation to the operator of the facility.
This Notice of Violation would require the operator to inform the Department
of what corrective actions they have taken since the inspection/or plan to
take to comply with the regulations. This information is to be submitted in
writing and to be received by the Department within the prescribed number of
-------
133
days. Should the operator fail to respond, the Department will call an
administrative hearing as prescribed. The hearing officer shall then prepare
a statement of findings and corrective order. Should the operator fail to
comply with the Department's order, the hearing officer shall present all the
required information to the District Court having jurisdiction for remedy in
the matter. During the past 12 months, this Department has had one enforcement
action which proceeded to the point of the Department's administrative hearing
before satisfactory remedies were made.
C. SOURCE REDUCTION AND RESOURCE RECOVERY
The current State legislation regarding resource recovery is very
limited. The 43rd Legislative Assembly for the State of North Dakota, passed
House Bill #1254, commonly referred to as the Abandoned Motor Vehicle Act.
This bill became effective July 1, 1973, and provides a definition of an
abandoned motor vehicle, prescribes the method for removing such vehicle from
the landscape, prescribes the methods to be used for contacting the owner, sets
forth the procedures to be followed for holding a public sale, and enabling
the North Dakota State Department of Health to reimburse the units of government
for expenses so incurred. The units of government may only be reimbursed if the
contract is approved by the State Department of Health. Funds for the expenses
incurred are to be accumulated by a $3.00 one-time fee on the initial regis-
tration of a motor vehicle in the State of North Dakota.
The abandoned automobiles are collected, crushed, and ultimately
transported to a recycling center. At the present time, approximately half of
the counties in North Dakota are participating in some phase of this program.
There is no other legislation related to resource recovery and/or recycling.
There are no State Funds available for resource recovery operations. However,
a new industry, such as a resource recovery operation, might be eligible for
certain tax benefits available to all new industries to promote industrial
growth of the State. There are no State purchasing policies which might be
beneficial to resource recovery programs. It is anticipated that a reuseable
beverage container law will be considered by the forthcoming session of the
Legislature. Several citizens groups and non-profit organizations have been
involved in the study of resource recovery for their communities. Generally,
the markets for recyclable materials are considerable distances from the
communities interested in these projects and transportation and labor costs are
difficult to overcome.
D. HAZARDOUS HASTE MANAGEMENT
There is no specific hazardous waste management legislation in the
State of North Dakota. Several agencies have limited responsibilities and have
promulgated regulations covering these areas. The State Laboratories Department
requires that all herbicides and pesticides which are to be used in the State
must be registered. The Department of Agriculture has regulations covering the
use of herbicides and pesticides. In addition, the application of pesticides in
an airborne manner where drift could be possible is regulated as part of the
air pollution control regulations of the North Dakota State Department of Health.
-------
134
A survey is being planned to identify the hazardous wastes which may
be used, handled, or transported through the State. This survey will be part
of the fiscal year 1975 Planning Grant. It is anticipated that quantitative
information will be gathered in future years depending upon the availability
of personnel and funds to conduct such a survey.
E. PUBLIC AFFAIRS
The personnel from this Department actively pursue a public information
program to inform the public and interested groups as to the Solid Waste Management
in North Dakota. Personnel from the Department attend the annual North Dakota
League of Cities meeting and when requested present information at this meeting
or any of the six regional meetings held throughout the State. The County
Commissioners Meetings are also attended by staff personnel and when requested
bring the Commissioners up to date regarding solid wastes. Homemaker's Groups,
League of Women Voters, and the Isaac Walton League frequently call on this
Department for speakers. Technical information and progress reports are often
published in the Official Bulletin, the publication of the North Dakota Water
and Pollution Control Conference. The participation by the Department in public
affairs by the Department is somewhat limited due to the lack of personnel and
adequate funding.
F. CRITICAL AREAS FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
The three most critical needs in the State of North Dakota where the
Office of Solid Waste Management could assist are:
1. Funding for State Program Grants.
2. Training of solid waste operators and education of elected officials.
3. Updating and publishing of technical information and current
practices in the State of the art for proper disposal.
-------
135
OHIO'S SOLID WASTE PROGRAM
LAND DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE
Ohio's basic solid waste authority comes from Section 3734 of the Ohio
Revised Code. This law and the regulations adopted thereunder require
the .Ohio EPA to approve the site and plans for all new sanitary landfills.
Sites are restricted to those which minimize the potential for health
and environmental problems, especially with regard to possible contam-
ination of ground-or surface-water.
All potential sites are investigated by staff engineers and geologists,
and occasionally by soils scientists of the Soil Conservation Service.
Geologic, soils, and topographic maps are used in the investigations,
as well as well logs from the vicinity of the proposed site. However,
borings are not made by this agency. If there is some question about
soils or geology that requires borings, the applicant must take that
responsibility.
Sites which might require extensive or exotic preparations or perpetual
maintenance to prevent water contamination are generally disapproved.
Limestone quarries and gravel pits are generally unacceptable, as are
flood plains. In areas less susceptible to ground or surface water
pollution, natural (clay) liners may be installed if proper construction
details are shown on plans. Plastic liners are not used.
Detailed plans for the preparation, development, and completion, along
with data on types and quantities of wastes received, fire protection,
equipment, etc., are required and are carefully reviewed by staff
engineers before any permits are issued.
There are now 258 licensed land disposal facilities in Ohio. This
number includes those "grandfather" sites which are licensed, but which
did not undergo the site and plan approval process. Of these sites
leachate is known to pose a problem at 77. Leachate collection and
treatment facilities have been installed at 2 sites. There are approx-
imately 12 unlicensed land disposal sites actively being operated.
About 91% of the state's population is served by licensed landfills.
Another 7% is served by incinerators. The remaining 2% is served by
unapproved sites.
Some "grandfather" sites accept small quantities of toxic or hazardous
wastes. Of those sites with approved plans, none are permitted to
accept toxic or hazardous wastes although some undoubtedly do. There
are no sites exclusively designated for toxic or hazardous wastes.
Land disposal facilities range in size from 1 ton/wk. to over 2,000 tons
per day. Approximately 151 have an ultimate remaining capacity less than
150,000 tons. Sixty-three have an ultimate remaining capacity between
150,000 and 500,000 tons. Forty-four have an ultimate remaining capacity
over 500,000 tons.
-------
136
ENFORCEMENT
Enforcement of the solid waste law primarily is the responsibility of
the local health departments. Local prosecutors or the state's Attorney
General may initiate court action. Licenses are issued annually. The
Ohio EPA reviews each local health department annually to be sure the
laws are being enforced. Any health department failing to meet its
responsibility may be removed from the approved list and the Director
of the Ohio EPA assumes local authority for licensing, inspection, and
enforcement.
In practice, Ohio EPA sanitarians provide continuous surveillance of
local programs, including inspection of all land disposal sites in
cooperation with local health department sanitarians.
SOURCE REDUCTION AND RESOURCE RECOVERY
Ohio EPA has begun a program of state and local solid waste planning
which eventually will lead to a network of regional resource recovery
facilities. No central authority has been formed. However, The Ohio
Water Development Authority is authorized to finance and if desirable,
to construct, manage, operate or contract for operation, all types of
solid waste management facilities. Regional authorities, councils of
governments, or non-profit corporations may be formed, if needed, to
operate, or contract for operation of resource recovery facilities.
There are no state funds available for solid waste or resource recovery
grants. However, for facilities which will be self-supporting, the
Ohio Water Development Authority is able to finance construction through
revenue bonding.
Three source reduction bills were introduced into the General Assembly
during 1974. None was passed out of committee, and none has been
resubmitted yet in 1975.
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
Hazardous wastes have generally been handled ad hoc in the past.
However, beginning in the fall of 1974, a concerted effort has begun
to establish a coordinated hazardous waste program. A hazardous waste
staff of three has been appointed, and their efforts are being
directed at initiating hazardous waste surveys, developing needed
legislation, and developing agency hazardous waste handling procedures.
In general, land disposal without ultimate treatment will be discouraged.
Sanitary landfills used for ordinary municipal wastes will generally
not be used for disposal of liquids or hazardous wastes. At least two
hazardous waste treatment facilities have been established in Ohio
during the last year, and efforts are being made to have a major company
establish a complete treatment/recovery facility here.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS
In order to advise Ohio EPA on various aspects of its solid waste program,
especially legislation and regulations, a Solid Waste Advisory Group was
established. That group consists of representatives from nearly thirty
-2-
-------
137
statewide organizations which have an interest in solid waste management.
Groups represented include trade organizations, labor, local government,
manufacturers, citizen groups, and legislators. The advice of members
of the Solid Waste Advisory Group have been extremely helpful in
directing the course of the program.
CRITICAL AREAS FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
The major area of concern for federal assistance is hazardous wastes.
This is still a relatively untouched area, and is definitely in need of
guidelines, and definitions. The establishment of national disposal
sites, which has been discussed for a long time, should be pressed.
It is very hard for states to take positive action in the shadow of
unknown potential federal legislation. The sooner it becomes clear
what federal action there will be, the sooner the states will be able to
take effective action.
-------
138
NATIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
November 14-15, 1974
San Francisco, California
Solid Waste Management Summary
State of Oregon
In 1971, total Solid Waste Management responsibility at the State level in
Oregon was centralized within the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) in-
cluding responsibility for Environmentally Hazardous Wastes, defined as pesticides,
nuclear wastes, and their containers. A comprehensive statewide Solid Waste
Management program has been developed, administered and enforced by the DEQ, which
has the following major components:
1. Promulgation of rules and standards (April 1972).
2. Implementation of a solid waste disposal facility permit program for
municipal facilities (July 1972) and industrial-agricultural facilities
(July 1973).
3. Initiation of a statewide plan for handling and disposal of chemical
and hazardous wastes (March 1972).
4. Initiation of a statewide Solid Waste Management Regional Planning
Program, including 100% planning grants (November 1972).
5. Upgrading of existing disposal systems including a statewide on-site
technical assistance program for landfill owners and operators
(January 1974).
6. Initiation of State financial assistance to local governments for
implementation of DEQ approved, locally adopted solid waste
management plans (August 1974).
Solid Waste Permit and Planning Programs
The 1971 Oregon Legislative Assembly's Solid Waste Management Act begins with
a broad policy statement regarding private and public, local, state and federal
roles in this statewide program and also outlines how this policy is to be carried
out. Basically, this law states that the declared policy of the State of Oregon
is to "establish a comprehensive program for solid waste management"..."in the
interest of protection of the public health, safety and welfare". This is to be
done by developing and implementing..."plans including regional approaches to
provide adequate disposal sites and disposal facilities together with facilities
for salvage, recycling and reuse of solid wastes"...with..."primary responsibility"
...and..."authority"..."to establish a coordinated"...regulated..."program"...
retained..."with local governmental units," utilizing private industry where
appropriate and assisted and coordinated by the State through the DEO.
-------
139
This Act also specified development of a state regulatory program by the
DEQ and its governing body, the Environmental Quality Commission, through adoption
of regulations and subsequent actuation of a permit system for the disposal sites
by July 1, 1972. However, the legislative act of 1971 lacked a timetable as well
as specified funds to finance the necessary state and local programs for planning
and implementation of improved and innovative regional facilities. These facilitie-.
would provide the desired upgraded statewide solid waste management system, to be
regulated by permits.
To provide for needed planning, the DEQ in 1972 placed the disposal sites
throughout the state under temporary permits and proceeded to develop a statewide
solid waste management implementation planning program. The DEQ obtained State
grant funds to initiate and support this statewide program, funding regional planni
projects through local governmental units to meet' specific goals and objectives. /
32 member Citizens' Advisory Committee representing various disciplines from
throughout the State was appointed to advise the DEQ in the development of this,
program and to assist with obtaining $1,229,630 in State bond grant funds, which
were subsequently appropriated by the Legislature in November 1972.
Twenty-two local-regional projects encompassing the entire State were granted
funds to develop their portions of the Statewide Plan, which will be assembled by
the Department in early 1975. Each project developed an implementation plan which
contained:
1. Specific solid waste management program implementing authority and
organization at the local level.
2. A workable physical system of collection, transfer, processing and
disposal emphasizing:
a. Consolidation, upgrading and minimizing the number of disposal
sites, location of new sites, and elimination of unauthorized sites.
b. Special wastes management.
c. Local feasibilities for recycling, reuse and resource recovery, to
meet the state's goal of productive use of 90% of what is now
wasted by 1982.
3.. A specific financing program to establish and perpetuate facilities
and services at an adequate level.
4. A program to publicize the plan, gain public acceptance of the plan and
accomplish implementation thereof through involvement of individual
citizens, advisory committees, groups and local officials.
The results of the State Planning Program show an accelerated move by local
governments towards resource and energy recovery programs from wastes processing.
This is due in part to current energy shortages, and has been accelerated greatly
by the public resentment to new landfill placement. In addition, the costs to provide
and operate such landfills closely match recovery alternatives. Energy recovery
-2-
-------
utilizing the light wastes fraction in existing wood wastes recovery boilers and
ferrous metals recovery is the primary solid waste management alternative chosen by
local governments for virtually all of Western Oregon, including the coastal regions.
As a result, it is projected that 3,000 tons per day of air classified light fuel
fraction will be added to the State's fuel market (net energy equivalent of 116
million additional gallons of gasoline annually). Requests for proposal documents
for such systems are presently being prepared in the metropolitan Portland area and
in Lane County to process 2500-2700 tons of waste daily.
The need for landfills has not been overlooked and wherever possible, existing
disposal sites are being upgraded pending resource recovery or waste processing.
Land reclamation sites are being sought to back up processing facilities.
The primary emphasis of this entire effort has been on implementation of the
plans, with DEQ permits to require compliance of planned facilities. Approximately
43 million dollars of State grant and loan funds are potentially available to aid
implementation. In view of the progress in planning and implementation that has
occurred, Oregon should be well on the way toward a significantly improved solid waste
management system which will continue to be an example of cooperation between private
enterprise and the public sector at the federal, state and, most importantly, the local
level.
Hazardous Haste Program
The DEQ's hazardous waste management program was initiated in early 1972.following
passage of legislation by the 1971 Oregon Legislature. To briefly summarize the major
provisions of this law, hazardous wastes are defined to include discarded, useless, or
unwanted pesticides and low-level radioactive materials and their containers. The law
also provides authority for classification of other residues as hazardous waste and
prohibits disposal of any hazardous wastes on lands within the State except at sites
owned and licensed by the State for hazardous waste disposal.
Several changes were made to the hazardous waste statutes by the 1973 Legislature.
These changes provided additional authority to DEQ in the following areas:
1. Declassification of certain hazardous wastes by rule.
2. Payment of just compensation for disposal site property.
3. Acquisition of disposal sites by condemnation.
4. Use of pollution control bond funds for emergency hazardous waste disposal
situations and for disposal site acquisition.
5. Proper cleanup of hazardous material spills.
During 1974, a primary activity has been the licensing of a hazardous waste
disposal site. The Department has been considering a proposed hazardous waste disposal
site near Arlington, Oregon since June 1972. Final action on this matter has been
delayed due to questions concerning the applicant's (Chern-Nuclear Systems, Inc.)
financial status and disposal of low-level radioactive wastes at the site. In
March 1974, an advisory committee which had evaluated the financial and corporate
-3-
-------
141
status of the applicant submitted its final report, recommending issuance of a
license to the company with certain conditions. In June 1974, the applicant
submitted engineering plans for the site. Subsequently, a proposed license was
drafted by the Department and a public hearing was held in September 1974. Final
action by the Environmental Quality Commission on whether or not to grant the
license is expected in late November.
The second principal activity during 1974 has been the development of hazardous
waste rules. These rules were published in September in proposed form and have been
distributed to federal, state and local government agencies and to various industry
groups for review and comment. The major provisions of the rules include:
1. Listing of hazardous waste criteria and specific wastes (by chemical type
or category) that would be classified as hazardous.
2. Storage'and on-site disposal requirements for hazardous waste producers.
3. Reporting requirements for hazardous waste producers.
4. Hazardous waste transportation requirements.
5. Requirements for establishment of regional hazardous waste collection
sites by counties or others.
It is anticipated that public hearings and adoption of these rules will be
completed in 1975, but this will depend on the availability of a hazardous waste
disposal site.
In addition to site licensing and rules development, initial EPA supported
planning studies were completed and a final report was published, "Hazardous Waste
Management Planning 1972-73."
-4-
-------
142
Pennsylvania Report on Activities in Solid Waste Management
A. Land Disposal of Solid Waste
a) Pennsylvania has had a comprehensive solid waste management program since July 1968
when the Pennsylvania Solid Waste Management Act was enacted by the State Legislature.
Rules and regulations established under the authority of the Act provide rigid controls
over land disposal site operations. Permits must be attained prior to commencing opera-
tions, however, no permit is issued without a complete review and approval of soil and
geological characteristics of the site and the site's plan of operations.
To monitor sites for movement of leachate from the landfill areas the Division of
Solid Waste Management requires installation of ground water monitoring wells. Back-
ground water quality analyses are conducted prior to initial dumping to establish a
base. Subsequent to operation of the site, quarterly water analyses are required to
be submitted and are made a part of the site's official file. Any trend towards
degradation of the site's surrounding water table can result in remedial action being
taken by the Division.
The general criteria for evaluation and review of land disposal sites are written
into the rules and regulations of the Department of Environmental Resources.
b) The processing and disposal of such.wastes as the sludges resultant from municipal
waste water treatment facilities, large scale animal feedlot wastes and septic tank
cleanings all require permits from the Department. For waste water treatment plant
sludge disposal sites evaluation for site suitability are made by the Solid Waste
Management staff and the disposal sites are permitted under the original permits
issued to the sewage treatment facility.
Septic tank cleanings have long been considered problem wastes with only limited
control over disposal methods, however, with the passage of Act 241 processing methods
and disposal sites require permits. The use of large scale animal feedlots on small
acreage farms rarely occurs in Pennsylvania.
c) Total number of solid waste land disposal facilities now in use: 505
Number where leachate is a known problem: 190
Number with monitoring wells: 81
Number with leachate collection and treatment facilities: 19
Number of such facilities at which leachate has been produced: 12
d) Number of land disposal sites with State permit/license/approval: 81
Estimated percent of State population served by approved sites: 51%
Number of State approved sites for hazardous/toxic waste disposal: 0
(Note: No hazardous waste disposal sites have been established in
Pennsylvania to date. Certain sites have been approved for disposal of
limited types and quantities of hazardous waste.)
e) Number of sites with ultimate capacity of: (Use density of 1000 Ibs/cu yd)
Less than 150,000 tons: 152
Between 150,000 and 500,000 tons: 526
More than 500,000 tons: 47
f) Act 241, while regulating disposal/processing systems to assure their pollution
free functioning, provides for systems planning to insure their orderly development
across the Commonwealth with service to all sectors of the population in confomiance
with local solid waste management plans and a broad state Solid Waste Management Plan.
-------
T f. O
The policy lor the Commonwealth's solidjwaste management system established by
Act 241 requires: municipal management responsibilities, private enterprise parti-
cipation, development of local and state plans, state-wide standards and permitting
and compliance programs. This program has resulted in the preparation of acceptable
plans by 66 of 67 existing counties with 22 having been officially approved and 20
others in a position for official approval. These plans reflecting individual as
well as 3 regional plans, integrating 22 counties, provide the detailed framework
for complete waste management and will require an implementation expenditure of
$100,000,000.
Of the 2565 Commonwealth municipalities, 833 or 32% have passed acceptable reso-
lutions for plan adoption and implementation and of the 1140 required to plan and
implement programs, 592 or 51% have passed acceptable resolutions.
Over $3 million has been spent for plan development and the 1970 completion of
the Pennsylvania Solid Waste Management Plan projecting a goal of a totally integrated
system through 11 regional groupings by 1990, resulted in the first comprehensive
observation and analysis of existing solid waste conditions on a state-wide basis.
Solid waste management plans, along with other environmentally oriented compre-
hensive plans, will play a major role in state-wide land use plan development.
B. Enforcement Procedures
The enforcement procedures for solid waste management are limited to the provisions
set forth in the Pennsylvania Solid Waste Management Act.
This legislation provides for civil, administrative, and criminal actions that
can be initiated by the Department of Environmental Resources for various types of
violations of the law and regulations. In general, the first approach used in the
solid waste enforcement procedures is administrative action through the issuance of
a "Notice of Violation". A Notice of Violation is a certified letter that is sent
to a violator stating that a violation has occurred and sets forth a compliance re-
quirement with a final date for correction.
The second step in the administrative enforcement procedure is the administrative
order which is used in situations where the Notice of Violation is not complied with
or whenever a permit must be denied for various reasons. Extensive and effective use
is made of this order in the enforcement program. It is a very flexible type of
action and can be used in most any instance. This is a formal action of the Department
and is appealable to the Environmental Hearing Board which is a formal judicial body.
Decisions of this Board are appealable to Commonwealth Court.
The second type of action used is a summary action (criminal) . This action could
really be termed quasi criminal since the penalty is monetary and the consequence of
imprisonment is only if the violator fails to pay the fine. This summary is initiated
by our field staff for minor violations and for closure of indiscriminate dumps.
The civil action is the third general type of action used as an enforcement pro-
cedure. The action filed in this case is usually a Suit in Equity. Special injunctions
are used on occasion and only in extreme emergencies. These injunctions are obtained
without a hearing but the Court must have a hearing on the merits within five (5)
days of issuance. The Department also uses the various adjuncts to these types of
legal action such as Consent Orders, Court Orders, Stipulation Agreements, etc.
Over the past twelve months, 80 enforcement actions have been initiated by the
Department in the solid waste program. It should be pointed out that although the
Department is compliance oriented, all other avenues of approach are exhausted by the
staff prior to the initiation of legal action.
-------
144
C. Source Reduction and Resource Recovery
On July 20, 1974, the Pennsylvania Solid Waste - Resource Recovery Development
Act was signed into law. The purposes of the Act are to promote the development of
solid uaste disposal/processing and resource recovery systems and to provide finan-
cial assistance to municipalities in the design and construction of these systems in
order to cnliancc the quality of air, water, arid land resources. The initial funding
of the Act established a $20 million low-interest revolving loan fund.
The Act becomes effective November 1, 1974, and will be administered by the
Division of Solid V.'aste Management of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources. The Department of ljivirorjiient.il Resources is authorized to serve as ad-
ministrator of the Pennsylvania Solid Waste - Resource Recovery Development Fund; to
make contracts and employ such persons as necessary to carry out the purposes of the
Act; to make loans to the municipalities and municipal authorities; to accept grants
or enter into other contracts with federal agencies; and to conduct financial audits
and institute prosecutions.
A municipality or municipal authority applying for a loan tor a solid waste disposal/
processing or a resource recovery system is defined as a development agency and the
Department may loan a development agency up to fifty percent of the cost to construct
a solid v;aste disposal/processing or resource recovery system, provided the applicant
has at least five percent of the project costs in funds or property. Only municipalities
which are or are in counties of the fifth through eighth classes are eligible for loans
for solid waste disposal/processing systems, and they must demonstrate that they are
unable to establish a resource recovery system. All municipalities are eligible for
loans for resource recovery systems. Resource recovery systems must recover and market
not less than fifty percent by dry weight of the total solid waste throughput of the
system. Loans for new solid waste disposal/processing systems shall be made on]y to
municipalities \ihicI7~are or are in counties of the seventh or eighth class, where the
system shall serve a minimum population of ten thousand persons, or to counties of
less than ten thousand persons, provided the system shall serve the total population
of the county. Loans for existing solid waste disposal/processing systems shall be
made only to municipalities which are or are in counties of the fifth through eighth
classes. Loans will be for ten years, and all municipalities applying for loans must
adopt an official solid waste management plan in order to be eligible.
Included in the existing functions which the Department performs in a broad re-
source recovery program are coordination and evaluation of systems development,
assessment of incentives and disincentives to resource recovery, development of a
Commonwealth Recycling Plan, evaluation of State purchasing policies, development
and evaluation of legislative proposals, assessment of Federal-State assistance
programs, evaluation of projects including market analyses under Act 198, development
of training programs for public and private, compilation and cataloging data on equip-
ment, financial programs, contractors, etc., establishment of liaison with research
facilities, universities, demonstration projects, and others who have developed a
high level of expertise in the field, and technical assistance to municipalities and
others in the development of resource recovery systems and market analyses.
The Department is currently developing detailed regulations and evaluation criteria
under contract with the National Center for Resource Recovery, Inc.
Other legislation has been introduced in Pennsyhania to create a research and demon-
stration grant program for resource recover)', a loan guarantee arrangement for resource
recover)' system developers, a revision to Commonwealth purchasing to allow greater use
of recycled materials, a ban on non-returnable bottles anil cans similar to the Oregon
Law, and u grant program to finance development of resource recovery systems.
-------
145
Resource recovery planning is being done at both the State and Jocal lc\ 'Is. The
Department Awarded planning grants for development of seven regional market 4udies,
which will evaluate market availability, growth outlook, long term viability, con-
tractual arrangements, purchasing policies, material specifications, and otl- r appro-
priate parameters. The studies are a prerequisite lor the development of su cos:;ful
resource recovery systems and invaluable for decision making in such project by local
governments. The studies will include the important market regions and urn." areas
of the State and will be used to update local solid waste management plans a •! to
develop a published inventory of market information. A broad plan was dcvcj ;:cd for
the Office of State Planning and Development by the Fourth Sink Management.
The recommendations of this study are under consideration; however, 1'onnsyh !,ia'
size, strong local government, and geography make such an approach difficult >nd
extremely expensive. It assessed the potential for a massive resource reco> -;y approach
similar to Connecticut's.
Act 186 was passed in July 1974, to amend the Tax Reform. Code of 1971. This law
exempts processing plant equipment from capital stock taxes. Processing is defined
in the Act as salvaging, recycling or reclaiming used materials to be recycled into
a manufacturing process. This creates an important incentive toward the investment
for resource recovery equipment.
Present State purchasing policies are being evaluated to see how more recycled
materials can be used.
The Department of Property and Supplies does have a contract for supply of certain
bond paper containing 100% post consumer waste, to be used by various agencies in
brochures, etc.
An experimental program has been initiated in the Department of Transportation
building for source separation of various grades of waste paper. The program is pro-
posed for expansion to other State buildings and agencies. An experimental paper
separation and baling operation is scheduled for the Philadelphia State Hospital. If
successful, it will also be expanded to similar Commonwealth facilities which currently
discard large volumes of paper.
Similar programs are being initiated by local governments, one being the Allegheny
County Health Department.
Several resource recovery studies and/or proposals are being considered throughout
Pennsylvania. Current systems proposals include:
(1) Materials and fuel or heat recovery - Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Palmer
Township, Northampton County; Erie, Chester County; New Castle, Delaware
County; Wilkes-Barre, .and Harrisburg.
(2) Composting - Altoona, Allentown, Crawford County
Baling and Metals Reclamation - Mercer County
(4) Recovery of solvents, acids, plating solutions, etc. is practiced in
several Pennsylvania industries.
The State participated in financing SO'l, of the feasibility study and market
analysis of the Palmer Township project which will use a pelletized refuse derived
fuel in cement kilns to supplement coal, with the ash serving as a raw material in
cement .
-------
146
Several other groups or agencies arefirtvolved in promoting resource recovery in
Pennsylvania. These include: the Governor's linergy Council, the Joint Legislative
Air and Water Pollution Control and Conservation Committee, the Department of Property
and Supplies, the Pennsylvania Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee, and the
Department's Citizen's Advisory Council.
Other groups as the Pennsylvania Environmental Council, the Group for Recycling
in Pennsylvania (G.R.I.P.), the utility companies as the Pennsylvania Power and Light
Company and the Philadelphia Electiic Company, and numerous industries and local re-
cycling organisations are, also, actively promoting resource recovery.
D. Hazardous Waste
a) Problems related to hazardous solid waste management have increased in the past
two years so that a program of control on a request, complaint or a crisis basis is
no longer effective. The lack of adequate program staff and excessive workloads in
other elements of the solid waste management program serve to limit the capacity of
the Solid Waste Management Division to carry out a comprehensive and efficient hazard-
ous waste control program.
Existing hazardous solid waste regulations require revision in order to provide
the basis for efficient regulatory controls.
Application for federal assistance has been made to enable the Commonwealth to
expand the existing staff by including chemists and chemical engineers and allowing
additional staff time to survey and determine the extent of the problem.
b) The survey of agricultural-industrial establishments which was conducted in 1968-69
provided significant information concerning hazardous type solid wastes which resulted
from different types of production and manufacturing; staffing and budgeting deficits
have limited the Division's ability to make extensive use of the data accrued.
E. Public Affairs
Presentation of seminars, lectures, panel discussions, short courses and technical
papers serve to disseminate information on solid waste management throughout the Com-
monwealth.
Information requests are filled regularly and passout materials, brochures, infor-
mation releases and technical reports are prepared and made available to the general
public.
Frequent use is made of the Department's monthly newspaper, Econotes, which is
circulated widely throughout the State to discuss current program activities and
changes in existing regulations and laws.
F. Critical Areas for Federal Assistance
In the past a disservice to the states has occurred as a result of promised
assistance which was not forthcoming. Since the potential for receipt of Federal
financial assistance, such as promised by the Resource Recovery Act, is sufficient
to slow down plan implementation and facility construction until the Federal funds
are awarded, it becomes an extreme disadvantage whenever tltc funds arc held up or
not provided. Examples of the program disruption which can occur is evident not only
in the solid waste program but also in the water and air pollution control programs.
A recommendation which can be made in respect to.Federal assistance is to make no
-------
147
promises which cannot he fulfil loci, ,qo hack and refinance the basic provisions of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1%5 and continue lo provide technical assistance to the
states and to support State planning, demonstration project's, research and hadly needed
training programs with emphasis on the development of the potential for resource re-
covery throughout the United States.
-------
148
PUERTO RICO SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
STATUS REPORT
1974-75
Puerto Rico completed Its State Solid Waste Management Plan, which
was accepted on January 24, 1973 by Administrator Wtlllam D. Ruckelshaus
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Governor Rafael Hernandez
Col6n adopted the plan on May 1973, The Comprehensive Solid Waste Mana-
gement Plan for Puerto Rico 1971 made three major far reaching recommenda-
tions along with several supporting proposals- The Major goals are:
1. Consolidate all existing laws that refer to solid
waste management into one up-to-date law that meets
present and future needs.
2. Create new legislation that gives the Commonwealth
government full responsibility on a regional. Island-
wide basis for solid waste disposal, preferably via the
establishment of a Solid Waste Management Authority
(SWMA) The SWMA will be decentralized Into seven
regional SWMA.
3. Upgrade the quality of solid waste collection services,
which are the responsibility of the Island's municipal
governments.
-------
149
A key recommendations was made Involving a structural change giving
the Commonwealth full responsibility on a regional Island-wide basis for
solid waste disposal via the establishment of a Solid Waste Management
Authority (SWMA) To Implement this recommendation the Solid Waste Program
prepared a detailed report that recommend the framework for establishing a
SWMA, Its organization, functions methods of operation, jurisdiction, and
means of financing. More over this report sets out In detail, delineation
of regional boundaries, proposed facility sites, design requirements, recommen-
ded facilities and broadened examination of Commonwealth responsibilities
In possible resource recovery, discarded automobiles and hazardous and toxic
wastes areas. It was presented to the Governor and his Cabinet on November
1973. Law Project 793, March 19, 1974 for the creation of the SWMA was
Introduce In the Senate by Senator Ydrach Yordan and Is under consideration
during this Legislative Session.
As an Interim measure while needed legislation Is approved and
adopted for the creation of the SWMA the enforcement of the Regulation for the
Control of Solid Waste will be continued.
SCOPE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Planning Is nearly complete at the Commonwealth level for solid waste
management. Implementation of the State Plan Is the next step. Creation
-------
158
and organization of Solid Waste Management Authority (SWMA) and planning
for resource recovery and hazardous and toxic wastes studies Is now necessary.
In both the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan for Puerto Rico, 1971,
and the Solid Waste Management Authority, 1973, proposals were made which
If Implemented would Involve Puerto Rico more deeply In solid waste mana-
gement. Planning for resource recovery and for hazardous and toxic wastes
are considered to be It highest priority.
The activities toward this creation are as follows:
1. Law Project 793, 18 March 1974, has been submitted
to Legislature by Senator Ydrach YordSn. Action Is
expected during the current session.
2. Once the Law Project Is enacted the organization of
the Authority will begin target date for the Authority
to begin functioning Is January 1, 1976.
Hazardous and Toxic Wastes Program Planning. Oriented to develop
a state plan for hazardous and toxic wastes disposal with respective regula-
tions .
Development of advanced solid waste processing (Resource Recovery)
and disposal systems and formulation of a long range Implementation Program.
Continuing enforcement activities. A Program of continuous Inspections
of the municipal solid waste operations Is necessary to Insure continued
-------
151
compliance this complemented by a legal program to enforce compliance.
Work Plan By Elements
The EQB has prepared a grant for the year period 1974-75 In order to
provide for the planning necessary for Intermediate and long-term planning
for hazardous and toxic wastes disposal, resource recovery planning and for
continuing enforcement activities. Funds were approved for the following
activities-
1. Hazardous and toxic wastes
2. Resource Recovery
3. Continuing enforcement procedures
During the period year 1974-75, planning will be concentrated on the
development of a state plan for hazardous and toxic wastes disposal with
respective regulations, resource recovery planning and continued enforcement
activities.
1. Hazardous and Toxic Wastes
In order to successfully carry-out the proposed program
the EQB must undertake the following steps:
a. Conduct an island-wide survey to determine
the types, amounts, and locations of hazardous
and toxic wastes productions.
b. Identification of present hazardous and toxic
-------
152
wastes disposal sites.
c. Evaluate hazardous and toxic wastes storage
and disposal sites.
d. Impact on land disposal and other.. .I.e...
air, water and ocean pollution control system.
e. Investigate and evaluate existing Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico and Federal Regulations applicable
to hazardous and toxic wastes.
f. Develop a plan which can be Implemented by
the SWMA for handling hazardous and toxic
wastes In Puerto Rico Including the following
factors-
1. Land disposal methods
2 . Disposal facility locations
3. Topographical and geological conditions
4. Drainage control
5. Protection of water supplies
6. Handling hazards and protection
7. Transportation and unloading
8. Security
9. Personnel training and safety
-------
153
10. Records and monitoring
11. Technologies of processing and storing
12. Prevention of accidental catalytic reactions
13. Site management
14. Abandonment of sites
15. Recovery (Energy)
16. Treatment prior to disposal to destroy,
detoxify or neutralize
g. Develop and enforce regulations to Include:
1. Monitoring and survlllance
2. Permits
3. Compliance Plans
h. Location plan showing desirable locations for
new Industries which may have hazardous and
toxic wastes as a manufacturing by product.
2. Resource Recovery
During the period year planning will be concentrated on
the development of advances resource recovery and processing systems. Task
will Include:
a. Investigation of the market for segregated solid wastes
constituents and for energy available from solid waste
-------
154
processes concentrating particularly on potential
Interaction between the Commonwealth Water Resources
Authority and the SWMA.
b. To keep abreast of existing and new technology.
c. Investigation of existing and potential markets for
recycled materials, such as ferrows and non ferrows
metals, paper, glass, textiles, waste oils, and organic
sludges.
d. To encourage curb side collection of paper and other
recycle material.
e. Source reduction
f. Consider examination of positive and negative Incentives
to encourage collection and reuse of solid waste
constituents.
g. Establishing a detailed plan for the collection/ transpor-
tation and disposal of junked autos, Including processing
If required, analysis of the flnantlal feasibility of the
proposed plan.
h. Evaluate In coordination with the Water Resources
Authority the feasibility of converting all of the Common-
wealth's power plants to take refuse as an auxiliary
fuel, (feasibility study)
-------
155
3. Enforcement
In order to continue with the implementation of the Regu-
lation for the Control of Solid Waste the following enforcement activities will
be continue and augmented.
a. Periodic monitoring and surveillance of sites,
inspections and notification of deficiencies noted.
b. Continuous on the job training to dump operators and
supervisors.
c. Conferences with municipalities with the participation
of the Project Director, the Project Lawyers and the
interested person.
d. Compliance Plan
e. Orders of Cease and Desist to those municipal administra-
tion that do not comply with the regulation standards.
f. Public hearings
g. Administrative fines
h. Others
Quarterly Progress Report Puerto Rico Solid Waste Management Grant 1974-75
I. Enforcement
A total of 127 activities were accomplish during the months of July,
-------
156
August and September.
Inspections 47
Soil Study 7
Major Meetings 34
Cease and Desist Orders 1
Public Hearings 2
Compliance Plans
File 1
Meetings 25
Licenses and Permits 30
A. Educational Activities
There were 15 activities performed including 11 conferences,
3 sanitary landfills inaugurations and 1 TV Program.
II. Hazardous Wastes
We are conducting a Hazardous and Toxic Wastes Study
in the Industries.
The activities performed in this period were:
1. Create a file of all industries in Puerto Rico by filling
out a card for each one with the following information:
a. Name of Industry
b. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Number
-------
157
c. Local and postal addresses
d. Principal product
e. General Manager's name
f. Telephone number
2. Classify all industries by municipalities
3. Prepare the routes for making the survey
4. Design a questionnaire with general and specific infor-
mation to be complemented by all the industries. This was a difficult task
because of no available information on this type.
5. Contact all industries two weeks prior to our visits
in order to explain the purpose of our Study.
As of today we have performed 137 visits to industries,
filling 92 questionnaire which represents the covering of 13 municipalities.
Included are the municipalities of ManatI and Barceloneta where most of the
Pharmaceuticals industries in Puerto Rico are located.
We are trying to allocate resources within the industries by
analysing the wastes produced and the raw materials used in each industry.
Included a copy of the questionnaire letter and report forms.
III. Resource Recovery
A series of meeting have been held with the Water Resources
Authority to make a comprehensive study of the economic viability of use the
-------
15ft
garbage for energy production in the Authority Power plants in Puerto Rico.
For this purpose, an interagency contract was prepared between the Water
Resources Authority and the EQB to perform the study during this present
year. We are going to use the consultances services of a private company
to coordinate the technical data of the Water Resources Authority in the power
generation and the solid wastes management aspects related to the economic
impact of this type of activity.
We are including a copy of the contract between the two agencies
to accomplish the above mention study.
We are also planning to do some studies in the aspect of corrugated
carton and paper and the economic viability for use this material in the Puerto
Rico Mills for the manufacture of papers and other related articles.
-------
159
RHODE ISLAND'S ACTIVITIES IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
A. Legislation Policy and Program
Rhode Island has just made significant changes in solid waste legislation.
Paramount among these changes is the creation of the Rhode Island Solid
Waste Management Corporation and the establishment of licensing procedures
within the Department of Health for all solid waste management facilities.
The purposes of the Corporation, among other things, are: the planning,
design, construction, financing, management, ownership, operation and maintenance
of transfer stations, waste processing facilities, resource recovery facilities,
and all other solid waste management facilities deemed necessary by the corpora-
tion as being desirable, convenient or appropriate to carry out the provision of
this act; the provision of solid waste management services to municipalities
and persons within the state by receiving solid wastes at the corporation
facilities, pursuant to contracts between the corporation and such municipalities
and persons, the recovery of resources and resource values from such solid waste?
and the production from such services and resource recovery operations, of
revenues sufficient to provide for the support of the corporation and its
operations on a self-sustaining basis with due regard to the provision of such
services at a reasonable cost to the clients it has contracted with; the
authorization through contractual arrangements of private industry for imple-
mentation of the corporation's plans and programs to the greatest degree possible
and for such other activities as may be considered necessary, desirable or
convenient by the corporation; and assistance with and coordination of efforts
directed towards source separation of solid wastes for recycling purposes.
The Health Department, in accordance with its licensing authority, is now
in the process of establishing new rules and regulations for solid waste
management facilities and will shortly establish rules and regulations for
licensing requirements.
-------
B. Land Disposal of Solid Wastes
a. Rhode Island is now in the process of instituting design requirements to
minimize the possibility of underground and surface water pollution from
sanitary landfills. These design criteria are: Wo sanitary landfill shall
be conducted where solid waste may be in direct contact with ground waters
of the State. A minimum of four (h) feet of soil is required between the
highest water table level and the lowest level of deposited refuse. An
impermeable liner system or other pollution protective means as may be
approved by the Department may be used to prevent leachate from reaching the
ground water. No refuse shall be disposed of within a minimum of 200 feet
of any body of surface water. Any solid waste facility accepting raw or
treated sewage sludge, septic tank or catch-basin clean-out, liquid or
semi-liquid waste, any fecal material of human or animal origin, or chemical
or hazardous wastes (liquid or solid) for disposal on or in the ground, shall
install monitoring wells which are constructed and located in accordance
with Department instructions. Samples shall be taken from each well and
analyzed by a certified laboratory at least once every three months.
Analyses shall be made for determinations as required by the Department.
Should monitoring well analyses or any other means of detection indicate
possible pollution of the waters of the State by the solid waste facility,
the acceptance of raw or treated sewage sludge, septic tank clean-out or
any other fecal material, liquid or solid, shall be discontinued immediately.
An acceptable system of interception, collection and treatment shall be
implemented at once and shall continue until possibility of pollution of
the waters of the State by the disposal facility shall no longer exist.
Prior to reacceptance of the discontinued material, an engineering design
which describes corrective measures to prevent recurrence of the pollution
(and which is acceptable to the Department) must be submitted and the
design implemented. The operator shall make provisions to have the sanitary
-------
-V f\ -
±DJL
landfill site, including the fill surface, graded and provided with a
drainage system to minimize surface water runoff onto and into the fill,
to prevent erosion of the fill, to drain off rain water falling on the fill,
and to prevent the collection of standing water. At the discretion of the
Department, any sanitary landfill may be required to install monitoring
wells at locations chosen by the Department for the purpose of monitoring
ground water conditions.
b. The disposal of sludge from municipal waste water treatment plants is
controlled by our Water Pollution Control Division and the Solid Waste
Management Division becomes involved only when a sanitary landfill, which
is used for refuse disposal, is also used for sludge dumping. The Solid
Waste Management Division prefers that separate tank pumping and sludges be
disposed of in separate facilities. However, when disposal does take place
in a landfill, the restrictions in (a) apply.
c. There are 38 land disposal facilities in use within the State. Leaching is
a problem at approximately 6 of these facilities and none have monitoring
wells. Neither do any have leachate collection or treatment facilities.
d. There are not yet any sites in the State which are licensed because of a
lack of a licensing procedure. However, there are 7 within the State which
are meeting current rules and regulations and at which the refuse from
approximately ^Q% of the population is being disposed of.
e. The number of sites with an ultimate capacity of less than 150,000 tons is
5; the number with a capacity between 150,000 and 500,000 tons is 18 and
the number with more than 500,000 is 17.
f . Unfortunately, solid waste management does not yet seem to be a significant
factor in land use planning.
-------
162
C. Enforcement Procedures
The State's enforcement procedures have been limited to advisory letters and
informal conferences. However, with the establishment of new rules and
regulations and the issuance of licenses, more formal activity is expected.
D. Source Reduction and Resource Recovery
a. One of the principal purposes of the Solid Waste Management Corporation is
to encourage resource recovery. The Corporation has this capability and
it is expected that they will provide for as many facilities as possible
in this area.
b. There is not any special state funding available to local governments and/or
private industries involved in resource recovery. However, the Corporation
can issue bonds for its own purposes.
c. There is not yet any resource recovery planning being conducted at the
State level but there are many local operations. Some of these local
operations have local governmental support and some are totally privately
financed.
d. There are not any State tax laws or purchasing policies that will benefit
resource recovery efforts. There are various other groups in the State,
principally ecology oriented groups, which are promoting resource recovery.
E. Hazardous Waste Management
The State is now in the process of conducting a hazardous waste survey and
expects to develop rules and regulations in this regard.
F. Public Affairs
The State Solid Waste Program has been supported in the public affairs area
principally by local groups interested in the formation of the Solid Waste
Management Corporation and they are continuing to actively support the bond
issue which will finance the Corporation.
-------
163
G. Critical Areas For Federal Assistance
There are not any critical areas in the State in need of federal assistance.
Federal assistance, we have found, is not beneficial when the federal government
exercises its authority in establishing rules and regulations for various types
of refuse disposal facilities and thereby provides a basis for state legislation,
-------
164
THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL'S
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION
Last year's merger of the South Carolina State Board of Health and the
South Carolina Pollution Control Authority into the South Carolina Department
of Health and Environmental Control completed a consolidation which was
begun just over two years ago. Dr. E. Kenneth Aycock, former State Health
Officer, was appointed Commissioner for the new agency and Mr. John E. Jenkins,
formerly of the State Board of Health, will serve as Deputy Commissioner for
Environmental Quality Control.
In 1971, the Solid Waste Division of the old State Board of Health
initiated a statewide program for consolidating disposal areas and closing
open dumps. During the past two years, 95% of the town and community dumps
have been closed and 60 sanitary landfills have been permitted and meet the
stringent regulations promulgated by the Health Departeent.
The staff of the Solid Waste Division included three men and a secretary
in July, 1971. Today the Solid Waste Division has a staff of six graduate
engineers, 13 college graduates with varying degrees, three heavy equipment
supervisors, and two secretaries. The budget of the Solid Waste Division
has grown from $63,000 to over $300,000 during this period.
In January, 1972, the Division conducted the first of our annual training
courses for sanitary landfill operators and supervisors. South Carolina has
one of the best systems of Technical Education Centers in the country and
these facilities are used extensively for classromm instructions. Classes
were held one day per week for six weeks. Each day's instruction consisted
of four hours classroom work and four hours on site demonstration and in-
struction. Last year over 90 students were certified through this training
course.
A unique portion of the Solid Waste program in South Carolina is our
operator training and certification section. The Division has employed
three heavy equipment operators who possess in excess of 45 years combined
experience. These men are responsible for the initial training, retraining,
and certification of all landfill operators. They visit the approved land-
fills on a routine basis and operate the equipment and demonstrate the
various techniques of landfill operation when deemed necessary.
In July of 1971, we began our program by making every effort to encourage
county jurisdictions to provide landfill sites for the sanitary disposal of
all Municipal, Industrial, and Rural residential solid wastes generated with n
their boundaries. There is no question that this is the most economically
feasible plan for sanitary disposal of our State's solid waste, and this
continues to be our primary objective. However, where the situation presents
itself, we have encouraged a crossing of county boundaries and advocated a
regional approach to the collection and disposal of solid waste.
The coastal areas of South Carolina have a serious and rather unique
problem with their disposal sites in regards to a very high ground water table
which exists throughout this entire area. Couple this problem with the
extremely high cost of land in the coastal areas and the almost prohibitive
-------
65
cost of cover material and you will readily see why this area of our state
sought other means of disposal then conventional landfill ing operations.
Approximately three years ago when the South Carolina State Board of Health
began closing the open dumps of cities and counties and trying to get them
to open up approved disposal operations, it quickly became evident that some
alternative to the sanitary landfill was needed. At this point we needed a
disposal operation that did not require trenching of any great amount, would
use a minimum amount of cover material, and would utilize the least amount
of land possible. After studying several different disposal and volume
reduction methods, including incineration, it was decided that the shredding
concept would be the most acceptable.
As of today, three counties serving a total population of 316,000 have
installed this system of disposal. The first county facility to become
operational has one twenty-ton unit in operation and a landfill site imme-
diately adjacent to its pulverization plant. It is estimated that this area
will accommodate the entire county's needs for over twenty years. The second
county to initiate a shredder operation also has a twenty-ton unit and an
adjacent disposal site. The third county has two twenty-ton units and one
forty-ton unit with adequate space near the plant to accommodate an additional
twenty-ton unit if needed. The immediate capacity of this unit is 80 tons
per hour with two eight hour shifts and one hour down time per shift for
maintenance. This gives Charleston County a comfortable margin for their
anticipated 300,000 tons of solid waste generated per year. Although the
initial cost of pulverization is higher than conventional disposal methods,
we feel that this per unit cost will be less due to the fact that daily cover
material will not be required and valuable space will be saved due to the
high densities obtainable with the shredded material.
The Solid Waste Division also provides guidance in organizing, financing,
and operating solid waste collection and transportation services to imple-
menting jurisdictions. Regulations requiring minimum standards for refuse
storage, collection, and transportation and permitting of private franchised
collectors have also been adopted by the Solid Waste Division effective on
January 1, 1974. Regulations relating to waste pesticide and pesticide con-
tainers, and general hazardous waste are in the process of being generated.
In conjunction with the centralized sanitary landfill system which is
now established in South Carolina, approximately 75% of the county
jurisdictions within which these sanitary landfills are operated have also
implemented some form of county-wide collection system to serve the rural
residents of the county.
The majority of these systems are of the "Green Box" type and are part
of the total solid waste collection and disposal system. Not all of these
rural "Green Box" collection systems are operated by the county. In some
instances, the county has let bids to private contractors and paid the con-
tractor for the operation and maintenance of the collection facilities; however,
in most instances the county has assumed the direct responsibility for providing
and operating a solid waste collection system for rural county residents.
-------
166
3
In addition to the "Green Box" approach to solid waste collection, trans-
fer stations and house-to-house pickup are being initiated in areas where the
"Green Box" system would not be practical due to varying population densities.
To summarize the present status of solid waste collection in South Caro-
lina, thirty-three of the forty-six counties in the state at present have
some form of county-wide collection system in operation. One additional
county has equipment on order and eight counties have a system under study.
The remaining three jurisdictions have no plans for a county-wide collection
system at the present time.
Keeping in mit.d these figures and also that at this time there are no
laws or regulations requiring any county to involve itself with solid waste
collection, it is obvious that county officials are aware of the problems
associated with the lack of satisfactory collection and have accepted the
responsibility for implementing a viable collection program in coordination
with a comprehensive system of sanitary disposal.
Industrial growth throughout South Carolina has made tremendous strides
in recent years. Textile mills, furniture, lumber and wood industries histor-
ically have been the dominant employers among South Carolina manufacturers,
and despite significant gain in other industries, they still remain the pri-
mary employers. These industries employ slightly over one-half of the State's
total manufacturing labor force.
Over 1500 private industries have been surveyed for solid waste management
practices throughout South Carolina. Approximately ninty percent of these
industries dispose of their solid waste at an approved city or county operated
sanitary landfill. In order to minimize the number of disposal sites and for
control purposes, the Division encourages industry to utilize the county land-
fills.
The disposal of industrial solid waste is governed by a separate regulation
adopted for industrial disposal sites and facilities. In addition, three
guidelines for permitting specific type solid waste sites are also utilized by
the Division. These include:
a. Permit requirement to dispose of Inert, Nonburnable, Nontoxic
waste such as cinders, broken concrete, crushed stone, and glass
waste.
b. Permit requirement to dispose of cellulosic materials such as
wood bark, shavings and sawdust.
c. Permit requirements to dispose of Hazardous Waste by earth
burial. Such wastes include insecticides and insecticide
containers, herbicides and herbicide containers, solvent
residues, infectious wastes, dyes, chemical precipitates,
sludges, and slurries and any other material that may be
determined hazardous by the Solid Waste Division.
Existing state solid waste regulations require that all hazardous and
toxic liquids, solids and semi-solids be analyzed and disposed of in state
-------
JLU I
4
approved sites designed by a registered engineer or a consulting engineering
firm. In order to gain control over the final disposal method and site for
Hazardous V.'aste, a statewide program of licensing haulers will begin January 1,
1975.
An industry found not to be in compliance with state regulations is
personally contacted and given a reasonable amount of time in which to initiate
positive corrective action. If the Division is unsuccessful in this manner,
then a public hearing is scheduled and all facts pertaining to the problem are
openly discussed. Legal proceedings conducted through the state Attorney
General's Office are sought only as a last alternative.
The Solid Waste Division has turned the corner in its efforts to elimi-
nate and consolidate open dumps and now faces the challenging task of imple-
menting a comprehensive state-wide solid waste management program.
H. Gerald Edwards, P.E.
Director, Solid Waste Management Division
Environmental Quality Control
-------
168
ACTIVITIES OF THE SOLID WASTE PROGRAM
SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PRCIECTION
PIERRE, SOUTH DAKOTA
by
Ronald Disrud
November 1974
-------
A J
9
ACTIVITIES OF THE SOLID WASTE PROGRAM
SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
PIERRE
SOUTH DAKOTA
November 1974
A. LAND DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTES
a. South Dakota's Solid Waste Regulations which became effective on
February 20, 1974, require that plans and specifications must
be submitted to and approved by the department prior to con-
struction of any new disposal site. Included in the plans and
specifications must be a report on the geological formations
aad ground water elevations to a depth of at least twice the
height of the proposed landfill below the proposed excavations
aid lowest elevation of the site.
b. In the State definitions of the solid waste, sewage sludge
feedlot wastes, and septic tanks wastes would rot be classified
aa solid '/aste and 'herefore, should not be pieced in any landfill.
This has iot been er.forced in the past "jut generally material of this
nature is encouraged to be applied directly to the land and used as
fertilize . Several landfills utilized their sewage sludge
as fcrtil zer 5n the final cover material in order to promote
growth at che site.
c. The tota]. number of solid waste landfill disposal facilities
now in use: 369. The number where leachate is a known problem:
0. Number with monitoring wells: 2. Number with leachate
collection end treatment facilities: 0. Nuir.ber of such facilities
at which leachate h.is been produced: 0.
d. At the prasant time there are nine site: which have a permit to
operate issued by the department. Several more meet the department
standards but have not completed the necessary paper work to ob-
tain a valid permit. Presently, approximately 1/3 of the State's
population is served by approved disposal sites. Presently no
sites have been approved for disposal of hazardous and toxic materials.
e. Most of the sites utilized in the State have an ultimate capacity
of more than 500,000 tons.
f. At the present time, State land use planning is j^st in
developmentri stage in South Dakota. Solid Ifeste management
will definitely be «• part of land use planning.
B. ENFORCEMENT PROC^DURES
a. The State Solid Waste Regulations have planning and implementation
dates which require the largest populations of political sub-
divisions to be in compliance on July 1, 1975. Fcr this reason
no specific enforcement activities have taken place by the
-------
170
program in the past twelve months. We do work quite closely
with the State's Air Quality Program which has set forth open
burning deadlines on all municipal dump grounds, and the program
has just participated in two contested case hearings before the
Board of Environmental Protection on violations on the Open
Burning Laws. No decision has been made by the Board at this
time.
C. SOURCE RESUMPTION AND RESOURCE RECOVERY
a. Under State law and regulations regional Solid Waste Management
and Resource Recovery authorities are allowed, no regional
resource recovery authorization have been created to date.
b. State funding of Resource Recovery Systems is allowed under
^ financial assistance program which will fund local governmental
.mits. Private industry in not funded under it unless a con-
tractual arrangement has been made with a political subdivision.
c. tesourse Recovery Planning is not presently being done at the
>tate level, however, one of the State's sixth planning districts
aas completed a study on the needs of the feasability of recycling
in their district.
d. Presently no State laws or purchasing policies exist which wouJd be
benificial to resource recovery efforts.
e. 1974 legislature passed a Non-returnable Container Law which
was based on Oregon's Bottle bill. Several a -ondments were
added to the bill making it essentially a Lit ir Bill. Also
the non-returnable container section of the 1 T will not go
into effect until July 1, 1976.
Several local recovery groups are presently i : operation
throughout the State, with, these being mostly in thi larger
cities. They are generally operated with vol inteer labor.
Because of the sparse population, and the die ance ;o market,
resource recovery is not progressing very we] . in t>.e State.
D. .IAZARPOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
a. The State's present regulations are very inadequate :"a the area.
of hazardous waste management, with the only rcgulat on being
that hazardous waste shall not be placed in a contsi" er for
collection, transportation, processing or die- ca.l u til sv.ch
methods are approved by the department. lie &•> . prcs' ^tly
writing guidelines for the Management and Hazr dous T ste ?nd
hope to become more active in this area with z. ;ditioi al staff
members.
E. PUBLIC AFFAIRS
a. Basically the Solid Waste Program works with 3 ^cal g /eminent
units by the means of public meetings, vhere v^ prov. ie infor-
-------
171
mation on solid weste management, technical assistance on
plrnning and impleuentation of solid waste systems. We
have in the past yiar condcuted several training courses
where collection £ id disposal personnel were trained in solid
waste management. We have also worked with several public and
private interest groups.
F. CRITICAL AEEAS FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
a. The area that would be of most assistance to South Dakota
would be in providing techincal assistance particularly in
areas which we are just starting activities; the second area
would be in financial assistance provided to the State
to carry out necessary the activities to the fullest possible
extent.
-------
172
TENNESSEE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
A. LAND DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE
Describe your State legislation, policy and program pertaining to:
a. Design criteria and State review procedures utilized to minimize
the possibility of underground and surface water pollution from
new sanitary landfills:
The Tennessee Solid Waste Management Office currently utilizes
two graduate geologists in the evaluation of potential sanitary
landfill sites. This evaluation procedure is first begun when
a city, county, or private industry notifies this office that they
have a site that needs to be evaluated. The geologist who covers
the particular area, first makes a thorough visual survey of the
potential site. He also utilizes geologic maps which are avail-
able and pertinent water well data which may be gathered from
the Department of Water Resources. If the site appears to have
potential, the applicant for registration is asked to conduct soil
borings on the site. These borings are located by this office
and are monitored by the geologist. The Tennessee Solid Waste
Management Office presently owns and operates a mobile drill
rig and in many cases the borings are provided free through the
state office. If the results of these borings appear to be favorable,
then a full geologic evaluation is written for the site with certain
restrictions that must be followed in preparing the design and
operating plan. These restrictions such as depth of cut, areas
not to be filled, areas which can be filled, soils that are suitable,
etc., are given in the evaluation.
When the sanitary landfill plans are completed, the plans are
checked with the geologist evaluation and regulations for approval
of the site. Many sites require monitoring wells located in areas
which could pick up any ground water contamination from the
operation of the sanitary landfill.
b. Processing and disposal of sludge from municipal waste water
treatment plants, animal feed lot waste, and septic tank pumpings,
including the utilization thereof:
The Tennessee Solid Waste Disposal Act provides under the
"special waste" regulation that all of these wastes be approved by
the State Health Department prior to disposal in a registered sanitary
-------
173
landfill. Therefore, each type of sludge is reviewed on an individual
basis and approved based on the sanitary landfill in which it will
be disposed. If the "special waste" appears to be suitable and would
not create handling problems or disposal problems, it is approved.
A copy of the approval letter is then forwarded to the generator
and the waste recipient.
Septic tank pumpings are not approved for disposal in sanitary
landfills because of handling problems and high moisture content.
A basic rule of thumb used in disposing of municipal waste water
treatment plant sludge is that the sludge be dewatered to around
80% prior to disposal. If the sludges are dewatered, they will be
approved to be disposed in a sanitary landfill in many cases.
c. Total number of solid waste land disposal facilities now in use: 142
1. Number of dumps and approved sanitary landfills
where leachate is known problem: 48
2. Number of monitoring wells: 40
3. Number of leachate collection and treatment facilities: 2
4. Number of such disposal facilities at which leachate has
been produced: 2
d. Number of land disposal sites with state permit license and approval: 105
1. Estimated percent of State population served by approved
sites: 92
2. Number of State approved sites for hazardous and/or toxic waste
disposal: 18
Explanation: (d.2)
"This is not to say that these sites are approved for all hazardous
waste disposal but are approved for those 'special wastes' which
will not be a problem in this particular site."
e. Number of sites with ultimate capacity of:
1. Less than 150,000 tons: 11
2. Between 150,000 and 500,000 tons: 122
3. More than 500,000 tons: 11
f. Is solid waste management a significant factor in State land use
planning - Yes
B. ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES
Briefly describe your State's enforcement procedures including administrative
and judicial remedies available and enforcement actions taken during the past
12 months:
-------
174
The Solid Waste Management Office uses a series of letters and legal procedures
to assure compliance of the State law. Perhaps the most effective program we
have for compliance is the State Grant's Law which provides for grant payments
to governmental entities at the rate of $1.00 per person per year for all facilities
which are eligible. In the event that site is not properly operated, the first
step is to advise the entity that State grant money may not be paid. The next
step is to send a written notice from the Solid Waste Management Office re-
questing proper compliance. If the desired compliance is not received, the
Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Public Health writes a letter asking
for compliance within 30 days or a realistic time to assure compliance. If
the letter from the Deputy Commissioner does not receive compliance, the
department will be forced to go to an order by the Commissioner which is
a legal procedure outlined in the Tennessee Solid Waste Disposal Act. We
would then ask the court to take injunctive action to implement the terms of the
Commissioner's Order. In the past 12 months, we have had 4 Commissioner's
Orders issued; and we have been in local General Sessions courts a number
of times.
C. SOURCE REDUCTION AND RESOURCE RECOVERY
What is the current State legislation, policy, and program affecting resource
recovery:
a. Are regional solid waste management or resource recovery authorities
allowed and how many have been created?
At the present time there is no state statute which provides for the operation
of a Solid Waste Management or Resource Recovery authority in Tennessee.
b. What type of State funding is available for local government and/or
private industry involved in resource recovery?
The legislature recently passed the Tennessee Resource Recovery Loan
Bill. This provides for a state loan to any municipality or county
government who is interested in constructing a resource recovery facility.
The agency must first demonstrate to the department the feasibility for
the facility through a required feasibility study. If the loan is approved,
then the particular facility would be eligible for up to 10 million dollars
in the form of a loan.
c. Is resource recovery planning being conducted at the State or local
level?
A state resource recovery plan is being contemplated for introduction to
the State Legislature in January, 1975. As of this date, the plan has
-------
175
not been completed; however, the Tennessee Valley Authority is pre-
sently studying the feasibility of conducting a state-wide energy re-
covery program for Tennessee through the use of their power facilities.
This plan when implemented will cover the whole state and will utilize
a large percentage of the state's solid waste.
d. Are there any state tax laws or purchasing policies that may be
beneficial to resource recovery efforts?
None that we are aware of at this time.
e. Has the State or any local government initiated any program in
source reduction or energy recovery?
Yes, the State has in the form of the Resource Recovery Loan Bill and
there are some other small communities who have taken on source separation
in the form of separate news print collection.
D. HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
a. Describe the existing State Legislation policy, program and agency
involved in the control of the generation transport processing and/or
land disposal of hazardous, toxic, industrial and/or chemical waste.
Presently the only State Legislation which involves the disposal of
hazardous or chemical waste is the Tennessee Solid Waste Disposal
Act. One section of the act provides that any hazardous waste
disposal facility be registered with the State Health Department.
Under a separate section any "special waste" such as hazardous
waste sludges, etc., must be approved by the department prior
to disposal in an approved sanitary landfill.
b. Have any surveys been conducted or estimates of such waste quantities
been made?
Yes, an industrial solid waste survey was conducted in the past two
years. From the results of this survey, projections have been made as
to the types and quantities of industrial waste being generated through-
out the state.
E. PUBLIC AFFAIRS
Describe your program in public affairs, technical information activities
and the public and private interest groups in the state that you interact
with:
-------
176
The Tennessee Solid Waste Management Office presently puts on a number
of training and public education type programs. This office sponsors an
annual Solid Waste Management Conference and Equipment Show which has
been located in Knoxville for the past three years. The past conferences
have had approximately 300 attendees from 15 states with city managers;
county judges; planners; public health and other governmental officers
from local, state, and federal agencies; engineers; private contractors;
facility operators; industrial representatives, etc. The conference attracts
speakers from all over the country with varied topics in the solid waste
management field. Twice a year we provide a Sanitary Landfill Operators'
School that requires two days of classroom instruction and a field trip to a
site. This program is followed up by visits from an Operator trainer that
visits sites to help operators improve operating techniques. This is a
one-on-one training program that gains the most response. Seminars are
provided on subjects that pertain to new technology, new laws or any
pertinent information that may gain a better solid waste management pro-
gram for the state. Other functions of the program are to provide assistance
to local health departments in their public information and health education
programs, provide speakers to any groups that has a request, and a dis-
play is available to be used at meetings, schools, county fairs, etc.
F. CRITICAL AREAS FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
Briefly describe those areas where the Office of Solid Waste Management
Programs could
Cannot Read
-------
177
TEXAS STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE PROGRAM STATUS
November 1974
Prior to 1969, solid waste management in Texas was virtually uncon-
trolled except for the control of public health nuisances provided by a
1945 civil statute entitled the "Texas Sanitation and Health Protection
Law" and the 1963 penal statute entitled "Dumping Near Highway".
In 1969, the Texas Legislature passed the "Solid Waste Disposal Act"
(compiled as Article 4477-7, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes) which assigned
responsibility for the control of solid waste management to two State
agencies. The Texas State Department of Health was given jurisdiction
over municipal solid waste and the Texas Water Quality Board was given
jurisdiction over industrial solid waste. With the passage of this Act,
the State Health Department was given broad powers to regulate the opera-
tion of existing municipal solid waste disposal sites and to approve the
establishment of new sites. While the statute seemed adequate to meet
the State's needs, only $30,000 per year were appropriated to implement
its provisions.
In September 1970, the State Board of Health adopted the "Municipal
Solid Waste Rules, Standards, and Regulations" which provided for an effec-
tive degree of control and procedures whereby new sites could be evaluated
for technical considerations. These regulations were designed to give
the people of Texas as much protection as possible against health hazards
and pollution from solid waste operations without the State Health Depart-
ment actually entering into a permit system without sufficient funds.
Inasmuch as the "Solid Waste Disposal Act" provides for the establishment
of a state-wide permit system to control all municipal solid waste processing
and disposal facilities, the State Health Department started to implement
the permit system in October 1974.
-------
178
The Texas State Department of Health has records on approximately
1,050 land disposal sites. It is estimated that there are at least 1,000
promiscuous dumps for which the Department has no records and for which
no one accepts responsibility. From available field inspection reports,
it is estimated that there are at least 20 sites for which leachate is
a known problem. Within the past six years, monitor wells have been
placed at six waste disposal sites, and applications for new waste dis-
posal sites have included provisions for monitor wells at approximately
20 new sites within the past two years. One experimental grinding
facility has a sump and a leachate collection and treatment facility.
Inasmuch as monitor wells and leachate collection facilities have been
installed relatively recently, results of leachate production are not
yet conclusive.
Since 1970, when the State Health Department began the issuance of
letters of "no objection" (in lieu of permits) for the establishment of
municipal waste disposal facilities, approximately 183 facilities have
been approved. It is estimated that approximately 45% of the State's
11.2 million residents are served by approved municipal solid waste
disposal sites. According to information from the Texas Water Quality
Board, there are 28 approved sites for hazardous and toxic wastes. It
is the policy of the State Health Department to prohibit the placing
of large quantities of hazardous or toxic wastes in municipal disposal
sites.
State solid waste legislation, policies, and programs are not totally
related to the ultimate capacity of waste disposal sites. According to
the 1970 United States decennial census there were four cities in Texas
-------
179
with a population of 500,000 or more, 11 cities with population between
150,000 and 500,000, and 2,940 cities or identifiable places with popu-
lations of 150,000 or less. There were 999 incorporated cities in the
State. As would be expected, the quantity of waste generated in a com-
munity appears to be fairly closely related to the population of the com-
munity. The capacity of waste disposal sites being operated either by
local government or by private operators varies greatly. In some cases,
sites receiving very small quantities of waste are large enough to last
several decades; in other cases, very large communities are using sites
for which the remaining life is only a few months. There are many more
sites which are practically depleted than there are sites with adequate
or excess capacities.
Solid waste management is not an overpowering factor in State land
use planning, but it appears frequently in lists of factors considered
in planning programs. In State land use plans such as the current
Coastal Zone Management Program, consideration is given to the rela-
tion of the effect of solid waste disposal activities on the quality of
water, particularly its effect on the water of bays and estuaries. Trans-
portation planning at the local, regional, and State levels gives very
little consideration to solid waste management. Comprehensive community
plans such as those prepared using Department of Housing and Urban
Development "701" funds frequently include references to the need for
solid waste disposal facilities and the effects of improper solid waste
management activities on communities.
The Texas State Department of Health has traditionally been an agency
characterized by the provision of technical assistance in public health
matters to other agencies, organizations, and citizens of the State;
-------
180
enforcement has not been a significant feature in the Department's
activities in the past. For many years prior to the enactment of the
current legislation in 1969, the Department provided technical assis-
tance and seldom found it necessary to resort to legal action in the
enforcement of solid waste disposal site requirements, which in those
earlier years were not particularly stringent. Generally speaking, the
reluctance to exercise its authority and initiate legal action against
violators of solid waste disposal statutes and regulations continues to
the present time. The modest improvements in waste disposal management
which have been realized in the past, or at least since 1969, are the
result of administrative measures including provision of technical assis-
tance to operators of waste disposal sites. Fewer than a dozen violators
have actually been taken into court as a result of actions initiated solely
on the part of the Department. In most cases, agreements have been reached
out of court. Injunctive relief has been obtained in about six instances,
and a very small fine was imposed and collected from one city.
State legislation permits regional solid waste management and resource
recovery authority. One such authority, which includes three counties,
was formed about four years ago.
No State funding is available for local government or private indus-
tries involved in resource recovery at this time. Resource recovery is
not being planned at the State or local level. Except for State statutes
which encourage the purchasing of recycled paper, there are no State tax
laws or purchasing policies that would be beneficial to resource recovery
efforts. Neither the State nor any local government has initiated any
significant program in source reduction or energy recovery, except for
-------
181
three or four cities' newsprint source separation and collection. Three
or four large cities are giving preliminary consideration to the potential
of energy recovery from shredded municipal solid waste for use as a sup-
plement to coal-fired boilers in the production of electrical energy.
There has been no announcement of proposed legislative actions,
studies or programs in resource recovery or source reduction.
Policy statements of almost all of the large number of State agencies
would endorse the concept of resource recovery. However, most agencies
have had no occasion to issue such policy statements. Policy statements
of professional organizations such as Texas Society of Professional
Engineers and of environmental groups such as the Sierra Club, endorse
the concept of resource recovery. Public information programs promoting
resource recovery are just now beginning to be heard and understood by
the voting public.
"Municipal Solid Waste Regulations" provide that special provisions
shall be made for disposal of hazardous wastes which are proposed to be
placed in a municipal solid waste disposal site. The "Solid Waste Disposal
Act" defines industrial solid waste but does not define hazardous waste.
Control of all aspects of radioactive waste is the responsibility of the
Occupational Health and Radiation Control Division of the State Health
Department. Control of certain other types of waste is the responsibility
of the Texas Railroad Commission. Surveys of industrial waste have been
conducted by the responsible State agency, the Texas Water Quality Board.
The dissemination of public information rests with the Public Health
Education Division of the Texas State Department of Health; general infor-
mation is disseminated by that Division. Technical information requests
pertaining to solid waste disposal are answered by the Solid Waste Branch,
-------
I8
Division of Environmental Engineering, of the Department. During the
past year, approximately 1,600 technical information requests were
answered by the Solid Waste Branch. Technical staff members of the
Solid Waste Branch frequently present technical papers and public
information addresses before public and private interest groups in the
State, including solid waste seminars and workshops sponsored by the
Department and other agencies and organizations.
It is felt that the Office of Solid Waste Management Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, can best assist in the resolution of
environmental problems associated with solid waste management by con-
tinuing to provide technical assistance with specific problems, by
continuing to serve as a source for technical publications, by increas-
ing its assistance to institutions of higher education and private
research organizations to accelerate research activities, and by reinsti-
tuting former Environmental Protection Agency solid waste management
training activities.
-------
182
UTAH STATE DIVISION OF HEALTH
BUREAU OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STATUS REPORT
November 11, 1974
GENERAL
Authority for solid waste management is granted to the Utah State Division of Health
under provisions,of Section 26-15-5, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended.
Responsibility for development and conduct of the program is delegated to the Division's
Bureau of Environmental Health and carried out by a Solid Waste Section, one of six similar
sections exercising environmental controls within the Bureau.
Under Bureau management, Utah conducts an integrated environmental control program
through activities of the six sections, eg: Water Quality (water pollution control and
public water supplies): Air Quality; General Sanitation; Radiation and Occupational Health;
Health Effects; and Solid Wastes. The concept of an Integrated approach to solution of
environmental problems has proved to be highly beneficial in Utah because of the interrelated
nature of both the problems and the measures imposed for their correction.
Provisions of the above referenced statute authorize promulgation and enforcement of
rules and regulations, including approval of plans, for the collection, treatment and disposal
of garbage and refuse (solid waste).
A Utah Code of Solid Waste Disposal Regulations, primarily concerned with land disposal,
was adopted and became effective August 14, 1974. Expansion and interpretation to address
other disposal methods is anticipated as the program progresses.
A. LAND DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE
(a) WATER POLLUTION
Statutes and rules and regulations of the Utah State Division of Health provide
authority to prevent pollution of surface and underground waters. Plans of proposed
disposal sites submitted for approval must include Information regarding location of
adjacent water courses, water wells, drainage channels, extremely pervious soil
formation and, in general, at least a five-foot separation between deposited waste
and the highest ground water elevation. In addition, diversion trenches may be
required in event of surface flooding, and final cover is to be graded to provide
proper surface drainage and to avoid ponding.
-------
ID) sujpufcjj
Water treatment plant and digestedjw3is£ewater treatment plant sludges are
acceptable for disposal with municipal refuse on the working face. Raw waste-
water treatment plant sludge and septic tank pumpings are classed as hazardous
wastes and must be handled accordingly. Feedlot wastes should be disposed on
agrfcultural land.
(c) LAND DISPOSAL SITES
272 community disposal sites used by 384 communities;
12 (est.) sites used by Federal agencies;
30 (est.} sites used by State agencies;
3200 (potential) private disposal sites;
11 sites have identified leachate problems
NO sites have monitoring wells
NO sites have leachate collection and treatment
(d) LAND DISPOSAL SITES - STATE APPROVED
3 sites have State approval
1% of Utah population served by above sites
NO sites as yet have been approved for hazardous/toxic waste disposal
(e) SITES/ULTIMATE CAPACITY
260 sites less than 150,000 tons
7 sites 150,000 - 500,000 tons
3 sites more than 500,000 tons
(f) STATE LAND USE PLANNING was defeated in public referendum 11/5/74.
B. ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES
Application of the Code of Solid Waste Regulations is being initiated by a cooperative
approach and planning with local entities as fully as possible. Remedies available to
the Division of Health include: administrative hearings; injunctive proceedings under
air and water pollution statutes; or court action for violation of rules and regulations.
C. SOURCE REDUCTION AND RESOURCE RECOVERY
(a) Regional solid waste management or resource recovery authorities are strongly
encouraged and are authorized under Utah Statutes. To date four regional districts
have been created by inter-local government agreement.
(b) State funding is not available to local government or private industry in resource
recovery.
(c) Resource recovery is considered advantageous by both State and local entities,
although no formal action relating to planning has been initiated to date.
-------
184
(d) Utah.has no incentive laws or purchasing policies relating to resource recovery.
(e) State legislation providing for refunds on containers failed of enactment in the
1973 legislative session. It is possible similar legislation may again be intro-
duced in 1975.
Utah County is studying the possibility of establishing a county-wide resource
recovery system.
Salt Lake City has initiated a newsprint recycling program.
A metals recovery operation is conducted by a private fir?" w! ich shreds auto bodies
1n Salt Lake City.
0. HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
(a) Control of the disposal of hazardous wastes is contained within the Code of Solid
• Waste Disposal Regulations and specific requirements relating to the handling and
disposal of such wastes are in preparation.
(b) To date no surveys have been conducted nor have estimates been made of the quantities
of such materials.
E. PUBLIC AFFAIRS
Clvse nuikiny ielatioiiiiiipi regarding solid waste management are maintained witn all
interested Federal, State and Local agencies, and personnel are available for discussion
of the subject cr to supply technical Information as requested.
A "Newsletter" relating to air, land, and water Is published each month by the Bureau of
Environmental Health, frequently carrying articles of Interest on the subject of solid
waste management.
A public display relating to solid waste 1s maintained for use by interested groups and
an Integrated sound-slide program is available upon request.
In all activities the Division of Health prefers to work closely with and through the
local health departments wherever possible.
F. CRITICAL AREAS FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
One critical need for additional federal assistance concerns the rural areas of the State.
There 1s real need for financial assistance for implementation of solid waste facilities
1n these rural regions. Rural areas characteristically lack the funding necessary to
establish adequate solid waste management systems.
Another pressing need is adequate training for solid waste staff members. Revival of
Federal solid waste training programs would be very helpful in upgrading staff capabHitle
-------
VPKMONT SDt.lD WASTE M2PORT
a.
f.
The Stc?to of Vermont is currently revising the Solid Waste Disposal!
Regulations and Guidelines. These Guidelines will specify minimum
separation distances from the deposition of solid waste and bbth the,;•",;
groundwatc-r and all surface waters. These distances will vary
upon the permeability of the Boils- Prior to State approval of a
fill, the design engineer must provide a complete design and operationali
plan which includes a topographical map, location and type of* coyer, ' >,'••:<
material, si?,'- t •'. equipment and provision for winter operatioH,'-'-.This :," •
program is PUM" ,••, ;;tere3 by the Solid Waste Section, Environmental1 •, J' .;•/.,'I,(it
Engineerii . "n j. ion, Agency of Environmental .Conservations •>•*'•• < .'•'"'.•!i'.'1 '••„ ;*y,.
'
Most animal waste associated with the dairy industry and,'sortie
sludge in Vermont is disposed on agricultural lands which are i
for crops for human consumption. Some dried sludges, howeivat,
deposited directly in sanitary landfills. The remaining
sludge, sepfige is deposited in shallow trenches and buried iminecliat*<
Total number of solid waste land disposal facilities in use,
Number where leachatc is known - ' ,',
Number with monitoring wells '"•'"'''>',-'' •;
Number with leachate collection and treatment :,:
Number,of land disposal sites with State approval
Estimated percent of State population served by
Unmber of well opcratr-d, no site problems, land •<
L:>timatcd percent of State population served b
,13nd disposal sites ,: .. " ;•'"'. ,
Number of State approved sites for hazardous wastes
Number of sites with ultimate capacity ofs
Less than 15G.OQO Tons
Solid waste management is considered in all phases' Of"
planning. All new sanitary landfills would be reviewed <;
Land Use and Development Act.
Enforcement
Vermont's enforcement program has centered around providing
for those operations which do not comply with the State
may find acceptable alternatives. If this fails, an adr.,^ ^_„„_,,_,..,.,,,_..
is convened to determir.o if a consent agreement for cdrirecti<>rt ;bf,^hefj;,«
can be agreed to. Failure to obtain this agreement would rc"""1*1"1^ ^
initiation of legal action either through criminal or" civil
Agency has requested such action in two cases in the past yeat.'^'^jSJ
Vermont presently has no legislation concerning resource
provide for a statewide solid waste management program faile4;-fcO p^j&ae
L*k. £•))£* lQ7idl l(^ftlCt.at"^Mrt * — -*-i»-i !-*«*' W-I11 »*«11 I«A «•»"» ^-mt-*«vi * *-4- **^4 '#»« - 4-Vl^l- ^^Al^
legislative session.
A similar bill will be resubmitted to! .
, w ,-fc, -to, .1 ** «- ^UHBW.-V^..* •, ™-]
-------
Solid W^nte ttepdrt
• •' ••••.
J I ^ ,1 . . ' . $ '(! , " l
r/f$jj&*. Regional .solid wasto management or resource »<.>. "ovary -s,;(, ". vi j.i,- r
t^'.-vl ''V "betmitted undo*: £it dat
late.
i,,State provides no funding for local solid waste wcuwgeMent or resource
^',i recovery programs at this time.
•\< C, Most.of the resource recovery planning is being conducted on the state level
,""'•'!', „ with the .exception of one courly which xs .in the. ^iai.,- .:•*•-} fit aye of develop**
\,'-\'.t<\','.\' inS & regional solid waste program,
'";",*!* 'There are presently no state taxes or purchasing policies which would • '' •,
"''•>'',"'''<„', encourage resource recovery.
1 4 e. Vermont has container legislation whinh requires th^i- ^i; Carbonated
,:'>,)• ,,', beverage containers have at least a five cent deposit. This law has
.';;-\'*>t 'reduced the roadside litter throughout the state substantially and has
;**';, l ''v • caused e. slow trend toward the use of refillabie contAinerj-.
^"' ' . ' A '
,4;i'" ijlazardouB Waste Management
•;:".,/Vermont has initiated an inventory on the disposal of hazaioc>HF materials
^sV;-jth^oUghbut' the State. Initial survey has indicated that ir.t- oroblcm is
^l|'i,f;.tiniited,'in the- State due to the makeup of the industrial woe*-. *• Tlie problem,
^'^•iS; probably .limited to two - three areas in the Sta;e,.
i;';©^"^'1- ••• -\[} ' >i ' - '.
.V"'V') i',,-, , ' J1': .s;v,, , : J
;5^.o;(F6deral'Assistance !' '•'_''•••.••,
most, critical area of support required fron OSWMP ^-. '.be -nUbu*t-.Loh of-
for the Vermont State .Solid Waste Program. VJiiru'ut -'Lir. assif
5.-Vermont program could not continue effectively. In ar1dlt.'on, smitl
ii;;;like. Vermoht depend A great deal on the research and development on the
'i :level .in background data 30 that the State has needed information for the ,,., /
/^development of. local guidelines for solid waste disposal cine! tesouree recovery*,'
the greatest assistance that OSWMP could provide is i '-ontinue to ',
.Federal-State relationship as it presently'exists; and not request
authority from Congress to operate a Federal Program similar to " :.y,.
;the. Water and Air Quality Acts. Informational requirements UM lev t.he«e FederAi
31 .become ends per se, and the prjme mission of the Agency to control<;
rj seems to get entangled in Federal bureaucracy.
11/12/741'
-------
187
A BRIEF REPORT OF SOLID WASTE ACTIVITIES IN VIRGINIA
November 1974
Rowland E. Dorer, Director
Bureau of Solid Waste and Vector Control
Virginia State Department of Health
In Virginia, each city and county is responsible for the proper
disposal of all solid waste generated within its jurisdiction. In
the case of industry, they may pass this responsibility to the in-
dustry involved. The State Health Department is charged with regu-
lating solid waste disposal.
About 50% of the population of Virginia live in approximately
75% of the area of the state in a rural or small town atmosphere.
The rest of the people can be considered as urban or suburban
dwellers. Population projections predict that the urban area will
grow, but generally the rural area will remain about the same or
actually lose population.
In rural areas there still remains much open land that is suit-
able for sanitary landfills; therefore, when a site is evaluated and
approved, the longtime disposal problem is generally solved. In the
urban area the situation is different. Here suitable land for solid
waste disposal is getting more difficult to find; hence, solutions
must be more sophisticated and expensive.
The state regulations require that all solid waste disposal
facilities hold valid permits. In the case of landfills, this re-
quires a complete evaluation of a proposed site and an operational
plan. By law, the State Water Control Board has jurisdiction over
the quality of all surface and groundwater. Therefore, dual
-------
188
investigations are made and a mutual agreement must be reached be-
fore a permit is issued. There are some 22 items that are investi-
gated in evaluating a site, the most important being the protection
of surface and groundwaters, and the availability of sufficient and
suitable cover material. It has been the experience in Virginia
that at least two sites are investigated for every one approved.
Many sites are not considered to be safe unless special precautions
are taken. This must be fully and satisfactorily covered in the
operational plan. Monitoring wells are frequently required, with
chemical and biological analyses before and routine sampling during
the period of operation. Also at several of the large sanitary
landfills, provisions have been made to collect leachate if it ap-
pears and treat same.
Great care has been taken at all new sites to prevent downward
flow of water through the solid waste into the groundwater. This is
accomplished by providing an impervious layer at least 4' above the
water table. Leachate which comes out of the fill into surface
water can be seen and protective measures taken. The problem with
leachate in Virginia has been at those locations that were in opera-
tion before the state regulations became effective. At only one
location holding a valid permit has serious leachate appeared. There
are perhaps a couple of dozen locations which are in violation where
leachate is a problem, but these are not permitted sites.
In the definition of solid waste in the regulations, sludges
and slurries are excluded. In general, treated sludges are not al-
lowed to be placed in with domestic solid waste at a sanitary land-
fill. It is suggested that they may be buried in a separate hole.
-------
189
Where there are extra large volumes of domestic waste, approval has
been given to mixing a limited amount of digested sludge in with
the domestic waste. Raw sludge is not allowed to be disposed of
on the land.
Forced feeding of cattle in Virginia is not extensive. In the
few places it does exist, there are large acreages of land involved
and the manure is spread on the fields without major problems.
In a survey completed in 1969/ there were 380 solid waste dis-
posal sites in the state, of which 75% were unsatisfactory. Since
state regulations became effective in April, 1971, 164 dumps have
been officially closed and 173 valid permits have been issued. Of
the 94 counties in the state, all but five have valid permits for
sanitary landfills and these five are making real efforts to get
in compliance. Forty-nine counties have established the "Green
Box" system. There are 38 cities in Virginia and half of them are
in compliance, at least on a short-term basis. The larger cities
have not as yet solved their problems. All are working on plans
which hopefully will serve their long-term needs. It is estimated
that 94% of the rural population and 60% of the urban population
totaling 3,630,000 people are being served by approved sites. This
leaves approximately 1,130,000 rural and urban citizens without
acceptable disposal.
There is only one really large sanitary landfill in Virginia
that handles 1,500 tons+ of solid waste per day. This site is op-
erated by the District of Columbia and is a model. There are only
three sites handling 150,000 tons/year. All of the rest are smaller,
with many handling less than 25,000 tons/year.
-------
190
4
Obtaining suitable land for sanitary landfills has been a
major problem. No one wants a disposal site in his neighborhood.
The use of public lands where they are available has helped. It
is hoped state land-use planning will include this as a major fac-
tor.
The state has developed a hazardous waste disposal burial site;
however, no policy has been developed for its use. Hazardous waste
disposal has been handled on a case-by-case basis. A survey about
to commence through an EPA grant will define the scope of the prob-
lem and will develop methods of procedure and financing.
For a number of years the State Department of Health has pub-
lished "Solid Waste Notes" every other month. This newsletter,
which is mailed to local government officials, state legislators,
and others, has brought information to those directly concerned
with the solid waste problem.
In the larger cities where the problem of long-term solid
waste disposal is most acute, much consideration is being given to
planning for resource and energy recovery facilities. It seems
reasonable that the go ahead on several of these will be forthcoming
as soon as local officials are convinced that the proposed systems
are practical. It is doubtful that resource and energy recovery
will be practical in rural Virginia because of the small amount of
refuse available at a single location. Salvage by private volun-
teer organizations has been practiced, but because of the inability
to meet expenses through the sale of recovered items, most of these
organizations are on the verge of folding.
Perhaps the most remarkable accomplishment in Virginia has been
-------
191
the progress made without enforcement. The regulations do not pro-
vide for a penalty. By and large the local governments have co-
operated wholeheartedly in upgrading their facilities. Many counties
who had never spent any funds for solid waste disposal have ex-
pended hundreds of thousands of dollars to activate a solid waste
system. Much of the government sharing funds was spent on solid
waste in Virginia.
It is felt that the Federal Government should furnish leader-
ship to the states in technical problem solving, should provide
training assistance, continue the publication of technical bulletins
and guidelines, and carry on research and development projects in
the field of resource and energy recovery to hopefully point the
way for the future.
-------
192
State of Washington
Solid Waste Management Program
Department of Kcology
Washington, like other states, has come a long way from the days when the only
criteria for solid waste disposal was to make sure that the open, burning dump
was far enough away from the city. While many of these sites still exist
within the State of Washington, they will be eliminated in conformance with
an established schedule prior to 1976. This has been made possible through a
coordinated local/state/federal solid waste management strateoy.
Traditionally, solid waste management has primarily been aimed at the control
of disposal activities related to municipal wastes, while other components and
elements of a total management system were largely ignored. By contrast,
Washington's program is based on the philosophy of total solid waste management.
If change in disposal practices is to be effective, the interrelationships
between such elements as storage practices, collection, transportation, processing
facilities, energy and resource recovery, etc. must also be considered. These
elements are, in turn, influenced by many factors including social and political
values, public attitudes and beliefs, communication, environmental trade-offs
between air, land, and water quality, legislation, financial problems, and
technoloqical constraints.
Realizing the significance of these indicated interrelationships and the com-
plexities of the overall solid waste management problem, it becomes obvious
that solutions to the "problem" can only become a reality through closely
ccoruinated local/state/federal leadership. It was with this basic philosophy
that the state of Washington Solid Waste Management Plan was developed, with
the financial assistance of a federal grant, over a period of several years and
officially adopted in 1971.
During development of the Plan and with the assistance of a 7 member State
Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee, appointed by the Governor, legisla-
tive commitment for development of a comprehensive State-wide program was made
with adoption of the 1970 State Solid Waste Management Act. Similar to the
Plan, the Act is directed toward a systematic effort of closely coordinated
local/state/federal activities, beginning with planning and program development
and leading to a total management system of implementation, operation and
enforcement.
Planning
Recognizing that implementation of the necessary systematic effort could best
be accomplished by local government, being closest to the problem, the State
Act assigns "primary responsibility for adequate solid waste handling to local
government" (counties and multi-county areas), "reserving to the State, however,
those functions necessary to assure effective programs throughout the State."
The legislation was written in a manner to assure the combination of existing
handling systems and, therefore, promote the development of a complete regional
-------
193
management system, at least county-wide. As a first step toward this coordinated
effort, the legislature appropriated $769,000 ($2M,ono for July 1, 1970 to
June 30, 1971, $400,000 for July 1, 1971 to June 30, 1973, and $100,000 for
July 1, 1973 to June 30, 1975) to assist local oovernment toward the development.
of required comprehensive solid waste management plans.
By law, the local plans must include the following:
1. A detailed inventory and description of all existing solid waste
handling facilities includina an inventory of any deficiencies in
meeting current solid waste handling needs.
2. The estimated long-ranae needs for solid waste handling facilities
projected twenty years into the future.
3. A program for the orderly development of solid waste handling
facilities for the entire county which shall:
a. Meet the minimum functional standards for solid waste handling
adopted by the Department and all laws and regulations relating
to air and water pollution, fire prevention, flood control, and
protection of public health;
b. Take into account the comprehensive land use plan of each juris-
diction;
c. Contain a six year construction and capital acquisition program
for solid waste handling facilities; and
d. Contain a plan for financing both capital costs and operational
expenditures of the proposed solid waste management system.
4. A program for surveillance and control.
5. A current inventory and description of solid waste collection operations
and needs within each respective jurisdiction which shall include:
a. Any franchise for solid waste collection granted by the Utilities
and Transportation Commission, includinq the name of the holder
of the franchise and the address of his place of business and
the area covered by his operation;
b. Any city solid waste operation within the county, and the
boundaries of such operation;
c. The population density of each area serviced by the city or
franchised operation;
d. The projected solid waste collection needs for the next six
years.
During development of the state/local planning program, the disadvantages of
previous planning efforts were of primary concern. It was recognized that
many plans become a "Book on the shelf" and never really become implemented.
-------
194
To counteract this practice and assure that they become Implemented Plans, the
following 3 requirements were added to the normal planninq process:
1. A cordinateu effort by means of a local Solid Waste Advisory Committee
to assure that all those concerned had a voice in the planninq process
and were adequately kept informed. This was accomplished by selectinq
representatives from key groups in the area - representatives who, in
turn, would keep their particular group involved and informed. These
include the following:
a. municipal and county government
b. industry and agriculture
c. federal and state agencies
d. Indian tribes
e. environmental, conservation and similar public groups
f. refuse removal association, etc.
2. An implementation schedule relating to the reguired 6 year construction
and capital acguisition program, with compliance schedule for improve-
ment of existing inadequate handling facilities.
3. Official adoption of the plan by all cities and counties within the
regional planning area, prior to approval by the Department of Ecology
as required by the Solid Waste Management Act.
It is felt that the solid waste management planning program has been most
successful and has shown that the planning process can lead toward implementation
of a comprehensive management system. Of the 39 counties in the State, 32 have
submitted plans to the Department of Ecology for approval as of June 30, 1974.
The remaining 7 counties are in various stages of developing their plan. More
importantly, at least 26 of the completed plans are approved, adopted and in
various stages of implementation.
Although the initial regional planning efforts are quickly beina completed,
efforts for total solid waste management planning have just beoun. These early
plans speak to residential and commercial waste handling practice and provide
a recommended management system for proper handlinq of these wastes. Increasingly,
many counties are considerinq resource recovery facilities to solve their waste
management problems. A need was foreseen for an information base from which
local decision makers could compare the feasibility of various resource recovery
systems. Since the Department was unable to fulfill this need due to lack of
manpower, a contract was let for a State Resource Recovery Planning Study.
the purpose of this study is to help officials at all levels of government
evaluate the various forms of resource recovery systems to determine the optimum
system for their particular areas of the State. The study itself consists of
three basic tasks.
-------
195
Task I consists of a review of all available technoloqv relatinn to energy
conversion of solid waste. Task II is a review of all available technoloqv
on recyclinq and reuse of these wastes. Data on all of these processes will
be put into the form of fact sheets. These will facilitate the comparison of
various processes.
Task III will be the development of a methodoloqy for analyzing resource recovery
systems in local areas. The'results, which will be presented in a workbook form
will be made available to local, county, and municipal officials for recovery
evaluation. The information will additionally be utilized to evaluate recovery
systems for various areas of the State.
During October, 1974, the contractor held a two day seminar to familiarize
state and local governmental officials with the results of the study. This
seminar presented existing technology relating to resource recovery and demon-
strated the workbook.
Following the completion of the study, it will be necessary for county, city,
or regional solid waste management plans to be updated for local governments
to adequately plan and implement applicable resource recovery facilities into
their existing solid waste systems.
This updating of local plans is a vital necessity since the Department and
local government, in conformance with Chapter 70.95 RCW, use the State and
local solid waste management plans as the continual guidance mechanism for
efficiently and effectively implementing environmentally and economically
sound solid waste management alternatives into existing systems.
Additional elements of the plans will continue to be considered in further
detail. Elements relating to industry, hazardous materials, agricultural and
logging practices, mining, etc. will become major portions of the plans as
they are updated in conformance with Chapter 70.95 RCW.
The Department has written proposed legislation regarding hazardous waste.
This will be introduced during the January, 1975 session. The law will cover
all parts of a management system. Generation, storage, collection, transport-
ation, recycling, neutralizing and disposal will become an important part
of the body of state law.
The need exists to develop a program for the handling of hazardous waste. A
state-wide inventory of industrial and hazardous wastes produced by selected
industries has been completed and the results analyzed.
Planned for the immediate future is an expanded inventory of other industrial
and non-industrial generators of hazardous wastes. This survey will be analyzed
and the results combined with the original survey. A management system for
handling hazardous wastes will result and these results will be incorporated
into the updated State Solid Waste Management Plan.
Regulations
Another critical element for development of a complete solid waste management
-------
196
strotoqy was completed by the Department of Ideology, in coordination with
local oovcrnment and the public, by adoption of the Minimum Functional Standards
for Solid Waste Handling on October 24, 1972. Formulation and adoption of
these Standards was in response to the Solid Waste Management Act.
Tiiis represented many months and years of work by the Department of Ecology
staff and many individuals and groups around the State, including the
Governor-appointed State Solid Waste Advisory Committee, Washington Association
of Counties, Association of Washington Cities, Association of Washington Business,
Washington Grange, Refuse Removal Association, American Public Works Association,
local health departments, engineers, planners, and the League of Women Voters.
The adoption of the Minimum Functional Standards for Solid Waste Handling
marked a milestone in development of the local/state/federal solid waste
management program. Up to this point, the Program was basically one of
planning, education and technical assistance - one of tryina to inform all those
involved of existing solid waste handling problems and the critical need to im-
prove these conditions through a system of total management. With the adoption
of the Standards, representing a regulatory and enforcement element, the basic
framework became available for a complete program.
The Standards provide guidance for the total handling of all wastes disposed
of on land, specifically speaking to storage, collection, transportation,
recyclino and reclamation, and final disposal, including sanitary landfills,
incinerators and composting facilities.
Of particular importance is that portion relating to the upgrading of existing
non-conforming sites and/or facilities. If sites and/or facilities cannot
immediately be brought into conformance with the Standards, a compliance schedule
for such improvements must be developed by the owner and/or operator in coordina-
tion with local jurisdictional health departments and the regional offices of
the Department of Ecology. As of June 1974, 81% of the 367 remaining dumps
were on compliance schedules to be systematically eliminated prior to January 1,
ly76 (see Attachment A for solid waste disposal facilities status). Compliance
schedules must be submitted to the jurisdictional health department which has
the statutory responsibility to develop a regulatory and permit system for the
annual registration of all solid waste facilities located within their area of
jurisdiction. In the development of this regulatory program, the local health
departments may either adopt the State Minimum Functional Standards for Solid
waste Handling, or enact more stringent ordinances. It is required that jur-
isdictional health departments also use application forms prepared by the
Department of Ecology for the annual registration of sites and facilities
(Attaciiment B relates permits to water duality control). Perhaps even more
important, these Standards more effectively draw other elements of the overall
activities closer together, whereby the systematic approach to developing a
total solid waste management program can more easily be demonstrated. The better
understanding of this effort will, no doubt, greatly benefit the tasks which
lie ahead.
Implementation
During development of the coordinated local/state/federal solid waste manage-
ment program, 3 major problems became increasingly apparent. These are:
-------
197
]. t\-'- I nek of sufficient funds for the immediate irnpr-ovonent of existing
<5]t-<"-, inrl facilities, and, at tho same time, for tho --onst rvicti on ^^
i- r i f i '• a 1 ly needed new far i ) i t ios ;
,' . d i ' I i < u I ty to locate and acouiro adoouate ctivj ti «>s with other elements of a total rnananement systen. Efforts
to conn tor art the dilemma of local government fallino into the practice of
whoJe.lv relyinn on state and/or federal funds to implement necessary local
conpt ru'.'t.icn needs have also been of primary emphasis. Rased on these con-
cerns, the followinn five unnnclatorv requirements were established and must
be fulfilled before an applicant can become elinible for a loan and/or arant
throuah the Washington Future Program.
1. '.'ho proposed project must conform to the local comprehensive solid
waste mananement plan approved by the Department of Fcoloay.
2. I.xistence of a permit system, administered and controlled bv the
local jurisdictional health department, for the annual licensino of
all sites and facilities within that jurisdiction.
3. Lxistence of local regulations or ordinances relatinn to total solid
waste handling,
4. Existence of an operating organization to assure proper operation
of all solid waste handling facilities, in conformance with the
local solid waste manaaement plan.
5. Lxistence of a viable financing structure incluuina supporting agree
ments, rate structures, tax structures, etc. to assure financial
support for proper operations and maintenance and fulfill future
construction needs.
-------
198
The funds allocated for this program can be used by local governments to finance
lire-construction engineering and to acquire disposal facilities and equipment.
One hundred percent of the pre-construction engineerino (limited to 7% of the
total project costs) can be funded with a non-interest loan. Grants of up to
50% of the capital costs of a project are also available to those jurisdictions
meeting the•above requirements.
For the period from July 1, 1973 through June 30, 1975, $3.9 million has been
allocated for solid waste loans and grants. As of this date (July 12, 1974)
about $1.4 million has been committed to 13 projects (6 loans totaling $226,000
and 7 grants). This leaves about $7.5 million for the period from present to
June 30, 197b. Competing for these funds are about 35 projects totalino over
$20 million.
Projects being funded under this program are expected to have far reaching
and long lasting consequences. All involve implementation of systems which
are more regional in scope than has thus far been the case. This permits local
jurisdictions to centralize their solid waste handling operations, thus taking
advantage of greater economy of scale. This will have increasing importance
as recycling and resource recovery become more viable elements of solid waste
handling. This is because the first, and perhaps most critical, step toward
implementation of a resource recovery system is consolidation and centralization
of waste handling.
Many of the projects being funded through the Washinoton Future Program are
directly related to resource recovery. The following briefly summarizes these
projects:
- Feasibility study of incineration for heat recovery in Cowlitz County.
- Processing equipment (magnetic separator, shredder, and conveyor belts)
also in Cowlitz County.
- Feasibility study of pyrolysis plant which could produce a marketable
gas for energy production in Grays Harbor County.
- Equipment and operating expenses for one year of a recycling station
in Kittitas County.
- Negotiatina with the Honor Farm at Monroe to construct a plant for
producting methane gas from animal waste.
Realizing that new technology will plav a dominant role in the solid waste
handlino systems of the future, the Department is also participating? in and
promoting other innovative proposals. Research has been undertaken by Battelle
Northwest and the City of Kennewick, Washington, through an KPA grant, to con-
sider pyrolvsis as a means of energy conversion. This research has shown very
favorable results and as a conseauence, pyroZvsis is beino considered by
several counties of the State as an economic alternative to their local needs.
Through nyrolysis, solid wastes, includina residential and commercial wastes,
wood wastes, etc. could be converted to gases, which in turn, would be con-
verted to energy and marketed to local industry.
-------
199
There is, in the State, a tremendous need to analyze and develop a proaram for
the handlino of industrial, hospital, and hazardous wastes. In coordination
with local government and EPA, a state-wide inventory relatinq to the quantities,
types and current methods of handlinq such wastes was conducted and the results;
analyzed by the Department of Ecoloqy. This represents a beqinning toward the
development of a better management system and improved techniques for handling,
recycling, reclamation, neutralization and/or final disposal of industrial,
hospital, and other hazardous waste materials.
In reflecting upon the State of Washington's achievements resulting from the
indicated cooperative local/state and federal strategy, considerable advances
have been made toward accomplishing the purposes of the State Solid Waste
Management Act and the Federal Resource Recovery Act, and toward fulfilling
the desires and needs of the "people." There is, however, a tremendous need
to expand on this joint purpose through maintaining financial support of existing
strategies and through initiation of new commitments to critical problems.
Critical Areas For Federal Assistance
Four areas felt to require federal assistance are hazardous waste, resource
recovery, social costs, and leachate treatment.
Hazardous wastes require standard definitions. To provide consistency of
handling these materials, they must be defined at the federal level. The
federal government should provide funding for capital construction and operations.
Hazardous waste handling systems' costs should be charged back to the producers
of wastes that result in excessive handling and disposal costs.
Resource recovery and energy conversion programs initiated at state, regional,
or local levels need assistance in several areas. Tax adjustments, interstate
and maritime freight rates, and materials specifications need federal legislation,
The federal government should undertake an immediate study to find the socio-
economic costs of environmental degradation. Environmental costs to date have
only dealt with economic costs.
The federal government should initiate leachate treatment studies. Knowing
where leachate exists is a necessary first step to resolving this problem,
but also needed is research that will lead to neutralization, abatement and/or
prevention.
-------
200
Attachment A
The data below were compiled from Department records;
1. (a) Total numbers of land disposal facilities now in use: 324 open
dumps, 30 sanitary landfills, and 43 modified landfills.
(b) Number with ground or surface water problems: 123
(c) Number of monitoring wells: 18
(d) Number with leachate collection and treatment facilities:
B_ collection, 2_ treatment
(e) Number of such facilities where leachate is produced: 3_
2. (a) Number of land disposal sites with permits: 20
(b) Estimated percent of state population serviced by approved
sites: 23%
(c) Number of State approved sites for hazardous/toxic waste
disposal: 1_
3. At this time the Department has no exact information regarding site
capacities and any figures quoted would be speculation.
Solid waste management is a significant factor in land use planning in the
State of Washington. Siting becomes more difficult each year. Impacting on
satisfactory locations for solid waste facilities is the Federal and State
Shoreline Management Acts, flood plain control, zoning restriction and the
proposed land use legislation presently being considered. It becomes increasingly
apparent that all solid waste handling facilities (i.e. reclamation sites,
transfer stations, etc.) must be carefully sited now to prevent future land
use problems.
-------
201
Attachment B
WATER QUALITY CONTROL
The control of water pollution created by sanitary landfills in the State of
Washington depends on adherence to the State of Washington's "Solid Waste
Management Act," Chapter 70.95 RCW.
The Act states, "After approval of the (local) comprehensive solid waste plan
by the Department (of Ecology) no solid waste disposal site or disposal site
facilities shall be maintained, established, substantially altered, expanded
or improved until the county, city, or other person operating such site has
obtained a permit from the jurisdictional health department pursuant to the
provisions of the Act."
Further, the Act is explicit regarding the issuance of permits. The permit is
obtained by application on a form prescribed by the Department of Ecology.
The application contains a description of the proposed or existing facilities
and operations at the site, plans and specifications for any new or additional
facilities to be constructed and such other information as jurisdictional
health department may deem necessary.
The permit requirements are backed up by state and local minimum functional
standards. The standards prescribe that adequate pollution control measures
be adhered to. Surface water must be deverted away from or under the site.
Ground water pollution controls shall be provided as needed. The detailed
plans for such controls shall be submitted to the health departments.
The application for a site permit must contain the following minimum information
regarding ground water:
1. Depth To Ground Water - Give both a MSL (mean sea level) and depth
from surface to ground. Give the methos of determinations and give
seasonal variations. Locate the wells or boring on a topographical
map and provide the log to the well and the method of drilling.
2. The directions of movement should be determined whenever possible.
3. Discharge points of ground water will be indicated on a topographical
map. In addition, the distance and direction of discharge from the
proposed site, the name or names of the discharge points and the area
tributary to the discharge point should be noted. Some of these may
not have been determined but justification should be provided if the
information cannot be determined.
4. A written description of the subsurface information in more detail
than was given above or in addition to the above will be submitted.
5. Indicate how the informatidn was determined.
-------
202
In addition to detailed information required of ground water, the following
surface water information must be submitted:
1. The flooding hazard frequency will be given and number of times in
a period of years. If the water course records are available, please
attach, or give reference.
2. Indicate whether a discharge of leachate to the surface waters is
planned.
3. Indicate whether leachate collection and treatment facilities will
be constructed, and if so was a waste discharge permit application
submitted.
4. Indicate the size of the watershed above the landfill in acres. A
map showing the watershed limits should be attached, if available.
5. Indicate the rainfall in inches, the annual value, the peak 12-hour
value and the peak one-hour value.
All of the applications received by the local health departments are reviewed
in detail by two agencies; the health department and the Department of Ecology.
The Department and the health department must investigate every application as
it maybe necessary to determine whether a site meets all applicable laws and
regulations.
-------
N. H. DYER, M.D., M.P.H.
STATE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
CHARLESTON 2B305
November 12, 1974
Mr. Tom Whelen, Chairman
Office of Solid Waste Management Program
State Committee EPA (AW-564)
Washington, D. C. 20460
Dear Mr. Whelen:
Charles Howard's October 21, 1974 request for report of
state activities was rather late reaching me, so I have used
the attachment as the most up to date summary of the West
Virginia solid waste story. I believe it embraces parts B
and C of your outline rather fully.
The following information is keyed to your suggested
outline:
A. LAND DISPOSAL
a. Design Criteria. Copy of Regulations
and Design Standards is attached.
b. Municipal Treatment Plant Sludge Only.
This program advises the Sewage Program
who in turn include sludge disposal in
their permit.
c. Total number disposal sites 192
Number with known leaching ?
Number with monitor wells 1
Number with collection/treatment 12
Number these with leaching 7
d. Disposal sites with approval/permit 24
Percent state served 15%
Sites approved for hazardous waste 2
e. Sites under 150,000 tons capacity 210
Sites 150,000 to 500,000 ton 6
Sites over 500,000 ton 0
f. Solid waste management has not been
significant in land use planning.
-------
204
Tom Whelen
November 12, 1974
Page Two
D. HAZARDOUS WASTE
a. These generally fall under the definition of
industrial process waste, within the juris-
diction of the Department of Natural Resources.
b . No survey has been made .
PUBLIC RELATIONS
We have no formal (funded and staffed) public
relations program, although it is sorely needed.
AREAS FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
These are two-fold, funding assistance and
restoration of the former Cincinnati training programs
Sinc
DaTe Parsons , Director
Solid Waste Program
DP/sc
cc: Mr. Charles Howard
-------
205
Condensation of
TESTIMONY ON SR 14 OF 1974 LEGISLATURE
TO
JOINT COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AND FINANCE
10 JUNE 1974
by West Virginia State Health Department
on
Urgent Need to Establish a Solid Waste Authority in West Virginia
The State Solid Waste Management Plan of 1970, prepared under an EPA
grant addressed itself to defining the State's solid waste problems and
made a number of recommendations including legislation to establish a
central management agency. The 1971 Supplement to this plan further sub-
stantiated this need.
A brief space does not permit adequate consideration of all facets
of solid waste management in West Virginia. We will, however, highlight
major problem areas.
To give some feel for the true magnitude, highway littering --
although very widespread and utterly deplorable --is not a large part
of the problem. The principal need is for disposal places; places that
do not desecrate our ground, contaminate our water, pollute our air,
and create health hazards that threaten future generations.
The State's daily municipal wastes, finely pulverized and spread
evenly over the 55 counties, would amount to a layer five millionths of
an inch thick. Nature can easily handle this but when placed in piles,
it can take years to complete the natural process. During this delay
public health problems and nuisance conditions prevail. West Virginia
has 42 places with permit but about 260 vile open piles remain.
There are only three environmentally acceptable methods for
disposing of solid waste; incineration, recycling and sanitary landfill.
-------
206
-2-
Incineration is prohibitively expensive for our state. Recycling, while
unquestionably the wave of the future, is now far too dependent on unproven
technology. Sanitary landfill, on the other hand, is five to ten times
cheaper than any other proper method known today. A sanitary landfill is
not an open dump, it is just exactly the opposite. It has been called "A
decent burial of our wastes".
The first problem encountered is money; or rather it's lack. It takes
tens of thousand dollars to operate a sanitary landfill for one year
whether sitting still or going full bore. Where does the revenue come
from? Keep in mind that a sizeable portion of our population is on fixed,
limited incomes, small pensions, welfare cases, etc. If twenty thousand
people can be served, cost is two or three dollars per year per person.
This is not bad, but for only a few hundred population, it can run into
several hundred dollars per family. Few cities in West Virginia can
provide this service at a reasonable user cost.
An answer is to let the smaller places go together and share the cost
of one facility, precisely what we recommended in the Solid Waste Manage-
ment Plan of 1970. It is an excellent idea but has one fatal drawback, it
just does not work. Cooperative efforts to establish solid waste systems
are limited to only a few instances in West Virginia. There are several
apparent reasons, petty jealousies, suspicions, distrusts and fears of
subrogating some precious sovereign rights. Garbage is unglamorous and at
a distinct competitive disadvantage. Officials dislike arousing the
voters with a rate increase or accepting an unfavorable hauling distance.
All the foibles of human nature, you name it, conspire to prevent successful
voluntary cooperative action.
-------
207
-3-
The private hauler faces monumental obstacles. Most are poorly
educated, very few of them can obtain a business loan, and until now it
has taken upwards of a year to obtain a rate increase. Customers cheat
him unmercifully in several ways. People more away, simply refuse to
pay a bill after months of service, or place their garbage in a neighbor's
can. Most private haulers get enough money to buy a truck and then
struggle the rest of their lives.
This brings up the matter of qualified people, something we simply
do not have and desperately need. Our pitifully small solid waste staff
represents a sizeable fraction of West Virginia's expertise in this
field. In the rare city with such a person, he can devote only a few
minutes each day at best to solid waste matters. Our limited staff
cannot begin to provide the training program needed for the state. It
is a strain for us to put on a small number of two-hour sessions. A
week-long seminar is needed for engineers who prepare landfill designs
but, how do we get those who need it most to attend? Much time is
sp^nt attempting to train these individuals one by one in a painful plan
review process.
One of the encouraging signs is that people are beginning to
realize it does not have to be this way; it should be better. We
receive more and more complaints and all too often we can really do
little about it. Simply closing a dump is not a solution. First, the
waste will keep coming -- you stop it here, it simply appears over there.
Secondly, anguished citizens and officials cry, "What are we to do with
it?" Nevertheless, we have closed or been instrumental in closing several
dozen open dumps without creating other problems.
-------
208
-4-
Solutions are in most cases complicated by funding problems, under-
sized wastesheds, lack of applied management, scarcity of acceptable
disposal sites, and resistance to change. Passage of a solid waste
management authority act with concurrent funding would provide the tools
to overcome these problems.
The mandate given us is, of course, to eliminate the health hazards
of open dumping. We attempt to bring the larger places into compliance
first, but this is not always entirely successful„ Some small place may
become such a problem we can no longer tolerate it„ We are extremely
hardnosed about new sites, insisting they comply fully with the regulations
and the law. These actions invariably prompt charges of discrimination.
We have learned the hard way about due process, documentation, etc.,
and proceed with deliberation in any enforcement action just in the event
a court case results. Court actions always involve several precious man
months time. In all these instances, and in landfill site protests, we
are of course always the bad guys.
Ironically the West Virginia citizen is now paying over half what
the true cost should be, and getting only a miserable fraction of the job
done. A third of our populace has no collection service. It is a pathetic
example of scrambled priorities.
Do not lose sight for one minute of the sociological factor.
Practically everyone wants his waste taken away -- and he means away I
Nothing unites a community faster than a landfill protest. And nothing
-------
-5-
scares a county commissioner more than a protest. These factors of
course compound the problems of landfill selection enormously. We most
certainly do have technical problems, for good landfill sites are choice
property. In fact, one of the best we have seen is the new library
grounds here in the capitol complex. Imagine the protest that would
generate!
Litter, as mentioned earlier, is too often equated with pollution.
Let's distinguish between "visually offensive" and "environmentally
defiling", that is,, those contaminating products that affect plant and
animal life processes. We support "ban the bottle" type legislation as
providing some help, but it does not really go to the heart of the problem.
We very seriously need to deal with the health hazards of disease and
toxic products of inadequate waste disposal.
We also have so called hazardous wastes, that is, potentially deadly
materials. We dare not permit these in municipal type landfills which
simply are not capable of handling dangerous waste. However, these wastes
must be handled -- and handled well. Such careful control is itself a
very potent argument for a solid waste authority.
HB 1065 introduced February 8, 1974 establishing a Solid Waste
Authority was proposed as one means of.combating these problems. It is
a management agency providing design and technical assistance to and con-
tracting with-.the .private and governmental sectors for operation. It
provides service without a fee to the user. It regionalizes on the basis
-------
of transportation networks and waste densities rather than upon political
barriers. It eliminates untold duplication and utilizes professional
personnel full time and efficiently.
HB 1065 does something else too. Sanitary landfill is only an
interim solution -- not really a very good one but the best we have.
Eventually, waste generation must be.reduced and most wastes that cann
be eliminated must be reused. Re-cycling as it is called has not yet
been notably successful because of untried black box concepts attempting
to leap past today's realities to tomorrow's Utopia and ignore the
laborious steps in between. Another.important requirement for successfu
re-cycling, it must be large scale. The bill proposes two down-to-earth
recovery processes. Reclamation of cardboard paper and a metal shredder.
These two projects alone can provide revenues equal to about one quarter
of the total overall cost.
We do have an alternate. Give us a large police force. Give us
collateral powers. Give us legal staff. We don't really want this but
it is the way we are forced to operate now on a. very small scale.
We have adopted recently amended solid waste disposal regulations
that contain two new, and we think, very important provisions. They
require registration of all waste handlers; state agencies, local govern-
ments, and privateo We now can reject an applicant if he cannot assure
us he won't just create another nuisance„ We are using these tools to
promote the regional concept in keeping,with the recommendations of both
our solid waste management plan and the solid waste authority bill. We
-------
21'
«*j j. •
-7-
would -hope -we xlo -not have to rely entirely upon this particular regulation
to end open dumping in West Virginia.
As a related matter there are now several proposals for out of
state solid .waste, any one of which would import a volume equal to that
generated by the entire state. Do we simply ban it? How do we legally
control the input? How do we ensure continued care years afterward?
Frankly, we think the Health Department should not make these final
decisions, but that the ultimate verdict rests with the legislature or
the courts.
-------
STATE OF WYOMING
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT REPORT
November 14, 1974
WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
State Office Bldg. West
Cheyenne, Wyo. 82002
-------
A. LAND DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE
The first authoritative and specific legislation dealing with
solid waste management came into being in Wyoming with the Environ-
mental Quality Act of 1973, enacted by the 42nd state legislature.
Article 5 of this statute places the responsibility for such man-
agement under the Director of the Department of Environmental Qual-
ity. The measure defines solid waste to mean "garbage and other
discarded solid materials, including solid-waste materials result-
ing from community activities, but does not include solids or dissol-
ved material in domestic sewage or other significant pollutants in
water resources, such as silt, dissolved or suspended solids in in-
dustrial waste water effluents, dissolved materials in irrigation re-
turn flows or other common water pollutants".
The Act further specifies that "any person or municipality"
is governed by its requirements.
Powers and duties of the Director are enumerated as follows:
1. To coordinate activities of all state agencies concerned
with solid waste management and disposal
2. To advise and consult with any person or municipality
with respect to providing technical assistance in solid
waste management technology, including collection, storage
and disposal
3. To approve disposal sites prior to their use
4. To request information regarding present sites for the
purpose of determining adequacy and approvability
5. To promulgate rules and regulations for operation of
solid waste disposal sites
6. To promulgate guidelines, recommend procedures and offer
technical information relevant to collection, storage and
management of solid wastes
The requirements for an individual or municipality (defined to
include the usual political subdivisions) include the following:
1. New disposal sites being proposed for use must be de-
scribed by plans, including drawings, specifications and
descriptive information in sufficient detail to describe
the location, local ground surface, groundwater conditions
and distances to roads and dwellings.
2. A municipality must consult with the Director and submit
information for initial review of the site with respect to
its adequacy, absence of water or air quality effect, and
overall utility as a disposal site.
-------
General provisions of this article of the Act include the
statement that "any water quality or air quality violation at ex-
isting sites will be cause to require abatement and relocation. As-
pects of undesirable, although non-violating character, such as
poor access, aesthetic site management or other aspects of undesire-
ability" requires a study by the Director for the purpose of rec-
ommending improvements.
This law became effective on July 1, 1973 and only recently,
with the approval of the Solid Waste Management Grant, have funds
been available for hiring full-time staff for the program.
Presently there are only six municipalities which have sludge
digesters as part of their sewage treatment systems. In most cases,
digested sludge is used as a soil conditioner in municipal parks and
golf courses. In others it is disposed of in the sanitary landfill.
Most counties have problems with indiscriminate roadside dumping of
septic tank discharges and similar deposits at open dumps in remote
areas where surveillance is difficult.
All municipal solid waste facilities that can be properly
identified as a "facility" are landfill operations of some kind or
another. With the wide open spaces and dry climate in Wyoming, it
is expected that this method will continue to be favored as long as
land is available at reasonable costs. At the present time there are
45 towns and 6 counties utilizing landfills in Wyoming. Leachates
are not a known problem except in a single instance where a town of
4,200 people chose an unacceptable site where the groundwater table
was intersected by the landfill excavation. An enforcement action
in the form of a cease and desist order was filed by the Department
of Environmental Quality. Last week, plans for an alternate site
were received for review. The general absence of shallow ground
water and drainage systems at existing sites has precluded any
known leachate problems thus far.
The program on the state level has not been established well
enough to institute a formal approval system. One toxic material
site in the form of a nitrate disposal well is in operation.
Existing site capacities have not been catalogued. It is felt
that solid waste management by industry and municipalities will be-
come a significant consideration in land use planning. This is es-
pecially true because of the enthusiastic predictions on fossil fuel
development for low population density areas like Wyoming.
B. ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES
The state law authorizes issuance of cease and desist orders
whenever environmental control measures are not forthcoming on a vol-
untary basis. These orders may be issued administratively, by the
Department, and legal counsel is provided by full-time staff from
the state Attorney General's Office. Compliance times may be spec-
ified in such orders and they become final unless appealed within
30 days after issuance. The first appeal is heard by the 7-member
Environmental Quality Council, whose principle duties are to function
as a standard-setting and appeal body. The Council may affirm,modify
-------
215
or rescind the order. It may also issue additional orders for
abatement or compliance. Violators of an order face substantial
penalties upon conviction. Fines for conviction may be assessed
up to $10,000 per day, and are recovered in civil actions. Willful
violations are punishable by fines not to exceed $25,000 per day
and second offenses are punishable by a maximum of $50,000 per day.
All damages are court assessed.
Two cease and desist orders have been issued against munici-
palities for solid waste violations within the past 12 months. One
was appealed to the Council where the Department action was upheld
with a time extension. It has now been appealed to the courts.
The second order involved open burning considerations, was not
contested, but subsequent violations occurred and a court mandatory
injunction has been filed.
C. SOURCE REDUCTION AND SOURCE RECOVERY
Statutory options which have been mentioned are considered to
provide a mechanism for developing source reduction and resource
recovery systems where they can be made practicable. With an ex-
tremely low population density of 350,000 people spread over 97,900
square miles, we do not have the best potentials due to the great
distances between population centers. Transportation problems exist
for industrial waste utilization due to unfavorable freight rates
and accessability of recycling centers. The wood wastes generated
at sawmills are usually incinerated, with minor uses as feedlot
bedding and chip board products.
Flyash disposal from mine-mouth power generating plants is
accomplished by burial of the residues in mined-out areas as part
of reclamation plans. The announced construction of a 1500 mega-
watt facility about 150 miles from the mine will necessitate a
well planned waste management program due to the relatively high
ash content of Wyoming coal. A plant of this size is designed to
consume 750 tons of coal per hour, producing 1,800 tons of flyash
per day. Only a small portion of this volume can be readily used
for lightweight aggregate or other known recycling programs.
D. HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
One reference to toxic wastes is made in the law in an emer-
gency section where human, animal health or safey are mentioned.
Industrial materials are mentioned under mine reclamation
provisions of the law where any "acid forming or toxic materials
constituting a fire, health or safety hazard created by a mining
operation must be treated or disposed of in a manner to prevent
pollution of surface or subsurface water". Mining permit appli-
cations now in process under this Act will give the Department in-
formation on location and extent of such materials.
E. PUBLIC AFFAIRS
An information officer has been recently hired whose prin-
cipal function is to work with the Air, Land, Water and Solid Waste
-------
216
programs on public relations and technical information activities.
F. CRITICAL AREAS FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
The development of comprehensive standards and guidelines
will .be a necessary first step in program development. Field in-
ventories and surveillance based on the application of these
measures is also a prime consideration for a beginning effort.
The public visibility of the program is important and can aid
the other inter-department programs in areas of mutual concerns
where air, land and water quality regulations are now in effect.
It is recognized that these related activities have ex-
pended considerable effort in work that is closely related to
solid waste management. It is apparent, however, that there can
be no good substitute for a unified, comprehensive and visible
program where all such matters are consolidated and identified.
Robert E. Sundin, Director
Wyo. Dept. of Environmental Quality
State Office Bldg. West
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002
U01187
U S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1975—582423 287
-------
-------
-------
------- |